Appearances Can Be Deceiving, in Education, Too.
Ivan Andreyevich Krylov (1769 – 1844) was a Russian journalist and a poet. He
started his poetic career from translating Aesop fables to Russian. Later on he
had become famous for his own fables. One those fables titled “Quartet” was
about four animals trying to play music.
A
monkey, a donkey, a goat and a bear got musical instruments and wanted to wow
the word with their music. But whatever they did all they could produce is cacophony.
To fix it they tried different ways to sit around – in a circle, in a line,
etc. But nothing helped. The moral of the story is clear – the way we sit does
not matter if we don’t have the right skill (e.g. cannot play musical instruments).
This
fable comes to mind every time when I read about another school or a college or
a university which tries to improve its teaching by reshuffling the subjects
and courses. The same courses are being regrouped under new umbrellas, like individual
capacities (competencies, areas of abilities, etc.). The new classification is
declared to boost students’ philosophical views, vision of social forces, quantitative
reasoning skills, communicative skills, general logic, etc. But each group is
no more than an on-paper re-classification of the same old courses which have been
taught for decades. The fact that those courses now fall into different “baskets”
does not lead to the new learning outcomes for student taking those courses.
If
a teaching strategy within each course has not changed, the learning outcomes
of students will remain the same, as well. Changing the appearance without changing
the substance will not make any difference in the final “product” (in education
this final product is students’ skills, knowledge, abilities, competencies).
If
a school, or a college, or a university wants to help students to achieve new learning
outcomes, it has to start changing the teaching strategies within the courses.
However, in that case there would be no actual need to re-classify the courses,
unless the school would also wanted to change the way it manages the teaching process
as a whole (changing administrative tree, funding, information flaw, etc.).
But
changing the teaching
strategies within the courses is a much harder job to do than just rearranging them on paper.
Of
course, every school administrator would reject my statement and would tell us
that the school does a lot to change teaching culture, to advance teaching
approaches. But ask the said administrator one simple question: “How do you
know that what you do actually works?”, “How do you measure the success?”
Turns
out, down the road, if you peel off all vague descriptions and walk through the
fog of generic statements, there is only one real criteria used to access the
result of all innovations, which is student satisfaction.
Not
the volume of the actual knowledge, not the set of the actual skills, but what
students feel after the course.
And
to make students feel good, all a faculty needs to do is (a) be friendly (talk
to students after the class, tell them an occasional joke, listen to student’s grievances,
…), and (b) produce a reasonable grade. The latter part is easy; no matter how faculty
taught the class, no matter how students performed on the exams, there is a procedure
which makes any result look “normal”, it is called “scaling”. Just take the
actual distribution of the final grade and fit it into a Bell curve with the reasonable
average.
Of course, it does not mean that every faculty does just that.
The point is that no one really knows what does faculty do, and
what did students actually learn. And - no one wants to know. No one wants to look into that Pandora’s box.
Of course, it does not mean that every faculty does just that.
The point is that no one really knows what does faculty do, and
what did students actually learn. And - no one wants to know. No one wants to look into that Pandora’s box.
Appendix
Below
you find the Russian – English translation of the fable, done via Google Translate
(I have not change a single word in it, although Google did a poor job translating this fable).
The
prankster-monkey,
A
donkey,
Goat,
Yes
the toe-bearded Teddy Bear
The
Quartet started to play.
They
got the notes, bass, viola, two violins
And
they sat down on the meadow under the limes, -
Capture
the light with your art.
Struck
in the bow, tear, but no sense.
"Stop,
brothers, stop! Cried the Monkey. - Wait!
How
does the music go? You are not sitting like that.
You
with the bass, Misha, sit down against the viola,
I,
prima, will sit down against the second;
Then
the music will go wrong:
We
have a lot of woods and mountains! "
They
settled, the Quartet began;
He
nevertheless does not care.
"Wait,
I've found a secret! -
Screaming
Donkey - we, indeed, will get along,
If
we sit next to him. "
The
donkey listened: they sat in a row in a row;
And
yet the Quartet does not sound like it.
Here
are more than the old they went to the analysis
And
disputes,
To
whom and how to sit.
The
Nightingale happened to fly to their noise.
Then
with a request to him to solve them.
"Perhaps,"
they say, "take an hour for patience,
To
quartet our order in order:
And
we have notes, and there are instruments,
Just
tell us how to sit! "-
"To
be a musician, so must the skill
And
your ears are pale, -
The
Nightingale answers them, -
And
you, friends, no matter how much you sit down,
Everything
in musicians is not good. "
Thank you for visiting,
Dr. Valentin Voroshilov
Education Advancement Professionals
GoMars.xyz
Dr. Valentin Voroshilov
Education Advancement Professionals
GoMars.xyz
To learn more about my professional experience:
The voices of my students
"The Backpack Full of Cahs": pointing at a problem, not offering a solution
Essentials of Teaching Science
The voices of my students
"The Backpack Full of Cahs": pointing at a problem, not offering a solution
Essentials of Teaching Science
Dear Visitor, please, feel free to use the buttons below to share your feelings (ANY!) about this post to your Twitter of Facebook followers.
No comments:
Post a Comment