Posts
“Evidence indicates that the traditional or teacher-centered approaches are more effective in helping students achieve academic goals than the learner-centered or “progressive” approaches.” -- George K. Cunningham
Wow, he actually said it.
George K. Cunningham's paper, Education Schools: Helping or Hindering Potential Teachers? is significant and if you're a parent, educator, or administrator it's worth your time. I promise.
If you're an education school student, please, please read it. Challenge the establishment, question authority, and dare to take the road less traveled. Come on, be a rebel and turn in an ed school research project about Project Follow Through, direct instruction, or precision teaching! Just think of it as retro-chic.
While Cunningham examines the University of North Carolina in his January 2008 paper for the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, it is clear that education schools across the nation are entrenched in the same progressive/constructivist rhetoric he frowns upon. As a result, this rhetoric rules the day in most public school classrooms and our children are paying dearly for it.
“This advocacy of rhetoric as opposed to practical learning leads education students into realms far afield from normal education as most people understand it. It leaves precious little time to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic.”
I posted lots more about it here. Instructivist commented how enormously important Cunningham's paper is. I certainly agree.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Cunningham quotes an ed school professor who displays the anti-knowledge mindset of ed schools:
An education professor at Michigan State University
says, “The aim is to foster personal and social
responsibility, to learn to work with others in egalitarian
ways, respecting diversity and integrating
everyone for the future of the country. There has
to be an emphasis on acquiring new information,
not just absorbing the old, not a body of content, of
facts. Teaching is not telling” (quoted in Kramer
1991, 75).
Note how this ed prof begins stuttering when it comes to knowledge.
We had an unhappy meeting with the Earth Science teacher & her chair today. When we got to the part where they explained, again, that Earth Science is a "conceptual" course, not a factual course, Ed and I both said, "It's not conceptual, it's factual; this is a memorization course."
Then I said, "That's fine with me."
Neither Ed nor I can tell why they see the course as conceptual. I think it may be entirely that the kids are constantly being asked to interpret grainy, black and white graphs and illustrations.
But I honestly don't know.
I'm not in the US, but let me try to give an objective outsider's view on Cunningham's paper.
From the Conceptual Frameworks quotes given in his paper, I can see why he is so concerned. It appears that the ed schools are not worried enough about academic progress of school students.
However, we should be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water.
His 'evidence' for the effectiveness of instructivist teaching approaches is thin - like all educational 'evidence'. It could well be that the Direct Instruction program also involved well-designed opportunities for students to process and practice what they were learning. Processing and practicing are essential elements in the learning process and are, dare I say it, an important part of a learner-centered approach (I prefer to use 'learner-' rather than 'student-centered' since I feel it has a better connotation).
In brief, my take is:
1. Two instructors can deliver a lecture. One is engaging, interesting, meaningful and results in effective learning, because the instructor puts effort into designing for the learning needs of the learners. It is still 'instructivist' in that a lecture has been delivered, but it is 'learner-centered' in that learners have been catered for.
Then you get the other guy who just walks in, talks for 2 hours, and is just presenting. It is boring, students are not engaged, there is no rapport, no communication, just delivery of facts. And very much 'teacher-centered'.
The latter case is one possible unfortunate outcome if we promote instructivism.
2. Mathematics is an area that needs instructor input. I don't believe it is an efficient use of time to require students to 'construct' a whole pile of algebra. But once again, we can tell the students everything (teacher-centered, so there is no discovery or thinking) OR we can tell them enough (learner-centered) and trigger them to think it through, apply and make connections.
3. Cunningham seems to believe that if we just tell students, they will learn. This flies in the face of the emerging body of brain research that suggests many ways to enhance a "tell em', test 'em" approach. It is also surprising given his psychology background.
Anyway, thanks for the link.
I don't agree that Cunningham believes that "if we just tell students, they will learn." It's about how we teach students because you're right, brain research tells us otherwise.
Direct instruction, precision teaching, and the cognitive scientists have much to contribute to the "science" of teaching and yet the waters are mudied with constructivist babble.
The schools of education in the US have embraced constructivism in an overzealous way. They have sacrificed deep content knowledge for a sketchy pedagogy based upon faulty logic and a very unscientific approach to learning.
Yes, I would much rather have an instructor who in interesting, engaging, and meaningful IF he/she has specific content knowledge on a level that benefits students. Otherwise, it's not education it's entertainment.
What the ed schools are preparing teachers to do is to entertain children, not teach them. This, I believe, is what Cunningham speaks out against.
In his conclusion, he makes suggestions on how to change the current scenario. While they are specific to North Carolina, they have a much broader application:
1. Public schools must commit themselves to educational accountability- "improving student skills and knowledge in the vital academic areas is its foremost concern."
2. States should write accrediting standards for education schools that "place the emphasis where it should be -- preparing teachers who are able to help students master the subjects they need to learn."
3. Replace the PRAXIS with the American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence (ABCTE) or custom designed alternative that promotes effective instructional methods that ensure higher academic achievement.
4. Improve the quality of school of education professors through careful evaluation.
5. Secondary teachers should be content area experts in what they propose to teach. Less educational theory and more content knowledge.
I would agree that Cunningham is too extreme in saying that constructivists should not be accepted to schools of ed at all. Here, I disagree.
I think that if some parents believe in this philosophy of teaching and find it is best for their child, by all means, they should have access to teachers taught in this matter. However, as it stands, there is no choice. Not for teachers. Not for students. Not for parents.
Hi and thanks for your response. I think we are on the same page.
I also felt, reading those Conceptual Frameworks, that "The schools of education in the US have embraced constructivism in an overzealous way.", as you said.
I lament many things, but 2 stand out:
1. Constructivism is getting really bad press because of this over-zealousness.
2. It becomes harder and harder to find content experts in math and science who actually want to teach.
You may be interested in the discussion on 21st century computer algebra literacies over at squareCircleZ. Part of the discussion (especially in the light of technology) has to be on what we teach, not only how.
Thanks. I'll be checking it out.
BTW, I don't think our positions are mutually exclusive either.
Post a Comment