Posts
Hi -Of course, I've omitted the question of direct instruction in values...
I am a writer (Animals in Translation; Animals Make Us Human) and an instructor of freshman composition.
My class blog is here.
My husband, Ed Berenson, is Director of the Institute of French Studies at NYU (his new book is The Statue of Liberty: A Transatlantic Story).
Both of us strongly support “knowledge-based education,” and we are likely in the majority of parents, including liberal parents living in New York.
Although it’s not obvious from the platform’s wording, knowledge – not critical thinking per se – is the issue the Texas Republican Party has taken a position on. The phrase “critical thinking” means something quite different inside public education than out, and I’m hoping you’ll consider writing a follow-up to clarify.
Boiling it down, there are two fundamental issues in the ‘education wars,’ one involving values, the other involving empirical research on the brain.
In terms of values, a majority of parents (and taxpayers and liberal arts professors) want schools to transmit to students knowledge of the liberal arts disciplines.
The K-12 establishment disagrees. Education professors [tend to] believe knowledge is changing so quickly that material taught today will be obsolete tomorrow, so content doesn’t matter. Instead of teaching knowledge, schools should teach students to ‘think critically’ and to ‘learn how to learn.’
(If you're interested, I compare my own district's ‘content doesn’t matter’ 7th grade reading program to the Core Knowledge reading sequence here. My district spends $29K per pupil.)
In terms of research on the brain, the K-12 establishment believes that ‘knowing’ and ‘thinking’ are separate functions. In the age of the internet, they argue, there is no reason for students to 'memorize' and 'regurgitate' knowledge because you can find any information you need on Google.
That sounds logical, but cognitive science has shown that it’s wrong. In reality, it's not possible to think about content stored on Google. While you are thinking, content must be stored inside 'working memory,' and working memory for “external,” unlearned content is tiny -- while working memory for knowledge stored in long-term memory is much larger.
In short, “knowledge” stored in the brain is biologically different from “knowledge” stored outside the brain, and the difference matters to the quality of thought. Thinking depends on knowing.
Cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham’s article for teachers is worth reading:
Critical Thinking: Why Is It So Hard to Teach?
In closing, I’ll mention that Ed headed the California History/Social Science Project in the ‘90s. CHSSP was a state-wide effort by the superintendent of schools to remove professional development from education schools and put it in the hands of disciplinary specialists – in other words, to make professional development “knowledge-based.”
I’m sure Ed would be happy to talk to you if you’re interested.
Hoping you’ll look into this further and consider writing a follow-up –
Catherine Johnson
Saturday, June 30, 2012
letter to Andrew Rosenthal
re: Texas Republicans and "Knowledge-Based Education," I've sent this email to an address that I hope belongs to Andrew Rosenthal:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The K-12 establishment disagrees. Education professors [tend to] believe knowledge is changing so quickly that material taught today will be obsolete tomorrow, so content doesn’t matter.
Catherine, I'd just like the flag and comment on your insertion of "[tend to]", which (I assume) was not part of the letter you actually sent to Andrew.
I work in a School of Education (and starting this Fall will be joining the faculty of a different College of Education, and I think it is important to break down this myth that "Educationists" don't care about content.
Sure, I definitely have some colleagues that who believe that "knowledge is changing so quickly that material taught today will be obsolete tomorrow, so content doesn’t matter", but they are in the minority. Many, perhaps most, of my colleagues come from "the disciplines", as we say, and care deeply about content knowledge. In fact I was hired at my new job specifically because MSU has made a commitment to forging stronger links between the Dept. of Mathematics and the Mathematics Education program.
Now it may be true that in "another part of the forest" the situation is as you describe it. My experience is quite limited and I have, I can assure you, seen my share of horror stories. But it is not all darkness and misery, and an acknowledged tendency (whether enclosed in brackets or not) is not a universal fact.
That's fantastic to hear ---- !
You're right; I didn't include the qualifier 'tend to' in the email I sent Rosenthal (or Customer Service, depending on who actually opens email at the Times).
Sweeping generalizations are always wrong....BUT... the studies I've seen of what is taught in ed schools actually do support a broad generalization in this case. (I'm thinking of David Steiner's study of ed school syllabi and the NCTQ study of reading instruction in education schools.)
So, while sweeping generalizations are wrong, the word 'hegemony' still applies (in my view).
Look across the land, at education schools and public schools, and count how many times you see the word "knowledge."
Count the number of times you see the word "memorize" used in a neutral or positive sense.
Count the number of times you see the word "regurgitate" used to refer to what happens on a quiz or test.
All of that said, of course you're right --- and I'm thrilled to hear that you've now worked at two education schools where content matters -- !
Michael,
I appreciate your comment and was curious about where you are currently teaching, so looked you up. I wish you well at MSU and hope that with your extensive math background, you can make a difference.
I attended ed school at George Mason University in Virginia and can say that though I may not have always agreed with what was said in my classes, I enjoyed my teachers (all except one) during my time there. Almost all had had extensive teaching experience, and it was always valuable for me to hear about their time in the classroom and how they dealt with the problems and challenges of teaching.
I will say that the emphasis was on inquiry-based learning, working in groups, differentiated instruction, a disdain for ability grouping and a view that teaching procedures was tantamount to short-changing understanding. I hear references to the math taught in the 60's and other earlier eras as "skills-based" as if concepts and understanding and problem solving were never addressed.
I hope that you can effect change in your new position. Glenda Lappan is part of the MSU ed school and a prime mover of the Connected Math series, which in my opinion is the epitome of "just in time" learning. MSU is also the home of Tom Parker, a math professor who has taken issue with the various math texts. So it should be an interesting time for you!
Jon Star was also at MSU ed school and is now part of Harvard's Graduate School of Education. I've communicated with him and he is a reasonable person in terms of math education. Good luck in your new venture.
Catherine, I think you're being too charitable in your interpretation of the TXGOP's position on critical thinking. I'm also excited by the prospect of finding allies in the war against misconceptions about "critical thinking", but the TXGOP isn't really any more "pro-knowledge", here, than progressive education establishment.
The TXGOP is best understood not as fighting a pedagogical war, but as fighting a culture war where, on their view, kids shouldn't be taught about things that don't align with the outlook of many conservative Texas parents. They are, in other words, the TXGOP is "anti-knowledge", with a particular opposition to knowledge about the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, the evidence for evolution, religious pluralism, etc.
I don't see any evidence that the Texas GOP's objections to "critical thinking" align with yours (or mine) in anything more than a superficial way.
"Catherine, I think you're being too charitable in your interpretation of the TXGOP's position on critical thinking. I'm also excited by the prospect of finding allies in the war against misconceptions about "critical thinking", but the TXGOP isn't really any more "pro-knowledge", here, than progressive education establishment."
"Critical thinking" is a well-known weasel word for propaganda, and the TX GOP (and lots of people who pay attention) know that. It's been problematic for literally decades now. The term should be avoided just because it's such a total turn-off, and rather obvious code for an academic program where kids will be funneled along to a pre-determined outcome, while being flattered with the idea that they are making independent intellectual decisions that in reality they lack the content background to make.
How about "problem-solving" instead and sticking within disciplines? You can solve math problems in math, literature analysis problems in English, chemistry problems in chemistry, and so forth.
I agree with Paul Bruno here. The TXGOP may be a useful ally, at least for a short time, but I'm not going to count on them to support actual knowledge and real critical thinking in the long run - at least not when it contradicts the things TEHY would like students to believe.
Post a Comment