Stephen Kullas and I are having a lengthy conversation on the blogs about the appropriateness of grading participation. We are doing this as our final few blog posts, a minimum of three of course. This is an attempt to cut down on jumping from link to link and the plethora of "A Response to Jacob" titles and numerous posts. This method will concentrate the discussion on a single page. If interested: see his blog here:
http://accidentallyreflective.blogspot.com/
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Dialogue
Is dialogue the key?
This is the question upon which our discussion was woefully brief. This begs the question: key to what? We tacitly assumed in our discussion that the indirect object of key was education and I will continue with that. Is dialogue the key to education? We also stipulated that dialogue was any interaction of opposition. So, is the interaction of opposition the key to education?
No, but it is vitally important. Education is not a lock with but a single key, a quandary with but a single solution. At the most basic level, it is important for educators and learners alike to be able to consider more than a single point of view, to be forced to entertain opposing sides of any issue. In a vaguely Hegelian manner, it is a synthesis of thesis and antithesis that drives conclusions. And on a more specific level, reinforcement of material through conversation, through question and answer is extremely helpful for comprehension and retention.
Question: Is this a good definition of dialogue, or should it be more specific?
This is the question upon which our discussion was woefully brief. This begs the question: key to what? We tacitly assumed in our discussion that the indirect object of key was education and I will continue with that. Is dialogue the key to education? We also stipulated that dialogue was any interaction of opposition. So, is the interaction of opposition the key to education?
No, but it is vitally important. Education is not a lock with but a single key, a quandary with but a single solution. At the most basic level, it is important for educators and learners alike to be able to consider more than a single point of view, to be forced to entertain opposing sides of any issue. In a vaguely Hegelian manner, it is a synthesis of thesis and antithesis that drives conclusions. And on a more specific level, reinforcement of material through conversation, through question and answer is extremely helpful for comprehension and retention.
Question: Is this a good definition of dialogue, or should it be more specific?
Monday, May 2, 2011
Finding Fault
John Dewey warned, in his book Experience and Education, against dichotomous thinking, or what he called "Either-Or Philosophy." One of the many dangers he spoke of was that either side can become content with a refutation of the other. This, though, leads to few solutions.
I noticed today in class that we were successfully condemning capitalism, education, and the tetra-complex (Military, Industrial, Government, Media). However, despite how many faults were were able to point to, there were no suggestions for alteration. I understand that understanding the failings of the current is an important step to the creation of the new, but I do not want to be bogged down by this.
I do remember Professor Johnson talking about making examples in math textbooks socially and politically relevant, which was a great suggestion, but that was the only one I remember.
Question: The educational system is broken, yes. How then, do we fix it?
I noticed today in class that we were successfully condemning capitalism, education, and the tetra-complex (Military, Industrial, Government, Media). However, despite how many faults were were able to point to, there were no suggestions for alteration. I understand that understanding the failings of the current is an important step to the creation of the new, but I do not want to be bogged down by this.
I do remember Professor Johnson talking about making examples in math textbooks socially and politically relevant, which was a great suggestion, but that was the only one I remember.
Question: The educational system is broken, yes. How then, do we fix it?
Direction and Degree; Or, a Response to Nick
Nick asked: Is [homogeny] always negative?
In short, no. As the title of this post would suggest it is always a matter of direction and degree. The implicit assumption of his question, i.e. that homogeny is often negative, I think is correct. However, while most of the homogeny currently in practice is negative, that does not mean that homogeny is, per se, negative.
Direction, I think, is the most important variable. What is the object of homogeny? As Professor Johnson pointed out, a homogenous desire for critical thinking could be positive, what about a homogenous thirst for knowledge? And obviously, degree is important as well. Is there a necessary ill for two people to be homogenous in a specific trait? No, the danger becomes when homogeny accrues a large constituency.
Question: If degree is an important variable for the potential effect of homogeny, what degree becomes negative?
In short, no. As the title of this post would suggest it is always a matter of direction and degree. The implicit assumption of his question, i.e. that homogeny is often negative, I think is correct. However, while most of the homogeny currently in practice is negative, that does not mean that homogeny is, per se, negative.
Direction, I think, is the most important variable. What is the object of homogeny? As Professor Johnson pointed out, a homogenous desire for critical thinking could be positive, what about a homogenous thirst for knowledge? And obviously, degree is important as well. Is there a necessary ill for two people to be homogenous in a specific trait? No, the danger becomes when homogeny accrues a large constituency.
Question: If degree is an important variable for the potential effect of homogeny, what degree becomes negative?
Monday, April 11, 2011
Philosophy for Children: Some Thoughts
I'd like to start our discussion this week of Philosophy for Children by reference back to our thoughts of class structure and division.
1) Class division is perpetuated largely by the apathy and acceptance of the middle and lower classes.
I understand this may be contentious but if the middle and lower classes, who largely outnumber the higher were to demand change and work to see it happen, change would come. Our education has been too effective in breeding mindless drones, however, and we allow the rich to further exploit us by our very inaction.
2) Critical thinking adults would be far less willing to accept their position in a patently unfair system.
There is not much to say about this premise. If the system is unfair, as I am suggesting it is, solution and change will only be more likely by the introduction of more critical thought and more autonomous people, unwilling to be forcefully led by the upper classes.
3) Philosophy for Children would produce more critical thinking and more autonomous adults.
Learning to think critically at a young age will habituate such action and by virtue of being more critical thinking, will beget more autonomy as well. If philosophy was introduced at all grade levels, critical thinking, and thereby autonomy, would be more frequent and potent.
4) Therefore, PFC could be an effective method by which to bring reform to the economic, and therefore educational system.
Questions: Are my premises correct? Which are not? Why?
1) Class division is perpetuated largely by the apathy and acceptance of the middle and lower classes.
I understand this may be contentious but if the middle and lower classes, who largely outnumber the higher were to demand change and work to see it happen, change would come. Our education has been too effective in breeding mindless drones, however, and we allow the rich to further exploit us by our very inaction.
2) Critical thinking adults would be far less willing to accept their position in a patently unfair system.
There is not much to say about this premise. If the system is unfair, as I am suggesting it is, solution and change will only be more likely by the introduction of more critical thought and more autonomous people, unwilling to be forcefully led by the upper classes.
3) Philosophy for Children would produce more critical thinking and more autonomous adults.
Learning to think critically at a young age will habituate such action and by virtue of being more critical thinking, will beget more autonomy as well. If philosophy was introduced at all grade levels, critical thinking, and thereby autonomy, would be more frequent and potent.
4) Therefore, PFC could be an effective method by which to bring reform to the economic, and therefore educational system.
Questions: Are my premises correct? Which are not? Why?
Reform of Classes and Classes
I know I was absent all week, and I am sure some of these things will have been said already but I just wanted to offer some thoughts on schooling in capitalism.
Capitalism in some obvious and some inconspicuous manners undermines proper education, as it is economically beneficial to breed naught but the next generation of mindless obedient working drones. As such, it strikes me that reformation of the educational system will be either meaningless or impossible absent reformation of the economic system. (I understand there are others, Edward Manak notably, who have said similar things. I do not wish to plagiarize his thoughts, only to offer corresponding agreement.) This necessity if unfortunate, as it would seem that as long as school is producing mindless drones, the hope of economic reform is slim. Critically thinking, autonomous, adults are necessary to any meaningful or effective reform, and that is precisely what pour system seems to be set up to avoid. Economic reform seems impossible absent education reform.
So there we have it: Economic reform is unlikely absent education reform, and educational reform is unlikely absent economic reform.
Question: How will this happen then if we are trapped in this self perpetuating cycle?
Capitalism in some obvious and some inconspicuous manners undermines proper education, as it is economically beneficial to breed naught but the next generation of mindless obedient working drones. As such, it strikes me that reformation of the educational system will be either meaningless or impossible absent reformation of the economic system. (I understand there are others, Edward Manak notably, who have said similar things. I do not wish to plagiarize his thoughts, only to offer corresponding agreement.) This necessity if unfortunate, as it would seem that as long as school is producing mindless drones, the hope of economic reform is slim. Critically thinking, autonomous, adults are necessary to any meaningful or effective reform, and that is precisely what pour system seems to be set up to avoid. Economic reform seems impossible absent education reform.
So there we have it: Economic reform is unlikely absent education reform, and educational reform is unlikely absent economic reform.
Question: How will this happen then if we are trapped in this self perpetuating cycle?
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Retro Reading; Or, a Response to Drew
Drew Asked: At the risk of sounding like a "crotchety old fart", can we set a trend back towards making reading fun, engaging, and not something reserved only for doing research via a wikipedia entry?
I must admit, here at the beginning that I am such a "crotchety old fart": My preferred musical genre is classical...and my preferred medium thereof is vinyl...I smoke a pipe...I play chess...I care about grammar and language. I am an old man.
I mention this only with the humility of a viewpoint that is not entirely disinterested.
That having been said, I am in euphoric agreement with everything Drew mentioned in his blog post.
Literature provides a unique medium through which learning can be achieved. There is a power and durability of a lesson learned via literature that is lost on the ephemeral data of lectures. The lessons strike deeper and last longer. The reader may not even know that she learned something, such is the insidiousness of potent prose. Tolkien and Twain may not teach us algebra, Shakespeare and Poe shall not chemistry show, but the interest incited and the passion provoked is valuable all the more.
The onus of promoting interest in reading comes long before education; it is that of the parents. The obstacle of technology is intimidating. Video games and technology hold the interest of a child without the needed time and effort of the parent. It is, though not solely, for this reason it has become a more dominant hobby. As a child I was allowed neither television nor video games until middle school, and even then, they were introduced quite restrictively. I was turned to books, and I am so glad I was. So setting this trend must begin in the home, though of course, continued in the schools, but I agree strenuously that it is a necessary step.
Question: Despite my antiquated tirades, learning can happen via technology; is there, as I suspect there is, something superior to lessons learned via literature?
I must admit, here at the beginning that I am such a "crotchety old fart": My preferred musical genre is classical...and my preferred medium thereof is vinyl...I smoke a pipe...I play chess...I care about grammar and language. I am an old man.
I mention this only with the humility of a viewpoint that is not entirely disinterested.
That having been said, I am in euphoric agreement with everything Drew mentioned in his blog post.
Literature provides a unique medium through which learning can be achieved. There is a power and durability of a lesson learned via literature that is lost on the ephemeral data of lectures. The lessons strike deeper and last longer. The reader may not even know that she learned something, such is the insidiousness of potent prose. Tolkien and Twain may not teach us algebra, Shakespeare and Poe shall not chemistry show, but the interest incited and the passion provoked is valuable all the more.
The onus of promoting interest in reading comes long before education; it is that of the parents. The obstacle of technology is intimidating. Video games and technology hold the interest of a child without the needed time and effort of the parent. It is, though not solely, for this reason it has become a more dominant hobby. As a child I was allowed neither television nor video games until middle school, and even then, they were introduced quite restrictively. I was turned to books, and I am so glad I was. So setting this trend must begin in the home, though of course, continued in the schools, but I agree strenuously that it is a necessary step.
Question: Despite my antiquated tirades, learning can happen via technology; is there, as I suspect there is, something superior to lessons learned via literature?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)