Education is full of these false dichotomies. Both/and thinking is a harder, more complex way to approach policy, but I believe it would do the field well to have a more pluralistic approach to many of our pressing issues. Some programs that prepare learners for the world of work are more like scales-focused technical programs, while others are full of jazz-like improvisation. These approaches meet different needs and both are important. Arguing about how to measure outcomes by using just one standard ignores the value of multiplicity.
That's a VERY good set of points as well. The fundamental nature is different - and top down policy can't figure out the differences ahead of time. So don't standardize what to do. Pluralism = good.
Our World Cup sailors are masters at controlling their boat in a constantly changing environment. Many in their off times knowing the necessity of just having that feel is essential to their skill refresh it by going back to the small single handed boats that they began in. Many times it all began into that 8 foot El Torro or an 8 Foot Omni but its all the same, its in the feel that created the reflexes and muscle memory to act in accordance to the elements that translates to the incredible boats they command in those great races.
I just started "The Disengaged Teen" by Jenny Anderson. The only things students want from their time in school is 1) to be able to hang out with friends and 2) to feel successful. I am completely lost as to why educators cannot understand why kids are so focused on video gaming and are unable to see that mastery based education is the key to educations dillema. Gaming provides both #1 and #2. Gaming exemplifies the draw of mastery. Only can a player move on when they have mastered a level and best of all, as I watch my grandkids play, they are playing connected online with headsets with their friends helping each other create that mastery level for themselves. My serious look into education was spawned by a talk Clayton Christensen gave on education post his stroke, his book "Disrupting Class" and Sal Kan's "The One World School House". Your work and offerings are continually adding to my knowledge base. Today my education library is filled with shelves of relevant books. Thank you. My challenge here in New Mexico, as hard as I offer, I cannot find others who are willing to engage this failed system through the reading of works by you and all the other great authors on the subject. I hear the school choice mantra but nothing about what they should be looking for with a 21st century mindset. All that I see is a 2.0 version of the siloed industrial era system being all that they want. Frustrating barely is the right word. I have recently read two books recently published by the Center for Curriculum Redesign that paint the right picture but fear of change holds people back from accepting that what we are doing no longer works. Thank you again for keeping the subject fresh.
Agree with you on all of this. That finding from disrupting class that Clay and I wrote about still is salient I agree. And continues to go unheard based on action.
The problem here is NOT the “food fight” between two alternatives (“drill and kill” and “in-classroom projects like PBL” BOTH OF WHICH ARE NOT RIGHT—it’s the search for something that is better for all. Drill doesn’t have to kill— When Lebron James or Steph Curry or Taylor Swift or anyone else practices—and they all do— it’s because they want to accomplish something they know they can’t without putting in the work.
As a former professional musician, I can tell you that the boring stuff—e.g. scales, free throws, whatever it is— IS boring if done in just a forced, repetitive way. So every musician and athlete I know makes up games to get themselves through it. “Can I do it 10 x without a mistake? 50 times? Can I play it at 3x the tempo? At 1/3rd? The point is that these games work when they come from the performer, to the teacher (a teacher/coach might suggest some, but no good one will force them on a learner.)
The problem in school—or learning piano—is that most kids ARE NOT intrinsically motivated to do the work. There is generally someone outside—their teacher, their parent—telling them to do it, and the goals are the adults’ not the kids’. Those people who eventually succeed eventually internally tie the practice to a personal achievement goal. Most schoolkids don’t ever do this, because the only goals they are given are academic success goals, like grades.
For me, projects, as they are typically done in school (“PBL”), are really just more “practicing scales” in a different way (i.e. they are “a pedagogy” to teach the curriculum.) So food fighting about whether the kinds of projects we do in school are better than rote worksheets (or vv) is a waste of time. As one kid said “Every once in a lifetime a school project comes around that you’re actually interested in.”
So the answer is NOT both, it’s NEITHER. It is “learning in advance” that’s the problem in our schools—something we don’t have to force kids to do any more. There is no motivation for students in almost all of our curriculum, which is why teachers struggle so hard to dream one up. Our kids are not Lebron James’s who want to be the best at the game—the “game fro them is only “academics”. That they mostly don’t care about. People are motivated, as individuals, by what interests them, and by accomplishment goals they personally have. Those have to be in the real-world—something almost no schools are set up to provide students on a regular, ongoing basis. So we “pretend” and use weasel terms like “authentic.”
When your only goal for kids is academic success, you food fight fight over which pedagogy works better. But the answer is personal and situational. Direct instruction, and even rote practice is fine—sometimes best—ONCE YOU WANT TO LEARN SOMETHING (that’s what a lot of what You Tube is!) Internal motivation comes from the real world—and what YOU want to get done in it. Once anyone—young or old— has that motivation, they will learn almost anything they need to get there (that was the case, for example for videogames—no kid needed “school”.) In school most of the the motivation has to be done by the stick— because we start with a curriculum that suits us rather than with the kids’ individual interests. And we do that because our system is set up to “batch process” kids for societal goals. But if every one of our 2 billion kids had a “curriculum” that was designed for, and suited ONLY THEM (and modified itself on the fly based on how things go), we would have all the engagement we lack and need. If every kid said “Hell Yes!” about what we offered them to do, because it was designed for them—and if every kid were stressed far less to do things they don’t want to do—we wouldn’t have the same problems. (AI will hopefully help this.)
The real food fight—and it SHOULD be a food WAR—is between an education that tries to force more or less the same MESS (math, English, science, social studies) down every kids’ throat, and an education that let’s young people do what they feel is right for them—i.e. things they want to proactive and get better at —in order to achieve their own goals, with some adult guidance along the way. When we do this, we will no longer need grades and ranking. We will need only one kind of assessment: “Before and After.” I.e., “Can you point to something—anything and say ‘See that? Before it wasn’t good or didn’t exist. Now because of what I and my team did, it’s so much better—as you can see!’” If kids could do that on a regular basis—in areas they care about— and constantly spiral up to more complex and impactful things—they might actually want to go to school for something more than just seeing their friends!
Hi Michael, we have been trying to figure out how to incorporate more PBL and know there are some good resources. Our challenge has been how to record credits against graduation requirements for PBL activities. Credit acceleration is a key focus for us with many students behind credits when they come to us. How have you seen this addressed?
Say more about the challenge you're facing? Most folks I think embed it as part of the class and make assumptions about the "hours spent" but I think I'm missing the nuance behind your question. More context and I'll see what I can come up with!
Thanks Michael, I should have clarified that all our students are on individualized learning plans through a digital curriculum, tightly mapped to OH graduation requirements. So, a couple of issues 1) although we can do a PBL activity, it may not fit neatly into where each of them is in their learning plan 2) maybe just laziness on our part, but since the PBL is not in the digital curriculum, we have not attempted to map them into a unit leading to a credit - or have some of the PBL resource providers mapped to graduation credit requirements, i.e. completing this PBL activity will earn them x hours/units of math, y hours/units of science, and z hours/units of ELA?
Ahh gotcha. Yes now I see the issue. I was going to say look at how vlacs handled this but their competency based so I don't know that it will help. The other model to look at might be summit learning and how they did their playlists and project integration, but the platform they were using no longer exists so I'm not sure if that will help. It's also not quite the use case. I think the bigger thing is that you probably just have to create a mapping even if it's somewhat artificial around the average time it takes students to complete these projects perhaps and use that as a proxy with the evidence that they did it being the actual creations or projects or outcomes or performances. Obviously it would not be great to have to track the actual activity itself in an LMS as that would defeat the purpose.
Education is full of these false dichotomies. Both/and thinking is a harder, more complex way to approach policy, but I believe it would do the field well to have a more pluralistic approach to many of our pressing issues. Some programs that prepare learners for the world of work are more like scales-focused technical programs, while others are full of jazz-like improvisation. These approaches meet different needs and both are important. Arguing about how to measure outcomes by using just one standard ignores the value of multiplicity.
That's a VERY good set of points as well. The fundamental nature is different - and top down policy can't figure out the differences ahead of time. So don't standardize what to do. Pluralism = good.
Our World Cup sailors are masters at controlling their boat in a constantly changing environment. Many in their off times knowing the necessity of just having that feel is essential to their skill refresh it by going back to the small single handed boats that they began in. Many times it all began into that 8 foot El Torro or an 8 Foot Omni but its all the same, its in the feel that created the reflexes and muscle memory to act in accordance to the elements that translates to the incredible boats they command in those great races.
Thank you for sharing this!!
I just started "The Disengaged Teen" by Jenny Anderson. The only things students want from their time in school is 1) to be able to hang out with friends and 2) to feel successful. I am completely lost as to why educators cannot understand why kids are so focused on video gaming and are unable to see that mastery based education is the key to educations dillema. Gaming provides both #1 and #2. Gaming exemplifies the draw of mastery. Only can a player move on when they have mastered a level and best of all, as I watch my grandkids play, they are playing connected online with headsets with their friends helping each other create that mastery level for themselves. My serious look into education was spawned by a talk Clayton Christensen gave on education post his stroke, his book "Disrupting Class" and Sal Kan's "The One World School House". Your work and offerings are continually adding to my knowledge base. Today my education library is filled with shelves of relevant books. Thank you. My challenge here in New Mexico, as hard as I offer, I cannot find others who are willing to engage this failed system through the reading of works by you and all the other great authors on the subject. I hear the school choice mantra but nothing about what they should be looking for with a 21st century mindset. All that I see is a 2.0 version of the siloed industrial era system being all that they want. Frustrating barely is the right word. I have recently read two books recently published by the Center for Curriculum Redesign that paint the right picture but fear of change holds people back from accepting that what we are doing no longer works. Thank you again for keeping the subject fresh.
Agree with you on all of this. That finding from disrupting class that Clay and I wrote about still is salient I agree. And continues to go unheard based on action.
The problem here is NOT the “food fight” between two alternatives (“drill and kill” and “in-classroom projects like PBL” BOTH OF WHICH ARE NOT RIGHT—it’s the search for something that is better for all. Drill doesn’t have to kill— When Lebron James or Steph Curry or Taylor Swift or anyone else practices—and they all do— it’s because they want to accomplish something they know they can’t without putting in the work.
As a former professional musician, I can tell you that the boring stuff—e.g. scales, free throws, whatever it is— IS boring if done in just a forced, repetitive way. So every musician and athlete I know makes up games to get themselves through it. “Can I do it 10 x without a mistake? 50 times? Can I play it at 3x the tempo? At 1/3rd? The point is that these games work when they come from the performer, to the teacher (a teacher/coach might suggest some, but no good one will force them on a learner.)
The problem in school—or learning piano—is that most kids ARE NOT intrinsically motivated to do the work. There is generally someone outside—their teacher, their parent—telling them to do it, and the goals are the adults’ not the kids’. Those people who eventually succeed eventually internally tie the practice to a personal achievement goal. Most schoolkids don’t ever do this, because the only goals they are given are academic success goals, like grades.
For me, projects, as they are typically done in school (“PBL”), are really just more “practicing scales” in a different way (i.e. they are “a pedagogy” to teach the curriculum.) So food fighting about whether the kinds of projects we do in school are better than rote worksheets (or vv) is a waste of time. As one kid said “Every once in a lifetime a school project comes around that you’re actually interested in.”
So the answer is NOT both, it’s NEITHER. It is “learning in advance” that’s the problem in our schools—something we don’t have to force kids to do any more. There is no motivation for students in almost all of our curriculum, which is why teachers struggle so hard to dream one up. Our kids are not Lebron James’s who want to be the best at the game—the “game fro them is only “academics”. That they mostly don’t care about. People are motivated, as individuals, by what interests them, and by accomplishment goals they personally have. Those have to be in the real-world—something almost no schools are set up to provide students on a regular, ongoing basis. So we “pretend” and use weasel terms like “authentic.”
When your only goal for kids is academic success, you food fight fight over which pedagogy works better. But the answer is personal and situational. Direct instruction, and even rote practice is fine—sometimes best—ONCE YOU WANT TO LEARN SOMETHING (that’s what a lot of what You Tube is!) Internal motivation comes from the real world—and what YOU want to get done in it. Once anyone—young or old— has that motivation, they will learn almost anything they need to get there (that was the case, for example for videogames—no kid needed “school”.) In school most of the the motivation has to be done by the stick— because we start with a curriculum that suits us rather than with the kids’ individual interests. And we do that because our system is set up to “batch process” kids for societal goals. But if every one of our 2 billion kids had a “curriculum” that was designed for, and suited ONLY THEM (and modified itself on the fly based on how things go), we would have all the engagement we lack and need. If every kid said “Hell Yes!” about what we offered them to do, because it was designed for them—and if every kid were stressed far less to do things they don’t want to do—we wouldn’t have the same problems. (AI will hopefully help this.)
The real food fight—and it SHOULD be a food WAR—is between an education that tries to force more or less the same MESS (math, English, science, social studies) down every kids’ throat, and an education that let’s young people do what they feel is right for them—i.e. things they want to proactive and get better at —in order to achieve their own goals, with some adult guidance along the way. When we do this, we will no longer need grades and ranking. We will need only one kind of assessment: “Before and After.” I.e., “Can you point to something—anything and say ‘See that? Before it wasn’t good or didn’t exist. Now because of what I and my team did, it’s so much better—as you can see!’” If kids could do that on a regular basis—in areas they care about— and constantly spiral up to more complex and impactful things—they might actually want to go to school for something more than just seeing their friends!
Hi Michael, we have been trying to figure out how to incorporate more PBL and know there are some good resources. Our challenge has been how to record credits against graduation requirements for PBL activities. Credit acceleration is a key focus for us with many students behind credits when they come to us. How have you seen this addressed?
Say more about the challenge you're facing? Most folks I think embed it as part of the class and make assumptions about the "hours spent" but I think I'm missing the nuance behind your question. More context and I'll see what I can come up with!
Thanks Michael, I should have clarified that all our students are on individualized learning plans through a digital curriculum, tightly mapped to OH graduation requirements. So, a couple of issues 1) although we can do a PBL activity, it may not fit neatly into where each of them is in their learning plan 2) maybe just laziness on our part, but since the PBL is not in the digital curriculum, we have not attempted to map them into a unit leading to a credit - or have some of the PBL resource providers mapped to graduation credit requirements, i.e. completing this PBL activity will earn them x hours/units of math, y hours/units of science, and z hours/units of ELA?
Ahh gotcha. Yes now I see the issue. I was going to say look at how vlacs handled this but their competency based so I don't know that it will help. The other model to look at might be summit learning and how they did their playlists and project integration, but the platform they were using no longer exists so I'm not sure if that will help. It's also not quite the use case. I think the bigger thing is that you probably just have to create a mapping even if it's somewhat artificial around the average time it takes students to complete these projects perhaps and use that as a proxy with the evidence that they did it being the actual creations or projects or outcomes or performances. Obviously it would not be great to have to track the actual activity itself in an LMS as that would defeat the purpose.