Welcome to the Deep Dive. Today we're digging
into something really quite eye -opening. It
comes from a blog post by a veteran science and
math teacher, Gary Ackerman. Right, the one called
Distributing Observation. That's the one. It's
all about what he saw happening in a classroom
during two, well, very different activities,
and what it might tell us about how students
see learning itself. Yeah, it's fascinating.
So Ackerman describes walking in and seeing students
doing basically two things back to back. First,
there's this hands -on thing, measuring data
for a question, something like, is anyone average?
OK, sounds engaging enough, getting them moving,
collecting data. You'd think so. Yeah. And then
almost right after, they pivot completely. Chromebooks
out, standardized math tests. And that's where
the puzzle comes in, right? Because the difference
in how the students acted between those two tasks,
it was apparently immediate and really stark.
Exactly. You'd imagine the hands -on part would
capture their interest, maybe get them buzzing.
But what Ackerman saw was, well, activity, yes,
but not much focus. On a focus house, like just
chatting or... More like a real nonchalance about
the task itself. He heard kids saying things
like, whatever, it is close enough. with your
measurements, even though, you know, precision
was kind of the point. Hmm. Close enough math.
Not ideal. Not at all. And they're apparently
struggling with metric units. Papers were getting
messy. Some lost. It just sounded, well, pretty
lackadaisical. Lots of movement, but not like
purposeful or precise work. OK, so maybe a challenging
group or an off day. But you said this observation
felt significant to Ackerman. What set it apart?
It was the contrast, mainly. And also, he...
noted this isn't entirely new. He'd seen similar
patterns even like 30 years ago. His teacher
tried to bring them back, connecting the measuring
to big ideas like that book, The End of Average,
or Why Accuracy Matters for, say, designing fighter
jets. Real world stakes. Yeah, trying to give
it context. But still, that sort of unfocused
vibe just persisted through the activity. OK,
so then comes part two, the Chromebooks. Standardized
math tests. You mentioned these were part of
the school's data plan. Right. Though, interestingly,
the teacher apparently admitted the data wasn't
really used much. It was more about, you know,
compliance. Got it. So, given the scene with
the measuring task, you might expect more of
the same, right? Maybe quiet sighing, clicking
through. That's what makes it disturbing, I think.
It's the complete opposite. Ackerman said the
shift was immediate, dramatic even. The students
just became laser focused, working in a total
silence for the whole time, just locked in on
those screens. Wow. Okay, so from whatever, close
enough. to silent, intense focus. Exactly. And
this huge change made him talk to some students
afterward. He wanted to understand why the difference.
And what did they say? What was their perception?
Their message was incredibly clear, and apparently
is something they've picked up over their whole
school careers. They basically said, the tests.
That's the real work. The real work, as opposed
to? As opposed to the other stuff, like the hands
-on measuring that was seen as just for fun,
or maybe like a break from the serious stuff.
Wow. Just for fun. Yeah. Yeah. That's a powerful
framing, isn't it? Almost like, OK, playtime's
over and now let's do the important thing. Precisely.
And Ackerman found that deeply concerning. This
idea that decontextualized problems on a screen
are real while trying to apply math in a messy,
hands -on way is somehow less valuable. So how
did we even get here? How did this sort of...
screen -based assessment become the symbol of
real work, especially in math? Well, that's a
big question. Ackerman touches on it. These computer
-delivered math programs really boomed maybe,
what, a decade ago. Schools were under huge pressure
then. Remember, acceptable yearly progress. Standardized
scores were everything. Right. No child left
behind error pressures and similar initiatives.
Exactly. So these programs offered a way to theoretically
drill skills and track progress easily. And once
they were in place, Inertia kind of took over.
Many teachers just kept using them. But it's
not just the tool, is it? It's the philosophy
behind it. That's the crucial part. It often
reinforces this implicit idea that math is just
a bunch of separate procedures you memorize.
You execute them on command. It's less about
math as a language for making sense of the world.
It taps into this older idea of efficiency and
education over depth. And for someone like Ackerman,
who clearly believes math needs context, like
you need to know why you're finding the roots
of a quadratic equation, where it shows up in
the world, this must be really jarring. Absolutely.
He argues pretty strongly that knowledge, math,
science, anything really, it's only truly powerful
when you see how it connects, how it fits into
other systems, other knowledge. when you can
use it. So this leads to a fundamental question
he raises, right? Yeah. If you can ace calculations
on a screen, get all the answers right, but have
zero context, is that actually useful? He calls
it a useless skill, straight up. His point is
that real mathematical competence isn't just
about doing the calculation. It's about knowing
when and why to do it, using math purposefully,
connecting it. So competence needs attentiveness.
It needs purpose. But here's the paradox Ackerman
saw. Right. The students were inattentive and,
frankly, kind of unpurposeful when they were
supposed to be doing contextual math, the measuring
stuff. But then they became incredibly attentive,
super purposeful when faced with problems completely
stripped of context on a screen. It's backwards,
isn't it? Yeah. He basically concludes that the
whole culture that created this situation that
signals what's really important has been, in
his words, profoundly destructive. And it needs
to change urgently. So just to sort of recap
the core insight here from Gary Ackerman's observation.
Yeah, it's this conditioning, isn't it? Students
have somehow learned to see the abstract screen
-based test as the real work. While the messy,
hands -on contextual stuff gets labeled just
for fun, almost dismissed. And his big concern,
as a longtime educator, is that we're losing
something vital. True knowledge, especially in
math, needs that context. It needs to be applied,
connected to other things, to be truly powerful.
Just crunching numbers on a screen without understanding
the why or where. He argues that's not building
real competence. It's something else entirely.
Which really brings us to a question for, well,
for all of us listening, I think. If real competence
needs focus, it needs purpose, it needs context.
How do we flip that script? Yeah, how do we or
how do the systems we work in encourage that
same kind of intense focus for the contextual
applied learning? The kind of focus students
currently seem to reserve for those tests? It's
a challenge. How do we make the real world stuff
feel like the real work? Maybe think about that
in your own context, your own learning, your
job. If deep competence means focused engagement
and practical application, what could you maybe
do differently? Right. How can you prioritize
getting that true understanding, that ability
to apply knowledge, rather than just performing
tasks or acing the test, so to speak? Something
to definitely mull over. How do we value and
cultivate competence in its truest sense?