I saw Pinker on TV the other night and my reaction then has been reinforced by this piece. I wonder what experiences Pinker has had helping kids learn to read? He says:
We already know that some methods of reading instruction work better than others, yet many schools still use methods proved ineffective likeHow does one respond to such inaccurate statements? The work of Ken and Yetta Goodman on miscue analysis in reading might cause him to stop and ponder. Or if he really wants to ponder children's minds then he should read Margaret Donaldson's book "Children's Minds". The great Piaget had to rethink much of his opus because of this book.
"whole language" techniques.
"A little learning is a dangerous thing"
Take care,
Brian
This article from NYTimes.com
has been sent to you by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As always, what one chooses to think is important to do depends upon one's values.
For example: of what value to the development of a person's HUMAN potential is the study of the classics vs. economics.
Selma
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
How to Get Inside a Student's Head
January 31, 2003
By STEVEN PINKER
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - The scant mention of education in
President Bush's State of the Union address suggests that
the administration feels its work on the subject is done,
at least for now. Last year's sweeping bill was a
significant achievement, but as with most federal
initiatives, it dealt primarily with administrative issues
like financing and achievement tests. Little attention was
given to the actual process of education: how events in the
classroom affect the minds of the students.
Yet a bit of White House leadership might encourage
educators and scientists to apply a better understanding of
thinking and learning to what happens in the classroom.
Bill Clinton, in fact, did show some enthusiasm for this
approach - particularly research on the brain. But as
exciting as neuroscience is, I suspect it will provide
little enlightenment about education. All learning changes
the brain, but the changes at the level of brain cells are
similar in all complex organisms - including mice, which
don't learn to read, write or add.
Rather, it is the patterns of changes across billions of
neurons that determine the distinctively human forms of
learning in the classroom. To understand these patterns, we
need to apply insights from cognitive science, behavioral
genetics and evolutionary and developmental psychology.
An important place to start might be in working to apply a
scientific mindset to education itself - that is, to
determine as best we can whether various beliefs about
educational effectiveness are true. Classroom practice is
often guided by romantic theories, slick packages and
political crusades. Few practices have been evaluated using
the paraphernalia of social science, such as data
collection and control groups. We already know that some
methods of reading instruction work better than others, yet
many schools still use methods proved ineffective like
"whole language" techniques.
The sciences of the mind can also provide a sounder
conception of what the mind of a child is inherently good
and bad at. Our minds are impressively competent at
problems that were challenges to our evolutionary
ancestors: speaking and listening, reading emotions and
intentions, making friends and influencing people. They are
not so good at problems that are far simpler (as gauged by
what a computer can do) but which are posed by modern life:
reading and writing, calculation, understanding how complex
societies work. We should not assume that children can
learn to write as easily as they learn to speak, or that
children in groups will learn science as readily as they
learn to exchange gossip. Educators must figure out how to
co-opt the faculties that work effortlessly and to get
children to apply them to problems at which they lack
natural competence.
Finally, a better understanding of the mind can lead to
setting new priorities as to what is taught. The goal of
education should be to provide students with new cognitive
tools for grasping the world. Observers from our best
scientists to Jay Leno are appalled by the scientific
illiteracy of typical Americans. This obliviousness leads
people to squander their health on medical flimflam and to
misunderstand the strengths and weaknesses of a market
economy in their political choices.
The obvious solution is instruction at all levels in
relatively new fields like economics, evolutionary biology
and statistics. Yet most curriculums are set in stone,
because no one wants to be the philistine who seems to be
saying that it is unimportant to learn a foreign language
or the classics. But there are only 24 hours in a day, and
a decision to teach one subject is a decision not to teach
another. The question is not whether trigonometry is
important - it is - but whether it is more important than
probability; not whether an educated person should know the
classics, but whether it is more important to know the
classics than elementary economics.
This is not just a question of "relevance" to everyday
life; these fields are as rigorous and fundamental as those
in traditional curriculums. Nor is it a question of
tradition being bad and innovation good - many fad
movements are just as evasive about setting priorities.
Even if learning music were shown to enhance math skills,
that doesn't mean it is as effective as the same number of
hours spent learning math.
In a world with complexities that constantly challenge the
abilities nature gave us, serious thinking about trade-offs
in education cannot be responsibly avoided - by scientists,
educators or policy makers.
Steven Pinker, professor of cognitive science at
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is author of "The
Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/31PINK.html?ex=1045021616&ei=1&en=0bcd1a2c6790cc8d
HOW TO ADVERTISE
---------------------------------
For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters
or other creative advertising opportunities with The
New York Times on the Web, please contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit our online media
kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo
For general information about NYTimes.com, write to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
-- ************************************************** * Brian McAndrews, Practicum Coordinator * * Faculty of Education, Queen's University * * Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6 * * FAX:(613) 533-6596 Phone (613) 533-6000x74937* * e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * "Education is not the filling of a pail, * * but the lighting of a fire. * * W.B.Yeats * * * **************************************************
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
