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?