prof. em. Johan Taeldeman - een medestander in de strijd tegen de uitholling van het taalonderwijs - overleden
Op 31 oktober overleed prof. em. Johan Taeldeman - een medestander in de strijd tegen de uitholling van het taalonderwijs
De Gentse taalkundige Johan Taeldeman was niet mals voor taalgoeroes als Kris Van den Branden, voor de eindtermen en leerplannen Nederlands, voor de 'doe-maar-aan mentaliteit' die het belang van de vorm van de taal en de invloed van de vorm op de communicatie minimaliseert.
Hij betreurde in 2005 o.a.: "Men verwart een hoge tolerantie ten aanzien van taa...lvariatie met een doe-maar-aan mentaliteit. De eindtermen zijn in die zin gewoon misdadig" (Interview met Taeldeman in Over Taal, december 2005).
Taeldeman stelder verder: "Ik geloof niet sterk in die tussenfasevisie, want de mensen blijven erin hangen en worden taallui. Als het een van de vele variëteiten is die je beheerst op een continuüm, geen probleem, maar het treedt buiten zijn oevers. Dat heeft kwalijke gevolgen. Met de alomtegenwoordigheid van tussentaal worden we echte monolingualen. Dat alles heeft niet alleen gevolgen voor het Nederlands, maar het is ook een drempel om vreemde talen te leren.
Zo tilde hij ook zwaar aan sociolinguïstische formuleringen in eindtermen en leerplannen als "de leerkrachten moeten ernaar streven dat de leerlingen 'het gepaste' taalregister gebruiken. Taeldeman betreurde ook dat de modieuze taalbeschouwing over taalregisters, taalvarianten e.d. in de plaats gekomen is van de klassieke grammatica.
Ontdekkend & contextueel wiskundeonderwijs leidt tot grote niveaudaling in Canadese provincies
Grote niveaudaling wiskunde als gevolg van invoering van discovery-based instruction also called problem-based, inquiry, experiential, and constructivist learning in enkele Canadese provincies
Vooraf: een recente studie van een Canadees onderzoeks-instituut bevestigt de kritiek op de ontdekkende & contextuele, constructivistische aanpak van het wiskundeonderwijs die we al meer dan 25 jaar formuleerden in Onderwijskrant e.d.
We zorgden er destijds voor dat die aanpak à la Freudenthal Instituut - niet doordrong in het leerplan wiskunde (katholiek) basisonderwijs 1998. Merkwaardig genoeg pleiten de ZILL-leerplanarchitecten nu voor die nefaste aanpak die ook in een aantal Canadese provincies tot een sterke niveaudaling leidde. En jammer genoeg drong die nefaste aanpak ook al door in het leerplan wiskunde 1ste graad secundair onderwijs van 1997 & 2009.
Studie van Institut C.D. HOWE Institute commentary NO. 427 What to Do about Canadas Declining Math Scores
Conclusies
The correlation between early math achievement and later academic success and the decline in Canadian students mathematics scores on international tests in recent years suggest that provincial governments would be wise to improve the way mathematics is taught in Canadian schools. Best teaching practices in math have been at the forefront of discussions regarding declining math scores in Canada. Discovery-based instruction also called problem-based, inquiry, experiential, and constructivist learning has become popular in North America in recent years, pushing aside direct instruction techniques, like times table memorization, explicit teacher instruction, pencil-and-paper practice, and mastery of standard mathematical procedures.
Based on international and domestic evidence, this Commentary finds that studies consistently show direct instruction is much more effective than discovery-based instruction, which leads to straightforward recommendations on how to tilt the balance toward best instructional techniques. Student fluency with particular math concepts, such as fraction arithmetic, in early and middle years has been shown to predict future math success.
This Commentary recommends that provincial math curricula be rewritten to remove ineffective pedagogical directives and to stress specific topics, at appropriate grade levels, that are known to lead to later success in math. Evidence shows that teachers who are most comfortable and knowledgeable with the content they are required to teach tend to transmit that knowledge best to students. This Commentary suggests that future early and middle-years teachers be required to pass a math-content licensure exam prior to receiving certification to teach mathematics.
Recent shifts in math teaching practices coupled with radical, discovery-based math curricula are seriously hampering math learning by Canadian students. Evidence shows that direct instructional techniques work better than discovery-based techniques, so teachers should follow an 80/20 rule, devoting at least 80 percent of their math instructional time to direct instructional techniques.
Curricula also should be revised to remove ineffective instructional directives, and streamlined to focus on explicit topics and concepts that have been shown to predict later success in math. As well, the need to improve the math content knowledge of future elementary and middle-years math teachers should be addressed through course requirements and licensure exams. Adopting these recommendations should help solve some of the root problems behind the falling math scores of Canadian students, and result in improvements in the years to come.
Discovery-based Instruction: Changes in Canadian Classrooms Discovery-based instruction has become popular in North America in recent years, making its way into Canadian curricula, teachers professional development sessions and textbooks. A discoverybased learning environment often uses a top-down approach in which students are taught through problem solving
Discovery-based learning environments typically have some of the following characteristics: minimal guidance from the teacher and few explicit teacher explanations; use of multiple, preferably student-invented, strategies; open-ended problems with multiple solutions frequent use of hands-on materials such as blocks, fraction strips and algebra tiles or drawing pictures to solve problems; minimal worksheet practice or written symbolic work; memorization of math facts is deprioritized; standard methods such as column addition or long division are downplayed; a top-down approach in which students work on complex problems, even though foundational skills might not be present.
Expliciete instructie
The more conventional instructional approach is often called direct or explicit instruction. In this setting, students are directly taught concepts and given explicit explanations, followed by plenty of student practice, often with paper and pencil, feedback from the teacher and conventional assessment.
Standard methods like column addition and long division are emphasized and students are encouraged to memorize basic facts like times tables. Direct instruction often follows a bottom-up approach in which students are taught foundational skills that are practiced to mastery, gradually preparing them for complex problem solving. Note, however, that the teaching of understanding or why mathematical procedures and rules hold can be encouraged in any instructional setting, including during direct instruction. --------
Discovery methods ignore the limitations of working memory by eschewing conventional techniques such as times table memorization and by encouraging multiple, convoluted strategies instead of efficient, standard methods. Teaching through problem solving without providing the foundational skills necessary to solve problems overburdens working memory (Sweller 1988), and might not alter long-term memory, thereby inhibiting learning of mathematical concepts. Controlled studies have shown that direct instruction is a much more effective teaching method: when learners are presented with new information, it should be explicitly taught by a teacher.
Discovery-based learning environments often result in students becoming confused and frustrated and it is an inefficient style of instruction characterized by frequent false starts (Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark 2006). Numerous studies have found that, in contrast, direct instruction techniques such as worked examples, scaffolding, explicit explanations and consistent feedback are extremely beneficial for learning (Alfieri et al. 2011; Hattie and Yates 2014).
In a review of 200 research studies, Sutton Trust identifies key characteristics of effective instruction: teachers use of assessment, reviewing previous learning, working through examples for students, giving adequate time for practice to embed skills securely in long-term memory, and introducing topics incrementally. The review also finds that less effective teachers often teach math using handson materials, delay the introduction of formal methods until they feel pupils are ready to move on, and encourage students to work things out for themselves using any method with which they feel comfortable (Sutton Trust 2014).
As well, studies consistently find that students who have difficulty with mathematics by the end of their primary school years have not memorized basic number facts, making further math learning difficult and resulting in feelings of helplessness and a lack of confidence and enjoyment (Hattie and Yates 2014).
A great deal of time and effort is required to commit basic number facts to long-term memory, but the ability to recall them instantly frees up working memory, making it easier to learn new concepts. Overemphasis on hands-on materials and pictures also presents problems. Although some materials, such as base-ten blocks, might assist initial learning, overuse can prevent the transfer of information to long-term memory, because working memory is assaulted with extraneous information.
Transfer is more likely to occur if mathematical symbols are stressed over concrete materials (Kaminski, Sloutsky, and Heckler 2009). A survey of eighth grade Canadian students who participated in the nationally administered 2010 PCAP, which tested mathematics as a major domain, shows a pattern similar to the international studies cited above. Students were asked to report the frequency with which their teachers used both indirect instruction methods and direct instructional techniques.
The use of direct instruction was positively correlated with better math performance for most students, except the highest achievers, who seemed to succeed regardless of the instructional method used. Furthermore, greater use of indirect instruction was found to be strongly associated with lower scores (CMEC 2012).
Best Methods to Teach Problem Solving and Understanding Equipping students with strong problem-solving skills is an important goal of math education, but Canadian curricula and prominent resources ignore what research in cognitive science reveals about how problem-solving skills are acquired. Experienced, effective problem solvers store organized techniques in long-term memory, which allows them to categorize new problems and implement effective strategies to solve them (Sweller and Cooper 1985).
The best way to ensure that students are well positioned to solve new problems is to provide them a library of knowledge and techniques and to teach thinking skills through direct instruction (Hattie and Yates 2014). A large body of evidence shows that direct instruction through worked examples followed by practice with problems similar to the worked examples respects working-memory limitations and improves problem-solving performance (Paas and van Gog 2006; Sweller and Cooper 1985). Gradually increasing the difficulty level of worked examples and practice problems results in the ability of students to transfer problem-solving skills to new situations. However, when students are presented with problems that they do not have the techniques to solve without reference to worked examples,
The PCAP survey characterized indirect instruction techniques by teachers use of hands-on materials (base-ten blocks, colour tiles, geometric solids), use of computer software, working in groups on investigations or problems, sharing solutions with other students in the class, and having opportunities to reflect on what was learned. Direct instruction techniques were characterized by conventional teaching methods: watching the teacher do examples, listening to the teacher give explanations, copying notes given by the teacher, practising new skills, undertaking teacher-guided investigations, reviewing skills learned, solving problems and working individually on investigations or problems.
As well, discovery-based learning does not lead to a better understanding of concepts or a higher quality of learning than direct instruction. On the contrary, Klahr and Nigam (2004) find that direct instruction results in much more learning than discovery-based instruction, and that students who learn in a direct instruction environment are no less proficient at translating learning to new situations. A particularly disturbing finding, from a number of studies, is that low-aptitude students perform worse on post-test measures after receiving discoverybased instruction than they do on pre-test measures. In other words, discovery-based instruction might result in learning losses and widen the gap between low- and high-performing students (Clark 1989)
Benchmarks for the Critical Foundations of Mathematics (lager onderwijs)
Fluency With Whole Numbers
1) By the end of Grade 3 (eerste leerjaar), students should be proficient with the addition and subtraction of whole numbers. 2) By the end of Grade 5, students should be proficient with multiplication and division of whole numbers.
Fluency With Fractions
1) By the end of Grade 4 (tweede leerjaar) , students should be able to identify and represent fractions and decimals, and compare them on a number line or with other common representations of fractions and decimals. 2) By the end of Grade 5, students should be proficient with comparing fractions and decimals and common percent, and with the addition and subtraction of fractions and decimals. 3) By the end of Grade 6, students should be proficient with multiplication and division of fractions and decimals. 4) By the end of Grade 6, students should be proficient with all operations involving positive and negative integers. 5) By the end of Grade 7, students should be proficient with all operations involving positive and negative fractions. 6) By the end of Grade 7, students should be able to solve problems involving percent, ratio, and rate and extend this work to proportionality.
Geometry and Measurement
1) By the end of Grade 5 (3de leerjaar), students should be able to solve problems involving perimeter and area of triangles and all quadrilaterals having at least one pair of parallel sides (i.e., trapezoids). 2) By the end of Grade 6, students should be able to analyze the properties of two-dimensional shapes and solve problems involving perimeter and area, and analyze the properties of three-dimensional shapes and solve problems involving surface area and volume. 3) By the end of Grade 7, students should be familiar with the relationship between similar triangles and the concept of the slope of a line.
Waarom ontwikkelend/ontdekkend leren zoals in VLOR ET-advies, ZILL-visie ... niet effectief zijn
Waarom ontdekkend/ontwikkelend leren en kennis-arm curriculum niet effectief zijn
Inleiding: In VLOR-advies over eindtermen, in ZILL-leerplanvisie, in visie van Kris Van den Branden ... wordt jammer genoeg geopteerd voor ontwikkelend/ontdekken leren
Twee bijdragen
Bijdrage 1Submission to the Review to Achieve Educational Excellence
Bijdrage 2: Waarom ontdekkend/ontwikkelend leren en kennis-arm curriculum niet effectief zijn
Inleiding: In VLOR-advies over eindtermen, in ZILL-leerplanvisie, in visie van Kris Van den Branden ... wordt jammer genoeg geopteerd voor ontwikkelend/ontdekken leren
Bijdrage 1
Submission to the Review to Achieve Educational Excellence
Greg Ashman Head of Research, Ballarat Clarendon College, PhD candidate in Instructional Design, UNSW and Education Writer
Cognitive science points to the essential nature of knowledge as a foundation for developing any of the higher order abilities such as critical thinking that all of us rightly wish students to develop. A critical example of such an ability is reading comprehension which is dependent upon students gaining a wide knowledge of the world. If schools dont provide this knowledge, then the gap between students from privileged and disadvantaged background widens as the former gain this knowledge from home.
Sadly, there are many misconceptions propagated in education that downplay the value of knowledge acquisition. The Australian Curriculum has been affected by these misconceptions and is not knowledge rich, representing a missed opportunity. In addition, the most popular teaching methods in Australia inquirybased learning, project-based learning, problem-based learning and other variations employ implicit approaches.
We have a wealth of evidence that, for novice learners such as schoolchildren learning new concepts, implicit approaches are far less effective that explicit teaching. This evidence may be triangulated across a surprisingly diverse body of evidence. Unfortunately, many in the educational community are opposed to explicit approaches for essentially political reasons or because they wrongly believe them to be demotivating. If we are going to invest in effective interventions, then we will need to tackle this opposition. This wont be helped by taking a simplistic approach to the research evidence. What should education success for Australian students and schools look like? We currently have a poor understanding of what we are trying to achieve. The Australian Curriculum is largely skills based in that the content is thin and priority is instead placed on developing supposed skills such as the ability to pose and respond to questions. These do not fit the common understanding of the term skill in that they are not directly trainable, apart from a few general heuristics, and they do not continue to improve through deliberate practice. Overlaying each of the content areas are supposedly general capabilities such as critical thinking. Critical thinking is clearly important and we can recognise it as a feature of expertise in a particular area. However, there is no shortcut to achieving it.
Cognitive science overwhelmingly demonstrates that any higher order abilities such as critical thinking require a firm grounding in relevant content knowledge. Daniel T. Willingham, a psychologist at the University of Virginia, suggests that small children are capable of thinking critically about content that they are familiar with and trained scientists may fail to think critically about content they are unfamiliar with (Willingham, 2007). Willingham poses the question, Can critical thinking actually be taught? before answering, Decades of cognitive research point to a disappointing answer: not really. People who have sought to teach critical thinking have assumed that it is a skill, like riding a bicycle, and that, like other skills, once you learn it, you can apply it in any situation. Research from cognitive science shows that thinking is not that sort of skill. The processes of thinking are intertwined with the content of thought (that is, domain knowledge).
The new Health and Social Studies (HASS) Curriculum is a good example of the skills approach and seems to be based upon John Deweys expanding horizons model. This starts with the childs immediate horizons and works outwards. Instead of learning about Ancient Rome, for example, the content of Year 1 is for students to develop an understanding of, Differences in family structures and roles today, and how these have changed or remained the same over time. This is quite vague. Alongside this supposed content, students learn skills such as to, Compare objects from the past with those from the present; abilities that cognitive science suggests will be entirely knowledge dependent. It is notable that the expanding horizons model was being criticised as demotivating and theoretically misguided by Kieran Egan as far back as 1980 and yet it is a recent introduction to our curriculum (Egan, 1980).
Reading comprehension is an example of a critical ability that is highly dependent upon relevant knowledge. In early reading instruction, comprehension is dependent upon the ability to decode written words. The content of early readers is usually highly familiar to the child and so once they decode the word, they are likely to understand the context. However, as reading instruction progresses, students are presented with more academic texts that may not be set in familiar contexts. At this point, knowledge becomes critical. This is not just about vocabulary, although vocabulary is a good proxy for knowledge. Writers tend to miss out information and so readers need to be able to fill in those gaps and build a picture of what is being discussed. This is responsible for the fourth grade slump where children from less privileged backgrounds start to fall away in reading performance compared to their more privileged peers who are likely to have been exposed to more knowledge and vocabulary at home (Hirsch, 2003).
The knowledge-poor Australian Curriculum therefore represents a huge missed opportunity.
It is notable that at the timing of writing, the Australian government is considering introducing a phonics check similar to the one introduced in England in 2011. Yet England has also strengthened the content of its national curriculum and this does not seem to be under discussion here. We may find that any gains children make in decoding completely wash out over time due to the degraded content that they are exposed to.
It is fashionable to dismiss the need for content in the curriculum by suggesting that everything can be looked up on the internet. Again, this is misguided and at odds with cognitive science. Put simply, if you dont know something then you dont know what to look up. Cognitive load theory, developed by Professor John Sweller of the University of New South Wales and others, posits a model of the mind consisting of a severely limited working memory, where problem-solving, creative processes and so on take place, and an effectively limitless long term memory. Crucially, the limits of working memory completely fall away when dealing with knowledge retrieved from long term memory (Sweller et. al 2011).
This knowledge is literally the content of thought; its what we think with. You cant think with it if it is sitting somewhere out there on the internet.
Unfortunately, this is not well understood. Curriculum authorities in the states as well as the Australian Curriculum tend to prioritise the application of knowledge without focusing on the acquisition of this knowledge in the first place. We need to acknowledge that one reason for this is political. For instance, specifying set texts in an English curriculum is fraught and certain to provoke legitimate democratic debate. To avoid this, it is expedient to instead focus on nebulous skills.
What can we do to improve and how can we support ongoing improvement over time?
If schools are simply given new funding, then it is probable that they will spend it on programmes that will degrade performance over time. There is near overwhelming evidence that for novices learning new content, explicit approaches to teaching this content are superior to implicit ones (Kirschner et. al., 2006). Initially, these findings came from research into teacher expertise and the behaviours of the most effective teachers (see e.g. Yates, 2005). This was then supported by a range of attempts to teach ill-structured tasks such as writing (Rosenshine, 2009). We also have a more recent body of experimental work in cognitive science demonstrating the superiority of explicit methods (Paas et. al., 2003). It is important to note that these findings are not restricted to the rote recall of discrete facts, but that they extend to any academic concept or skill that has been tested, including those that tend to be considered as higher level.
Unfortunately, there is also near overwhelming consensus in the education sector that implicit approaches are superior to explicit ones. Implicit methods involve students in finding things out for themselves to some degree and come under a variety of labels: constructivist teaching, problem-based learning, inquirybased learning, project-based learning, makerspaces and many more. The critical difference between explicit and implicit approaches is whether new material is fully explained in a structured fashion when students first encounter it. Both will move to more independent tasks as students gain mastery.
The predominance of implicit approaches may be illustrated in a number of ways. For instance, the 2016 Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) conference programme, which no longer seems to be available online, contained no references to explicit teaching or its common synonyms such as direct instruction. It did, however, reference inquirybased approaches. As I am writing this, the Australian Council for Educational Research has published its daily article aimed at teachers in its online Teacher magazine. It is an interview with Professor Simone Reinhold about inquiry-based learning. The effectiveness of this approach is never questioned (Earp, 2017). Many teachers reading the article will assume this is an example of good practice supported by the research evidence.
The Teacher article also refers to differentiation, the process of varying pace, content and activities to meet the perceived needs of students in a class. This is required by the Australian Professional Standards for Teacher (AITSL, 2011) and is accepted as good practice in education. Differentiation sounds highly plausible but there are risks to varying teaching based upon teachers perceptions. What if these perceptions are incorrect? We know that teachers, just like everybody else, suffer from cognitive biases and these can bias teacher assessments against disadvantaged groups (Burgess & Greaves, 2013). Some forms of differentiation advocate the substitution of tasks; if a student struggles with writing then they may be allowed to complete a task by tape recording their voice. There are relatively few studies that have investigated differentiation in isolation but, of those that have, the evidence of effectiveness is missing (e.g. Brighton et. al., 2005; Capp, 2017).
Recent years have provided evidence on teaching methods from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). An analysis of PISA 2010 mathematics results showed that teacher-directed instruction was positively related to maths performance, although this relationship became negative for very high levels of teacher-directed instruction.
The same analysis found an overwhelmingly negative relationship between studentoriented instruction and maths performance (Caro et. al., 2016). Student-oriented instruction was defined as the extent to which the teacher gives different work to students who have difficulties learning and/or to those who can advance faster; the teacher assigns projects that require at least one week to complete; the teacher has students work in small groups to come up with joint solutions to a problem or task; and the teacher asks students to help plan classroom activities or topics. A student orientation is therefore an implicit approach that incorporates differentiation. Oddly, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) define good teaching to be student-oriented, despite this (Echazarra et. al., 2007).
For the 2015 round of testing, PISA focused on science teaching. They found that teacherdirected instruction was associated with higher achievement in science. This time, it was contrasted with enquiry-based teaching which, in the context of science, includes a focus on practical activities. Enquiry-based teaching, an implicit approach, was associated with lower achievement (OECD, 2016).
McKinsey consulting have analysed the 2016 PISA data and state, In all five regions, when teachers took the lead, scores were generally higher, and the more inquiry-based learning, the lower the scores what works best is when the two styles work togetherspecifically, with teacher-directed instruction in most or almost all classes, and inquiry-based learning in some. (Mourshed et. al., 2017). This fits with teachers explicitly teaching new content to novices and releasing control as students gain expertise i.e. the explicit teaching model (Rosenshine, 2012).
Some implicit teaching methods have become the subject of rigorous randomised controlled trials with predictable results. Project-based learning is popular in Australia, with some schools using funding to send teachers to training sessions. The main idea is that students will learn content and a range of higher order skills through completing a project. This is not a new notion and has been written about by educationalists since at least 1918 (Kilpatrick, 1918). A report from the U.K. found little evidence for the approach in a review of the literature, and when it was tested in a number of schools in a randomised controlled trial, there was a potentially negative effect. However, the security of this finding was weak because so many schools chose to drop out of the projectbased learning intervention (Menzies et. al., 2016).
Are there barriers to implementing these improvements?
Strangely, the preference for implicit teaching methods persists in the education community, despite the wealth of evidence. There are a number of reasons for this. Foremost is perhaps an ideological opposition to explicit teaching. Explicit teaching involves the teacher selecting material and deciding on tasks for students to complete. Popular educational theories prefer students to make choices themselves. Explicit teaching sets the teacher up as a figure of authority. If we conflate teaching methods with political ideas then explicit teaching can be framed as oppressive (e.g. Freire, 1970). Such reasoning is a strong current in sociological education research.
Another driving force is the perception that implicit teaching approaches are more motivating than explicit approaches. It is unclear whether this is true. It is conceivable that students may be motivated by the opportunity to conduct their own experiment, but a teacher telling a story or explaining an interesting phenomenon an explicit approach is also likely to be motivating. The problem with arguing on the basis of motivation is that it confuses a passing or situational interest with a long-term, personal interest in a subject. Personal interest may well be influenced by situational interest but we also know that it is strongly influenced by self-efficacy; the perception of a student that they can be successful in their efforts (Zimmerman, 2000). This is, in turn, influenced by previous feelings of success and progress. One recent study in Canada found that achievement in early mathematics predicted later motivation but that motivation did not predict later achievement (Garon‐Carrier et. al., 2016). If we want to foster motivation, we should certainly aim to avoid boring or staid delivery but, most of all, we should prioritise approaches that lead to the most learning. This takes us back, inevitably, to explicit teaching.
Nonetheless, countless government and social enterprise initiatives to encourage students to study science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) are predicated on the idea of generating situational interest through science demonstrations, plays, games, experiments, talks given by professionals or other activities. These are bound to fail unless they are followed by quality, long-term teaching.
Finally, we must be careful to avoid naïve interpretations of evidence. Some sources use measures of effect size to rank and categorise a whole range of strikingly diverse interventions that have been tested in a wide variety of ways (e.g. Hattie, 2009; Evidence for Learning, 2017). This is a problem because effect sizes vary due to the age of the subjects, the design of the trial and a number of other factors (Wiliam, 2016). We should therefore only compare effect sizes from similar kinds of studies. For example, the Educational Endowment Foundation in the U.K. has started to run large-scale randomised controlled trials of various interventions. These are usually compared to a control condition that does not have the intervention. Given that it is impossible to blind such trials in the way that trials of pharmaceuticals are able to use a placebo, it is likely that we will generate an effect due to expectations alone (a placebo effect). We should expect a larger effect size from a study such as this than from a study that compares two viable interventions. Simplistic reference to such trials or to tables of effect sizes may therefore be misleading and may damage the call for an evidence-based approach.
Brighton, C.M., Hertberg, H.L., Moon, T.R., Tomlinson, C.A. and Callahan, C.M. (2005). The Feasibility of High-end Learning in a Diverse Middle School. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Burgess, S., & Greaves, E. (2013). Test scores, subjective assessment, and stereotyping of ethnic minorities. Journal of Labor Economics, 31(3), 535-576.
Capp, M. J. (2017). The effectiveness of universal design for learning: a meta-analysis of literature between 2013 and 2016. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1-17.
Caro, D.H., Lenkeit, J. and Kyriakides, L. (2016). Teaching strategies and differential effectiveness across learning contexts: Evidence from PISA 2012. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 49, pp.30-41.
Earp, J., (2017) Teaching Methods: Inquiry based learning with Professor Simone Reinhold. Australian Council for Educational Research - ACER. Retrieved 5 October 2017, from https://www.teachermagazine.com.au/articles/t eaching-methods-inquiry-based-learning-withprofessor-simone-reinhold
Echazarra, A., Salinas, D., Méndez, I., Denis, V., and Rech, G. (2016). How teachers teach and students learn: Successful strategies for school. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 130, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Egan, K. (1980). John Dewey and the social studies curriculum. Theory & Research in Social Education, 8(2), 37-55.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed, trans. Myra Bergman Ramos. New York: Continuum, 65-80.
Garon‐Carrier, G., Boivin, M., Guay, F., Kovas, Y., Dionne, G., Lemelin, J. P., ... & Tremblay, R. E. (2016). Intrinsic motivation and achievement in mathematics in elementary school: A longitudinal investigation of their association. Child development, 87(1), 165-175.
Hattie, J. A. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of 800+ meta-analyses on achievement. Abingdon: Routledge.
Hirsch, E. D. (2003). Reading comprehension requires knowledgeof words and the world. American Educator, 27(1), 10-13.
Kilpatrick, W. H. (1918). The project method: The use of the purposeful act in the educative process (No. 3). Teachers college, Columbia university.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problembased, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Menzies, V., Hewitt, C., Kokotsaki, D., Collyer, C. and Wiggins, A. (2016). Project Based Learning: evaluation report and executive summary.
OECD (2016). PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and Practices for Successful Schools, OECD Publishing, Paris.
-----
Bijdrage 2
Prof. Reville: Waarom zijn/waren modieuze onderwijsmethoden als het momenteel in Vlaanderen officieel gepropageerde 'ontwikkelingsgericht' leren niet effectief! Engelse beleidsmakers nemen er momenteel radiaal afstand van, maar Vlaamse beleidsverantwoordelijken willen ze opdringen. Vooraf: momenteel pleiten de VLOR, ZILL-leerplanproject katholiek onderwijs ... voor een radicale kanteling van ons onderwijs in de richting van 'ontwikkelingsgericht leren'.
Volgens prof. William Reville is zo'n aanpak precies de oorzaak van de niveaudaling in landen als Engeland, Ierland ...
The reason why modern teaching methods dont work - Prof. William Reville (2 maart 2015: The Irish Time) Whole-class teaching, in which childern learn to use their long-term memory, has been abandoned for a more personalised, naturalistic approach, and its been a disaster
Waarom modieuze onderwijsmethoden, ontwikkelingsgericht onderwijs, niet effectief zijn - Prof. William Reville (2 maart 2015: The Irish Time) Klassikaal on onderwijs, waarin kinderen leren om hun langetermijngeheugen te gebruiken, is vaak verlaten voor een meer gepersonaliseerde, naturalistische benadering, en het is in veel landen een ramp geworden.
In belangrijke rapporten wordt aangetoond dat het opleidingsniveau op alle niveaus afneemt in Engelstalige landen (Stopgradeinflation. i. e.; OESO-rapporten 2007 en 2014). Een lerarendelegatie van het Verenigd Koninkrijk heeft onlangs een bezoek gebracht aan Shanghai om te onderzoeken waarom Chinese leerlingen 30 procent hoger scoren op internationale tests dan leerlingen in het Verenigd Koninkrijk. De leerkrachten meldden achteraf dat een groot deel van het succes van China te danken is aan het gebruik van degelijke onderwijsmethoden/leerboeken en van de klassikale aanpak, aan aanpak waarvan het Verenigd Koninkrijk en Ierland de afgelopen 40 jaar sterk zijn afgeweken.
In de klassikale aanpak staat de leerkracht aan het schoolbord, leert de hele klas de kennis uit de klassieke vakdisciplines, toetst de leerkracht de leerlingen met vragen en zorgt hij voor een gedisciplineerde klasomgeving. Tot in de jaren zestig was dit type onderwijs in Ierland de norm. Maar toen betoogden onderwijskundigen dat ons onderwijs te autoritair was en ze introduceerden nieuwe kindgerichte benaderingen i die de leerlingen aanmoedigden om zelf kennis te "ontdekken", op eigen tempo of in groepen, om in een minimaal begeleide leeromgeving te werken, waarbij de leerkracht als coach enkel ondersteuning bood.
De modieuze methoden gaven kinderen zogezegd meer controle over wat er in de klas gebeurt, ze leerden voortaan leren op basis van hun eigen interesses. De leerkracht speelde in op de "favoriete leerstijl" van de leerlingen en prees de leerlingen voortdurend. Deze modieuze onderwijsmethoden lijken op een eerste gezicht intuïtief aantrekkelijk, maar hun effectiviteit wordt geenszins ondersteund door empirisch onderzoek. De wetenschappelijke kritieken die ik las tonen aan dat de modieuze methoden veel minder effectief zijn in het overdragen van kennis dan de meer klassikale aanpak. Desalniettemin hebben academische onderwijskundigen zich met succes verzet tegen de herintroductie van klassieke en klassikale onderwijsmethoden . De voorbije jaren is het klimaat echte weer aan het veranderen. Na het bezoek van de leerkrachten aan China vertelde de Britse minister van Onderwijs Nick Gibbs aan de Mail op zondag: "Ik zou graag zien dat onze scholen weer klassikale onderwijsmethoden, met name in wiskunde en wetenschappen, zouden overnemen".
JE Stone schrijft in Education Policy Analysis Analysis Archives (1996) hoe kindgerichte onderwijsmethoden voortkomen uit een al lang bestaande onderwijskundige ideologie die developmentalism wordt genoemd, een vorm van romantisch naturalisme gericht op natuurlijke ontwikkeling - ontwikkelingsgericht onderwijs zoals momenteel onze VLOR en ZILL propageren.
In oktober 2014 publiceerde de Britse Sutton Trust in oktober 2014 een overzicht van meer dan 200 onderzoeksstudies om de effectiefste onderwijsaanpakken op te sporen. De Trust identificeerde veel geprezen praktijken die niet door onderzoek gestaafd worden, maar wel schadelijk zijn: als de leerlingen zelf sleutelideeën laten ontdekken -constructivisme, informatie aan leerlingen presenteren op basis zogezegd van hun favoriete leerstijl, leerlingen voortdurend prijzen
Het is ook verwonderlijk dat de vele nieuwlichters b.v. geen rekening hielden met het functioneren van het geheugen. . Kirschner & Co toonden het belang aan van inzicht in de architectuur van het geheugen - het werkgeheugen en het lange-termijn-geheugen en wezen er op dat het vanuit dit inzicht duidelijk is dat de minimale begeleiding van kinderen, constructivistische & ontdekkende aanpak e.d., niet tot effectief leren leiden. Het lange-termijn geheugen is de dominante structuur van de menselijke cognitie. Probleemoplossende vaardigheden maken gebruik van de uitgebreide ervaring die in het langetermijngeheugen is opgeslagen. Het doel van alle instructie is om het langetermijngeheugen te versterken en, als er niets wordt toegevoegd, wordt er niets geleerd. En het werkgeheugen kan slechts een klein aantal elementen verwerken; en bijna alle informatie die daar is opgeslagen en niet wordt geoefend gaat weer snel verloren. Minimale begeleidingsmethoden gaan ervan uit alsof het werkgeheugen geen relevante beperkingen heeft bij het omgaan met nieuwe informatie. Effectief onderwijs houdt daar wel rekening mee . Klassikaal onderwijs hecht veel belang aan specifieke richtlijnen voor het cognitief manipuleren van informatie en aan het opslaan van de resultaten in langetermijngeheugen. William Reville is hoogleraar Biochemie van Emeritus bij UCC. begrip van wetenschap. ucc.
DOOR MANUEL SINTUBIN. 2013 was amper begonnen toen de Universiteit Gent aankondigde dat ze dit academiejaar met proefprojecten rond online cursussen zou starten. Ook bij KU Leuven zitten dergelijke projecten in de pijplijn. Dit stond toen te lezen in het artikel Universiteit Gent start met online lesgeven in De Standaard van 3 januari 2013. We zijn nu bijna een jaar verder, en de proefprojecten zouden al een semester lang hun meerwaarde moeten bewezen hebben Waar blijven de zegeberichten?
De online cursussen zouden (zoals te lezen staat in het artikel) iets doen aan de overvolle aulas, want studenten zouden dan thuis of op kot vanuit hun luie zetel het hoorcollege kunnen volgen. En trouwens, hoorcolleges zijn niet meer van deze tijd; ze zijn ouderwets. Hoorcolleges vol gapende, etende en pratende milleniumstudenten horen volgens collega Jan Derksen (Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen) niet meer thuis in de digitale universiteit van de toekomst. Bovendien zouden de docenten tijd uitsparen door hun lessen te filmen en op het net te gooien. Wat een karikatuur van zowel het live hoorcollege als online cursussen.
Hoorcollege, zenuwcentrum van de leeromgeving
Reeds in 2006 hebben we in het kader van een onderwijsproject binnen de faculteit Wetenschappen aan de KU Leuven grondig nagedacht over de rol van het klassieke hoorcollege (Serdons, I., Sintubin, M., Buyse, M.-P. & Totté, N. 2006. Stap voor Stap naar een stimulerende leeromgeving). Ook toen al werd het voortbestaan van het hoorcollege sterk in vraag gesteld binnen de nieuwste universitaire onderwijsconcepten rond Begeleide Zelfstudie. Onze conclusie van toen, blijft ook vandaag blijkbaar meer dan actueel! Het hoorcollege is nog steeds van deze tijd! Nog meer: het hoorcollege is en blijft een cruciale rol spelen in het universitaire onderwijs.
Het live hoorcollege is immers dat unieke contactmoment waarin de docent met ALLE studenten tezelfdertijd kan interageren. Het is de meest efficiënte vorm van gestructureerde informatieoverdracht, die later door de student zelf, al of niet in zijn luie zetel, kan worden omgezet in kennis. Het hoorcollege geeft bovendien aan de docent de gelegenheid in te spelen op de actualiteit of op recente ontwikkelingen of ontdekkingen in zijn vakgebied. Of het dient om de interesse van de studenten op te wekken en vast te houden door anekdotes uit het eigen leven als wetenschapper. Dit maakt een hoorcollege boeiend. Geen student zal zich dan gedwongen voelen om naar de docent te luisteren. Maar misschien nog belangrijker, het live gebeuren geeft de docent ook de kans om te voelen wanneer hij zijn studenten kwijt is. Geroezemoes in de aula is het signaal bij uitstek dat er iets niet goed zit in de uiteenzetting! Wij omschreven in 2006 het hoorcollege als het zenuwcentrum van de leeromgeving. Dat is het hoorcollege nog steeds. Het is het moment waarop samen met de studenten alle leeractiviteiten gecoördineerd worden om zo de student optimaal te begeleiden in zijn kennisconstructie. Al dit positiefs van het live hoorcollege is niet zomaar te vervangen door online cursussen. En opgenomen hoorcolleges zijn wel nog steeds hoorcolleges, niet?
In de Angelsaksische universitaire wereld heeft 2012 een explosieve groei gekend van de MOOCs, of Massive Open Online Courses, kortom universitaire online cursussen. Deze worden al massaal gevolgd door tienduizenden studenten wereldwijd. Maar deze online cursussen zijn niet zomaar opgenomen hoorcolleges die op het net gepost worden. In deze MOOCs wordt zwaar geïnvesteerd door de Amerikaanse topuniversiteiten. Meer en meer zien zij dit als een manier om met hun paradepaardjes wereldwijd uit te pakken en topstudenten aan te trekken. Deze MOOCs worden ook gezien als een middel om zoveel mogelijk mensen over heel de wereld de kans te geven om cursussen van topwetenschappers, onder wie Nobelprijswinnaars, te kunnen volgen, gaande van de alumnus die nog een nieuw wetenschapsdiscipline wil ontdekken aan zijn eigen Alma Mater, tot de jongeling in een Tibetaans dorpje die anders nooit de gelegenheid zou krijgen hogere studies te volgen. Sommige MOOCs worden dan ook al gelijktijdig gevolgd door duizenden studenten. Deze online cursussen dienen dan ook niet om de eigen studenten weg te jagen uit de overvolle aulas! Online cursussen dienen niet om het nijpende tekort aan onderwijsomkadering aan onze universiteiten te bestendigen! Bovendien is het een illusie te stellen dat de docent tijd zal uitsparen met hoorcolleges te vervangen door online cursussen. Naast de investering in kwaliteitsvolle online cursussen, blijft er de noodzaak om met de studenten op afstand te interageren, zij het onder de vorm van chatsessies en discussiefora, via Facebook of Twitter, . Dit alles vergt enorm veel tijd van de docent.
Karikatuur
Laat al die karikaturen over het universitair onderwijs liefst achterwege. Zowel docent als student doen er alles aan om er het beste van te maken. Het is bovendien geen of-of-verhaal maar een en-en-verhaal. Het live hoorcollege heeft zijn unieke plaats in het universitaire onderwijs, ook in de eenentwintigste eeuw. En online cursussen geven een nieuwe, verrijkende dimensie aan dit universitair onderwijs, door echt aan iedereen toegang te geven tot een universitaire scholing. Misschien wel de echte democratisering van het hoger onderwijs
Effective teaching of numeracy : Not too realistic, but functional! (Freudenthal vs Feys)
Waarom ontdekkend en contextueel rekenen à la Freudenthal Instituut, ZILL-leerplanvisie ... niet effectief is
Twee bijdragen: (1) Analyse van Pieter Van Biervliet (2)Analyse van Raf Feys
Bijdrage 1 Effective teaching of numeracy : Not too realistic, but
functional!(Freudenthal vs Feys)
Pieter Van Biervliet
November 2008
RENO, Centre for Teacher Training Torhout (KATHO), Belgium
What makes an effective teacher of numeracy?A look at the results of the last PISA
assessment 2003 can be very interesting in order to find an answer.PISA means Programme for International
Student Assessment.The aim of this
assessment is to measure the knowledge and skills in sciences, problem solving,
reading and mathematics for 15-year old pupils in 30 OECD-countries
(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) plus 11 partner
countries (such as Hongkong, Brazil etc.).
Flemish pupils (in the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium) score
very good on arithmetic skills compared to children from other countries.As a matter of fact, they have the best
results of all.Even the weakest score
much better than in other countries, and for instance as good as the best
pupils of Italy (De Meyer, Pauly & Van de Poele, 2005, p. 5).Its very interesting to point out the reason
why Flemish teachers instruct maths so effectively.A comparison with the Realistic Mathematics
Education (RME) approach in The Netherlands can be useful.The RME orientation is very different from
the so-called Functional Mathematics Education (FME) in Flanders. Pupils of The
Netherlands score less than Flemish children (5th rank).That difference is statistically significant.
Realistic Mathematics Education (RME) was developed since
1971 at the Freudenthalinstitute in Utrecht, in The Netherlands.The mathematician Hans Freudenthal (1906
1990) was the father of that movement (Treffers, 1991).RME has also been adopted by a large number
of schools in countries all over the world such as England, Germany, Denmark,
Spain, Portugal, South Africa, Brazil, USA, Japan and Malaysia (de Lange,
1996).Functional Mathematics Education
(FME)is typical for the Flemish
tradition.However, in the 70s this
tradition was interrupted by the Modern Math Reform Movement when pupils had
to learn maths using sets, relations, functions...(Papy, 1970).For weak pupils this approach was a disaster.Since the 90s schools in Flanders used again
the tradition of FME.
The most important promoter of FME is Raf Feys, a former
lecturer at the RENO teacher training centre for primary school, a department
of KATHO, Flemish institute of higher education (Raf Feys, 1998).
Self exploration vs activating instruction
Typical for RME is a belief in the ability of self
exploration by pupils.Students should
be given the opportunity to reinvent mathematical concepts.They have to explore situations, to discover
and to identify the relevant mathematics. They have to schematize, and to visualize, to
discover regularities, and to develop a model resulting in a mathematical
concept (de Lange, 1987).They have to
develop all these activities personally.Hence, due to many similarities with RME, the current constructivist
reform movement shows great interest for this approach (Gravenmeijer, 1994):
pupils have to construct knowledge and skills by themselves.
FME stresses more on the importance of guided instruction
and exploration by the teacher.FME too works
inductive: A problem is posed by the teacher, and pupils have to search a
solution.But, the teacher also
explains, discusses, illustrates, demonstrates, asks questions while moving
around the class, summarizes FME is more related to what we call an activating
instruction approach.
Perceptual variability vs one fixed representation
A very important principle in RME is that of perceptual
variability, meaning that the pupils should be confronted with as many
different kinds of materials as possible in order to master the subject
well.For instance, when learning the
number 4, realistic methods do not only show the square representation of 4,
but also the domino representation of 4, the representation on the beadframe
(where each 5 beads have a different colour), and the representation using the
so-called Cuisenaire Rods, a Belgian invention.
FME opts for the use of one fixed representation.All kinds of didactic considerations decide
the choice of such a representation.For
instance, most Flemish teachers dont use the Cuisenaire Rods anymore because
they have no explicit representation of the amount of the number.To know the number, pupils have to memorize
the colour of the rod!That was a great
problem for many pupils.Sometimes,
pupils compare the length of the rods and then they know the amount of the
number.But, that also is still a
guessing game.Moreover, sometimes
children have to make unnatural movements when calculating e.g. 5 - 2 so they
have to take the yellow rod of 5, then the red rod of 2 but then,to make the subtraction they have to put the
red rod on the yellow one to know the difference.The movement of putting on is very unnatural
in making a subtraction.
In the end, the square representation offers the best image.Its also a good fixed representation,
because even as a second term in addition sums the representation of 5 remains
the same.Sometimes there is a slight
difference (see 4 + 5 vs 3 + 5).Thats
not the case with the beadframe. The representation of the 5 changes each time
because of the different colour of each 5 beads on the frame.
Square representation of 5 (see X):
in the
addition sum 0 + 5 =
XXX
XX
in the
addition sum 4 + 5 =in
the addition sum 3 + 5 =
OOXXXOOXX
OOXXOXXX
Representation of 5 on beadframe (see _ )
in the addition
sum 0 + 5 =O O O O O
in the
addition sum 4 + 5 =in
the addition sum 3 + 5 =
O O O O O
X X X XO O O
O O X X X
Note:
O and X represent blocks or beads with a different colour
(for instance O = blue and X = red)
Interaction vs guided interaction
Interaction is an essential aspect of RME.For instance, theres a lot of
group-work.In this group-work students
are engaged in explaining, justifying, agreeing and disagreeing... Also FME is
interactive, but the interaction is guided by the teacher.The FME teacher provides high quantities of
whole-class interactive instruction, in which he discusses and develops
solutions and concepts with the pupils through a series of graded questions
addressed to the entire class (see also Jones & Allebone, 2000).
It takes a very long time to gain the curriculum goals when
pupils have to explore math operations by themselves.FME on the other hand is very economic.Thanks to the guided instruction of the
teacher pupils dont need so much time to gain the same goals.FME prevents pupils from re-inventing the
wheel and diverting their energies into the search of solutions and concepts
without the help of the teacher.
FME teachers try to ensure most pupils achieve the goals in
a relatively short time.
Understanding vs memorising
In RME mathematical facts are not memorised, for example,
pupils dont have to memorize the multiplication tables. RME stresses more
conceptual understanding.Also FME
involves the understanding of strategies and concepts, butemphasizes as well on the memorisation of a
limited amount of math facts (for instance: pupils have to memorize all
addition sums until 10, all multiplication tables ).FME considers childrens factual knowledge,
their conceptual understanding and their strategies as integrated aspects of numeracy
development (see also Murray, 2000).When practicing and testing factual knowledge, children will have more
energy to solve problems, to think creatively . There are many similarities to
reading processes: Before understanding texts, pupils must have good technical
reading skills (Perfetti, 1985).
So-called straight-ahead, naked exercises are much rare in
RME textbooks than in FME books.Pupils
always learn math operations in contexts.FME methods also pay attention to contexts as well as to automation
exercises.Teachers frequently give
tempo-exercises. These automation exercises allow the development of factual
knowledge.Otherwise, pupils remain
reliant on simple arithmetic techniques, such as counting on one by one or
calculating multiplication as repeated addition (Murray, 2000, p. 164).Quick recall exercises are a very important
factor of FME.
In RME, the teachers role is to pose problems, but leave
the solution methods open to the students.Pupils have to build their own constructions.And RME teachers must respect these
constructions.For instance, when
solving the addition 15 + 13 learners can determine their favourite strategy,
which results in all possible solution methods (Beishuizen, Wolters &
Broers, 1991, pp. 19-38):
-The
calculate-through method, also string method or W10-method: the first number is
left as a whole (W) and afterwards the tens are processed first; e.g. 15 + 13 ► 15 +10 = 25 ► 25 + 3 = 28.
-The
partition method or 1010-procedure: the tens and units of both terms are
processed separately first; e.g. 15 + 13 ►
10 + 10 = 20 ► 5 + 3 = 8 ► 20 + 8 = 28.
-The
10t-procedure: first the tens of both terms are processed, next the units of
the first term and afterwards the units of the second term; e.g. 15 +13 ► 10 + 10 = 20 ► 20 + 5 = 25 ► 25 + 3 = 28.
-The
A10-procedure: add (A) until you reach the next multiple of ten; e.g. 15 + 13 ► 15 + 5 = 20 ► 13 - 5 = 8 ► 20 + 8 = 28.
FME teachers are no advocates of this variety of calculation
methods. Especially the weak arithmeticians need a standard procedure. In FME
pupils may develop their own constructions as REM does - but very quickly the
FME teacher starts to analyse the variety of constructions to find the most
economic construction.Most FME teachers
prefer the calculate-through method to the other methods for the following
reasons (Van der Heijden, 1993, p.180): Arithmeticians who calculate through
need less time to response, make less mistakes as to insight, can orientate
themselves better, show a higher degree of awareness and control, claim
themselves that the W10 is an easier, faster and handier procedure; and in the
end they turn out to be more flexible in their use of the other procedures.
The choice of teaching a standard procedure does however not
alter the fact that FME pays attention to flexible calculation which differs
from the above method by looking for an easier procedure than the standard one.
This is not the case with the above variety of methods. E.g. 75 + 28 can be
calculated in various ways: 75 + 20 + 8 or 70 + 20 + 5 + 8 or 75 + 25 +3, etc.,
but 75 + 30 2 is a lot handier. However, the question remains if weak
arithmeticians should learn this way or stick to one clear standard strategy.
After all, flexible calculation requires a good short-term memory to carry out
the different partial operations correctly. Often this is not the case with
weak arithmeticians.Good learners on
the other hand may choose their own constructions.But, first of all they have to master the
standard procedure.
Integration vs structure
RME textbooks are not very well structured.The elements of number system, calculations,
solving problems, measures, shapes, space, handling data are not taught separately.In RME the integration of mathematical
concepts is essential.In real-life
contextual problems one usually needs more than algebra or geometry alone.FME methods focus very strongly on
structure.Subject matters are first
taught systematically.This implies that
initially these subjects will be temporarily offered and practised in isolation
and only then several skills are brought together when pupils have to solve
more complex problems.In contrast with
RME, integration in FME is the cherry on the cake!
RME teachers start with relatively complex problems.FME teachers start with rather simpleproblems as a condition to tackle more
complex problems. This structured approach is also related to the term
cumulative curriculum (Feys, 1998, p.56).For instance, a FME textbook takes one type of operation at the
time.Pupils first have to master a
simple type of addition (for instance: 15 + 13 without bridge over tens), and
then they have to master a more complex addition (for instance: 15 + 18 wíth
bridge over tens).
Contexts in RME are very amusing and motivating.For instance:pupils have to investigate how to divide the surface of a parking-place
so they can station as many cars as possible FME also involves these kinds of
contexts but starts with more simple classic contexts (sharing sweets, apples
etc.).In doing so they can cope easier
with more complex real-life problems afterwards.
Situational knowledge vs decontextualisation
In RME pupils only learn to make math operations by
contexts.For instance, bus-contexts are
typical for RME in order to learn addition and subtraction (for instance: eight
passengers in the bus;then two of them
leave the bus).But pupils work such a
long time with these contexts that they have difficulties to get rid of these
contexts, so they can reach a more abstract level.They also have problems to apply the
operations they learned in these specific bus-contexts, in new situations as
well.They have difficulties to reach
the level of decontextualisation.
FME teachers on the other hand experience that pupils can
easily apply mathematical knowledge and skills to new problems.Their knowledge doesnt remain
situational.
Conclusion
PISA 2003 indicates that children in Flanders perform
excellently in comparison with counterparts world-wide.We postulate that a very important factor
associated with these high achievement scores is the way of teaching maths in
Flanders, the so-called functional math education or FME.
To understand better the principles of FME, we compared the
FME orientation with the RME approach in the Netherlands.In the RME philosophy we notice a very great
appreciation for understanding arithmetic but also a depreciation for the
importance of the automaticity processes.In FME these automaticity processes play a crucial role.Key factors in these automaticity processes
are guided and activating instruction, interactive teaching, fixed
representations and standard procedures, pace (short time to gain goals), the
importance of factual knowledge and memorising, naked exercises, structure,
simple and classic problems, and decontexualisation.FME philosophy also pays attention for
realistic problems, ut it tries to find a good balance between understanding (=
RME orientation!) and automaticity.Too
extreme a shift towards RME can be disastrous especially for weak
learners.There is research evidence
(see Feys, 1998, p.41; Seys & Van Biervliet, 1996; Timmermans, 2005).Even the RME researchers Kraemer and Nelissen
found similar research conclusions but strangely still believe in the RME
philosophy (Feys, 1998, p.41)
References
Beishuizen, M., Wolters, G. & Broers, G. (1991). Mentale
rekenprocedures in het getallengebied 20-100 onderzocht met reactietijdmetingen
en tempotoetsen [A study of mental procedural skills in arithmetic in the
domain of 20-100: control of reaction and speed].Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsresearch, 16,
19-38.
de Lange, J. (1995). Assessment : No change without
Problems. In T.A. Romberg (Ed.), Reform in School Mathematics and Authentic
Assessment. New York: Sunny Press.
de Lange, J. (1996).Using and Applying Mathematics in Education. In A.J. Bishop, et al.
(Eds), International handbook of mathematics education (part one).Kluwer academic publisher.
De Meyer, I., Pauly, J. & Van de Poele, L. (2005).
Learning for Tomorrows Problems. First Results. Ghent: Ghent University (see
also www.ond.vlaanderen.be/onderwijsstatistieken)
Feys, af. (1998).Rekenen tot honderd [Arithemtic up to 100]. Praktijkgids voor de
basisschool.Belgium, Diegem: Kluwer.:
Wolters-Plantyn
Jones, L. & Allebone, B. (2000).Differentiation. In V. Koshy, P. Ernest &
R. Casey (Eds). Mathematics for primary teachers (pp.196-209). London:
Routledge.
Murray, J. (2000). Mental mathematics. In V. Koshy, P.
Ernest & R. Casey (Eds). Mathematics for primary teachers (pp.158-171).
London: Routledge.
Papy, G. (1970), Mathématique moderne (1 et 2), Bruxelles:
Didier.
Perfetti, C. (1985), Reading ability. Oxford: University
Press.
Seys, J. & Van Biervliet, P. (1996).Vaardig splitsen van getallen: veel meer dan
inzicht.Resultaten van een
normeringsonderzoek [Partition sums: more than insight. Research results].Onderwijskrant, 94, 10-16.
Timmermans, R. (2005). Addition and subtraction strategies:
assessment and instruction. Nijmegen: Radboud University.
Treffers, A. (1991).Realistic mathematics education in The Netherlands 1980-1990. In L.
Streefland (Ed.), Realistic Mathematics Education in Primary School. Utrecht:
CD-b Press / Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht University.
Van der Heijden, M.K. (1993).Consistentie van aanpakgedrag.Een procesdiagnostisch onderzoek naar acht
aspecten van hoofdrekenen [Consistency of approach behavior.A process-assessment research into eight
aspects of mental arithmetic].Lisse,
The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitling.
Bijdrage 2
Kritiek van Raf Feys (vanaf 1989) op constructivistische & contextuele aanpak van het Nederlandse Freudenthal Instituut & van Amerikaanse Standards (1989) die in tal van landen tot wiskundeoorlog leid(de) (Commentaar: we begrijpen niet dat in de ZILL-leerplanvisie op het wiskundeonderwijs eveneens gepleit wordt voor overschakeling op het contextuele en ontdekkend wiskundeonderwijs)
In ons boek Rekenen tot honderd ((Wolters-Plantyn, 1998) en elders maakten we een uitvoerige analyse van de nefaste aspecten van het realistisch reken-wiskundeonderwijs. We vermelden in deze bijdrage enkel een aantal conclusies.
Terloops Als kritiek op rekenonderwijs van het Freudenthal Instituut publiceerden we in maart 1993 de bijdrage 'Laat het rekenen tot honderd niet in het honderd lopen' in het Nederlandse Tijdschrift 'PanamaPost '( Tijdschrift voor nascholing en onderzoek van het reken-wiskundeonderwijs'). We wilden hiermee onze Noorderburen wakker schudden.
Het FI maakte vanaf 1980 een karikatuur van het rekenonderwijs anno 1970 en bestempelde het ten onrechte als louter mechanistisch. Het is nochtans bekend dat de meeste mensen vroeger vlot konden rekenen. De Nederlandse methode Functioneel Rekenen van Reynders was bijvoorbeeld een degelijke methode, gebaseerd op een evenwichtige visie.
Volgens de klassieke vakdidactiek berust degelijk rekenen op inspiratie (inzicht), maar evenzeer en nog meer op transpiratie (inoefenen, automatiseren en memoriseren, parate kennis). Het inzicht in bewerkingen e.d. is al bij al niet zo moeilijk als de Freudenthalers het voorstellen en vergt (in de lagere leerjaren) veel minder tijd dan het vlot leren berekenen. Voor het begrip optellen en aftrekken moet men niet eindeloos in klas autobusje spelen à la Jan van den Brink. Naast de weg van kennen naar kunnen, is er ook de weg van kunnen naar kennen. Van Kunnen naar kennen was overigens de naam van de Vlaamse methode van Schneider rond 1950. De misleidende en kunstmatige tegenstelling tussen realistisch en mechanistisch rekenonderwijs doet geen recht aan de klassieke vakdidactiek en de term realistisch kreeg alle mogelijke betekenissen (toepassen op realiteit, zich realiseren, enz.)
De sterke kanten van het klassieke rekenen belandden zo in de verdomhoek. Deze verlossende opstelling is inherent voor mensen die vrijgesteld worden voor de permanente revolutie van het onderwijs en ook voor de rest van hun leven vrijgesteld willen blijven. Vrijgestelden pakken bijna steeds uit met het verlossingsparadigma i.p.v. vernieuwing in continuïteit.
Het FI onderschat het grote belang van het vlot en gestandaardiseerd hoofdrekenen, het vlot en gestandaardiseerd cijferen, het vlot en gestandaardiseerd metend rekenen en het grote belang van de parate kennis (tafelproducten, formules voor berekening van oppervlakte en inhoud, standaardmaten en metriek stelsel voor metend rekenen ) Vlot, vaardig en geautomatiseerd rekenen en parate kennis is maar mogelijk bij standaardisering en veel oefenen. Het aantal deelstappen moet hierbij zo klein mogelijk zijn omdat het werkgeheugen beperkt is.
De Freudenthalers overbeklemtonen het flexibel hoofdrekenen en flexibel cijferen volgens eigenwijze en/of context- of opgave-gebonden berekeningswijzen. Ze noemen dit ten onrechte handig en beschouwen de andere aanpakken ten onrechte als onhandig en mechanistisch. Ze verzwijgen verder dat zulk flexibel rekenen op de rug zit van het gestandaardiseerd rekenen. Enkel wie vlot -40 kan berekenen, beseft eventueel dat hij -39 ook vlot kan berekenen via eerst -40 en vervolgens + 1. Zwakkere leerlingen hebben echter toch nog problemen met zulke eenvoudige vormen van flexibel rekenen.
Zo worden de klassieke tafels van vermenigvuldiging ook niet meer ingeoefend en opgedreund en dit in groep 4. Ze worden ten onrechte verschoven naar groep 5 en er vervangen door flexibele berekeningswijzen op basis van eigenschappen. Leerlingen berekenen dan bijvoorbeeld 8 x 7 via 4 x 7 = 28, 8 x 7= 28 + 28 = 56. Ze maken veel fouten en de berekening vergt te veel tijd. De tafels van x worden klassiek in het 2de leerjaar aangeleerd. De meeste leerlingen beseffen ook al groep 3 dat 7 x 8 neerkomt op 7 x een groep van 8. Dit inzicht is voldoende.
Flexibel eigenschapsrekenen wordt pas in hogere leerjaren gepresenteerd en in de context van grotere opgaven als 13 x 7 waar het toepassen van de eigenschappen een zekere handigheid oplevert.
*Kritiek op constructivistische uitgangspunten:
- te veel constructie van individuele leerling(en), te weinig wiskunde als cultuurproduct, onderschatting van het socio-culturele karakter en functionele betekenis van de wiskunde. Te veel respect voor de eigen constructies en aanpakken van de leerling: dit bemoeilijkt het leren van korte en vaste berekeningswijzen, de begeleiding, de verinnerlijking en automatisatie van de rekenvaardigheden. Dit bevordert ook de fixatie van de leerling op eigen, informele constructies en primitieve rekenwijzen. - eenzijdig bottom-up problem solving, overbeklemtoning van zelfontdekte en informele begrippen en berekeningswijzen - te weinig sturing en structurering door de leerkracht, te weinig guided construction of knowledge. -te weinig stapsgewijze opgebouwde leerlijnen.
Totaal overbodige invoering van het kolomsgewijs rekenen dat de leerlingen zowel in de war brengt inzake het gewone hoofdrekenen als inzake het cijferen dat normaliter ook bij het begin van groep 5 zou moeten starten. Bij het aftrekken met tekorten b.v. wordt het een poespas.
Het traditioneel cijferen wordt verwaarloosd en de Freudenthalers introduceren een totaal gekunsteld alternatief dat niets meer te maken heeft met wiskundig cijferen gebaseerd op splitsing van getal in honderdtallen, enz. Het cijferend delen verwordt tot een soort langdradig hoofdrekenen op basis van schattend aftrekken van happen. Dit is een aanpak met veel deelresultaten die langdradig is en die zich niet laat automatiseren zodat het cijferend delen nooit een vaardigheid kan worden.
Onderwaardering voor het klassieke metend rekenen en voor de klassieke meetkunde met inbegrip van de kennis van basisformules voor de berekening van oppervlakte en inhoud.
Te veel en te lang voor-wiskunde, te lang rekenen in contexten als doel op zich; te veel contextualiseren (context- of situatiegebonden rekenwijzen e.d.), te weinig decontextualiseren. Zo worden het vakmatig rekenen en het cijferen afgeremd door binding aan een specifieke context. Een voorbeeld. Door de binding van de aftrekking aan een lineaire context en aan een berekening op de getallenlijn (een traject van 85 km, al 27 km afgelegd, hoeveel km moet ik nog afleggen) wordt het basisinzicht in aftrekken als wegnemen vertroebeld en stimuleert men de leerlingen om aftrekken eenzijdig te interpreten als aanvullend optellen: 85 - 27 wordt dan: 27 + 3 + 10 +10+10+10 + 10 + 5; en achteraf moet men dan nog die vele tussenuitkomsten optellen.
Geen evenwichtige en uitgewerkte visie op vraagstukken: te veel kritiek op klassieke vraagstukken, te weinig valabele alternatieven in realistische publicaties en methoden. Te weinig toepassingen (vraagstukken) ook voor metend rekenen en te weinig moeilijke opgaven. We begrepen ook niet waarom de duidelijke term vraagstukken moest verdwijnen. De moeilijkheid bij veel context-vraagstukken ligt vaak eerder bij het onvoldoende kennen van de context (b.v. ervaring van parkeren met een auto in opgave over hoeveel autos op parking van 70 bij 50 meter), bij het feit dat de tekst te lang en te moeilijk is en bij het feit dat er te veel berekeningen ineens bij betrokken zijn.
Foutieve benadering van de aanschouwelijkheid en te lang aanschouwelijk werken. Fixatie van leerlingen op aanschouwelijke hulpmiddelen: de leerlingen mogen veel te lang gebruik maken van hulpmiddelen als getallenlijn, rekenrek Dit bevordert, het loskomen van de aanschouwelijke steun en het kort en handig uitrekenen De vele moeilijke (lange) voorstellingswijzen van berekeningen op rekenrek en getallenlijn en de vele stappen bemoeilijken een gestandaardiseerde en vlotte berekening.
*Kloof tussen idealistische theorie en de praktijk. In een klas met 20 leerlingen is het inspelen op individuele denkwijzen en berekeningswijzen niet haalbaar. Zwakke, maar ook betere leerlingen zijn de dupe. De voorstanders van de realistische aanpak begingen precies dezelfde fouten als de voorstanders van de moderne wiskunde destijds. Ze vervingen enkel het ene extreem door het andere. De hemelse (te abstracte) New Math werd vervangen door het andere extreem, door de aardse, contextgebonden en constructivistische aanpak die al te weinig aandacht heeft voor abstrahering en veralgemening en blijft steken in het stadium van de voorwiskunde. De tegenstanders werden verketterd. De kritiek werd doodgezwegen.1
Straffe uitspraken van Ferre Laevers - CEGO - over vrij initiatief in kleuteronderwijs
Straffe uitspraken van Ferre Laevers - CEGO - over vrij initiatief als centraal kenmerk van 'ervaringsgericht kleuteronderwijs- EGKO - en die in sterke mate het Ontwikkelingsplan voor het kleuteronderwijs van 1998 van het katholiek onderwijs inspireerden.
Vanaf de start van het EGKO hebben we expliciet afstand genomen van die eenzijdige en o.i. slimplistische visie.
Vrij initiatief: kroniek van uitspraken
Binnen het Ervaringsgericht kleuteronderwijs werd lange tijd alle heil verwacht van het vrij initiatief. Laevers' basisstelling luidde: kinderen moeten bijna moment na moment individueel kunnen bepalen wat ze gaan doen. Je moet kleuters laten kiezen, het liefst niet uit vier maar uit een tiental speelhoeken.
Laevers propageerde die stelling vanaf 1967 en dit was ook nog een centrale gedachte in zijn Leuvense cursus van 2002.
Laevers koos in 1976 voor EGKO waarin de 'child development-aanpak', de kind-materiaal interactie en de spontane exploratiedrang centraal stonden. Het EGKO-leerproces berustte vooral op het handelen met - en exploreren van de materiële omgeving en de interactie hierbij tussen de kinderen. De invloed van de ontwikkelingspsycholoog Jean Piaget was hier sterk voelbaar. In onze scriptie over Piaget schreven we in 1969: "De visie van Piaget slaat vooral aan bij mensen die voorstander zijn van 'discovery- and activity-learning en heel weinig bij voorstanders van een (kleuter)school waarin de verbale en intentionele interactie tussen leerkracht en leerling(en) een centrale rol vervult."
We illustreren dit een.
.(1)In 1983 onderzocht Laevers de praktijk bij ervaringsgerichte kleuterleidsters en betreurde dat zelfs de meest ervaringsgerichte juffen geregeld bepaalde hoeken afsloten, dat er vaak maar 4 of 5 verschillende activiteiten tegelijk aan de gang waren, dat kleuters soms onder zachte dwang naar bepaalde activiteiten geloodst werden, dat de meeste juffen niet duldden dat kinderen steeds in dezelfde speelhoeken bezig waren (F. Laevers e.a.,Onderzoek EGKO, Pedagogisch Tijdschrift, 1985, nr. 4, p. 200-213).
In 1993 maakte Laevers een vrij optimistische en triomfalistische inventaris op van 17 jaar EGKO. Hij poneerde dat het vrij initiatief centraal stond: "Het EGKO heeft aangetoond dat in een kleuterklas van 25 en meer kinderen het praktisch haalbaar is de individuele kleuter grotendeels zelfstandig te laten beslissen over de aard, de duur en de frequentie van zijn leeractiviteiten. Sinds 1980 brak het tijdperk aan van een geïndividualiseerde organisatievorm waarin het handelen van de leidster echt wordt gestuurd vanuit de behoeften van het individuele kind" (Pedagogische Periodiek, oktober 1993).
Verder lazen we: "De kinderen kunnen (bijna) moment na moment bepalen wat ze gaan doen. De kinderen weten wat goed is vanuit hun innerlijke groeidrang. Begeleide activiteiten mogen niet als verplichte activiteiten gepresenteerd worden."
(2)In augustus 1995
schreef Laevers een bijdrage over het 'vrij initiatief' in 'Kleuters en IK' waarin hij poneerde dat het vrij initiatief als basisprincipe untouchable moest blijven: "het kind kiest in principe datgene wat zijn/haar ontwikkeling het meest ten goede komt". De toevoeging 'in principe' wees wel op een kleine toegeving. Voorheen schreef Laevers: "Elk kind kiest 'precies' wat het het meest nodig heeft in zijn ontwikkeling" (Kleuters en Ik, aug. 1986, p. 13).
(3) 1996
In zijn slottoespraak op de viering van 20 jaar EGO in 1996 stelde Laevers nog het 'vrij initiatief' als belangrijk criterium voorop. Hij poneerde: "Een opvallend kenmerk van EGO-kleutergroepen zo blijkt uit onderzoek was dat de kinderen 62 à 72 % van de netto-klastijd kunnen kiezen tussen vier of meer activiteiten. We ontdekten dat de vrijheid werkt! Ze leidt tot intensere activiteit" (Viering 20 jaar EGO, Kleuters en IK, jan. 1997).
(4) Ontwikkelingsplan 1998
Het is bekend dat ook het zgn.. Ontwikkelingsplan van het katholiek onderwijs van 1998 ook in sterke mate door de visie van Laevers was geïnspireerd.
(5) Universitaire cursus 2002
Ook nog in zijn universitaire cursus van 2002 beschrijft Laevers het 'vrij kleuterinitiatief' en de 'milieuverrijking' als de twee belangrijke didactische principes.
Hij schreef: "In principe kunnen kinderen voor een groot deel van de dag vrij uit een reeks mogelijkheden kiezen. Er wordt hen geen activiteit opgedrongen. Ze mogen zich over een lange periode (dat kan zich over weken uitstrekken) met eenzelfde activiteit bezighouden. Activiteiten die hen niet boeien mogen ze stopzetten . De vrees dat kinderen het zich gemakkelijk maken is ongegrond: er is een echte groeidrang in hen aanwezig. Als volwassene kan men het individueel ontwikkelingsproces van kinderen niet zomaar propageren. Vrij initiatief maakt het mogelijk dat kinderen langs een eigen weg ontwikkelen" (p. 175).
(6) Interview van 2006
In een interview in 2006 stelde Laevers plots: dat het 'vrij initiatief' al sinds 1985 (!) niet langer centraal stond binnen het EGO. Laevers omschrijft de koerswijziging als volgt: "De centrale EGO-boodschap luidt nu dat welke aanpak je als leerkracht ook hanteert, het doel altijd moet zijn dat het welbevinden en de betrokkenheid van kinderen versterkt worden " (Kim Herbots, EGO wordt 30 jaar, De Morgen, 19.04.06). Laevers verantwoordde deze 'ommezwaai' aldus: "Vrij initiatief. Kinderen mochten plots kiezen wat ze wilden doen. Veel leerkrachten waren bang dat hun klas in chaos zou ontaarden. Sinds 1985 richtten we ons discours meer op de resultaten.
Verzet professoren & Dirk Van Damme (OESO) tegen neomanie & ontwikkelingsgericht leren in debat over eidndtermen & ZILL-leerplanvisie
Recent verzet Vlaamse professoren& Dirk Van Damme tegen neomanie &
ontscholing in debat over nieuwe eindtermen, in ZILL-onderwijsvisie, in
prietpraat van boegbeeld Kris Van den Branden
1Kritiek van Dirk Van Damme (OESO) & prof.
Wim Van den Broeck (VUB)
Prof. Wim Van den Broeck VUB betreurt al een paar jaar
dat belangrijke onderwijsactoren (binnen Departement, VLOR,
onderwijskoepels...) kiezen voor 'leerlinggerichte' of 'zelfontdekkende'
leermethoden waarbij men ervan uitgaat dat kinderen zelfstandig hun eigen
doelen in handen kunnen en moeten nemen. We moeten ook ophouden met het
relativeren van kennisaspecten. Als basis voor degelijk onderwijs moeten we de
verstandelijke vorming van alle leerlingen centraal stellen. Hij voegde eraan
toe datde kansarme en zwakkere
leerlingen het meest de dupe zijn van zon aanpak en dat precies ook daardoor
de GOK-projecten al te weinig rendeerden.
Dirk Van Damme
(OESO) drukte - op 9 juni j.l. zijn grote bezorgdheid uit. Hij schreef: Het
debat over de nieuwe eindtermen en leerplannen gaat voorbij aan de essentie,
namelijk dat veel uitspraken over eindtermen e.d. getuigen van vandaag
achterhaalde onderwijskundige concepten: constructivisme, overtrokken
pedagogisch optimisme,te radicale
verwerping van kennis, naïeve visie op abstractie. Naast een algemene
niveaudalingvreest hijdat daardoor ook het aantal toppers verder
zal afnemen.
In Laisser-faire-mentaliteit bedreigt kwaliteit Vlaams
onderwijsdrukteVan Damme nog meer zijn grote bezorgdheid
uit. Hij schreef o.a.: Als we in naam van gelijke kansen en welbevinden geen
hoge eisen meer durven te stellen aan leerlingen, brengen we ons onderwijs in
gevaar, . Met enthousiaste leraren die de vonk kunnen doen overslaan, is een
veeleisende school het beste voor alle leerlingen( DS 25.08/.2014).
Van Damme betreurt
verder het in vraag stellen van alles wat te maken heeftmetevalueren. Punten, rapporten, attesten... zijn nochtans belangrijk; ze
staan voor slagen en mislukken, bepalen studie- en beroepsloopbanen, geven
houvast aan ouders, legitimeren de autoriteit van leraren, bepalen de
kwaliteitsperceptie van scholen. Maar al jaren is er een tegenbeweging in
onderwijsland om het evalueren te milderen. Het pas gepubliceerde boek van
Roger Standaert de man die jarenlang in de Guimardstraat en later op het
departement Onderwijs de pedagogische vernieuwing uitdroeg tegen de
cijfercultuur in het onderwijs, blaast het debat nu nieuw leven in. Standaert
pleit tegen de cijfercultus in onderwijs en voor een zachtere manier van
evalueren, zonder punten en eerder gericht op stimuleren en motiveren dan op
bestraffen (DS 24 augustus 2014). Het boek doet onmiddellijk stof opwaaien en
zal ongetwijfeld meegesleurd worden in het ideologische debat dat in Vlaanderen
sinds kort over onderwijs gevoerd wordt.
Pleiten voor een
softe evaluatiecultuur omwille van het welbevinden van leerlingen is eigenlijk
zeggen dat we in onderwijs niet zulke hoge eisen mogen stellen aan leerlingen.
Toen ik nog niet zo lang geleden pedagogische begeleiders hoorde zeggen dat ze
in naam van gelijke kansen leraren de raad gaven wat minder streng te zijn en
minder hoge eisen te stellen, besefte ik met enig afgrijzen hoe sterk deze
pedagogische visie in onderwijs had wortel geschoten. Ik huiver hiervan, en
zeker als gelijke kansen als argument wordt opgevoerd.
Ook de Nederlandse
prof. Paul Kirschner hekeltde vele
pedagogische hypes. Zo stelde hij:De aanhangers van het nieuwe leren
willen doen geloven: gooi al het oude weg en we gaan het nu op een nieuwe
manier doen. De leraar heeft geen instructiefunctie meer, maar alleen een
coach-functie. En je gaat geen kennis aanbieden, want ze moeten alles zelf
vinden en ontdekken. Ik heb grote problemen met de veronderstelling
dat alles wat we daarvoor deden, niet meer goed zou zijn. Volgens Kirschner
gaat het bij het zgn nieuwe leren veelal om pedagogische hypes die vaak zelfs
strijdig zijn met wat we allang weten over de cognitieve architectuur en de
werking van het geheugen e.d.
2Docenten hoger onderwijs waarschuwen:Schrijf onderwijs old school niet te
snel af
In het opiniestuk
Schrijf onderwijs old school niet te snel af (De Tijd, 7 juni) waarschuwden
vier hogeschooldocenten: Een stroom van hippe termen als generieke,
contentvrije 21st century skills, probleemoplossend werken, kritisch denken,
creativiteit mondt uit in het al even hippe problem-basedlearning, flipping
the classroom, inquiry-learning. Directe instructie en eenvoudige kennisoverdracht
zijn, u raadt het, old school. Deze manier van denken wordt onder druk van
invloedrijke opiniemakers zonder veel kritische reflectie overgenomen. Het
klinkt ook allemaal stoer en cool en vernieuwend, maar wat zeggen de cijfers?
Ze leggen vervolgens uit dat die hypes haak staan op wat de cognitieve
leerpsychologie en PISA-2015 ons leert.
De opstellers van de
opiniebijdrage: Bart Derre (lector vakgroep Commerciële Economie &
Ondernemen HoGent, Luc Vandingenen (algemeen directeur BTI Studios nv, coach
keuzevak ondernemen en opleidingstraject ondernemen voor docenten HoGent),
Koen Smets (gastdocent en coach opleidingstraject ondernemen voor docenten
HoGent), en Mathieu Weggeman, hoogleraar TU/e, Faculteit Industrial Engineering
& Innovation Sciences.
3Recente oproep van negen professoren
Op 29 augustus namen
9 professoren afstand van de neomanie-geluiden in de opiniebijdrage "Geef
de klas terug aan de leraar in De Morgen:Christian Laes-UA, Rik
Torfs-KULeuven, Herman De Dijn KULeuven, Ann Dooms-VUB, Wouter Duyck- UGent,
Wim Van den Broeck-VUB) Toon Van Hal - KULeuven, Stijn Van Hamme -UGent -Guy
Vanheeswijck -UA.
Zo namen afstand van
het e ontwikkelingsgericht & ontdekkend leren dat de VLOR, het
ZILL-leerplanproject, prof. Vanden
Branden propageren. Volgens de professoren leidde ook het vaardigheidsgericht
onderwijs - al tot een flinke niveaudaling voor Frans e.d.
Ze hekelden ook het modieuze jargon als wiskunde . doen
werken waarmee prof. Kris van den Branden, OVSG uitpakt en die volgens hen
enkel nog tot nog grotere niveaudaling voor wiskunde e.d. zou leiden. Ze
spraken zich ook expliciet uit tegen de invoering van een nivellerendegemeenschappelijke eerste graad die de VLOR,
Boeve & Co nog steeds de scholen willen opleggen.
4Masschelein en Simons: pleidooi voorbehoud schools leren & tegen
ont-scholing
De Leuvense pedagogen Masschelein & Simons publiceerden
vorige week het boek De leerling centraal in het onderwijs? Grenzen van
personalisering(Acco, Leuven).Ze wijzen er op dat in het recente debat over
de eindtermen/leerplannen beleidsmakers, onderwijskoepels e.d. uitpakken met
de leerling centraal, ontwikkelingsgericht onderwijs,
gepersonaliseerd/gedifferentieerd leren, open leertrajecten Dit wijst volgens
hen op fundamentele verschuivingen: van een onderwijsinstelling naar een
leeromgeving, van disciplineren naar monitoren/begeleiden, van normalisering
(algemene normen) naar personalisering. Daardoor komt het schools leren, de
klassieke identiteit van de school, de schoolgrammatica in het gedrang.
De kerngedachte
luidt: "De uitdaging is duidelijk: de leerling meer centraal plaatsen komt
heel vaak neer op een minder centrale plaats van de school. Maar, zo vragen de
auteurs zich af, wat als dat ontscholen niet in het belang van de leerling
is? Wat als het de vorming, vrijheid, gelijkheid in het gedrang brengt?"
De auteurs vrezen dat leerlingen steeds meer worden aangesproken vanuit hun
verschillen, dan vanuit wat ze onderling gemeen hebben, en niet langer vanuit
algemene normen. Het institutionele perspectief dat vandaag ook sterk aanwezig
is (in traktaten over het onderwijs van de toekomst) gaat ervan uit dat de
manier waarop we vandaag het onderwijs organiseren, namelijk gezamenlijk leren
binnen een vastgelegde tijd en plaats de school als instelling niet meer
van deze tijd is .
Simons en Masschelein blijven opteren voor het behoud van de
klassieke schoolgrammatica, voor schoolsleren: Het schools (klassikaal)
leren is b.v. tijd - en plaatsafhankelijk leren - in een bepaalde tijd en in
klas een vastgelegd curriculum leren en zo onderscheidt het zich ook van open
leertrajecten e.d. Het actuele pleidooi voor gepersonaliseerde vormen van leren
belooft een soortbevrijding van de
(algemene) norm. Maar als je bekijkt hoe dat
concreet georganiseerd wordt, dan moeten we ons afvragen
welk effect dat zal hebben voor de leerlingen. In een recent rapport wees ook
de Nederlandse Onderwijsraad op de gevaren verbonden metslogans alsde leerling centraal en personaliserenvan het onderwijs i.p.v. onderwijs als een
collectief gebeuren.
Zon gepersonaliseerd
leren is moeilijk te organiseren en onderzoek wijst uit dat sterke
individualisatie binnen de klas tot niveaudaling van alle leerlingen leidt. De
Engelse onderwijsminister Nick Gibbdrukt het zo uit: The British education system puts too much emphasis
on individuals and ignores problems of the collective.- en mede daardoor kende
het een sterke niveaudaling.
BijlageHaaks op beleid in Engeland, Frankrijk
...die schoolgrammatica in ere
herstellen
De beleidsmensen in Engeland zagen de voorbije jaren enkel
heil in het terug herwaarderen en invoeren van de klassieke schoolgrammatica:
duidelijke leerplannen met leerstofpunten per leerjaar, herwaardering van
basiskennis en basisvaardigheden & vakdisciplines, gebruik van degelijke
methodes/leerboeken, expliciete instructie, Zij spiegelen zich hierbij aan
landen die al lang hoog scoren voor PISA e.d. als Singapore, Finland Ze
verwijzen hierbij ook naar PISA-2015 die concludeerde dat landen met veel
expliciete instructie het hoogst scoorden. De Engelse beleidsmakers namen de
voorbije jaren expliciet afstand van de ontscholendeaanpakken die sinds het Plowden Report van
1957 binnendrongen in hun onderwijs. Ook mevrouw Plowden,de voorzitster bij de opstelling van dit
rapport, nam er radicaal afstand van.
De nieuwe Franse onderwijsminister Blanquerwil de basisgrammatica van effectief
onderwijs in ere herstellen. Hij beklemtoont het belang van basiskennis en
-vaardigheden, wil de eisen verhogen, enz. Hij neemt radicaal afstand van de
zgn. pédagogistes met hun progressieve opvattingen en neomanie die in
Frankrijk tot een sterke niveaudaling hebben geleid.
Gebruik van historische bronnen in Vlaams geschiedenis onderwijs : minder in 3de graad s.o.
Gebruik van historische bronnen in Vlaams geschiedenis
onderwijs : minder in 3de graad s.o.
Reasoning with and/or about sources? The use of primary
sources in Flemish secondary school history educationTijdschrift Historical encounters
Karel Van Nieuwenhuyse University of Leuven, Belgium Hanne
Roose University of Leuven, Belgium Kaat Wils University of Leuven, Belgium
Fien Depaepe University of Leuven, Belgium Lieven Verschaffel University of
Leuven, Belgium
Conclusies en enkele andere passages uit deze bijdrage
ABSTRACT: Working with sources in secondary school history
education has become a common practice over the last few decades. However,
researchers have concluded that teaching practices relating to the educational
use of sources cause difficulties. Teachers often only examine sources for/in
relation to their content, and tend to ignore author and context information in
the analysis of the source.
This paper reports on an empirical study focusing on how
primary sources are dealt with in Flemish secondary school history education,
in which the standards only make general reference to the use of sources. It
focuses on whether primary sources are used to prompt reasoning with and/or
about sources, and includes an examination of both the kind of primary sources
that are used, and the provided source and context information. 88 classroom
history lessons in the three stages of secondary education, involving 51
teachers, were observed and analyzed. Analysis shows that primary sources play
an important part in the lessons. Overall, 21% of all primary sources were used
for illustration, 55% to reason with sources and thus to foster students
substantive knowledge, and 24% to reason about and thus foster students
strategic knowledge. Important differences and similarities regarding the
educational use of primary sources between the three stages of secondary
education are also found, and further explained and discussed. KEYWORDS: Source
Analysis; Primary Sources; Secondary School Education; History Teaching.
Conclusion and discussion
This research investigated, for the three stages of
secondary school history education in Flanders, the educational use of primary
sources. More specifically, it examined whether they are used to encourage
reasoning with or about sources. It included the examination of the kind of
primary sources that are used (visual versus textual), the source and context
information accompanying sources, and the extent of corroboration. Eighty-eight
classroom observations, involving 51 teachers and including 322 primary
sources, were analyzed. A first finding is that primary sources played an
important part in the 88 classroom observations.
This clearly reflects the importance the Flemish history
standards attribute to the use of sources and the prominence of sources in
history textbooks, and also reflects developments in history education in other
countries. The vast majority of primary sources present in the 88 lessons were
visual, which confirms Kleppes finding (2010) for Dutch history textbooks.
Looking at the differences between stages, it is notable
that in the first stage (graad), significantly fewer primary sources were
included in the lessons, on average, than the second and third stage. On the
other hand, this stage involved comparatively more visual sources, which can be
related to the fact that in the 7th grade prehistory is addressed, a period in
which textual sources did not exist. Another explanation might perhaps be found
in the perception by teachers of young students learning capacities. Teachers
might consider visual sources to be easier to deal with for younger students
than textual sources. The standards do not give any indication about this,
however.
Regarding the educational use of sources, the analysis shows
that, overall, 21% of all primary sources were used for illustration, 55% for
reasoning with sources and hence fostering students substantive knowledge, and
24% to foster students strategic knowledge. This finding roughly parallels
previous history educational research in Flanders, in which it was found that
70% of the teachers paid attention in their examination of sources to the
interpretative and constructed nature of historical knowledge, and hence to
reasoning about sources (Van Nieuwenhuyse et al. 2015a).
In comparison with
other international research, the finding that a quarter of all primary sources
were used to stimulate reasoning about sources, is nevertheless remarkable,
since it constitutes a comparatively high number. Furthermore, our research did
not include the analysis of the use of secondary sources. This means that the
number of teachers who also encourage reasoning about sources in general could
even be higher. In line with earlier international research (McCrum, 2013;
Seixas, 1998; van Hover & Yeager, 2003a; 2003b; 2007), it was found that
teachers with a maximum of three years of teaching experience and hence still
in the early stages of teaching, did not engage with the constructed nature of
history and with reasoning about sources. They used primary sources especially
to impart contentrelated substantive knowledge to students.
How can we explain the comparatively significant amount of
attention given by Flemish history teachers to reasoning about sources, and
hence to revealing the constructed nature of historical knowledge? The Flemish
history standards do encourage the use of sources, albeit not in a very
disciplinary way. In the first stage, for instance, they encourage the
application of the historical method, without elaborating on that very much,
while in the second and third stage, students are supposed to build upon this,
while dealing with sources in a more self-reliant way. The rather vague
character of the standards guidelines is also reflected with respect to the
notion of corroboration, for instance. The standards only mention this in terms
of students should be able to compare information, but do not further
elaborate on this notion. This coincides with our finding that corroboration of
sources was almost completely absent from our data set.
A similar observation can be made about the strategies of
sourcing and contextualization, which are not explicitly mentioned in the
standards. We found that two-thirds of all primary sources were provided with
some source information. Most of this sourcing information, however, appeared
to be very basic, and lacked sufficient explanation. Information about the
genesis of sources was provided in around 20% of all primary sources in each
stage.
The standards failure to make an explicit connection
between source and context information on the one hand and educational use on
the other hand is clearly reflected in our research. In the analysis of
sources, the source and context information is in many cases not related to the
critical analysis of the source. This often results in a use of the source,
merely as an illustration, or limited to reason with. On the other hand, the
finding remains that a significant amount of attention is given by Flemish
history teachers to reasoning about sources.
This shows that several history teachers in Flanders are
acquainted with the constructed nature of historical knowledge, and apparently
consider it important to at least occasionally touch upon it in their classroom
practice. They might be encouraged, in doing so, by history teachers
continuing professional development initiatives in Flanders.
For during the last decade, many of these initiatives have
paid a lot of attention to concrete teaching strategies oriented towards
fostering students strategic knowledge. The above-mentioned practices relating
to sourcing, contextualization and educational use of sources do not just
reflect the standards.
The influence of
history textbooks can be discerned here as well. For, as mentioned earlier,
Flemish textbooks offer many sources and accompanying questions, yet they often
only provide some basic source information (mostly author and date), and do not
further contextualize them. Most of the questions are purely content-related
and hence oriented towards reasoning with sources. Such questions are certainly
legitimate, but, as scholars in the field of history education emphasize, it is
also important to pay attention to the source itself, and what it does or does
not do in short to also reason about sources (VanSledright & Limón,
2006).
In order to develop a criterialist stance (Maggioni et al.,
2009; Maggioni, 2010), students need to understand that sources are never a
mirror of the past, are always biased, are not a collection of facts, and never
provide a complete and objective account of a past event. In this respect, it
is absolutely necessary to include the source and context information in the
analysis and examination of the source, either by providing this information in
advance or by including it in reflective questions addressing its influence on
the representation of the source.
For the most part, however, Flemish history textbooks tend
to cling to realist approaches of historical practice rather than perspectivist
ones. Regarding the educational use of primary sources, we found several
differences between the three stages of secondary education, especially between
the first stage and the two other. Firstly, fewer primary sources occur in the
first stage; secondly, the average time spent on them in the lesson is higher;
thirdly, students are more actively engaged in analyzing them, meaning that
sources are more accompanied by questions, in the first stage; fourthly,
compared with each other in terms of percentages, sources are used more to
foster students strategic knowledge in the first stage. The examination of the
reliability and impartiality of primary sources especially occurs in the first
stage, in line with the Flemish history standards, requiring that teachers
teach the students to apply the historical method, via a set of specific
questions.
In this respect, it needs to be noted thathistory is not treated as a separate subject
until secondary education in Flanders. In primary education, it is part of a
larger subject called world orientation, to which other disciplines such as
geography and biology belong too. The use of sources is hence only addressed in
general terms here: pupils must be able to consult sources according to their
level. They should also be able to distinguish fact from opinion.
As a result, only from the first stage of secondary
education on can a profound instructional process of learning how to deal with
primary sources in history be developed. In order to do this, teachers select a
small number of primary sources, which they subsequently explore and
investigate extensively, together with their students.
The focus in the first stage really is on whether a primary
source is reliable and impartial. Questions seldom go beyond those notions. One
might perhaps have expected that reasoning about sources would have been
elaborated on and taught more extensively in the subsequent second and third
stages, especially since from the second stage onwards, teachers might have
(second stage) and certainly have (third stage) a masters degree in history. A
masters degree is of course not conclusive evidence of superior competence,
but on the other hand it signifies teachers who are more likely to be
acquainted with historical research and the use of sources. However, such
further elaboration of and attention to reasoning about sources occurs only
rarely. The analysis shows an increase in the number of primary sources present
in the lessons, but a decrease in reasoning about sources: from 46% of all
sources in the first stage, to 19% in the second and 23% in the third stage.
Given the finding that in the second, and certainly in the
third stage, more sources are used, but less time is spent on them, and less
questions are asked about them, it seems as if, contrary to the standards
requirements, history education becomes more teacher-centered instead of
student-centered (and stimulating self-reliance). This can be connected to the
intention of many Flemish history teachers, especially of those holding a
masters degree and hence teaching in the second and third stage, to pursue a
'complete' overview of history in terms of historical content.
Although the standards do not prescribe this, Flemish
history teachers indeed nevertheless tend to give priority to providing such a
'complete' historical overview as it is presented in most textbooks. For, even
though the time periods to be treated grow shorter from the first to the third
stage, the textbooks become significantly more extensive. Teachers aiming to
treat the complete textbook and fostering students substantive knowledge,
hence lack time to reason intensively about sources and foster students
strategic knowledge.Another possible
explanation, apart from the vagueness of the history standards with regard to
reasoning about sources, might be that teachers have the idea that students
have already learnt how to deal with sources in the first stage.
Teachers perhaps assume (as the example of the propaganda
poster from 1922 might indicate) that students automatically reason about a
source they are provided with, and therefore spend much less time on analyzing
them, and do not explicitly examine them in a strategic way. Thus they may be
convinced that they can focus on content through an almost exclusively
substantive use of a larger number of primary sources. Then again, by contrast,
some teachers may assume that the acquisition of strategic knowledge, beyond
determining whether a source is reliable and impartial, is too difficult for
students (Moisan, 2010), and this perception may explain why they avoid
addressing this area in the history class. However, existing research does not
support these assumptions. On the one hand, research shows that a sustained
effort is required to bring students to a criterialist stance in which they go
beyond their naïve ideas of sources as mirrors of the past, and start
considering them as interpretations that need to be critically analyzed (Nokes,
2010; 2011). On the other hand, research shows that such perseverancecan indeed bring students to a criterialist
stance (Britt & Aglinskas, 2002; De La Paz, 2005; Nokes at al., 2007;
Nokes, 2013; Reisman, 2012; Van Boxtel & Van Drie, 2012). It is not an easy
job, yet it is certainly not an impossible one either.
-------------
Introduction
Working with sources in secondary school history education
has become a common practice over the last few decades. From the 1980s onwards,
scholars in the field of history education started to stress the importance of
the use of sources, as a means of access to the past, especially in order to
foster students historical thinking skills (Barton & Levstik, 2004; Van
Drie & Van Boxtel, 2008). Students, it was argued, should gain an
understanding of how the past is examined and interpreted, and how history is
constructed through the critical analysis and interpretation of sources. Thus
history education should not only provide an understanding of the past, but
also focus on giving training in the skills needed to understand and examine
how representations of the past are based on the interpretation of sources
(Havekes et al., 2012; Wineburg et al., 2013). History education should not
only be about the transfer of substantive knowledge (Lee, 1983), but should
also develop students strategic knowledge (VanSledright & Limón, 2006).
According to Rouet (et al., 1996), students should be able to reason both with
and about sources. Reasoning with sources refers to the skills involved in
selecting information from sources and using this information to support a
claim about the past. Reasoning about sources concerns students skills at
critically assessing the value of information, whether or not in corroboration
with other sources, and the usefulness and limits of the source, recognizing
the authors perspective, and analyzing what sources do, while taking into
account the context in which the source was produced. Reasoning about sources
contributes to students understanding of history as an interpretative
construction, in short to their strategic knowledge. To include reasoning about
sources while reasoning with sources is important, since if the use of sources
is limited solely to reasoning with sources, students might consider them to be
mirrors of the past (Maggioni et al., 2009; Maggioni, 2010). Scholars in the
field of history education therefore conclude that direct contact with sources
is important in history education, but needs to be thoughtful, and to include
reasoning about sources (Seixas, 1993; Yilmaz, 2008).In this respect, Sam Wineburg (1991; 2001)
suggests three strategies to apply when analyzing sources in the history
classroom: sourcing, contextualization and corroboration. Students engage in
sourcing when they take into account the author of the source, when, where, why
and for whom it was produced, and the texts genre, while assessing and
evaluating the source content and its potential value in answering a research
question. Contextualization is an activity in which students assess sources
within their broader historical and societal context. Corroboration is employed
to compare multiple texts on the same event, to look for similarities and
contradictions, and so to determine the reliability of texts, and to construct
historical interpretations.Starting
from this theoretical framework, this paper reports on an empirical study of
how sources are dealt with in secondary school history education in Flanders,
the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium. We analyze to what extent students have to
reason with and/or about sources. For practical reasons, the research is
limited to the analysis of the use of primary sources. Primary sources are,
contrary to secondary ones, sources stemming from the time period under study
in the history classroom. The paper starts with a short introduction on how
history is approached and what use of sources is prescribed in history
education in Flanders. The second section consists of a presentation of
existing international research on the use of sources in secondary school
history education. This section is followed by a brief sketch of the data
collection and research methodology, including a presentation of the analysis
instrument that was used in this study. In the following sections, the results
of the empirical study are presented and discussed. The history standards are less focused on a
strict demarcation of curriculum contents than on the acquisition of skills and
attitudes. Concerning the content, the standards do not prescribe any specific
content matter. They prescribe that the period of Prehistory, Ancient History
and Classical Antiquity (until ca 500) should be treated in the 1st stage, the
Ancien Régime (ca 500ca 1800) in the 2nd stage, while the 3rd stage should be
devoted to the period from ca 1750 to the present. In each stage, aspects of
political, economic, social and cultural history should be touched upon. The
focus is on Western history, with some specific attention to the national past
and the requirement to study at least one non-Western society in depth in each
grade. In relation to the skills, the main aim is to make students proficient
in the use of subject-specific (problem solving) methods. A fundamental part of
this is the critical examination of sources (Flemish Ministry of Education and
Training, 2000a).In general, the standards
attribute great importance to the use of sources, and address both reasoning
with and reasoning about sources, without elaborating on them in detail. The
standards distinguish four steps in dealing with sources: (1) collecting
historical information material, (2) questioning historical information
material, (3) historical reasoning, and (4) historical reporting. They address
reasoning with sources, stating that students should be able to select
information from various sources in an effective manner, in order to answer a
historical research question. Reasoning about sources comes to the fore when
they state that students must also be capable of approaching this information
in a critical manner that also shows awareness of multiple viewpoints. In the
1st stage, students must analyze simple historical information in a critical
way, via specific questions (Flemish Ministry of Education and Training,
2000c). In the 2nd stage, students must deduce, compare, structure, synthesize
and communicate information, via questions and assignments. In the 3rd stage,
students should operate on selfreliant bases. The guidelines regarding the
strategic use of sources are rather vague, and do not go beyond the
above-mentioned general terms. Reasoning about sources is not made concrete.
The need to apply strategies such as sourcing and contextualization is not made
explicit, for instance; nor are specific approaches to reasoning about sources
provided. It hence seems as if the standards consider the acquisition of
skills, which include the use of sources, mainly in terms of instigating
student-centered and student-activating teaching methods. They encourage these
methods rather than instilling the fostering of epistemological reflection
about the nature of historical knowledge. However, the way in which history teachers
shape their actual classroom practice is not only determined or influenced by
standards. Textbooks also play a role. Teachers tend to rely, to a greater or a
lesser extent, on textbooks in preparing and giving their lessons. Boutonnet
(2013), discussing research on history textbooks, concludes that these books
certainly occupy an important place in teachers didactical choices. Based on
his own research with Canadian history teachers, he concludes that the most
important role they ascribe to history textbooks consists of providing visual
and textual sources. This is reflected, he argues, in their practice, since the
participating teachers indicate that they use the textbooks, apart from the
learning text, mostly for their primary sources.
Even though no systematic research has been conducted into
the way Flemish secondary school history textbooks deal with primary sources,
our firm impression is that those textbooks mainly lead teachers towards an
educational use in terms of reasoning with sources. Firstly, the textbooks
support teachers in activating their students, by providing many sources
accompanied by questions. A large majority of these questions are, however,
purely content-related. Suggestions involving reasoning about sources, and
hence instigating epistemological reflection, seem to be far less common. The
context in which primary sources were produced is for instance rarely discussed;
the name of the author and the date of the source are mentioned, without any
further explanation. Furthermore, this context is almost never included in the
questioning. Secondly, the strategy of corroboration is only very rarely
applied. Reasoning about sources mostly comes to the fore in questions related
to the application of what is called the historical method. The latter,
corresponding to the standards requirement of critical analysis of historical
information, concerns a fixed set of questions such as who produced the source,
where and when, on which information did the author lean in making the sources,
why did the author produce the source, and did the author have reasons to
construct a subjective account? These questions relate to the strategy of
sourcing. Their aim is to determine the reliability and impartiality of a
source, or, in the words of a Flemish textbook, to determine to what extent a
historical source is "reliable, impartial, complete and thus useful"
(Van de Voorde, 2008, 197). In limiting the examination of sources to the
above-mentioned questions, textbooks fail to encourage reflection on the
concept of reliability, by showing, for instance, that subjectivity and
untrustworthiness are not synonyms. Every source is to a certain extent
subjective. Moreover, the reliability of a source is not inherent to the source
itself, but is related to the questions one asks (Ashby, 2011; Counsell, 2011).
The textbooks do not seem to touch upon the fact that the usefulness of a
source depends on the research question in respect of which it is analyzed. In
short, when paying explicit attention to disciplinary methodology, Flemish
textbooks tend to cling to rather straightforward, so-called realist
approaches of historical practice rather than instilling nuanced reasoning
about sources and reflection on the constructed character of history.The above impressions are not exclusively
Flemish. An important conclusion from international research is that the
interpretative and constructed nature of historical knowledge is rarely
explicitly dealt with in history textbooks. Instead, these often reinforce
students naïve ideas about historical knowledge and the role of sources in the
construction of it (Wineburg, 1991, referring to Crismore, 1984). Especially in
educational systems where the interpretative nature of historical knowledge is
not an explicit part of the history curriculum, as is for instance the case in
French and Catalonian curricula, history textbooks hardly ever discuss the
issue, and deal with sources correspondingly (Le Marec, 2011; Pagès &
Santisteban, 2011; Van Nieuwenhuyse, 2016). Tutiaux-Guillon (2006) noticed the
strength of the belief in French secondary history education that the
historical truth can be reached. History textbooks, for example, present
history as a finished, completed product. Scientific issues and controversies
are not addressed, nor are historians and their (possibly divergent)
interpretations of the past mentioned. Sources are mostly used in a
lecturing-learning way of teaching, requiring little intellectual effort from
students, since the answers and conclusions regarding the sources are fixed.
Sources tend not to be contextualized, and are mostly examined for their
content, in order to gather factual knowledge, and hence to reason with
sources. Seixas (2000) also notes that historiographical openings towards
students are rarely made; history is most often presented as a closed and
finished product. One notable exception is English history education, wherein reasoning
about sources through the study of interpretations of the past to understand
and explain how and why the past has been interpreted in different ways in the
period subsequent to the period under study became a key component of the
history curriculum as early as 1991 (Chapman, 2011; Counsell, 2011). According
to Haydn (2011), textbooks have undergone significant changes since then. They
now pay a lot of attention to strategic knowledge (Van Nieuwenhuyse, 2016).
Dit is op EarthlyMatters herblogd.