I wanna share this with you because I been thinking about it for a while now. In 2014, I began working in classrooms as a Instructional Tech Specialist, which is a bit of a misleading title, because instructional technology isn’t a thing to specialize in. Instruction is a thing to specialize in. And I’ve learned a ton. And it’s been difficult for me to make sense of all that I’ve seen and heard. But, I’m ready to try.
During this time (plus a bit before), I’ve heard and read a lot of really smart and well-researched people say a lot of things about teaching and learning. They are saying and writing some really good stuff. Among the people that I’m referring to are Kathleen Cushman, Angela Lee Duckworth, Christopher Emdin, John Hattie, Rushton Hurley, Robert Marzano, Dan Meyer, John O’Connor, Sir Ken Robinson, Conrad Wolfram, and Gregory Yates. Some of these folks are specialized. For example, Dan Meyer once responded to a question that I asked with “I’d prefer to stick to offering my help to secondary math situations because it’s where I feel most qualified.” (paraphrased). Other folks area extremely general. John Hattie, for example, has advice to give on practically everything.
And I’ve had conversations with other educators who favor some of these educators over others. In our areas, “… because Marzano said so…” or “… because Hattie said so…” are becoming cliches and it is weakening the credibility that those two researchers have among many educators. I think that this is a critique that is best directed toward those attempting to apply the research more than the researchers themselves. (That said, I have heard some criticisms of both of these guys that are directed toward them.)
But, I see a few issues with “this researcher vs. that researcher” thinking. The primary issue that I see is that teaching and learning is really complex. Like… really, really complex. It’s hard to generalize and even once it’s generalized, it a second difficult task to execute it well. And it’s an even more difficult task to maintain excellence in that execution over an entire school year. So, while it may seem that Hattie and Sir Ken Robinson are disagreeing, it’s more likely that they are seeing different elements that are equally valid components of a complex whole.
There’s also my experience that I’m having a hard time ignoring. That I’ve seen some really effective teachers and some teachers who really struggle. And that is true of teachers of all types. I’ve seen teachers who are trying to “do STEAM” in their classrooms and their students don’t seem to be thriving. I’ve seen teachers who create the most dynamic, effective learning environments “doing STEAM”. Likewise with more traditional setups. I’ve seen teachers whose students learning at a very high level using a very traditional set up. And I’ve seen teachers who just can’t get this right.
What’s the difference? And more than that, is it a difference that can be taught? The quick-and-easy answer is “relationships.” And that does seem to be a big deal. A teacher who builds strong and productive relationships with students seem to have a leg up regardless of their teaching-and-learning style. But, here I’ll turn it over to my colleague Nate Stevenson:
For everyone that champions relationships as THE key to education, let’s keep in mind that relationships are as important in teaching as in medicine. Important?Yes! But relationships aren’t enough. You need evidence-based treatment and prevention too.
— Nate Stevenson (@nsteve15) July 23, 2018
I take that to mean there are still best practices that will maximize your students’ potentials. Relationships alone won’t do it. Neither, perhaps, will all the right teacher moves. There’s a marriage there. Like so many things, there’s a complementary nature between the two differences. Not one VERSUS the other, but the two coming together to make each other better.
With this in mind, I took to exploring the aforementioned educators thoughts and ideas and wanted to see if there was a way I could characterize quality education that took into account all that they were advocating for. I wondered if each of them was trying to describe a central reality from their own imperfect perspective. (And that isn’t a knock. There is only one perfect perspective, and none of those educators is God.)
That having been said, here’s my best, first try from my imperfect perspective. I requires me to classify two types of lessons. Activities and lessons where the students are primarily CONSUMERS and activities and lessons where students are primarily CREATORS. And my thought right now is that there needs to be a balance between the two. For each activity the students spend consuming new knowledge, they need an activity where they create within that content.
The researchers seems to make a handful of points quite consistently:
Teacher-student relationships need to be strong because…
- students need to develop the ability to be pushed in a safe environment, learn to make mistakes and patiently grow rather than quit. Trust is key here.
- students learn best in learning communities in which they feel valued and are making an active contribution.
Lessons and Learning Activities should (as often as possible) include…
- Goals targeting both the knowledge and the actions. (What will they know AND be able to do?)
- Effective direct instruction of new material to support the learning goals
- flexible, yet predictable processes and procedures
- An opportunity for the students to collaborate with each other
- Options for demonstrations of student learning
Disclosure statement: I want to stop right here and say that if anyone has used this language before, I am haven’t read it. I’ll gladly yield the floor and give credit to those who have written on this before. Any overlap is very much unintentional.
I’m going to spend the next couple posts laying out my thoughts around this topic.