The Learner-Centered
Paradigm of
Education
Sunnie Lee Watson
Charles M. Reigeluth
Contributing Editor
This article, the tlmd in d series of fOUl Instdllllll'llts,
begins hy diSCUSSing the l1el,eI for 1',ll,ldiglll ch,1Ilge ill
eelucJtion dnd for ,1 critiC11 svstl'ms aplllo,lCh 10
p"r,ldigm ch,mge, ,'ml ex,lmiI1l's currl'nt progress
toward pclrdCligm change. Then it explores wh,lt d
Il'JrIll'r-centcred, Informat ion-Agc cclul ,1 tion,,1 syslem
shou Id 1)(' Ii kl', incl uel ing I he AI l/\ Icwncr-celll ('rel I
psychologic,ll IJrinciples, the Ndlion,ll l~l".,l'<1rlh
Council's findings on how l'l'ollle' IC'Hll, Ill(' work 01
McCombs ,mdcolle,lgues on Ic,lrnCr-Cl'nl('r('d ..,c hool..,
,lnd cl,1ssrooms, perslHldlizccl Ic,lIning, cliIJl'rentidlc(1
in<,truction, ,'nd br,lin-Ilascd instrul lion. Fllldlly, onc
pos<,iblc vision of ,1 ledrlll'r-lCnlered school i..,
dcscri Iwei.
Introduction
The dissatisfaction with ,md loss of trust in schools tll,l[
we are experiencing these d,lYS ,lre Cll',lr h,lIlm,ll"ks of
thl' need for change in our school svslc'ms. The strong
push for a learner-centered p,lr,leligm oj illslruction in
today's schools reflects our socil'ty's ch,mging educa­
tional needs. We educators must help our schools to
move into the new learner-centered par,Hligm 01
instruction that better meets the needs of individu,ll
le,lrners, of their work pl'lces ,md communities, ,md 01
society in general. It is ,lisa import,lllt that we edUc,ltors
help the transformation occur ,1S effectively and p,lin­
lessly as possible. This article begins by addressing the
need for transforming our education,ll systems to the
Sunnie lee Watson is As<,ociate Instruclor, Instructlon,ll
Systems Tl>chnology DepJrtment ancl Eeluc,ltional Le,llb..,hip
and Policy Stuelies, in the School of EelUc,ltion ,It Indi'lila
Universily, Bloomington, Ineli,ln'l le-m'ltl: suklce(n'ineli,1n,1.
eelu). Charles M. Reigeluth is Professor, Instructional Systems
Technology DepJrtment, in the School of Education ,It
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana Ie-mail: reigelut(o
indiana.eduL
42
Paradigm Change in Public Education
This is the third in a series of four articles on paradigm
change in education. The first (May-June 2008) addressed
the need for paradigm change in education and described
the AECT FutureMinds Initiative for helping state
departments of education to engage their school districts in
this kind of change. The second (July-August) described
the School System Transformation (SST) Protocol that
captures the current state of knowledge about how states
can help their school districts to engage in paradigm
change. This article describes the nature of the learner­
centered paradigm of education, and it addresses why this
paradigm is needed. The final article (November­
December) will explore a full range of roles that technology
might play In this new paradigm of education.
learner-cl'ntered paradigm. Then it describes the nature
of thl' lc"lr1ler-centerecl paradigm.
The Need for Change and the (Critical)
Systems Approach to Educational Change
Information-Age vs. Industrial-Age Education. Where­
socidy has shifted from the Industrial Age into what
m,my c,lll the 'Information Age' (Toffler, 1984;
Rpigl'luth, !LJLJ4; Senge, Clmbron-McCabe, Lucas,
Smilh, Dutton, & Kleiner, 20(0), current schools were
eS[dill islwel to lit the needs of an Industrial-Age society
(sec 1,111lp 1J. This l'lCtory-moelel, Industrial-Age school
system hds highly compartmentalized learning into
sullied ,1Ie,lS, ,lild students arc expected to learn the
S,lnll' content in the same ,lmount of time (Reigeluth,
I CJCJ4 J. The current Sl hool system strives for standard i­
z,ltion ,md was not designed to meet individual
ledrrlers' Ileeds. Rathpr it W,lS designed to sort students
inlo IdlJOrers ,md m,lilagers (sec Table 2), and students
are forced to move on with the rest of the class regard­
less of whether or not they hJve learned the material,
,mel thus Ill,lily students ,lCculTlulate learning deficits
,mel eventu,llly drop out.
,1S
The (Critical) Systems Approach to Educational
Change. Systemic educational trJllsforlTlation strives to
change the school system to a learner-centered
pdr,lcligm that will meet ,111 learners' educationJI needs.
It is concerned with the creation of a completely new
system, r,lther than a mere retooling of the current
system. It entails a paradigm shift as opposed to
piecemeal change. Repeated calls for massive reform of
current educational and training practices have
consistently been published over the last several
e1ecades. This has resulted in an increasing recognition
of the need for systemic transformation in education, as
Ilumerous piecemeal approaches to education reform
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY/September-October 2008
Table 1. Key markers of Industrial vs. Information Age
education (Reigeluth, 1994).
II
Information Age
I
Team
Orga nization -------J
Industrial Age
Bureaucratic
Organization
Autocratic leadership
Centralized control
Adversarial relationships
Standardization (mass
production, mass marketing,
mass communications, etc)
Compliance
Conformity
One-way communications
Compartmentalization (division
of labor)
Shared leade,r,shi P
Autonomy,
accountability
Cooperative
relationships
I
II
I
I
Customization
(customized
prod uctlon, customized
marketing. customized
communications, etc)
Initiative
Diversity
Networking
Holism (Integration of
tasks)
J
----------
Table 2. Key features: Sorting vs. learning.
Sorting Based
Paradigm of
Education
!Learning Based!
I
Paradigm of
I
Time-based
I
L
Education~
Attainment-based
Group-based
Person-based
Teacher-based
Resource-based
Norm-based assessment
Criterion-based
assessment
I
have been implemented ,lnd h,)V(' fai!l,d to c,lgnificanlly
improve the stale of education. Syst('nlic Ir,lIlsforlll,1lion
seeks 10 shift from ,1 par'ldigm in which lime is held
constant, thereby forcing achievement to V,lIV, to one
designed specifically to meet the needs o! Informatioll­
Age learners and their communities by ,lliowing
students the time th;lt each needs to leach profici('llCy.
Systemic educltion,ll ch'lIlge dr,lws Iw,lVily from Ill('
work on critical systems theory (CSTI 1F'loo(1 ,<:' Jackson,
1q91; Jackson, 1qq 1a, 1()tIl b; Watson, Watson, ,<:,
Reigeluth, 2(08). CST has its roots in c,yc,teills theory,
which was established in the mid-twentieth cenlury hy
a multi-disciplinary group of researchers who sh,lred
the view that science had become inue,lsingl\
reductionist and the various discil)lines isol,l!eCI. While
the term system has been defined in ,1 V,lrielv of wavs
by different systems scholars, the centr,ll notion of
systems theory is the importance of rc'lationships ,lmollg
elements comprising a whole.
CST draws heavi lyon the phi losophy of H,lbermas
(1973, 1984, 19B7l. The critical systems approach to
social systems is of pZlIticular importance when
ccJllsidering svstems wherein inequality of power exists
in rel,ltion to opportunity, authority, and control. In the
1980s, CST came to the forefront (Jackson, 1985;
Ulrich, 19831, influencing systems theory into the
1qqos (Flood & l'lCkson, 1991; Jackson, 199101, 1991b).
Liber,1ting Svsteills Theory uses a post-positivist
appro,lch to analyze social conditions in order to
liller,lle the oppressed, while also seeking to liberate
systeills theory from tendencies such as self-imposed
insularity, cases of internal localized subjugations in
d iscou rse, ,1ml liberation of system concepts from the
in,ldeclu,lCies of objectivist and subjectivist approaches
irloo(l, 1q(J(lI. Jackson (1 q91 b) explains that CST
embraces tive key commitments:
• critical awareness of examining values entering
inlo aClual systeills design;
• soci,ll ,lW,1IeIWSS o! r('cognition in pressures
!e;ld i ng 10 populariz,ltion of certa i n systems
theories and methodologies;
• dedic,ltion to human emancipation tor full
developillent of all human potential;
• i nlormed usc' of systems methodologies; and
• informed dev('\opment ot all alternative positions
ami ditferent Ilwordical systems approaches.
I)an,llhy (1 qq 1l ,1nd Sc'nge <'t <11. (2000) apply
c,ystelllS tlwmy to the design of educational systems.
l)an,llhy (19<J2) suggests examining systems through
threc Icnses: ,1 "still picture lC'ns" to appreciate the
comlJ(lIWnlc, comprising the system <lnd their
l-el,ltiomhi!)s; a "motion picturC' lells" to recognize the
procc'sses ,1I1e1 dYl1,1mics of the systC'lll; ,11ld a "bird's
C'ye view Icm" to 1)(' ,1W~1rC of the relatiollships
\)('Iw('('n the svstem ,1nd its peers and suprasystems.
Seng(' ('{ ,1/. (20(H)) 'lpplies systems theory specifically
to mg,lIliz,ltion,11 k"1rning, st,lting that the organization
C<1I1 1<'Mn to work ,1S ,1n interrelated, hoi istic learning
comillunilv, r,llher th,ln functioning ,1S isolated
dep,lrtlllC'nl s.
Current Progress of Systemic Change in Education.
While svslemic education,ll transformation is a rela­
lively new moveillent in school change, there are
currC'ntly v,lrious ,lttempts to advance knowledge about
it. Ex,1Il1ples include: The Cuicbnce System for Trans­
Imming r:duc,ltion (Jenlink, Reigeluth, Carr, & Nelson,
I Q%,199Bl, Duffy's Step-Up-To-Excellence (2002),
Schhhty's II 9Q7, 2(02) guidelines for leadership in
school rdorm, Hamiller and Ch,lmpy's (1993, 2(03)
Process Reengineering, and Ackoff's (1981) Ideal ized
SystC'llls Design.
There are ,llso stories of school districts making
funci,lnlCntal changes in schools based on the
,1pp!ication of systemic ch;lnge ideas. One of the best
practices of systemic transformation is in the Chugach
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGYISeptember-October 2008
43
School District (CSD). The students in CSD arc
scattered throughout 22 ,000 square miles of remote
area in South-central Alaskel. The district was in crisis
twelve years ago due to low student reading ability,
and the school district committed to a systemic
transformation effort. Battino and Clem i20061 explain
how the CSD's usc of individual learning plans, student
assessment binders, student leaming profiles, and
student life-skills portfolios support and document
progress tOWelrd mastery in ell I stelndards for each
learner. The students arc given the flexibility to achieve
levels at their own p,lCe, not having to wait for the rest
of the class or being pushed into le,lrning hevond their
developmental level. Gr,Hlu,ltion stemclards exceed
state requirements ,1S students arc allowccl extrJ time to
,lChieve thJt level if necessary, hut musl meet the high
rigor of the gr,lcluation levl'l. Stuclent accoillplishnwnt
in academic perform'lnce skyrocketed ,1S ,1 result of
these systemic ch'lnges (f1,lttino c'\ C1elll, 2[)[)()!.
CJine (2[)06) ,llso found strong I)ositive changes
through system ic ecluCc1t ion,11 ch'lnge in extensive
engagement on ,1 project c,llied "Le'lrning to Le,lrn" in
AdelJide, South Australia, ,In initiative of thc South
Australi,1n Governmen1 th,lt covered d network of over
170 eduCcltion,11 sites. ~rolll l)I"eschool to 121h grJde,
brZl in-be1sl>d, lea rner-Cl'ntered k',1 rn ing envi ronillents
were combined with ,1 Icllger set of Svstl'lllic changes,
leading to both betler student ,Hhievement 'lild
signifiCclnt ch'lnges in the cullure ,md olwr,ltion of the
systelll itself.
Imagining Learner-Centered Schools
Giwn the necd for 1),Hadigm ch'lngc ill school
systems, wh,lt should our schools look like in the
future? The ch,1I1ges in society ,1S ,1 whole reflect J IWl'd
for educJtion to focus on 1c>,lIning I'dther th,1n sorting
students (McComhs &: Whisler,1 qq7; Reigeluth, 1997;
Senge et ell., 200[); Tofller, 1qg4!, A I'lrge ,lmount of
reseclrch has becn conducted to ,1dv,1nce our
understanding of learning anel how the eduCcltional
system can be lhcmged to better support it. There is
sol id rese,1rch e1bout 1)1",1 in-hased le,Hn ing, le,1I"ner­
centered instruction, ,1nd the Ilsychological principles
of leJrners that provide educ,ltl)l"s with a v,1luable
fra mework for t he Informc1l ion-Age peHclCl igm of
education (AiC'xander (:. Murphy, 1993; Br,msford,
Brown, &: Cocking, I CJ99; H,1nnUIll c'\ McCombs, 200B;
Lambert c'\ McColllbs, 199B; McCombs ,,\ Whisler,
1997).
research to identify learner-centered psychological
principles based on educJtional research (American
Psychological Association's Board of Educational
Affairs, 1997; Lambelt & McCombs, 1(98). The report
presents 12 principles Jnd provides the research
evidence thJt supports each principle. It categorizes the
psychological principles into four areas: (1) cognitive
and metacognitive, (2) motivationa I and affective, (3)
developmental and social, and (4) individual difference
fJctors that influence learners Jnd learning (see Table
3).
National Research Council's "How People Learn."
Another important line of research was carried out
by the National Research Council to synthesize knowl­
edge about how people learn (Bransford et al., 1(99).
A two-vear study \Vas conducted to develop a synthesis
of new JpprOe1ches to instruction thJt "make it possible
for the mJjority of individuals to develop a deep
understanding of importJnt subject mJtter" (p. 6). Their
,lne1lvsis of ,1 wide range of reseJrch on leJrning
emph,lsizes the importJnce of customization Jnd
person,llization in instruction for each individual
learner, self-regulated learners tJking more control of
their own leJrning, and fJcilit,lting deep understJnding
of the subject m,ltter. They describe the crucial need for,
clnd characteristics of, leelrning environments thJt Jre
learner-centered Jncl reaming-community centered.
Learner-Centered Schools and Classrooms. McCombs
,md colleagues (f)aker, 1973; Lambert &: McComhs,
1998; McCombs & Whisler, 1997) Jlso address these
new needs alld ideJs for instruction thJt supports all
students. They identify two important fe,ltures of
lea rner-centered instruct ion:
... ,) focus on inclividu,ll lee1rl)crs (thcir heredity, experi­
enCl'S, perslJcctivcs, h'1Ckgrounds, talents, interests,
Cclp,Kitics, ,1nd nccds! I'lmll a focus on ICc1rning (thc
hest avail,lhlc knowledge ,lhout learning, how it
occurs, and what tt',1Ching pr,lctices ,HC most effective
in promoting thc highcst levels of motivJtion, Icarning,
ami ,1chlt'venwnt for all Icarnt'rs). (McCombs &
Whisler, I 997. p. 11)
APA Learner-Centered Psychological Principles. With
This twofold focus on leJrners Jnd learning informs
alld drives educationJI decision-making processes. In
leJrner-centered illstruction, learners are included in
these educational decision-making processes, the
diverse perspectives of individuals are respected, and
learners are treated as co-creators of the learning
process (McCombs & Whisler, 1(97).
significant reseJrch showing thJt instruction should be
learner-centered to meet aII students' needs, there have
been severJI efforts to synthesize the knowledge on
learner-centered instruction. First, the American
Psychological Association conducted wide-ranging
Personalized Learning. Pel'sonalized Learning is part of
the learner-centered approach to instruction, dedicated
to helping each child to engage in the learning process
in the most productive and meaningful way to optimize
44
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY/September-October 2008
Table 3. Learner-Centered Psychological Principles (American Psychological Association's Board of Educational
Affairs, Center for Psychology in Schools and Education, 1997).
APA Learner-Centered Psychological Principles
Nature of the learning process.
The learning of complex subject matter is most effective when it is an intentional process
of constructing meaning from information and experience.
Goals of the learning process
The successful learner, over time and with support and instructional guidance, can create
meaningful. coherent representations of knowledge.
Construction of knowledge.
The successful learner can link new information with existing knowledge In meaningful
ways.
Strategic thinking.
The successful learner can create and use a repertoire of thinking and reasoning
strategies to achieve complex learning goals.
Thinking about thinking.
Higher-order strategies for selecting and monitoring mental operations facilitate creative
and critical thinking.
Context of learning.
Learning is influenced by enVIronmental factors. including culture. technology, and
instructional practices.
Cognitive and
Metacognitive Factors
Motivational and
Affective Factors
I Oe'e'opmeo',' aod
Motivational and emotional influences on learning.
What and how much IS learned is influenced by the learner's motivation. Motivation to
learn, in turn, is influenced by the individual's emotional states, beliefs, interests and goals,
and habits of thinking
Intrinsic motivation to learn
The learner's creativity, higher-order thinking. and natural curiosity all contribute to
motivation to learn. Intrinsic motivalion is stimulated by tasks of optimal novelty and
difficulty, relevant to personal interests. and providing for personal choice and control.
Effects of motivation on effort.
Acquisition of complex knowledge and skills requires extended learner effort and guided
~ractice Without. learners' motivation to learn. the willingness to exert this effort is unlikely
Without coercion
I
Developmental influences on learning.
As individuals develop, there are different opportunities and constraints for learning.
Learning is most effective when differential development within and across physical,
intellectual, emotional, and social domains is taken into account.
Social influences on learning.
Learning IS influenced by social interactions. interpersonal relations, and communication
with others.
-----+--------------1
Individual
Individual differences In learning.
Differences Factors
Learners have different strategies. approaches. and capabilities for learning that are a
function of prior experience and heredity
Learning and diversity
Learning is most effective when differences in learners' linguistic, cultural, and social
backgrounds are taken into account.
Standards and assessment.
Setting appropriately high and challenging standards and assessing the learner as well as
learning progress-including diagnostic, process, and outcome assessment-are integral I
parts of the learning process.
Social Factors
.
L
each chi Id's learn ing and success. Personal ized Learn ing
was cultivated in the 1970s hy the National
Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP)
and the Learning Environments Consortium (LEO
Internationa I, and was adopted by the spec ia I
education movement. It is based upon a sol id
foundation of the NASSP's educational research
findings and reports as to how students learn most
successfully (Keefe, 2007; Keefe & Jenkins, 2002),
including a strong emphasis on parental involvement,
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY/September-October 2008
45
more teacher and student interaction, attention to
differences in personal learning styles, sm"ller class
sizes, choices in personal goals alld instruclional
methods, student ownership in setting goals ami
designing the learning process, and technology use
(Clarke, 2003). L.eaders in other lields, such as
busi nessma n Wayne Hodgi 1l5, have presentt>d the idea
that learning will soon become Ill'I'SClnalized, whel'e the
learner both activates and cOlltrols hel" 01 his OWIl
learning environment ([)uvdl, Hodgins, Rl'h,l~, c'Z:
Robson, 20(4).
Differentiated Instruction. The recenl IllOVl'ment in
differentiated instruction is ,1IS() ,l resl)()IlS<' to the Ile(>cl
for a le,'rning-focused (as opposl'dlo ,1 sorling-(ocuserll
approach to instruction dnd educalion in sc hoo!s.
Diffcrenti,lted instruction is dn dpplo,lCh Ihdl enahles
teachers 10 plan strategicdlly to meet tlw Iweds olewrv
student. II is rIL'eply groun(led in the prillc iplc' Ih,'l th(-r('
is diversity within ,lilY group 01 ledrl1el"5 ,'nd th,lt
te,lehers should ,ldiust studeilis' ledming ("peri('llces
accordingly (Tomlinson, j lJlJlJ, 200 I, 2()() ;1. This drdws
from lhe work 01 Vvgolsky 11 lm(»), ('51)('( idlly his "ZOIll'
of proximal ckvclopnll'nt" IZI'I)I, ,lIld Imlll d,ssrllDm
researchers. Rese,lrclll'rs fouml Ihdt With dillel"r'nlidll'rl
instruction students le"rtwrl more ,lIlrl 1(,11 IH'llel" dhoul
themselves ,1Ild the sullject ,1[ed heing studi('d
(Tomlinson, 2001 I. I::vid('IlCl' (urllwr ill(llC,ltl'S Ihdl
students ,lre more successful ,lIld Il]()tivdlc'd ill schools
if they IL'<lrll in W,lyS thdt dre responsive 10 Ih('il"
readiness levels IVygots~v, I cJIH)I, 1)('I"SI111,1I Inleresls,
,lnrl Ic"rlling l,ro(iles ICsiks/c'lltmihdlvi,
1 CJCJO;
Sternherg, TorI(, c'Z: CI"igorenko. I CJCJI\I. The gOdl 01
differerltiated inslructioll is to d(I(lress Ihl's(' thlee
characteristics for ('dch slllclc'lll ITOllllillS(ln. 2001,
20ml.
Brain Research and Brain-Based Instruction. Anolhc'r
area of Slurly thdt gives us dn ufldersl,lllding 01 h<l\\
people I(>arn is the work Oil Ilr,lin rl'sedr(11 which
describes how lhe IJrdin lUll( tions. Cline ,'nd
colleagues (1997, 200'), 200!JI provi(le ,1 usdul
summary Df work on how the h',lin funclions in the
process of le;Hning through IIw12 prine iples Df Ilr,lin­
based learning. 13rain-b,'sed le,lming hegills when
le,lrners are encouraged to dctively il11nwrse them­
selves in their world ,'nd their Ic'<lrning r'xIK'riences. In
a school or c1assrool11 where hr,'in-hdsed Ic,lmillg is
being practiced, the signific,lIlce of (Iiverse indivirlu;ll
learning styles is taken for granted Ily t('dchers and
arlministrators (Caine 0.: Caine, I CJCJ7!. In these cl"ss­
rooms amJ schools, learning is (acilit,'led for ('<lch
individual student's Ilurposes ami nwallillg, and the
concept of learn i ng is appro'lChed in ,1 cDl11pletely
different way from the curl"ent classroDms th,lt arc set
up for sorting ,md standardization.
46
An Illustration of the New Vision
What might a learner-centered school look like? An
illustration or synthesis of the new vision may prove
helpful.
Imagine that there are no grade levels for this school.
Inslead, e,Jeh of the students strives to master and
check off their attainments in a personal "inventory of
attainments" (Reigeluth, 1994) that details the individ­
ua I student's progress through the district's requ ired
and optional learning standards, kind of like merit
badges in Scouti ng. Each student has different levels of
progress in every attainment, according to his or her
illterests, (,1 lents, and pace. The student moves to the
flext tOI)ic ,1S SOOIl as she Dr he masters the current one.
Wh i Ie each student must reach mastery level before
movillg on, studellts also do Ilot need to wait for others
who are Ilol yl't at that level of learning. In essence,
1l0W, 11ll' schools hold time constant and student
learnillg is thereby forced to vary. In this new paradigm
Df the le,lrller-centered school, it is the pace (learning
time) that varies rather than student learning. All
siudeills work ,It their own maximum pace to reach
m,lstery ill each attainment. This individualized,
customized, alld self-paced learning process allows the
school district to realize high standards for its students.
The [("lelwr t"kes on a drastically different role in
the le,lrnillg proccss" She or he is a guide or facilitator
who works with the student for at least four years,
buildillg ,1 IOllg-term, caring relationship (Reigeluth,
11)1)41. The leacher's role is to help the student and
I),lreilis to decide UpOIl appropriate learning goals and
to help irbltify ,'lld facilitate the best way for the
studellt to achieve those goals-and for the parents to
SUI)Port their stuclent. Therefore, each student has a
persolldl learnillg plan in the form of a contract that is
joifltly (Ic'velopecl every two months by the student,
p,lrenls, illld teacher.
This system enhances motivation by placing greater
responsibility ,'nrl ownership on the students, and by
offeri ng trLl Iy eng,lgi ng, often collaborative work for
students (Schlechty, 20021. Teachers help students to
direct their own learnillg through the contract
rlevelDpnlC'nt process and through facilitating real­
world, independellt or small-group projects that focus
Oil developing the contracted attainments. Students
learn to set ,'ncl meet deadlines. The older the students
get, the more leadership and assisting of younger
stuclents they assume.
The commullity also works closely with schools, as
the inventory of attainments includes standards in
service learning, career development, character devel­
opment, interpersona I ski lis, emotional development,
technology skills, cultural awareness, and much more.
Tasks that are vehicles for such learning are authentic
tasks, often in real community environments that are
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY/September-October 2008
rich for learning (Reigeluth, 1994). Most learning is
interdisciplinary, drJwing from both specific and gen­
eral knowledge and interpersonJI Jncl decision-mJking
skills. Much of the focus is on developing deep under­
standings Jnd higher-order thinking skills.
TeJchers assess students' leJrning progress through
various methods, such JS computer-based assessment
embedded in simulations, observation of student
performJnces, Jnd JnJlvsis of student products of
various kinds. InsteJd of grJdes, stuelents receive
rJtings of "emerging," "developing," "proficient" (the
minimum required to pass), or "expen."
EJch teJcher hJS J cldre of students with whom she
or he works for severill vearS-,l eleveloprlwnt,ll st'lge
of their lives. The te,rellC'r works with 3-10 other
teJchers in J smJl1 le,lrning community ISI_CI in which
the leJrners Jre multi-'lged ,lnd gl't to know ('<reh other
well. Students get to choose which t(',lclwr thcy w,lnt
(stJting their first, second, ,1Ilel thir'd choicc), ,1nd
teJcher honuses Jre baseel on thc ,lmounl of <lel1lanel
for them. Each SLC hJS its own budget, haseel mJinh
on the number of students it h~lS, ,1ndm,lk<'s all its own
decisions Jbout hiring and firing 01 its St,l!!, including
its principJI (or leJd te,Kheri. E,reh SLC ,1lso h,lS ,1
school bOJrd made up of t(',relwrs ,lnel IJarcllts who ,lrc>
elected by thei I' peers.
While this illustration 01 a le,lI"l1l>I"-(Clltereei schoul is
bJsed on the various learner-centered ,lppro,rehes to
instruction reviewed (',1rlier ,1Ild the I,ltest (>dLIC,ltiorlal
research, this is just one u! m,lny possihle visions, ,md
these ideJs need revision, ,1S some ,lre likelv to vdry
from one community !o 'lnother, ,111<1 most rwed !unher
elJborJtion on detlils. Nonetheless, this I)ictur<> o! d
learner-center'ed p,lraeligm of schuoling coulel hell) us
to prevail over the industri'll-age 1),1ra<ligm of !('<lI"ning
and schools so th,lt we Cdn create ,1 Iwtter 1)I,ree for uur
children to leJrn.
Conclusion
Our society nl'eds 1c>,ltner-centered schouls th,lt
focus on leJrning rather than on sorting (McComlJs &
Whisler,1997; Reigeluth, 1997; Senge pI aI, 2000;
Toffler, 1984). New JpproJches to instruction and
education have increJsingly been advocated tu meet
the needs of all learner's, and ,1 large amount of
research has been conducted to ,Hlv,lnce our
understanding of leJtning and huw the ('ducltional
system can be changed to better SUIJPort it (Alexander
& Murphy, 1993; McCombs & Whisler, 1997;
Reigeluth, 1997; Senge el al., 2000J. Nevertheless,
transforming school culture and structure is not an easy
task.
Isolated reforms, typicJlly at the clJssroom Jnel
school levels, have been attempted over the pJst
several decades, and their impact on the school system
has been negligible. It has become cleJr that
trJnsforming the paradigm of schools is not a simple
job. Teachers, administrators, parents, policy-makers,
students, and all other stakeholder groups must work
together, as they CJnnot change such a complex
culture Jnd system alone. In order to transform our
schools to be truly learner-centered, a critical systems
apprmch to trJnsformJtion is essentia I.
The first article in this series (Reigeluth & Duffy,
20081 described the FutureMinds Jpproach for state
education departments to support this kind of change
in their school districts. The second article (Duffy &
Reigeluth, 2008b) described the School System
TransformJtion (SST) Protocol, J synthesis of current
knowledge Jbout how to help school districts use a
critical systems apprmch to transform themselves to
the learner-centered pJradigm of educJtion. Hopefully,
with stJte leJdership through FutureMinds, the critical
systems Jpprmch to educational change in the SST
Protocol, and the new knowledge about learner­
centered instruction, we will be Jble to create a better
pl,1Ce for our children to leJrn and grow. However, this
task will not he eJsy, One essentiJI ingredient for it to
succeed is the aVJil,lbility of powerful tools to help
teachers Jnd students in the leJrner-centered paradigm.
The fourth article in this series will Jddress this need. I I
References
;\LKOr!, R. I.. 11 'lB t I. Cleating thp corpor,ltp iulure. New York:
lohn \Vi Icy & Sons.
/\!<'x,llllier. P. A. '-, Murphy, P. K. (1993). The research base
tor APA\ le,lrllc'r-centcred psychological principJls. In
8. L. I\\C COIl1IJS IChair), Taking resparch on learning
Wlio(/slv: Im/llrc,ltions (or tpacher pduca!ion. Invited
svll1j1osiull1 at the Annual Meeting of the AmericJn
})<,ycho!ogilal Association. New Orlean<,.
AnwrlLln Psychological Association's Board of Educational
Aii,l i 1'<', Center for Psychology in Schools and Education.
(I ')'!71. Lealller-centered psychological principles; http://
\v\vw.ap'l.org/l'd/lcp2/lcp 14.html .
8ak(>r. F 119731. Organi7ational systems: Cenpral systems
appruaclw> to complex organizations. Homewood, IL: R. D.
Irwin.
Banathy, B. H. (1991). Systems design oi education: A
joullley to ((eate the iuture. Englewood Cliffs, Nj:
Educationa 1Technology Pub Iications.
Ban,lthy, B. H. (1992). A systems view oi education:
Concepts and prinLiples ior etTective practice. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Battino. W., & Clem, J. (2006). Systemic changes in the
Chugach School District. Tech Trends, 50(2), 51-52.
Bransford, L Brown, A., & Cocking, R. IEds.). (1999). Hmv
people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Caine, R. N. (2005). 12 brain/mind learning principles in
action: The iieldbook for making connections, teaching.
EDUCATIONAL TECH NOLOGY/September-October 2008
47
school districts. Sy.'tems I\esearch and Beha\'iora/ Sciel1ce,
and the hl/man brain. Thous,mel O'lks. CA: Corwin Press
Caine, R. N. (20061. Systeillic ch'lnges in public schools
through brZlin-b,lseelleZlrning. TcrhTrt'nc!.;.'(J121,32-C,3.
Caine, R. N., &: Cline, G. (1 997!. FC/l/Cdlion on Ihe t'c!ge o(
possibility. AlexJndrlJ, VA: Associ,ltion ior SUlwrvisio!l &
fJerson,llized ilwiling ,1Ild person'llized
I. DiM,lItino, J. (I,llkl', &: D. Wolk IEels.l,
teJching. In
Persona/i7C'(/ /eaming: f'rC'jJ,lIing higher !Joo/ ,'tuc!cnIS to
erl'dle thcir {ull/res. L'lnh'llll, Mi): SCell'l'CrcJW \'IC"S.
cxpcrienCl'. New York: H,l!lH'r 0.: Row.
,]f](/
\17 innoldlilP
11'1\'drcling /Je'dOrlJJdnCl' in
L,llllbert, 1\:. M., &. McCombs, B. IEels.i. (1998). flow student.;
/e,1I'n:
I\f'iorming
cc!u(,ltion.
school\
throu,gh
le,1I'ner-centered
DC: Aillerican Psychological
Washington,
McComhs, B" &: Whisler,
J.
(1997). The /eartJf'r-centeled class­
Dutiy, F. M., &: Rc'igclulh, C. M. I..!()()BI The school SVstl'lll
tr,lnsiollll,ltion ISSTI IJllllocol. [C/UI dlionel!
·+814 I, 41-4 1)
Rt'igl'luth,
In C
c:.
M. 119941. The imperative ior systemic change.
M,
Reigeluth &
R. ). G,lIiinkle rEels.), Systemic
c!ldnge in cc!ucdtion. Englewood C1ilis, N): EduGltional
IchcJO! \'Ystem.;. L'lnh'llll, MD: SC,lll'nmV l'rc",.
/c'clm%,pl,
Technology PulJlications.
C.
Reigl'luth,
M.
119lJ7i.
Education,ll
st,lrlcbrels:
To
stJnCI,Helizp Clr to customize le,lInlllg l I'hi Delld Kappdn,
DUV'll, f' .. Ilodgins, W., Rch'lk, D., ,\ Rol)',(Jll, R. 1..!()()41.
IJ"lllling OhjC'ltS "YIll\lo"iulll "IJC'ci,ll i',ue gLiI',1 eclitoll,ll.
/oumell 0/ [lllfldlfOnd/ ,\.lu//imcrlf,1 dlH! 1/I/JC'II!II'lhd, 1)141,
)31.
;"')1 ll, 202-20(1.
Rl'igc'luth,
C.
0.:
M.,
Dulty,
F.
M.
1200Hi. TI1('
AECT
Futurc'Mincls initiative: Tr'lnslOiming Anll'riccl\ school
sv"lcllls. hluc,llion,l/ 7('c!Jn%g}', cJ8'lJ, 4S-49.
Flooel, R. L. (I 'Jl)()i. LiIJI'I,lling w,lelll, Ihc'olv: Tmv,ml uitic,li
systems thinking. lIl/m,l/) l-!.ddliol1', cJ Jill, 4')-;-,.
Flood, R. L., 0.: lelcbon IV1. C. I I '!'! II.
I/[',II!\('
!Hohlt'l))
H,l!JelmelS, I II');-ll I/l('o!\ ,I/)c! 11I,l,li(I' II. ViCIII'i, TI,lll'.I.
f lelfwrlll,l'" l. (I 'Ji\4I, r!J(' Ihl'oll oi '(JlJ)fJJUnll ,J/iIC' ,Ietion:
I-!.ca,'o/) ,Inl/ Ihc rdllo/),lii/,l/ion o/,OC il'/I ',T. MI CHill\',
I. IllJ1\71. Ihl' I/II'()!I' o! «I/I/IJlIIIl/CdlfIC' dllion'
Lili'wmlcl ,/111/ ,'I',II'IIl: I Ililil/lIl'
()! !II/I<
11U1l,1/ Ic',),on IT.
J. (11)1)\1.
II !II,lnill ',10 101 /JlI,il1l 'Ie
I-!.C'l'll,pill"I'lill,p //l('
/( 'io/illion.
1\:1'1\' VOlk:
11.1(1)('r Busilll'c,s.
H,lllllllc'r, M.,
,,\: Ch,lllllw,
I. ,200 \1. 1-!.1'I'n,gin('I'ring
cOl/Jord/ion: 1\ !IIdni(",lo (or hu,iIlC'"
1/]('
Ic\'o/u/ion 11,t
H,lIJler Husilwc,s [s,c'nli,d, 1,llk. I'd. I. !\Ic'\\' Vwk: II.H[X'I
J)usinl'SS h"l'nti,ll".
H,lnnulll, VV. H., ,,\: McCoIllIJ',
f). I. !..!()(JBI, Enhdnc illg
IJlinciples. [(/u('llion,d /('( !Jn%,~I. cJ<'!' II, I ]2] .
c:.
(I'dc/H'rs,
/)(/OCljJd/S,
,JI]I/,u/H'lin/coc!('o/s.
S,ln
Fr,lnci,co: losse\,-f),ls,.
Sc'nge,
f),
ClllliJroll-McC11)(·,
N.,
LUCclS, 1.,
Smith,
13.,
(//.'I illii/H' t'il'!(/hook ICJI CI/UCdloIS, pd/rols, clncl ('v('ryooc
II'IW ld/('I dlloul Cc!ll1'd/ioo. Toronto: Currc'ncv.
Ilicll(hic,llly illllmlvl's sluclt'1l1 ,1C hievelllcnl. /OLfIll,d 01
[c!u(,lI/OOd/ PI)'c!w/ug\' ()Ol l I, 17 4-31l4.
TOllllillsoll,
c:.
Thl' ncc'd fw ,1 critic,ll ,1111 Jlc),lCh , Inlc'rtJ,lIlO!J,l! /oUln,)/ o(
Ncw York: 8,HllelIll.
The (!iill'II'oti,J!c(! c!,lssroom:
l\c'!JOo(/lI1g /0 the n('('c!s o{ ,)!! /c,Jr!wrs.
AIe'Xelnclri,l,
Curricululll
Assmi,llioll
tor
Supelvi'ioll
elml
[)evl' Iop III cn t.
TOIllIIINJIl, C. A. (2001)
io
miwI/-d/JiIJI\'
Ilo\\' to l/ilic'lcllticl/e ;l1Sttuetion
c!elss/()O{]]S
1~e,sOCi,ltion
lor
121ld
l'II.L
AIc'x,lndri,l,
Supc'rvisioll
,1Ild
Curriculum
[)('Vl' I01'1ll I'll t.
TOlllliIlSOIl,
c:.
A. 1201HJ. fu/{i/liog Ihc fJ/()mise o{ (Ile
l/iI'(c/('oti,llcI/
11 ')Wi I. Soci,li sv,lclll' theOl\ ,1Ilci [n,ll ticl':
I\'<I\'C.
A. 119')'!1.
VI~:
VA:
rlist,lnce Ic,lIning fOl 1()(1,1I\ youth I\'lth 1e',lIncH'cnterl'd
I,lcbon, M.
ior
Toillel, A. (I '!Il,-II. 7he thire/
McClithy, TI,1I1S. I. J)o,ton: He,ll on l'rc's,.
CO! por,H ion:
SI hlechly, 1'. C. 120021. \V()/king on Ihc Ivo/k 1\0 dllioo p!dO
SIC'IIlIJl'lg, R., Tmll, I)., ,,\: Crigorcllko, E. (1 '!91lL TC'elching
Tr,lnS.I. Boslllll: f)c,lIOll l're".
M., ,,\: Chellll!!Y,
,I ')1)71. Invcnting hcller slhoo!s: I\n delion
[)ullon, I., 0.: Kleiner, A. 120001. Sc!)()o/s Illdt /edll1: 1\ (iith
I)o"ton: 1)C',llon I'll'"".
H,llwrll1,l',
c:.
SI hll'chlv, I)
/ll,]n !iJl Cclucdlllm,l/ II'lcJlI!I. S,lIl Fr,lllcisco: lossey-BJss.
solving: lold/ ,\plclJJ' 1I111'!\C'fJl!on. '""C'II Vmk: \Ohll \Vill'l
,mel Son,.
re"po/l'il'C'
c/,lss/()om.
tE"lching.
Slrdtcgics
,)1](/
/\!exelndri'l, VA:
(oo/s
Associ,ltioll
{or
for
SUIJI'l'visiun ,lncl CurricLilulll Developillellt.
Ulrich, VV. (1 YHll. Criticd/ hl'Ulistics u( ,()(ia/ p/annlng: (~
(;C'l1el,lIS\"/I'nl', lOlli, US-lSI.
),lc\.;son, M. C. 11'!'!1,11. The origins ,lIlcll1dtWl' 01 critical ,vs­
Il'lllS thinking. Systcm, I'i<lclil C', cJI2 i, 1 ll-14').
IWI\, dfJproach 10 plactlCol/ philosophy. Bern, Swit7erlelnd:
H,lUpt.
jack,on, M. C. (] l)91 bi. Po,t-Illodl'rtlislll end lllnlelllpOl,lr\
systems thinking. In R. C. Flood & M. C. j'lckson IFrls.l,
Critic,l/ systems Ihinkin,g IPIJ. 2IF-\02I. New Vork: John
Wiley 0.: Sons.
Vvgotskv,
L. 11 ')[\6i.
Thought and /dngu,lge IA.
(1996). An expedition tm ch'lilge. !f'chTrcnl/', ,,)1111,21­
3O.
lenlink, P. M., Reigeluth, c:. M, CHI, A A, &: Nelson, L. M.
(19981. Guidelinl's ior i,lCilitating systeillic ch,1I1ge in
Kozulin,
Tr,lnS.I. ClllllJridge, MA: MIT Press (origim I work puhlished
19261.
WJtson, S. L., Watson. W.,
jenlink, IJ t'v'1., Reigl'lulh, C. M., Cm, A. A., ,,\: Nc'lson, L. M.
48
Kede, W" &. Jenkins, J. (2002). A srecial section on personal­
room anc! school. S,ln Fr,lncisco: Jossey-BJss.
Dufiy, F. M. 120()21. StC!J LiIJ To 1'\('('//('1]( C"
1Llrllllwr,
,20071. WhJt is personalizJtion? Phi Delta Kappan,
As'ociJtion.
CsikS/'entmih'llyi, M. (1 9')()1. r/mL r/J(' IJ\lc!J%g) o( ojJtim,l/
,1IJ!JrOdC!J to IJJcmeiging
J.
,sl)r31, 21 ;--223.
ized instruction. Phi De/ta Kappan. 83(6), 44lJ-448.
Curricu Ium Devel 0IJ!lwnt.
CI,Hke, ). (20031.
75131,217-233.
Keele,
&: Reigeluth, C. M. (2008).
SystC'llls design lor ch'lIlge in education Jnd training. In
j. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill.
Driscoll
(Ecls.),
J.
van Merrienhoer, & M. P.
Handbook o( resealch tCJ( educational
communicatio!J.\ and technology Urel ed.).
New York:
Routleclge/L'll\'rence Erihauill AssociJtes.
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY/September-October 2008