Essay templates to help scaffold arguments and narratives seldom yield transfer of learning; yet, the push to include them to promote differentiation is too much for any educator to fight.
A student who is struggling with including quotes to support her argument is better off by analyzing essays that do that well, than a worksheet with a template.
But, in defense of teachers, who are coming out with degrees and without any actual expertise, and have to manage huge class sizes, in districts who want to see “engagement”—what is one to do?
“This represents perhaps the most insidious form of educational failure: when tasks don't simply fail to teach the intended skill, but actively cultivate counterproductive habits of mind.”
This elegantly captures the tension between reading science and whole language/balanced literacy practices. There is a popular reading program that asks students to sort words by spelling patterns (ay vs. ai) but students can SEE the difference so don’t actually engage in the tedious task of reading the words. There are lots more classroom connections to your insightful analysis which will have to wait for a blog of my own. Yours is a fantastic feeder blog! Thanks for this!
Sorting words by spelling patterns doesn't seem very whole language to me. Without any context about the task or to whom it was assigned, it seems like the kind of thing whole language was meant to fix but wasn't able to. (Then again, an overfocus on phonics isn't going to fix that either.)
If you actually want to better understand whole language, rather than just represent a straw man of it, then you might want to read this essay by Frank Smith, published in 1988, entitled "How Education Backed the Wrong Horse" (p. 109). Among other things, it says the thing that's wrong with taking "the science of learning" too seriously is that "experimental psychologists impose their procrustean framework on what they study."
This is actually something I've been thinking a lot about recently: is there any incentive for for-profit companies to *actually* focus on learning over engagement?
That is, had they designed it a more effective way without the colours, would kids (and thus your daughter) be as involved?
Similar thing with educational apps, regardless of the level (probably up to BSc) or topic. E.e.g, I'm learning different languages and, having tested about 20 different popular apps, they *all* do the same. The standout #1 here is Duolingo which quite literally is just pure engagement and gamification...which actually brings me on to a related problem that I'm in the process of writing on: are 'education' apps such as Duolingo actually *more* harmful for users than if the users were to literally just play an actual video game? With the latter, at least they (or their parents) internalise that this is purely entertainment, and thus in x amount of time they really *should* study proper. Whereas with the former, this does not exist. They *believe* they *are* studying here. The result is 0 actual studying, and double the gaming! The primary user of Duolingo are kids with their parents paying for premium and this is something I cannot stop thinking about.
The research is pretty clear that "Ed Tech" in general has hampered learning. In fact, it even results in students who are less competent in the tech, itself—let alone core curriculum topics like English. We went into a bit a while back at:
Thanks. This does seem (very) hard to believe. First thought is it's likely just a function of methodology. Will give your blog a read.
*However*, it definitely depends a huge amount on the actual 'tech' (read: app). Something like Anki, or MathAcademy, or KhanAcademy etc I would find it hard to see how *these* would impede learning.
Well, the onus is on the Ed Tech industry to prove that their systems actually help. Up till now there is virtually no (non Big Tech funded) empirical evidence that they do. Meanwhile, student scores have continued to drop.
A particular video (whether Khan Academy or YouTube) can be an interesting tool w/in a lesson—I'm not saying otherwise. But that is a far cry from the destructive centering of devices in our school system.
But, most of the systems you name (esp. Khan Academy (!)) are now just delivery vectors for the inherently destructive introduction of #AI into the school system. This should disqualify them right out of the gate.
AI is not just another tool like a calculator: Calculators don't: randomly produce their answers, including wrong ones; promote self-harm or other deadly feedback; violate children's privacy; replace the critical thinking skills used in legit human inquiry; push corporate propaganda/bias; or, as you pointed out, designed primarily to promote engagement (ie, to be addictive).
An excellent post as ever, highlighting the level of detail/professionalism needed in instruction design. I think these cards could be used usefully in an instruction sequence, highlighting it's not necessarily the resource design that is at issue but how and where I. The instruction sequence it's used. If your daughter had just been shown the blending with a verbal " P..ig sounds Pig" with the dual coded graphics of the Pig to scaffold it. Perhaps along with the other examples. The coloured matching cards may make a good scaffolded practice/reheral task as long as when she puts it together she says "P...ig" sounds Pig, Pig has P and ig sounds. Perhaps point at the graphemes as she says it out loud. Success in the task is sounding out correctly. Ask she develops fluency matching using uncoloured cards but with the dual coded pig graphic could be the next step... Reverse fading the scaffolding. Were there instructions with the resource, or did you just not read the manual and get straight on with the task??? ;-)
Exactly! This really shows how important the teacher is in the equation...Educators need to always be looking at materials and thinking: What is that I want them to learn? What problems might arise or get in the way of that learning? How do I ensure that this doesn't happen?
However there are those who go overboard regarding "understanding" in math and insist that students must understand the "why" of a procedure which means, in many cases, that students must understand the derivation of a procedure. The poster child of this is fractional division in which those in the math reform camp claim has students "doing" but not "knowing".
What is important in fractional division is to see what is happening when dividing by fractions. This is done a bit at a time; first whole numbers divided by a fraction (2 oranges cut into quarters yields 8 quarters or 2 ÷ 1/4 = 8, and then moving up to a more complicated example like how many 3 quarter pieces of oranges are in 6 oranges, (or 6 ÷ 3/4). After that comes fraction divided by fraction; i.e., how many 3/8 km intervals are contained in 7/8 km. The first examples establish the pattern of inverting the divisor and multiplying, which is then extended to fraction divided by fraction.
Do students REALLY need to know the derivation of this last one when first learning the procedure in say 6th grade? It can be shown a bit easier when they've had a bit more experience working with algebra. And knowing the derivation does not really improve their functioning with the reasoning associated with fractional division. That is, if there are two students who can solve the problem of how many 2/3 oz servings of yogurt are in 3/4 oz of yogurt (by seeing what needs to be done to solve the problem, and doing the procedure correctly), I can't tell which student knows the derivation and which one doesn't.
Your specific example aside, this (deriving) is probably only relevant if studying Maths or Physics at University, no? Where are children being required to learn derivations?
When people say "Students must understand the 'why' of a procedure -- i.e., why a procedure works -- it is unclear what they are saying students must understand.
Are they asking students to understand the derivation?
For fractional division, some textbooks will show a derivation for fractional division as follows: 2/3÷ 4/5 = (2/3)/(4/5). Multiply the complex fraction by 1, represented as (5/4)/(5/4) to obtain (2/3 x 5/4)/(4/5)x(5/4). The denominator then equals 1, and the resulting quotient is then 2/3 x 5/4. I have seen this done in 7th grade; in fact, I had to teach it that way as a student teacher in that classroom. Some students got it; most didn't.
For me, understanding the "why" or a procedure would be to know the context for the procedure. I.e., what is it we're doing when we divide by a fraction. This can be represented visually as I indicated in my comment.
Finally, many math reformers look at standard algorithms and procedures as "surface level thinking" that eclipses the "understanding" behind them. Their answer to this is mentalistic exercises at the expense of procedural mastery.
As AI is rolled out into our classrooms and across academia, this is one the greatest crisis facing us right now as teachers. Last week, the American Federation of Teachers partnered with OpenAI and Microsoft to launch a $23 million dollar National Academy for AI Instruction. When I've attended trainings on teachers and students using AI in the classroom, the point that you made about students engaging in the difficult problem-solving tasks was swept under the rug.
Such a smart catch. You’ve put your finger on one of the sneakiest traps in curriculum design: we often end up teaching kids how to game an activity instead of engaging with the thinking the activity was built for.
“Learning doesn’t happen when the student completes a task. It’s what happens when the task causes the student to think.”
Exactly. If the affordances of the task make shallow cues more salient than the underlying concept, students will (very rationally) grab those cues and run. We see the same thing when:
• math problems can be solved by spotting a keyword (“altogether = add”) instead of analysing structure,
• science labs become “follow-the-recipe” exercises instead of hypothesis-testing,
• writing frames turn essays into Mad-Libs.
The antidote is ruthless alignment: ask “What specific mental moves does this require?” and strip away everything that lets kids succeed without doing those moves. If colour-coding helps, great—otherwise it goes. If a graphic organiser scaffolds the right thinking, keep it—otherwise redesign.
Your story is a perfect reminder that engagement ≠ learning, performance ≠ understanding, and that every piece of instructional design is either rehearsing the target skill…or rehearsing a shortcut.
So agree with this! Pre-K 4 and kindergarten should be spent doing puzzles (regular puzzles, not these type) and classic board games and card games. Sorry, Uno, Monopoly, Go Fish, Solitaire, etc. Kids learn so much in these situations that we take for granted as a society.
Thank you for this fantastic piece. I really enjoyed it, and it highlights such an important tension in teaching: tasks that seem helpful on the surface can, without careful guidance, encourage habits that don’t support the learning we intend.
Your example of the puzzle and sorting task really got me thinking. Let’s say a teacher uses that kind of puzzle where students sort pieces by color or shape to form a word like train. What happens next is crucial. The teacher might first help students see how those clues can guide them, but then has to go further—guiding them to place their finger under the word, read it aloud, and write it. With consistent practice (and guidance for families to do the same at home), this kind of task could actually become a powerful tool rather than just a puzzle about colors and shapes.
Even if we removed those scaffolds—the colors and shapes—there could still be unintended consequences. Without careful teaching, students might end up practicing misspellings like trayn instead of train, reinforcing errors rather than accurate decoding.
Importantly, I don’t think this is a whole language issue or a science of reading issue. It’s just inherent in materials themselves. It’s hard to design anything that always sets kids up for exactly what we intend without some risk of misunderstanding. That’s why the teacher’s role in anticipating problems and planning solutions is so essential.
Thanks again for sparking such valuable reflection—I look forward to connecting these ideas to my own writing!
Your writing is not only articulate but also powerfully thought-provoking. I was especially struck by the way you clearly distinguish learning from performance — a distinction that is so often overlooked but absolutely critical.
“Without knowledge of cognitive processes, instructional design is blind,” should be something all teachers reflect on. Too often, well-intentioned educators find ourselves busy — but busy with the wrong things, or with practices we don't fully believe in, carried out in the name of compliance or institutional expectations.
Your sentence “This represents perhaps the most insidious form of educational failure: when tasks don't simply fail to teach the intended skill, but actively cultivate counterproductive habits of mind” hit me especially hard. It’s a sobering reminder of the ethics of teaching — and the weight of our professional responsibility.
Re: "learners will invariably take the path of least resistance."
Sure, if you pay no attention to what motivates the learners. My guess is your daughter engaged in this pointless task because she loves her dad. I hope you read an actual story to her from an actual book afterwards. She certainly earned it.
An example I've found in middle school computer skills: There's a training program for typing (with all ten fingers). It rewards typing speed and accuracy, but of course, it cannot know how the user is achieving them.
The result: the kids just type with two fingers, if that, doing exactly what's necessary to get more points - and their conclusion is that they get more points doing it that way than learning the typing system, therefore their way is better.
We must be teaching children how to touch type. It was taught everywhere in the 2000s, and pupils in 2025 simply do not have the ability to do so. Again, it's the phones. Without this, we're setting a whole generation of young people into the world of essay writing and beyond with a fundamental expectation vs ability gap.
I’m not sure about both of these. I’m 26 and wasn’t taught it, nor do I feel it’s that beneficial. I’ve a 75WPM typing with just my index fingers. For 0.1% of careers it will of course be required, but that applies to many things.
This is an excellent essay.
Thank you!
Essay templates to help scaffold arguments and narratives seldom yield transfer of learning; yet, the push to include them to promote differentiation is too much for any educator to fight.
A student who is struggling with including quotes to support her argument is better off by analyzing essays that do that well, than a worksheet with a template.
But, in defense of teachers, who are coming out with degrees and without any actual expertise, and have to manage huge class sizes, in districts who want to see “engagement”—what is one to do?
“This represents perhaps the most insidious form of educational failure: when tasks don't simply fail to teach the intended skill, but actively cultivate counterproductive habits of mind.”
This elegantly captures the tension between reading science and whole language/balanced literacy practices. There is a popular reading program that asks students to sort words by spelling patterns (ay vs. ai) but students can SEE the difference so don’t actually engage in the tedious task of reading the words. There are lots more classroom connections to your insightful analysis which will have to wait for a blog of my own. Yours is a fantastic feeder blog! Thanks for this!
Sorting words by spelling patterns doesn't seem very whole language to me. Without any context about the task or to whom it was assigned, it seems like the kind of thing whole language was meant to fix but wasn't able to. (Then again, an overfocus on phonics isn't going to fix that either.)
If you actually want to better understand whole language, rather than just represent a straw man of it, then you might want to read this essay by Frank Smith, published in 1988, entitled "How Education Backed the Wrong Horse" (p. 109). Among other things, it says the thing that's wrong with taking "the science of learning" too seriously is that "experimental psychologists impose their procrustean framework on what they study."
https://archive.org/embed/joiningliteracyc0000smit
And say what you will, but 37 years later, he's still not wrong.
This is actually something I've been thinking a lot about recently: is there any incentive for for-profit companies to *actually* focus on learning over engagement?
That is, had they designed it a more effective way without the colours, would kids (and thus your daughter) be as involved?
Similar thing with educational apps, regardless of the level (probably up to BSc) or topic. E.e.g, I'm learning different languages and, having tested about 20 different popular apps, they *all* do the same. The standout #1 here is Duolingo which quite literally is just pure engagement and gamification...which actually brings me on to a related problem that I'm in the process of writing on: are 'education' apps such as Duolingo actually *more* harmful for users than if the users were to literally just play an actual video game? With the latter, at least they (or their parents) internalise that this is purely entertainment, and thus in x amount of time they really *should* study proper. Whereas with the former, this does not exist. They *believe* they *are* studying here. The result is 0 actual studying, and double the gaming! The primary user of Duolingo are kids with their parents paying for premium and this is something I cannot stop thinking about.
Would love anyone's thoughts.
The research is pretty clear that "Ed Tech" in general has hampered learning. In fact, it even results in students who are less competent in the tech, itself—let alone core curriculum topics like English. We went into a bit a while back at:
https://markharbinger.substack.com/p/citizen-feign
Thanks. This does seem (very) hard to believe. First thought is it's likely just a function of methodology. Will give your blog a read.
*However*, it definitely depends a huge amount on the actual 'tech' (read: app). Something like Anki, or MathAcademy, or KhanAcademy etc I would find it hard to see how *these* would impede learning.
Hi Shaeda,
Well, the onus is on the Ed Tech industry to prove that their systems actually help. Up till now there is virtually no (non Big Tech funded) empirical evidence that they do. Meanwhile, student scores have continued to drop.
Countless write-ups have been done about this. This is one of my favorite (scroll down for the guest essay): https://www.afterbabel.com/p/false-promise-of-device-based-ed
A particular video (whether Khan Academy or YouTube) can be an interesting tool w/in a lesson—I'm not saying otherwise. But that is a far cry from the destructive centering of devices in our school system.
But, most of the systems you name (esp. Khan Academy (!)) are now just delivery vectors for the inherently destructive introduction of #AI into the school system. This should disqualify them right out of the gate.
AI is not just another tool like a calculator: Calculators don't: randomly produce their answers, including wrong ones; promote self-harm or other deadly feedback; violate children's privacy; replace the critical thinking skills used in legit human inquiry; push corporate propaganda/bias; or, as you pointed out, designed primarily to promote engagement (ie, to be addictive).
An excellent post as ever, highlighting the level of detail/professionalism needed in instruction design. I think these cards could be used usefully in an instruction sequence, highlighting it's not necessarily the resource design that is at issue but how and where I. The instruction sequence it's used. If your daughter had just been shown the blending with a verbal " P..ig sounds Pig" with the dual coded graphics of the Pig to scaffold it. Perhaps along with the other examples. The coloured matching cards may make a good scaffolded practice/reheral task as long as when she puts it together she says "P...ig" sounds Pig, Pig has P and ig sounds. Perhaps point at the graphemes as she says it out loud. Success in the task is sounding out correctly. Ask she develops fluency matching using uncoloured cards but with the dual coded pig graphic could be the next step... Reverse fading the scaffolding. Were there instructions with the resource, or did you just not read the manual and get straight on with the task??? ;-)
Exactly! This really shows how important the teacher is in the equation...Educators need to always be looking at materials and thinking: What is that I want them to learn? What problems might arise or get in the way of that learning? How do I ensure that this doesn't happen?
However there are those who go overboard regarding "understanding" in math and insist that students must understand the "why" of a procedure which means, in many cases, that students must understand the derivation of a procedure. The poster child of this is fractional division in which those in the math reform camp claim has students "doing" but not "knowing".
What is important in fractional division is to see what is happening when dividing by fractions. This is done a bit at a time; first whole numbers divided by a fraction (2 oranges cut into quarters yields 8 quarters or 2 ÷ 1/4 = 8, and then moving up to a more complicated example like how many 3 quarter pieces of oranges are in 6 oranges, (or 6 ÷ 3/4). After that comes fraction divided by fraction; i.e., how many 3/8 km intervals are contained in 7/8 km. The first examples establish the pattern of inverting the divisor and multiplying, which is then extended to fraction divided by fraction.
Do students REALLY need to know the derivation of this last one when first learning the procedure in say 6th grade? It can be shown a bit easier when they've had a bit more experience working with algebra. And knowing the derivation does not really improve their functioning with the reasoning associated with fractional division. That is, if there are two students who can solve the problem of how many 2/3 oz servings of yogurt are in 3/4 oz of yogurt (by seeing what needs to be done to solve the problem, and doing the procedure correctly), I can't tell which student knows the derivation and which one doesn't.
See https://barrygarelick.substack.com/p/thoughts-on-conceptual-understanding for more on this.
Your specific example aside, this (deriving) is probably only relevant if studying Maths or Physics at University, no? Where are children being required to learn derivations?
When people say "Students must understand the 'why' of a procedure -- i.e., why a procedure works -- it is unclear what they are saying students must understand.
Are they asking students to understand the derivation?
For fractional division, some textbooks will show a derivation for fractional division as follows: 2/3÷ 4/5 = (2/3)/(4/5). Multiply the complex fraction by 1, represented as (5/4)/(5/4) to obtain (2/3 x 5/4)/(4/5)x(5/4). The denominator then equals 1, and the resulting quotient is then 2/3 x 5/4. I have seen this done in 7th grade; in fact, I had to teach it that way as a student teacher in that classroom. Some students got it; most didn't.
For me, understanding the "why" or a procedure would be to know the context for the procedure. I.e., what is it we're doing when we divide by a fraction. This can be represented visually as I indicated in my comment.
Finally, many math reformers look at standard algorithms and procedures as "surface level thinking" that eclipses the "understanding" behind them. Their answer to this is mentalistic exercises at the expense of procedural mastery.
As AI is rolled out into our classrooms and across academia, this is one the greatest crisis facing us right now as teachers. Last week, the American Federation of Teachers partnered with OpenAI and Microsoft to launch a $23 million dollar National Academy for AI Instruction. When I've attended trainings on teachers and students using AI in the classroom, the point that you made about students engaging in the difficult problem-solving tasks was swept under the rug.
I wish I heard more conversations at school about things like this instead of the usual…everything else
Such a smart catch. You’ve put your finger on one of the sneakiest traps in curriculum design: we often end up teaching kids how to game an activity instead of engaging with the thinking the activity was built for.
“Learning doesn’t happen when the student completes a task. It’s what happens when the task causes the student to think.”
Exactly. If the affordances of the task make shallow cues more salient than the underlying concept, students will (very rationally) grab those cues and run. We see the same thing when:
• math problems can be solved by spotting a keyword (“altogether = add”) instead of analysing structure,
• science labs become “follow-the-recipe” exercises instead of hypothesis-testing,
• writing frames turn essays into Mad-Libs.
The antidote is ruthless alignment: ask “What specific mental moves does this require?” and strip away everything that lets kids succeed without doing those moves. If colour-coding helps, great—otherwise it goes. If a graphic organiser scaffolds the right thinking, keep it—otherwise redesign.
Your story is a perfect reminder that engagement ≠ learning, performance ≠ understanding, and that every piece of instructional design is either rehearsing the target skill…or rehearsing a shortcut.
So agree with this! Pre-K 4 and kindergarten should be spent doing puzzles (regular puzzles, not these type) and classic board games and card games. Sorry, Uno, Monopoly, Go Fish, Solitaire, etc. Kids learn so much in these situations that we take for granted as a society.
Good one. And the child builds confidence and believes they have understanding...
Thank you for this fantastic piece. I really enjoyed it, and it highlights such an important tension in teaching: tasks that seem helpful on the surface can, without careful guidance, encourage habits that don’t support the learning we intend.
Your example of the puzzle and sorting task really got me thinking. Let’s say a teacher uses that kind of puzzle where students sort pieces by color or shape to form a word like train. What happens next is crucial. The teacher might first help students see how those clues can guide them, but then has to go further—guiding them to place their finger under the word, read it aloud, and write it. With consistent practice (and guidance for families to do the same at home), this kind of task could actually become a powerful tool rather than just a puzzle about colors and shapes.
Even if we removed those scaffolds—the colors and shapes—there could still be unintended consequences. Without careful teaching, students might end up practicing misspellings like trayn instead of train, reinforcing errors rather than accurate decoding.
Importantly, I don’t think this is a whole language issue or a science of reading issue. It’s just inherent in materials themselves. It’s hard to design anything that always sets kids up for exactly what we intend without some risk of misunderstanding. That’s why the teacher’s role in anticipating problems and planning solutions is so essential.
Thanks again for sparking such valuable reflection—I look forward to connecting these ideas to my own writing!
Thank you very much!
Your writing is not only articulate but also powerfully thought-provoking. I was especially struck by the way you clearly distinguish learning from performance — a distinction that is so often overlooked but absolutely critical.
“Without knowledge of cognitive processes, instructional design is blind,” should be something all teachers reflect on. Too often, well-intentioned educators find ourselves busy — but busy with the wrong things, or with practices we don't fully believe in, carried out in the name of compliance or institutional expectations.
Your sentence “This represents perhaps the most insidious form of educational failure: when tasks don't simply fail to teach the intended skill, but actively cultivate counterproductive habits of mind” hit me especially hard. It’s a sobering reminder of the ethics of teaching — and the weight of our professional responsibility.
Re: "learners will invariably take the path of least resistance."
Sure, if you pay no attention to what motivates the learners. My guess is your daughter engaged in this pointless task because she loves her dad. I hope you read an actual story to her from an actual book afterwards. She certainly earned it.
This was an exceptional article! Thanks Carl
An example I've found in middle school computer skills: There's a training program for typing (with all ten fingers). It rewards typing speed and accuracy, but of course, it cannot know how the user is achieving them.
The result: the kids just type with two fingers, if that, doing exactly what's necessary to get more points - and their conclusion is that they get more points doing it that way than learning the typing system, therefore their way is better.
Unless this is The School of Future Court Transcribers, this seems a very inefficient spending of kids time. Many developers two-type.
We must be teaching children how to touch type. It was taught everywhere in the 2000s, and pupils in 2025 simply do not have the ability to do so. Again, it's the phones. Without this, we're setting a whole generation of young people into the world of essay writing and beyond with a fundamental expectation vs ability gap.
I’m not sure about both of these. I’m 26 and wasn’t taught it, nor do I feel it’s that beneficial. I’ve a 75WPM typing with just my index fingers. For 0.1% of careers it will of course be required, but that applies to many things.
QWERTY won't necessarily help with stenotype speed.
But seeing how practice helps build typing speed can help with life.