Who's Right? Who's Wrong

HOME

ABOUT TMR

WHAT'S NEW 

FREE NEWSLETTER
Sign up now!
 
INTRODUCTION to TMR

GREAT GIFT--especially for yourself!
TEACHING IN MIND
Order Now at publisher's discounted price and help support our work.

Contents
Preface
Introduction
Reviews 
About the author

TEACHER THINKING
Beliefs
Metaphors
Values
Meaning

EDUCATION MYTHS
Curriculum 
Knowledge
Teaching
Learning

ARTICLES

WORKSHOPS  

MEDIA 

Note: Printer-friendly versions of  documents on this site require Adobe Acrobat Reader.  Get it free by clicking the button.

This article is from the June, 2002 Focus on Teachers Newsletter, where it is available in PDF format.

One need only read the commentaries in Education Week or the letters to the editor in education journals to recognize that people hold a wide variety of beliefs about educational issues—often about the same issues. You may wholeheartedly agree with some ideas and almost violently disagree with others. Given all the research that has taken place in education—all the experience amassed by professional educators—why are there still such fundamental arguments over basic issues? Why are so many educators quick to dismiss the ideas of others rather than search for common strengths and build on points of agreement? In this article, I’d like to suggest a couple of reasons.

1. Although we like to think of ourselves as rational, “objective” people, many of us assess the “value” in the arguments of others not so much by analyzing their logic and reasoning but by unconsciously comparing those arguments with our own beliefs. Because beliefs are personal rather than factual, there is often a surge of emotion when someone’s ideas don’t agree with our own—a tendency to feel personally attacked by these ideas and a need to defend our views. Those holding opposing ideas engage in mythical battles that, theoretically, can be won or lost once all the “facts” are clear. And of course, people are sure that their “facts” are “true” in some absolute sense and therefore, the ones that must prevail. [To learn more about the difference between beliefs and facts, read the articles on beliefs and dichotomies. These topics and the danger of military metaphors in education are also discussed in detail in Teaching in Mind: How Teacher Thinking Shapes Education.]

2. People often fail to recognize that they are addressing only one aspect of an issue rather than the entire problem. Think of the information presently available to your senses. How much of it actually “registers” in your conscious mind? Simply by shifting your focus, you become aware of sounds, sensations, and other information in your environment that were there all along, but which your mind filtered out to avoid sensory overload and allow you to attend more fully to the object of your interest.

The same thing happens when people address complex issues. We selectively zoom in on information that interests us and filter out the rest, although it remains accessible to us if we choose to notice it. With cognitive issues, people tend to forget the other information is there—that the system they are studying is much more complex than the object of their focus. They mount their arguments based on their area of concern, unconsciously extending them to the entire system.

Let’s look at one hotbed of dissent in today’s educational environment—testing—as an example. I hope you would agree that the whole issue of testing and assessment is extremely complex. As with any other complex issue, there is no simple right or wrong answer—no “facts” that apply across the board. Yet controversies over whether testing is good or bad abound. Consider these statements, harvested from various websites and print media in the last few days.

      Testing determines how good a job a school is doing in educating students.

      Testing does psychological damage to students.

      Testing makes teachers accountable for what goes on in their classrooms.

      Testing takes valuable time away from “real” teaching.

      Testing determines where students need more help.

      Tests are money-making ploys of testing services and test preparation providers.

Before judging the statements right or wrong, consider the following. Every one of the statements is a belief, rather than a fact. They are not “facts” because they are not true in all contexts. It’s equally important to recognize that each statement is true in some contexts. The problem is that the context in which the statements were originally made have disappeared, leaving us with generalizations that only serve to ignite the passions of others. Each person is free to supply his or her own context, and because the “truth” of the statement varies from context to context, disagreement is inevitable!

Worse, the terms in the statements are undefined. When you think of the word “test,” what image comes to mind? Pencil and paper tests where students fill in bubbles? Tests of physical skills or procedures? Or something entirely different? Many tests focus on knowledge and comprehension, while others assess higher-level thinking. Some assess less tangible characteristics, such as teamwork, determination, or ingenuity. Without specifying any of this information, these statements about testing are vague generalities, often appearing contradictory. Battle lines are drawn and the arguments begin.

What we must recognize is that, because each of the statements focuses on a different aspect of testing, the “truth” of one statement does not automatically make the others false. Therefore, each belief—each statement—has value in helping us decide on a course of action because it enlarges our perception of the issue.

3. If our goal in discussing educational issues is to find “answers,” we must first be sure we’re asking the same questions. The testing statements listed above can be thought of as answers to questions about testing. “Are there abuses in testing?” “What, if any, psychological effects do tests have on students?” “How can the effectiveness of schools be assessed?” “What are the appropriate uses of tests?” Clearly, there are multiple answers to each of those questions. The statements listed above are not only generic answers to different questions, but answers that are “correct” only some of the time. But unless all these questions about testing—and their possible answers—are addressed, any decisions about testing will be limited in scope. Seeking a single “answer” not only limits possibilities and applicability, but inevitably leads to disagreement.

In his book, Metaphors of Mind, Robert Sternberg discusses various theories of intelligence. His words are applicable to many other educational theories and statements of educational belief such as those found above.

“…we pay too much attention to answers at the expense of paying enough attention to questions. As a result, we often see theories as competing, when in fact they are not: They are different answers to different questions, not different answers to the same question. Even when we recognize that two theories address different questions, we may still try to compare them on some illusory basis that prejudices the outcome of our comparison in favor of one theory or the other.” (Sternberg, R. (1990). Metaphors of Mind: Conceptions of the Nature of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 284.)

It is time to stop reducing complex educational issues to a question of who is “right” and who is “wrong.” It is time to stop looking for simple answers—simple formulas that let us off the hook when it comes to making decisions based on the situation at hand. Rather than condemning people whose opinions don’t agree with our own, let’s begin with the assumption (until proven otherwise) that the people arguing about testing (and other educational issues) share our concern for the well-being of students. Let’s identify the aspect of testing that dominates their thinking. And let’s ask one critical question. “Is what they are saying “true” in any context?”

If the answer is “yes”, then it’s appropriate to add their arguments to our database of information. The problems of assessment and accountability are extremely complex—with multiple solutions rather than a simplistic “testing” or “no testing” stance. Presently, research on the value of multiple forms of assessment is often ignored in the ongoing political demands for more hard data on which schools may be judged. It is imperative that those concerned with the ultimate well-being and development of students confront these limited views and demand a broader consideration of the issues.

Even in something as simple as buying a car, a person inspects the vehicle from all angles. S/he researches the record of the make and model, takes it for a test drive, and consults with others on their opinions. In short, the person examines the purchase from multiple perspectives before making a decision. Why should the future of our children be less important? Why should educators give in to the current fad—fall for the current hype—act on information that is incomplete and limited in scope?

I’d like to suggest that when we feel ourselves becoming agitated over what someone has said about some educational issue, we refrain from condemning their ideas out of hand. Assume that their ultimate goals for students are similar to your own and simply ask yourself if the circumstances they use to support their arguments are valid in any context. If so, those arguments have value—they provide more pieces of the puzzle, giving us a more informed view of the larger picture.

Like the classic movie, Rashomon, our perceptions and the way we interpret those perceptions are significantly biased by our beliefs and how we are personally affected by a situation. The real danger in leaping to agreement or disagreement—in judging whether something is “right” or “wrong”—is that this type of thinking limits perceptions, robbing us of a wealth of perspectives that add immeasurably to our ability to make informed decisions.

By changing ourselves—by engaging our willingness to consider alternatives—we improve our chances of contributing to meaningful change in the large and complex institution of education.

For associated websites or to print this article, please check the 
PDF version.