Hi,
Softly said, but still a valid challenge. Those that haven't played the game might not understand it, so let me establish my credentials in that game.
In high school, as an Explorer Scout, I taught Boy Scouts in a number of fields, including pioneering, archery, camping, tracking, cross country skiing, canoing, and a few others. As a Red Cross water safety instructor, I also taught swimming and lifesaving at the Y pool. I also helped teach beginning fencing although I was just an advanced intermediate myself. In my sophomore through senior years, I tutored in math. In my senior year I taught freshman Cubans algebra and sophomores plane geometry in Spanish.
In Vietnam, as the honcho of the electrical/hydraulic/instrument and armament shop, I taught incoming recruits the lessons I myself had learned a few scant months (sometimes weeks) before. After returning from Vietnam, I took the Methods of Instruction course at William and Mary's and became an Army instructor at Ft. Eustis where I taught elementary electrical properties, hydraulic systems, and instrument repair. I did that until I completed my active service.
At GaTech, I tutored, for pay, from the start. In my junior year and senior years, I taught labs and lead self study classes for credit and pay. In graduate school, I continued to teach labs, as well as teaching some introductory and some upper division physics courses. By the time I went to work for Boeing in 1985, I'd spent at least part of every year since 1960 teaching -- and that in ever changing circumstances. That was a true 25 years of experience, and not the typical teacher's one year of experience repeated 25 times.
I've encountered what doesn't work. I've used it. I've fought it. And I've spent a lot of time trying to find what does. Occasionally, I succeeded. I've learned from teaching physical skills some of the things we do wrong in trying to teach mental skills. I've seldom learned much of use by studying how mental skills are taught. So, a lot of the Monday morning quarterbacking I've done and that I do is along the lines of "what could I have done better" and not simply a critique of the effort of others.
I hope that my teaching days aren't over -- that now that I'm retired, I'll have opportunities to teach again, better than before.
You don't ignore any of them. You also don't work with them only as a group. However, I suspect you are looking at this from your position in the swamp, where "when you're up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember you're there to drain the swamp."
I don't know how long a class is where you teach; what the minimum chunk of time a student has to repeat if he falls behind. Here, in the USA, it typically is a year. And there is the first problem. Suppose you have a student, and suppose that student is a month behind in reading at the end of seventh grade. What do you do?
If you hold him back, you could be, literally, ruining his life. The forced repetition of so much material which the student has already mastered could turn the child against school and knowledge, if not forever, for long enough that any recovery will probably be too late. We all know people like that -- they gave up on school and settled for a life below their potential. They would love to go back to school, they say, but seldom do because of 'life' -- as in mortgage, wife, children, job, etc.
If you pass him, you could be, literally, ruining his life. Trying to develop eighth grade skills and knowledge with less than eighth grade tools is an uphill battle. That the child fell back in the first place is an indicator that, at this time, he is not capable of keeping up the standard pace. Is it then rational to put him in a position where he not only has to keep up the standard pace, he has to exceed it to catch up? Is not the most likely output of this scenario a child who drops further behind, lacking the tools that would give him the tools to catch up?
So, what is the solution? Hold him back or pass him anyway? That is a trick question. The solution is to eliminate the situation developing in the first place. The solution is to break the blocks down into so fine a structure that the repetition of one block is trivial. A common event and a matter of little importance.
Ideally, the chunks should be a few days long, and some of that can be achieved by not forcing the whole class to work as a unit. To be more open to the concept that there is no such thing as teaching, only learning. That a teacher is wasting the students' time by telling them things the students should be reading or discovering for themselves. That lecturing is the wrong way to teach, since it emphasizes the output of the teacher rather than the input of the students. A good teacher says little to the class, but much to the students, and is not afraid to walk around, leaving the security of the podium, and do battle in the trenches of each desk -- helping those who need help, encouraging those who need encouragement, and re-enforcing those who need neither with mild, genuine, earned praise.
Changing the school calendar is also a necessity if the concepts of fixed learning periods is to be maintained (not a good idea, but perhaps a necessary idea). A year is too long. A week might be ideal ("Sorry, Johnny, but you failed this week, you'll have to repeat it" is not an earth shattering scenario) but is probably impractical. But a quarter should be eminently doable. Pace the curriculum so that it is comfortable for the five that get it. Expect the 20 to have to repeat one or two quarters in six years. And expect the other 5 to have to repeat a few more quarters, and finish that six years in seven. The problem isn't that there are some who get it faster and some that get it slower; the problem is that the pace is set the same for all.
Which kids do you ignore? Under the present methods, you are ignoring all of them. Instead of adapting to the needs to educate children, you are working to arbitrary marks on a calendar. And that brings us to your second point.
If the goal is to finish certain milestones on certain dates, I'd agree with you. Got to get that capstone on the top of that pyramid before the next flooding of the Nile or Ra will be displeased. If the goal is to educate children, then "planning a semester" and "get[ting] through the curriculum" are not only not useful concepts, but they are actively destructive. In NYPD Blues, Andy Sipowicz had a spiel about taking care of pet fish. It went something like "You keep your eyes on them and observe. If something starts to go wrong, you try to figure it out and adapt. If it works, then after a while you can call yourself someone who understands fish."
I think that's a better approach and attitude than all these lesson plans and curricula and semester goals and blah blah blah. Industrial management, time motion studies, efficiency improvements are all well and good in a domain where the inputs are consistent, the processes established, and all the outputs must meet the same requirements -- neither exceeding them (for that would be a waste) nor falling short (for those would be unprofitable failures). But educating children should not be confused with manufacturing widgets, as much as the widget manufacturers would want you to.
Yes, there must be a goal. And they must be relatively inflexible and relatively high. However, the schedule for achieving those goals must be flexible. It must be flexible for the class as a whole and for each individual in that class. Anyone who's ever taught knows that two classes of apparently identical individuals will, inexplicably, have an easier or harder time with the same material, taught in the same way, by the same teacher. One class will get it immediately. The other will have to have it explained in many different ways. And the same is true of individuals in that class as well. Which is why it is better to give a ten minute lecture and spend 40 minutes circulating around the class addressing individual questions than it is to give a fifty minute lecture. In the 50 minute lecture, you are probably making contact with 5 or 10 students, and either boring or losing the rest. In that 40 minute walk, you are making contact with all of them, each just where they need it.
Finally, the point is reached where it must be determined if each student has achieved the goal. And here is where the wisdom of Yoda comes in. Five plus five must be ten *all* the time, not 70% of the time for a passing C. Not "A", "B", etc. Not even pass/fail. Simply, "you've mastered this material, Grasshopper -- time to move on" or not.
First, I'm not sure I completely agree with what you say. There are two aspects here. There is the social aspect and the economic aspect. The economic aspect is properly addressed by the schools if the system is just. Books, computers, even food and clothing (school uniform) should be supplied by the school. As much as the economic playing field can be leveled, it should. The social is harder. However, I'm not totally convinced that all parents with a high economic background help their children nor that all those from a low economic background don't give a shit.
Second, even if it were true, so what? Not to put too fine a point on it, but an educational system is there to do the best it can for as many as it can. It is not there to remedy all social injustices (although access to an education is a good path to that goal). Some will do better, some worse. Sometimes it is because of economic conditions. Sometimes because of personality and motivation. And sometimes it is because of natural talent -- no educational system will turn a Forest Gump into someone who would conceive a special theory of relativity.
Good.
--Pete
(05-11-2011, 10:02 PM){wcip}Angel Wrote: As a general rule, when it comes to education, it's much easier pointing out what doesn't work, than finding out what actually does.
Softly said, but still a valid challenge. Those that haven't played the game might not understand it, so let me establish my credentials in that game.
In high school, as an Explorer Scout, I taught Boy Scouts in a number of fields, including pioneering, archery, camping, tracking, cross country skiing, canoing, and a few others. As a Red Cross water safety instructor, I also taught swimming and lifesaving at the Y pool. I also helped teach beginning fencing although I was just an advanced intermediate myself. In my sophomore through senior years, I tutored in math. In my senior year I taught freshman Cubans algebra and sophomores plane geometry in Spanish.
In Vietnam, as the honcho of the electrical/hydraulic/instrument and armament shop, I taught incoming recruits the lessons I myself had learned a few scant months (sometimes weeks) before. After returning from Vietnam, I took the Methods of Instruction course at William and Mary's and became an Army instructor at Ft. Eustis where I taught elementary electrical properties, hydraulic systems, and instrument repair. I did that until I completed my active service.
At GaTech, I tutored, for pay, from the start. In my junior year and senior years, I taught labs and lead self study classes for credit and pay. In graduate school, I continued to teach labs, as well as teaching some introductory and some upper division physics courses. By the time I went to work for Boeing in 1985, I'd spent at least part of every year since 1960 teaching -- and that in ever changing circumstances. That was a true 25 years of experience, and not the typical teacher's one year of experience repeated 25 times.
I've encountered what doesn't work. I've used it. I've fought it. And I've spent a lot of time trying to find what does. Occasionally, I succeeded. I've learned from teaching physical skills some of the things we do wrong in trying to teach mental skills. I've seldom learned much of use by studying how mental skills are taught. So, a lot of the Monday morning quarterbacking I've done and that I do is along the lines of "what could I have done better" and not simply a critique of the effort of others.
I hope that my teaching days aren't over -- that now that I'm retired, I'll have opportunities to teach again, better than before.
(05-11-2011, 10:02 PM){wcip}Angel Wrote:(05-07-2011, 01:25 AM)--Pete Wrote: Break topics into small chunks, and only allow progression when there is progress. Ideally, every day should be a chunk, and every day should be succeed or repeat. But it has to be by topic and it has to be in short chunks.2 problems:
1. In a class of 30 kids, 20 will understand what you're talking about, 5 will get most of it, and 5 will be clueless. Do you advance or repeat? Which kids do you ignore?
You don't ignore any of them. You also don't work with them only as a group. However, I suspect you are looking at this from your position in the swamp, where "when you're up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember you're there to drain the swamp."
I don't know how long a class is where you teach; what the minimum chunk of time a student has to repeat if he falls behind. Here, in the USA, it typically is a year. And there is the first problem. Suppose you have a student, and suppose that student is a month behind in reading at the end of seventh grade. What do you do?
If you hold him back, you could be, literally, ruining his life. The forced repetition of so much material which the student has already mastered could turn the child against school and knowledge, if not forever, for long enough that any recovery will probably be too late. We all know people like that -- they gave up on school and settled for a life below their potential. They would love to go back to school, they say, but seldom do because of 'life' -- as in mortgage, wife, children, job, etc.
If you pass him, you could be, literally, ruining his life. Trying to develop eighth grade skills and knowledge with less than eighth grade tools is an uphill battle. That the child fell back in the first place is an indicator that, at this time, he is not capable of keeping up the standard pace. Is it then rational to put him in a position where he not only has to keep up the standard pace, he has to exceed it to catch up? Is not the most likely output of this scenario a child who drops further behind, lacking the tools that would give him the tools to catch up?
So, what is the solution? Hold him back or pass him anyway? That is a trick question. The solution is to eliminate the situation developing in the first place. The solution is to break the blocks down into so fine a structure that the repetition of one block is trivial. A common event and a matter of little importance.
Ideally, the chunks should be a few days long, and some of that can be achieved by not forcing the whole class to work as a unit. To be more open to the concept that there is no such thing as teaching, only learning. That a teacher is wasting the students' time by telling them things the students should be reading or discovering for themselves. That lecturing is the wrong way to teach, since it emphasizes the output of the teacher rather than the input of the students. A good teacher says little to the class, but much to the students, and is not afraid to walk around, leaving the security of the podium, and do battle in the trenches of each desk -- helping those who need help, encouraging those who need encouragement, and re-enforcing those who need neither with mild, genuine, earned praise.
Changing the school calendar is also a necessity if the concepts of fixed learning periods is to be maintained (not a good idea, but perhaps a necessary idea). A year is too long. A week might be ideal ("Sorry, Johnny, but you failed this week, you'll have to repeat it" is not an earth shattering scenario) but is probably impractical. But a quarter should be eminently doable. Pace the curriculum so that it is comfortable for the five that get it. Expect the 20 to have to repeat one or two quarters in six years. And expect the other 5 to have to repeat a few more quarters, and finish that six years in seven. The problem isn't that there are some who get it faster and some that get it slower; the problem is that the pace is set the same for all.
Which kids do you ignore? Under the present methods, you are ignoring all of them. Instead of adapting to the needs to educate children, you are working to arbitrary marks on a calendar. And that brings us to your second point.
(05-11-2011, 10:02 PM){wcip}Angel Wrote: 2. By repeating chunks of information because 'it didn't set it in' that day makes planning a semester nightmarish. Also, you'll never be able to get through the curriculum by repeating all the chunks of information the students didn't understand.
If the goal is to finish certain milestones on certain dates, I'd agree with you. Got to get that capstone on the top of that pyramid before the next flooding of the Nile or Ra will be displeased. If the goal is to educate children, then "planning a semester" and "get[ting] through the curriculum" are not only not useful concepts, but they are actively destructive. In NYPD Blues, Andy Sipowicz had a spiel about taking care of pet fish. It went something like "You keep your eyes on them and observe. If something starts to go wrong, you try to figure it out and adapt. If it works, then after a while you can call yourself someone who understands fish."
I think that's a better approach and attitude than all these lesson plans and curricula and semester goals and blah blah blah. Industrial management, time motion studies, efficiency improvements are all well and good in a domain where the inputs are consistent, the processes established, and all the outputs must meet the same requirements -- neither exceeding them (for that would be a waste) nor falling short (for those would be unprofitable failures). But educating children should not be confused with manufacturing widgets, as much as the widget manufacturers would want you to.
Yes, there must be a goal. And they must be relatively inflexible and relatively high. However, the schedule for achieving those goals must be flexible. It must be flexible for the class as a whole and for each individual in that class. Anyone who's ever taught knows that two classes of apparently identical individuals will, inexplicably, have an easier or harder time with the same material, taught in the same way, by the same teacher. One class will get it immediately. The other will have to have it explained in many different ways. And the same is true of individuals in that class as well. Which is why it is better to give a ten minute lecture and spend 40 minutes circulating around the class addressing individual questions than it is to give a fifty minute lecture. In the 50 minute lecture, you are probably making contact with 5 or 10 students, and either boring or losing the rest. In that 40 minute walk, you are making contact with all of them, each just where they need it.
Finally, the point is reached where it must be determined if each student has achieved the goal. And here is where the wisdom of Yoda comes in. Five plus five must be ten *all* the time, not 70% of the time for a passing C. Not "A", "B", etc. Not even pass/fail. Simply, "you've mastered this material, Grasshopper -- time to move on" or not.
(05-11-2011, 10:02 PM){wcip}Angel Wrote:(05-07-2011, 01:25 AM)--Pete Wrote: Get rid of grades. Establish a feedback loop where performance determines progression and a certain amount of progression opens the door to further advancement.
This would establish a system where kids who come from an enlightened home (well educated, intelligent parents who help their children and supply them with necessary learning tools, books, computers, etc) will advance while students who come from a poor background, a broken home, a family where parents dont give a shit about their kids, will be forever "left behind". Class society will perpetuate. I'm not a socialist, even though I sound like one here.
First, I'm not sure I completely agree with what you say. There are two aspects here. There is the social aspect and the economic aspect. The economic aspect is properly addressed by the schools if the system is just. Books, computers, even food and clothing (school uniform) should be supplied by the school. As much as the economic playing field can be leveled, it should. The social is harder. However, I'm not totally convinced that all parents with a high economic background help their children nor that all those from a low economic background don't give a shit.
Second, even if it were true, so what? Not to put too fine a point on it, but an educational system is there to do the best it can for as many as it can. It is not there to remedy all social injustices (although access to an education is a good path to that goal). Some will do better, some worse. Sometimes it is because of economic conditions. Sometimes because of personality and motivation. And sometimes it is because of natural talent -- no educational system will turn a Forest Gump into someone who would conceive a special theory of relativity.
(05-11-2011, 10:02 PM){wcip}Angel Wrote:(05-07-2011, 01:25 AM)--Pete Wrote: The spiral approach has the advantage of keeping the previous knowledge and building on it. Thus, in literature, one can spiral from "hero", to "main character", to "protagonist" -- each a concept containing the previous concepts but at a more intricate level.We do this already, at least over here.
Good.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?