Teach Like a Champion 3.0: 63 Techniques that Put Students on the Path to College by Doug Lemov

Teach Like a Champion 3.0: 63 Techniques that Put Students on the Path to College Reviews

• 
  Daniel Kleven

  I finally finished it. I was taking my time, reading a few pages every night, and watching every video that accompanied the various techniques. This book has helped my teaching, planning, and classroom management immensely.
• 
  Kevin Parkinson

  I'm really glad I read this. I had read portions here and there, but I had never read the entire book. I was nervous to do so because: (1) It's super long, and (2) I was aware of some strong criticism of the approach, and felt uneasy by portions I was familiar with. But, I committed myself to reading it cover to cover with an open mind, and I'm glad that I did. That said, it's a very long book so allow me to give an extended review:
  
  THE GOOD:
  
  Whether you agree with Lemov / Uncommon or not, you've got to give him / them credit for what they've done. Writing a book in and of itself is a big deal that most of us won't do. But to top that, this is so much more that a dude writing a book. This is an awe-inspiring undertaking. The ambition of this project alone means Lemov has earned a legacy in education. Think about it - while we consider Lemov and Uncommon to be larger than life at this point, the reality is he's just one dude and they're just one school system. In addition to the regular rigors of running a school, they have taken it upon themselves to: (1) Try to learn for themselves what makes teachers effective, (2) Codify that learning into a coherent model, (3) Write out and articulate that model with nuance, (4) Records videos to supplement and demonstrate the model, and (5) Share that learning with the world as opposed to hoard it for themselves. That's quite an impressive feat.
  
  Some have said that Lemov's tactics aren't new, he just gave them a fancy name. I can appreciate that point, but I also think Lemov has noticed, articulated, and codified teaching tactics better than most. The names he has given to strategies are as cute / rememberable as they are descriptive, and schools that incorporate them see the worth in doing so. All of his ideas might not be brand new or intuitive, but there is power in what Lemov has done.
  
  He's got 63 techniques in this book. Are they all bangers? Nah. There were several that I either disagreed with or thought "I mean fine." But others were really quite good. "Right is Right" is phenomenal, for example, and describes in such coherent ways we all lower our standards, perhaps even subconsciously, and he gives us language to notify and correct that error. "Board = Paper" really got me thinking about how schools can systematize not only the content of our curriculums but also the development of academic study habits that can benefit students for years to come. "What to Do" gives us the insight that we need to frame actions we want to see students perform as opposed to what we don't want to see them do. There are tons of strategies like these that have the potential to really transform our teaching in awesome ways.
  
  I appreciated the extended intro to the book before he got to the techniques. It allowed him to take on some of the criticism he has received, and I felt compelled by his responses. Nuance later in the book pissed me off (more on that soon). But in the intro, it was exactly what I needed, and I really did find it thought-provoking.
  
  
  THE BAD:
  
  Most of my complaints are that Lemov has entirely doubled down on his pervious works. Even when I agree with him, I found this steadfast commitment to his previous ways of thinking insufferable.
  
  I would describe Lemov as a research practitioner, and I think that's a great thing. There are a lot of researchers in academia who spend all their time brainstorming theories stuffed with academic jargon and divorced from applicability in the real world. There are a lot of practitioners who are "in the weeds" and getting the work done, but who often aren't able - by virtue of the work - take a step back, reflect, notice, or theorize. But a research practitioner is in the weeds enough to build credibility and know what could really work, but able to put higher-level thought into it. These folks often get slammed by everyone, but I applaud them because they're actually in it, actually attempting to form theories, and actually putting those theories into practice. That's a beautiful thing, and why I'm quick to defend research practitioners. At least they're trying! However, there's a deal that goes along with being a research practitioner. As much as they matter, and as much as they are really the ones making things happen, they have to realize that they are neither fully researcher nor fully practitioner. I don't think they should be bogged down by people who are either full researcher or fully practitioner, but I also think they have to be open, to some degree, to what these folks have to say. And, quite frankly, I didn't really see that from Lemov. Granted: He did make changes, added explanations, and came up with new names for certain techniques. However, I think there are some issues:
  
  Confirmation bias: He seems to really have doubled down on his previous ways of thinking, and has stuffed his book with tidbits of work that seem to support his way of thinking.
  
  Second... The book "Human Element" describes how to create change in the real world. Their argument centers around the metaphor of a bullet traveling miles. When asked what enables the bullet to travel so far, most people are quick to suggest "gunpowder." That's true, but it's only part of the story. The shape of the bullet is also of crucial importance. Gunpowder enables the bullet to leave the gun at an enormously fast rate. But once out of the gun, the bullet immediately begins to experience resistance (wind resistance, gravity, etc.). The shape of the bullet enables the bullet to fight against this resistance. Even if a bullet was shot with just as much gunpowder, if it didn't have that shape, it would collapse. In the book "Human Element," the authors say that when creating change, gunpowder is the shaping of the change we want to create. The shape of the bullet is the way we respond to the resistance (for example, navigating emotional resistance through various strategies). In "Human Element," the authors suggest that most changemakers focus almost exclusively on gunpowder. When they encounter resistance to their change, most changemakers just try to stuff more and more gunpowder in. But being shot from the gun at exceedingly high volume is only part of the solution. Lemov is the epitome of this. Faced with resistance, Lemov just uses more words and more words and more words to try and convince you that he is correct. What he fails to realize is this summary: "The Human Element is all about recognizing that no amount of pushing an idea or innovation forward is going to lead to adoption and acceptance. You have to reduce the four major types of friction - inertia, effort, emotion, and reactance." Lemov fails spectacularly in this regard.
  
  Lemov doesn't use language like, "I feel like the best way to handle it is..." or "In my opinion, the best way to handle it is..." or "In my mind, I think that..." He just says the thing. This even, frustratingly enough, applies to equity, which apparently Lemov is the arbiter of. He'll often say things like, "This technique is the equitable approach, and people who do it differently are not doing things equitably." Such certainty! If I were being generous or assuming good intent, I might suggest that he is just trying to be persuasive and he uses such language to come off confidently. A more critical view would be that Lemov is drenched in arrogance, and that he is ignorant to the idea that someone could legitimately question his views. He thinks there are two world views: His world view, or the wrong world view that he hasn't yet convinced you out of yet. And at times it came across as defensive, like Lemov is saying, "I've changed the name of this tactic to satisfy all you idiots who don't get how smart I am. There! Now it's called X. Now are you happy? JUST DO WHAT I SAY!"
  
  
  The funny thing is, I like the vast majority of his tactics, and I could be persuaded to follow nearly all of them. But, I would feel so much more comfortable if he just said, "You know, I got this one wrong. So I dropped it entirely." Or, "I can really appreciate that critics pushing my thinking in this regard." At best, he said, "I guess I didn't explain myself properly." But even this implies, "But my core idea was right all along." I just want to be like "Dude: You're a research practitioner. You're not a full on academic, and I appreciate that about you! But, that means occasionally you're going to get things wrong. Not just semantically. Like all the way wrong. And it's possible that others have different views than you. And sometimes, those different views won't be based on stupidity, or cynicism, or trying to twist your words. Sometimes, different views will help shape your ideas. Can you please just acknowledge that a little?!?!" Even freakin' Lucy Calkins is growing and developing. If you could acknowledge that just a little bit, I'd be way more likely to buy into your ideas.
  
  On another note unrelated to the criticisms above... I think there are things that happen naturally, and those things are pure magic. I think other things need to be spelled out explicitly, even if it takes away the magic a little bit. For example, if your spouse or children get you a Christmas gift that you absolutely love, but you didn't know you even wanted, that's pure magic. Other times, you just need to tell them, "Hey: Get me some new sunglasses for Christmas." When you open the gift on Christmas morning, it's not quite as special, but you get the glasses you need. I think there are things in life we should keep magical. There are other things in life that are just too important, and must be engineered. One tiny criticism of this book I have (though it certainly isn't my biggest hill to die on), is that Lemov codifies EVERYTHING. I get that education is clearly important, so we've got to engineer it to a large degree, even if that means that when students do what they do, it isn't quite as special. I just think there are times he takes it too far. Codify a lot in education - but maybe not *everything?*
  
  And, another note unrelated to the criticism above... I mentioned that in the extended intro to the book, Lemov uses a lot of nuance. I loved that there! It said, "You have tried to paint me as a monster, and it's not quite as simple as that." I was leaning into the complexities, and all the sidebars, and all the subpoints, and everything. Let's get into the weeds! It was awesome. But, in the chapters and techniques, this complexity, sidebar, subpoints, and nuance got to be exhausting, meandering, and pompous. For example, in his chapter about questioning, he made sure to say not to ask bad questions. Later in that same chapter, when he reviews "Call and Response" (a technique that teachers have literally been using for CENTURIES), he zigzags through a convoluted explanation of how evolutionary biology supports herd mentality, and I think I dozed off when he described how the whites of our eyes support the notion that yada yada yada... It's like every thought that he had he thought, "This is essential! It must be included in the book." How an editor didn't slash half of this is beyond me. I'm someone who can fully appreciate a good caveat or footnote, but this book was full of 'em.
  
  One final note: I got increasingly frustrated with the book the more I read it. I started off thinking, "This guy gets too bad of a wrap!" But by the end I wasn't quite as convinced. I think all the negatives I note above show up more and more as the book goes on. If there's a 4.0, I hope that will change. There really are gems throughout, and if he'd be open to rounding out the edges and communicating with more empathy, it might be a book we can all comfortably give to teachers across the country.
• 
  Rory Fox

  Rapidly becoming a classic in the teacher training genre, this is a book which all teachers should be aware of.
  
  However, part of what makes this book interesting is that it is a good example of one particular ideological approach to education. This can be seen in the (other) reviews of the book, where it is clear that some readers love the book, and what it stands for; whilst other readers hate it and its entire approach to education.
  
  It is a shame that the book does not clearly recognise the background ideological elephant in the room. And then address it. The book’s ideology is towards the more ‘order and control’ end of the classroom management spectrum, whereas its opponents argue for more of an ‘informality and spontaneity’ in classroom interactions. Both approaches can work, and both ideologies can point to exemplars of good practice. However, both approaches can also fail spectacularly, so champions of each ideology can point to opposite examples of ‘everything that is wrong with education.’
  
  This means that the very first ‘technique’ in the book should probably have been an ideological clarification (or what the book elsewhere calls ‘intellectual preparation’) so that the teacher using the book reflects on the different ideologies possible, and is therefore consciously choosing and buying into this particular model, before then deploying it (with a properly informed consent) in the classroom.
  
  Once we get into the book, it is full of practical ideas which any teacher could use, or adapt for use. Even established teachers, who have no sympathy with the overall ideology that would deploy all of the 63 techniques in the book, will more than likely be already happily using some of the book’s techniques, as they represent (common sense) good practice.
  
  One factor which wasn’t as well explained as it could have been, was the fact that some techniques appeal to science which is not as straightforward, or settled, as is depicted. For example, Principle 2 recommends building good habits, because we can suffer from ‘ego depletion’ when we have to consciously assess and decide every issue. Yes, building good habits make sense. Indeed, it has been taught for the last couple of thousand years as virtue theory ethics (!). But the idea of ‘ego depletion’ as a reason for doing so, is more controversial. Yes, there are some experiments which suggest that ego depletion might exist, but there are also alternative interpretations and viewpoints.
  
  Overall, the book is an interesting and thought provoking read, which is clearly expressed with well-chosen examples. The fact that it is also linked to clips of film portraying teachers in classrooms is particularly helpful, as that enables the book to show what it means, in real world contexts which illustrate what it thinks of as good teaching.
  
• 
  Kathleen Zwartz

  Lots of helpful techniques, but is a textbook and therefore contains too many details making it a long read.
• 
  Simon Winquist

  I was looking for a book with specific and applicable techniques, or methods to add to my repertoire for the upcoming year.
  
  
  I teach psychology and in the first chapter it talks about psychological research that was applied for this book. . Fields of cognitive and evolutionarily psychology. I really appreciate the author for not only learning techniques, but the science behind why the methods work.
  
  The book provides 63 applicable techniques that you can use. I have already put some into action and I’ve been enjoying the progress. My favourite is the use of a packet which centralizes and you can see the progress of each unit.
  
  All in all, this was the exact book I was looking for. Well, some may complain that it’s dry and only teaching for test scores. I think there are some very good techniques that you can adapt and use right away and improve your teaching.
• 
  Mara

  I read this as part of my post-baccalaureate teacher licensing program. While I thought this book was engaging and informative, I will acknowledge that it has some questionable roots and might not be the thing for other educators. I feel that I was able to get the most value out of this because of my nontraditional background, having gone to school for nutritional science rather than education. Therefore a lot of these ideas were new and provocative for me. I took lots of notes and made many connections to my everyday experiences in the classroom as a substitute.
• 
  Annie

  This is one of my "work reads". I have to say that I got a lot out of it. There are links to videos so you can see the technique in action. It is recently updated so feels relevant. Admittedly I have not read any previous versions and this is my first exposure to Doug Lemov. He gets bonus points for admiring Pete Carroll as much as I do.
• 
  Veronica F

  We read this as a PD at work. The author regularly references future chapters and the online viewing. He was wordy and enjoyed repeating phrases. Some of the techniques are useful. Most are more for elementary school or high functioning classrooms where all the kids WANT to learn. 
• 
  Alice Bell

  Every teacher should read this book. There are so many gems, clearly explained and discussed. My teaching will be better next year because of it.
• 
  Natalie

  Some good ideas. Worth a skim for new or struggling teachers.
• 
  Gerry

  Was assigned reading; good revision, a couple of methods I will try out.
  The less experienced the teacher, the better this book would be.
• 
  Ruth Williams

  Read this book as it is often mentioned in training sessions at school. Some good take aways but it is rather long winded. Lenov gives everything an acronym which got on my nerves.