Custom Styles

All Learning is Social

Learning is often framed as an individual pursuit, with students expected to demonstrate personal competence through grades, tests, and assignments. While individual assessments and achievements are undeniably important, focusing solely on solitary learning methods—such as worksheets, homework, online modules, or one-on-one tutoring—can overlook the fundamental truth about human nature: we are social beings. Learning thrives in social contexts, where interaction, collaboration, and shared experiences amplify understanding and retention.

The Social Nature of Learning

Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory emphasizes that individuals learn by observing, imitating, and interacting with others. This theory challenges the notion that learning is purely internal and individual. Instead, it highlights the importance of social dynamics in shaping knowledge and behavior. Humans are wired to learn through modeling others’ actions, sharing ideas, asking questions, and brainstorming solutions together.

In primary grades, social learning is often celebrated. Group activities, play-based learning, and peer collaboration dominate classrooms as children build foundational skills through interaction. However, as students progress into higher grades or adult training programs, the emphasis on social learning diminishes. Students are given packets to complete alone. Homework is done in solitude. Online modules are self-paced but often devoid of interaction. Even tutoring, while supportive, is often one-on-one and disconnected from collaborative thinking. There is a place for quiet reflection and personal mastery. But the overuse of isolated tasks neglects how we learn best: through interaction, exchange, and connection.

Middle schoolers need social learning just as much as kindergarteners. So do high schoolers. And adults in training programs. Whether in the trades, in tech, or in teacher preparation—people learn more deeply when they engage with others. Talking through a challenge helps clarify thinking. Watching how someone else solves a problem opens new pathways. Teaching a concept to a peer strengthens understanding more than reading it alone.

Social learning doesn’t mean sacrificing rigor. It means raising the bar by giving learners a chance to co-construct knowledge, to explain and justify their thinking, to listen and grow. It encourages students to ask for help without fear, to brainstorm together, to build not just academic skill—but confidence, empathy, and communication.

If we want learners who are ready for the real world, we must remember that the real world is not a silent room with a worksheet. It’s collaborative.

Cultivate Social Learning Opportunities

We need to consciously work on seeing learning socially throughout the entire learning journey, from kindergarten to continuing education. This means:

Incorporating more group projects and collaborative assignments.
Creating opportunities for peer teaching and mentorship.
Fostering classroom discussions and debates.
Using technology to connect learners and facilitate online collaboration.
Encouraging a culture of asking questions and seeking help.
Designing professional development programs that prioritize interaction and knowledge sharing.
Design lessons integrating modeling behaviors, role-playing activities, and collaborative problem-solving exercises.

Conclusion

While individual competence remains a cornerstone of education systems, it should not come at the expense of social learning opportunities. Humans learn best when immersed in interactive environments that encourage collaboration and shared growth. We can create more engaging and effective learning experiences that align with our inherently social nature by reintegrating social learning practices into higher grades and adult education programs. After all, “all learning is social.”

Resolved: To Be Positive and Appreciative

I always think of myself as a positive person. When confronted with problems or issues, I usually strive to control my emotions, reason, and be optimistic about moving forward. Friends and colleagues often refer to me as the “glass-half-full guy.” However, lately, I find myself more often discouraged and less optimistic. I am perhaps spending more time keeping current with news concerning the events in the world. The negative nature captures the media headlines, whether in the economy, politics, or social behavior. My environment has also changed since I am no longer working full time, which gave me opportunities to meet many new people and observe many different schools. Those personal observations provide a more accurate perspective and make us realize that there are vastly more positive experiences in the world than negative ones. When you lack first-hand observations and rely on the media for your information, you have no personal experiences the counter the negative. It tends to make you more cynical, and it takes willpower to maintain that positive attitude.

As I reflect on the decades of my education experience, I can see progress in many areas and hope that my contributions have positively impacted some. Yet, there remains much to do in improving student achievement, particularly in the wake of the pandemic. The media points out student achievement declines and increasing demographic gaps. Parents are frustrated, and teachers and administrators are burned out. It is easy for education and political leaders to propose solutions to these problems with government tools, primarily money and regulation. While regulation and money are essential, they are not the most effective way to forge a path to improvement.

One of my past educator experiences was visiting several outstanding high schools in this country. With my colleagues, we reflected on the common characteristics of these exceptional schools. What made them different? They served challenging populations that many schools do, yet they did not suffer the same problems. They were highly effective. The most common characteristic seen in all schools was the remarkably high level of staff collaboration driven by leadership and positive personal and professional values. This collaboration enabled groups of teachers to solve problems and create innovations, often without going through a chain of command or higher leadership to get permission. They knew the organization’s goals and the leadership vision and constantly worked to increase its effectiveness.

This aspect of frontline problem-solving to improve organizations, as I saw in these high-performing schools, is not a unique nor an original approach. One of the organizational models which takes this approach is appreciative inquiry. In contrast to a traditional problem-solving model, which defines the problem, identifies potential solutions, and picks a solution to move forward, the appreciative inquiry takes a broader approach. Instead of focusing on the often negative situation, the appreciative inquiry model focuses on what works well within the organization and how those successful practices could be expanded or modified to address the problem. It takes an approach of problem-solving from focusing on the positive rather than dwelling on the negative. You can learn more about appreciative inquiry from this video or some of the many publications.

In the new year, I am resolving not to let the challenging issues in education and society dim my positivity. Despite the many challenges in education, thousands of teachers do great work with students every day. I resolve to appreciate their work and find ways to support it and replicate that in every classroom in a school. In my writing, I constantly remind myself of all the good things happening in education and continuously ask questions about how those positive practices can be expanded to benefit more students.

The Education Treadmill

I don’t care for treadmills; for several reasons. First, despite the potential fitness benefits of running on a moving platform, treadmills are a dull routine, pushing a demanding pace, and there is always a danger of falling. Education today has become a treadmill. The day-to-day experience in secondary and post-secondary education has become, for many students, a relentless pace of running in search of a goal with little change of scenery—course after course after course with tests in between. Most have unclear relevance to the world outside. Students are pushed to “stick with it,” for the more education you get, the better your chance for career success. To a certain extent, that correlation is accurate. We spotlight those professionals who complete the treadmill education journey and move into well-paying jobs. But what about the students who don’t complete, that fall off and never finish? The students who give up are the vast majority of our youth. What are they prepared for? Those that don’t make it receive a smirk from those who did, just as we chuckle at the novice jogger who falls off the actual treadmill. There must be something wrong with them.

Alarming statistics on youth unemployment released this week by the New York City Comptroller’s Office triggered my thoughts about what role education has played in creating this problem. The report states that unemployment among 16- to 24-year-olds stands at nearly 18% in the city, as compared to about 9% in the rest of New York state and 8% nationally. In comparison, overall unemployment is currently 5.6% in New York City and 3.4% in the nation. In addition, the unemployment rates for young Black (18.5%), Hispanic (23.3%), and Asian (23.3%) workers in the city are higher than their white (16.2%) counterparts.

Youth unemployment is always the highest demographic. However, this should raise the alarm for the future of these youth and the economy, even more so in the vast NYC economic engine. . Several economic factors, such as the pandemic, and rising minimum wage, likely contribute to this concerning number. However, educators should not ignore any responsibility for this dilemma. Unfortunately, most educators remain focused on running the “treadmill” and blame this issue on a lack of employer altruism and poor personal decisions.

Too many youth in this unemployed pool lack a career focus, technical skills, and work habits to make them productive employees. As a result, employers are reluctant to hire. The education treadmill did not work well for the unemployed. A limited number of NYC secondary students had access to programs such are Career and Technical Education early-college technical programs like P-TECH, or work-based learning. These career-focused programs work closely with employers and community organizations to better prepare students to transition to the work world before or after college. Unfortunately, most students in school follow almost an anti-career focus that seems like a treadmill of only preparing students to jog on to the next level of education. The measures of success are passing exams, earning credits, and grade point average, all education constructs disconnected from the real world.

Schooling has value, but students deserve a more career focus in school to discover their interests and aptitudes. Deciding on careers is a gradual decision rather than keeping pace on the education treadmill to college graduation and then looking around for employment.

Following are some thoughts for each of us in erasing this image of an education treadmill to a dynamic system where all youth are the most prepared for 21st Century employment.

Education policy and political leaders need to place a stronger emphasis on career-focused education and provide incentives to remove barriers to innovative programs.
Educators need to acknowledge that all students need a career focus, and it is not something for a student who chooses not to attend college. Attending college should be a means to a career goal and not an end goal. Teachers, as successful college graduates, quickly encourage students to attend college. However, teachers should become familiar with and advocate for the multiple learning career options for students.
Parents should encourage their children toward continuous learning to provide choices in life and speak up about schooling that does not exhibit rigor or relevance.
Employers should acknowledge their role in preparing future workers by partnering with schools to provide work-based learning opportunities and supporting career programs.

Tarnishing the “Gold Standard”

The New York State Board of Regents is engaged in discussion and feedback on high school graduation requirements. This effort started three years ago but was delayed due to the pandemic. One of the more controversial issues is what to do about the “Regents Exams.”

The new single set of tests would be different, but the question for staff was what to name the new tests. The decision was not to create a new name for the new tests but to continue to call them Regents exams because the term Regents Exam has automatic respect. I recall someone mentioning that it was the “Gold Standard” of assessments. During that discussion, I questioned requiring every student to pass the test to get a diploma. Instead, I suggested requiring the tests and closely examining schools that gave diplomas to many students with low scores. The group quickly overruled my opinion.

The new exams were different while still having the same Regents name. Since it was universally required and tied to earning a diploma, it demanded pedagogical, legal, psychometrically, and political changes. The tests changed from fixed scoring, where 100 meant 100% of answers were correct, to scale scoring, meaning your performance met a standard considering question difficulty. Further confusing this change is that the scale score was based on a 100-point scale rather than a 4-point scale typically used in scaled achievement tests. Over time there were debates over cut scores. Should it be the same for students with disabilities? Is there a different level for excellence or college readiness? Cut scores have been a moving target over the last few years.

Some vocal critics claim these exams, of which students must pass five separate exams to earn a diploma, are artificial, outdated, and arbitrary hurdles that prevent students from earning a diploma. Many educators admit the exams have become amplified in importance, demanding too much attention by “teaching to the test” and evaluating teacher and principal effectiveness on pass rates. Those on the side of retaining the exams insist there must be standard measures of learning outcomes to hold the school accountable.

A portion of my education career was spending two decades working in the New York State Education Department. I left the department in 2000 so I can claim no credit or receive any blame for policies enacted in the last 20 years. However, I was involved in the staff discussions in the mid 90’s when the policy of exams and graduation requirements were changed. At that time New York had two sets of high school exams. One was the optional Regents exams in various subjects which had a century-old history of being rigorous measures of students learning. The other set of tests were newer and were considered lower level assessments. The Board of Regents changed the exam policy and felt that this two-tier system perpetuated inequity in schools, often along racial and economic lines.

I spent two decades working in the New York State Education Department as a portion of my education career. I left the department in 2000, so I can claim no credit or receive any blame for policies enacted in the last 20 years. However, in the mid-’90s, I was involved in staff discussions of exams, graduation policies, and requirements. At that time, New York had two sets of high school exams. One was the optional Regents exams in various subjects, which had a century-old history of rigorous measures of student learning. The other set of tests was newer and was considered lower-level assessments. The Board of Regents changed the exam policy and felt that this two-tier system perpetuated inequity in schools, often along racial and economic lines.

Well, the new exams, while still the same Regents name were different. Since it was universally required and tied to earning a diploma it demanded changes pedagogically, legally, psychometrically and politically. The tests changed from fixed scoring where 100 meant 100% of answers correct to scale scoring meaning your performance met a standard considering question difficulty. Further confusing this change is that the scale score was based on a 100 point scale rather than a 4 point scale typically used in scaled achievement tests. Over time there were debates over cut scores. Should it be the same for students with disabilities? Is there a different level for excellence or college readiness. Cut scores have been a moving target over the last few year.

As a result of these changes, which seemed like logical decisions at the time, we find that the Regents Exams are no longer the Gold Standard. But they have evolved into a complex mishmash of education jargon and demand inflated importance in high school learning. As a result, local decision-making and the body of work that students undertake in high school are ignored. Instead, it is all about the tests.

I doubt the Regents Exams will survive in this discussion. I proudly recall studying for, taking, and passing high school Regents exams when I was in high school 60 years ago. But, unfortunately, the current version does not generate public confidence or good educational purpose.

I am a supporter of tests; research has shown that well-designed assessments contribute to high levels of student achievement. However, tying the Regents exams as a graduation requirement has led to too many unintended negative consequences. The high school diploma should be based on the larger body of student work. Not all of that work is the same for each student. Some exams should be part of that body of work regardless of name. Finally, the state should refrain from punishing students by denying diplomas to students who fail to meet standards on state tests. Instead, the state’s role should be to hold accountable schools that award diplomas to students with low achievement rates.