The soft bigotry of low expectations

[Lieutenant Kije]

No problem, Mustard.  I wasn't offended - just wanted it clear where I stand.  I think some of the disagreement is hanging on semantics.  Not all, but some.  

I also noticed and appreciate your acknowledgment.  

[House of Mustard]

42 -- it's not that I have the magic solution.  It's simply that, if educational theory is so ever-changing and uncertain, then why are my views so wrong?

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

Facts are important in the sense that you need facts to back anything up etc.

This is exactly what I am trying to say.  Sciences are the process of finding a fact, and proving it by backing it up with other formulas, ect.  This is why teaching interpretation really doesn't work in technical science, while it will, like I have said in the past, work in the arts (literature, ect.)

Teaching litercery (information literacy, not reaidng and writing, and that's a whole different debate) on how to find and apply the facts is of much more value. Not that facts should be ignored at all, and some groundwork factual knowledge is certainly essential.

Again, like I have said, the facts don't need to be stressed in the arts as much because you aren't attempting to prove something beyond the shadow of a doubt and find an exactfigure.  Literature, for example, is open for teaching interpretation because there are no sure things in the interpretation of works.  

So while interpretation CAN be tought at school, I wasn't trying to say it couldn't, it is important to keep it in the realm of the arts, and leave the sciences to the facts.

But in the end, it's not aboput memorising all the facts, its about learning how to work with them.

Yes, and this, again, lines up with what I have been trying to say, in the sciences you need to learn how to find facts using formulas.  But you can't tell a student "You can find this answer through interpretation" because it just can't be done, sciences have facts that need to be proven, and it is the job of the teacher of sciences to show their students how to prove such.

While in the arts it is about learning how to make your own interpretation.  So while I was NOT trying to say that you must teach kids to memorize facts in schools, I was trying to tell you that teaching kids to interpret will not be a very succesful way for them to learn the sciences.  What you are teaching is dependant on the subject, so you can't say

Intepretation is a much better idea

because it depends on what you are trying to teach.  Interpretation is only applicable in certain areas.  This is all I was trying to say, I wasn't trying to say that teaching interpretation is moronic and shouldn't be done and that students should memorize facts to learn.  Just to point that out.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I believe my view has also been grossly misinterpreted. Let me reiterate this:

I think the facts and the correct answers need to be emphasized. The first part of any project - written paper or oral presentation  - involves getting your facts correct. starting with bad facts will ruin ANY process, teamwork, or what have you that you do. However, a poorly presented set of accurate facts can still carry the day. refusing to emphasize the need for knowing and using accurate and correct facts throws us back nearly three millenia to sophists who argued that the only important thing to know was how to present well. Ridiculous.

However, you do need to emphasize the need to find a good organizational and strategic creation process. Heck, when it comes down to it, the only place that relativism is actually a good idea is presentation and execution. some people can make detailed outlines. some people are actually stifled and delayed by such approaches. This is another reason why the process shouldn't be graded, at least, not the way I've experienced it being graded.  If someone can't provide certain details the instructor is looking for in hsi process, but can present and arrive at an excellent presentation (written, oral, or whatever) it hardly seems relevant whether he did it the way the professor wanted.

Short form: My view is that you CANNOT throw facts out. You MUST emphasize that facts, correct facts, are required. however, that in no way precludes an additional emphasis on interpretation or presentation. In fact, both these emphases should be there, or the attempt has failed. I think there needs to be a variety of approaches to providing these emphases, but that without these emphases, good education is not happening.

I also think it's inappropriate to believe that the purpose of education is to know where to find facts. this is part of it, but there are some basics you need to know and remember, or else you are stopped every time you try to do something. For those in physics, for example, the basic ideas behing relativity, quantum mechanics, and Newton's three laws must be recalled without having to look it up, or you won't get anywhere. To give a more extreme example, looking up the sound every letter makes will make you unable to talk or to write. You have to MEMORIZE these things, and there must be an emphasis on parallel memorization or education will not progress. The student will be unable to do anything more advanced without being able to recall the more basic material on demand.

also, I don't like the approach of "do you have a valid answer" it is a very poor argumentation tactic. Just because I don't have an absolute answer (a requirement for which I have NOT argued anyway) does not mean that the solution is to turn around and vary everything.

[42]

I think my argument comes down to this. What SE and HoM are arguing was already tried. In education history, there was a lot of that emphasizing correct facts and answers happening in the early part of the twentieth century. It didn't work very well. That is a fact and I've already made a link to the Federal site with the stats for that.

It's not that the method didn't work at all, it just didn't work well enough for the goals of the US education system. So starting in the 1970's and continuing to today there has been a lot of experimentation in teaching theory. Now in order to experiment, a lot of assumptions have to be questioned. This means that a lot of absolutes have been made into variables. Holding on tenaciously to an absolute without questioning it, doesn't make for good research and almost always results in faulty results. And as Education is a social science, finding absolute control subjects to base experiments on is not something that can be readily found if found at all. So the current state of education has most everything relative, because they are still experimenting in hopes of finding something better.  Extensive absolutes may arise in the future, but for the time being there are only a few minor absolutes in teaching theory.

So HoM, you want to know why your views are wrong? Well, not all of your views are wrong, but historically some of your views are wrong. So unless you can present substantial evidence and data to say otherwise, I would have to conclude that your answer is insufficient.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I still think you are over-simplifying my point of view. I don't believe that completely disregarding facts is in anyway productive for education.

[42]

In teaching they don't disregard facts, they just require more than just learning facts.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

then you obviously aren't reading my posts. Because you keep grouping me with some theory that says I require only facts. Which is directly contrary to many things I've said.

[42]

No I'm grouping you with the theorist who wish to emphasize facts as opposed to a education theorist who wishes to emphasize creativity, analytical reasoning, speculation, discovery, social skills, organization, correlation, etc...

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

then you're still not reading my posts. Because I said in addition to. Repeatedly. It was, in fact, the main thrust of all I've said.

[42]

Then your not reading my post, I'm saying that teachers can still teach facts, but it need not be the primary emphasis in the teaching.

I can't really imagine teaching art where all you do is emphasize facts. Excluding art history, there is maybe three or four weeks worth of facts to teach, bring a student well into the college level. The majority of art teaching emphasizes problem solving, practice, experimentation, creativity, and philosophizing.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

see, there's the misunderstanding. Apparently, because I've disagreed with some statements made by "educators" on this thread you think I'm diametrically opposed to those same people. THat is NOT the case. Nothing I have said has indicated that.

What I disagree with is the ignoring of facts completely. There should be an emphasis (again, I'll have to say it explicitly to make sure everyone understands, AN emphasis, not THE emphasis) on having correct data to begin with.

What I did NOT do was say that anyone here, anyone at all, prohibited the teaching of facts in their theory. point to where I said that and I'll retract it, but I don't think that I have said it. Yet you seem to think that I have. The whole situation actually upholds my point: you're arguing about something that isn't the case. Which doesn't get anyone anywhere. If you had that fact correct, then there wouldn't be this disagreement and we'd move on.

So why am I bringing it up at all? Well, I'm still on the track of the opening statement. The original issue was that a book claimed that emphasizing "facts and correct answers" was a "red flag of ineffective teaching." Which, I contend, it is not. Emphasizing at the disproportionate expense of other concepts? Yes, that's ineffective. Insisiting that the facts and correct answers be there during other educating processes? That's hardly ineffective at all.

Surely you exaggerate when you say 3-4 weeks though. Maybe three to four weeks a school year, however. I can hardly imagine anyone learning all the pronounciations and meanings of the basic vocab, the fundamental laws of the sciences, the patterns for basic music, the ideas of art, the major ideas of philosophy, the general path of history, and the relationships of numbers (including how to do math on them) in less than a month. And yes, I do believe that those are the bare MINIMUMS needed to consider anyone educated. They MUST be able to do those things WITHOUT looking them up to be educated. There's more, obviously (but I apparently need to point it out because I am misinterpreted otherwise), but that is a requirement.

[42]

the patterns for basic music, the ideas of art, the major ideas of philosophy, the general path of history, and the relationships of numbers

So this is an interesting developement. If you are teaching any those items listed, you're not teaching facts, your teaching opinions and theories. Being able to understand and recite a theory is not the same learning process as learning a fact. Understanding a fact is either you do or you don't. Understanding an idea or theory has levels of gradation, some people understand the idea or theory better than others. Teaching more than facts and corrects answers requires the student to understand the nuances in the idea, how that idea correlates to other ideas, and several other thought processes.

[House of Mustard]

According to the National Center for Educational Statistics:

(All of the following come from results of tests of the National Assessment of Educational Progress.)

For reading proficiency:

There was no detectable difference in the scores for 17-year-olds in 1999 compared to 1971.

Significant gaps in performance continue to exist between racial/ethnic subgroups and between male and female students.

For writing:

Overall grade 11 writing performance declined between 1984 and 1996.

For math:

The average score of 17-year-olds declined between 1973 and 1982. After increasing between 1982 and 1992, scores have remained stable.

For science -- here's something impressive:

Science scores for 17-year-olds fell by 22 points between 1969 and 1982, and then increased between 1982 and 1992. On average, 17-year-olds in 1999 had higher science scores than their counterparts in 1990. However, the average science scores of 17-year-olds in 1999 remain 10 points lower than 1969.

I will certainly grant that I am omitting a few increases (although the vast majority of long-term increases were restricted to elementary and middle schools).  But I think these numbers illustrate my point--especially the science-related numbers.  (And get serious 42--why would you use art as an example of using facts in teaching?  I don't think anyone here will argue with you on that.)

[stacer]

So the current trend in teaching is to teach several modes learning. And guess what? It works. More students are successfully completing high school, attending college and having successful careers. The modernist method of teaching just created an elitist class and discriminated against minority students and students with special needs.

I haven't read the whole thread, but I wanted to point out that in the textbooks I work on, activities are geared for all levels--extra support, on-level, and extra challenge. Teaching aids also have English learning channels to teach. As far as making the textbooks, we're trying to make sure to support all levels of learning development.