In a June 27th article in the Huffington Post by Lori Day, Why Boys Are Failing in an Educational System Stacked Against Them, Day joins calls to attend to the concerning trends regarding males in the US educational system. She notes statistics from "experts", one of which is, Michael Gurian, that boys get worse grades, dominate the disciplinary incidents, are remarkably more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD, and more. Michael Gurian has published numerous position articles and books where he takes research on gender differences related to learning, and brain development and advocates specific parenting and teaching methods based on his interpretation of the research; however, a cursory search turned up no empirical studies on the parenting and teaching methods he promotes. This doesn't mean Gurian should be disregarded, but it does throw up a cautionary flag.
Day also cites Richard Whitmore claiming that our educational system now forces earlier literacy development, and that boys develop literacy later than girls. However, that is not a consensus among educational researchers. To date, there is mixed evidence regarding gender difference in language development; some evidence suggests girls have a slight advantage, accounting for a very small 3% of the variance (Galworthy, et al., 2000), and other research shows no difference at all. Richard Whitmore has also written a number of works based on government statistics and such, and advocates for specific gender based education. Again, though, a cursory search found no empirical studies to support Whitmore's recommendations.
Day also comments that boys have certain gender-based learning styles and that education should compliment those styles. She is careful not to advocate for radical changes, but she does advocate for greater understanding and focus on the needs of boys. This is a valid concern, however her claim that boys have particular learning styles is not. There is no empirical evidence to support claims that people have different learning styles. Students have certainly developed different skills in different contexts, but teaching to specific learning styles does not consistently improve grades according to empirical research. There could be something there that accounts for the variance in performance, and maybe we are having difficulty identifying it from within our cultural and scientific lenses, but it doesn't appear to be learning styles per se.
Day then compares her own experiences as a parent of a daughter but a sister growing up with two brothers, and she does this quite humorously. She notes the behavioral tendencies of boys to engage large areas of space in their play and compared that to girls taking less (in general). She notes evolutionary psychology premises that this is due to male brains being wired for "hunting", which is premised on the fact that male brains show slightly more cortex devoted to spatial reasoning than females. It's easy to explain things in this way, because our interpretations are culturally bound and tend to support cultural notions already in place, and this is a noted criticism of evolutionary-based conclusions.
I comment on this because there is clearly something going on in terms of males performance and retention in the educational system, and I concur with Day that we definitely need to address it, but it doesn't do much good to hype methods, exemplars, and facts that are not supported by research. Indeed, that can do more harm than good.
Stan, I enjoyed reading this essay. I appreciate your criticism of Day's approach to the problem of lagging male education.
ReplyDeleteYou, rightly as a scientist, place high value on empirical studies. As the hammer sees everything to be a nail, or as Don Quixote found nothing but high adventure and opportunities for the duties of the knight-errant, so I saw an opportunity to discuss my musings on empirical evidence. Please forgive the tangential-ity of this comment.
The perpetual bane of inductive reasoning, identified by Hume, is that certainty can never be grasped, no matter the number of data points. Hume's famous example of the observed rising of the sun every morning not implying future risings helps us grasp this, as does that of the previously accepted empirical fact that "all swans are white" being shattered when Australian black swans were discovered.
I fear that often we scientists forget about black swans. As you mention, we have a tendency to use evolutionary-based causal explanations to bolster support for a (say) culturally-granted view. It seems that this is similarly true for empirically-based causal explanations.
This is not a criticism of your science, since we are all embedded in our temporal situation, all subject to the bonds of a "view from somewhere." Rather, this is a reminder that I often find occasion to repeat to the mirror. It is a reality that I find difficult to maintain in view. I desire the certainty that science at first seems to promise, but fails to deliver (and in fact never really promised).
I think this is a case of searching for something where it does not belong. When doing science, I find myself yearning for certainty, but it ever eludes me in the endless process of approximation. I am still learning that this certainty, if it is to be found, is not to be found in the world of objects. It guides me toward myself as non-object, as self whose perspective denies itself a view of itself. As this ascending thought approaches its bounds, I brush into the non-objective realm in which I may find certainty: being itself.
Now, I must go resume science. With this reminder I am (hopefully) ready to do so without over-reaching its bounds, glossing its uncertainties, and raising the red flags of critics astute as yourself.
Hey Rico!
ReplyDeleteI just met someone at a conference who spoke and had several mannerisms similar to you, and it took me back a few years...
I agree with your point. Science is not definitive, and quantum physics (as you know much better than I do) has shown us that "reality" is influenced by our perception; that the act of observing our environment changes it. This alone should tell us then that our science is not pure or definitive. Your philosophical points are just as salient.
I still value the benefit of a more disciplined approach to drawing conclusions from the data or observations we consider. I know that everyone is apt to rush conclusions and that our biases always influence our interpretations; yet I value the deliberate processes that help us maximize our objectivity and precision, even if it is never perfect. What is "True" will always elude us to some extent.
Drawing conclusions from conjecture and unsupported opinion is dangerous, though. Day's conclusions are one example of this, but there are others, and I am sure I have done and will do the same at times. Currently I'm reading Twenge's work ("Generation Me"), and I am finding similar but more disturbing issues with undisciplined and biased interpretation of data. Twenge, having an apparently unpleasant disposition towrds youth, selectively interprets spurious relationships between data mined from numerous surveys given across ~30 years to different demographics to suggest an epidemic of narcissism and anxiety among youth today. She uses popular media such as television shows, magazine articles and personal testimony as evidence that her interpretation that youth are overly individualistic and ill-mannered compared to previous generations is accurate. The anecdotal stories she tells are resonating with some educators and some of them are subsequently adopting her conclusions as their own without challenging them. This is very worrisome to me; hence my encouragement to educators to exercise more discipline in their considerations.
You know I can struggle with brevity (I see you smirking!), and in that gallant effort can neglect to cover some important aspects. Thanks for calling me on it!
I wonder if you were at a giant squid conference....
ReplyDeleteTo clarify, I certainly agree with your point about the virtues of relying more on empirical studies than anecdotal stories and the like. I see weakness in this area in my own work and field, and I imagine that in educational psychology the temptation can be even greater.
Knowing you, Stan, I find it hard to believe you fall into this trap often, due to your constant self-reflection and willingness to admit your own imperfection - two qualities I greatly admire in you.
I will try to continue checking in on this blog, since this time it was quite enjoyable.