I apologize if I begin to sound like a crotchety old man in these posts, but I am having trouble getting very much of this information through my overly cynical mental filters.
Warlick
First off, I appreciate David Warlick's dedication to improving education through the integration of technology over the last three decades; it is to be commended. That said, even though he is only giving an informal synopsis of his longer talk, I cannot imagine increasing the length would make it anymore comprehensible. The talk seems to be a bag of poorly conceived ideas, unconstrained by the strictures of reality, thrown together in a haphazard fashion. I bet that he actually has some interesting things to say about the subject, but like so many popular educational thinkers nowadays, he frequently overstates his points and tries to wax philosophical without the required logical arguments. Let's look at his main points.
He believes there are three converging conditions that are going to have to change the way we view education.
1.) "We are preparing kids for a future we cannot clearly describe. This is the first time in history where we are facing a situation where we do not know our children's future. We do not know the future we are preparing them for."
I sure hope that David is (was) not a history teacher (he wasn't). If he was, he would realize that we have never known or could predict the future (technologically, economically, socially, nationally, or otherwise) with any good degree of accuracy. Here is a PBS Technology Timeline. What events in this timeline were predicted twenty years before hand, with accuracy? Why is today any different? We prepare students for the every changing present and the immediate future, adjusting instruction along the way if needed.
One of the problems with these talks is that no one seems to understand how to structure an argument or present a proposition with nuance. If he were to say, "The future is more uncertain today than it ever was in the past because of (insert premises from which the proposition can be inferred) " then maybe I could agree with his point. But the world has been progressing pretty darn quickly since the Enlightenment, and the pace of progress is surely accelerating as complexity tends to build on itself (plus, as the population grows larger, there are so many more lives being lived in a given amount of time). But, again, there has always been uncertainty and I can think of no reason why this next generation is going to experience change drastically different than the few generations preceding it.
2.) "Our kids are different...They spend a lot of time online, their playing video games, their engaging with online communities. And they have come to understand information differently than my generation. "
I don't believe students have fundamentally changed in one generation. Yes, they are online more than we were at their age, but does this imply they are fundamentally different and need to be instructed differently? I don't buy it. My dad's generation watched a lot more TV than his parents' generation, and they in turn listened to more radio than their parents. Either way, every generation still gets their information from reading, listening, watching, and doing. I have not yet heard of students having infrared binary information beamed directly onto their retina.
Students certainly have more access to information than previous generations could have ever dreamed of, but the saturation point was exceeded long ago, before the Library of Alexandria burnt to the ground. That is, we have had way too much information for any one person to process for thousands of years, and piling on more information does not profoundly change this dilemma facing us as individuals.
He speaks as if this new generation experiences the world in some strange, wonderful, or magical way. I could almost guarantee they process the world the same way we do, but without the memories of how difficult it used to be (in hindsight) to access the vast information our species has acquired. Information is still a product, but an increasingly free product. And it is still manipulated in pretty much the same way it always was. What does he think students are doing with this information that is so unique? Talking about it? Writing about it? Sharing their ideas? Combining different insights? Generalizing?
[added by edit] I think I was wrong to say that students are manipulating information in same way as previous generations. While I still think this is true with regard to the content conveyed by the information, i.e., they are still just reading it, critically analyzing it, discussing it, etc. albeit more extensively and easily, what is innovative is how they can organize this information into personalized taxonomies. These taxonomies can then evolve in tandem with others'.
This will not only provide an external framework for storing, retrieving, and sharing information, but can also provide a new and interesting internal framework for the same purpose. This is essentially what it means to understand something, i.e., integrate it into an internal hierarchical framework to add context and establish connections with other information. Whether the distinction between content conveyed and its organization can be justified, I am not sure. If not, then it may be perfectly legitimate to say that they are actually changing knowledge by adding descriptors, tags, hierarchies, etc.
Is this a good thing? I am not sure, as there are already well established frameworks ("tags,") for retrieving this information that was developed by experts while the content itself was being developed. For instance, if someone tags a Lubber Grasshopper as a "bug," it will true in the colloquial sense, but not in the entomological sense. Maybe it would be better for experts to organize their information, and for amateurs to learn how to navigate their frameworks; as I mentioned earlier, these frameworks are probably continuous with the content, so having an improper framework is deleterious to comprehension. [/added by edit]
3.) "The information. We have this thing called Web.2.0...the very shape of information is changing. The information is more of a conversation...Now we are increasingly going to the community to get the answer."
From what I can understand with regard to this segment, David is saying that people are collaborating more in order to find out the answers to questions that no authorities can help with. I can't disagree with that, but information is not changing into an open conversation for all fields. Yes, at the cutting edge of knowledge, where David thinks he is, the internet allows more collaboration at faster rates and the information gets modified more quickly. But for most of what students are learning, the knowledge is still the product of thousands of individuals over thousands of years; it is not new and developing.
The video starts getting really strange at this point. He tries to define a new definition of literacy in the age of information, but simply states goals that have always been important in education. He states the new literacy is defined by the ability to:
1.) Expose the truth: i.e., critically evaluating information, which dates back, formally, to at least the Greeks.
2.) Process and employ information: how is this only applicable in our new world of easily accessible information?
3.) Express ideas compellingly: Ibid.
4.) Use information ethically: Ibid.
Weinberger
The David Weinberger podcast was a little more restrained and I really couldn't disagree with much except their armchair philosophical claims that the nature of knowledge is radically changing.
The hyperlinking phenomena is great, and does show explicitly the limits of trying to demarcate knowledge. But still, we do need to demarcate it for any practical purpose. I think one of the best uses of this new accessibility to information (hyperlinking, videos, forums, etc.) is the interactive, multimedia e-book. Some things are best shown in video format and/or through the use of an application, and e-books can integrate this seamlessly into a text. For instance, Carl Zimmer's evolution textbook Evolution: Making Sense of Life and Richard Dawkins The Magic of Reality both employ various multimedia and hyperlinks to convey their information. Once this art is perfected, I predict it will make learning the material that much easier for the students.
David and Alan also discuss the fact that the act of learning is becoming more public as students participate more in online blogs, forums, and chatrooms. I would have to agree that this is something new and interesting. Learning should become easier if students can get most questions answered immediately by referencing previous online discussions about the same query. It will be a great resource, but I think its just going to expand upon classical methods of learning, not fundamentally change the game. (Or "change the nature of knowledge as we know it") Who knows though?
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
On The Origin of Speciousness
Somedays I have to wonder whether I am living in a bizarro world; today is one of those days. After watching Sir Ken Robinson's How to Escape Education's Death Valley and Seth Godin's Stop Stealing Dreams, my mind feels numb from the number of falsehoods passed off as truths and the number of banalities passed off as profundities. I can only surmise after viewing these lectures that Ken and Seth's only experience with education is watching Ben Stein in Ferris Bueller's Day Off, as this is the only way I can understand their straw man mischaracterization of the educational endeavor. Disentangling and refuting all the nonsense is beyond the time and space available for this post, but I will highlight some examples.
Ken has 3 principles that he deems crucial for the human mind to flourish. Let's look at these.
1. Human beings are naturally different and diverse.
During this section, Ken makes the half-banal, half-false statement, "If you have got two children, or more, I bet you they are completely different from each other." This gets applause for some reason. Wilson Bentley, or the "Snowflake Man," said of snowflakes, " [Even though no two snowflakes are identical,] it is not difficult to find two or more crystals that are nearly, if not the same, in outline." And so it is with children.
All human beings share the 99.9 percent of our DNA, and our neuroanatomy is similarly identical. Most traits used to characterize human beings fall on a normal or Gaussian distribution curve. There is a broad range in the middle where most students are very similar with regard to intelligence, aptitude, enthusiasm, and achievement, and this is the general area where daily instructional strategies should be focused. Is Ken suggesting that we customize an educational program for every minor difference between students? Does every student need custom sewn clothing because they are "completely different from one another?" Of course not, there are broad groups that are very similar and can handle similarly sized clothing, just as their are broad groups in a classroom that can learn from similar instructional strategies.
2. If you can light the spark of curiosity in a child, they will learn forever without further assistance.
This statement is a good example of the problem with educational "experts" like Ken and Seth; namely, where is the evidence for this statement. Where is the research or data? Is it a priori true? Is it a tautology, i.e., if they aren't life long learners you by definition didn't "light the spark of curiousity?" What value does this statement have besides getting applause?
The real question is, will children naturally learn at the pace we want them to and the content we want them to learn? Will they eventually stagnate? This is very similar to the question: what is the best instructional strategy, constructivist or direct instruction? Direct instruction does better by all measurements, as John Hattie showed in his landmark meta-analysis study. Harvard Professor Jeanne Chall also comes to the same conclusion in "The Academic Achievement Challenge." If student's guide themselves in their learning, I doubt they will enthusiastically learn arithmetic, algebra, trigonometry, and calculus based on their natural curiosity of these subjects. Some things we learn are not immediately gratifying, but are extremely important and useful nonetheless.
And with regard to STEM curriculum and the standardized testing, I agree this is not the end-all-be-all of education, but they are extremely important if students are going to be able to compete in the workplace in the future. It is our responsibility to give them the opportunity to excel in these subjects more so than the arts and humanities, as projections don't show a marked increase in the demand for literary critics in 2035.
Excelling at standardized tests shouldn't be the only goal of education, but being able to do well on these tests is certainly necessary, in most cases, for showing proficiency in the subject matter. Not sufficient, but necessary. The fact is, these tests are not that difficult if you know the subject matter for the grade level being tested. Failing these tests is a big indicator one is not learning the material. What other, objective way should we measure their intellectual achievement? The teacher's vague impression of their ability and knowledge?
3. Children are naturally creative.
As with his other statements, it's hard really to judge whether one agrees or disagrees with it because it is so general and devoid of content. Yes, I guess they are creative? Are they very creative or a little bit creative? Are some not creative? Are they creative in ways that we want them to be, as in mathematics, or are they creative in the way they kill ants?
This post is already getting too long, so I'll try to be quick with regard to Stop Stealing Dreams.
"And then [Horace Mann] needed more teachers, and so he built a new school for teachers. Do you know what it's called? The normal school. He called it the normal school, where they train people to teach in the common school, because he wanted you to be normal."
Where is he getting this from, exactly? Normal schools were not created by Horace Mann in the 19th century, but were a 17th century French invention; they were called ecole normale. The point was to create a standard or norm of excellence for teachers, since before this time there was very little regulation as to who could and could not be called a teacher. It has nothing to do with turning our children into conformist robots, despite Seth's paranoid worries.
And how exactly did I know that? I memorized it from a book, David Labaree's The Trouble with Ed Schools. On that point, books (especially textbooks) are a valuable source of information; understanding and retaining the contents within them is a very useful skill, unless you think you can look up and learn everything you need to know on the fly.
As for his 8 educational reforms:
1. Get rid of live-lectures. Why would you want this? Is the same lecture sufficient for all students and classrooms? Shouldn't the lectures be personalized to the audience? Wouldn't it be better if they can ask questions during the lecture to clarify? Wouldn't integrating work and feedback into the lecture be a good idea?
2. Never memorize anything. Again, I think being able to retain information is an important skill, but maybe we are just designed to look things up over and over again without ever copying that information into larger schema and frameworks within our minds.
3. Getting rid of learning orders. Why? This seems essential as learning builds on learning so some subjects are needed as prerequisites for others.
4. Precise focused education. Good in theory, but difficult to do effectively and financially. Plus, what about everybody listening to the same lectures and online curriculum he proposed earlier?
The other four are not any better.
Towards the end, he mentioned giving students an Arduino (a Raspberry Pi type device), and says something to the effect of, "Why can't we give these to kids and say, do something interesting, figure it out. If you need help, ask questions." How will this kid figure it out? By asking questions. By being taught by the teacher. By reading the text. By collaborating with other students. What if all the students have similar problems and questions? Put them in a room together. This is called a classroom, and it is how we teach students.
Next, unleashes a fusillade of misrepresentations with regard to how teachers act. "Do not figure it out. Do not ask questions I do not know the answer to. Do not look it up. Do not vary from the curriculum. And better, better, better, comply." Again, I have to believe that Seth has not been in a classroom in the last 40-50 years, as I have never had teachers who had these attitudes towards education.
He then mentions it is a myth that good parenting and academic success are predictors of career success and happiness. As always, no evidence is cited.
Ken has 3 principles that he deems crucial for the human mind to flourish. Let's look at these.
1. Human beings are naturally different and diverse.
During this section, Ken makes the half-banal, half-false statement, "If you have got two children, or more, I bet you they are completely different from each other." This gets applause for some reason. Wilson Bentley, or the "Snowflake Man," said of snowflakes, " [Even though no two snowflakes are identical,] it is not difficult to find two or more crystals that are nearly, if not the same, in outline." And so it is with children.
All human beings share the 99.9 percent of our DNA, and our neuroanatomy is similarly identical. Most traits used to characterize human beings fall on a normal or Gaussian distribution curve. There is a broad range in the middle where most students are very similar with regard to intelligence, aptitude, enthusiasm, and achievement, and this is the general area where daily instructional strategies should be focused. Is Ken suggesting that we customize an educational program for every minor difference between students? Does every student need custom sewn clothing because they are "completely different from one another?" Of course not, there are broad groups that are very similar and can handle similarly sized clothing, just as their are broad groups in a classroom that can learn from similar instructional strategies.
2. If you can light the spark of curiosity in a child, they will learn forever without further assistance.
This statement is a good example of the problem with educational "experts" like Ken and Seth; namely, where is the evidence for this statement. Where is the research or data? Is it a priori true? Is it a tautology, i.e., if they aren't life long learners you by definition didn't "light the spark of curiousity?" What value does this statement have besides getting applause?
The real question is, will children naturally learn at the pace we want them to and the content we want them to learn? Will they eventually stagnate? This is very similar to the question: what is the best instructional strategy, constructivist or direct instruction? Direct instruction does better by all measurements, as John Hattie showed in his landmark meta-analysis study. Harvard Professor Jeanne Chall also comes to the same conclusion in "The Academic Achievement Challenge." If student's guide themselves in their learning, I doubt they will enthusiastically learn arithmetic, algebra, trigonometry, and calculus based on their natural curiosity of these subjects. Some things we learn are not immediately gratifying, but are extremely important and useful nonetheless.
And with regard to STEM curriculum and the standardized testing, I agree this is not the end-all-be-all of education, but they are extremely important if students are going to be able to compete in the workplace in the future. It is our responsibility to give them the opportunity to excel in these subjects more so than the arts and humanities, as projections don't show a marked increase in the demand for literary critics in 2035.
Excelling at standardized tests shouldn't be the only goal of education, but being able to do well on these tests is certainly necessary, in most cases, for showing proficiency in the subject matter. Not sufficient, but necessary. The fact is, these tests are not that difficult if you know the subject matter for the grade level being tested. Failing these tests is a big indicator one is not learning the material. What other, objective way should we measure their intellectual achievement? The teacher's vague impression of their ability and knowledge?
3. Children are naturally creative.
As with his other statements, it's hard really to judge whether one agrees or disagrees with it because it is so general and devoid of content. Yes, I guess they are creative? Are they very creative or a little bit creative? Are some not creative? Are they creative in ways that we want them to be, as in mathematics, or are they creative in the way they kill ants?
This post is already getting too long, so I'll try to be quick with regard to Stop Stealing Dreams.
"And then [Horace Mann] needed more teachers, and so he built a new school for teachers. Do you know what it's called? The normal school. He called it the normal school, where they train people to teach in the common school, because he wanted you to be normal."
Where is he getting this from, exactly? Normal schools were not created by Horace Mann in the 19th century, but were a 17th century French invention; they were called ecole normale. The point was to create a standard or norm of excellence for teachers, since before this time there was very little regulation as to who could and could not be called a teacher. It has nothing to do with turning our children into conformist robots, despite Seth's paranoid worries.
And how exactly did I know that? I memorized it from a book, David Labaree's The Trouble with Ed Schools. On that point, books (especially textbooks) are a valuable source of information; understanding and retaining the contents within them is a very useful skill, unless you think you can look up and learn everything you need to know on the fly.
As for his 8 educational reforms:
1. Get rid of live-lectures. Why would you want this? Is the same lecture sufficient for all students and classrooms? Shouldn't the lectures be personalized to the audience? Wouldn't it be better if they can ask questions during the lecture to clarify? Wouldn't integrating work and feedback into the lecture be a good idea?
2. Never memorize anything. Again, I think being able to retain information is an important skill, but maybe we are just designed to look things up over and over again without ever copying that information into larger schema and frameworks within our minds.
3. Getting rid of learning orders. Why? This seems essential as learning builds on learning so some subjects are needed as prerequisites for others.
4. Precise focused education. Good in theory, but difficult to do effectively and financially. Plus, what about everybody listening to the same lectures and online curriculum he proposed earlier?
The other four are not any better.
Towards the end, he mentioned giving students an Arduino (a Raspberry Pi type device), and says something to the effect of, "Why can't we give these to kids and say, do something interesting, figure it out. If you need help, ask questions." How will this kid figure it out? By asking questions. By being taught by the teacher. By reading the text. By collaborating with other students. What if all the students have similar problems and questions? Put them in a room together. This is called a classroom, and it is how we teach students.
Next, unleashes a fusillade of misrepresentations with regard to how teachers act. "Do not figure it out. Do not ask questions I do not know the answer to. Do not look it up. Do not vary from the curriculum. And better, better, better, comply." Again, I have to believe that Seth has not been in a classroom in the last 40-50 years, as I have never had teachers who had these attitudes towards education.
He then mentions it is a myth that good parenting and academic success are predictors of career success and happiness. As always, no evidence is cited.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)