Teaching Mediocrity Improved for all Students

Teaching Mediocrity – Lower Ed in Higher Ed (InsideHigherED)

Teaching Mediocrity – First, Let’s re-define education’s goal as follows: to collectively, measurably advance, relevant, effective, efficient, consistent, affordable, 21st century, sustained, student success, performance improvement outcomes, for all students

Teaching Mediocrity – Second: One size fits all simply does not work to achieve our collective goal, above (see Udacity, MOOCs, lecture and traditional elearning).

Teaching Mediocrity – Third: Content simply is a means to an end. The most significant advantage to digital content is its ability to be uploaded into educationally innovative software that personalizes the individual learning experience. Content without research based, best practices pedagogy is traditional educations, status quo, student success, sustained, performance improvement outcomes, mediocrity, for all students.

 

Teaching Mediocrity – Fourth: We MUST follow, understand and correctly implement at the system/district level the 21st century, educationally innovative, deep LEARNING and transfer research on how folks learn. Fifth: Folks that don’t understand education reform, learning research, best practices pedagogy and educationally innovative software, shouldn’t be writing/talking about education

Teaching Mediocrity – Fifth: ALL the credible third party research suggests a complete and total paradigm change from teaching to learning. Totally replace one size fits all anything teaching, with educationally innovative software correctly installed at the district/system level.

This software then must be correctly used at the classroom level, empowering all teachers to empower all students with sustained, success. It will do the 21st century learning heavy lifting for each student. It will be individually facilitated, over time, in a blended/flipped, competency based/project based deep learning environment.

The problem is everyone has an opinion, regardless of accuracy in fact, most participants think they are much more competent than they are (see dunning-kruger) and do not want change. This means they are against advancing student success outcomes for all students, which means the education gap, unemployment, underemployment, crime, substance abuse, poverty, incarceration.

Since students = revenues and student success =more students=more revenue this is career/organization suicide. Lots of formal education, can’t see the forest from the trees.

Go figure. Tom