Great conversation everyone. The conversation started to focus on technology and how so many of these new tools provide the opportunity for us to enhance the quality of teaching and learning for students. The Federation of American Scientists released a great report entitled “Harnessing the Power of Video Games for Learning” which was part of their 2006 Summit on Educational Games. You can find a copy at http://www.fas.org/main/content.jsp?formAction=325&projectId=13

It is relevant to our topic. My 6th grader plays World of Warcraft online and is able to play with kids from all over the world. I did not realize how much he learns about economics and trading due to the exchanges that go on in the site. It is important for teachers to realize these games can be scary, but also provide tremendous learning opportunities for our children that in ways that engages and excites them. Some other interesting sites to check out are: The National Center for Technological Literacy at the Museum of Science in Boston http://www.mos.org/nctl/; and the Project Lead the Way http://www.plw.org which provides a rigorous curriculum for students thinking of engineering and science. They are already in some Ohio schools and looking to expand.

Thanks for great conversation. I hope we can have more like it in the near future.

This post reminds me of a book that I read last summer, “Everything Bad is good for you: How today’s popular culture is actually making us smarter.” by Steven Johnson. The author talks at length about the thinking and problem solving skills harnessed by video game devotees. He also speaks about the increasing complexity in popular TV shows - plot layering, knowledge of particular character situations, dialogue, references to previous episodes, etc. It was very interesting.

Thank you.

As a parent of a 2010 graduate, I was shocked to hear that our educational system is struggling to prepare our students for jobs that haven’t been created yet. My daughter has special needs and I wonder how prepared she will be upon entry into the workforce. I graduated many moons ago and back then, you needed to be able to type and answer a phone to have “skills” that would make you employable. I applaud teachers that are willing to make hard decisions in terms of going against the norm and implement web 2.0 technology in the classroom. Great discussion Jeff.

Listening to the pod cast on “The Earth is Flat,” it sounds to me like the same litany that I have heard from educators all of my life.

—– “We must modernize, we need new equipment, we must transform ourselves to meet the new challenges, high stakes tests are a nuisance, knowledge is changing, what we learn today will be superceded tomorrow, group projects reflect the real world, group projects are good, creativity must not be stifled, teachers must gain ever greater knowledge of their subject through continuing education, student self-esteem is important, we must train students for tomorrow’s jobs, most of tomorrow’s jobs haven’t been created yet, we need more money…”

Meanwhile, out here in the real world:
Most knowledge that I gained in high school and college is still quite accurate. Addition is still the same, force still equal mass times acceleration, much of anatomy, physiology, histology, remains the same. Shakespeare still probably wrote the plays, which are still great literature. The founding fathers are still the founding fathers, the constitution hasn’t changed much, the mapping of the globe has changed much: what used to be the Soviet Union is now mostly Russia, most English words are still spelled the same as before. The trouble is that many, maybe most high school graduates do not know much about any of these things.
But they have self esteem. If you don’t believe me, go to a high school graduation sometime. Watch students strut across the stage, open their graduation gown to show their cool silk suit underneath. Some of these students can’t read their diploma, can’t spell “graduation,” could not calculate the change they are owed in the rental of their cap and gown.

Trust me, I’ve been an employer. I was ready, willing and able to train any new employee how to use a computer, how to use the internet, how to use a word processor or a spreadsheet program. What I was unwilling to do was to teach new employees how to read, spell, add, make change, speak in standard English, write a paragraph that makes sense, or gain that body of knowledge commonly associated with an adult American. This includes a general knowledge of geography, history, literature, civics, citizenship, and general science.
I expected that new employees could take some criticism, correction and bounce back from small failures. I found that the newer generations grew up with little experience in competition, little exposure to hurtful language from adults, and generally insulated from serious disciplinary actions. Many were seemingly incapable of dealing with the stresses of every-day adulthood.

Meanwhile, educators continue to dwell on old, new theories of education. In other words, they take the old ideas, change the name, and call them new. In my view the most damage is done by some or all of the following:

a) Whole language and its retreads. Somewhere along the line, someone got the idea that since children learn to speak almost without effort, they should be able to learn to read almost without effort. This is, of course nonsense but it makes for lots of new jobs in training, remedial reading teachers, seminars, and endless meetings for progress review.

b) New math. Like “whole language,” New Math gets retreaded in every few years, about the time that parents figure out that it does not work. Instead of teaching something useful, like learning the times tables and how to do simple arithmetic problems in ones head, schools go for creativity (I guess). Adults deal with arithmetic: adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing. They deal with simple algebraic problem solving and mostly deal every day with probabilities and statistics. What seems to be taught are sets, creativity, group work, some algebra, and an attempt at the calculus.

c) Thin curricula. “We de-emphasize mere facts, but emphasize critical thinking.” I personally have asked dozens of educators two questions: 1) What, exactly is “Critical thinking?” and 2) how does one think critically or for that matter, think at all about a subject of which the thinker has meager or no facts. The only answer I have ever heard goes something like this: “We teach the kids to think critically.” By the way, have you noticed that educators no longer refer to “students,” or “children.” Nope, now they’re “kids.” Just kids.

I suggest that educators spend less time worrying about whether or not the earth is flat and start teaching that it is indeed round, what is on it, how it works, how its is governed, what its natural and political history is, how it fits into the universe, how these things all add up and how to function properly in the part in which the students live: the United States of America. This requires well developed skills of reading, writing, spelling, arithmetic, speaking, organizing, physical and mental discipline, and coping with competition in all of its forms.

Thanks for the post, Joe. I am not about to disagree with you. The one part of your post that I struggle with is the notion of “either-or.”

Upon what do you base your statement that we can either teach kids “critical thinking” or we can teacher them facts. We can either teach them phonics or whole language.

Personally I believe that we can do both, in fact we MUST do both. To me, “reading the paper” means more than sounding out the words. It also means assessing the validity of the reporting, connecting the story to your personal experiences, and formulating hypotheses about how the story will impact your life. In short, critical thinking.

Thanks again for taking the ime to post your thoughts, please join us on Wednesday evening for a follow-up to the initial conversation.

Please check out the following link, posted on YouTube. It references the statistic Larry Bowersox mentioned about England being the richest country in the world…..in 1900.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHWTLA8WecI

Jeff Jaroscak observes:

“The one part of your post that I struggle with is the notion of ‘either-or.’ ”

And asks:

“Upon what do you base your statement that we can either teach kids ‘critical thinking’ or we can teacher them facts. We can either teach them phonics or whole language.”

I reply:

I do not believe that I implied an “either-or.” I only state, and only meant, that the techniques that are commonly known as “whole language” are insufficient to bring a large percentage of students to reading proficiency. For that matter phonics, while a critical portion of a competent reading program, is probably not sufficient either. But I am just a business guy. What do I know about teaching people to read? So, I quote Chester Finn Jr. and Martin Davis Jr. in their preface to a paper by Louisa Moats:

“The debate about how children best learn to read has lasted far longer than necessary. It should have been laid to rest in 1967, when the late Jeanne S. Chall published Learning to Read: The Great Debate. Instead, the friction between whole-language supporters and scientists intensified, until the dispute grew white-hot in the 1980s and 1990s. Into that inferno came the National Reading Panel, charged with deciding once and for all which approach works. Its findings, issued seven years ago, were devastating to whole-language proponents. The panel identified five essential elements that every child must master in order to be a good reader: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Early-reading programs that fully incorporate these five elements into their materials and methods are accurately, if infelicitously, termed “scientifically- based reading research” (SBRR) programs. (Emphasis added.)

See “Whole Language High Jinks – How to Tell When ‘Scientifically Based’ Reading Instruction Isn’t,” by Louisa Moats– http://www.edexcellence.net/doc/Moats2007.pdf)

There is a problem. It is easy for an educator or a publisher to assert that their program is based on science or “balanced” even if contains none these five elements. There are no reading system cops.

Moats observes:

“Whole language and its offspring have not been so easily deposed. Rather than fight the five components, trendy reading gurus have placed them under the banner of “balanced instruction” while continuing to promote the same misconceived and disproved practices of yore. Today, therefore, reading curricula such as Four Blocks and Guided Reading, as well as programs that adopt the whole language fig leaf known as “balanced literacy,” thrive still. Each claim that its approaches and materials square with SBRR, but this is a ruse. And no small numbers of schools and districts are being fooled.

“Sometimes, as in Denver, the problem is identified and consequences ensue. The Mile High City adopted a balanced-literacy approach to reading instruction that did not teach phonological skills, phonics, or reading fluency, among other things. In 2005, after two years in which Denver’s students failed to show any improvement in reading scores, federal Reading First funds were withdrawn. Despite students’ abominable record in reading achievement, however, Denver administrators continue to support a balanced-literacy model. Rather than fight the five components, trendy reading gurus have placed them under the banner of “balanced instruction” while continuing to promote the failed whole-language practices of yore.”

The real impact is on the students who cannot read well or at all and as a result drift further away from the education system and modern life altogether.

Moats analyzes several programs from national and smaller publishers that do contain the five elements and do demonstrably work. I leave to those interested to follow up in the easily accessible paper. (Ibid. p. 14)

As for the teaching of “Critical Thinking,” I do not object to it — I think — I just want to be told what it means. I also would like an answer to the question, “How does one think about a subject, critical or otherwise, about which one has few or no facts?”

I am a great supporter of the skeptical analysis of a subject (which is what I think the educators mean) provided that one is being skeptical from a position of knowledge rather than one of just ignorance or prejudice. I do not propose that either we teach facts or teach “critical thinking.” I assert that factual knowledge is a prerequisite any kind of analytical thinking of a particular subject and that happily, factual knowledge does not change that much over time. Newly gained knowledge much more often builds on and expands on the old knowledge rather that overturns it.

Issac Newton said, “If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of giants.” In other words, he built on and added to their foundations. That is usually the way it works.

Finally, I re-read my post and can find no statement or indication of any concept of either-or in the original. Nor was there any in my mind as I wrote it.

Joe:

I apologize and stand corrected. I certainly did not mean to attribute satatements to you that you did not intend.

While I still think I remain a believer in whole language, your post certainly gives me food for thought.

Many thanks.

Hello Mr. Joseph Ignat. Welcome to the blog. Thank you for sharing your comments. Keep coming back.