Techno Constructivist: Understanding by Design

Monday, August 23, 2010

My reply to Grant Wiggins

In case my comment does not pass moderation mustard at this post I am posting a copy of my reply to the comment left by Grant Wiggins here:

I wrote:

Grant Wiggins,

I would like to take issue with a few points you make here. First, most of the best teaching I have done and most of the best teaching I have observed in my time as an instructional coach would NEVER make for a good video. To insist that a video demonstrating a teacher’s teaching style be a litmus test for hiring a new teacher would completely eliminate many of the best and most effective teachers from ever finding a place in this profession. The best teaching does not come from a lectern or in front of a SMARTboard, it comes from building relationships with students, discovering what present and past experiences have shaped their understanding and guiding them toward new experiences and encounters with materials that will provide optimal growth. Moments of teacher influence in these situations are difficult if not impossible to plan as they come about through a teacher’s responsiveness to what their students are doing. It is not an easy thing to do and it certainly cannot be scripted or reduced to a formula.

Another problem I have not heard anyone mention in this whole debate is how can you have a test, be it a state mandated test or teacher drafted exam, that tests a teacher’s effectiveness when there is no agreed consensus on what the purpose of school is? The batter who averages only .167 and has his average printed in the paper at least knows what the purpose of baseball is. What is the purpose of school? Is it to prepare workers and consumers for participation in the economy? Is it to create an informed electorate? Is it to indoctrinate children into a way of thinking that will not disrupt established order? Is it to create life-long learners? Is it to prepare students for their past or is it to prepare students for their future? I ask this question a lot and I get a lot of different responses. High school seniors usually tell me the purpose of school is to help people get a better paying job. School teachers usually tell me it is to pass on a love of learning. Politicians usually say it is either to create an informed electorate or to prepare young people to compete in a world economy. What is it? One would be tempted to say yes to all of the above but there presents some contradiction.

Understanding by Design, your own formula, tells us that we have to start with an essential question then develop an appropriate assessment tool, and finally craft activities that will drive students to an enduring understanding. As far as scripted formulaic teaching methods go UBD is better than most and I support every teacher having a foundational knowledge of the concept. But, it seems to me value added assessment has failed to identify the appropriate enduring understanding to the larger essential question of, “What is the purpose of school?” How can any assessment measure to test teacher effectiveness be created, how can we know what constitutes a good teacher, if we cannot agree or identify what their purpose is?

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Monday, April 14, 2008

Student Centered Pedagogies - Part 1

It has come to my attention that while I have (through this blog, district workshops, informal discussions, and conference presentations) done well at identifying a need for a more student driven approach to teaching, an approach I have long felt is met through constructivist and connectivist teaching methods. I have also done well at describing and introducing the tools that make these kinds of learning environments effective with technology. However, what has been lacking is concrete examples or an explicit explanation of what these two pedagogical approaches really mean. I plan on devoting the next few blogposts to exploring this topic and attempt to provide concrete examples of how these theories can be applied in a classroom.

I have and will continue to argue that our traditional school systems are not adequately set up for ideal student-centered learning. This goes beyond teaching methods and plays itself out in nearly all aspects of how we have organized schools. The bell schedule segments learning into time slots that are not necessarily optimized for learning and fail to recognize that the topic of the class goes on 24/7. Our system of reporting progress through grades and standardized test scores and our use of those final marks as a commodity to be traded for future advancement, success, or acclaim reduce what is naturally intrinsically motivating and forces it to become an extrinsic chore. Students no longer learn because they want to know things, they learn because they have to. More so, grades and test scores tend to put a lid on things telling students that the learning has stopped, that the issue is over, that there is no need to revisit topics. The calendar crams learning into nine months without much break causing fatigue for both teachers and students in the late winter and loss of practice in the summer months.

I feel this video illustrates why there is a need to look at learner-centered approaches to teaching:

I could argue these points for many pages but I would prefer these next few blogposts have a much more local effect. In those posts I will attempt to show how learning theories that support the student-centered approach can be utilized in the structured schedule, calendar, and grade reporting structure of a traditional school setting.

The following videos and web resources describe/explain the learning theories I will be building on in the next few blog posts:

Constructivism: