The one nagging question I continue to have about WCYDWT is…what exactly does it accomplish?
Yes, it appeals tremendously to our intuition. Students are looking at the world and designing questions about curiosities. This certainly appears to be the kind of skill we want to teach. But research is at best divided about the kinds of gains similar projects have had in the past.
Dan has pointed out that his students out-performed his entire department, that they showed real and true gains according to every measure we currently use.
But still I wonder. How much of those gains were attributable to the actual WCYDWT lessons? How much of it was attributable to his skill and highly developed craftsmanship as a manager, questioner, evaluator? WCYDWT doesn’t strike me as terribly efficient. And I know that’s not the point, but where is the research showing that these kinds of problems are effective?
I think Dan also mentioned that he would do these kind of lessons bi-weekly (about 1 in 10 days). To which I say, fair enough. He was efficient and skilled enough in those other nine days to experiment with something like this.
I don’t know, though. These problems appear to make students conceptually flexible, which is brilliant. To make them procedurally flexible- arguably more important and more difficult to teach- is probably what Dan was doing the other 90% of the time.
I know the focus of this blog is WCYDWT and debunking conventional textbook wisdom. But when there’s no coke or sprite, escalators, three-pointers, or cheese, how do you do the other stuff?