🚀 go-pugleaf

     It is no tradgedy that an idea be skillfully attacked,
     only that it is poorly defended.

WEED
1.a. A plant considered undesirable, unattractive, or troublesome,
especially one growing where it is not wanted, as in a garden.
  b. Rank growth of such plants.
2. A water plant, especially seaweed.
3. The leaves or stems of a plant as distinguished from the seeds.
4. Something useless, detrimental, or worthless, especially an animal unfit for
      breeding.

     R. Lee Blankenship-Brown writes that I used "... anecdotal evidence in
[my] diatribe." Let me address the issue of anecdotal evidence first.  I
will come back to the issue of calling my posting a "diatribe" later.
     My use of anecdotes was intended to illustrate my points, that is, to
clarify.  I am well aware that the use of anecdotal evidence as a means of
proof leads to what Myers (1983) first called "base rate fallacy".  If you
want to see data and evidence, choose your weapon:  qualitative research,
quantitative research, experimental designs, quasi-experimental designs,
whatever.  How about bibliographies at ten paces?
     I will say that I don't have a commitment to any pedagogical position.
If you can show me that there is a better way to prepare future teachers,
I'll go with it.  On the other hand, my experience is that I can gather a
whole body of research and history of science that will support: 1) The use
of cooperative learning and its benefits to peer tutors.  2) That
heterogeneous grouping can work (but not that it will work for teachers who
do not believe in it).  3)  That the emigration of Werner von Braun and
other European rocket scientists gave the space race edge to the US (the
space program being a major technological force during the post-war
period.) and 4) that other major contributors to science and technology
emigrated to, and were not educated in, the United States.  By contrast,
I've studied the literature and I don't know of research showing that
properly designed cooperative learning is harmful to high aptitude
students.  I don't know of a single data point (anecdotal or otherwise)
that shows United States schools were ever the best in the world in science
and technology or that that's how we came to technological preeminence.
     But you see, I know all of that doesn't matter to someone who has
already made up her/his mind.  Gene Glass (1986) told of how he invented a
whole new area of statistics (meta-analysis) to be able to summarize
research findings into one powerful answer to significant questions.  What
he found is that if people don't like your answer, they criticize your
methods, analyses, selection processes, and so forth.

        I fully challenge the assertion that my prior posting could be read
in any way to imply that I said studies of American student incompetence
are invalid (Invalid was Blankenship-Brown's word.  I did not use it even
once in my posting.).  I challenged the notion that most high school
students think we live inside the earth and I renew that challenge.  I
further said we should be careful not to read too much into these claims
even when they provide data.
     Let me illustrate that with an anecdote-- Hazen and Trefil's famous
quizzing 43 students as they went in to their Harvard graduation about why
it was hot in the summer and cold in the winter.  As I understand it, only
one got the question right.  I see this and ask, "So what?"  First, Harvard
graduates must be good at something.  I would like it if they could answer
that question, but we do not all have to be knowledgeable and skilled at
the same things.  Second, where are these people now?  Did they freeze to
death because they thought the earth tilts toward the sun in January and
therefore didn't wear a coat?  Or are they happily writing novels, running
banks, uncovering archaeological wonders and expanding human knowledge?
What does it mean that American students cannot answer questions regarding
things they do not care about?
     Which gives us insight into why students cannot convert cubic
centimeters into cubic decimeters--why would anyone want to?  Who does
this?  (I know that cubic decimetres are litres, but what task in what
occupation requires the conversion of cc's to cubic decilitres?  I do
remember my teachers giving me worksheets of converstions to do:  Convert
35.2 cubic hectocubits into cubic nanometres.  I was good at them but I
hated the mindlessness of the job even when I was 13.)  In fact, these kids
do tougher intellectual stuff than that every day.  So it's true they won't
do it because they don't care, but whose fault is that?  If my students
were telling me that my lessons don't mean anything I would seriously
reappraise them.  Of course that won't mean anything to someone who sees
themselves as a teacher of Physics, instead of a teacher of kids who
happens to use physics to prepare them for life beyond school.  The laws of
mechanics don't change therefore they can be taught the same way forever.
The nature of students changes every day.  The environment changes faster
than we can keep up.  You can't teach the same lesson the same way twice.
     Before leaving this, I'll aver to a pretty good physicist about the
meaning of physics.  Richard Feynman was once asked by a student of his to
impress upon that student's mother about the importance of physics.  His
classic response was:  "

     Dear Mrs Chown;
          Please resist your son's efforts to teach you physics.
          Physics isn't the most important thing-- love is.
     Sincerely,
     Richard Feynman.

If that's warm and fuzzy, then I'm guilty.  But if I turn out students who
know physics very well but cannot, for example, work cooperatively to set
goals for a group trying to solve a problem collectively, I have failed
that student.

     In another direction, the whole point about Einstein not contributing
to technology is a specious argument.  Please don't tell me Fermi didn't
contribute to the development of nuclear technology.  I already described
von Braun, although I admit Bohr was also "just a scientist."  Anyone who
does not really see a connection to the advancement of science in a society
and the advancement of technology hasn't looked.  That line of thinking is
specious because it shifts the burden of proof.  I gave four instances (and
yes, I can give many others) of emigres who made major contributions to
science and technology.  Blankenship-Brown cannot demand the results of a
particular non-existent study and state that if I can't produce it my point
is invalid.  If you want proof ask for proof, but the nature of the proof
is mine to choose.  (Of course, one doesn't have to accept that either.)
     The choice of criticizing Einstein is also interesting for another
reason-- HE WAS A WEED.  He, along with Edison, Winston Churchill, Guiseppi
Verdi, (this list also gets long)  were all at one time assessed by their
teachers of not worth the efforts of schooling.  But there we go with
anecdotes again.

     I would like Wes Davis to comment on whether he thinks we use "social"
in different ways.  Let's go to the American Heritage Dictionary to look at
our choices:

     social
          1.a. Living together in communities.
            b. Of or relating to communal living.
            c. Of or relating to society.
          2. Living together in organized groups or similar close aggregates.
          3. Involving allies or members of a confederacy.
          4. Of or relating to the upper classes.
          5.a. Inclined to seek out or enjoy the company of others; sociable.
            b. Spent in or marked by friendly relations or companionship.
            c. Intended for convivial activities.
          6. Of, relating to, or occupied with matters affecting human welfare.

     I rather like #1c or #6.  It seems to me that schools can only have
two kinds of goals: social development or personal development.  American
schools often seek personal development goals for social purposes so they
are really secondary social goals.

     And so, back to the weeds.  The language used to describe
heterogeneous grouping and cooperative learning is telling:  "[T]he
stupidity of heterogeneous grouping and the idiotic theory behind it...";
"unfairness ... for bright students.";  "... students who are cheated by
schools....";  "... cooperative learning-- read that, 'communal
ignorance,".  I am intrigued by the use of "cheat" (preferred meanings, To
deceive by trickery; swindle. and, To act dishonestly; practice fraud).
Why do we have to impute the motives of teachers who are trying to find
effective ways to deal with really tough instructional problems?
       Please, don't try to use CL.  I can guarantee these methods will not
work in your classroom.  But I also assert that no objective observer can
look at the evidence and say that CL methods CANNOT work.
     The contention, "CL in the mixed classroom is a way to get the
brighter kids either to tutor the weaker kids ... or to do their work for
them."  simply shows a misunderstanding of how CL works.  Cooperative
learning is probably misused in classrooms almost as much as self-esteem
research.  A well-designed CL classroom must teach students social and
group problem-solving skills as well as science content, processes and
attitudes.  It is more work for the teacher than simply controlling
everything yourself.  There are several different models of which peer
tutoring is only one.  Too many teachers, hearing of cooperative learning,
thought, "Oh-- groupwork."  So they put students into unstructured groups
where everyone got the same grade then sat down to read a book (I
overstated that on purpose for effect).  Almost all of my students have a
tale of how they were stuck in a group where no one else would work so they
did the entire project to save their own grade.  However, the misuse of an
idea does not give evidence the idea itself is bad.  For example, it can be
shown that American democracy has not, even after over 200 years, provided
liberty and justice for all.  That doesn't make democracy a bad idea.

     Finally, I do take serious exception to calling my posting a
"diatribe."  Diatribe in my dictionary is defined as "a bitter, abusive
denunciation." While I denounced (public condemnation or censure) the use
of "weeds" to refer to students, I reject the characterization that I was
bitter and/or abusive.
     I *can* be very sarcastic and nasty when I want to be, but I was
careful not to be so in my earlier posting.  If I was going to engage in
diatribe I would use words like "stupidity," "idiotic," "cheat," "naive,"
"defensive," and "weeds."  I would even invent words not in the dictionary
like "thumpingly" and phrases like "communal ignorance" which appear to
serve no purpose other than to hold another's opinions up to ridicule.    I
would use a phrase set off in quotations, something like..., let me see ...
"education professionals" to show that I categorize you with those whose
opinions are "hopelessly naive" and deserve no weight.  But I also would
make a real  denunciation-- that burned-out teachers who admit publicly not
to have what it takes to teach today's students should find other work.  I
would write, "THEY DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT STUDENTS.  THEY ARE WEEDS."  In
short, I would have used the very literary devices Blankenship-Brown chose
to trot out.  (Except for that crack about "burned-out teachers", I did add
that.)
     I didn't do any of that and therefore reject the characterization of
my posting as a diatribe.  I also know I didn't launch a diatribe, because
I have a weak conscience and if I had used all these words to cast
aspersions on the intentions of a person I don't even know, I would have
posted an apology by now.
     I do have to commend Blankenship-Brown for the preemptive strike on
the wittiness I was going to use in response to Donald Simanek.  I was
going to mention that my e-mail must be faulty because I haven't seen
anyone apologize for referring to students as weeds, implying that they are
undesirable, useless, growing where they are not wanted, etc.  Could
someone please admit that is a cruel characterization?

     I am watching for responses with delight.  I want to know how the
users of this net break out on this issue.  This will tell me if this is a
powerful place to exchange ideas or a high-tech faculty lounge for
grumbling, because that's not the place for me.  I don't mind being in a
minority-- I just hate being alone.  I guess it's all that cooperative
learning.


Dennis Showers
Blake C, Room 205
One College Circle
Geneseo, NY  14454

716/245-5255