MYTHS and FALSEHOOD

Progressive (child centered, constructivist) Instruction vs. Traditional (direct, explicit, focused Instruction

1. Background assumptions 1. Background assumptions Romanticism (Rousseau) and Plato and Aristotle. Marxism. There is no individual without Repression (e.g., limitations placed society (social institutions). on conduct by ideas of the good and bad, normal and deviant; There is no knowledge without routine ways to think and act; the society. demands of authority) inhibits the natural growth of the individual. There is no good (and therefore, no moral behavior) without Social institutions (religious dogma; knowledge. rules for reasoning which tell what is unreasonable; roles and patterns There is nothing but violence and of superordination-subordination in injustice without the good and families and schools and jobs) are morality. repressive. Therefore, when social institutions Therefore, social institutions are weakened, individuals become inhibit the natural growth of the egoistic (look out for themselves individual. and not the welfare of the whole), and evil ensues. The natural growth of the individual is among the highest Since knowledge is necessary for priorities. the good, for morality, and for “social man” anything that fosters Whatever inhibits the natural knowledge (rather than opinion growth of the individual is bad. and preference and falsehood) is useful and therefore good. Therefore, social institutions are bad. Systematic, explicit instruction by a teacher who organizes Whatever is bad should be instruction around clear changed. knowledge objectives fosters knowledge faster than any other Social institutions are bad. method of instruction.

Therefore, social institutions Methods of instruction that cater to should be changed. (e.g., do not require mastery as defined by an authority) or are Whatever supports social guided by the uneducated person institutions (and inhibits change) is (progressive methods) cannot lead bad. to knowledge, but merely foster and dignify opinion and falsehood. Traditional forms of instruction inhibit changing social institutions. Therefore, systematic, explicit instruction is more useful and Therefore, traditional forms of more consistent with the good instruction are bad. than progressive instruction, which caters to and is guided by the uneducated (“natural”) individual, who is by definition ignorant of knowledge.

Whatever is consistent with the good should be protected.

Whatever is inconsistent with the good should be replaced.

Therefore, systematic, explicit instruction should be protected and sustained, and progressive instruction should be replaced.

2. Based on writings of Rosenshine, 2. Based on writings of Piaget, Engelmann, Brophy and Goode, Vygotsky, Dewey. Lindsley.

3. Teacher centered (in early phases) 3. “Child-centered and student- in that the teacher determines centered.” Means that students objectives and instructional often select tasks. methods. Child-centered in achievement outcomes.

4. Complex skills consist of 4. “Holistic.” For example, teach simpler skill elements: pre-skills. spelling, reading, and writing at It’s essential that students learn the same time.” these first.

You can’t solve math word problems if you don’t know the basic math operations, such as addition and multiplication. You can’t write or spell if you can’t read words. So, what should you teach first?

5. You should aim for technical 5. Materials, activities, and proficiency. Clear and logical assessments should be authentic communication. and natural.” In the initial stage of instruction, activities and materials cannot always be authentic and natural.

An authentic activity for learning how to sky-dive is to jump out of a plane. But isn’t it smart FIRST to learn the elementary (part) skills on the ground?

6. There’s little credible evidence 6. “You should adapt instruction to that there is such a thing as your students’ learning styles.” learning styles, or that adapting instruction to students’ alleged learning styles makes any difference.

Instruments for assessing/determining learning styles are invalid; they do not measure what is meant by “learning style.”

“Which do you prefer: playing with Play-doh or listening to music?”

Instead of adapting instruction to students’ alleged learning styles:

(1) Use materials that are consistent with the proper sensory modality: hear and see a play; hear a poem; feel textures.

(2) Strengthen weak (dysfluent) learning channels. E.g., see/say, write; hear/write, touch; see/calculate; hear/calculate; see/think.

7. Replace “intelligence” with 7. “You should design instruction to “skill” or “talent.” Does it make a foster multiple intelligences.” difference? No.

There’s NO scientific evidence that if you design instruction to foster multiple intelligences students learn any better.

The productive idea is to teach in a way that best presents the material. Poems are to be HEARD. Plays are to be ACTED. Paintings are to be SEEN. Math problems [2Y = 12] are to be READ.

8. Practice is the only way to 8. “Drill and kill. Practice is boring. identify and correct weaknesses; firm knowledge; foster fluency, generalization, and retention.

Do you know any dancers, painters, musicians, athletes, mechanics, parents, cooks, or persons who’ve mastered ANYthing who didn’t become masters though practice, practice, practice?

9. The construction of knowledge 9. “You can’t transmit knowledge. is nothing more than making Students must construct inductive generalizations or knowledge. Therefore, most inferences (getting the concept or learning and instruction should be rule or routine) by comparing and in the form of inquiry and contrasting examples and discovery.” nonexamples. The teacher carefully presents a proper range of examples and later juxtaposes examples and nonexamples, and helps students to compare and contrast them, and then draw a conclusion---“These all show…” Sometimes the teacher defines a concept or states a rule first and then substantiates it with examples. Students STILL may be said to “construct” the generalization that they “get.”

Discovery and inquiry are the worst possible ways to teach essential core skills (reading, math) to disadvantaged students.

10. “Brain-based instruction” is 10. “You should teach with the brain based on research with a few rats. in mind. Use brain-based methods.” Use of the word “brain” is simply a way to dignify an empty assertion.

What OTHER organ would you have in mind?

It is not necessary to consider how the brain works in order to determine effective ways to teach. Just try different methods and see which works best. If a method works, then obviously it is consistent with how the brain best works.

You don’t have to do research on biomechanics to find out how to run without injuring yourself. If it hurts when you reach out and pull with your ham strings, then cut it out. Use published research on which teaching methods are most effective (e.g., regarding practice, sequences, error correction, pacing, examples, review, fluency- building, generalization), and let the brain mind its own business.

11. It’s impossible to know what’s developmentally appropriate for ALL kids or even for ONE kid 11. “You should use best practices BEFORE you teach something. and developmentally appropriate practices.” Millions of children have been denied an education (and a life) because dap advocates said that methods and materials providing effective instruction are not developmentally appropriate.

Is it implicitly racist or at least elitist to deny effective reading instruction to four year old poor kids, saying “Structured instruction is developmentally inappropriate at that age”—if serious research shows that kids learn and like it?

12. All professions use tested and shared protocols, routines, or procedures. Professionals learn 12. “Teachers should develop their the principals behind these so that own programs (e.g., beginning they can adapt them to unusual reading, spelling, math). They situations. should NOT use commercial programs—especially scripted Think of surgeons, actors, programs---because musicians, martial artists, lawyers, (1) one size does NOT fit all; and chemists, athletes, poets…. (2) commercial materials rob teachers of creativity.” Teachers usually do not have the skills to develop effective programs. It takes many years to develop these skills. In the meantime, teachers may harm students by misteaching them with poor homemade materials

Is it fair to expect teachers to go home every night and spend hours preparing lessons---when they don’t have to?

If teachers use tested materials that have been prepared for them, it gives teachers time to think of how to adapt instruction to different students, and to develop expansion activities.

Good materials do NOT try to “fit all” with “one size.” Good materials TELL teachers how to use built-in assessments to adapt instruction.

As with other professions, teaching is a complex activity. And like other professions, it should have a division of labor based on expertise.

**Some persons do research on effective instruction.

**Other persons use this research to develop the routines; e.g., materials that tell you exactly how to teach and assess every reading skill.

**And still other persons ENACT the routines---use the materials to communicate effectively with students so that students “get” the general ideas from the examples.

Learning the scripted routine teaches how to design the instruction that is scripted. This enables teachers to do it themselves, later.

What’s the difference whether you write the script or someone else (a master of design) does?

13. The teacher’s job is to educate kids so that: (1) they won’t be ignorant morons; (2) they will internalize and pass on the best 13. “Teachers should promote social aspects of the culture/civilization; justice.” (3) we can preserve our culture/civilization against Time (entropy) and our enemies, foreign and domestic.

Whose definition of justice?

The public has not asked teachers to be social reformers.

The quest for justice usually leads to totalitarianism and the mass grave. Think of Cuba, Russia, the French Revolution, China, North Korea.

Social justice will be one effect of making citizens knowledgeable and good. 1. http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/edcrisis.html

2. http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/fads.html

3. http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~bgrossen/pubs/cdp.htm

4. http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/what%20first.htm

5. http://www.mtsu.edu/~studskl/hd/learn.html

http://reviewing.co.uk/research/experiential.learning.htm

http://www.aowm73.dsl.pipex.com/dyslexics/learning_styles.htm

6. http://www.uncwil.edu/people/kozloffm/rosenshine.html

http://act.psy.cmu.edu/personal/ja/misapplied.html

http://idea.uoregon.edu/~ncite/documents/techrep/tech06.html

7. http://www.nychold.com/myths-050504.html

8. http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/teacherperceptdi.html

9. http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~adiep/ft/151toc.htm

10. http://denbeste.nu/external/Mead01.html

11. http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/jpglearning.doc

12. http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/baloney.doc

13. Arter, A. and Jenkins, J. (1979). Differential diagnosis-prescriptive teaching: A critical appraisal, Review of Educational Research, 49, 517- 555.

Kampwirth, R., and Bates, E. (1980). Modality preference and teaching method: A review of the research, Academic Therapy, 15, 597-605.

Stahl, S. (December, 1988). Is there evidence to support matching reading styles and initial reading methods? Phi Delta Kappan, 317-327. http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/fall99/DiffStrokes.pdf

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

A thorough review of the literature by Arter and Jenkins (1979) found no consistent evidence for the idea that modality strengths and weaknesses could be identified in a reliable and valid way that warranted differential instructional prescriptions. A review of the research evidence by Tarver and Dawson (1978) found likewise that the idea of modality preferences did not hold up to empirical scrutiny. They concluded, “This review found no evidence supporting an interaction between modality preference and method of teaching reading” (p. 17). Kampwirth and Bates (1980) confirmed the conclusions of the earlier reviews, although they stated their conclusions a little more baldly: “Given the rather general acceptance of this idea, and its common-sense appeal, one would presume that there exists a body of evidence to support it. Unfortunately…no such firm evidence exists” (p. 598). http://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/publications/pdf/Stanovich_Color. pdf