Grant Wiggins (of Understanding by Design fame) has been tussling with some erudite education bloggers about the immortal constructivist/instructivist debate. In the midst of a response to The Educational Realist, he let slip this gem:
Most teachers focus on getting kids to learn stuff, as if learning = acquisition of content. That’s how textbooks and almost all curricula are written, and that is how most teachers teach.
Um, excuse me. Yeah, way back here. It's okay if you can't see me, I'm really short. I'm the one holding the dictionary. You want to know the reason most teachers focus on the "acquisition of content?" It's because THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF LEARNING! Don't believe me? Go look it up in Webster's yourself.
Meanwhile, I'm going back to redesigning my curriculum. And making damn sure none of your intellectually soggy, edu-babble is anywhere near it.
"Learning = acquisition of content." So if I extrapolate that idea doesn't that mean standardized tests are a great measure of teacher quality?
ReplyDeleteNope. Standardized tests are great for measuring learning, but do not reveal where the hell that information came from. (YouTube, Saturday Evening Post, your best-friend's uncle's girlfriend's neighbour.) Teaching is a whole other kettle of worms.
ReplyDeleteBut, thank you for a great number of ideas for future posts!
What is the role of the teacher in the classroom, intellectually speaking? If the end goal of education is learning and learning is defined as simply aquiring content, aren't there cheaper, more effective means than paying teachers? Personally it makes me feel dead inside if I have to consider my job as ending at getting students to memorize the quadratic formula. And if my role is defined as such by outsiders, there has to be something cheaper than paying my salary and benefits to get students to memorize the quadratic formula.
Delete