Go home, children, you're all about to die.

[shecky]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4025293.stm

Pupils were left in tears after a teacher told them that an asteroid was about to hit Earth and kill them all.

The spoof announcement was designed to teach 14-year-olds the importance of seizing the day but backfired after they became visibly frightened.

It is also believed that the students were told that they should go home and say "final farewells" to their families.

A rather cruel trick, even for 14 year-olds. The intended lesson is valid, but you'd think it could have been easily made without the doomsday notice.

I'm curious if there were skeptical students? When I was that age, a priest in my Catholic school dedicated significant class time to warning us kids of the dangers of backward masked satanic lyrics in rock music. My bullsh|t meter pegged out immediately, but some kids really swallowed (ahem) the whole thing. Looking back, this event may have been a seminal event in my overall skepticism.

[Ashles]

Maybe they had all been really naughty all lesson and the teacher was fed up with them.

Hell if I were a teacher, I think I'd be tempted...


New guidelines for teachers:
No slapping, holding, spanking or pretending everyone in the world is about to be killed.

[Brown]

This was a foolish stunt. Not only did the teacher unnecessarily distress the students, he damaged his own credibility.

When I was around that age, I had some teachers tell me some strange things. In many cases, I never did understand why they said them; and in every case, it caused me to question their reliability on other matters.

One teacher told me that a photograph of me on the school's playground was going to appear in "Time" magazine. I dutifully read "Time" every week for the next month, looking for stories about education or physical fitness or something like that.

Another teacher told me that Franklin D. Roosevelt had fully recovered from his polio and had suffered no ill effects from the disease whatsoever. Presumably he grew up in the days when the news media suppressed reports about FDR's inability to walk, but I was under the impression that FDR's condition was common knowledge. (There is no question that it is common knowledge NOW.)

I've found that many of the lessons taught by these teachers have not stuck with me later in life, in part because they damaged their own credibility.

[TheBoyPaj]

On the flipside, it must be a right pain for the kids I teach, having a sceptic for a teacher.

They're doing multimedia presentations at the moment, and a couple of them have chosen to do them about star signs. You could almost hear my brain working, quickly trying to work out how to tactfully suggest that it's all nonsense, or indeed if I should bother.

It's so tempting to mark them down for choosing a woo topic!

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
On the flipside, it must be a right pain for the kids I teach, having a sceptic for a teacher.

They're doing multimedia presentations at the moment, and a couple of them have chosen to do them about star signs. You could almost hear my brain working, quickly trying to work out how to tactfully suggest that it's all nonsense, or indeed if I should bother.

It's so tempting to mark them down for choosing a woo topic!

What about handing out the same horoscopes, but don't let them know they are the same? You probably know this has been done as a demo before, and can probably find the best "fit-all" format for the horoscope on the net.

[The Mighty Thor]

There's probably some jambo-esque kid still saying: "It's still gonna happen, you know. The government's covering it up."

Hmmm -- are there still folk checking on those NEA's?
;)

[c4ts]

Shoulda stuck with Lucretius for that seize-the-day mentality, doomsday scares invoke just the opposite.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
What about handing out the same horoscopes, but don't let them know they are the same? You probably know this has been done as a demo before, and can probably find the best "fit-all" format for the horoscope on the net.

I did suggest that as part of the project. Display all the descriptions and get the user to pick which one fits them best. The girl seemed to glaze over a bit so I left it to sink in. I haven't marked the finished project yet.

[demon]

Maybe Prince Charles advised him to do it.
You know, teach the little buggers that life is a bitch and not to get any ideas above their station `cause a big rock from the sky can come and kill the lot of you.

[Checkmite]

This is the most idiotic, god-awful teaching idea I've ever had the pleasure of reading about. The former most idiotic, god-awful teaching idea I'd ever had the pleasure of reading about was some elementary school teacher in California or someplace who had her students ponder the Lifeboat Dilemma. But this stupidity trumps even that.

Edited to Add: My bad, it wasn't a teacher that actually had her students fulfill the assignment....it was the suggestion of the dilemma as an effective teaching tool by the United Nations (http://www.un.org/popin/regional/asiapac/fiji/disc/disc8/disc8.htm).

[shecky]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
The former most idiotic, god-awful teaching idea I'd ever had the pleasure of reading about was some elementary school teacher in California or someplace who had her students ponder the Lifeboat Dilemma.

The Lifeboat Dilemma seems a pretty common scenario in ethics classes, perhaps suitable to high school. Why would it be idiotic? It's one thing to have students ponder difficult questions, something else to declare the world is ending.

[Beady]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
What about handing out the same horoscopes, but don't let them know they are the same? You probably know this has been done as a demo before, and can probably find the best "fit-all" format for the horoscope on the net.

http://skepdic.com/forer.html

Frankly, I'm amazed whenever I run into a skeptic who doesn't know about and consult the Dictionary on a regular basis. I bought a hardcopy for myself, and give copies as presents. Teenagers seem to actually love it; it seems to answer a lot of naturally-occuring questions.

I'm wondering how I can nominate Carroll (the compiler) for a Nobel Prize.

[Beady]

Originally posted by shecky
The Lifeboat Dilemma seems a pretty common scenario in ethics classes, perhaps suitable to high school. Why would it be idiotic?

I saw the Dilemma played out in a high school class, with an interesting twist. Normally, students talk it out in a rather detached, third-person discussion, as a purely intellectual exercise. This one, though, was more role-playing.

Each member of the class assumed a profession different from the others, and each member of the class (about 25 students, total) was a candidate for a 12-person lifeboat. Here's the interesting part: the members of the class retained their real-life relationships to each other. That is, real-life couples, remained couples in the scenario, real-life friends remained friends, etc. Then they talked about who could get into the boat, and who would stay behind. As you might expect, the scenario was far from resolved by the end of class, but the students not only had to deal with ethics, but also with such things as loyalty and the character of their closest friends. ISTR at least one couple broke up after the exercise.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by shecky
The Lifeboat Dilemma seems a pretty common scenario in ethics classes, perhaps suitable to high school. Why would it be idiotic?

Originally posted by Beady
ISTR at least one couple broke up after the exercise.

That's why. You put people into a figurative scenario where they have to make decisions about who lives and who dies, and the choice is made "interesting" (read: cruel) by populating the figurative lifeboat with one's family, or friends. You can really, really screw up somebody's head like that. What is the point of the exercise? To get one to "examine their ethics more closely"? To what purpose? No matter what your ethics, you're always going to have to "kill" some people. The exercise achieves nothing but the nurturing of a few guilty consciences.

[BPScooter]

I guess in that extra-real situation, I'd toss the keys to the SUV out of the boat, and commit suicide in order to save others. Speak a poem and give my body to the science of the sea. In other words while I totally agree that this is a "valuable" use of class time, I for one as a kid would have had the backbone to walk away, and winked at my lame teacher for even pulling such a stunt.

[Beady]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
That's why. You put people into a figurative scenario where they have to make decisions about who lives and who dies, and the choice is made "interesting" (read: cruel) by populating the figurative lifeboat with one's family, or friends. You can really, really screw up somebody's head like that.

I would argue that any relationship that can be screwed up so easily isn't very strong to begin with. Likewise, if someone's head can so easily be screwed with, then they've already got some pretty serious problems that should be looked at.

I really don't see the difference between this exercise and any other role-playing game that teenagers (and adults) play for the fun of it. What happened in the class I saw could just as easily have happened as a result of a D&D session. The only people who are going to have problems are those who have trouble differentiating between reality and fantasy.

[Beady]

Originally posted by BPScooter
I guess in that extra-real situation, I'd toss the keys to the SUV out of the boat, and commit suicide in order to save others. Speak a poem and give my body to the science of the sea. In other words while I totally agree that this is a "valuable" use of class time, I for one as a kid would have had the backbone to walk away, and winked at my lame teacher for even pulling such a stunt.

Maybe, maybe not. I wonder, though, that it apparently went right by you that by metaphorically comitting suicide you would still be playing a role in the exercise. The other participants would still react to your action and your absence from that point. You would still be giving them something to think about and to deal with. Any savvy teacher wouldn't have a problem with you voluntarily diving over the side. After all, in most philosophy and ethics courses (mind you, I said "most," not "all"), the objective is to face and deal with the situation, not to come up with the "right" answer.

It's interesting, though, that within the context of the exercise you would demonstrate your independence by permanently surrenduring any further opportunity to exercise it. Within the context of the class, you would be showing the teacher whom you thought was the boss, but to what point and to what effect? What would you win by such an act? What would the prize be?

Perhaps such an action might reveal more about yourself to yourself, the class, and especially to the teacher, than you would really want them to know.

Just how carefully have you thought this through?

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Beady
http://skepdic.com/forer.html

Frankly, I'm amazed whenever I run into a skeptic who doesn't know about and consult the Dictionary on a regular basis. I bought a hardcopy for myself, and give copies as presents. Teenagers seem to actually love it; it seems to answer a lot of naturally-occuring questions.

I'm wondering how I can nominate Carroll (the compiler) for a Nobel Prize.

Thanks -- added to my favourites!

[BPScooter]

Thanks, Beady, obviously I didn't think it through too much. And I've never participated in a game like this, so I don't know a whole lot about it. Chalk my comments up to my disdain for role playing in general as a teaching tool (I'm a teacher). Like so much else, it depends on the situation. Your reaction was thought-provoking and helpful.

[The Mighty Thor]

Does the only person with any navigation skills and who can fix the engine if it breaks down get an automatic pass?

[Beady]

Originally posted by BPScooter
Thanks, Beady, obviously I didn't think it through too much. And I've never participated in a game like this, so I don't know a whole lot about it. Chalk my comments up to my disdain for role playing in general as a teaching tool (I'm a teacher). Like so much else, it depends on the situation. Your reaction was thought-provoking and helpful.

Done well, role-playing has a definite purpose and can be extremely effective. Teenagers don't realize it, but they're heavily into philosophy and have very definite (almost absolutist) ideas of right and wrong. I found that the trick is to try and stay away from structure as much as possible; give them a scenario or question, set it up as a debate or role-play, then stand out of the way. Mind you, this is only good for dealing with questions and concepts, not facts.

I have also, however, seen it done very badly. Once, the teacher (a 20-year or so veteran of the profession) tried to illustrate the reasons for the French Revolution by putting one of the students on a chair which was on a table(!), and having him wear a Burger King crown. The rest of the class (9th graders, ~13 years old) were the rabble. I forget the details, but I think you get the drift. The kids weren't learning anything, they were bored out of their minds, the kid on the "throne" was embarrassed as hell...

[Beady]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
Does the only person with any navigation skills and who can fix the engine if it breaks down get an automatic pass?

Generally. It's really interesting because, with an assured seat in the boat, these are the people who can dare to speak up and attempt to take charge.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Beady
I would argue that any relationship that can be screwed up so easily isn't very strong to begin with.

No relationship in its earliest stages is particularly strong. The exercise could easily have destroyed a good thing before it had gotten off it's feet yet.

Likewise, if someone's head can so easily be screwed with, then they've already got some pretty serious problems that should be looked at.

I really don't see the difference between this exercise and any other role-playing game that teenagers (and adults) play for the fun of it. What happened in the class I saw could just as easily have happened as a result of a D&D session. The only people who are going to have problems are those who have trouble differentiating between reality and fantasy.

In that case, there's absolutely no point, and class time should be better spent learning something. If you use an exercise as an educational tool, you expect it to be taken seriously; you can't, at the same time, insist that it shouldn't be taken seriously. And if you allow the students not to take it seriously, then they will be giving answers in jest or that aren't thought out (like BPScooter's). And you can't analyze those answers within the context of the exercise for the simple reason that they weren't formulated within the context of the exercise. The exercise comes to naught - a wasted hour.

Now then, if you insist that the students take the exercise seriously, what point is there to be made? You're forcing them to (theoretically) kill people - everybody loses, either by dying or by becoming a (theoretical) murderer. It would be different if "downsizing" the lifeboat residency was merely one of several difficult options - you could then at least get the students to choose the more important amongst a set of values - which would be much, much more educational for the students themselves (although I would probably still oppose the exercise as too invasive - my values are my business). But just forcing people to (hypothetically) kill others and watching them debate who deserves to live less than the others is a venture that has no educational worth.

[Beady]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
The exercise could easily have destroyed a good thing before it had gotten off it's feet yet.

"Could," "would," "should," and all the other subjunctives reflect a case other than present reality. Crossing the street "could" result in premature death, but I don't spend a lot of time worrying about it.

If you use an exercise as an educational tool, you expect it to be taken seriously...

"Taking something seriously" does not mean that it has to be boring, uninteresting or humorless, nor does it mean that it can't be fun. Properly handled, *anything* can be educational, and the most important consideration is that it be memorable. The teachers that insist on taking lessons seriously are, generally speaking, more interested in the lesson than they are in the learning.

[Eos of the Eons]

http://www.jd.gosling.btinternet.co.uk/wotw/radio.htm

Reminds me of the War of The Worlds broadcast in the 30's.

What reaction did they expect from the students over the supposed news that the world was coming to an end? They didn't even think of that? Or did they not care?

Geez, people get freaked out when they hear an astroid is even close to the planet, let alone actually hitting it.

[Jeff Corey]

This reminds me of numerous occasions where teachers said stupid things that turned out to be falsehoods.
That helped me become a skeptic. In fact, demanded it.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Beady
"Taking something seriously" does not mean that it has to be boring, uninteresting or humorless, nor does it mean that it can't be fun. Properly handled, *anything* can be educational, and the most important consideration is that it be memorable. The teachers that insist on taking lessons seriously are, generally speaking, more interested in the lesson than they are in the learning.

...so then you admit this particular exercise is, educationally speaking, worthless?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Beady
Maybe, maybe not. I wonder, though, that it apparently went right by you that by metaphorically comitting suicide you would still be playing a role in the exercise. The other participants would still react to your action and your absence from that point. You would still be giving them something to think about and to deal with. Any savvy teacher wouldn't have a problem with you voluntarily diving over the side. After all, in most philosophy and ethics courses (mind you, I said "most," not "all"), the objective is to face and deal with the situation, not to come up with the "right" answer.
[snip] underlining mine.

Interesting...You (Beady) and I had very different ideas about BPScooter's little "to be or not to be" bit here. You have him jumping overboard; I have him slitting his jugular and becoming a source of food and liquid...his presence (as food), rather than his absence, is what is important to the others in the boat, and as a result they are in a much much stronger position than they would otherwise be.

Of course, he could serve this purpose just as well by arguing, and persuading the least useful person in the boat to serve as...protein...

(yes, I am a sick puppy...)

[Jyera]

Practical jokes are not to be encouraged.
Especially not a practical joke from a teacher.

I thought the idea to seize the day could be taught in a different way.

I recall the movie "Groundhog day" by Bill Murray.
It taught the value of making full use of each "repetitive" and "boring" day to make incremental improvements with the people around us.

In contrary to the "End of the world" scenario,
in the movie, Bill Murray couldn't die. No matter what he tried.
He'll just wakeup and jump out of bed to restart the very same day (GroundHog Day) over and over again. (If he didn't kill himself, he find himself waking up after sleeping to relive the same day.)

[Beady]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
...so then you admit this particular exercise is, educationally speaking, worthless?

Oh. You're one of "Those." I'm not playing that game. I was more interested in a serious discussion.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Beady
Oh. You're one of "Those." I'm not playing that game. I was more interested in a serious discussion.

??? O....K....sorry to disappoint, I guess...