Alfie Kohn says:
- Learning should be organized around problems, projects, and (students’) questions – not around lists of facts or skills, or separate disciplines.
- Thinking is messy; deep thinking is really messy. Therefore beware prescriptive standards and outcomes that are too specific and orderly.
- The primary criterion for what we do in schools: How will this affect kids’ interest in the topic (and their excitement about learning more generally)?
- If students are “off task,” the problem may be with the task, not with the kids.
- In outstanding classrooms, teachers do more listening than talking, and students do more talking than listening. Terrific teachers often have teeth marks on their tongues.
- Children learn how to make good decisions by making decisions, not by following directions.
- When we aren’t sure how to solve a problem relating to curriculum, pedagogy, or classroom conflict, the best response is often to ask the kids.
- The more focused we are on kids’ “behaviors,” the more we end up missing the kids themselves – along with the needs, motives, and reasons that underlie their actions.
- If students are rewarded or praised for doing something (e.g., reading, solving problems, being kind), they’ll likely lose interest in whatever they had to do to get the reward.
- The more that students are led to focus on how well they’re doing in school, the less engaged they’ll tend to be with what they’re doing in school.
- All learning can be assessed, but the most important kinds of learning are very difficult to measure – and the quality of that learning may diminish if we try to reduce it to numbers.
- Standardized tests assess the proficiencies that matter least. Such tests serve mostly to make unimpressive forms of instruction appear successful.
Alfie Kohn says:
Challenge — which carries with it a risk of failure — is a part of learning. That’s not something we’d want to eliminate. But when students who are tripped up by challenges respond by tuning out, acting out, or dropping out, they sometimes do so not because of a deficiency in their makeup (lack of stick-to-itiveness) but because those challenges — what they were asked to do — aren’t particularly engaging or relevant. Finger-wagging adults who exhort students to “do their best” sometimes don’t offer a persuasive reason for why a given task should be done at all, let alone well. And if the rejoinder is that it doesn’t matter if the assignment is just busywork because kids need to develop “good work habits” across the board, well, a reasonable person would wonder who stands to benefit when children are taught to work hard at anything that they’re assigned to do by someone with more power.
Yes, we want children to learn, but then that means we must care very deeply about whether children want to learn, which means we must provide them with a learning environment that is worth learning. [emphasis added]
Alfie Kohn via http://vimeo.com/53056240
Hat tip: Joe Bower, http://www.joebower.org/2012/12/from-culture-of-performance-to-culture.html
the nature of the task helps to determine the relationship between time and achievement. It turns out that more hours are least likely to produce better outcomes when understanding or creativity is involved. “How much is learned by rote is a direct function of time and effort,” acknowledges literacy expert Frank Smith. “But when the learning is meaningful we learn much faster. . . . Having to spend long periods of time in repetitive efforts to learn specific things is a sign that learning is not taking place, that we are not in a productive learning situation.”
Sure enough, researchers have found that when children are taught to read by focusing on the meaning of the text rather than primarily on phonetic skills, their learning does “not depend on amount of instructional time.” In math, too, even the new-and-improved concept of “engaged” [time on task] is directly correlated to achievement only if both the activities and the measure of achievement are focused on rote recall. By contrast, there is no “linear positive relationship for higher level mathematics activities, including mathematical applications and problem solving.”
Alfie Kohn via http://www.joebower.org/2012/08/limits-of-time-on-task.html