Last week I wrote about self-regulated learning, based on a teaching model that lies at the core of the Ministry of Education’s personalized learning initiative. It is important to keep in mind that self-regulated learning is not a fad: it is a teaching and learning model that stems from current research connected to human development (learning) theory. It is also important to remember that all instruction is informed by theories of how humans learn. Our challenge in this time is to move instruction away from outmoded theory and practice (i.e. where we believe the student is a vessel to be filled by curricular content and where a strong emphasis is placed on teacher management of student compliance with behavioural norms).

Current human learning theory is considered “dynamic systems” in its orientation and takes into account key findings in brain research (particularly developmental cognitive neuroscience). A dynamic systems view studies the broad range of influences that impact on an individual’s growth and development – from situatedness in time and culture to the role of genetics. In other words, this view of human development takes us from the study of “nature versus nurture” to the study of “nature via nurture” (John Abbott, President, The 21^st Century Learning Initiative).

Central to this emerging human development theory is the idea that there are certain conditions that support optimal brain growth and development, and others that create stress and prevent healthy growth. With respect to operationalizing this theory (i.e. by converting it into instructional practice), it is very important to develop an awareness of those strategies that best influence healthy brain growth – and this is where self-regulated learning comes in.

 As is turns out, one of the best ways to support strong brain growth and development is to teach students to teach themselves how to regulate physically and emotionally – so they are then far more capable of regulating themselves intellectually. Nowhere is this more important than for our most vulnerable students who, for a variety of reasons, do not arrive at school neurologically prepared for the constructivist classroom. Let me illustrate this point with a story I shared at our initial Principals’ Meeting a few weeks ago.

About six years ago, when I was an assistant superintendent with Regina Public Schools, I was approached by a speech pathologist new to the system by the name of Brenda Whittam-Neary. Throughout my career I have been blessed to have colleagues show up on my doorstep who I would define as “trendsetters.” Brenda is definitely one of them. Brenda invited (or maybe it was more like insisted!) that I join her and one of our occupational therapists in a Grade 1/2 classroom in one of my schools.

The classroom was led by an excellent teacher who had a challenging classroom composition. In particular, there were four boys who could be best described as completely impulsive. They were constantly running in and out of the classroom, and I recall one of the boys lying on the floor under his desk, rolling around and barking like a dog. During reading circle time, the teacher was compelled to physically hold two of the students in place (by gently placing and maintaining a hand on their shoulders). The teacher, a 32-year veteran, had reached the limits of her capacity to differentiate instruction and modify the students’ behaviours.

Then something happened that I will never forget. Brenda and her occupational therapist colleague introduced physical regulation hand tools to the four boys. The most popular tool was a 25 cent piece of plasticine that the students took to their desks. They then sat down, and proceeded to quietly roll the plasticine into little snakes. A calmness settled in over the classroom, and in a matter of minutes, the four boys were sitting attentively while the teacher proceeded with her lesson. As I indicated to our system principals, I was struck by two things in particular: 1) the humanity of the method (there was no need to discipline the students, which generally only serves to create further stress for both the students and the teacher) and 2) the pedagogical soundness of this approach (in the end, the students were focused on the lesson).

Linking this story back to my earlier point regarding advances in human development theory, we can see how the introduction of such tools strengthens the capacity of the brain to regulate and focus. Further, as students learn to self-select regulation tools, they begin to take greater responsibility for self-directing their learning – including taking greater responsibility for managing their learning problems (i.e. breakdowns in comprehension) as they arise.

Next week I’ll focus a little more on the overall self-regulated learning model, as developed by my colleague, Brenda. By the way, Brenda is originally from Nanaimo and has a sister, Catherine Brunt, who currently works with the Nanaimo Ladysmith School District as a speech pathologist. After meeting with Catherine, it is evident that she shares her sister’s passion for advancing this learning model – great!