Roadmaps and Relevance

Photo by lucky336/iStock / Getty Images

Another challenge embedded within the teaching & learning relationship is that of agency.   Teachers are often given the responsibility of instructional planning and facilitation of learning.  If we are not careful, though, we can overstep our bounds and take the reins from students, leaving them less cognizant of where a learning journey is headed, why they are on that particular journey, and/or how they are doing with regard to progress toward the final destination.  This can lead to a brand of passivity within students that lessens the learning power of tasks and activities across all disciplines.  When students’ perceived rationale for completing a task is “to get it done” or “because Mr/Mrs. ____ said I have to” we can be reasonably confident the learning goals of the task have been diminished.

Learning objectives or learning targets have long been a part of instructional planning.  In early iterations, it was believed important for teachers to have clarity around what a lesson’s objective was.   In more recent times, teachers are expected to post this information so students can clearly see it.  Sometimes students are even asked to read the learning intentions aloud prior to beginning a lesson or task. What is not always as clear to learners, however, is why the objectives exist, how they connect to prior learning experiences, and how they will connect to those that will come after. In his book Clarity in the Classroom: Using formative assessment for building learning-focused relationships Michael Absolum (2010) suggests that educators should always be clear about three aspects of learning:

1. Learning Intentions

2. Success Criteria

3. Relevance

Each of these elements can be considered critical sign-posts that point learners toward meta-cognitive awareness and improved coherence within learning endeavors.  For Absolum, “Learning intentions describe what we want students to learn or what it is that students want to or need to learn” (p. 82). Success criteria help students understand how we — and they — will know if they are making progress toward the learning intention. And finally, relevance statements provide clarity about why something is to be learned and why or how it matters in the context of daily life.

If we are to invest resources (time, money, talent) in designing learning opportunities, we are wise to take the time necessary to co-construct clarity around why the learning is important to the context of students’ lives, how the learning will be utilized (now and in the future), and how we will know when learning has happened to a satisfactory degree. Reading a learning intention aloud does not accomplish this.  As Absolum states, “Sharing the learning intention and success criteria is not just about enabling the students to be clear. In fact it is mainly about motivation” (2010, p. 21).

Guy Claxton notes, “Learning power is both the ability and the inclination to learn” (Claxton, 2008, p. 17). Inclination is intricately bound to motivation that is fueled by interest, necessity, or struggle that has roots in personal and/or community contexts. If students do not perceive authentic meaning and usefulness in the tasks we are asking them to complete, they are far less likely to engage with learning opportunities in a manner that leads to learning that lasts. In this sense, taking time to build relevance is a vital step in educational endeavors. The more context and clarity that relevance has, the more likely students are to engage and learn. Unfortunately, taking time to co-construct relevance is often rushed or overlooked.

I am a product of K – 12 education that employed what I refer to as “next year” schooling.  My memories of elementary, middle, and high school all include teachers explaining (cautioning) that if we didn’t learn something this year, the following year would be miserable for us.  This model was problematic for a variety reasons.  First, the relevance was always a moving target.  What we learned in seventh grade would be useful in eighth.  But when we got to eighth grade, we were only cautioned about what we needed for ninth (and so on).   Secondly, the relevance was entirely school-bound.   I cannot think of many examples – other than skills we were advised we would need for college applications or job interviews – where what we learned was applied to the context of our immediate daily lives.  This led to a brand of teaching & learning that lacked agency for me for as a learner. When teachers or mentors did challenge me in ways that held relevance, I was motivated to grow to the challenge, stretching and strengthening my capacities as a writer, camp counselor, or student council member. In other instances, school was much more about task completion and much less about growth or progress.

When we are clear about an educational opportunity’s learning intentions, success criteria and relevance, students are better able to engage with the opportunity.  In addition, they are more likely to think in a meta-cognitive manner about how the learning connects with the framework of their lived lives. When students can connect learning in school to life outside of school, the learning is likely to picked up, utilized, and last. When learning seems only to matter in school, the learning power lessens.  This can be frustrating for all stakeholders involved.

Next week, I will explore effective strategies for helping students construct relevance between and amongst learning experiences in school and beyond.

Citations:

Absolum, M. (2010). Clarity in the classroom: Using formative assessment for building learning-focused relationships. Auckland, NZ: Portage & Maine Press.

Claxton, G. (2018). The learning power approach: Teaching learners to teach themselves. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.