Professional Readings Chatboard

Join Teachers.Net

Chatboards

Recent Groups

Prof Readings

MEMBERS

2 Members

+ Join Group

Pinned Posts

ALLAll Teachers

Teachers.Net LIVE CHAT Support group - Tues eve!

Featured Jobs

Full-timeMontessori Teacher

Maple Ridge, British Columbia, Canada

TemporaryTeachers, rural schools

Peace River North School District

Full-timeHead Teacher: 2nd/3rd Grades – Mills College Children’s School

Mills College

Teaching Jobs on Teachers.Net

Featured Job special only $39!

https://teachers.net/jobs

Become a Teachers.Net sponsor!

Professional Readings Chatboard

3 Rilly Silly Things from the Willingham Book~

by KimK1ca

Jan 16, 2011

I am halfway finished but can't wait to post this rilly silly list. Obviously, it is a work in progress, statistically speaking. If there are 3 of these out of 5 chapters, I am bound to come across at least one more. I am using my deep-structure knowledge here.

1. On page 43, a long-cherished belief was crushed. Stomped on. Anhilated. It s...See More

Comment

report post

Timeline

by judy5ca

Jan 17, 2011

Remember how you helped me struggle as I yearned to build a meaningful 5th grade timeline? I hated the one I copied from my teammates last year (built the whole thing with kids the first week of school).

This year I started with 1450 and labeled a cupboard. Next cupboard 1500. 1550, 1600, 1650...to 2000. The kids make a 3x5 card for a sig...See More

Comment

(9)

report post

view previous comments

Sooz Only it was right in the middle of a math lesson. My principal enjoyed it and so did I.

Jan 19, 2011

report post

Jan We learn so much on this board....this place is the best prof dev I've ever had. I'm so glad you are here.

On 1/19/11, Sooz wrote: > Only it was right in the middle of a math lesson. My principal > enjoyed it and so did I.

Jan 20, 2011

report post

Companion text for Chapter 6!

by KimK1ca

Jan 18, 2011

The first thing that struck me while reading this chapter was the immediate connection to the phenomenal book by Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers.

Willingham discusses at one point the differences between amateur and expert thinking. Gladwell details how experts in anything have to spend at least 10,000 hours perfecting their expertise. Becoming...See More

Comment

(2)

report post

dc I'm reading both books right now, Kim, and I agree that I find many "aha!" parallels. I like the Willingham book because I just want to SHOVE certain pages of it into certain people's faces and SAY, "SEE, SEE, this is why I do what I do! This is why our schools should do this! This is why you politicians are wrong, wrong, wrong!"

I suppos...See More

Jan 18, 2011

report post

KimK1ca Oh yes, I agree. It feels better to shove it in their faces but the frustrating thing is that they suffer from a form of cognitive dissonance and will only listen to research that satisfies their political agendas.

Nodding my head up and down in affirmation, dc!

:-)K

Jan 18, 2011

report post

Madeline Hunter was Right! New article from ASCD

by Jan

Jan 20, 2011

I've known this since 1975 and have never once wavered. She's never been wrong...and never proved wrong by new research. In fact, new research has validated what she taught us.

Comment

(2)

report post

Jan, with an excerpt The new book about this topic was written by Mike Schmoker....who I love. He has really been on top of it for a few years now. Here's an excerpt from the book:

Chapter 1. The Importance of Simplicity, Clarity, and Priority

As odd as it sounds, simple, well-known strategies and structures drive improvement in any organization (Pf...See MoreThe new book about this topic was written by Mike Schmoker....who I love. He has really been on top of it for a few years now. Here's an excerpt from the book:

Chapter 1. The Importance of Simplicity, Clarity, and Priority

As odd as it sounds, simple, well-known strategies and structures drive improvement in any organization (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000). In education, this means that the general underperformance of schools can be directly attributed to a failure to implement three simple, well-known elements: a common curriculum, sound lessons, and authentic literacy. We love to talk about these elements. But we have never fully clarified them or obsessed over their implementation. And we haven't done enough to clarify the astonishing impact these three elements would have if they were even reasonably well implemented.

As Allan Odden writes, our failure to improve schools in the last few decades isn't because we lack funding or don't know how to improve schools. What we lack is the "will and persistence" to implement what we already know (Odden, 2009, p. 22). Or as Collins writes, the key to success is not innovation; it is "simplicity and diligence" applied with fierce devotion to our highest priorities (Collins, 2001b, p. 104). First Things First

Let's begin with a general description of what should be our highest priorities, which we will continue to clarify in Chapters 2 and 3 (and for the subject areas in Chapters 4 to 7). I will often use terms like "decent," "sound," and "reasonably good" when referring to these elements. This is to stress that they are so potent they do not need to be implemented perfectly or with any special skill. Their profound impact will come largely from all teachers applying them consistently and reasonably well. Then, as teachers continue to work in teams to practice and refine their implementation, even better results will ensue. We can count on this.

Here are the three elements that we should approach with "simplicity and diligence," until they are satisfactorily understood and implemented in every subject area.

1. What We Teach. This simply means a decent, coherent curriculum, with topics and standards collectively selected by a team of teachers from the school or district—that is actually taught. The number of "power standards" (Ainsworth, 2003a) must not be excessive; it should account for about half of what is contained in our standards documents (Marzano, 2003). This allows us to teach the essential standards in sufficient intellectual depth, with adequate time for deep reading, writing, and talking. Why is this so important? Because such "guaranteed and viable curriculum" (Marzano, 2003, p. 22) is perhaps the most significant school factor that affects learning. But such a curriculum is found in very few schools (Berliner, 1984; Marzano, 2003; Schmidt, 2008).

2. How We Teach. Think of this simply as ordinary, structurally sound lessons that employ the same basic formula that educators have known for decades but few implement consistently. As we'll see in Chapter 3, this formula was formalized some 50 years ago (but is, in essence, thousands of years old). Yet the impact of such lessons, if we implemented them with even rough consistency, would be jaw-dropping (Wiliam, 2007). We'll look at the evidence for this in Chapter 3. Importantly, the pivotal feature of effective lessons is the conscientious effort, throughout the lesson, to ensure that all students are learning each segment of the lesson before moving to the next one.

3. Authentic Literacy. Authentic literacy is integral to both what and how we teach. It is the "spine" that "holds everything together" in all subject areas (Phillips & Wong, 2010, p. 41). In this book, "literacy" or "authentic literacy" simply means purposeful— and usually argumentative—reading, writing, and talking (Lunsford & Ruszkiewicz, 2009). (As we'll also see, explanations and summaries are forms of argument.) Literacy is still the unrivalled, but grossly under-implemented, key to learning both content and thinking skills. But authentic literacy is categorically different from the so-called "reading skills" and pseudo-standards that have wrought such havoc in language arts. We'll be looking at the case for very different kinds of literacy standards in Chapter 4.

It is worth emphasizing here that implementation of the above elements will benefit immeasurably when teachers work in teams—that is, in true "professional learning communities" where curriculum and lessons are continuously developed, tested, and refined on the basis of assessment results (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2006; Schmoker, 2006).

Believe this or don't: These three elements, if even reasonably well-executed, would have more impact than all other initiatives combined. In the great majority of our schools, they will do more than any other combination of efforts to ensure that record numbers of students learn and are prepared for college, careers, and citizenship. A content-rich curriculum, sound lessons, and authentic literacy would wholly redefine what public schools can accomplish with children of every socioeconomic stratum. Because of this, their satisfactory implementation should be our most urgent, jealously guarded priority—the ongoing focus of every team meeting, every professional development session, every faculty and central office meeting, every monitoring and reporting effort. Until these elements are reasonably well implemented, it makes little sense to adopt or learn new programs, technology, or any other innovations. To be fair, any innovation is fair game once these elements are implemented if— but only if—that innovation does not in any way dilute or distract us from these always-vulnerable priorities.

Does this sound too "simplistic"? Can such simplicity really be the elusive key to better schools? To get some perspective, let's step outside our own profession for a moment

Jan 20, 2011

report post

judy5ca Jan, thanks for posting this. I like it, but I sent you an email asking about purchase. I want to say here that I am THRILLED BEYOND BELIEF to read the words "authentic literacy." We are just having this discussion now in our new collaborative group (which is a mix of 2 schools who operate quite differently). THANK YOU FOR THE AMMO! Judy

O...See MoreJan, thanks for posting this. I like it, but I sent you an email asking about purchase. I want to say here that I am THRILLED BEYOND BELIEF to read the words "authentic literacy." We are just having this discussion now in our new collaborative group (which is a mix of 2 schools who operate quite differently). THANK YOU FOR THE AMMO! Judy

On 1/20/11, Jan, with an excerpt wrote: > The new book about this topic was written by Mike > Schmoker....who I love. He has really been on top of it for a > few years now. Here's an excerpt from the book: > > Chapter 1. The Importance of Simplicity, Clarity, and Priority > > As odd as it sounds, simple, well-known strategies and > structures drive improvement in any organization (Pfeffer & > Sutton, 2000). In education, this means that the general > underperformance of schools can be directly attributed to a > failure to implement three simple, well-known elements: a > common curriculum, sound lessons, and authentic literacy. We > love to talk about these elements. But we have never fully > clarified them or obsessed over their implementation. And we > haven't done enough to clarify the astonishing impact these > three elements would have if they were even reasonably well > implemented. > > As Allan Odden writes, our failure to improve schools in > the last few decades isn't because we lack funding or don't > know how to improve schools. What we lack is the "will and > persistence" to implement what we already know (Odden, 2009, > p. 22). Or as Collins writes, the key to success is not > innovation; it is "simplicity and diligence" applied with > fierce devotion to our highest priorities (Collins, 2001b, > p. 104). First Things First > > Let's begin with a general description of what should be our > highest priorities, which we will continue to clarify in > Chapters 2 and 3 (and for the subject areas in Chapters 4 to > 7). I will often use terms like "decent," "sound," and > "reasonably good" when referring to these elements. This is to > stress that they are so potent they do not need to be > implemented perfectly or with any special skill. Their > profound impact will come largely from all teachers applying > them consistently and reasonably well. Then, as teachers > continue to work in teams to practice and refine their > implementation, even better results will ensue. We can count > on this. > > Here are the three elements that we should approach with > "simplicity and diligence," until they are satisfactorily > understood and implemented in every subject area. > > 1. What We Teach. This simply means a decent, coherent > curriculum, with topics and standards collectively selected by > a team of teachers from the school or district—that is > actually taught. The number of "power standards" > (Ainsworth, 2003a) must not be excessive; it should account > for about half of what is contained in our standards documents > (Marzano, 2003). This allows us to teach the essential > standards in sufficient intellectual depth, with adequate time > for deep reading, writing, and talking. Why is this so > important? Because such "guaranteed and viable curriculum" > (Marzano, 2003, p. 22) is perhaps the most significant school > factor that affects learning. But such a curriculum is found > in very few schools (Berliner, 1984; Marzano, 2003; Schmidt, > 2008). > > 2. How We Teach. Think of this simply as ordinary, > structurally sound lessons that employ the same basic formula > that educators have known for decades but few implement > consistently. As we'll see in Chapter 3, this formula was > formalized some 50 years ago (but is, in essence, thousands of > years old). Yet the impact of such lessons, if we > implemented them with even rough consistency, would be > jaw-dropping (Wiliam, 2007). We'll look at the evidence > for this in Chapter 3. Importantly, the pivotal feature of > effective lessons is the conscientious effort, throughout the > lesson, to ensure that all students are learning each segment > of the lesson before moving to the next one. > > 3. Authentic Literacy. Authentic literacy is integral to > both what and how we teach. It is the "spine" that "holds > everything together" in all subject areas (Phillips & > Wong, 2010, p. 41). In this book, "literacy" or "authentic > literacy" simply means purposeful— and usually > argumentative—reading, writing, and talking (Lunsford & > Ruszkiewicz, 2009). (As we'll also see, explanations and > summaries are forms of argument.) Literacy is still the > unrivalled, but grossly under-implemented, key to learning > both content and thinking skills. But authentic literacy is > categorically different from the so-called "reading skills" > and pseudo-standards that have wrought such havoc in language > arts. We'll be looking at the case for very different kinds of > literacy standards in Chapter 4. > > It is worth emphasizing here that implementation of the > above elements will benefit immeasurably when teachers work in > teams—that is, in true "professional learning communities" > where curriculum and lessons are continuously developed, > tested, and refined on the basis of assessment results > (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2006; Schmoker, 2006). > > Believe this or don't: These three elements, if even > reasonably well-executed, would have more impact than all > other initiatives combined. In the great majority of our > schools, they will do more than any other combination of > efforts to ensure that record numbers of students learn and > are prepared for college, careers, and citizenship. A > content-rich curriculum, sound lessons, and authentic literacy > would wholly redefine what public schools can accomplish with > children of every socioeconomic stratum. Because of this, > their satisfactory implementation should be our most urgent, > jealously guarded priority—the ongoing focus of every team > meeting, every professional development session, every faculty > and central office meeting, every monitoring and reporting > effort. Until these elements are reasonably well implemented, > it makes little sense to adopt or learn new programs, > technology, or any other innovations. To be fair, any > innovation is fair game once these elements are implemented > if— but only if—that innovation does not in any way dilute or > distract us from these always-vulnerable priorities. > > Does this sound too "simplistic"? Can such simplicity really > be the elusive key to better schools? To get some perspective, > let's step outside our own profession for a moment

Jan 23, 2011

report post

Willingham on Teaching Reading Comp Strategies

by Jan

Jan 21, 2011

I haven't read it yet, but figured you'd be interested.

Comment

(47)

report post

view previous comments

KimK1ca Nobody in my family agrees.

:-)K

Feb 1, 2011

report post

brad Bleah...my tastes have changed as an adult...for instance, I now enjoy brussel sprouts, cabbage and can actually tolerate a lima bean in the odd soup...but I'm still a solid NO on liver.

brad

Feb 2, 2011

report post

Chapter 6

by KimK1ca

Jan 23, 2011

It should be obvious, but Willingham's discussion of the differences between experts and novices explains much and reiterates some of our most basic understandings.

I crack up when I hear teachers say things like, "think like a scientist." How can a young learner, with limited experiences and an education that is a work in progress, think...See More

Comment

(1)

report post

KimK1ca I should have placed the above post under the already- established thread regarding Chapter 6. Only dc and I have contributed so far - but I look forward to everybody's thoughts about this chapter.

:-)K

Jan 23, 2011

report post

Willingham's next book

by j.e.

Jan 25, 2011

Daniel Willingham wrote on his facebook page: "Next book will definitely be published by Jossey-Bass. Working title: "When Should You Believe 'The Experts?' The shortcut guide to separating good science from bad science."

Comment

(7)

report post

view previous comments

Jan I heard Gardner speak at the Effective Schools Conference several years ago. He said he never intended his multiple intelligences ideas to be used as they are. They are not learning styles, one should not be taught over the other, kids should not be analyzed for which intelligence they might have. His only idea was to give people the idea that peop...See MoreI heard Gardner speak at the Effective Schools Conference several years ago. He said he never intended his multiple intelligences ideas to be used as they are. They are not learning styles, one should not be taught over the other, kids should not be analyzed for which intelligence they might have. His only idea was to give people the idea that people could have different kinds of intelligences, but it had nothing to do with using them in teaching. He was quite adamant about it....and not real happy about the way they were being interpreted and used.

On 1/26/11, j.e. wrote: > It IS a heard thing to let go of! Especially when there are > books like the one I just finished, The Neuropsychology of > Written Language Disorders by Feifer and DeFina. They are school > psychologists and one is a neuropsychologist. They refer to > Gardner and mention multiple intelligences as important factors > to consider. > > Willingham says on his Facebook page that > > "The first 1/2 of the book is about why we believe what we > believe, and how hucksters capitalize on it. That's applicable > everywhere. I argue that education presents something special > case because in most fields, if you're interested in knowing > what scientists think, it's pretty easy to find consensus > statements. Not so in education. So the 2nd half of the book > presents a heuristic for evaluating the scientific basis of a > proposed curriculum/pedagogical technique/ld therapy. The point > is that it *doesn't* simply water down a graduate level > statistics/methods course ("correlation is not causation!") as > if that would do the trick." > > On 1/26/11, dc wrote: >> On 1/25/11, j.e. wrote: >>> Daniel Willingham wrote on his facebook page: "Next book >>> will definitely be published by Jossey-Bass. Working title: >>> "When Should You Believe 'The Experts?' The shortcut guide >>> to separating good science from bad science." >> >> >> A lot of administrators need to read this book. Had an >> administrator just bring up "multiple intelligences" and its >> importance to us as teachers yesterday. Never been proven, I >> responded. Didn't go over too well. I have a book for you >> to read, I replied. Still didn't go over too well. LOL!

Jan 27, 2011

report post

Bo I am currently reading "Teaching with Love and Logic" by Jill Fay and David Funk. It is really good.

On 1/27/11, Jan wrote: > I heard Gardner speak at the Effective Schools Conference several > years ago. He said he never intended his multiple intelligences > ideas to be used as they are. They are not learning styles, one > sho...See MoreI am currently reading "Teaching with Love and Logic" by Jill Fay and David Funk. It is really good.

On 1/27/11, Jan wrote: > I heard Gardner speak at the Effective Schools Conference several > years ago. He said he never intended his multiple intelligences > ideas to be used as they are. They are not learning styles, one > should not be taught over the other, kids should not be analyzed for > which intelligence they might have. His only idea was to give > people the idea that people could have different kinds of > intelligences, but it had nothing to do with using them in teaching. > He was quite adamant about it....and not real happy about the way > they were being interpreted and used. > > > On 1/26/11, j.e. wrote: >> It IS a heard thing to let go of! Especially when there are >> books like the one I just finished, The Neuropsychology of >> Written Language Disorders by Feifer and DeFina. They are school >> psychologists and one is a neuropsychologist. They refer to >> Gardner and mention multiple intelligences as important factors >> to consider. >> >> Willingham says on his Facebook page that >> >> "The first 1/2 of the book is about why we believe what we >> believe, and how hucksters capitalize on it. That's applicable >> everywhere. I argue that education presents something special >> case because in most fields, if you're interested in knowing >> what scientists think, it's pretty easy to find consensus >> statements. Not so in education. So the 2nd half of the book >> presents a heuristic for evaluating the scientific basis of a >> proposed curriculum/pedagogical technique/ld therapy. The point >> is that it *doesn't* simply water down a graduate level >> statistics/methods course ("correlation is not causation!") as >> if that would do the trick." >> >> On 1/26/11, dc wrote: >>> On 1/25/11, j.e. wrote: >>>> Daniel Willingham wrote on his facebook page: "Next book >>>> will definitely be published by Jossey-Bass. Working title: >>>> "When Should You Believe 'The Experts?' The shortcut guide >>>> to separating good science from bad science." >>> >>> >>> A lot of administrators need to read this book. Had an >>> administrator just bring up "multiple intelligences" and its >>> importance to us as teachers yesterday. Never been proven, I >>> responded. Didn't go over too well. I have a book for you >>> to read, I replied. Still didn't go over too well. LOL!

Jan 27, 2011

report post

For your consideration~

by KimK1ca

Jan 25, 2011

I realize we aren't done with the Willingham book yet, but I would like to suggest a professional read that isn't too long but is packed with fabulous stuff.

"An Ethic of Excellence," by Ron Berger, was my school's book in common for this school year. Knowing most of you the way I do, I think you will absolutely love it.

Just an...See More

Comment

(2)

report post

dc Would love to read it. If more are interested, chime in, because I will order it and have it ready to go when we are done with Willingham's book.

BTW, Kim, have you gotten to the part of Outliers where he talks about the Asian language counting system vs. our English language counting system and how our kindergartners already start at a p...See More

Jan 26, 2011

report post

KimK1ca I loved everything about Outliers and drove my family nuts reading portions aloud. You are right about the Asian counting system! When I listened and read (had it on two formats) I was also FASCINATED! The whole history of Asian rigor in math suddenly made sense, especially when he talked about the rice patties.

I hope I am not stepping o...See More

Jan 26, 2011

report post

by Teach Like a Champion

Jan 27, 2011

Anybody read this? I did and I am charge of the book study for my team. Any help with questions that I will ask them?

Comment

(1)

report post

dc Scroll down to the summer discussion about this. It was quite lively. Very strong opinions one way or the other on this chatboard. I personally thought it validated lots of things we are currently being asked to do in our classrooms and explained how to do them. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with all of them, but we are told to do them, so I'm...See More

Jan 27, 2011

report post

Ch 7 Learning Styles/MI

by brad

Jan 29, 2011

Well, I dare not admit that I'm moving on while all of you are happily continuing the conversation of the previous chapter(s)...

I have found this chapter, for some reason, to be the best- written of all of the chapters. I feel like there is a logical cohesive argument here and he brings together all his examples in a way that bolsters his...See MoreWell, I dare not admit that I'm moving on while all of you are happily continuing the conversation of the previous chapter(s)...

I have found this chapter, for some reason, to be the best- written of all of the chapters. I feel like there is a logical cohesive argument here and he brings together all his examples in a way that bolsters his argument. This is unlike other chapters where I had trouble following his train of thought, as the train occasionally veered off in tangential directions.

This chapter is the hardest chapter to get other teachers to understand. I usually don't argue it too much; I usually just hand them Willingham's article on this same topic in American Educator. Through my experiences, I have found it's the content or skill you are trying to get across that dictates the teaching method/instructional strategy moreso than the student. When this remains fairly consistent, then I have the mental freedom/capacity to determine how to best reach the child.

I recently entered a conversation with a group of colleagues the other day in which they were talking about, "if a group of children doesn't get a skill, how are you going to reteach it." I shared that, in my experience, it is usually not the method in which it was taught (assuming most variables are in control, such as classroom management, behavior, technology, etc.) that needs changing, it is the granularity with which I taught the content/skill. AHA! The old idea of task analysis rears its ugly head.

I think teachers are exhausted thinking they have to have Santa's Enormous Bag of instructional strategies to reach different types of students. More and more, I'm finding that students are actually MORE successful when we keep our teaching strategies consistent and vary our content/skill. This goes back to Jan/Madeline's old adage, "If the content is new/difficult, the process should be familiar/easy; if the process is new/difficult, the content should be familiar/easy." Or as another staff developer I've been working with has related, "When we keep the lesson framework consistent, it frees the student to focus on the content of the lesson, rather than the structure."

Man, I've missed you guys...

brad

Comment

(21)

report post

view previous comments

Jan On 2/01/11, brad wrote: > cavey, > > There's a lot of truth in what you post. I do wonder if what you and I see > are the differences in demographics, as I'm primarily in an urban setting > and you are suburban/rural (?) I have students who come to older grades > without a strong foundation from the earlier grades, so even though ...See More

Feb 6, 2011

report post

Jan, who forgot to say... On 2/06/11, Jan wrote: > On 2/01/11, brad wrote: >> cavey, >> >> There's a lot of truth in what you post. I do wonder >> if what you and I see are the differences in >> demographics, as I'm primarily in an urban setting >> and you are suburban/rural (?) I have students who >> come to older grades without...See MoreOn 2/06/11, Jan wrote: > On 2/01/11, brad wrote: >> cavey, >> >> There's a lot of truth in what you post. I do wonder >> if what you and I see are the differences in >> demographics, as I'm primarily in an urban setting >> and you are suburban/rural (?) I have students who >> come to older grades without a strong foundation from >> the earlier grades, so even though the concept is >> "grade level," many students aren't even at >> "grade level," so differentiating on the >> upper end is rare. My issue is always helping >> teachers understand how to scaffold rather than go >> "all the way back" in the curriculum to the >> gap and try to remediate within the regular setting. >> This is NOT to say we don't have gifted students; we >> most certainly do. However, due mostly to funding and >> personnel (dependent on funding), we have a very tiny >> gifted program. We do what we can, and we try to >> educate families and teachers on how to assist with >> gifted students in the regular classroom. >> >> I strongly agree with you, though, that we can't go >> around not talking about differentiation for these >> very reasons. Some kids need something else. How we >> get there is where this discussion lies, I think. > > I don't think it's ever been the case that we don't > differentiate instruction. "Selecting the > Objective at the Correct Level of Difficulty" is > one of Madeline Hunter's four elements of instruction. > The question is HOW we do it.....and Carol Ann > Tomlinson, in my view, has it all wrong, and has, > perhaps, done more damage to instruction than any other > single person. Schmoker is so right on this. You cannot > differentiate a la Tomlinson, and plan and deliver the > substantive lessons that they are now saying we must > revert to.

Forgot to say, that in "Selecting the Objective...." we differentiate both content and process. A task analysis will have component objectives at each level of DIFFICULTY of the content, and each level of COMPLEXITY with the process. Bloom is what we use for complexity. I notice that Barbara Blackburn in her book on rigor does the same thing. Bloom is the tool for building rigor into a lesson. You have to wonder if Bloom's work will ever not be useful. We are using it more now than we did in 1956 when he wrote his Taxonomy. >> >> brad

Feb 6, 2011

report post

« prev page

Teacher Chatboards