My Head Hurts

Today I received an ad for a new book titled “How to Teach So Students Remember”. I get lots of similar promotions but there was something about this one that caught my eye. And made my head hurt.

The first line of the description of the publications makes this declaration:

Ensuring that the knowledge teachers impart is appropriately stored in the brain and easily retrieved when necessary is a vital component of instruction.

The copy goes on to promise that the author will provided you with “a proven, research-based, easy-to-follow framework for doing just that”.

There is just so much wrong with everything in the space of one small email, it’s hard to know where to start.

How about the apparent core idea that the goal of good teaching is to have students “remember” all that we “impart” to them? Reflecting the traditional role of the teacher as someone who transfers information in carefully measured clumps from their tightly managed repository to the vessels sitting in the classroom.

And, in the same sentence, is the implication that success is derived from knowledge being “appropriately stored in the brain” and “easily retrieved when necessary”. I can only assume that the most important “necessary” time is the spring standardized tests.

Ok, all that snark is only based on a couple of paragraphs in an email. I haven’t read the actual book, although I did read through the first chapter posted on the web. And just that part certainly lives up to the promotion. Research-based pedagogy right out of a 50’s-era manual for running a traditional teacher-directed classroom.

I just couldn’t believe this is being peddled as a guide for modern teaching by one of the largest professional organizations for educators, the Association for Supervision and Curriculum (ASCD).


An image similar to the one at the top just stuck in my head from the minute I read the ad copy. The picture, taken in 1943, is of a classroom in a UK Catholic school and is used under license from the Wikimedia Commons

Digital Conversion

In the last few years, many districts in this area have been promoting a “digital transformation” in their schools, including Fairfax, the system that employed me for many years. It’s a nice phrase and one that is often linked to 1-1 programs. But what does the phrase really mean? What exactly is going to be transformed?

Dig into the plans – posted on websites, presented at conferences, explained in conversations – and you hear a lot of elements not related to learning. The discussion is about technology and support issues: What device should we buy? Do we have enough bandwidth? We need more power outlets. How do we pay for all this? What happens if a student does something wrong with the machine we’re handing them?

Almost completely missing is an explanation of the major changes that will come in curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, or pretty much anything else instructional, as a result of buying all the equipment, software, and infrastructure.

Ok, I know transformations like this take time, especially in a tradition-bound institution like American education. And I’m also sure this kind of external communication doesn’t cover all the pieces districts are considering in their planning.

So, at the risk of covering issues already being addressed, I have a few questions for districts and schools undergoing a digital transformation.

How are you planning to change the curriculum teachers and students will be working with?

Shouldn’t the concept of learning change when information is no longer scarce? When the process of “teaching” is no longer one way from teacher to student? Asking students to recreate the same research papers their parents wrote makes no sense. Plodding through sheets of problems that their phones could solve in seconds, and which add nothing to their understanding of mathematics, wastes everyone’s time.

Are you providing enough support and time for teachers to learn the pedagogy to accompany all the digital?

Managing computers in the classroom is important. Knowing how to work Google Classroom or Office 365 is certainly part of the mix. But using Google is not necessarily transformative. Shifting the standard assignments from paper to digital is not at all transformative. And it’s going to take a lot of time for teachers (measured in years, not semesters) to make the major alterations to their practice that takes complete advantage of the new opportunities available in their classroom.

How will evaluation change to match the transformed expectations for learning?

Certainly there is basic knowledge and fundamental skills that we should expect any educated person in our society to know. Beyond that, digital tools allow for exploring the personal interests and talents that all students bring to school. So how do we assess their learning of both the essential materials and their individual goals? It’s not through standardized tests and we need to figure it out if this transformation is ever going to happen.

And finally, where are the students in your transformational planning?

Educators talk all the time about how the kids are the most important part of school. However, we rarely include them in any of these discussions. Not with surveys. Not by asking their opinion about school rules. Not with a few focus groups once most of the plans are in place. Students need to be at the table when we are finding the answers to all of the questions above. It’s their education. They will benefit most from their work in school (or possibly benefit very little). They need to have an equal voice.

This is just a start. There are many, many other questions that need to be asked, all part of the process of creating real change.

Because if you are using technology to digitize the same old learning process, what you get is a digital conversion, not a transformation.

Adding 2.0 Doesn’t Make It Personal

We’ve had Web 2.0, School 2.0, and a variety of other 2.0s. Now we get Blended 2.0.

According to Wikipedia, blended learning is “a formal education program in which a student learns at least in part through delivery of content and instruction via digital and online media with some element of student control over time, place, path, or pace”.

So what changes in the 2.0 version? Here is what the experts quoted in the article have to say:

A blended 2.0 model allows us to personalize learning at the highest level so that we can truly meet the needs of students every day.

If you define blended learning in the first iteration as a combination of technology and print then what we are seeing when you marry 2.0 personalization with the Common Core standards are more authentic activities in the classroom.

I think it would be fair to say blended learning 2.0 models are powering personalization.

It also means deeper instruction focused on projects and collaboration, says Anthony Kim, founder and CEO of Education Elements, a personalized learning company that works with districts nationwide. [all my emphasis]

However, “personalized” learning should not be confused with personal learning.

As I’ve ranted before, personalized is something done to students, not by them. Personalized learning is the traditional curriculum, broken into uniform, bite-sized pieces that are dispensed as needed by the teacher or software. Very often the packages are sold to schools by vendors promising to provide the “solution” to whatever educational problem you have. The 2.0 twist being that those packages (and testing; don’t forget the testing) are delivered over the web (teacher optional).

Although students may have some control over “time, place, path, or pace” in this model, they have no input whatsoever into the content. What they learn is entirely determined by someone else, with no consideration for their special interests or talents. The material is structured in the same way for everyone in the class (probably still chronologically grouped) and they all eventually get the same instructional program.

Which is not at all personal, only ized.