Self-Assessments: "How Am I Doing?"

Every year at the New Hampshire Homeschooling Coalition Spring Workshop, a handful of experienced homeschooling parents, serving as panelists, answer questions about homeschooling. The workshop typically begins with an overview of the NH Home Education law (RSA 193-A). Panelists are then asked about their personal experiences. Why did they choose to homeschool? How did they get started? Where do they find educational resources? How do they connect with other homeschoolers?

At some point in the middle of the workshop, there's one question that's always asked:

"What are your goals and how do you know you’re accomplishing enough?"

While (as a panelist), I realized this question was about educational goals, I couldn't answer without stating the obvious: my highest priority as a parent was my children's well-being. I wanted them to have fond memories of our time together, so I focused on how they learned—I adamantly refused to use a system of rewards and punishments to manipulate, coerce, or shame them into reaching academic milestones. If my kids didn't feel loved and respected and valued for who they were, no amount of accomplishment would ever make up for it.

If I'm honest, though, I have to admit: knowing whether we were accomplishing enough wasn't easy. Most of the time, I went through an informal process of trial and error. When my kids seemed bored, I tried to help them find more challenging work to do. If they were frustrated or stuck, I encouraged them to slow down and take things one step at a time. "Assessment" was generally something that happened dynamically and continuously as I had regular conversations with my children about how they were doing, what interested them, and where they were struggling.

More formally, I could see my kids were making progress when I helped them assemble their annual portfolios at the end of the year. Their portfolios included a written summary of the major milestones in their lives, photos, samples of work, programs from performances, and other evidence of what they'd done during the year. It was always obvious that they had accomplished much, but was it "enough"? How much was enough? That was difficult for me to evaluate without comparing what my kids had done to what other kids the same age were doing.

All of which leads me to these questions: What can an educator reasonably expect from a student? What should students—or lifelong learners—expect from themselves?

Can You "Teach Like a Pirate"? Should You?

I first heard about the "Teach Like a Pirate" approach from DLMOOC classmate, Tim Flanagan (see his Storify about Student Voice and Choice). Curious, I looked for more information online.

I discovered that the idea comes from professional development speaker, Dave Burgess, who has written a book about it: Teach Like a PIRATE. I found one of Dave's seminars, recorded as a TEDx Talk (unfortunately, the sound quality deteriorates at 4:25, but skip ahead to 6:00 and it clears up again):



I have great admiration for anyone who can bring passion and energy to a classroom presentation. I've seen other educators who are entertaining, engaging speakers, and I would happily pay to attend their classes. For example . . .

Professor Linwood Thompson delivers World History lectures  in full costume and character.



Professor Edward Burger adds a touch of humor to his Great Courses lectures (the "Joy of Thinking" is my favorite) and Thinkwell Math instruction, as in the example below.



And then there's the renowned Professor Walter Lewin, famous for his physics lectures.



So . . .  Should YOU Teach Like a Pirate?

No doubt, these teachers are extraordinary. Certainly if you think you would love teaching like a pirate and have simply been afraid to try, don't hold back. As Burgess says, "We need people who are willing to try new things." You could be the next Burgess, Thompson, Burger, or Lewin.

But, what if you don't want to teach like a pirate?

When I see educators (at home or in schools) designing extraordinary projects, putting on shows, and keeping their kids entertained with engaging performances, I feel inspired by them but also discouraged. I can't imagine myself doing the same things. By now, I know myself well enough to know I wouldn't enjoying "teaching like a pirate," especially not as an everyday practice. When I first started homeschooling, though, I second-guessed everything I did.

Unfortunately, it is human nature for us to compare ourselves to others, whether we intend to or not. I think home educators are especially prone to self-doubt. Few of us are trained educators, and all of us confront skeptics who question whether we should be teaching our kids. Understandably, we look to each other for encouragement and advice. 

At parent gatherings, we discuss how to inspire our kids when they seem to lack motivation. I've noticed there's always at least one person who advocates what I call an "entertainment method" of teaching. With the best of intentions, she'll talk about how she "makes learning fun" for her kids by planning elaborate games and projects. She knows how to turn every road trip into an educational experience. As long as she keeps performing, her kids seem to stay interested. I don't mean any of this as a criticism: homeschooling parents with this much energy and enthusiasm are great resources, full of wonderful, creative ideas. 

"Can I do this?" 

However,  I think parents who are new to homeschooling, the ones who come to homeschool gatherings looking beleaguered, are more likely to be asking themselves, "Will I be able to homeschool my kids successfully if I'm not able to do what this other person does?" They need to feel empowered to chart their own course, to know there's more than one way to be an effective educator. 

I also believe that, while there's nothing intrinsically wrong with keeping kids entertained to promote learning, educators don't have to become the entertainment. I've witnessed unnecessarily high levels of stress and burn-out when educators (parents or teachers) fear this is the only way their kids will learn. There's no guarantee that making subjects entertaining, enticing kids to learn, will result in deeper learning—but I'll leave that topic for another time.

If teaching like a pirate doesn't appeal to you, trust your instincts and try something else. Kids respond to role models who are authentic—a compassionate, reserved teacher who believes in her students can be just as successful as one who puts on a good show.

Personalized Learning and Student Choice

"It is frankly difficult to understand how anyone can talk about school reform without immediately addressing the question of how students can be given more say about what goes on in their classes." —Alfie Kohn, "Choices for Children: Why and How to Let Students Decide"

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate for a moment and ask, "Why talk about school reform at all?" The old school model of "I teach, you learn" works—sort of. During the twelve years or more when students are in school, a large percentage of them manage to learn. If not everything, at least something. Most graduate and eventually get jobs.

It isn't a perfect system, but what is? Why not continue to teach our children in the same way that our parents and grandparents learned?

If this doesn't strike you as absurd, then you may be the type of learner for whom the system was designed. You might like following instructions, knowing what to expect, and having everything planned in advance for you. Perhaps you learn well from books and lectures and are very good at recalling what you have read or heard. Maybe you get high marks on standardized tests. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with learning in this way; in fact, I happen to be one of the people for whom this old-school model works pretty well. It simply isn't optimum for all people, all of the time.

There's another problem with doing things the same way we've always done them: it doesn't result in progress. To improve upon an idea, we have to be willing to try something new. Even if we acknowledge that the old model "worked" well enough to provide an adequate education for large numbers of students, no one would describe our current educational system as flawless. There's always room for improvement. No educator deserving of the title would be satisfied with "good enough," so we have to keep asking ourselves: How can we do a better job?

Here's where I agree with Alfie Kohn: one way we can do a better job is by giving students "more say about what goes on in their classes."

I'm familiar with Kohn's books (Punished By Rewards, The Case Against Standardized Testing, The Schools Our Children Deserve) and was pleased to see his article listed among the course materials for Week 4 of DLMOOC. Kohn summarizes the benefits of including students in the decision-making process, such as an improved sense of well-being, better self-discipline, greater academic achievement, avoidance of burnout (student and teacher), and democracy in action. He writes:

"There is nothing new about the idea that students should be able to participate, individually and collectively, in making decisions. This conviction has long played a role in schools designated as progressive, democratic, open, free, experimental, or alternative; in educational philosophies called developmental, constructivist, holistic, or learner-centered; in specific innovations such as whole-language learning, discovery-based science, or authentic assessment; and in the daily practice of teachers whose natural instinct is to treat children with respect."

The theme for Week 4 of the Deeper Learning MOOC has been personalized learning, student voice, and student choice—topics I have written about in several earlier posts (see, for example, Choices: Too Many, Not Enough, or Just Right? and Treating Students as Equal Partners). I'm delighted to have been introduced, through the DLMOOC, to many people who are working hard to create opportunities for students in schools to have a say in what and how they learn. The panelists for this week's discussion were inspiring.



Keven Kroehler, Executive Director for Edvisions Schools, talks about creating a "level playing field" in schools, where the contributions of students and teachers are equally valued and respected. He comments that "students think of things that teachers hadn't thought of," which reminded me of a few situations I faced last year (When Your Students Know More Than You Do, and Lessons Learned). Kevin also emphasized the importance of offering students authentic choices—the ability to make decisions about things that matter to them—rather than false choices, as in, "Which of these two preselected, mandatory activities do you want to do?" Kids know when they are being manipulated.  

Likewise, I appreciated panelist Kathleen Cushman's perspective on student voice. She talked about students being "citizens, not subjects," and described student voice as an "equity issue."She asks teachers to consider: "Whose voice gets listened to? Who gets to speak?" She recommends what I call "The Smorgasbord Approach," exposing students to a variety of things and allowing them to choose what interests them (as I describe in my post on Nurturing Interest-Based Learning). 

Panelist Brandon Wiley, Director of Asia Society's International Studies Schools Network (ISSN), talked about the importance of "recognizing students as key constituents, clients, customers," and giving them "a seat at the table," and I nodded my head in agreement. If students are the "key constituents," then it's inconceivable for them to be left out of the planning, implementation and evaluation of their work. This requires us to change how we think about everything: what students learn, how they learn it, and how they demonstrate their learning.  

I enjoyed hearing the DLMOOC panelists describe their iterative design process (similar to what I blogged about in Kindergarten-Style Planning), and it was interesting to me to see how this approach works in a school setting. Teachers collaborated not only with their students but with other teachers, parents, and members of the community. They developed a student's plan of study incrementally, continually learning and building upon what they discovered as they went along. During each stage of the project (planning, implementing, assessing), all the people with a vested interest were consulted and given opportunities to provide feedback. While this must have complicated the decision-making process, it also helped everyone make new connections, personally and cognitively.

The students who were on the "Lens into the Classroom" Student Panel for Week 4 were engaging, too.


Allowing students to have a say in how they learn is a school reform that has clearly made a big difference in the lives of these students. While this doesn't prove that all students' learning would necessarily be deepened in a High Tech High type of school, it seems likely that it would. Even the students who prefer a more traditional approach would benefit, because they could choose that method for themselves.

When my youngest daughter was fourteen, she said she wanted to attend the public high school in our town. Up until that point, she had always been homeschooled and free to choose what, when and how she learned. Why would she want to give that up? There were a variety of reasons—she wanted to see what school was like; she was interested in meeting more kids her age than she could find in the homeschooling community; she wanted to learn in a classroom setting. Ultimately, what mattered most was that she had a choice. She could return to homeschooling at any time, and she knew that was an option. That made all the difference in how she approached her education. She evaluated her own needs, assessed what the school had to offer, and figured out how to make the best use of her time there.

Giving kids choice doesn't mean deciding what that choice should be. It means we allow kids to figure out who they are and what they need to grow and thrive. A structured classroom with a teacher lecturing in the front isn't necessarily going to prevent deeper learning, but it shouldn't be the only option.

Deeper Learning Goals Require a Supportive Infrastructure

“A life worth living, and work worth doing—that is what I want for children (and all people), not just, or not even, something called 'a better education'.”—John Holt

It isn't easy to walk the fine line between mentoring and meddling, between offering support and insisting on "helping." Over the years, as I have been experimenting with a curriculum-free approach to education, three things have helped me more than anything else:

1. Permission to make mistakes. I had to give up the notion that I would get it right the first time. I had to be able to admit—to myself and my kids—when I had erred on the side of providing too much guidance (or too little). I had to experience a sinking ship a few times before I could turn things around. 
2. Trust. Patience, faith, trust—whatever it takes to step back and observe instead of interfering when things aren't progressing exactly as one might like them to be. When it comes to helping another person become who they are meant to be, there's so much we can't possibly know. There's a temptation to deal with the uncertainty by trying to control everything, but that seldom succeeds. 
3. Support. I could not have stayed the course if I had not had a community of people who were willing to listen, empathize, and share their own stories with me. 

When my kids were learning according to the expected or traditional timetable, and they chose academic subjects that educators have typically valued (reading, writing, math, science), it was easy for me to trust that everything would work out fine, regardless of the teaching method I used. The hard part was having faith when their interests were unconventional, bordering on obsessive, or proceeding at an unusual pace. I had to ask myself, "How resolved am I, really, to allowing my children to learn according to their own, unique internal plans?" If one of my children was" falling behind," what did that mean? Did I need to be concerned, or could I trust that he or she would eventually "catch up"?

Knowing when to intervene and when to trust the process is difficult but extremely important.

Most of the time, I simply had to learn to trust my kids and myself. It was not particularly helpful when concerned strangers would ask what I was doing, or how I was doing it, or "exactly what my kids were learning from playing all afternoon."If I had been required to report regularly to an oversight committee or school official, the days when it seemed like nothing was being learned (or everything was falling apart!) would have been much harder for me to recover from. I imagine the same might be true for teachers who are trying to encourage deeper learning in their classrooms. 

It takes courage to do something unconventional, and educating children without knowing for sure whether or not you are going to be successful is terrifying, especially when the stakes are so high. No adult wants to be responsible for messing up a child's future, so the pressure to do the job well is immense. Having others you respect say, "It's going to be OK, you are doing fine," or "Here, this is what I did, and it seemed to work," can make all the difference.

What Is Deeper Learning?

I am currently participating in Deeper Learning MOOC (DLMOOC), a free online course that lasts for nine weeks. It will be the second, massively-open online course—or MOOC—for me. The first one was Learning Creative Learning, which I blogged about last year (starting with the post "The Biggest Class I've Ever Attended"). Once again, I am excited to be sharing ideas and learning from others who feel as passionate about education as I do.

The first week has been spent on introductions and setting up subgroups, but online discussions are already getting underway.

So, what exactly is deeper learning? For a definition, I began by referring to the suggested readings for Week 1. According to an infographic on Deeper Learning:

"Deeper Learning ensures that students master core academic content, think critically, solve complex problems, work collaboratively, communicate effectively, direct their own learning, and develop an academic mindset." 

Two phrases contained within that definition—core academic content and academic mindset—require additional explanation, but allow me to return to them later. Scanning the rest of the infographic, I see cute cartoons that represent four types of (presumably, deeper) learning:

1. Learn! Personalized Learning
2. Do! Project-Based Learning
3. Apply! Work-Based Learning
4. Show! Competency-Based Learning

I imagine the exclamation marks after the commands (Learn! Do! Apply! Show!) are intended to convey excitement, but I feel as though I'm being issued directives. I wonder how students will feel if they are told to "Do!" or "Apply!"without being given much choice in the matter?  

Also, while I'd like to think that "personalized learning" means students will be allowed to learn at their own pace and make meaningful decisions regarding what and how they learn, the mention of "core academic content" makes me skeptical. I'm not sure exactly how much personalization will be permitted if learning is core-driven rather than student-driven. No doubt, there's value in learning from projects, real-world experiences, and student demonstrations of competency, but I feel what is most important is for the students to be the ones asking for those activities. If they are mandated by teachers, how might that impact the students' opportunities for deeper learning?

What Does Charisma Have to Do with Learning?

"Charisma has nothing to do with energy; it comes from a clarity of WHY, an undying belief in a purpose or cause." —Simon Sinek

When I put Start with Why on the reading list for Thriving in the Digital Age, it was because I wanted to encourage the kids in my class to think deeply about leadership. Specifically:

• What exactly do we look for in a leader? 
• What type of person inspires us to act—and why? 
• What qualities would we, personally, like to develop in ourselves to become stronger leaders?;
• How might we inspire others to follow our lead (for example, if we wanted to convince others to actively support a cause we felt was important)?

In his book, Start with Why, Simon Sinek argues that "energy excites" and "charisma inspires." To illustrate his point, he compares Microsoft CEOs Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer.



Gates isn't a very energetic speaker, yet he inspires people to follow his lead. Sinek says this is because Gates is optimistic and devoted to what he believes in. Presumably, he has that elusive and hard-to-define quality known as charisma. In contrast, Ballmer can stir up a crowd with his high-energy performances but, according to Sinek, he is not likely to inspire enduring loyalty, because:

"Only charisma can inspire."

While I agree that charismatic people do tend to attract devoted followers or "true believers," something about the exclusivity of Sinek's claim doesn't sit right with me. Was Sinek implying that those of us who lack charisma are incapable of inspiring, destined to become followers? I couldn't accept this conclusion, and I was curious to see how the teens in my class would react. Would they agree with Sinek? If so, how would they describe their own levels of charisma or, more importantly, their chances of becoming inspirational leaders?

What Do We Look for in a Leader?
As we talked about the people whom Sinek describes in his book—Martin Luther King, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Herb Kelleher (founder of Southwest Airlines), and several others—we considered what we felt were important leadership qualities. The students said they valued honesty and being able to communicate effectively, because "No one will follow you if they can't trust you or if they don't know what you're talking about." Talent, passion, vision, integrity, commitment, and empathy were also added to the list.

What Type of Person Inspires Us to Act—and Why?
Responding to the question about who inspires them, the students considered the power of commanding rhetoric (e.g., Obama's speeches), the limited effectiveness of reward systems (especially as sources of inspiration), and the extraordinary impact of impassioned, transformational leaders, such as Malala Yousafszai.



Do We Need to Have Charisma to Be Leaders?
When our discussion turned to the subject of charisma, I asked the group, "If charisma comes from 'an undying belief in a purpose or cause'—as Sinek claims—do we all have the potential to be charismatic?"

The responses I got from the students were insightful, and I'd like to share some of what I learned from them here. One student surprised me by quoting Lawrence of Arabia in his reflection:

"It's always been my view that leaders are not people with a Why, or people with a driving motivation. I mean, of course they have those but so does everyone else. What makes leaders unique is their ability to bring their Why's into reality. In other words, I agree with this quote from T. E. Lawrence (also known as Lawrence of Arabia), 'All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible.'"

This student went on to explain that he interpreted Lawrence's use of the word "dangerous" in a positive way, as meaning "adventurous" or "disruptive to the status quo." He also made another observation worth sharing here:

"Everyone has some greater driving motivation as to why they do what they do, and everyone has something that they are passionate about. We don't need other people to give us a why; we want someone to help us realize our own why."

I imagine all students saying this to their teachers. "We aren't asking you to tell us who we should be (whether it's interested in Subject X, aiming for College Y, or preparing for Career Z); we are asking you to help us discover who we already are."

Another student, a young woman who is passionate about music and theater, talked about what it means for a performer to have charisma. She recalled with enthusiasm an article from the New York Times ("A Gift from the Musical Gods" by Zachary Woolfe), which asks the question, "How is a performer a leader?" Woolfe writes:

"To experience a charismatic performance is to feel elevated, simultaneously dazed and focused, galvanized and enlarged. It is to surrender to something raw and elemental, to feel happy but also unsatisfied. Charisma calls forth a melancholy, a vaguely unrequited feeling. I’ve caught myself, after certain performances of an aria or a movement, leaning forward, as if drawn against my will. . . . Charisma requires that you acknowledge a new, larger set of possibilities."

So, not unlike leaders in other fields, charismatic performers inspire people to stretch and reach for loftier goals than they would otherwise. Unfortunately, according to Woolfe, "Rigorous training enhances and focuses [charisma], but it cannot create it." So, either you've got it—or you don't.

The young students in my class seemed to agree, saying,"People can know their why, but perhaps not have charisma, or vice versa . . . charisma isn't something that can be taught—one is born with it." However, one student described Sinek's definition of charisma (as a "clarity of WHY") as "half-true,"noting that:

Maria Callas, EMI Classics

"Charisma is strengthened when the leader or performer knows what their WHY is. For an actor especially: if they haven't asked 'Why?' to each and every line and aspect of the character's notions, it won't be a truthful performance—and even if the performer has the god-given talent of charisma, their performance will lack relevance and the strength to hold the audience's attention. And the same goes for other great leaders. Being able to harness both natural talent and 'the clarity of WHY' together is what leads to a very successful performance."

The same student also argued that an opera singer like Maria Callas is successful not only because she is naturally charismatic but also because she has a clarity of purpose, a genuine passion, that comes across in performances.

So, What Does Charisma Have to Do with Learning?
No matter what we do, whether we are incredibly charismatic or less so, it seems our success—as leaders or followers—is enhanced if we have a clear sense of who we are and what drives us.
This is why I feel it is vital for a student's education to be a process of self-discovery. Returning to Woolfe's article, I'm drawn to the following observation:

"What we generally consider the 'content' of the arts — the notes, the libretto, the bowings, the plot — is actually just the structure that makes possible the crucial thing: watching a performer who is able to connect with fundamental realities. It is not that a singer’s charisma makes a colorful aria sound even better but that the aria provides a platform, a vessel, for us to experience the charisma."

Would it be possible to think of learning in a similar way?

"What we generally consider the 'content' of education — the curricula, the scope and sequence, the technologies, the projects and activities — is actually just the structure that makes possible the crucial thing: helping a learner connect with the fundamental reality of who he or she really is. It is not that a student's aptitudes enable him or her to perform well in class but that the class provides a platform, a vessel, for every student to experience who they truly are."

What do you think?

Identity, Motivation, and Purpose: An Update on Thriving in the Digital Age

In the course I'm teaching, Thriving in the Digital Age, I seem to be learning and growing as much as my students. As I listen to them struggle to articulate how they feel and think about complex topics, such as identity, motivation, and purpose, I'm often forced to re-evaluate my own assumptions regarding these subjects. It's an extraordinary opportunity: how often do we, as adults, set aside time to think deliberately about our personal and social identities, about all the ways in which various internal and external motivators influence our actions, or exactly how our unconscious values might be directing our lives? These teens, in contrast, are profoundly and constantly aware of these things, and they are helping me to become more aware of them, too.

What I would like to do here is to share some of the materials we've used so far for the course. (For a more complete listing, refer to the Weekly TED Talks and Online Resources posted on the course website.)

We began the course with the book Quiet by Susan Cain . . .



I paired Quiet with Chapter 1 ("Attention! How and Why to Control Your Mind's Most Powerful Instrument") of Net Smart by Howard Rheingold, and this seemed to work out very well. We talked about introverts, extroverts and how to deal effectively with distractions in an "always on" world. We discovered that "distractions" can be a problem for introverts as well as extroverts but not in the same way. The extroverted students sought ways to control their multitasking habits—they loved all that stimulation and found it hard to stop—so they needed help focusing their attention. Meditation was a good addition to their tool set. The introverted students weren't attracted to multitasking; they preferred to do one thing at a time. What they craved was less stimulation, fewer interruptions, so they needed to find ways to access the digital world without becoming overwhelmed by it. The tools that were most helpful to them were dashboards and filters, which controlled the flow of information, and online discussion forums, where they could take as much time as they needed to compose and share their thoughts.

Next, we moved on to Being Wrong by Kathryn Schulz . . .



The logical pairing for Schulz's book was Chapter 2 ("Crap Detection) of Net Smart. We talked about why we get things wrong, how it feels to be wrong, and what can be gained from learning to embrace our fallibility. Topics of discussion included "filter bubbles" and why it's important to consult a variety of reliable sources; optical illusions, phantom limbs and other errors in perception; internet hoaxes and other scams; the Enlightenment, the Scientific Revolution, and the ways in which changes in cultural attitudes toward error have transformed science and industry; forensic psychology and how people in general and eyewitnesses in particular sometimes get things wrong; neuroscience; cults; terminal illness and the stages of grief; and, as a recurring theme, how we feel about being wrong and why it's so hard to let go of our desire to be right.

Currently, we are reading Start with Why by Simon Sinek . . .


I'm combining this with Chapter 5 ("Social Has a Shape") of Net Smart by Howard Rheingold and selections from Connected by Dr. Nicholas Christakis. The primary themes for these four weeks of the course are leadership and social networks, but we're also exploring the connections between the two. How do good leaders participate in social networks? Or, conversely, how do our social networks—or lack thereof—influence our ability to become effective leaders?

So far, I've supplemented the primary readings with talks by:

• Drew Dudley ("Everyday Leadership"),
• Dan Pink ("Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us"),
• Mike Rowe ("Learning from Dirty Jobs"),
• Seth Godin ("The Tribes We Lead"),
• and Tony Robbins ("Why We Do What We Do")

These presenters have inspired interesting and sometimes heated discussions. For example, we've debated the differences—sometimes subtle, other times extreme—between motivation and manipulation, particularly when it comes to marketing. Is it the message, the product, or the image of ourselves that influences our choices? We've also questioned the relative merits of "vision" and pragmatism, the pros and cons of going after a dream versus doing a job that simply needs to get done. Where one student emphasized practicality and argued the importance of quality control (the HOW and WHAT of a job), another admired leaders who could articulate a higher purpose for mankind (the WHY of a movement).

I'm looking forward to continuing this course in the months ahead and plan to share in future posts more of what I'm learning from the students.