The Gallup report Creativity in Learning is based on a survey conducted in 2019 as a “nationally representative study” of teachers, students, and parents of students. The focus was the extent to which “creativity in learning” is being fostered in American classrooms, what respondents think of it, and how technology supports it. Project Based Learning is cited throughout the report.

Here are some highlights via PBLWorks:

“Teachers who often assign creative, project-based activities are more likely than other teachers to say their students display a range of learning and development goals, including building self-confidence, utilizing their unique strengths, and developing critical thinking and problem-solving skills.”

“68% percent of teachers say project-based assignments are a good measure of student learning, far more than the 12% at who say the same about standardized tests.”

Raise your hand if you’ve ever held a big ol’ floppy disk before!

If I could look through this screen I’d see a lot of hands held high :)

Way before we all had three devices on us (yea, I see you with the watch, phone, and laptop over there).

And way before we used computers for work, communication, research, writing, music, art and thousands of other creative pursuits.

There was Oregon Trail.

A few weeks ago I was leading a workshop with a local school that was focused on engaging learners in an era of distraction. It was our second session together and we were trying to answer this question:

What does it look like to teach (and learn) in a world of distraction and engage in a world of artificial intelligence?

What followed was partly inspired by Trevor Ragan’s amazing video on Zoo Tigers and Jungle Tigers, but also involved a learning sprint connected to the Gradual Release of Responsibility, with the goal of transfer.

I break it all down in this latest video below. Share your feedback on the video if you can, I’d love to hear your thoughts!

You’ve probably heard of the “Gradual Release of Responsibility” Model. If not, you’ve at least been shown the cliff notes version: “I do, we do, you do”.

The term "Gradual Release of Responsibility" (GRR) and its associated process in education were coined and developed by P. David Pearson and Margaret Gallagher in 1983. These researchers from the University of Illinois introduced this concept in a report that has since become widely influential in the field of education.

Pearson and Gallagher's model was loosely based on the ideas of Russian educational theorist Lev Vygotsky. They envisioned an instructional approach that would transition from explicit modeling and instruction by the teacher to guided practice, and eventually to activities that incrementally positioned students as independent learners.

The goal and focus of their model is to transfer the responsibility of learning from mentor (teacher) to mentee (student). This transfer of responsibility takes place over various timeframes, such as a day, a week, or even a semester, depending on the complexity of the task and the needs of the learners.

My daughter is in 3rd grade. She loves learning (seriously, she comes home every day excited about writing stories, diving into multiplication, a piece of art she made, or something she learned while in school). 

She has a great class with good friends and a safe place to learn, imagine, create, and explore.

I know that we are lucky and she is lucky to have this learning experience.

Yet, in a conversation with my daughter at the end of last year, I realized something.

She was already playing the game of school.

And, at 8 years old, she knew the rules.

I distinctly remember taking part in the Classrooms for the Future Grant as a new teacher, and having a Smartboard and Laptop cart in the classroom.

Everything I had previously used as a teacher now seemed obsolete. It changed my entire practice, and the learner experience.

We had a training that year on the SAMR Model, and I quickly made the connection to my classroom. The new technology was often augmenting and modifying my old practices. It was rarely redefining, but when it did, great learning happened!

Flash forward two decades.

We are undergoing another massive shift along the SAMR Model. Artificial Intelligence tools and features are starting to completely shake things up in K-12 and Higher Ed institutions.

Yet, this time it feels a bit different. It feels like we are missing a level on SAMR.

Imagine, for a moment, you are a student.

You just got home after a full day at school. You took the bus to an away game, played and watched another game, took the bus back. Your parent is out, so you are helping younger siblings get dinner and ready for bed.

It’s late, you are tired, and remember all the homework you still have to do.

Your phone is dinging with messages and Snapchat notifications.

Your friend reminds you that you don’t really need to do all 30 math questions for homework, you can just pop open Photomath and jot down the work and answers.

What do you do?

Imagine this.

You are taking an online graduate school course. After a few weeks, you see that the majority of this course is asynchronous. You have to do some readings, complete discussion board posts, and replies. Write a few essays in response to prompts, and of course take a few quiz-like assessments.

You open up your local AI Agent on your computer and give it instructions: Every week, log onto my school’s Learning Management System (Canvas, Schoology, Google Classroom, etc) and complete all of the assignments listed in the course’s calendar. For longer assessments and essays, please email me the rough draft before submitting so I can edit if need be.

Sam Altman, CEO of now for-profit OpenAI, recently laid out a case for the dawn of the “Intelligence Age”. In his remarks, he touched on some of the impacts artificial intelligence could and might have on learning, education, and schooling.

As both a Dad of five kids still in school (I’ve got kids from 15 down to 3, so I’m in it for the long haul), and as an educator working with K-12 and Higher Ed teachers/faculty all around the country—something made me a bit uneasy about jumping into this future.

It’s not the artificial intelligence per se. I’ve written about the ways I already see AI helping some educators save time, and create more meaningful learning experiences for our students. I’ve personally used A.I. in some amazing ways that I’ve written about on this blog.

Here’s the issue: Are we talking about what’s next?

The extent to which Gen Z K-12 students feel hopeful about and prepared for their future is linked to how engaged they feel in the classroom. Unfortunately, fewer than two in 10 students strongly agree that what they are learning in class feels important, interesting, challenging or aligned with their natural talents.

This disconnect is especially high among students who do not want to attend college, and previous Gallup research finds that engagement declines as students advance along their K-12 journeys.

Just as Scantron cornered the market for cheaper, easier, and more efficient ways to grade student assessments, we now have A.I. entering the chat (see what I did there).

It’s no secret the SAT, ACT, AP exams, and numerous state tests have already moved towards online computer-based and A.I. grading, while most others will soon follow.

Maybe they aren’t calling it “A.I. grading”, but let’s be real: Computers, and algorithms, are doing the work.

Not everyone is happy about this change from a “scantron + human” method of grading standardized assessments.

Our plates are full.

And, when someone (including us sometimes) adds something more to our plates, we often keep everything else we already have stacked on that plate.

It becomes impossible to juggle all the responsibilities, but maybe even more importantly, it takes away the energy that is needed to handle everything we need to do in a day.

This cycle repeats, and when more and more is added to our plates, our energy continually is spread thin.

In looking for guidance on how to handle this reality, I recently read, The Power of Full Engagement: Managing Energy, Not Time, is the Key to High Performance and Personal Renewal by Tony Schwartz and Jim Loehr.  The authors make the case that engagement is tied directly to our energy levels. That energy (not time or any other factor) contributes to whether or not we have a full level of attention and commitment.