Quick Thoughts – Moler's Musings

Design For Thinking, Not Against A Chatbot

I was inspired to write this piece after seeing an Instagram post from my friend Jacob Carr (Mr. Carr On The Web)…

Most of the conversation around AI and cheating is focused on the wrong thing. We keep asking how to catch it, prevent it, or design around it. But there is a more honest question underneath all of that. If a student can open a chatbot, type a prompt, and have a finished product in under a minute, what does that tell us about what we were actually measuring?

That reframe changed how I thought about assessment this year. Not how do I stop AI from being used. But how do I design something where using AI doesn’t actually help.

Here is what that looked like in my classroom….

Hexagonal Thinking

The unit question was simple: How was the Constitution tested in the early republic?

Instead of an essay or a traditional multiple choice test, students did a hexagonal thinking activity. They chose 10 hexagons from a set of people, events, and ideas from the period. Then they had to make 9 to 10 connections, adding specific detail to each edge that explained why those two things belonged together. Finally, they chose what they believed was the biggest test to the Constitution and had to justify that argument.

You cannot prompt your way through that. The connections require students to actually understand the relationships between ideas, not just identify the ideas themselves. The justification requires a claim that is theirs, not generated. And the physical act of choosing, connecting, and repositioning is iterative in a way that resists shortcuts.

What I saw was students debating which hexagon should go in the center. Students changing their minds about their biggest test and having to explain why. Students working through something instead of around it.

Thin Slides and Snorkl

For the unit on how the Constitution limits government power, I wanted students to demonstrate understanding, not recall it. I also wanted them to get feedback before the final product ever landed in my hands.

Students chose 4 ways the Constitution limits government power. For each one, they built a thin slide — one image, one word or short phrase. No paragraphs. No copying. Just a visual and a label that forced a decision about what mattered most. Then they recorded themselves on Snorkl’s whiteboard for at least one minute per slide, explaining what their image and word actually meant and why it connected to the concept. Snorkl gave them AI feedback on their explanation immediately. They could re-record as many times as they wanted until they were satisfied.

The voice is the assessment. A student cannot hand that off. They have to speak, and what comes out either shows understanding or it doesn’t. The feedback loop made it low stakes enough that students were willing to try again, and again, and again.

One student re-recorded five times. Not because I made them. Because they heard their own explanation, knew something was missing, and wanted to fix it. Another told me afterward that it was the first time they actually understood what checks and balances meant, because explaining it out loud forced them to work through it.

That is the thing. The iteration didn’t happen because I designed a rubric for it. It happened because the structure made the thinking visible to the student themselves.

What This Is Really About

Neither of these assessments is complicated. There is no trick. They work because they require something a chatbot cannot do for you: think, decide, connect, and speak as yourself.

That shifted how I design assessments now. I stopped asking how do I prevent AI from being used. I started asking something simpler…Does this require my students to actually think? If yes, I am not worried. If no, I have work to do.

When Amit Sevak, the CEO of ETS (Educational Testing Services), says that “the days of testing rote knowledge are probably over,” he is not describing a future problem. He is describing right now. And if that is true, the real question is not how we respond to AI. It is what we were actually measuring before it showed up.

The tools, the structures, and the methods can evolve. They should. But students still need to think through hard problems. They still need to explain their reasoning. They still need to make decisions about what matters and defend them.

If that stays at the center, everything else can shift.

That is the goal. Not to resist the change. To be clear about what is worth holding onto as everything else moves.

AI and EduProtocols, Quick Thoughts

What Country Music Taught Me

I want to start off and say I have always been fond of country music. The sound. Te history, The stories. Yesterday, I was watching Ken Burns’ Country Music documentary on PBS, and Episode 7 kept sticking with me because of how much was happening at the same time in the Country genre.

You had Nashville continuing to push a polished, commercial sound built around strings, production, and crossover appeal. At the same time, the Bakersfield sound was pushing back with something raw and stripped down, built on a different idea of what country music should sound like. Then you had the Outlaw movement, with Willie Nelson and Waylon Jennings rejecting the system altogether and fighting for control over their music. And outside of all of that, there were songwriters like Townes Van Zandt and artists like Emmylou Harris who were less concerned with fitting into any structure and more focused on telling honest stories.

When you step back and look at it, none of these paths really align. If anything, they are pulling the genre apart in real time, and it is easy to see why people at the time felt like country music was losing something important. It’s sound. It’s appeal. It’s status quo.

Losing Its Soul or Expanding?

That tension was not just in the music. It showed up in how people talked about it and how they experienced it. Marty Stuart described walking into the Grand Ole Opry as a kid like stepping into something sacred, which tells you how clearly defined “real country music” felt in that moment.

But even as that standard existed, it was being challenged from multiple directions. Some people saw what was happening as growth, as the genre expanding and reaching more people. Others saw it as a loss of identity, where the music was drifting away from its roots and becoming something else entirely.

Both perspectives make sense when you look at what was actually happening. The Countrypolitan sound leaned heavily into production and accessibility. Bakersfield rejected that and emphasized simplicity and edge. The Outlaws challenged not just the sound, but the control that Nashville had over artists. At the same time, the songwriter movement continued to operate on its own terms, prioritizing storytelling over commercial fit.

This was not a clean evolution. It was multiple versions of country music existing at once, each with a different idea of what mattered most.

When It All Comes Together

What stood out most to me, though, is that it did not fall apart. It eventually came together.

You see that in the moment where Willie Nelson and Merle Haggard are on stage singing Pancho and Lefty. The song itself comes from Townes Van Zandt, who represents that independent songwriter tradition. It had already been carried forward by artists like Emmylou Harris, who blended styles and stayed rooted in the music at the same time. Also on stage was Marty Stuart representing the traditional sound.

By the time it reaches that stage, it is no longer tied to one lane of country music. It represents all of them. The polished world, the outlaw world, the songwriter world, and the traditional roots are all present in that one moment. It works not because those differences disappeared, but because they were layered together around something deeper.

What Didn’t Change

That is where the idea really clicked for me. Country music did not survive that period by resisting change or by choosing one version of itself over another. It survived because, underneath all of the shifts in sound, production, and control, there were certain things that did not move.

The commitment to storytelling stayed. The emotional connection to the listener stayed. The ability to reflect real experiences, even when the style changed, stayed. Those elements created a throughline that allowed everything else to evolve without the genre losing itself.

The Connection to Education

That idea feels really relevant to where we are in education right now. There is a strong push in some spaces to go backward, to return to older methods as a way to respond to the challenges that come with technology and AI. Some of that push is grounded in real concerns, especially around distraction and shallow engagement.

But going backward is not how systems grow or adapt. What we are seeing now is not that different from what country music went through. There are multiple approaches happening at once. Some are more traditional. Some are pushing boundaries. Some are reacting against what exists. Some are experimenting in ways that do not always work.

The goal is not to eliminate that tension. The goal is to understand what actually needs to stay consistent.

In the same way that country music held onto storytelling, emotion, and connection, education has its own core elements that cannot be lost. Students still need to think deeply. They still need to make meaning. They still need to connect ideas and communicate understanding.

If those things intentionally remain at the center, then the tools, structures, and methods around them can evolve. They should evolve. The challenge is not managing change. It is being clear about what is worth holding onto as everything else shifts.

In Practice

What that looks like in practice is not about adding more. It is about being intentional with what is already there.

Take a week from my classroom where students are learning about the early republic. Instead of moving through chapters and worksheets and hoping it sticks, the goal becomes getting students to actually think about it. In one lesson, students are analyzing the Alien and Sedition Acts through a Sketch and Tell and CER. They start by sketching ideas, forcing themselves to visualize what the concepts actually look like before writing. Then they move into making a claim, supporting it with evidence, and explaining their reasoning. That work happens on paper, through conversation, and then gets pushed further when they enter a Battle Royale in MyShortAnswer, where they are comparing responses and defending their thinking against others. The structure is layered, but the focus is clear: think, explain, defend.

That same intentional mix shows up the next day with the Louisiana Purchase. Students begin with a short reading and pull out key numbers, grounding their thinking before opinions even enter the conversation. Then they move to vertical whiteboards using a Building Thinking Classrooms approach, creating a Number Mania with four numbers, four facts, visuals, and a title. They are moving, debating, sketching, and deciding what matters most. From there, they shift into an Annotate and Tell, working through Federalist criticism, and then into a 2xPOV where they write from different perspectives with a random tone. The whiteboards, the paper, and the structured protocols all work together to push the thinking deeper.

Even review is designed with that same balance. Instead of a traditional review, students build their own question bank using Gimkit through KitCollab. They submit questions, see which ones are accepted, and then play a live game built from their own thinking. Technology is used, but it is driven by student input and focused on what they believe matters.

And when it comes to feedback, that loop is tightened. Students write, get feedback, and revise within the same class period instead of waiting days. Tools like Snorkl or Class Companion support that process by helping students see where their reasoning holds up and where it needs work. The feedback is immediate, but the thinking still belongs to the student.

Across all of it, you see the balance. EduProtocols give the structure. Whiteboards give students space to think out loud. Paper slows them down when they need to process. Technology makes thinking visible and feedback faster.

None of those replace the core. They support it. That is the difference.

Holding Onto What Matters

We are not trying to hold onto the way we have always done things. We are holding onto what makes learning matter: Students thinking through problems. Students explaining their ideas. Students making decisions about what is important. If that stays at the center, then everything else can evolve.

If you really think about it, it is not that different from what was happening in country music. All of those sounds pulling in different directions. All of those artists doing it their own way. All of that tension around what was being lost. Yet, the Bluegrass, the Outlaws, the Singer Songwriters, the Bakersfield, and the CountryPolitans joined together on stage to sing Pancho and Lefty. This worked because country music core never changed. The stories were still there. The emotion was still there. The connection was still there.

Country music didn’t survive by resisting change. It survived by knowing what not to change.

That is why it worked. And that is why we will find a way to make this work too.

Quick Thoughts

Quick Thought: Hot Takes

I’m getting tired of teacher hot takes.

You see them everywhere. Someone declares that a certain strategy is the only way to teach. Another says something should never be done in a classroom again. A thread blows up online about how one practice is terrible and another is the future of education.

The problem is that most of these takes ignore something really simple.

Teaching is a human thing.

Every classroom is a mix of personalities, relationships, moods, and dynamics that are impossible to copy somewhere else. The teacher matters. The students matter. The culture of the room matters. Even the time of day matters. What works beautifully in one classroom might completely flop in another.

And that’s not because someone is doing it wrong.

It’s because teaching isn’t a formula.

Sometimes a strategy works because it fits the personality of the teacher. Sometimes it works because the students respond to that teacher in a certain way. Sometimes it works because the relationships in that room allow it to work.

But when that same strategy gets turned into a universal rule or a bold declaration about “good teaching,” it starts to fall apart.

Just because something works in one classroom doesn’t mean it will work everywhere.

That doesn’t make it a bad idea. It just means it’s one idea among many.

The best teachers I know don’t live off hot takes. They experiment. They adjust. They pay attention to the humans in front of them and make decisions based on what those students need.

That’s the real work of teaching.

Not declaring what everyone else should do.

But figuring out what works in your room.

Quick Thoughts

Quick Thought: Executive Functioning Is Simulation

Last Friday I presented EduProtocols at Springer School and Center in Cincinnati. Springer is known for its work with students who have ADHD and executive functioning challenges. I went to share ideas. I left rethinking some of my own.

Early in her keynote, Sarah Ward had us build a word cloud around executive functioning. The room filled it fast. Words like….

Organization.
Planning.
Time management.
Routines.
Focus.

It looked right. But the word she was looking for wasn’t there. By the end, she gave it to us……….”Simulation.” That was the word.

Executive functioning isn’t first about binders or planners. It starts with nonverbal working memory. In simple terms, can a student picture what “done” looks like? Can they see themselves doing the task before they start?

If they can’t picture it, they can’t plan it. If they can’t plan it, they can’t execute it. These are things that I don’t think twice about, they just happen. But, for many kids, and some adults, this is the struggle.

Nonverbal memory leads to if–then thinking. If–then thinking drives self-talk. When the image isn’t there, the whole chain breaks.

She talked about how screens are impacting imagery. Kids can read the words, but they struggle to imagine the scene. They don’t see it play out in their heads. That matters more than we think. When everything is pre-visualized for you on a screen, your brain doesn’t have to generate the picture. It just consumes it. Then we hand students a paragraph in a textbook and assume they’re building a mental movie. Many aren’t. They’re decoding, not visualizing. And if there’s no image, there’s no anchor for memory. No anchor for planning. No anchor for executive function.

Then she layered in situational awareness. Space. Time. Objects. People. Stop and read the room. Many kids struggle with this. They’re physically present but mentally somewhere else. They don’t notice how much time has passed. They don’t notice that others have already started. They don’t notice the materials they need sitting right in front of them. Situational awareness is the ability to take in the environment and adjust. If you can’t “see” the room, you can’t respond to the room. And when students lack that awareness, we often interpret it as not caring, when in reality it’s a processing gap.

Nonverbal memory plus situational awareness equals what she called mimetic ideation. In plain language: mime it in your head. Don’t talk it through. Picture yourself acting it out. It’s a mental dress rehearsal. She called it “mime it.” Run the movie in your head before you hit play in real life. Here’s what that looks like in a classroom:

Make an image.
What does “done” look like? For example, if we’re doing a Thin Slide, picture the finished slide. One clear image. One strong phrase. Clean. Simple. Not cluttered.

Image yourself in it.
What do I look like doing this? Am I sitting upright, Chromebook open, reading closely? Am I highlighting key words? See yourself actually working, not just thinking about working.

Move through the space.
How am I physically going to do this? I take out my notebook. I open Google Classroom. I scroll to the assignment. I start typing. Walk yourself through the steps before you begin.

Feel the energy.
What’s my tone? Calm and focused? Rushed and frantic? If I’m revising a Nacho Paragraph, I’m steady and intentional, not just clicking submit.

Think if–then.
If I get stuck, then I reread. If I finish early, then I add a second piece of evidence. If the timer is at halfway, then I should be halfway done.

Account for time and task.
How long do I have? What exactly is the job? Eight minutes to be a “fact finder.” Ten minutes to be a “slide designer.” Not just “work on it,” but a clear task inside a visible block of time.

That’s executive functioning. Not just planning. Simulation.

The part that hit me hardest was time and task. Some students often struggle to visualize time. If you say, “You have 10 minutes,” that’s abstract. They may spend five minutes just getting organized and suddenly they’re behind. Add anxiety and their executive functioning drops even more.

That explains a lot of what we see.

It also reinforced something I already believe in. Make time visible. Classroom Screens is a great site with visual timers. Kids can actually see how much time should be sepnt doing something.

I time everything in my classroom. Fast and Curious. Thin Slides. Frayers. I live by the timer. I’ve always said it creates focus. Now I see that it supports simulation. When students can see time moving, they can adjust. They can feel urgency. They can check themselves at the midpoint.

That’s executive support, not just classroom structure.

Another simple shift she suggested was language. Instead of “Take notes,” say “Be a note taker.” Instead of “Do the reading,” say “Be a fact finder.” Add “er” to the task. Give them a role. When you give a role, you force a mental picture.

We give a lot of verbal directions in school. Too often we’re the ones doing the mental rehearsal. We’re picturing the steps. We’re anticipating the problems. Students aren’t.

Executive functioning is the ability to run the movie in your head before you press play.

Simulation.

That was the word missing from our cloud.

It’s the one I’m carrying back into my classroom.

Quick Thoughts

Quick Thought: If You Feel Behind, You’re Not Alone

I was scrolling through my own blog the other day, looking back at what I did at this time last year, and it hit me. I am four full weeks behind where I was. Last year I had 65 minute classes. I had 180 school days. I had far fewer interruptions and almost zero strange schedules. This year I’m teaching 40 to 45 minute classes. At least once a week one of them gets chopped to 30 minutes. Some days I don’t see certain groups at all. And I’m working with a 173 day schedule.

I’m sharing this for any teacher who feels that pressure creeping in. I refuse to water down what I teach just to say I “covered it.” If I’m going to teach something, I’m going to do a good job and give kids an experience they actually learn from. Eighth grade social studies is important. It shapes how students understand this country and the ideas that built it. I’m proud to teach it and I refuse to cheapen it just because the clock is tight.

So if you feel behind, you’re fine. We all are in some way. Do what you can and don’t shortchange students. Bring the stories to life. Connect the past to their community and their world. You can’t do that by rushing through a textbook and obsessing over a pacing guide. Quality matters more than speed, and the kids will remember the difference.

Quick Thoughts

Quick Thought – More Than A, B, C, or D

I never really thought about this until I had a brief conversation with two parents this afternoon. They were touring the school, thinking about sending their child here next year, and they stopped by my room. My students were working on their summative assessment for our Road to the Revolution unit. It is an argumentative one pager answering the question, “Why did loyal colonists begin fighting against their own government?”

I mentioned that the one pager was their test for the unit, and one of the parents looked a little surprised. So I followed up with, “I am not a traditional teacher. To me, there is more to learning than circling A, B, or C. Learning should feel different. It should be ongoing. We always talk about wanting lifelong learners, and assessments like this actually allow for that. The best part is the conversations I get to have with kids while they work. They ask how to word things, how one idea connects to another, and why certain events mattered. Those moments are meaningful. That is real learning.”

She paused, thought about it, and said she agreed. It honestly felt like I opened her mind to something she had not considered before.

The funny part is that I had not really thought about it that way until the words came out of my mouth.

These one pagers, and any nontraditional assessment we have done this year whether the Netflix summaries, hexagonal webs, or annotated maps, naturally create conversations and questions. Kids stop, think, ask, revise, and explain. I love that. When I gave a traditional test at the start of the year, none of that happened.

I think we often view a summative assessment as the finish line. Here is what you should know, show it, and then we move on. But what if the assessment pushed back on that idea? What if it became part of the learning instead of the end of it?

Quick Thoughts

Rethinking How I Teach the Road to the Revolution

I’ve been watching Ken Burns’ new documentary, The American Revolution, and it hit me just how much is packed into this era. Abstract ideas. Complicated politics. Dozens of events. And honestly, the way I used to teach it wasn’t doing anyone any favors.

My old approach was pretty typical: start with some vocab, squeeze in the French and Indian War, sprint through every tax over 2–3 days, toss in salutary neglect somewhere, then protests, then the Boston Massacre as a one-off, then the Tea Party and Intolerable Acts, and finally the Declaration and natural rights. It worked… but there was no flow. Too many disconnected parts. The cognitive load was just too much.

This year, I decided to take a completely different path.

I treated the French and Indian War as the ending to my 13 Colonies unit, framing it as a rivalry gone bad. Then, instead of opening the Road to Revolution with new content, I started with review of the consequences of that war and the breakdown of salutary neglect. I still taught vocabulary up front, but this time I wanted the unit to feel like a story told through the voices of the people who lived it.

We kicked things off with the Stamp Act by reading the actual wording. Kids debated fairness using the colonists’ own language. I even taught the difference between a pence, a shilling, and a pound because if you want them to understand the argument, you have to let them stand inside it.

From there, we looked at protests and reactions through the eyes of Samuel Adams and Thomas Hutchinson. Same people, same thread, same narrative. Then we moved into the Townshend Acts and Adams’ Massachusetts Circular Letter. That’s also when I introduced natural rights, not waiting until the Declaration of Independence. Life, liberty, and property were already shaping colonial arguments long before 1776.

When we got to the Boston Massacre, it finally clicked for them: “If natural rights include life… what happens when government ordered, British soldiers fire into a crowd?” The story built itself.

Then we hit the Tea Party and Intolerable Acts using a diary entry from John Adams where he basically predicts the crackdown and knows war is on the horizon. Finally, we closed the chapter with the First Continental Congress and their Declaration of Resolves. Background reading to primary source to short, purposeful chunks. As my friend and co-author Scott Petri always said: “Don’t make your class death by 1,000 primary sources.”

In the end, the kids didn’t just remember events, they followed a coherent story told by the people living it. And that made the culminating question feel earned:

Why did British subjects go from being loyal to fighting their own government?

This new approach felt clearer, more human, and honestly… more teachable. And watching students connect the dots on their own reminded me why I love this job.

Quick Thoughts

Quick Thought: When Do Kids Start Hating School?

I’ve had students complain.
I’ve had students defy.
I’ve had students look me straight in the eye and say, “I’m not doing this.”
I’ve even had kids tell me, “I hate school.”

That last one always sticks with me. Because hating school hasn’t always been a thing. Somewhere along the line, it starts.

For years, I’ve asked my 7th and 8th graders a simple question: “When did you start hating school?”
And you know what? About 95% of them say 4th or 5th grade. That’s not a coincidence.

Now that my daughter is in 4th grade, I’m starting to see why.

Take her latest assignment, a two-page book report.
She loves reading. She reads in the car, before bed, pretty much anywhere. She got to pick her book, which should have been awesome. But instead, it came with a mountain of a writing project. She’s never done anything like this before, and the directions weren’t chunked or scaffolded. It was just: “Choose a book and write this big report.”

So now, the kid who loves reading doesn’t.
She’s not thinking about the story anymore.

And to top it off, the two-page report template (from TPT) was emailed to me, and I had to print it because she lost her copy. So now, it’s not just her stress. It’s ours.

Here’s what I keep thinking:

Just have a few extra copies ready. Battling over a lost paper doesn’t teach responsibility. It just builds resentment.
Don’t hand a 4th grader a giant project with no warm-up. Start small. Build confidence.

What if instead of the classic book report, we tried something like BookaKucha?

Students create three slides about their book and talk for 20 seconds per slide. That’s it. One minute of presenting. It’s quick, creative, and authentic. They get to share what they love about a book, not just prove they read it.

When students recommend books to each other, it creates a reading culture. And culture beats compliance every time.

Because maybe the goal isn’t to make kids “do” reading.
Maybe it’s to make sure they don’t stop loving it.

Quick Thoughts

The Things We Think We’re Doing

This has been on my mind lately. Teachers (myself included) often say we’re doing certain practices like retrieval, inquiry, student choice, feedback cycles, or collaboration. We believe we are. We even tell others we are.

But when you really stop and look at the day-to-day flow of your classroom, sometimes the truth is we’re not. Not in the way we imagine. Maybe we’ve done it once or twice, or a version of it, but not with purpose or consistency.

I’ve made a point to pause and ask myself: Why am I doing this? Am I doing it regularly? Does it actually make sense for my students? Those questions have helped me see what’s real versus what’s routine.

It’s easy to fall into the comfort of saying we “do” something because it feels right or sounds good. The harder part is being honest enough to admit when we’re not and then making the small adjustments that bring our intentions and actions back in line.

Quick Thoughts

Learning Social Studies in a World of AI

Teaching social studies in 2025 is not the same as it was even five years ago. My middle schoolers live in a world where AI can spit out an answer in less time than it takes them to find the question mark on the keyboard. That changes things.

But here is the key: it does not change why we teach social studies. It just changes how we help kids wrestle with information. If anything, AI has made the skills of questioning, sourcing, and perspective even more important.

Here are five things I want my students to get if they are going to actually learn social studies in an AI world:

1. Be the historian, not the robot

AI is good at telling kids what happened. Historians do the harder work of weighing evidence, building arguments, and arguing over perspective. I remind my students that the chatbot is not the historian, they are.

2. Sources are still the anchor

AI does not always make clear where its information comes from and sometimes it just makes things up. That is why my students keep coming back to the question: What is the source? If they cannot answer that, the information does not carry much weight.

3. Bias never goes away

This one is easy for kids to grasp. We have always shown them that newspapers, diaries, and speeches carry bias. Now we add AI to the list. Whose voice do you hear? Whose voice is missing? Once they see bias in one place, they start spotting it everywhere.

4. Question before you accept

This is where I have found AI to be the best teaching tool. It gives kids a polished looking answer that is not always perfect. Instead of saying “do not use it,” I give them my Fray-I template.

Students take an AI response and then “fray it apart”:

What is the main point?
Did it use evidence or just sound nice?
What is missing?
Would you trust this for an assignment?

The beauty of Fray-I is that it forces kids to do what historians do: summarize, critique, evaluate, and revise. AI is not a shortcut. It is raw material for real thinking. You can copy a Fray-I template here!

5. History is still human

At the end of the day, AI can generate timelines and definitions, but it cannot teach empathy or perspective. That is still our job. My students need to see the choices, struggles, and connections that make history matter. That is where the learning lives.

Final Thought

AI is here, and our students are going to use it. We can either fight it or teach with it. For me, the answer is clear: use it as a spark, then give students tools like Fray-I to push deeper. That is how they learn to think like historians in an AI world.