While writing…

As some of you may know, Paul, Casper and myself are very busy working on the follow up book on urban myths about learning and education. The past few weeks I’ve read so many sources and so many papers my head is spinning.

But there is one thing I really want to share. In our previous book we’ve debunked a lot of old theories but in writing this book I also discovered that sometimes people already new where it’s at even over a 100 years ago and it seems that what have happened ever since is people trying to show the original insights to be incorrect. Without much success, btw.

Compare it with the forgetting curve by Ebbinghaus. We know how fast one forgets and that you need to start studying in time, but still… students keep postponing their study time.

Maybe it’s human not to accept an insight, could well be. But somehow it’s sad if you need to debunk something by writing that somebody in 1901 probably was correct and still is, despite the many attempts to prove him wrong.

Sorry that I’m a bit vague in this post, but as long our work isn’t reviewed yet, I’m very hesitant to share anything concrete.

4 thoughts on “While writing…

  1. Hi Pedro–it’s because of ideology, which is very hard to uproot, despite facts.

    Speaking of which, if you could spare some space to talk about the Danielson Framework, a lot of us in the US would be very happy–it appears in the new RAND report on the Gates Fdn failure– on page 73, the report’s authors note: “Although sites designed and implemented their observation systems differently, most used Danielson’s FFT as a starting point. All but one of the sites developed rubrics based on the Danielson framework, which meant that these sites emphasized a constructivist approach to pedagogy that involves high levels of student engagement and communication (Danielson Group, undated).”

    That this is what is being used as the basis for “effective teaching”, with professional development, evaluation, and mentoring all being built around these ideas makes one’s head swim.

    1. It’s more something for Paul as co-author of the Kirschner, Sweller & Clark article on constructivism, but as I read this excerpt written by Danielson (http://inservice.ascd.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/teacher-effectiveness-book-excerpt1.jpg) I do wonder if she has read a lot of the present and earlier discussions.
      Besides the fact that she rebrands scientists such as Piaget & Vygotsky to constructivists what many people do, she rebrands a philosophy on knowledge as a theory on learning.
      Do note that in the framework itself I also recognize an emphasis e.g. on instruction and the emphasis she puts on e.g. prior knowledge isn’t wrong imho.

      The biggest issue probably is how this has become a source for a horrible way of flat rubrics-usage (something that she has admitted shouldn’t have been: https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/04/20/charlotte-danielson-on-rethinking-teacher-evaluation.html)

      1. Hi Pedro—thanks for this. My school introduced it a few years ago (over my opposition)–the book they gave us as part of the training states that Domain 3 is the heart of the framework and that student engagement is central to that domain. If you google “Domain 3” and Danielson, you’ll see a bunch of examples as to how it gets applied–the stuff in the top category is often just ludicrous…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.