The Forward March of Education

Schools are changing, or are they? Most educational researchers will agree that the traditional canon (or collection of knowledge) that most schools teach today is risking becoming increasingly relevant to a quickly changing world. One question these researchers ask themselves is 'Why do we teach what we teach?' Should we still be spending time teaching Beowulf when we could focus on so-called 21st-century literacies (blogging and other modes of technology-enhanced writing), college entrance essays, media production, etc. Why spend time learning about the functions of xylem and phloem when we could learn about the cutting edge of science today, like stem-cell research, cloning, bioethics, cancer cells, the basics of mechanical engineering, physics, dark matter in outer space, etc. Why do we teach what we teach, aside from to prepare students for the items that might appear on a standardized test? More importantly, what are we NOT teaching while we're spending time imparting facts about the American Revolution, important as they may or may not be to our students' futures?

Alongside the question "Why do we teach what we teach" is a deeper question, "How do we teach students to think critically and to problem solve?" If we as teachers spend the majority of instructional time focusing on making facts stick in the memories of our students, how do we know that they will be able to use those facts for anything worthwhile (outside of the classroom in the real world). This is called "transfer". Just because a student learns the steps to solving a math problem does not mean they will be able to solve a similar problem that is presented in a novel way, outside of the textbook. (For more information on the latest research regarding transfer of knowledge, see the book How People Learn compiled by the National Research Council.) Transfer, in my opinion, should be one of the ultimate goals of education; if we are to educate citizens that are competent in the domains of their work, especially in the fields of engineering, science, and math, we must teach in such a way that students become skilled at generating answers to brand-new problems and devising never-before-seen solutions to modern-day problems. In the classroom, if Sam never has a chance to explore novel solutions to real problems, collaborate with others to reinforce and share ideas and conceptions of the principles of physics, for example, receive feedback from his peers and his teacher regarding his performance, we could imagine that his learning would be quite 2-dimensional. Such interactive and problem-based approaches to physics instruction have been proven to be more effective at teaching students how to solve novel problems- to the point that elementary students taught in this way can out-perform college students taught with traditional formulaic methods (see How People Learn, chapters 3-4).

Of course, the problem of providing instruction on more relevant topics in ways that promote greater transfer of knowledge to new situations outside of the classroom is a difficult one to solve. In fact, I think the enormity of such a goal translates into GENERATIONS of slow change in schools as research trickles down to educational policy and curriculum design, and eventually, MAYBE if the teachers are well prepared by their schools of education to undertake such work, to the classroom. Such changes involve revolutionizing the way we conceive of the goals of education in this country, as well as deconstructing decades of teaching tradition and replacing these with new traditions and new methods. (For more discussion of the ways educational philosophies and curriculum change over time, see Developing the Curriculum, 6th edition, by Peter Oliva, ch. 2). What do I mean by my rather pessimistic assertion that teachers might throw a wrench into the best efforts of policy and curriculum design? Well, teachers are the vanguard of education. No reform is really effective until teachers see its merit and learn how to change their practice and personal philosophies of education to make it happen. Second, teachers are all unique. Many teachers are already experimenting with these "cutting-edge" teaching practices. Many others will teach the way they always have until the day they retire, never trying to make fundamental changes in what may be dated and irrelevant approaches. Thus, change happens slowly in our field. Colleges of education play a large role in developing the teaching philosophies and teaching repertoire of new teachers, but there is an ongoing struggle in the mind of the introspective teacher: the tension between teaching the way one was taught and between trying new, never-before-seen approaches. In a very large way, the way teachers teach today will influence the way the next generation teaches. However, the more we can expose future teachers to new research about how people learn and challenge them with new ideas of what good teaching might be, the more we will be able to improve education over time.

Meanwhile, educational policy makers will try to force this change to happen quickly, as we have seen with the No Child Left Behind Act. Many educators note its intentions as being good, but its implementation as seriously flawed. We say we need better instruction in the sciences and in math, but we force teachers to teach to poorly-designed state tests that emphasize rote recall of arbitrary facts and the application of formulas to pat situations rather than real problem solving. How does this influence the way teachers prepare students? You guessed it... instruction is forced to become more rote and we really get no measurement of how well our students are learning to transfer their knowledge. On the other hand, at least we have placed more attention onto making sure all students succeed in school with the required reporting of scores by ethnicity, which spotlights the lower scores of minorities. HOWEVER, and this is a big however, these students are statistically more likely to be enrolled in "standard" classes that emphasize rote, decontextualized instruction in the first place. So what do teachers do? They sure don't divert all energy into experimenting with new, exciting, problem-based learning. I think they're much more likely to make the learning even more rote and spend more time drilling for the test than in the past, and less time learning non-tested skills. Thus have we REALLY helped minorities by establishing this score reporting? The answer is highly debatable. The effects of restructuring staff in low-performing schools upon raising low scores have yet to be established.

And at the end of the day... WHAT DOES A STANDARDIZED TEST HAVE TO DO WITH SUCCESS IN LIFE? Very little, I say. I've met jerks and so-so workers with good ACT scores, and model workers and great people with lower ACT scores. (Ok- so I don't actually ask people their ACT scores, but I think few would dispute my assertion.) Who's to say what the measure of a good life, a good worker, or even a knowledgeable, intelligent person is? The government? Teachers? I think not. If one thing can be said of humanity, it's that people are dynamic and can defy expectations. Most agree that society is marching ever forward, and that it will either improve or get worse or both. In the field of education, this is true as well. Most agree that there are always things that need to be improved and changed. We just don't quite understand or agree on how to go about making the necessary changes, and sometimes, we don't even see eye-to-eye on what the necessary changes are.