Timewaster's Guide Archive
General => Rants and Stuff => Topic started by: House of Mustard on September 08, 2004, 11:40:42 AM
-
So, for those of you who don't already know, I'm beginning work on a Masters degree in education. Right now, I'm just starting -- taking the first education classes I've ever taken (my undergrad was in political science and history). Last night, while going through the assigned readings, I found this gem listed under the heading of "Red Flags of Ineffective Teaching:"
"[The teacher] Emphasizes facts and correct answers."
You know, people wonder why American kids can't find the United States on a map. I think this is the kind of educational nonsense that Bush was referring to when he said "We need to stomp out the soft bigotry of low expectations." (In his RNC speech.)
Anyway, if someone would like to explain this to me, go ahead, although I doubt I'll like the explanation. The class is tonight and I intend on bringing this up with the professor. I'll let you know what she says.
(The article, incidentally, is "Qualities of Effective Teachers" by James H. Stronge.)
-
After writing that, I was reminded of one of Jack Handey's Deep Thoughts:
Instead of having "answers" on a math test, they should just call them "impressions," and if you got a different "impression," so what, can't we all be brothers?
-
Yeah, that's about the gist of it I think. I mean, the capital of Virginia is Richmond. If you say it's something else, then you're wrong, no matter how touchy-feely you want to be about being wrong, you're wrong.
Anyway, this reminds of a joke. Is the capital of Kentucky pronounced "Loo-iss-ville" or "Loo-ee-ville," or even as many locals say it, "Louahvieh."
None of the above. It's "Frankfort"
-
Sorry - I do have an education degree and I'd have to say that if we got back to emphasizing facts and correct answers then we'd be taking a trip back to nineteenth century public schools, where the schoolmaster/marm reads from a grammar book aloud and the students repeat it back verbatim.
The key word in that phrase is "emphasizing." A teacher that emphasizes facts and correct answers tells the students what those facts and correct answers are and expects the students to memorize them. If memorization was the key to learning, then our educational system would look a whole lot different than it does.
Teachers can teach facts - it's not only acceptable but necessary. But what teachers try to focus on are concepts and learning - how to arrive at the facts - so that when a student is faced with a situation they haven't memorized the fact for, they can figure out how to find it on their own.
-
I agree with Kije, having onece been an education major. Memorization is a lower form of intelligence, sure it's necessary but there's a lot more to learning than memorization. In truth, being able to recall a fact doesn't say much about a person's intelligence or education level.
-
Kije got it right. You'll probably hear exactly what he said when you bring it up to your professor. Mostly, people are starting to realize that they grew up memorizing facts and such, and don't know any of the answers anymore (since they only memorized the stuff long enough to pass the tests). Plus, they are also realizing that they didn't enjoy school so why can't they change something (like how to teach) so that their kids can enjoy school?
Basically, the emphasis, though still including rote and memorization where absolutely necessary, is on teaching kids in a "fun" way so that they can enjoy school. And also finding ways to teach kids all that information without using rote (because, you know, memorizing is one of the hardest ways to learn something).
-
Sorry, but I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation. If it was talking about memorization, then it probably would have said memorization.
The fact of the matter (no pun intended -- har har har) is that correct answers are very important. How in the world would you teach math or chemistry or biology without emphasizing correct answers? I'm going to teach poli sci, which is open to a fair amount of personal interpretation -- there isn't necessarily one correct answer to the many political issues. But there are facts. I can't imagine trying to teach a government class without first understanding the basics of the constitution. You can debate the interpretation of the constitution--but not until you learn the facts of it.
Sure, it's important to teach kids how to come to the right conclusions -- teach research skills, and deductive reasoning--but you teach that so that they can come to the facts and correct answers. After all, there have to be standards: when you earn an A in English, you really ought to have a basic understanding of grammar--facts. When you get an A in algebra, you should actually know how to solve problems. When you get an A in US History, you should know the causes of the Civil War.
Yes, we should use other teaching methods than memorization, but those teaching methods, ultimately, should be used to obtain a knowledge of facts and correct answers.
Of course, that's my opinion.
-
Yes, we should use other teaching methods than memorization, but those teaching methods, ultimately, should be used to obtain a knowledge of facts and correct answers.
The point of teaching is to help people learn to solve problems and find solutions, not just to give the correct answer. Facts and correct answers change, even in math and the sciences. Grammar evolves, historians rewrite history regularly, and scienctific theories get proven wrong.
If all students do is learn facts and give correct answers, then learning is limited to what is already known.
Maybe because I was learning how to teach art, but I was taught that by saying there is a correct answer, you sifle creative reasoning. Creativity is what allows a society or an industry to progress. It's also what allows inidividuals to resolve problems.
Also, HoM, I think you need to start understanding that most of the "answer" you will be teaching in history or government will only have a minimal usefullness for most of your students. 90% of all learning during a persons lifetime is done outside of a classroom situation.
-
I can't imagine trying to teach a government class without first understanding the basics of the constitution. You can debate the interpretation of the constitution--but not until you learn the facts of it.
Again: emphasis. If you emphasize learning the facts of the Constitution, you get students who understand the facts of the Constitution, and whose understanding diminishes as a knowledge of exactly what Article II says becomes less and less necessary for them to get by in life. If you emphasize the interpretation, you get students who not only understand the Constitution, but how it is being applied in modern legal situations, which is something they are much more likely to encounter as functioning Americans. Yes, you have to learn the facts, but you shouldn't dwell on them (read: emphasize.)
when you earn an A in English, you really ought to have a basic understanding of grammar--facts.
When you earn an A in English, grammar is only the most basic of concepts. The real emphasis is on composition and reading comprehension and interpretation. Again, a base of facts (grammar) is necessary, but after the basic facts are learned you move on to more important things. The important things should be emphasized, not the basic facts.
When you get an A in algebra, you should actually know how to solve problems.
Math is obviously a very fact-based discipline. But "how to solve problems" is less an issue of basic facts as it is strategies and application of facts.
When you get an A in US History, you should know the causes of the Civil War.
People are still writing books on the causes of the Civil War (and WWI, and the Great Depression, etc.) Sure, there are basic facts, but history gets interesting when you dig deeper than the basic facts, when you uncover new facts, when you try and look at things in a new light. That's why people are still writing about the causes of the Civil War.
I wouldn't think of that statement as saying "facts and correct answers are not important." Perhaps a clearer way of saying it (and spelling out the implications) would be "after establishing the basic facts and 'correct answers,' effective teachers move beyond to higher levels of comprehsion and higher-order thinking skills."
Yes, we should use other teaching methods than memorization, but those teaching methods, ultimately, should be used to obtain a knowledge of facts and correct answers.
I have said that facts are important, but I would argue that a better ultimate purpose for education is to teach people how to learn, rather than a gathering of facts and correct answers. That way, the next generation expands on our knowledge rather than being confined to it.
-
Again: emphasis. If you emphasize learning the facts of the Constitution, you get students who understand the facts of the Constitution, and whose understanding diminishes as a knowledge of exactly what Article II says becomes less and less necessary for them to get by in life. If you emphasize the interpretation, you get students who not only understand the Constitution, but how it is being applied in modern legal situations, which is something they are much more likely to encounter as functioning Americans. Yes, you have to learn the facts, but you shouldn't dwell on them (read: emphasize.)
But that's the whole point: you can't emphasize the interpretation, because the interpretation is what changes. There are four major schools of thought in constitutional law, and who knows how many minor. What I see as more important is that the kids learn the facts, so that they can make the interpretation they agree with.
***Edit***
I had originally written out a response to each paragraph, but it didn't really get my point across. I guess this is what I really think: Educational theory changes from decade to decade, and I personally think that our current theory is faulty. I do not agree, and I doubt I'll ever agree, that facts, correct answers, and standards of achievement can be pushed aside in favor of "teaching students how to learn."
It's not that I believe that is a bad goal--I would love it if students emerged from high school knowing how to learn, and loving learning, but I don't see any statistics showing that it's working.
Thinking back on high school, the classes where I learned the most were the classes where the teacher had high expectations that he (or she) expected us to meet. They were the same teachers who knew their subjects inside and out.
On the other hand, the teachers who spent a lot of time on group projects, or 'alternative learning methods' did nothing for me. Generally, the alternative teaching styles were a wide open door, letting students slack off as much as they pleased. It was those teacher that you knew you could play -- you knew you could get around whatever requirements they set, and you did the least amount of work possible.
Of course, I know what you're going to say: if that's what was going on in those classes, then those teachers weren't doing it the right way. I'll certainly concede that. I've read enough education literature to know that they fell short in numerous areas. I'll I can say is this: I learned a lot in classes that expected a lot, and that actually taught me things, and I didn't learn much in the classes that didn't.
-
What I see as more important is that the kids learn the facts, so that they can make the interpretation they agree with.
I agree. But you'll also have to teach them the interpretation, because most students won't take those facts and use them on their own, and read up on Constitutional theory of their own free will. They'll forget them. So you teach the interpretation too, and that's when you take the facts and make them alive (sorry for the cheesy educational imagery) - when you get the students to move beyond the facts and integrate them with their own beliefs, experience, etc. I guess I just think that the facts are means to an end, and not ends themselves.
I remember fairly little of distinction when it comes to high school, and to be honest most of the facts I have long since forgotten as I have not used them since I learned them (e.g. most of the math, specifics about the books I read, names/dates/places from history, the rules of handball, etc.) I believe that school - especially high school - should excite the student about something. Help them to figure out what they enjoy and what they are good at. And focusing on facts doesn't achieve that as well as other means, in my opinion. Once a student knows what they want they will go get it themselves, and learning is so much easier when the students are motivated in this way. I think that a lot of high school students (maybe most, maybe all but a few) really know enough about what's out there and about who they are to know what they want. So school can expose them to a broad range of ideas and subjects and do it in interesting, engaging ways.
Now I do completely agree with you that the teacher that demands the most gets the most, and that often "touchy-feely" approaches haven't been high on demands. I believe that new approaches, open-ended instruction, and higher-level activities can and should be demanding and structured. High school students do need to be guided. It's much more difficult to provide demands and structure in such an environment, I believe, but it can be done.
I think that when the President reamrked about "the soft bigotry of low expectations" he was talking just about that - teachers who don't demand enough of their students.
-
My brother-in-law is fifteen and has just started high school. His English teacher is, in his words, a "hippie", meaning she emphasizes free thinking and interpretation rather than facts and basic information. He hates the class. The last time he went, all the students spent ten minutes contemplating a raisin and then writing their feelings about it. How does this help with English? He feels like he isn't learning anything and just writes the crap she wants to hear. He prefers the classes where he actually learns facts that he can apply and build on.
I've had teachers that went both ways, either emphasizing facts or interpretation. The ones who emphasized facts first and interpretation second were almost always the better teachers because they gave us a basis for our interpretation.
-
The fact of the matter (no pun intended -- har har har) is that correct answers are very important. How in the world would you teach math or chemistry or biology without emphasizing correct answers?
I have had many classes, especially math, where the right answer isnt considered the priority. Most of these classes are ones where you can't just give the answer, you have to show work. Some go so far that just showing work would get you more points than just giving the answers. I hate these kinds of classes. The teachers say that the reason they make you show work is that it is more important to know how to do any variation of the problem than to just get the right answer. I am a person who makes shortcuts for myself so that I can do a lot of problems in my head. This system doesnt allow students to do stuff like that though. Which is why I disagree with it, they arent going to care if you can show your work in the real world, especially not more than the answer you got. I agree that when an answer is wrong, it is wrong, and you shouldnt get points for just trying, or for showing your work. It says to the students, "ok well that is fine if you want to do things wrong, you will still get half credit.
It isnt consistent with real life, and I think that is why it is less effective.
-
Ok, I'm speaking as someone currently doing an Education degree at a rather progressive thinking university with up to date ideas. So I kinda have a clue what I'm talking about. So here is where I say: NO NO NO NO NO!
If you want to emphasise and teach facts, you are teaching in a modernist fasion. Modernism is based around rationality, science, efficiency and such; it promotes a single truth to the universe, a single correct truth and viewpoint of the world, excludes those who don't fit into this truth and rejects anything not logical, like God or art. In a modernist school, which is teacher centric, students are taught answers - the, single, correct answers, by rote. This is WRONG and STUPID.
Intepretation is a much better idea, but not the whole deal, just part of it.
We live in "New Times" or "Postmodernity". In our current worldview, all speaking points are viewed as equal, and there is no one correct truth - essentially, the modernist stance is rejected. Similarly, Informatiopn and Communication technologies have significantly changed access to information and such.
So here's a problem. You set a task, and the students easily plagerise by copying off the internet. Which is a better solution:
1) Use an essay verification engine to stamp out the plagerists.
2) Design the task differentlly, so that students can't plagerise.
Hold up, a task students can't plagerise? Simple, emphasise the skills and method. Work in teams (Since teamwork is a modern skill EVERY SINGLE PERSON will find useful when they want to get a job) and have them assign different group roles, journal their progress, and such. Give some marks for the final product, more marks for the journal and reflection. This is going to help people a lot more. Instead of just learning the facts they need to do the assignment, thewy are learning the skills they need to do the assignment, the ones that will actually be useful in later life. Essential, in fact.
It has been suggested a modernist teaching style is based on the three Rs: Reading, 'riting, 'rithmatic. In 1993, William E. Doll, Jr. suggested a matrix based on four Rs: Richness (Having an open curriculum with multple layers of meaning) Recursion (Reflection on previous and finished tasks.) Relation (Having tasks relate back to odler ones, and those in other classes so that they become more relevent) and Rigor (A curriculum that suggests alternative ideas and - you guessed it - intepretation)
Now, in this four R curriculum, you get constructivist rather than instructivist tasks which teach skills, ideas, knowledge and such, things that are a lot more useful than facts. Especially since in New Times, there are no facts. When every viewpoint is equal, (which it is) and science disproves itself regularly (How many studies are conducted with coporate interets in mind? like those ones that proved smoking wasn't harmful or such)
By just teaching facts you're not so much a bad teacher, as one several decades out of date.
-
But students need facts as a basis. How can they make any interpretations if they have nothing to interpret?
-
Simple, emphasise the skills and method. Work in teams (Since teamwork is a modern skill EVERY SINGLE PERSON will find useful when they want to get a job) and have them assign different group roles, journal their progress, and such. Give some marks for the final product, more marks for the journal and reflection.
Methods such as this are precisely what I dislike. This is why people cant actually write a paper, but they can tell you how they tried to write a paper. The product is what is important. All of the steps that the school thinks you should take are not. Journaling progress is superfluous. We have had papers that we had to write like that, and most of the people I know wrote the paper first and then went back and did all of the other steps of the "writing process", like brainstorm sheets and pre writing sheets, afterward. This is just additional frills, they dont really matter and yet they are emphasized more than the work itself. If a person can write a clean, concise, and effective paper, then I really dont see why how they do it matters.
-
students are taught answers - the, single, correct answers, by rote. This is WRONG and STUPID.
Intepretation is a much better idea, but not the whole deal, just part of it.
Well, the problem in teaching interpretation is that in the sciences, in which I include mathematics, as they are a science, there IS a right answer, and there IS a wrong answer, and the IS a way to prove it. It isn't like literature, art, history, you know, subjects that can be seen from different viewpoints.
Because of this sure thing answer, finding the answer must be stressed. In the sciences, memorizing answers isn't a good way to teach someone something, but interpretation doesn't make a lot of sense. The trick is to teach them (the students) formulas with which you find the answer, and give them different types of problems that use the same formula or concept to find the answer. Then having the formula right, and therefor getting the correct answer, would be how to idealy teach the sciences.
So interpretation in the sciences is really not possible when it comes to facts and figures, since all the facts of science can be proven, and therefor there is nothing to interpret. You either did it wrong or not. Interpretation is really a tool for the arts.
MOD: Hey Archon, get on AIM before I taunt you.
-
I think we should just weed out the stupid people.
-
;D.
-
That would be ideal Fuzzy, especially as you would not only wipe out a good deal of (at our school at least) the student body, but also many of the same teachers that use the teaching methods that pander to stupid people (once again I am referring to our school).
-
How is it that you all managed to just MISS MY POINT ENTIRELY?
Archon - the product is important in the real world. But in shcool, where students are able to plagerise and live in a culture where this is accepted, it is not realistic. What is truly important isn't having a finished paper, but knowing HOW to write a succeful paper. This is a radical shift from modernist values, which so many schools still embrace. Thing is, most subjects are teaching facts of little value, when they should be teaching skills.
The fact that you go back and do what you see as "frills" last, means you have entirely missed the point of the exercise.
Gorgan - Science proves to us that their are gravity waves. Two years later, science proves that their are no gravity waves. Three years later, science proves to us their are gravity waves. This is an actual occurence of what the media disseminated based on scientific research. What actually happened was that based on which sicentist had the highest job and mpst coporate backing, his PERSONAL opinion on the gravity wavres issue was disemminated.
So I ask you: Are their gravity waves? What is the value of teaching a single right answer when it changes so readily, and there isn't actually a correct answer?
More importantly, which do you think will be of more use to more people when it comes to getting a job: knowing the atomic mass of Hydrogen, or knowing how to work in a team?
Now, exposure to science is useful, else people wouldn't know if they wanted to work in the field. Equally, some science knowledge is very useful, like knowing lighting a match in a gas leak is a crap idea. I'm not saying at all that facts don't need to be taght. Facts do need to be taught, just they need to be not central or emphasised.
Oh, here's the real kicker: The entire notion of having a seperate "Science" class and "literature" class is a modernist notion completely ignoring the ideas of Relation and Rigor.
(No I don't suggestw e combien the two classes - I'm saying you need to think outside the box of "This is what you learn in science and this in literature - a postmdoernist stance requires using the subjects as factual backgrounds for teaching skills.)
-
Archon - the product is important in the real world. But in shcool, where students are able to plagerise and live in a culture where this is accepted, it is not realistic. What is truly important isn't having a finished paper, but knowing HOW to write a succeful paper. This is a radical shift from modernist values, which so many schools still embrace. Thing is, most subjects are teaching facts of little value, when they should be teaching skills.
The fact that you go back and do what you see as "frills" last, means you have entirely missed the point of the exercise.
You say that it is unrealistic that people are going to write their own paper. It is impossible to keep people from cheating absolutely. Unless you watch every person every minute, they can get around your rules.
You say that it isnt important to have a finished paper, but to know how to write a paper. I say that the only way that you can guarantee that a person knows how to write a paper is to have them write one. If they write a satisfactory paper then why should they have to go through the motions that the teacher decides? I think that if the student proves that they have the skill then that should be all they are required to do.
You say that I missed the point of the exercise, I say that I saw it but dismissed it as being insignificant.
-
Apart from the obvious being that their is no way to ensure they did in fact write and not steal it, I was using a paper because you rose a specific example. A paper is not generalyl the best task anyway. I'll tell you a good task? A presentation. So is a project with multple parts.
I'm studying the disciplines of English and Computing. For English, a paper is a very appropriate assignment type, of course, but not the only form. An oral presentation would also be a good idea, as would some sort of listening task where you have to relate the book/film bein studied to a comment on it read in class. But even writing a paper, in this case, the best task would involve some sort of extrapolation of information and such.
In computers, though, the paper is completely inappropriate. A good task would be something like such:
In a group, design a website for (X reason). Your group should document the design process, research appropriate webdeisgn techniques, etc. On the due date, present the website to your class, and explain the deisgn process.
So what skills are learnt? Teamwork, webdeisgn, HTML, presentation and public speaking etc. A more traditional, "Deisgn a Webpage" task would teach Some HTML and some webdeisgn that was inferred, but typically no research would be done.
The fact that teaching a number of relevent skills in addition to the basics of HTML for the task is better is self evident.
-
I disagree with that for a couple reasons. First, I believe that if you turn out a quality product then you know what you are doing well enough that you should not be required to explain the steps you took. Secondly, a task that is that multisided is going to take much more time than a simpler project focusing on one subject. Since it is a computer class I think that it would be appropriate to learn the most you can about computers. If a student would like to learn about public speaking and presentation then they should take a speech class. Having taken that class, they can easily connect it to other subjects that they know well when it comes to the real world. Yes your task would incorporate all of those skills, but the students' attention would be drawn away from the primary material by the extra material that you decided to add in. It would be more effective to teach the different skills at separate times so that the students attention is focused on what is really important, not divided between several different things.
-
yway
So I ask you: Are their gravity waves? What is the value of teaching a single right answer when it changes so readily, and there isn't actually a correct answer?
I got this far before wanting to comment, and didn't finish reading your comment, so if I missed something in my rush I'm sorry.
No, but gravity waves were a theory, which is part of science. In laws there is a single right answer, and there are formulas used to prove such, and these formulas are the concepts that need to be tought, and these concepts are applicable in the real world should you land a job in the scientific area.
As for the atomic mass of whatever you asked for, in high school that is very rarely required to be memorized, so all you need it for is plugging into formulas. And if you are memorizing it for college, more than likely you are concidering a job in science, in which case it is important.
I'm not trying to say that learning teamwork isn't important, and learning teamwork can be done while still stressing that in the area of science answers are important. If answers weren't important enough to base a grade around then it wouildn't BE science, it would be philosophy. Science is science because you can prove what is right and everything you CAN'T prove is wrong.
Teamwork can be tought whether you focus on getting things right or focus on interpretation, but focusing on interpretation is something that can be succesfully done in the arts, but not in the sciences.
-
JP,
I have to er... respectfully disagree with your relativistic viewpoint.
Just because some understood facts are misperceived does NOT mean that any viwepoint is true. The premise of that argument has, and always will be absolutely absurd, more worth of Becket than and educator.
You used gravity waves as an example. Let's make it more basic. I don't care if it's waves or not, but there is SOME force that exists that makes two objects get closer. we think it's a pull, but I'll readily concede it may be some kind of push. ie, GRAVITY is a fact. There IS gravity. And your viewpoint is completely irrelevant. There ARE facts. There are facts that apply to everyone. So let's get away from that. As you can tell, relativism really bugs me and I think it is at once the most dishonest and dangerous pseudo-intellectual idea that exists in the acadamy and it alarms me that bright young people like yourself readily accept it.
I don't want to quibble, but this whole discussion seems to really hang on one word: "emphasize." To that end, I feel compelled to point out to both sides that this word in no way excludes emphasizing other methods as well. There can be multiple emphases in one curriculum or even one lesson, or, for that matter, even one exercise.
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.
-
You used gravity waves as an example. Let's make it more basic. I don't care if it's waves or not, but there is SOME force that exists that makes two objects get closer. we think it's a pull, but I'll readily concede it may be some kind of push. ie, GRAVITY is a fact. There IS gravity. And your viewpoint is completely irrelevant. There ARE facts.
`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
-
Well, at least someone whose disagreeing with me hassn't completly missed my point yewt agin. Thankyou SE. I think I do agree with the way you've actually put that into words.
Facts are important in the sense that you need facts to back anything up etc. However, the idea of a school being a place to learn facts is outdated. In the modern era, you can find any fact you want readily through various information sources - internet, library, CD-ROM, Journals etc. 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. But in the end, it's not aboput memorising all the facts, its about learning how to work with them. Again, it's about skills.
Now, if someone presents poor facts excellently, they don't desevre a good mark, because finding the facts is part of the skills necessary. Someone presenting good facts poorly also should receieve a poor mark for te same reason.
Dangerous and Dishonest? You'll need to explain that sometime, sicne I'm not even quite sure what relativism IS.
-
Relativists believe that nothing is certain. We might not really be here, life may be an illusion. Some say that life is just a dream, or that the whole world is just a trick of our brain. Maybe we arent really here, we just think we are. That is a really brief and rough summary of it but you get the idea. SE is trying to say that there are some things that are certain, there are some things that we can prove, whereas relativists would argue that we cant prove anything because we cant trust that our senses are reliable.
-
To both sides of the arguement here; you are both very sure of your points. And you're both making good points. However, it is often those who are prepared to move outside what they see as right, and to not be so totally sure of themselves, that make the best teachers in my experience.
Just a point to keep in mind.
-
So I see what some people on the board are saying about how they liked the teachers who emphasised learning facts and right answers.
However, I think you are being to self-centered. One of things that was pointed out ot me when I was in the education program, is that people who want to teach, or even those who are in college, do NOT represent the majority of students. A large majority of high school students do not get to attend college. Most of the students who do attend college never study education.
So why is this? Because every student learns differently. As a public school teacher, you do not get to choose who you teach. You are required, legally, to teach every student in your class whether they are a child prodigy or a mental vegetable.
Oh, and don't count on standerized testing to seperate people. Current legislation is trying to get rid of tracks, remedial and honor programs. And there is good reason for it. Honor programs and remedial programs promote stereotypes, elitism, and discrimination in schools. For something that is meant to help people, they, more often than not, favor a few and punish many.
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.
-
not that I dont belive you,... but do you have any stats on that?... you know for gaming purposes ;D.
-
Got to: http://nces.ed.gov
http://nces.ed.gov//programs/coe/highlights/h3.asp
I would like to point out that, it seems that this thread is composed of education professionals (kije, tekial) arguing against a non-professional, uneducated heathens (everyone else). Education is a huge discipline in its own right. It's kind of like saying you been to a doctors office so you are now qualified to be a doctor.
-
Archon, actually what you're describing is known in philosophical circles as Skepticism. It also has an ancient Greek origin. The modern concept of relativism is that anyone's perspective is different, and therefore everyone's world is different, and therefore (in extreme cases) whatever anyone believes is right for them, and even if something is right for YOU, it doesn't change things for them. This concept is less abhorrent in morals and ethics (though I still think it's wrong and it still bothers me) but when it starts creeping into other areas, it gets veritably frightening.
Makes sure you don't confuse relatvism with relativity. While relativism states that everything is different for each person, relativity states that everything is the same. (ie, every person will see light traveling at the same velocity, no matter what their position or own velocity, and that all laws of physics behave the same in all perspectives in uniform motion).
42, that last post is incredibly insulting, and I will lock threads where you continue to imply that your particular background means that the comments made by other people are worthless. Yes, you may have made more classes on the subject, but that does NOT invalidate comments made by other people. I'm not going to go into a long rant about problems with your metaphor, but it's not giving a clear picture. If you want to feel that your understanding disqualifies anyone else from giving input that's fine, but then keep it to yourself.
-
It's kind of like saying you been to a doctors office so you are now qualified to be a doctor.
It makes you wonder, though, if the education programs (the programs that educate educators) are so far removed from reality that they can't see the forest for the trees. In this particular example (the facts and correct answers thing), everyone who has been through education programs agrees with the statement (to some degree) and everyone else seems to disagree. I've discussed this with everyone I work with -- from MBAs and CPAs to blue-collar forklift drivers -- and all of them find the notion simply absurd. Could it be that this current round of educational theory has crossed the line out of the realm of common sense? Obviously, educational ideas twenty years ago were different from what they are today, and some ideas (the stuff JP is learning) are different still. If educational theory is so unstable, then why are its proponents so loyally devoted?
So anyway, here's what my professor said yesterday -- which was a surprisingly pleasant happy-medium (not as liberal as Kije, Teikel, or 42's ideas; not as bizarre as JP's; and not as conservative as mine): Basically, she said that facts are essential, and need to be learned, but they are the end-all of the education system. The end-all, is knowing how to utilize those facts. She gave two examples:
1) You're in an high-level trigonometry class, and you're solving a huge problem. If you do everything right--showing a knowledge of the overall concept--but screw up and miss a minus sign, then the answer would be wrong. Still, the error was tiny, and not related to your knowledge of either arithmatic or trigonometry. It was just a human error. In that situation, you should not be horribly penalized for not reaching the 'correct answer'.
2) You're studying international relations, and debating whether the United States should have entered a war. Ultimately, the debate is the most important thing -- it's the most relevant part of the exercise, and school should be teaching you how to think through these types of things. But you can't think it through if you don't know the historical precedents of American foreign policy: the Monroe Doctrine; Woodrow Wilson's 14 points; etc. Yes, the discussion is the most important part, but it can't be responsibly discussed without first knowing the facts.
So, like SE mentioned, the problem comes in the word 'emphasize'. Yes, facts and correct answers should be learned, but only to allow you apply that knowledge in creative and critical-thinking ways.
Admittedly, this is what Kije said in his first post. It was only once we began discussing it more in depth that the more liberal ideas emerged from the group.
-
42, that last post is incredibly insulting, and I will lock threads where you continue to imply that your particular background means that the comments made by other people are worthless.
Sorry SE, but I've get really frustrated in discussion like this, because I can't go back an give everyone in the discussion the same experiences that I've had. My expereinces, from being on the other end of the education system have led me to very different conclusions from what I had at the student end of the system. It's something I just can't condense into a few paragraphs.
I think contemporary theories in education get defended so intensely, is because they have to be defended intensely to be given a chance. Any change in an education policy or method is almost always countered with a large opposition from the community. It's frustrating to education professionals who've spent years gathering data and going over test-cases to have it written off by a few conservative parents who can't adapt to change. I guess I just wish that there was some trust placed in the r&d end of the education field.
-
But look at what the trained educators have said in this thread: that truth is relative; that facts change; that there are no solid answers.
It makes me wonder how we're supposed to believe educational theorists -- people that claim they have the answer to the problems of teaching. Is education the only field in which there are solid answers? Why are these various teaching methods the 'right' way to do things, if we've rejected the idea that there is a 'right way'?
-
It's kind of like art, what's right is whatever is right at the time. Course, to be fair to the education field, they are looking for absolutes, they're just not sure if they've found them yet. Every child, parent, school and community is diferent so finding an absolute that works for all of them is going to take decades of work, maybe longer.
-
but that's HoM's point, I think. How can they look for absolutes if there are no absolutes? If there is an absolute, then teaching that there are no absolutes is not only wrong, but it's deliberately and intentionally misleading.
which, if you're paying attention, is thing number 1 wrong with relativism in general. If everything is relative, than I can certainly believe that it's not. If everything I (and everyone else) believe is true, than relativism itself isn't true, because I believe it's not. It's proven itself out of existence.
-
Saying that there are no absolutes is simply a functional model for the moment. Education specialists hope to find absolutes, but so far they haven't been able to rule out very many variables. Well, they have ruled out that failure is not an option. What frustrates me about adhering to an absolute theory of education is that it usually resigns itself to saying that some children can't be taught.
-
Education specialists hope to find absolutes
So, like SE and I are saying, educators and educational researchers must believe in absolutes. How then are they able to promote teaching styles that shun absolutes? It's self-righteously hypocritical at best.
What frustrates me about adhering to an absolute theory of education is that it usually resigns itself to saying that some children can't be taught.
What frustrates me about non-absolute theories is that they can hide behind uncertainty and flavor-of-the-month teaching styles rather than actually teach.
-
But look at what the trained educators have said in this thread: that truth is relative; that facts change; that there are no solid answers.
I never said that, nor implied it.
-
HoM or SE do you have any absolutes, that will work for every child, in every situation, every time?
You've mentioned emphasizing facts and correct answers. That teaching style will be effective for maybe 40% of the class, maybe 70% if they are an honors class. The rest of the students are simply being put at a disadvantage.
That's why there are so many teaching styles and the most successful teachers use several of them in their teaching. Sure one lesson may alienate a segment of the class, but if you change teaching styles the next lesson you can include them, then again to get the group the previous style alienated. In the big picture, you hopefully get them all.
Also, some teaching styles just don't work for some teachers or for some subjects. Getting all 6.2 million teachers in the US to use the same teaching style is just not feasible.
-
True Kije, and I apologize for putting words in your mouth. If you noticed, I mentioned that my professors comments were very in-line with your posts. (Though that doesn't mean I agree with either of you.) :)
-
So, like SE and I are saying, educators and educational researchers must believe in absolutes. How then are they able to promote teaching styles that shun absolutes? It's self-righteously hypocritical at best.
Believing in absolutes doesn't mean that there are actually any. Like I said, education professors aren't sure there are any absolues, they haven't been found yet. And educators don't have the luxery to stop teaching until they find those absolutes in teaching.
-
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. :)
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
In teaching they don't disregard facts, they just require more than just learning facts.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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.
-
actually, no.
I'm not saying that (as far as the "correct answer" or "fact" part of it goes) the student has to defend or apply the theories. But they should at least know that these theories exist. Knowing that existentialism was a school of thought that dealt more with responsibility of being here more than the causal action that brought us into existence is a fact. Being able to attack or defend it's ideas and impact more thoroughly than that is theory and development. Yes, I think they should do that too, if they're engaged in any sort of philosophical work (including much literary and artistic theory) but knowing the very basics of what existentialism is, that's correct answer territory. While I balk at it, I feel I should also include that it would be good to know names and dates to go with this. It's important to know if Jean Paul Satre was an existentialist or not (a fact), and if he was, how did the events and people of his time impact his existentialist ideas (not a fact, but to do so you have to know facts like when he was working out his philosophy, what other people were around, what those people were doing, what were the major historical events of the time). I agree that most of that can be done by research (knowing how to find the data rather then memorizing it) but if you're a philosopher, you're wasting lots of time by not remembering it without looking it up. You should memorize the FACTS of his era and so forth to be able to conduct intelligent discourse on the matter
-
All right, 42, that's twice now on this thread where it's been suggested that history is not fact. Frankly, you're wrong wrong wrong, and it's making me mad. History is fact. Sloppy history is not. Most high school history textbooks are NOT fact (which only leads to more education reform issues). But, the fact of the matter (har har har) is that if you actually are responsible with your history research, you're looking at primary sources.
Yes, there are conflicts in history -- the debate of social issues, and the controversy over causations. But the facts are rarely called into question -- it's the interpretation that is debated.
(Incidentally, this insistence that several people have had here--that of teaching interpretation--leads to all kinds of potential conflicts: particularly the threat of indoctrinating kids with the 'interpretation' of the teacher's own political views.)
-
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.
Becasue administrators learn how to teach emphasizing facts and then expect all teachers to use the same teaching method, regardless of the subject. When they encounter a subject that can't comply, they punitively ignore that subject and neglect it's importance. This results in school policies that punish subjects that require different learning skills or teaching methods, or they just cut the subject out the school sysytem entirely.
Art Educators (at least at BYU) are taught to violently defend the arts in school even if it means beating down other subjects like english, math, science or history. They're tired of playing second fiddle and are willing to take drastic means to get noticed. I'm not joking. There are legislative movements, fund-raisings, protest gatherings, ad campaigns, national organizations, and a few violent incidents in places like New York and L.A.
And some future teachers I met while in the secondary education program were flakier than any art, drama or music teacher. Particularly, some english and history teachers who made no effort what so ever to justify anything they taught. (I'm sorry, but people who say that reading Pride and Prejudice gives you an understanding of psychology are just idiots, particularly when they haven't actually studied any psychology.)
-
Maybe one thing that hasn't struck you is that you can give a student a term with a definition. That student can then repeat the term to you with the defintion. However, in doing so that student does not demonstrate that they understand how to use that term. Just look how often people use words incorrectly, or even more often, inappropriately.
And not all history is fact. Sure there are a lot of undisputed facts, but there are also a lot of opinions in history. And there are plenty of nuts out there to questoin the undisputed facts. In the mere presentation of facts you present opinions. And facts get called into question all the time, particularly when the primary source is faulty or missing.
-
What I'm saying, 42, is that you're not making a point that anyone in this particular debate will argue. Yes, we're all aware of the second-rate status given to art and music and drama, and boo hoo. But, if you're going to argue, then argue the issue, not some other straw-man issue that no one disagrees about.
-
As I see it, if all you want to do is to teach facts, then you are teaching trivia and little else.
-
but who's actually arguing that? Is anyone here arguing that the only thing education should do is teach facts? I don't see that anywhere.
-
Right SE. I'm not arguing that at all. I'm arguing simply that facts come first, and interpretation comes second. Without a factual base, interpretation and application is meaningless.
Yes, critical thinking and deductive reasoning should be the ultimate goal, but facts, evidence and correct answers have to be emphasized before you can get to that point.
It's like my earlier example of constitutional law. There are many versions of constitutional interpretation, and all lawyers, judges, and justices have their own opinion on consitutional interpretation. But if you only teach the interpretations, without teaching The Constitution first, then none of those interpretations will be valid in the least. A student can't say "I believe that the constitution favors x", until they actually read and study the thing.
If we are neglecting facts and correct answers, then we'll raise a generation of students that may know how to work as a team, or know how to give their opinions, but not have any solid foundation for anything they do.
-
If you choose to EMPHASIZE facts and correct answers, then teaching other skills like adapatation, or analysis almost always suffer.
Here's an example, in history even. At BYU I had an Ancient Art History class. The teacher did not teach a single date in the class. She didn't even teach the names of the art works to be covered. The names and dates of the art works were all given beforehand and expected to be known by each student before coming to class. So each student had to learn the facts on their own. During class the instructor went over various theories and opinions about the different civilizations and art works. The test were all essay, but required students to name artworks with the name of the artist, the date is was created, the culture is belong to, and the site where it was found. The instructor was not directly teaching any of the facts nor emphasizing the facts. She simply expected the students to learn them on their own time and they did.
Okay, so this example may not hold up very well in high school where most of the students are too apathetic to put forth the effort to educate themselves like that, but it does show it is possible to teach history without emphasizing facts.
-
that's twice now on this thread where it's been suggested that history is not fact. Frankly, you're wrong wrong wrong, and it's making me mad.
Ok, there is no need to get mad at someone just because he doesn't agree with you, after all this is a subject hotly debated by a lot of really bright people.
Speaking as a history major, history is not always a fact, but facts are important to study of history. Interpretation of facts or deciding which fact to emphasize over others changes how people understand events.
Example
During the end of WWI and into the early 1920's there was a general strike in West Virginia, Miners mistreated by mining concerns decided to strike for better working conditions. Things escalated very quickly especially when veterans returned from the war and soon fighting broke out on both sides complete with large scale use of maxim machine guns and rifles. Eventually the US government was called in to quell the strike (which it did, very bloodily)
What is taught in school about that time period.
After world war I society in the United States became decadent and large organized crime syndicates sprung up with the creation of prohibition.This whole world came crashing down when the stock market collapsed.
Both things are true, and both of them are facts but one of them is seen as more important and therefore taught to students, while the other is largely ignored.
Im not sure which is more important either, I think that society in general was dissatisfied at that time, looking for answers and better things in life. Its easier to describe that malaise to kids as a kind of hedonistic attitude, but many different subsets of society experienced it in different ways. Still flappers and speakeasies are more recognizable for kids thanks to the influence of broadcast and print media (the Untouchables, the Great Gatsby etc) and they require much less political discussion than the socialistic views of miners fighting for their rights in the hill country.
But the important thing is that someone made that choice, and thats what is meant when people say history is about interpreting facts, and not the facts themselves. Because honestly there are just too many facts to make sense of when your talking about the past. At some point you have to stop and say "what does this mean?"
I am not saying that knowing facts in history isn't important mind you just that the primary job of a historian is to put the facts together decide what is more of value. You only have to go to a high school history class for ten minutes to see the effect of drilling facts and dates into kids heads without any explanation. Its the reason so many people dont care about history at all.
Ideally a good historian should be like a good journalist, totally without bias
Realistically we can hope to have a lot of different history teachers with a lot of different ideas about the past, so we can formulate our own understanding of the past.
Incidentally, this insistence that several people have had here--that of teaching interpretation--leads to all kinds of potential conflicts: particularly the threat of indoctrinating kids with the 'interpretation' of the teacher's own political views.
And that is somehow different than indoctrinating them with the views of the writer of a text book or some school executives views. Honestly, their views are more likely to be shaped by their families contact with the real world and their environment than any single teacher that they have for a year. At least letting a teacher work his mojo opens up kids eyes that recorded fact may be just the tip of the iceberg and that they want to learn a little more about something. Which I think would be positive for everyone.
-
so, 42, you were graded on knowing facts? Yup. I'm sorry, but that's an emphasis. Maybe the teacher isn't iterating them in class, but she has made it clear they're important and she expects you to learn them.
-
Teaching is what you do during class time. Grading and assessment is a completely seperate activity. Gradding and assessment has it's own theories and is it's seperate field of study.
I'm sorry, but if you think handing a student a textbook and then testing them on what they've gleaned out of it is teaching, you're both ignorant and offensive.
In many schools the tests are written and graded by an assistant who decides on their own what the class should be getting out of the lessons taught by the teacher and how to evaluate that. In some ways it is a lot more efficient and more accurate to have the teaching and assessment activities done by seperate people.
-
42:
The names and dates of the art works were all given beforehand and expected to be known by each student before coming to class. So each student had to learn the facts on their own.
Let me quote from another "Red Flag of Ineffective Teaching." '[The teacher] Tells students to "know the material"'
Jeffe:
The problem with your arguement there, Jeffe, is that both of the examples are undisputed fact. Both of them happened. The choice between telling two facts is not at issue. I really can't see how that example relates at all. (And I'm not just trying to be difficult.)
the primary job of a historian is to put the facts together decide what is more of value.
Whether or not you have time to explain every event in world history, that doesn't change the facts. The facts happened.
Yes, the debate about which facts are more important is an important debate (that's a weird sentence), but you can't make that debate until you KNOW THE FACTS. That's my whole point. You can't argue about interpretation or misinterpretation until you know the evidence.
-
I'm sorry, but if you think handing a student a textbook and then testing them on what they've gleaned out of it is teaching, you're both ignorant and offensive.
Has anyone said that mindless teaching from textbooks is what we want? On the contrary, I've been arguing for use of primary sources.
-
Teaching is what you do during class time. Grading and assessment is a completely seperate activity. Gradding and assessment has it's own theories and is it's seperate field of study.
I'm sorry, but if you think handing a student a textbook and then testing them on what they've gleaned out of it is teaching, you're both ignorant and offensive.
if what your teacher did is not "teaching" then, you had a poor example. Your teacher did NOT evaluate what the students knew ahead of time. Part of teaching is making sure the students have the tools to do the rest of the work. If that teacher is doing hte evaluation as well (which in your example, she did) then she also has the responsibility of teaching that information. So, is it a teaching method or not? I'm not commenting on whether you were taught effectively or not, but I do think the teacher expected you to gain that information during the course of her teaching, which, to me, means it was part of the education process. I'm sure you'll pick nits with the difference between "educating" and "teaching" though.
I don't see that teaching is only what happens in the classroom environment. Any interation between the students and the teacher, even vicariously, it teaching if the object is to make you more educated. Part of teaching is giving assignments that help the student learn as well. That teacher gave you that assignment as part of her teaching plan. I don't understand how that's not part of teaching? And if that means i'm "Ignorant and offensive" than enlighten me. Because I think you've made a HUGE jump in logic that no one here can be expected to follow if assigned tasks that are meant to achieve one of the purposes of the class are not part of teaching.
-
I mentioned that this teachers method wasn't the most effective, but it does illustrate how to teach without emphasizing facts. Oh, and a student could have passed the class without knowing any of the dates or other facts. They would probably pass with a C or D, but passing none-the-less.
Yes, asking students to "know the material" as a sign of ineffective teaching is not something I agree with as much.
I can see why they say it because to many teachers use that line as an excuse to not teach. It also discriminates against students in the class who have learning disabilities. However, it also removes some of the responsibility from the students. COurse with current educational policies, it's never the students fault.
My only solution would be to present different methods for learning the material without using up excessive amounts of class time so there is is still time to learn theory and application.
-
I mentioned that this teachers method wasn't the most effective, but it does illustrate how to teach without emphasizing facts. Oh, and a student could have passed the class without knowing any of the dates or other facts. They would probably pass with a C or D, but passing none-the-less.
Then it appears to be a teaching method we don't want to use, and it doesn't say anything about my argument that facts are needed. I didn't disagree that other teaching ideas existed, just that to have educated students at the end of the process, facts were an important part.
-
I would just like to say that I'm very much enjoying this discussion. It's been a long time since we had something interesting to talk about here.
-
don't see that teaching is only what happens in the classroom environment. Any interation between the students and the teacher, even vicariously, it teaching if the object is to make you more educated. Part of teaching is giving assignments that help the student learn as well. That teacher gave you that assignment as part of her teaching plan. I don't understand how that's not part of teaching? And if that means i'm "Ignorant and offensive" than enlighten me. Because I think you've made a HUGE jump in logic that no one here can be expected to follow if assigned tasks that are meant to achieve one of the purposes of the class are not part of teaching.
Giving a student an assignment, is refered to as allowing the student to engage in the process of self-teaching or discovery. Conteporary teaching conciders it crucial that students learn to teach themselves. Including an assignment as part of your lesson plan is indirect teaching. Direct teaching is where the teacher is physically interacting with the student via lecture, discussion, activity, etc... When you write a lesson plan it's very important that the teacher is aware of how much direct teaching and an indirect teaching is occurring. Anything you wish to emphasize should always occur during direct teaching time.
So there's some more teaching theory for you people to chew on.
-
i'm sure this brands me as ignorant again, but isn't "indirect" just a modifier of "teaching" which is still the activity that's being done?
-
allowing the student to engage in the process of self-teaching or discovery
You don't "let" people teach themselves. If they want to teach themselves then they are already doing it, and if they don't want to teach themselves you are making them teach themselves. That just seemed like it should be pointed out.
Including an assignment as part of your lesson plan is indirect teaching. Direct teaching is where the teacher is physically interacting with the student via lecture, discussion, activity, etc...
You never SAID that assignments weren't DIRECT teaching, you said it wasn't teaching. And since the educator is having the students do this learning, it is still teaching. I have homework every night, and when I learn something I wouldn't have, it means that the class tought it to me. Otherwise I would never have learned it. So when I get homework for a class and learn something from it, I learned it because of the teacher who runs the class. That means he IS teaching me, whether or not he is there to do it in person.
And assignments are often reinforcement, as well, they aren't always indirect teaching.
Anything you wish to emphasize should always occur during direct teaching time.
So the teacher you used as an example was apparently a HORRIBLE educator, seeing as they had 25-40% of the class based on the facts they had their students learn outside of the class. I would concider that an emphasis, I don't know about you.
-
That teacher was a horrible teacher to many of the students in the class. Her teaching method wasn't very effective for percentage of the class, even for a college class which are usually more homogenious than public school classes. Course, for another portion of the class she was an excellent teacher.
When you have a class that focuses a lot on indirect teaching and then you have a student who fails your class or fails the standardize test that is suppose to measure what they learned in your class, there is a reaction. If the student, or more likely their parents, is upset and contests the grade or score, the response you are most likely to get as they bring you before the School board or before their lawyer IS "but you didn't teach me anything."
So indirect teaching via assignments and stuff, is teaching in one sense and not teaching in another sense. It's a complex thought where it's veracity is based on variables.
It kind of comes back to many of the main arguments on the is thread. If you want absolute truths in teaching you will be dissappointed in a how few there are. You just don't get to ignore the variables and there are a lot of variables.
-
Well, this was also an educator of the arts, which is one of the fields that interpretation can be stressed as much, if not more than, facts (although in NO field can interpretation be the only thing tought). That is also important, because in the sciences you would never be able to get away with teaching interpretation like that.
Otherwise, yeah, I guess SOMETIMES indirect teaching could be concidered less of the educator teaching and more of the student learning (if that makes any sense), but your example wasn't one of them, I don't think.
-
but you didn't teach me anything
Would you support that argument?
-
It would depend on the other variables. If it were an independent study class, I would completely blow off the student. However, in a class environment, the teacher better be able to support that he or she did a lot more than just hand out assignments and expect the students to learn facts, interpretation and other stuff on their own. There are very few school boards that would be supportive of a teacher that just teaches indirectly in a classroom environment.
So I guess, overall, I would be inclined to agree with the argument until proven otherwise.
-
I have to say it's the teachers poor teaching. Part of teaching is, at least DECIDING what to assign. In such a case, I think that poor decisions were made about what to teach, which means ineffective teaching is going on.