Originally published September 17 2006:
Some eight years ago, I attended a series of presentations (not by choice) given by the ed school diversity police. At one, we got the party line on “learning styles/modalities,” presented with no evidence to back it up because like contrastive rhetoric, there is no evidence to back it up.
A particularly grumpy faculty member–who also happened to be a Dean at the time–asked the presenter what I, and no doubt many others, were thinking. He said, “Other than the fact that you have no evidence to support this, so what? We have material to cover. We barely have enough time as it is. We certainly don’t have time to present the material in each style just to make it easier for some of the students. So what do you want us to do with this information?”
Another one of these presentations was given by the feminonsense police, and covered how men are “goal-oriented,” and women are “process-oriented.” She and her co-feminuts, along with a few cooperative feminized males, presented a “role play” that began with a normal, goal-oriented meeting (of men) where the problem was addressed, a solution was agreed upon, and men were assigned to implement the solution. The next “role play” was feminuts having a meeting with no goal or purpose, other than to make each other feel good, and even though it was ostensibly to address the same problem as the first meeting “role play,” the feminuts ended the meeting without ever addressing a solution. Finally, there was the final, two-part “role play,” in which both sexes took part. In the first of the two-parter, the feminuts chose to shut up and sit there like lumps when the men insisted on having a meeting with a goal and purpose, and tackling the problem. In the second part of the two-parter, the men acquiesced to the “process oriented” meeting, the “issues” were discussed, feelings about the “issues” were shared, no solution was ever mentioned much less discussed, and nothing was accomplished (of course). The second of the two-parter was presented as how men could be more “sensitive” to women in meetings. When confronted with the fact that the “sensitive” meeting was unproductive, the feminuts accused the questioner of being patriarchal, and avoided the issue.
Ignore the man behind the curtain!
Both of these presentations illustrate why “being sensitive to our differences” (codename: diversity) is destructive to education.
As far as “learning styles” go, the unnamed Dean said it best at the time. Unless you have very little material to cover, in which case you shouldn’t be teaching the class in the first place, you don’t have the time to screw with, or worry about, such nonsense–especially when it is motivated by no evidence at all.
As far as “goal-oriented” v. “process-oriented” goes, education is, by definition, goal-oriented. “Process-oriented” approaches rarely produce a result.I’m hedging, since I do not know of one single case in which a “process-oriented” approach has resulted in a solution They are, by definition, unproductive–given that solving a problem of some kind is the goal of education, and if women truly are “process oriented” (and I’m not accepting that, given that there are so many logical women in the world, and have always been), then it is one purpose of education to teach them to be goal-oriented thinkers.
This “diversity” obsession is particularly destructive when it rears its inefficient, navel-gazing, narcissistic head in math education.
As knowledge systems go, math is the prototypical, linear system. Each skill builds upon others, so mastering a skill requires that one has already mastered previous skills. Math is essentially Aristotelian in nature, however patriarchal and serial raping and penis waving that may be.
Fifty percent of the reason for teaching any math skill, then, is because mastery of that skill will be required for the mastery of other skills down the road. While little Johnny may be a macaroni art learner or little Michelle may be a crayon and poster board project learner, allowing (worse, encouraging) little Johnny to solve the math problem by gluing macaroni to a toilet paper tube is counter-productive to fifty percent of the reason for covering the skill in class (and presenting Johnny with the problem). While Michelle’s crayon and poster board project may be very cute and creative, she learns no useful skill from doing it, and her failure to master the skill will handicap her later down the road. Educrats will then point to evil patriarchal traditionalist math teachers, Michelle’s sex, Michelle’s parents, Michelle’s socioeconomic status, the lack of technology in the classroom, or conservatives in general and blame them for “disadvantaging” poor little Michelle–when their own nutty educration methods are responsible. (For the latest example of fuzzy-headed, illogical educrat whining, see here.)
Repeat after me: There is no such thing as “mindless” drilling, or “mindless” rote memorization. Nothing about memorization or drilling is “mindless.” Rote memorization gives us domain knowledge, with which we can build other skills. Drilling is learning. Both teach discipline, both strengthen connections (there’s your neuroscience reference), and both build the skills necessary to solve problems.
When you can point to anyone in the real world solving a real-world problem by creating macaroni art, then by all means, object. I have a hard time trying to think of an example of anyone taking a complex problem and solving it “holistically,” or by sitting around in a matriarchal, vagina monologues-emulating, “process oriented” meeting, much less by making a cute, creative, crayon and poster board project. But please, let me know if you can think of any examples.
Educrats are fond of throwing around the phrase, “problem-solving skills,” yet seem to believe that every problem is unique, and unrelated to every other problem–as, indeed, you must believe if you think that macaroni art is, or ever can be, a problem-solving skill. We can see an example of this in this nonsense from the NEA:
A student well versed in algebra might do the following to set up the problem: p = pigs, c = chickens. p + c = 70 (heads) 4p + 2c = 200 (pigs have 4 legs and chickens have 2 legs). These two equations may be used to solve the problem. Students might solve this problem by “guessing and checking,” or drawing pictures. Some methods of solving problems might be considered more “efficient.” That may be true, but the correct answer can be found using multiple methods. Children think about mathematics in different ways depending on their prior experiences at home and school. By allowing students to think flexibly about numbers, we encourage them to “own” the math forever, instead of “borrowing” until class is over.
Allowing multiple methods encourages failure–because, again, math is wholly linear, and skills build upon other skills. Allowing students to “own” math means not teaching them math at all.
The linearity of math means that there is exactly one method, and only one method, for any given skill:Yes, I realize that one may approach a conditional bottom-up or top-down, or that one may calculate a problem with different series of steps, or put steps in different orders. that symbol manipulation which must be mastered not only to solve the current problem, but to master other skills down the road. It makes no difference if little Johnny would rather glue macaroni on toilet paper tubes. It makes no difference if little Michelle is a crayon project-oriented learner. Only one method accomplishes the entire reason for teaching the skill in the first place.
But teaching math has an even more basic function than math itself, and always has: Learning math is learning that step-by-step, logical approach to problem-solving, an approach whose applications far exceed the scope of mathematics. Problem-solving is its own knowledge system, and math is the best way to learn that knowledge system. Math teaches us to take a complex problem and simplify it by dissembling it. Math teaches us to take a complex problem and by writing equivalent statements, clarify it and the path to its solution. Math teaches us the progression of logical steps (remember all those proofs in geometry?) Math is coldly and unforgivingly logical–”close to the right answer” is an absurdity in math, where there is the right answer and there is every other, equally wrong, answer–and gives us problem-solving skills we will use throughout our lives.
Mathematics has, for this reason, been a cornerstone of education since the Greeks. Crayon and poster board projects accomplish nothing other than allowing Michelle to get an A without having mastered the content.
And doing all those cute projects ensures that little Johnny and little Michelle will go through life devoid of those invaluable problem-solving skills, that Aristotelian logic, and that they will be crippled for the rest of their lives. Is making them feel more comfortable by letting them glue macaroni to cardboard tubes really worth that?
