A Grand Blogging Farewell, or, "Blog Wars!"

A thought occurred to me and Jacob earlier when deciding what our final blog posts should look like. We realized that we've had some rather interesting conversations outside of class, and to share them in blog form could prove a fun and academically fruitful affair. So, I will write a post regarding a  topic which we disagree on, and in the comments, we will have our discussion, as opposed to writing 'Response to Jacob' or 'Response to Stephen' posts on our individual blogs. So here goes!

When assessing or grading students, class participation should be considered. In a class that is purportedly discussion based, class participation ought to be factored into a final grade. This can be as simple as taking attendance, (though simply being in class is not necessarily a good indicator of discussion participation, you cannot participate if you are not there) or could include noting whether or not students participate actively in discussion. If the goal is to assess the class, and the class is discussion based, it seems incorrect to exclude some consideration for class participation.

Decontexualization of Critical Thinking

In hi book Educating Reason Harvey Siegel tackles different views of Critical Thinking and assesses their merit. On such theory mirrored the criticism that Ed Manak pointed out in class the other day: the decontextualization of critical thinking. Siegel thinks this distinction is only seemingly fatal.

He notes that yes, there are different aspects of thinking, and critical thinking that vary dependent on the subject of thought. However, this does not mean one cannot meaningfully discuss critical thinking or thinking at all without a concept. Siegel likens this to not being able to teach concepts of cycling, because there is no specific bike on which to teach it. There are general concepts, such as break before cornering, not while cornering, or how to lean left and right properly, that can be taught separate of actual instances of biking.

Does Siegel's reply to the criticism of decontexualization succeed?

Off topic, but interesting!

An interesting book I stumbled upon. Marries the concepts of chess with the concepts of mathematics and science.

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Math-Checkmate-Activities-Inquiry/dp/1591585716/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_4

You can use amazon's preview system to take a look at it. It employs chess puzzles, using it to mirror concepts in mathematics and the sciences. A beautiful combination!

Response to Kim: Education and Competition

Kim recently posted about her disdain for the competition inherent in schools. Citing examples like scaling (though I think grading on a curve is even more competition driven) and the competitive nature of the post-secondary education application process as fostering an environment of competition. From this competition, Kim argues, students derive their self worth.

So far Kim's points are congruent with what I know of public schooling and the post-secondary process. However, Kim implies, if not outright states, that this is a negative aspect of education. I hear it often said that America is a meritocracy, or at least, that it ought to be. The process for admissions into post-secondary institutes ought to be based on merit as well. However, there is an aspect of competition inherent in a merit-based system. Whoever shows the most merit receives the reward: (admission, job, etc.) So it would  seem that while there is competition in merit, there may just be some merit in competition.

Q: If a merit-based system is truly laudable then is the competitive aspect inherent in it laudable as well?

Hedonism and Education

Kim made a recent blog post in which she posited some ideas about how to make learning more fun in an attempt to create lifetime self-educators. This idea that learning must be made fun to engender some kind of appreciation of it might be misguided. There are times when learning is certainly fun. However, we cannot forget to engender in students an understanding that to learn also involves rigorous hard work and self discipline. This is not to imply that we ought to be scaring children into thinking education is a constant exercise in grueling monotony and work, but that it is an inescapable aspect of good education. You must work at it.

So it would seem that just as important as engendering an appreciation for the fun of learning is engendering an appreciation for the hard work that is involved. There is a pleasure received from completing some difficult task that is inherently different from the kind of simple fun that one might infuse into learning. A good teacher must attempt to show their students this feeling. Otherwise there is a danger of engendering  hedonism in students that will not serve them well in their further academic pursuits.

 It it possible for a teacher to engender this feeling in students, or must it be arrived at internally?

Philosophy for Educators

Brittany posited a question regarding educators having a philosophical background. It seems essential that a good teacher would be versed in some form of philosophy.

Anyone studying to be an educator ought to be taking classes in or independently studying pedagogy. Pedagogy is a sub-field within philosophy. Therefore, any educator who has properly pursued their education has already done philosophy. Pedagogy just as stepped in philosophical thinking as any other branch. Philosophy fosters independent thought, and healthy skepticism. These are traits that good educators ought to strive to engender in their students.So it would follow that an educator who does not possess these traits would not be very successful in engendering them. Studying philosophy could prove a corrective to this.

This is not to suggest, however, that to be an independent thinker one must necessarily have an interest in studying philosophy. The value of the philosophical background comes from a practice in critical thinking, which can be achieved without pursuing an education in philosophy. So a good teacher would necessarily be a good critical thinker.

Ought we to make critical thinking part of an educator's professional development?

Good Teachers and Rebellion

Mary wrote an interesting post regarding rebelliousness in the classroom. However, I'm uncertain that rebelliousness is what we actually find laudable here. I think the core of this appreciation for rebelliousness is that it stems from the mind of an independent thinker. Helping to foster and facilitate independent thinking (and critical thinking, which goes along naturally with independent thinking) ought to be one of the primary goals of any good educator.

So, what of rebelliousness in the classroom. In Drew Warner's response to Mary he cited things that he rebelled against in high school, which were typically the poor pedagogical processes of his teachers. This, and I beg Drew's forgiveness if I am incorrect here, was likely born from constrictive teaching methods clashing with his autonomy as an independent thinker. If this is indeed the case, as I suspect it is, then a good teacher ought to create a format of education that satisfies and fosters independent thinking in all students. Thus, the class would have little to rebel against. The laudable aspect of a rebellious nature would still be present without the potential detriments it could have on the class.

This is not to say that rebellion is necessarily out of place in the classroom. There ought to be forums for students to enact change in their school and their society when they see wrongs they want to correct. However, a good teacher should never need to be rebelled against, and would foster independent thinking, and provide a constructive outlet for challenging authority. Can a teacher be an authority figure while truly fostering skeptical independent thought about authority figures?