next »

[polly_mer]

By popular request since it's a good idea:

I always hesitate to post, and especially In the Classroom, as someone else usually says the same thing I would, but phrased better. But I have to ask the fans of NCLB: why? What good has NCLB actually done that makes you a fan?

Like MsP, I think the stated intention was good, but I don't believe it was the real intention. Like quasihumanist, I think the real purpose of education is something like her/his interpretation: to produce compliant soldiers, and the real purpose of NCLB was not to improve students' thinking skills. As far as effects, well, I'll wait and see if the fans know anything about what the effects of NCLB have been before getting into that. Is this--the direction of both K-12 and higher education, accountability trends, and the effects on selection/recruitment of future teachers, worth a separate thread?

I, for one, would be very interested in a thread discussing the relationship(s) between NCLB and selection/recruitment of future teachers, or even more simply, a discussion about why students elect to major in K-12 education, who those students are, and how higher ed might most effectively prepare those students, given the emergence of NCLB-exposed students in the undergraduate ranks.  I know these topics have been addressed all over the fora, but maybe starting a fresh thread would help focus the discussion a bit more.

I agree that self-selection of an education major for people who are very comfortable with facts and rote procedures is quite likely.  The lecture I had planned for today for my science for teachers class included a section on a modification of Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning because it's time for my students to hear about why they are so frustrated with my class not working the way that they think it should, why I am not going to modify my class so that their preferences will be accommodated, and what they can do about the situation.

For those who are curious, I list six levels of learning (adapted from http://www.senari.copm/ppt/hol.ppt because that was the first hit from Google that got me what I wanted)

1) Knowledge: recollection of facts and basic rote tasks

2) Understanding: restatement and low level interpretation (e.g., list an example of a mammal)

3) Application: apply knowledge to canned situations (e.g., math word problem or science demonstration with single right answer)  This is the level that many of the "But I always get an A in my other classes, just tell me what to do and I'll do it" students get stuck at.  This is also the highest level of knowledge that many people are comfortable either teaching or learning because there are no open-ended questions, just one single answer that can be definitively marked right or wrong.

4) Analysis: being able to see the relation and organization of parts by oneself instead of being handed those things as individual facts to memorize

5) Synthesis: putting together disparate bits of information in new ways to solve problems.  This often involves trial-and-error with the ability to use learning from previous levels as necessary.

6) Evaluation: Being able to make a judgment and often deciding what criteria and information would be necessary in order to get to the point of being able to make a judgment.

Those last three levels are the ones that people have the most trouble with and are the ones that are currently least likely to be taught in K-12 classrooms.  Consequently, the students who have been pretty good with level 3 learning are  suspicious of those who insist that level 5 is where students ought to be because that's just messy and error-prone, whereas one answer is obvious and, let's not forget, right.

And now the floor is open for further discussion on this or related thoughts.

[polly_mer]

D'oh.  Typing error.  Of course the link is http://www.senari.com/ppt/hol.ppt.

I am not affiliated in any way with the people at senari.com, but if I'm going to share my Google results with others, I can at least give the correct address.

[spyzowin]

D'oh.  Typing error.  Of course the link is http://www.senari.com/ppt/hol.ppt.

I am not affiliated in any way with the people at senari.com, but if I'm going to share my Google results with others, I can at least give the correct address.

I think that my problem with the entire debate boils down to three issues:

1) There seems to be an implicit "faith" in Bloom's taxonomy, a faith that might not be justified

2) People seem to interpret the "levels" as increasing in intellectual merit and academic prestige rather than merely illustrating different but equally necessary types of processes. Synthesis is not necessarily "better" than the acquisition of "rote knowledge". For example, there are some elements of rote knowledge that function as keystone concepts throughout an entire discipline.

3) I do not think that it logically follows that the approaches one takes to lead students through the higher levels of Bloom's taxonomy will work successfully with the "lower" levels. EG the rote knowledge level skills probably require a rote knowledge level approach, and attempting to teach rote knowledge with an eye to "evaluation" might not be the greatest plan.

[polly_mer]

D'oh.  Typing error.  Of course the link is http://www.senari.com/ppt/hol.ppt.

I am not affiliated in any way with the people at senari.com, but if I'm going to share my Google results with others, I can at least give the correct address.

I think that my problem with the entire debate boils down to three issues:

1) There seems to be an implicit "faith" in Bloom's taxonomy, a faith that might not be justified

2) People seem to interpret the "levels" as increasing in intellectual merit and academic prestige rather than merely illustrating different but equally necessary types of processes. Synthesis is not necessarily "better" than the acquisition of "rote knowledge". For example, there are some elements of rote knowledge that function as keystone concepts throughout an entire discipline.

3) I do not think that it logically follows that the approaches one takes to lead students through the higher levels of Bloom's taxonomy will work successfully with the "lower" levels. EG the rote knowledge level skills probably require a rote knowledge level approach, and attempting to teach rote knowledge with an eye to "evaluation" might not be the greatest plan.

All of those things are valid criticisms of particular classes.  However, for what I teach for my science for teachers classes, they had better not be only getting rote memorization and "solve this problem using these steps" methods.  They absolutely, positively must be able to synthesize information (whatever title you want to call it), solve novel problems, and see a need to teach such things to their students.  I don't care if that's higher, lower, or just different knowledge, but they have to be able to do that.  Mere recitation of facts and being able to follow a recipe are not adequate.

The science literacy that we need in the general population is the ability to use scientific thinking and know how to look up (or otherwise acquire) necessary facts.  We do not need people who can recite Newton's three equations of motion with no idea how to use them or who can classify a mammal versus a reptile without thinking through why such a classification would be necessary.

I can't speak for other fields, but I assume that they have similar needs for people who can think critically and use information, rather than having students who are only able to do exactly what they were taught to do in school.  There is a place for that kind of learning because we do need people who know facts and procedures, but at the university in a liberal arts curriculum, we need to have the other modes active,  and rote, factual recall should definitely not be the only way that K-12 teachers teach and evaluate educational progress.

[barred_owl]

Thanks for starting this thread, Polly!

Back in the original thread that led to this one, someone mentioned that we're just now seeing the first wave of students who have completed their K-12 education under the auspices of NCLB.  Is it safe to assume that your prospective science teachers are part of that wave, Polly?  Do you think their reluctance to engage with the material in your course, beyond the level of, say, Level I or II in the taxonomy is related to that experience?  Or, is there something about the field of education that attracts students who think the way yours do (your first paragraph, above, indicates that this might be the case)?  It might not be possible to tease any NCLB effects from the self-selection effects, of course, but I'd be interested to know more about the possible interactions of the two.

IIRC, long before NCLB came along, there were concerns about levels of preparedness among prospective education majors, and discussions not only of why students chose to major in education but why other students chose not to become teachers.  I wonder how some of those pre-NCLB concerns might hold up today--my gut tells me that it might be a case of "the more things change, the more they stay the same."  But, I don't know that for sure, so I'm hoping this thread will help answer that.

[gennimom]

Some of us are going over to Webb's Depth of Knowledge, or DOK for short.

http://www.ecarter.k12.mo.us/dept/curriculum/dok.html
http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/sia/msip/DOK_Chart.pdf

It is the new thing. And considered more flexible than Bloom's.

[cgfunmathguy]

I'm posting so that I have the updates. I want to get involved in this, but I really need to grade a set of tests first.

[msmicrobe]

I'm posting so that I have the updates. I want to get involved in this, but I really need to grade a set of tests first.

Switch that for a stack of papers and you're describing me.

[shastymcnasty]

It may be the case that education majors self-select a discipline that emphasizes rote learning, or it may be that the worst students (those who have difficulty doing more than rote learning) are naturally drawn to education.  Many students are drawn to education because they want to have their summers off, or want to raise kids and think this field will be the most accommodating, or because they don't want to leave the town where they grew up and one can always find work as a teacher, or because they will be guaranteed a job once they have tenure, no matter how ineptly they teach, or because they know they can increase their salary by completing a moronically simple on-line masters program from a for-profit "university." 

The better question may be how can we attract bright, ambitious students to major in education. 

[cgfunmathguy]

I'm posting so that I have the updates. I want to get involved in this, but I really need to grade a set of tests first.

Switch that for a stack of papers and you're describing me.

Actually, I have about eight stacks that need graded, but I only need to have one done in the next 45 minutes.

[mdwlark]

I'm posting so that I have the updates. I want to get involved in this, but I really need to grade a set of tests first.

Switch that for a stack of papers and you're describing me.

Me too.  Today I work the day-gig, tonight I need to drive to the college, create a key, run the quizzes through the scantron, then grade a set of papers.  I want to come back to this discussion when I can.  Oh, and tomorrow night I'll be watching American Idol, I can post then.

Education also attracts students who are more comfortable working with children than adults.  (Oh wait, I spent 9 years working with adolescents.  Strike that remark.)

[msparticularity]

I think that my problem with the entire debate boils down to three issues:

1) There seems to be an implicit "faith" in Bloom's taxonomy, a faith that might not be justified

2) People seem to interpret the "levels" as increasing in intellectual merit and academic prestige rather than merely illustrating different but equally necessary types of processes. Synthesis is not necessarily "better" than the acquisition of "rote knowledge". For example, there are some elements of rote knowledge that function as keystone concepts throughout an entire discipline.

3) I do not think that it logically follows that the approaches one takes to lead students through the higher levels of Bloom's taxonomy will work successfully with the "lower" levels. EG the rote knowledge level skills probably require a rote knowledge level approach, and attempting to teach rote knowledge with an eye to "evaluation" might not be the greatest plan.

There is an alternative schematic for Bloom's Taxonomy that avoids showing it as a hierarchy, and instead models it as a loop. As you say, Amnirov, there is a problem with prioritizing any of these tasks, since all are needed for genuine inquiry--but all are, in fact, needed. The other thing that I think is important is to remember that in a knowledge-producing or problem-solving enterprise, they also don't happen in any particular order, but progress recursively and irregularly in response to the needs of the particular project.

IIRC, long before NCLB came along, there were concerns about levels of preparedness among prospective education majors, and discussions not only of why students chose to major in education but why other students chose not to become teachers.  I wonder how some of those pre-NCLB concerns might hold up today--my gut tells me that it might be a case of "the more things change, the more they stay the same."  But, I don't know that for sure, so I'm hoping this thread will help answer that.

Well, I can tell you from personal experience (yes, n=1 on this) that the incredibly bureaucratized teacher education program is enough in and of itself to select in teacher ed majors who thrive on procedures and select out others. In a way this is reasonable since working for a large institution does require some ability to cope with mindless rules--but it certainly does seem to lead to an ever-increasing degree of rigidity.

[outlier]

Polly, thanks for starting the new thread. I'd also like to get into a substantive, thoughtful discussion of the various issues and questions involved here. I guess Sunday night/Monday morning were probably not the best times to request and start such a thread, since many of us don't have the time right now to post thoughtful replies. So for now I'll just ask again a question that got lost in the other thread and hope to get some responses:

Fans of NCLB, why are you fans? What has NCLB achieved that merits your "fandom" (admiration, approval, whatever positive word you prefer)?

[mystictechgal]

I find the whole discussion of which people self-select to go into education rather interesting.  One of the things that I have seen posted here on a fairly regular basis is the idea that those individuals that enter K-12 education programs are the "worst" students.  They seem to be seen as less intelligent, less motivated, less skilled, and more whiny than students in other disciplines, just to name a few pejoratives I've seen used.  And then people wonder why the field doesn't attract better candidates.

You know what?  Way back in the early-mid '60's, when I was just a little sprout just becoming aware of different employment options, I was aware of exactly the same attitudes being expressed about the majority of students entering education then.  Mind you, my sister and my sister-in-law were both teachers, as were a number of very good family friends and assorted other family members.  None of them were considered less intelligent, etc., and, for the most part, neither were any of the teachers I encountered in my classes.  But, the overwhelming sentiment seemed to be that those entering teaching "today" were of the "those that can't do, teach" variety (a statement that was heard quite often).

As I grew older, those sentiments about people entering K-12 education never seemed to waver.  I and some of my classmates actually enjoyed school.  We talked about how becoming a teacher might be an interesting path to follow.  Every single one of us rejected it, almost solely on the basis of the negative things we heard from the adults around us--including those adults who were, themselves, teachers--about what going into that program of study "said" about those who did so.

I don't know when, in which generation, or why, those stereotypes started to be created and believed, but they existed 40 years ago, and they persist, rightly or wrongly, today.  The nonsense that is NCLB (at least the way it has been implemented) makes, IMO, attracting the "right" kind of people to the field harder to do. But, the attitudes of people that didn't choose that path toward those that did certainly doesn't help.

I have to believe that, while those that do follow that path may be self-selecting, the attitudes toward them has gone a long way toward ensuring that many of the people you'd like to see in the field self-select out of it.

[post_functional]

It's easy to bash education majors but I for one am appalled by how many people stand in front of classrooms in academia every day who have obviously never given one iota of thought to what makes for effective teaching and pedagogy.