I tire easily of hearing the claim that a particular educational product or program is “quick and easy” AND that it is effective in developing real understanding — whether this is learning (on the student’s part) or assessing student learning (on the teacher’s part). “Quick and easy” is an enticing phrase, to be sure, but how often in life in general is something that initiates a real change in understanding “quick and easy”? Why would it make sense that this were somehow possible in schools?
We, meaning educators, the general public, and our civil leaders, must accept that if we really want students to be able to apply their learning in real situations (which is one of the major goals of any educational situation), this requires understanding — flexible and varied ways of thinking about and using developed knowledge. Further, if teachers really want to understand what students know so that they can move them further along, this requires time and purposefully designed interaction with students.
Neither of these absolutely critical, non-negotiable goals can be accomplished with “quick and easy” methods. It simply will not work. But those who are tempted to rely on what is “quick and easy” often seem to be the first to place blame when goals for deep learning are left unachieved. What a bitter irony this is, and one against which we must continue to fight!
