FrederickEducationReform.

com
Myths about Teaching and Learning That Parents and Teachers Ought To Know

Background
Frederick County has published a document called Proven Instructional Practices for Education That Is Multicultural1 Educators in Frederick and elsewhere have encouraged these approaches for all children, not just for students with minority racial and ethnic backgrounds or for teaching multicultural content. Unfortunately, some of these supposedly proven practices are actually fads that reflect a misunderstanding of the research on learning. This briefing explains the myths and realities of the trendy practices mentioned in this document, presents sound principles of instruction, and suggests how FCPS can improve its approach to teaching.
So, lets begin! This presentation presents a summary for a general audience. We encourage teachers to read the footnotes we cite so that important caveats arent missed. Many of the individual citations could be turned into an entire professional development course, and we hope FCPS will consider doing that.
1This

document is located at http://www.fcpsteach.org/docs/ETMInstPrac.pdf

Learning Styles
Myth: Students have different learning styles and lessons designed with these styles in mind will be more effective. Those styles (sometimes called modalities) include visual, kinesthetic, and auditory. Reality: There is no empirical evidence for learning styles. Studies that attempted to identify students learning styles and taught students in that style found little difference in achievement.1 The myth of learning styles has been repeated under different names (such as global and analytical learners2) for over 40 years without proof. Correct Teaching Principle: Students may differ in their learning preferences, but trying to tailor instruction to these preferences does not provide an advantage. Teachers should teach in the modality that is best for the content itself and not worry about learning styles. Doing otherwise may actually shortchange some students.3
1http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/summer2005/cogsci.htm, 2http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/fall99/DiffStrokes.pdf, 3http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/summer2005/cogscisb.htm

Multiple Intelligences
Myth: There are separate kinds of intelligence such as linguistic, loco-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, and so on, and lessons that appeal to these different intelligences will be more effective. Reality: Mainstream researchers regard intelligence as hierarchical (meaning that students will tend to score better in some areas than others), but closely related to general intelligence (meaning that a students scores across all areas will tend to correlate.)1 MI theory is not well regarded among mainstream psychologists and has not been tested2. Even Howard Gardner, who originated the theory, did not intend it to be a blueprint for teaching, and said he was uneasy about the way his theory has been used in schools.3 Correct Teaching Principle: Teachers should not concern themselves with appealing to multiple intelligences. Instead, they should focus on a logical sequence of instruction that builds on students prior skills.4
1http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/3261311.html, 2http://vocationalpsychology.com/essay_10_gardner.htm, 3http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,5500,1495588,00.html, 4http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/fall99/DiffStrokes.pdf

Authentic Learning
Myth: Students will learn best if learning is authentic in the sense that it deals with real world problems and applications. Under this theory, it would be better to learn about pollution in the context of doing a project for a science fair than learning it apart from a specific application. Reality: Real world problems are often ineffective for initial teaching because they have too many features that can cause misconceptions. They can lead to overly specific learning that does not transfer to new situations. In one famous experiment, a few minutes of abstract instruction enabled novices to learn what it took experts years to discover through real world experience.1 Correct Teaching Principle: When developing activities and practice problems, teachers should focus on the cognitive processes they evoke, not their real-world trappings. Teacher-led instruction is often more efficient, effective, and generalizable than learning through experiences and projects. Nearly all skills can be successfully decomposed into smaller skills that can be taught and mastered independently and then combined to teach the larger, more complicated skill.
1http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/papers/misapplied.html

Brain-Compatible Instruction
Myth: FCPS document claims that Teachers should develop programs and techniques that build on the complex functioning of programs and patterns in the human brain. Reality: Trying to derive pedagogical strategies from neuroscience is, at this point, something akin to quackery according to mainstream neurologists and cognitive scientists. Said one expert: There really is no research that links learning strategies or classroom methods to changes in brain structureEducators are making a very big mistake by wasting their time on 'brain-based' curricula 1,2,3 Correct Teaching Principle: Teachers should employ strategies that are supported by mainstream research that have been replicated over a long period of time, and should avoid the brain-based fads.
1http://teachers.net/gazette/APR01/strauss.html, 2http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/fall2006/cogsci.htm, 3http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbru9905.htm

Constructivism (Part I)
Constructivism is so misunderstood that well need several slides to pick apart what FCPS said about it. Myth: FCPS wrote, Constructivism is based on the belief that learners create their own knowledge structures rather than merely receiving them from others. Reality: It is true that learning is an active process, but FCPS description is misleading since it implies that teacher-led instruction is not desirable. Actually, students learn more in classes where teachers spend much of their time teaching or supervising students.2 As one expert explains, There is very little positive evidence for discovery learning and it is often inferior. In particularly, it may be costly in time, and when the search is lengthy or unsuccessful, motivation commonly flags.1 Correct Teaching Principle:. Teachers should spend much of their time directly instructing, guiding, or supervising students, and should not be reluctant to build up students factual knowledge. The initial stages of learning involve acquiring inflexible knowledge, which is different from rote memorization. Inflexible knowledge is the foundation for later expertise and an important part of the learning process. Flexible knowledge and understanding will develop as students acquire more knowledge, see more examples, and practice more.3
1http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/papers/misapplied.html, 2http://idea.uoregon.edu/~ncite/documents/techrep/tech06.html 3http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/winter2002/CogSci.html

Constructivism (Part II)

Myth: FCPS wrote, For effective learning to occur for students, teachers must orient their instruction to assist students with connecting new learning to the students prior knowledge. The learner becomes engaged with manipulatives and hands-on problem solving. Reality: Teachers do need to connect learning to students prior knowledge, though doing this is not unique to a constructivist approach; traditional approaches encourage it as well. Constructivism is a theory of how students learn, not how they should be instructed. Educators often misinterpret the theory to imply that constructivism means a hands-on approach. Correct Teaching Principle: Both manipulatives and hands-on problem solving may be appropriate in some situations, but should not be done for the sake of being constructivist. There is little evidence that students who are taught according to constructivist principles have superior outcomes. In fact, most evidence shows that structured, teacher-led approaches are generally better for all students, and especially beneficial for low income students.1
1http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/docLib/200702051_challenge.pdf

Confusing Beliefs with Evidence

So what drives these beliefs? Most education administrators and education schools believe in a naturalistic or romantic approach to learning. Here is how one expert described the roots of this belief: The dominance of this view can be traced back to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who glorified the natural at the expense of the man-made, and argued that education should not be structured but should emerge from the natural inclinations of the child. German educators developed kindergartens based on the notion of natural learning. This romantic notion of learning has become doctrinal in many schools of education and child-development centers, and has closed the minds of many experts to actual research findings about effective approaches to educating children. This is a classic case of an immature profession, one that lacks a solid scientific base and has less respect for evidence than for opinion and ideology.1

1http://www.edexcellence.net/institute/publication/publication.cfm?id=46

Confusing Beliefs with Evidence

So why do these beliefs persist if they arent based on evidence? All teaching candidates must attend education schools to obtain certification, which often promote ineffective practices. Teacher professional organizations also encourage these ideas and regard their use as a sign of being cutting edge. This combination of legal mandates and concern for professional standing make it unlikely that teachers or administrators will consider mainstream research from those outside the education establishment, and likely they will adopt the misleading ideas promoted by education insiders. The general public assumes that the high-sounding words education schools use to dress up their unproven techniques are an indication of sophistication. As education professor Dr. Martin Kozloff explains
In general, ed school documents appear designed to create and sustain an illusion of democratic values, technical expertise (in curriculum design and teaching), and scholarship that is every bit as deep and rigorous as scholarship in other fieldsThe most frequent terms are construction (as in "construction of knowledge")inquiry (as in "inquiry-based learning"), relevant (as in "relevant contexts"), developmental (as in "developmentally appropriate practice") authentic (as in "authentic context")child centered (as in "classrooms should be child centered"), and active learningThese words are seldom defined operationally. That is, ed schools rarely say exactly what a person does when he or she reflects; or what, exactly, makes a practice developmentally appropriate... The most telling feature of ed school documents is the virtual absence of words that might be expected of organizations that train teachers. Words such as accuracy, fluency, generalization, practice, mastery, logic, sequence, instructional format, skill, effort, persistence, retention, knowledge system, analysis, test, and validate are rareeven in course syllabi.1
1http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/pageants.htm

(slightly edited for brevity and clarity; boldface is as it was in the original)

Confusing Beliefs with Evidence

Does FCPS suffer from a lack of respect for research? Unfortunately, it seems that way. For example, the FCPS guide to teaching science encourages constructivism and doesnt mention research-based approaches.1 In addition to the Proven Instructional Practices for Education That Is Multicultural document, FCPS produced a document called Rules for Mathematics that actually admitted to a disregard for research:
Rules for computation can be divided into two types, Rules of Invention and Rules of Convention. (Note: these are my words and not to be found in any research to my knowledge)2

In other professions, such as medicine, not relying on research would be considered malpractice, but in education such speculation is commonplace.
1http://www.fcpsteach.org/docs/SciGdG1r.pdf, 2http://www.fcpsteach.org/docs/Rules%20in%20Mathematics.doc

Solid Research on Pedagogy

Where can teachers turn for reliable advice? In addition to sources already cited, the following books should be a part of every teachers repertoire:
The Academic Achievement Challenge: What Really Works in the Classroom

By Jeanne Chall One of the nations foremost scholars examines the evidence behind a wide variety of approaches, and shows how teacher-led approaches usually lead to better outcomes. She explains the underlying appeal of many of the fads. Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms by Diane Ravitch The nations most eminent historian of education traces the origins of the fads and their effect on American education, and how the same basic fads have been repeated over and over under different names for the last 100 years.

Solid Research on Pedagogy

What about subject-specific research? Here are a few sources arranged by subject:

Reading and English

Brief Instruction in Comprehension Strategies Is Useful -- http://aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/winter06-07/CogSci.pdf How Knowledge Helps -- http://www.readingrockets.org/article/12443

Math and Science

The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: effects of direct instruction and discovery learning -http://www.psy.cmu.edu/faculty/klahr/KlahrNigam.2-col.pdf "Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, ProblemBased, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching -- http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/kirschner_Sweller_Clark.pdf Improving Mathematics and Science Education:A Longitudinal Investigation of the Relationship Between Reform-Oriented Instruction and Student Achievement http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG480.pdf

History and Social Studies

Where Did Social Studies Go Wrong? http://www.edexcellence.net/institute/publication/publication.cfm?id=317&pubsubid=909

Solid Research on Pedagogy

What about general teaching information? Here are a few more sources:
Research Synthesis on Effective Teaching Principles and the Design of Quality Tools for Educators http://idea.uoregon.edu/~ncite/documents/techrep/tech05.pdf Practices Makes Perfect, But Only If You Practice Beyond the Point of Perfection http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/spring2004/cogsci.html Massed vs. Distributed Practice http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/summer2002/askcognitivescientist.html Students Remember What They Think About http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/summer2003/cogsci.html Why Students Think They Understand When They Dont http://www.readingrockets.org/article/12444

Actions Toward Improvement

So how can FCPS improve its teaching techniques? Insist that all pedagogy guides include research-based approaches and avoid fads and speculation.

To address the misconceptions teachers often get from education schools, provide teachers with training opportunities to learn what mainstream research says about teaching and learning.
Pilot approaches to teaching specific content before encouraging their use across the entire system, and base these decisions on student achievement data, not on teachers or administrators beliefs, impressions, or feelings. Recognize that there is a difference between a theory of learning and a theory of instruction: Theory of Learning Focuses on theories about the internal learning processes of students and tries to translate this into instructional techniques. Theory of Instruction Focuses on the nuts and bolts of what teachers actually do to teach specific content, which is an external process that can be replicated.

A Practical Approach
To move forward, FCPS should focus on systematically developing and refining instruction based on evidence of what techniques are most effective to teach specific content. FCPS should try to answer practical questions: What types of examples will most clearly and efficiently result in students learning the content? What specific wording should teachers use when explaining the content? What types of misconceptions do students commonly have and how can we design instruction to avoid that confusion? How much practice do students need to learn the content? How can instruction be designed to provide sufficient practice? What specific sequences of lessons lead to the best results? Only after examining the results from working with actual children will FCPS be able to create a polished set of lessons plans that can be replicated across the system. A general theory of instruction can then be derived by generalizing the common features of the effective lessons. A good theory should be a theory in the scientific sense: It should be based on provable hypotheses that can be validated and replicated.

A Practical Approach
Fortunately, such a theory already exists and could be used as a starting point for FCPS to refine and conduct further research.

The Theory of Instruction1 by Engelmann and Carnine presents a comprehensive theory along with strategies for designing instruction for just about anything. This theory is based on decades of evidence and experience working with actual children.
Regardless of its starting point, FCPS has an opportunity to help education mature as a profession and become as respected as medicine and engineering are. To do this, the school system must make evidence and research part and parcel of its school improvement efforts. We hope that FCPS will ensure that our students receive solid instruction based on proven practices and avoid fads that leave children behind. We hope this presentation will start a discussion about how this can be done.

1http://tinyurl.com/ywlb22