Just in time for our discussions on theory comes this little blurb from Stephen.
Truth in Advertising
an argument of the form “the theory that X may be wrong but it’s still useful.” That’s like saying “this map may have the roads all wrong but we can still follow it” or “this restaurant is dangerously unsanitary but we can still eat at it.” People should stop arguing like this.
The problem isn’t just in your classrooms. It’s everywhere. As we struggle to make meaning about what goes on around us, we get bound up in a really old philosophical issue. How do we know what we know?
One way is to gather evidence about a particular phenomenon, create an explanation for it, and then test the explanation. That’s called the scientific method.
Another way is ask somebody and believe what they say out of hand. That’s education.
The core problem is that what is supposed to happen in Education is that the people doing the teaching are supposed to be organizing the theories and evidence, sorting and winnowing the content, and arranging what’s left so that the student can see the evidence and can learn from the method.
How often does it work like that?
October 20th, 2007 at 11:36 am
[...] “Supposed to” is the operative phrase in the blog Truth in Advertising on Phaedrus [...]
October 20th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
[...] October 21st, 2007 Dr. Lowell said, The core problem is that what is supposed to happen in Education is that the people doing the teaching are supposed to be organizing the theories and evidence, sorting and winnowing the content, and arranging what’s left so that the student can see the evidence and can learn from the method. How often does it work like that? [...]
October 20th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
I don’t know how often this method works, we would need some research and then we probably couldn’t trust it. But, one thing I have learned in this class is that when and if this method fails it is probably due to ‘distance’. I also think that experience and connections to real life make a difference in terms of student learning.
October 20th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
I hate to sound so cynical, but I’m going to have to go with next to never. There are far to many reasons to list… How many teachers are truly reflective in their teaching practices? After completing required internships and whatnot, I’m guess that many stop right there. I think it’s interesting that Tippi raised the issue of reliability, too. Could we really trust the evidence in the same manner the students trust what we teach?
October 20th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
I read some of the comments on Miguel’s blog and I really liked the comment made by Syliva and Miguel’s response. She asked if “storytelling” should be honored, and his response was as long as it is understood that it is just that. So many people just take what they hear or read as gospel. I think people need to think about what they are being told and understand that it may just be an opinion or storytelling. As teachers we ask our students to trust what we are teaching them without questioning what they are being asked to learn. Maybe we would present the theories or material and then ask the students to question and then question it again. If no one ever questioned what they were told we would still think the world was flat.
October 20th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
The problem is that we’re losings sight of the target on this — and it’s probably my fault for not tracking closer to the point in my question.
The real issue is that when you run across something that’s demonstrably false, then stop using it. This whole silver-lining-Pollyanna-have-to-say-something-good idea is problematic. Prensky’s an interesting character. I’m probably going to meet him next week and I’m looking forward to hearing what he has to say.
Being a digital aboriginal myself, I have always held his postulations in a certain light of skepticism. When you deal in absolutes, it only takes one counter example to bring down a whole structure and when it comes to “brains of kids” vs “brains of adults” when dealing with all things digital, I’m the living counter example.
October 21st, 2007 at 1:23 am
We’ve learned about a lot of myths in this class. Multiple intelligences was something that I thought to be true, but, like the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, they are just myths…fiction. This myth has given me some perspective on providing different approaches to learning. Maybe some of the things that are considered a myth can be be a gateway to enlightenment on the truth. Multiple Intelligences leads to presenting information in a different ways. Knowing now that multiple intelligences is only a myth, I have to let go of it and take on a new approach to teaching. This can be said for any other theory that we come across. If its not working or not true, then why do we persist in using it. Maybe its just hope that we want it to work, but hope can lead people to do crazy things.
October 21st, 2007 at 6:42 am
You’re confounding Gartner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences with Kolb’s (and other’s) Learning Styles Inventory.
Gartner says that people are “smart” in different ways. They have an innate ability to process information in different domains.
The whole Learning Styles inventory movement has to do with achieving outcomes based on learning what an individual’s “Learning Style” is and presenting the information in that mode to that person to get the best result.
Gartner’s theory seems to be supported. At least I haven’t run across anybody who says otherwise yet.
The Learning Styles movement is flawed in several dimensions.
a. There’s not any respected research that says people even *have* a learning style.
b. There’s not any respected research that says presenting instruction that caters to a particular style is more effective than another for an individual.
c. All the results claimed by proponents of “Learning Styles” can be explained by much simpler constructs — like repetition and effective communication.
October 22nd, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Okay, I’m slow on the uptake, but I don’t understand why anyone would continue to use something if they’ve found out it is not valid.
I missed the point on this one, thinking that teachers were being criticized for not checking the research on everything. That’s why I ended up lamenting the lack of time in the school day to do anything, much less research.