How Will You Know If It Worked?

Ask any teacher if they have too much going on, and they will furiously nod their head. Yes! All teachers need things taken off of their plates.

Yet!

Most teachers add more to their plates. They go to conferences. They browse Pinterest. They gather “more ideas.” In fact, “more ideas” is the number one reason people give me for signing up for Byrdseed’s mailing list.

But if folks already have too much to do, we should be very careful about adding more!

Two Questions

Before you start up that new idea, ask yourself two questions:

What problem am I trying to solve?
How will I know if it worked?

Sounds obvious, right? But I’m sure you’re as guilty as I am of jumping in without considering what I’m even doing…

…and then regretting it later.

Example: Depth and Complexity

I’ll use Depth and Complexity as an example. I love Depth and Complexity!

But it’s absolutely not worth implementing unless it solves the problem you want to be solved. The purpose of implementing Depth and Complexity isn’t to “do Depth and Complexity.” You can’t look at a classroom and say, “Ok, there are icons now. Mission accomplished!”

What problem will Depth and Complexity solve? I imagine most people would say, “It will help our students to think at a higher level.”
How will we know if it works? Well, when teachers use Depth and Complexity, we’ll expect to questions that prompt higher level thinking.

Obvious, right?

But!

Nearly all examples of Depth and Complexity that I see clearly ask for low-level thinking! You see questions like, “What are the rules? What are the patterns? What are the details?” Those are “identify” questions. They are at the bottom of Bloom’s no matter how many depth and complexity icons you stick in.

This Solution Doesn’t Match The Problem

See, using Depth and Complexity to “raise thinking” is like buying a motorcycle to take the family on road trips.

The solution doesn’t fit the problem.

Depth and Complexity does not raise thinking levels. That’s Bloom’s Taxonomy’s job! Depth and Complexity will help you to ask more specific questions. It modifies content, not thinking. So if you’re asking low-level questions, you’ll just ask more specific low-level questions. And that wasn’t your goal!

If the problem is “teachers are asking low-level questions,” the solution is to learn to build sequences of questions using Bloom’s Taxonomy.

See, by going through this little exercise, we’ve avoided adding a new thing to learn. Instead, we can spend our very limited energy getting better at something we’re already familiar with: Bloom’s!

A Third Question

Actually, there’s a third question to ask:

Have I ever seen this done well?

The only reason I understand Depth and Complexity is because I watched experienced teachers use it – folks who had been teaching with Depth and Complexity for five or more years. I didn’t learn by listening to someone talk about it. I saw Depth and Complexity in action.

Whatever it is you’re implementing, make sure you’ve watched several teachers actually doing that thing. Talk to them about common mistakes and misunderstandings about the topic. Make sure you’re clear about its limitations! Understand what problem it solves. And get really clear about how you will know that it worked.