Archive | Mind Dump RSS feed for this section

There is no shortcut

Andreas Schleicher said:

there is no shortcut to improved learning outcomes in a post-2015 world economy where knowledge and skills have become the global currency, the key to better jobs and better lives. And there is no central bank that prints this currency. We cannot inherit this currency, and we cannot produce it through speculation; we can only develop it through sustained effort and investment in people. 

via http://oecdeducationtoday.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/education-post-2015.html

Simply throwing kids into adaptive drill-and-kill software is NOT sustained effort and investment in people (i.e., human capital development)…

Most educational games teach skills, not thinking

Jordan Shapiro said:

The majority of [learning] games fail because they attempt to teach skills rather than thinking. They focus on retention rather than understanding. They miss the whole reason we should be excited about game-based learning in the first place: because it offers the potential to change the common way we approach teaching and learning. Games can help students improve their critical thinking and problem-solving capabilities while offering clear assessment data that could eliminate our dependency on regurgitation and memorization-based evaluations.

Expressing a similar concept, mathematics learning experts often make a distinction between “procedural fluency” and “mathematical thinking,” or “number sense.” Procedural fluency is just what it sounds like, being competent at executing mathematical procedures – like a human calculator. Mathematical thinking has to do with conceptual understanding. . . . simply put: computers can now do most procedural mathematics and individuals need to focus on learning number sense.

via http://www.forbes.com/sites/jordanshapiro/2015/04/27/stanford-study-shows-dramatic-math-improvement-from-playing-video-games-just-10-minutes-per-day

The U.S. has more memorizers

Maths

Jo Boaler said:

data from the 13 million students who took PISA [math] tests showed that the lowest-achieving students worldwide were those who used a memorization strategy – those who thought of math as a set of methods to remember and who approached math by trying to memorize steps. The highest-achieving students were those who thought of math as a set of connected, big ideas.

[wait for it…]

The U.S. has more memorizers than most other countries in the world.

via http://hechingerreport.org/memorizers-are-the-lowest-achievers-and-other-common-core-math-surprises

Image credit: maths, Sean MacEntee

When you teach science as recall rather than as thinking?

Creation Museum

Dan Berrett said:

Rates of scientific literacy among American adults hover below 30 percent. More than a third of them aren’t convinced that the planet is warming, and only half think human activity is causing climate change, despite consensus among scientists that it is. Even long-settled subjects are still clouded by doubt: 30 percent of Americans say parents should be able to choose not to vaccinate their children; 53 percent think humans and dinosaurs coexisted; and 70 percent don’t believe in the Big Bang theory.

via http://chronicle.com/article/Teaching-Science-So-It-Sticks/229881

Our generally poor understanding of science has critical policymaking implications…

Image credit: Creation Museum 002b, becky johnson

Filling up versus drawing out

Pouring water

Geoffrey Cohen & Sara Goldrick-Rab said:

Many people think that educating a child is akin to filling a cup. Open heads and pour in knowledge, skills, and virtues. This metaphor is seductive because it calls on deeply-held stereotypes that paint poor and minority children as not having enough drive and smarts.

But the original meaning of education is “to draw out,” not to “fill up.” . . . [we] need to create classrooms that draw out what students already have inside them. Often times, current performance underestimates potential.

[We need to address] the dearth of opportunities for teenage students to feel like [they are] respected and valued in the asylum-like settings of many middle and high schools

[We need to address] curricula that prioritize busy work over reflective thinking that awakens students’ curiosity

via http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/04/19/what-psychology-tells-us-about-student-achievement-and-how-it-is-ignored

Image credit: mandykoh

Whipping people into line

Bullwhip

Sir Ken Robinson said:

It’s not the need for standards. It’s the way they play out. . . . testing is not some benign educational process. It is a multibillion-dollar industry that is absorbing massive time, resources and cash that could be used for other things. Its a massive profit-making machine. . . . You can look at the value of there being some sort of commonly-agreed standards and some core content that could be helpful to schools. That’s one conversation. You can look at some value of some form of diagnostic testing. But when you look at it cumulatively and lay the politics on top of it, it’s just a mess. . . . People are just exhausted by this whole enterprise. . . . If you don’t implement reforms, then you don’t get the cash. It’s just trying to whip people into line. And it doesn’t have to be that way, as other countries are showing, looking for more creative approaches to education. . . .

via http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/04/21/sir-ken-robinson-has-a-lot-to-say-about-u-s-school-reform-it-isnt-good

Image credit: 10’Morgan Blacksnake, AldoZL

 

There’s no diagnostic value in locked-down summative assessments

Diane Ravitch said:

It’s totally inappropriate to compare opting out of testing to opting out of immunization. One has a scientific basis, the other has none. The tests that kids take today have nothing to do with the tests that we took when we were kids. When we were kids, we took an hour test to see how we did in reading, an hour test to see how we did in math. Children today in third grade are taking eight hours of testing. They’re spending more time taking tests than people taking the bar exam.

Now, when we talk about the results of the test, they come back four to six months later. The kids already have a different teacher. And all they get is a score and a ranking. The teachers can’t see the item analysis. They can’t see what the kids got wrong. They’re getting no instructional gain, no possibility of improvement for the kids, because there’s no value to the test. They have no diagnostic value.

[It’s as] if you go to a doctor and you say, ‘I have a pain,’ and the doctor says, ‘I’ll get back to you in six months,’ and he gets back to you and tells you how you compare to everyone else in the state, but he doesn’t have any medicine for you.

via http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/04/16/why-the-debate-between-diane-ravitch-and-merryl-tisch-was-remarkable

How does losing 1,000+ teaching positions make Iowa schools better?

#PinkApril30

Patrick Kearney said:

I had a Republican legislator [in Iowa] reference me saying that I was “wrong” in my writing on school funding. Yet, after saying I was “wrong” he admitted that Republican legislators are using large amounts of tax dollars (80% of next year’s state revenues) for corporate property tax relief. He wrote that the state simply couldn’t afford more than a 1.25% increase in K-12 school funding, yet state budget experts say that we have $717 million in state reserves and don’t even need to touch our state surplus in order to support education spending and still balance the budget. He said he didn’t have any problems with teachers, but it sure seemed crazy that those darned teacher unions were asking for 4% salary increases (although Iowa teachers make at least $5,000 less than the national average). He admitted that the 1.25% growth included money from the governor’s Teacher Leadership Compensation plan that was never intended to be included in SSA (what used to be allowable growth). I was perplexed as to what I have said that is wrong. I’m not even saying Republican legislators are “wrong”, I’m simply saying that I disagree with their priorities. I disagree that losing over 1,000 teaching positions in Iowa make Iowa schools better. I disagree that our money is better spent on corporate tax loop holes and corporate property tax relief than on education.

via https://patrickjkearney.wordpress.com/2015/04/29/april-30-2015-in-iowa

Image credit: ISEA

Science for life and citizenship, not just for scientists

Science Is You

Arthur Camins said:

Despite inducements to change, and a half-century of research-based consensus that students would be well served by more active learning and less lecture and memorization, the latter practices are still ubiquitous. While we remain the world’s leading generator of science and engineering innovation, far too many Americans lack sufficient understanding of the foundational principles of the scientific investigations and engineering designs that have improved our lives.

As a result, they are unable to fully engage in informed participation in debates about such critical issues as climate change, sustainable development and genetic engineering…

the case for a substantial change in what happens in science classrooms. It wants students not to simply memorize what scientists already know but engage in the practices of scientists and engineers in order to understand – and potentially participate in – figuring out and explaining the natural world. Decades of learning science research suggest that this approach is far more likely to result in durable, usable knowledge. This learning includes developing the expertise to evaluate whether scientific explanations and arguments are supportable, refutable or in need of revision.

The third important idea is that scientific literacy is not just specialized knowledge for the gifted few or those who choose science or engineering as a career, but essential for life and citizenship.

via http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/04/20/what-the-future-of-science-education-should-look-like

Image credit: Science Is You, Krissy Venosdale

When not to extend the school day

Clock

Howie Knoff said:

I am not in favor of extending the school day (or year) when students need the extra time to learn things they should have learned earlier in the day. . .  for example, when students did not learn because of:

  • Disruptive or inefficient school schedules (including excessive numbers of transitions, and the constant flow of different groups of students in and out of the classroom during the day);
  • Ineffective (initial) instruction (including when teachers are poorly trained, inexperienced, unprepared, or have too many different student skill levels to teach at the same time);
  • Poorly designed curricula (including curricula that are not developmentally well-matched to the students, or when teachers are teaching students who do not have the prerequisite skills to succeed in the core curriculum); 

and/or because

  • The students are unmotivated or disengaged (including when engaged students are in classrooms with disengaged students who disrupt instruction or create a negative learning environment). 

When these situations are present and the school day is extended to give students more hours of instruction, the additional time is basically compensating for gaps, weaknesses, or ineffective practices. This is inexcusable and should never occur as (a) it tacitly condones these debilitating conditions; and (b) will be unproductive if the same conditions persist during the extended hours.

via http://conta.cc/1DuoYHM

Image credit: timlewisnm

 

Switch to our mobile site