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.