All right. What did I think of this book that I will have to teach beginning in August?
It was okay?
I am most likely going to ramble a bit, I apologize in advance.
The premise and main message of the book is good. Basically it's advocating that all teachers purposefully design their units and curriculum around the premise that students should understand the big ideas undergirding the content of the course, rather than covering a certain amount of information. Frankly, I'm not entirely sure why this even needed to be written, isn't that common sense? Alas, I think that this book was written as a response to American public school education, and I, having never attended an American public school, or indeed any public school, have never experienced the kind of teaching the book excoriates, 'coverage', where you march through a textbook and memorize facts and never engage with the wheretoes and the whyfores of those facts. I'm thinking back to both my homeschool classes and my boarding school classes...yes, I attended a boarding school, it makes me sound so snobby or 19th century...but one, I lived close enough to not have to board, as did most of the students, and two, there's not many other options in Ecuador, if you want to get a decent education...Anyway. I can't remember a class where we didn't engage with underlying ideas. Maybe not all of the underlying ideas that the book talks about, in all subject areas, but what educational system could? At the very least home-schooling successfully instilled in me the ability of autonomous learning, being self-motivated, and seeking after learning for the pleasure of it. Apparently that's the holy grail of this book, and one of the goals of this curriculum design framework.
The other main idea of the book is that a curriculum should be designed backwards. That you should clearly delineate the goal of what you want the students to learn, apply or perform, then build the curriculum towards that goal: designing scaffolding, activities, assignments and rubrics that all build to that goal, rather than doing activities for the sake of activities that don't really have any bearing on your stated goal. Again...I'm not entirely certain why that needed to be written. Isn't that common sense? Apparently not. Seriously, what is taught in education classes at the college level? Is the reason that I find this ludicrous because I skipped the undergrad education courses and went straight to the graduate level? Or is it because I went for a TESOL degree and you kind of have to teach with specific language goals in mind if you want to have any success? Or is it because I was forced to teach in a coverage aspect at my first job and was excessively frustrated by it because it obviously didn't work, therefore there must be a better way? Or is it that I just gained this knowledge implicitly because of being homeschooled? I don't know.
Come to think of it though, the statistic classes that I have taken have all followed the cardinal sins of this book. They march through a bunch of discrete skills and you never learn how to apply it to messy real life data, you just have to sort of infer it. This works for things like means, and medians, and even standard deviations, but once you get into inferential statistics...how are you supposed to know which test you are supposed to use, on which data set, to get which prediction? I haven't the foggiest most of the time. Can I even use these tests with my data as it is not normally distributed?
The other cardinal sin this book mentions is that students walk away being able to quote facts but not being able to articulate the underlying ideas behind those facts. That is true, and I think exacerbated by internet culture. When people are arguing on the internet, they post a paper, or an article backing up their point...but they never make a point. They're like 'you're wrong' paper linked. That doesn't actually demonstrate that I am wrong, and even less does it demonstrate that you are right. It demonstrates that you lack the ability to make your own argument. It's particularly frustrating because so often they depend on the headline or the abstract and assume that it says what they want it to say, but when you read the actual article it disproves their point. This has happened to me, multiple times. It makes me bemoan the problems with literacy in the western world. Something is obviously not working in how we teach argumentation skills and reading skills. That or humans are just inherently lazy and can't be bothered to actually pursue knowledge and take the easiest route.
This book did have really good pointers and a couple of good personal/professional development tools. Self-assessment of lessons and units is critical, and is often not done. Repetition of lessons and units across years is critical, and is often not done. It took me about five years to get my Freshman English curriculum really refined and useful at my last university. The first time you teach a class: it's crap. Sorry. Just facts. You don't really have a lot of time to plan, you are inundated with meetings, classes, grading, and you are struggling to keep your head above the water. You do your best to design a class that meets the needs of your students, but you don't really have enough experience to even know what the needs of your particular demographic of students are. The first year is all experimentation, you try things, they don't work, you try other things that do, and you save those things and then reincorporate them into next year. Slowly, each year, things get better and more streamlined, until finally you have a product that is actually useful. Teaching, lesson planning and curriculum design is a process and inherently takes time and that is a point that this book was careful to make and that needs to be made. I have seen teachers avoid this process. They teach each unit once, even though they have the same class, they get bored so they never review or edit what they teach and instead go on to something different each year. One, that's a ton of extra work, two, that treats every year like the first year, and three, their curriculum design never really improves. I've seen the other extreme, where a teacher does use the same unit every year, and never changes it...that blows my mind. So I can see why this book felt the need to address that topic, that's obviously a problem and needs to be corrected.
On the other hand. I didn't like the book! I didn't like the writers! I felt that there was way too much unnecessary jargon. I felt that they are too insistent on following their "WHERETO" acronym...which I found obtuse and impossible to remember, let alone implement. I got very sick of their assumptions of things as facts...even as they advocated questioning everything! Gah! It's the postmodern Achilles heel: "Question everything: except postmodernism." "The meaning of a text is what you make of it, not necessarily what the author meant to convey." That's stupid. Yes, each person walks away with a subtly different take on the book that they read. My feeling that the authors of this book are sometimes pompous may not be what they intended to pass on. But that really only applies to secondary aspects of the text. If I walk away from this book with the received meaning: I should teach by covering a ton of information, I have completely missed the point of the book! They specifically acknowledge that a text's purpose is to communicate specific information in how they are constantly having 'misapprehension alerts'. Don't misunderstand what we are writing. I always wonder if they apply this to the spoken word too. It seems to me that when you take this philosophy to it's logical extreme then you are denying the ability to communicate ideas at all. Yes, in our inner mind when someone says 'cup' we all represent that word differently. Some have a mental representation of a black mug, some have a glass, some have a tea cup, some have pictures in their head, some have words, but we all agree on certain aspects, it's a container to hold liquid, that all follow the same basic shape of having sides taller than the width of the base. If we didn't all agree on this same basic meaning, communication would be impossible. If I decided to associate 'cup' with a flat piece of paper used to mark my place in a book, I would be wrong. The same is true when you string words into phrases, sentences, and texts. There is a distinct meaning you wish to convey. Some of the trimmings don't necessarily matter, or you leave up to the imagination of the reader to fill in the gaps, but the core meaning doesn't change and isn't open to interpretation, if it was language would not communicate.
So that part bothered me.
The other part that bothered me was the facets of understanding: application, empathy, explanation, interpretation, perspective and self-knowledge. I'm sorry. I don't think these are all equally important. I don't. I don't think empathy should be on the same par as application, explanation and interpretation. To be brutally honest, I don't think perspective and self-knowledge are on the same level either. Self-assessment is important, you need to be able to look and see when something isn't working and correct. I don't think seeing things from other perspectives or having empathy with those other perspectives is important in all subject areas. What is the use of looking at mathematics empathically? What is the use of looking at other perspectives in mathematics at a basic level, or even an algebraic level? What is there to be empathic about in science? In history or literature, cultural studies or linguistic studies, I get it, it's important. But what is practical about teaching different perspectives on numbers in K-12 education? Our goal should be to prepare students for living in the real world, where numbers have concrete meanings and equations have practical uses. Sure, teach them that this works because we accept a priori certain numerical relationships, but also teach them that we accept these a priori beliefs because it works in the world we live in. If in higher education they want to go on to explore other mathematical systems, go for it, but I don't think that belongs in elementary education. There's a reason it's called elementary. It's supposed to be about the basics.
I also see a problem with the over emphasis of empathy in our culture at large. We so often empathize with one person to the exclusion of the other person or people involved. In our rush to empathize with the victim of society, we forget to empathize with the needs of the other people in society. You can see this in the homeless problem we have now. We empathize with people who have mental illness and don't want to put them in homes, because we value self-determination and think that everyone should have it. But, when the mentally ill take over public parks and sidewalks because of this value, now those who have the right to use those parks and sidewalks in safety cannot because they are occupied by those who have a tenuous grasp on reality and behave in unpredictable and often dangerous ways. Our empathy with one group has overridden our empathy for another. This is a constant problem in our society today, because we prioritize certain groups over others, because of a perceived lack of power, or of historical wrongs done against that group. If empathy were applied to every group equally it would be fine, but we are hierarchical creatures, even when we claim not to be, we empathize with certain groups and exclude others. We need to empathize with the feelings of the native Americans as their land was taken from them. Yes, we do. But we also need to empathize with the feelings of the settlers. They were not inhuman, they had motivations, understandable ones, for what they did. It's not this group is wholly good and put upon, and this group is wholly evil and predatory, but so often in the name of empathy this is what ends up being taught. We are reactionary, we go from one extreme to the other. From manifest destiny to colonization is inherently evil. All we are doing is reacting and swinging to the opposite extreme.
Anyway. There were good aspects in the book. There were aspects I didn't like. One thing that I shall COMPLETELY take to heart is that it says that textbooks are not a syllabus, they are a resource, and sections should be pulled out because they meet your goals, not because you feel it necessary to cover all the information in them. I shall take this to heart by not teaching everything in this book, and choosing the chapters that I think are most relevant to the goal of helping students learn to create a curriculum that is well-designed. I'm not sure they meant it to be applied to their book, but it shall be.