The ORIGINAL common core

The Common Core is obviously a divisive subject in the US today. It's definitely been overly politicized and probably over criticized. In a world as grey as ours, to think social issue is completely black or white is incredibly naïve.

The Common Core State Standards are imperfect, to be sure. I for one do not want increased standardized testing, which seems likely under CCSS. I am also a proponent of literature, something deemphasized in the CCSS. But are they as bad as opponents charge? Is it really a case of social experimentation?

Perhaps the better question might be this: Since the demise of classical education, what isn't social experimentation?

How many of you recall learning Latin (or possibly Greek) in high school or university? I'm too young to recall that era (though I did study a year of Greek during university), but it was not long ago that such was the standard.

Two or three years ago I read Who killed Homer: The demise of classical education and the recovery of Greek wisdom, which was the first time (other than the first day of class in Dead Poets Society) that I ever thought about how it was once the norm for students to labor over Latin declensions. Recently, while reading The story of ain't: America, its language, and the most controversial dictionary ever published, I was reminded of this part of US history. What ever happened to Latin in schools?

Like the United States itself, modern educational theory informed by Dewey is a social experiment. Montessori schools and charter schools are social experiments. Homeschooling in it's present-day form is a social experiment. Pretty much anything not considered classical education are social experiments. As some point out, classical education is possibly still superior to any modern alternative.

Why is virtually no one clamoring for classical education? Why is no one up in arms demanding a return to obligatory high school Latin classes? It seems no one wants the original common core: Latin, Greek, and mathematics.

I'm not asking anyone to support the Common Core. I'm not asking anyone to oppose the Common Core. It may be good to remember, however, that education since the 1960s (at the very latest) has been one reform after another, one experiment after another. Unless we plan to go back to classical education, let's have everyone take a breath and get some perspective: People decried the loss of Latin, yet students have continued to be educated.

The Common Core is imperfect, as is any education theory and all education methods, but it is no more than the downfall education or society than was the loss of Latin class. (Though, I'd be in favor of bringing that back, too.)

When language professionals don't know the grammar

How well do language professionals know and understand grammar? How well could we perform what we expect of our students? I've often chafed under the grammatical accuracy criteria given to assess oral English ability. How many of you have seen criteria that, if strictly enforced, even native, educated English speakers would be penalized?

Now what if even the professionals don't know the grammar they're supposed to teach?

In the article  Cutting to the Common Core: Decoding Complex Text, Rebecca Blum-Martínez attempts to demonstrate differing language complexity by breaking down the grammar in two texts. Unfortunately, I believe she has not done this decoding well. Below I will show the examples texts, quote Blum-Martínez's explanation (in red) and then provide my take.

In this first example, we can see two compound sentences joined by the conjunction “and.” All three sentences are in the simple past tense, and the only more “complex” tense is the “would read” in the conditional past. (Blum-Martínez)

Here's what I see: The first sentence is not a compound sentence; it is a simple sentence with a compound predicate, no different in essence from "John ate and drank". The second sentence is likewise a simple sentence with a compound predicate, but the "complex" would read should probably also be simply read so as to maintain parallelism. Of course, if a compound sentence is desired, the first and second sentences could be joined by replacing the period with a comma; it is generally poor practice to begin a sentence with but unless it is being used for emphasis.

As in the previous example, there are three sentences. However, the third sentence consists of two clauses, with each clause containing several phrases that provide us with additional information (lexical density). In the first sentences [sic], the adjective phrase “less than a year” provides us with information about the length of Lincoln’s education, and thus adds to the sense of time in this “past tense” paragraph. ...And we find two different uses of “so.” In the first usage, “so” functions as an additional adverb that adds the scarcity of paper to that of books. In the second usage, “so” functions as a linking adverbial of result or inference that signals that the second unit, “he could use it again,” is the result of the former, “cleaned the board.” Thus, “so” changes its meaning because its function has changed. (Blum-Martínez)

Here's what I see: In the first sentence, I'm not sure that the whole phrase less than a year is an adjective clause as I believe a year to be an object (head noun) in this case. However, I'm not positive about that. The last sentence does, indeed, consist of two clauses, but perhaps not as in the way Blum-Martínez thinks. If she means that and separates two clauses, she would be wrong. In fact, the second so (which is really so that) is a subordinate conjunction that connects the first clause " He worked... and cleaned...knife" with the second clause "he could use it again." If I am not mistaken, in order for so to be a linking abverb(ial), is would have to take the meaning of therefore.

This should highlight a very significant problem: language professionals who themselves do not know "correct" forms. How can we teach what we ourselves do not know?

In any case, Blum-Martínez and I cannot both be correct, though we might both be wrong. Do you see problems that I've missed or mistakes that I've made?

All reading is not equal

When it comes to pleasure reading, what should your students or children be reading? What do you encourage them to read? Classic or modern? Fiction or non-fiction? Academic or non-academic? Newspapers? Magazines? Comic books? The backs of baseball cards?

What about physical vs. digital?

As Common Core State Standards (CCSS) begins to roll out across much of the country (for better or worse), the debate about what students read and should read has increased. CCSS calls for more exposure to informational texts and deemphasizes literature. Some support the change, others do not. What I do not see in the debate is how to create lifelong readers, which all but requires pleasure reading.

I'm a firm believer of self-selection. Readers naturally tend to gravitate towards readings that not only suit their interests, but also match their relative language ability. That is, while I may enjoy a comic book or a youth fiction now and again, or while I may occasionally challenge myself with a text like James Joyce's masterpiece Ulysses, I generally and naturally tend to read texts that fit my level of skill and comfort. I'm sure other readers do the same. Whatever genre your students or children like to read is probably just fine, just so long as they're reading and learning to love their reading experiences.

The issue becomes a bit more muddled when we talk about medium. Is reading from online, on e-readers, or on tablets equal to reading from physical formats? There are mixed answers to this question, with some studies showing equal or better results from electronic and hyperlinked (especially those with leads) text but the majority showing reduced recall (learning) from non-paper sources.

So what is the answer? For now I think the most prudent thing would be to encourage paper reading as much as possible without totally discounting electronic formats. Despite the the fact that hypertext and electronic formats intuitively seem ideal for learning, the research just isn't there yet. Below are listed some mixed resources that fall on either side of the debate.

What genres do you encourage for your students or children? Based on the research you've read, where do you fall along the digital-paper continuum?


Some articles for further reading
Antonenko, P., Dale S. Niederhauser, D.S. and Thompson, A. (2007) Optimization of cognitive load in conceptually rich hypertext: effect of leads. Cognitive science journal  [Accessed 29 December 2013]. 

Cagnoz, B. and Altun, A. (2012) The effects of hypertext structure, presentation, and instruction 

types on perceived disorientation and recall performances. Contemporary educational technology, 3(2), p.81-98. [Accessed 1 January 2014].

DeStefano, D. and LeFevre, J. (2007) Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review, Computers in human behavior, 23, p.1616-41. [Accessed 29 December 2013].

Genç, H. and Gülözer, K. (2013) The effect of cognitive load associated with instructional formats and types of presentation on second language reading comprehension performance. Turkish online journal of educational technology, 12(4), p.171-82. [Accessed 2 January 2014].

Miall, D.S. and Dobson, T. (2001) Reading hypertext and the experience of literature. Journal of digital information, 2(1). Available through: Texas Digital Library [Accessed 29 December 2013].

Şahin, A. (2001) Effects of linear texts in page scrolling and page-by-page reading forms on reading comprehension introduction. Turkish online journal of educational technology, 10(3), p.94-100. [Accessed 2 January 2014].

Zumback, J. and Mohraz, M. (2008) Cognitive load in hypermedia reading comprehension: Influence of text type and linearity. Computers in human behavior, 24, p.875-87. [Accessed 29 December 2013].