Wrong Education

[blakehaydn]

Application of critical thinking and psychological awareness need to be the top priority in teaching devoloping children.

[drkitten]

Application of critical thinking and psychological awareness need to be the top priority in teaching devoloping children.

You're not in favor of motor skills and toilet training?

[cbish]

Okay, what age group are we talking about and in what capacity?

[blakehaydn]

Okay, what age group are we talking about and in what capacity?

The earliest they are able to understand, it shouldn't be based on age alone.

[cbish]

The earliest they are able to understand, it shouldn't be based on age alone.
So, the early 20's.
What do you suggest? Any specifics? What's psychological awareness?

[kittynh]

Hey, lay off! I teach critical thinking to three year olds! You want to know one of the hardest groups to do magic for? Little kids!

Primary age children, ages 3-5 are GREAT at learing critical thinking. It's easy and fun too.

I teach the kids about the Big Bang, so how much harder can critical thinking be? You teach to the age, but working in a Montessori school has taught me that we WAY underestimate what a young child can do and learn. The parents bring them in, and in less than a week we have them putting on their own coat and fixing their own snack. After a month we just sit back and let them do all the work...

A doctor at planned parenthood was once asked when sex education should begin. He replied it began at BIRTH! You ARE teaching your child about critical thinking, or NOT critical thinking from birth. You may not know it, but you are.

[cbish]

Hey, Lay off!?! Excuse me!! Could you be more rude!?!
I never said I disagreed. I just want some clarification for specifics and some dialogue.

[kittynh]

I'm sorry.....

but I have a terrible time convincing any skeptic groups that we need to start them YOUNG.

Here is one of my favorite tools. The book , "The Emperors New Clothes" Perfect skeptic book, and the "hero" (or skeptic) is a child!

[kittynh]

Hey, Lay off!?! Excuse me!! Could you be more rude!?!
I never said I disagreed. I just want some clarification for specifics and some dialogue.


Oh I am sorry....

but yes I could be more rude

Your mother wears Army boots! so there....(and I a moderator, it's really sad)

but totally a fair cop on the rude part!

[cbish]

Actually, my mother does wear army boots. She said they're the best for butt-kickin'. I blame my brothers.

I'm for starting education young. The only concern I have is that it is developmentally appropriate for the age group. When I think of critical thinking, I think of Carnap's Analysis and Synthesis modes. These require the abstract thought which normally doesn't develop until the teenage years. However, I'm sure there are exercises that are appropriate for primary and elementary education. That's out of my breadth. That's why I'm curious as to what blake had in mind. I'm also curious to what 'psychological awareness' is. Is that a textbook term that I'm not familiar with or is it a term blake uses to describe some phenomena?

[kittynh]

hmmmm, well I use books and talk to the kids. We had a big talk about ghosts. MOst 3-5 year olds think there ARE ghosts. when I showed them photographs of "ghosts" they all commented about how that sure didn't look like a ghost! We then talked about what could ghosts be! It was fun. When I talked with the parents they were kind of shocked that their kids thought there were ghosts of the type just walking around going "Boo". sadly many of the parents believe in ghosts, but not of the Caspar type.

[blakehaydn]

I'm also curious to what 'psychological awareness' is. Is that a textbook term that I'm not familiar with or is it a term blake uses to describe some phenomena?

I mean we should teach society to understand human psychology to a basic degree so we know why we do things for the most part. Especially psychological defense mechanisms because they can be manipulated on in so many ways and they are very common.

[blakehaydn]

So, the early 20's.

Much too late.

[geni]

Application of critical thinking and psychological awareness need to be the top priority in teaching devoloping children.

On the basis that civerlization is able to function without this but would struggel to function without people haveing tha ability to read I'm going to dissagree.

[CBL4]

kittynh,

I have a three year old son and I would appreciate more advice on teaching him logical thought but I do not want to take the fun out of things for him.

For example, I pull quarters out of his ears all the time. I am not sure whether he really believes it but he laughs hysterically about it. I am not going to teach him otherwise. I am a little worried when he puts pennies in his ear. ;)

Another example is dinosaurs. I tell him that dinosaurs are extinct but he insists he saw one yesterday. He asked me if dinosaurs would eat monkeys because the movie Dinosaur has both dinosaurs and monkeys. I told him that the dinosaurs went extinct before there were monkeys but he won't believe me.

CBL

[blakehaydn]

I'm for starting education young. The only concern I have is that it is developmentally appropriate for the age group. When I think of critical thinking, I think of Carnap's Analysis and Synthesis modes. These require the abstract thought which normally doesn't develop until the teenage years. However, I'm sure there are exercises that are appropriate for primary and elementary education. That's out of my breadth. That's why I'm curious as to what blake had in mind. I'm also curious to what 'psychological awareness' is. Is that a textbook term that I'm not familiar with or is it a term blake uses to describe some phenomena?

Yes, we definitely need more people thinking along these lines like cbish. I'm not at all for taking the fun out of being a kid, I'm all for feeding their true interests before they become socialized by media, and I'm all for teaching them about objective thought as their mind develops. When I speak of "psychological awareness" I am referring to the education and consciousness of our own psychology and how it ties in with society. This of course can come a bit later.

[ERGONER]

... I'm all for feeding their true interests before they become socialized by media...

...Hmmm.

What are their "true interests" ?

How did you determine them ?




Society attacks early when the individual is helpless.

{-- B. F. Skinner}

[Hindmost]

It seems to be getting more difficult to teach critical thinking in school. There are so many mandatory tests that schools are being forced to implement that teaching anything “off” curriculum is almost impossible. No child left behind makes that a bit worse. Test scores are held up as indication of the ability of the school district to educate students. Your student can be brilliant critical thinkers which would mean nothing to the district if their test scores weren’t good.


Since I teach a science elective, I am able to teach critical thinking skills, but I get students in 11th and 12th grade. Many students have already established witch-wiggler beliefs or won’t even try to use or understand scientific method for its intended purpose. It can be impossible to dislodge such entrenched neural pathways during the limited time I have to teach critical thinking. However, many of them really start to change the way they think about certain items.


An additional problem is that teachers may harbor strange beliefs and lack the needed skills. A few years back, a new teacher claimed to be a certified palmist. (I shared a room with this teacher and we had some colorful discussions.) I have known teachers to believe that the "awards” are all true, etc. the list goes on. Parents can also have some limitations in the critical thinking arena. Middleschool would be the best place to start teaching students critical thinking in science--as an extention of the scientific method. (rather than just memorizing its steps)


glenn

[Godmode]

Critical thinking almost wouldn't have to be a seperate issue, but just more the way you taught everything else. At home I mean. In schools I believe probably science class would be the best way to do it,and it should be the first lesson of the year EVERY year.

[Hindmost]

...I have known teachers to believe that the "awards” are all true, etc. ...

glenn

This should have said "Darwin Awards" referring to the website. I actually use the Darwin award website to show how convincing stuff on the web can still be very wrong.

glenn

[clarsct]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.


Did any of you click on the link in Blake's sig? I suggest you do so.


Anyway, I am all for critical thinking in schools. But you must realize that most kids get their ridiculous ideas from their PARENTS, not from their schools. I'm not sure how much we can 'undo' the damage done by ma and gramps, who believe in ghosts, or auntie Tillie, who goes to a psychic every week to make sure her fortunes are in perfect alignment.

After all, Gramps Shamberfien wouldn't lie to you, would he?


Unfortunately, it is easier on the teachers when the kids accept everything told to them, and many(NOT ALL!!!!!) would rather not have any 'critical thinkers' in their classroom. Not everyone is as dedicated as Kitty, Kiles, and Athon(amongst others..these are the ones I know of...).

Just thinking critically, here.

[Kiless]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.


Did any of you click on the link in Blake's sig? I suggest you do so.

Yeah, Point III is interesting for a start:

Destruction of the current entertainment industry and the
emplacement of a new system completely controlled by the
citizenry, this includes television and radio programming based on
entertainment. Profit from all forms of entertainment must be
severely taxed and reimbursed to society through social benefits.
True art is not done for wealth.

VIII. Begin new programs in early schooling centered on the
understanding of psychological awareness, critical thinking and
social science.

So, any educational theories that you base VIII upon? Suggestions on 'how to' that you have?

Heh:

IX. Remove all illegal immigrants from our nation and press hard
anti-immigration laws.


...something you're not telling us there ! :)

Unfortunately, it is easier on the teachers when the kids accept everything told to them, and many(NOT ALL!!!!!) would rather not have any 'critical thinkers' in their classroom.

There's still an 'old guard' sort of attitude amongst teachers and I think that's only to be expected. It's safe, it's easy and you just 'punch in and punch out'. And then you sit around muttering about how ratbag the kids are. It takes a little more than that if you want change. :(

[clarsct]

"Only to be expected"?????!

I think not! We should expect more. We ought to expect people to take pride in the job they do and pride in themselves. The "Punch in/Punch out" attitude is unacceptable. You are doing niether yourself nor the children any good whatsoever with that attitude. Maybe you weren't cut out to be a teacher, maybe factory work might be better for you, if that is the attitude you take to your job.


I respectfully must disagree with you on this one, Kiless. Children are our future and we should expect a high quality education. We're paying for it, after all. (Teachers should also make much more money..but that's a different thread....)

[Kiless]

"Only to be expected"?????!

I'll elaborate.

It's only to be expected with years and years and decades and decades of teacher-centered education traditions.

I'll elaborate further. I'll give a 'good' example of the type I mean. People who are baby-boomers and lived through massive changes in technology, teaching standards, from unit curriculum to outcomes based learning.

I work across the hall from a teacher who has worked in my school for forty years.

Forty. And she and her male counterpart/equivalent (who I think has been there for nearly forty years) in the same department has only ever worked at this school and they're both in their 60s or close to.

They won't retire. They'll probably fall asleep during recess one day over their knitting and we'll realise they're dead. :rolleyes: Imagine old dragons, with crotchety voices and a tendency to grumble about 'the good old days' when there was national service.... :) Who wouldn't know what rap music is and thinks that Destiny's Child is a contraceptive device.

And the tradition that they've been raised under and have (pretty much) taught under was rote learning from books. And they've slowly and I mean slowly adapted over the years. Because times do change and they've had to change (sometimes grudgingly and hesitatingly) with it.

But they scare the hell out of the Year 8s. :boggled: As they do have very traditionalist classrooms. You can see it in the seating arrangements. Everything in nice, neat lines. All facing the front of the room. You are only to answer questions if you are called upon. And you are only to ask questions by raising your hand.

It's pretty much time-warp 1950s. :) Yet they take part in cross-curricular activities, they do help out with excursions and 'get out of their element' as much as any teacher (and we do that a lot!) And that helps students relax a little more around them. They've got a sort of 'fond' reputation as being 'the last of an era'.

They have students whose mothers who were in their classes. Aunts who tell them 'say hi from me! They taught me back in the 60s!' I wouldn't be surprised if one day they'll have a granddaughter of a girl they taught turn up in their classes.

And there's plenty of them out there. The 'chalkies'. The old-guard, like I said. They have given a high-quality education... but in a very traditionalist style. If they were truly horrific, they would have gone by now, thank hades. Or at least, one hopes so. :(

And I know that there are others out there who take this model and go to the extreme - the real dragons and nasty sort who do bitch about their job and should have got out of the system. Hades knows, I was taught by quite a few, have had as a factor in my choosing to work elsewhere the experience of working with some, and I still see them at conferences. :covereyes But I think we have to be realistic and understand that there are many teachers who continue on into their fifties and even into their sixties in the profession. You can't expect a dramatic change to student-centered learning and adoption of different learning strategies by people who have been teaching longer than I have been alive.

They do have pride in themselves and a certain pride in what they do. Hell, there must be something that makes them turn up the next year that isn't just the money / sadist tendencies / free tea in the staffroom.... But sometimes what they do in their job isn't that effective as it could be. And to patronise them or force latter-day generation teachers to adopt new teaching strategies ad hoc.... could just result in passive aggressiveness and a real problem in the classroom. Just exacerbate things to become worse... :rolleyes: Everyone is a stakeholder. We have to care about teachers too, help to care about the kids as it isn't just about the kids!

There's a hell of a lot of baby-boomers out there, Clar. They're my bosses, the teachers across the hall and the fellow attendees at the teaching conferences. Gotta work with them and gotta not treat them like the enemy, even if some of their strategies leave a hell of a lot to be desired. Treat the situation as a whole and not throw out what can be a damned good teacher with consideration in supporting them and use their years of experience that should count for something. :)

[clarsct]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.


I certainly hope that our generation is more...adaptable.

But I think we had a different idea of whom we were speaking about. These don't sound like the 'Punch in/Punch out' types. Old School, to be sure, but not uncaring, to say the least.


And that is where I draw the line, I think.

[Kiless]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

I certainly hope that our generation is more...adaptable.

But I think we had a different idea of whom we were speaking about. These don't sound like the 'Punch in/Punch out' types. Old School, to be sure, but not uncaring, to say the least.


And that is where I draw the line, I think.

There is a problem. You can model yourself on the 'punch in/punch out' types. I've met young practice students who thought that becoming a teacher was an easy way to just become a relief teacher and sit in front of a class reading a newspaper and collecting a cheque at the end of the day. 'Qualified babysitters'.

These are usually the ones whose goal was to head to England straight after graduation with a Dip Ed in the Australian system. I've had only one actually turn up to get some practicum with me (her major was German)and I said straight out that they must seriously consider rethinking their career path. She was disillusioned with journalism and after being sent out for one year to work on a country newspaper, thought this was an easy alternative option.

And I know what you meant about 'punch in/out' sorts and they need just as much care as the kids. What led them to become that? How can they be changed? Will it mean doing another sort of job and how can they be supported to do that? Because they're still human beings, underneath it all.

Unless you're Ms Hamilton of 4G and then you're just a bloody big pigdog and you owe me a Hello Kitty bookbag that you STOLE from me back in 1984 in the primary library, you jealous COW!!!! :p

[Hindmost]

I'll elaborate.

It's only to be expected with years and years and decades and decades of teacher-centered education traditions.

I'll elaborate further. I'll give a 'good' example of the type I mean. People who are baby-boomers and lived through massive changes in technology, teaching standards, from unit curriculum to outcomes based learning.

I work across the hall from a teacher who has worked in my school for forty years.

Forty. And she and her male counterpart/equivalent (who I think has been there for nearly forty years) in the same department has only ever worked at this school and they're both in their 60s or close to...... :)

Kiless

You make it sound as if any teacher that is old is bad and any teacher that is young is good. It is simply not the case. I have seen old teachers respected and young teachers that could not teach—as well as the reverse. I meet your definition of “old guard” since I am 50…however, I have only been teaching about 5 years. Adaptability is not age dependent—my school would have dumped me if I couldn’t teach--they did dump my predecessor.

A couple of examples:

A teacher recently retired after teaching 37 years in my school. The students were devastated. When the teacher returned to cover for another teacher for a few weeks, the students in two of the classes gave him a standing ovation on his last day. He knew his stuff and always interacted well with the students. (his classes were always difficult as well)

A young teacher in school would give out an assignment, sit students in the computer lab and then write personal emails all period—or step outside and use the cell phone. Great instruction.

I also have an issue with certain “modern” teaching methods, but that would be for another thread. A good teacher that knows how to interact with a class can instruct with a piece of chalk and a blackboard very effectively.

glenn:boxedin: "not the enemy"

[Kiless]

Kiless

You make it sound as if any teacher that is old is bad and any teacher that is young is good. It is simply not the case.

Absolutely not the case. Which is why I gave two examples at one school out of a population of over a hundred full and part-time teachers, of whom the majority are baby-boomer age. There have been quite a few of the older generation who have retired over the past five years to acceptance but great great regret on the part of the school and when they return to do the occasional relief lesson it's a little difficult to peel the students off them at the end of the day! :D

I'd be pushed to give more than five examples off the top of my head of older generation teachers that are seriously out of touch from any of the six schools I've personally worked at. :)

Adaptability is not age dependent.

Agreed. In fact, I can think of two examples of younger teachers who come through that were under the impression that teaching is more like the dictatorial-bossing-about-stereotype than someone who is in their later-20s. I think a lot of it has to do with fear of being challenged in the classroom. :(

I also have an issue with certain “modern” teaching methods, but that would be for another thread. A good teacher that knows how to interact with a class can instruct with a piece of chalk and a blackboard very efectively.

I'd be interested in reading that. :)

[LW]

And there's plenty of them out there. The 'chalkies'. The old-guard, like I said. They have given a high-quality education... but in a very traditionalist style. If they were truly horrific, they would have gone by now, thank hades. Or at least, one hopes so. :(

My Swedish teacher in the high school was one of those. Her lessons were utterly boring and she always gave them in exactly the same way every year, year after year. Everybody dreaded her lessons.

But there is one really strange thing: during the time that she had been in our school (from early 70s) her every student had passed the national end-school matriculation examination in Swedish. Everyone. Not a single one had failed. That is an achievement that should qualify for the JREF million.

[Hindmost]

Absolutely not the case. Which is why I gave two examples at one school out of a population of over a hundred full and part-time teachers, of whom the majority are baby-boomer age. There have been quite a few of the older generation who have retired over the past five years to acceptance but great great regret on the part of the school and when they return to do the occasional relief lesson it's a little difficult to peel the students off them at the end of the day! :D

I'd be pushed to give more than five examples off the top of my head of older generation teachers that are seriously out of touch from any of the six schools I've personally worked at. :)



Agreed. In fact, I can think of two examples of younger teachers who come through that were under the impression that teaching is more like the dictatorial-bossing-about-stereotype than someone who is in their later-20s. I think a lot of it has to do with fear of being challenged in the classroom. :(



I'd be interested in reading that. :)

Thanks for the clarification. I may have read too much into the baby boomer stuff...I am still in a mid-life crisis. :D

As for the modern teaching methods...I actuall have to go look some of this up. Of course education classes in college are teaching "new" methods to help improve student learning...etc. The old method of lecturing and students taking notes is not supposed to be effective anymore. (its called "sage on the stage" around here--ct usa). As soon as students get to college, the lecture format is typically what is used in most classes. Students have to be ready for that environment.

I try an limit my lectures to about 3 times a week. However, they are lectures...it is really the only method I can teach physics principles to students. Although I mix in demostrations and internet java applets...it is still lecturing. I think math teachers have it the worst...not much lattitude on methods. Principles and practice must be taught...no demos...or fun stuff. (except pi day) It takes exceptional teachers.

What I learned in college: "Lectures should be minimized...we are shifting from a teacher based instruction to student based with the teacher as a guide." I don't think it is possible to have students guide Newton's laws or realtivity or electricity. So, lecturing is needed to implement new principles.

Example: When it comes to "Inquiry" based classes--I cannot use this method to introduce new principles. The students just don't have the background to learn the topics with me asking questions constantly to make them feel involved. I use labs to make students active learners...I give them an outline instead of a procedure. The outline has objectives and they have to determine how to put things together to answer the objectives. (I use computer based labs as well to keep technology on the forefront.) To use pure "inquiry" would severely limit what I could teach in my curriculum. There just wouldn't be enough time.

I have my students do most of their homework during class so I can help with problems solving. However with the above, that is about the range of things. I do side bar stuff on critical thinking and watch mythbusters on occasion, but these are not different stategies.

This link shows some of the new buzz...there are bunches of links out there. This is an online approach.

http://www.flinders.edu.au/flexed/strategies.htm

I haven't looked in a bit, but all the new strategies have not changed test scores. I still believe the most effective method of teaching is to get a good teacher that can connect with the class--that's all that's needed. The teacher will find ways to motivate students. (in the US, we need to change our culture--getting an education must be considered cool. But that is not happening.)

This was brief, but I hope it gets some of my point across.

glenn:boxedin: "I don't want to go on the cart."

[Hindmost]

...That is an achievement that should qualify for the JREF million.

Teachers never get paid that much.

glenn

[blakehaydn]

...Hmmm.

What are their "true interests" ?

How did you determine them ?

Their true interests are what they could be interested in with their own imagination and moderate guidance from teachers, not an overbearing socialization from the media. Just look at your own signature: "Society attacks early when the individual is helpless." -- BF Skinner

[blakehaydn]

It seems to be getting more difficult to teach critical thinking in school. There are so many mandatory tests that schools are being forced to implement that teaching anything “off” curriculum is almost impossible. No child left behind makes that a bit worse. Test scores are held up as indication of the ability of the school district to educate students. Your student can be brilliant critical thinkers which would mean nothing to the district if their test scores weren’t good.

There is no question that the public school system must be completely reformed and funded at the aristocrat's expense.

Since I teach a science elective, I am able to teach critical thinking skills, but I get students in 11th and 12th grade. Many students have already established witch-wiggler beliefs or won’t even try to use or understand scientific method for its intended purpose. It can be impossible to dislodge such entrenched neural pathways during the limited time I have to teach critical thinking. However, many of them really start to change the way they think about certain items.


An additional problem is that teachers may harbor strange beliefs and lack the needed skills. A few years back, a new teacher claimed to be a certified palmist. (I shared a room with this teacher and we had some colorful discussions.) I have known teachers to believe that the "awards” are all true, etc. the list goes on. Parents can also have some limitations in the critical thinking arena. Middleschool would be the best place to start teaching students critical thinking in science--as an extention of the scientific method. (rather than just memorizing its steps)
glenn

You make great points that motivate me to say that it needs to be a two prong attack. Not only do we need to reorganize the school system and incorporate critical thinking courses, but other environmental factors such as the media must also be reorganized. The "lack of needed skills" is because of the poor quality people we are producing on average due to our pathetic socialization, a socialization that the media is largely responsible for!

[blakehaydn]

Teachers never get paid that much.

glenn

Let me take this quote at face value.

This is exactly what is wrong with our civilization, we pay golfers and racecar drivers millions while our teacher's are underpaid AND under educated. We are worshipful of industries who do not contribute anything or even harm while they waste resources and man-hours while our educational system faulters.

[blakehaydn]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Did any of you click on the link in Blake's sig? I suggest you do so.


Ha ha, I love it.

Anyway, I am all for critical thinking in schools. But you must realize that most kids get their ridiculous ideas from their PARENTS, not from their schools. I'm not sure how much we can 'undo' the damage done by ma and gramps, who believe in ghosts, or auntie Tillie, who goes to a psychic every week to make sure her fortunes are in perfect alignment.

After all, Gramps Shamberfien wouldn't lie to you, would he?


Great sense of humor :) But this is exactly why we need to have the two prong approach as I was speaking about before, not only teaching this in schools but also reorganizing the media, a media which pollutes people's minds to a ridiculous degree.


Unfortunately, it is easier on the teachers when the kids accept everything told to them, and many(NOT ALL!!!!!) would rather not have any 'critical thinkers' in their classroom. Not everyone is as dedicated as Kitty, Kiles, and Athon(amongst others..these are the ones I know of...).
Just thinking critically, here.

Everyone should be as dedicated as them, we need to help produce a quality brand of citizen for a new and refined state. There are reasons why people are like they are that we can put a positive influence on in several ways.

[blakehaydn]

Yeah, Point III is interesting for a start:

Destruction of the current entertainment industry and the
emplacement of a new system completely controlled by the
citizenry, this includes television and radio programming based on
entertainment. Profit from all forms of entertainment must be
severely taxed and reimbursed to society through social benefits.
True art is not done for wealth.

VIII. Begin new programs in early schooling centered on the
understanding of psychological awareness, critical thinking and
social science.

So, any educational theories that you base VIII upon? Suggestions on 'how to' that you have?

Firstly, the ones who should go about the actual technical process of organizing the system for this sort of subject are the ones who are technically qualified. There are numerous books and even courses on this type of thinking but are normally unpopular and late comers in the process of development because of our poor socialization and system. I believe B.F. Skinner wrote a book on the matter called "Walden Two"

Here is some general information I wrote: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=60067

Heh:

IX. Remove all illegal immigrants from our nation and press hard
anti-immigration laws.


...something you're not telling us there ! :)


I'll tell you:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=60070
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=60068

The economy doesn't need to grow anymore, it needs to be refined.

[blakehaydn]

Another thread related to this topic: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=58247

[BPScooter]

Great threads, thanks. To go back to something from earlier, about how old a person should be to get some critical thinking introduced, well, that got me thinking! My personal experience as a teacher and as a parent has led me to believe that a lot of what young kids are interested in (not as entertainment, but as "real stuff") are definitions, relations, cause-and-effect, fairness, etc. If that isn't the stuff of grown-up Philosophy, at their level, I'm not sure what is. Definitions: "what's a .... " "what's it made of..." "where did it come from." Relations: "how come it ... (rains or whatever)." Cause and Effect: "What would happen if..." "Why did it..." Fairness: "Why should I (share, be polite,...)." These are just off-the-cuff examples, not meant to be particularly great or exhaustive, but I've generally been successful by giving straight answers where I had them, and saying "well, let's think about it" if I didn't. Lots of the definition and relation questions are really reference questions, so off to the library and let's get some books. Some of the more tricky cause and effect or fairness questions are a good way to talk about what we know and have yet to know, how we learn what we know, what is worth trusting based on what sort of evidence, all kinds of things.

Hard to make this into a school curriculum, though. I suppose the best situation is the patient adult with a curious kid, sort of hanging out together and satisfying the questions as they come.

[Jeff Corey]

Firstly, the ones who should go about the actual technical process of organizing the system for this sort of subject are the ones who are technically qualified. There are numerous books and even courses on this type of thinking but are normally unpopular and late comers in the process of development because of our poor socialization and system. I believe B.F. Skinner wrote a book on the matter called "Walden Two...
It was "The Technology of Teaching"(1968). And I believe Skinner would have not agreed with your stress on "psychological defense mechanisms" in understanding human behavior, considering their origin in Freudian pseudoscience.
Skinner emphasized contingencies of reinforcement and an individual's history of reinforcement in determining human behavior.

[blutoski]

Great threads, thanks. To go back to something from earlier, about how old a person should be to get some critical thinking introduced, well, that got me thinking! My personal experience as a teacher and as a parent has led me to believe that a lot of what young kids are interested in (not as entertainment, but as "real stuff") are definitions, relations, cause-and-effect, fairness, etc. If that isn't the stuff of grown-up Philosophy, at their level, I'm not sure what is. Definitions: "what's a .... " "what's it made of..." "where did it come from." Relations: "how come it ... (rains or whatever)." Cause and Effect: "What would happen if..." "Why did it..." Fairness: "Why should I (share, be polite,...)." These are just off-the-cuff examples, not meant to be particularly great or exhaustive, but I've generally been successful by giving straight answers where I had them, and saying "well, let's think about it" if I didn't. Lots of the definition and relation questions are really reference questions, so off to the library and let's get some books. Some of the more tricky cause and effect or fairness questions are a good way to talk about what we know and have yet to know, how we learn what we know, what is worth trusting based on what sort of evidence, all kinds of things.

Hard to make this into a school curriculum, though. I suppose the best situation is the patient adult with a curious kid, sort of hanging out together and satisfying the questions as they come.


Hard to make a good standard for teaching critical thinking for three reasons:

1) There is weak evidence that teaching critical thinking actually makes people better critical thinkers. The strongest evidence is that it's a personality factor.

2) The teaching of critical thinking often involves hostility toward sacred cows. In other words: the course will be controversial. (consider: in the US, 85% of highschool biology teachers confess that they do not teach evolution because they either don't believe it themselves, or are afraid of hostility from students and their parents)

3) The teaching of critical thinking does not itself have existing standards, so the course would itself be a bit of an experiment. Having said that, progress could result from the expansion of this experiment. (see point #1)

[blakehaydn]

Hard to make a good standard for teaching critical thinking for three reasons:

1) There is weak evidence that teaching critical thinking actually makes people better critical thinkers. The strongest evidence is that it's a personality factor.

2) The teaching of critical thinking often involves hostility toward sacred cows. In other words: the course will be controversial. (consider: in the US, 85% of highschool biology teachers confess that they do not teach evolution because they either don't believe it themselves, or are afraid of hostility from students and their parents)

3) The teaching of critical thinking does not itself have existing standards, so the course would itself be a bit of an experiment. Having said that, progress could result from the expansion of this experiment. (see point #1)

1. I partially disagree, once you teach people to remove emotion from the thought process and they understand the science behind why they need to do that I have found that there is a great increase in critical thought. This I believe should be part of the teaching process. I understand where you're coming from if you mean you just can't teach it and have people try to memorize it, it's not quite that simple, the same can be said for philosophy and social science too.

2. Yes, I don't think we have any diagreement here... but it is possible to start resocializing people, even if it's slowly, just not too slowly.

3. The teaching of algebra once did not have a set standard either, but I for one am glad someone or some group finally overcame their fears and developed a standard. Of course it would have to be pioneered but there is actually a lot of material on this subject that maybe you're overlooking.

[fuelair]

I'll elaborate.

It's only to be expected with years and years and decades and decades of teacher-centered education traditions.

I'll elaborate further. I'll give a 'good' example of the type I mean. People who are baby-boomers and lived through massive changes in technology, teaching standards, from unit curriculum to outcomes based learning.

I work across the hall from a teacher who has worked in my school for forty years.

Forty. And she and her male counterpart/equivalent (who I think has been there for nearly forty years) in the same department has only ever worked at this school and they're both in their 60s or close to.

They won't retire. They'll probably fall asleep during recess one day over their knitting and we'll realise they're dead. :rolleyes: Imagine old dragons, with crotchety voices and a tendency to grumble about 'the good old days' when there was national service.... :) Who wouldn't know what rap music is and thinks that Destiny's Child is a contraceptive device.

And the tradition that they've been raised under and have (pretty much) taught under was rote learning from books. And they've slowly and I mean slowly adapted over the years. Because times do change and they've had to change (sometimes grudgingly and hesitatingly) with it.

But they scare the hell out of the Year 8s. :boggled: As they do have very traditionalist classrooms. You can see it in the seating arrangements. Everything in nice, neat lines. All facing the front of the room. You are only to answer questions if you are called upon. And you are only to ask questions by raising your hand.

It's pretty much time-warp 1950s. :) Yet they take part in cross-curricular activities, they do help out with excursions and 'get out of their element' as much as any teacher (and we do that a lot!) And that helps students relax a little more around them. They've got a sort of 'fond' reputation as being 'the last of an era'.

They have students whose mothers who were in their classes. Aunts who tell them 'say hi from me! They taught me back in the 60s!' I wouldn't be surprised if one day they'll have a granddaughter of a girl they taught turn up in their classes.

And there's plenty of them out there. The 'chalkies'. The old-guard, like I said. They have given a high-quality education... but in a very traditionalist style. If they were truly horrific, they would have gone by now, thank hades. Or at least, one hopes so. :(

And I know that there are others out there who take this model and go to the extreme - the real dragons and nasty sort who do bitch about their job and should have got out of the system. Hades knows, I was taught by quite a few, have had as a factor in my choosing to work elsewhere the experience of working with some, and I still see them at conferences. :covereyes But I think we have to be realistic and understand that there are many teachers who continue on into their fifties and even into their sixties in the profession. You can't expect a dramatic change to student-centered learning and adoption of different learning strategies by people who have been teaching longer than I have been alive.

They do have pride in themselves and a certain pride in what they do. Hell, there must be something that makes them turn up the next year that isn't just the money / sadist tendencies / free tea in the staffroom.... But sometimes what they do in their job isn't that effective as it could be. And to patronise them or force latter-day generation teachers to adopt new teaching strategies ad hoc.... could just result in passive aggressiveness and a real problem in the classroom. Just exacerbate things to become worse... :rolleyes: Everyone is a stakeholder. We have to care about teachers too, help to care about the kids as it isn't just about the kids!

There's a hell of a lot of baby-boomers out there, Clar. They're my bosses, the teachers across the hall and the fellow attendees at the teaching conferences. Gotta work with them and gotta not treat them like the enemy, even if some of their strategies leave a hell of a lot to be desired. Treat the situation as a whole and not throw out what can be a damned good teacher with consideration in supporting them and use their years of experience that should count for something. :)

Not sure where you are and/or how you are evaluated BUT in schools in Florida where many of the advancements are taught to teachers - as ineffectual as many are ( look carefully into the past - there is a cycle of educational procedures that float up in a fairly orderly progression about every 7 to 10 years. During each the kids in the firm middle, + the hard A and hard F kids stay pretty much the same while the D/modF and B/mod A kids move around a bit with the movement in D/modF being used to justify the "new" procedure) when teachers are evaluated, they are specifically given bad points if they allow questions without a raised hand, group response to a question, etc. (other points are similar - that is just to address your first negative). Oh, and as far as careful alignment - we have too many students per class in most AND we are required to use certain (good) equipment that requires that students be facing in one direction (and class wiring prevents making that anyplace but front) a reasonable amount of class time. I suspect your system is running modified Summerhill thing (that gives less responsible students better chance to get the good grades - I do not mean that as a dig at the students, I would have worked better in high school in that mode). Best to all the teachers in your system. Oh, not to advertise but your school might want to look into unitedstreaming.com .

[blakehaydn]

It was "The Technology of Teaching"(1968). And I believe Skinner would have not agreed with your stress on "psychological defense mechanisms" in understanding human behavior, considering their origin in Freudian pseudoscience.
Skinner emphasized contingencies of reinforcement and an individual's history of reinforcement in determining human behavior.

I'm not implying that Skinner would agree with me in full or part on this or any other subject, but I was giving an example of someone that was qualified in helping to advance society to the next level of liberty.

As far as defense mechanisms being pseudopsychology, I am not aware of this. Do you have any link regarding this issue? I was under the impression that social scientists have added more defense mechanisms to the original bunch of Ms. Freud.

[Jeff Corey]

"Ms. Freud"? Was that a Fraudian slip, or were you talking about Anna?

[Zep]

They could also be taught music...

http://www.flholocaustmuseum.org/history_wing/assets/room2/be027704.jpg

[athon]

Hard to make a good standard for teaching critical thinking for three reasons:

I agree it is difficult to make a good standard for 'assessing' critical thinking. Teaching it is tricky without having a concensus on what critical thinking should comprise of.

1) There is weak evidence that teaching critical thinking actually makes people better critical thinkers. The strongest evidence is that it's a personality factor.

Halpern, D., (1993), The Effectiveness of Critical thinking in Education, The Journal of General Education, Vol 42, No 4 would disagree, as would about four other papers I have which have evaluated the effect of teaching critical thinking on future information evaluation skills.

'Weak' evidence in this case means you have not looked.

2) The teaching of critical thinking often involves hostility toward sacred cows. In other words: the course will be controversial. (consider: in the US, 85% of highschool biology teachers confess that they do not teach evolution because they either don't believe it themselves, or are afraid of hostility from students and their parents)

Critical thinking is a skill, not a stance. It in itself does not involve hostility necessarily, as the teacher becomes more of a role-modelling facilitator.

The issue is that critical thinking needs to be universally applied to be effective; in other words, to numerous disciplines focussing on numerous resources. When taught correctly, it wouldn't matter if somebody taught ID, as the students would have the skills to be able to deal with diverse information resources and be able to better evaluate it.

3) The teaching of critical thinking does not itself have existing standards, so the course would itself be a bit of an experiment. Having said that, progress could result from the expansion of this experiment. (see point #1)


Teaching it as a course is inferior to teaching it as an integrated, cross-curricula skill.

Athon

[Zep]

Don't let Blake read this, Athon! He wouldn't want the wrong people asking questions in his brave new world!

[athon]

Don't let Blake read this, Athon! He wouldn't want the wrong people asking questions in his brave new world!

I'm a gamma. I had alcohol added to my broth prior to my decanting. What would I know?

Athon

[Jeff Corey]

...Teaching it as a course is inferior to teaching it as an integrated, cross-curricula skill.
Athon
True, but very difficult to implement. I teach a "Critical Thinking in Psychology" course using Gilovich's "How We Know What Isn't So" as the primary text. The first part of the text deals with psychological determinants of questionable beliefs and examples, primarily in the areas of CAM and dubious "psycho"therapies, are analysed.
I would appreciate receiving those references you mentioned, Athon. Some of the ones I've seen in the past were a bit weak in experimental design, oddly enough.

[athon]

True, but very difficult to implement. I teach a "Critical Thinking in Psychology" course using Gilovich's "How We Know What Isn't So" as the primary text. The first part of the text deals with psychological determinants of questionable beliefs and examples, primarily in the areas of CAM and dubious "psycho"therapies, are analysed.
I would appreciate receiving those references you mentioned, Athon. Some of the ones I've seen in the past were a bit weak in experimental design, oddly enough.

I can send a couple of interesting ones in an email if you PM me your email address. Others I have only as hard copies, which you can download from several online journal sites if you have access.

Athon

[politas]

Let me take this quote at face value.

This is exactly what is wrong with our civilization, we pay golfers and racecar drivers millions while our teacher's are underpaid AND under educated. We are worshipful of industries who do not contribute anything or even harm while they waste resources and man-hours while our educational system faulters.

This is a flawed statement. By far the majority of golfers and racecar drivers are paid little to no money whatsover. The difference is that teaching is not a competition. Football players are a slightly different argument.

I think a better comparison is that between teachers and middle-level managment staff. Why do we value business organisation more than teaching?

More importantly, why do we give a higher weighting to the responsibilities of middle-level management than to the responsibilities of teaching?

[Ivor the Engineer]

I think a better comparison is that between teachers and middle-level managment staff. Why do we value business organisation more than teaching?

More importantly, why do we give a higher weighting to the responsibilities of middle-level management than to the responsibilities of teaching?

Because middle-level management makes upper-level management richer, while paying teachers more makes everyone else poorer. You didn't get into teaching for the money did you:confused:

Personally I'm doing quite well from the appalling drop in standards since working in a science based area means I'm more in demand. Keep up the good work:D

[blakehaydn]

"Ms. Freud"? Was that a Fraudian slip, or were you talking about Anna?

I just want to know what makes you think defense mechanisms is pseudoscience.

[blakehaydn]

They could also be taught music...

http://www.flholocaustmuseum.org/history_wing/assets/room2/be027704.jpg

Good idea, maybe that will help keep them away from drugs and out of gangs: Old Prussian March (http://www.geocities.com/ajaxvr/oldprussianmarch.mp3)

[Jeff Corey]

I just want to know what makes you think defense mechanisms is pseudoscience.
They had their origins in Freudian pseudoscience, as I said originally. At best, they merely describe some behaviors, at worst, they are harmful.
Consider repression. Ancedotal evidence soley, no falsifiable testing. As Anna Freud said of one patient, "Her penis envy was so totally repressed that no evidence of it could be detected."
The harmful part was when incompetent "therapists" induced false repressed memories that destroyed families, careers and resulted in jailing innocent people.

[blutoski]

They had their origins in Freudian pseudoscience, as I said originally. At best, they merely describe some behaviors, at worst, they are harmful.

I think these days, Freudians are considered a bit of an embarassment among psychologists.



Consider repression. Ancedotal evidence soley, no falsifiable testing. As Anna Freud said of one patient, "Her penis envy was so totally repressed that no evidence of it could be detected."

Having said that, some Freudian elements have evolved into more scientific models of cognition.




The harmful part was when incompetent "therapists" induced false repressed memories that destroyed families, careers and resulted in jailing innocent people.

I must have missed an earlier part of the thread, so I'm not sure if this relates to the 'defense mechanisms' question. But I do recall observing that these people were indeed disproportionately represented by Freudians, Jungians, and laypersons.

[blutoski]

1. I partially disagree, once you teach people to remove emotion from the thought process and they understand the science behind why they need to do that I have found that there is a great increase in critical thought. This I believe should be part of the teaching process. I understand where you're coming from if you mean you just can't teach it and have people try to memorize it, it's not quite that simple, the same can be said for philosophy and social science too.

I've had experiences, too, but I'm trying to rely on the overall research in the field. We don't have enough information right now about lifetime impacts, because the research into teaching critical thinking has not been going on for very long. Most of the early subjects are university age right now. However, the results do not look like the investment pays off. The application of critical thinking is a mechanical skill that does not appear to impact worldviews. (ie: Creation Scientists employ critical thinking strategies to dismantle evolution education, Jesuits have been using critical thinking for centuries to acquire converts, &c)

Athon indicated that it was a skillset and not a worldview, and that is true. The implications are that we will arm those with an opposing worldview.

Athon also implied that I am ignorant of the research, but this is not so. I have personally been involved with it as an undergraduate thesis with Dr. Priensperg, and as a Skeptic, I was originally very optomistic about this. My original educational vision was modelled on the Australian Mystery Investigators (http://www.mysteryinvestigators.com). (Richard Saunders, Alynda and Loretta Marron.)

I only have a batchelor's in psych, but I've been approved to go forward with graduate studies next year (2007). I intend to get re-attached to this research, as my ultimate goal is to produce a Canadian version of Mystery Investigators.

Further to this, I continue to hear examples of Skeptics who have done the same journey I have, and now I'm listening with more attention. For example, in a recent NESS Skeptic's Guide to the Universe (http://www.theskepticsguide.org/skepticsguide/podcast-060705.html) interview, Massimo Pigliucci explained that he has concluded that more science education is not the answer, and I am compelled to agree. Nevertheless, at the grassroots, this is a constant suggestion, and I put 'we should teach more critical thinking' in the same category of wishful thinking.





3. The teaching of algebra once did not have a set standard either, but I for one am glad someone or some group finally overcame their fears and developed a standard. Of course it would have to be pioneered but there is actually a lot of material on this subject that maybe you're overlooking.

I wish. Re: algebra. Bad analogy. Not controversial.

[Jeff Corey]

...I must have missed an earlier part of the thread, so I'm not sure if this relates to the 'defense mechanisms' question. But I do recall observing that these people were indeed disproportionately represented by Freudians, Jungians, and laypersons.
Repression is supposedly a major defense mechanism which gives rise to repressed memories.

[blutoski]

Repression is supposedly a major defense mechanism which gives rise to repressed memories.

Yes, I understand what it means... just wasn't sure how it related to the thread, and was confessing that I hadn't read every prior entry. Sort of a weak excuse for if my reply was out of context.

[athon]

I've had experiences, too, but I'm trying to rely on the overall research in the field. We don't have enough information right now about lifetime impacts, because the research into teaching critical thinking has not been going on for very long. Most of the early subjects are university age right now. However, the results do not look like the investment pays off. The application of critical thinking is a mechanical skill that does not appear to impact worldviews. (ie: Creation Scientists employ critical thinking strategies to dismantle evolution education, Jesuits have been using critical thinking for centuries to acquire converts, &c)

I agree that socially involved views based on community values don't tend to be affected by critical thinking. Current speculation indicates that social bonds formed by shared views circumvent critical thinking. This makes sense, ultimately, but for skeptics, it doesn't seem to bode well.

This is not the same as saying that critical thinking doesn't improve the ability to evaluate information, however.

Athon also implied that I am ignorant of the research, but this is not so. I have personally been involved with it as an undergraduate thesis with Dr. Priensperg, and as a Skeptic, I was originally very optomistic about this.

I find it odd that your opinions run contrary to a lot of the literature, then, which is optimistic about the effectiveness of teaching critical thinking, even if it is rarely done.

Athon