Well, well, well... Here we are, the start of August, the long-awaited start to NFL training camps in preparation to the new season. After nearly five months, the decertification and recertification of the NFL Players Association, multiple lawsuits in federal court, false hopes and bitter war or words through the media, we can all cheer a new collective bargaining agreement, a 10-year CBA with no opt-out clause for either side, and presumed labor peace throughout all the land for 32 teams, 32 team owners, approximately 1,700 players filling up 53-man active roster spots, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and NFLPA Executive Director DeMaurice Smith.
Okay, perhaps this year’s league-wide Secret Santa roll call may have more than a bit of awkwardness, especially for guys like Steelers linebacker James “Don’t Rely on my Bladder in case of fire” Harrison. However, today’s column is not about the nasty rhetoric between players and the owners, or players and the league, or players and other players (geez, there sure are lots of nasty players in the NFL, aren’t there?). Today’s column is about harmony, especially fiscal harmony.
Did I say “fiscal harmony”? Yes, I did, and boy do I regret using such terminology! Let’s face it, if there’s fiscal harmony between players as this wild and wooly edition of free agency takes place, then everyone’s singing “Kumbaya” on Capitol Hill in Washington while debating what to really do about our nation’s debt ceiling.
What has me so grouchy and cynical? Hmmm... Perhaps I can boil it down to one position on the football field, defensive cornerback, and two cornerbacks immediately come to mind and put a major burr in my saddle (I’m in New Jersey, so perhaps it’s aggravating my hemorrhoids): Former Oakland Raiders cornerback (now a Philadelphia Eagle) Nnamdi Asomugha, and perhaps former New York Jets cornerback (destination still unknown) Antonio Cromartie. What has me all grumped up? Their free agent salary demands for 2011 and how those demands compare to the paycheck Darrelle Revis collects playing cornerback for the New York Jets. In case you didn’t know, there ain’t much free about free agents.
Let’s go back to last summer and Revis’ holdout, seeking a new and improved contract from the Jets. Oh, we all remember those fun days of summer 2010? Revis, who unquestionably outperformed his rookie contract, wanted more money, for many reasons, and rightfully so. However, one reason ultimately stuck out more than any other, to be the highest-paid cornerback in the game. While that seems a reasonable demand for arguably the best cornerback in the game, Revis took on the ridiculous stance that he wanted to be paid one more dollar than the current highest-paid cornerback in the league, Nnamdi Asomugha. For those who can’t remember, Asomugha was signed to a 3-year contract that paid him $15.1M per season. Naturally, Revis wanted more and felt he deserved more because he was the better cornerback. While that seemed a fair self-assessment (with lots of help from his agents and his uncle, former Washington Redskin and Carolina Panther defensive lineman Sean Gilbert), the fiscal reality was that the Jets were not going to pay Revis $15.1M plus an extra dollar. After Revis’ holdout and lots of haggling, Revis agreed to a new contract that would pay him $11.5M this season.
And what became of Asomugha? Raiders owner Al Davis released him at the end of the 2010 season as part of a fiscal purge with a lockout approaching, and the $15.1M man became a man without a team.
Fast forward to a few days ago. Asomugha the free agent was interested in joining the Jets, the Dallas Cowboys, the Houston Texans, and one team in the shadows, which turned out to be the Eagles. Anyway, at some point of this past week, Jets general manager Mike Tannenbaum backed out of negotiations and decided Asomugha’s price tag was simply too rich for the Jets and their overall roster needs and fiscal constraints. Asomugha signed a 5-year contract with the Eagles that would pay him an average salary of $12M — not Al Davis-type money, but certainly a higher paycheck than Revis earns.
How does Cromartie fit into this story? The Jets obtained Cromartie in the final year of his previous contract in a trade with the San Diego Chargers. Cromartie was supposed to be the counterpart to Revis in a Batman-Robin cornerback tandem the NFL had not seen since the early 1980s when Mike Haynes and Lester Hayes tormented opposing receivers while manning the corners of the Raiders defensive backfield. When the Jets set their sights on Asomugha, Cromartie was left in the wings to wait or explore his options. After all, Asomugha is considered by many NFL pundits to be a far superior cornerback to Cromartie, and it seemed just about everyone drooled at the prospect of a Revis-Asomugha tandem, making the Jets virtually impossible to pass on in 2011.
Now that things didn’t work out with Asomugha, Cromartie is back on the Jets radar. However, Cromartie, who strongly desires to play for a team with legitimate Super Bowl aspirations (as did Asomugha), now wants the Jets to pay out in excess of $10M per season, because the father of seven children to six different women in five different states (I hope I have these details all correct) doesn’t give “hometown discounts” to his most-recent employer, the team willing to take a cornerback with financial and legal problems, not to mention a damaged reputation for “playing soft” and “locker room bitching” when with the San Diego Chargers, the team that came within one game of an AFC championship title for the second straight year. In addition to the Jets, Cromartie reportedly has interest from the San Francisco 49ers (6-10 in 2010) and the Raiders (8-8 in 2010, and starting 2011 with a new head coach, new defensive coordinator, and new defensive scheme to learn).
Let me go on the record — and you can check my entire archive of columns as well as all Twitter postings since the NFL lockout started — I had no opinion about the Jets signing Asomugha prior to or during this free agency period. Would I love to see a Revis-Asomugha pairing? Sure, who wouldn’t? It could be intriguing. It could be exciting. But I would’ve been equally happy if the Jets simply re-signed Cromartie and he and Revis had a full training camp and season to work together as Batman and Robin. In other words, I didn’t and still don’t see Asomugha as the be-all and end-all of the Jets defensive success. In fact, when someone asked me last week on Twitter if I thought the Jets could sign Asomugha in addition to other free agents like Santonio Holmes, I responded: It depends on available salary space and how greedy [these players] want to be.
And that’s what this free agency period has boiled down to, available salary cap space, player greed, and the ensuing fiscal insanity, as opposed to harmony. Have these players learned ANYTHING from this 136-day (give or take a day) lockout? Have these players understood ANYTHING about the establishment of a cash-only $120M payroll (let’s round off to the nearest million) to pay the collective salaries of 53 men on each team’s 2011 active roster?
Consider some basic statistics I looked up about the 2010 New York Jets from espn.com. In 2010, the Jets offense, defense and special teams units were on the field for a total of 2,439 plays (including all punting, kickoff, and field goal/extra-point plays). The offense was on the field for 1,067 plays (approximately 44%), the defense was on the field for 979 plays (40%) and the special teams unit was on the field for 393 plays (16%). If you look up the 49-man active team roster for game days, offensive players account for 22 roster slots (approximately 45%), defensive players account for 26 (53%) and the specialists (kicker, punter, long-snapper) account for three slots (6%). So for all intents and purposes, let’s assume an estimated 40-40-20% split between offense, defense and special teams.
Now let’s translate this to a rounded-off $120M payroll for 53 players, 49 who will likely be in uniform on game days. Since the offense and defense each account for 40 percent of the team plays, that means each unit has a theoretical payroll of $48M; the special teams unit has a payroll of $24M. Perhaps there could be some shifting of payroll funds between units depending on needs (no to mention the fact the Jets aren’t spending $24M on a kicker, punter and long-snapper), but for argument’s sake, let’s work with these numbers.
Since cornerbacks seem to be making big fiscal news of late, let’s focus on a hypothetical Jets defensive roster of 25 players — 5 defensive linemen, 9 linebackers, 7 cornerbacks, and 4 safeties. That means GM Mike Tannenbaum needs to build the best, most-dominant defensive unit he can on $48M, a unit that can play up to the standard head coach Rex Ryan sets and a unit with quality players and sufficient depth in case of injuries or situational substitutions.
Right off the top we have Darrelle Revis commanding $11.5M. Now you have $36.5M to take care of 24 other players. Along comes Asomugha and his desire for $12M, which the Eagles were happy to pay. Now you have two players accounting for $23.5M, leaving Tannenbaum $24.5M to pay the other 23 defensive players. You prefer a better bargain? Let’s have Cromartie and his $10M demand instead. Now you’ve left Tannenbaum $26.5M to pay the other 24 guys.
No problem, you say? Each player gets slightly more than $1M? Fine, now try explaining this to linebacker David Harris who’s patiently waited for his long-term contract. Take care of Harris and all is happy, you say? Fine, now what about important veterans like linebackers Bart Scott and Calvin Pace, defensive end Shaun Ellis, safety Jim Leonard, and the list goes on and on? If you keep taking care of all the top players you won’t have anything left but crumbs for half the defensive roster. No problem, you say? The league’s minimum salary is around $400,000? Fine, and how many high-talent players do you think you can get to play for that salary? Suppose you are lucky enough to find 15 guys to fill out the defensive payroll earning the league minimum, how dominant do you think your defense is going to be? There’s a good reason why so many NFL players earn the league minimum: they aren’t as talented as the superstars they back up on a team’s roster. Yes, these players are indeed far more talented than the roster you see for any college football program, but guys making around $400,000 aren’t on the same level as Revis, Harris, Pace, Scott and many other Pro Bowl caliber stars.
And guess what happens when your team puts a K-Mart roster on the field when the regular season opens the weekend of September 11th? Your team won’t play like world beaters and you’ll be the first one to whine to your local sports radio station how your teams stinks and everyone should be cut and the head coach should be fired and the general manager is an idiot. And this is exactly why New York Daily News columnist Bob Raissman refers to such fans as the “Valley of the Stupid.”
If you go back and read my columns during the 2010 summer you’ll see that I was already scolding Darrelle Revis over his contract demands as early as June 15, then really took him to task August 15, when I wrote the following:
Memo to Darrelle Revis: Let me get this straight... No matter what the Jets offer you, you won’t settle for anything less than $16-million per season. Fine... And when next year and the year after come, and other defensive players exceed your salary, are you going to hold out again and hold your team hostage? Just a thought…
If Revis EVER holds out again as a New York Jet, demanding to be paid at least one dollar more than Nnamdi Asomugha, don’t say I didn’t forewarn you long beforehand.
This is what this Revis-Asomugha-Cromartie dynamic boils down to, greed — pure, unadulterated, uncompromised, unmitigated greed. Chutzpah to the max. A maddening narcissism focused on getting mine now while the getting’s good and damn the rest of the team. Yeah sure, these guys all want a Super Bowl ring, but not if it takes one extra nickel out of their piggy banks. Look at the list of players willing to renegotiate their contracts in order to help their teams fit the best players possible under the $120M salary cap... Well, aside from Jets quarterback Mark Sanchez, we don’t see too many players coming forward with such generosity. Look to Seattle and now ex-Seahawks linebacker Lofa Tatupu. When he balked at restructuring his contract, Seattle cut him, hence the cold reality in today’s NFL and a hard salary cap. Where’s the leadership? Where’s the commitment to win? Hell, where’s proof these players have taken some math and basic economics courses while in college?!
Again, I don’t begrudge these guys from earning as much as they can while they have an NFL career. However, when players all ratify a new CBA that calls for a $120M salary cap, that should tip players off to know that revenue sharing isn’t merely something between owners. Players also need to know how to share the wealth in order to make sure everyone is well-rewarded on the best team possible in terms of talent. If that sounds like socialism to you, as I’ve said time and time again over the years, color me Karl Marx, Harpo, Groucho, Chico, Gummo and Zeppo too. If you want to put together the best team possible, all teammates need to be willing to work together within the system, be it schematic or financial. If you truly are committed to being a champion, you need to put your money where your mouth is and put team over yourself, your personal agenda for wealth over the collective goal of 53 men playing for a common goal while everyone makes a fair salary. Would it be nice if NFL teams had salary caps of $150M or $200M? Sure, but that’s not the negotiated salary cap and players need to make more realistic demands.
Are the 1,700 players on NFL rosters the best athletes in their sport? Yes, they certainly are. However, both they and we need to appreciate that there's a broad spectrum of talent among these 1,700 players and only a select few are truly superstars worthy of top-5 salaries at their positions. As talented as these players are, there are simply too many, even at the top level of the player pool, who have slightly warped and over-inflated opinions of themselves. These players, and their agents, have overvalued themselves, much like the housing market before the bubble burst in 2008. Not everyone can be best or one of the top 5 at their position. Not everyone can be paid accordingly. In some ways, this need to be the highest-paid or top-5 level paid gets as silly as grade inflation in our nation’s educational system. In a nation as intellectually mediocre as ours, how is it that more than 60 percent of all high school and college students boast an overall grade-point average of at least a B? If the average student in our nation is graded as either good or excellent, shouldn’t we expect to see better production and achievement? Imagine what we might expect of every NFL player demanding at least a top-5 level salary — perhaps an annual performance worthy of Canton enshrinement?
Somewhere among the NFL’s 1,700 players there needs to be the acceptance that you’re among the top 32 people in the entire country who play a given position for an NFL team. Somewhere along the lines there needs to be acceptance that even among the top 32 people in the country to play your position, you’re still paid quite well compared to the majority of your fans — fans who are schoolteachers, firefighters, police officers, manual laborers, office workers, waiters, waitresses, busboys and restaurant cooks, just to name a few occupations. Somewhere along the line there needs to be acceptance that NFL players, even at the lowest levels, earn a decent wage. One need to be piggish about salary demands in a country where so many football fans are struggling just to make ends meet. I don’t just say this stuff off the top of my head. I know of what I talk about. Prior to my academic career I was one of those young men aspiring for an NFL roster spot, when there were only 28 teams, fewer roster spots on each team, and the minimum salary was a lot less than $400,000. Contracts were no more guaranteed then than now. Greed existed back then too, before salary caps and free agency rules were put into place, but the perspective and lifestyles were somewhat different.
When players like Nnamdi Asomugha and Antonio Cromartie start demanding salaries that show they understand the concept of a team salary cap and salary structure, then I’ll believe these guys truly want to be champions. As for football fans who demand their teams sign this player and that player, then agonize over how their teams fail to sign top-level players for top dollar, perhaps it’s time to take a step back from playing fantasy football and realize that NFL general managers are not playing with Monopoly money and there are limits to building the best 53-man roster. Although it’s relatively modest compared to today’s top-level salaries, consider that winning the Super Bowl gets you a big shiny ring and a bonus check in excess of $80,000. If you’re really interested in winning a Super Bowl, perhaps a willingness to sacrifice a little on your salary demands will pay off six months later with the ring and check that goes with being a champion, and being a champion beats being super-rich any day in my book.
Reminder — Don’t forget my new eBook!
Philosophy of “Packer” Pedagogy:
Vince Lombardi, critical thinking and problem-based learning
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/DavePushkin_PackerPedagogy
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Dickens was a marketing genius -- Sports Thoughts for July 19, 2011
Dear friends, colleagues, loyal readers and those new to this blog site:
I “hate” to be a nuisance, but I notice book sales are slow. So, just like Charles Dickens used to whet his future book readers' interest with advanced excerpts in the London Times, I’ll try and encourage you with the Introduction (for free) from Philosophy of “Packer” Pedagogy! Again... I remind you the book is here and on sale at Lulu.
BUY IT, BUY IT, BUY IT...
Thanks.
Doc
Philosophy of “Packer” Pedagogy:
Vince Lombardi, critical thinking and problem-based learning
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/DavePushkin_PackerPedagogy
Introduction:
Every stakeholder in chemical education, consciously or unconsciously, has an epistemological and ontological view of chemistry. In due time within this book I will share mine. However, as a chemical and physics educator since 1984, what I wish to share now are the influences on my epistemological and ontological views, the people and theories or beliefs that combined with my academic experiences, shape my pedagogical and curricular perspective, and provide the foundation to what “makes me tick” as a scientist and science educator.
How did I come to my perspective after so many years? Well, the list is incredibly long, if you think about it long enough, but for the purpose of this book, I’ve narrowed the list down to five very influential men:
1. John Dewey (1-2)
2. Lev Vygotsky (3-5)
3. Alan Schoenfeld (6)
4. William Perry (5,7)
5. Vince Lombardi (8)
Okay, seems reasonable. Dewey. Check. Vygotsky. Check. Schoenfeld. Check. Perry. Makes sense in the context of higher education. Lombardi. Hey, wait a minute… LOMBARDI?!
Yes, Lombardi. THAT Lombardi! The “Frozen Tundra of Lambeau Field” Lombardi. The “Power Sweep” Lombardi. Name on the Super Bowl trophy Lombardi. Exit 16W off the New Jersey Turnpike Service Area Lombardi.
Go ahead and laugh, my fellow science educators, but hear me out first. As a former football player before my teaching career, and an assistant high school coach during part of my teaching career, I have just a little bit of credibility on this topic, and after you read my argument, not only will you realize my helmet was indeed securely fastened during the twelve years I played, but Vince Lombardi is perhaps the most logical influence for the theme of this book and its title.
Allow me to introduce you to Vince Lombardi, beyond the basics…
· Born in the Sheepshead Bay section of Brooklyn, New York, on June 11, 1913, eldest son of Harry and Matilda Lombardi, first-generation born Italian-Americans.
· Believed in a trinity of faith, family, and sports. Known for telling his great Packer teams that success would be theirs if they focused on just three things: their religion, their family, and the Green Bay Packers.
· A graduate of Fordham University, class of 1937, one member of the famed “Seven Blocks of Granite” on Fordham’s football team.
· Distinguished assistant coaching career at Fordham and West Point. New York Giants offensive coordinator during the late-1950s.
· A hall-of-Fame head-coaching career with the Green Bay Packers and Washington Redskins, 1959-1969.
· Died of cancer on September 3, 1970 in Georgetown University Hospital.
· FORMER HIGH SCHOOL CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS TEACHER.
Believe it or not, that last bullet is not a typographical error. Folks, something many may not know about perhaps the greatest coach in the history of professional football is that Vince Lombardi’s first post-graduate job was as a high school chemistry, physics and Latin teacher at St. Cecilia High School in Englewood, New Jersey from 1939 to 1947 (coincidentally, one of his students was presumably actor John Travolta’s father!). Long before leading the great Green Bay Packers of the 1960s, Lombardi was developing the foundation to his coaching greatness through several basic pedagogical beliefs. For the purpose of this book, I will focus on four:
1. In addition to the ability to learn, ALL students need a desire to learn. For decades we’ve heard that all students can learn, and many educational movements have come and go in the name of this premise, including our current No Child Left Behind movement from the presidency of George W. Bush. However, Lombardi didn’t completely subscribe to this view. In other words, to Lombardi, learning is a function of both aptitude AND attitude. Being intelligent and merely “showing up” for class doesn’t guarantee becoming an educated person or a successful student, just as raw talent alone does not guarantee a hall of fame football career. Success depends on both the blessing of talent and the motivation to translate talent into performance skills. For all the educational reforms, creative pedagogies, curricular evolutions and technological advances we witness, LEARNING still needs reciprocal and collaborative effort from its intended target, LEARNERS.
2. Students must master the basics as a prerequisite for moving forward in a course. Remember mastery learning? There used to be a time when teaching chemistry and physics used to be very sequential and building-block-oriented. Educators and their students didn’t move onto new content until all students demonstrated a definitive level of proficiency and comprehension. Now, course syllabi are covered at a pace predetermined by the number of pages in a textbook and the number of scheduled instructional hours. Comprehension and proficiency are quantified by either lowering the bar on exam scores or watering down assessments in order to ensure a statistically acceptable average score or minimum score, which is still a lowering of the bar on academic integrity. Hello?! Chemistry and physics are indeed very sequential and building-block-oriented, and integrated subjects. One cannot build a strong house without a strong foundation. Chemistry and physics are more than just courses dealing with word problems and lab experiments. Problems and experiments are based on concepts; a strong conceptual background lays a solid foundation for good problem solving skills and laboratory practices. All of this needs solid pedagogical and curricular practice. More importantly, there is no cognitive, intellectual, or academic guarantee that a learner will comprehend and be proficient in the basics of “chapters 1, 2, 3” while an educator moves along to “chapters 4, 5, 6” in the name of content efficiency. In fact, “chapters 4, 5, 6” should build upon and consistently reinforce the knowledge taught and learned from “chapters 1, 2, 3.” What good is teaching prerequisite skills if we don’t consistently review them as new knowledge incorporates them? That would be the equivalent of a football team practicing trick plays without making sure players already know the basics of how to line up on the field, snap a ball, throw a ball, catch a ball, run with a ball, or tackle the runner. Oh! Sorry… I witness enough of these oversights every Sunday I watch a professional football game on television. That’s why players commit penalties, throw interceptions, fumble the ball, and miss tackles. And these guys get paid to practice these skills day after day!
What’s the implication of this? We DON’T do enough reviewing and reinforcing prerequisite knowledge as we teach “new stuff”. We’re in such a rush to move along and cover voluminous syllabi of course content, students are left to choke on the dust as we leave pedagogical skid marks. I’m reminded of professional baseball players who are rushed through the minor leagues in order to fill major league roster spots. Some pitchers never learn to develop secondary and tertiary pitches after their fastball and curve and try to survive while batters continue to hammer everything they throw. Some hitters never learn to hit to the opposite field, or lay off pitches out of the strike zone, and end up flailing at pitch after pitch, year after year, never able to improve beyond mediocrity, eventually becoming has-beens.
Coach Lombardi advocated the fundamentals if not preached them ad nauseum. I remember watching an interview of another former great NFL coach, John Madden (yes, the same man associated with the computerized video football games), for ESPN’s SportsCentury documentary on Coach Lombardi (I’ve personally lost track of how many times I’ve watched it over the years). As a young coach in the 1960s, Madden once attended a coaching clinic where Lombardi spent hours lecturing on his famous “Packer Sweep,” also known as the Power Sweep, Student Body Left or Right. Lombardi called it his “bread and butter” play, his “signature” play, the one play his Packers would always be known for in terms of offensive dominance, and he went over and over and over it… and as several of his former hall of fame players would attest to, Lombardi went over it until they were completely sick of it!
The point is that Lombardi repeatedly drilled all the positional and strategic fundamentals to his players, and he didn’t go beyond skills development and running basic plays until he knew all of his players, from veteran stars to backups to rookies, understood how to be fundamentally sound. Even beyond the basics, Lombardi continuously reinforced the importance of fundamentals as his playbook expanded and players became more experienced. The foundation was never glossed over or taken for granted.
3. Simplicity of concepts provides opportunities for creative applications. One of Coach Lombardi’s most famous applications of a basic play was the halfback option. While coaching the New York Giants’ offense, Lombardi made a star of Hall of Famers Frank Gifford. In Green Bay, Lombardi made a star of Hall of Famer Paul Hornung. The halfback option derived from the power sweep, where the halfback could throw the ball downfield while on the run, adding an element of surprise to the defense. The main points were: (1) passing the ball is non-exclusive to the quarterback, and (2) running is non-exclusive to a halfback.
What’s the take-home lesson? Even if practice is “routine”, not everything one practices need be routine. And this is the premise of Problem-Based Learning and critical thinking (also known as situated cognition)! There are many core concepts in chemistry and physics; mastery of these core concepts creates many opportunities for teachers and students to explore a multitude of applications to those concepts (i.e., novel and highly challenging problems as opposed to trivial and repetitive exercises). Lombardi’s playbook was always the epitome of simplicity and brevity. His players mastered a handful of fundamental plays, yet those plays offered an unlimited number of variations, ultimately leading to a decade of championship dominance. One really doesn’t need a thousand-page chemistry or physics textbook with hundreds of end-of-chapter questions and exercises in order to learn the content or the art of problem solving. Having a solid core base of knowledge can build very broad and flexible thinkers as they encounter problem solving and conducting experiments. This can be developed with a completely different approach and curricular structure.
4. Lombardi believed that “winning isn’t a sometimes thing; it’s an all-the-time thing.” While I want students to be successful, I’m not looking at success or “winning” as the bottom line in a chemistry or physics course; it’s the steps one takes towards becoming successful or a “winner.” Paraphrasing Lombardi, thinking and the effort to learn is not a sometimes thing; it’s an all the time thing. I don’t see my “job” as a chemistry and physics educator to “make” students successful; it’s really to create opportunities for them to learn successfully, which requires a little “old-fashioned” ways, in many respects. Successful learning simply doesn’t happen on its own; successful learning is the result of mental engagement, as an active mind is the starting point towards successful learning.
Most importantly, as many of us have learned through the decades, whatever “creative” approaches we employ in the classroom must be done so with regularity. Ever wonder why “gadget” plays aren’t used all the time in football, or why they’re only successful sometimes? It’s because these plays are gimmicks, cute little wrinkles a coach will toss into the game plan in order to change the pace and trick the opponent. But gimmicks are only for cameo appearances; if a coach fed a steady diet of gadget plays into the flow of the game, not only would the opponent constantly be off-guard, so would his own players, never able to develop a rhythm or cohesive coordination.
Unfortunately, too many science educators employ their own gadget plays in their courses and classrooms. While the consensus among science educators is that “chalk and talk” lectures are bad pedagogical form, we often take the erroneous alternative of sprinkling in cooperative learning every now and then, or “Inquiry-based Tuesday”, or… well, you get the idea. We’re sometimes guilty of haphazardly using “anti-lecture” approaches, thinking we’re being progressive, when the reality is we’re trapping ourselves between a series of rocks and hard places, all in the name of breaking up the routine.
But as Lombardi and reputable cognitive researchers have learned and demonstrated through the decades, keeping a routine is the best pedagogical practice, even if one’s modus operandi is less than ideal or even a complete anathema to what we advocate. The goal is to make one’s pedagogical and curricular practices consistent, so learners develop consistent cognition. If one prefers to lecture, design lectures that merge the best of your communication skills with the best of your cognitive expectations for students. If you prefer cooperative learning, or inquiry-based, or seminar format, make that the standard mode of teaching-learning dynamic and stick with it throughout the length of your entire course, keeping in mind that this mode of practice needs to enhance both your teaching and students’ learning. If you want variety, lecture on Monday, do seminar format on Wednesday, and inquiry-based on Friday. But be consistent so you can develop and enhance a teaching-learning dynamic. Don’t just do things once or twice for sake of it. Make a genuine intellectual commitment.
What’s the implication? If we are to be transformative science educators and “produce” transformative thinkers, critical thinkers, and situational thinkers, we need to take a more revolutionary approach to problem solving by returning to the basics, reinforcing the basics, and creatively applying the basics. It’s not merely incorporating technology, or constructivism, Nature of Science, or even the History and Philosophy of Science. It’s incorporating all of the above and then some. It’s turning the curriculum on its ear, upside-down, inside-out, and reconfiguring science courses to be content-centered and problem-based.
What does it mean to be content-centered? When we re-envision a chemistry or physics course, the “star” of the course isn’t the teacher or students; it’s the actual content, the knowledge that shapes our epistemological and ontological perspectives. What does it mean to be problem-based? When we re-envision the role of problems, we need to use them as the metaphorical appetizer, entrée, and dessert of the content feast. No longer can problems be viewed as illustrations of textbook material or as review practice. The problem now becomes the “hub” of the entire learning process.
So now that I’ve introduced you all to the basic biography and fundamental philosophy of Vince Lombardi, the time has come for me to take you on a journey and witness the unfolding of a “new” pedagogical and curricular approach as it builds from each of his fundamental principles. My goal is not to teach you about football, but about an approach to teaching chemistry and physics that happens to evolve from a football perspective. I promise to minimize football jargon and clichés, but after reading this book, I hope you all feel like you’ve scored your own intellectual touchdown.
References:
1 Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: The Free Press.
2 Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillian Publishing Company.
3 Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4 Moll, L.C. (1990). Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
5 Pushkin, D.B. (1997). Where do ideas from students come from? Applying constructivism and textbook problems to the laboratory experience. Journal of College Science Teaching, 26, 238-242.
6 Schoenfeld, A.H. (1978). Can heuristics be taught? In J. Lochhead & J.J. Clement (Eds.), Cognitive process instruction (pp. 315-338). Philadelphia: Franklin Institute Press.
7 Perry, W.G. (1970). Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years, a Scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
8 Maraniss, D. (1999). When pride still mattered – A life of Vince Lombardi. New York: Simon and Schuster.
I “hate” to be a nuisance, but I notice book sales are slow. So, just like Charles Dickens used to whet his future book readers' interest with advanced excerpts in the London Times, I’ll try and encourage you with the Introduction (for free) from Philosophy of “Packer” Pedagogy! Again... I remind you the book is here and on sale at Lulu.
BUY IT, BUY IT, BUY IT...
Thanks.
Doc
Philosophy of “Packer” Pedagogy:
Vince Lombardi, critical thinking and problem-based learning
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/DavePushkin_PackerPedagogy
Introduction:
Every stakeholder in chemical education, consciously or unconsciously, has an epistemological and ontological view of chemistry. In due time within this book I will share mine. However, as a chemical and physics educator since 1984, what I wish to share now are the influences on my epistemological and ontological views, the people and theories or beliefs that combined with my academic experiences, shape my pedagogical and curricular perspective, and provide the foundation to what “makes me tick” as a scientist and science educator.
How did I come to my perspective after so many years? Well, the list is incredibly long, if you think about it long enough, but for the purpose of this book, I’ve narrowed the list down to five very influential men:
1. John Dewey (1-2)
2. Lev Vygotsky (3-5)
3. Alan Schoenfeld (6)
4. William Perry (5,7)
5. Vince Lombardi (8)
Okay, seems reasonable. Dewey. Check. Vygotsky. Check. Schoenfeld. Check. Perry. Makes sense in the context of higher education. Lombardi. Hey, wait a minute… LOMBARDI?!
Yes, Lombardi. THAT Lombardi! The “Frozen Tundra of Lambeau Field” Lombardi. The “Power Sweep” Lombardi. Name on the Super Bowl trophy Lombardi. Exit 16W off the New Jersey Turnpike Service Area Lombardi.
Go ahead and laugh, my fellow science educators, but hear me out first. As a former football player before my teaching career, and an assistant high school coach during part of my teaching career, I have just a little bit of credibility on this topic, and after you read my argument, not only will you realize my helmet was indeed securely fastened during the twelve years I played, but Vince Lombardi is perhaps the most logical influence for the theme of this book and its title.
Allow me to introduce you to Vince Lombardi, beyond the basics…
· Born in the Sheepshead Bay section of Brooklyn, New York, on June 11, 1913, eldest son of Harry and Matilda Lombardi, first-generation born Italian-Americans.
· Believed in a trinity of faith, family, and sports. Known for telling his great Packer teams that success would be theirs if they focused on just three things: their religion, their family, and the Green Bay Packers.
· A graduate of Fordham University, class of 1937, one member of the famed “Seven Blocks of Granite” on Fordham’s football team.
· Distinguished assistant coaching career at Fordham and West Point. New York Giants offensive coordinator during the late-1950s.
· A hall-of-Fame head-coaching career with the Green Bay Packers and Washington Redskins, 1959-1969.
· Died of cancer on September 3, 1970 in Georgetown University Hospital.
· FORMER HIGH SCHOOL CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS TEACHER.
Believe it or not, that last bullet is not a typographical error. Folks, something many may not know about perhaps the greatest coach in the history of professional football is that Vince Lombardi’s first post-graduate job was as a high school chemistry, physics and Latin teacher at St. Cecilia High School in Englewood, New Jersey from 1939 to 1947 (coincidentally, one of his students was presumably actor John Travolta’s father!). Long before leading the great Green Bay Packers of the 1960s, Lombardi was developing the foundation to his coaching greatness through several basic pedagogical beliefs. For the purpose of this book, I will focus on four:
1. In addition to the ability to learn, ALL students need a desire to learn. For decades we’ve heard that all students can learn, and many educational movements have come and go in the name of this premise, including our current No Child Left Behind movement from the presidency of George W. Bush. However, Lombardi didn’t completely subscribe to this view. In other words, to Lombardi, learning is a function of both aptitude AND attitude. Being intelligent and merely “showing up” for class doesn’t guarantee becoming an educated person or a successful student, just as raw talent alone does not guarantee a hall of fame football career. Success depends on both the blessing of talent and the motivation to translate talent into performance skills. For all the educational reforms, creative pedagogies, curricular evolutions and technological advances we witness, LEARNING still needs reciprocal and collaborative effort from its intended target, LEARNERS.
2. Students must master the basics as a prerequisite for moving forward in a course. Remember mastery learning? There used to be a time when teaching chemistry and physics used to be very sequential and building-block-oriented. Educators and their students didn’t move onto new content until all students demonstrated a definitive level of proficiency and comprehension. Now, course syllabi are covered at a pace predetermined by the number of pages in a textbook and the number of scheduled instructional hours. Comprehension and proficiency are quantified by either lowering the bar on exam scores or watering down assessments in order to ensure a statistically acceptable average score or minimum score, which is still a lowering of the bar on academic integrity. Hello?! Chemistry and physics are indeed very sequential and building-block-oriented, and integrated subjects. One cannot build a strong house without a strong foundation. Chemistry and physics are more than just courses dealing with word problems and lab experiments. Problems and experiments are based on concepts; a strong conceptual background lays a solid foundation for good problem solving skills and laboratory practices. All of this needs solid pedagogical and curricular practice. More importantly, there is no cognitive, intellectual, or academic guarantee that a learner will comprehend and be proficient in the basics of “chapters 1, 2, 3” while an educator moves along to “chapters 4, 5, 6” in the name of content efficiency. In fact, “chapters 4, 5, 6” should build upon and consistently reinforce the knowledge taught and learned from “chapters 1, 2, 3.” What good is teaching prerequisite skills if we don’t consistently review them as new knowledge incorporates them? That would be the equivalent of a football team practicing trick plays without making sure players already know the basics of how to line up on the field, snap a ball, throw a ball, catch a ball, run with a ball, or tackle the runner. Oh! Sorry… I witness enough of these oversights every Sunday I watch a professional football game on television. That’s why players commit penalties, throw interceptions, fumble the ball, and miss tackles. And these guys get paid to practice these skills day after day!
What’s the implication of this? We DON’T do enough reviewing and reinforcing prerequisite knowledge as we teach “new stuff”. We’re in such a rush to move along and cover voluminous syllabi of course content, students are left to choke on the dust as we leave pedagogical skid marks. I’m reminded of professional baseball players who are rushed through the minor leagues in order to fill major league roster spots. Some pitchers never learn to develop secondary and tertiary pitches after their fastball and curve and try to survive while batters continue to hammer everything they throw. Some hitters never learn to hit to the opposite field, or lay off pitches out of the strike zone, and end up flailing at pitch after pitch, year after year, never able to improve beyond mediocrity, eventually becoming has-beens.
Coach Lombardi advocated the fundamentals if not preached them ad nauseum. I remember watching an interview of another former great NFL coach, John Madden (yes, the same man associated with the computerized video football games), for ESPN’s SportsCentury documentary on Coach Lombardi (I’ve personally lost track of how many times I’ve watched it over the years). As a young coach in the 1960s, Madden once attended a coaching clinic where Lombardi spent hours lecturing on his famous “Packer Sweep,” also known as the Power Sweep, Student Body Left or Right. Lombardi called it his “bread and butter” play, his “signature” play, the one play his Packers would always be known for in terms of offensive dominance, and he went over and over and over it… and as several of his former hall of fame players would attest to, Lombardi went over it until they were completely sick of it!
The point is that Lombardi repeatedly drilled all the positional and strategic fundamentals to his players, and he didn’t go beyond skills development and running basic plays until he knew all of his players, from veteran stars to backups to rookies, understood how to be fundamentally sound. Even beyond the basics, Lombardi continuously reinforced the importance of fundamentals as his playbook expanded and players became more experienced. The foundation was never glossed over or taken for granted.
3. Simplicity of concepts provides opportunities for creative applications. One of Coach Lombardi’s most famous applications of a basic play was the halfback option. While coaching the New York Giants’ offense, Lombardi made a star of Hall of Famers Frank Gifford. In Green Bay, Lombardi made a star of Hall of Famer Paul Hornung. The halfback option derived from the power sweep, where the halfback could throw the ball downfield while on the run, adding an element of surprise to the defense. The main points were: (1) passing the ball is non-exclusive to the quarterback, and (2) running is non-exclusive to a halfback.
What’s the take-home lesson? Even if practice is “routine”, not everything one practices need be routine. And this is the premise of Problem-Based Learning and critical thinking (also known as situated cognition)! There are many core concepts in chemistry and physics; mastery of these core concepts creates many opportunities for teachers and students to explore a multitude of applications to those concepts (i.e., novel and highly challenging problems as opposed to trivial and repetitive exercises). Lombardi’s playbook was always the epitome of simplicity and brevity. His players mastered a handful of fundamental plays, yet those plays offered an unlimited number of variations, ultimately leading to a decade of championship dominance. One really doesn’t need a thousand-page chemistry or physics textbook with hundreds of end-of-chapter questions and exercises in order to learn the content or the art of problem solving. Having a solid core base of knowledge can build very broad and flexible thinkers as they encounter problem solving and conducting experiments. This can be developed with a completely different approach and curricular structure.
4. Lombardi believed that “winning isn’t a sometimes thing; it’s an all-the-time thing.” While I want students to be successful, I’m not looking at success or “winning” as the bottom line in a chemistry or physics course; it’s the steps one takes towards becoming successful or a “winner.” Paraphrasing Lombardi, thinking and the effort to learn is not a sometimes thing; it’s an all the time thing. I don’t see my “job” as a chemistry and physics educator to “make” students successful; it’s really to create opportunities for them to learn successfully, which requires a little “old-fashioned” ways, in many respects. Successful learning simply doesn’t happen on its own; successful learning is the result of mental engagement, as an active mind is the starting point towards successful learning.
Most importantly, as many of us have learned through the decades, whatever “creative” approaches we employ in the classroom must be done so with regularity. Ever wonder why “gadget” plays aren’t used all the time in football, or why they’re only successful sometimes? It’s because these plays are gimmicks, cute little wrinkles a coach will toss into the game plan in order to change the pace and trick the opponent. But gimmicks are only for cameo appearances; if a coach fed a steady diet of gadget plays into the flow of the game, not only would the opponent constantly be off-guard, so would his own players, never able to develop a rhythm or cohesive coordination.
Unfortunately, too many science educators employ their own gadget plays in their courses and classrooms. While the consensus among science educators is that “chalk and talk” lectures are bad pedagogical form, we often take the erroneous alternative of sprinkling in cooperative learning every now and then, or “Inquiry-based Tuesday”, or… well, you get the idea. We’re sometimes guilty of haphazardly using “anti-lecture” approaches, thinking we’re being progressive, when the reality is we’re trapping ourselves between a series of rocks and hard places, all in the name of breaking up the routine.
But as Lombardi and reputable cognitive researchers have learned and demonstrated through the decades, keeping a routine is the best pedagogical practice, even if one’s modus operandi is less than ideal or even a complete anathema to what we advocate. The goal is to make one’s pedagogical and curricular practices consistent, so learners develop consistent cognition. If one prefers to lecture, design lectures that merge the best of your communication skills with the best of your cognitive expectations for students. If you prefer cooperative learning, or inquiry-based, or seminar format, make that the standard mode of teaching-learning dynamic and stick with it throughout the length of your entire course, keeping in mind that this mode of practice needs to enhance both your teaching and students’ learning. If you want variety, lecture on Monday, do seminar format on Wednesday, and inquiry-based on Friday. But be consistent so you can develop and enhance a teaching-learning dynamic. Don’t just do things once or twice for sake of it. Make a genuine intellectual commitment.
What’s the implication? If we are to be transformative science educators and “produce” transformative thinkers, critical thinkers, and situational thinkers, we need to take a more revolutionary approach to problem solving by returning to the basics, reinforcing the basics, and creatively applying the basics. It’s not merely incorporating technology, or constructivism, Nature of Science, or even the History and Philosophy of Science. It’s incorporating all of the above and then some. It’s turning the curriculum on its ear, upside-down, inside-out, and reconfiguring science courses to be content-centered and problem-based.
What does it mean to be content-centered? When we re-envision a chemistry or physics course, the “star” of the course isn’t the teacher or students; it’s the actual content, the knowledge that shapes our epistemological and ontological perspectives. What does it mean to be problem-based? When we re-envision the role of problems, we need to use them as the metaphorical appetizer, entrée, and dessert of the content feast. No longer can problems be viewed as illustrations of textbook material or as review practice. The problem now becomes the “hub” of the entire learning process.
So now that I’ve introduced you all to the basic biography and fundamental philosophy of Vince Lombardi, the time has come for me to take you on a journey and witness the unfolding of a “new” pedagogical and curricular approach as it builds from each of his fundamental principles. My goal is not to teach you about football, but about an approach to teaching chemistry and physics that happens to evolve from a football perspective. I promise to minimize football jargon and clichés, but after reading this book, I hope you all feel like you’ve scored your own intellectual touchdown.
References:
1 Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: The Free Press.
2 Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillian Publishing Company.
3 Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4 Moll, L.C. (1990). Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
5 Pushkin, D.B. (1997). Where do ideas from students come from? Applying constructivism and textbook problems to the laboratory experience. Journal of College Science Teaching, 26, 238-242.
6 Schoenfeld, A.H. (1978). Can heuristics be taught? In J. Lochhead & J.J. Clement (Eds.), Cognitive process instruction (pp. 315-338). Philadelphia: Franklin Institute Press.
7 Perry, W.G. (1970). Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years, a Scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
8 Maraniss, D. (1999). When pride still mattered – A life of Vince Lombardi. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Philosophy of "Packer" pedagogy: Vince Lombardi, critical thinking and problem-based learning
Hip, hip Hooray! My new Vince Lombardi eBook is finally available! After a long delay, all the technical bugs have been swatted away and my newest pride and joy is finally out and ready for purchase and reading.
Please go to http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/DavePushkin_PackerPedagogy for ordering. Although it's an eBook, it's a specialty book, and I think you'll find the $19.99 price very reasonable and a worthwhile investment.
If you love sports, this is a great book for you. If you're interested in chemistry or physics education, it's a great book for you too. If you're interested in teaching/learning theory, it's an especially great book for you. In other words, this book is great for a variety of reading interests.
Please buy, read, enjoy my book, and most important -- please pass the word to others and encourage at least one more person to buy and read the book too! This book was not only written as a labor of intellectual love, it was written for my health as well. Doctors cost money, as do medications, medical equipment and hospital care. By buying my book you're helping me keep up with my medical expenses as well as sharing my writing.
Thanks for your support.
Please go to http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/DavePushkin_PackerPedagogy for ordering. Although it's an eBook, it's a specialty book, and I think you'll find the $19.99 price very reasonable and a worthwhile investment.
If you love sports, this is a great book for you. If you're interested in chemistry or physics education, it's a great book for you too. If you're interested in teaching/learning theory, it's an especially great book for you. In other words, this book is great for a variety of reading interests.
Please buy, read, enjoy my book, and most important -- please pass the word to others and encourage at least one more person to buy and read the book too! This book was not only written as a labor of intellectual love, it was written for my health as well. Doctors cost money, as do medications, medical equipment and hospital care. By buying my book you're helping me keep up with my medical expenses as well as sharing my writing.
Thanks for your support.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)