Re: [Phys-l] The Myths of Innovation

[Hugh Haskell <hhaskell@mindspring.com>]

At 00:02  -0500 5/27/07, John Clement wrote:
> The problem of promoting educational reform is probably more difficult than
> promoting other types of innovation.  New inventions always run into
> obstacles, but I think education has some severe structural problems with
> instituting real reform.

In order for "real" reform to happen, the community must agree that 
first it is needed, and second that the proposed remedy has a chance 
of being effective. John has made some very important points, and I 
agree with many of them (but not all). I will respond or comment on 
each in turn.

> 1.  In pre-college education the pendulum has swung back and forth a number
> of times.  Teachers are used to the fact that every new administrator comes
> up with "new & revolutionary" methods that are supposed to solve the
> educational problems.  But this has happened so many times that real reform
> now has to overcome the "cry wolf" syndrome.  Teachers have learned to lie
> low and ignore what is going on, with the confident experience that it all
> blows over.

This, I think, is the result of the "top down" management that is 
common in public school systems. New programs are pushed onto the 
teachers with very little input from them, and they are the ones who 
will be most affected by the programs. While many of the programs are 
well-intentioned, few have been subjected to the type of rigorous 
evaluation and piloting that are needed for them to succeed, nor has 
much, if any, input been obtained from the teachers who will have to 
execute the programs. Nor have they been given adequate training. It 
is not surprising that many programs fail--it's not necessarily due 
to lack of teacher interest, but lack of adequate preparation and the 
fact that almost no effort has been made to show the teachers how the 
program can work and to get feedback from the teachers about 
potential pitfalls that need to be addressed.

I have been involved in a couple of these programs that are presented 
as a panacea for education and find that the preparation of the 
teachers was woefully inadequate in both cases. It was way too brief, 
was taught by instructors who were marginally qualified at best, and 
who didn't understand the shortcomings of the program, and left the 
teachers with a highly inflated prospect of how it was going to work 
in practice, which led to an inevitable backlash when things didn't 
work as planned and there was no support from the administration or 
from the proponents of the program who had disappeared shortly after 
delivering the materials

> 2.  A number of teachers who are otherwise very intelligent, have said that
> they don't believe in educational research.  I have heard this said in not
> uncertain terms by non scientists, but also expressed by science teachers.
> Essentially they do not believe that it is possible to come up with strong
> evidence that certain types of things work.  I can understand this from the
> point of view of the humanities, because the research there is a lot more
> vague.  It is also a very strong opinion among mathematicians, who prefer
> logical arguments to physical evidence.

Many of those who "don't believe in educational research" base their 
conclusions on long experience in dealing with the results that 
filter down to them. It doesn't mean that the research upon which the 
program is supposed to be based is flawed, but the execution most 
certainly is. The classic example of this was the "new math" program 
of the 1960s. A well-conceived and planned program (although many 
think it was based on some flawed research) was pushed into being on 
very short notice, with almost no piloting and only minimal training 
for the teachers, and the long-term support which had been promised 
quickly went away as budgets for it dried up. In the end it was a 
disaster, although if it had been properly implemented, with input 
from teachers, adequate training and continuing support, it is quite 
possible that it could have survived, albeit probably with 
modifications.

Scientists often forget that educational research is not the same as 
ordinary science research, especially as normally seen in the 
physical sciences. Teaching is still much more of an art than a 
science, and its success depends to a great extent on the meshing of 
the personalities of the teachers and the students. What works for 
one teacher will often not work at all for another teacher whose 
personality may not be suitable for the techniques demanded. And not 
all students learn the same way, so some methods work for some 
students but not others.

The impression that I have gotten from science education researchers 
is that most of them are looking for the "magic bullet," that will 
guarantee that all students will learn everything presented to them 
the first time around. Such an instrument simply does not exist.

I also see considerable neglect of the fact that any classroom 
teacher knows only too well--education takes time, and the time 
required will be different for different students. It also takes more 
than just good pedagogy. The students need all sorts of support 
(different types and levels for different students) outside the 
classroom, from families, fellow students, teachers and counsellors, 
and many others. They need to have access to good, nutritious food, 
plenty of rest, plenty of physical exercise, proper medical care and 
the opportunity to interact positively with their fellow students and 
with the adults in their lives. No student, regardless of how good 
the classroom techniques are, can learn effectively if they are 
hungry, tired or ill, or are being bullied or harassed by other 
students, or being persecuted by teachers or others in authority over 
them.

Most teachers who I know are extremely dedicated and want to do the 
best job they can in teaching the children placed in their charge. 
They often are painfully aware of their deficiencies, which, most of 
the time are not of their making, but are inherent in the training 
they received. Furthermore, they are required (usually at their own 
expense) to take a certain amount of "training" in order to maintain 
their credential, but often the training that is available to them is 
irrelevant or useless, but must be taken because it is the only 
approved training that is available to them.

These teachers are never asked what they think of any given 
curricular program or given the option to make suggestions for 
improvement. They are given little or no support from their 
administrators and are very limited in what they can do by some very 
restrictive laws and regulations, which sometimes require that they 
do some really stupid things (the top-down imposed "zero tolerance" 
rules immediately spring to mind as an example of this).

Money for equipment and supplies is often woefully short, so that the 
teachers, already terribly underpaid, often use hundreds of dollars 
of their own money to purchase needed materials for their classroom, 
while at the same time, administrators seem to have little trouble 
finding money to travel to posh resorts for conferences that include 
plenty of time on the golf course, while teachers who would like to 
attend a conference now and then to find out what's new in their 
field have to beg for a few dollars to pay their expenses, and often 
have to pay for a substitute so they can go, if they are allowed to 
all.

In this climate, it is not surprising that teachers meet new programs 
that are being imposed from above with no input from them are greeted 
with considerable skepticism.

> 3.  A lot of the research is reported in obscure journals and the evidence
> seldom gets out to the consumers (teachers).  Very few teachers have access
> to the necessary evidence.  In the case of physics only some teachers get
> The Physics Teacher, and only a small fraction read AJP or JRST.

Most companies who hire professionals pay at least part of their dues 
to the relevant professional societies, and cover the cost of the 
necessary journals, as well as giving them time to read them. This 
almost never happens with teachers. Many physics teachers have never 
even heard of AAPT, let alone APS, and even if they have, many of 
them are not exclusively, or even primarily, physics teachers, and so 
don't feel they can afford the cost of joining organizations such as 
AAPT. The libraries in their schools don't take any of the Journals 
that might be of use to them, usually, the only science teaching 
journal they will take, if any at all, will be "The Science Teacher." 
So yes, the teachers don't find out about what they need to know, but 
it's all part of the "vast conspiracy" to keep them ignorant so they 
can be controlled. It would never do for the teachers to know 
something about what that are supposed to be doing, for then they 
might realize that the administrators who have been abusing them all 
these years are not really necessary. [End of sarcastic rant.]

> 4.  The strong evidence presented in the journals is only a fraction of the
> articles, and most of the surrounding articles do little to enhance
> education.  Indeed most of the surrounding articles lull one into the sense
> that everything is all right, and that all we need to do is more of the
> same.

This I agree with. And much of the educational research material is 
presented in a way that makes it difficult to see how it might be 
applied in the classroom. Many of the "gee whiz," type of articles 
about how to do this or that better turn out to be very 
personality-related, and even if they look good "on paper," they 
simply don't work for everyone. I have tried and abandoned many 
tricks and techniques that worked smashingly for the originator of 
the idea but failed miserably for me since my personality simply 
didn't match that required for the idea.

> 5.  There is very weak linkage between the product and the producer.  The
> rewards are handed out for other factors, and superior teachers who use the
> research are seldom rewarded well for their efforts.  In the case of
> universities $$$$ brought in by research is the paramount value.  In the
> case of pre-college pleasing the students is often more important, or
> getting them through the immediate hurdle of high stakes tests.  The high
> stakes testing actually acts as a huge force against reform.  In both cases
> the decision to hire someone is based usually on other factors rather than
> on the ability to teach at a higher level.

Amen, brother. This may be one of the most important reason why 
educational research gets into the pre-college programs so slowly, if 
at all.

> 6.  One of the most important factors is that research based teaching
> requires changing the way in which the teacher reacts and often thinks about
> the classroom and the students.  This is an extremely large barrier, and
> usually can not be overcome by just telling them to do it better, or even
> telling them how it should be done.  It requires intensive training in new
> methods.  A few rare individuals can recognize what is going on, and change
> themselves, but most can not.

It also requires that they have the opportunity to practice it in 
real situations, with careful and sympathetic supervision. Although I 
never had the chance to take advantage of it while I was actively 
teaching, I think that the Modeling program may be one of the few 
that has been done right in nearly every respect. It involves lots of 
training, lots of practice opportunities, lots of follow-up training, 
and it is doing it one teacher at time. Only those teachers who are 
ready to undertake the program get the training--it isn't being 
imposed by top-down fiat--and the originators of the idea are willing 
to let it grow at a modest rate, so that people are able to see it in 
action and see how well it works before they decide that this is a 
program that they can use. A major step in getting the barriers down 
is to have the teachers getting the training want it in the first 
place. I think this is one of the things that the Modeling program 
does very well.

> 7.  The consumers of education have been so indoctrinated in what often
> constitutes teaching that they can not recognize that they are actually
> learning more in an interactive engagement class.  Often the value is
> perceived as being the number of "facts" learned, and the ability to get to
> the next higher level.  Getting into Harvard, TX A&M, ... is valued above an
> education which will equip them to go on and really achieve more.  So
> student complaints act as a brake on progress.

This, unfortunately, is something that teachers alone cannot do much 
to change. They can be leaders in inducing change, but it must come 
from society as a whole. As a society, we need to recognize the value 
of education for a civilized society, be willing to pay for it at an 
adequate level, and support the teachers who are the primary 
implementers of it instead of fighting them. Parents need to get more 
involved in their schools and take responsibility for getting their 
children to school adequately prepared to learn, and where the 
parents cannot do this on their own, it is important for the 
government to step in to provide the assistance needed to enable the 
parents to be able to provide the support for their children.

As a society, we need to recognize that the measure of education is 
not how well students do on a fact-based multiple choice test at the 
end of the year, but how well they do when they graduate and go out 
to make their way in the world. In other words, they have to learn 
patience. Often we don't know something is not working, or working 
very well for years, until we suddenly discover that adults who have 
come through a certain program cannot do something that is normally 
expected of them, or conversely do it very well. Obviously, we cannot 
wait too long, but we need to realize that it is performance *after* 
the classes they have been graded in rather than their performance 
during the class that is the most important indicator of the value of 
a certain segment of education.

> 8.  Faculty outside of a department which implements reform are also a
> problem.  They have been known to call the reformers unprofessional, and
> otherwise poison students against reform.

Turf wars are not just a phenomenon in education, but they can be 
deadly there. Too often, a program that one department or segment of 
a school commences is done without adequately examining its impact on 
other departments. Departments whose efforts affect what can be done 
in other departments often don't talk to each other, and blithely go 
on with their programs as if they were operating in a vacuum. Math 
departments refuse to teach their students about units associated 
with the numbers they deal with, or show their students how a 
particular graph or equation has usefulness in the real world, so 
students learn to compartmentalize their learning. Leaving their math 
lessons at the door of the math classroom and never recognizing that 
the material they just learned in math class will help them to 
understand the physics class they have the next period. Physics 
teachers often get involved in the elegance of what they are doing 
and forget that most of their students might get more out of the 
class if they understood how the material might actually hep them in 
the outside world.

A boss I once had admonished me when I started to work for him, 
"Information isn't automatic. You can't just sit back at your desk 
and wait for it to roll in, you have to go out and gather it." We in 
the education world can learn from that advice. We need to talk to 
our colleagues in other departments--find out what they are doing and 
take advantage of it when possible, find out what we can change in 
our courses to make them more relevant to other course the students 
may be taking.

> 9.  There is a tendency in education to look for a "quick fix".  While there
> are certainly problems which can be solved quickly, education is not one of
> them.
>
> Reform requires a complete paradigm shift on the part of a large number of
> people.  These sorts of things do happen when the value of the change is
> evident.  In the case of education, it is much more difficult to establish
> the value of the changes.  The fact that one can demonstrate far transfer or
> long retention does not seem to influence the people who believe that
> maximum fact transfer is more important.
>
> The slowness of change has been demonstrated repeatedly.  The clear striking
> evidence that antiseptics dramatically reduced mortality had little
> influence on many traditional doctors.  They had to retire, and the younger
> ones had to take over.  We can demonstrate a factor of 3 greater learning
> using the Hake survey, but since most educators really have not idea how
> much gain is typically achieved in their classes, this has little weight.
>
> I have had to sit through speakers and sales people spouting drivel, while
> others drank it in and took it seriously.  I have been called obstructionist
> for asking for "real" evidence, and others thought that "it stands to
> reason" is good enough.  As I recall Feynman experiences this when he was on
> the committee reviewing text books.  He wrote about it.  Teachers are
> supposed to be dealing with reasoning, yet they do not apply it to simple
> things like "will electronic whiteboards improve student understanding" and
> is the cost of the innovation reasonable?
>
> At my school one teacher has convinced a number of people that using
> appropriately colored paper for tests and exams will help students.  This is
> a theory put forward by Irlen, but if one reads the papers, the evidence is
> slim at best.  It is not taken seriously by the LD professionals.  Now, one
> may admit that this innovation may be useful.  However, if you look at the
> history of this idea, it was claimed to cure a large number of problems
> including dyslexia and ADD.  Now however the buzz word is that it cures
> scotopic sensitivity.  It is another example of something that is pushed to
> the exclusion of other more useful programs. One of the more interesting
> papers showed that the colors had little effect unless they were combined
> with a program to improve reading comprehension.  But the colors are cheap
> and an extra program is not so they go for the cheap innovation that does
> little.
>
> I realize that I am preaching to the choir.  But the same difficulties exist
> in changing teaching as exist in changing student understanding of NTNs
> laws.  Both need a large paradigm shift.  And both take time and energy to
> effect.
Fixing our educational system is not going to be easy. There are lots 
of constituencies out there with very diverse agendas and not all of 
them are compatible, and no one likes change imposed from the 
outside. Almost no one can change any aspect of their life until they 
are ready to admit that it needs changing and to take the 
responsibility for making those changes. That doesn't just apply to 
the obvious things like not getting enough exercise, or overeating, 
or smoking. I applied to nearly every aspect of our lives, and how we 
do our job is one of those where change isn't automatic.

It is important to remain skeptical of empty proposals for change for 
the sake of change, and always demand evidence. We won't make friends 
when we demand to see their evidence for whatever they are proposing, 
and even less when we point out the flaws in that evidence, but it is 
necessary. If we all did that, I think that we would have fewer 
stupid programs forced down our throats, and we might even have the 
time to properly evaluate those that remain and find the ones that 
have a reasonable chance of making a difference.

In the long run, slow change is probably better, and will be more 
permanent that rapid change, and it is likely to be more effective. 
Rapid change is too often the result of a stampede of some sort or 
other, and I have trouble thinking of any good things that come from 
stampedes.

Hugh
--

************************************************************
Hugh Haskell
<mailto:haskell@ncssm.edu>
<mailto:hhaskell@mindspring.com>

(919) 467-7610

Hard work often pays off after time. But Laziness always pays off now.

			February tagline on 2007 Demotivator's Calendar