You are here: Home / Archives for knowledge

Teacher training in math doesn’t help

May 30, 2011 By

Intensive, well-designed training didn’t improve seventh-grade math teachers’ knowledge or their students achievement in a federally funded study by the American Institutes for Research and MDRC.  From Education Week:

The program studied was “far more intensive and extensive—and better—than the typical professional development” that teachers receive, noted Elizabeth Warner, an economist at the federal Institute of Education Sciences’ National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance, and the project officer for the study.

Over two years, teachers were supposed to get 114 “contact hours” of training on how to teach about rational numbers, including summer institutes, one-day follow-up seminars, and in-school coaching visits.

Teachers with one or more years of training did score higher on “knowing what types of graphic representations will best convey specific ideas clearly, and knowing the common student misunderstandings.”

But training didn’t lead to higher student achievement.

Teachers’ general math knowledge, which wasn’t affected by the training, correlated to significantly higher student achievement, the study found.

A similar study on early reading, completed in 2008, “showed no statistically significant impact on student achievement after teachers were exposed to one of two year-long staff development program,” notes Ed Week.

Filed Under: Education Tagged With: , , ,

What does Bloom’s Taxonomy really say?

May 13, 2011 By

How many times have you heard people say that the idea of “higher-order thinking” comes from “Bloom’s Taxonomy”?

Well, in handbook 1 of the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, published in 1956, Benjamin Bloom and colleagues do not once use the phrase “higher-order thinking” or “higher-order learning.” The phrase “higher order” comes up only once, on page 10.

What’s more, the authors make clear that the more complex forms of thinking depend on the simpler kinds (such as factual knowledge). On page 16, they write:

One may take the Gestalt point of view that the complex behavior is more than the sum of the simpler behaviors, or one may view the complex behavior as being completely analyzable into simpler components. But either way, so long as the simpler behaviors may be viewed as components of the more complex behaviors, we can view the educational process as one of building on the simpler behavior.

Building on it? You mean we can’t just skip over it? Bloom and colleagues would say no. They devote considerable space to the discussion of knowledge–its justification and its different forms and levels. The justifications for teaching knowledge, according to the others, include the following (from pp. 32-34):

1. “Perhaps the most common justification,” they write, “is that with increase in knowledge or information there is a development of one’s own acquaintance with reality.” In other words, to know about the world, one has to learn something about it.

2. It is essential for all other purposes in education. “Problem solving or thinking cannot be carried on in a vacuum,” they write, “but must be based upon knowledge of some of the ‘realities.’”

3. Knowledge has status in our culture; it is often associated with maturity and intelligence.

4. Knowledge can often be taught and assessed simply.

They discuss each of these justifications at length. From there, they bring up questions of stable and changing knowledge; interrelated versus isolated facts; students’ immediate and future needs; and more. They describe three levels of knowledge (which they break down into subcategories): knowledge of specifics; knowledge of ways and means of dealing with specifics; and knowledge of the universals and abstractions in a field. Much of this knowledge involves and includes quite a bit of complex thought.

Nowhere do they imply that knowledge gets in the way of complex thinking or that the latter can do without the former. Of course, each new situation demands unforeseen combinations of knowledge and method; it is impossible to prepare a student perfectly for the future. “It is possible, however,” they write, “to help him acquire that knowledge which has been found most useful in the past, and to help him develop those intellectual abilities and skills which will enable him to adapt that knowledge to new situations.”

Bloom and his colleagues are not gods; the fact that the Taxonomy says this does not make it truth. But what’s clear here is that the Taxonomy does NOT encourage teachers to stop emphasizing knowledge. Those who claim that the knowledge emphasis belongs to the “industrial age” are welcome to say what they wish, but the Taxonomy, if given the floor, would likely disagree.

Filed Under: Education Tagged With: , , ,

Oviparous!

April 24, 2011 By

At our last tutoring session, my formerly slow reading first grader zipped through a book about ocean creatures. The child of college-educated parents, he’d visited an aquarium and gone fishing. In short, this is a kid with a lot of background knowledge.  When we read about “crustaceans,” he told me his father had caught a crab in a tide pool.

I thought of a sixth grader I tutored years ago at a high-poverty, all-minority school. We read a story involving a rowboat. He said he didn’t know what that was. I drew a picture. I acted out rowing. I asked if he’d seen boats on the bay. “No,” he said. We could have walked from the school to the bay in two minutes and seen sailboats, if not rowboats.

Now I’m tutoring at a middle-class school. It’s a different story. Still, I thought the first grader would need help with “mammal” when we got to whales and dolphins. He read the word easily.  “I know about mammals,” he said. “We learned it yesterday in science.” He explained how whales filter out food from sea water. Then he asked me a poser: “What do you call an animal that produces eggs?”

“A bird?” I said.  “The Easter Bunny?” I thought.

“Oviparous!” he said joyfully.

When I was in school, we didn’t learn about mammals till fifth grade. We never got to “oviparous.”

I guess “oviparous” is the sort of knowledge a person can look up on the Internet if he needs to know — and knows it’s out there. But it’s fun to know things.

I explained that ova is Latin for egg and some of our language comes from Latin. Now he knows.

My brother’s family is visiting. My almost three-year-old niece was thrilled to see rabbits nibbling our grass. She ran out on the lawn. “Where’s the eggs?” she asked.

“Oviparous bunnies,” I thought.

Filed Under: Children Tagged With: ,

Empty at the core

March 25, 2011 By

The new Common Core Standards will not guarantee “college and career readiness, predicts Will Fitzhugh of the Concord Review. A curriculum is needed to specify what students will read, write and know.

The education nomenclatura has been “reluctant to ask students to demonstrate any knowledge on tests, for fear they would not have any knowledge to demonstrate,” he writes.

So essay tests, for example, do not ask students to write about literature, history or science, but rather to give opinions off the top of their heads about school uniforms or whether it is more important to be a good student or to be popular, and the like.

. . . even though almost all of the state bureaucracies have signed on to the new Standards, the chance is good that they will collapse of their own weight because they contain no clear requirements for the actual academic work of students.

Fitzhugh is a fan of Albert Shanker, the great American Federation of Teachers leader. The Shanker Institute is among those leading the call for a “rich” curriculum to support the new standards.

Filed Under: Education Tagged With: , , ,

SAT asks for essay on reality TV

March 19, 2011 By

Asked to write an essay about reality TV on last week’s SAT exam, students are complaining that the prompt — “How authentic can these shows be when producers design challenges for the participants and then editors alter filmed scenes?” — favors TV junkies. From the New York Times:

“This is one of those moments when I wish I actually watched TV,” one test-taker wrote on Saturday on the Web site College Confidential, under the user name “littlepenguin.”

“I ended up talking about Jacob Riis and how any form of media cannot capture reality objectively,” he wrote, invoking the 19th-century social reformer. “I kinda want to cry right now.”

The goal of the essay prompt is to “give students an opportunity to demonstrate their writing skills,” not to show off their knowledge, said Angela Garcia, executive director of the SAT program.

This particular prompt, Ms. Garcia said, was intended to be relevant and to engage students, and had gone through extensive pre-testing with students and teachers. “It’s really about pop culture as a reference point that they would certainly have an opinion on,” she added.

An exam has to “engage” test takers?

The full prompt contained “everything you need to write the essay,” said Peter Kauffmann, vice president of communications for the College Board.

Students read:

Reality television programs, which feature real people engaged in real activities rather than professional actors performing scripted scenes, are increasingly popular.

These shows depict ordinary people competing in everything from singing and dancing to losing weight, or just living their everyday lives. Most people believe that the reality these shows portray is authentic, but they are being misled.

How authentic can these shows be when producers design challenges for the participants and then editors alter filmed scenes?

Do people benefit from forms of entertainment that show so-called reality, or are such forms of entertainment harmful?

The test designers apparently see writing as an isolated skill with no content knowledge required. The student who’s never watched American Idol, The Biggest Loser, Jersey Shore or Kourtney & Kim Take New York can’t cite examples to prove a point or use details to enliven his writing. He has to hope that Jacob Riis doesn’t cost him too many points.

If I faced this prompt — and I’m thankful my test-taking days are over — I’d have very little to say. I don’t think “most people” believe reality shows are authentic and I don’t think it matters. Do people benefit? No. Are they harmed? No.

Filed Under: Testing Tagged With: , , , ,

Common or uncommon curriculum

March 9, 2011 By

We need a common curriculum linked to the Common Core State Standards, conclude 250 educators, civic and business leaders ranging from Fordham’s Checker Finn to Randi Weingarten of the American Federation of Teachers.

Shared curriculum in the core academic subjects would give shape and substance to the standards, and provide common ground for the creation of coherent, high-quality instructional supports — especially texts and other materials, assessments, and teacher training.

Curriculum advocates promise their “guidelines” won’t prescribe how to teach, reports Ed Week.   

For instance, if the guide calls for 4th graders to study the solar system, accompanying materials could suggest ways to teach it. Some teachers could ask students to spend a week building scale models, while others might choose to give a lecture with accompanying video, and still others might weave the topic into lessons about the chemical properties of gases and solids or have students draw or write about the characteristics of the planets.

States’ use of the guidelines would be “purely voluntary” and would account for no more than 60 percent of what is taught in classrooms, leaving ample room for regional variations.

Rick Hess didn’t sign the statement, complaining that the common curriculum will represent “a national model of instruction.” 

Linda Darling-Hammond promises the guidelines will be “very lean,”  resembling curricula in Finland and Japan, where a K-12 math curriculum can run only 10 pages.

Finn says, “It’s dumb to have good standards not accompanied by good curriculum.”

EdReformer Tom VanderArk wants an uncommon curriculum  with “fully customized engaging learning sequences for every student.”

Next generation platforms will include digital content libraries and tagging schemes. Recommendation engines (like an iTunes Genius for learning) based on a full motivational profile will queue a sequence of the best learning experiences possible.  A Facebook-like social layer will support collaborative learning and will include a rich array of applications for learners and teachers.  Giant data warehouses will capture keystroke data and will support powerful analytical tools.  Platforms will be supported by vendors providing aligned services including student tutoring, staff development, school improvement, and new school development.

. . . Calls for a common curriculum come from a mental model of teacher-centric classrooms of age-cohorts on a common slog through a sequential curriculum.  

Get real, responds Robert Pondiscio on Core Knowledge Blog.

There are fewer ideas more seductive than the vision of customized education, where all children remain blissfully engaged solely by the ideas and subjects that interest them, and soar to ever-higher standards on tech-driven wings.  But this splendid vision ignores an inconvenient truth:  all of our most cherished goals for education are a function of the knowledge we possess and have in common with others.  To say that a common curriculum is the wrong idea is to say literacy is the wrong idea.  Let me not mince words:  If you don’t think  a common body of knowledge is important for all children, you don’t think it’s important to teach children to read with understanding, think critically, collaborate, or solve problems.  You can’t have one without the other.

Vander Ark’s vision for education “tacitly endorses a false and content-neutral, skills-driven notion that howchildren learn is more important than what they learn, writes Pondiscio in his No More Mr. Nice Blogger mode. All those  “comprehensive learning platforms” that support “customized playlists”  and service ecosystems are useless, writes Pondiscio, unless we figure out what knowledge to teach children so they can read with understanding.

I’m into sequence and knowledge, so I’m sympathetic to the argument for a common curriculum. But I worry that we’ve moved very quickly to common standards backed by a common curriculum — and, soon to come, a testing system. Are we sure about this?

Filed Under: Education Tagged With: , , , ,

Reading what?

March 5, 2011 By

Good readers need background knowledge — not just skills — concludes John Merrow after talking to E.D. Hirsch, Mike Smith and Linda Katz about reading development.

(Hirsch) explained what is called “the Matthew Effect” to Virginia’s legislators . . . “For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.” . . .  the more you have learned, the more you are capable of learning and likely to learn. The reverse is also true: the less you know, the harder it is for you to acquire knowledge.

“You have to read about something, whether it’s baseball or Patrick Henry or space travel or a pet dog,” Merrow concludes.

And it’s important that all children have common reading experiences — shared content. Finally, closing the vocabulary gap is best done in situations that replicate how vocabulary-rich children in the study acquired their larger vocabulary — through conversation, not in cold classrooms where drill is the M.O.

Merrow is touting the Campaign for Grade-Level Reading.

I’m tutoring two first-grade boys, one of whom has really struggled. On Monday, he doubled his reading speed. On Thursday, he enjoyed reading.

Filed Under: Education Tagged With: , , , , , ,

To learn more science, take more science

January 28, 2011 By

You’d have to make to page 50 of the 2009 NAEP science assessment to get to the most important chart, writes Lynne Munson of Common Core.  Students who take more science classes learn more science. Students who took biology, chemistry and physics scored 22 percent higher than those who took just one science class, Munson calculates.

Only one third of those who took the 12th-grade science exam had taken three science classes, 38 percent had taken two and 28 percent just one.

Only 21 percent of 12th graders scored at the proficient or advanced level in science.

Most of the discussion is about race and ethnicity, Munson complains.  Nobody is talking about “what actually improves student achievement . . .  increasing student knowledge.”

The longer content, course-taking and curriculum remain on the sidelines, the further our students and our nation will fall behind.

Of course, it could be a chicken and egg thing:  The less-competent, less-motivated students are less likely to take chemistry and even less likely to take physics. But I’d love to see more discussion of the things we can change — what to teach and how to teach it — than about demographics.

Hechinger Report’s Go Deep on science includes:

How do we reform science education?

Why are other countries do better in science than the U.S.?

The future of U.S. science education

What makes a good science teacher?

Filed Under: Education Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Rethinking AP

January 14, 2011 By

Advanced Placement is being redesigned to focus less on factual knowledge and more on teaching students how to apply knowledge and analyze ideas, reports the New York Times. For the first time, College Board is developing curriculum frameworks, not just writing the exams.

AP science and history courses have been “criticized for overwhelming students with facts to memorize and then rushing through important topics,” reports the Times.

A.P. teachers have long complained that lingering for an extra 10 or 15 minutes on a topic can be a zero-sum game, squeezing out something else that needs to be covered for the exam. PowerPoint lectures are the rule. The homework wears down many students. And studies show that most schools do the same canned laboratory exercises, providing little sense of the thrill of scientific discovery.

Next month, the College Board will release AP biology and U.S. history curriculum frameworks that will try to focus students on concepts and analysis.  “In biology, a host of more creative, hands-on experiments are intended to help students think more like scientists.”

The “new AP” started with German and French language courses this year;  revised physics, chemistry, European history, world history and art history frameworks will be ready for exams in 2014 or 2015. English and math courses, which have drawn fewer complaints, will not be revised until later.

“We really believe that the New A.P. needs to be anchored in a curriculum that focuses on what students need to be able to do with their knowledge,” says Trevor Packer, College Board’s vice president for AP.

For biology, the change means paring down the entire field to four big ideas. The first is a simple statement that evolution “drives the diversity and unity of life.” The others emphasize the systematic nature of all living things: that they use energy and molecular building blocks to grow; respond to information essential to life processes; and interact in complex ways. Under each of these thoughts, a 61-page course framework lays out the most crucial knowledge students need to absorb.

And to the delight of teachers who have gotten an early peek at the plans, the board also makes clear what will not be on the exam. Part or all of at least 20 of the 56 chapters in the A.P. biology book that Mrs. Carlson’s class uses will no longer need to be covered. (One PowerPoint slide explaining the changes notes sardonically that teachers can retire their swift marches through the “Organ of the Day.”)

My daughter’s AP U.S. history teacher knew to the minute how much pre-exam time she had to cover each item in the curriculum, students believed.  It was a forced march, but everyone who kept up was well prepared to pass the exam.  The next year, the teacher missed six weeks due to a  health problem. To her horror, the sub fell behind the pace. My daughter volunteered as a teacher’s aide to help Mrs. W double-march her students to the exam.

Filed Under: Education Tagged With: , ,

What social studies teachers think and do

October 1, 2010 By

Social studies teachers share the values of ordinary Americans, concludes High Schools, Civics, and Citizenship: What Social Studies Teachers Think and Do, a new American Enterprise Institute study.

Eighty-three percent of high school teachers surveyed believe that the United States is a “unique country that stands for something special in the world,” and 82 percent say high school students should “respect and appreciate their country but know its shortcomings.” This tracks closely with surveys of the general public.

Only 36 percent say it is absolutely essential to teach high school students “facts (e.g., location of the fifty states) and dates (e.g., Pearl Harbor).” Factual knowledge ranks last on list of 12 items. Knowing what’s guaranteed by the Bill of Rights ranks first. (One could argue that’s factual knowledge.)

Only 56 percent of teachers agree that “by graduation, virtually all students in my high school have carefully read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.”

Teachers split on whether their school districts sees social studies as “an absolutely essential subject area.”

  • Seven in ten (70 percent) say social studies classes are a lower priority because of pressure to show progress on statewide math and language arts tests.
  • Yet social studies teachers want to hop on the testing bandwagon: 93 percent say “social studies should be part of every state’s set of standards and testing.”

    • Teachers stress things that embody a certain spirit of America,” such as the Bill of Rights, “but not about how that spirit is translated into governance” through concepts like federalism and the separation of powers, writes Rick Hess.  Only 24 percent of teachers are “very confident” their students can identify the protections in the Bill of Rights by the end of high school; 15 percent think their students understand federalism and the separation of powers, and 11 percent believe their pupils understand the basic precepts of the free market.

    If teachers with “some confidence” are factored in, half say their students are graduating with an adequate understanding of civics and citizenship.

    Filed Under: Education Tagged With: , , , , , ,
    « Older Posts
    Newer Posts »