by Terry Heick
It is not the thought behind an idea that should disturb us, but rather the effect of the idea.
#EdTech. Academic standards based on content. PLCS. Video streaming. Use of data. Mandate to be based on research in our behavior. Distance learning. Differentiation. Social media in class.
None of these ideas are good or bad in themselves. These are just ideas. They are isolated from value of value. We only invoic them when we internalize them-think about it using our unique scheme, imagine them in circumstances that are familiar to us, or do they contextualize them comfortably to avoid cognitive dissonance.
By internalizing them, we smoothed their rough edges for easier consumption. Who wants to have the impression of having an incomplete understanding of something? At this stage, however, the idea has lost its original shape. It is distorted – the same difference between a real dog and a clown twists in brown and white balloons.
Going from a concept or an idea to something we understand in our own terms is not a small change. And comes with a loss. By internalizing an idea, we also attach emotions to them – adapted optimism, head skepticism. Or indifference.
For example, I like the idea of personalized learning, so I attach positive feelings that can lead me to downstream cognitive distortions, where I simplify its function or catastrophy our continuous misunderstandings of its potential in education too much. I defend it, but the “IT” (personalized learning, in this case) is simply an idea. The IT + context is different. It’s chemistry.
Consider it as a model: Idea->Integration->Effect.
The idea alone is only useful for vision or art. As an academic or intellectual exercise. As a fun dialogue or good old -fashioned bench races.
Integration is a question of design and engineering (designer and engineer being two minds of a teacher).
Ideas, integrations and effects are completely important, of course, but everything is also recursive: one affects the other, the idea that has an impact on integration, integration affecting the effect, the effect that breaks a new light on the idea. Perhaps then, instead of a linear Idea–->Integration->EffectWe could think instead of something more like a triangle:
Idea
Integration Effect
Change our thoughts
And instead of “is it a good idea? », We could ask other questions:
What is this’? What are its parts? What does it look like?
What is he doing?
How does it work?
What does it cost? Effect? Change?
How does it help teachers-teach everything to a creative and intellectual and human act everything instead of a question of policy, procedure and survival?
What are its effects – and not narrow effects in pursuing a single objective, but rather macro effects on a thing in its birthplace?
In education, they could be repaired as:
What standardizes content in a narrow range of contents made to learning?
How did a gamified education system work for children as they seek to become whole human beings capable of good work, compassion for people around them and nuanced physical and physical citizenship?
See also What should a school do?
How did education withdraw into a tangle of policies and jargon had an impact on the ability of families and communities to be served by their own learning?
How do teachers react when they are called to be “based on research”? Does this encourage them to pay reviews to the reading committee of emerging pedagogies to provide the “proven” methodology in their class? Or does it send them to Google to search ‘Research -based teaching strategies“Where they find the same examples 6-8 which are launched and lifeless in their next course plan because this is what they were told?”
Expand our point of view. Let us claim for a moment that we can possibly design a teaching and learning system where each student will be able to master each academic standard that his local government has set up for them. What is the effect of this system? Of this mastery? What do we suppose in standards and their mastery? That they will create a nation of critical thinkers who do incredible things?
And this system – what do we suppose on this subject and its effects? What does it “do” to children? When they graduate from this hypothetical machine, will they have a strong feeling of self-knowledge, wisdom, place and family inheritance? Critical thinking, work and love? Otherwise, are you okay?
Is it even the planned effect that we are looking for? Otherwise, what is it? We have to know, right?
Ideas as effects
An inverted class is good, yes? 1: 1? Manufacturers’ education? The 3D printer in the library? Yes, like ideas. So what are they doing? What are their effects? The idea is always neutral.
A “good idea” is emotion -based marketing and appearance. How has it been implemented, and more and more critical, what are its effects? Technology. PD based on the workshop. Snark on Twitter. This grouping strategy that you plan to use tomorrow.
And pay attention to the measures or the evidence you are looking for. This new questioning strategy can have 65% more students’ commitment, but may have hampered students to fight for themselves. Ditto with the self-directed teachers’ pd, 3-minute corridor switches or label a school like “good” or “bad”. To say that something is a “good idea” can only be accepted if we evolve directly in a conversation on integration, then on effect.
“What are its effects?” is a complex question that deserves our most prudent thought and genius. But perhaps even more worthy of our collective affection: “What does it do to our children when they seek to become more human-to grow intellectually, creative and in wisdom and love?”
We could then wrap our necks further downstream than we are used to so that we can see what we – and themselves, we are heading together.
Founder and director of teaching
