Classroom Management
In my work, I am close to firsthand information regarding product purchases--what people like and don't like and why.
Obviously, by no means do I have the nation's pulse when it comes to this information, but I'm exposed to it on a fairly constant basis, and it's on my mind from time to time.
Here's how it works: competitors in educational publishing often find out about likes and dislikes in actual school districts or schools, as their sales reps report back that customers (teachers, administrators, coaches, whatever) decided to go with Company X instead of Company Y because X had this or that feature. That information is communicated to product executives and then perhaps to editors. It's not the only way it works, but it's one way.
Now, one could question the reliability of that information. It is not beyond belief, for instance, that a rep might "direct an interpretation" about the loss of a sale away from his or her activities and onto the product. And one might very easily criticize this system of data collection as being skewed heavily toward the superficial. Customers don't hold day-long post-purchase seminars with the losers, detailing everything that sucks with their books. They rattle off something about standards or ELLs, say no, and show you the door.
With that being said, there are a few common themes I see over and over again in purchasing decision information. And the one that stands out the most, at least to me, is classroom management.
In a former job, I and a group of fellow editors were informed one afternoon that we lost a big sale (hundreds of thousands of dollars) because our competitor had hands-on activities. Again, one can question the reliability of that information, but let's suppose for a moment that it was true. What is the advantage of having hands-on activities? They provide a way to move kids from the concrete to the abstract? They help access some students' kinesthetic learning modality? Okay. Even though I wouldn't necessarily agree with these reasons, I wouldn't be shocked if someone brought them up as explanations for the advantages of hands-on activities. This, however, is what I hear:
Hands-on activities help to kill 15 to 45 minutes of class time.
Most hands-on activities aren't written to help kids "move from the concrete to the abstract." They are written to keep kids firmly in the concrete, playing with fraction strips; counters; ones, tens, and hundreds blocks; etc. And learning modalities are really on their last legs as far as their validity and usefulness in designing curricula. Hands-on activities are preferred because they are seen as effective classroom management tools.
The same might be said of just about any jazzy feature in basal textbooks: cross-curricular connections, colorful illustrations, performance assessment, portfolios, projects, brain teasers, real-world connections. They are all, in some way, tools that are thought to help keep classrooms under control.
Obviously, by no means do I have the nation's pulse when it comes to this information, but I'm exposed to it on a fairly constant basis, and it's on my mind from time to time.
Here's how it works: competitors in educational publishing often find out about likes and dislikes in actual school districts or schools, as their sales reps report back that customers (teachers, administrators, coaches, whatever) decided to go with Company X instead of Company Y because X had this or that feature. That information is communicated to product executives and then perhaps to editors. It's not the only way it works, but it's one way.
Now, one could question the reliability of that information. It is not beyond belief, for instance, that a rep might "direct an interpretation" about the loss of a sale away from his or her activities and onto the product. And one might very easily criticize this system of data collection as being skewed heavily toward the superficial. Customers don't hold day-long post-purchase seminars with the losers, detailing everything that sucks with their books. They rattle off something about standards or ELLs, say no, and show you the door.
With that being said, there are a few common themes I see over and over again in purchasing decision information. And the one that stands out the most, at least to me, is classroom management.
In a former job, I and a group of fellow editors were informed one afternoon that we lost a big sale (hundreds of thousands of dollars) because our competitor had hands-on activities. Again, one can question the reliability of that information, but let's suppose for a moment that it was true. What is the advantage of having hands-on activities? They provide a way to move kids from the concrete to the abstract? They help access some students' kinesthetic learning modality? Okay. Even though I wouldn't necessarily agree with these reasons, I wouldn't be shocked if someone brought them up as explanations for the advantages of hands-on activities. This, however, is what I hear:
Most hands-on activities aren't written to help kids "move from the concrete to the abstract." They are written to keep kids firmly in the concrete, playing with fraction strips; counters; ones, tens, and hundreds blocks; etc. And learning modalities are really on their last legs as far as their validity and usefulness in designing curricula. Hands-on activities are preferred because they are seen as effective classroom management tools.
The same might be said of just about any jazzy feature in basal textbooks: cross-curricular connections, colorful illustrations, performance assessment, portfolios, projects, brain teasers, real-world connections. They are all, in some way, tools that are thought to help keep classrooms under control.
Labels: textbooks
Comments:
Let me get this straight: Some classroom teachers actually *have* 45-60 minutes of class time to "kill"? I have a message for them -- don't KILL the class time, save it and send it to me. I never have enough class time in the semester to cover what I need to! It makes me giddy to think of how much better my calculus classes could be if I had 200 minutes of class time just appear out of nowhere.
I would probably spend that extra time, by the way, doing hands-on activities or practice -- simply because college students cannot be trusted to practice the material on their own outside the classroom. If you want them to practice, like they need to in order to understand the math, then you're going to have to build in some time in class to make it happen.
And another thing -- My main use for hands-on activities at the college level is to get students to concretize the abstract, not move from the concrete *to* the abstract. They need hands-on stuff to understand how the concepts actually work out on the micro level; e.g. I can motivate the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus by concrete constructions, and then give the abstracted statement of the theorem, but to really get it the students have to complete the loop by working out a few specific theorem-related exercises.
This could be totally different on the K-12 level.
Let me get this straight: Some classroom teachers actually *have* 45-60 minutes of class time to "kill"? I have a message for them -- don't KILL the class time, save it and send it to me.
No, I was referring to any 15-45 minute span in class time, not extra class time.
Educational publishing sales reps can't be like the old-time vacuum cleaner salesmen. They can't walk in, talk up the product, and then show you how it works. They rely on devices that make their products more attractive to educators. One of those devices--subsumed under the category of "classroom management," in my opinion--is the hands-on activity.
Certainly the hands-on activity has value when placed in the right hands. But, again in my opinion, the purchase decision is probably more emotional than cerebral. Hands-on activities are encoded with instruction and student engagement (so the story goes, at least)--two fewer things for an educator to worry about on a given day.
It's hard to resist, given our knowledge of human nature, the theory that "educational innovations," such as the hands-on activity, appear and then thrive because of the benefits they provide for classroom management rather than any robust effects they have on student learning.
Two words: Baby Einstein.
The creator of Baby Einstein was savvy enough to bill the product as an "interactive blackboard" and goes so far as to demonstrate how parents are supposed to sit in front of the TV with their baby, point out objects, laugh, sing, etc.
They're also pretty useful for keeping your baby occupied for 30 minutes while you do laundry, write checks, and talk with your sister on the phone.
How do most people use them? As "interactive blackboards" or as 30-minute babysitters?
Like I said, there is value in hands-on activities, even as there is some value in plopping your baby down in front of a Baby Einstein video. But I think we're kidding ourselves if we say that the decisions (on a large scale) to purchase either are driven solely and primarily to get results.
Post a Comment