My best practices are better than yours ...

I've been sitting on this post for a while now.  A few weeks ago, I lurked an #edchat twitter chat on defining best practices in education.  I had to stop halfway through as I think I was close to having a coronary.  I will attempt to summarize the general flow of the conversation:

1. Best practices are awesome.
2. Umm, what are best practices exactly?
3. We should find a way of sharing best practices so we all can benefit from each others ideas.
4. Maybe best practices are not global, instead there are best practices for each teacher-learner-classroom combination.
5. The moment you say a practice is best it constrains the learning.
6. We should find a way of sharing best practices so we all can benefit from each others ideas.
7. The very idea of best practices is silly as all of our practices are best, it's all relative.
8. Head asplode ....

So, I have decided to lay out my ideas on best practices in education.  I recently finished reading Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape in which he attempts to define a scientific basis for human morality (which in itself is a fascinating idea).  In it, he defines the goal of morality as maximizing the well-being of the greatest number of people possible.  He defines a spectrum that ranges from the worst possible suffering to everyone (at the bad end in case you weren't following along) and the greatest possible well-being for everyone at the top.  He then posits that we can investigate moral choices that move us either towards the worst suffering or away from it.  This can then be analysed scientifically.  

I propose a similar model for defining best practices in education.  One in which have a spectrum from the worst possible education for everyone to the best possible education.  Of course, this requires that we decide what the goal of education is (one of my largest complaints about #edchat discussions is the lack of focus towards achieving a salient goal).  If we take Dewey's stated aim of education as the 'development of reflective, creative, responsible thought' as our goal we have a starting point.  Of course we would now all need to agree as to what that meant.  However, as Harris notes we are able to work towards a goal of improving health without having a clear definition of what health is (although the seeming popularity of pseudo-medicine may show that the lack of a clear definition is fundamentally unstable).

Once we have defined a goal, we can start to measure the results of various practices and if they move us towards or away from that stated goal.  In this regard we can measure the effectiveness of practices and therefore can isolate practices that cause the greatest progress and encourage those practices while stifling the practices that are detrimental.

Note that nowhere in this exposition did I state or imply that there is only one possible best practice.  As Harris states his moral landscape can have multiple peaks on it where being on top of that peak would be the greatest possible well-being; as would being on an alternate peak.  My ideas for best practices is similar, there could be multiple peaks where we achieve the maximum possible education for all people just as there could be multiple means of scaling those peaks.

To summarize, the idea of a best practice is moot without a clear statement of purpose for education.  We need to know what the end point is to define something as being best.  A best practice would then therefore be an approach that maximizes our movement towards this goal.  Although best practices may only exist in theory, they can still exist.  As I have argued before, it all comes back to the purpose, the goal of education.

Gender: It's all in your head you know ....

I just finished reading Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender and highly recommend it.  In fact I think it should be required reading for all teachers and parents.  Anyway, I wanted to write about a few highlights from an educational standpoint.

One of the greatest challenges facing science (and computer science) is the lack of female students (and non-white students).  In fact, it is such an issue that many believe it is more data that woman are not capable of mathematics and science due to their brain structure.  In fact, one educational consultant even gave a number of talks to this very topic.  He spoke about a region of the brain known as the 'crockus' -- a region that is four times larger in girls than in boys.  Due to this, girls see the details but not the whole picture whereas the reverse is true for boys.  This is great news from an educational standpoint as it could help us tailor our teaching methods to how the brain is geared for learning.  Great news ... if it was even remotely true.  There is no region known as the crockus, let along having it be at least 4 times the size in girls.  However, sadly, the fact that a consultant is spouting this garbage is true (see here and here).

Sadly, this misinformation is impacting our approach to education and most of it is as much of a crock as the idea of the crockus (I did not make that name up, but couldn't resist the last sentence).

Fine demolishes much of the current tripe that amounts for gender based (perhaps biased is a better choice) neuroscience on the market, instead exploring the socio-cultural roots of our ideas of gender.  For example, the very act of marking your sex on a test (a common occurrence on standardized tests) caused European American women to feel more confident about their verbal abilities (a trait commonly thought of as 'female') and less confident with their math abilities (a skill associated with maleness).  For men, the results were reversed.  The simple act of checking a box can change performance.  As educators we need to be aware of these sociological effects so that we can mitigate them in our classrooms.  For example, if gender must be recorded (to appease the powers that be), place the question at the end of the test.  Or have a proctor track gender by seating plan (which could be correlated with the tests afterwards).

I highly recommend the book and would consider it to be mandatory reading for all educators and parents.  Make it your first New Year's resolution.

Origin of Species - Introduction

Off I fly, careering far
In chase of Pollys, prettier far
Than any of their namesakes are
—The Polymaths and Polyhistors,
Polyglots and all their sisters.
~ Thomas Moore

What I am immediately struck by is the ease and accessibility of Darwin's writing.  He cleanly and concisely lays out his motivations, reservations, evidence, and thesis.  I think I assumed a more academic style of writing common to the philosophers of Darwin's day. 

I am fully convinced that species are not immutable ... I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification.
~ Charles Darwin, Introduction p. 14-15

Polymathic Ramblings

Inspired by this post from the great Neil deGrasse Tyson, I have decided to liberal up my education.  As a lowly engineering and computer science major I am afraid my liberal arts upbringing was limited to 1 credit of economics and half a credit of psychology.  After perusing the list I mentioned above, I discovered The Harvard Classics (which I'm amazed I had never heard of before, Internets you have failed me).  Armed with my shiny new Playbook with Kobo e-reader and the brilliance of Project Gutenburg, I shall set out to polymathisize myself and complete my own education.

On an education related note, I've been wondering a lot about all this talk of 'saving' education.  I still don't think we really know what we are saving education from or what we want it to look like.  Where better to start then with what an ideal student would be like upon leaving school.  What do we want our students to know, to know how to do, and to understand.  I think much of the knowledge contained with Neil deGrasse Tyson's book list and the Havard Classics should be in there.  So, this is also a bit of a proof of concept.

My goal is to read a bit of a book every day and blog about it here (or elsewhere if I can think of an awesome name for the new blog).  I figure that may keep me honest and help me digest what I have read.  I have decided to begin with On The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection

Preschoolers demonstrate scientific experimentation

I tweeted a review (Wired) of this article: Where science starts: Spontaneous experiments in preschoolers' exploratory play (1). I managed to secure a copy of the article (perk for working at a college) and just finished reviewing it and felt the need to share it with the world.

The study looked at preschoolers (mean age: 54 months) to see if they could isolate variables of a system to infer information about that system (i.e. apply the scientific method) when the probability of information gain is high. Their approach involved a toy that was activated by placing coloured beads upon it. Some of the beads would activate the machine (i.e. it would light up and play music) and some would not. The participants were divided into two groups: the all bead and the some bead conditions. In the all bead condition, the participants were shown that all the beads caused the machine to activate when applied individually. In the some bead condition, the participants were shown that some of the beads caused the machine to activate. They were then provided with two sets of beads (in pairs): one set could be pulled apart to test individually whereas the other had been glued together.

Nearly half of the children in the some beads group tested individual beads in the machine whereas only 5% (1 child) did the same in the all beads group. However in both groups the amount of play with the machine was the same (i.e. the some beads group did not use the machine more and thereby test individually through random chance). In fact, some of the children actually performed a test that the experimenters hadn't thought of; namely holding the stuck pair vertically to test it one bead at a time.

This prompted the investigators to create a second experiment where both sets of beads are stuck together. The results in this experiment were very similar to the first in that nearly half of the some bead group tested the machine by varying contact with the beads.

So what does this mean. Well, what it doesn't necessarily mean is that children are born scientists. What it does mean is that in isolated environments with limited distractions (i.e. limited variables) and limited information (i.e. high probability of information gain), preschoolers tend towards a systematic experimental approach. The authors quickly and rightly note that the current research indicates that this is not true when the systems approach real-world systems with greater complexity.

What does this mean for teachers? Well, it appears that children have an innate sense of experimentation when not overwhelmed by other task demands and there is the potential for information gain. I feel that this should be nurtured with simple experiments that are then discussed and dissected to help develop the habits of mind of successful scientists and critical thinkers. Additionally, there should be teacher led experiments that are more complicated and would overwhelm the students if done alone. This allows for the teacher to model the proper process to the students.

One conclusion that I am tempted to jump to is to bemoan the loss of this 'gift' that students are born with. However, to extrapolate this experiment and apply it to older students or adults would be wrong. I would like to see a similar experiment done with those age groups. My hypothesis is that we would see similar results. So it is not that students lose this basic innate experimental ability; it is more probable that we are not nurturing this skill and helping it grow into a viable ability.

What we need is science based education and critical thinking being taught in primary school and continuing along until high school. Additionally, we need to begin differentiating between teaching science (i.e. the subset of facts and knowledge the scientific method has garnered for us) and teaching with a science based education (i.e. learning to utilize the scientific method, rational thinking, critical thinking, and logic). As the (paraphrased) adage goes: If you teach a student some knowledge, they will know it for a day; if you teach them to think, they will learn for a lifetime.

---

1. Claire Cook, Noah D. Goodman, Laura E. Schulz, Where science starts: Spontaneous experiments in preschoolers' exploratory play, Cognition, Volume 120, Issue 3, Probabilistic models of cognitive development, September 2011, Pages 341-349

---

One note: the authors of the study did receive a grant from the John Templeton Foundation however, having reviewed the study (with my limited knowledge of cognitive theory) I don't see anything fishy going on.

The Damon Supremacy

I thought I would jump on the bandwagon about this clip of Matt Damon trouncing a reporter after his keynote address:



This put a huge smile on my face. His rebuttal of the inane question from the reporter was not only accurate but had enough snark to cause wincing. At approximately 10 seconds you can see his face go transition from polite question answering mode to ass kicking Jason Bourne mode.

I want to focus on the camerman's question about "Aren't 10 percent of teacher's bad". Anytime someone throws out 10% you want to be careful as it tends to indicate a made-up statistic (approximately 10% of the time). Even if 10% of teachers were bad (which I am not arguing, it could well be true) it has no bearing on punishing the teachers that are good. All professions have people that perhaps would be better doing something else; that does not imply that the skilled, productive members should be penalized. This is an example of a straw man which Damon handles beautifully by attacking the cameraman directly.

I was curious about the reporter's affiliation. Her mic indicates reason.tv so I looked them up and discovered ... libertarians ....

Teachers, Technology, Skillz, and Bieberfever: Reflections from #edchat

After participating in #edchat tonight I felt I needed to get a few things out. The topic for tonight's episode was "What amount of tech should be a requirement for every teacher to know? Are there any specific core applications for teachers?".

My first concern stems from the topic itself; its wording tacitly implies that technology is necessary to be a good teacher and therefore teachers that do not use technology cannot be good teachers. It also implies as a corollary that we must be utilizing technology in teaching. I don't think I have ever heard a solid argument as to why that must be the case. The most common arguments I hear are that "Students use technology so we must use it as well", "It makes education relevant to the student", and "It is required for a 21st century education".

The first argument is fallacious and is known as the argument from popularity (Argumentum ad populum). The basic idea is that many students use technology therefore technology should be used in education. It is a false premise because mere belief in something does not indicate it is true. Many students like listening to Justin Bieber*, it does not mean his music is worth listening to.

The second argument is also fallacious as it assumes that the combination of technology and education will maintain the relevancy that the technology provides alone:

A. Technology is relevant to students.
B. Students like things that are relevant.
C. Therefore teachers should use technology so students like education.

By accepting this argument you tacitly accept that anything that is relevant to students should improve education. Many students find Justin Bieber relevant, but it doesn't mean I am going to get Bieberfever in my science classroom*. Many students find exploring the outdoors and nature to be relevant until you require they learn about it in class. Obviously the way the lesson is taught has a great bearing on how the students will react, but that is an issue of pedagogy not technology.

The final argument implies that in the 21st century we use technology so therefore to exist in the 21st century you must know how to use technology. Once again it implies a causal relationship where there may not actually be one (and employs the logically fallacy known as affirming the consequent). The additional aspect to this argument I hear is that we must prepare students for jobs in the 21st century; jobs that do not exist yet that arise from problems we haven't stated yet. They then argue that teaching knowledge is ineffective because it will have changed by the time the students obtain these future jobs. However, the same can be said regarding the technology: it will be entirely different when the student leaves school and begins working/seeks higher education. The argument can be made that learning how to use today's technology provides a base for learning tomorrows; which I would agree with. However, that implies that learning today's knowledge provides a base for learning tomorrow's knowledge as well, which puts us back at square one. The argument also implies a teaching of technology for the sake of technology which leads me into my next concern: the lack of a clearly stated goal for teaching with technology.

It appears to me that we are integrating technology because it is there. Many mention the importance of ensuring the technology is used in accordance with proper pedagogy, a statement I couldn't agree more with. But there is so much more talk regarding how to use tech and very little regarding pedagogy that I worry that last statement is lip service to a degree. So to rectify this I will attempt to take the arguments I have listed and synthesize a goal for the integration of technology.

The main argument is preparing students for the future, so we will start there. The question that must be answered is what will the future look like. The only assumption I can start with, is that there will be people (because if there are no people, this argument is moot). So, what can we deduce if we assume that there will be people (in brackets I list the skills I believe are needed to accomplish the task/goal):

1. People will wish to communicate with each other (communication skills)
2. The communication will cause ideas to be generated and problems to be discovered (creativity and problem solving skills)
3. The problems will require solutions (creativity)
4. The solutions will require the application of new/unknown knowledge (research methodologies)
5. The solutions will require analysis (skepticism and rationality)

To me this is what needs to be taught to be ready for the future. I group these fives items (communication skills, creativity, problem solving skills, research methodologies, and skepticism and rationality) and entitle them critical thinking skills (although you could as easily call them learning skills).

Now no where in my listing I have noted technology. This implies to me (and I am biased as I created the excellent listing above) that technology is not a skill per se but a tool to be used to facilitate the execution of the skills. For example, if you needed to nail two pieces of wood together you could use a hammer or a nail gun. However, to use the tool properly I need to know why I am nailing the wood together and what the final product should look like; the technology will not show me that.

To bring the analogy to education, we can't know what tech to use until we understand the problem we are attempting to solve with our teaching. By assuming the solution will require technology we limit the number of possible solutions and stifle our creativity. The solution we arrive at may not be the most optimal or even a valid solution. Instead we need to add technology to our toolbox and utilize when the problem indicates it is required.

---

* Shameless SEO plug
* I promise to stop now, that should be enough to get this post on page one of Google.