Language is a powerful tool for communicating information, concepts, and perspectives. Consequently, we need to exercise care and caution to be certain that what we say conveys the meaning we intend and avoids misinterpretation. This advice may seem obvious. Yet, it can be easy to fall into habits of speech and employ phrases and terms that may not fully or accurately convey what we mean.
We may use certain words and descriptors as informal shortcuts to express emotions and perceptions. They may be well intended, but they can still create confusion, lead to over-generalizations, and reflect meanings that we do not intend. It can be worthwhile to pause occasionally to review some of the terms and phrases we use and consider whether we would do well to avoid or accompany them with explanations or qualifiers. Here are five common education-related terms that might fall into this category.
Drill and kill.
This term is often used to describe practice repetitions, yet not all practice is bad. In fact, practice plays a crucial role in developing expertise. Approaches such as distributed and deliberate practice are key to building high-level skill development and learning retention. At the same time, subjecting students to mind-numbing, seemingly endless drills can undermine motivation and diminish engagement. It is not drills that kill, it is the failure to make practice purposeful, engaging, and useful.
Better terms: purposeful practice, distributed practice, and deliberate practice.
Sit and get.
This phrase is frequently used to describe lecture-based, low-engagement instruction. While passive learning often leads to lack of depth in understanding and absence of learning retention, there remains a role for direct, explicit instruction. Explicit instruction can be a highly useful way to explain new information, set a context for learning, and clarify areas of confusion and misconception.
Better terms: direct instruction, explicit instruction, and responsive teaching.
Learning styles.
This term has been used to describe the concept that students learn best when instruction was presented in the way that matches how students learn best (visual, auditory, and kinesthetic). However, multiple research studies have shown that matching teaching with learning styles does not increase learning. In fact, overreliance on perceived learning styles can limit the amount of learning skills students choose to develop and rely on. A more effective approach is to utilize a variety of modes of instruction when introducing content and nurturing new skills. Generally, the more ways in which students are exposed to new information, the more likely they are to learn and remember.
Better terms: dual coding, learning preferences, and multiple modes of engagement.
Remedial instruction.
This term implies a focus on student learning deficits. It implies that the student is the problem and must be remediated. However, lack of expected learning progress can be the result of many factors. This focus can result in efforts to “fix” the learner rather than discover and build on strengths and target areas in need of support. Unfortunately, remedial education too often features a slower pace for learning when pace may not be the primary cause of the problem. Additionally, remedial instruction frequently engages learners at superficial levels of learning that lack motivating elements and interest-generating experiences.
Better terms: targeted instruction, strategic learning support, and essential skill development.
Ability grouping.
This description implies that we can know students’ abilities. Yet, abilities are complex and varied. We can gauge the skills students are able to demonstrate and their levels of academic performance, but we are not likely to know our students’ full abilities with certainty. Unfortunately, when we group students based on what we assume to be ability, students interpret our judgment of them as being smart or being dumb. Such decisions and interpretations can have lifelong, unjustified consequences. Meanwhile, some students may be very bright but not appear so because they require more time to process and analyze before presenting an answer or solution. It is also true that students included in high ability groupings often are fast learners, not necessarily expert learners.
Better terms: flexible grouping, skill-based grouping, and learning readiness grouping.
We want our words to accurately convey our intentions. Consequently, we need to be careful to select words and phrases that are not likely to result in confusion or misinterpretation. Are there words and phrases you might add to this list as having high potential to be misunderstood or could lead to incorrect interpretations?
