What's really going on in the classroom?
It's an interesting and slightly disturbing facet of education policy that no one's really quite sure what's going on in the American classroom. Talk to some people, they'll tell you that it's constructivism run amuck; walk across the street, and the schools are filled with drill-and-kill and endless test prep. It's really quite amazing that teachers can fit in so much group work and direct instruction at the same time. So where's the truth in all this rhetoric? Unfortunately, the obvious difficulties in acquiring data on the specific types of pedagogy underway have left us with only a meager few secondary sources. Luckily, these sources are fairly comprehensive and at least suggest the broader picture.
The most systematic information we have comes from the 1999 Trends in International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) video report, which involved videotaping lessons in seven countries that did varyingly well on the test and following it up with extensive questionnaires for the teachers. Eschewing international comparisons for the moment, this is what the study found about 8th grade math classes in the U.S.:
*53% of class time was spent reviewing, with 28% of class periods entirely review
*Less than 1% of problems serve the goal of "making connections;" instead, the vast majority of time is spent on simply learning procedures, the second-lowest of four categories of skill level.
*Teachers speak on average 85% of the time in class, and of the 15% of the time the students are speaking, only 7% of those utterances are longer than 10 words (in other words, 1% of the time students are contributing substantive points).
Now, this is only looking at math, but the picture that emerges is not one of a critical thinking-oriented, student-oriented, constructivist domination. Indeed, it's a more traditional view of the teacher at the front of the classroom directing the show via relatively low-level repetitive work. At the same time, it's not completely drill-and-kill, either; the report notes that most periods involve the entire class learning as a whole body. On a continuum of "constructivism" (or at least the bastardized version that currently exists) to "direct instruction," American math classes seem to fall moderately on the side of direct instruction.
The other source of data for this exploration is the National Assessment of Educational Progress' data bank. The main NAEP, which is conducted via a sample size of students, also gives detailed questionnaires to teachers and students, including questions about instructional practice. To keep things equivalent, let's look at 8th grade, but reading this time.
*In 1998, 53% of teachers reported that they did a group project with regards to reading assignments only once or twice a month, while 26% did group projects "never or hardly ever."
*In 2003, 43% of students reported that they had a class discussion about a reading assignment "at least once a week," while 30% had class discussions only once or twice a month.
*In 1998, 42% of teachers reported that they had students discuss different interpretations of what they had read once or twice a week, while 40% did this either once or twice a month or almost never. Only 36% of teachers asked their students to explain or support their understanding of what they had read almost every day.
Again, this is hardly a faux-progressive paradise; when less than half of classes are having regular class discussions and a mere third are being challenged to show their understanding, it's more likely that lectures and note-taking are still healthily the norm in most schools. Pedagogy doesn't appear to be in the deathgrip of drill-and-kill either, but those who see the current educational malaise as the fault of some fuzzy teaching style would be wise to check their own backyard first.
The most systematic information we have comes from the 1999 Trends in International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) video report, which involved videotaping lessons in seven countries that did varyingly well on the test and following it up with extensive questionnaires for the teachers. Eschewing international comparisons for the moment, this is what the study found about 8th grade math classes in the U.S.:
*53% of class time was spent reviewing, with 28% of class periods entirely review
*Less than 1% of problems serve the goal of "making connections;" instead, the vast majority of time is spent on simply learning procedures, the second-lowest of four categories of skill level.
*Teachers speak on average 85% of the time in class, and of the 15% of the time the students are speaking, only 7% of those utterances are longer than 10 words (in other words, 1% of the time students are contributing substantive points).
Now, this is only looking at math, but the picture that emerges is not one of a critical thinking-oriented, student-oriented, constructivist domination. Indeed, it's a more traditional view of the teacher at the front of the classroom directing the show via relatively low-level repetitive work. At the same time, it's not completely drill-and-kill, either; the report notes that most periods involve the entire class learning as a whole body. On a continuum of "constructivism" (or at least the bastardized version that currently exists) to "direct instruction," American math classes seem to fall moderately on the side of direct instruction.
The other source of data for this exploration is the National Assessment of Educational Progress' data bank. The main NAEP, which is conducted via a sample size of students, also gives detailed questionnaires to teachers and students, including questions about instructional practice. To keep things equivalent, let's look at 8th grade, but reading this time.
*In 1998, 53% of teachers reported that they did a group project with regards to reading assignments only once or twice a month, while 26% did group projects "never or hardly ever."
*In 2003, 43% of students reported that they had a class discussion about a reading assignment "at least once a week," while 30% had class discussions only once or twice a month.
*In 1998, 42% of teachers reported that they had students discuss different interpretations of what they had read once or twice a week, while 40% did this either once or twice a month or almost never. Only 36% of teachers asked their students to explain or support their understanding of what they had read almost every day.
Again, this is hardly a faux-progressive paradise; when less than half of classes are having regular class discussions and a mere third are being challenged to show their understanding, it's more likely that lectures and note-taking are still healthily the norm in most schools. Pedagogy doesn't appear to be in the deathgrip of drill-and-kill either, but those who see the current educational malaise as the fault of some fuzzy teaching style would be wise to check their own backyard first.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 at 2:02 AM.
|
