Theatrics. Yes, that's exactly what a lot of people think teaching is. Thank you for clarifying what to me is an obvious point, but missed by so many on social media who get a kick out of their popularity as entertainers and not educators. Harsh? Maybe, but I've been in this profession for too long to entertain - pun intended - this kind of misguided promotion of what teaching and learning is all about.
Hi Dan… I used to use your videos as inspiration for my own math lessons. Another influence that helped me design more engaging lessons was Daniel Pink’s book “Drive”… have you ever read it? Autonomy, purpose, and pursuit of mastery are his 3 pillars of motivation and I would often have my students pick problems from 3 tiers of rigor, integrating Pink’s principles. Each problem would test the same standard but in a different way. It was awesome how engaged students were when I presented it. I don’t think me acting like Robin Williams would have had the same sustainable effect.
I think this scans well against the overall research on "flipped" instruction versus lectures. There's two findings that are pretty robust across a number of studies--first, that "flipped" styles of instruction (which are fundamentally about 'co-construction' in your sense here) result in more retention of skills and information by the largest proportion of students across a range of prior competencies but that students strongly prefer lectures, to the point that a 'flipped' instructor can be in professional peril if they're not already fully established as a teacher due to negative feedback.
The reason why that preference shows up is pretty apparent: that it is easier to listen to a lecture than to engage in 'active learning', especially in a subject that a student may view as difficult or challenging. That is especially true if a lecturer is a talented performer. And as you note, performance isn't the opposite of learning--all of us have had experiences where we've learned a great deal from watching a superior performance of a theatrical work, a speech, etc., and thus also from classroom lecturers that are rewarding to watch. But the idea that the missing ingredient in math or science pedagogy is engaging or entertaining performativity just misses the mark. It's a sign once again of the way that certain people keep searching for a single magic trick that will make education work, in part because they have a fixed ideological belief that all existing teachers are underpeforming or incompetent.
There's an element of this that reflects the industrial model of education. Role of educator is to be expert that fills the heads of the students with knowledge. We now need to move to a competency based system where the role of teacher is to facilitate skill building - thus a transition from lecture to engagement... I will also add that in our current context, student mental health and connectivity is a forefront set of needs, too.
I used to beg my teachers not to be try to put on a show. I said "If you're that good you belong up on stage in Las Vegas" The goals instead should be to find ways to maximize your students' hands-on learning/problem-solving time and maximize your own one-on-one or small group coaching time. With the best tools you can find to help you do that- Desmos, white boards, "Bruce Lee math" problem sets, TAPS, etc.
Thanks Dan. I really love this perspective. Just to add on: I have long thought that there's a difference between educators who are fundamentally fascinated by the SUBJECT versus the STUDENTS. Those most excited by the subject are great researchers (who happen to wind up teaching); those who are interested in the students are wonderful teachers, and can potentially teach anything.
At a session last night with teachers and students at a local high school, we talked about the promise & peril of AI. The promise: the much lauded "always on" tutor can potentially help you learn anything easily. The peril: If you don't have to work or engage with an idea, you may not learn much at all. I love your "topless" and "bottomless" problems -- they're intriguing ways to get people to think about the problem. (And bring their "assets" and curiousity into play). I wonder whether AI has the potential to make "learning" easier much like, say, cars made traveling longer distances easier. One unintended consequence of cars, of course, is that you don't have to "work" (ie: walk/run) to get somewhere. Ergo many of us get to be couch potatoes.
I wonder whether AI has the potential to make us "intellectual couch potatoes"?
Theatrics. Yes, that's exactly what a lot of people think teaching is. Thank you for clarifying what to me is an obvious point, but missed by so many on social media who get a kick out of their popularity as entertainers and not educators. Harsh? Maybe, but I've been in this profession for too long to entertain - pun intended - this kind of misguided promotion of what teaching and learning is all about.
Hi Dan… I used to use your videos as inspiration for my own math lessons. Another influence that helped me design more engaging lessons was Daniel Pink’s book “Drive”… have you ever read it? Autonomy, purpose, and pursuit of mastery are his 3 pillars of motivation and I would often have my students pick problems from 3 tiers of rigor, integrating Pink’s principles. Each problem would test the same standard but in a different way. It was awesome how engaged students were when I presented it. I don’t think me acting like Robin Williams would have had the same sustainable effect.
I think this scans well against the overall research on "flipped" instruction versus lectures. There's two findings that are pretty robust across a number of studies--first, that "flipped" styles of instruction (which are fundamentally about 'co-construction' in your sense here) result in more retention of skills and information by the largest proportion of students across a range of prior competencies but that students strongly prefer lectures, to the point that a 'flipped' instructor can be in professional peril if they're not already fully established as a teacher due to negative feedback.
The reason why that preference shows up is pretty apparent: that it is easier to listen to a lecture than to engage in 'active learning', especially in a subject that a student may view as difficult or challenging. That is especially true if a lecturer is a talented performer. And as you note, performance isn't the opposite of learning--all of us have had experiences where we've learned a great deal from watching a superior performance of a theatrical work, a speech, etc., and thus also from classroom lecturers that are rewarding to watch. But the idea that the missing ingredient in math or science pedagogy is engaging or entertaining performativity just misses the mark. It's a sign once again of the way that certain people keep searching for a single magic trick that will make education work, in part because they have a fixed ideological belief that all existing teachers are underpeforming or incompetent.
Here is a quick adaptation of the square animation into Desmos. I was just thinking about how to get me students to re-engage with equations of perpendicular lines and this might provide an opening. https://teacher.desmos.com/activitybuilder/custom/6609bf23c272f0f27922305e
There's an element of this that reflects the industrial model of education. Role of educator is to be expert that fills the heads of the students with knowledge. We now need to move to a competency based system where the role of teacher is to facilitate skill building - thus a transition from lecture to engagement... I will also add that in our current context, student mental health and connectivity is a forefront set of needs, too.
Umm, we do remember what happened to Robin Williams' character: a student committed suicide and he was drummed out of school...
I used to beg my teachers not to be try to put on a show. I said "If you're that good you belong up on stage in Las Vegas" The goals instead should be to find ways to maximize your students' hands-on learning/problem-solving time and maximize your own one-on-one or small group coaching time. With the best tools you can find to help you do that- Desmos, white boards, "Bruce Lee math" problem sets, TAPS, etc.
Thanks Dan. I really love this perspective. Just to add on: I have long thought that there's a difference between educators who are fundamentally fascinated by the SUBJECT versus the STUDENTS. Those most excited by the subject are great researchers (who happen to wind up teaching); those who are interested in the students are wonderful teachers, and can potentially teach anything.
At a session last night with teachers and students at a local high school, we talked about the promise & peril of AI. The promise: the much lauded "always on" tutor can potentially help you learn anything easily. The peril: If you don't have to work or engage with an idea, you may not learn much at all. I love your "topless" and "bottomless" problems -- they're intriguing ways to get people to think about the problem. (And bring their "assets" and curiousity into play). I wonder whether AI has the potential to make "learning" easier much like, say, cars made traveling longer distances easier. One unintended consequence of cars, of course, is that you don't have to "work" (ie: walk/run) to get somewhere. Ergo many of us get to be couch potatoes.
I wonder whether AI has the potential to make us "intellectual couch potatoes"?
What do you think about Art of Problem Solving?