There is this phrase “teacher proof” that is typically interpreted as a negative comment on commercial educational materials. I guess the idea is that educators who are experienced should not be forced to use “recipe” lesson plans.
I have been thinking about this concern. What has led to an analysis of this issue for me is the conflict between the advocacy of so many for inquiry learning experiences (e.g., PBL) and the cumulative data on the topic. How do you reconcile the meta-analyses showing direct instruction is more effective that teacher-facilitated inquiry experiences with the interest in inquiry? Why do some researchers (e.g., Deanna Kuhn) demonstrate the effectiveness of a model of problem-based learning when the generic approach can be shown to be less effective? This situation bothers me and it bothers me that it does not seem to bother “true believers”.
Here is a paper I think deserves some attention. This position (note the link in this paper to the full study) argues less effective teachers can improve student performance by using good lesson plans and this adjustment may have more immediate benefits than professional development efforts. I suppose this is not a popular position, but the supporting research does deserve careful consideration.
Yes – I did use the title to get your attention. The idea is to get folks to grapple with ideas that they might reject without consideration.