"Least influential of education's most influential information sources."
-- Education Week Research Center
"full of very lively short items and is always on top of the news...He gets extra points for skewering my high school rating system"
-- Jay Mathews, The Washington Post
"a daily dose of information from the education policy world, blended with a shot of attitude and a dash of humor"
-- Education Week
"unexpectedly entertaining"..."tackle[s] a potentially mindfogging subject with cutting clarity... they're reading those mushy, brain-numbing education stories so you don't have to!"
-- Mickey Kaus
"a very smart blog... this is the site to read"
-- Ryan Lizza
"everyone who's anyone reads Eduwonk"
-- Richard Colvin
"designed to cut through the fog and direct specialists and non-specialists alike to the center of the liveliest and most politically relevant debates on the future of our schools"
-- The New Dem Daily
"peppered with smart and witty comments on the education news of the day"
-- Education Gadfly
"don't hate Eduwonk cuz it's so good"
-- Alexander Russo, This Week In Education
"the morning's first stop for education bomb-throwers everywhere"
-- Mike Antonucci, Intercepts
"…the big dog on the ed policy blog-ck…"
-- Michele McLaughlin
"I check Eduwonk several times a day, especially since I cut back on caffeine"
-- Joe Williams
"...one of the few bloggers who isn't completely nuts"
-- Mike Petrilli, Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
"I have just three 'go to' websites: The Texas Legislature, Texas Longhorn sports, and Eduwonk"
-- Sandy Kress
"penetrating analysis in a lively style on a wide range of issues"
-- Walt Gardner
"Fabulous"
-- Education Week's Alyson Klein
"thugs"
-- Susan Ohanian
Smart List: 60 People Shaping the Future of K-12 Education
He’s not only wrong about lecture (though he is):
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/PEPG10-15_Schwerdt_Wuppermann.pdf
He’s also wrong about “structuring” instruction:
https://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/spring2012/Clark.pdf
(Although arguably you have more room to move away from lecture/guidance at more advanced levels of education.)
It’s also a little distressing to see a dean of a school of education talking about “learning styles”.
Nice to see Butin quoting Bateson and Mezirow. And yes, negative points for learning style. He’s correct though to argue that no MOOC can accommodate metacognitive insights or guide students through developmental challenges. And he could have made an even more compelling case for a living person as a teacher as a student struggles with a concept. All too often a stuck student is a student who does not know why she is stuck and cannot find out how to get unstuck. That is where Butin’s dialogic argument makes a lot more sense for me. And that is why MOOCs will not be any kind of panacea for any kind of learning except very routinized, procedural tasks for which the student is already capable.
Nice links Paul, thanks.
Wow, Andy has some tough readers…
First, thanks for reading the piece. That is appreciated in and of itself.
Second, this was an op-ed. “Learning styles” was used as a heuristic, and, yes, I am well aware that there is no such thing as a pure learning style. But it is completely feasible to talk about potential differences in one’s preferences versus general abilities versus specific abilities versus etc.
see here, for example: http://128.220.136.46/wiki/baderlab/images/9/9d/Pashler-psych-2008.pdf)
Finally, I find the Clark et al. research unpersuasive. The “guided instruction” versus “discovery learning” debate is riddled with partisan battles (and methodological flaws) that ignore the reality that good teaching is multifaceted bricolage.
If the idea is that the whole project is undermined by the fact that the “debate is riddled with partisan battles (and methodological flaws)”, doesn’t that cut both ways? If we’re going to dismiss Clark et al on those grounds, what’s the justification for your claims of a clear lecture/structure research consensus in your piece?