MYTHS and FALSEHOOD



Progressive (child centered, constructivist) Instruction vs.

Traditional (direct, explicit, focused Instruction

|1. Background assumptions |1. Background assumptions |

|Romanticism (Rousseau) and Marxism. |Plato and Aristotle. |

| | |

|Repression (e.g., limitations placed on conduct by ideas of the |There is no individual without society (social institutions). |

|good and bad, normal and deviant; routine ways to think and act; | |

|the demands of authority) inhibits the natural growth of the |There is no knowledge without society. |

|individual. | |

| |There is no good (and therefore, no moral behavior) without |

|Social institutions (religious dogma; rules for reasoning which |knowledge. |

|tell what is unreasonable; roles and patterns of | |

|superordination-subordination in families and schools and jobs) |There is nothing but violence and injustice without the good and |

|are repressive. |morality. |

| | |

|Therefore, social institutions inhibit the natural growth of the |Therefore, when social institutions are weakened, individuals |

|individual. |become egoistic (look out for themselves and not the welfare of |

| |the whole), and evil ensues. |

|The natural growth of the individual is among the highest | |

|priorities. |Since knowledge is necessary for the good, for morality, and for |

| |“social man” anything that fosters knowledge (rather than opinion|

|Whatever inhibits the natural growth of the individual is bad. |and preference and falsehood) is useful and therefore good. |

| | |

|Therefore, social institutions are bad. |Systematic, explicit instruction by a teacher who organizes |

| |instruction around clear knowledge objectives fosters knowledge |

|Whatever is bad should be changed. |faster than any other method of instruction. |

| | |

|Social institutions are bad. |Methods of instruction that cater to (e.g., do not require |

| |mastery as defined by an authority) or are guided by the |

|Therefore, social institutions should be changed. |uneducated person (progressive methods) cannot lead to knowledge,|

| |but merely foster and dignify opinion and falsehood. |

|Whatever supports social institutions (and inhibits change) is | |

|bad. |Therefore, systematic, explicit instruction is more useful and |

| |more consistent with the good than progressive instruction, which|

|Traditional forms of instruction inhibit changing social |caters to and is guided by the uneducated (“natural”) individual,|

|institutions. |who is by definition ignorant of knowledge. |

| | |

|Therefore, traditional forms of instruction are bad. |Whatever is consistent with the good should be protected. |

| | |

| |Whatever is inconsistent with the good should be replaced. |

| | |

| |Therefore, systematic, explicit instruction should be protected |

| |and sustained, and progressive instruction should be replaced. |

| | |

| | |

| |2. Based on writings of Rosenshine, Engelmann, Brophy and Goode,|

| |Lindsley. |

| | |

| | |

| |3. Teacher centered (in early phases) in that the teacher |

| |determines objectives and instructional methods. Child-centered |

| |in achievement outcomes. |

| | |

| |Complex skills consist of simpler skill elements: pre-skills. |

| |It’s essential that students learn these first. |

| | |

|2. Based on writings of Piaget, Vygotsky, Dewey. |You can’t solve math word problems if you don’t know the basic |

| |math operations, such as addition and multiplication. |

| | |

| |You can’t write or spell if you can’t read words. So, what |

|3. “Child-centered and student-centered.” Means that students |should you teach first? |

|often select tasks. | |

| |5. You should aim for technical proficiency. Clear and logical |

| |communication. |

| | |

|4. “Holistic.” For example, teach spelling, reading, and |In the initial stage of instruction, activities and materials |

|writing at the same time.” |cannot always be authentic and natural. |

| | |

| |An authentic activity for learning how to sky-dive is to jump out|

| |of a plane. But isn’t it smart FIRST to learn the elementary |

| |(part) skills on the ground? |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| |6. There’s little credible evidence that there is such a thing |

| |as learning styles, or that adapting instruction to students’ |

| |alleged learning styles makes any difference. |

| | |

|5. Materials, activities, and assessments should be authentic |Instruments for assessing/determining learning styles are |

|and natural.” |invalid; they do not measure what is meant by “learning style.” |

| | |

| |“Which do you prefer: playing with |

| |Play-doh or listening to music?” |

| | |

| |Instead of adapting instruction to students’ alleged learning |

| |styles: |

| | |

| |(1) Use materials that are consistent with the proper sensory |

| |modality: hear and see a play; hear a poem; feel textures. |

| | |

| |(2) Strengthen weak (dysfluent) learning channels. E.g., |

| |see/say, write; hear/write, touch; see/calculate; hear/calculate;|

| |see/think. |

|6. “You should adapt instruction to | |

|your students’ learning styles.” | |

| |Replace “intelligence” with “skill” or “talent.” Does it make a |

| |difference? No. |

| | |

| |There’s NO scientific evidence that if you design instruction to |

| |foster multiple intelligences students learn any better. |

| | |

| | |

| |The productive idea is to teach in a way that best presents the |

| |material. |

| |Poems are to be HEARD. |

| |Plays are to be ACTED. |

| |Paintings are to be SEEN. |

| |Math problems [2Y = 12] are to be |

| |READ. |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| |Practice is the only way to identify and correct weaknesses; firm|

| |knowledge; foster fluency, generalization, and retention. |

| | |

| |Do you know any dancers, painters, musicians, athletes, |

| |mechanics, parents, cooks, or persons who’ve mastered ANYthing |

| |who didn’t become masters though practice, practice, practice? |

| | |

| |The construction of knowledge is nothing more than making |

| |inductive generalizations or inferences (getting the concept or |

| |rule or routine) by comparing and contrasting examples and |

| |nonexamples. The teacher carefully presents a proper range of |

| |examples and later juxtaposes examples and nonexamples, and helps|

|7. “You should design instruction to foster multiple |students to compare and contrast them, and then draw a |

|intelligences.” |conclusion---“These all show…” |

| |Sometimes the teacher defines a concept or states a rule first |

| |and then substantiates it with examples. Students STILL may be |

| |said to “construct” the generalization that they “get.” |

| | |

| |Discovery and inquiry are the worst possible ways to teach |

| |essential core skills (reading, math) to disadvantaged students. |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| |“Brain-based instruction” is based on research with a few rats. |

| | |

| |Use of the word “brain” is simply a way to dignify an empty |

| |assertion. |

| | |

| |What OTHER organ would you have in mind? |

| | |

| |It is not necessary to consider how the brain works in order to |

| |determine effective ways to teach. Just try different methods |

|8. “Drill and kill. Practice is boring. |and see which works best. If a method works, then obviously it |

| |is consistent with how the brain best works. |

| | |

| |You don’t have to do research on biomechanics to find out how to |

| |run without injuring yourself. If it hurts when you reach out |

| |and pull with your ham strings, then cut it out. |

| | |

| |Use published research on which teaching methods are most |

| |effective (e.g., regarding practice, sequences, error correction,|

| |pacing, examples, review, fluency-building, generalization), and |

| |let the brain mind its own business. |

| | |

| | |

|9. “You can’t transmit knowledge. Students must construct |11. It’s impossible to know what’s developmentally appropriate |

|knowledge. Therefore, most learning and instruction should be in|for ALL kids or even for ONE kid BEFORE you teach something. |

|the form of inquiry and discovery.” | |

| |Millions of children have been denied an education (and a life) |

| |because dap advocates said that methods and materials providing |

| |effective instruction are not developmentally appropriate. |

| | |

| |Is it implicitly racist or at least elitist to deny effective |

| |reading instruction to four year old poor kids, saying |

| |“Structured instruction is developmentally inappropriate at that |

| |age”—if serious research shows that kids learn and like it? |

| | |

| | |

| |All professions use tested and shared protocols, routines, or |

| |procedures. Professionals learn the principals behind these so |

| |that they can adapt them to unusual situations. |

| | |

| |Think of surgeons, actors, musicians, martial artists, lawyers, |

| |chemists, athletes, poets…. |

| | |

| |Teachers usually do not have the skills to develop effective |

| |programs. |

| | |

| |It takes many years to develop these skills. In the meantime, |

| |teachers may harm students by misteaching them with poor homemade|

|10. “You should teach with the brain in mind. Use |materials |

|brain-based methods.” | |

| |Is it fair to expect teachers to go home every night and spend |

| |hours preparing lessons---when they don’t have to? |

| | |

| |If teachers use tested materials that have been prepared for |

| |them, it gives teachers time to think of how to adapt instruction|

| |to different students, and to develop expansion activities. |

| | |

| |Good materials do NOT try to “fit all” with “one size.” Good |

| |materials TELL teachers how to use built-in assessments to adapt|

| |instruction. |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| |As with other professions, teaching is a complex activity. And |

| |like other professions, it should have a division of labor based |

| |on expertise. |

| | |

| |**Some persons do research on |

| |effective instruction. |

| | |

| |**Other persons use this research |

| |to develop the routines; e.g., |

| |materials that tell you exactly |

| |how to teach and assess every |

| |reading skill. |

| | |

| |**And still other persons ENACT |

| |the routines---use the materials |

| |to communicate effectively with |

| |students so that students “get” |

| |the general ideas from the |

| |examples. |

| | |

|11. “You should use best practices and developmentally |Learning the scripted routine teaches how to design the |

|appropriate practices.” |instruction that is scripted. This enables teachers to do it |

| |themselves, later. |

| | |

| |What’s the difference whether you write the script or someone |

| |else (a master of design) does? |

| | |

| | |

| |The teacher’s job is to educate kids so that: (1) they won’t be |

| |ignorant morons; (2) they will internalize and pass on the best |

| |aspects of the culture/civilization; (3) we can preserve our |

| |culture/civilization against Time (entropy) and our enemies, |

| |foreign and domestic. |

| | |

| |Whose definition of justice? |

| | |

| |The public has not asked teachers to be social reformers. |

| | |

| |The quest for justice usually leads to totalitarianism and the |

| |mass grave. Think of Cuba, Russia, the French Revolution, China,|

| |North Korea. |

|12. “Teachers should develop their own programs (e.g., beginning | |

|reading, spelling, math). They should NOT use commercial |Social justice will be one effect of making citizens |

|programs—especially scripted programs---because |knowledgeable and good. |

|(1) one size does NOT fit all; and (2) commercial materials rob | |

|teachers of creativity.” | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

|13. “Teachers should promote social justice.” | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.





6.





7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13. Arter, A. and Jenkins, J. (1979). Differential diagnosis-prescriptive

teaching: A critical appraisal, Review of Educational Research, 49, 517-

555.

Kampwirth, R., and Bates, E. (1980). Modality preference and teaching

method: A review of the research, Academic Therapy, 15, 597-605.

Stahl, S. (December, 1988). Is there evidence to support matching reading

styles and initial reading methods? Phi Delta Kappan, 317-327.



Tarver, S. G., & Dawson, E. (1978). Modality preference and the teaching of reading: A review, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11, 17-29.

A thorough review of the literature by Arter and Jenkins (1979) found no consistent evidence

for the idea that modality strengths and weaknesses could be identified in a reliable and valid way that warranted differential instructional prescriptions. A review of the research evidence by Tarver and Dawson (1978) found likewise that the idea of modality preferences did not hold up to empirical scrutiny. They concluded, “This review found no evidence supporting an interaction between modality preference and method of teaching reading” (p. 17). Kampwirth and Bates (1980) confirmed the conclusions of the earlier reviews, although they stated their conclusions a little more baldly: “Given the rather general acceptance of this idea, and its common-sense appeal, one would presume that there exists a body of evidence to support it. Unfortunately…no such firm evidence exists” (p. 598).



................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download