In a post titled “Raising Young People as Human Beings vs. Manufacturing Machines,”
I mentioned a comment from Yong Zhao concerning the importance of considering side-effects when practicing certain pedagogy. Zhao mentioned that those programs in school that are focused solely on raising test scores (Study Island comes to mind for me) should come with a “side-effects disclaimer.” Like a disclaimer for those medications you see on TV commercials, these disclaimers should state, “This program can raise your reading scores, but will make your children hate reading forever.” This observation stuck with me and I have used the quote several times over the past year, so you can imagine my excitement when Zhao came out with his latest book titled “What Works May Hurt: Side Effects in Education.”
This book is a great quick read which points out that we should not only consider the
benefits of various pedagogical practices, but also weigh the side-effects of the aforementioned practices. The analogy to medicine and the individual analysis doctors must consider when prescribing medication is emphasized. As an example, penicillin is an effective medication which kills bacteria to the benefit of the patient, yet the very same drug can also be harmful to those who are allergic to it or become a problem if over prescribed. A doctor must consider these side effects on an individual basis, so that that proper prescription is prescribed. This takes place best when the doctor has a conversation with the patient, listens to the needs of that particular individual, makes a diagnosis, and then provides the proper prescription. Similarly in the classroom, we need to be sure that we are taking the time for individual conversations with the young people under our care, listen to where their understanding lies, analyze or diagnose where they fall in the continuum of a particular concept or skill, and than “prescribe” or apply the appropriate pedagogy. If we were to approach teaching in such a way we could avoid the seemingly inevitable swing of the educational pendulum.
“Education remains stuck in perpetual pendulum swings-lots of movement and action,
but going nowhere” (Zhao, 2018, p.108). We seem to fall into the same trap over the years by shifting from one pedagogical approach to another because we are looking for the “silver bullet” that can be used on all of our students. As an example, Zhao points out that “Math Wars” have taken place because math education has “been caught in a 200 plus year pendulum swing between an overemphasis of rote practice of isolated skills and procedures and an overemphasis of conceptual understanding, with their respective overreliance on either teacher directed or student centered instruction” (Zhao, 2018, p. 106). Some of the more recent battles were waged in the 1960’s, appeared again in the 1990’s, and have reappeared today as “new math” through the Common Core. Reading instruction has had a similar cyclical battle between phonics and whole-language during that same time period. Both the reading and math battles have arose from the war between progressivism and academic traditionalism. “This war is the mother of all wars in education. The division between progressive, child-centered, and inquiry based education and academic curriculum-driven education is the power source that has fueled the reading wars, math wars, the battles over direct instruction versus inquiry based learning, the wars over standards and testing, and the wars over the national curriculum” (Zhao, 2018, p. 119). Unfortunately, both sides of this war are looking for one overarching approach that will meet the need of all students, but both ignore the potential side-effects of the individual young people who are affected by the prescription.
What we should be doing is listening to what our young people need. There will be times when some individuals will need more direct instruction and others will thrive when given more latitude. We should consider side-effects, and not just results or outcomes, when making all of our pedagogical decisions. This approach can be beneficial whether you are in the progressive or traditional camp. However, using this approach will emphasize that there is no panacea in education. By the way, compromise is not the answer either. A doctor would never prescribe a lower dose of a medication to which a patient is allergic as a compromise. The politically correct advice to find middle ground or balance between opposing views is scientifically irresponsible and combining them would actually reduce effectiveness (Zhao, 2018). It comes down to making informed decisions and that means as educators we need to constantly be analyzing what the young people in our care need. Sometimes they will need more direct instruction as a group, other times individuals will benefit more from being put in situations which allow them to make their own connections and develop their own relationships as they recognize patterns between concepts. This means that every day and every class could and probably should look different.
A doctor who prescribes a medication for a patient because that is what has always been done or because it works on most patients without considering the needs of the individual patient or potential side-effects of the individual would never be tolerated. As a matter of fact, the doctor would be breaking the oath to “do no harm” and it would be considered malpractice. Why should we, as educators, be held to a lower standard? If we follow a pedagogical practice that has always been done because it works for most of our students, be it progressive or traditional, and do not consider the potential side-effects of the practice on the individual young people in our care we would be guilty of educational malpractice and breaking what should be our own oath to “close no doors.” That is Zhao’s call to action. Considering side-effects of our practices is something we should be doing as a district, within our schools, during our PLCs, and in our daily practice within our classrooms.
References
Zhao,Yong (2018). What Works May Hurt: Side Effects in Education. New York, NY.
Teachers College Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment