Seeds of Reform

Seeds of Reform (Rethinking of Purpose of Education)

Miha Lee

1. What do the psychologists say about how to teach? (Be sure to mention cognitive psychologists and behaviorists.)

Behaviorists and associationists consider learning to be the consequence of the right chain of associations and behaviors, reinforced by practice and reward. For many years this view validated the teaching of skills through repetitive drill and practice and the teaching of knowledge through rote memorization; appropriate rewards reinforced appropriate behavior; and learning was measured by quick responses on multiple-choice tests. Students were not permitted to learn problem-solving skills until they had mastered the “basics” through drill and memory work. Thus, thinking and understanding were discouraged by being seen as hoped-for capstones that many students never reached.

However, decrying the influence of behaviorism in instruction and testing, the new cognitive psychologists (I think they are constructivists) began to study the process of learning, instead of the result of learning. There were three backgrounds for this view. First, American education was changing from a system of selection to a system that was expected to educated everyone. Second, modern life requires higher levels of competence from more people than life did in the past. Third, most current educational tests had serious limitations.

The new study of cognitive science proposed an array of principles.  The importance of students’ preconceptions as a foundation for new learning: Students actively “construct” new knowledge based on their own experience, previous knowledge, and understanding.  The importance of previous knowledge: the more students know, the more they can learn. Schools have to expand students’ experiences and knowledge to increase their capacity for new learning.  The importance of assessment as a tool for measuring students’ depth of understanding and demonstrating what they know  The importance of situated learning and cooperative learning: Students learn best by applying knowledge, skills, and problem solving to real situations and whey they work actively with other students.  The importance of domain specific knowledge: Critical thinking skills cannot be taught in isolation; knowledge of the subject matter is necessary.

For example, Robert Glaser contended that tests in the future should be used to provide information that is oriented toward instructional decision rather than prediction (that is, selection for restricted further educational and job opportunities). He proposed that tests should be designed to find out not only what students had learned, but why they had not learned what was taught; by understanding student errors and misconceptions, he held, teachers could improve instruction and reduce failure. Besides, Lauren Resnick, who founded the New Standards Project, insisted that an examination system be tied to the curriculum that is a thinking-oriented curriculum for all students. She also suggested performance assessments based on high standards by which students could demonstrate that they understood and could apply what they had studied. 2. What do the economists say about education?

Economists agreed that educational standards must be higher than ever before in American history, not only for those bound for college, but for all students because profound changes are required by new technologies, by the new competition among nations for markets and products, and by the restructuring the workplace from a hierarchical, top-down, factory model, to a model in which workers are expected to collaborate, innovate, and make decisions. Therefore, such economists as Peter Drucker and Lester Thurow pointed out that education of work force is most important than ever. Economists recommended that the nation specify core elements that must be included in all secondary curriculums, and that a new educational performance standard be set for all students to be met by age 16. John Bishop also stressed cognitive skills as an important contributor to productivity because they help the worker learn new tasks more quickly determining a nation’s competiveness and standard of living.

Economists also see standards and examinations as part of an incentive and signaling system because they think of American students’ poor performance as a result of the lack of motivation. They maintained that the American educational system had thrown out behaviorism where it mattered most: in the incentives and sanctions connected to working and studying hard in school. Robert J. Samuelson argued that American students had little motivation to work hard in schools, and that student would not take school seriously unless they knew that their grades and their effort in school would affect employment decisions and their admission to college. So, they suggested that schools encourage cooperative learning groups, with competition between evenly matched teams rather than individuals. They also encourage employers to consider their applicants’ high school grades when making a decision about hiring them.

3. What is the best way for a college to determine who is best qualified to attend their school? (tests, essays, etc.)

Admission tests for college entrance should be based not only on students’ aptitude to learn but also on their content knowledge they have learned in schools. The tests also need to be performance tests that give students the opportunity to demonstrate what they have learned. It could be writing an essay, solving open-ended math questions or performing arts depending on their majors. In addition, teachers’ recommendations that explain students’ attitude or efforts to learn should be included in determination. In our country, students’ school records that include not only their GPA but also attendance, attitudes and other extracurricular activities are considered as part of qualification.

4. In social studies, math, English and science, what are the new focuses and what are the "Back to Basics" focuses? Is there a pattern in the "new" subjects?

All subjects have sought to define what students should learn and what teachers should teach. Affiliations or associations of subject educators have tried to create guidelines that inform teachers, students and parents about what and when students should learn. Their focuses are on the development of subject literacy for all students by identifying the core content standards, and on the way to assess these developments. They also focus their standards on using and applying knowledge actively in order to learn it well. They believe that knowledge is seen as constructive, teaching as guiding, and learning as occurring through active participation.

Specifically, in social studies, history and geography were separated as independent subjects and allotted substantial time in middle and high school curriculums by the standard movement. In 1987, California adopted a new curriculum in which three years of world history for middle school and three years of American history for high school are taught. In 1988, the Bradley Commission on History in Schools, a panel composed of historians and teachers, proposed “that the kindergarten through grade six social studies curriculum be history-centered” and that four years of American and world history should be required of students between grades seven and twelve. On the other hand, in 1984 the National Council for Geographic Education and the Association of American Geographers published guidelines for geographic education, which included content standards for elementary and secondary schools.

In math education, the target of teaching has been changed from few college bound elite students to all students. In 1960s, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) tried and failed to implement vigorous “new math” curriculum which was based on the belief that the best way to teach the subject was to teach its structure and its underlying ideas. The new math debacle was produced by a back to basics movement. The Back to Basics movement focused on minimum competency. In 1980, trying to dislodge the back to basics movement, the NCTM developed a new curriculum and recommended that problem solving be the focus of school mathematics, that basic skills be defined to encompass more than computational facility, that calculators and computers be made available, that stringent standards of both effectiveness and efficiency be applied to the teaching of mathematics, that more mathematics study be required for all students in a flexible curriculum with many options, and that mathematics programs be evaluated by a broader range of measures than conventional testing. Finally they implanted successfully the curriculum, but have not developed performance standards, no clear definition of expectations for students achievement.

In English, even though it has stable position in school curriculums, there is ideological and political dissension. For example, in the elementary education, there has been a conflict between phonics advocates and whole-language learning advocates. In the secondary education, there has been conflict over grammar teaching. The battles over reading material between multiculturalism and the canon are still ongoing.

Science educational organizations such as NSTA and AAAS agreed that students needed to spend more time doing “hands-on” science (meaning experiments and projects, as opposed to text book study) and that they needed better equipped laboratories and better-educated teachers. They developed the National Science Content Standards.

Although the followings were basic principles for developing California content standards, I think they show a pattern in the "new" subjects.  An emphasis on thinking, application, and problem solving  High expectations for all students, instead of the tracking that had been prevalent  A focus on the body of knowledge and the ways of knowing in each discipline, enabling every student to build a foundation for future learning  A shift from coverage of minute details to emphasis on understanding the major ideas in each field

5. What is the standards movement advocating? What are several potential benefits? The standards movement is concerned about the Quality of Education for All, so it advocates a rich core curriculum for all students and performance assessments. Its potential values help restore the schools’ role as educational institutes which focus their mission on teaching and learning. What’s more, I think the standards give teachers back the authority to force their students to study in their classrooms. The following points are made by standards movement advocates.

 What students should know and be able to do must be clearly defined (content standards), so that they, their teachers, and their parents know and understand what is expected of them.

 Content standards should define what is to be learned, not the kind of behavior, attitudes, or personal qualities that students should display when the course is concluded. Content standards define knowledge and skills (and are measurable), not behavioral or attitudinal objectives (which are usually immeasurable).

 Tests should be aligned with content standards so that students know that they will be tested on what they have been taught.

 Content standards should be used to reform examinations, textbooks, teacher training, teacher education, teacher certification, and other parts of the educational system.

 All students should be expected to learn mathematics, science, English, history, geofraphy, civics, the arts, and a foreign language. Although some ability grouping may be necessary for students at the extremes, curricular tracking should be discouraged or eliminated because it excludes students from the opportunity to learn the knowledge and skills that are needed for good jobs and postsecondary education.

 Teachers should encourage students to think, to apply what they have learned to novel situations, and to develop the ability to explain how they arrived at the answer to problems.

 Parents and teachers should stress the importance of effort, rather than ability, as the key to success in school.

 Tests should stress achievement (what is learned in class) rather than aptitude.

 Tests should be designed to determine whether students really understand what they have studied, rather than simply having them pick a correct answer from a series of boxes.

 Public agencies should pay more attention to results (whether students are performing at high levels) and regulate less (that is, leave schools and teachers free to do things their own ways so long as they aim for high performance for all students).