In my last post – widely viewed and commented on in various places – I proposed that it was a bit egocentric to think of education in terms of the teacher and the teaching since the teacher is only one element in the design. Many commenters protested that while this may be true overall, they were personally inspired and launched into a career in education by virtue of a ‘passionate’ and ‘wonderful’ teacher. Surely that’s the most important part of the equation, they argued.
I responded that to me this was a form of confirmation bias. Sure, many of us who went into teaching were moved to do so by having had inspiring teachers. But that’s a pretty small and unrepresentative sample, prone to such a bias. What about non-teachers? What about the average student’s school experience, the people who don’t go into teaching?
Fortunately, I altered our student survey two years ago to get at this very issue. Our data are clear: in a survey of over 1300 middle and high school students, the teacher is the least important factor in their liking and disliking of a subject:
I think the graphic is pretty compelling as to the validity of my claim: the quality of one’s experience with the subject matters far more than one’s liking of the teacher. Note the answer “I’m good at it” as the 2nd choice. This turns out to be a key variable in both likes and dislikes – especially in math (see below).
The reasons for a least-liked subject offer a pretty similar pattern:
A few of the commenters described how their history teacher or Professor was the one who inspired them and made the subject interesting; so, let’s look at those students who said that history was their most favorite subject:
A slight difference in favor of the teacher, but the same pattern holds here.
Now, arguably, a few people had amazingly good teachers who made a ‘boring’ subject interesting. But, again, that seems to be a rarity in the data, as well as in the constructed responses as to why they picked a favorite subject. Citing a teacher as the reason for ‘most favorite subject’ occurs in only about 1 in 50 of the answers. Most answers are like these samples:
- I just like the class in general. I’m in Honors Chem and its just a class that I find interesting.
- Because i am good at math.
- To me, science is extremely interesting. I love going to science class. I especially love chemistry
- Arts & Music is my favorite subject because that is what I like to do, and the courses they offer here in those areas are really good and interesting.
- Anatomy. My mother is a doctor so I am frequently exposed to anatomy.
- It’s easy.
- I am an organist, and like music in general.
- I love to read and write papers
- I enjoy problem solving
- It is the easiest.
- Because I’m athletic.
- It’s fun.
- English is my favorite subject because i am interested in the curriculum, i love to write and read, and i enjoy my class very much.
- I really love it, and the rest of the world dissipates when I’m on at the ceramics studio
By far the most common adjective used to describe favorite courses is ‘fun’. This is not a frivolous answer. They describe ‘fun’ classes as ones where there is variety, chances to solve problems, and do work together.
When science is the most favorite, we see a slight variation in the ratio, but interest in the subject far outweighs the influence of the teacher:
Only in English do we see the role of the teacher in creating interest pronounced:
However, this response is skewed by gender. Look at the %s for “Most favorite” in English/ELA:
However, if we look at all female favorites, the pattern reverts back to the general one:
Finally, the math picture presents an important cautionary note to math teachers: if I feel stupid, I am highly unlikely to like your course (and math is the least-liked course in the survey):
This pattern in math as to why the subject is least favorite is double the overall pattern for all courses. Math is the only subject, therefore, in which feeling stupid is the number one reason to dislike the subject. What is the main reason to like math the most? Have a look:
In short, it’s time to be a bit less egocentric, folks, and focus on making the subject more interesting and the work more well designed; and in math, working harder to make learners feel more competent via the way the work unfolds and how feedback is used.
PS: Some great back and forths in the comments; check them out. I also thought it potentially useful to attach a pdf of the AE Student Survey FALL 2013.
PPS: The new Atlantic has a fabulous article on the challenge of educating boys, a subject I have written about before (and gotten in huge trouble for my tart comments about school as female-centric).
In the article the following excerpt occurs. See how it connects nicely with my point over the past two posts:
The authors asked teachers and students to “narrate clearly and objectively an instructional activity that is especially, perhaps unusually, effective in heightening boys’ learning.” The responses–2,500 in all–revealed eight categories of instruction that succeeded in teaching boys. The most effective lessons included more than one of these elements:
- Lessons that result in an end product–a booklet, a catapult, a poem, or a comic strip, for example.
- Lessons that are structured as competitive games.
- Lessons requiring motor activity.
- Lessons requiring boys to assume responsibility for the learning of others.
- Lessons that require boys to address open questions or unsolved problems.
- Lessons that require a combination of competition and teamwork.
- Lessons that focus on independent, personal discovery and realization.
- Lessons that introduce drama in the form of novelty or surprise.
The irony, of course, is that this list (except perhaps the competition and motor activity) simply highlights good design for engaged and productive learning for anyone.
I’ll have more to say on the boy issue soon.
For those who disagree, however, some humor in closing:
62 Responses
Great article- as always. However, a couple of thoughts here… first, this should end the thought that the teacher is the biggest factor in success in school. It is not. Therefore, what are the factors that really predict success or failure at a subject? Usually these are socioeconomic factors- of the student and the geographic location of the school. Obviously, in math, a concern is perception by the student of whether they are able to do the subject or not. The question than should be- how to we establish success early on (in kindergarten or 1st grade) and build upon that? What factors build self-confidence, self-reliance, self-learning- which in turn will predict success. The reason barriers like poverty get in the way isn’t because these children cannot learn. It is because they do not get to the point where they can feel confident that through learning, they will find a happier, more fulfilling life and that they can make that a reality-reasonably. By having mandatory testing where teachers, students and schools/districts are judged solely based on a test score- we have created a climate that reduces the likelihood of students with a low socioeconomic level will perceive this “I can do it” attitude. And that results in failure.
Another thought that this leads to….. even if teachers were the most important factor in student success- we cannot depend on finding only very passionate teachers to work for our school systems- or we will be in trouble. There just are not enough highly passionate teachers to fill all the classrooms with needed teachers. First, we do not draw enough of them in our college education dept. Teaching is not attractive enough to do this. Right now though, we do depend on the passion for teaching to bring in teachers- who will work as a teacher even thought they are paid less than other professionals and even thought they have few supports in the classroom. I hear it all the time- teachers who are upset about their pay, their evaluations, their difficult time teaching yet they say they are doing it because they just love teaching and can’t imagine anything else. We depend on finding teachers who are motivated solely because they love teaching. So, where are the ones who like teaching and would do a very good job of teaching but couldn’t stomach all the problems with this career? Selling real estate. Or working for a PR firm. Or a business. You get the idea. So, we have a real need for highly skilled teachers- who may enjoy teaching as much as someone enjoys nursing or working with elderly, etc. Let’s make it so that it’s an enjoyable job- even to those teachers who are not exceedingly passionate but who have great knowledge and could really be fine teachers.
You are humorous, Mr. W. You just keeping reminding us of what those embarrassing numbers show.
Indirectly, the replies having to do w/the activities/ etc in the class owe something to the teacher, but the students likely don’t make that connection overtly.
A diversion — we all know how some teachers become entwined with their students. After said students graduate, most of them do not stay in personal contact. Rarely is the teacher as important to the student as the teacher thinks she is.
I’m trying to construct an important distinction made here, specifically for me as a math teacher. Students liking you verses liking how you teach/facilitate the class are two very different things. The latter has much more traction in making your content their favorite subject. ???
That’s one key distinction. They want the subject to be ‘interesting’ and they want to feel competent. Both are a function of how the work (and the sequence) is made meaningful, and how feedback is sought and used to help them (especially the weaker) get better. The other issue is establishment of a climate for problem solving under safe conditions where early failure is ok.
So isn’t that all dependent upon the teacher? Therefore, the teacher is the most important factor – if teachers are planning innovative and engaging lessons which give students a feeling of success and interest then they will like the subject more. Bottom line is that classroom environment depends upon the capacity of that teacher to create it. All goes back to the teacher…just saying….
So… who is more likely to design a fun course (that is interesting to the students) and design that course to leverage student strengths? Is it going to be a teacher who really loves what he or she is doing, someone who is a school-period teacher (literally only does/thinks about school during the school hours), or someone who hates/dislikes what he/she is doing. I think we are thinking backwards here. I haven’t seen a “passionate teacher” yet that gets upset when a student loves the subject, but doesn’t go all crazy (personally) over the teacher. I love teaching, if the students take an interest and does well, I could care less whether I am their bestest (I know I used a Winnie the Pooh word) favorite teacher ever.
My ego is wrapped-up in how well my students learn and progress academically and socially. Do you seriously think someone who doesn’t care is going to make a course interesting to students? If they do not make it interesting, they now make it something the students aren’t interested in taking anymore. Do you see how the teacher is uninvolved in that case?
Of course students want to take courses that are interesting. Of course the student who is good at doing something has a better chance of liking something. So how do you get to that point? What kind of classroom environment is going to take us all there. According to this survey, you could remove the teacher and just do it electronically as student interest in the subject is #1 and good at it is #2. But that hasn’t worked out in real life has it? Why…? Human interaction is the answer. I totally dislike the whole, “I am the best ever. My students learn because of me.” attitudes. My students learn because of them and the hard work they do, not because of me. I just help and do some motivation.
Don’t even tell me that students (and parents) do not fight to have certain teachers. What about college? Students don’t prefer one professor over another (if they have access to the info) – they just look at the subject matter? Really? We don’t sign-up for PD and conferences because of who is presenting? So Dr. Wiggins vs. John Doe are equal when UbD PD is available? Really?
You’re equivocating on the word ‘teacher’ here. All of my comments on this subject were about the design vs. the ‘teaching’. Of course the teacher-designer is a teacher – but that’s my point! The design is what matters, not the ‘teaching’. Your 3rd paragraph is silly. No one is saying get rid of teachers. Methinks thou doth protest too much here. You should ponder why.
“The design is what matters, not the teaching”…….Wow, Grant, that is “silly”, a word that you use too frequently, in my humble opinion. I enjoy your blog, even when I deeply disagree with your point of view. Many teachers should passionately respond to the idea that planning is what matters and not the teaching that counts. You know, Grant, poor coaches often plan well, but the game is the “reality”. One can look at hours of films to prepare for a game, but the unfolding of the offensive and defensive strategy is the test of the coach, responding, orming and reforming the plan as the game unfolds. For teachers, the reality is not a game, rather it is the hope that the daily investment will lead to a “win’ for the future of each student that we have the privilege to serve. It certainly is difficult for a team to succeed in competition when the coach is unprepared. It is ” hand and glove.” When I refer to ” the art of teaching” there is no doubt that the delivery of the “plan” lacks spark when the teacher is not passionate and actively using all of the years of experience in the classroom as the teachable and planned moments unfold.
I think that some of the findings in this paper deserved further study:
http://economics.mit.edu/files/7598
particularly this statement that appears on the page numbered 110 (don’t worry, the paper is only 21 pages!):
“Whereas the boys come from a variety of backgrounds, the top-scoring girls are almost exclusively drawn from a remarkably small set of super-elite schools: as many girls come from the 20 schools that generally do best on these contests as from all other high schools in the United States combined.”
That is such a striking conclusion, and I’m sure the result is due to more than one underlying factor. However, it is not difficult for me to believe that the teachers at these 20 schools are doing something special that is worth of further study.
For years I taught ELA Intervention at the high school level and designed my course knowing full well that the students who came to me have been unsuccessful in ELA. In fact, I would give the students an anonymous survey that included the questions of favorite class and least favorite class. (I wish I kept the results.) What do you think the least favorite class was for almost every student in my intervention class? Of course it was ELA.
So I designed many opportunities in the day for students to be successful. Many of these designed opportunities had nothing to do with me as the teacher and everything to do with the student. The coursework was interesting and relevant to the student.
And here is another thing. What gender do you think is most likely to be in ELA intervention? The classes are overwhelmingly male. So I designed my coursework to include readings and writings that were of high interest at the appropriate level. I can definitely see how course design is key.
This is highly consistent with the survey results and the growing gap in male vs female literacy. Most boys report that the reading and writing assignments are of little interest to them. I have been in a number of ELA classes this past year and I thought the readings were awfully girl centric. A few recent pieces in the media highlight the problem: http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/09/how-to-make-school-better-for-boys/279635/
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765592913/Many-working-to-bridge-wide-gender-reading-gap-in-the-US.html
Very interesting data, thank you! I am following you and learn a lot from your posts. In this case, it would be interesting to elaborate a bit more on the research design which produced your data. The thing is, the items “I like the teacher!” ,”I am interested in a subject” and “I am good at it!” are highly interdependent. One may like a subject because she had or has a good teacher (not necessarily ‘liked’). Or, one is obviously more prone to like a subject he is good at. Reversely, when a student is not particularly good at something, she may receive less possitive feedback from the teacher and thus not like him. A so on. A questionnaire is ill-suited to tease out these influences. A teacher can make or break a child. Let’s not forget this. We carry enormous responsibility for our work.
They were given a forced choice of the 4 and they could explain their answer. As I stated in their explanation only about 1 in 50 stressed that it was having a good teacher or two that made them make the choice. In about 4-5 per 100 they might combine the two: love the classes and my teachers. It’s just not the key thing.
I am not saying teachers are unimportant. They are the designers of the experience much of the time, after all. Nor am i saying relationships don’t matter; of course they do. But they are not sufficient. All I am saying is what I said in the past two and many other writings: the design of the learning opportunities really matters more than often-egocentric ‘teaching’ focused teachers care to admit – especially at the HS level.
I have sat in on hundreds of classes in the past 30 years. I rarely see truly great ‘teaching’ in a poorly designed class (except in college). So, sure, good teachers are often good designers. But that’s limited correlation, not causality. I have seen pretty humdrum ‘teachers’ design really cool learning experiences, and I have seen passionate, knowledgeable and kid-caring teachers have little intellectual effects on average kids (cf. the issue of boys and reading and many math teachers). That’s what I want teachers to ponder. It may also explain why test scores disappoint for supposedly ‘great’ teachers. (I have now seen this phenomenon personally in 2 schools in which I worked. The kids clearly like the teacher but the work is ho-hum and the scores reflected it.)
Okay, let me ask you a question so we are both on the same page. When you say, “teacher influence” are you talking about how much they like the teacher (personality, looks, etc.), how much the teacher influences the course, or are you talking about something else?
Quite honestly your survey questions and interpretations make it seem like the influence of the teacher is very low, and that it is unrelated to the other ideas. I think the teacher can influence how much a student likes a course, and can influence the “good at” part when students discover they are better than they thought.
“Only in English do we see the role of the teacher in creating interest pronounced:” you didn’t ask about influencing the subject likeability in any of those surveys. You asked if the reason they liked the subject was they “liked the teacher”. It is possible to like a subject and not like/dislike the teacher (or like a car and not the salesman, or like a type of food but not a particular cook). Why didn’t you ask the question about teacher’s generating interest for students, about teachers answering questions/explaining topics? What make the subject interesting? Do they like to do something if they are not good at it? If they could could become good at it, would they like it? As the saying goes, “An inch deep and a mile wide.” As you said. “I ponder why.”
I am asking us to consider that the teacher wears many hats: designer, teacher, feedback giver, evaluator, etc. My beef is with people who over-emphasize the ‘teacher’ role and under-value the ‘designer’ role. There are also many good ‘teachers’ who are poor coaches of learning (very common in college and HS). What all the Hattie work, the Eric Mazur Peer Instruction, Marzano best practice research, and our work in UbD say is that the design of the work and use of time to focus on effective learning is more important than the teaching.
Look at the math results. Lots of good ‘teachers’ perhaps, but MS and HS courses are poorly designed and cause a lack of interest in the material and a feeling of incompetence. They would hate the teacher if they viewed this thru a teacher lens. They don’t. The work is what makes them feel dumb or smart. A good teacher-caoch is not enough, in short, to overcome a poorly-designed course. The same is true in ELA. As long as the books chosen and writing prompts used are uninteresting to boys, no matter how good the teacher, the gap will persist and may increase worse than it already has.
I agree that it has to be good teaching + good curriculum + good intangibles (supplies, environment, space, etc.). I was saying that a teacher has influence over student interest and we need to leverage that. It’s not a one or the other game.
However, I do feel like we are almost saying that with a nice curriculum, everything will be okay – it won’t. It’s the teacher, the school environment, the community environment, and so on that adds up (and who knows as to how much each chunk is?) to learning. I am just the teacher part so that is where my focus is most of the time.
The only way you get the students to follow along is when they trust that the teacher is going to move them forward. It’s not necessarily about “liking the teacher/coach”. So if it were up to me, I’d work on motivating the teachers to motivate the students. How? Find what’s interesting or make it interesting. Have a solid curriculum. Work on the intangibles, and CARE. Have mentors give suggestions, hold teachers accountable for “god awful” lessons that seem to happen everyday (I’m not talking about the lesson that misfires every once in a while.) in some classrooms. God forbid we ask the students what they like and what/how they would like to study. Work with teachers to make the curriculum more interesting and fun – provide time to do all of this of course.
If the teacher is not onboard, they might need to go. I don’t think caring about your job is too much to ask of a teacher. Most care a lot, some enough to get by, others could care less – which would you prefer if it was your doctor, your chef, your babysitter, or your airline pilot? Are teachers any less important?
Again, my point is that ‘caring’ is necessary, not sufficient. Many teachers care that do not get great results. And it is very clear to me that if more teachers had to get and use student feedback, school would be better.
I agree, but I think caring is the starting point and is the biggest factor in classroom success. However, it’s like baking, sure the oven (caring) is important, but so are the directions (curriculum) and ingredients (intangibles).
I have always been skeptical of the view that teachers need to develop passion, interest and “love of learning” in students before hard learning takes place. I have always believed that success in a field often precedes interest in it. There seems to be general and I believe misguided consensus in education that students will only put up with the boring, repetitive and technical aspects of a subject AFTER someone has convinced them the subject is important or fun or exciting etc… It seems to me that the evidence you have provided here suggests that we need to help students succeed at the boring, repetitive and technical aspects of a subject first in order for them to enjoy it later. Obviously success and enjoyment are confounded, but I believe we should challenge the conventional wisdom that fun comes first and learning second.
As I said, I think ‘fun’ is student code for well-thought-out, varied, and interesting learning activities. School is needlessly boring – that’s what all the data say. That should not be confused with necessary grunt work that has to be done to yield a worthy outcome. The point being, of course, that you can’t keep merely SAYING that the grunt work will eventually in some far off future yield interest and genuine competence. That’s just poorly designed learning.
What students mean by fun would be interesting to tease out in a study. I agree that many times students mean excellent instruction/well-designed lessons when they say “fun”. But other times they mean “fun” as in we played games and watched movies and talked about last nights football game. I have heard both excellent classes and poor classes at my school described as “fun” and only further prompting gets which definition they mean out of them.
I have edited my student survey for the coming year to get them to define ‘fun’ and describe a ‘fun’ class, so that should gain us some answers.
This would be great to know. I’m not sure how much “fun/interesting” can be if we don’t define it and put it into context. I would love to see something about classes they didn’t like. Why? What could the teachers have done differently?
I share the confusion of others over just what students may mean by “fun”…
I’m a little confused from the data as it relates to the point I was making. I was suggesting in the other post that a teacher can have inspirational qualities which, in a balancing posture with all of other aspects of classroom instruction, can have a transformative impact on students’ successes. The teacher matters a ton. This is egocentric thinking on its face, but if you walk into the classrooms of these teachers, their students run the show and these teachers have created an environment of success for everybody who wants it. Because of the design of the classroom, the teacher has artfully set up contexts for students to succeed and cleverly given students to levers of power to make it happen. To state the obvious, this is the most difficult kind of teaching to effectuate. But it’s beyond that. It is the day-to-day personal interactions which support the environment that had been created—a communication style that promotes a belief in success, work ethic, and the ethos that learning is important. If you take out this adept communication from the mix, I think much of the possibilities for learning leave with it.
The survey option says “I Like the Teacher”. The teachers I am talking about aren’t necessarily ‘liked’ by students, at least not during the classroom experience. Respected maybe, but not liked. They are appreciated later upon mature reflection. Transformative teachers disrupt students’ stale thinking patterns and get them to see the value of thinking critically and somehow convey a joy for the process of learning while enduring the pain and suffering that comes with it. Hardly angelic qualities! They are more akin to the devil.
I completely agree, but that’s my point, really. Such teachers worry about the design of learning. They don’t define themselves primarily as ‘teacher’ and that was my point. The survey results I think are pretty conclusive when you look at all the graphics and the constructed responses, though. As a package it says: my best and worst experiences come from a learning experience, not a ‘teacher’ per se. Even your 2nd paragraph makes it clear that this is a non-egocentric design issue – artfully setting up contexts is exactly what I am saying good design is.
Okay..that helps… I guess my philosophical difficulty is to conceptualize a “learning experience” independent of the influence of the teacher who must ultimately make the decisions about this experience. It’s sort of like imagining a book without an author.
Thanks again for the conversation… fantastic stuff.
Actually, I think the more accurate analogy is – playwright & director vs. actor. I’m saying it doesn’t matter how good the ‘actor’ is, if the script, staging, and blocking are poor. That takes nothing away from actor. It just acknowledges the importance of the design.
As an educator (primary and high school) for over 30 years and currently a lecturer in learning and teaching pedagogy I believe the research and Grant’s findings are spot on. Highly effective teachers look critically at their pedagogical practices and make changes accordingly to suit the needs of their students. Interesting to read ‘defensive’ comments. Too many disengaged, unchallenged and miserable students in our schools – and we need to reverse this as it has a flow on effect in their own lives and in our society. Our best teachers are not threatened by challenges to old paradigms or new thinking and knowledge – they find it exciting as life long learners themselves but more so for their students. Have not read anything in this blog by the author, that would undermine best practice.
Yes! Good summary. Well-seasoned teachers are not “dead wood” Flexibility through many storms makes for excellence and vitality! The greatest teachers are not defensive in the trenches, but these practitioners are looking for the best new tactics to add to the strategies that already have been successful.
The trouble with these types of myopic studies is that they are blind to the real heart of the matter: The teacher student relationship. Not the teacher, not the design of the course, but this strange alchemy that happens when a caring teacher, excited about a subject , with a great plan, goes to work. Teachers are not implementers, (as in the thought of Fredrick Taylor) They are wizards (as in the magic of Dumbledore.)
I agree with you about the importance of design, especially when teachers have input into process. I am shocked at how many schools today, under the umbrella of Common Core Standards, are being told them must use a certain perfectly designed program. To me, this is the fundamental egocentrism in education today.
Nothing I say about design means that the teacher is unneeded. The role of the teacher, whether they designed the course or not, is to ensure that great things happen, and that requires a responsive and committed educator – and the ability to quickly adjust when the design isn’t working (regardless of who designed it). Again, my concern is with teachers who think that it is their ‘teaching’ that makes all the difference.
Grant, if I might continue with a coaching point of view…. Over the years, I had the opportunity to coach some incredible athletes who brought great skills to the team. I think that these athletes improved due to the coaching. Is this not what happens in our classrooms? At the beginning of the season (the school year), the raw talent arrives, waiting for the expertise of the coach to help to develop the natural gifts in each player. I think it is obvious that coaching makes a difference! The relationship that inspires and celebrates each incremental step of developing performance in each athlete (student) is highly valued. Perhaps, “teaching” really does make “a” significant difference. ” All the” difference is an unlikely claim by any professional in the classroom today.
I am differentiating teaching from coaching in this discussion, as I noted a few times. I of course agree with you.
And here is a song I wrote to describe it. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaWGFABZNjE&w=560&h=315]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPrTChGgHNM……..an appropriate reply!
Grant – As I sit and reflect on your blog and all the comments to your posts I am noticing some interesting similarities to what learning looks like. First, I am seeing your posts as the Enduring Understandings that we are all working and struggling to understand better.
As a result, here are some of the things that I am noticing about what is happening in this learning space:
– Your posts has provoked some deeper thinking and further questions
– Your post has some readers seeking out more information
– You have created a safe learning environment beyond the walls of the classroom.
– Your audience is authentic
– the learning is real and relevant
– the learners are passionate about the topic
– you have personalized the learning for those who seek further clarity
There are probably more…
My point is that there are certain influences that are present when learning is at its best. I assume that you have read “Visible Learning” by John Hattie and the research on influences and effect sizes related to student achievement. Hattie studied six areas that contribute to learning: the student, the home, the school, the curricula, the teacher, and teaching and learning approaches. He suggests that effect sizes .4 and greater are significant and that we should pay attention to these.
An interesting exercise for teachers is to think about which influences fall into each the 6 areas. (Hattie provides those answers). Then ask teachers to reflect on their own practices, to see if they have the pedagogy that allows for them to happen.
An angle that we are trying to take at our school is, becoming more clear about what kind of learning we intend and coming up with visuals that support what we say. Statements we use that say that “we know learning is effective when”.
– students have a CHOICE and are allowed to follow their passions.
– learning is EXPERIENTIAL and learning goes beyond the walls of the classroom.
– students are EMPOWERED to self direct their own learning.
– learning is PERSONALIZED and the feedback is 1:1, ongoing, timely and specific
– learning is RELEVANT and occurs in context with clear connects to their life in school and beyond.
We are encouraging all teachers to be intentional about these learning principles when designing the learning for students. That is not to say that all of these need to happen in every class, every day. However if you were to describe a students learning or better yet, if a student or parent were to describe the learning over a year, it would hit ALL of these principles.
We have found that the a guided inquiry approach is a mainstay of the instructional process. It is an approach which focuses on developing thinking and reflecting skills to help students uncover big ideas, gain new knowledge and perspectives, make meaning, clarify and test new thinking, demonstrate conceptual understanding and take action. This requires a teacher to let go of some of the control in the classroom and put the student in the drivers seat. (I believe the “eduspeak” term for it is student centered classroom.) Some teachers do this naturally and allows this kind of learning to happen and others are still working towards it.
Thanks for designing this learning space.
Thanks, Dan. I appreciate your ‘meta’ view of what I hope yo accomplish in this blog.
Of course I know Hattie’s work. I have blogged many times to highlight it. In fact, one of my more controversial posts had to do with the effect sizes greater than SES of the learner: http://grantwiggins.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/what-works-in-education-hatties-list-of-the-greatest-effects-and-why-it-matters/
Check the comments!
It’s also the most viewed post in the last two years.
Thanks for writing, and for underscoring the importance of explicit and self-conscious learning principles. That is something we ask all consultant school and district leaders to hammer out with staff, to serve as a mutually-agreed-upon contract as to what students deserve. (See Schooling by Design Chapter 3).
Great thoughts Dan…
And to come full circle here, the design of this blog conversation works well only with an effective ‘teacher’ behind it (Grant)—who provokes thinking through tough questioning and is direct yet respectful of people’s views. The message to the learner here says “give me your ideas; I’m interested in what you have to say. Get ready to be challenged”
Take Grant out of the mix…. insert a different teacher with poor communication skills implementing the same overall design… and you’re going to get a vastly different result. The teacher matters a ton.
Well, it would be churlish and ungrateful of me to say i disagree, wouldn’t it? But I must object that AGAIN you are confusing the teacher with the ‘teacher’ role of that person. I am not saying the teacher as educator doesn’t matter. I am saying that the ‘teaching’ part of the teacher is over-rated as a cause of learning. Nor am I, strinctly speaking,’teaching’ when I reply to comments, I am facilitating and giving feedback (i.e. coaching, broadly speaking) – a very different ‘role’ than professing, informing. Cf. Adler’s Paideia Proposal and new Essential Questions book where these distinctions are made at greater length to signal what must happen as a package of all three key roles (profess/facilitate/coach)
I’m not so sure if I’d call him a ‘teacher’ is this case as much as I would call him a facilitator of a conversation. I see a facilitator as someone who guides a conversation by keeping people focus or on topic, one who provides clarity, or one who might give feedback. I don’t see a facilitator as someone who ‘teaches’ or is teaching.
As Mark Prensky suggests, we need to redefine the role of the teacher. It’s more of a partnership now for learning and less about the teacher being in control of the classroom. If I am understanding what Grant is saying (and many others), it really doesn’t matter what the teacher is doing… the question is are students learning? So it’s a shift from focusing on the “teaching” and more on learning.
Precisely. That’s the revolution.
Yes. I agree with what you are saying Dan. I was using the term ‘teacher’ broadly to include this role of facilitator.
Yet to be honest I think we have to remember something very important: You brought up the fact that it is “…less about the teacher being in control of the classroom.” An effective teacher who has surrendered decision-making authority to students and facilitated environments which inspire critical thinking IS still in control. Her levers of control are buried in the design. The decisions she makes on the design has been shaped by her philosophical view of learning and how the world should work. There is a metaphysics and an ethics underlying the design, a world view to put it broadly. The TEACHER’s values have been imposed upon the learning process. So, I would argue, there is just as much control; it is just that it comes in a form that unlocks the potential of other human beings to find their own way.
Teachers who understand the learner’s needs and those who make their subject interesting by sharing their passion are the ones who influence students. There is also I believe a pairing or matching about the teaching and learning approaches that influences students. We can do something about both situations. The first is to reflect on how we meet learner’s needs in our teaching. I list these as the need for: Fun, Freedom (to make choices) Power (to be heard) and Belonging (to be recognised and known for who they are). For a more detailed explanation and professional reflection on how you meet these needs see the e-book “Understanding Learning Needs” (http://www.ace-d.co.uk/id10.html). The second is to consider how to help students manage their learning environment and understand the various issues (including emotional impact on learning). I call this “LQ” (Learning Quotient) and focuses on how best to manage the learning environment to meet your learning needs. You can find out more about LQ (There are now nine articles) at this address (the first article) http://4c3d.wordpress.com/2013/08/11/learning-quotient/ An article discussing an aspect of LQ is published each Wednesday. The topics covered so far include LQ and the link to: Creativity, Empathy, the Design Process, Developing Learning Intelligence, the Learner, the Environment and the LQ rich Environment.
Kev
Thanks – helpful resources
But what of Carl Jung? I think you make many valid points which I will be directly applying to my lesson/classroom management design – but let’s not allow the pendulum to swing and do away with the qualities teachers bring to the classroom by virtue of their passion and desire to have children feel safe, important and loved…
One looks back with appreciation to the brilliant teachers, but with gratitude to those who touched our human feelings. The curriculum is so much necessary raw material, but warmth is the vital element for the growing plant and for the soul of the child. – Carl Jung
No intention of swinging to an extreme. As I have repeatedly said here, the issue is not getting rid of teachers but downplaying the ‘teaching’ role of that person.
I would love to see the student responses regarding World Languages.
I’ll post them next week in a separate post. In general, WL is in the middle of the pack for most interesting…
Reblogged this on What Else? 1DR and commented:
Key research, a sample student survey, and needed information about teaching boys — which of course is just great teaching strategies for all, but do we use them enough for those who need it? Read Grant Wiggins’s wise words!
Especially note these strategies for teaching boys from the research of
Christina Hoff Sommers:
” The most effective lessons included more than one of these elements:
Lessons that result in an end product–a booklet, a catapult, a poem, or a comic strip, for example.
Lessons that are structured as competitive games.
Lessons requiring motor activity.
Lessons requiring boys to assume responsibility for the learning of others.
Lessons that require boys to address open questions or unsolved problems.
Lessons that require a combination of competition and teamwork.
Lessons that focus on independent, personal discovery and realization.
Lessons that introduce drama in the form of novelty or surprise.”
I find the research extremely interesting as I would have given more credit to the teacher. I wonder if the same criteria was used with Elementary students if the results would be the same.
Good question. I haven’t tried to ask elementary kids since there is so much constructed response, but I would be happy to test it out if you’re interested! (I see no reason why 4th and 5th graders couldn’t answer the Qs).
Maybe there is something to “getting out of the way” or how refs in boxing move out of the spotlight during boxing matches. Still important, but in the background.
Something about this data bothers me but I’m not sure I can quite put my finger on it. I’m thinking about what I know of Carol Dweck’s work on growth vs. fixed mindsets. Saying “I’m bad at ___.” or “I’m good at ___.” suggests that students see their ability to do ___ as fixed. Perhaps one key role for the teacher is to help students shift this perception of themselves? I wonder if “I’m good at ___” is code for “___ is challenging, but I can consistently meet those challenges.” or for “___ is super easy and I can earn praise/good grades/etc. with relatively little effort.” I am hoping it’s the former, but don’t feel confident about that.
Quick question off topic…If I could get your feedback, it would be much appreciated. Our high school English department has been trying to come up with a departmental list of essential questions and enduring understandings. So far we have 53 total. This seems excessive. It seems to me (A) that every departmental e.q. and e.u. should apply to every course in the department — low level freshmen through AP seniors. And (B) the focus of these questions should be the skills taught in English — reading and analyzing text, writing, and speaking. We need some help figuring out how to focus ourselves. Are these two points a step in the right direction? Thanks for the input, and sorry to get the postings off track.
Completely with you. Use the draft of 53 to hone it down to, say, 12 of each – to be usable in each course (e.g. Effective readers ask questions of the text as they read” or something in that vein. The key is that the recurring idea (whether expressed as a statement or question) should be genuinely useful to students as they read, write, speak, and listen.
Thanks for the help.
I was just speaking with a colleague. 24 still seems like a lot. Did you recommend 12 of each – 24 total – because that is how many a department should have, or because you were thinking it might be difficult for a department find consensus on just 5 of each? Thanks again.
Less is more. That’s the real truth, always. But sometimes it is best to start with more and hone. That’s all I meant. Try to draft a bunch and then see which ones get universal agreement and go with the latter for now.
Grant,
Great subject. What about the teachers who became educators because they had bad teachers. Is that a possibility? I became a teacher to make a difference.
I like to view my students as future colleagues so I try to work laterally and collegially with them. But I think it is a love of the subject that is the most important.
I entered teaching for just this reason. I was a bad students who hated school for most of my youth. I went into teaching to make it more meaningful and less boring because I knew it had to be better. I still feel this way. I still think education is where medicine was in 1776 – pre-modern with far too many casualties.
In some ways this reminds me of an article I can no longer find. It was about The physics teacher who thought he was excellent, yet the computer teaching program was more effective. Ray