I do not usually write on policy not directly related to education, but this blog is about education reform, and I have just become aware of some rather absurd funding restrictions that may be harming education.
This article discusses new Federal guidelines on how schools handle food. According to the article, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has started restricting food related school funding for schools that are not regulating not just food offered by the school but also food prepared for students by parents. Now, I do not want to focus on the rather blatant privacy and freedom concerns this brings up, but seriously, what free government thinks they have the right to force schools to regulate food that they have no control over?
There are still three concerns I want to discuss. The first, which has already had some press coverage, is that many students are either getting off of the school lunch program or refusing to eat the healthy food included in compliance with Federal mandate. According to a U.S.A. Today article, $3.8 million in produce is being thrown away annually by students who choose not to eat the mandatory fruit and vegetable servings. They say you can bring the horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. Well, the Federal government is forcing schools to waste $3.8 million bringing the metaphorical horses to water, when they know they are not going to drink it (or at least they could ask). No wonder our schools are having funding issues.
That brings up the second concern: Since when is it ethical to base school funding on nutrition? I thought the primary responsibility of schools was education. Admittedly, most of the funding that is restricted by this is funding paying for school lunch programs, but this is still absurd. Instead of wasting government time, effort, and money trying to force schools to worry about things that they really have no business worrying about, maybe the money could be spent teaching children about nutrition better. This makes far better sense, since teaching is what schools are supposed to be spending their effort on anyway.
The third is directly related to the first. Many of the students getting off of the school lunch program in response to this were participants in free lunch programs. These are students that have a difficult time getting sufficient nutrition in the first place. Likewise, students that are staying, but throwing away the less desirable but healthier foods are getting less to eat, because the healthy foods are displacing some of the other foods. This might just sound cruel, but it gets worse. Poorly fed students do not learn as well as students who are getting enough to eat. This Federal mandate is not only interfering with funding, it is interfering with students' ability to learn. I want to stress again, the primary responsibility of schools is education. Now schools are being manipulated into giving nutrition a higher priority than education. No wonder our education system is doing so poorly. Our government has given it so many extra responsibilities that it is surprising it functions at all.
In my opinion, the best way to solve this problem is to increase welfare benefits for families that qualify for free lunch programs, and then do away with school provided lunches altogether. Providing good nutrition is not the responsibility of the education system. Let parents deal with their own responsibilities, but make sure they have the funding to do it. The only role schools should play in nutrition is teaching it. Education is, after all, the reason they were created in this first place.
Monday, June 30, 2014
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Active Learning
According to this article, education researcher Scott Freeman and others have found in a major study published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, strong evidence that lecture based learning is far less effective than "active learning." Active learning is a learning model where students do most of the work to learn, instead of just listening to lectures and memorizing stuff. In Freeman's classroom, students spend their class time working in small groups, while TAs roam, answering questions as needed. The study found substantial reductions in failure and dropout rates in classes using active learning, compared to similar classes using lecture based learning. According to Carl Wieman, the statistics from the study are probably watered down by classes included in the study that spend most of the time lecturing, with occasional active learning, and the real effect of full active learning is likely far greater.
Looking through all of this stuff, what I see is further evidence supporting a milestone based system where a majority of learning occurs outside of the traditional classroom setting. I still hold to my claim that occasional lectures are a good thing. For instance, a student who does not know where to start or who may have gotten lost in a complex process may benefit dramatically by attending a lecture. In a forum setting it is easy to answer a very specific question that will help some students, without going over the details of a process that other students may find difficult to understand. In a forum setting, some students may feel embarrassed to ask a followup question that the original questioner clearly already understood. A step-by-step lecture will help those students more than an open forum. On the other side, an open forum may give students the opportunity to ask a question then leave, giving students an answer more quickly and giving them more time to learn outside the classroom. Forums also give students the opportunity to ask questions about topics that may not have been covered sufficiently in a lecture. Now, these are both still classroom settings, but the lack of mandatory attendance and separating the more formal lecture style learning from the less formal forum style learning give students far more flexibility in learning. This is important because different people learn better in different settings. The last setting is outside the formal classroom, but is equally important to effective learning.
The "active learning" taking place in Freeman's classroom is the third setting. This can happen inside or outside of the classroom. In my opinion, college age students should be taking responsibility for their own educations, and as such, active learning should not have to take place in a classroom to be effective. That aside, there are several benefits to Freeman's active learning. The first is group collaboration. While I learn extremely well solo, this is a rare gift (maybe sometimes a curse...). Group collaboration, which is not so common in U.S. schools, has been touted as one of the reasons oriental countries have such strong education systems. Students solve problems together, and at the same time teach each other. Also, weaker students can learn problem solving skills from stronger students. The result is students with better understanding of course material, better problem solving skills, and better team work skills (which may not be as important in school, but are essential in most workplaces). The second is working things out for themselves. Again, this is common in oriental schools, where students are often first asked to find the solution to a problem, then presented with the correct solution after struggling through the problem. Now, these are not problems that they have already learned the tools to solve. Imagine a class where the teacher broke the class into groups, then asked each group to figure out the solution to whatever the class was scheduled to learn that day. In Japanese schools, this is common. Students often spend half the class period trying to derive the solution themselves, in small groups. Then, each group shares its works, and the teacher points out mistakes where they exist. After all of the groups have shared, the teacher explains the correct solution and why it works. One major result of this approach is that students have spent enough time on the problem that they have a vested interest in the correct answer by the time it is provided. When the teacher finally provides the answer, the students are ready to learn it and have struggled enough with the problem that they are ready to understand it as well. This improves long term retention and helps students care more about learning. (Psychologically, there is probably also some work/reward chemistry going on in the brain that improves retention.) Third, the less structured approach tends to work better for students that may be slower learners.
The article also mentions several students that were about ready to drop out of their majors when they first took an active learning based class. One biology major even mentioned a time when a teacher asked him to stop asking questions, because they were confusing the other students. Evidently, many STEM classes (this category contains disciplines focused strongly on science, including technology) encourage memorization but discourage questions. They also tend to offer little explanation for the material students are required to memorize. The article points out that that this memorization only attitude that discourages questions seems to be rather anti-science and fits better into the teaching styles of oppressive religions (ok, I added the oppressive part...). It also mentioned that this teaching style pushes curious people, the people who would do best in those disciplines, away. Otherwise stated, the teaching style of most science and tech classes seems to exclude and push away the brightest and most well suited to working in those fields. Active learning might be part of the solution to increasing the labor pool of the industries with the highest demand for labor (these also happen to be the industries with the greatest potential for solving many or our worst problems).
Now, this active learning does not solve all of the problems by itself. The reduced classroom structure may help slower learners have a better chance to keep up, but it does not solve the problem. Some students just cannot gain sufficient understanding in some subjects in a single semester. A C might be a good enough grade to pass, but it does not bode well for the student if the subject becomes an important part of a career. Students that learn slowly need more time to learn. Note that being a slow learner in a subject does not mean the student will be inferior to faster learners once the subject is learned. In fact, slow learners sometimes learn more slowly because they have a higher comprehension, and it takes more time to understand the small details (I am a slower reader than many others I know, but I notice and remember details that very few others do). Likewise, Freeman's active learning approach does nothing for students that are faster learners in some subjects or students that are already proficient in a subject. Several semesters wasted taking classes that are not teaching anything new or that could have easily been completed in a month or two are a travesty. A student with a good grasp on a subject should not be forced to suffer through a semester long recap, just to prove he or she is proficient in that subject. School is for learning, and a school that forces a student to sit through and participate in a class where that student is not learning anything new is not doing its job (and further, if it is charging the student or the government money for the "privilege," it is cheating the student). Active learning is a major improvement on the current system, and it should definitely be part of the replacement, but it is not the final solution to the ideal education system.
Freeman hopes that the study will cause a similar reaction as the 1964 surgeon general's report stating that tobacco use causes cancer. Despite the overwhelming evidence, there are still many teachers and college professors that swear by the lecture teaching method. This study can almost be regarded as proof that lectures are not the idea way to learn. More research needs to be done, to determine the best way to apply active learning techniques, but it seems that the verdict is in for lecture based teaching, and it certainly does not look good. Like tobacco, lecture centered learning needs to be discarded in favor of something better.
Looking through all of this stuff, what I see is further evidence supporting a milestone based system where a majority of learning occurs outside of the traditional classroom setting. I still hold to my claim that occasional lectures are a good thing. For instance, a student who does not know where to start or who may have gotten lost in a complex process may benefit dramatically by attending a lecture. In a forum setting it is easy to answer a very specific question that will help some students, without going over the details of a process that other students may find difficult to understand. In a forum setting, some students may feel embarrassed to ask a followup question that the original questioner clearly already understood. A step-by-step lecture will help those students more than an open forum. On the other side, an open forum may give students the opportunity to ask a question then leave, giving students an answer more quickly and giving them more time to learn outside the classroom. Forums also give students the opportunity to ask questions about topics that may not have been covered sufficiently in a lecture. Now, these are both still classroom settings, but the lack of mandatory attendance and separating the more formal lecture style learning from the less formal forum style learning give students far more flexibility in learning. This is important because different people learn better in different settings. The last setting is outside the formal classroom, but is equally important to effective learning.
The "active learning" taking place in Freeman's classroom is the third setting. This can happen inside or outside of the classroom. In my opinion, college age students should be taking responsibility for their own educations, and as such, active learning should not have to take place in a classroom to be effective. That aside, there are several benefits to Freeman's active learning. The first is group collaboration. While I learn extremely well solo, this is a rare gift (maybe sometimes a curse...). Group collaboration, which is not so common in U.S. schools, has been touted as one of the reasons oriental countries have such strong education systems. Students solve problems together, and at the same time teach each other. Also, weaker students can learn problem solving skills from stronger students. The result is students with better understanding of course material, better problem solving skills, and better team work skills (which may not be as important in school, but are essential in most workplaces). The second is working things out for themselves. Again, this is common in oriental schools, where students are often first asked to find the solution to a problem, then presented with the correct solution after struggling through the problem. Now, these are not problems that they have already learned the tools to solve. Imagine a class where the teacher broke the class into groups, then asked each group to figure out the solution to whatever the class was scheduled to learn that day. In Japanese schools, this is common. Students often spend half the class period trying to derive the solution themselves, in small groups. Then, each group shares its works, and the teacher points out mistakes where they exist. After all of the groups have shared, the teacher explains the correct solution and why it works. One major result of this approach is that students have spent enough time on the problem that they have a vested interest in the correct answer by the time it is provided. When the teacher finally provides the answer, the students are ready to learn it and have struggled enough with the problem that they are ready to understand it as well. This improves long term retention and helps students care more about learning. (Psychologically, there is probably also some work/reward chemistry going on in the brain that improves retention.) Third, the less structured approach tends to work better for students that may be slower learners.
The article also mentions several students that were about ready to drop out of their majors when they first took an active learning based class. One biology major even mentioned a time when a teacher asked him to stop asking questions, because they were confusing the other students. Evidently, many STEM classes (this category contains disciplines focused strongly on science, including technology) encourage memorization but discourage questions. They also tend to offer little explanation for the material students are required to memorize. The article points out that that this memorization only attitude that discourages questions seems to be rather anti-science and fits better into the teaching styles of oppressive religions (ok, I added the oppressive part...). It also mentioned that this teaching style pushes curious people, the people who would do best in those disciplines, away. Otherwise stated, the teaching style of most science and tech classes seems to exclude and push away the brightest and most well suited to working in those fields. Active learning might be part of the solution to increasing the labor pool of the industries with the highest demand for labor (these also happen to be the industries with the greatest potential for solving many or our worst problems).
Now, this active learning does not solve all of the problems by itself. The reduced classroom structure may help slower learners have a better chance to keep up, but it does not solve the problem. Some students just cannot gain sufficient understanding in some subjects in a single semester. A C might be a good enough grade to pass, but it does not bode well for the student if the subject becomes an important part of a career. Students that learn slowly need more time to learn. Note that being a slow learner in a subject does not mean the student will be inferior to faster learners once the subject is learned. In fact, slow learners sometimes learn more slowly because they have a higher comprehension, and it takes more time to understand the small details (I am a slower reader than many others I know, but I notice and remember details that very few others do). Likewise, Freeman's active learning approach does nothing for students that are faster learners in some subjects or students that are already proficient in a subject. Several semesters wasted taking classes that are not teaching anything new or that could have easily been completed in a month or two are a travesty. A student with a good grasp on a subject should not be forced to suffer through a semester long recap, just to prove he or she is proficient in that subject. School is for learning, and a school that forces a student to sit through and participate in a class where that student is not learning anything new is not doing its job (and further, if it is charging the student or the government money for the "privilege," it is cheating the student). Active learning is a major improvement on the current system, and it should definitely be part of the replacement, but it is not the final solution to the ideal education system.
Freeman hopes that the study will cause a similar reaction as the 1964 surgeon general's report stating that tobacco use causes cancer. Despite the overwhelming evidence, there are still many teachers and college professors that swear by the lecture teaching method. This study can almost be regarded as proof that lectures are not the idea way to learn. More research needs to be done, to determine the best way to apply active learning techniques, but it seems that the verdict is in for lecture based teaching, and it certainly does not look good. Like tobacco, lecture centered learning needs to be discarded in favor of something better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)