Feedback & Inquiry Twitter Chat Part II

Twitter Chat:

Thursday March 31, @ 9:00 PM  #ontsshg

Link to our new Wonder-Wall Part II!





On Feb. 25, we had an amazing Twitter chat that centered around the interconnections between Feedback and Inquiry in the #ontsshg classroom. A big thanks to Louise Robitaille for inviting me to be the host of this amazing chat:)

Here is a Storify of the chat:

I had also created a Wonder-Wall for us to share questions, comments and other wonderings that you had about Inquiry and Feedback Processes. This is the link here:


The wonder wall was excellent. I think that largely due to the anonymity, we got a page full of valuable questions about feedback and inquiry based learning. I don’t think that we would have had these kinds of questions come up normally on twitter feeds. This Wonder-Wall really provided a place to be ‘vulnerable’, demonstrate a Growth Mindset, and not fear the very real questions that we take with us as teachers.

Also, I believe that when we allow our students to engage in this kind of ‘wondering’ activity, we get a sense of ‘where they are at’ in their understanding. Likewise, as educators, when we have these rare moments to ask anonymous questions, we can learn how to help each other move forward.

Hence, I did not forget about our shared wonder-wall after our last chat however– I am very passionate about Pedagogy, Inquiry, Feedback and Learning – so I stayed with it, compared it with our Storify, and created about 20 more questions that grew out of your own questions and wonderings. Unfortunately, I cannot address all of the questions in our next Twitter chat on Thursday March 31 at 9:00 PM – But I will add them as an addendum to this blog post, and our new Wonder-Wall.

My hope is that this is also a way for us to truly collaborate and work together to propel our learning forward on our journeys with Inquiry and Feedback – particularly as it pertains to the Social Studies, History, and Geography Classroom. Our next Twitter chat is Thursday March 31, 9PM #ontsshg


Here is the link to our new Wonder-Wall – and other questions (that won’t necessarily be in our chat on Thursday night) – but might spur some great collaborative knowledge building!!





I really look forward to learning with you all on Thursday March 31, 9PM

If you wish to engage in any of these extra questions that I created, right here in the comment section of my blog – please do! I have other questions that we will discuss on Thursday.

A great way for us to build knowledge again. They could even spur on new questions for our wonder-wall:)

  • How can you implement feedback and inquiry processes in Kindergarten?
  • How can I give feedback to students that helps them to incorporate FNMI perspectives and ways of knowing in their inquiries?
  • If in a split grade, should Inquiry questions be kept separate for each grade?
  • Share any great strategies for feedback and inquiry that have worked with you!
  • What feedback can you give to help students, while in inquiry, to move to deeper levels of learning?  
  • What role does feedback play in determining how much information students need before and during an inquiry in order to be successful?
  • How can you use feedback and inquiry to properly challenge students who are gifted?
  • In promoting inquiry, are we using feedback and support to always guide students toward the Big ideas?
  • How will I know whether students are using their feedback to improve their learning?
  • For our final reporting methods, what could be the benefits of replacing the final report card with Portfolios full of meaningful feedback from before, during and after student inquiries?
  • Inquiry can take a long time, and not all students are ready to engage in inquiry processes at the same time. How do we differentiate for a whole class at vastly different places in their learning?
  • What feedback strategies can help students ask deeper questions?
  • What preliminary strategies are necessary to build the feedback frameworks necessary to conduct inquiry?
  • What conditions need to be in place to help students seek feedback?
  • There is so much curriculum. Where do we begin? How do we determine what part of inquiry is the most important?



Deborah McCallum



The Feedback Friendly Classroom



14 Considerations for Inquiry Based Learning


Inquiry is essential.

The fact is that students come to school with partial knowledges.  But the curriculum documents themselves do not address the parts that students know or don’t know. It has been built to present to us about the privileged people and only the most successful moments in history according to those people. Textbooks, websites and other resources generally reinforce this. It may not represent the real stories of our students.

For instance, social studies, history and geography generally focuses on the privileged people who had the ability to win and ‘own’ history. Just consider the lack of focus on anyone who is not privileged in history. For instance, Women, FNMI, Slaves, Middle Easterners, and more. We hear about the achievements of the upper class, but none about the working class.

Just consider the fact that it was not too long ago that only men were thought to be able to think scientifically or mathematically? The last Residential School closed in the 1990’s.

Where does this leave our students who already know some of these things about the world? What about the students who have other equally important knowledge of the world as what is shared in curriculum documents?

This is precisely why Inquiry is an essential part of our curriculum! 

Without student and teacher inquiry, knowledges remain partial and limited. Biases and stereotypes prevail.

But how do you foster inquiry? How do we make it meaningful for students? 

14 important conditions for meaningful student inquiry:

  1. We create a culture of wonder for our students! Wonder walls, and wonder journals are just 2 ways to support this culture:)
  2. We lead students with Big Ideas vs specific expectations.
  3. We encourage questions! We encourage students to continue to refine and hone in their questions, and we model good ones for our students.
  4. We reserve closed questions for Google, but teach skills to help students read and synthesize information for open questions.
  5. We know that younger students need more structure. But as students get older, we enable very messy, rigourous and ambigous inquiries. This really pushes students to demonstrate flexible thinking, and metacognition, grit and more!
  6. We have clear expectations of students, including the expectation that they will need to demonstrate their new understandings from their research.
  7. We allow students to research that which is not ‘privileged’.
  8. We allow connections to their own lives –  even if it is not listed as a concrete expectation in a curriculum document.
  9. Sometimes questions require new background knowledge. Students background knowledge might be only partial. Therefore, we realise that we may need to take time with activities that help students build background information first. We know that teachers and students alike may need to investigate something completely new and uncomfortable first to continue!
  10. We emphasize the process of inquiry, and not merely the creation of the end product.
  11. We realise that different students will be focusing on different skills, and/or different numbers of skills. But we are okay with this because learning is happening!
  12. We hold students accountable to high standards. We expect high quality conclusions, connections, inferences and many other forms of comprehension.
  13. We – as in teachers and learners alike – are continually engaged in feedback and assessment FOR and AS learning processes!
  14. We become comfortable with the fact that this is not ideally done in 1 – 2 fifty minute blocks a week.


What do you wonder about the Inquiry Process?

If you have a moment, please take a moment to fill out this Padlet Wonder Wall:




Deborah McCallum


Learning is Complicated: 4 Myths in Education Explained



Education abounds with myths, several of those ‘myths’ are about how the brain works. These myths have a long standing history of being perpetuated, believed, purchased, and shared.

As educators we all have our own inquiries and hypotheses of how students learn best, sometimes we do this with a lack of educational research. This can perpetuate problems when there is no quality control of our inquiries and conclusions.

I believe that the messages conveyed in this article need to be more widely promoted in our education systems, lest we allow our enthusiasm about the ‘issues’ to perpetuate further education myths.

Neuro-myths are a particular problem in the 21st century because with new technologies we are taking a great deal of information and ideas surrounding education at face value. We are excited about opportunities for innovation and being able to extend student learning outside the 4 walls of the classroom. While this is wonderful, we still need to be careful that in the process we are not  making damaging assumptions that will inevitably decreases the quality of education for our learners.

The three urban legends discussed included Digital Natives, Learning Styles‘, and students as Self-Educators‘ with edtech.

Myth 1.’Learners are Digital Natives’

We make assumptions that technology has transformed our children into naturals at information processing, information retrieval, evaluation and critical thinking skills. There is an ever increasing shift from information processing models to integration of edtech itself into programming.

However, the reality is that our enthusiasm about new technologies may in fact causing us to overestimate the educational impacts on our children.

There are key differences between a child’s interactions with technology and what they are actually learning.

We may assume that because children are quite adept at clicking on links and operating the tech, that they can learn the curriculum and knowledge skills much more efficiently than ever before. We may also assume that they can learn deeply on their own.

Myth 2. Students are great at multitasking

What we also see is that students are multitasking more than ever with multiple media and technologies. The assumption is that because students are so adept at using technologies simultaneously, they also must be better at learning.

However, research continues to show that our brains only allow for us to switch between different tasks NOT perform them simultaneously.

I have often thought of this as ‘Figure-Ground’, where we cannot ‘see’ both the figure and the ground separately and at the same time.


Our brains cannot see both representations at the same time. Our brain must make the decision to move back and forth between the figure and the ground.

However, believing that our students can do multiple tasks simultaneously is potentially damaging to our youth in terms of education and deep learning. The research has always shown, and still shows, that multitasking puts too much strain on our cognitive resources. The brain continually has to make decisions to switch back and forth between tasks, and this competes for cognitive resources. This absolutely impacts information processing abilities.

Further, if we consider also that some students have difficulties with working memory capacity, and this further impacts the information processing functions. This has consequences if we do not consider that the uses of certain popular educational technologies are also detrimental to student learning.

In fact, research tends to show that heavy multi-taskers are more likely to be affected by environmental stimuli – therefore they tend to perform worse in learning tasks! It is just not possible for learners to be heavy multi-taskers and learn as efficiently as possible. Students will indeed suffer if we perpetuate this myth that students they are excellent at multitasking.

Up next, we have ‘Learning Styles’,


Myth 3. Students have specific Learning Styles.

This is confusing, because it feels like common knowledge: we have all differentiated for our students to meet their learning preferences. And we SHOULD do that. This is different than the Learning Styles theory however.

There is absolutely no scientific research that has ever shown that learning styles are useful to choose instructional methods. However, a great deal of money has been made from resources, workshops, and standardized tools to ‘help’ educators to take learning styles into account. The fact is that we do our students a disservice when we pigeonhole them into succinct learning ‘styles’. Preferred ways of learning are poor predictors of how students actually learn best. We can assess cognitive abilities, but need to stay away from preferred learning styles.

It is impossible for educators to be able to completely take the myriad of dimensions into account to improve learning. But we also cannot use unfounded theory to decide. Educators always need to take into account the nature of the knowledge and skills that need to be taught, and the extent to which they are taught.

And Finally,

Myth 4. Learners are Self-Educators in the 21st Century.

Yet another myth stems from the excitement and enthusiasm surrounding the possibilities with modern technology in the 21st century: learners are also self-educators. So why would we still need teachers? This is an easy one to believe. With many exciting new opportunities, and excellent strategies that now exist to use technology, innovate, and  engage students, all we need to do is give students a voice and help them engage in their own inquiries – from there, students should be able to figure it out, right? Nope. The truth is, there will never be a magic bullet that diminishes the power of good pedagogy.

Students are not expert information problem solvers just because they search and use the internet every day. Research still shows that students NEED facilitators to guide the learning process. Further, information-processing, knowledge building and problem solving are very complex cognitive tasks. So complex, that they are major if not insurmountable for our students, or any of us, to do alone.

Being savvy with electronic media does not make students effective ‘users’ of the technologies. Regardless of knowledge building tasks used, it is still of utmost importance that we teach our students to be information-literate, and learn transferrable skills, search and assessment strategies.


How do we combat the learning myths? First, it never hurts to have a Feedback Friendly Classroom. This is an idea, that perpetuates the kind of pedagogy we need to help students become active participants in their learning.


If you have read this far, you may be excellent at managing your own learning. However, students typically are not. We must always strive to figure out what works, what doesn’t work, and why.

Further, we need quality control. We need research that is not flawed to help inform of us of our popular hypotheses myths and assumptions about education.

I hope that you will be critical about where my information, and anyone else’s information is coming from. I am merely writing on my own professional blog. It is based on my references. It is not peer-reviewed. There are perhaps few quality control measures here – you will have to find out! – you can take my word for it, or you can cross-reference with your own research. Most likely, after reading this, your cognitive resources will likely move to another topic of interest – as it does with our students. We are, after all, only self-directed to a point.

Regardless, I really hope that you will stop and think about any myths that may prevail in your learning environment. While we can make learning more innovative, engaging, relevant and appropriate for students, the learning process itself is complex with no easy answers.


Paul A. Kirschner & Jeroen J.G. van Merriënboer (2013) Do Learners Really Know Best? Urban Legends in Education, Educational Psychologist, 48:3, 169-183


Deborah McCallum

© Deborah McCallum and Big Ideas in Education, 2012-2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Deborah McCallum and Big Ideas in Education with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Is Curriculum a Living Organism, or a Fixed Machine?

Is Curriculum a Living Organism, or a Fixed Machine?

The world is changing rapidly. Just think about how we have moved from an Industrial revolution, to a knowledge economy that requires new skill sets. Knowledge is being built and re-built and changed on a daily basis. Facts can be looked up on the internet. Therefore, the curriculum and subject matter can only be important to students in so far as they find it meaningful. Today’s students need to have opportunities to reflect, critique, and have choices in how they create meaning.

I think this translates into the curriculum needing to be a living organism, that grows, changes and evolves. Yet knows what it needs to grow into – based on its own DNA.

We have our pedagogical structures and frameworks flexibly in place, we have the knowledge that enables us to anticipate student responses – yet we are also open to inquiry, ideas and building the curriculum somewhere into the unknown as it unravels with students — I am learning to help students collaboratively and independently build knowledge with each other in meaningful ways.


For knowledge to have power, it has to be personally meaningful. For knowledge to be personally meaningful, it needs to evolve rather than be planned to a tee.

One of the key ideas that has really become salient to me these past few months, is that curriculum is SO much more than the syllabi we use for our planning. Curriculum is a holistic process, rather than a final product that we dole out to our learners. It is a living organism, that by nature, needs to look different each year depending upon the new variables and global situations we come across each year.

There are multiple ways to interpret the curriculum, and all have the ability to bring much value to the classroom.

However, not all educational goals can be known. Therefore, we can allow ourselves to think of the goals and curriculum as evolving entities – evolving in real time – rather than being planned to a tee. We can let students take their learning deeper, versus superficially covering the curriculum expectations as per syllabus.

Certainly, with busy lives, busy families, there is comfort and value in being able to look at a document that outlines your lesson. There is comfort, and value in looking at your plans from last year and tweaking them to fit your students this year. We have to acknowledge this, because this is part of human nature.

Yet, there is also value in always thinking progressively and differently. Pushing the boundaries, thinking boldly and being brave.

I am very happy that we are educating in a time where terms including innovation, digital technologies, learner-centered are becoming the norm. I am happy that we are living in a time when we as educators have opportunities to look at what we are doing, ask ourselves why, consider principles of equity in the classroom, and consider learning needs and how to help students succeed in 2015 and beyond.

I am happy that we have an FNMI department at our board, and that there are staff that help us to understand how to make our curriculum non-assimilationist and de-colonize the curriculum not just for FNMI students but for all students. This means looking at the curriculum in new ways and making changes to include FNMI as an equal part of the curriculum – not for reasons of ‘multiculturalism’, but because we recognize equally the first peoples of turtle island.


Students are always evolving. They are not merely the passive recipients of knowledge – nor do they want to be.

In my experience, it is the active engagement in building the knowledge for themselves that engages them. I have taken great steps back from serving them up knowledge and content. My students are actively building the knowledge they need through strategies that include Michael Fullan’s 6 C’s: Communication, Creativity, Collaboration, Critical Thinking, Character and Citizenship. This links very well with the Grandfather Teachings too.

It is a very interesting, exciting and promising time for education indeed!

What does curriculum mean to you?

My reflections and findings about my year of evolving the traditional classroom into an Education Commons.

Deborah McCallum

Copyright, 2015

Social Media, Digital Citizenship, Adolescent Development

Jo Fothergill

Jo Fothergill

Recently, I was reminded of the importance of understanding childhood development, and how it applies to social media and digital citizenship. Our children, particularly our adolescents, are heavily engaged in social media during a crucial time of physical, emotional, and mental developmental changes. This translates to potential problems in these areas if they are disrupted by issues on social media.

As a teacher, I engage in social media mainly for professional purposes. I am not concerned about identity development, AND my interactions are always quite positive. Until the other day. I experienced my first confrontational messages over social media, and was unfollowed and blocked. He since apologized and deleted his tweets, but this reminded me that though I could put it in its proper place, have a growth mindset and move on, this probably happens a lot more with adolescents due to their developmental stages.

This truly made me think deeper about students and social media.

What do we know about adolescents?

We know that adolescents have not fully developed the parts of their brains that regulate emotion and impulsivity. Further, adolescent minds tend to experience more emotion and the capacity for self-regulation may not be fully developed.

We also know that social identity matter a lot to adolescents AND how they ‘appear’ to their peers. What we as teachers do not ‘see’ on social media still affects adolescents very deeply.

Therefore, I think we need to go beyond basic digital citizenship, and incorporate the aspects of critical literacy, metacognition, voice & identity – what we already do in our literacy programs.

Whether or not students are being bullied, educators still need to incorporate strategies to help our students navigate the virtual world.  How will we help to guide our own students who are dealing with stress as it comes from social media – bullying or not. How does this infiltrate into the classroom, learning and teaching?

Potential Issues faced among adolescents and social media

  • Being followed, not followed, or unfollowed by classmates,
  • Not having anything positive to share and collaborate with online, which amplifies negative incidences
  • Lack of personalization – we don’t really know who the person is, we have lost personalization and a lot of information we would normally get from face-to-face interactions
  • Impulsivity and jumping conclusions before clarifying intentions
  • No break. Kids don’t have a break from this – they are connected with SM 24/7, and most teachers and parents do not understand what is going on and the extra turmoil that many students are experiencing
  • New layers of communication, and dimensions of life at play- yet parents and teachers did not grow up with this reality.

My Recommendations for Digital Citizenship and Adolescents:

1.  Provide explicit feedback for students based on where they are at in their minds – not our minds! This means really getting to know them!

2. Forget the worksheet. Teach students how to respond online – this is a MAJOR part of our world now!

3. Actively create positive online communities for your students.

4. Engage in critical literary discussions and work surrounding social media and digital citizenship

5. Help students create meaningful networks on their own. 

6. Teach students what to do when faced with negativity online. Be explicit. Give explicit feedback.

7. Normalize the feelings that students have, and help them learn to handle it

8. Help students self-regulate and self-understand their own lives, biases, values, and norms – metacognition and other higher order thinking skills are important

9. Help students experience positivity online. That way, when negativity does happen, your students have experience and reminders that they have positive things that they can be proud of.

10. Help students learn to create positive digital footprints, so that they can be reminded that they have valuable things to contribute online,

11. Recognize that the students who may be impacted most by negative social media are perhaps the ones that are using it because they have little opportunity to share their voice in other aspects of life. This can be particularly devastating to the introverted or sensitive child who does not feel they have a voice at school

12. Help students to develop metacognitive strategies. Provide explicit feedback for students based on where they are at in their minds – not our minds! This means really getting to know them! that promote a growth mindset where they can learn from their mistakes, and understand their emotions with regard to the behaviours of others online.

What other recommendations do you have?

Deborah McCallum


© Deborah McCallum and Big Ideas in Education, 2012-2014. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Deborah McCallum and Big Ideas in Education with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

What is important in Education?

What is Important in Education?


I have recently been doing some reading and listening to  John Seely Brown, and so much of what he has discussed in his work resonates with my own thought processes and inquiries right now.

As I think about how our education system needs to change in order to promote the kind of learning that our students need, I am reminded that change is omnipresent. ‘Things’ are changing so rapidly, that ‘skills’ become redundant much faster than they ever have in history. Do we move beyond the skills to focus on ‘higher’ order thinking’ and helping students to ‘learn to learn’? I now realize after watching this video, that it is much more.


Play is perhaps the most basic building block of knowledge building. Play needs imagination, and imagination needs to be cultivated through play. Through ‘play’ students get to try new things out, ask each other what works, and what doesn’t work. The teacher provides access to new resources as needed to help students along in their processes. By ‘playing’ and sharing what we are doing, as learners we are able to witness what we are all doing.. we witness each others struggle, and hopefully gaining an understanding about what we are all going through – not just as individuals. It is through ‘play’ that we enable knowledge to be learned through concrete, and not merely abstract concepts. Our imagination can be applied to tangible elements that can be experienced by all of our senses, and not just our mids. These are also important ideas that many FNMI peoples and cultures have always held dear – the concepts known to be true –that we learn best by doing and watching others – Masters and novices alike. All with a sense of ‘humility’.

In this world, humility is so important. We give credit where credit is due, and we build our own knowledge from that. We are not solely the Master of our knowledge, we are also the learners, the creators – then we quickly move on to new learning. We ‘mash-up’ the learning, and as educators, we re-purpose what we have already done in our classrooms and learning environments. We redefine and modify our learning, and expand the knowledge bases with our own creativity. Every student and group is different, therefore why would we teach the same things year after year?

Next, connections to community are important as well.  What we do should be done for the sake of building our communities and families, and built with our communities as well. What we do we share with our communities, and what we do is influenced by our communities and cultures.

Finally, Social identity can be measured in new ways in the 21st century! Social capital and identity is being reconstructed in this day in age, by what we create and share. I was very inspired by John’s assertions that our students no longer need to be identified by what their parents ‘do’ or by ‘what they make’. Students can now identify themselves by what they create – and everyone can create something important and useful and interesting – it should not have to fall into a narrow category of isolated expectations as outlined by the curriculum.

Therefore, now, I am looking beyond higher order thinking skills, and am thinking towards ‘entrepreneurial learning’ in our students. I have new inquiries to explore:

How can we help our learners to be ready to pick up new information all the time?

How can we help our learners to be active participants in their learning?

In conclusion, I will leave with some of my thoughts for promoting the kind of change we need in education in 2014:

In the 21st Century we NEED to:

  • move beyond the specific expectations of our curriculum, and focus on the overall expectations.
  • adopt a multidisciplinary approach to teaching
  • remember what many of the the First Nations Metis and Inuit cultures have always fostered: a sense of ‘interconnectedness’ among people and ideas
  • look at the structures of learning and not just the learning itself to gain true insights into future pedagogies
  • take closer looks at other models of teaching that include ‘play’
  • not make education about the technology
  • allow our learners to engage in Inquiry
  • move beyond traditional boundaries and cultivate paths of inquiry as the only paths to meaningful learning for our students
  • recognize the ecology of our learning systems
  • understand that literacy and learning takes many forms and functions – just as our physical structures do.


Reference: John Seely Brown: Tinkering as a Mode of Knowledge Production


Deborah McCallum

© Deborah McCallum and Big Ideas in Education, 2012-2014. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Deborah McCallum and Big Ideas in Education with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Failing Superman

New Pedagogies Please!!

Despite what we are taught in Teacher’s College, once in our own classrooms, many educators ‘default’ to teaching in the same ways that we learned from our own days in school? It only makes sense – those experiences have created the schemata we use for how education should work. Many educators have very fixed cognitive schemata about what pedagogy and learning ‘should’ look like. The introduction of anything new, including new educational technologies, is often seen as an add-on or something to ‘add work’. Especially since PD is often given as an ‘extra’ and in isolation of the teaching process, ie., in a different time, place, space.

But society is changing, technology is changing. Further, we are finally beginning to recognize that we NEED to embed FNMI knowledge and our FNMI community members into all of our curriculum and pedagogy. Yet, our traditional pedagogies and school systems are not keeping pace with these necessary changes.

What is preventing the necessary change we need?

What is preventing us from co-teaching, collaborating and fostering deep engagement with other teachers and students? What is preventing us from integrating digital literacy? Edtech? Feedback practices? Testing? FNMI knowledge and values?

First of all, time is a huge barrier. It is not easy to build a ‘community’ that fosters collaboration because there is so little time. Especially in elementary where every minute of everyday is used teaching, supervising, etc. children.

However, collaboration is absolutely essential if we want to be able to create flexible, creative and student directed classrooms. Deep conceptual understanding is essential for our students.

Yet, there is something more too – I truly believe that we need to give each other permission to integrate new ideas and new pedagogies, particularly when it comes to building trust for our FNMI populations in education.

FNMI students need new ways of teaching and learning that can support not only the fastest growing population in Canada – but also the very people who have been here since time immemorial. This should not be considered an ‘add-on’ unit or lesson. We simply cannot teach FNMI content in isolation of the rest of the curriculum. How else will we be able to create trust between everyone who is a stakeholder in our children’s education?

What strategies or ideas do you have for enhancing our school systems and promoting change?

Deborah McCallum

© Deborah McCallum and Big Ideas in Education, 2012-2014. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Deborah McCallum and Big Ideas in Education with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.