Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Kozol fasts to protest NCLB



This argument goes far beyond my remarks. I have no desire to debate, in this context, philosophies of education; John has made his evident over the years. I will point out, though, that:
1. A whip is a device for inflicting physical pain. I don't think that anybody physically assaults either teachers or students by striking them with sheets of paper.
2. The argument about the validity of the Rice study was anticipated by Lewis Carrol in a certain tea-party scene:
"You don't clean a watch with butter."
"But it was the best of butter."
Regards,
Jack



On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, John Clement wrote:


I'll ignore the polemical "high stakes testing" and "whip", to stumble
over "a very good study". In my area of science experiments are
evaluated by their reproducibility, so "a very good study" is an oxymoron,
especially when coupled with "they studied an [repeat "an", indicating
one] inner city school".

Unfortunately when studying a sociological system it is often impossible to
repeat the study. There was a one time opportunity to directly observe the
results of the threat of high stakes testing. When they started the study
the threat was not there. It is probably impossible to observe this change
in a school now because all schools are under the threat of testing.

The term high stakes testing is commonly used for outside tests which are
used to threaten student graduation or teacher and administrator salaries
and promotion. Prior to this it was common to use tests which would be used
by schools for their self evaluation, but not for evaluating teachers. The
term whip is an accurate description because as I pointed out most teachers
really do not know how to change what they are doing to improve student
learning. When you are doing exactly what was done to you in education and
it is not working well, what do you do differently? Essentially the master
is trying to get more work by whipping you, rather than by doing intelligent
management. Remember that teachers always teach the way they were taught.

Lectures can be a useful source of information when all of the participants
are at the same level, and speak the same language. So when the speaker
sends a message with a particular concept in mind, you receive that message
and visualize that concept. However when the lecturer presents a concept
that is not in your paradigm, you will not understand it. If you have a
built in incentive to then go out and further explore and apply the concept,
you will have actually learned something.

These conditions are seldom achieved in either HS or college lectures. So
an active learning strategy is necessary to achieve maximal learning. Also
there needs to be the opportunity for the students to do their own thinking
rather than being spoon fed the teacher's thinking. This is necessary to
build the ability to transfer ideas, and to do innovative thinking. Part of
active learning is that you have a two way transfer so the lecturer can
correct the messages so as to achieve the best communication. In other
words there needs to be a fast feedback loop. Yes there are times when one
must tell certain things, but that should not be done non stop continuously.
The other difficulty is that you have to change the student paradigms. This
is not done by either lectures or sermons. Experience mediated by an
intelligent guide can help people to change paradigms. See the research
started by Piaget and continued by Lawson, Feuerstein, and Shayer and Adey.

The NCLB is an example of an outmoded top down industrial model for
production. Run the assembly line faster and whip the workers. The newer
model is to have feedback from the workers and then implement things that
work. The Japanese applied the newer model, and achieved much more reliable
products. Productivity gains are achieved by more intelligent management,
not by just pushing the workers harder. Remember the old Russian joke. The
wages were so low that the workers would say "The managers pretend to pay us
so we pretend to work".

Teachers just like anyone else, have extreme difficulty with paradigm
change. So when they are told that students in their classes are not really
doing well they tend to deny that they are doing anything wrong. Well it
may not be wrong, but it can be counterproductive. Schools, teachers,
parents, and politicians have a head in the sand mentality that prevents
rational change. So when you tell them that 75% of their students do not
have proportional reasoning, they say that the curriculum demands do not
allow them to attack this problem. But without proportional reasoning it is
not possible to really understand algebra. Actually, this is an
understandable reaction because they think that it can be attacked by a few
simple math exercises. Research has shown quite the opposite. It is
developmental in that it requires time for students to learn this type of
reasoning, and it requires a concerted effort where the students are doing
the reasoning and not just being spoon fed techniques. They do tend to
shoot the messenger!!! Most teachers are not scientists, and when told the
facts they can get upset and complain to administrators. The administrators
then blame the messenger. There is a definite culture that tries to hide
the facts and pretend that all is sweetness and light. I find it truly
unprofessional for administrators to intervene because a teacher is upset
over a casual, truthful remark which contains no harassment.

The idea that inspiration can be manufactured by teachers is also a block in
the road to good education. The Modeling method first used by Malcolm Wells
requires the students to do the thinking. It was extremely successful in
his hands, and has continued to show greater success than conventional
instruction when taught to other teachers. One of the striking things is
that if you view the videos of Malcolm, they are quite dull. I have noted
this with some other successful instructors. Charisma and inspiration is
completely overblown. Methods can be designed that really work well in a
variety of situations despite the teacher's lack of charisma. Again go back
to the study at AZ State where the physics instructors varied from the
popular charismatic to the new instructor who followed the book closely.
One of them used frequent demos, and another intensive problem solving, yet
they all achieved the same low gain.

It is very easy to blame the teachers, but look in the mirror. The
universities and colleges "educated" the teachers and the teachers are just
doing what was done to them. If it is not working, then the system needs
reform at the top also. There are some signs of this in programs like
UTeach from U.TX, or Modeling, or McDermott's programs... or Scaleup. Some
of these were being developed before the high stakes testing became common.
And always ask what you would do if you were in the average teacher's
position. If you are not there, then you do not truly understand the
problems. If you are there, can you prove objectively that you are doing
better?

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


--
"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley