Dr. Gary Ackerman

OK... here we go... again... correlation does not mean causation.

I still remember how to diagram sentences. I believe it helped me become a better writer, but I don't believe we should make everyone learn it.

What if students really do know how to improve schools?

Your edtech competitors have terrible products. That does not mean yours are good.

Let’s get this straight: Evolution is a scientific theory which means it is the best framework we have for explaining and predicting observations of how organisms change. It is updated with new knowledge.

To dismiss is as “merely” a theory demonstrates you don’t know science.

Use the microphone.

Sometimes poor course design is continued as “academic freedom.” That bugs me.

Makerspaces are fine, but they are really a poor substitute for the "industrial arts" and "home economics" shops and kitchens and well-supplied art studios we had in the 1970's and 1980's. Yes, I realize this post can be labeled "back in my day things we better."

The best test questions I have seen are written by teachers collaborating. The worst ones come from the textbook publishers.

One of the challenges of being a highly competent worker is that you end up enabling crummy leadership as they don’t experience the effects of their bad decisions.

Here is your reminder that personal incredulity isn’t evidence you are correct.

It is curiosity about my fields of study that made me want to teach. Handing off lesson planning to AI is counter to what makes me want to teach.

Yeah… sorry, but I do judge you by the folks with whom you associate.

Can one be prejudiced against someone for what they say and do?

I claim it’s judgement, not prejudice.

I decided to cull my library today… I found only 3 books that no longer interest me.

“What’s the best way to format slides that have lots of text for my presentation?”

Put it in a word processing document and print it.

If I’m not qualified to evaluate the data, I will take the recommendation of a large group of scientists. Always.

One thing I learned during 35 years in education: leadership never look deeply at “the next big thing.” If they do, they would probably lose their jobs.

Being “smart” is *always* context-dependent.

Information technology is great at moving bits around. Moving knowledge, critical thinking, creativity… not so much.

If it isn’t filled with marginalia did you really read it?

I had a conversation with a colleague today. The theme was “if you are not pissing off some established scholars, then you are not doing doctoral studies right.”

Who else had heard this?

Solving problems then reflecting on the solutions. That is one way to learn. That is a good way to learn.

Precise outcomes. We value them in education, but I don’t think students do.

What if your students meet the objectives, but don’t learn anything?

I reject authority… especially when it is a tech company telling me how I should teach.

Do we trust the “AI in education expert” who says “this stuff is changing every day” yet used the same slides and examples they did 3 months ago when you saw them give their talk at a different school?

Knowing about things is fine, it’s just not that interesting. Understanding how things interact... that is interesting.

Wait… let me get this straight… you want to hire someone to translate education jargon? But there are folks whose entire role is to introduce it and confuse others with it. Should we not honor that work?

“This new study proves I’m right.”

“How do you know it isn’t in that majority of studies that are not confirmed?”