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?
Sunday, April 3, 2011
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?
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?
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?
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?
Sunday, March 27, 2011
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?
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?
Saturday, March 26, 2011
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?
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?
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
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?
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?
Sunday, March 20, 2011
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?
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?
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?
Saturday, March 19, 2011
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?
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?
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?
Sunday, March 6, 2011
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)