A Rant

There are times when I wonder if pursuing a doctoral degree is really for me. Reading the last few chapters of “How People Learn” once again flared up those feelings. I have mixed reactions to the tone of HPL. On one hand much of the information presented in the book is engaging and appropriate. On the other hand, I have always been bugged by the book’s seeming detachment from the practice of teaching. Much of the research seems to be about one step removed from the realities of teaching. The phrase, research for the sake of research, consistently rang in my head.

However, I mostly tamped down these impulses. After all, as stated in the book, and many other sources, the practice of teaching should become more “research based” then it is presently. I fully agree with that statement. Even if one sees teaching as an art, the teacher is an artist that should be fully versed in technique. Yet, this statement, “Research must be done on effective methods of communicating these ideas to teachers, administrators and policy makers” truly got my blood boiling.

Kids all across this country are in terrible schools, right now. I am not interested in the future directions of research; I am interested in the current state of practice. What amazes me is that we largely know how to help these kids. The reasons we don’t are largely political and cultural. The fact that we still have more to learn about how people learn, has very little to do with the quality of education that students are currently receiving. However, too many of the “experts” in education are busy researching “effective methods of communicating these ideas” in other words performing “research for the sake of research.” Believe me there are plenty of people who are quite effective communicating their ideas. Perhaps, the proceeds of the book should go toward hiring them and not on more research.

This focus on growing healthier trees while ignoring the health of the forest may be a reason changes are so slow to be enacted in schools. Reading HPL, it was difficult even in the scope of one owns mind, to draw a complete picture. Imagine trying to apply such wisdom across a school of 2,000 pupils while facing budgetary constraints. It is no wonder that these techniques tend to be tried piecemeal, since that is largely how they are presented (despite all best intentions). It is therefore, small wonder that these piecemeal implementations often fail causing teachers and administrators on the ground to be suspicious of “fads.”

This is not to say that the study of human learning is not important. It is critically important to know how humans learn when designing instructional systems, and curriculums. These are after all the building blocks of our educational system. However, effective instructional systems and curriculums cannot exist in a vacuum. We all answer to the system in which we function. Research itself is not an agent of change, only an ingredient. All students deserve a chance to learn now. We cannot hesitate.

Technology Literacy

As someone who taught technology education, I have a different perspective on the integration of technology in the classroom. To me technology is more of a process then an artifact. Technology is not only the use of tools, but also the creation of tools to solve problems. If this is the case, as I believe it is, what impact does this perspective have in how we utilize technology to support learning? I believe that there needs to be a fundamental shift in the way educators view technology. Too often technology is seen as a value added commodity in the classroom, we must instead being to look at technology as an intergraded, I would argue even interdisciplinary partner for our lessons (Grasha & Yangarber-Hicks, 2000).

When justifying to my fifth graders why we would be spending substantial time in my class away from the computer I would pose this question, “What is a more important piece of technology a hammer or a computer?” With a little coaxing I could usually spark a fairly robust conversation. In the same vane technology is supporting learning in ways we don’t ever think about. Before pencils and paper became inexpensive enough to use in the classroom, children would carry slate and chalk to complete their lessons. Take a moment to consider the “integration” of the pencil. New psycho-motor skills had to be mastered so students could grasp and manipulate the slender long pencil. Also, new classroom procedures had to be implemented to manage resources such as paper and sharpeners. However, also consider how the pencil must have changed the way learning took place. Exercises could be longer and summative assessment achieved more easily.

As the pencil became commonplace it almost certainly altered the way students and teachers thought and learned. Computers, and other forms of “high-technology” are already doing that in our society. However, these changes are reflected at a much slower pace in our classrooms. This has its advantages, for example it helps avoid fads, however educators need a way to deal with this rapid change. Google will soon be turning ten. What company is being started today that will have changed the world by the year 2018? How can educators ever keep up?

I propose that the study of technology be incorporated into every classroom. Not the rote acquisition of skills such as mastering the menus of MS Word, but exercises, which promote technology literacy. As proposed by the ITEA a technology literate person can “understand –with increasing sophistication – what technology is, how it is created, how it shapes society, and in turn is shaped by society. A technologically literate person is comfortable with and objective about the use of technology – neither scared of it nor infatuated with it. (2003) ” As technology literacy becomes more universal, in both teachers and students, the scaffolding will already exist for the judicial use of technology to promote learning. Only then will we be able to look upon technology as we do the pencil, a universally flexible tool for learning.

(Ed.). (2003). Advancing excellence in technological literacy : student assessment, professional development, and program standards. Reston, Va: International Technology Education Association.
Grasha, A. & Yangarber-Hicks, N. (2000). Intergrating Teaching Styles and Learning Styles with Instructional Technology. Colllege Teaching, 48(1), 2-10.

What is a Professional

I have a supervisor’s certificate from the state of New Jersey. To get it I needed to take my fair share of Ed Leadership classes. A surprising number of those classes focused around the question of just how do we get those darn teachers to learn. It’s a surprising question, teacher are some of the most well educated people you are likely to meet. Most hold masters degrees, and they by nature spend a whole lot of time thinking about how to make people learn. Common sense would tell you that they are probably pretty good learners themselves. Think of all the metacognative skills they must have acquired. Yet no amount of formal education can ensure that knowledge transfers to practice (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). While formal education and training is an important piece of the puzzle, it is not an adequate replacement for a professional community of learning. Such communities encourage a culture exploration and self-reflection, and provide opportunities to share information and get support from the larger network of professionals (Darling-Hammond, 1997).
The culture of teaching has not changed much in the last one hundred or so years. Teachers still by and large work alone, and teaching is only marginally a profession (Darling-Hammond, 1997). Teachers rarely share strategies and lessons beyond their hallways. The other day I began ruminating how the field of teaching lacked leadership and community. Can you name the most influential math teacher in the country? Do you know the address of the most visited education Blog on the web? If you were a researcher in the field of Math education you may be able to name some of the big shots in your field. You probably could name a number of quality websites and publications, yet I would wager that your average math teacher could not. Think of how remarkably unique to teaching that is. If a doctor in West Virginia discovered a particularly effective dosing regimen for antidepressants, how long do you think it would be before the word spread? If an English teacher in Appalachia had a particularly effective method for teaching the cogitation of verbs, how long would it take before it was widely known? Would it even reach the other teachers in her district, her school?
This lack of community and leadership is stifling independent teacher learning. One part of this issue is cultural. As we already touched on teachers are expected to self-sufficient and already know what they need to successfully lead a classroom the moment they step to the front of one. The second is an issue of commonality. When a doctor diagnosis you with a strep throat the criteria she/he uses to make that diagnosis is standardized. A strep throat infection is the same in Mississippi as it is in California. In education third grade math is not the same in California as it is in Mississippi. There are no uniformly adopted national standards of education.
If teaching is to become a true profession, it will need the support of government and the community. However, most importantly it will need a leader to champion these changes, otherwise we will continue to get by on our islands.

Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn : brain, mind, experience, and school. (Expanded ed.). Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn : a blueprint for creating schools that work (1st ed ed. Vol. Jossey-Bass education series). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Start at Square One

On the first night of one of my graduate classes at The College of New Jersey, our professor broke us into small groups and asked us to name one particularly effective learning experience from our school days. As we sat there and tried to find commonalities between our memories, many of us were surprised at the difficulty of the task. Some people recalled teachers who stressed memorization using effective mnemonic devices. Others of us recalled classes in which we were asked to construct knowledge while completing hands-on activities. I wish I could say that we were able to distill some essential knowledge from our conversations; however effective teaching is a multidimensional task that cannot be teased out through anecdotes alone.
While the HPL book makes it clear that there is not one set of general teaching strategies that apply to all subject areas, there are some general characteristics of all good teaching (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). First, all teaching must have a goal. While this may seem self evident, it is far from trivial. Consider the following childhood anecdote told by a teacher considering the nature of understanding, “I felt then that my brain was a way station for material going in one ear and (after the test) out the other. I could memorize very easily and so became valedictorian, but I was embarrassed even then that I understood much less than some other students who cared less about grades (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005).” As a student, did she meet the goals of her teachers? It would be difficult to argue that the valedictorian of any school did not meet the goals of his/her teachers. Yet, how could a student reach the top tier of academic achievement with only limited understanding? The following problem was presented to 8th graders as part of a national math assessment test.

"How many buses does the army need to transport 1,128 soldiers if each bus holds 36 soldiers?"

Nearly one third of students answered, “31 remainder 12 (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005).” If understanding is a goal of the teacher, it must be identified, taught for and assessed. However, it is important to note that teaching for in-depth understanding is not the goal of all teaching. For example learning the alphabet, acquiring some technical skills, and developing the basics of foreign language do not require in-depth understanding(Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). Effective teaching requires that appropriate goals are selected for the learner and appropriate instructional strategies are being utilized to help learner meet those goals.
Another tenant of all effective teaching is assessment. Assessment is not only end-of-teaching tests or culminating performance tasks. According to Wiggans and McTighe assessment is the deliberate use of many methods to gather evidence to indicate that students are meeting goals (2005). Indeed, Wiggans and McTighe even assert that multiple methods of assessment alone can develop and evoke understanding among students (2005). While we do not have the opportunity in this article to explore the multitude of available assessment techniques, it is critical to understand that assessment is not merely grading it is an integral part of the instructional process.
We have only scratched the surface of effective teaching. Yet, it is important to build all your practices as a teacher on a good foundation. Selecting appropriate goals and quality assessment that measure those goals is a great footing from which to begin.

Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn : brain, mind, experience, and school. (Expanded ed.). Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.

Wiggins, G. P. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (Expanded 2nd ed ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

The School is the Learning Environment

On my bookshelf at home, lies a beat up copy of Linda Darling-Hamond’s book, “The Right to Learn: A Blueprint for Creating Schools that Work “ It is a book that fundamentally changed the way I thought about schools. It did not change my perceptions of learning or what it meant to be a good teacher. Instead, it questioned, what most people in this country would take for granted, the school. It is something so universal in our society that we virtually never question its fundamental principles. The school as we know it, was not designed for this century, it was not even designed for the last century. It was designed to work as a factory, moving students efficiently from class to class, from grade to grade and from school to school.
As I read about learning environments, I am reminded of these facts again and again. I always finding it somewhat comforting to read about exemplary educational practices. There they are, neatly encapsulated, everything you always knew teaching could be. The answers to all the frustrations you felt after your first true experiences leading a classroom. Unfortunately, there are reasons they remain there on the page. For the vast majority classrooms around the country the school is the enemy.
For reasons the authors of the HPL book only brush upon it is near impossible to create a learning environment that is learning centered, knowledge centered, and assessment centered. In a typical secondary school a teacher may see 150 students a day (Darling-Hammond, 1997). The learning environment is not, no matter how exemplary, a single classroom. It is the school, and it is the school that must be ‘aligned’ for true change to occur (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). Darling-Hammond states it another way she does not think that schools need to be ‘aligned’ she calls for them to be redesigned (1997).
The learning environment that the bureaucracy of the school was designed to create is not learner centered or even teacher centered. The bureaucratic (factory) model assumed that important decisions would be handed down by administrators in the form of rules and mandatory curriculum packages (Darling-Hammond, 1997). Teachers are just another cog in the machine, the factory worker. Teachers still largely work in isolation. While, many teachers may incorporate sound modern practices in their lessons, this “shut the door and teach” mentality insures that the machine will churn on.
If we wish to create truly effective learning environments I am convinced that change must start at the school level. The old culture of ‘factory’ bureaucracy must be torn down. Teachers and institutions of higher learning must step up to fill the void by creating a true profession of teaching. Finally funding must be equalized so all students who pass through this country’s public schools have a chance to succeed. These changes are not minor; standing against them is 150 years of institutionalized school culture. Maybe one day I will not have read to find comfort in the state of education. The nearest school is always just a short drive away.

Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn : brain, mind, experience, and school. (Expanded ed.). Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn : a blueprint for creating schools that work (1st ed ed. Vol. Jossey-Bass education series). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Caged Monkeys

I hate to throw around political buzzwords during an election year, but I am somewhat of an elitist. I believe in the science and profession of teaching. Reading the article on “mind and brain” I could not help but feel a little underwhelmed. Neuroscientists using techniques and measures that they are only starting to prefect suddenly presume to tell teachers how people learn. I find that presumptuous, and a little silly. It is not that important research is not being done in the field of neuroscience, it is that much of this research is in its infant stage compared to the mature field of teaching and learning.
In many ways the relation between neuroscience and teaching is similar to the relationship between science and technology. When I was young I was taught that technology was the application of science. As I began my study of technology I soon learned that technology stood independent of science. That is while all technology is held by the bounds of science; one need not have an understanding of that science to create technology. For example, the inventor of the wheel most likely did not have a grasp of friction coefficients, yet still managed to create one of the greatest artifacts of technology in the history of mankind. Technology came first the science came later. This seems to be what is happening with much of the research presented in this chapter.
The authors highlight a research finding that states, “The fundamental organization of the brain and the mind depends on and benefits positively from experience.” I will let go for a moment that the research referenced used caged versus un-caged monkeys as its metric. (To my knowledge public schools stopped caging students sometime in the 1940’s.) Instead I will focus on the crux of the statement, which is that, the mind benefits positively from experience. If this sound familiar, it is most likely because it has been a tenant of education for over 60 years.
One of my favorite educators, John Dewey wrote extensively about experience. "I assume," he declared, "that amid all uncertainties there is one permanent frame of reference, namely, the organic connection between education and personal experience; or that the new philosophy of education [his own] is committed to some kind of empirical and experimental philosophy (Dewey, 1938)." His ideas came to being without an MRI or PET scan, however most of his work still rings true today.
Perhaps, that is the true power of the new research into mind and brain. While, educators have been perfecting effective instructional strategies for decades, resistance can still be strong to these half-century-old ideas. Legislatures and the public love the “hard science” that neurologist and brains scans provide. If research into the brain and mind can help bring about an understanding of pedagogy, it may be its greatest accomplishment.


Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Free Press.

How Children Learn

The study of how young children learn is an inherently fascinating field. Most of us have interacted with an infant or toddler and wondered just what they were thinking. As it turns out they were thinking a great deal more then many of us have ever imagined. It has long been known that children are not simply blank slates waiting to be inscribed. However, the extent to which children are natural problem solvers and information seekers is stunning (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). This is of course great news for teachers, every teacher can attest to the difficulty of teaching. It is comforting to know that every child is at a very early age, wired to learn. The more we know about the “wiring” the better we can work with the child to foster learning.

While new discoveries are made everyday, the truth is we already know a lot about how students learn. There are so many well-tested learning and instructional theories that any teacher should be able to have access to one that suits their needs. My interest in the subject of ‘how children learn’ lies in the area of the development of intelligence. Gardner proposed that there are up to eight largely separate types of intelligence (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). Gardner (1989) was concerned that formal schooling nearly exclusively focused on the development and measurement of only two forms of intelligence, linguistic and logical-mathematical. If as a society we were to measure and value the other forms of intelligence an entirely new view of intelligence may arise.

This becomes particularly intriguing when you consider we live in (or strive to live in) a meritocracy. Those who have the highest “merit” gain status and our view of intelligence influences the concept of merit strongly. One has to look no further then what is measured on the SAT’s to see this in practice. As educators this leads to a damning “chicken and egg” dilemma. Should we prepare children for a culture that largely values a limited view of intelligence or should we attempt to utilize the full spectrum of intelligence and hope that culture will follow the science?

Research shows that certain “domains” of knowledge or intelligence seem to be privileged (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). Young children are developing schemas for linguistics and rudimentary mathematical thinking at a surprisingly young age. These schemas give students a “jump start” in these domains. Surprisingly, these “privileged domains” align almost perfectly with Gardner’s “preferred” intelligences. Is there a biological correlation to the subjects and domains we stress in schools? Or are there cultural and methodological limitations to how we study learning in the young? These are questions that cannot be answered in this short space, however they do illustrate the sublime complexity of the types of issues teachers must tackle on a daily basis.

Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn : brain, mind, experience, and school. (Expanded ed.). Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.

Gardner, H. & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple intelligences go to school: Educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligences. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 4–10.

Transfer in Real Life

“When am I going to have to use this in real life.”

Almost every teacher has been asked this question at one time or another. Unfortunately, not every teacher has had a good answer. Perhaps, teachers would be less annoyed by the question if they realized that it actually was a valid pedagogical query. “How will this knowledge transfer to my future learning?” On second thought, that probably would not lessen the annoyance.

Teachers of every subject are actually teaching for and hoping that the knowledge they seek to impart will eventually transfer. We hope that the students we have in geometry will go on to utilize that knowledge in trigonometry. We hope that our English comp students will be able to write a coherent office memo in the future. These are implied goals to the curriculum. The more immediate goals (even if they go unwritten) are more direct. I hope this knowledge “transfers” to the test at the end of the week. Or even more importantly, I hope this knowledge transfers to the standardized testing we have to administer in a few months. Of course neither of these are truly ‘transfer objectives’ these are instructional objectives, or at most the application of simple active transfer. (Bransford et al., 2000)

Of course the curricular model most concerned with transfer is Constructivism. To constructivist, meaningful learning is the active creation of knowledge structures from personal experience. (Snowman et al., 2009) I am lucky enough to teach in one of the few fields that whole-heartedly embraces constructivism, technology education. Within the field of technology education we hope to impart “technological literacy” which will allow students to solve unique technological problems in their personal, professional, civic and academic life. (Dugger Jr, 2000)

As you may have expected teaching a constructivist curriculum with the explicit goal of “far transfer”, as per my experience, does not adequately answer the question “When am I going to have to use this in real life,” in the minds of a student. (Snowman et al., 2009)Indeed, I have found that students often resist when presented with a problem-based project that is somewhat open ended in nature. The reasons for this reaction are undoubtedly multi-faceted and differ from school to school and from population to population. Still, it is apparent that it is difficult to teach constructivism in a vacuum. Students who have never been expected to extensively build upon their prior knowledge succeed in school lack the framework to do so. Indeed studies of classroom activity found that only 7 percent of tasks require students to use prior knowledge. (Snowman et al., 2009)

I feel that as educators we have to, at an early age, begin to encourage and build the metacognative skills needed to achieve both low road and high road transfer. Constructivism is not the magic pill; indeed metacognative approaches to instruction often blur the line between traditional learning theories. (Snowman et al., 2009)Technology may help, but I am convinced that the culture of schools must be addressed before any true transformation can occur.

(2000). How people learn : brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded ed ed.). Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.

Dugger Jr, W. E. (2000). Standards for Technological Literacy. Content for the Study of Technology. Technology Teacher, 59(5), 8-13.

Snowman, J., McCown, R. R., & Biehler, R. F. (2009). Psychology applied to teaching (12th ed ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Teaching For Expertise

There has been a lot of attention paid to the way in which experts differ from novices. This attention is not limited to the academic arena. Malcolm Gladwell’s bestseller Blink chronicles the way in which experts can often make important decisions quickly and instinctively. There do seem to be, by all accounts, fundamental differences between the ways experts and novices approach problems. Furthermore, we seem to be able to identify many of the strategies an expert uses to solve such a problem. The question then becomes, how can we use what we know about experts to better education.  

Currently, most would agree, American schools do not teach with the goal of expertise in mind. This would seem reasonable, no one expects every member of a Physical Education class to be an expert volleyball player, or every high school graduate to be an expert at writing prose. However, I wonder if we as educators should begin to teach the skills of expertise during high school or even earlier.  

Not to overuse some common symbolism, but much the curriculum in America’s public schools is “a mile wide and an inch deep.” We now know that this is the exact opposite of the way in which experts construct their knowledge. Experts tend to organize their knowledge around “big ideas” within their domain. This conceptual top down thinking is the opposite of many classrooms’ focus on seemingly isolated facts and figures.  

While there are many curriculum and instructional strategies built around concept mastery, such methods are becoming less popular due to state and federal regulations. Of course what I speak of is the increased use of standardized testing throughout the year. With the mandatory use of more and more tests, schools naturally are gravitating towards methods of instruction that best ensure positive test scores. The tests seldom measure conceptual knowledge.  

So while no one expects American school’s to graduate experts out of high school, it would seem a laudable goal to produce graduates ready to pursue expertise. Of course, the top down conceptualized thinking I described earlier is only one tenant of expertise. Many of the other characteristics described in the reading seem to mirror good pedagogy.  

Pattern recognition has long been a staple of instruction. Experts notice meaningful patterns not identified by novices. Perhaps more emphasis could be placed on recognizing patterns in fields such as biology. Experts also tend to “chunk” data in order to organize it. This is also a basic tool of good teaching. However, students should also be trained to organize and chunk data on their own.  

There are many more lessons we can take from the study of experts. However, as educators we should not forget to apply these lessons when reflecting on our own practice. What is our goal as an educator? How can we best meet those goals? Those are big questions, and they will take some big ideas to answer.

McLuhan's Realization

I wonder if Marshall McLuhan would have been pleased or terrorized to find so many of his predictions come true. The “Global Village” he described is getting smaller every day, and the trends described in the Horizon Report certainly do not reverse this movement. The Horizon Report shows us how the “network” is continuing to infiltrate more of our academic and personal life and intertwining them. As I will discuss in this post, this trend has both great befits and serious cautions to be considered.

The Horizon report once again emphasizes the importance of the “web” in our everyday life. However, this is hardly news to anyone living in the modern world. To me the more important meta-trend of the document is the increased importance and power given to the individual. The new technologies extend the capabilities of an individual to heights not imagined only a few short years ago. Portable devices connected to the mobile network create armies of reporters able to report on events to blogs and Twitter feeds faster then any multi-million dollar media outlet. Collaboration webs allow for equitable contribution from even the most junior team member working on an important project. In the most basic level this new technology extends our voice, just as a soapbox may have in Town Square centuries ago. We now have a soapbox that extends around the world.  

In the eyes of McLuhan no extension can be had without a similar redaction of capabilities. In this case I believe that these technological trends will result in a loss of our physical voice or rather the loss of the social skills to interact with the people around us. In a world where relationships and collaborations are built entirely within the network, what need is there to deal with the surly fellow the next office over. With so much free data, free data analysis and “mashup” tools available an individual can complete research it may have taken an entire team to do just a few years ago. We no longer have to forge alliances with people of differing backgrounds or philosophical views, because a like-minded colleague is always only a click away. Eventually, our very ability to be locally social creatures will begin to atrophy.
Of course this increased power has secondary benefits. When people can gain fame simply from the number of friends on their Myspace page or from a “grassroot” video placed on YouTube a certain sense of entrepreneurship is revived. In the past the barriers of entrepreneurial success seemed daunting. The startup money, the limits of your audience, and other obstacles all worked to stifle such dreaming. Now a new generation knows that with an Internet connection and an inexpensive computer anything is possible.

Of course mankind will begin to miss what it has made obsolete. With “Social Operating Systems” drawing webs of people across the global village we will begin to loose connection to our actual village. I predict that people will yearn for actual community in the face of this Internet ghettoization.

Welcome to My Blog

Welcome to yet another blog.  I look forward to having some robust discussions this year.