This week, AEI and researchED launched an essay series that will translate evidence from cognitive science and education research into practical guidance for teachers.
I’m a big fan of E.D. too. “The Schools We Need”. The new heads of DoWEA, where I used to work before retiring, seem to be fans as well! Some things are looking up!
I’m planning on going to ResearchEd Toronto. Hope to see you there!
Please let’s not forget the teachers of the arts! I’ve been to three ResearchEd conferences and don’t remember seeing one presentation on the visual, musical, or dramatic arts.
My wife and I have taught visual and musical arts students for decades clearly using explicit instruction to precede creativity - me with a jazz ensemble and her with various visual arts classes.
My kids had to learn that to improvise on a G-7 chord they should definitely consider using that G Dorian scale that they’ve been practicing the last two weeks. “And remember that’s one flat, not two!”
This is such a great idea--thank you! I have been thinking a lot about change ever since reading Jim Hewitt and Nidhi Sachdeva's Why Good Evidence Sometimes Fails to Change Our Minds (https://scienceoflearning.substack.com/p/why-good-evidence-sometimes-fails) where they discuss assimilation vs. accommodation (a topic I'm now working on for a future post). They write: "Whenever possible, we tend to assimilate rather than accommodate. Assimilation preserves the coherence of what we already believe, whereas accommodation requires us to reorganize our existing understanding—a process that is often considerably more difficult."
I'm proposing that perhaps we begin by taking what we can get and start with 'acceptable assimilation'. For example, maybe this key point--Contrary to its common caricatures, explicit instruction is not a teacher monologue, a hindrance to student creativity or problem-solving skills, or a risk to children’s self-esteem--could, in fact, be Zach's first in the list to build his excellent discussion around. Start with where many discovery-based teachers are at and help them assimilate explicit instruction into their "philosophy". (Still thinking this through--just asking questions!)
I have spent the morning sparring with a whole-language professor. If science advances one retirement at a time, we can be thankful he's now retired. But we have practicing teachers who have adopted poor pedagogy who aren't easy to redirect. I think that perhaps we need a version of Dylan Wiliam's six questions about adopting research (a focus for my post tomorrow) to ask about adopting teaching methods. He proposes:
1. Does it solve a problem we have?
2. If we do it, how much faster will our students learn?
3. What’s the cost—in money and also time?
4. Can we do it here?
5. Do we know what to do?
6. What are the potential side-effects?
Thanks again for this public service! Cheapest PD in town.
I am super excited for this series. It sounds fantastic.
Unsolicited feedback: I found the article on explicit instruction helpful and relatable for educators but the piece on transferable skills left me confused on how we should apply it to the classroom. We get so many articles like “X doesn’t work” without the same or longer length of text on what to do instead.
I am really looking forward to reading the papers. Wishing you the very best in this initiative and truly hoping that the work will land on students’ desks and classrooms and will make a meaningful difference.
I completely agree with that we need to focus on changing and improving classroom practice.
My extremely unsolicited advice: this work would be more impactful and more likely to land with actual teachers if these papers were a. written by practicing teachers b. connected to specific routines and practices they're using in the classrooms and c. bolstered by video exemplars (whenever possible). I work with so many teachers who are already doing this work.
I couldn’t agree more with this perspective. To me, the Science of Learning has a relatability problem. I agree with so many of the ideas in these papers, but they don’t land because the people writing them haven’t actually taught in a regular public school classroom that looks like mine (Groshell taught at an expensive private school in Seattle). I think to have a real impact on the teaching profession, the Science of Learning advocates will need to find practitioners in real public school classrooms to bring this work to life.
I taught math (7th and 8th grades) in a regular public school classroom and have written about it in various forms (books and articles). I still get hate mail.
Looking forward to reading and promoting these widely. Thanks to you, Annika and the team of writers for taking the time to articulate how to put these concepts into practice. Another step in the right direction. - ResearchED USA cult member.
Wonderful initiative!!
I’m a big fan of E.D. too. “The Schools We Need”. The new heads of DoWEA, where I used to work before retiring, seem to be fans as well! Some things are looking up!
I’m planning on going to ResearchEd Toronto. Hope to see you there!
Hell yes. Obviously you’ll also do one on writing instruction…
Please let’s not forget the teachers of the arts! I’ve been to three ResearchEd conferences and don’t remember seeing one presentation on the visual, musical, or dramatic arts.
My wife and I have taught visual and musical arts students for decades clearly using explicit instruction to precede creativity - me with a jazz ensemble and her with various visual arts classes.
My kids had to learn that to improvise on a G-7 chord they should definitely consider using that G Dorian scale that they’ve been practicing the last two weeks. “And remember that’s one flat, not two!”
Excellent point. As an unrepentant E.D Hirsch acolyte, I recognize the importance of the arts. Intrinsically and for the sake of literacy.
This is such a great idea--thank you! I have been thinking a lot about change ever since reading Jim Hewitt and Nidhi Sachdeva's Why Good Evidence Sometimes Fails to Change Our Minds (https://scienceoflearning.substack.com/p/why-good-evidence-sometimes-fails) where they discuss assimilation vs. accommodation (a topic I'm now working on for a future post). They write: "Whenever possible, we tend to assimilate rather than accommodate. Assimilation preserves the coherence of what we already believe, whereas accommodation requires us to reorganize our existing understanding—a process that is often considerably more difficult."
I'm proposing that perhaps we begin by taking what we can get and start with 'acceptable assimilation'. For example, maybe this key point--Contrary to its common caricatures, explicit instruction is not a teacher monologue, a hindrance to student creativity or problem-solving skills, or a risk to children’s self-esteem--could, in fact, be Zach's first in the list to build his excellent discussion around. Start with where many discovery-based teachers are at and help them assimilate explicit instruction into their "philosophy". (Still thinking this through--just asking questions!)
I have spent the morning sparring with a whole-language professor. If science advances one retirement at a time, we can be thankful he's now retired. But we have practicing teachers who have adopted poor pedagogy who aren't easy to redirect. I think that perhaps we need a version of Dylan Wiliam's six questions about adopting research (a focus for my post tomorrow) to ask about adopting teaching methods. He proposes:
1. Does it solve a problem we have?
2. If we do it, how much faster will our students learn?
3. What’s the cost—in money and also time?
4. Can we do it here?
5. Do we know what to do?
6. What are the potential side-effects?
Thanks again for this public service! Cheapest PD in town.
I am super excited for this series. It sounds fantastic.
Unsolicited feedback: I found the article on explicit instruction helpful and relatable for educators but the piece on transferable skills left me confused on how we should apply it to the classroom. We get so many articles like “X doesn’t work” without the same or longer length of text on what to do instead.
I am really looking forward to reading the papers. Wishing you the very best in this initiative and truly hoping that the work will land on students’ desks and classrooms and will make a meaningful difference.
I'm delighted to learn about this. Happy to help, too!
I completely agree with that we need to focus on changing and improving classroom practice.
My extremely unsolicited advice: this work would be more impactful and more likely to land with actual teachers if these papers were a. written by practicing teachers b. connected to specific routines and practices they're using in the classrooms and c. bolstered by video exemplars (whenever possible). I work with so many teachers who are already doing this work.
I couldn’t agree more with this perspective. To me, the Science of Learning has a relatability problem. I agree with so many of the ideas in these papers, but they don’t land because the people writing them haven’t actually taught in a regular public school classroom that looks like mine (Groshell taught at an expensive private school in Seattle). I think to have a real impact on the teaching profession, the Science of Learning advocates will need to find practitioners in real public school classrooms to bring this work to life.
I taught math (7th and 8th grades) in a regular public school classroom and have written about it in various forms (books and articles). I still get hate mail.
Let’s talk!
Yes, looking forward to it. You have my email, I believe. I'll DM you on Twitter with particulars.
Go ahead and delete this because you just made up and lied about the bio of a total stranger!
Looking forward to these!
Excellent! Looking forward to reading.
Looking forward to reading and promoting these widely. Thanks to you, Annika and the team of writers for taking the time to articulate how to put these concepts into practice. Another step in the right direction. - ResearchED USA cult member.
So excited for these!
Excited to read these!