Modern Learning with Flexible Structures

“Modern learning” is a phrase I am encountering in more and more places, but still I just can’t seem to find a definition of what exactly it is. The general idea seems to be that a changing 21^st century world demands collaborative creative critical thinkers, and that modern learning involves whatever tools and approaches are needed to help students develop those traits. Discussion about modern learning typically emphasizes the role of the student in learning, flexibility in approaches to the curriculum content, and use of technology to enhance the learning experience and facilitate collaboration.

To experiment with one modern learning idea, I used a flexible structure this semester for the Linear Systems unit with my Grade 10 Applied Mathematics class. I divided the unit’s learning goals into two learning cycles of about five days each. At the end of each day students completed a Google Form to self-assess their progress towards each of the cycle’s learning goals, identify homework, and choose what and how they would like to learn the next day. Content choices aligned with learning goals, and method choices included watching a video, trying an investigation, reading from the textbook, researching online, or participating in a mini-lesson with me. Several times in each cycle they were also asked to choose between writing a quiz and creating a video with Lensoo Create as a method for formative assessment. Each student had a Nexus 7 tablet to use in class to access learning and assessment resources.


Each evening I sifted through student preferences to make a schedule for the following day’s class. I divided the 75 minute period into three 20 minute chunks, with some time left to get started and to wrap up. This meant that I could schedule up to three mini-lessons each period, but I found that one or two worked better to give me time to circulate and check in with students employing other learning methods. At the start of each class I shared the schedule through Google Slides and projected it at the front of the class. Usually my schedule aligned with the content and method choices students had made the previous day, but sometimes I would make adjustments for logistical reasons like scheduling of mini-lessons or if I felt a student needed to work on a different topic or to practice in a new way. Having a clear schedule also added to accountability as ensured students knew what they were expected to be working on at any given time.

Was this flexible structure experiment a success? The summative assessment was a unit test, and on this test the class average and median were both about the same as for the course as a whole. Looking back at the previous 5 times I have taught this course the Linear Systems unit tends to be at or just below the overall course average. It appears objectively that learning through flexible structures was at least as good as through the traditional structure, but it is not clear that it was better.

A second measure of success is student’s own opinion of the method. Each day I asked students to rate how they felt about flexible learning on a 1 to 5 scale between “It seems like a bad idea” and “It seems like a great idea.” The median overall rating was 4, which was also the median for each day except two where the median was 3. One interesting pattern I noticed was that when I was not able to circulate to spend time with specific students or when a mini-lesson was postponed those student’s impression of flexible learning went down, sometimes as significantly as from rating of 3 to 1. At the end of the unit I asked students how their homework completion, use of class time, learning, and enjoyment of math with flexible structures compared with a traditional class structure. Most students reported they did the same amount of homework as usual and a few said they did more. Class time use and learning responses were similar with most students saying they used class time better than usual and felt they learned more or much more than previously. Most students said they enjoyed math more with flexible structures, but notably one student said she found it much less enjoyable than usual. After the unit was finished some asked if we could try it again sometime. All it all it seems that the flexible model was a success in the eyes of most students.

A final measure of success is my own impression of the model. I found mini-lessons quite effective because with groups of about two to six students I could keep even the most distractible students on task, and had an excellent sense of the level of understanding of each student. On the other hand, with the class sometimes split into three or four learning modes I found it more difficult to gauge the whole class at once and I often felt that I was not able to circulate quickly enough to assist all students. Finally, the daily planning and preparation time involved was challenging. With an unusually small class I was able to keep up with reviewing their daily reflections and working through scheduling, but it is intimidating to think of what would be involved in facilitating this style of learning with a class at full capacity. Perhaps with some practice there could be ways to improve on efficiency to make it work at a larger scale.