I am told that my comments are too centered on philosophy. Well, for me “philosophy of education” means the ideas that decide classroom practices, what actually happens in the classroom.
Anthony Rebora did a book review in EducationWeek Teacher Update on July 14: http://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2011/06/01/focus_bb.html?cmp=ENL-TU-TBC
The book’s author is Mike Schmoker, and the title is Focus: Elevating the Essentials to Radically Improve Student Learning.
The book’s author is Mike Schmoker, and the title is Focus: Elevating the Essentials to Radically Improve Student Learning.
Here is the first paragraph of the review:
"In his new book, Mike Schmoker—a former administrator, English teacher, and football coach—makes a bracing case for a back-to-basics approach to education. He calls on teachers and schools, in no uncertain terms, to abandon ever-changing "fads, programs, and innovations," and zero in on what he calls the "three essential elements" of high-quality schooling: coherent curriculum, effective whole-class instruction, and purposeful reading and writing."
I speak of the purpose of school as transmitting information about the world. According to this reviewer, Mike Schmoker gives what I believe are the means of transmitting this information, his “three essential elements:”
- Coherent curriculum
- Effective whole-class instruction
- Purposeful reading and writing.
To "philosophize" about these three points means asking questions, for example: What is meant by "coherent" in this context? What does such a curriculum cover? What are goals, both short and long term? What is "whole-class instruction?" How is it effective? How is "purposeful" defined in this context? Further questions will show up as the discussion continues.
To "philosophize" about these points means separating oneself from existing perspectives and being ready to examine each "answer" with an open mind. The ultimate goal of such an exercise is to make decisions about what needs to happen in the classroom. The decisions need to be well thought-out, well supported, and they should remain flexible so that, once implemented, it remains possible to make modifications as they become necessary.
I am a French teacher and trainer in explicit teaching. Although philosophy is not my specialty, I think that the purpose of school is defined by a philosophical approach; all discussions about education rest on this philosophical choice:
ReplyDelete• Schooling as a way for transmitting knowledge and abilities in order to acquire critical thinking and become an enlightened citizen.
• Or : schooling as a way to develop one’s personality and self esteem which are the essential conditions for learning (eventually) and becoming a responsible citizen.
Depending what option you support, the idea of effectiveness will be different; effectiveness is nothing else that reaching the goal you’ve defined.
As an advocate of explicit teaching (option 1), I will answer on point #2 : effective whole class instruction. It has been precisely defined by evidence based practice. Instruction is recognized as effective when there is evidence for this effectiveness. When told about a teaching method, Rosenshine likes to reply “Show me the data.” The evidence consists in studies, experimental approaches, meta-analyses; it is also completed by the work in cognitive sciences. Because of the studies on the brain functioning, we now know and understand why explicit and direct teaching works better than discovery learning. The evidence exists but the difficulty is to make it enter the field of education. This will be a very important challenge in the coming time.
I just want to end my message by mentioning the results of Follow Through Project because they illustrate very well the question of intentions, goals and effectiveness. 9 teaching methods were compared, belonging to 3 families based on : basic skills models – cognitive conceptual skills models – affective cognitive skills models. Direct Instruction (family 1, centered on transmitting knowledge) got the best results even on the affective point. Among other conclusions, this shows all the importance of acquiring knowledge and succeeding in the development of self esteem. Other studies afterwards have confirmed that conclusion.
Forgive me for mistakes or way of writing, English is not my native language.
Sincerely,
Françoise Appy
Interesting and, I believe, pertinent comments! Much to ponder.
ReplyDeleteBut I can't resist one comment, concerning the two goals you listed:
• Schooling as a way for transmitting knowledge and abilities in order to acquire critical thinking and become an enlightened citizen.
• Or : schooling as a way to develop one’s personality and self esteem which are the essential conditions for learning (eventually) and becoming a responsible citizen.
Much of the education (here in the U.S.) seems to assume that the second goal, developing personality and self esteem, precedes learning. Whereas the project you quote shows just the opposite, that acquiring knowledge is a necessary component in developing personality and self esteem. That is logical, for substantial knowledge provides a basis that makes self esteem real.
Exactly, that’s why these two conceptions are inconciliable.
ReplyDeleteContrary to what one might think, self esteem does not come by working specially on it as it has been done in the schools with the Self Esteem Movement. It is not because you are repeating to a child all day long that he is a special person, that his self esteem and self confidence will increase. But the risk is to create narcissic children as Jean M. Twenge and W. Keith Campbell show brilliantly in their recent study : The Narcissism Epidemic – Living in the age of Entitlement.
Self esteem comes from success; success at school relies on teacher’s method and on efforts made. In other words, as says S.Engelmann, “ If the children has not learned, the teacher has not taught”. It is a high responsability but not impossible to realise as long as you use an efficient method of teaching.
To say that the purpose of school is to develop personality and self-esteem is fallacious. As I try to point out in this blog, the purpose of school is the transmission of information.
ReplyDeleteHowever! an academic curriculum containing the information that needs to be transmitted requires effort and attention, persistence and responsibility (and more!) from students. Therefore, in the process of study, personality and self-esteem are developed as "side-products," so to speak, but highly significant side-products.
In the transmission of information school does contribute to these desirable personal characteristics. There is more failure than success when school tries to teach them directly.
Of course my previous comment was in full support of the previous comment made by Françoise Appy.
ReplyDelete