When I began my journey as an educator, I was taught to “teach down the middle”, with the justification that it is most efficient to teach to the “average” student. Philosophically, this concept concerned me. I worried that many students would be left in the dark. When I inquired as to the best way to meet the needs of students who did not fit the mold of what was considered the “typical” student, I was told to do two things. For those students who comprehended and completed assignments quickly after direct instruction, more work should be provided. And for the students who were not yet able to demonstrate understanding of their learning via the worksheet provided after direct instruction and during guided practice, I was to “reteach” the lesson in a small group.

Doesn’t Practice Make Perfect?

I implemented this strategy as I was guided to do. Whenever possible, I spent time outside of school hours reteaching struggling students. I ran out of paper and the number of copies I had been allotted and begged for more. “Surely more practice is the key to success,” I thought. I copied more decodable readers. I spent my prep periods and breaks writing sight words on index cards. As students watched home games on Fridays I meticulously circled incorrect answers on their timed math facts pages, so that they could correct and then practice over the weekend. I worked far beyond my contracted hours. I did this because had a belief in my students, a passion for providing them as many opportunities to succeed as possible. And I did not yet know of an alternate way to guide their learning.

I felt like I was running on a hamster wheel, and so were my students.

The learners in my classroom were always busy, always “working”, but were they thinking, was relevant learning occurring?

It did not take me long to realize that this method was not ideal. Something needed to change.

Proactive vs. Reactive Approach

In his Ted Talk The Myth of Average Todd Rose remarks, “If you design those learning environments on average, odds are you’ve designed them for nobody”. I had developed lessons to meet the so-called typical student, in alignment to a pacing guide. I had implemented “backwards planning”, beginning with standards to be mastered by the end of the year and pacing out the year accordingly so that the “middle” students would reach proficiency. When students did not keep up with my pacing guide, I reacted after the fact. I intervened. I spent extra time reteaching. I assigned more work.

There had to be a better way.

I decided to make a radical change in the way I designed learning experiences. Rather than teaching to average, which itself is a myth, I began with my learners themselves. Growth for each student became more important to me than a pacing guide. In order to make a difference with each student, I needed to build relationships. I began to ditch worksheets and provide more open-ended work that encouraged students to express their individuality and reveal strengths.

Relevant Authentic Tasks > Worksheets Without Context

All of my young students were learning to write. But each was at a different developmental level. Rather than preparing whole class work on a particular set of sight words, spelling words, and grammar “rules” (many of which are constantly broken anyway!), I began to provide students daily time to write in a journal. The format was letters to me. Each day students could write anything they would like me to know. They could even make up stories that were not true. There was a given time for students to write, not a number of words or sentences for which to comply. Some students would begin with a pencil sketch and then write a couple of words or a sentence below, others would entire paragraphs. A few students found that it was most helpful for them to briefly speak with a partner about their idea before beginning to write.

Each week, I would read and respond to at least one written entry. Students would place a star by any entry they wanted me to be sure to read. As I read the journal entries, I gained invaluable information. I learned about the video games students played, the pets they loved, the foods they enjoyed eating, the frustrations they faced at school and at home. This allowed me to build relationships via authentic conversations. And I sought connections between the content I was to teach and relevance to my students’ lives.

I no longer taught to the average. In addressing spelling, grammar, and complex sentences, I used my responses in student journals to model. I did not explicitly teach the entire class how to spell the word “because”. And I did not cross out a misspelled word in a student’s journal with a red pen. Rather, my response to students’ individual entries would have the correct spelling. Many times students would use this correct spelling on a future entry. If this did not occur, I asked the student if they noticed anything about my response. This prompted metacognition and fostered self-reflection.

It’s Neuroscience

I now realize that the shift in my teaching, toward personalization and away from “average”, is backed by neuroscience as evidenced in the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework. This is why it worked so well. Students’ neural networks were activated when I ditched worksheets and focused on designing authentic learning experiences. In empowering students with open-ended tasks, I spent less time at the copy machine. My time was no longer spent reteaching. It was spent providing specific, personalized feedback to each learner. Each student felt validated as an individual with a unique voice. Learners had options as to not only what to write, but also regarding how to begin the process.

I encourage you to design learning experiences for the learners in front of you, not for a mythical average student. Provide options, free yourself from the copy machine, and build relationships to better serve the learners you are called to reach this year.