| BookTalk.org News |
| • The Secret Garden has won the Dec. 2008 Jan. 2009 Fiction book poll! |
| • Thank you Ophelia!!! Your donation is MUCH appreciated! |
| • Thank you for your very generous donation Interbane! |
| • 5 members are now enjoying the new "Email Digests" feature. Click on the digests link on the right at the top of every page to learn more. This is a great feature for keeping updated on forum activity. |
| • Regular casual chats are back on the menu! Check out the calendar for the schedule. |
| Featured Videos |
BREAKING NEWS
Andrew Bacevich
"The Limits of Power"
More Videos
|
| Amazon Honor System |
|
| Donate to BookTalk.org |
Please support BookTalk.org by making a small donation today!
•
Who supports us?
|
| Show us where you live! |
 |
|
| Author |
Message |
MadArchitect
Usergroups: None
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Posts: 2609
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender: 
Location: decentralized
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:04 am Post subject:
|
 |
|
| I didn't learn scientific method in school -- and my attendence was better than average. Any "critical thinking" skills I have now I've more or less taught myself -- and most of it by reading books that never would have been introduced in a compulsory, public school education. No do I think my educational experience diverges all that much from the norm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Niall001 
Stupendously Brilliant
Usergroups: None
Joined: 18 Sep 2003
Posts: 770
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender:
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:56 am Post subject:
|
|
|
But surely an education should be seven parts teaching people how to think to three parts teaching people what to do? Isn't that what democracy demands? Where is the benefit in allowing people the opportunity to elect governments to deal with problems like global warming if they are completely scientifically illiterate?
In general, I'd much rather a greater emphasis was placed on things like philosophy, logic, science and human psychology than life skills or business. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. Pessimistic
Professor
Silver Contributor
Usergroups: None
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 3524
Thanks
Given: 5
Received: 6 in 6 Posts
Gender:
Location: NJ - www.myspace.com/mrpessimistic
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 9:32 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Niall001 wrote: |
In general, I'd much rather a greater emphasis was placed on things like philosophy, logic, science and human psychology than life skills or business. |
Ditto...because the latter simply produces 'worker bees'. I agree with Mad though...the educational system in this country needs to be refocused, because we do NOT teach kids how to think, but (now more than ever) how to PASS TESTS!
Mr. P. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dissident Heart
Wisdom Personified
Bronze Contributor
Usergroups: None
Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 1669
Thanks
Given: 6
Received: 12 in 12 Posts
Gender:
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:08 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| I think an excellent approach to teaching science could follow the lead from two books we've adressed here at Booktalk: The Omnivore's Dillema and Deep Economy...both appraoching (among aohter things) the world of food production, distribution, consumption, and waste. A careful examination of what goes on their plates and in their stomachs and down the sewer would cover more than enough curriculum for the scientific method, ecological systems, and how humans interact with their environments. And it would be immediate, pertinent, and tasty too! Hands on, tactile, practical and connected to every day living: as well as linking to the world of economics, politics, city planning, and community building. This would also extend nicely into ethics and the philosophy of the "good life": i.e., what responsibility do I have to the world around me (in particular the food I eat), and what kind of world must I live in so that I can eat the way I want? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Niall001
Stupendously Brilliant
Usergroups: None
Joined: 18 Sep 2003
Posts: 770
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender:
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:00 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Just a quick thought but isn't a lot of what people are talking about when they talk of life skills covered by Home Economics? I know when I did it it covered things like diet, budgeting, banking, consumer rights, social problems, basic biology etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadArchitect
Usergroups: None
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Posts: 2609
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender:
Location: decentralized
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:29 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Niall wrote: |
| But surely an education should be seven parts teaching people how to think to three parts teaching people what to do? Isn't that what democracy demands? |
I assume this was directed to me. I'm not suggesting that we shift to an emphasis on trade skills. But the question that we ought to ask when ever we talk about "teaching people how to think" is "how to think about what?" More and more I'm finding all this talk about "critical thinking skills" to be either too abstract to serve as a basis for any practical program of education, or a kind of jargon that stands for "thinking about the subjects I think are important, and in the way I'd like to see them thought about."
Again, think about it in terms of what is actually gained by a third grader being taught Darwinian evolution. Who is recommending that we teach them evolution and why? The answer, generally speaking, is along the lines of a) scientists serving on panels that draft educational standards, and b) because they judge the utility of a subject by its application to their own career. Ninety-nine percent of the students who pass through public education simply will not enter a career in biology or any other hard science -- for them, some other aspect of biology will likely be more useful. But so far as I can tell, the panels that draft educational standards rarely employ any members whose specific task is to assess what subjects would be most useful to scientific laypersons. If that consideration plays any part in the determination of educational standards, it's mostly a matter of felicity.
| Quote: |
| Where is the benefit in allowing people the opportunity to elect governments to deal with problems like global warming if they are completely scientifically illiterate? |
Can you put a name to the phantom that's advocating that we not teach science in schools? And while you're at it, point a finger at the educational system that's teaching people the science necessary to actually address an issue like global warming.
| Quote: |
| In general, I'd much rather a greater emphasis was placed on things like philosophy, logic, science and human psychology than life skills or business. |
I've been studying philosophy for, literally, half of my life now, but I certainly don't think it should be a required subject in compulsory education. Some measure of logic probably should be taught, but even higher level logic is probably beyond the scope of most non-voluntary education, and other philosophical topics are so specialized that I can't imagine that teaching it to everyone would do much more than breed contempt in people who, coming to it later in life, would actually find a lot of value in the subject. I agree that science should be taught, but I'm of the opinion that the wrong science is being taught, mostly because the wrong science is being demanded by professionals who think more about what's needed for future scientists than what's needed by the average citizen. Teaching "human psychology" would probably do more harm than good -- the last thing I need is every fifth grader I come across judging all of my behavior according to standards they got out of a textbook -- and I can't really see much benefit in it.
What I am suggesting is that we need to be teaching kids how to think about their immediate environment in ways that make them more circumspect about their actions. Most of them could do without learning about the temperature required to make a solid phase directly into gas, but a clearer understanding of the complexity involved when you apply a pesticide to your front lawn is science with an immediate bearing on their behavior. That need not involve rote learning or narrow training in any particular skill set. I'm still advocating a form of critical thought, it's just one that applies more directly to the sort of situations most non-professionals are likely to encounter on a daily basis.
| Quote: |
| Just a quick thought but isn't a lot of what people are talking about when they talk of life skills covered by Home Economics? I know when I did it it covered things like diet, budgeting, banking, consumer rights, social problems, basic biology etc. |
Insufficiently, yes. The question is, if those are the subjects that really matter to the majority of students, why are we restricting them to one of the most broadly derided and marginalized subjects in the curriculum? Particularly when most of those topics are just as at home in science, economics, sociology and other disciplines? In my school, and in most public schools I'm familiar with, Home Ec. was an elective. At best, it's often semi-required -- that is, it's one option among a few that will fill a particular requirement, but a student can just as easily fill that requirement by taking Typing or Shop. Why require students to learn about Darwin, or Thomas Hardy, or the Battle of Verdun, and not require them to learn subjects that they're more likely to need, that are more likely to give them information they can use to improve their daily lives? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Niall001
Stupendously Brilliant
Usergroups: None
Joined: 18 Sep 2003
Posts: 770
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender:
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 8:38 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
But the question that we ought to ask when ever we talk about "teaching people how to think" is "how to think about what?" More and more I'm finding all this talk about "critical thinking skills" to be either too abstract to serve as a basis for any practical program of education, or a kind of jargon that stands for "thinking about the subjects I think are important, and in the way I'd like to see them thought about."
|
To my critical thinking involves being able to analyse an argument, identify its premises and detect any fallacies. They should be able to evaluate theories, be they literary, scientific, philosophical or historical to the point where they can differentiate between consistent theories and inconsistent theories.
| Quote: |
Again, think about it in terms of what is actually gained by a third grader being taught Darwinian evolution. Who is recommending that we teach them evolution and why? The answer, generally speaking, is along the lines of a) scientists serving on panels that draft educational standards, and b) because they judge the utility of a subject by its application to their own career. Ninety-nine percent of the students who pass through public education simply will not enter a career in biology or any other hard science -- for them, some other aspect of biology will likely be more useful |
If you're going to teach biology, you're going to have to teach evolution, maybe not in terrible detail, but to the point where people can understand what the empirical record says about the origins of life. There's very little in biology that needs to be thought - after all, who really needs to know about the genetics or the left ventricle - but if you're going to teach kids about biology, at some point they're going to start asking why biological organisms came to exist. It's the most human question anybody can ask.
| Quote: |
| Can you put a name to the phantom that's advocating that we not teach science in schools? And while you're at it, point a finger at the educational system that's teaching people the science necessary to actually address an issue like global warming. |
Completely was a bad word choice. But I feel that while science is taught, the scientific method is not.
| Quote: |
| I've been studying philosophy for, literally, half of my life now, but I certainly don't think it should be a required subject in compulsory education. Some measure of logic probably should be taught, but even higher level logic is probably beyond the scope of most non-voluntary education, and other philosophical topics are so specialized that I can't imagine that teaching it to everyone would do much more than breed contempt in people who, coming to it later in life, would actually find a lot of value in the subject. |
I'm not looking to make 10 year olds study complex philosophy, but at some point in their education, students should be introduced to some of the questions that have dominated western thought, and given cliff note versions of the philosophies of various important philosophers.
| Quote: |
| Teaching "human psychology" would probably do more harm than good -- the last thing I need is every fifth grader I come across judging all of my behavior according to standards they got out of a textbook -- and I can't really see much benefit in it. |
I was referring more to the aspects of psychological research that details our cognitive biases and basic learning mechanisms. It would help if people understood the psychology behind things decision making, problem solving, prejudice, learning and the like.
| Quote: |
| Most of them could do without learning about the temperature required to make a solid phase directly into gas, but a clearer understanding of the complexity involved when you apply a pesticide to your front lawn is science with an immediate bearing on their behavior. That need not involve rote learning or narrow training in any particular skill set. I'm still advocating a form of critical thought, it's just one that applies more directly to the sort of situations most non-professionals are likely to encounter on a daily basis. |
Well I think that one of the things I've found frustrating about science education I've had is the lack of concrete examples. Sometimes, this is just the nature of the beast. Still, I think that there's a lot to be said for the top-down approach to learning.
| Quote: |
| Why require students to learn about Darwin, or Thomas Hardy, or the Battle of Verdun, and not require them to learn subjects that they're more likely to need, that are more likely to give them information they can use to improve their daily lives? |
I think it may be because an assumption is made that many of these things are common sense or common knowledge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadArchitect
Usergroups: None
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Posts: 2609
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender:
Location: decentralized
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:33 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Niall001 wrote: |
| They should be able to evaluate theories, be they literary, scientific, philosophical or historical to the point where they can differentiate between consistent theories and inconsistent theories. |
Is that really all we want public education to achieve? How long does it take to teach a person to look for inconsistencies? It seems to me that a compulsory educational system ought to teach more than that. For example, in terms of history, is it really enough to teach a person how to "evaluate a theory"? Personally, I think a more beneficial use of public education would be to teach children the historical circumstances that impacted the development of the governmental system the inhabit. That sort of context will help them to make sense of some of the contingent and otherwise indecipherable decisions that have contributed to the current state of affairs. And it seems entirely likely that the people who have campaigned so hard to make evolution a required part of the curriculum want it to be a feature of the student's view of the world, not just an example of how to evaluate theories.
| Quote: |
| If you're going to teach biology, you're going to have to teach evolution, maybe not in terrible detail, but to the point where people can understand what the empirical record says about the origins of life. |
Again, why? I understand that evolution provides the framework for biology as a discipline, but most of these students aren't going to practice biology as a discipline -- not even in the same sense that they're going to practice democracy and thus need some at least rudimentary conception of the theoretical framework in which the political system operates. Can you give me some real world application here? I can understand how a thorough education in human anatomy will benefit even a person who drops out of high school as soon as it's legal to do so. What practical benefit will a high school drop out derive from having learned evolutionary theory?
| Quote: |
| There's very little in biology that needs to be thought - after all, who really needs to know about the genetics or the left ventricle - but if you're going to teach kids about biology, at some point they're going to start asking why biological organisms came to exist. |
Two points: 1) If they don't really need to know about biology, then do we really need to require the subject? (That question is partly rhetorical. Rhetorical because I don't agree that "very little in biology need to be taught". Most students won't need to know about the genetics of the left ventricle. However, a fairly high percentage of them will benefit from knowing roughly how a ventricle works and in what ways common behavior can impede that functionality.) And 2) I'm not opposed to teachers explaining evolution to curious students, or pointing them to reference materials that will explain the theory for them. But that's a pretty far cry from requiring students to learn it, dedicated time, money and resources to the effort, and then grading them on their ability to understand a topic that most of them will never use again.
| Quote: |
| But I feel that while science is taught, the scientific method is not. |
I agree. It's instructed -- by which I mean, most students are put in a lab and made to move through a series of steps approximating scientific method. But most of them aren't clued in as to why those particular steps are the best way at testing a particular hypothesis -- most of them aren't even told that they are testing a hypothesis. I know that's what high school science class was like in my school. I'm not sure that requiring that evolution be taught does anything to remedy that situation, particularly since the original theory was inductive.
| Quote: |
| I'm not looking to make 10 year olds study complex philosophy, but at some point in their education, students should be introduced to some of the questions that have dominated western thought, and given cliff note versions of the philosophies of various important philosophers. |
Why? Seriously, what would it benefit a grade school student to get acquainted with Wittgenstein's theory of atomic facts, or with 16th century Thomism, or even with something as basic as Plato's myth of the cave?
I think we're talking about two very different things here, Niall. You seem to be talking about the ideal education. A child goes through it and comes out a kind of Renaissance thinker, able to range the full gamut of civilized culture. That's the sort of education that only about 5% of the population of any culture has ever gotten. What I'm talking about is what our society forces every citizen to learn as a minimum for participation in that society. I'd like to think that most humans want to persue some ideal of personal excellence similar to that embodied by the educational ideal, but I don't think it's any more just to force it upon them than it is to deny it to certain groups as a matter of course. In the interests of equality, compulsory education should make it possible for them to pursue a fuller education, but to coerce a person into learning more than they need to avoid being trampled by the society in which they live is to burden both the person and the society.
| Quote: |
| It would help if people understood the psychology behind things decision making, problem solving, prejudice, learning and the like. |
If you're talking about teaching them ways of addressing problems and the reasons why their own traits might obstruct their learning, fine. But the same subjects can be taught from a perspective that encourages students to think of psychology as a way of interacting with other people as though they were only psychological problems standing in the way of "getting my way." An attempt to teach psychology at the compulsory level is liable to the same bias that has guided other scientific curriculum -- namely that if the curriculum is drafted by professionals in that field, it's prone to stand in support of creating more professionals, rather than providing laypersons with the practical skills the discipline claims to provide.
| Quote: |
| Still, I think that there's a lot to be said for the top-down approach to learning. |
To my mind, the most important thing to say about it is that it often obscures the net effect of teaching the subject at all.
| I wrote: |
| Why require students to learn about Darwin, or Thomas Hardy, or the Battle of Verdun, and not require them to learn subjects that they're more likely to need, that are more likely to give them information they can use to improve their daily lives? |
| Niall wrote: |
| I think it may be because an assumption is made that many of these things are common sense or common knowledge. |
I think it's because the the realm of curriculum revision has often been a battlefield with no clear motivating conception of what a compulsory education ought to provide. The result is that grade school curriculums often treat students as though they were simply remedial students in a voluntary, secondary educational institution. If you stop treating students as though they were at school of their own accord and started teaching them as potential victims of their own ignorance or burdens on a social system that demands their participation -- which is what compulsory education is intended to prevent -- then I'm sure you'd see curriculum's drafted in radically different ways.
We might still teach literature, for example, but would we teach "Beowulf"? We would be more likely, I think, to teach something like "Candide", whose impact on the shape of our society and the demands it makes is much more palpable. And by the same token, we'd still teach science, but would we necessarily teach Darwin? "Beowulf" represents a literary form whose impact on the whole of literature, on the whole of modern Western thought, has been and continues to be tremendous, but I don't know that most students gain anything by their familiarity with it -- the principle being that importance to the discipline should prima facie determine a subject's importance in a captive audience classroom environment.
If someone can tell me why my proto-typical high school drop out needs to know Darwin in order to get by, I'll be glad to reconsider my position.
Last edited by MadArchitect on Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:34 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Niall001
Stupendously Brilliant
Usergroups: None
Joined: 18 Sep 2003
Posts: 770
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender:
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:27 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| MadArchitect wrote: |
| Niall001 wrote: |
| They should be able to evaluate theories, be they literary, scientific, philosophical or historical to the point where they can differentiate between consistent theories and inconsistent theories. |
Is that really all we want public education to achieve? How long does it take to teach a person to look for inconsistencies? It seems to me that a compulsory educational system ought to teach more than that. |
Well as it stands, many people manage to emerge from decades of schooling incapable of noticing inconsistencies in their belief structures and arguments.
| Quote: |
For example, in terms of history, is it really enough to teach a person how to "evaluate a theory"? Personally, I think a more beneficial use of public education would be to teach children the historical circumstances that impacted the development of the governmental system the inhabit. That sort of context will help them to make sense of some of the contingent and otherwise indecipherable decisions that have contributed to the current state of affairs.
|
You're right, this would be useful. But it wouldn't be enough in my opinion. People, especially children, tend to simplify history and suffer from a sort of naturalistic fallacy, believing that because history leads us to a certain point, it is the right point to be at. I don't think that it is enough just to supply them with information, which it seems to me, to be where the emphasis of the approach you endorse lies. Am I wrong?
| Quote: |
And it seems entirely likely that the people who have campaigned so hard to make evolution a required part of the curriculum want it to be a feature of the student's view of the world, not just an example of how to evaluate theories.
|
You're probably right, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't include it.
| Quote: |
Again, why? I understand that evolution provides the framework for biology as a discipline, but most of these students aren't going to practice biology as a discipline -- not even in the same sense that they're going to practice democracy and thus need some at least rudimentary conception of the theoretical framework in which the political system operates. Can you give me some real world application here? I can understand how a thorough education in human anatomy will benefit even a person who drops out of high school as soon as it's legal to do so. What practical benefit will a high school drop out derive from having learned evolutionary theory?
|
I'd take issue with the notion that a thorough education in human anatomy benefits a high school drop-out. For example, what benefit do they find in knowledge of the auditory system? Indeed, do they really even need to know about how something like the circulatory system works in order to avoid heart disease? Just instruct them not to smoke and to avoid fatty foods.
As you note, evolution provides a framework for biology as a discipline. It's useful to know about evolution and genetics if you want to understand the human body works. If I were devising a text, the first section would be on evolution and genetics, because a knowledge of these areas makes it easier for pupils to place the study of the circulatory and endocrine systems within a context.
Also, I think that there is something to be said for structuring an education system so that each level builds upon the next when possible. Evolution underpins all of modern biology, it is part of the fundamentals of biology, so it should not be something one retroactively shoehorns into one's internal models. In this day and age, the average student of biology already knows about evolution, but they also often hold certain false beliefs about it. This inaccurate knowledge if unchallenged could hinder education in biology.
| Quote: |
| Two points: 1) If they don't really need to know about biology, then do we really need to require the subject? (That question is partly rhetorical. Rhetorical because I don't agree that "very little in biology need to be taught". Most students won't need to know about the genetics of the left ventricle. However, a fairly high percentage of them will benefit from knowing roughly how a ventricle works and in what ways common behavior can impede that functionality.) And 2) I'm not opposed to teachers explaining evolution to curious students, or pointing them to reference materials that will explain the theory for them. But that's a pretty far cry from requiring students to learn it, dedicated time, money and resources to the effort, and then grading them on their ability to understand a topic that most of them will never use again. |
Mad, not to avoid your questions, but given the views you've expressed here, would it be fair to say that you don't think physics or chemistry should be obligatory in schools at any stage? Most people will not need any knowledge from either science during their lives.
You seem to think that learning about ventricles may be of benefit to pupils because it will help them understand how treating them badly can make the heart malfunction, but I can't see how that is any different from saying that teaching evolution to children helps them understand why the heart functions in the way it does. You could reduce all education down to a big book of instructions, a sort of user's guide to life, I don't think you'd see that as desirable.
| Quote: |
Me:I'm not looking to make 10 year olds study complex philosophy, but at some point in their education, students should be introduced to some of the questions that have dominated western thought, and given cliff note versions of the philosophies of various important philosophers.
Mad: Why? Seriously, what would it benefit a grade school student to get acquainted with Wittgenstein's theory of atomic facts, or with 16th century Thomism, or even with something as basic as Plato's myth of the cave? |
You could argue that these things are important because these philosophies are the foundation on which civilisation is built. Philosophers like Marx, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Augustine, Hume and Kant have all had a great effect on history.
You could also argue that if you want people to learn how to think, then it might be a good idea to expose them to some of those people recognised as being some of our greatest thinkers.
| Quote: |
I think we're talking about two very different things here, Niall. You seem to be talking about the ideal education. A child goes through it and comes out a kind of Renaissance thinker, able to range the full gamut of civilized culture. That's the sort of education that only about 5% of the population of any culture has ever gotten. What I'm talking about is what our society forces every citizen to learn as a minimum for participation in that society. |
I really think that your aiming too low here. I don't ever expect that any education will produce the ideal scholar, but I think they should be designed with a view toward creating the ideal scholar. Aim for the moon and that crap.
I believe that people should be enabled to decide for themselves what is important and what way they'd like to interact with society - within reason of course 
I'm not aiming to create businessmen out of the son's of bums. I'm aiming to put people in a situation where they can decide for themselves whether or not being a bum is a bad thing.
| Quote: |
I'd like to think that most humans want to persue some ideal of personal excellence similar to that embodied by the educational ideal, but I don't think it's any more just to force it upon them than it is to deny it to certain groups as a matter of course. In the interests of equality, compulsory education should make it possible for them to pursue a fuller education, but to coerce a person into learning more than they need to avoid being trampled by the society in which they live is to burden both the person and the society. |
Surely remedial classes of some sort are the answer to this rather than lowering the standard as a whole?
| Quote: |
| If you're talking about teaching them ways of addressing problems and the reasons why their own traits might obstruct their learning, fine. But the same subjects can be taught from a perspective that encourages students to think of psychology as a way of interacting with other people as though they were only psychological problems standing in the way of "getting my way." An attempt to teach psychology at the compulsory level is liable to the same bias that has guided other scientific curriculum -- namely that if the curriculum is drafted by professionals in that field, it's prone to stand in support of creating more professionals, rather than providing laypersons with the practical skills the discipline claims to provide. |
It seems we agree, however I think that it is reasonably easy to avoid the situation you speak of where professional bodies draw up a course with the aim of creating more professionals - just tell them not to! Tell them what the aim of the syllabus is.
| Quote: |
| I think it's because the the realm of curriculum revision has often been a battlefield with no clear motivating conception of what a compulsory education ought to provide. The result is that grade school curriculums often treat students as though they were simply remedial students in a voluntary, secondary educational institution. If you stop treating students as though they were at school of their own accord and started teaching them as potential victims of their own ignorance or burdens on a social system that demands their participation -- which is what compulsory education is intended to prevent -- then I'm sure you'd see curriculum's drafted in radically different ways. |
Some interesting points here. However, I think that education systems have had many purposes through the ages and that hasn't change of late. However, I think that one of the purposes of any education systems should be education - as an end in itself.
When citizens elect a government, their opinions are enforced by the government on the people. Indirectly, citizens decide what constitutes a victim and a burden. If change is to be a real possibility, students must not simply be guided away from becoming what is commonly regarded as undesirable, but must also be enabled to form their own opinions on such matters.
| Quote: |
We might still teach literature, for example, but would we teach "Beowulf"? We would be more likely, I think, to teach something like "Candide", whose impact on the shape of our society and the demands it makes is much more palpable. And by the same token, we'd still teach science, but would we necessarily teach Darwin? "Beowulf" represents a literary form whose impact on the whole of literature, on the whole of modern Western thought, has been and continues to be tremendous, but I don't know that most students gain anything by their familiarity with it -- the principle being that importance to the discipline should prima facie determine a subject's importance in a captive audience classroom environment. |
Yeah, I hear you. And I think there is a large amount of merit in your arguments but I'm not certain why you've drawn the line where you have. Why the circulatory system but not evolution? Why "Candide" but not "Hamlet"?
| Quote: |
If someone can tell me why my proto-typical high school drop out needs to know Darwin in order to get by, I'll be glad to reconsider my position. |
The prototypical drop-out doesn't need Darwin (though that of course depends on how you define a need). But neither will they need "Candide". They certainly won't need to know what a left ventricle is, or what the circulatory system does, and if you're not going to teach about the circulatory system or other systems, then you're not really teaching biology, are you?
Last edited by Niall001 on Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:29 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadArchitect
Usergroups: None
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Posts: 2609
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender:
Location: decentralized
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:46 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| I don't think that it is enough just to supply them with information, which it seems to me, to be where the emphasis of the approach you endorse lies. Am I wrong? |
Actually, if you think about what I've already written, I'm calling for a great deal less information than is currently being presented. What I think would be most beneficial would be to present fewer "facts" but to be more thorough in dealing with the information that is presented, so that students come away with some sense of solidity -- not solidity in the sense that things simply exist and cannot be questioned, but solidity in the sense that information is something that can be handled, worked with, deconstructed if need be. You probably can convey that sense working with specialized topics like the Big Bang, but again, why burden unnecessarily the 95% of the students who will never use that information?
| Quote: |
| Indeed, do they really even need to know about how something like the circulatory system works in order to avoid heart disease? Just instruct them not to smoke and to avoid fatty foods. |
Acting as a dispensory for the current state of knowledge is self-defeating. For decades laypeople denied that smoking was dangerous, despite the changing state of scientific knowledge, in large part because they were weaned on a more tolerant view of the habit, and partly because their education left them ill-suited to the task of assessing new information that was coming in.
| Quote: |
| It's useful to know about evolution and genetics if you want to understand [how] the human body works. |
Can you give me some concrete examples to demonstrate that? I don't think it's at all obvious that it does. For certain purposes, naturally, seeing the function of the human body in an evolutionary context is useful, but I'm not at all convinced that those are purposes the average student will ever have use for.
| Quote: |
| Also, I think that there is something to be said for structuring an education system so that each level builds upon the next when possible. |
Certainly, and public education at the compulsory levels should provide a foundation for those students who will pursue higher levels of education. But those students will get most of the real education about evolution at the higher levels. Even if it's taught to them in third grade, the majority of them will have to relearn it later on in order to correct the misunderstandings that arise from the process of simplifying the topic. For that matter, teaching a complicated subject at the compulsory level almost always involves serious compromises in presentation, in part because that presentation is almost always modified to account for an audience with mixed uses for the topic.
So, again, I ask -- what good does it do to teach third graders evolution? The majority of them will never use what they've been taught, and the minority that will use it will, in all likelihood, have to relearn it at the upper levels of education anyway.
| Quote: |
| Mad, not to avoid your questions, but given the views you've expressed here, would it be fair to say that you don't think physics or chemistry should be obligatory in schools at any stage? |
No, that would be a misunderstanding of my position. If anything, the modern circumstances of the average American's life make those subjects all the more important. I just don't think they're being taught in a way that encourages students to make practical use of the elements that are most immediate to their experience.
To give a pretty facile, but illustrative, example, I went to school with a number of guys who dropped out, or finished but did not pursue secondary education, and immediately went to work in the local bottle factory. Incidentally, I worked there over one summer, so I'm not pulling this entirely out of my... imagination. These guys work around very complex machinery that requires a high degree of calibration, maintenance, etc. Most of them have, through sheer practice, become very skilled workers, but I can't say with any confidence that the 11 to 13 years of schooling they underwent contributed much to those skills, sav | | |
