Montessori’s curriculum goes through 12th grade and scales well (at least at the elementary level that I’m acquainted with) because it’s often the kids who teach each other. Everyone’s not running to the teacher for instruction all the time. Maria Montessori actually preferred large class sizes with a range of ages, because that gave the kids more options for peer interaction and mentoring. Therefore, kids who have a fresh memory of learning a technique are able to solidify their own learning through teaching and reach peers in their zone of proximal development. Smart!

True story.

I decided not to take up that particular sword, but I’m glad someone said it.

There is research that states students don’t learn any better when information is presented through their preferred learning style. Instead, the instruction method (i.e. presenting pictures vs words vs speech) should be determined by what is best for specific content.

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/PSPI_9_3.pdf

Once the talk began, something amazing happened. The speaker gave us a guided tour through a topic that he had thought very deeply about. He questioned foundations, and challenged our assumptions. Not only was he a talented presenter, but he engaged all of us in the conversation. In this way, the technology allowed us to initiate conversations and interactions between people. In thinking about educational resources, we often forget the most abundant and underutilized resource we have – our students. It is the connection between individuals, the exchange of ideas, finding new and different ways of viewing and solving problems that is the source of truly deep and meaningful learning. A near miss on an “epic fail” for technology, became an engaging conversation facilitated by an insightful teacher.

Certainly, educational technology has potential. In our conversations about how to best use these new tools, we have to keep a few things in mind. We need to think about how technology can help us expand our classrooms in new ways we otherwise could not have done. We need to find ways to have technology be a bridge to communication, not a barrier. Finally, we need to remember the unique and important perspective on a topic that can only be communicated by someone who has thought deeply about a topic – an expert teacher.

Hi Pete, thanks for sharing your experience. I agree that the research I’m sharing may seem detached from your experience. But one feature of good research is generalizability. Once these ideas have been tested with lots of populations, and tested against alternatives, we can feel confident that they work.

In your case, I don’t know if your students would have flourished even more under an alternative program. Nor do I know if your population of students is representative of other populations. If, for example, you teach gifted students in a high-SES district with lots of home resources, that may not generalize well to other students.

Hi Dan,
I believe your conclusion is an oversimplification of a really complex phenomenon. What you dismissed – videos, practice, and classroom projects – as an impoverished option is just not true. Using exactly this model, my students have thrived. They enjoy math more, their confidence is higher, their standardized test scores are better, their acceptance into accelerated math programs increased, and graduates of this system report great success as they move into the next years of math. The personalized learning system I have been using is Khan Academy, and it is really good. I have seen that it does matter that students can choose the pace or presentation of learning. The thing that sells me most about personalized learning is the confidence boost for kids who are struggling. Your comments (and subsequent others) seem to come from the ivory tower, whereas I have seen actual results.