Putting aside the fact that the one posting this is a homeschooler and wouldn't be sending kids to school anyway, what do our teachers and parents think of this?



This is the K level class, but this concept is actually being used for *all* levels of kids, even in college. It just seems freaky to me. I could see using this for a short time period a few times a day, but apparently the whole day is like this.

If I'd been in a class like this as a kid, I would have been unbelievably miserable. (I was shy and introverted as a kid, very quiet.) And to have it all day, every day, every little thing scripted just seems so... I don't know... mind-controlish?

The website is http://wholebrainteaching.com/ Honestly I don't see this as anything more than another fad in teaching, but you never know. How 'bout it, teachers, would you teach this way? Parents, would you want your kids in a classroom modeled like this?

I know I learn better when I'm participating and speaking and interacting with the teacher. I probably would have done well with this. However, my own children would probably hate it.

First off, I did not watch the video.

Second off, I did read all of the intro articles with the concepts outlined (mirror, class/yes, 5 rules, etc.,)

Sounds very Stepford-ish to me.

I have more thoughts, but I want to hear what the teachers have to say first.

"Stepford", that's the word I was looking for, thanks.

I've used similar techniques with Scouts for VERY small components of the program. My kids Karate school incorporates some of these techniques. The techniques alone aren't evil or Stepfordish. They work. HOWEVER, scripting your whole day is very "mind controlling" and shuts down critical thinking and imagination. If these techniques are used for small parts of the day, then OK, but if it's "all day every day" then really never mind.

This sort of thing, all day every day, feeds into the mythology of public schools as a place to develop factory workers - everyone doing the same thing in the same way -- rather than creative thinkers. Montessori this really isn't.

Well, I think of the "lights off" signal that's used (usually only in kindergarten) and it works. Hell, I even threaten it verbally sometimes on adults and they "get it" right away.

I don't know much about Early childhood education practices, but I sure would like to see this in action in an older grade classroom!!

It kinda reminds me of the days when kids would sing everything...the alphabet, the times tables, etc. Maybe it is a spin on that.

I want the energy that teacher has!!

It seems to me that the "choral" recitaitons are used as a means of classroom control..at the end the line up...and having the kids repeat everything in unison will cut down on a lot of excess chatting..but how could this possible be a reality in 6th or 7th grade? My classes would not do it. In an older grade, I can see a lot of wasted time, trying to get a snotty preteen to "sing" instructions. Seriously, this may work will in younger grades but I have my doubts about the older grades. I guess I'd need to see more of the "instruction" before I could even offer an opinion on whether it is a good methodology. Kindergarten is a lot of movement, and chatting, and singing to begin with...these kids seem to be very "conditioned"..almost robotic. I agree with Judy..free thought doesn't seem to exist...but we are also just seeing a clip.

Brain based education where all the intelligences are incorporated into Problem based learning is the way of the future in my opinion. Kids have to able to identify problems, work together to set up strategies and offer solutions. A script doesn't create critical thinking skills, nor does it allow the student to present viable solutions.

If classroom instruction entertainingly engages the whole brain, students don’t have any mental area left over to create challenging behavior!

Huh??! Keeping the brain "active" constantly does not insure that true "learning" is taking place. This is a bunch of bull. Another educational theory to sell teacher products, workshops, and ideology. They are talking about keeping kids on the move not moving toward learning. Yeah, if the kids are already up and singing, I suppose there'd be less unsupervised chaos but all this stimulation would easily drive the normal activity level child batty. And, I personally hate anything scripted that I've had to teach. It is so fake with no connection with the kids or their individual learning activities or styles. I also agree with Angie that this might be doable in a preschool or K program but after that forget it.

We are so into problem based curriculum that I even think that it is being overdone. Moderation is usually the key that works best with the most.

The more I think about it....this does not allow for any critical thinking. It seems to be all scripted..and pre-ordained. So where is the newest trend in education fitted it? Where do the kids become individual thinkers and where do they actually interact to solve problems? I can see the singing as a pneunomic device to help memory...or if the teacher really needs classroom control...but really. I have come full swing and I realize that to engage kids in critical thinking...there will be noise in the classroom. If we truly are to prepare them for the 21st century, they must be able to communicate intellectually, solve problems, present findings, and work as a team. This begins as early as Kindergarten...but it isn't scripted. I am so with Sandy about the scripting.

Problem based learning....the wave of the future. We are heavily into it also. I am buying into it...but for me, in Science it is how I have always taught. I am just mad that I didn't give it a name and make a million off the idea!!

We are starting Ancient History in 7th grade this year using, "History Alive". Much group work, synthesis, and analysis. Our math and science programs have been that for quite a while too, Angie.

First, some parts of the video were just hilarious--I liked the alphabet song set to "Who Let the Dogs Out?" And the gesture associated with learning the letter P made me think: pregnant (yes, my mental health is questionable, let's move on).

For small children, the sing-song stuff seems great and even the repetition of words during certain tasks (the kids saying "line, line, line" seemed an effective technique to me: repeating the word for what they are supposed to be doing (lining up) seems to keep them on track without their attention wandering.

Repeating the rules at the beginning of the day, fine. Repeating them several times a day--that would get old.

I've sat in on Rory's class at a Montessori school. They do some of the same things to get the kids to focus, particularly for a group activity ("circle time") but without the sing-songy voices and Rory's teacher also asked more questions of individual children during the activity.

I thought the pipes as "phones" for the kids to whisper their lessons to themselves was a good technique-it keeps the room quiet so the kids can focus on an individually-performed task.

So, yes, there are some elements of "whole brain teaching" that I think are effective, but I personally couldn't stand the sing-song carp all day.

Those PVC phones have actually been used for several years in a lot of places, and very effectively. They're an excellent self-teaching tool for classroom situations to keep the noise down.

Here's a middle school class being taught the basic set-up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJw9mzCtWbk

High school math class:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6WJdsb0dfM

College:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6rOIOW2J...r_embedded

All I can say is that they're wasting one hell of a lot of time in that college class. Just how much material do you have to learn on your own when the teacher spends 20 minutes on a few fairly simple concepts. Take notes and move on!

Compare that to my Freshman Chemistry prof who covered nearly my entire high school chemistry course on the first day of class. Almost 1/4 of the class dropped before the next session. I'd have been royally pissed if he'd wasted MY time trying to keep those people up with the rest of us by doing that sing-song crap all day. He wrote every word he said on the blackboard and covered 4 boards 3-4 times each class. Most of us were still catching up at the end of class. OTOH, now he could just email his notes or post them to a bulletin board so you'd have time for the sing-song crap too. I can't see him doing that, though. I think he'd just move faster.

I still do not see any substance that promotes thinking or learning.
Headphones were used in a French class I took one time but they don't even do that anymore.

I think it all looks like yet another gimmick. I know that the arm movements help...that pnumonic (sp) philosophy, and I do buy into that to a point. But I think this is a lot of wasted time.

I was particularly interested in the middle school one. I would have liked to see it "unrehearsed". I have a hard time accepting that middle age kids could do this without giggling. Heck, I have a hard time believing that they would do it!!!

Just because everyone is talking doesn't mean they are interacting. Repeating someone else's words is not interacting; it is not participating. it is a form of inculcation. It does not represent learning the way I understand learning: a self-actualizing and empowering process.

What theory of learning is this based on? I saw a new teacher seeking to do a literature review on this method (on the website's forum) and she was pointed at one book. In other words, this is not connected to any of the enormous literature on behaviorism, constructivism, socioculturism or cognitivism. At least, they're not seeking to justify it on the basis of existing theory of learning.

The respondent suggested that the new teacher look into the literature on multiple modalities and on multiple intelligences. That is a huge cop-out answer. Gardner's Multiple Intelligences isn't really much of a theory; it just wants to split Q intelligence up into different categories. I am not aware of empirical research backing it up. And "multiple modalities" is pretty vague. I've only seen a little bit of that research, but I've never seen anything to imply that getting kids to rote repeat is a "modality." My group is doing research on kinesthetic and haptic modalities, and it will be a long time before we have any theory of how the haptic (touch) modality can aid learning. If we even get to that point. These folks are just throwing terms out to justify a program they've already created.

After that answer, the thread appears to have been closed. So, that says something. I don't see any discussion of theory or grounding on their forums. Not encouraging.

From what little I've seen of this, I'd say it is rooted in behaviorism whether or not they know it. You know -- Pavlovian stuff. Not what you'd call modern learning theory. It's pretty far from constructivism and socioculturist ideas of learning. If you believe at all that learning involves the intelligence organizing itself, or that learning involves social interaction, you'll look at this in horror.

In my second semester I only know enough about this to be dangerous. But, really, anyone can try anything, slap a name on it and call it a teaching method. Wonderful. But what is the theory? What is the justification? And how is it assessed? I can imagine a good qualitative researcher grounded in social constructivism or socioculturism doing a few interviews there (despite what paper assessments might say) and finding some interesting effects of this vs. kids with more benefit of social interaction in their learning. Just a guess. As a researcher, it would be an interesting project.

-JP

JP--in my years I have seen so many "theories" come and go---somebody gets and idea--gives it a fancy name--and hopes educators will buy into it. I agree--it is stimulus/response...and that isn't educating..at least not in today's world.

It's an important question: "what implications does this (any) learning theory have on instruction?" Unfortunately, it's not always obvious, even when we have decent theories of learning.

...I should know. I am currently procrastinating on my theories of learning assignment. Write a synthesis of the last decade of constructivism-based research in a certain journal.

Instead, I'm dipping into the port and trying to regain my senses.

(02-17-2010 10:28 AM)emeleel Wrote:  Putting aside the fact that the one posting this is a homeschooler and wouldn't be sending kids to school anyway, what do our teachers and parents think of this?

--snip--

.
Will not play, here or at youtube. ...sigh...


...tom...
.

It kind of reminds of soldiers singing cadence while marching.

I've seen great examples of WBT and others that were developing. But in the best examples it was always fresh (much daily innovation), left a little room for mischief (not monotonous or condenscending) and fun. Moreover, it only represented the "to the student" (mini-lesson), and a little of "with the student" (gestures, teach-OK), and really very little of the "by the student" which is often quite traditional practice work, taking up more of the class time. The score board is effecive here, to encourage on task behavior. It is almost always a huge improvement over apathy filled, non-engaged classrooms.

Frankly, the "brainwashing" or "stepford" comparisons seem inflamatory. Teachers are being blamed for everything wrong with education, including student apathy, and when they find a way to engage students and improve instruction, they are often criticised for that as well.

I wouldn't call those word choices inflammatory; more like "descriptive." People are expressing legitimate feelings watching a teaching method that made me feel like it was more like training than teaching.

What is an example of "daily innovation" and is that in evidence in this video?

-JP

(03-08-2010 08:52 PM)brusbergj Wrote:  I've seen great examples of WBT and others that were developing. But in the best examples it was always fresh (much daily innovation), left a little room for mischief (not monotonous or condenscending) and fun. Moreover, it only represented the "to the student" (mini-lesson), and a little of "with the student" (gestures, teach-OK), and really very little of the "by the student" which is often quite traditional practice work, taking up more of the class time. The score board is effecive here, to encourage on task behavior. It is almost always a huge improvement over apathy filled, non-engaged classrooms.

Frankly, the "brainwashing" or "stepford" comparisons seem inflamatory. Teachers are being blamed for everything wrong with education, including student apathy, and when they find a way to engage students and improve instruction, they are often criticised for that as well.

If you have personal experience with this method, I for one would like to hear about it.

I would, too. Specifically: what are the challenges of this method, especially when applied to the middle grades in, say, a mathematics classroom for pre-algebra and algebra instruction.

-JP

I have only begun over the last few months to implement some of these techniques, but I have seen demonstrations and watched every video I could find. Here’s the thing, it works. I use it primarily early in the class to reinforce core content, then I move on to other activities for student practice. I continue to use the management pieces like class-yes (which I don’t say much. I usually either say “bom a bom bom” and they say “Ba dang a dang dang” or I say “shake it” and they say “like a Polaroid picture” then I’ll drop those and do something else) and the scoreboard (which helps the teacher make sure he isn’t using too much negative feedback).

I teach three sections of remedial English to high school students, and after years of trying different approaches to get kids who have given up on school to come out of their apathetic funk, this is the first thing to come along and engage nearly 100 percent of those kids. I also throw in a little here and there with my honors and literature students, and they love the way it changes things up.

Of course it is not the best way to learn. The best way to learn is to be diligently focused and interested in what is being taught, and then work your butt off to understand and master the concepts. That is not the reality of our culture. In many cases we are “stealth” teaching—trying to teach students who are actively resisting. We are expected to raise test scores even if the student refuses to read or do any work.

Intentional non-learners

I think it's interesting to get another point of view from someone who has actually used it, brusbergj...thank you for joining in the discussion.

I do think there is some valid methodology - although I am surprised that high school students are chiming in. Most of the ones I know think they are too cool for "kiddie games", but they can be goofy and childish sometimes too (don't we all know ).

I tried the shared reading concept with my son last week - the methodology suggests that for slow readers, you have the student read a story/pp/article out loud with someone who reads quickly, alternating words. After reading a pp or page, you go back and re-read, this time having the other person start. It allows the slower reader to read all words out loud, and encourages him/her to read at the pace of the faster reader.

I told Jer he could choose whatever he wanted to read, thinking something he would enjoy would engage him more. We read a Calvin & Hobbs comic book for 15 minutes - not the most difficult thing out there, but it was kind of fun. He admitted it was more difficult than he thought it would be, but he read "with" me faster than he normally does when he's reading out loud by himself, and stumbled less on the words. We'll continue to do it to help him with his reading skills.

The expectation of raising test scores is an unfortunate situation. And I am sympathetic to classroom management issues, which is what it sounds like you're describing.

I believe that teaching practice should be grounded in some theory of learning. While this doesn't dictate a classroom management style, it does keep in mind the effect on the student.

If you haven't seen it already, there was a decent story in the NYT magazine about efforts to improve teaching practice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/magazi...ers-t.html

The efforts range from classroom management issues (Doug Lemov's work) to theories that deal with teacher knowledge (Deborah Ball and Heather Hill's MKT or "Math knowledge for teaching").

Even though my current focus is on student thought and affect (beliefs, emotion, attitude), I'm interested in this list of techniques that Lemov has collected. Check out the videos in that story; they have some things in common with the Whole Brain video and something different. The difference (in my view) is meaningful engagement.

Anecdotally, my wife did a test, using the random calling idea in her community college class and immediately noticed a difference in participation.

Some people look at the idea of classroom management derisively; I think it's a fact of life that you teachers are forced to deal with, and therefore calling something /just/ classroom management isn't fair. But I think that techniques should be scrutinized through the lens of what we know about student learning. Tests don't measure everything, as I'm sure you well know from your classroom experience.

If I weren't swamped with work, I'd be looking into what people are doing to connect Lemov to learning theory. Before that, I'd just like to get a hold of his techniques; I might be teaching math someday soon and classroom management is something I see as a challenge.

-JP

---

BTW - I think there is an over-focus on teachers in this whole push to improve education. I think this, ultimately, may be bad for teachers. There is no question that we can improve teaching, but teachers themselves are only part of the equation.

In the case of mathematics, before a teacher even enters the classroom, children are coming from a culture that has fostered certain attitudes and beliefs about what mathematics even is. These can be surprisingly harmful to learning. There is only so much a teacher can do to create a culture of the classroom which encourages learning. Children spend most of their time outside the classroom.

To those people who think we can just merit-pay our teachers into excellence: you don't make someone a better anything by adjusting their pay, especially if people don't know how to improve.

Along with bashing schools and teachers, you often hear people talking about how they came through school, or pining for the good old days of Reading 'Riting and 'Rithmatic. Those people never seem to understand how much *better* schools are today than they have ever been. Look back to the past; 150 years ago you might see long division on a college test at MIT. The algebra we expect students to learn today to prepare them for the jobs and challenges of the 21st century are things that only elite thinkers had to learn decades ago. No wonder we are struggling; we're using the (biologically) same brains we had 150 years ago. Teachers don't get nearly enough credit for what they have accomplished. At the same time, real-world circumstances demand that education keep up with our changing situation. That is the challenge we need to meet.

If I am critical of the Whole Brain methods, it is partly because I do not see in them the seeds of future success; I see a short term solution to a long term problem. That's why I think student learning should ground even classroom management techniques.

-JP

---

(As always, though I reserve the right to change my opinion as I learn more about it)

interesting you should mention Lemov's work. That was an excellent article in the NY times Magazine. It felt like his taxonomy would fit in well with WBT.

We are inundated with theory in education programs, and this research is important, but then we get into the classroom and nothing works. We can't begin to teach them to think until we can manage their behavior and focus.

Chris Biffle would probably disagree, but I see WBT as primarily a management tool. I viewed the kindergarten video and I really think people were being pretty harsh on her. She is able to concentrate on teaching, and plan her moves. I think many people would be astounded to see the chaos that exists in many classrooms where stressed out teachers are just trying to keep their head above water. I know parents who cannot figure out how to manage 1 five year old, try 30.

I've ordered Lemov's book (to read over the summer if i can fit it into my planned Vygotsky reading, possible externship, and rumored extra mathematics requirements!) and perhaps I'll be able to post a review eventually.

-JP

Reading fluency is not the same as comprehension. But, getting Jeremy to read fluently is important too because if one reads way slowly, one is less enthusiastic about reading at all. My middle school kids all like to read "popcorn" style but I don't usually allow it in social studies because you don't comprehend reading that way. I kind of feel that this technique being discussed is "popcorn" reading style and may not lead to lasting comprehension of concepts.

But all of the input from you all is making me think and that's always a positive.

Have you tried partner reading too Lynn? It is when you read a "book", first alternating paragraphs, then pages. You may even have to alternate sentences at first. It starts with fluency but ultimately when you can work to alternating paragraphs, is helps with focus and comprehension.

My middle son's approach to increasing reading speed was to read an unabridged book while listening to the same version on tape. It made a huge difference and I let him choose the books. I was sneaky, though. I would first introduce him to a classic author on tape, then let him ask for more of the same. I got pretty good at nailing/manipulating his tastes in literature.

I think Matthew is just about ready for some of that. Tapes work better than CD's, because they stay where you stop them, but an MP3 version would work, if you could find it.