Junior cert dispute between Unions and Dept of Education

FreudianSlippers

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Could you provide a source for that research!

As you well know, asking a very disingenuous question, there are hundreds of not thousands of pieces of literature debating the rote learning vs. critical thinking question. The vast majority seem to conclude that there is obviously a level of rote learning which is manifestly fundamental to building higher education (i.e. times tables, etc.) but over-emphasis on "cramming" particularly for large exams is detrimental to early education.

I can't seem to find the exact study at present (mainly because I read about it 5+ years ago and can't remember the magazine (although I think it was Scientific American); in any case, the conclusion was that whilst exams such as the LC were useful for older students, as they were able to formulate answers to questions using both base knowledge and critical thinking, they were not useful for more youthful students (JC age) as they were not using critical thinking to form answers, but they were just regurgitating memorised chunks of information regardless of whether they directly correlated with the question.

Sure, an over reliance on rote learning is a bad thing (that's why it's called too much), and I'd agree that there is a lot on the plate of a 14/15 year old for the junior cert (10 odd subjects!)... but don;t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Any teacher who's come out of teacher training in the last 10 years will know that understanding is the aim of the game.

I think we largely agree here, I just do not believe that the JC is a good "tool" to teach understanding to that age group.

Just to quote from a letter to the Irish times RE: Rote Learning. Esp. as it's become the new 'dirty word' thrown out by politicians. (Skip to the underlined bit if you wish).

Sir, – I wasn’t surprised to see the usual criticism of the Leaving Cert as being too dependent on rote learning. This criticism is usually trotted out without any substantiation. Having taught for 20 years I don’t know any student who learns things without understanding them and then applying this knowledge in a variety of ways. It acts as a platform for expansion. As Daisy Christodoulou puts it her book Seven Myths about Education: “Saying all these negative things about rote learning [versus understanding] is very unhelpful. The two things are not in opposition. It’s not that we should spend time on conceptual understanding instead of spending it on learning times tables. It’s by spending time on times tables that you’ll develop the conceptual understanding.”
Christodoulou goes onto critique other favorites of our of our academic elite – projects and “active learning”. This she does with a mixture of common sense and extensive research which contradicts much of what the elite proposes. I would recommend that your readers to pick up a copy of her book before we throw out a relatively well-performing system and replace it with the latest fad. We need more minority voices – the consensus is often wrong – quite wrong. Yours, etc,
BARRY HAZEL,
Giltspur Wood,
Killarney Road,
Bray,
Co Wicklow

Yes, you have a problem here where teachers are not looking objectively at what is best for their students. Mr Hazel is clearly taking a position on a topic having decided already that he knows what is best from his subjective perch.

I'm not sure anyone is arguing that rote learning should be abolished; the issue is that the JC exam is fundamentally geared towards a method of learning that doesn't benefit all children.

Yes and I'd agree with you that the established Junior Cert. system is definitely not suitable for a certain cohort of students (and there are programs available for this cohort too!),,, does that mean you should change it to suit them?

Yes, you should formulate a system for that age group that manages to benefit all children - having them all take a large exam doesn't seem to be the best way.

evolving_doors

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

As you well know, asking a very disingenuous question,

I don't think it's unheard of on boards to ask a poster to provide a basis for their claims!! If anything its genuine. referring to research but not being able to cite it however....

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

there are hundreds of not thousands of pieces of literature debating the rote learning vs. critical thinking question.

Just one will do!

Also be aware that - yet again -you are setting up a false dichotomy as part of your argument i.e. rote learning vs. critical thinking. Which is why I pasted the extract to highlight the fallacy: (The two things are not in opposition. It’s not that we should spend time on conceptual understanding instead of spending it on learning times tables. It’s by spending time on times tables that you’ll develop the conceptual understanding.”)

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The vast majority seem to conclude that there is obviously a level of rote learning which is manifestly fundamental to building higher education (i.e. times tables, etc.) but over-emphasis on "cramming" particularly for large exams is detrimental to early education.

To be honest I dont think that the stuff I teach (especially for the junior cert) is geared towards rote learning (unfortunately in some cases). I cant think of many examples where 'essays learned off' will garner the student any extra credit. It IS the understanding which is being tested at junior cert.

Perhaps if you'd like to consider the Junior cert maths or music course then I'd be happy to discuss how rote learning isn't a means to a high grade (I've corrected for both so I know that the understanding is being tested, so if you want the A you have to understand). Even in terms of a weaker student then YES there is a certain amount of fundamentals the must be learned in order for them to even consider taking up the subject at leaving cert.

If those fundamentals aren't there, then sexing up the course with powerpoint presentations, project work , modularisation etc. then what's the point. Every teacher knows that you can have your mini exams after each chapter but it has to be nailed down in a bigger exam at some stage. I would contend that dividing it down into 3 exams in 2 years is not really testing a comprehensive level of understanding.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I can't seem to find the exact study at present (mainly because I read about it 5+ years ago and can't remember the magazine (although I think it was Scientific American); in any case, the conclusion was that whilst exams such as the LC were useful for older students, as they were able to formulate answers to questions using both base knowledge and critical thinking, they were not useful for more youthful students (JC age) as they were not using critical thinking to form answers, but they were just regurgitating memorised chunks of information regardless of whether they directly correlated with the question.

As above the regurgitating memorised chunks of information doesn't go on in the subjects I'm familiar with. At leaving cert. then yes it does to some extent... but it still doesn't necessarily get you top marks. We all know the students clambering around for 'the notes' from a certain private 'institution' around easter revision time. I was discussing it with a few of my colleagues and really there's nothing astounding there.

Plagiarise/rote learn all you like, but the learning takes place in the classroom. It happens between the interaction of the teacher and student with whatever style their teaching is suited to (not 'best practice' dictated to by those on high)..

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think we largely agree here, I just do not believe that the JC is a good "tool" to teach understanding to that age group.

I'd disagree for the reasons above, mainly I do believe that the JC 'tests' understanding in an impartial manner in a comprehensive way. Changing the nature of it by modularising it down with mini tests to be done by the students own teacher... then it's the UK, plain and simple. And then that leads to analysing every little grade you gave little Johnny in order to get your 'bonus' from your 'line manager'... "and we wouldn't want any of the proposed published results to reflect badly on the school now would we?".

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Yes, you have a problem here where teachers are not looking objectively at what is best for their students. Mr Hazel is clearly taking a position on a topic having decided already that he knows what is best from his subjective perch.

Not quite true there, he has cited some research by the way so I wouldn't say it's as subjective as 'others'.
I believe that there are teachers who are looking very objectively at what is going on. I would say most schools in Ireland teach with Irish teachers returning from the UK...

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm not sure anyone is arguing that rote learning should be abolished; the issue is that the JC exam is fundamentally geared towards a method of learning that doesn't benefit all children.

You will never get a system that benefits ALL children. That does not mean that you don't improve the system..... but to abolish the system alltogether in such a shoddy manner speaks volumes.

Remember: JCSA English vs. Project Maths rollout .... compare and contrast etc.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Yes, you should formulate a system for that age group that manages to benefit all children - having them all take a large exam doesn't seem to be the best way.

What way is best?

I'll let you in on a little secret...*

*reduce the *&$%$*%&$ class sizes and let teachers interact with the students for a change.