I am currently struggling with my professionalism and future plans. I am a teacher (at least I purport to be) so I wrestle with this notion of teaching both in terms of presentation and choice of content. In one of my earlier posts (entitled "The Flipped Classroom"...read it) I discussed the general notion of technology in the classroom. This is a topic I have played with repeatedly and I have consistently come up with the same conclusion -- sometimes technology is great in the classroom. Sometimes, memorization is also great. But I have been dealing with a more local question so those of you who are tech advocates or English teachers, come on in.
I like Shakespeare. I don't mean that on a personal level -- truth is, I have never met the man, and I hear he can be really mean. Actually, by that I mean, really dead. He's dead. And his plays range from the incomprehensible to the delicious. Some of them make zero sense, and I honestly lack the motivation or need to plow through them. Others are brilliance beginning to end and each word is like a spot of genius secreted onto the page. Yummers. And a bunch are somewhere in between -- rewarding but flawed, like a tuna sandwich on pumpernickel bread. And you can guess which part of that I like. For years, I have been weighing the relative value of Shakespeare in the classroom (the plays I like) and I have come up with some arguments to ponder:
Shakespeare has value as...
1. a key to unlock references (cultural literacy)
2. a practice in deciphering language (when studied in the original)
3. nice stores with universal themes
4. experience with the theater
Each of these advantages can be countered
1. If we stop learning Shakespeare, we will stop using the cultural references -- is there anything in Shakespeare that hasn't or can't be derived from elsewhere? Other than perpetuating what we know, does a reliance on Shakespearean characters, phrases and stories enrich us in a unique way? As we read the Shakespeare made easy version or see an updated version, we lose the words and phrases as cultural referents anyway.
2. There are plenty of pieces of source material from various cultures and times that require deciphering skills -- from doctors' handwriting to actual foreign language texts to body language. And the more we see updated or "translated" Shakespeare because we feel that the themes and stories are important, the less we practice this skill of deciphering anyway.
3. The thing about universal themes is that they can be found elsewhere in the universe. I can spot evil characters, boys meeting and losing girls and mistaken identity from other stories.
4. Much of Shakespeare is acquired through text and movie so the actual theater experience is less and less relevant, and it can be replace by going to see another show if we still think that there is value in it.
I know all of these arguments but I still like to hold tight to teaching because I think that the process of investigation, and literary explication as it applies to a Shakespeare lesson brings out so many of the exercises and demands that good teaching should. I can look at words and etymologies, potential meanings and implications, thematic points and motifs, character motivation, or plot development. If we see value in the study of literature as a discipline, and see that close reading has a value which we want to keep pushing then the tight instruction of Shakespeare has value.
But if that is the case, then HOW should I be teaching it? Shakespeare was meant to be watched. But be watched by an audience which had familiarity with language, method and background. So to say that our students gain something by watching the play on its own seems over simplified. Even guided viewing requires an expert at the front to help students understand what they are seeing (when I show a video in class, I start and stop it frequently). To my mind, it is as senseless to assign a student to watch Shakespeare (in the original) for homework as it would be to assign a student to read it on his own. So how about we mix in technology and the applications which present the plays in parts and then explain what has been shown? Doesn't that take the place of the instruction in the classroom and allow us to then delve deeper into exploring meaning then next day? Can't I flip my classroom with said apps and free up my time for discussion, assured that students are interacting with authentic text, deciphering acquiring certain basic levels of meaning without me?
Nope. I don't think so.
Deciphering a text is not about building meaning, but about building meaningS. If I want a student to know simply what happens, then the original language (and the play form) is unnecessary. Remember, Shakespeare is dead and he can't tell me what he meant as a singular expression of his play, and that might not even be authoritative -- the study of English often hinges on finding unintended meanings and deconstructing text and wrestling definitive meaning away from the author. If we only want familiarity with culturally relevant points, we could just give a list (like the quotes at the back of the book). We could be using this and walk away. Reading Shakespeare is about opening up allowing for often contradictory meanings simultaneously, exploiting the form and seeing the context in order to create the many levels of meaning. Even assuming that a student can be entranced by a video'ed lesson and that the lesson can cover all the potential meanings that I can in the classroom, the communal building of meanings as we explore together, not in the privacy of our own homes and brains, makes for a new gestalt meaning that can be questioned and evaluated as and after it happens. After the fact, trying to explore ideas created in the intellectual vacuum that is a student's bedroom late at night falls flat. We need to stop the moment a new word or idea is confronted and, especially since students as readers don't know where the play is going, anticipate, guess, consider implications. Handing instruction over to an app is no different from handing it over to any other performance, but it presents the veneer of improvement because it attempts to replace one dimension of the teacher's presence in the pedagogical loop. And if we hand everything over, then we limit ourselves to that one dimension. A live teacher adds something to the mix that a fixed presentation (of simple text or a single understanding)can't. There is even damage done when a student is exposed to that single presentation or understanding without the guidance of a human who is trying to keep a student from coming to conclusions.
So I repeat -- I am wrestling with whether I should continue to teach Shakespeare in the classroom, but if my decision is that I should, then my decision is that I should.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Teaching Something and Teaching Somehow
This post will be about education. Yes, there will be a substantial amount of smarm and personal voice, but it will appeal mostly to those people who value the dialogue concerning the future of quality education, so not most of you in Serbia who apparently frequent my writings. So to you guys, Izvinite.
I was planning on writing this as a result of the deep thinking I did this morning in the shower and then, when I got to work, I sat through a long meeting which dealt with many of the same ideas. So this post will be a summary/review of that meeting, mixed with some of my own thoughts and ideas. Some of this will be a linear discussion, following the lines of logic, and some will be punctuated by single observations and questions which come out of no where but the dark recesses of my mind. For more on those dark recesses, see this video.
I have opined in the past on the use or misuse of technology in the classroom, and on the tension between skills acquisition and content knowledge dissemination via education -- I won't hotlink those. You can sift through my earlier blog posts and try to find what I have said. That way, I'll get more hits on a variety of pages. But I also wrote, a bunch of years ago, about assessment through gaming and second life type simulations. I was, and am, very excited about the application of scenario-based assessment. And yet, I can't embrace or fully get behind what I am seeing currently regarding the implementation of Project-based learning (henceforth, deliciously, PBL). I was wondering why not. I then, I found my center as an English teacher and realized that part of the problem is in the definitions, and part in the premises. So I wanted to quantify and clarify terms and conditions so I could, in a moderately public way, come to terms with what exactly I can endorse and what not.
First, the terms as I understand them. By understand, I mean "as I have made up definitions that I like."
Project-Based Learning is an approach to education (maybe) which stresses the creation of a summative "thing" as a demonstration of mastery. By itself and limited to assessment, it is not much more than the traditional end-of-unit project. However, in its current use, it is rarely invoked in this minimalist form. It is very often coupled with...
Self-Guided instruction -- this is an attempt to hand reins over to the student and let the student be a master of his educational direction. By giving this intellectual autonomy, we also bring up...
Passion Based Learning where we allow that the best education comes when a student is highly and personally invested in a topic and is pursuing education in a field which interests him or her. Allowing students to choose not just fields, but specific topics lets students find their academic bliss, and I don't mean potatoes. These approaches call forth...
Discovery learning or Inquiry Learning -- As umbrella terms, these push the notion that students need to have a driving question or need which will have them dive into the world of the world and develop ideas, explore issues and uncover truths. An implementation of this might be...
Problem-Based Learning where students are given (or can discover on their own) a situation or problem which needs to be addressed and they can, through their own investigation (guided or not, as will be discussed) come up with [an approach to, a critique of, a summary of] a solution. This allows for preparation for the real world and for relevant content which students can understand and care about.
Implementation of these ideas is often a mix-and-match in various combinations and percentages, based on the particular discipline, context and need.
My interest was in something I called Scenario-Based or Game-Based work. It places the student in a real or virtual situation and asks the student to negotiate that situation applying skills and facts learned. The beauty of this is that it is teacher generated and loaded with demands and skills applications, placed intentionally by teachers to ensure content relevance and grade level propriety, but the student does not know which skill has to be practiced or what content will be called forth -- that is part of the real-world aspect. It is very different from much of the above and those differences explain why I can't jump on board with PBL and the like.
The next set of clarifications get to the heart of the matter. Simply put, I don't see, for the mass of students, that the PBL's or the other concepts explained above are effective methods of LEARNING. And for that matter, they aren't effective modes of TEACHING. And this is a big thing to me. I view the use of application scenarios as a form of ASSESSMENT, not pedagogy. Asking a student to go and apply what he learns on his own might ask him to reinforce flawed information or practice unskills rather than skills. Give a kid a basketball and tell him to discover how to shoot on his own or by doing research, and then go play the game is asking the student to avoid external experts who have been shooting basketballs for years, and reinvent the wheel. Is it possible that he will come up with something no one has thought of -- a new holy grail of basketball shots? Maybe, just maybe. Odds are, he will develop a bad habit that will cripple his ability to play on a team or in a game situation, simply because in the vacuum of that project, his method works and he found it.
So then, some say, let's provide him with guidance along the way. That becomes a very fine line -- guiding him with baseline information and a gentle push when he is moving down the wrong path becomes the traditional indoctrination and limited direction before we know it. That balance between the institutionalized tradition and the unique, individual innovation is hard to achieve.
Here's the thing, one of many things, I hope. It isn't enough to say that pedagogy, like many things, isn't about the black or white dichotomy, but about shades of gray. I would posit that in education, there is no black or white. Only the shades of gray. No one method works for any student all the time. The human dynamic means that we have to shift gears moment by moment, abandoning what served us so well 5 minutes ago. New ideas and old ones overlap -- even reform can't divorce itself completely from the "way things are." Forgetting that any innovation and risk isn't just risking our jobs, but also the educational integrity of the next generation, we can't do anything other than built out of what we know, standing on the shoulders of those who came before us. It is sort of a determinist view, but it seems to me to be reality. There is nothing new under the sun, or even at night time when the sun has been swallowed by the evil dragon-god and only our prayers and supplications will effect its safe return on the morrow. Our newest ideas, even if they don't smack directly of something tried years ago, come either as a consequence of or as backlash to existing ideas. But we, as humans, can only build from what was there, or what we saw as a need because it wasn't there. We can't make an ex nihilo educational system so we shift subtly from one paradigm to the next because in truth, EACH ONE WORKS SOMETIMES.
So let's go back to the beginning, when life was simpler and ice cream flavors fit on the label and had, at most, one adjective. What is our goal, and how does each thing we do move us and our students closer to that goal? And, as an off shoot of that what is the goal of our method? I ask that because if we investigate goals, we will see major differences at work. The PBL approach (in certain applications...I know, asterisks abound and footnotes saying "not always" and "if you choose to do it this way" should be populating the end of this post, but they aren't) makes the goal the process of learning. Is the main object in a self-guided (or somewhat teacher guided) project the actual solution or the process of exploration, assimilation of fact and discovery of information? In scenario-based assessment, the goal is the application of facts and skills, often measured by the efficacy of the solution or the accuracy of the conclusions drawn. If we want to see a student demonstrate mastery, then we should have a way of defining that mastery. Is the mastery "being able to design a robot" or "choosing to explore the history of the fur trade in Quebec in the 18th century"? Is the point the destination or the journey? If we hand off much of the learning beyond the barest of background to the student then, not only will teachers have an existential crisis on their now idle hands, but there will be an academic void as the student ices the non-existent cake by working on advanced data/skills collection with no foundation or context. And the more we provide, the more the project aspect of PBL becomes simply the standard project in which we make a diorama of the Civil War or a model of the Solar System (from which I learned NOTHING, I might add).
Am I consigning projects and such simply to the realm of assessment, then? Is there no value to self-direction in terms of student learning? The thing is, I see PBL in the same way that I see technology. They are tools and only tools. I'll tell you a story and stop me if you have heard it. Well, you can't stop me so I'll continue. In graduate school, I developed the idea that teaching is about having a quiver, and each methodology and trick of the trade which i learned or observed became an arrow in that quiver [let's ignore the implicit violence and possible latent anti-student frustration in this metaphor]. On a given day, a skilled teacher has to try a bunch of different arrows and see which one works. None is the magic bullet, especially because they are arrows, and there is no such thing as magic (except for that chocolate syrup you pour on ice cream that then solidifies). They are potentially successful tools. But Each one is also a potential failure and that's the challenge. I can choose to use a Smart Board on a Tuesday and it might fail. I might choose to direct my students and let them have a few days of self-guided content and skills acquisition culminating in a non-traditional assessment, and that might work or it might not. The variables of student, time of year, topic, resources etc. make it tough to predict. It is my ability to assess and reassess the success of the approach day-to-day that will let me know if this is worth retooling or reusing.But the point is that the decision lies with the teacher who has to implement (in the same way that the success of a scenario based assessment lies with the teachers who infuse the situation with challenges which will demand performance and knowledge). Newer methods cannot obviate, nor should they wholly replace older forms of pedagogy because those tried and true methods tap into cognitive faculties and skills which are no less important or currently relevant. Deciding to let education BE something new before THINKING about education is a simple case of refusing to put Descartes before the horse. I have been waiting 25 years to work that phrase in.
At what age do we think a student is old enough and mature enough to be responsible for his own educational path? At what point is a student ready for ANY of these approaches or methodologies? Is a student at age 5 using an iPad in class gaining something from that experience that he couldn't have gained without the technology? Is his educational journey as well formed (or better formed) because of the introduction of a new method at a young age? Is he missing something or gaining more? No one actually knows. Do we know that there are ends which we can reach only through new forms of teaching because we see such a decided lack of something? In the "real" world, are things changing (I know I have discussed this before but I'm too lazy to reread my work and see where. Go do that. Find it, and I'll give you an "A")? Is this Change Gratis Change? And how can we ever know if any particular approach really "works" and what part one methodology played in ultimate student success or failure (I have moved from determinism to nihilism and boy are my arms tired)?
Maybe, to play the semantic game, I can find my niche when I decide that PBL is not about LEARNING (name aside) nor about TEACHING, and not even about ASSESSMENT, but about INSTRUCTION. Maybe that's the term which codifies the middle ground. Maybe we need a project at the end of senior year, after 3 months of directed study and three months of independent field work. Maybe we need a separate "PBL Track" in a school so those students who learn best that way can opt into that learning style. Remember, I don't see PBL et al as a curricular change at all, only a methodological one. There was some question at that meeting about how a teacher could change his curriculum because of PBL, but that is also a false dichotomy -- this is about HOW the information which we think of as valuable is distributed. If the method incurs logistical nightmares which require us to reevaluate which information or how much we will cover, then so be it, but the point is that PBL won't drive curricular change, only allow any change to be administered in an effective way. Maybe, any and every class can have a PBL component, either as a summative assessment after a unit or the year, or as an instructional method when the curriculum allows for students exploring ideas individually, under close guidance. And maybe the size and scope of the iterations will vary wildly and widely because each subject and class requires something different. Maybe we should stop trying to find the solution and direction of reform and recognize that in some ways we are already there and in some, the goal of change is a foolish one anyway.
My cynicism is not about being anti-change. I am not down on PBL, inquiry learning and the rest simply because I am happy being a dinosaur (though it does have its advantages). I don't like extremism and it seems that when the pendulum swings, it swings exceeding hard. The rush towards technology and alternate forms of instruction is a dangerous, and often out of control pendulum. I am not advocating baby steps, but measured risks and reasonable changes which can build on each other, and I think that, to some degree, we are already moving in that direction. Can we do more? Sure, as long as we know what our goal is at each mile marker and don't lose ourselves in the pursuit of means over ends.
I was planning on writing this as a result of the deep thinking I did this morning in the shower and then, when I got to work, I sat through a long meeting which dealt with many of the same ideas. So this post will be a summary/review of that meeting, mixed with some of my own thoughts and ideas. Some of this will be a linear discussion, following the lines of logic, and some will be punctuated by single observations and questions which come out of no where but the dark recesses of my mind. For more on those dark recesses, see this video.
I have opined in the past on the use or misuse of technology in the classroom, and on the tension between skills acquisition and content knowledge dissemination via education -- I won't hotlink those. You can sift through my earlier blog posts and try to find what I have said. That way, I'll get more hits on a variety of pages. But I also wrote, a bunch of years ago, about assessment through gaming and second life type simulations. I was, and am, very excited about the application of scenario-based assessment. And yet, I can't embrace or fully get behind what I am seeing currently regarding the implementation of Project-based learning (henceforth, deliciously, PBL). I was wondering why not. I then, I found my center as an English teacher and realized that part of the problem is in the definitions, and part in the premises. So I wanted to quantify and clarify terms and conditions so I could, in a moderately public way, come to terms with what exactly I can endorse and what not.
First, the terms as I understand them. By understand, I mean "as I have made up definitions that I like."
Project-Based Learning is an approach to education (maybe) which stresses the creation of a summative "thing" as a demonstration of mastery. By itself and limited to assessment, it is not much more than the traditional end-of-unit project. However, in its current use, it is rarely invoked in this minimalist form. It is very often coupled with...
Self-Guided instruction -- this is an attempt to hand reins over to the student and let the student be a master of his educational direction. By giving this intellectual autonomy, we also bring up...
Passion Based Learning where we allow that the best education comes when a student is highly and personally invested in a topic and is pursuing education in a field which interests him or her. Allowing students to choose not just fields, but specific topics lets students find their academic bliss, and I don't mean potatoes. These approaches call forth...
Discovery learning or Inquiry Learning -- As umbrella terms, these push the notion that students need to have a driving question or need which will have them dive into the world of the world and develop ideas, explore issues and uncover truths. An implementation of this might be...
Problem-Based Learning where students are given (or can discover on their own) a situation or problem which needs to be addressed and they can, through their own investigation (guided or not, as will be discussed) come up with [an approach to, a critique of, a summary of] a solution. This allows for preparation for the real world and for relevant content which students can understand and care about.
Implementation of these ideas is often a mix-and-match in various combinations and percentages, based on the particular discipline, context and need.
My interest was in something I called Scenario-Based or Game-Based work. It places the student in a real or virtual situation and asks the student to negotiate that situation applying skills and facts learned. The beauty of this is that it is teacher generated and loaded with demands and skills applications, placed intentionally by teachers to ensure content relevance and grade level propriety, but the student does not know which skill has to be practiced or what content will be called forth -- that is part of the real-world aspect. It is very different from much of the above and those differences explain why I can't jump on board with PBL and the like.
The next set of clarifications get to the heart of the matter. Simply put, I don't see, for the mass of students, that the PBL's or the other concepts explained above are effective methods of LEARNING. And for that matter, they aren't effective modes of TEACHING. And this is a big thing to me. I view the use of application scenarios as a form of ASSESSMENT, not pedagogy. Asking a student to go and apply what he learns on his own might ask him to reinforce flawed information or practice unskills rather than skills. Give a kid a basketball and tell him to discover how to shoot on his own or by doing research, and then go play the game is asking the student to avoid external experts who have been shooting basketballs for years, and reinvent the wheel. Is it possible that he will come up with something no one has thought of -- a new holy grail of basketball shots? Maybe, just maybe. Odds are, he will develop a bad habit that will cripple his ability to play on a team or in a game situation, simply because in the vacuum of that project, his method works and he found it.
So then, some say, let's provide him with guidance along the way. That becomes a very fine line -- guiding him with baseline information and a gentle push when he is moving down the wrong path becomes the traditional indoctrination and limited direction before we know it. That balance between the institutionalized tradition and the unique, individual innovation is hard to achieve.
Here's the thing, one of many things, I hope. It isn't enough to say that pedagogy, like many things, isn't about the black or white dichotomy, but about shades of gray. I would posit that in education, there is no black or white. Only the shades of gray. No one method works for any student all the time. The human dynamic means that we have to shift gears moment by moment, abandoning what served us so well 5 minutes ago. New ideas and old ones overlap -- even reform can't divorce itself completely from the "way things are." Forgetting that any innovation and risk isn't just risking our jobs, but also the educational integrity of the next generation, we can't do anything other than built out of what we know, standing on the shoulders of those who came before us. It is sort of a determinist view, but it seems to me to be reality. There is nothing new under the sun, or even at night time when the sun has been swallowed by the evil dragon-god and only our prayers and supplications will effect its safe return on the morrow. Our newest ideas, even if they don't smack directly of something tried years ago, come either as a consequence of or as backlash to existing ideas. But we, as humans, can only build from what was there, or what we saw as a need because it wasn't there. We can't make an ex nihilo educational system so we shift subtly from one paradigm to the next because in truth, EACH ONE WORKS SOMETIMES.
So let's go back to the beginning, when life was simpler and ice cream flavors fit on the label and had, at most, one adjective. What is our goal, and how does each thing we do move us and our students closer to that goal? And, as an off shoot of that what is the goal of our method? I ask that because if we investigate goals, we will see major differences at work. The PBL approach (in certain applications...I know, asterisks abound and footnotes saying "not always" and "if you choose to do it this way" should be populating the end of this post, but they aren't) makes the goal the process of learning. Is the main object in a self-guided (or somewhat teacher guided) project the actual solution or the process of exploration, assimilation of fact and discovery of information? In scenario-based assessment, the goal is the application of facts and skills, often measured by the efficacy of the solution or the accuracy of the conclusions drawn. If we want to see a student demonstrate mastery, then we should have a way of defining that mastery. Is the mastery "being able to design a robot" or "choosing to explore the history of the fur trade in Quebec in the 18th century"? Is the point the destination or the journey? If we hand off much of the learning beyond the barest of background to the student then, not only will teachers have an existential crisis on their now idle hands, but there will be an academic void as the student ices the non-existent cake by working on advanced data/skills collection with no foundation or context. And the more we provide, the more the project aspect of PBL becomes simply the standard project in which we make a diorama of the Civil War or a model of the Solar System (from which I learned NOTHING, I might add).
Am I consigning projects and such simply to the realm of assessment, then? Is there no value to self-direction in terms of student learning? The thing is, I see PBL in the same way that I see technology. They are tools and only tools. I'll tell you a story and stop me if you have heard it. Well, you can't stop me so I'll continue. In graduate school, I developed the idea that teaching is about having a quiver, and each methodology and trick of the trade which i learned or observed became an arrow in that quiver [let's ignore the implicit violence and possible latent anti-student frustration in this metaphor]. On a given day, a skilled teacher has to try a bunch of different arrows and see which one works. None is the magic bullet, especially because they are arrows, and there is no such thing as magic (except for that chocolate syrup you pour on ice cream that then solidifies). They are potentially successful tools. But Each one is also a potential failure and that's the challenge. I can choose to use a Smart Board on a Tuesday and it might fail. I might choose to direct my students and let them have a few days of self-guided content and skills acquisition culminating in a non-traditional assessment, and that might work or it might not. The variables of student, time of year, topic, resources etc. make it tough to predict. It is my ability to assess and reassess the success of the approach day-to-day that will let me know if this is worth retooling or reusing.But the point is that the decision lies with the teacher who has to implement (in the same way that the success of a scenario based assessment lies with the teachers who infuse the situation with challenges which will demand performance and knowledge). Newer methods cannot obviate, nor should they wholly replace older forms of pedagogy because those tried and true methods tap into cognitive faculties and skills which are no less important or currently relevant. Deciding to let education BE something new before THINKING about education is a simple case of refusing to put Descartes before the horse. I have been waiting 25 years to work that phrase in.
At what age do we think a student is old enough and mature enough to be responsible for his own educational path? At what point is a student ready for ANY of these approaches or methodologies? Is a student at age 5 using an iPad in class gaining something from that experience that he couldn't have gained without the technology? Is his educational journey as well formed (or better formed) because of the introduction of a new method at a young age? Is he missing something or gaining more? No one actually knows. Do we know that there are ends which we can reach only through new forms of teaching because we see such a decided lack of something? In the "real" world, are things changing (I know I have discussed this before but I'm too lazy to reread my work and see where. Go do that. Find it, and I'll give you an "A")? Is this Change Gratis Change? And how can we ever know if any particular approach really "works" and what part one methodology played in ultimate student success or failure (I have moved from determinism to nihilism and boy are my arms tired)?
Maybe, to play the semantic game, I can find my niche when I decide that PBL is not about LEARNING (name aside) nor about TEACHING, and not even about ASSESSMENT, but about INSTRUCTION. Maybe that's the term which codifies the middle ground. Maybe we need a project at the end of senior year, after 3 months of directed study and three months of independent field work. Maybe we need a separate "PBL Track" in a school so those students who learn best that way can opt into that learning style. Remember, I don't see PBL et al as a curricular change at all, only a methodological one. There was some question at that meeting about how a teacher could change his curriculum because of PBL, but that is also a false dichotomy -- this is about HOW the information which we think of as valuable is distributed. If the method incurs logistical nightmares which require us to reevaluate which information or how much we will cover, then so be it, but the point is that PBL won't drive curricular change, only allow any change to be administered in an effective way. Maybe, any and every class can have a PBL component, either as a summative assessment after a unit or the year, or as an instructional method when the curriculum allows for students exploring ideas individually, under close guidance. And maybe the size and scope of the iterations will vary wildly and widely because each subject and class requires something different. Maybe we should stop trying to find the solution and direction of reform and recognize that in some ways we are already there and in some, the goal of change is a foolish one anyway.
My cynicism is not about being anti-change. I am not down on PBL, inquiry learning and the rest simply because I am happy being a dinosaur (though it does have its advantages). I don't like extremism and it seems that when the pendulum swings, it swings exceeding hard. The rush towards technology and alternate forms of instruction is a dangerous, and often out of control pendulum. I am not advocating baby steps, but measured risks and reasonable changes which can build on each other, and I think that, to some degree, we are already moving in that direction. Can we do more? Sure, as long as we know what our goal is at each mile marker and don't lose ourselves in the pursuit of means over ends.
Sunday, June 9, 2013
A review review
I'd like to talk for a few moments about food. Unfortunately, I inevitably talk about it for more than a few moments and then I run to the kitchen to break my diet and eat things like chocolate cookies wrapped in deli meats. It is one of my many weaknesses -- I like to eat. I have other weaknesses but let us not go too far afield right now. I like food.
One of my challenges when it comes to food is my insistence, repeatedly, that I am on a diet. I actually am on a diet if we define diet simply as the sum of the food consumed by an organism or group, marked by specific selection (based on the wiki material that appears in the google search). If we define diet as something even more broad like "whatever you got" then I am even more so on a diet. My diet may be religions (I eat kosher foods, so I am on a "kosher diet") and it may be a weight-loss diet: I select foods which will contribute to the illusion that I am trying to lose weight. So with that limitation in mind, eating is sometimes a challenge. Mix in my reluctance to go places and spend money, and I become a tortured gourmand. So, in order to satisfy my craving for food while not overstepping my tendency to sit at home and do nothing, I like to read restaurant reviews. To me, they are the spoilers of the industry, though that is an unfortunate word for a description of food -- I get the sense that I had the meal without having to leave the house, pack on the pounds or spend money and have the meal. Crazy, but it works.
Here's the thing, though: I live in Bergen County, USA. When I do want to eat, I have to eat at the restaurants around here. Even if I read reviews from experts and lay people, and know from my own experiences what the food around here is like, I still feel like I am missing something. I just don't know of the food that I prefer (with a million restaurants here, I tend to go to the same 3 an order the same thing at each every time. I'll explain with a specific. For some reason, I find that the local kosher Chinese food restaurant makes the best crunch chicken wings. Ever. Maybe. Note, I am not getting any remuneration for that link. I just really like the wings. I recall, though, that I once had really good wings at a kosher Chinese place outside of Philadelphia [the Dragon Inn, maybe?] So my question isn't "would you please review the Chinese food which is within 2 miles of my house and tell me about the food which I have been eating for 15 years" or eve "would you please review a Kosher Chinese place I will never get to go to again" -- I need something else.
I need to know how my local restaurant compares to similar restaurants in other communities. I want to know if the wings here have a flavor profile or composition which is unique or which is better or worse than a similar product elsewhere. A review of a Chinese place in Los Angeles is meaningless to me if I can't compare the product to a known entity. Television shows about food (which I enjoy watching) that have experts travel around and enjoy and love every thing they order anywhere they go are not helpful because I can't put their comments in a context of my own experiences. You think that is a good pastrami sandwich? WHY? How does it compare to a pastrami sandwich anywhere else? It seems that certain foods are so basic and unadorned that they would end up being the same anywhere -- a piece of meat thrown on a fire is going to be the same. If there are differences which are worthy of note, please explain them. Is there a continuum of mac and cheese? Please place the mac and cheese in the range so I can see what it compares to. Maybe I LIKE the one you didn't, so if you say that the mac and cheese in Wyoming is too like something you hate, I know see that it might be something I prefer. This is a review. I don't need to hear that some hidden expert thinks that there was "too much salt" or that the presentation could have been prettier. I want to know that the product reminds him of some standard that I have interacted with so I have a basis for comparison. And yes, I think that this is a vitally important methodology for all communication which attempts to codify and assess experience. You liked that opera? Why? Did it remind you of something I can relate to? If not, your preferences are meaningless to me. There is nothing new under the sun -- every food has to be tied to sense that I have and food that I have tried to I can decide if my experiences are lacking. You, the reviewer, are traveling on my behalf, not your own. So stop enjoying and help me understand.
And, of course, if I find myself in another place, ready to sample the foods, I can start by selecting ones that I have on record as being similar to or strikingly different from what I am used to based on what I want at that moment. I don't want the element of surprise in my meal. If I have gone through the trouble of leaving the house, suspending my disbelief in my own weight, and allowing myself to spend money, I want something that I can predict, but not because it is necessarily identical to what I could have were I to stay home but because it will add an experience I want to have (a reminder of my home product or a welcome departure from it). If I fly to LA, I want to have Chinese food chicken wings because their comparison to wings I usually have is intriguing. I want to know how my local venue stacks up and see how the rest of the world defines the experience of eating chicken wings.
This, to me, is a review. It taps into the knowledge base of the reader and establishes the reviewer not as the subjective and variable taste buddhist* (did I use that wrong) who gets to be one with all his food, but as the representative of me out in the world: the guy who can look at me and say "the ones you eat taste just like the ones 500 miles away except that they serve them with a lemon sauce. Yours are better...stay home."
------------------
*Not a formal footnote, but did you know that when I just checked on google, there were ZERO hits for "taste buddhist"? Always blazing new trails on your behalf, people.
One of my challenges when it comes to food is my insistence, repeatedly, that I am on a diet. I actually am on a diet if we define diet simply as the sum of the food consumed by an organism or group, marked by specific selection (based on the wiki material that appears in the google search). If we define diet as something even more broad like "whatever you got" then I am even more so on a diet. My diet may be religions (I eat kosher foods, so I am on a "kosher diet") and it may be a weight-loss diet: I select foods which will contribute to the illusion that I am trying to lose weight. So with that limitation in mind, eating is sometimes a challenge. Mix in my reluctance to go places and spend money, and I become a tortured gourmand. So, in order to satisfy my craving for food while not overstepping my tendency to sit at home and do nothing, I like to read restaurant reviews. To me, they are the spoilers of the industry, though that is an unfortunate word for a description of food -- I get the sense that I had the meal without having to leave the house, pack on the pounds or spend money and have the meal. Crazy, but it works.
Here's the thing, though: I live in Bergen County, USA. When I do want to eat, I have to eat at the restaurants around here. Even if I read reviews from experts and lay people, and know from my own experiences what the food around here is like, I still feel like I am missing something. I just don't know of the food that I prefer (with a million restaurants here, I tend to go to the same 3 an order the same thing at each every time. I'll explain with a specific. For some reason, I find that the local kosher Chinese food restaurant makes the best crunch chicken wings. Ever. Maybe. Note, I am not getting any remuneration for that link. I just really like the wings. I recall, though, that I once had really good wings at a kosher Chinese place outside of Philadelphia [the Dragon Inn, maybe?] So my question isn't "would you please review the Chinese food which is within 2 miles of my house and tell me about the food which I have been eating for 15 years" or eve "would you please review a Kosher Chinese place I will never get to go to again" -- I need something else.
I need to know how my local restaurant compares to similar restaurants in other communities. I want to know if the wings here have a flavor profile or composition which is unique or which is better or worse than a similar product elsewhere. A review of a Chinese place in Los Angeles is meaningless to me if I can't compare the product to a known entity. Television shows about food (which I enjoy watching) that have experts travel around and enjoy and love every thing they order anywhere they go are not helpful because I can't put their comments in a context of my own experiences. You think that is a good pastrami sandwich? WHY? How does it compare to a pastrami sandwich anywhere else? It seems that certain foods are so basic and unadorned that they would end up being the same anywhere -- a piece of meat thrown on a fire is going to be the same. If there are differences which are worthy of note, please explain them. Is there a continuum of mac and cheese? Please place the mac and cheese in the range so I can see what it compares to. Maybe I LIKE the one you didn't, so if you say that the mac and cheese in Wyoming is too like something you hate, I know see that it might be something I prefer. This is a review. I don't need to hear that some hidden expert thinks that there was "too much salt" or that the presentation could have been prettier. I want to know that the product reminds him of some standard that I have interacted with so I have a basis for comparison. And yes, I think that this is a vitally important methodology for all communication which attempts to codify and assess experience. You liked that opera? Why? Did it remind you of something I can relate to? If not, your preferences are meaningless to me. There is nothing new under the sun -- every food has to be tied to sense that I have and food that I have tried to I can decide if my experiences are lacking. You, the reviewer, are traveling on my behalf, not your own. So stop enjoying and help me understand.
And, of course, if I find myself in another place, ready to sample the foods, I can start by selecting ones that I have on record as being similar to or strikingly different from what I am used to based on what I want at that moment. I don't want the element of surprise in my meal. If I have gone through the trouble of leaving the house, suspending my disbelief in my own weight, and allowing myself to spend money, I want something that I can predict, but not because it is necessarily identical to what I could have were I to stay home but because it will add an experience I want to have (a reminder of my home product or a welcome departure from it). If I fly to LA, I want to have Chinese food chicken wings because their comparison to wings I usually have is intriguing. I want to know how my local venue stacks up and see how the rest of the world defines the experience of eating chicken wings.
This, to me, is a review. It taps into the knowledge base of the reader and establishes the reviewer not as the subjective and variable taste buddhist* (did I use that wrong) who gets to be one with all his food, but as the representative of me out in the world: the guy who can look at me and say "the ones you eat taste just like the ones 500 miles away except that they serve them with a lemon sauce. Yours are better...stay home."
------------------
*Not a formal footnote, but did you know that when I just checked on google, there were ZERO hits for "taste buddhist"? Always blazing new trails on your behalf, people.
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
Let Me Bleed
Sometimes I worry. I hope you're OK with that. I worry because I feel like I make my living by being a story teller. Teaching, to me, is about telling stories -- even when I am teaching grammar, the goal is to connect the sentences and the explanations to the way students listen. They don't listen to dry facts; they crave a context, especially one that draws them in. So I share stories. I try to tell them in a way which keeps student interest up. And it isn't just like this when I'm in the classroom. When I speak with friends or people I hope will become friends, I try to make what I say interesting by couching it as a story.
Storytelling isn't easy. Tone of voice, awareness of audience, vocabulary, timing and other elements drive the story teller. I don't want to be listenable or acceptable -- I want to be great. So why am I afraid? I have been telling stories professionally for almost 20 years and I worry that I have told them all. What more do I have to share. Now, sure, the same students haven't heard them all (working in a high school means that I get a totally new audience every 4 years), but I need to feel like my stories are vibrant and current and if I have told them all over and over it means that I am growing stale. So how do I counter this? I have to keep having new experiences so I have new stories. And I have to practice telling my new stories so that when I need to draw on one, it is shaped and established well.
In that light, I'd like to tell you about today. Today started about 15 years ago.
I remember that day, 15 years ago, when I got the letter. "Dear you," it said (well, I'm paraphrasing), "don't give blood again because we hate you." I'm sure there was some science in there also, but that isn't the point. They didn't want my blood. I used to give pretty consistently and felt that this was something I could do approaching the altruistic. And giving makes for a heckuva good story. So to get this letter was not at all welcome. I had the science of it checked and double checked by my doctor. I called all the important people on the letter's letterhead. No dice. They didn't want my blood. And yet they kept sending me mail every couple of weeks complaining that the world was in dire need of MY BLOOD (though come to think of it, that might just have been a mass mailing). It made me mad. If you aren't going to find a way to un-blacklist me and my bleeding willingness, then at least some taunting me with your appeals.
When I took my daughter to give blood a couple of weeks ago, at her insistence, I struck up a conversation with one of the phlebotomists at the blood place. The person might have been a nurse or a receptionist but how often do I get to use the word phlebotomist? Humor me. The phlebotomist said that this blood place didn't have me in their database as disqualified so they would be happy to take my blood. I didn't cry but I was very happy. All I had to do was clear my schedule and get over my perfectly rational fear of needles and bleeding. Especially in that order.
Well, today I decided to stop coddling myself and just do it. I ditched work early and drove myself over to the blood taking place and went through the process for the first time in 15 years. Questions about my private life (no, I have no slept with an IV drug user who has used Plavax for syphilis in the UK after not feeling well within the last 6 months to 12 years), blood pressure (102/62), temp (97), iron (14.9) and then bed #2. The people there were incredible -- they treated me like the proper combination of balding middle aged man and scared child which pretty much sums me up. They distracted me with bright lights and reassuring pats on the head and told me how proud they were of me while also telling me about a new plasma donation program just for people who happen to be me. Hey! I'm me! So now, starting in August, I can go and donate plasma every 30 days instead of waiting 8 weeks after whole blood donation. I brought my own cookies and juice (a power Bar and some water, actually) and politely declined the 10 dollar gift card good at restaurants that I'll never go to, and got to go, but not before telling some of the other donors some stories about why I hadn't been able to give. I was sharp and I feel that they were a bit logy having just donated blood, so I sounded even better.
Then I went to Barnes and Noble but I have yet to craft that into a tale worth telling.
Storytelling isn't easy. Tone of voice, awareness of audience, vocabulary, timing and other elements drive the story teller. I don't want to be listenable or acceptable -- I want to be great. So why am I afraid? I have been telling stories professionally for almost 20 years and I worry that I have told them all. What more do I have to share. Now, sure, the same students haven't heard them all (working in a high school means that I get a totally new audience every 4 years), but I need to feel like my stories are vibrant and current and if I have told them all over and over it means that I am growing stale. So how do I counter this? I have to keep having new experiences so I have new stories. And I have to practice telling my new stories so that when I need to draw on one, it is shaped and established well.
In that light, I'd like to tell you about today. Today started about 15 years ago.
I remember that day, 15 years ago, when I got the letter. "Dear you," it said (well, I'm paraphrasing), "don't give blood again because we hate you." I'm sure there was some science in there also, but that isn't the point. They didn't want my blood. I used to give pretty consistently and felt that this was something I could do approaching the altruistic. And giving makes for a heckuva good story. So to get this letter was not at all welcome. I had the science of it checked and double checked by my doctor. I called all the important people on the letter's letterhead. No dice. They didn't want my blood. And yet they kept sending me mail every couple of weeks complaining that the world was in dire need of MY BLOOD (though come to think of it, that might just have been a mass mailing). It made me mad. If you aren't going to find a way to un-blacklist me and my bleeding willingness, then at least some taunting me with your appeals.
When I took my daughter to give blood a couple of weeks ago, at her insistence, I struck up a conversation with one of the phlebotomists at the blood place. The person might have been a nurse or a receptionist but how often do I get to use the word phlebotomist? Humor me. The phlebotomist said that this blood place didn't have me in their database as disqualified so they would be happy to take my blood. I didn't cry but I was very happy. All I had to do was clear my schedule and get over my perfectly rational fear of needles and bleeding. Especially in that order.
Well, today I decided to stop coddling myself and just do it. I ditched work early and drove myself over to the blood taking place and went through the process for the first time in 15 years. Questions about my private life (no, I have no slept with an IV drug user who has used Plavax for syphilis in the UK after not feeling well within the last 6 months to 12 years), blood pressure (102/62), temp (97), iron (14.9) and then bed #2. The people there were incredible -- they treated me like the proper combination of balding middle aged man and scared child which pretty much sums me up. They distracted me with bright lights and reassuring pats on the head and told me how proud they were of me while also telling me about a new plasma donation program just for people who happen to be me. Hey! I'm me! So now, starting in August, I can go and donate plasma every 30 days instead of waiting 8 weeks after whole blood donation. I brought my own cookies and juice (a power Bar and some water, actually) and politely declined the 10 dollar gift card good at restaurants that I'll never go to, and got to go, but not before telling some of the other donors some stories about why I hadn't been able to give. I was sharp and I feel that they were a bit logy having just donated blood, so I sounded even better.
Then I went to Barnes and Noble but I have yet to craft that into a tale worth telling.
Friday, May 31, 2013
LOTS of praise
I descend today into a discussion of professional pedagogy (which is not illegal, usually). So if you aren't a teacher, or at least interested in education, please feel free to read this simply to bask in my brilliance and count the number of times I include Nina in this post. Hint. The answer is 1, and you just passed it.
Teaching is supposed to be about the student. I'm not up here for my health, people. I present a fascinating mix of facts, stories and instruction so that students leave the class with a framework of understanding, a practiced skill which might allow them to apply the information (or know how to find and assimilate new information) and without a distaste for the subject, the educational process, the school, and most importantly, me. This is my approach. And I know that it doesn't fit every discipline, every group, every school or every historical era. Time was, the teacher presented the information and the students then moved into the world rich with facts, and saddled with the task of figuring out what to do with that information (1). The teacher of yesteryear (or current year) might not have been as concerned with the student's not hating him or the school. This might be because he had a better sense of self-esteem or because his salary wasn't predicated on student enrollment. But this combination works for me. I don't know if it works for my students (2).
Newer trends in teaching continue to stress the student centered approach, de-emphasizing the teacher as expert (sage on the stage -- which has nothing to do with either herbs or Broadway (3) ) and letting the student and his educational growth be central while the teacher is the "guide on the side" (4). The combination of integrating technology and working in inquiry or problem or project based learning to give students a sense of control over their educational path and help students see what they learn as part of a preparation for real life-like future is a shift "devoutly to be wished" (5).
Along with this move there has been a consistent refocusing of energies on the rigorous pursuit of Higher Order Thinking skills. In case you don't recall your Intro courses, there is this hierarchy of thinking skills called "Bloom's Taxonomy." Surprisingly, it has nothing to do with stuffing Bloom and mounting him in your trophy room. I mean, maybe it once did, but not anymore. It is a six step ladder of thinking skills going from the Lower ones (Knowledge and Comprehension) to the Higher ones (Application, Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation). In fact, the digital age has inspired those people who have time to be inspired by anything to create a new hierarchy. Here is another version of it. The thing is, I believe that we are doing a real disservice to our students under the guise of this improvement.
I do believe in thinking. I do appreciate critical analysis and implementation of ideas in a way more advanced than rote recitation. But in our drive towards the top, we have forgotten that the brain qua (6) muscle needs a variety of exercises. We cannot ignore the foundational skills and factual basis because we have allowed the technological mode to supplement our own, independent "knowing." I believe with all my heart that, no matter what I can find on the internet, there is real value to memorization and recalling factual knowledge. I give my students spelling and vocabulary lists. I ask them to remember technical terms and events mentioned in their reading. I expect them to know things at the drop of a hat (never my hat, mind you). Sure, they could find the information online after a couple of seconds but life demands that people know things when they are needed. I have to be able to quote Hamlet without looking it up (7); I have to remember the best word to use in a situation. I have to understand what happened before I can do anything with it. [Ironically enough, this article says that technological pedagogy focuses mostly on Lower Order Thinking Skills, but that's because his example of technology is the Youtube video which is no different from a simple lecture.]
We have become so blinded by this pursuit of the HOTS that we forget that students need the LOTS. For some skills, we take for granted that simple knowledge is important. But we then think that either technology can replace the LOTS (using a calculator for simple addition) or that the LOTS are no longer independently necessary and that in the pursuit of HOTS students will pick up the basics. This is foolishness. Even through High School, students need to be able to perform tasks which demand recall and knowledge as discrete demonstrations of mastery and practice. They need to be assessed on these lower levels even while they are also moving ahead. When we ignore the LOTS, we end up building our HOTS on nothingness and they are bound to fail us eventually. We can't teach critical reading without assuming that students understand basic grammar facts. We can't teach calculus if students don't have instant recall of the times tables. And we can't assume that, as we move forward in the investigation of primary historical documents, all students know how to read. Students can analyze what they don't know how to find.
Now, very few people are explicitly saying that we should ignore LOTS. Blogs, speakers and textbooks (8) remind us constantly (9) that the LOTS are instrumental and still vital. But even while people pay lip service to the lower thinking, there is this constant push to increase the HOTS (which, by dint of finite time) means less stress on LOTS. And this is wrong. The HOTS, to my mind, are what we can de-emphasize. If a student has that solid grounding in facts and understanding, and has information presented interestingly by someone who can make the student not hate school, and maybe even value the process of education (10) he will survive and learn to apply and synthesize as he runs into situations which require the knowledge and skills he has acquired. I would rather my surgeon have memorized the body parts and then learn to create new surgical procedures than have him or her able to come up with all sorts of neat approaches to surgery but have to consult a search engine mid-procedure because he doesn't remember what the hip bone is connected to.
------------------------------------------
(1) I have no citation for this. i just made it up. But the inclusion of a footnote is really classy, don't you think?
(2) Maybe I should find that out. Dang! Footnotes are fun. Now I see why my dad uses them.
(3) Should that have been a footnote? I guess not. Carry on.
(4) In my class, that's the snide on the side.
(5) That's from Hamlet III, i. And it is important that I quoted it.
(6) Latin for "kwa."
(7) In speech. When I'm writing and can pause, no one notices a google search or a trip to the library.
(8) cf note 1.
(9) Yes, even right now. And now.
(10) Hey! That sounds like what I try to do.
Teaching is supposed to be about the student. I'm not up here for my health, people. I present a fascinating mix of facts, stories and instruction so that students leave the class with a framework of understanding, a practiced skill which might allow them to apply the information (or know how to find and assimilate new information) and without a distaste for the subject, the educational process, the school, and most importantly, me. This is my approach. And I know that it doesn't fit every discipline, every group, every school or every historical era. Time was, the teacher presented the information and the students then moved into the world rich with facts, and saddled with the task of figuring out what to do with that information (1). The teacher of yesteryear (or current year) might not have been as concerned with the student's not hating him or the school. This might be because he had a better sense of self-esteem or because his salary wasn't predicated on student enrollment. But this combination works for me. I don't know if it works for my students (2).
Newer trends in teaching continue to stress the student centered approach, de-emphasizing the teacher as expert (sage on the stage -- which has nothing to do with either herbs or Broadway (3) ) and letting the student and his educational growth be central while the teacher is the "guide on the side" (4). The combination of integrating technology and working in inquiry or problem or project based learning to give students a sense of control over their educational path and help students see what they learn as part of a preparation for real life-like future is a shift "devoutly to be wished" (5).
Along with this move there has been a consistent refocusing of energies on the rigorous pursuit of Higher Order Thinking skills. In case you don't recall your Intro courses, there is this hierarchy of thinking skills called "Bloom's Taxonomy." Surprisingly, it has nothing to do with stuffing Bloom and mounting him in your trophy room. I mean, maybe it once did, but not anymore. It is a six step ladder of thinking skills going from the Lower ones (Knowledge and Comprehension) to the Higher ones (Application, Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation). In fact, the digital age has inspired those people who have time to be inspired by anything to create a new hierarchy. Here is another version of it. The thing is, I believe that we are doing a real disservice to our students under the guise of this improvement.
I do believe in thinking. I do appreciate critical analysis and implementation of ideas in a way more advanced than rote recitation. But in our drive towards the top, we have forgotten that the brain qua (6) muscle needs a variety of exercises. We cannot ignore the foundational skills and factual basis because we have allowed the technological mode to supplement our own, independent "knowing." I believe with all my heart that, no matter what I can find on the internet, there is real value to memorization and recalling factual knowledge. I give my students spelling and vocabulary lists. I ask them to remember technical terms and events mentioned in their reading. I expect them to know things at the drop of a hat (never my hat, mind you). Sure, they could find the information online after a couple of seconds but life demands that people know things when they are needed. I have to be able to quote Hamlet without looking it up (7); I have to remember the best word to use in a situation. I have to understand what happened before I can do anything with it. [Ironically enough, this article says that technological pedagogy focuses mostly on Lower Order Thinking Skills, but that's because his example of technology is the Youtube video which is no different from a simple lecture.]
We have become so blinded by this pursuit of the HOTS that we forget that students need the LOTS. For some skills, we take for granted that simple knowledge is important. But we then think that either technology can replace the LOTS (using a calculator for simple addition) or that the LOTS are no longer independently necessary and that in the pursuit of HOTS students will pick up the basics. This is foolishness. Even through High School, students need to be able to perform tasks which demand recall and knowledge as discrete demonstrations of mastery and practice. They need to be assessed on these lower levels even while they are also moving ahead. When we ignore the LOTS, we end up building our HOTS on nothingness and they are bound to fail us eventually. We can't teach critical reading without assuming that students understand basic grammar facts. We can't teach calculus if students don't have instant recall of the times tables. And we can't assume that, as we move forward in the investigation of primary historical documents, all students know how to read. Students can analyze what they don't know how to find.
Now, very few people are explicitly saying that we should ignore LOTS. Blogs, speakers and textbooks (8) remind us constantly (9) that the LOTS are instrumental and still vital. But even while people pay lip service to the lower thinking, there is this constant push to increase the HOTS (which, by dint of finite time) means less stress on LOTS. And this is wrong. The HOTS, to my mind, are what we can de-emphasize. If a student has that solid grounding in facts and understanding, and has information presented interestingly by someone who can make the student not hate school, and maybe even value the process of education (10) he will survive and learn to apply and synthesize as he runs into situations which require the knowledge and skills he has acquired. I would rather my surgeon have memorized the body parts and then learn to create new surgical procedures than have him or her able to come up with all sorts of neat approaches to surgery but have to consult a search engine mid-procedure because he doesn't remember what the hip bone is connected to.
------------------------------------------
(1) I have no citation for this. i just made it up. But the inclusion of a footnote is really classy, don't you think?
(2) Maybe I should find that out. Dang! Footnotes are fun. Now I see why my dad uses them.
(3) Should that have been a footnote? I guess not. Carry on.
(4) In my class, that's the snide on the side.
(5) That's from Hamlet III, i. And it is important that I quoted it.
(6) Latin for "kwa."
(7) In speech. When I'm writing and can pause, no one notices a google search or a trip to the library.
(8) cf note 1.
(9) Yes, even right now. And now.
(10) Hey! That sounds like what I try to do.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
"Arrest this man/ he talks in maths"
Those of you who know me should realize by now that I don't like math. And that I'm a pretty good judge of character, so if I don't like math, there is probably something unsavory and inherently unlikeable about math and you shouldn't like it either. Sure, I know that there is some use for some types of arithmetic and up til now, I have assumed that the fault was within me -- some defect or deficiency (crazy, I know) in my understanding which kept me from being able to appreciate math. But now I realize that I am as wonderful and brilliant as ever and the villain here is math.
I was walking past a classroom today and I heard students preparing for a math test. The teacher commented that there would be "a word problem." Now let's just hold on here one moment, cowboy. If math wants to confuse the world then, fine, but to say that the problem is with words, well, that's plumb plain crazy talk. The problem with math isn't words, it is the LACK of words! So here math is, trying to obfuscate and hide its own evil by deviously laying the blame on words! How wrong is that? Math problems are NUMBER problems. If you want to fix a number problem, you add words and things get better! Imagine these scenarios:
14 * 21 - 432 / 12.53 =
The answer must clearly be a number. Have fun with that.
as opposed to
Johnny has 4 apples and Francois asks for 2 apples. How many does Johnny have?
The answer is obviously "some." Or, it could be "lots" or "none" depending on the actual attitude of that Francois ABOUT WHOM WE KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. What is his interest in the apples? Does he have a past history of apple based abuse? How does the development of his character foreshadow the struggles Jane has in later chapters? See how the use of a word clears everything up?
Historically, math has pursued a policy of verbiage cleansing, trying to remove words and replace them with numbers. Sure, they sneak in the occasional letter, but they mark is as the "unknown" - an outsider, or worse, a "variable", not just unknown, but unpredictable and changeable. And when they spell out their numbers in letters to make us think that numbers are words, they do so with malicious intent. How else do you explain that four times ten is not "fourty" but "forty."
If you don't want words then that's fine but let's talk about what kind of world that would lead to. I would posit that more wars have been fought because of a lack of words than because of an abundance of words, and by the way, war uses math. Just saying.
And I know what you are thinking -- math is necessary to build bridges, sell apples to unsuspecting Frenchmen and assess whether one is currently in possession of the proper little piggies on one's feet. But couldn't we do all that with words? Or else, maybe we could all just stay home, grow our own apples and stop judging our toes and calling them demeaning names? Math is MAKING US act as its evil minions and I for one have had enough -- note, I haven't had 12, but "enough" because that's a word and words are awesome.
I was walking past a classroom today and I heard students preparing for a math test. The teacher commented that there would be "a word problem." Now let's just hold on here one moment, cowboy. If math wants to confuse the world then, fine, but to say that the problem is with words, well, that's plumb plain crazy talk. The problem with math isn't words, it is the LACK of words! So here math is, trying to obfuscate and hide its own evil by deviously laying the blame on words! How wrong is that? Math problems are NUMBER problems. If you want to fix a number problem, you add words and things get better! Imagine these scenarios:
14 * 21 - 432 / 12.53 =
The answer must clearly be a number. Have fun with that.
as opposed to
Johnny has 4 apples and Francois asks for 2 apples. How many does Johnny have?
The answer is obviously "some." Or, it could be "lots" or "none" depending on the actual attitude of that Francois ABOUT WHOM WE KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. What is his interest in the apples? Does he have a past history of apple based abuse? How does the development of his character foreshadow the struggles Jane has in later chapters? See how the use of a word clears everything up?
Historically, math has pursued a policy of verbiage cleansing, trying to remove words and replace them with numbers. Sure, they sneak in the occasional letter, but they mark is as the "unknown" - an outsider, or worse, a "variable", not just unknown, but unpredictable and changeable. And when they spell out their numbers in letters to make us think that numbers are words, they do so with malicious intent. How else do you explain that four times ten is not "fourty" but "forty."
If you don't want words then that's fine but let's talk about what kind of world that would lead to. I would posit that more wars have been fought because of a lack of words than because of an abundance of words, and by the way, war uses math. Just saying.
And I know what you are thinking -- math is necessary to build bridges, sell apples to unsuspecting Frenchmen and assess whether one is currently in possession of the proper little piggies on one's feet. But couldn't we do all that with words? Or else, maybe we could all just stay home, grow our own apples and stop judging our toes and calling them demeaning names? Math is MAKING US act as its evil minions and I for one have had enough -- note, I haven't had 12, but "enough" because that's a word and words are awesome.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
SUPERficial
Occasionally, I am moved to write up a quasi-review of a new piece of technology, not so much for others who might want to learn, and not even for myself, to get my thoughts organized, but for automated search engines, so that they have something to crawl through.
I bought a Surface Pro a few months ago and have been putting it through a few paces and I wanted to write up my feelings about it. I was going to call this "On the Surface" but figured that that wasn't oblique enough. So I went with "Superficial." You may smile politely when ready.
So I have the Surface Pro running Windows 8. Here is what I have discovered. This is 2 different computers in the same hardware. One is a tablet, used for apps and stuff like that and one is a laptop, acting like a regular old laptop. A user has to stop expecting this to be one or the other for the sake of comparison. All of the negatives I will list pale in comparison to the fact that this is 2 solid machines in one.
It is thicker and heavier than iPads I have used. It also isn't as streamlined (in terms of the exterior design and Metro interface). The tiles are annoying (and I can only imagine their being more annoying for someone without a touch screen). In fact, I don't see much use to the Metro interface, but that's because I use this 95% of the time as a laptop. I wonder if the tiles are really good for people who live in Metro mode. Please let me know.
So the negative list is
1. when it isn't on a perfectly flat and solid surface, the keyboard loses keystrokes
2. having the stylus plug into the same spot as the charger means I'm going to lose the stylus
3. sometimes the trackpad stops responding. I have to scroll up or down with the arrow keys a little and the track pad comes back to life
4. I have had a few IExplorer crashes (and the system is really bad about reopening up tabs)
5. I have had some "display adapter not responding" issues but each time, the system is able to fix the issue
6. a couple of times the entire screen when kablooie (for lack of a better word). Pages looked wierd, words got mashed. Typing didn't appear. Closing the software and reopening fixed it
7. requiring that one holds an FN key in order to make the function keys operate in the traditional way is annoying. It also means no right side Ctrl key (which I use when opening urls)
8. battery life stinks
9. it has occiasionally lost wireless signal, especially while in the app store
10. to my eyes, the rendering on other browsers seems less crisp than on IExplore. I wonder if that is intentional
But here are some things not to complain about
a. no start button. I installed a 3rd party one. Big deal
b. not booting to desktop. Come on. Desktop is literally 1 click/touch away. And when the machine boots up in (literally) 5 seconds, I end up in desktop mode much faster than on any other computer
My wish list for it is
i. to be able to plug it into the keyboard in the portrait mode also so tall documents can be worked with as tall documents
ii. more flexibility in terms of positions. The stand has the screen a bit inconveniently angled for my eyes
and some positives
1. the way it handles pictures and music is great
2. you can search for anything just by typing (this doesn't replace my favorite wildcard searches but it is nice)
3. the touch screen mixes well with traditional keyboard/mouse interface
4. lots of memory and fast
5. moving between applications or interfaces is easy
6. the charging cable has a little light on it to tell you hat it is plugged properly
There are different areas for discussion -- the hardware and the Windows 8 both have plusses and minusses. The interfaces within the system (Metro vs. desktop) have different uses and moments of convenience. But this is 2 separate machines in one and on the whole, I give it a solid B+. It has replaced my tower and is, in some ways, an improvement over it. Granted, I'm writing this all on an acer netbook running XP SP3, but that is just because I am not at home. I give the Surface Pro and Windows 8 a solid thumbs up. Room for improvement? Sure. But solid, long term investment? Yup.
I bought a Surface Pro a few months ago and have been putting it through a few paces and I wanted to write up my feelings about it. I was going to call this "On the Surface" but figured that that wasn't oblique enough. So I went with "Superficial." You may smile politely when ready.
So I have the Surface Pro running Windows 8. Here is what I have discovered. This is 2 different computers in the same hardware. One is a tablet, used for apps and stuff like that and one is a laptop, acting like a regular old laptop. A user has to stop expecting this to be one or the other for the sake of comparison. All of the negatives I will list pale in comparison to the fact that this is 2 solid machines in one.
It is thicker and heavier than iPads I have used. It also isn't as streamlined (in terms of the exterior design and Metro interface). The tiles are annoying (and I can only imagine their being more annoying for someone without a touch screen). In fact, I don't see much use to the Metro interface, but that's because I use this 95% of the time as a laptop. I wonder if the tiles are really good for people who live in Metro mode. Please let me know.
So the negative list is
1. when it isn't on a perfectly flat and solid surface, the keyboard loses keystrokes
2. having the stylus plug into the same spot as the charger means I'm going to lose the stylus
3. sometimes the trackpad stops responding. I have to scroll up or down with the arrow keys a little and the track pad comes back to life
4. I have had a few IExplorer crashes (and the system is really bad about reopening up tabs)
5. I have had some "display adapter not responding" issues but each time, the system is able to fix the issue
6. a couple of times the entire screen when kablooie (for lack of a better word). Pages looked wierd, words got mashed. Typing didn't appear. Closing the software and reopening fixed it
7. requiring that one holds an FN key in order to make the function keys operate in the traditional way is annoying. It also means no right side Ctrl key (which I use when opening urls)
8. battery life stinks
9. it has occiasionally lost wireless signal, especially while in the app store
10. to my eyes, the rendering on other browsers seems less crisp than on IExplore. I wonder if that is intentional
But here are some things not to complain about
a. no start button. I installed a 3rd party one. Big deal
b. not booting to desktop. Come on. Desktop is literally 1 click/touch away. And when the machine boots up in (literally) 5 seconds, I end up in desktop mode much faster than on any other computer
My wish list for it is
i. to be able to plug it into the keyboard in the portrait mode also so tall documents can be worked with as tall documents
ii. more flexibility in terms of positions. The stand has the screen a bit inconveniently angled for my eyes
and some positives
1. the way it handles pictures and music is great
2. you can search for anything just by typing (this doesn't replace my favorite wildcard searches but it is nice)
3. the touch screen mixes well with traditional keyboard/mouse interface
4. lots of memory and fast
5. moving between applications or interfaces is easy
6. the charging cable has a little light on it to tell you hat it is plugged properly
There are different areas for discussion -- the hardware and the Windows 8 both have plusses and minusses. The interfaces within the system (Metro vs. desktop) have different uses and moments of convenience. But this is 2 separate machines in one and on the whole, I give it a solid B+. It has replaced my tower and is, in some ways, an improvement over it. Granted, I'm writing this all on an acer netbook running XP SP3, but that is just because I am not at home. I give the Surface Pro and Windows 8 a solid thumbs up. Room for improvement? Sure. But solid, long term investment? Yup.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)