Category Archives: teaching

"teaching to the situation"

I have another post up at Kos­mos: “Teach­ing Advice: Teach­ing to the Situation”

educational technology: the great teacher heterogenizer?

I fin­ished this book, “Lib­er­at­ing Learn­ing,” in the fall, and some­how for­got to post a review. Chubb & Moe are impor­tant play­ers in edu­ca­tion pol­icy, hav­ing pre­vi­ously pub­lished influ­en­tial work regard­ing school choice & com­pet­i­tive forces in edu­ca­tion mar­kets. This newer book is about tech­nol­ogy and ways in which it can dis­rupt the struc­tures and

abolishing schools of education, or MacIntyre on the non-practice of education

Recently, some­one brought to my atten­tion this arti­cle on abol­ish­ing schools of edu­ca­tion. The Cen­ter for Col­lege Afford­abil­ity and Pro­duc­tiv­ity argues that we should doubt the value of schools of edu­ca­tion: hold­ers of degrees in edu­ca­tion do not seem to be any more effec­tive at teach­ing than non-education majors, because the schools some­times try to

on the non-normativity of value-added analysis

As you are likely to have heard by now, the Los Ange­les Times recently con­ducted and pub­lished a value-added analy­sis of some of the city’s ele­men­tary school teach­ers, using data that had been col­lected by the school dis­trict but never pre­vi­ously ana­lyzed in this way. There was a nice sum­mary of the value-added analy­sis and

learning styles, individual differences, and responsibility

Recently, I came across this video: “Learn­ing Styles Don’t Exist,” by psy­chol­o­gist Daniel T. Will­ing­ham of the Uni­ver­sity of Vir­ginia. Will­ing­ham argues that learn­ing style the­o­ries fail to pre­dict the dif­fer­ences in learn­ing that we would expect to see if they were cor­rect (you should go watch, he explains it bet­ter than I could). Learn­ing

what's in a name? - labels and tracking

Yes­ter­day, I dis­cussed the issue of whether work-related lan­guage is appro­pri­ate for describ­ing learn­ing. Here’s another lan­guage in edu­ca­tion con­tro­versy that has made it into the news lately: ‘At hope’ kids bet­ter than ‘at risk’?: Wash­ing­ton state law­maker wants to ban­ish neg­a­tive labels The bill is moti­vated by the good-hearted desire for dis­ad­van­taged chil­dren to

plagiarism, ignorance and responsibility

Here’s the third post in a series on cheating/academic dis­hon­esty in col­lege (first post, sec­ond post). A year and a half ago, I taught an intro­duc­tion to phi­los­o­phy course inde­pen­dently. The lec­tures were in per­son, but the tests were online because the class only met once per week and I didn’t want to use up

the wrongness of cheating

Last time, I dis­cussed some prob­lems with the the­ory that, when you cheat, “you’re only cheat­ing your­self.” Today, I have a few things to say on the wrong­ness of cheat­ing. These are by no means com­pre­hen­sive or ground break­ing, just some food for thought. First, I’ll back­track just a lit­tle and say that there is

"you're only cheating yourself"

As a grad­u­ate teach­ing assis­tant and course instruc­tor, I’ve encoun­tered cheat­ing and pla­gia­rism a num­ber of times. I know that many of my friends encounter sim­i­lar issues as well. So, to mark the end of this semes­ter, I thought I’d start a mini-series of posts on the sub­ject. First up: the “you’re only cheat­ing your­self”

“appreciating” secretaries, “appreciating” teachers

Last week was Admin­is­tra­tive Pro­fes­sion­als’ Day. On this day, you are sup­posed to take some time to thank your sec­re­tary and/or other sup­port staff, usu­ally with a gift or lunch or what­ever. A Face­book friend who shall remain name­less expressed baf­fle­ment at the exis­tence of said hol­i­day, claim­ing that admin­is­tra­tive pro­fes­sion­als should not get extra