Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Departments of Uneducation

From Michelle Malkin, an investigation into Everyday Mathematics. This is a method of teaching math that deliberately avoids rote and repetition in teaching the basic skills of arithmetic. The knock on the traditional methods of education is that students learn methods but fail to understand the mathematical concepts behind them. For proponents, the means apparently justify the end; that end is the realization by many parents that their children are not grasping simple mathematical concepts and operations.

I have firsthand experience of this educational philosophy. During my studies for my B.Ed., I came across it time and time again. After our first class, one of my Teaching Math profs had the majority of prospective math teachers in the room in disbelief. It was not much better at the end of the course. What this educational theory is getting at is that direct instruction and repetition is bad. You have to create learning opportunities for students to discover learning. So, repeated testing of multiplication tables, for instance, has died out.

Guess what? Students are missing it. They can't tell in a split second what 7 x 9 is. The premise of the theory is that rote and repetition does not foster understanding. But are you better off knowing that 9 packs of gum at $7 apiece will cost you $63, or why the math works out that way? In the end, the goal is that the student knows both, but the point is we don't want students - or anyone - to have to think about the mathematical realities behind the gum purchase in order to make that calculation.

It is in subjects like math and (some) sciences that we notice the disconnect between the reality of simple, hard facts and this need to find a convoluted way to learn (or teach) them. But it's not just about math. This educational theory has invaded most subjects. For instance, the reluctance to promote memorization of reading, spelling and grammar skills has contributed to a generation of students who are barely literate.

At its basic, it is a war between practical reality and theoretical fantasy. I have been a student under the educational theory of constructivism, and it is no fun. Instead of the practical skills for mastery and proficiency in teaching, I received a large dose of theoretical ideas that helped me little in the classroom setting. And that is the problem - students are losing out. Instead of a proven method with the goal of excellency, Departments of Education have embraced a soft, fuzzy method. It is a vote for mediocrity.