Dead pedagogy

As I have mentioned previously, teacher education programs are woefully inadequate at preparing teachers for the reality of the classroom. Writing is an area that is just left up to chance too often. And yet teachers are charged with teaching writing so they figure it out the best they can. Teachers are amazing at surviving. And this survival instinct is what helps us achieve and it can also be the root of poor practices.

Enter Jane Schaffer. Her method of teaching writing can best be described as formulaic. Taking the art and craft of writing and turning it into a mathematical construct. No thinking needed. No craft. No analysis of great writer's as models. Just learn her special vocabulary, insert banal information and tell us why, and presto change-o, you're a writer.

Schaffer's method can best be described as a life raft approach. When all else fails, follow the formula and you will pass the test. So from a practical standpoint, that is a nice tool to have. A parachute if you will. But preparing learners to communicate in the real world should not rest on emergency planning.

Often times teachers extol the virtues of the Schaffer method as a good scaffold for future adventures in writing. And those future adventures are where? They don't materialize because every teacher on the next step up assumes the children can't write so they reteach the Schaffer method again and again.  Students have learned to be compliant in our factory schools so they just go along with whatever they need to do to get an "A."

The writing curriculum doesn't improve in high school either. My sophomore still comes home talking about "concrete details" and "commentary" years after Schaffer should have been abandoned. A group of writing teachers from Cal State San Marcos came to our district over a decade ago and point blank told our high school teachers the Schaffer method should NOT be used in high school except for struggling writers. They scoffed and continued the drone of CD's and CM's.

The Schaffer method is mechanistic, factory thinking and it needs to be relegated to the survival strategy methodology it was designed for years ago. Sophistication can't be nurtured in writing that is prevented from being daring and experimental. When children are more concerned with counting the number of comments they make about "concrete details" we have really entered a world of cogs and levers. Stop the factory thinking! And quit reserving any quality writing for the elite children in honors and AP English. All students deserve the best!

Teachers, learn how to embrace writing. Write yourselves. Make mistakes. Be daring! Writer's workshop is a far better pedagogy and it asks learners to ask, "What do real writer's do?" And the more we do that, the sooner we will stop telling lies to kids like:

• a paragraph is five to seven sentences
• you can't start sentences with AND
• you can't end a sentence with a preposition
• you must have two commentary sentences for every concrete detail

We need to embrace the nebulous and realize writing is far messier than a factory can streamline. Writing is an art and all writer's have a style. It is our job to help these young writer's find their voice and become engaging authors.

For a far more scholarly critique of the Jane Schaffer method, please visit:

http://www.csun.edu/~krowlands/Content/Academic_Resources/Composition/Form/wiley%20resisting%20formulaic%20writing.pdf

Human Connections

"We can’t outsource the human connections at the heart of the learning experience. Transforming the lives and learning of our children will take more than machines. It will take the best of our human resources." --  Wendy Kopp  CNN

Question All Assumptions

In the flurry of blog posts, videos, tweets, and conversations about 21st Century schools, there is a tendency to look forward and charge into the unknown. While I am usually one to do just that, I have found it vital to stop and look back at the foundations we are using for our new construction.

Much of the work today is based on the rejection of the mechanistic, factory model. And thank goodness! Yet as I meet with teachers, parents, and students, I detect a core of beliefs that have become entrenched in the education mind that are really just as misguided but are embraced as our hope for the future. I am speaking directly about Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligence.

I need to clarify an important point before starting. Like many terms in common use today in daily conversation, "theory" has  taken on a meaning that is not accurate. In science, people come up with an idea about how something works based on observation. That is a hypothesis. After a good deal of evidence the idea is formalized so it can be tested. Once it is tested, repeatedly, and remains, we can say it is supported and it moves on to support a larger collection of related, supported hypothesis: a theory. A theory is not a random guess! It represents the current understanding based on tested ideas. And therein lies the problem with Multiple Intelligence.

People refer to Howard Gardner's idea as theory, but it isn't. At best it is an unsupported hypothesis. There are no double blind, placebo controlled studies on any of it! Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence! Howard Gardner's hypothesis has not been tested to show efficacy. It only has anecdotal evidence at best and has become a part of factory schooling which seeks to homogenize children and lower expectations for struggling learners. 

In fact, studies to test his hypothesis have shown no connection between "learning styles" and ability to learn. "These results challenge the hypothesis that individuals learn best with material presented in a particular sensory modality." Study Link

Often apologists for MI Theory say it doesn't hurt, kids like it, it changes classroom teaching for the better, etc. There are several big problems being overlooked:

1. This hypothesis reinforces the factory model educational philosophy of the 1900's with the wishful thinking of the self-esteem movement of the late 1900's. Factory schools produce compliant, obedient workers. Individuals who stand out because of extraordinary talent are a threat to the system which prides itself on homogenized product. And because some students look bad when others look good, MI nullifies those who are truly gifted by saying everyone is "gifted."
2. MI masks real learning issues and has appeared in printed legal forms for special education in which teachers are asked to list learning style preferences as if all teachers have a way to assess this. Without thought, the acceptance of this hypothesis has created a false reality for parents of children with learning disabilities. In some cases severe learning issues are just called "kinesthetic learners." This dangerous practice sets a student up for failure in the future by not addressing his/her learning disability.
3. Children with self-regulatory issues are not getting the help they need to change behavior and learn strategies to help them focus because they are told they are just "kinesthetic learners" and it is the teacher's fault they can't pay attention or complete a task. And what happens to these students when they enter the world of work? Whose fault is it when they can't hold down a job? We are putting students at risk with MI theory.

So what you ask? We have an education industry built on a false foundation! "Visual learners" or "kinesthetic learners" etc. are illusions created by a well-intentioned reformer...and they are the wrong way to help children.

Biologists will tell you to look at the anatomy of humans and you will see how we have adapted to survive on this planet. We are all visually dominant. We all need to touch things to understand them more. And neurologists have discovered that neural connections are reinforced with muscle activity. In other words, all kids need an enriching environment that stimulates all the senses. We have to resist the seductive lure of labeling which is all about factory thinking. To foster creativity and learning in all students we have to continually challenge our assumptions about students and ourselves and to stop making excuses for anyone because it isn't "their style."

_________________________________________________________________________________

More links to studies debunking MI:

• Not Every Child Is Secretly a Genius
• Education: Learning Styles Debunked "Nearly all of the studies that purport to provide evidence for learning styles fail to satisfy key criteria for scientific validity."
• Student “Learning Styles” Theory Is Bunk "Some lessons click with one child and not with another, but not because of an enduring bias or predisposition in the way the child learns. The lesson clicks or doesn’t because of the knowledge the child brought to the lesson, his interests, or other factors."
• Learning Style, Concepts and Evidence from Psychological Science in the Public Interest