Quartz has yet another enlightening article about what we’re doing wrong in education:
Research, and common sense, show that kids learn more by being actively engaged in what they’re doing. When they engage in discussion, teach others, and grapple with a math problem, they boost their ability to absorb and retain information.
The evidence is mounting against schools that fail to take this approach. Most are still built around making sure kids have the right answers to rote questions, rather than the tools to formulate meaningful questions that deepen their learning.
Putting aside the mischaracterization that teachers/schools teach by “rote” and that no understanding or dialogue takes place in schools that are considered to not use this “dialogic” approach as it is termed, let me ask this. The inquiry-based, student-centered, and “dialogic” approaches have been upon us for the last 30 years. How has that been working out? Oh, right. The teachers aren’t doing it correctly.
Let me ask some more questions. Did they control for tutoring, help at home? And another question. Do tutors, learning centers use the “dialogic”? And what are the results from tutoring/learning centers compared with classes using the “dialogic” approach. And can it be said that traditional teaching does employ so-called “dialogic” approach? And can it also be said that the “dialogic” approach sought after by EEF study mentioned in the article is another form of “rote understanding”?
Andrew Old who some of you know from his blog Scenes from the Battleground, also asks about the EEF study: “Looking at the results of that study earlier. Small effect sizes most of which weren’t statistically significant. Don’t get the hype at all.” Let me go out on a limb here: Can it be that the hype is to prove that the so-called dialogic approach is superior to the rote approach the trads are supposedly using?