As we seem to have hinted at in class, one of the bedrocks of the debate in multicultural education seems to rest on how to best provide education for future citizens of a (supposedly) free democracy. The suggestion of autocratic schools failing to reflect the democracy in which we hope to prepare our students made me think of this article from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/nyregion/05bigcity.html
(I was actually reminded of this article earlier in the week thanks to this episode of This American Life: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/424/kid-politics Both are, I think, quite useful resources for this unique social experiment in education)
Free schools, in summary, are schools where there is no set curriculum. They are built upon the premise that students, if given time and freedom, will seek out their own passions, and motivate themselves to learn. The students and faculty work together to decide what the students learn, how the school is run -- essentially making the school a mini-democracy in action.
Do you think this is an effective way to educate children?
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Monday, January 31, 2011
Testing and Critical Thinking: A Response
In her blog, Stephanie asked about the possibility of making essays a more important element to student evaluation than just objective testing.
One of the major flaws of objective testing, as Stephanie pointed out, is that it encourages "learning for the test," cramming information for the test without retaining it afterwards. This was a trap that I never fell in to in prep school (except perhaps in my advanced mathematics class -- and honestly, not remembering how to calculate sine, cosine, and tangent is extremely unlikely to be detrimental to my education or my life in general), though I know people who did. Granted, I attended a prep school in Connecticut, so I did not have the spectre of a big standardized test like MCAS looming over my head. Nevertheless, these tests (and in a sense, perhaps even testing in general) can do more harm than good for education.
So what of requiring more essay writing, requiring a display of critical thinking? The idea, in theory, seems to be quite sound (but then, communism looks nice on paper, too). However, there are huge practical hurdles to essay writing, particularly where large exams, testing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of students, are concerned. When an exam is being administered to a large number of students, the most efficient way to score them is scantron, as the MCAS primarily is (or so I have been told). Including more essays requires a far higher allocation of resources to score, both in terms of work hours required, and the salaries of educators who would need to evaluate those essays, along with the resources that would be required to determine a fair rubric for judging the "critical thinking" displayed in an essay. Coupled with the general conservative bent of school boards and the intractability of teachers unions (not to mention our education system's poor track record of efficient use of resources), the chances of significant changes to testing are exceedingly slim.
To end with a question: What might be some practical options for encouraging the teaching of, and measuring, critical thinking skills?
One of the major flaws of objective testing, as Stephanie pointed out, is that it encourages "learning for the test," cramming information for the test without retaining it afterwards. This was a trap that I never fell in to in prep school (except perhaps in my advanced mathematics class -- and honestly, not remembering how to calculate sine, cosine, and tangent is extremely unlikely to be detrimental to my education or my life in general), though I know people who did. Granted, I attended a prep school in Connecticut, so I did not have the spectre of a big standardized test like MCAS looming over my head. Nevertheless, these tests (and in a sense, perhaps even testing in general) can do more harm than good for education.
So what of requiring more essay writing, requiring a display of critical thinking? The idea, in theory, seems to be quite sound (but then, communism looks nice on paper, too). However, there are huge practical hurdles to essay writing, particularly where large exams, testing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of students, are concerned. When an exam is being administered to a large number of students, the most efficient way to score them is scantron, as the MCAS primarily is (or so I have been told). Including more essays requires a far higher allocation of resources to score, both in terms of work hours required, and the salaries of educators who would need to evaluate those essays, along with the resources that would be required to determine a fair rubric for judging the "critical thinking" displayed in an essay. Coupled with the general conservative bent of school boards and the intractability of teachers unions (not to mention our education system's poor track record of efficient use of resources), the chances of significant changes to testing are exceedingly slim.
To end with a question: What might be some practical options for encouraging the teaching of, and measuring, critical thinking skills?
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Critical Thinking vs "Mere Reasoning."
I have been contemplating the distinction between critical thinking and reasoning since class on Wednesday. I suggested in class that seems that there is no discernible distinction between critical thinking and reasoning. Having applied further thought, I would like to attempt to defend this position.
A good starting point would be the definitions of each. To try to be as clear as possible, I will take my definitions from what I hope is a reputable source: dictionary.com
According to dictionary.com, critical thinking is "the mental process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information to reach an answer or conclusion." Reasoning is "the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises" (which is much more acceptable than "the act or process of a person who reasons," a type of definition that should never appear in a dictionary).
The dictionary definition, then, would seem to state that reasoning takes its premises as given, whereas critical thinking first evaluates those premises before drawing its conclusions. But this seems to make little sense. After all, basic logic tells us that, for an argument to be true, it must be based upon true premises. And how do we determine the veracity of premises save for the evaluation of them in the face of other information and experiences we have?
Perhaps, then, this means that, while a logical argument can be true or false, sound or unsound, critical thinking can only be true, as it takes a broad view and assures the veracity of one's claims right off the bat. This too, however, falls into the trap of an artificial distinction. If one performs an act of critical thinking which is then later shown to be invalid or logically unsound in the face of new information, does the original act of critical thinking become invalidated, "downgraded" to "mere reasoning" from "critical thinking?" I would say not.
What, then, of the proposal that critical thinking includes a crucial (critical?) element of ACTING upon the conclusions one comes to via this process? Another artificial distinction. If one reasons to a conclusion, it is only natural for one act accordingly, unless there are significant barriers to doing so -- prejudice, habituation, or a multitude of other reasons that may prevent us from acting as we deem best.
To end with a question: How might one seek to foster the skills requisite for reasoning in students?
A good starting point would be the definitions of each. To try to be as clear as possible, I will take my definitions from what I hope is a reputable source: dictionary.com
According to dictionary.com, critical thinking is "the mental process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information to reach an answer or conclusion." Reasoning is "the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises" (which is much more acceptable than "the act or process of a person who reasons," a type of definition that should never appear in a dictionary).
The dictionary definition, then, would seem to state that reasoning takes its premises as given, whereas critical thinking first evaluates those premises before drawing its conclusions. But this seems to make little sense. After all, basic logic tells us that, for an argument to be true, it must be based upon true premises. And how do we determine the veracity of premises save for the evaluation of them in the face of other information and experiences we have?
Perhaps, then, this means that, while a logical argument can be true or false, sound or unsound, critical thinking can only be true, as it takes a broad view and assures the veracity of one's claims right off the bat. This too, however, falls into the trap of an artificial distinction. If one performs an act of critical thinking which is then later shown to be invalid or logically unsound in the face of new information, does the original act of critical thinking become invalidated, "downgraded" to "mere reasoning" from "critical thinking?" I would say not.
What, then, of the proposal that critical thinking includes a crucial (critical?) element of ACTING upon the conclusions one comes to via this process? Another artificial distinction. If one reasons to a conclusion, it is only natural for one act accordingly, unless there are significant barriers to doing so -- prejudice, habituation, or a multitude of other reasons that may prevent us from acting as we deem best.
To end with a question: How might one seek to foster the skills requisite for reasoning in students?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)