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?

Philosophy vs. Philosophical Thinking (Critical Thinking)

An interesting discussion began in class the other day regarding the terms philosophy, critical thinking, and philosophical thinking. A few members of the class posited the idea that they are to be used interchangeably, and I would agree to a certain extent, but feel need to draw a distinction between philosophy and critical thinking.

I will start be agreeing that critical thinking and philosophical thinking are one and the same. That to engage in critical thinking is a necessary aspect of 'doing philosophy'. I would also agree with Jake's point that simply learning the theories of philosopher's long dead is more of an exercise in intellectual history than philosophy. This does not mean that these have no value, but simply that engaging these topics isn't engaging in philosophical thinking. They are still part of philosophy. An understanding of philosophical concepts and ideas aids the philosopher in philosophical thinking. This leads me to think that critical thinking is the kind of thinking that a good philosopher engages in. However, to simply call critical thinking "philosophy" ignores the intellectual concepts that philosophers can engage in that augment their critical, or philosophical thinking.

This then has direct implications on what teaching philosophy to children might entail. The fear of the class was that the students would simply be taught the intellectual history of philosophers and their theories. I share this fear that it is all they will be taught, but I do not see it as valueless content. As it augments philosophical thinking, and also can add important context to disciplines like history. For example, teaching the philosophical underpinnings of the enlightenment aids in the understanding of the historical movement, and aids in spurring critical thinking.


Ought the curriculum  to include these intellectual histories of philosophers even if the curriculum does not include critical thinking, or philosophical thinking?

Music as Mnemonic?

Shelby pointed out both anecdotal and empirical evidence for music's ability to facilitate memorization in students. It would seem that in these instances of taking something that a  student needs to memorize and putting it to music, the melody has become a mnemonic device.

Music as a means of education is far greater than just a mnemonic device. Mnemonics aid us in rote memorization, which is useful, but only grants students the most basic kind of knowledge. Music has the ability to be used to teach on a much deeper level. The intrinsic patterns and mathematical nature of music offers us various ways to think concretely about otherwise abstract notions. While there are other things in life that teach us these abstract mathematics concretely, none do so while simultaneously reaching us on a deep emotional and often visceral level.



What is the role of music in education, after its simple role as a facilitator of rote memorization?

Response to Jacob: The Radical Constructivist and Society

Jacob's recent blog post commented on the misconception of the RCist having trouble in society. He gave an example of an RCist who is eating her bagel and riding her bike. Surely these activities, Jacob points out, would not be cause for, what he calls, a paranoia about metaphysical properties of her bike and bagel. Surely no one can argue that there is nothing to be gained from this type of metaphysical paranoia.

However I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what aspects of life the RCist would run into issues with. The trouble would not come with the examination of mundane objects or daily routines. The issues would arise when the RCist is participating in social institutions which are based on notion of objectivity and truth. Take, for example, the legal system. Lets suppose the RCist gets called for jury duty. While she feels comfortable with the viability of the blueberry-ness of her bagel, she would certainly have trouble reconciling her own beliefs with those of the criminal. Perhaps the criminal finds viable that his acts are legal. Our legal system requires a guilty or not guilty verdict that is based on an idea of truth or fact. She would only feel comfortable proclaiming his guilt or innocence as viable based on her previous experience. The RCist would be in a difficult position if they wished to participate in this and other social institutions based on objectivity.

How would a Radical Constructivist deal with societal needs of a democracy (like criminal justice system)?
(And to defend this question to Ed Manak- creating the next generation of democrats is one of the purported aims of public education, so to endorse a system of education (RCism) that poses problems to that system is certainly worthy of discussion).

Response to Emily: Issues with Declaring Objective Knowledge Impossible

In Emily's recent response to my question about the practicality of Radical Constructivism she noted that everyone is limited to their own experience, and "therefore there is no way for a human to be objective about anything." This seems problematic. This may be a cheap stunt to pull, but this appears to be an objective knowledge claim. A common theme I'm encountering with RCist argumentation: the need to prove Metaphysical Realism objectively false.


 Question: Am i not being charitable enough? Or does Radical Constructivism employ truth to disprove it?

Response to Shelby: Practicality of Constructivism

Shelby asked : Can one really live one's life constantly in doubt of reality and objective truth? It would seem that were one to adopt Radical Constructivism as viable then one would have some serious issues functioning in the world whilst constantly doubting the existence and nature of one's external world.

My mind jumps to the famous Socratic saying that the unexamined life is not worth living. This is not to imply that one must be constantly examining in order to lead a fulfilling human life, more that one must be ready and willing to examine when the situation calls for it. I think that a similar approach to Radical Constructivism would be prudent. I doubt that Von G. woke up every morning and would exhaust the cognitive energy on questioning the external properties of his bagel, or whether or not it even existed.

This does, however, leave us with problems. If one accepts Radical Constructivism and has chosen to employ its inherent agnosticism only when prudent, one must learn at what point doubting the nature of one's reality is actually prudent. It seems obvious when it might not be a good idea. I think a baseball player attempting to hit a pitch ought not question the metaphysical properties of the ball. I am fairly unsure however as to when it would be prudent to employ this doubt.

When would it be prudent for the Radical Constructivist to doubt reality and objective truth in everyday life?

Pedagogical Paradigms in Constructivist Classrooms

I am interested in suspending for a moment my hesitation to accept Radical Constructivism and trying to imagine the pedagogical implications of Radical Constructivism in the classroom. It would seem that the Radical Constructivist viewpoint, if accepted, calls for a total overhaul of the system of institutionalized education we as a nation currently employ. A system that attempts to impart truth and knowledge would be discounted by radical constructivism. A system in which things are at best viable based on past experience would certainly make evaluating students more difficult, if not entirely impossible.Surely to attempt to change a students viable conception to that of your own would imply that you find yours superior, or that there was something subjective about your conception. Math appears, at least at first glance, to be a field which contains indisputable truths. 1+1 will always equal two. I'm uncertain as to how the Radical Constructivist would get around this as an indubitable knowledge claim.

Were it to seem 'viable' to a student that 1+1 came out to some other figure, would a teacher be in a position to correct them under RC theory?

Response to Andrew Warner

Andrew was hoping for clarification about Post-Modernism. Post modernism is a complex intellectual movement that touches many different disciplines. However, I can only clarify how I've seen it employed in the Education department here at MCLA, as that is the extent of my experience with it. One of the purported cornerstones of Post Modern theory in education is the lack of objective knowledge. The epistemological viewpoint of a Post-Modernist is very different from that of a realist. The Realist believes that objective knowledge can be obtained, where as the, say, constructivist would think that our knowledge is a subjective construction. This becomes a crucial problem in education, where you are attempting to impart knowledge. It raises a series of interesting and confusing questions. If you're operating under the belief that there is no objective knowledge, how can you assess a student's work or answers? Why is your subjective knowledge more or less correct than the student's? What is the value in attempting to impart your subjective knowledge? Something I have seen all to frequently in the Education department here is an actual aversion to using the word truth. It has even been insisted to me that I put quotation marks around truth to denote that I do not mean objective truth. These theories are having a tremendous impact on the field of education right now. I'm far from knowledgeable about most Post Modern theory, however, I hope that this gives some context and clarification for my suggestion of tackling these topics in class.

Questions of Good Thought and PTL's Syllabus

Recently I looked over the syllabus for this class. One sentence struck me and I was hoping to bring it to the attention of the class and see what we think. The line that strikes me is, "good thinkers are good writers (and vice versa)," (found under the Q+A's and Weblog section of our syllabus). This seems to adopt a narrow view of 'good thinking', and it seems worthy of exploration. Ability to articulate one's ideas in a written form was not one of the traits discussed in our break down of critical thinking and good reasoning, however that certainly doesn't mean it is not. Yet, it seems that making good writing a necessary qualification of a  good thinker takes a limiting view of intelligence, in which non written skills aren't as highly valued. I am, however, inclined to agree with the idea of the good writer as a necessarily good thinker. I hope to hear some responses from the class and professor, perhaps I'm reading too far into the claim, or not being charitable enough.