Final Blogs

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/

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

Inciting Interest and Augmenting Autonomy

In Bridges to Autonomy Alison suggests that we, as teachers, ought to only wield our paternalism in a way as to ultimately increase the autonomy of our students. It is difficult to ascertain, though, which of our paternalisms will serve to this telos.

So how are we to foment interest while increasing (or at least not hindering) autonomy? It is slightly paternalistic, yes, to force students to create questions on the assigned reading, as Professors Johnson and Silliman both do, but this satisfies the above mentioned maxim. By having prepared questions the ease to exercise autonomy by class participation is significantly increased. Also, there is no force that will better drive interest than curiosity, and the creation of questions, if done with sincerity will raise just such curiosity.

Question: What other concrete techniques satisfy this maxim?

Entertaining Exceptions; Or, a Response to Shelby

Shelby asked: "How can teachers encourage and cater to students who are exceptions to the norm?"

Of students that are exceptions we find, primarily three groups: exceptionally successful students, poor students that struggle with course material and work, and poor students by virtue of apathy.

As Matt mentioned in his response to Shelby's post, there is not much an instructor can do with this ultimate group, and teachers will often exhaust themselves trying. These are the students that deserve the least amount of catering, though, it is important to still be there if they change their minds.

The difficulty primarily arises with the first two sets. Ideally an instructor desires to effectively teach both sets but this would seem to indicate treating them differently which is dangerous at best, and counter-productively disrespectful at worst. I admit I may be bias here, but the method I always preferred as a student was for the instructor to teach the challenging material in class and be available for help if the struggling students needed it, but not to cater to specific difficulties during class time.

Question: Is there an effective method to teach both extremes of the student body while remaining fair and respectful to both?

Sans Swearing; Or, A Response to Shelby

Shelby asked: "Should swearing, and other paternalistic ploys that aim to increase student learning, be employed in the classroom?"

Well, I am less torn. As I mentioned in class, permissibility denotes neither wisdom nor desirability. So while the use of profanity and vulgarity is permissible via the maturity and autonomy of students, it is neither wise nor desirable. These paternalistic ploys of which Shelby speaks are the wrong solutions to the right problems. If swearing is needed to force students to pay attention, the battle is already lost, there is already, lying beneath this, a deeper problem with the class. I agree with Emily that an occasional swear is not an issue, while using vulgarity as a substitute for quality teaching and content is problematic.

Question: Does the use of paternalistic, disrespectful ploys and tricks denote a lack of quality in the teacher, the content, the students, or some combination thereof?

Gratuitous Grading; Or, a Response to Brittany

Brittany asked: "Can you think of a situation where a grade for feedback purposes only would be useful without a subsequent assessment or opportunity to show that the feedback has been put to good use?"

I completely agree with Brittany's comment in her post that written comments or teacher-student discussions are far superior to a number or letter as feedback. but she goes on to say: "How would a teacher then assess whether or not the student is actually using this feedback unless the class was given some sort of assessment exam?"

First of all, I think a second draft of whatever the feedback was about will serve to adequately demonstrate improvement, but regardless, why do we need to know that the student is using the feedback? It would, perhaps, be slightly too directional or paternalistic to force students, by means of positive or negative reinforcement, to absorb and reproduce teacher feedback. If education is truly the goal of the educational system, this should not matter so much. Students need to be autonomous individuals. What is gained by punishing the students that don't use the feedback? Give the students the feedback, and let them go from there. Students with a passion for learning and improving will give serious, rational thought to their teacher's comments and will typically act on them.

This is the answer to the question, by the way: Feedback without some follow-up assessment is useful within a classroom full of dedicated, diligent, students. Most likely to be found (though dangerous to think of exclusively) in post-secondary education.

Question: It was not meant as rhetorical, so I shall repeat it here, why must we know if students have used the feedback given to them?

Sans Standardized; Or, a Response to Mike

Mike asked: "What do you suppose would happen if state exams, such as MCAS, were removed, or re-formatted?"

Well, in the interest of honesty, I cannot say for sure, but I will do my best to venture a guess.

Teachers would be happier, for they would have more free reign to teach what they want, to teach the actual subject, and not to the measly mandates of MCAS magnates.

It is not a stretch of the imagination to think that, unburdened of such stress, students would enjoy school slightly more, and with increased enjoyment, I think, would follow increased interest and increased learning. I agree, Mike, that such tests are parasitic to the education process.

...

That having been said, however, my heart does go out to the politicians. After all, without this infallible method of assessing students, teachers, and school, how are they going to be able to compare us across counties and states? Education is something that is over funded anyway, so how else will they decide which schools to cut more money from. What about colleges? How else can they decide which students will be the best additions to their schools? How else other than reliable demonstrators of merit: standardized tests.

...

Question: We talk often of testing alternatives, but what benefit do tests provide that we must replace?

Anecdotes Aplenty

I think (not feel) that anecdotes often provide weight and potency to posited points. We must be vigilant, however, to use them as support for and not instead of reasoned evidence or sustained systematic research, lest we thereby slip into an anecdotal fallacy.

IEP on Anecdotal Fallacy:

"This is fallacious generalizing on the basis of a some story that provides an inadequate sample."

A single instance from experiences past is insufficient and inadequate to demonstrate nigh any hypothesis.

School; Or, Here's To You, Nick

'School' from Old English (skol), from Latin (schola), from Greek:

σχολη

or

Skhole: School, lecture, discussion. Also, leisure, spare time. The original notion was leisure, which evolved to an otiose discussion, and finally to a place to have such a discussion...school.

Not exactly a modern conceptualization of school, but perhaps it should be.

Morality Marred; Or, Grades are Wrong

Graded tests are ineffective byproducts of a system of education severely antiquated and antithetical to actual edification. The question, on the relative morality of graded tests falls neatly under the umbrella of a larger issue: that of grades in general. Grades provide for students an occasionally needed external motivation; this is true, but this is a temporary solution that begets a permanent problem. Our excessive reliance on grades as this external motivator skews the proper role of education which is to develop a proper internal motivation.

I understand this may be a contentious claim but the role of education ought to be to help students become more autonomous and intelligent individuals by instilling within them a passion for learning knowledge and acquiring skills. There are aspects more contentious than others, but the most important is the instilling within them a passion, it’s the cultivation of an internal source of motivation. Grades, on tests and otherwise, are counterproductive to this telos. So graded tests are ineffective and contrary to educations purpose, but they are also immorally administered and immorally used.

Educational rewards and opportunities are supposedly, and rightly so, disseminated based upon relative merit. However, as barometers of this merit, our system of education uses grades, but often more specifically graded tests. This is immoral by virtue of the fact that tests do not effectively (and when they do it is a matter of coincidence) demonstrate merit. It is immoral then to reward with opportunity those who receive the best grades on tests. We are not awarding based upon merit, and it is wrong to extol the unworthy and condemn the laudable.

Question: What is the best way for educators to instill this internal motivation?

Conflicting Concerns; Or, Tests Versus Education

Our new Q&A is on the morality of grading by test results, so a blog post to preface our discussion:

What is the goal of academic testing?

It seems likely that the goal is to assess retention. Supposedly, a student spends his time within a classroom learning various tidbits of information, largely irrelevant factoids. The goal of a test is then to assess how many of these facts he can remember and adequately regurgitate.

What is the goal of education?

The goal of education is to help students become more autonomous and intelligent individuals by instilling within them a passion for learning knowledge and acquiring skills.

Question: How, if they do, with the above teloi or goals, do tests aid in education?

Crafting Creativity; Or, a Response to Shelby

Shelby asked: What obstacles may hinder a student's creativity, and how can students overcome them in the classroom?

Before I answer her question...

In her response to Barry (the post that birthed this question) Shelby contended that creativity is not something you have or don't have. Instead, she said, "creativity can come in degrees, and be cultivated or taught." I am not entirely sure that is as contradictory as you may think. I agree that creativity can be cultivated, can be taught, but I am not certain that everyone begins at the same level, with the same slate. Perhaps we have a unique capacity for creativity that can be accessed to various degrees.

To the question:

Creativity will be hindered as long as we remain entrenched within the mires of tradition and unpliable practices. The greatest killer and gravest threat is, depressingly, the very machine that ought to foster that very creativity: school. We do not currently have a primary and secondary educational system that is so organized as to engender the growth of creativity. Quite the contrary: we are taught to assimilate and homogenize into specimens best fit to pass tests.

Unfortunately, to the second aspect of the question, there is not much a particular student can do in face of the overwhelming plague of bureaucratic tradition. We are moving in the right direction, and soon, hopefully this will change. What can a student do? Graduate and help change it.

Question: Am I mistaken, are there ways for current students to impact and change the oppressive nature of the classroom and of the system of education?

Incorrect Inanity; Or, a Response to Mary Marcil

Mary Asked: "Are schools becoming too sensitive?"

This was a question arrived at after Mary responded to the question concerning the use of red pens. I agree with Mary's contention that it is ridiculous to forbid teachers to correct with red ink.

However, I do not think that schools are becoming too sensitive. It is not a matter of degree and it is not a matter of quantity of sensitivity. Schools are being too sensitive about the wrong issues and not sensitive enough about the right ones. Schools are sensitive about anything that will garner press. So if bullying is in the news one particular week, they will care about bullying for a while. And, of course, they are always hypersensitive about standardized test performance.

Red Pens have psychological import? Do we think changing to blue will not then cause blue to have similar issues? These are superficial, largely irrelevant issues that should not be focused upon. We have failing students, crumbling schools, too few teachers, too few textbooks...but don't worry...we'll be correcting papers in blue now.

Question: How can the primacy of education be returned to the educational system?

Ostensibly Obvious

Improvisation: Concrete application of creativity.

Are we to discuss whether or not improvisation has a place within a classroom? It seems that an affirmative response to this question is not only appropriate, but necessary to a degree in which any other response could reasonably be viewed as palpably ridiculous.

Allow us to paint this pallid portraiture of a classroom completely devoid of improvisation. The average day consists of listening to a lecture, of completing repetitive exercises, usually taking some sort of standardized exam, and leaving. There is no discussion, no questions, but of the most simple nature are tolerated.

Obviously, this is not the ideal situation. Activities that necessitate the ability to improvise are required. Discussion, which is innately, by virtue of the unknown, improvisational, is one of the most important and potent tools of an instructor on any level. Is improvisation laudable? Of course it is.

Questions: It is possible I am misjudging this debate then. Are there positions that seriously maintain a lack of improvisation is necessary. Are the pro-improvisation proponents positing a greater level than I am characterizing?

Psychological Savior; or, a Response to Edward

Edward Asked: "To end with a question (or two): What role should the arts play in education? And does music education actually improve academic success, or does it merely coincide with a higher quality education within a district that can afford such luxuries?"

I shall begin with the latter which will, I think, segue nicely to an answer for the former.

I think, obviously, that the answer to your question is neither exclusively one nor the other. Yes, there is more to this coincidence than proponents of music education like to admit, but I think there is legitimate, though I know not to what degree, benefits to students who are receiving or did receive, a musical education. Although, this is not restricted to music and applies, I think, to nigh all the arts.

Queue Segue

While I do not think the arts are strictly necessary to education, they are beneficial enough to demand attention within a quality system of education. The benefits of music (I shall speak of music as my example but I mean, for the remainder of this post, all arts) are twofold:

As a stand alone subject in its own right, music offers rare insights into subjects such as mathematics and allows for unique experiences with patterns and different scientific principles.

Secondly, and I think more importantly, music can provide mental solace. Too often, I think, do schools forgo consideration of psychological health and of pleasure. An unhappy student is rarely a good student. It may be worth the time to have a segment of a day devoted to something that makes the students happy, provides them with a reprieve. Music may serve as just such a reprieve.

Question: Neglecting, for the sake of this hypothetical, the numerous and potent direct education merits of music, are its mental ramifications enough to render it a practical and worthy endeavor of schools?

Requisite Rhythmn; Or, A Response to Mike

Mike asked, after a thoughtful blog post about musical education: "...should students be required to take music education? Or should it be an elective to those that are interested?"

It is, of course, an interesting question and the answer is, unfortunately albeit inevitably, it depends. But upon what does it depend, well that is answered rather simply: it depends upon the grade level of the student in question.

If Elisha never encountered musical education in her earlier years, how then could we expect her to select it as an elective when the opportunity finally arose. It would be prudent, then, to force, or require students such as Elisha to take musical education, along with all other practical types, during the early stages of education, so that when electives arrive, she understands which classes will benefit her more than others.

So the answer to your question would be, I think, most effective if we did both. We require it when student are young and discovering interests and disciplines, and then we offer it as an elective when they are older and have some idea of their own educational requirements and preferences.

Question: Is music helpful enough for it to be required along with the time honored traditions of Science, Math, English, and History?

Organized Sound versus Organized Movement; or, A Matter of Degree

In class, the question as raised of a misplaced emphasis on music. Why are sports not treated with the same veneration? You work within diversity to formulate, from discord, a harmonious whole...but that happens when you play a team sport. There is deep emotional impact, but that too can occur within the realm of sports. Is there that one distinguishing factor?

While this is true, that the benefits of playing music may be found to some degree within other disciplines as well, and no matter the stretch, it is possible to find the majority of musical merits within sports, the operative phrase here is "to some degree." The degree to which cooperation is required is relatively similar, that's true. However, the degree to which emotions are impacted by participating or beholding music is not similar to the degree to which they are impacted by sports. I may have little more than empirical evidence to support this claim, and I shall not bother with all the anecdotal evidence, as it proves nothing, but I think it a very small leap to claim that the emotional impact of music is both stronger and more frequent. Music also teaches easily and uniquely the player and listener about natural laws that govern the universe, about science, and about math. Can such lessons be learned from sports? They certainly can, but again, it is less frequent and less potent of an experience when it happens.

There may be other factors I have not here enumerated, but I would reckon they would fit well enough into the pattern I have developed here...yes sports may contain that quality, but not to the same degree.

Question: Is there a laudable quality to music that cannot be found to any degree in sports?

Constructivist Juries; Or, a Response to Stephen Kullas

As a rebuttal to my blog post about the viability of RC, Stephen raised a potent problem; i.e. a Radical Constructivist encounters difficulties when participating in civil duties that are tied, explicitly, to notions of truth and fact(e.g. a jury). Could a Radical Constructivist, he asks, participate in our legal system?

You are right to focus on the problem of the other. If we are limited to our own experiences how are we to render a verdict about the truth of another's action? But again, the notion of fitting, is the manner in which the RC will defend this.

Elisha was chosen for a jury; she even scoffed when the judge asked them to deliberate while considering the facts of the case. She understands the unenlightened nature of our legal system, but her previous experiences seem to comfort her and allow her to perform, to the best of her ability, the charge given. But how is that so? How can she rely on testimony...etc...It is viable, per her previous experiences, that persons of authority relay their experiences as they are viable to them. She formulates her opinion on whether or not Amanda stole the drugs (crime in question) from the viability of her own experiences; i.e. the reliability, though not perfect, of the experiences of others. She determines whether or not the viability that Amanda stole them is high enough to recommend punishment.

This is one possible avenue of defense for the RCist. As a realist, I have my doubts, and so my question is this: does that hypothetical actually cohere with RC?

Metaphysical Moment; Or, a Response to Edward Manak

Edward asked: How vital is the question of metaphysics to education?

I was unclear, at first, how to best answer your question; it is an important one, often lost within the quagmires of detail. You are right, I think, to be concerned about spending too much time of this question, fearing that insufficient attention shall be paid to other questions. That having been said, I think the question is of great importance.

Metaphysics is potently pertinent in many ways, especially its connection to epistemology, as they are never easily separated. Realism refers, often, to both an epistemological and metaphysical position, as does Radical Constructivism, although they will try to do epistemology absent metaphysics. It is easier, I think to understand why epistemology is so vital to education. The method by which knowledge is constructed or attained is vital to the very basic issue of education and pedagogy. If teachers are to educate students (and vice versa) it is important to understand how that process happens and what that process means.

So the answer to your question runs thus: Epistemology is vital to education. Metaphysics is vital to epistemology. Therefore, metaphysics is vital to education.

Question: If metaphysics and epistemology are as vital as I suggest, what are the direct and specific ramification within the classroom. (Or without for that matter, but education, when we quintessentially refer to it, occurs in a classroom.)

Viable Practicality: Or, a Response to All

A response to all:

While perusing this last week of blogging I have noticed an implicit consensus from many if not all who have commented on radical constructivism; i.e. RC is impractical in that it renders functionality in a society impossible. This is an inaccuracy, borne, I think, from a misconception of the theory itself. The radical constructivist will not posit the existence of an external reality, but neither will she spend all of her cognitive power constantly exercising the doubt inherent in her philosophy. RC does not beget paranoia in this way. What the realist considers to be true, the radical constructivist does not think to be untrue, but rather, considers it viable. This viability is the solid foundation upon which the constructivist operates and can thus interact with a society.

Elisha is a radical constructivist. She need not actively doubt the metaphysical properties of her daily blueberry bagel; its existence is viable which is enough to for her. Her bike ride to the store is not laden with her constant worry about the existence of the sidewalk; its existence fits with all her previous experiences. Her metaphysical agnosticism does not keep her from playing the flute almost every day; its existence, while not certain, fits and is viable...notice the pattern?...etc...

Radical constructivism is not without its difficulties; they are plenty and fatal. Does Radical Constructivism beget a paranoid person incapable of existing and interacting within a society? No. When is it prudent to doubt the existence of reality? Always.

Question: Does this notion of 'fitting' and 'viability' successfully disarm these concerns?

Practically Physical; or, a Response to Edward Manak

Edward asked: Should schools be concerned with the physical and emotional well-being of their students as well as the intellectual?

My answer to this question is in two parts:

First, you cite studies that demonstrate aerobic exercise helps to improve problem solving ability and I.Q. scores. (I shall not for the purpose of this post, but I.Q. scores, are, at best, I think, a drastically over emphasized assessment of intelligence and at worst, though most likely, dysfunctional both in application and generation.) If these studies are accurate, as I have little reason to doubt, than it would seem that physical and emotional well-being are not entirely distinct, and to be concerned with one is to be concerned with the other.

Secondly, it depends. There is a significant quantity and severity of difference between compulsory and non-compulsory education. In k-12, it is well within the right of the school system, although I disliked it at the time, to enforce a Physical Education requirement. But post-secondary education must entail a greater amount of responsibility. Part and parcel to this responsibility is the ability to make more decisions for oneself. The student's education is more their prerogative, and this should be reflected in the physical education requirement, i.e. it should not exist. Student in post-secondary schools should possess their own burden of staying in shape if they wish to, and to direct their own development that may be aided from aerobic exercise.

Question: Is there non-paternalistic merit to requiring physical activity of a student in non-compulsory education?

Textbook Ambivalence; or, a Response to Shelby

Shelby Asked: Are textbooks a boon or a hindrance to the classroom?

As she probably suspected when she asked the question, there is no easy answer as textbooks can certainly be both. This oscillating difference is accounted for by two separate criteria: 1) Quality of the textbook 2) Treatment of the teacher towards said textbook.

1) Obviously some textbooks are more beneficial than others, and the quality of the textbook often accounts for their entire benefit. There is not a single traditional discipline that cannot profit from the presence of high caliber textbooks. This depends, of course, on how the textbook is employed...which brings me to 2.

2) When a textbook is a hindrance, as it occasionally is, it is typically due to the teacher rather than the book itself. Textbooks become detrimental when they are relied on nigh solely as the method for imparting knowledge. The textbook is a convenient excuse for the teacher to not diversify pedagogical practices. The answer to this is not just to rely on electronic resources as the school in Arizona did.

Some further notes: While it may be personal preference, I think there is a benefit to having a hard copy of text rather than reading it from the screen of a computer. Although, this having been said, there is an environmental boon to removing textbooks form the classroom, though this will often be offset by copious amounts of printing sources from the internet.

Question: Given that there is this ambivalence, how can the benefit from textbooks be optimized?

Clarification

My most recent blog post elicited a much due critique from Emily and so I shall endeavor to explain what exactly I meant.

I did not mean to say that work by authors of differing demographics would necessarily be of a lesser quality. Diversity of perspective is important, I admit that, but the race of the author should not be the deciding criterion for what makes it into the curriculum. If a different perspective is what is being sought, fine, search for that. Choose a book because it offers a different perspective, but not because it happens to be written by a member of a specific race or gender or heritage. I do not think that a member of a different demographic will necessarily have a different perspective, so we should stop judging the level of multiculturalism merely by how many authors there are of different races, genders, backgrounds...etc...

All I was trying to say is that I am uncomfortable when we put too much stock in something like race or gender. Yes, there are differences, but focusing on those differences is, I think, a dangerous road to travel, caked with a very thin layer of ice.

Question: Is focusing on race and gender dangerous in any way or are my worries over thought artifacts of a divided society?

Multicultural Intention

In theory, the search for differing points of view and historical accuracy (e.g. truth about slavery and sexism) is certainly laudable and necessary. Education should foster in all students an appreciation for other opinions and a desire to know, even when uncomfortable and embarrassing, the truth. But how should the drive to reach this goal be directed?

Diversity of view and historical accuracy should be prized as qualities of content, but they are qualities that are demonstrable and easily verified. But when judging the multiculturalism of a curriculum, we often hear about how many books assigned were written by women or written by authors of other races. This is dangerous and I think needs to stop. Yes, the search for different points of view will often lead to authors of different races and backgrounds, but to discriminate classroom content based solely upon that is dangerously close to perpetuating very false distinctions between races.

Question: Is there a danger is seeking authors of different races rather than the merit of their work?

Multicultural Continuum; or, a Response to Drew Warner

Drew asked: Will multiculturalism ever be embraced beyond simply an ideal; will it ever be a reality?

The reality of multiculturalism within a classroom must be, I think, found along, as many things are, a continuum. I do not think it is a matter of black and white, but a matter of scales of gray. There are some curricula that are more or less multicultural than others, sure. But I do not think there exists some threshold before which they are uni-cultural and beyond which they are multicultural.

That having been said, as James Banks mentioned, multiculturalism has made significant progress in the past couple of decades and there is little reason to think that it will slow. There is still more rhetoric involved than actual practice, I will grant that, but I think it is already being embraced as more than simply an ideal. Multiculturalism has great distances still to go to reach its goal, an educational system that provides equal attention to all demographics. But will multiculturalism ever be a reality, I think it is.

Question: Is there a functional mechanism with which we can judge the multiculturalism of a particular curriculum?

Response to Andrew Warner

Andrew asked: "My question to this would be that, as brought up in class, if one begins to critically think habitually is it still indeed critically thinking or, because it requires less conscious deliberation, is it something else entirely?"

It is understandably counter intuitive to conceive a habitual act as critical thought. Despite this, I think there is no particular reason to list deliberation as a necessary component of critical thinking (I will diametrically contrast habitually and deliberately for the remainder of this discussion). Consider:

Elisha is a diligent knowledge seeker and places a premium on clear logical thought. She is, unsurprisingly, a philosophy major and repeatedly subjects all information and statements she hears to rigorous analysis and evaluation. Eventually, she begins to notice that she is analyzing and evaluating things such as jokes and obviously humorous statements. She understands that the joke is not necessarily meant to convey information of how the world works and will often rely on some inconsistency or impossibility, but she cannot stop herself from noticing such things due to the habitual analysis and evaluation.

While there is probably more to critical thinking than mere analysis and evaluation, it will still be a process capable of habituation. And when that occurs, it is still critical thought. Habituating critical thought is a laudable end goal, where it becomes the automatic response to the perception of information.

Question: Are there any requisite qualities of critical thinking that would render habituating it impossible?

Critical Curriculum

The second question I raised on my Q&A was concerning the formation of curriculum. Critical Thinking is a crucial activity for the process of education, and as such, it is important for the process of schooling to understand and account for this. But how would such accounting manifest?

It strikes me that to direct curriculum to the fostering of critical thinking is unnecessary. Critical thinking is the inevitable byproduct of quality teaching. No matter the subject material, it should be taught in such a way that requires, and will therefore improve, critical thinking. Though I do not have the means to defend it here, I would also posit that teaching in this manner would result in a higher retention rate, as contrasted to rote memorization of facts.

Question: Should critical thinking be an independent subject taught or will it necessarily be taught by quality instruction in all fields?

The End of Critical Thinking?

We, unsurprisingly, found ourselves with a temporal deficiency and therefore did not get to address any of the questions raised in our Q&As. This, therefore, will be the first segment in a two part series addressing my questions.

In our brief examination of differing definitions of critical thinking, it was not uncommon to find, attached to the end of the list of necessary and sufficient conditions, a condition of intent. "With the aim of improving..." "To the end of..." etc...

This idea of a telos, an end to which the critical thinking is directed, is rather commonsensical. It is difficult to imagine critical thought for no reason, but to stipulate a specific intent as a necessary condition is arbitrary and unnecessary. All critical thinkers must be critically thinking for the same reason?

Question: Must thinking, to be critical, be directed toward some specific end?

Critical Velocity

Today in class, the intuitive notion was raised that critical thinking was essentially slow. This was used in evidence for why critical thinking would be inappropriate in times that demanded immediate action. So I wanted to, for the sake of that application, contend that critical thinking is not, by its nature, a slow process.

First and foremost, critical thinking is a mental process; it is, after all, a form of thinking. The average thought takes approximately 550-750 milliseconds to process, with comprehension beginning at 250-450 milliseconds. So the question becomes: what aspect of critical thinking necessarily adds to this time frame?

The answer provided in class was to juxtapose critical thinking to automatic thinking, and since automatic thinking is fast, critical thinking is not. But that is insufficient. The juxtaposition does not mean they do that share certain qualities.

Perhaps it is the nature of critical thinking to be plural; perhaps a critical thought does not exist alone because critical thinking involves multiple thoughts. But if this is the case, the burden becomes demonstrating the correct quantity. How many thoughts need to be processed before critical thinking occurs. The most that can be said from this view is that critical thinking may be slower than regular thinking. But slow per se is not a claim that follows.

While it may be said that critical thinking is optimum if completed over a certain length of time, critical thinking exists along a continuum of quality. Critical thinking is not infallible. There is some critical thinking that is better than others. While good critical thinking may be slower, there is not a situation, I think that would be worsened by the application of critical thinking over regular thinking.

Question: Is there a temporal difference between a critical thought and a regular (meaning all other kinds) thought?