After reading the two blogs, a couple of comments stood out to me.
Bill Kerr: Philosopher Daniel Dennett has extended the core correct concept of behaviourism (generate and test) into the inner environment. It's not correct to say that the "theory was abandoned everywhere else". Actions which are followed by rewards are often repeated. Doesn't that make us all behaviourists, despite many excellent critiques of Skinner?
As a nation we fit the generate and test aspect. In GA we have the CRCT which students have to pass in grades 3, 5, and 8 to be promoted. This is essentially reward and punishment. You pass you go to the next grade level; if you fail, you are retained. The state test is said to be a standards test, but when it comes down to it, its not. My students can create graphs all day; the constructivist aspect and standard, then to prepare for the test they have to be able to answer multiple choice questions on it. With all the testing our students do, they are rewarded or punished for their test results; this is behaviourism.
Bill Kerr: It seems to me that each _ism is offering something useful without any of them being complete or stand alone in their own right
I completely agree with this statement. As teachers we find what works best for our content, age, and school. We pick and pull from various resources to help our students understand the content. I teach students to add, subtract, multiply, and divide positive and negative numbers. We go over different ways to look at it and different ways to solve the problem, but before we move on they have drill and practice and memorization. It is imperative for them to know how to do it. A couple of years ago my students weren't getting it. I resorted to old school days of writing out the facts 10 times each and testing until they passed. We do what it takes to get it through their heads.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPYxfj6eanU
I found the above link to be an informative narrated PowerPoint on the basics of behaviorism and the cognitive learning theory. It is a little boring, but has great information!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vq9XIrNGgoQ
This is a great video on the learning theories in action!
http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html
http://karlkapp.blogspot.com/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Margaret,
ReplyDeleteI admire how confidently you express your own views. Opening the door of state testing was brave. I concur with your thoughts on what we teach in one way and how we are required to assess in another way. I wonder though if this is because noneducators have set the policies on testing and even drafted the assessments. Year after year, we observe that our students have so much more knowledge than what is entailed on the standardized tests throughout the nation. It is like measuring weight with a ruler. We have higher expectations of learners in our classrooms. Thank goodness we are allowed autonomy to also use our own assessments, observations, and authentic results to determine learner success. I wonder if, schools were allowed to use give as much weight to their own assessments as we do to federally required tests if we would see more valid and reliable measures of learning.
Sandy
Thanks Sandy. I have strong feelings about testing. It is hard not to get on my soap box!
ReplyDeleteSince you opened up the box on testing are you familiar with the Race to the Top concept? It is a federally funded program that encourages states to apply for grant money to help with their assessments to ensure that we are preparing students for 21st century living.
ReplyDeletehttp://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html
Margaret, great connection to the reinforcement aspect of behaviorism and high-stakes testing. I think the stimulus/ response connection is most evident when students are getting ready to take the test. The gamut of emotions and physiological responses are a testament to how strong an influence testing has on our students. I fully agree that testing should mirror and accurately represent what are students are able to do.
ReplyDeleteMy students perform well in cooperative teams and through projects in math class, but on a standardized test they do poorly. Should I change my instruction just so my students perform well on the test? or should I continue my instruction so that I know my students have a deep and meaningful foundation in mathematical concepts to prepare them for success later in school/life? Thank you
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteShane,
ReplyDeleteWhat grade math do you teach? I do projects with mine similar to what you stated. I include stations for each concept. The stations consist of group work and state testing practice. They questions are multiple choice for the test practice. It adds testing practice but they still get to work with groups. My class is set up in groups and I love projects. I have to go back and look at the type of questions they will see. I talk to my students about it and make a game/joke out of it with them. I often tell them "okay guys you know what is next, time to practice for the CRCT. The sooner we understand the sooner we can return to the fun stuff" My curriculum is certainly not driven by the test. I have been lucky had great test results with the students doing a lot of projects and groups.