What exactly IS education?

[lenny]

Wow, I'm actually surprised to see such cynicism regarding the pedagogical theory...
...snip...
When you evaluate your students on their ability to perform well on tests you fail to consider the reality that many of those students will memorize what they need to pass and then forget it. They have no passion for learning in and of itself. It is reduced to explicit instruction only.
...snip...
The goal should be one that is focused on teaching students how to learn rather than what to learn. When you teach a student how to learn they can learn anything.

i think (some of) what you interpret as cynicism is in fact experience with failed new-fanged methods; insight based on a deeper, if unstructured, pedagogical theory more consistent with experience.

"teaching for the test" fails to give students the ability to use tools for the reason you mention. but to grant that point does not lead to "teaching students how to learn rather than what to learn" in the way you suggest leads them to master the tools. in areas where both proficiency with the tools and creative insight is required to make real progress, there is no evidence that "teaching students how to learn" provides any pedagogical guidance whatsoever to the teacher.

the apprenticeship approach cannot be mass deployed, but remains the best i've seen. there is nothing exciting about learning the tools, be they integration by parts or practicing scales. i agree with you that it is easier to put in the time if you are motivated to reach some higher goal, but often a teacher needs to teach what to learn as well as how (and ideally enthuse by exposing them to a "why" that the students value).

in large part, of course, i am just echoing the more concise post by Sam H (thanks sam).

 

[truethat]

Therefore, once you teach a student how to learn poetry, he/she becomes a poet without having to memorize a single poem! Once you teach a second student how to learn music, he/she becomes a composer without having to play or memorize a single note! Once you teach a third student how to learn math, he/she becomes a mathematician without having to solve a single problem. ... Or for that matter, why not apply this pedagogy to those things that American parents care about and "educate" their children in: Once you teach a student how to learn basketball, he/she becomes a basketball player without having ever to hold a ball!

Why would you make such extreme statements and then pretend you are having a serious discussion.

I could flip it back on you couldn't I? So once you teach a child to memorize a poem it means they understand poetry. Once you teach a student to memorize math equations it means they understand math? Once you teach a child to memorize the notes for a song on a piano it means they can play the song?

Obviously neither strategy works on it its own. You have to combine both. However, the problem I see with not using the strategies I'm talking about is that the student will memorize the information enough to pass the test and then forget it when they are done with it.

Take an average student who is not a Science major. Many of them will have gotten an B or C on the test and have passed the class itself. But that's all they are trying to do, pass the class and pass the tests. Even if they do well enough in the class they will tend to forget it afterward. If you ask them to explain it to you in a few years, they won't know anything except the equations they have memorized.

Ex. Pythagorean theorem. a²+ b²= c² Many people remember it but don't necessarily understand it's implications beyond a simple triangle equation.

Ex. How many people can recite E=mc² but have no concept what it really means?

However, if you take those same science students who can't remember the details of the class, I bet they can remember the lab experiments that they did. Why? Because they did it in real life.

So it's a combination.

The problem with the theories of pedagogy is not that they don't work, it really is that the teacher is pushed to promote students whether they understand it or not.

If you had a class with 1 teacher and ten students then they would probably learn a lot better. What you have now instead is a classroom with 1 teacher to 20-30 students and so what happens is the teacher teaches "to test." It's not the teacher's fault. But it's not the strategy that is wrong.

More later.

 

[truethat]

i think (some of) what you interpret as cynicism is in fact experience with failed new-fanged methods; insight based on a deeper, if unstructured, pedagogical theory more consistent with experience.

"teaching for the test" fails to give students the ability to use tools for the reason you mention. but to grant that point does not lead to "teaching students how to learn rather than what to learn" in the way you suggest leads them to master the tools. in areas where both proficiency with the tools and creative insight is required to make real progress, there is no evidence that "teaching students how to learn" provides any pedagogical guidance whatsoever to the teacher.

the apprenticeship approach cannot be mass deployed, but remains the best i've seen. there is nothing exciting about learning the tools, be they integration by parts or practicing scales. i agree with you that it is easier to put in the time if you are motivated to reach some higher goal, but often a teacher needs to teach what to learn as well as how (and ideally enthuse by exposing them to a "why" that the students value).

in large part, of course, i am just echoing the more concise post by Sam H (thanks sam).

Like I said, it's not one or the other. You guys don't think these theories are supposed to be used in place of the other strategies do you?

If you do then I can understand why you are getting frustrated. It's a combination of explicit and implicit instruction. No one is saying throw out the explicit instruction, just not to rely on it solely.

Using these strategies will help nuance the learning in a deeper way.

Take my example of the bicycle. The first two steps are knowledge and comprehension, you have to know what a bike is, you have to understand the basic concepts of it. But in order to master the concept you have to get on the bicycle.


Here's a simple suggestion I use in my classes for test prep. Whatever the topic you are teaching, have the students make their own quiz.

When the students have to come up with "wrong answers" that are not entirely obvious, it helps them to understand the concepts in a deeper way.

It's actually a pretty hard assignment. Depending on the age of the class, have them write their own 5 questions and come up with wrong answers. Then you select their best one and combine it into another test and pass it out.

Do not give it as a test, simply use it in a class discussion and have each person explain why their wrong answers are wrong.


And btw, they are not "newfangled methods" they have been around for decades but teachers don't use them and this is why the students are falling behind. So they are simply reminding teachers to use them.


One last thing, pedagogical guidance to the teacher?????? The point of teaching is not to "teach" but to "facilitate learning." It's not supposed to be about the teacher.

 

[fuelair]

Therefore, once you teach a student how to learn poetry, he/she becomes a poet without having to memorize a single poem! Once you teach a second student how to learn music, he/she becomes a composer without having to play or memorize a single note! Once you teach a third student how to learn math, he/she becomes a mathematician without having to solve a single problem. ... Or for that matter, why not apply this pedagogy to those things that American parents care about and "educate" their children in: Once you teach a student how to learn basketball, he/she becomes a basketball player without having ever to hold a ball!

Not at all. If a student is not either a natural at learning things or trained how to learn he or she may pick up information and be able to spout it back on a test - especially a poorly designed but quick MC test but will not be able to use it in any significant way. You, by the by, did badly (I am not sure if apurpose, but definitely did) misinterpret what truethat was saying there.

We try to teach them how to learn and how to think critically - and some tests (the good ones) are constructed to demonstrate that.

 

[fuelair]

Like I said, it's not one or the other. You guys don't think these theories are supposed to be used in place of the other strategies do you?

.

Yes, sadly, in Florida we were evaluated the last two school years I spent time teaching in on teaching by very specific and not functionally variant at all procedures. And the person evaluating the science teachers had no functional knowledge of the facts that (a) several of the items were known not to work (my wife's comments on same were loved by most of the other teachers old enough to remember the last go-round of same and actual science and the differences between a lab class and a not lab class. The rectum's name who developed the system is Marzano.

 

[fuelair]

Apologies - fixing minor error: Marzano developed the system in the sense that he borrowed things (generally uncredited) from earlier practitioners of education.

 

[angrysoba]

On top of that, I think truethat has done a lot of hard work in this thread giving examples of how STEM subjects might be taught in a way that might answer your OP, according to one reading of your OP.

On the other hand, Sam H, I think that you had a different meaning in your OP to the effect that you don't think much of new teaching methods and point to countries such as India, China and South Korea as evidence that such teaching methods are not particularly useful.

I think that the latest PISA results may merit some discussion here as it seems likely that Western teaching methods are obviously not sufficient to raise students' grades on a national average basis, and the possibility that the PISA results even show up a deficiency in Western teaching methods. Or else we could argue that there are flaws in the PISA methodology, or even that it is really quite irrelevant what PISA says as the students scoring highly in the Asian countries may not retain the knowledge they regurgitated in the exams and yet get into universities.

ETA: Sam H, could you clear up the misunderstanding either truethat or I have (or both) of your OP. Cheers.

 

[fuelair]

One last thing, pedagogical guidance to the teacher?????? The point of teaching is not to "teach" but to "facilitate learning." It's not supposed to be about the teacher.

And, of course, this!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Sam H]

Why would you make such extreme statements and then pretend you are having a serious discussion.

I was trying to make a point. And I AM having a serious, very serious, discussion, because I am a teacher, and it worries me how some teachers deemphasize content and emphasize methods, processes, learning-to-learn ideas.

I could flip it back on you couldn't I? So once you teach a child to memorize a poem it means they understand poetry. Once you teach a student to memorize math equations it means they understand math? Once you teach a child to memorize the notes for a song on a piano it means they can play the song?

I have known people - not in English, but in my native tongue - who had no "poetry training" but committed to their memory - I am avoiding the word "memorize" because it has become a dirty word in the education community - a handful of poetry books!

Obviously neither strategy works on it its own. You have to combine both.

I agree, but I would put weights on the two strategies. I would put 85-90% weight on practice - you may want to call it memorization, I call it practice in the sense of actually doing problems, examples, memorizing poems, putting away the calculators and computers and do a long multiplication or division, taking the TI89 away and have the student go through a long derivation of an algebraic identity, .... - and 10-15% on learning-to-learn.

However, the problem I see with not using the strategies I'm talking about is that the student will memorize the information enough to pass the test and then forget it when they are done with it.

It depends on the test. They will not be able to pass a well-designed test. My students call the questions on such tests "trick" questions. If your test has a lot of trick questions, I can assure you that the students only memorizing the material will not pass it.

Take an average student who is not a Science major. Many of them will have gotten an B or C on the test and have passed the class itself. But that's all they are trying to do, pass the class and pass the tests. Even if they do well enough in the class they will tend to forget it afterward. If you ask them to explain it to you in a few years, they won't know anything except the equations they have memorized.

I don't know how teaching them how to learn will remedy that. They will memorize the rules of how to learn, learn nothing - or very little - and then eventually forget what they learned, including the rules of how to learn. Even if they remember the rules, what good would it do them if their memory is void of data (knowledge) to which they can apply the rules?

Ex. Pythagorean theorem. a²+ b²= c² Many people remember it but don't necessarily understand it's implications beyond a simple triangle equation.

Ex. How many people can recite E=mc² but have no concept what it really means?

If your MC test consists of
(a) E=mc²(b)E=mc³(c) E=mc⁴(d)E=m²c²(e) E²=m²c²
Then memorization will work. But if you tell them that a star releases energy at the rate of 4x10²⁶ joules per second, and ask how many tons of the mass of the star gets depleted per second, memorization will not work.

One final word about memorization. Do you think that a mathematician - an expert in a field which is completely opposite to memorization fields - can prove his/her newly discovered theorem if he/she did not MEMORIZE the statement (as well as the proof) of dozens of theorems related to his/her discovery?

 

[Sam H]

If your MC test consists of
(a) E=mc²(b)E=mc³(c) E=mc⁴(d)E=m²c²(e) E²=m²c²
Then memorization will work. But if you tell them that a star releases energy at the rate of 4x10²⁶ joules per second, and ask how many tons of the mass of the star gets depleted per second, memorization will not work....

... and students begin to think that if the star has a finite mass, it will eventually die. This is how discoveries are made! Neither by memorizing the formula, nor by teaching them HOW to learn E=mc².

 

[Sam H]

... On the other hand, Sam H, I think that you had a different meaning in your OP to the effect that you don't think much of new teaching methods and point to countries such as India, China and South Korea as evidence that such teaching methods are not particularly useful.

That is correct. These methods emphasize "how to learn" too much and "what to learn" too little. I have spelled out my thoughts in my earlier posts today. I believe that STEM education should be 100% skill teaching, as is done in India, SK, China, .... I have nothing against methods that facilitate the learning of the skills. Unfortunately, these are few and far between, and by no means the mainstream "educational theory." Read the article in NY Times (March 3, 1998) by the prominent American educational theorist Howard Gardner, the "discoverer" of multiple intelligence. He completely denounces skill and equates the quality of education to economic growth.

... or even that it is really quite irrelevant what PISA says as the students scoring highly in the Asian countries may not retain the knowledge they regurgitated in the exams and yet get into universities.

... into AMERICAN universities! So, maybe we should change the standards of our universities so that they accept only those students who have learned how to learn!

 

[Sam H]

I have known people - not in English, but in my native tongue - who had no "poetry training" but committed to their memory - I am avoiding the word "memorize" because it has become a dirty word in the education community - a handful of poetry books, ...

... and could compose beautiful, meaningful, and sophisticated poems. (Sorry, I forgot to finish the sentence.)

 

[truethat]

Practice is not memorization. Practice is practice.

Seems to me you guys are really interested in how to make the teacher look like they actually are teaching students by getting really high test scores and that you have no actual concern about what happens to the students beyond the classroom.

Fuelair exempted of course.

I've got news for you. You aren't teachers, you are "test preppers" Shudder.

 

[angrysoba]

Practice is not memorization. Practice is practice.

Seems to me you guys are really interested in how to make the teacher look like they actually are teaching students by getting really high test scores and that you have no actual concern about what happens to the students beyond the classroom.

Fuelair exempted of course.

I've got news for you. You aren't teachers, you are "test preppers" Shudder.

Well, actually, no.

I am very concerned about how my students perform and want to know the best way for them to learn.

I have no idea where you get the idea that "you guys are really interested in..." [insert made-up snide jibe here] because - horror of horrors! - "students...getting really high test scores".

As much as this may astonish you, test scores are a fact of life for students, and if they don't get the scores that universities want those students don't go to the universities that they want.

I thought the OP made it pretty clear that what he was concerned with was students in the US falling behind students in East Asia in things like STEM and his skepticism regarding certain methods which he thinks are unlikely to be used in East Asia, particularly for those subjects.

I tend to know what he means because I have a pretty good idea how school subjects are taught in Japan.

Now, you have given a fairly good account of what teaching and learning methods there are out there, but you have ommitted something that in my opinion is quite important and that is evidence that these methods work!

If they do work then please provide that evidence. But of course, we are stuck with another problem which is how do we determine whether or not they work. For many people the best answer will be "by looking at test scores!" And it seems to me that this is one things you don't have a high opinion of.

If this is the case then could I not level a charge at you that "Seems to me you...are really interested in how to make the teacher look like they actually are teaching students [using new methods]" and that you are pretty indifferent as to the students' test scores "and that you have no actual concern about what happens to the students beyond the classroom."

 

[truethat]

How your students "perform"

As I said. Test preppers. Teachers are motivated by getting students to develop an awareness of the interconnectedness between all subject areas and how this evolves in life to critical thinking.

They are not motivated by getting students to "perform" That's what circus trainers and dog trainers are motivated by.

I have to stop reading this thread.

One last thing, if you don't really GOS about long term life long knowledge and inspiring a curiosity in learning and making connections in all parts of life, then I have no idea why you even addressed the "teaching theories" in the first place.

Seems to me the problem is that students are bored in the classroom and your test scores are dropping and you can't figure out why, so instead of changing your methods you are blaming the students for not being "Asian enough"

LOL

 

[angrysoba]

How your students "perform"

As I said. Test preppers. Teachers are motivated by getting students to develop an awareness of the interconnectedness between all subject areas and how this evolves in life to critical thinking.

They are not motivated by getting students to "perform" That's what circus trainers and dog trainers are motivated by.

I have to stop reading this thread.

One last thing, if you don't really GOS about long term life long knowledge and inspiring a curiosity in learning and making connections in all parts of life, then I have no idea why you even addressed the "teaching theories" in the first place.

Seems to me the problem is that students are bored in the classroom and your test scores are dropping and you can't figure out why, so instead of changing your methods you are blaming the students for not being "Asian enough"

LOL

I have no idea what you are talking about. You seem to be intensely amused by what you imagine goes on in my classroom yet I never said my students' scores are dropping, nor am I blaming them for not being Asian enough - they're Japanese!

Besides, earlier in the thread you were railing against the word "teacher" as though anyone who calls herself that is self-engrossed and you preferred the term "learning facilitator". Now you are railing against the term "perform" as if that was a dirty word, yet this outrage at a perfectly ordinary word is just the kind of ridiculous navel-gazery that is giving modern educationalists a bad name, by assuming that increasing student learner autonomous knowledge-seeker test-grade performance self-esteem realization is a matter of thinking up the most touchy-feely hippy-drippy nomenclature rather than er...effective teaching and learning methods.

Again, you haven't bothered to provide any evidence such as data on outcomes and have now resorted to snide innuendo about how my students do and what my classes are like. Of course you do the same with no evidence whatsoever as well.

 

[truethat]

Sigh

Seriously, last comment. A good teacher is willing to let a student fail. A test prepper has one goal in mind. Good scores on the test. Then after the students move on they forget everything they learned.

You say I have no proof? Really? I'll prove it to ya. Ask ANYONE who was taught science using your method, who doesn't have a passion about the subject, to remember ANYTHING that was ever taught to them after several years.

Test preppers have a goal of getting students to perform well on tests. Once they do, they pass them on and shuffle on to the next ones. Meanwhile the students FORGET EVERYTHING which is why we have such horrible STEM issues in the first place here n the U.S.

GOOD teachers inspire a curiosity and encourage students to develop an awareness of the discipline as it relates to their real life in a way that helps them to follow through with such curiosity and expand it to other interests.

How about I prove it again. Find me ANY and I'm sure the majority of American students on this site, who were forced to learn a foreign language as either a high school or college requirement. And how many of them took the classes and passed the classes but DO NOT SPEAK THE LANGUAGE AT ALL years later.

You know who does? The ones that actually traveled to the country or used it in their real lives.

When you are concerned about what the students are LEARNING and how they are learning beyond test scores you have a totally different paradigm.

It's sort of selfish, if I must be honest, to see such back patting of STEM type teachers when their students "score well." As I said, show me the money baby, if you REALLY taught them, they would remember it for the rest of their lives, not just for a test or prerequisite.

 

[angrysoba]

Sigh

Seriously, last comment. A good teacher is willing to let a student fail. A test prepper has one goal in mind. Good scores on the test. Then after the students move on they forget everything they learned.

You say I have no proof? Really? I'll prove it to ya. Ask ANYONE who was taught science using your method, who doesn't have a passion about the subject, to remember ANYTHING that was ever taught to them after several years.

Test preppers have a goal of getting students to perform well on tests. Once they do, they pass them on and shuffle on to the next ones. Meanwhile the students FORGET EVERYTHING which is why we have such horrible STEM issues in the first place here n the U.S.

GOOD teachers inspire a curiosity and encourage students to develop an awareness of the discipline as it relates to their real life in a way that helps them to follow through with such curiosity and expand it to other interests.

How about I prove it again. Find me ANY and I'm sure the majority of American students on this site, who were forced to learn a foreign language as either a high school or college requirement. And how many of them took the classes and passed the classes but DO NOT SPEAK THE LANGUAGE AT ALL years later.

You know who does? The ones that actually traveled to the country or used it in their real lives.

When you are concerned about what the students are LEARNING and how they are learning beyond test scores you have a totally different paradigm.

It's sort of selfish, if I must be honest, to see such back patting of STEM type teachers when their students "score well." As I said, show me the money baby, if you REALLY taught them, they would remember it for the rest of their lives, not just for a test or prerequisite.

So, your method is indifferent to student performance. As I thought.

I am pretty amazed you would be so bold as to admit you are willing to see students fail.

So while all these bad teachers only selfishly care about their students' grades, good teachers' selflessly let them fail?

 

[truethat]

I notice you completely ignore the examples I gave that are true, relevant and easily examined.

And yes, a true teacher is willing to let a student fail.

 

[angrysoba]

“Please Miss! How can I pass my tests to go to Cambridge University?”
“I’m not a test prepper. I want to prepare you for when you leave my classroom!”
“Well when I leave your classroom I want to go to Cambridge University and study physics. The competition to get in is high so I need to get good test results.”
“Oh tests, schmests! You’ll forget everything immediately after the test. How about Bloom’s taxonomy?”
“Err…right! Well, can it help me get into Cambridge University.”
“It’s like riding a bike. If I tell you how to do it it isn’t the same as getting your butt on the saddle and feeling it!”
“I don’t want to ride a bike. I need theoretical physics to get into the university I want to go to.”
“Well, how many Americans do you know who can speak a foreign language?”
“Eh?
“They don’t learn it in school. They learn it in foreign lands.”
“Yeah, well…I need to learn physics and I want to get good grades on my tests!”
“Oh my child! I know you are trying to make me look good by trying to get good scores on your test, but really I am a selfless learning facilitator.”
“God! But what about me??? I am the student and I want to perform well on the test!!”
“Perform deary? Are you some kind of seal? Oh no, I think you will find that my methods are best.”
“Best for what? Is this how students learn in China or India?”
“Oh no! They’re completely backward over there with their obsession with tests.”
“But then I’ll fail!!!”
“As a good teacher, I am willing to see it happen.”