I know for me, having a mentor teacher who I could sit down with, bounce ideas off of, vent to, help me find resources, etc. really helped me feel successful my first year teaching in a new district. I know this made made me a more comfortable teacher in my classroom and helped me become more personable with my kids.

I agree purely by experience. My school schedules our department planning based on grade-level and content area and I know we create engaging activities together that helps our students learn.

During my student teaching, I had the opportunity to do this--and it did not turn out great. The lesson was not authentic, as students were too busy wondering why there were other people in the room. I'm not sure if it was just the way we were required to structure it, but it just kind of seemed like one of those things that worked in theory, but not in practice. However, I would love to have another shot at it, now having the experience of the previous lesson study. It seems like a really great practice, so I would be interested in trying it again.

Great reminder for us as teachers. We have the power to build up those around us professionally (find qualities and traits that are useful) and to our students in our classroom. Positive mindsets.

I think this is a key piece that many teachers and schools miss. If the school/district is teaching us something new, then we should be expected to implement it as best we can in our classroom. This needs to include FEEDBACK on how we are doing with the implementation.

I think it is great to see how you teach from a "students perspective". I also agree that intensive discussions can come from examing each other's practices.

Seeking out the wisdom from older/experienced teachers has truly helped shape my profession. While I have my school-provided mentor (in my same grade level), I have also built connections around the building so I have a number of people in my PLN to go to for advice and just to talk. This is so huge! A school that has a collaborative staff makes all the difference!

Yes--but too often this is exactly what we see. From my limited experience, PD seems like a quick run down of everything that we could be doing, or should be doing, but never actually how to do it. It is a lot of talk, but not a lot of action.

Then why do we do it? New tech doesn't mean that the old stuff is invalid or useless. When will we learn...

I would love to do this. Major pushback is having teachers leave a classroom to do a lesson study. I think lesson study is incredibly valuable and one of the most effective ways or teachers to collaborate.

I had a great experience with PLC's when I taught kindergarten. Three times a year all K teachers would meet for PD that related to our blended learning program. I did not have the same opportunity in 4th grade. We only had one day before school to meet together. I think a lot is lost when you don't have time to collaborate and share across a district level.

Key step - often left out. I feel like PD is a time for admin to throw a bunch of tools or programs or philosophies at you, but they never check in on how implementation is going - there isn't that feedback element or reflection on how it works in the classroom. It feels mostly like an imposition that "should" work.

This feels like a 'duh' to me. Think about anything you do, one-shot never works, why do we expect it to work for teacher training?

How is this defined?

My district is grappling with this. 20% of my evaluation is student achievement, but what exactly does that mean? Test scores? Portfolios? Surveys? Interesting that they outline this as a way to "effectively identify and support quality teaching" I often feel this supports teaching to the test. Something to think about.

Our school has a "vision statement" that is posted in every classroom and in the halls, to remind each student as well as the staff what the goal of being at MHS is. I think this helps keep both students and staff focused on success.

We only have 30 hours of district provided PD. As a new teacher, I need an additionally 90 hours. I wonder how much that effects my students growth compared to older teachers?

Unfortunately, most PD is one-shot and drive-by, sometimes not even lasting more than an hour. It is hard to change teacher actions and perceptions is such a short amount of time.

I have always believed that there should be more rigorous training for teachers. We need to be pushed and directed by clear leadership.

Most of my PD sessions are run by a) people who have been removed from the classroom for years or b) people outside of my district. It would be interesting to be in a PD with teachers that have taught my particular kids successfully.

It is great to foster trust, but I always wonder how you can build that trust. I had placements in schools that clearly did not have this type of relationship, and it definitely had a negative impact on students. How do you build that trust? Or, once it is broken, can it be fixed?

What is meant by trust? Trust with/in what?

Interesting that leadership is the second factor. However I understand it. A good leader strives to help all teachers and has a great connection to the community. Especially in underserved schools, this can cause good talent to stay and the school to be well run.

I feel like this goes not just for admin, but for us too. We don't want our evaluators pointing out all of our shortcomings, why do we do this to our students? I feel like this has a trickle down effect, if your admin focuses on teacher ability, teachers may focus more on student ability - both of which are likely to increase student achievement.

This is huge - if we want to improve our learning environments and achievement for students, we need to spend more time perfecting our craft. We need better PD to make this happen (not more, just better).

All of this things are what makes adults successful learners, but I feel like the main component they lack that children thrive at is the questioning, curiosity, and creativity. Too often, adults get stuck in their ways and are used to just doing the norm rather than questioning it.

This statement is powerful because this is actually true for all of education. There is no "one-size-fits-all" strategy for learning and I actually just wrote a blog about this so I can relate to this statement.

I thought that pedagogy was a thought process and way of critical thinking. I did not know that it was aimed at children specifically, but now this helps me understand that "andragogy" is for adults.

I see this during Professional Development all of the time. My colleagues always want the opportunity to work on the issue and implement the changes immediately.

One thing that changes from teaching youth is that adults have more prior knowledge to account for when approaching teaching.

Not sure what this would look like when leading PD

( https://teal.ed.gov/sites/default/files/Fact-Sheets/4_TEAL_Metacognitive.pdf )

( https://teal.ed.gov/sites/default/files/Fact-Sheets/2_TEAL_UDL.pdf )

This is good. Sometimes we just present information rather than the background or different perspectives on an issue/topic.

This is very similar to the way children learn! I think that the mindset around adult learning needs to change. Scaffolding and accepting that adults learn at different paces (just like kids) needs to be taken into account.

I wonder if it matters if it is online or by hand? Should this writing be collaborative and be shared with others?

Showing again that making our thinking visible is important. I think that this would be easier for adults to do than children, but it is the same environment that would be ideal for my students.

This has been a major component of the learning I have done within the MAET program - my classmates and instructors challenge the way I think. This is also a goal of mine for my classroom and my students as well. Again, it doesn't seem to be a clear difference between what adults and students need. There seems to be a lot of overlap.

value of a PLN - guidance and resources

Doesn't seem to be different than what is also true for students.

Isn't this the goal for all learners?

90% of adults doing this at least once a year is not a great statistic. Once a year of evaluating our own learning is not a lot, even if the majority of people are doing this.

I find this especially interesting. I think this goes back to the Design Process, specifically the Empathize component. We need to know our learners - what do they need and what do they expect?

1. Yes learning by doing is usually best
2. (Why) is this different from children? Shouldn't we also focus on doing not memorizing for them too?

Interesting idea in contrast to Warren Berger's idea that questioning slows after a very young age

This is often the piece that is missing from my district's PD.

This seems to be good practice, as do many of these suggestions, for all learners. I want to meet the needs of my students as well.

Often in PD the teachers in attendance also share what they do in practice (not just presenters presenting)

(Teaching Excellence in Adult Literacy)

Students would learn quickly if we brought in a large candy bar of some sort. Give them two options, see which one they pick, and then explain which fraction they chose.

I think the rigor and application of this example is excellent. I constantly try to use real world applications in my lectures, but I find it challenging with lower level math classes. I look forward to doing this more when I teach Calculus or Trigonometry.

I constantly struggle to find unique ways to reward my students. I usually use positive reinforcement and I find that works very well. Teaching in Philadelphia has shown me that positive reinforcement goes a long way and students rarely hear it at home.

Technology companies are constantly in competition to try create the next best device. Young kids are being introduced to technology at such young ages and are becoming fluent much quicker. I feel like technology companies have to maintain this quick turn around to keep the interest in the users.

Individuals need to learn how to find their own answers by using technology as a resource. I agree that simple reading, writing, and calculating should be heavily tested because it required numerous types of thinking. Biology has recently become a requirement for Pennsylvania, which I am happy about as well.

The beauty of technology is that it can even change to atmosphere of learning. You can guide instruction outside the classroom and create innovative ways of learning. I constantly pull my classes from my classroom and take them to various rooms in my school like the cafe on the first floor. I feel like changing locations may help prepare them for higher education and/or post schooling.

Which also allows for a variety of resources. We are pulling information from endless resources with the help of technology.

"accomplished novices" ;-)

I think this is cultural thing for Americans as a whole. We are very focused on the individual and it isn't surprising that we teach this way. It's also common for students to complain about "being bad at group work" to such an extent that it may make teachers hesitant to assign a significant amount.

See, language! :-D

This is my biggest struggle.

adorable!

I'd like to improve in this area. It'd be helpful to have a discussion of examples of this type of feedback.

I think this is helpful-- combined with the earlier mention of using themes as an intro to a new unit/book. It suggests that starting with a theme and having students work through it THEN lecturing/helping students organize that information is the best technique.

Fascinating. Previously, the author states "All new learning involves transfer." However, I am thankful for the authors perspective on cultural influences on this learning. Students' background information that they bring to school is a direct result of their cultural influences, as is students' ability to apply their learning to other situations.

Effective learning means being able to transfer learning in school to everyday environments.

This is an interesting point. I have never thought that schools place so much more emphasis on individual work than other environments. What is the take-away for the classroom? Should we be emphasizing group work in classrooms more?

Close reading, when done well, should focus on knowledge acquisition strategies. Same thing with vocabulary. At a PD, I wrote down this applicable quote "Don't teach words, teach the skills."

I see this when students use knowledge of another language to pronounce the new one and end up having an incorrect accent.

This paragraph is what I was waiting for. What are ways that teachers can ensure that student learning can be applied in other scenarios and be used in multiple (possibly unrelated contexts?)

1) As learners to solve one problem, but then provide them with similar problem. If students can apply their first experience to their second? 2) What-if questions are powerful to lead to learner flexibility. What if this part of the problem was changed? 3) Make sure the case is generalized, instead of one specific case. For example, don't have learners plan one specific boat trip, but plan a trip with more than one possibility of transport. In this way, students test their fluency in more than one scenario while working on the same task.

This is a very frustrating response as a teacher. Often, students respond with that and completely shut down. How can teachers change our student thinking to ensure that students don't respond this way? How can teacher make sure this is a a permanent change, not just one to placate the teacher?

I am extremely interested in this anecdote. This student spent an extraordinary amount of time and effort in one specific skill, one that isn't particularly useful in other applications.

I love the idea of having students explore the themes of a new unit before delving into the unit itself. This is a preview that is more substantial than a simple "intro" before teaching the unit. It also allows for a reversal-- at the end ask students why the discussion was held and compare/contrast what they said to what happened in the unit.

To me, not only does this mean giving them "wait time" to process during the lesson, but it means giving them times to reflect on their learning afterwards. Recalling the information that they learned that day and then having them connect it to what we did before or maybe make a prediction about what we are learning about the next day has been a powerful tool for my students to start to think for themselves.

Often teachers expect their students to be similar learners to themselves, which is never going to be the case. Important for teachers to view the lesson from the students' point of view, often.

The "end-product" would be the coveted answer that all of my kids are constantly asking for. I know that fostering critical thinking to be transferred from one setting and one subject to the next is important, but that is something that I personally have struggled with. Getting better this year, but always a struggle. Especially on the particularly difficult days.

Though I am not an expert by any means, I see this often in my classroom. Sometimes I truely forget what is easy or difficult for student. Many times I use vocabulary or terms that students do not understand to my great surprise.

This is why it is so important that students see their teacher as a learner as well. Students need to see their teachers go through the same process that they do everyday.

I'd like to see examples of these practices.

educate vs train. Meaningful because educating involves thinking critically, problem solving, and learning to take in the whole picture. Training requires memorization and procedures.

This statement is very silly For me, this really shows that just because an answer is correct, doesn't mean understanding is proven.

This speaks to the importance of having clear and visible learning goals visible to the students. Control the narrative by using a common language of trying to problem solve and learn rather than 'just get the answer.'

I think being flexible is what being a teacher is all about! Nothing ever seems to go quite as planned.

While reading the previous paragraphs, I found myself nodding in agreement with the author. However, I often struggle to implement these characteristics of effective instruction in Social Studies. I am glad they added this practical example.

(fyi-- from dictionary.com) pertaining to epistemology, a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge.

This goes on my previous annotation where I brought this point up. Another question arises, what is a sufficent number of cases of in-depth study? Who decides this? What does this look like in Social Studies where it is normally taught in a linear fashion?

This relates the the earlier definition of "knowing"-- that it's not a matter of remembering and repeating information but more about being able to find and use it. By extension, "knowing more" is being about to find and use more chunks of information and knowing how to add new chunks to existing ones.

The importance of preassessment and knowing your students is paramount in to have true understanding take place. Without those elements, the students will never reveal their misunderstandings and not have an opportunity to see where it falls short.

What I like about this is that this is not only a positive for classroom growth, but character building as well. Something that obviously should be emphasized in public education, but often is not.

This reminds me of the "Marshmallow Challenge," where kindergarteners often-times outperform college kids due to their propensity for learning by trial and error. This also reminds me of Malcolm Gladwell's book (forget which one... I think David and Goliath) where Gladwell describes various scenarios where kindergarteners outperform adults.

It is important to not underestimate the abilities of our students (especially the young ones) and this research shows the power of inquiry based teaching.

Interesting.

How????? Policy makers seem to rarely be familiar with actual classroom learning and practices. Even more so with the public. The public expects that their students be taught they way they were-- a major hiccup in the roll out of the common core. This book was first published in 1999 and we're still struggling to do this.

I found this entire paragraph interesting. The author seems to be showing that students need a deep understanding of each concept. I.e. students need to know not only what a vein is, but why they have specific properties.

This springs a question for me which I have often had discussions with colleagues about standards (particularly Social Studies). There are far too many standards for teachers to be able to cover each standard in depth. What should a classroom teacher do, teach all the standards but only scrape the surface, or skip other standards in order to ensure deep understanding of topics covered?

I appreciate this acknowledgement-- I'd like more suggestions on how to help students from a variety of cultures overcome their fear of being wrong as mentioned in the next bullet point.

I feel like this is not just math...?

In my class we do lots of labs, reading charts and tables, looking at pictures to compare and classify things. To me, this is part of teaching them how to "look at the big picture"

Technology has made this statement a necessity. Memorization of dates, facts, and definitions is superfluous as these are very easy to Google. This next step of being able to locate and use information is the most important, and difficult, to teach. This is a major reason that I joined MAET.

I often put much more weight into techniques and research done by classroom teachers, as opposed to people who haven't worked in a classroom setting. It is extremely important for researchers to include teachers in every step of their research.

It's important to have administrator support here...I was fortunate to have this in recently redesigning my curriculum but I feel as though that was unique...

It's a beautiful thing when I see this in my room! Made me smile so big this last year when it finally happened.

mastery vs memory

Formative assessment has been a big push this year at my school. It has been a big discussion on whether we use the data as teachers to just change what and how we teach something or do we share the data with our students to know how their learning is coming along.

Does it have to be? What about Visible Thinking routines?

In order to differentiate for the various learners in my class I can typically be found doing all of these at once on a project. This year a student was REALLY struggling with the technology piece and it was clearly getting in the way of him actually learning the material so instead of a slides presentation, he constructed an old-school poster board. It had the same information requirements, just in a more "user friendly" format for him.

Sounds like the "Claims-Evidence-Reasoning" writing that has been a push in the younger grades in my district. The NHA school I was teaching at last year did this as well.

unlocking this knowledge is the key. Silly high school students saying "I don't know" to every question I ask.

In science, there is deinfinely a chunk of stuff that has to be memorized, but the processes that we learn about have to be understood, not just memorized for students to show mastery. I have the luxury of being able to conduct labs, give demonstrations, find comupter simulations, and lecture all on the same process.

Love this! This has been a big push for me this year to shift the control of learning from myself to the students. Having my students be responsible for their own learning is a powerful tool that helps them feel confident and competent.

Using new technology has been a hot topic in my district this year. We had many PDs focused on introducing all the teachers to new things that they can use in the classroom. It was always fun!

As a high school special ed teacher my students are constantly fighting with me about how they will never use this information "in the real world." It is always nice when I can prove them wrong. Through teaching science, I bring in real life examples of science happening all around us and within us to help my kids connect. It is always a proud moment when they come into class and say that they saw something that we learned about outside of class!

for me, in special education, we are constantly thinking about how our kids think and process the world differently. It is amazing to me that we are constantly learning more and evolving how we think about things.

I hope the author goes into more detail as to how this can be done, or ways in which we can better observe this in order to replicate it in our own classrooms.

I think that the most valuable learning occurs this way (despite my misgivings with early behavioral psychology/ists) and find that the biggest stumbling block in student learning is often that they (and we as a society) view mistakes as a bad thing. They are not. They should be viewed as opportunities to improve and yet are often used as excuses to give up or to avoid the subject matter. (Some of those excuses are fully supported by American culture-- "I suck at math" being maybe the most common example)

This can likely tie into the earlier mention of classroom settings and norms.

I love this-- I'm sure we can all find evidence of this in our classrooms. The language teaching techniques that I currently practice are drastically different from how I was taught in high school.

Which educational systems? Was this true for a majority of countries or is the author describing the U.S.?

A discussion of these norms and who they tend to benefit would be worth having.

I find it interesting that in spite of this, we still teach math and sciences in isolation (biology/chemistry/physics/algebra/geometry.etc). I'd be interested to see research combining the findings of this research in classes where subjects are less isolated. It seems as though this would set students up for success doubly-- using the new research to support them and helping them build connections between new and previously learned information.

This is something that I learned through MSU's student teaching in Hazel Park, MI. I was forced to reevaluate my understanding as the students had such different backgrounds than I did. It was an important lesson for me to learn that these students were not incapable of learning- instead they had unique experiences that contributed to our lessons in ways I could never have imagined.

Visible thinking is a hot topic right now in many districts. I love that this method has students explain their understanding so that we can see what they're thinking. Rather than lecturing and hoping they were paying attention well enough to solve problems. I think this is huge and I would love to use more visible thinking strategies in my classroom.

Just another reminder of how important it is to get to know students and their background knowledge prior to lessons and instructions. So much of their ability to transfer new knowledge depends on their beliefs coming into the class.

Just like the "I do, we do, you do" mentality of gradually releasing the responsibility to the students during lessons.

Wait time! I've heard it time and time again. It can be so difficult when half of your class "gets it" right away. I definitely need to work on my wait time for students.

This is such great point, and something, that I think many students never achieve. They want to get in, get their work done, receive a good grade, and move on. Very few go above and beyond to take the time to deepen their understanding. Would love more info on how to effectively teach students this in the classroom.

I think this is a huge thing for teachers to remember. We know our class best, and sometimes that means we can add to or tweak the set curriculum we are given. This is especially prevalent if you need to provide additional background information before delving into the content.

I see this exact problem with my students. Often times they are rushing through problems and don't bother to stop and think about the problem logically. With everything so automatic for these kids nowadays, many don't have the patience to stop and think. They seem to work toward a solution instead of going back to see if their answers make sense. So frustrating! This was definitely something that I would like to combat more in the next school year.

Interesting!

Wow! I like this graphic. There are so many outside factors that are influencing our students before they're sitting in front of us. Good reminder for me as a teacher.

Teacher goals right here!

Geography is one of my passions in teaching. I love having conversations with my students about this exact topic. They bring up the ideas later in the year. Conceptual understanding is key in this case.

One of my favorite things in class is when a student courageously raises their hand and asks me about a topic and makes a connection to a false belief. I love having that opportunity to clarify misconceptions. We need to be able to have conversations that allow students to ask questions, because I know not all students will have the personality to bring their questions up in front of a class. With all the push of curriculum, I think some of these conversations are lost... but they are so important to the child's "complete understanding"

I've seen a shift in this mindset with the new tests coming out (especially ELA) for students to make connections from different texts instead of rote memorizations. It will be interesting to see how this progresses in coming years.

I wonder if this is something we can help change in our students - maybe by modeling how mistakes are a normal and good part of learning.

Makes sense. But it's not easy encouraging students to want to self-monitor their progress and use feedback to improve!

This topic is something that has intrigued me this past year. I have gone to several PD's about different technology opportunities available to students. There is so much great stuff out there.... it's just a pain to have limits on availability on devices in my classroom. Time to think outside the box and incorporate more small group/ center/stations in the classroom.

I think this is so huge! I feel like we often put limits on ourselves and our students based on demographics (SES, Free and reduced lunch, etc) instead of looking for ways to connect our curriculum to our students. All children have the capacity to learn and grow no matter where they were raised. I like that this is putting an emphasis on reasoning and problem solving too.

Growth mindset! Spend more time and effort, and you can be successful. This is good to use to encourage our students who struggle - no one was an expert immediately.

I like this idea that we all have more we can learn. It relates to a quote someone told me at a PD last year that she uses in her classes "everybody knows something, but nobody knows everything".

This seems like a great hook to make students engaged and get them thinking. I've been introduced to hooks but don't always find good ideas for HS math...I hear "Teach Like a Pirate" is a good book though!

I think this relates back to the metacognitive skills emphasis from the previous chapter. We need students not just to know facts but how to THINK in our discipline. How do students attack a new problem/situation? How do they reason? This means learning isn't about knowing the answer but about the process of thinking & inquiry. How do we get our students there?

I agree! All too often I feel education revolves around having students learn/memorize lists of facts rather than building deep conceptual understanding about a topic. It's easy to get caught up in this!

These are good strategies!

Interesting - about the purpose of technology, learning objectives and how to teach. (TPACK!)

Wow! This is impressive and seems to be good evidence for using some type of "inquiry-based" teaching.

Does this mean students who just "rote" memorize something won't really be able to use this knowledge - that they have to more deeply understand the concept and its connections? Therefore as teachers we should strive to have our students build conceptual understanding not just quickly cover topics.

New technology is exciting! How do we best use technology to engage and help our students understand/learn better? (that's what I've been starting to focusing on recently)

I find it interesting how theories of education change over time - do people change or just the research? Why do teachers often think a new educational trend is just a phase? (ex. Common Core Standards)

I see this as one of the biggest issues in schools preparing students for real life situations. Schools are not equipped to create realistic learning environments because of lack of funds, budget restrictions and other factors. While technology does close this gap for some, there are many schools who do not have this access to technology, or have too little access. Even old fashioned print materials can be scarce for some schools. Unfortunately, some of this won't change until accountability factors (standardized tests) change because teachers often refuse to teach students in a medium different than what they will be tested in (that has both positive and negative consequences). I think if we want to make learning more genuine for students and encourage that transfer outside the classroom, we need to make our classrooms more like the real world scenarios students will face and give them the proper equipment to accomplish their tasks.

This is such an important thing for all teachers to recognize. I once observed in a classroom where a teacher was teaching about the Great Lakes (this is a classroom in Michigan). The teacher assumed that all students knew these were fresh bodies of water, so she asked "Would a whale go in the lake?" Many students laughed and said "NO!" but one student looked very confused. As other students began sharing their answers, all referring to fresh water, the boy raised his hand and said that he thought the answer was "no, because a whale would be too big for a lake." It dawned on me that even though the boy lived just miles from Lake Michigan, he had never seen it. It's so important to learn all that we can about our students, their experiences, and what they are specifically bringing into the classroom.

This is a great example of an authentic assessment, in my opinion. Students are using project-based learning to understand the overarching patterns and are certainly transferring the knowledge. Presenting it to an expert audience is a fantastic way to assess student understanding.

As a teacher, this response can be entirely frustrating. It is one of those things that you know you taught it, but because you are the expert, and the students are likely novices, the transfer is not there. It also goes back to the point that you have to be explicit in your instruction. The "understanding method" recognizes patterns and allows for students to see the shape in a different way, and may help expand their thinking.

I think that this is very important, and emphasizes points made in previous chapters. If students are taught by the "mile wide, inch deep" mindset, the ability to transfer will suffer. If students are purely just memorizing facts, they may be able to make near transfers, but far transfers may suffer.

I have seen this a lot in my experience. You forget that you need to teach the very basics before moving on. I have seen teachers get frustrated that they have to do this, but because we are experts, we really do forget that at one point in time, we were not.

Formative assessments are essential at any grade level. They are far more authentic and allow students to perform in a way that truly shows their abilities. This past year, I worked with second graders with spelling test anxiety. They would freeze up moments before the test and completely forget their words. Quick, informal formative assessments are a great way to better understand your students, their misconceptions and how to better focus instruction.

Many of my undergraduate courses at MSU focused on this concept. Students are not a receptacle to be filled with your knowledge, but rather the transfer of knowledge needs to travel both ways.

I really like this. So often, I felt like my own education was just instructors trying to connect the strands instead of helping me unravel and understand them. While making connections is undoubtedly important, educators should strive to help students unravel and create a new understanding.

I was lucky enough to see this first hand during my undergraduate time at Michigan State. MSU focuses greatly on giving us field experiences that demonstrate the constantly developing realm of education. During my student teaching, my students were taught that literacy was all encompassing. It was not just the ability to read and write, but it was also the ability to turn on a computer, to send an email, to vote in an election, etc. To be literate, simply means to be capable in an certain area.

As a new teacher, I am very reliant on the wisdom and experience of those around me. I value their opinions and experiences greatly, and look forward to how it will impact my own teaching.

I think this is a very exciting and important step to curriculum development. As a new teacher, I have many hopes. One in particular is that I hope to be able to teach advanced reasoning skills to my first graders. I have seen raw, natural ability to do this in my field experience and I'm very excited to see how this helps both my students and myself develop.

I understand the need for cross-curricular learning, but I don't think there has been enough buy in. Too often the subjects that team up are math & science, or history & English, which use many of the same skills but fit together logically. I think to encourage far transfer, disciplines that are not logical connections should be paired with one another - the possibilities are endless. Science and physical education, English and foreign languages, science and history, etc.

Homework that is purposeful can have a huge benefit, but the trick is to make it purposeful. The days of sending home practice worksheets is over, we need to find ways to encourage learning outside of the classroom because 250 hours of instruction > 65 hours of instruction. I feel like that is doing a disservice to the kids by asking them to transfer skills they never had the time to master.

I hadn't thought about there being different types of transfer before. I think it is important to understand the distinctions if we are trying to help our students. I can see a lot of vertical and near transfer in my classes, but I think the administration and community wants to see far transfer - that is students apply academic skills to non-academic settings. I think talking more about the different levels of transfer and using those to scaffold could help more people reach the far transfer stage.

I think it is interesting that the author uses the word hope in this sentence. I think hope is exactly what many teachers do - they lay out all the skills and knowledge students need, but don't help them through the transfer stage, they just hope the student figures it out for themselves. I think transfer needs to be more explicitly taught, until students can think through that process on their own.

I think this is very common, unfortunately.

I see this happen a lot on my campus, especially in math. Students will go through sets of practice problems and will feel like they have a grasp on the content, but the test will then ask them to transfer their skills. They will be given word problems that don't specify or encourage a particular process for solving, so students get very frustrated that "the review was nothing like the test." I think we need to find a better way to bridge this gap, or make it apparent to students why the test seems different from the review, but actually requires the same skills and knowledge.

How do we change this?

What does this look like in practice? How would I make this happen in my classroom?

I know as teachers we have all had that moment when we teach a concept that is so basic and logical to us and our students just don't get it. We get so frustrated because we cannot understand how the students are not understanding something so simple, but this touches on that phenomena. We as "experts" in our content can see patters and information that our novice students cannot.

I feel like this is a common strategy we try to encourage our kids to use, not for learning, but rather for time management. We often encourage students to "chunk" their readings so they can do a little at a time and not get overwhelmed with the amount of information they have to remember - I think we need to stress the idea that this helps with discerning patterns which facilitate thinking and memory formation, and it's not just a time management strategy.

This is relevant to the idea that our students all come to us with varying levels of prior knowledge and different understandings of content and concepts that can affect their perceptions and learning.

I recently read an article about ways to engage students within the school community and one of their suggestions was to invite parents to professional development sessions. Though I am not yet sure how I feel about that proposal, it is an interesting concept. The article mentioned that this helps parents understand the expectations for their child and ways to support learning at home. It also gives parents insight into the demands placed on the teachers by the school and administration. I would like to get some other's opinions on this and discuss what types of professional development would be beneficial for parents to see and what that might look like in practice.

I see this a lot in my GT classes - some of my GT students are in the latter group; they are willing to struggle to accomplish something personal. My high achievers, on the other hand, are in the former group; they constantly ask me "what do I need to do to get an 'A' on this assignment/project/test?" I would like to foster more students in the latter group as struggling to success is a fundamental value in life.

I think this is important for teachers to remember. I feel like when these new teaching strategies come out (PBL, Flipped Classroom, Stations, Maker Space, etc) teachers think that you are no longer allowed to lecture because kids do not respond to that. Too often teachers try to implement these new strategies holistically, for every lesson and that is just not reasonable. Sometimes you have to lecture - it may be the most effective way to deliver the content. Sometimes PBL doesn't work for what you want students to gain from the lesson. I think it is important to encourage teachers to use a variety of strategies and not just one - it is also important to note that the newest strategies are not always the best. Lecture style classrooms produced a lot of intelligent people before PBL was created, but I think newer teachers are afraid of it.

How do we make this a standard practice in our schools? How can you train teachers to train students how to recognize their thinking?

This is a struggle I have as a teacher in Texas. Students are required to pass 5 state standardized tests in order to graduate (this was cut down from the original requirement of 15). If students pass all their classes, earn all their credits, but don't pass the test, they don't get their diploma. It is difficult for me to not think about the test constantly because I don't want students to fail and miss out on their diploma. I would like to move more toward practical applications of skills and life/workplace skills, but until those are tested, I have to find a way to marry these two approaches. I'm interested in learning how to more effectively help students acquire deep conceptual understanding, while also passing their required tests.

How do we encourage this? Many times students think they are "done" with something, but I can quickly glance at it and see huge holes in their work. How do we teach someone to continue gathering information until they have exhausted all their options?

I've had many discussions with colleagues about the use of positive reinforcement. One colleague shared with me that positive reinforcement only works where there is the potential for a negative consequence. In this case, the positive reinforcement (food) is paired with a potentially negative consequence (being stuck in the box) that encourages the cat to escape. I am concerned that using just positive reinforcement will foster an environment of entitlement in which people expect a reward for doing the right thing.

Literacy development is my district's new "problem of practice." I think that over time literacy has changed to include a whole realm of technology literacy and it is essential now, more than ever, that students understand the different types of literacy and how to code switch between them.

As a high school teacher, I think this is one of the greatest obstacles I face with my students. Too often students think the skills we are teaching them are reserved for classroom use only. I think getting students to understand how to transfer their skills would help people value education more and see their skills as necessary for lifelong success.

I am very excited to see the relationship develop between these two disciplines. When pursuing a psychology minor, I was often discouraged by my counselor because it was "not a marketable degree." As an educator, I think it is essential that we understand cognitive development when designing and delivering content.

Benedict Carey's book "How We Learn" has some different -- but related (and interesting) -- research-based insights about learning. Have you ever wondered, for example, whether it's more effective to study in a quiet room vs. a noisy one? Or better to listen to jazz or classical music while studying?

One of the areas that I've become interested in is how we learn when reading print vs. reading on screen. One book I've read on the subject is Words Onscreen by Naomi Baron about how technology affects the way we read.