The third idea I want to write about from When Children Don't Learn: Understanding the Biology and Psychology of Sex Differences comes from what McGuinness writes about educational psychologists vs. teachers. She says that teachers made certain observations about children's learning, but educational psychologists did not believe them because they could not explain the claims scientifically. Regarding discoveries made by teachers and the few scientists who took those discoveries seriously, she writes "Often their work did not appeal to the general educational community because what they claimed was counterintuitive, as, for example, their unanimous insistence that reading is more related to hearing than seeing. Similarly, all these talented teachers discovered that effective remediation techniques require the integration of multiple sensory and motor tasks. It is only in the past two years that research on the brain has revealed the neural basis for this insight" (p. 56).
This parallels a gripe I have long held about the medical profession not believing in ailments suffered by patients until they can explain the physical cause. Too many doctors seem to think that if they can't explain it, it doesn't exist.
Whether it's education or medicine, these examples point to the fact that at times there is a gap between scientific understanding and experience. I'm not saying that experience is always right. Sometimes conclusions arrived at through experience are erroneous. I think that when there is a gap between experience and scientific understanding, we should not conclude that the experience is wrong, nor should we conclude that scientific understanding is wrong. The existence of a gap is simply a pointer to the need for further inquiry. Until the question is resolved, I think both sides need to keep an open mind.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Trying to understand the world
As I did in my previous post, I'm commenting on something which I read in When Children Don't Learn: Understanding the Biology and Psychology of Learning Disabilities, but which is peripheral to the main idea of the book. When McGuinness introduces the major theories about learning disabilities, she writes, "All theories are only approximations to the truth. The truth is always elusive and changeable, but some theories are more true than others" (p. 34).
I think this is an important point which is often overlooked. I think that reality is so vast and infinite that we can't expect to explain it all. I think sometimes people who know a lot about something fall into to the trap of thinking they know everything. I think it is easy to think that the corner of the world that we can see is all there is, to think that when we know everything about our corner, then we know everything. I think the brightest people are those who have a large enough view to be able to glimpse some of the vastness, and who therefore know that they don't know everything.
However, the impossibility of explaining everything does not mean that we should stop trying. The last part of the quote from McGuinness is, "some theories are more true than others." The more we pursue understanding through scientific inquiry, the closer we can get to understanding reality.
I think this is an important point which is often overlooked. I think that reality is so vast and infinite that we can't expect to explain it all. I think sometimes people who know a lot about something fall into to the trap of thinking they know everything. I think it is easy to think that the corner of the world that we can see is all there is, to think that when we know everything about our corner, then we know everything. I think the brightest people are those who have a large enough view to be able to glimpse some of the vastness, and who therefore know that they don't know everything.
However, the impossibility of explaining everything does not mean that we should stop trying. The last part of the quote from McGuinness is, "some theories are more true than others." The more we pursue understanding through scientific inquiry, the closer we can get to understanding reality.
Too many rules
I have been reading When Children Don't Learn: Understanding the Biology and Psychology of Learning Disabilities by Diane McGuinness. Rather than trying to condense all my comments into one post, I'm going to write about different ideas in different posts. I have not yet finished the book, and for now I'm only going to comment on ideas that are peripheral to the main point of the book.
The first thing I want to comment on is something McGuinness writes in the preface: "children blossom with individual care and languish or rebel the moment they become less important than the system. If the system is too inflexible, too inhuman, then ultimately even the winners are losers. They have learned to play the wrong game" (p. vii). She writes this comment regarding a contrast between two schools. In one school, children blossom when their creativity is supported, while in the other school, students are valued only for their ability to earn top grades. The danger she points out is that when grades are emphasized, students come to value grades more than they value learning.
I think this is a danger in any system that tries to control behavior with rewards and punishments. I heard a story of a student at another college who visited my alma mater, Haverford College. Haverford has an honor code which, in addition to covering academic integrity, asks students to be considerate and respectful with all members of the Haverford community. The student visiting Haverford said that at her college, there are many rules, and students try to figure out how to get around the rules, while at Haverford, students are expected to be good, so students try to figure out how to be good.
Haverford's honor code is effective because it expects honorable behavior and holds people accountable when they don't live up to that expectation. School administrators are similarly effective when they expect their teachers and staff to serve students, and hold them accountable when they fail to do so. However, some administrations are unable to trust that their teachers and staff will work in the best interests of students. These administrators take the approach of regulating what teachers and staff do at a very detailed level. When they take this approach, they make following the rules the ultimate goal, rather making serving students the goal. Most people who work in the field of education do so because they want to serve students. Working in an environment where complying with regulations is top priority dampens the enthusiasm of many who initially were motivated to serve students.
Thus whether we are talking about student learning, students' non-academic conduct while at school, or the conduct of teachers and others who work with students, I think we need to consider whether all our rules and restrictions really support the things we want to support. Our ultimate academic goal for our students is not top grades but learning. The traits we want to encourage in our students are not dutiful obedience, but creativity, critical inquiry and analysis, confidence, integrity, and compassion. We want our teachers and other staff to care about student learning and development. While rules are always necessary, we need to remember the reasons for those rules, and make sure the rules are just the means to an end, and don't become an end in themselves.
The first thing I want to comment on is something McGuinness writes in the preface: "children blossom with individual care and languish or rebel the moment they become less important than the system. If the system is too inflexible, too inhuman, then ultimately even the winners are losers. They have learned to play the wrong game" (p. vii). She writes this comment regarding a contrast between two schools. In one school, children blossom when their creativity is supported, while in the other school, students are valued only for their ability to earn top grades. The danger she points out is that when grades are emphasized, students come to value grades more than they value learning.
I think this is a danger in any system that tries to control behavior with rewards and punishments. I heard a story of a student at another college who visited my alma mater, Haverford College. Haverford has an honor code which, in addition to covering academic integrity, asks students to be considerate and respectful with all members of the Haverford community. The student visiting Haverford said that at her college, there are many rules, and students try to figure out how to get around the rules, while at Haverford, students are expected to be good, so students try to figure out how to be good.
Haverford's honor code is effective because it expects honorable behavior and holds people accountable when they don't live up to that expectation. School administrators are similarly effective when they expect their teachers and staff to serve students, and hold them accountable when they fail to do so. However, some administrations are unable to trust that their teachers and staff will work in the best interests of students. These administrators take the approach of regulating what teachers and staff do at a very detailed level. When they take this approach, they make following the rules the ultimate goal, rather making serving students the goal. Most people who work in the field of education do so because they want to serve students. Working in an environment where complying with regulations is top priority dampens the enthusiasm of many who initially were motivated to serve students.
Thus whether we are talking about student learning, students' non-academic conduct while at school, or the conduct of teachers and others who work with students, I think we need to consider whether all our rules and restrictions really support the things we want to support. Our ultimate academic goal for our students is not top grades but learning. The traits we want to encourage in our students are not dutiful obedience, but creativity, critical inquiry and analysis, confidence, integrity, and compassion. We want our teachers and other staff to care about student learning and development. While rules are always necessary, we need to remember the reasons for those rules, and make sure the rules are just the means to an end, and don't become an end in themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
