tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post7563647027952368439..comments2024-03-02T15:23:18.091-05:00Comments on D-Ed Reckoning: This Isn't Getting Us Anywhere FastKDeRosahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-5341915422657977632009-09-23T09:51:42.327-04:002009-09-23T09:51:42.327-04:00Stephen Downes, if you're still reading this d...Stephen Downes, if you're still reading this discussion, is there any evidence that could convince you that a common core is necessary for the teaching of skills? <br />And is there any evidence that could convince you that skills must be taught in the context of some common base of knowledge.<br />And is there any evidence that could convince you, if you were convinced of the first two points, that students ought to be tested on the basis of that knowledge?Tracy Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08999246551652981965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-59452006031690396032009-09-23T05:14:26.524-04:002009-09-23T05:14:26.524-04:00Facts & Skills is an incomplete set.
This is ...Facts & Skills is an incomplete set.<br /><br />This is not all or even primarily what one needs to learn in either formal or informal education.<br /><br />The primary is concepts. Maybe Conceptual frameworks if you want to abstract more.<br /><br />As far as I can tell this is the point of DI. That's why they focus on vocabulary, because its a proxy for concepts. It is not to teach facts, facts are taught as instances so that one can get the pattern and form the concept. <br /><br />If you are teaching the child the concept Red, the point of showing them a series of non-red and red things is not so that now have a bunch of Facts about the things you show them, its so they can form the concept red and apply it to every other red thing they see. <br /><br />Steve is right in a lot of the details of his argument against facts. Yes you can use associative memory to teach kids the list of states and capitals. And this is totally useless except as a parlor trick. Yes some education is about that. Beat up on that all you want. <br /><br />But this has nothing to do with learning facts like 2+2=4. Or the sound the letter s makes. These are facts that build into skills. Skills are an accumulation of related facts (not all or most of which have to be verbal).<br /><br />Also the idea that one needs to read Hilbert be educated on 2+2=4 is hard to understand. Does this mean that no one before Hilbert or since who hasn't read him doesn't know 2+2=4?? 2+2=4 is understandable in the 2-6 range, I am pretty optimistic but even I don't expect my six year old to read Hilbert. We are still working through Euler and next is Gauss give the kid a break.<br /><br />As for what skills one needs.. here is mine for young children (up to 7 or so):<br /><br />Academic:<br />Language (talking, conversation, humor etc)<br />Reading <br />Math<br /><br />Non-Academic:<br />Movement (Dance, Martial Art, Sport)<br />Drawing (pre-science)<br />Singing/Music Instrument<br />Social/Emotional <br /><br />I don't see much reason to care about writing. Minimal typing is fine. I don't see how to teach science in any meaningful way at this age. Teach observation skills (drawing), teach math. Teach concepts. Tell stories about how things work. Same with social studies, include what you want in the stories you read them and they read. Seems like fiction is just as good a history here.Robert Sperryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00947778813690974327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-76961509436525845572009-09-22T15:47:57.688-04:002009-09-22T15:47:57.688-04:00Ken asks: "education reform is a bootless ta...Ken asks: "education reform is a bootless task, where does one draw the line?"<br /><br />Just before the term, "reform." Use of the term is a "tell" that the person using it doesn't have the foggiest notion of the time, cost, or operations involved in delivering the "pie in the sky."<br /><br />One of the things yagotta admire about Zig Engelmann's applications, is that he and his colleagues know the effect they are shooting for, and they monitor closely how well they are doing in getting there. (The instrumentation and methodology they use for monitoring the accomplishments of kids and teachers leaves a lot to be desired, but that's a whole nother story.<br /><br />Few people do this. When one actually observes what is happening in the "reform" is that people are talking the talk, but they are walking in near-random walks.<br /><br />Current federal initiatives are so misguided, that the "reformers" may have taken enough rope to hang the "movement."<br /><br />I'm still optimistic that a "better education system" can and will be operationally effected. The faster we go nowhere, the better. Sooner or later, people will figure out that we aren't "gaining," that the "Race to the Top" isn't a race, and that there is no top. The sooner the better.Dick Schutzhttp://ssrn.com/author=1199505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-82076079864765538062009-09-22T15:17:56.458-04:002009-09-22T15:17:56.458-04:00The definition of "learning" you used is...The definition of "learning" you used is not that far apart from the broader definition, Robin. It's just that there is more to learning and instruction than loading long term memory. Forgetting is as important as memory and memory is constantly being updated and reorganized by new information.<br /><br />The "debates" are muddy because the debaters (present company excepted) often are promoting an ideological belief, and the language of education is largely metaphorical/rhetorical rather than operational/technical. People throw around terms like "higher order skills," "critical thinking" "21st century skills," and such without any means for reliably teaching them. (There are other variables involved, but we needn't go there.)<br /><br />Thanks for activating the links, Ken, and for the "background info"/skill/knowledge on html that I obviously lacked.Dick Schutzhttp://ssrn.com/author=1199505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-77309200928202337582009-09-22T13:06:21.830-04:002009-09-22T13:06:21.830-04:00forgot one
Bridging the Gap Between Achievement a...forgot one<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ashankerinst.org/Downloads/Bridging_Gap.pdf" rel="nofollow">Bridging the Gap Between Achievement and Standards (PDF)</a>KDeRosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-47802713666770437782009-09-22T13:05:42.608-04:002009-09-22T13:05:42.608-04:00Dick-
I took my definition of learning from the K...Dick-<br /><br />I took my definition of learning from the Kirschner-Sweller-Clark 2006 article in Educational Psychologist as well as some of David C Geary's recent work.<br /><br />If people having a good faith, informed discussion have 2 different views of what "learning" means, it's easier to see how the skills vs content discussion goes amiss even when intentions are good.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11914876123232834323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-10798728613408019632009-09-22T13:04:25.300-04:002009-09-22T13:04:25.300-04:00Dick's links:
The Cambridge Handbook of Expe...Dick's links:<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Expertise-Performance-Handbooks-Psychology/dp/0521600812" rel="nofollow">The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Performance</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Development-Infancy-Childhood-Developmental-Psychology/dp/1841696420/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253638411&sr=1-1" rel="nofollow">The Development of Memory in Infancy and Childhood (Studies in Developmental Psychology)</a><br /><br />This is the html you should use for links:<br /><br /><a href="link">link name</a>KDeRosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-26178629221687136982009-09-22T12:39:02.372-04:002009-09-22T12:39:02.372-04:00Well, to get beyond rhetoric and straw men we have...Well, to get beyond rhetoric and straw men we have to get into some "knowledge."<br /><br />Learning is generally defined as "a change in behavior as a function of practice." <br /><br />Memory is certainly involved. But there is a difference in "declarative memory"--the sort of things discussed as "facts" "knowledge" and "events" as contrasted with "episodic," "procedural" or "tacit" memory--matters like driving and other physical actions, routines that range from the simple to the complex.<br /><br />Much is known about these matters but the work has been in developmental psychology (e.g. "The Development of Memory in Infancy and Childhood")<br /><br />and in broader cognitive sciences <br />(e.g. "The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Performance."<br /><br />[Sorry, I can't get the links to amazon for these to activate. Google, if interested] <br /><br />Effecting transparent operational improvement in the el-hi enterprise is more akin to "nation building" than to the "Reform by Slogan" and "Debate about Nostrums." that leaves the institution operating in it's somewhat dysfunctional but robust manner.<br /><br />Richard Elmore has a thoughtful article along these lines: "Bridging the Gap Between Achievement and Standards"<br /><br />http://www.shankerinstitute.org/Downloads/Bridging_Gap.pdfDick Schutzhttp://ssrn.com/author=1199505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-75318180798517275072009-09-22T10:31:30.270-04:002009-09-22T10:31:30.270-04:00If you define learning as a change in long term me...If you define learning as a change in long term memory and believe the cognitive scientists when they say working memory is very inefficient (limited in duration and capacity) in working with novel information, can't we move beyond the rhetoric and strawmen?<br /><br />These inefficiencies and limits disappear when dealing with familiar information. Direct instruction has been repeatedly shown to be a highly effective technique to help put novel information into long term memory, especially in K - 12 where time is finite and demands are great. Most kids no longer get this at the family dinner table.<br /><br />What do the P21 learning activities do to affect long term memory and working memory in the absence of known facts or facts sequenced to known facts?<br /><br />How do you practice critical thinking and problem solving skills and other P21 skills without analogizing to known information?<br /><br />To be truly effective, google relies on searching relevant terms. How do you know what's relevant without some preexisting content knowledge?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11914876123232834323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-91178014470355783782009-09-22T07:33:43.432-04:002009-09-22T07:33:43.432-04:00Dick, education reform is a bootless task, where d...Dick, education reform is a bootless task, where does one draw the line?<br /><br />You've also struck on the same criticism that ENgelmann levels on Hirsch and I think it is a valid point, as I indicated in the comment above. <br /><br />I was actually referring to direct instruction generally.<br /><br />And the place I was referring to is, as usual, a metaphorical better education system.KDeRosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-69252867053629120102009-09-21T20:43:04.516-04:002009-09-21T20:43:04.516-04:00Well, your post proves its title, Ken. In my view ...Well, your post proves its title, Ken. In my view Downes' piece doesn't start off well, and trying to do in his straw men is a bootless task.<br /><br />We have Common Core taking issue with P21. Here's the CC quote that Stephen takes off from:<br /><br />"Cognitive science teaches us that skills and knowledge are interdependent and that possessing a base of knowledge is necessary to the acquisition not only of more knowledge, but also of skills. Skills can neither be taught nor applied effectively without prior knowledge of a wide array of subjects."<br /><br />The "knowledge" quoted is a "fact." Both folk science and cognitive science are in accord on that.<br /><br />But that doesn't say much. It leaves open the questions of what "knowledge," what "skills" what "prior knowledge" how "wide an array of subjects is required.<br /><br />Hirsch "answers" these questions by setting out a "common core" by grade that all kids are to have in their noggins (or wherever "knowledge" resides). This encyclopedic aspiration is anachronistic in the age of the Internet, when googling will tell you anything you want to know--if you know the rudiments of web searching.<br /><br />The common things that should be "in kids' heads" warrants a lot more deliberation. But the time and feasibility of lodging it there are an important part of the deliberation. Hirsch isn't the boss of anyone. (The Feds are trying to get the states to do the bossing for them, but that's a whole nother story).<br /><br />Bringing "direct instruction" into play further muddies the communication. "How to" reliably accomplish any educational aspiration is a legitimate question, and the most indirect instruction is direct. But if I understand you can your referent to direct instruction is DI as operationally defined by Becker, Engelmann, et al. That architecture is one legitimate way to go about it, but there are others. (Not a oodles of other ways, but some.)<br /><br />There are many "arguments" going on in the thread, but they aren't being joined.<br /><br />"It isn't getting us anywhere fast," but where the hell are you trying to go? If you said where, I missed it.Dick Schutzhttp://ssrn.com/author=1199505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-14015233278149754372009-09-21T18:21:30.776-04:002009-09-21T18:21:30.776-04:00Stephen, I don't need to reach those issues to...Stephen, I don't need to reach those issues to maintain my disagreement with your premises. In fact, I could completely agree that we don't need a common core of knowledge or that direct instruction is less effective as the student's knowledge increases and my criticisms still remain valid. It could be that students should learn facts in science, history, geography, etc. without agreeing that a common core of knowledge is needed. As far as teaching according to direct instruction or not, I'm more concerned that the student actually learns rather than how he is taught. If the student is learning, I don't care how he is taught. Of course, you're well aware that I don't think that most novice students do learn as well with non-direct instruction, but that isn't germane to either of our arguments.KDeRosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07355308409859334507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-54950664485050502222009-09-21T17:23:55.842-04:002009-09-21T17:23:55.842-04:00Go back and reread the argument again, and see if ...Go back and reread the argument again, and see if you get it this time.<br /><br />Begin by reading (and maybe even responding to) this bit, right near the beginning, which you completely ignore:<br /><br />"I pose this question to the defenders of this 'base of knowledge', "why is a common core necessary for the teaching of skills, and why is testing of that core necessary." And specifically, "the question isn't whether skills can be taught in isolation, but rather whether they must be taught in the context of some common base of knowledge and whether students ought to be tested on the basis of that knowledge."<br /><br />My argument is that there is no _particular_ set of facts that is needed (though I _allow_ that some set or another may be) and that the teaching of facts as _facts_ by direct instruction - because it becomes increasingly ineffective, and comes with an increasing cost to critical capacity - should be minimized.<br /><br />It is unfortunate that you missed the point of it. Happily, from what I can gather from the responses, you are the only one who has.Stephen Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06140591903467372209noreply@blogger.com