Perfectly Incorrect Why The Common Core Is Psychologically And Cognitively Unsound eBook Terry Marselle

Download As PDF : Perfectly Incorrect Why The Common Core Is Psychologically And Cognitively Unsound eBook Terry Marselle

Not to be confused with the Common Core itself – which has absolutely no science behind it - this book screams research. If one is looking for a go-to, desk-check reference for literally every topic beneath the Common Core umbrella, this book comes close. Written in a reader-friendly kitchen table conversational style, Marselle’s narrative delivers gobs of scientific evidence without the drudgery of jargon and coma-inducing explanations. On the contrary, an eBook with over 600 images and 700 hyperlinks? This has to be a first. There are even two executive summaries, 54 and 33 pages, respectively. What’s not to like?

By the time the book reaches its half-way point, it has already lived up to its subtitle, as Marselle meticulously documents how and why the Common Core's authors and supporters had / have a fundamental non-understanding of how students of all ages think and learn. Of particular interest is the scholarly manner in which the author presents the alarming developmental inappropriateness of the Common Core in grades K-3. Play-based kindergarten, for example, has all but disappeared. Formal instruction, which used to start in grade one, has taken its place. This is despite the fact that well-grounded research continues to deliver a clarion call that providing a play-based education in the earliest years is not a soft option.

In Chapter 2, Marselle provides great detail about how the diversity of America’s schoolchildren is so vast, that no other country in history can compare, e.g., currently, nearly 14% of America’s residents were born outside the United States. Add to this mix, a 23% poverty rate among America's school children - more than any other developed country except Romania - and things become clear. The root cause of the Achievement Gap is almost certainly the result of a lack of equity in education. Translation poverty and all its nefarious by-products. Simply put, neither a “common core” of academic standards (even if they were attainable), nor the blaming of teachers will fix any of this.

Chapters 3 and 4 take readers on different journeys. Here, we begin to understand the Cognitively Unsound part of this book’s title. In short, from ground level, the Common Core is an upwardly spiraling staircase of abstract, intuitive, conceptual, and divergent thinking–a mode of cognition that only 27 to 30% of the general population can do with relative ease. Who knew? It's all documented, of course.

Then, in Chapter 4, the author again demonstrates his research skills when he lays bare much of the deeply flawed pedagogy of the Common Core. For example, one of the trendiest of trends in contemporary education is “collaborative learning.” The problem, however, is that all available research strongly suggests that collaborative learning only works if everyone at the table is an expert to begin with. Otherwise, students end up exchanging ignorance and/or a disproportionate percentage of students end up doing the heavy lifting for the task at hand.

By the time the reader finishes Chapters 5 & 6 of this 785 page volume, Marselle has already taken us on many deep dives into exactly what is wrong with both Common Core math and ELA (English Language Arts) at all grade levels. And what a story it is. Laudably, not left out of the discussion are students with Special Needs, ELLs (English Language Learners), Gifted & Talented students…even students seeking the GED (General Equivalency Diploma). There is comprehensive coverage of all.

Two years in the making, Perfectly Incorrect was written by a real teacher with decades of experience and who continues to teach real students on a daily basis. Within the tumult of education reform, books such as this are uncommon. First, the author pulled the discussion of the Common Core under one roof. Next, he added science. That is, science that directly addresses both the cognitive processes and mental health of students...and by extension, parents and teachers.

Perfectly Incorrect Why The Common Core Is Psychologically And Cognitively Unsound eBook Terry Marselle

I have to say it's refreshing to read a takedown on the Common Core by someone who actually understands the Common Core Standards. Clearly the author has done her research, and cites the actual standards and/or documents written by the author's of the standards. While she does address other issues, such as testing, she always explains clearly what she is doing, and does not fall into the trap of conflating the standards with those other issues. The book is clearly intended to be read electronically, and the author takes full advantage of that medium, giving internal and external links. These links do not have to be followed, however, to be able to understand her points. The embedded videos and links do take up a lot of room, but again, since this is meant to be read on an e-reader or computer, that's not really an issue. Her arguments are well researched, and she makes some very valid criticisms of the standards and particularly the "shifts" associated with them She clearly understands the context in which they are written. She is not entirely even-handed when it comes certain subjects. For example, she seems to think that educators who try to teach critical thinking and for deeper understanding are unaware of how to integrate that appropriately in the classroom. And she doesn't seem to understand that the 70% non-fiction rule is for all subjects, and literature should still be taught in language arts courses. But overall, she does a good job explaining why she believes that the Common Core standards are inappropirate for children.

Product details

File Size 35288 KB
Print Length 785 pages
Publisher Terry Marselle; 1 edition (May 23, 2015)
Publication Date May 23, 2015
Sold by Digital Services LLC
Language English
ASIN B00Y7BM2OA

Read Perfectly Incorrect Why The Common Core Is Psychologically And Cognitively Unsound eBook Terry Marselle

Tags : Buy Perfectly Incorrect: Why The Common Core Is Psychologically And Cognitively Unsound: Read 19 Kindle Store Reviews - Amazon.com,ebook,Terry Marselle,Perfectly Incorrect: Why The Common Core Is Psychologically And Cognitively Unsound,Terry Marselle,EDUCATION Educational Psychology,EDUCATION Research
People also read other books :

Perfectly Incorrect Why The Common Core Is Psychologically And Cognitively Unsound eBook Terry Marselle Reviews

Terrific book..must read...
Great book and a must read for all educators. It offers sound evidence not presented in the current era of reform.
There is so much wrong with Common Core, it literally takes a book to explain it. If you don't understand Common Core or think it might be a good thing, please read this book and learn the truth!
This is an extensive piece of work, that includes many interesting statistics, anecdotes, and reflections about the place of Common Core in today's schools. Indeed, some of our school districts have gone overboard with the implementation and testing of standards. An easy, but fasctinating read!
Very well written. She knows what she is talking about. I just wish that more people would read this and understand how bad the Common Core is for teaching. My wife was an elementary school teacher and finally retired after many years because of the Common Core craziness that is now being forced upon many school systems. I wish more legislators would read this and try to understand it rather than blindly follow their political beliefs (you know who I am talking about).
I find this book the single most important, very readable resource for understanding the issues around Common Core.

The Common Core was created and then forced on teachers and students by ignorant people who try to make us believe that education is simple, and they know the magic how to make it work for everybody uniformly.

The evidence has proved them wrong, and this book gives a good idea about the complexities of education---especially public education. It's time to appreciate, AGAIN, the complex work our K-12 teachers are doing.

The book is proving every claim it makes, gives interesting links to videos, articles. If you want to argue for common core, read this book firts.
Originally, I was all set to give this book 5 stars along with a well-deserved narrative. I still intend to do the 5 star part, but something captured my attention along the way. I was so intrigued by the (previous) person’s one star review that I decided to do a little digging of my own. Henceforth, I shall refer to him as “One Star,” but first things first. I am going to sacrifice the space that I intended to use for my positive review of this book, because some things should not be allowed to pass-by without being responded to. Therefore, what follows is taking One Star to task.

As I see it, this person just embarrassed himself. As if the research encapsulated within Perfectly Incorrect itself (via the literally hundreds of links) are not convincing enough, One Star should consult one of the strongest features of this book. That is, without fanfare, this author has made 100% of his references clickable. Imagine, being able to access every single source, which includes of course, the original researched peer review articles citing the neuroscience - as well as the original writings of people he that he mentions. Included here are One Star’s comments regarding cognitive neuroscientist Prof. Willingham.

Willingham says in the clearest of terms, the #1 reason why students do not like school is because “schools overemphasize and require students to think abstractly.” He goes on to say that even for the minority of students who will eventually become naturally intuitive adults, evolutionarily speaking, thinking abstractly is something none of our brains were designed to do, or to be good at, or enjoy. This is because of the higher than usual external effort required. The professor is not saying we should avoid trying to exercise that (predominantly right) side of our brain. On the contrary, Willingham says it is critically important that the task be just difficult enough to hold our interest, but not so difficult that we give up in frustration. (end of Willingham’s comments)

All of this vitriol on the part of the One Star is unfortunate because it’s one thing to embarrass oneself. But it’s another to write an invective which has done a true disservice to the author of Perfectly Incorrect. Because One Star’s contempt was so intense here, out of sheer curiosity, I started to do my own digging to find other reviews he had done. It didn’t take me long. One other “review” done a couple of years ago was also on a book that had to do with education. What follows are direct quotes of what this fellow had to say about that other book. Notice the malice as he writes

"Please-please do not buy this book or the reprehensible nonsense it peddles." And that was just the headline. The actual content of One Star’s “review” is much worse. Specifically, there are a lot of capitalized words (which means he was shouting) and many-many vile phrases such as "baseless notion," etc. By the way, that review is easily clickable on this page.

I believe as well as local newspapers have a problem with people who hide behind anonymity, distance and broadbrush statements. / should take concrete steps to deal with that.

Returning to One Star's commentary on Perfectly Incorrect, the Australian author goes to extra lengths to take down American students.

He writes “….the evidence shows that American kids know and can do less than their international counterparts remains a fact. America’s toxic inequality doesn't help but falling back on blaming kids' circumstances is making excuses.”

Of course, as per the rest of the “facts” in his diatribe, he could not be more wrong on this point. Literally dozens of volumes have been written on the research which states exactly the opposite. In Japan, 99.99% of all students are Japanese. In Finland, 96% of students are Finns. This is compared to 14% of all American students who were not born in the United States. In short, America at this very moment, is the most diverse country in the history of humankind. In America, 23% of all students live in poverty – more than any other developed nation, except Romania. When the playing field is leveled in these two respects, the scores (if they mean anything at all) of American students shine. Among many other researchers on this topic, this gentleman may want to consult the works of Professor Yong Zhao of Oregon State University.

In another part of his malicious review, One Star, who claims to be an educator, says, “Developmentalists hold that kids can only learn when they are 'ready', which again has been thoroughly disproven.” Oh really?

I too, am an educator and can tell anyone who is reading this that this person is quite far off on this point as well. But remember, One Star has spoken. He said developmentalism has been "thoroughly disproven." In doing so, he cites the American Psychological Association's Twenty Tips For Teachers, released to the public in May of 2015 and available electronically. Here is that link in case anyone would like to access it. I’ll save you the trip.

http//www.apa.org/ed/schools/cpse/top-twenty-principles.pdf

PRINCIPLE 3 (the only one that applies to One Star’s harangue) reads Students’ cognitive development and learning are not limited by general stages of development.

Sorry I must explain this to One Star, but he does not appear to understand what this all this about. What Principle 3 means is the following. As the discipline of psychology matured, various stage theories proliferated. There was, of course, Freud’s Psycho-Sexual Stages, Erikson’s Psycho-Social Stages of Development, Piaget’s Stages of Cognitive Development, Kohlberg’s Stages of Morality, Kubler-Ross’s stages of Death and Dying and so forth. As psychological research got better, two problems with stage theories emerged. First was their accuracy and second was their rigidity. For example, early-on, Freud’s Psycho-Sexual Stages were soundly discredited and remain so.

On the other hand, Erikson’s earliest Stages of Psycho-Social Development are widely accepted by mainstream psychology, but there is only one problem. They are difficult to prove. Some of them, however, have gained scientific credence as of late. This is because of the invention of brain imagining machines, e.g., PET scans, etc. In retrospect, Erikson appears to be a man ahead of his time with his first stage Trust vs Mistrust. Severe parental neglect in the earliest of years is highly correlated with Reactive Attachment Disorder (lack of bonding). Remember the Romanian babies and other stories from orphanages from hell? Other areas where Erikson’s stages shine are his social-emotional milestones of his Stages Two, Three, and Four. Today, it is difficult to find a psychologist that disagrees with Erikson’s main contentions that children need three things during their childhood to become mentally healthy adults. They are 1) The need to feel and think they are loved; 2) The need to feel and think they are safe and secure; and 3) Gentle encouragement accompanied by healthy boundaries.

Kohlberg’s first two (of three) Stages of Morality are widely accepted as being culturally universal, with the extremely complex Stage 3 applying more to Western societies. On the topic of Death and Dying, the five stages of Kubler-Ross, i.e, Denial-Anger-Bargaining-Depression-Acceptance, were at first highly accepted. Then as time went on, they were thoroughly discredited - as everyone grieves differently.

Aside from what has been said above, these stage theories went awry in a second way. That is, with their semi-rigid emphasis on reaching different plateaus (stages) at certain prescribed times and in the same chronological order. Instead of emphasizing a slow, gradual and continuous process that shapes development, like riding up an escalator, the earliest stage theorists made it seem like these stages were like climbing the rungs on a ladder. In other words, this sequence of separate stages were absolute musts before one could proceed in development.

By the turn of the newest century, mainstream psychology had had it with these sharply and neatly defined age-related theories. They were tired with the approach of “ka-boom, it’s your second birthday, so now a baby is now into Erikson’s Stage 2, etc. And for a while, ANY stage theory – even if its content was basically accurate – received bad press. For a while, ANY stage theory was anthrax. It was plutonium. But then a partial rehab occurred.

Rehab? Yes. Just as in physical maturation, a baby must be able to crawl before it can walk. Sphincter muscles must be ready before it can be toilet-trained, and there must be rough motor skills before there can be fine motor skills, e.g., playing the violin. Currently the evidence is overwhelmingly irrefutable that generally speaking, there indeed must first be certain maturational cognitive mile-markers before other more sophisticated cognitive events can happen.

For example, a typical child does not speak its first word until approximately its first birthday; engage in telegraphic speech, e.g., “me up” until 18 months or so. And by the time their 2nd birthday arrives, they are talking up a storm. By the time they are three years of age, they have the vocabularies and personalities of talk show hosts. Why are these mile-markers noteworthy? Because they show a progression in cognition. It’s that simple.

Another example is one of the most documented of all cognitive models Piaget’s Theory of Mind – something that begins to occur at approximately at the age of 5. Theory of Mind means that a child’s brain has reached enough sophistication that he or she can imagine themselves in the situation of the person they are talking to. That’s why, on average, children below this age cannot successfully lie. Why? Because in order to successfully lie, one must be cognitively able to put themselves in another’s position in order to manipulate them so they can then steer them in a different (cognitive) direction than the one that other person might otherwise have gone. Children without Theory of Mind can attempt to lie, but are almost never successful at it.

Other examples abound. It is culturally universal that the vast majority of children cannot think abstractly until a certain age – usually around 11. A child of 13 will, therefore, easily beat a child of 7 in a game of chess – unless that 7 year old is a child prodigy…a rare occurrence.

Children also cannot engage in satire until they have been on the planet long enough to do so. Why? Because they don’t even know what satire is, let alone know how to engage in the irreverent and complicated thoughts for desired effect that satire demands.

Returning to One Star and his gross misuse of the APA 20 Teaching Tips. Principle 3 was inserted for two reasons. The first reason is that psychology is still recovering from SOME stage theories, e.g., Freud’s Psycho-Sexual & Kubler-Ross Theory on Death and Dying that were/are just plain trash. In an oblique way, the APA had to deal with that phenomenon. Ironically, as anyone reading this will shortly see (below), Piaget’s Theory of Children’s Cognition has survived almost totally intact.

The second reason for Principle 3 was the APA had to make a bold statement that children do not learn via a rigid age-locked / task related process. That is, a child MUST do X before Y can happen.

Cut and pasted from Perfectly Incorrect, the author’s treatment of Piaget’s theories is very balanced. For example, Marselle writes

“Amazingly, nearly a half century later, the greatest criticism of Piaget’s theory still falls into the category of tweaking, rather than substantive challenges. For example, instead of static and rigid stages of cognition which shift like tectonic plates of the earth’s mantle prior to an earthquake (Piaget’s version), almost no cognitive neuroscientist today believes the progression of children’s cognition happens in this fashion. It is continuous.
{...}
Today, the most widely accepted, and most evidenced-based theory of how children’s cognition progresses was introduced in 1998 by Professors Robert S. Siegler of Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh and Elsbeth Stern of the Max Planck Institute in Berlin. Click here to see the original research.
{...}
Getting to the point, Stern (page 5 of their study) stated that children usually make cognitive advancements via the ebbing and flowing of "overlapping waves." At any given moment, some cognitive advances are cresting while other elements are waning. Some segments are surging forward, gaining force as they do so, while others are just coming together just below the surface of conscious deliberations.
{…}
Indeed, it was on this last point that Siegler and Stern conclude their evidence is the strongest. That is, a substantial amount of advances in child cognition and learning takes place unconsciously. Equally important, these unconscious progressions in cognition depend upon previous practice / previous learning which then serve as a springboard for newer cognitive surges. Without solid practice to form a bedrock, new episodes of cognitive advancement cannot gain traction with which to thrust forward. As stated, Siegler and Stern’s research on how children cognitively advance has become widely accepted within neuroscience." (end of direct quote from Marselle's writing).

Returning yet again to One Star’s statement, “Developmentalists hold that kids can only learn when they are 'ready', which again has been thoroughly disproven” – we see that he has a rhetorical problem. He has talked himself into a corner. If one is to believe One Star, then there is only one explanation. Babies come out of the womb as miniaturized adults – and all they do is get bigger. Hummm…

Winding down, according to e-dictionary, one definition of a troll is “a person who posts inflammatory or inappropriate messages or comments (on the Internet, especially a message board) for the purpose of upsetting other users and provoking a response.” In reviews, it is quite rare for a review to get a response. But when I went to check on his other review, I noticed this fellow got 10 responses to the review of the book he viciously attacked a couple of years ago. One of those responses called him a troll. So it seems that no matter what the book is, or how many years go by in-between his reviews, this leopard hasn’t changed his spots. For example, at the end of his review for Perfectly Incorrect, One Star says, “Now I have to find a way to get this off my .” So it would seem that being over the top is perhaps a personality characteristic.

Finally, I cannot help but to wonder why this person lashes out in such a venomous manner. Either way, I believe the description of Perfectly Incorrect is accurate when the product description said this book screams research. As for myself, it took me a total of 25 hours to read this book and I can tell you that unlike One Star’s unfair tirade, at the end of the day, science is still science. One Star may not like the world of science but the author of Perfectly Incorrect has it firmly on his side.
I have to say it's refreshing to read a takedown on the Common Core by someone who actually understands the Common Core Standards. Clearly the author has done her research, and cites the actual standards and/or documents written by the author's of the standards. While she does address other issues, such as testing, she always explains clearly what she is doing, and does not fall into the trap of conflating the standards with those other issues. The book is clearly intended to be read electronically, and the author takes full advantage of that medium, giving internal and external links. These links do not have to be followed, however, to be able to understand her points. The embedded videos and links do take up a lot of room, but again, since this is meant to be read on an e-reader or computer, that's not really an issue. Her arguments are well researched, and she makes some very valid criticisms of the standards and particularly the "shifts" associated with them She clearly understands the context in which they are written. She is not entirely even-handed when it comes certain subjects. For example, she seems to think that educators who try to teach critical thinking and for deeper understanding are unaware of how to integrate that appropriately in the classroom. And she doesn't seem to understand that the 70% non-fiction rule is for all subjects, and literature should still be taught in language arts courses. But overall, she does a good job explaining why she believes that the Common Core standards are inappropirate for children.
Ebook PDF Perfectly Incorrect Why The Common Core Is Psychologically And Cognitively Unsound eBook Terry Marselle