Sunday, April 10, 2011
WORLD OF LEARNING: OVERT CONFIDENCE
"Think You'll Ace That Test? Think Again, Then Start Studying" ScienceDaily 3-23-11 I just watched Waiting for Superman. This story puts me in mind of a statistic cited there: while students in the United States rank twenty-fifth in math and twenty-first in science among thirty developed countries, they rank first in confidence.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
LAR'S LIBRARY: MY REVIEW OF MARGARET PETERSON HADDIX'S "RUNNING OUT OF TIME"
RUNNING OUT OF TIME. By Margaret Peterson Haddix. Scholastic, 2004 (originally published 1995). 184 pages. M. Shyamalan’s The Village has a plotline suspiciously close to Margaret Peterson Haddix’s Running Out of Time. A nineteenth century backwoods settlement is completely artificial; we’re actually in the present. When a medical emergency prompts residents to seek a twentieth century cure, a young girl is asked to escape the guarded perimeter of her make-believe world. Despite the striking resemblances, the film’s producers called charges of plagiarism “meritless.” Haddix and her publishers considered litigation, then didn’t bother suing, probably because The Village was less than wildly successful, to put it charitably. All a fascinating sidelight, but not one that really matters when you’re reading Haddix’s debut novel. The author of the fabulous Shadow Children series has written a novel far superior, not to mention slightly more plausible, than Shyamalan’s humorless clunker of a movie. Since Running Out of Time is aimed at an audience that is willing to suspend disbelief, readers might excuse the lack of planes flying overhead. Or the children of the ersatz 1840s Clifton, Indiana, not wondering about the cameras in the trees. Unlike The Village, the town in Running Out of Time is not a thought-control experiment. Instead it’s a tourist attraction that’s morphed into a study of immunology. The conspiracy, and conspirators, behind the artifice are more down-to-earth and realistic. What really distinguishes Running Out of Time, as in the Shadow Children books, is its utterly true and finely drawn child protagonist. Jessie Keyser is a resourceful, yet vulnerable, kid, with the same sources of strength, and the same insecurities, as seventh and eighth graders in the nineteenth, twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Her encounters with adults and other children carry a straightforward verisimilitude. Jessie runs into all kinds of suspenseful action as she, like all children coming of age, searches for truth in an untruthful society imperfectly managed by its elders. And, like all childhood heroes should do, she saves the day. Recommended for fifth graders on up.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
WORLD OF LEARNING: TALKING MATH
"The Importance of Clarifying Language in Mathematics Education" ScienceDaily 3-22-11
Many math concepts are counter-intuitive (measurement units, place value, the number zero, fractions, negative numbers), which makes them challenging. Presenting them abstractly (as in merely demonstrating an algorithm) makes them even harder to understand. The challenge for teachers is finding clear language, a variety of metaphors, and a variety of concrete contexts.
Or this can happen: "Many consumers believe 36 months is longer than 3 years."
Another connection in this precious post.
Many math concepts are counter-intuitive (measurement units, place value, the number zero, fractions, negative numbers), which makes them challenging. Presenting them abstractly (as in merely demonstrating an algorithm) makes them even harder to understand. The challenge for teachers is finding clear language, a variety of metaphors, and a variety of concrete contexts.
Or this can happen: "Many consumers believe 36 months is longer than 3 years."
Another connection in this precious post.
WORLD OF LEARNING: FEAR ITSELF
"Masked Fears: Are Fears That Are Seemingly Overcome Only Hidden?" ScienceDaily 3-20-11
A good reminder of how persistent fear is.
A good reminder of how persistent fear is.
WORLD OF LEARNING: WORKING MEMORY
"Brain Has Three Layers of Working Memory, Study Shows" ScienceDaily 3-21-11
Working memory really interests me. No matter the number of layers, or amount of items that can be held, it seems clear to Daniel Willingham in Why Don't Students Like School? that working memory's space is not only finite, it's extremely limited. You can cheat that by squeezing more into each item--chunking--or by quick and easy access to patterns in long-term memory--automaticity.
The lead author of this particular study put it this way: "Predictability can free up resources so a person can effectively multitask. When you do the same sequence over and over again, your memory can be partially automatized so you have the ability to do another task concurrently."
Two parents have recommended Milton Dehn's Working Memory and Academic Learning, so I just ordered it.
Working memory really interests me. No matter the number of layers, or amount of items that can be held, it seems clear to Daniel Willingham in Why Don't Students Like School? that working memory's space is not only finite, it's extremely limited. You can cheat that by squeezing more into each item--chunking--or by quick and easy access to patterns in long-term memory--automaticity.
The lead author of this particular study put it this way: "Predictability can free up resources so a person can effectively multitask. When you do the same sequence over and over again, your memory can be partially automatized so you have the ability to do another task concurrently."
Two parents have recommended Milton Dehn's Working Memory and Academic Learning, so I just ordered it.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
RECENT NEWS: MY REVIEW OF "MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES"
MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES: NEW HORIZONS. By Howard Gardner. Perseus Books Group, 2006. 300 pages.
Working on a daily basis with children who have been diagnosed with deficits—problem learners—I’m attracted to educational theory which holds that individuals are amalgams of unique characteristics. Strengths as well as weaknesses.
My conception of Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences played into that attraction. School is in large part based on psychometrically determined intelligence quotients and the ability to apply intelligence to written language and mathematics. Stretching that view a bit might allow kids who are academically unsuccessful to see that they have capabilities that can be realized with effort, and allow society to make use of unrecognized potential.
After reading Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons, I find my conception was fairly accurate, but I remain confused about how to translate theory into practice. I’m also more skeptical about the theory itself, while still agreeing with Gardner that we need "to nurture all of the varied human intelligences."
It’s interesting that Gardner has been surprised by his audience. He originally formulated his theory in 1983 as "a psychologist who thought he was addressing his fellow psychologists." However, he did not find a warm welcome among his colleagues, to whom Frames of Mind "seemed somewhat exotic." Among those whom Gardner, perhaps with a hint of derision, labels "psychometricians," "the book aroused antipathy."
However, the book was a huge hit with another constituency. "For reasons that I do not fully understand," writes a baffled Gardner, "the theory of multiple intelligences spoke immediately to educators—loudly and quite clearly."
The dichotomic reception of Frames of Mind set off warning signals in my mind to approach the theory of multiple intelligences with caution. I came to Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons after reading Daniel Willingham’s excellent Why Don’t Students Like School? The cognitive psychologist’s critical view of Gardner’s work increased my wariness.
The presentation of Multiple Intelligences didn’t help. It’s not an updated edition of Frames of Mind, but a poorly organized mish-mash of collected essays, some written with co-authors, and randomly ordered reflections on a theory by its creator a quarter of a century down the road.
Readers looking for an outline of that theory need go no further in this book than its first chapter, twenty-five pages aptly titled "In a Nutshell." Or, with even more brevity, you could note that Gardner posits seven intelligences: musical, bodily-kinesthetic, logical-mathematical, linguistic, spatial, intrapersonal and interpersonal. Maybe an eighth, too—a naturalist intelligence.
Most readers, I would think, come to this book with that outline more or less already in place.
Gardner does contextualize his work and its effect over the years, and acknowledges an impediment to more widespread acceptance of his ideas—a lack of supporting clinical evidence for multiple intelligences.
While it’s hard to argue with his plea that "psychologists should spend less time ranking people and more time trying to help them," it leaves a question unanswered. How?
Good teachers have long recognized that different students learn in different ways. I’m not really sure that determining which intelligences are in which classrooms will make for an improved version of tailoring instruction to varying needs and abilities, even to the moment.
To be fair, Gardner does address the issue of application in the second part of this book where he discusses the Project Spectrum elementary school program, learning through projects, the Arts PROPEL high school program, and using broader, more inclusive forms of assessment. The problem is that the information is sketchy. Gardner repeatedly reminds readers of the positive reaction to his theory among educators, rather than tell them exactly how educators can put theory into practice.
A chapter called “Multiple Entry Points Toward Disciplinary Understanding” offers an interesting and helpful way of framing instruction—narrational, logical, quantitative, foundational, aesthetic, experiential, or collaborative. Likewise, while considering Project Spectrum, Gardner includes a questionnaire which puts forward useful criteria for determining a child’s learning style through observation.
But is connecting learning styles to teaching really have much to do with intelligences as separate categories? Gardner says no, that "style and intelligence are really fundamentally different constructs." Ironic, given that I found the questionnaire and entry point framework the most practical takeaway from Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons.
Gardner tackles those "new horizons" in a final section that I thought was pretty much fluff. A chapter on multiple intelligence theory and the workplace seemed downright goofy.
The ostensible goal of this book is to introduce Gardner’s theory and to explain its application. It fails on both counts.
___________________________________________________________________
COMMENT FROM JULIE AT ALL EARS ON GOODREADS 3-20-11:
So interesting that he didn't think that educators would be a primary target for this info!
COMMENT FROM CLIF ON GOODREADS 3-21-11:
What obsesses me about education is - how to trigger motivation. I did very poorly in school because I simply wasn't interested in the subject matter. On my own initiative, however, I was fascinated with meteorology and avidly read and re-read books on weather, something not even covered in (elementary) school.
As it turned out, I couldn't go into the field professionally because I had (and this gets to multiple intelligence) absolutely NO aptitude for math. I am entirely a word, not a figure, person!
But regardless of what aspect of intelligence one may have - triggering the desire to use it is key. How do we do that? And why is it that I am insatiably eager to learn in subjects that interest me? If we could turn that on with a switch in students!
MY RESPONSE:
Julie, not only did Gardner fail to see that it was obvious that the people most invested in realizing kids’ intelligence would be the most significant audience for his theory, he still seems somewhat befuddled by his rock-star status in the educational community. I think his myopia tells us more than we’d like to know about him.
Clif, one reason why I am critical of Gardner’s work is that I believe it’s more important to look at what good teachers do than to look at psychological categories of intelligence, especially when the evidence base underlying that categorization is inchoate.
Good teachers go with core curriculum, but empathize with their scholars-in-training. They are aware there are different cognitive styles and personalities in their classrooms and adjust accordingly.
People who remember a favorite teacher often say that the reason the teacher was so great was that the teacher “motivated” them to learn. Of course, motivation is really internal; no one can turn it on but you. What good teachers do is connect curriculum to their students’ lives. They also really know the material, and are really enthusiastic about teaching it.
I would wager that some of your difficulty in engaging with school subject matter was caused as much by the way it was taught as by the content itself.
Almost all children are curious and creative. They love to play. They love to meet challenges if they believe they can improve. There’s a lot there education can tap into. Instead, it is often the case that all those qualities are stomped out of kids as soon as school starts.
Besides that, meteorology should be covered in elementary school!
Working on a daily basis with children who have been diagnosed with deficits—problem learners—I’m attracted to educational theory which holds that individuals are amalgams of unique characteristics. Strengths as well as weaknesses.
My conception of Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences played into that attraction. School is in large part based on psychometrically determined intelligence quotients and the ability to apply intelligence to written language and mathematics. Stretching that view a bit might allow kids who are academically unsuccessful to see that they have capabilities that can be realized with effort, and allow society to make use of unrecognized potential.
After reading Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons, I find my conception was fairly accurate, but I remain confused about how to translate theory into practice. I’m also more skeptical about the theory itself, while still agreeing with Gardner that we need "to nurture all of the varied human intelligences."
It’s interesting that Gardner has been surprised by his audience. He originally formulated his theory in 1983 as "a psychologist who thought he was addressing his fellow psychologists." However, he did not find a warm welcome among his colleagues, to whom Frames of Mind "seemed somewhat exotic." Among those whom Gardner, perhaps with a hint of derision, labels "psychometricians," "the book aroused antipathy."
However, the book was a huge hit with another constituency. "For reasons that I do not fully understand," writes a baffled Gardner, "the theory of multiple intelligences spoke immediately to educators—loudly and quite clearly."
The dichotomic reception of Frames of Mind set off warning signals in my mind to approach the theory of multiple intelligences with caution. I came to Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons after reading Daniel Willingham’s excellent Why Don’t Students Like School? The cognitive psychologist’s critical view of Gardner’s work increased my wariness.
The presentation of Multiple Intelligences didn’t help. It’s not an updated edition of Frames of Mind, but a poorly organized mish-mash of collected essays, some written with co-authors, and randomly ordered reflections on a theory by its creator a quarter of a century down the road.
Readers looking for an outline of that theory need go no further in this book than its first chapter, twenty-five pages aptly titled "In a Nutshell." Or, with even more brevity, you could note that Gardner posits seven intelligences: musical, bodily-kinesthetic, logical-mathematical, linguistic, spatial, intrapersonal and interpersonal. Maybe an eighth, too—a naturalist intelligence.
Most readers, I would think, come to this book with that outline more or less already in place.
Gardner does contextualize his work and its effect over the years, and acknowledges an impediment to more widespread acceptance of his ideas—a lack of supporting clinical evidence for multiple intelligences.
While it’s hard to argue with his plea that "psychologists should spend less time ranking people and more time trying to help them," it leaves a question unanswered. How?
Good teachers have long recognized that different students learn in different ways. I’m not really sure that determining which intelligences are in which classrooms will make for an improved version of tailoring instruction to varying needs and abilities, even to the moment.
To be fair, Gardner does address the issue of application in the second part of this book where he discusses the Project Spectrum elementary school program, learning through projects, the Arts PROPEL high school program, and using broader, more inclusive forms of assessment. The problem is that the information is sketchy. Gardner repeatedly reminds readers of the positive reaction to his theory among educators, rather than tell them exactly how educators can put theory into practice.
A chapter called “Multiple Entry Points Toward Disciplinary Understanding” offers an interesting and helpful way of framing instruction—narrational, logical, quantitative, foundational, aesthetic, experiential, or collaborative. Likewise, while considering Project Spectrum, Gardner includes a questionnaire which puts forward useful criteria for determining a child’s learning style through observation.
But is connecting learning styles to teaching really have much to do with intelligences as separate categories? Gardner says no, that "style and intelligence are really fundamentally different constructs." Ironic, given that I found the questionnaire and entry point framework the most practical takeaway from Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons.
Gardner tackles those "new horizons" in a final section that I thought was pretty much fluff. A chapter on multiple intelligence theory and the workplace seemed downright goofy.
The ostensible goal of this book is to introduce Gardner’s theory and to explain its application. It fails on both counts.
___________________________________________________________________
COMMENT FROM JULIE AT ALL EARS ON GOODREADS 3-20-11:
So interesting that he didn't think that educators would be a primary target for this info!
COMMENT FROM CLIF ON GOODREADS 3-21-11:
What obsesses me about education is - how to trigger motivation. I did very poorly in school because I simply wasn't interested in the subject matter. On my own initiative, however, I was fascinated with meteorology and avidly read and re-read books on weather, something not even covered in (elementary) school.
As it turned out, I couldn't go into the field professionally because I had (and this gets to multiple intelligence) absolutely NO aptitude for math. I am entirely a word, not a figure, person!
But regardless of what aspect of intelligence one may have - triggering the desire to use it is key. How do we do that? And why is it that I am insatiably eager to learn in subjects that interest me? If we could turn that on with a switch in students!
MY RESPONSE:
Julie, not only did Gardner fail to see that it was obvious that the people most invested in realizing kids’ intelligence would be the most significant audience for his theory, he still seems somewhat befuddled by his rock-star status in the educational community. I think his myopia tells us more than we’d like to know about him.
Clif, one reason why I am critical of Gardner’s work is that I believe it’s more important to look at what good teachers do than to look at psychological categories of intelligence, especially when the evidence base underlying that categorization is inchoate.
Good teachers go with core curriculum, but empathize with their scholars-in-training. They are aware there are different cognitive styles and personalities in their classrooms and adjust accordingly.
People who remember a favorite teacher often say that the reason the teacher was so great was that the teacher “motivated” them to learn. Of course, motivation is really internal; no one can turn it on but you. What good teachers do is connect curriculum to their students’ lives. They also really know the material, and are really enthusiastic about teaching it.
I would wager that some of your difficulty in engaging with school subject matter was caused as much by the way it was taught as by the content itself.
Almost all children are curious and creative. They love to play. They love to meet challenges if they believe they can improve. There’s a lot there education can tap into. Instead, it is often the case that all those qualities are stomped out of kids as soon as school starts.
Besides that, meteorology should be covered in elementary school!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
