Webster defines ’curriculum’ as ’a regular course of study; an accepted schedule; a routine.’ This definition implies that schools must teach their students according to these principles. If we apply this definition to the teaching practices of the average elementary school, we would find that every class indeed has a ’course of study, an accepted schedule and a routine.’

But this is not enough! For a school to properly educate children, a number of other standards must apply. Decisions must be taken as to what is to be taught; why is it to be taught; and how it is to be taught.

In addition, the skills learned in one grade should build into the next grade. Teachers must use materials that develop concepts in a manner that allows the student to build a conceptual base (understanding of concepts) while he or she develops new academic skills. Grade 2 teachers should teach concepts and skills from which Grade 3 teachers can build new knowledge and skills. There must be a sequence of the content of each grade’s teachings.

But this is impossible without decisions being made above the classroom level. Publishers commonly print excellent texts having completely different sequences of skills. If there is no general decision as to the direction, outlook and content, then individual teachers will be free to choose their own texts, whether or not they integrate from one grade to the next! In this way it may be possible for students to be exposed to multiplication before they even know how to carry or regroup in addition.

Students in such programs find it impossible to understand what they are learning. and either tune out or memorize their way to success. But this is not success! Recent research in Japan has shown that students who merely memorize skills do not develop the ability to think creatively or to problem-solve.

The job of imparting knowledge actually belongs to the teacher, but the decision as to how it should be imparted belongs at the policy level.

For example, before a school board could order textbooks or consider the scope or sequence of a reading curriculum in the primary level (grades 1, 2 and 3), they would have to make an initial policy decision as to whether their reading program would be based on a phonetical decoding method (phonics) or a holistic sight (whole language) method.

This decision must be based on an outlook, belief or philosophy and it must be specific. It would not be sufficient to say that the curriculum must teach to the ’whole child’ or that a ’quality education’ is the objective of the reading program, or even that ’the social, emotional and intellectual development of a child depends upon teaching to the actual child’s needs not just to the outline found in a textbook.’

While these statements all sound or feel good, they do not form an actual philosophy from which to develop policy about textbooks and teaching methods. In fact, history has shown us that often the very worst educational programs are preceded by these lofty, flowery and emotional statements.

The ’whole word’ reading program, known more commonly as Whole Language, was preceded by these grand claims and what did it bring? It brought new programs that allowed children to pass without understanding; programs that substituted fakery for achievement under the false claim that children must never be exposed to difficulty or failure or their self-esteem will suffer.

It substituted a reading program that now allows children to stumble into grades 3, 4 or even 5 without knowing how to read well, for one that had consistently taught children to read in Grade 1. And it continues to claim that it can provide the best education for the whole child and that today’s children have higher self-esteem as a result of these programs!

If one looks at the carnage of the public education system of today, it is hard to accept these claims.

After a philosophical decision has been taken by the board of education as to the outlook their program is to express, a joint effort involving the board, the school administration and the teaching staff must then be made to develop new programs by creating documents that explain what learning objectives are to be met; what learning skills must be mastered in order to meet the objectives; what teaching materials are to be used to teach these skills; and in what order (sequence) the skills are to be taught.

An example of this process follows:

Learning Skills: (a) students must be able to recognize and call by sound all initial, final and medial consonants; and (b) students must be able to recognize vowel sounds, and understand the ’Magic E’ and ’Two Vowels Walking’ rules.

Teaching Materials: (a) Explode the Code Phonics Workbooks; (b) sandpaper letters; (c) vowel stick men; and (d) glass analysis or blending exercises.

Sequence: (a) initial consonants; (b) final consonants; (c) short vowels in this order: a – e – o – u – i; (d) middle consonants; and (e) blending exercises.

Finally, teachers must then prepare to teach by studying the curriculum documents; creating daily lesson planners that follow the scope and sequence of the curriculum.

This work is done by professional teachers well in advance of their actual classes. The hallmark of a professional teacher is a well prepared daily lesson planner covering an entire term, if not a full school year, and both short- and long-term goals and objectives.

Teachers lacking in professional ethics will often develop their daily planner early in their career and use the same one year after year. However, true professionals use their experiences from each term to adjust, change and make their teaching methods and plans better. As teachers learn more about their own strengths and weaknesses as communicators, they understand the need to develop new skills. Experience in the classroom helps teachers to understand better the dynamics of self-esteem and classroom management.

No amount of textbook learning can compensate for the experiences of a dedicated professional. But dedication is not enough. If the curriculum has not been properly prepared to reflect the needs and standards of the community and if the objectives and skills taught in individual grades have not been co-ordinated, then the school program will fail. Even the most well meaning educators will not succeed with an inappropriate philosophy of education.

(Excerpt from Passive Minds! The Dangers of Education!! by Dr. R. N. Whitehead, Director, Oxford Learning Centres).

Today, more and parents consider a supplemental education program to be an absolute necessity to ensure a complete education for their children.

“Given the way school budgets are being slashed these days, I just don’t think an average education is sufficient,” says David Drum, a Toronto parent. “The real purpose of education is to prepare children to become successful adults. Children need confidence and self-esteem to equip them for their learning challenges for the rest of their lives.”

Oxford Learning Centres spokesperson, Kelley McGregor says it’s just like arts and sports programs that many students pursue outside of school. “If my daughter showed an aptitude for music I would enroll her in music lessons,” she says. “I would never expect the school system to fully develop her music potential. Given all the challenges the school system faces today, it’s the same with academic programs. It’s unrealistic to think that any school system can give a child all the education he or she needs to develop as a successful adult.”

Most commercial tutoring programs focus on academic skill tutoring using a behavior modification process. A famous Japanese company offers a home-study program that focuses on mastery through repetition. The programs offered by Oxford Learning Centres, Canada’s largest supplemental educator, encourage students to understand the material they are learning. The Oxford program develops underlying cognitive (learning) skills as well as academic skills. Over the past 19 years, Oxford’s educators have developed programs that fix problems rather than just cure this year’s crop of difficulties.

Some parents fear that a supplemental program will tire their child out. After all, she has been sitting in school all day,” is the rationale. The answer often amazes. As any parent knows, no child tires of doing things they like doing. Think back to when they were little ones; how they played at school. They wanted to learn. They loved discovering and mastering new skills.

What happened? Why did this change? The truth is that it didn’t change. Kids who do well in school, feel confident and enjoy school. Oxford’s programs help kids to rediscover that love of learning. And they do more if they help kids learn how to learn. They show them that they are capable of achievement.

With this knowledge comes a deep-seated feeling that they are OK, that they can understand the world, that they can cope. That is called self-esteem and it does not come from attention alone. Nor does it come from praise. In fact, the opposite is true. A recent study showed that students who were praised and recognized for their effort, but who neither achieved nor learned how to achieve (to learn), lost self-esteem.

The Oxford program was designed specifically to teach students how to learn, to give them the sense of control over their own minds and to build true self-esteem.

“Too many children just memorize their way through school. Supplemental programs enrich the entire education process,” says Drum. “They are part of our family’s educational experience and they will stay that way.”

By R. N. Whitehead

Today’s thinking about learning styles reverses a logical process and tries to influence change in the student’s learning behaviour from outside the student. But, changes must be from within and that is the major flaw in these new theories. We are trying to give children self-esteem as if it were a piece of curriculum, rather than helping them in the development of the new, and more appropriate reasoning and thinking skills that are necessary if the child is to achieve any sense of real self-esteem.

We feel that by modifying their environment rather than giving them the thinking tools to affect their own changes, that they will mysteriously develop these personal concepts of worthiness and empowerment.

At the First International Conference on Self-Esteem in Oslo, 1990, self-esteem was defined as —

1. confidence in our ability to think and to cope with the basic challenges of life as well as confidence in our right to be happy
2. the feeling of being worthy, deserving, entitled to assert our needs and wants and to enjoy the fruits of our efforts.

If self-esteem is the experience that we are appropriate to life and to the requirements of life, then the development of self-esteem must invariably come from the “self,” as in the concept’s name. Neither teachers nor parents can develop self-esteem in children — we can only help to foster it.

If we attempt to change the learning environment of students because they appear to be learning via a particular learning style, but we miss the actual reasons why they are presently using this style, we lose an invaluable opportunity.

By accepting that this child has a particular learning style and by adjusting the classroom environment, our teaching methods, and our expectations of the students, we further reinforce this learning style. In fact, we concretize it instead of going to its source — the child’s ability, or inability, to think effectively.

If we identify students and struggle to meet their individual learning style needs, we often create environments in which the student cannot develop new methods of learning. If we are only presenting material in a one dimensional manner (the one appropriate to the learning style of the student as we understand it), this prohibits the student from making the integrations, seeing the similarities and differences, and understanding what we are teaching. In other words, we are creating learning styles with our methods of instruction.

A child’s progress along the continuum of efficient thinking (focus — abstraction — generalization — transfer — integration ), will determine to a large extent the type of learning style the child has. It is important to know that the student’s learning style has the potential for change and growth as long as the child progresses.

Although he didn’t mean it in this way, Carl Jung was partially correct when he said, “… there can never occur a pure (learning style) type in the sense that he is entirely possessed of the one mechanism with a complete atrophy of the other. A typical attitude always signifies the merely relative predominance of one mechanism.”

It is important to understand that, for the most part, we could be travelling through these types of learning styles instead of assuming that we are these types. In order to understand learning styles, we must first understand what the concepts of thinking, learning, generalizing and abstracting are. These concepts may now serve as the new benchmark for a fuller understanding of how the student is learning and why.

By Dr. Nick Whitehead

The concept of a ’learning style’ is used to describe the preferred way, or process, that a student uses to identify and integrate information. In other words, the way a student seems to learn most often or most effectively is often called his or her learning style.

For example, you may have heard of visual learners or verbal learners. These terms describe what is commonly thought of as a particular learning style. From the number of measuring devices and tests available now — and more are being developed constantly — we are presently able to identify more than 100 different types of learning styles.

It is a commonly held belief that each learning style is the way that that student learns best, and that as educators we must learn how to serve the needs of these students best by changing the way we teach, the way we present material, the environment of the classroom and our expectations of these students.

But what if there really isn’t much difference between these learning styles? What if they come from a fairly common root? What if we are in fact doing more harm than good when we identify a specific and concrete learning style best for a student?

If learning styles are actually quite similar, then the identification of a learning style would be seen as an observation of the student at that particular instant in his or her life. This observation, or measurement would become merely a snapshot of the student at the time her or she was tested, instead of a hardened in stone, particular, specific, discrete learning style not to be changed but to be served.

Most new trends in education suggest that the teacher should pay particular attention to the learning styles of students, should adjust teaching modalities to these various styles, and should use learning style categories to identify behaviour and predict future behaviours of certain students.

Some models even use their particular categories to help the teacher, co-worker or parent, ’understand’ others. (’Now that I know that Harry is a Structured Abstract, I understand why he acts as he does.’) Currently these theories are hot and both educational and industrial psychology publications abound with articles, presentations, and new research findings on the subject.

I object to this trend and to these learning style categorizations on a number of grounds.

Primarily I object to the behavioural concept that takes control from the student and places that burden upon the teacher, parent and administrator. By assuming that a student is powerless to learn effectively unless we spend vast amounts of money and time servicing his assumed learning style, we endorse the concept that change must come from outside, not from within, the individual.

This concept does not allow for the role of volition, change or self-awareness in the consciousness of students. Supporters of these theories suggest that by merely modifying the environment and changing the actions of teachers, parents or co-workers, we can affect change in the subject. In suggesting this, they remove personal responsibility and the need for students to understand their own minds, they entrench more and more power into the hands of others, and they further erode the possibility that the students will gain an increased sense of self-esteem by their own actions.

I also object on practical grounds. Given these requirements, most teachers would be physically, intellectually and emotionally incapable of meeting each and every student’s individual learning style needs. Depending upon the test one used to identify these needs, it is possible that in a class there might be 30 different learning styles identified. It would be interesting to write out that lesson planner!

Assuming that there were no interruptions in a 90-minute class, it might be possible for the teacher to spend three minutes serving the individual needs of each student. That amounts to approximately 12 minutes per week.

We lose something very important when we focus too rigidly on the concept of a specific, concrete and unchangeable learning style. We miss the fact that many, if not most, learning styles may be merely the result of how well the student has learned to think.

If we consider the process of thinking, we will soon see that such skills as those listed below are the prime movers in a child’s process of learning, not the child’s learning style. Preferences in individual learning styles, with the exception of cases where the student has a frank learning disability, can usually be understood in the light of these thinking skills.

• Focus and Identification: The process of seeing the subtle similarities and differences between things.
• Generalization: Making a general statement about these similarities and creating new categories. For example, tables and chairs are concrete things that can stand by themselves and need no further explanation — unless you recognize that there are similarities and organize the similarities into a category called furniture. This is generalization.
• Transfer: Using the process of seeing similarities and differences to create new categories in another area. For instance, hockey and bowling are both sports.

A child who cannot generalize well, or who prefers more concrete concepts, will not understand metaphor well, and will obviously not prefer the more divergent choices that require an understanding of symbols or analogy. This student can thus be identified as a concrete or structured learner by one process (Kaufman) or a concrete sequential thinker by another (Gregoric).

In truth, this is merely a student who, once he or she learns to think more effectively, will begin to generalize, understand metaphor and use analogy. Then, if one tested this very same student, one would miraculously find that there had been a change in learning style.

Extending this reasoning into virtually every model of learning style identification, one soon begins to recognize that underlying these various learning styles is a process of thought that may be shaping the ’style’ itself, instead of the other way around.

Continue reading Learning Style Myths Part 2.

By Dr. Nick Whitehead

Viewed from a holistic perspective

Whole Language versus Phonics Part 1

When we throw away phonics as the first and primary method of decoding and switch to whole word (whole language) method, we are telling our kids something that isn’t true. We are saying that there is no code — that there is no order to the development of language. That words themselves are the blocks of the language.

But words cannot be used as parts of a whole. In other words, you make words from letters but you don’t make new words by splicing two or three other words together. So, in fact, words are not the blocks of the language — letters are!

However, that’s not what we tell our kids. By depriving them of the understanding that letters, not words, are the blocks of the language, we are making language incoherent. It can’t be understood; there is no pattern; it can just be memorized. Can you imagine having to memorize by sight every single word in the English language? Well that’s what we condemn kids to do when we teach them whole words instead of letters.

This causes another problem — the problem of thinking. If we begin by the whole word method, we are encouraging a number of practices. We encourage and reward memorization and we encourage estimation — if you don’t know the word, guess. In fact, by allowing students to think that meanings are interchangeable, that if you don’t know what it really means, guessing is okay, we are pretending that words don’t have specific meanings. But every word stands for one, and only one specific concept.

It is not true that any old meaning will do. It is not true and it is not fair to the student to imply it is. It says that accuracy is not important and that fuzzy or “sort of” thinking is all right.

So we encourage kids to memorize and match, tell them that accuracy is not important, forgive and allow fuzzy thinking and pretend that creative (inventive) spelling is fine. Then what happens? High school, university, college and life happens. Students end up thinking associationally, not conceptually. They can’t problem solve, don’t take academic risks, need structured programs and lots of help and guidance — all of which impede the development of real self-esteem.

They don’t “get it,” don’t make the connections or see the relationships. They are disorganized, not motivated, sometimes confused, angry or defensive. They are not achieving their potential because they haven’t learned how to think critically.

Ask any high school English or Math teacher, go to a university and inquire of the English, philosophy, business or psychology departments, or speak to business leaders, about the literacy of many recent graduates. You will see we already have this problem. It’s not going away, it’s going to get worse.

And it begins when we cast the first seeds of doubt in the pristine minds of our children. A child who has learned to speak already knows (implicitly and probably without the words to defend himself or herself) the importance of accuracy. Watch kids play and observe how carefully they keep each other accurate. Even understanding a single word means that that child understands that there is something the same as other words but that there is an important something different as well and that child is capable of understanding that difference. That child insists on clarity, honesty and integrity in his or her dealings with the world.

Then we tell the child to ignore all that he or she knows about how to learn. We say accuracy isn’t important and that our written language doesn’t have a code. Some schools forbid teachers from telling kids that words are made up of letters which have specific sounds. In other words, we imply that how the child has been using his or her mind is wrong.

What they figured out for themselves can’t be trusted. They are wrong for life! If one thinks of the amount of struggle an adult goes through in order to understand life and then considers that this same struggle is occurring daily in the hearts and minds of our children, one might begin to see why it is so important for them to feel that they are capable of understanding. Their very survival depends upon it.

But our reading programs pull the rug out from under our children. We discount the achievement of their minds and the confidence and pride they have developed as a result of that great achievement. In fact, what a child accomplishes in learning to speak is probably the greatest achievement of his or her life. It is certainly the hardest.

Instead of celebrating this great achievement — one that required precision, logic, understanding — we tell them to memorize and trust. We drive a spear into the very soul of their self-confidence and feelings of self-esteem and it is no wonder that they prefer to memorize and live in a structured universe. If their own minds are not safe or competent then the only other option is trust and follow.

But it’s just a reading program, you say. And teachers love kids and want to help them and school boards don’t want to cause problems, they want to educate kids as effectively as possible. Yes, all that may be true, but it doesn’t change the facts.

All the good intentions in the world will not change the principles of a bad program and will not lessen the severity of its effects. Whole word or whole language reading programs are not teaching our kids to read well and are a major part of the reason why students are not thinking more clearly and effectively.

We have known how to teach kids to read for centuries. Modern teaching methodology has produced creative and effective teachers. Let’s use these strengths to marry excellent teachers with effective programs.

Viewed from a holistic perspective

Whole Language versus Phonics Part 2

Whole Language versus Phonics is a subject engendering much discussion these days. Parents are demanding a return to the teaching of reading by phonics while school board trustees and administrators are claiming their whole language reading programs are effective. Teachers are often confused and kids are stuck in the middle. It may be possible to understand this issue better if we examine some of the primary principles underlying the act of reading.

Children first hear language by listening to their parents. But they do not merely copy the sounds of their parents. A child must make an enormous mental step in order to begin learning this language. Every word in our language represents a particular and single concept. When children first learn language, they first have to understand — in a mind that has no language at all — that the strange sound they are hearing is connected to whatever the parent is pointing or referring to.

For example, when you say “Mommy” to the child and point at yourself, how will the child know what you are doing, or that the sound you have made even has any meaning at all? Understanding that the sound refers to one specific concept is a feat that requires the child to understand that it is necessary to categorize information in order to make greater sense of his or her universe.

Without language, we can only think about what is in our conscious mind right now. All the learning of the past would be lost to us. Without words to summarize and represent concepts, we would have to develop each concept anew every time, much like the lower order animals do.

Children learn language through their ears. They hear sounds, learn to distinguish the differences between these sounds, learn to blend diverse sounds together, learn what concepts are, and what the individually blended sounds (words) stand for. All this information is filed in the subconscious and the language is verbal.

The next step seems logical. The child already understands all the concepts of language implicitly. If they can speak in clear sentences, they already have comprehension! We do not have to worry about that. Our task should be to teach them how to access the incredible amount of stored knowledge and literature humankind possesses.

How?

By teaching children to understand the code or script we use to write our language. It is a unique code and it is designed to be built from the ground up, much the same way every single verbal or mental concept is formed. Amazing! Language and thinking are developed together and in the same way. In fact, language was developed so that we could further enlarge our knowledge. It is primarily a tool of thinking, not for communication.

Reading should be no different. If we first helped the child to understand abstract concepts by making sure they understood concrete ones — by teaching verbal language — then we should teach reading in the same manner. That would suggest to our children that there is some logic and order to the learning of written language just as there was in the learning of spoken language and in thinking.

The building blocks of reading are letters, and there are only 26 of them. All words flow from these basic 26 units. If for no other reason than it is logical and rational, we should consider using only phonics-first reading programs for our children. It is empowering and important for the development of their self-esteem.

But there is much more. Next time.

Whole Language versus Phonics Part 2

1. Use the Power Listening process in class for listening.

2. Enter all homework, assignments and exams in your planning calendar as soon as your teacher assigns the work.

3. Begin each study or homework session by making a plan.

4. When reading, use SQRCRC to make sure that you understand.

5. Spend 10 minutes per subject each night and summarize the day’s lessons into study notes. Break the information down into main idea (the main concept); supporting details (each one different but all linked to the main idea); and sub-details (which explain, modify, or give examples so you better understand each supporting detail. Make these notes short in point form and in your own words.

6. Review these notes 48 hours later. Put a * and date in the right hand corner of the page every time you review. When you review, don’t memorize, just make sure you fully understand your note. Make the note into a story or a complete picture – use visualization if possible.

7. Make sure that each study note has five *’s in the right hand corner before you have to write an exam. If you review your notes five times, you will remember them

Cramming

It is not possible to become an effective and organized student at the last minute. If study is left to the last minute all that is really left is cramming.

Too Much Homework is Bad for You

It is possible to hear, listen, integrate and learn material in class. When students follow this path they can then spend much of their at home time in brief, but effective, review and summary.

Become Active

The secret seems to be learning to shift from a passive mind set (“I’ll just sit here while the teacher teaches me”) to a more effective and aggressive model, an active process.

For example, if you took the following attitude, you would become an active learner: “I can’t afford to wait in class to be taught. I’m going to question, summarize and visualize during the lesson. I am going to learn! I’m going to sort information into stuff I already know and stuff that is new. I’m not waiting for the teacher to explain this to me! This is my life and it’s too important for me to be passive. I’m going to watch myself as I learn and when I don’t “get it,” I’m not letting it pass. I will jump right in and find out what I don’t understand. If I can’t understand, I’m not going to blame the teacher, I’m going to make my teacher teach it so that I do get it! I take responsibility for my own life and learning.”

Step 1

Make yourself comfortable. Use a table or desk and a comfortable chair. Hold yourself erect. Slouching in the body is mirrored in the mind. Do not lie down or sprawl on the bed. Make sure that you have sufficient light to read comfortably.

Step 2

Try to arrange a permanent study place where you can keep your study materials around you. Ask your parents to help. Keep your planner, assignment book, review notes, lots of pencils, pens and markers, etc. in your study place.

Step 3

Reduce distractions. Ask your family not to disturb you. Do not answer the phone while you are studying. Turn the radio off and do not study in the same room as a TV set. If you are sitting by a window, draw the blinds. The fewer distractions you experience, the more effective you will be.

Step 4

Decide on the type of study activity that you are engaging in tonight. Is it best to study alone or would studying with a friend help?

Review:

• When is it better to study by yourself?
• When is it better to study with a partner?
• How do you plan to minimize distractions?
• How do you plan for assignments?
• How do you plan for exams?
• Name four ways you can better arrange your study environment.

This should not be a problem for you.

Work for 20 minutes then take a five-minute break. You are working only 45-minute hours. That is plenty of time to focus and plenty of time to refresh.

When you take your break, don’t stay sitting at your desk. Run downstairs and get a drink of water. Make a quick phone call. Tease your brother. Anything, just get your mind off the work. You will feel much better.

Use a stopwatch. No cheating! Do not take more than five minutes.

Working on your environment is the focus of our next article.