Kim asked: "How important is it that students enjoy their education and should this be a goal in teaching?"
I do not claim to be an expert in education, though I do think that enjoyability plays a certain factor into learning. Speaking from experience, several of my teachers in prep school (notably history and English teachers -- funny how the humanities tends to find folks who are talented at making human connections) were quite effective at doing just that. I mentioned a US history teacher in a previous post who had a knack for drawing amusing, informative analogies between history and our school. It was, I think, a very effective way to keep the class engaged while imparting the information.
Making education enjoyable is, at the least, a useful tool for teachers, and at least from my experience, is an effective way to keep students interested in their education while they learn. While entertaining education should not be the ONLY goal, it certainly seems to have its place in the classroom.
To end with a question: What methods might make learning math or science enjoyable?
Saturday, February 19, 2011
A Favor To Ask
Dear classmates, I have a favor to ask of you. When you respond to someone's question, please comment on the post containing the question to let the author know about your intention to reply. I have so far seen three responses to questions I have asked, but only one writer commented on my blog to inform me of my question being addressed. It is much more conducive to continuing conversation if we are made aware when our questions are addressed, as it helps keep a dialogue going between our blogs.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
On "Post-modernist" Education
Having read a few of the articles for this week's Q & A, I felt compelled to make a few observations on so-called "post-modernist education theory," particularly as was developed in the articles by Hatcher and Sutton.
These two articles show some wonderful illustrations of how constructivists contort the English language and subtly imply the need for an objective "real world" while refusing to accept such a notion. As Hatcher points out, without a real world, who are we to make a claim about objective facts, including the claim that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. Sutton counters that such claims are not particularly important, since they are only based on our cultural assumptions, and anti-realism of course takes this into account.
Perhaps most off-putting is Sutton's claim that, since philosophy has not yet arrived at objective truth, it cannot, and the search is futile. This is, I think, an incredibly dangerous claim. After all, if medicine has not yet produced a cure for cancer, does that mean we cannot and should stop trying? If we have not yet developed a cheap fuel that is safer for the environment than the coal, oil, and natural gas we use, does this mean that we cannot and should stop trying? Such a claim is at best absurd, and at worst a direct attack on scientific and intellectual progress.
Key to Sutton's claims to keep knowledge alive without truth is the claim that all knowledge must be "in context." This is, again, the constructivist's attempt to mangle the English language to produce "truth" by a different name. Either that, or it is a way to allow society to fragment and fall apart because of "context" and difference of opinion. After all, if South Carolina wants to teach that slavery was good and moral and that the south won the Civil War, who are we to argue? We are not from that context, nor do we have access to their particular viewpoints, and without any objective truth to reference, we have no way to disprove this radical claim.
At the end of his article, Sutton asks "Does this sound like a description of educational bamboozlement or of philosophical education conceived as both therapeutic and edifying?" My answer is that this does, in fact, sound like a description of educational bamboozlement, and to try to enact this would almost certainly come at the expense of students and their education.
To end with a question: Should we allow curricular flexibility for "local standards?"
These two articles show some wonderful illustrations of how constructivists contort the English language and subtly imply the need for an objective "real world" while refusing to accept such a notion. As Hatcher points out, without a real world, who are we to make a claim about objective facts, including the claim that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. Sutton counters that such claims are not particularly important, since they are only based on our cultural assumptions, and anti-realism of course takes this into account.
Perhaps most off-putting is Sutton's claim that, since philosophy has not yet arrived at objective truth, it cannot, and the search is futile. This is, I think, an incredibly dangerous claim. After all, if medicine has not yet produced a cure for cancer, does that mean we cannot and should stop trying? If we have not yet developed a cheap fuel that is safer for the environment than the coal, oil, and natural gas we use, does this mean that we cannot and should stop trying? Such a claim is at best absurd, and at worst a direct attack on scientific and intellectual progress.
Key to Sutton's claims to keep knowledge alive without truth is the claim that all knowledge must be "in context." This is, again, the constructivist's attempt to mangle the English language to produce "truth" by a different name. Either that, or it is a way to allow society to fragment and fall apart because of "context" and difference of opinion. After all, if South Carolina wants to teach that slavery was good and moral and that the south won the Civil War, who are we to argue? We are not from that context, nor do we have access to their particular viewpoints, and without any objective truth to reference, we have no way to disprove this radical claim.
At the end of his article, Sutton asks "Does this sound like a description of educational bamboozlement or of philosophical education conceived as both therapeutic and edifying?" My answer is that this does, in fact, sound like a description of educational bamboozlement, and to try to enact this would almost certainly come at the expense of students and their education.
To end with a question: Should we allow curricular flexibility for "local standards?"
Coaching: A Response
Michael asked a number of questions about the role of coaches and sports in the curriculum.
I have never been a particular fan of sports, either for watching or for participating (as if my physique didn't betray that). Phys ed in primary school was always a chore, and the sport requirement at my prep school was the bane of my existence (until I wised up and started doing drama to dodge that particular requirement).
This does not mean that I discount the contribution of good coaches. For several years, I took training in martial arts, which not only kept me more physically active than I had been before (or, really, since), but was a fulfilling part of my day. The major difference I can identify between my in-school experience and the out-of-school experience was in the teachers. The martial arts instructors were helpful and supportive, even when pushing me to give that extra bit of effort. My phys ed teachers in primary school (and I had a new one every year -- in one year, there was a new phys ed teacher every quarter) took little effort to engage the students, and the coaches in prep school were equally distant, driving heavily towards the results, first and foremost.
Moving beyond mere anecdote, there is research suggesting that aerobic exercise, whether that be in the form of sports or some other activity, helps to improve problem solving abilities and I.Q. scores. Coupled with this "national obesity epidemic," the evidence seems to point strongly to at least SOME form of physical engagement for students.
So, should sports be considered a vital element of education? Much as it pains me to say... I think they may well be important. There is certainly room to argue that students, children as well as adults, should be engaged in at least SOME form of physical activity, and sports can provide a fun, productive way to do just that, for both the physical and mental benefits.
To end with a question: Should schools be concerned with the physical and emotional well-being of their students as well as the intellectual?
I have never been a particular fan of sports, either for watching or for participating (as if my physique didn't betray that). Phys ed in primary school was always a chore, and the sport requirement at my prep school was the bane of my existence (until I wised up and started doing drama to dodge that particular requirement).
This does not mean that I discount the contribution of good coaches. For several years, I took training in martial arts, which not only kept me more physically active than I had been before (or, really, since), but was a fulfilling part of my day. The major difference I can identify between my in-school experience and the out-of-school experience was in the teachers. The martial arts instructors were helpful and supportive, even when pushing me to give that extra bit of effort. My phys ed teachers in primary school (and I had a new one every year -- in one year, there was a new phys ed teacher every quarter) took little effort to engage the students, and the coaches in prep school were equally distant, driving heavily towards the results, first and foremost.
Moving beyond mere anecdote, there is research suggesting that aerobic exercise, whether that be in the form of sports or some other activity, helps to improve problem solving abilities and I.Q. scores. Coupled with this "national obesity epidemic," the evidence seems to point strongly to at least SOME form of physical engagement for students.
So, should sports be considered a vital element of education? Much as it pains me to say... I think they may well be important. There is certainly room to argue that students, children as well as adults, should be engaged in at least SOME form of physical activity, and sports can provide a fun, productive way to do just that, for both the physical and mental benefits.
To end with a question: Should schools be concerned with the physical and emotional well-being of their students as well as the intellectual?
Who's Teaching the Teachers?
Teachers are, without a doubt, among the most important contributors to education. A good teacher can make a profound difference in the lives of students. But who teaches the teachers?
An effort is currently underway seeking answers to that very question. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/09/education/09teachers.html
The standards being used by the National Council on Teacher Quality to examine and grade education schools are given on their website. They include an examination of how much time student teachers spend in the classroom, the quality of the schools in which those student teachers are placed, the student teacher's grasp of the subject(s) being taught, and performance of the school's graduates once they are fully certified and teaching.
The effort is laudable, and certainly long-overdue. Though it raises a very important issue. We do not yet have a firm idea on what, exactly, constitutes a good teacher. Without having a clear answer to that vital question, the effort to rate the quality of education schools seems almost like a waste of effort. Though it will certainly be interesting once the grades come out to find out where MCLA stands.
To end with a question: Can we accurately judge the effectiveness of education schools without having a clear way to identify effective teachers?
An effort is currently underway seeking answers to that very question. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/09/education/09teachers.html
The standards being used by the National Council on Teacher Quality to examine and grade education schools are given on their website. They include an examination of how much time student teachers spend in the classroom, the quality of the schools in which those student teachers are placed, the student teacher's grasp of the subject(s) being taught, and performance of the school's graduates once they are fully certified and teaching.
The effort is laudable, and certainly long-overdue. Though it raises a very important issue. We do not yet have a firm idea on what, exactly, constitutes a good teacher. Without having a clear answer to that vital question, the effort to rate the quality of education schools seems almost like a waste of effort. Though it will certainly be interesting once the grades come out to find out where MCLA stands.
To end with a question: Can we accurately judge the effectiveness of education schools without having a clear way to identify effective teachers?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)