>>Valley Patriot>>
|
Coming to a
Classroom Near You
If
You Liked Whole-Word Reading, Open Classrooms,
& Fuzzy Math, You Will Love Inquiry-Based Science
Dr. Charles Ormsby
(04/04/07)
 At first
there were just guttural sounds. We grunted and pointed
and jumped up and down while scratching ourselves. Over
tens of thousands of years we learned to draw pictures in
caves that our fellow humans could easily interpret. The
ideas we could convey were pretty basic, but at least we
could immortalize some key events in our lives and these
could be viewed and interpreted by later generations.
Several thousand years ago, someone got the bright idea
of developing a set of symbols for different words that
could be combined to more efficiently and accurately
convey stories and thoughts. Given the extent of our
vocabulary and that a high percentage of words did not
represent recognizable physical objects, the symbols were
largely arbitrary and just had to be accepted and
memorized. This limited our written vocabulary and made
learning the symbols difficult and time consuming, thus
dramatically reducing literacy.
The major breakthrough in written language came with the
switch from translating “words-to-symbols” to
translating “sounds-to-symbols.” Our language,
consisting of roughly a half-million words, requires only
about forty to forty-five sounds or phonemes. Instead of
having to memorize many thousands of symbols, we only
have to learn just 26 symbols – the alphabet —
with the forty or so basic sounds created by these.
It was truly a miracle. This very limited set of symbols
— along with several unique combinations —
provided an incredibly efficient code. Learn this fairly
simple code and you could encode (write) anything you
could express in words or translate (read) anything
written by anyone else that shared the code.
For hundreds of years teachers taught this code. The
phonemes represented by these symbols (remember phonics?)
were taught along with the combinations and sounds they
represented. Students learned the code and practiced
rapid translations: From spoken words to written form and
from the written form to comprehended words — all
from just 26 symbols. Amazing!
And then our lame-brained education gurus decided to undo
the miracle that took tens of thousands of years to
evolve. Instead of teaching the simple 26-symbol code,
they came up with the bright idea of having students just
learn to recognize the tens of thousands of words
directly! What were they thinking?
Ignore the code they said, just “See and Say”!
This “breakthrough” was dubbed “whole word
reading.” It has undermined the literacy of millions
of students and greatly contributed to the dumbing down
of America.
The insanity of this is breathtaking. It would be like
explaining how an airplane flies without discussing
airfoils, pressures, Bernoulli’s principle, or
forces … but we’ll get to that in a moment.
As if deciding that we shouldn’t teach the magic
code was not enough, professional educators decided to
re-engineer the learning environment in the classroom.
Again, we have thousands of years of experience in the
design of learning environments. Past experience
underlined the need for mental focus and concentration
… a condition that is seriously hampered by
distractions. Even parents who are not trained as
educators seem to realize that children should turn off
the TV and rap music while trying to absorb a history or
math lesson.
But our education gurus had a deeper insight than the
rest of us mere mortals could possibly appreciate. They
figured that if you put classrooms together, without
walls between them, the students would benefit from all
the noise. It made sense to them, apparently, that
understanding algebra or trigonometry would be enhanced
by students reciting Shakespeare in the adjacent
classroom! What were they thinking?
To make matters worse – is it even possible? –
educators decided to give the teachers an extra
challenge. Instead of having teachers teach a subject to
a set of students who are roughly at the same achievement
level in a subject, they decided to force them to teach
to multiple levels simultaneously.
In a fourth-grade math class, teachers are required to
teach simple addition and multiplication to some students
while teaching division to others, and fractions to their
most advanced students.
When it comes time for English Language Arts (read’n
& write’n), they must simultaneously teach basic
reading skills to some while discussing the classics with
others.
Of course, they can’t actually do these things
simultaneously, so they have to break up the class into
more homogeneous groups and then split their time among
the groups. Now students who could have had the
teacher’s attention for the whole class, can only
get it for a portion of the class time. Brilliant!
Since the teacher splits the class up to make the
sub-groups more similar in achievement level, one might
ask, “WHY DIDN’T THEY DO THIS IN THE FIRST
PLACE?” What were they thinking?
La piece de resistance is, of course, fuzzy math. Here
the education gurus outdid themselves. They didn’t
just make the subject more difficult by, for instance,
deciding not to teach the code or raising the level of
distraction by removing classroom walls. Nor did they
combine students at different levels of achievement in
the same classroom to dilute teacher effectiveness.
Instead, they decided to NOT TEACH THE BASIC SUBJECT AT
ALL!
Yes, in fuzzy math the curriculum just leaves out the
basic methods for multiplication and division and refuses
to teach students how to work with arbitrary fractions.
Instead, fuzzy math encourages dependence on calculators
so that you will not need to understand the fundamentals
of mathematics. It would be the same as giving French
students a pocket translator instead of having them
learning vocabulary. I better be careful, I may give them
ideas.
All of these hair-brained schemes had the backing of
august education associations or academies or councils.
Whether it was the National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics (NCTM) that championed fuzzy math, or some
other education association, every failed education
initiative had impressive backing. What they failed to
have was any common sense review. Teaching at the K-12
level is not rocket science and never needed to be
re-invented. Just teach the code. Encourage kids to
focus. Actually teach the subject you are supposed to
teach.
Unfortunately, the education gurus are busy coming up
with new ideas all the time.
Now we’re being told that students shouldn’t be
taught science based on a rigorous and methodical
foundation of facts and concepts, and based on an
integrating mathematical framework coupled with directed
experimentation. Instead, they should be free to
“inquire” and learn science by “observing
and recording their thoughts” about everyday
experiences … including the always-present social
ramifications.
For those who have spent time investigating “fuzzy
math,” you will be aware that it is also
described as “constructivist” or
“discovery-based.” What this means is that the
teachers didn’t teach the basic concepts of
mathematics, they let the students “construct”
them or “discover” them by themselves.
If you don’t smell this same philosophy lurking
behind “inquiry-based” science instruction,
your olfactory senses are dysfunctional.
Like mathematics, science understanding must be built on
a carefully laid and integrated foundation of concepts,
terminology, and methods, plus the addition of
experimental results (performed or described) and, in
many instances, mathematical models. It cannot be gained
via a haphazard collection of disconnected experiences
and poorly integrated or ill-defined concepts cooked up
in the brains of uneducated students.
Let me warn you. Like the other disastrous schemes
outlined above, inquiry-based science is supported by
influential education groups such as the National Science
Teachers Association and the National Research Council.
An outline of this philosophy is provided in the National
Science Education Standards promulgated in 1996. The goal
of this approach is to establish “Science standards
for all students. The phrase embodies both excellence and
equity. The Standards apply to all students, regardless
of age, gender, cultural or ethnic background,
disabilities, aspirations, or interest and motivation in
science.”
You get the flavor.
A well-written critique of this inquiry-based standard is
provided by Professor Alan Cromer, Department of Physics,
Northeastern University, in his paper “Science
Standards: An Update.” For the full paper go to http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/cromer.htm.
Here is just one excerpt from his critique:
As another example of inquiry, the Massachusetts Science
and Technology Curriculum Framework (Massachusetts
Department of Education, 1995) outlines a unit entitled
“How Do Objects Fly?” “Middle school
students’ study of flight begins with building and
informally testing different types of gliders. Students
explore features that make flight possible . . . “
The students then go on to pursue further inquiries based
on their own questions, such as “What impact does
air traffic have on people and organisms in communities
near an airport?”
The difference between this “inquiry” and a
scientific investigation of flight couldn’t be
starker. The distinctions among a projectile, a glider,
and powered flight are never made, or even suggested.
There is no inquiry into lift, or Bernoulli’s
principle. Nothing about these critical matters can be
learned from “informally testing different types of
gliders.” Middle school students can’t make any
meaningful inquiry into the impact of air traffic; all
they can do is read about complaints of abutters and
environmentalists.
Who decides that this sort of reading is compatible with
inquiry in science, but that structured experiments on
pressure and Bernoulli’s principle are not? What
contribution does reading about complaints of airplane
noise make to a studentıs understanding of how airplanes
fly? It merely allows a social science exercise to
disguise as a science exercise. This is the true meaning
of “real world phenomena.”
Inquiry-based science instruction is the educators’
sequel to whole-word reading, open classrooms, fuzzy
math, and “let’s make believe everyone is the
same.” If you liked these, you’ll love
inquiry-based science.
Our children trust us to give them the proper tools to
learn and achieve. These are precious opportunities that
must not be squandered. We can’t let them down once
again.
Inquiry-based science is a Trojan horse that can and will
displace real and substantial science curricula where it
is adopted. We better look this “gift horse” in
the mouth – it is no gift and it has no teeth.
Dr. Ormsby is a member of the North Andover School
Committee. He is a graduate of Cornell and has a
doctorate from MIT. If you have any questions or
comments, you can contact Dr. Ormsby via email: ccormsby@comcast.net
*Send your questions comments to ValleyPatriot@aol.com
The March 2007 Edition
of the Valley Patriot
The Valley Patriot is a Monthly
Publication.
All Contents (C) 2007, Valley Patriot, Inc.
We publish 12,000 newspapers and distribute in Andover,
North Andover,
Methuen, Haverhill, Chelmsford, Georgetown, Groveland,
Boxford, Amesbury,
Lawrence, Dracut, Tewksbury, MERRIMACK, Hampton &
Salisbury Beach, and Lowell.
|
Valley Patriot Archive
Valley Patriot Story
ARCHIVES
Prior Lead
Stories
Prior
Valley Patriot Editorials
Prior Columns by ...
Tom Duggan
Dr. Chuck
Ormsby
Paula
Porten
Ralph
Wilbur
Hanna
Ted Tripp
Valley
Patriot of the Month
Griselsilva.com
Patrick
Blanchette
D.J.
Beauregard
Jim
Cassidy
D.J. Deeb
Marcos
Devers
Bob
Desmarais
Regina
Faticanti
Jim
Fiorentini
Bill Kelly
Wilfredo
Laboy
Peter
Larocque
Vilma Lora
Ed Maguire
Billy
Manzi
Paul
Murano
Mark
Palermo
Hartley
Pleshaw
Debbie
Quinn
Raise Em
Right
Dr. Peary
Kathleen
Corey Rahme
Barney
Reilly
Angel
Rivera
Jim Rurak
Grisel
Silva
Mike
Sullivan
Sandra
Stotsky
Mike
Sweeney
Ken Willette
Scott Wood
Jim
Xenakis
|