Category Archives: Misconceptions

Chasing our tails with CCSS

Posted on by
Reply

There is no need for us to chase our tails with the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Since the publication of CCSS a couple years ago, educators have been trying to “unpack” and amalgamate the grade level skills and skill strands contained therein. But most appear to be chasing their tails by trying to assimilate performance standards into the established unit-driven, content-based instruction (CBI).

There are a couple plausible explanations for insisting that square, CCSS pegs should fit into round, content-based holes. The most obvious explanation is that CCSS, as a body, “appears” to be content-based. To be sure, CCSS is organized along a content related structure of English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics, and Next Generation Science Standards. Another explanation lies within the formatted presentation of unit-type segments. Presumably the authors, themselves, were not entirely sure of how to teach standards (as opposed to content), only that performance standards were necessary. A third explanation acknowledges that instruction of skills is a seismic shift from imparting knowledge. The ramifications of this shift are frightening to those who may also acknowledge that very little from traditional, teacher-centered methods are effective in creating an environment wherein students learn to problem solve using their own skills as opposed to teacher merely showing them how.

Of course, there is the consuming notion that most teachers, themselves, learned their craft and trade through the very traditional methods which Standards-based Instruction (SBI) so willingly discounts. Often enough, the protests will encompass information which students just have to know, and that this information seems to be discarded in favor of basic skills. This is an invalid assumption. There is no aspect of SBI which negates subject area knowledge. Indeed, skills may not be developed to any level of complexity without an ever-increasing knowledge of the topic being investigated. But there is an inverse relationship. SBI allows the subject to be dealt with in a more critical manner as opposed to the subject being expanded for the student by the teacher. Whereas, in the latter case the teacher assesses student understanding by having the student repeat what what told, presented or assigned as opposed to the teacher assessing student understanding by allowing the student to demonstrate problem-solving skills within a subject area using the student’s own skills to show understanding of the material.

I don’t mean to imply that imparting knowledge is a bad thing. On the contrary, it’s a good thing. That’s what experts do. The primary difference between SBI and CBI lies in how students accumulate the knowledge. We must teach students how to gain information and understanding from a vast array of topical content; of content they, the students, must be allowed to select and investigate for themselves. We build their capacity for understanding by teaching them skills which allow them to think for themselves and to draw their own conclusions. The traditional method of CBI restricts their exposure to both content and thought processes and relegates them to the roles of note-taker and information regurgitator. The analogy here lies with the quote often attributed to William Butler Yeats, “Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.”

A typical content-based high school course will have an established amount of content which (presumed) experts have determined make up the knowledge a student should digest in order to fill the pail and thus ordain him/her credit worthy. Textbooks are created which guide both teachers and students through the material in an orderly fashion, hopefully reaching the last chapter at the end of the school year. All necessary content is covered within this format. Periodic unit assessments test whether (or not) the students have been paying attention and/or doing their homework. By the end of the year (or semester or whatever) the teacher will have taught all the material and, presumably, the students will have “learned” it.

How this relates to the difficulty in accessing and adopting CCSS lies in what the student can actually do relative to his/her own capacity for gaining knowledge independent of the teacher. Critical thinking, critical reading, problem-solving and metacognition are subordinated to “learning” a bunch of academic stuff. Relegating students’ minds to the back of the priority list in favor of all this stuff simply does not increase students’ capacity to think for themselves. This is where CCSS comes in.

When we talk about student independence and responsibility for learning (a la Charlotte Danielson and others) we should concern ourselves with our students’ capacity for independent thought. Lectures and other teacher-centered approaches do not challenge students to think for themselves on a daily basis. Sitting in a classroom while a teacher waxes on about whatever subject might be next on the agenda does not engage students in independent thinking or independent learning. We are not looking for parrots, particularly in elementary and high school. Although there is a certain amount of rules taking and memorization in the early elementary grades while children are developing their concrete operational base, there should be increasingly less direct, formula-based instruction as students begin to apply basic skills to increasingly real and relevant applications.

Students have to learn how to think for themselves. And teachers have to learn how to teach students to think for themselves. It’s messy, to be sure. I would imagine that for many educators the ideal classroom contains students who thirst for knowledge. This ideal situation is a rewarding experience for teachers and students, alike. But even if we have a classroom in which the students strive to do their best, without the skills needed to independently read, comprehend, analyze and evaluate information, the thirst goes unquenched. When students cannot fluently read the science texts, or intuitively relate math concepts, or rationally decipher op-ed primary source from fact-based reporting or literary prose they are just relying on what the teacher says. They decide whether to believe or not; they decide whether to care or not based entirely on the teacher-student dynamic. In the hand-holding culture of traditional instruction it’s really that simple.

Skills-based instruction such as that which is at the heart of CCSS gives all students a fighting chance to succeed. After X amount of content-based instruction about things students either don’t understand or don’t care about, what’s left? What can they do? As educators we cannot control parental involvement. We cannot control politics, budget, urban violence, or mainstream media and culture. But we can control what happens in the classroom. Being aware of external social forces may help us understand the problem and assist how we shape our students’ academic experience. But these external forces are not responsible for bad teaching. Requiring kids to sit through teacher-centered content-based lectures and do homework “because it’s good for them and they need the practice” has not worked for the mainstream student for forty years. At some point, educators have to get serious about the profession and quit taking the easy road and blaming others. We must stop chasing our tails by trying to insert CCSS into our content-based, teacher-centered formulae and begin restructuring our classroom instruction to skills-based, student-centered lessons which promote independent, critical thought. We need to start teaching students how to think for themselves. And so another quote seems appropriate, this from Plutarch, “The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled.”

The Media and Misunderstanding Standards-based Instruction

Posted on by
9

A significant amount of discussion has revolved and evolved around the concept of standards-based instruction (SBI). Discussants join the conversation from a variety of viewpoints, experiences and foundational understanding. The most unfortunate reality of the topic of SBI is that most of the contributions lack a fundamental appreciation for what it actually is. It has become as nebulous, and yet as ubiquitous, as “instructional rigor.” SBI, in many instances, has become nothing more than code for marketing of instructional design material and content-based textbooks which seem to want to assure teachers and school administrators that buying a particular product will increase students’ chances of scoring well on state mandated tests. More often than not, the materials and texts have little, if anything, to do with standards-based instruction.

The concept of standards-based instruction is much too complex to be given the short shrift of peripheral educational reform critics, instructional wonks, and purveyors of pedagogical claptrap. With the plethora of blogs, articles, websites and advertising devoted to SBI, precious little has anything to do standards-based instruction in any substantial way. Bandied about with indiscretion, SBI is as prevalent as Bloom’s Taxonomy but understood far less. Benjamin Bloom knew that educators who had never read the book or even comprehended it’s purpose were referencing the taxonomy pell-mell. It was popular. It was necessary for “intelligent” discussion of education and educational reform. It still is. But Bloom’s work is known more for its anecdotes than for the development of cognitive skills. There are critics and apologists, passionate educators and educational politicians staking their fortunes on one interpretation or another, none of whom may have ever opened a volume to know, for certain, just what Bloom and his colleagues were trying to accomplish.

It seems a vast majority of educators and educational writers attribute the accession of standards-based instruction onto the educational reform scene as an off-shoot of High Stakes Testing. While the connection may appear logical, even intuitive, it is misleading at best and patently false in most applications. Much of what constitutes High Stakes Testing assesses established standards; this is true. The ACT, SAT, GRE, ISAT and others do indeed test student skills in a number of academic areas. We must consider, however, that the skills and standards under consideration have been identified by state and national experts as those needed to advance to higher order thinking and more complex academic work. The Prairie State Achievement Examination is one such High Stakes Test taken over a two day period and used to determine a student’s relative proficiency on a number of academic skills. The resultant data are great indicators of student academic capacity but are, unfortunately, used primarily to rate students, schools and school systems based upon metrics concocted in educational think tanks. As Kim Marshall once told me, “I put it out there, but I can’t be responsible for how it’s used.”

So the question has been begged; what is standards-based instruction? SBI is a systematic approach to learning which utilizes proximal development of cognitive, problem-solving skills across disciplines to continually increase depth of understanding and interdpendency of skill relationships. In order to utilize proximal development of cognitive, problem-solving skills, an SBI practitioner must regularly assess student skills for proficiency and mastery. He must continuously review and reflect on the skills and skill levels under consideration. If the skill and level have already been mastered by the student, the student is not learning. If the skill and/or level has not been properly anticipated in previous work the lesson may appear too abstract or unconnected to established skills resulting in a variety of responses, few of which promote student learning. Gradually increasing depth of understanding of simple skills to complex skills, within a framework of skill “strands,” creates a progress map for mastery and expertise.

What is often lost in this simplified explanation is the very crucial role of cognitive and metacognitive development. When teachers teach units of instruction based solely upon topic content, student learning is isolated into specific knowledge within a particular aspect of a particular discipline. This type of instruction limits contextual implications and applications which are often unrecognizable outside of that particular classroom. Within the gathering of discipline-specific information there are few opportunities for student discussion and/or problem-solving. As students are assessed on retention of what was taught, they lack any real investigative skills which may be applied in other contexts. Content-based instruction usually does not require, or sometimes even request, that students develop cognitive skills to improve their understanding. Having observed hundreds of classrooms, I can tell you it’s often quite mindless.

Another barrier to standards-based instruction are the many brain-based neuromyths. These logical sounding pseudo-scientific nuggets are often little more than fabrication that have for one reason or another become accepted “truisms.” They dot the educational reform landscape like European starlings and daylilies. Once inserted into the dialogue, they take hold and seem as natural as any scientific rationale. Probably the favorite (surely the favorite of John Geake ) is the common belief that humans use only 10% of their brain. If this was true, Geake tells us, we’d all be brain-dead. Perhaps we are. Another of Geake’s favorites is the VAK (Visual/Auditory/Kinesthetic) learning styles theory. While we should all use a variety of instructional strategies in the course of teaching, VAK is just not based upon any scientific research supporting its widespread acceptance.

Introduction of VAK methods in the classroom would surely lead to greater student engagement than continual lecturing. By breaking up the monotony of a teacher talking for an hour or so at a time, students given a change of pace are not so easily lulled into unconsciousness. But the research here does not support VAK; the research opposes the droning lecture style. The research supports classroom discussion. The best way for students to learn is to have them participate in their own learning. Substituting one passive learning style for another does not improve academic skills or problem-solving capacity. Richard Elmore’s mantra, “Task predicts performance,” should be an ever conscious aspect of classroom instruction. What are the students doing? Students are never assessed on how well they stay awake in boring classes.