Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The teacher in this case may have made it INTERESTING to the students, thus making them more likely to retain the information.
Not really. And the information retained is simply the formula and not the reason why the formula works. There are many better videos that do not need the gimmick of Darth Vader that actually explain why it is true.
I agree, although we seem to be a ways from critical thinking. This discussion is more about being basically educated and I'm sure that's a concern across the board. I suspect as a society that we do not generally embrace critical thinking, which if we use some of the qualities listed above, can be exampled by religion, quackery, and blog citing.
Question: why is it that the average Joe's ability to actually think critically and independently seems to have started its rapid descent right around the time "teaching critical thinking" became a declared educational agenda at the national level?
This must be another one of those "Clear Skies Initiatives".
The average young person today does anything BUT think critically about the world around them.
They are awesome, however, at buying any ideology "du jour" - whole sale.
Some buy ideologies from the right-wing, others buy them from the left-wing; but my "favorites" are the libertarians who parrot what they think is a "cool" combination of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism - and think they have it all "nailed".
Most couldn't use independent or nuanced thought to examine situations on a case by case basis or to question pre-fabricated ideas ... to save their life.
If the ideology is "recent", sufficiently popular, sufficiently "American" or somehow "en vogue" - it must fly in all respects.
In all honesty, though, who the heck needs masses with a penchant for independent thought?
Definitely not the state and those in power; so to believe that schools are actually skipping the memorization of classic poetry or multiplication tables so they can have enough time to stimulate "critical thinking" in tomorrow's generation of worker bees....is to confirm the Grand Deception in all of its splendor.
This is generally true. However, I find that most of the ideas coming from the left...mirror my own already-held beliefs. I believe in justice, equality, I believe in not causing avoidable deprivations just in order to further enrich one's own self beyond what they will ever need...I believe climate change is really happening, and that mankind is causing it.
All of these concepts come from the left, and I believe them. Not because of where they come from...but because I have examined them critically and deemed them to be true.
I believe gay people should be allowed to marry, after all, who the heck is it REALLY hurting? Sorry, the Constitution does not afford one the right to not have his sensibilities offended.
I believe GLBT people should not be discriminated against in workplaces.
Again, these are ideas coming from the left. I believe in them, not because of where they come from, but because I've examined the situation and realized that these ideas are in line with my own ideals of a nicer, fairer, gentler world for everyone. I have gay friends who have been hurt by discrimination, and it just isn't necessary.
As to climate change...I can observe that hurricanes, tropical storms, and tropical depressions are affecting my own state of Pennsylvania - over the last twenty years...at a rate three times as high as historical rates. And there is obviously a reason for this. The science seems sound to me, and it seems like we humans are causing these changes...and maybe we better do something about it, before we no longer have a liveable planet.
SO...while some may be more inclined to believe certain things because they come from the right or from the left...I believe that most of those on the left are capable of critical thinking, and those on the right aren't - because they don't examine the consequences of their policies on REAL PEOPLE.
As far a s"en vogue" I sure wish the concepts of the Laffer Curve and trickle-down economics would finally go out of vogue! We were all promised that trickle-down would fill the cup, and it would overflow, benefitting the poor. Great concept. However, in reality, what happens is...as the cup gets full - it magically gets larger and larger, so that it never quite actually overflows anything.
Not really. And the information retained is simply the formula and not the reason why the formula works. There are many better videos that do not need the gimmick of Darth Vader that actually explain why it is true.
But the kids might be more likely to remember the concept, using the Darth Vader thing..because it was actually ENTERTAINING.
Why would you try to rip apart a teacher who tried a novel approach to get his students to learn?
I am not saying that the Darth Vader thing is the ONLY good way to do this...I just offered it up as an example of a way of teaching concepts in a way that is fun and entertaining...and therefore, more likely to be paid attention to...and retained.
I had a teacher for Government...who did something similar, to make what was otherwise a boring subject interesting, by bringing it home to us. We were split, the class, into two political parties, and then set about crafting legislation. We learned the ways in which government works (or doesn't work as some would have it) by actually doing the same things. We had to learn to compromise to get things done, it was just a lot of fun...more so than reading out of a boring book.
The problem, I think with education these days is twofold:
1. It is usually taught in a way that is boring. If you are not engaging the interest of the students, they aren't going to learn very much.
2. We are taught a lot of stuff that isn't really necessary...at the expense of other things.
How many of us really need to learn about a lot of 18th century British Literature? How are we really going to use this in our lives? some of the current "requirements" should be replaced with what I would call "real world electives" - these would be classes that would teach real world job skills - and students would choose which ones interested them.
Woodshop/carpentry - Cosmetology - Auto Mechanics - Computer Programming, things like this. Things that taught real, useable, marketable skills.
Question: why is it that the average Joe's ability to actually think critically and independently seems to have started its rapid descent right around the time "teaching critical thinking" became a declared educational agenda at the national level?
This must be another one of those "Clear Skies Initiatives".
I don't know that the average person has ever been a critical thinker. As this thread shows people don't seem to understand what critical thinking is and if you are going to draw conclusions based on personal biased assumptions and willy nilly shoe string correlations then there is no way you can assess the skills(?) that comprise critical thinking.
Quote:
The average young person today does anything BUT think critically about the world around them.
They are awesome, however, at buying any ideology "du jour" - whole sale.
Some buy ideologies from the right-wing, others buy them from the left-wing; but my "favorites" are the libertarians who parrot what they think is a "cool" combination of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism - and think they have it all "nailed".
Most couldn't use independent or nuanced thought to examine situations on a case by case basis or to question pre-fabricated ideas ... to save their life.
If the ideology is "recent", sufficiently popular, sufficiently "American" or somehow "en vogue" - it must fly in all respects.
In all honesty, though, who the heck needs masses with a penchant for independent thought?
Definitely not the state and those in power; so to believe that schools are actually skipping the memorization of classic poetry or multiplication tables so they can have enough time to stimulate "critical thinking" in tomorrow's generation of worker bees....is to confirm the Grand Deception in all of its splendor.
But the kids might be more likely to remember the concept, using the Darth Vader thing..because it was actually ENTERTAINING.
Why would you try to rip apart a teacher who tried a novel approach to get his students to learn
I am not saying that the Darth Vader thing is the ONLY good way to do this...I just offered it up as an example of a way of teaching concepts in a way that is fun and entertaining...and therefore, more likely to be paid attention to...and retained.
I had a teacher for Government...who did something similar, to make what was otherwise a boring subject interesting, by bringing it home to us. We were split, the class, into two political parties, and then set about crafting legislation. We learned the ways in which government works (or doesn't work as some would have it) by actually doing the same things. We had to learn to compromise to get things done, it was just a lot of fun...more so than reading out of a boring book.
There is a huge difference between entertainment and demonstration of a principle--especially when one particpates in the demonstration. Your teacher's use of demonstration and hands-on participation is certainly a superior teaching method.
Entertainment may or may not result in improved retention and is unlikely to result in improved comprehension.
The problem, I think with education these days is twofold:
1. It is usually taught in a way that is boring. If you are not engaging the interest of the students, they aren't going to learn very much.[/quote]
First, the teacher using Darth Vader actually violated copyrights--and, no, education is not an automatic "fair use" of someone else's copyright.
Second, engaging (I presume you mean "entertaining" since that's what you've been talking about) today involves letting them play video games or IM. What they need is motivation to learn, which is a far different thing.
Quote:
2. We are taught a lot of stuff that isn't really necessary...at the expense of other things.
How many of us really need to learn about a lot of 18th century British Literature? How are we really going to use this in our lives? some of the current "requirements" should be replaced with what I would call "real world electives" - these would be classes that would teach real world job skills - and students would choose which ones interested them.
Now, here you have a point. Nearly all teaching in school today is intended to be preparation for a liberal arts bachelor degree (not even a STEM degree, or the curriculum would be much different). However, in fact only about 30% of American kids ever get a bachelor's degree--70% never get a bachelor's degree.
So the entire public school architecture is designed for only 30% of the student population. That's what's not engaging.
What does a technological society actually need? Does America need that 70% to get liberal arts degrees? Does America even need that 70% to become engineers? Does America need that many more Sociology majors...or even engineering majors?
Back in the 90s, the governor of Hawaii took a look at the industries in his state and the curriculums of the schools and declared that they were largely wasting the time of their students. The education architecture was not designed to meet the needs of the state's industries, and if it didn't meet the needs of the state's industries, it wasn't meeting the needs of the students. What's more, the governor pointed out, the students knew it. The students didn't know what to do about it, but they knew their time was being wasted, so 70% of them were disengaged.
The architecture needs to be flip-flopped to serve the 70% who don't want and don't need a liberal arts education. They don't need a college prep curriculum, they need a technology-prep education.
I'm not talking about teaching kids how to be carpenters, mechanics, or plumbers out of high school. I'm talking about hammering technology basics: Algebra and plane geometry--every kid should have those down cold; accounting; mechanical theory, electrical theory, electronics theory, hydraulic theory, pneumatics theory; basic programming; technical reading and technical writing; small business operation; business law. This is preparation for any kind of technical training after high school.
Google for the military ASVAB and take a look at examples of the test. Most kids should get a curriculum that enables them to whack the mole out of the ASVAB.
And the "educators" need to promote tech-prep with the same vigor that the promote college prep, so that kids realize that it's an equal option and, in fact, the better option for most of them. Liberal arts degrees are a good thing, and I've got one myself. But I also wound up having to get technical certifications to pay my mortgage.
We have the concept turned upside down. We urge kids to go into heavy debt and spend years earning a degree that won't feed them. Then they have to get training--while under that heavy debt load--to get a job that will feed them.
Instead, a better strategy is what millions of GIs have followed: Get training, learn a skill, get a job. Then determine the education you want to continue and do it from a position of financial strength. Okay, yeah, you'll be 32 by the time you finish your bachelor's degree. But you will better know what degree you need and want, and you won't have labored in debt.
Now, here you have a point. Nearly all teaching in school today is intended to be preparation for a liberal arts bachelor degree (not even a STEM degree, or the curriculum would be much different). However, in fact only about 30% of American kids ever get a bachelor's degree--70% never get a bachelor's degree.
So the entire public school architecture is designed for only 30% of the student population. That's what's not engaging.
What does a technological society actually need? Does America need that 70% to get liberal arts degrees? Does America even need that 70% to become engineers? Does America need that many more Sociology majors...or even engineering majors?
Back in the 90s, the governor of Hawaii took a look at the industries in his state and the curriculums of the schools and declared that they were largely wasting the time of their students. The education architecture was not designed to meet the needs of the state's industries, and if it didn't meet the needs of the state's industries, it wasn't meeting the needs of the students. What's more, the governor pointed out, the students knew it. The students didn't know what to do about it, but they knew their time was being wasted, so 70% of them were disengaged.
The architecture needs to be flip-flopped to serve the 70% who don't want and don't need a liberal arts education. They don't need a college prep curriculum, they need a technology-prep education.
I'm not talking about teaching kids how to be carpenters, mechanics, or plumbers out of high school. I'm talking about hammering technology basics: Algebra and plane geometry--every kid should have those down cold; accounting; mechanical theory, electrical theory, electronics theory, hydraulic theory, pneumatics theory; basic programming; technical reading and technical writing; small business operation; business law. This is preparation for any kind of technical training after high school.
Google for the military ASVAB and take a look at examples of the test. Most kids should get a curriculum that enables them to whack the mole out of the ASVAB.
And the "educators" need to promote tech-prep with the same vigor that the promote college prep, so that kids realize that it's an equal option and, in fact, the better option for most of them. Liberal arts degrees are a good thing, and I've got one myself. But I also wound up having to get technical certifications to pay my mortgage.
We have the concept turned upside down. We urge kids to go into heavy debt and spend years earning a degree that won't feed them. Then they have to get training--while under that heavy debt load--to get a job that will feed them.
Instead, a better strategy is what millions of GIs have followed: Get training, learn a skill, get a job. Then determine the education you want to continue and do it from a position of financial strength. Okay, yeah, you'll be 32 by the time you finish your bachelor's degree. But you will better know what degree you need and want, and you won't have labored in debt.
OK, but I AM talking about that...for those that show an aptitude towards those things. We still need our plumbers, carpenters and auto mechanics. That should be as much a pushed option as the other two you bring up...the tech-prep and the college-prep.
And, quite frankly, if you want to be a decent carpenter, you are going to need some basic geometry.
I know, I laid a hardwood floor, recently, in my house. No experience doing it.
We have a hex-shaped area of the dining room I was doing...and I needed to cut angles for the masonite we were laying below the hardwood.
And I used the pythagorean theorem to determine where to make my cuts. It did not end up exactly perfect, because I am NOT a professional...but I was able to do an acceptable DIY job on something I'd never done before, applying concepts I learned and retained in school.
But if you're going to end up a cosmetologist, a plumber, an auto mechanic...do you actually need geometry?
We should be giving the students of our schools real-world skills they can use in areas of interest to them.
Some will choose the college-prep route, others the tech-prep, and still others the "manual labors" - prep....and that should be okay. All should be presented as viable choices, for those to whom such courses would be appropriate to their aptitude.
High school should be the time where career prep is happening. The basics should be taught up thru middle school. They provide a good foundation and give you the basic skills you will need...which can then be refined in high school...and the areas concentrated on for each student....would be whatever was most in line with that student's aptitude, and thus be the most useful to that particular student....and, by extension, most useful to our society as a whole.
I am not saying that the Darth Vader thing is the ONLY good way to do this...I just offered it up as an example of a way of teaching concepts in a way that is fun and entertaining...and therefore, more likely to be paid attention to...and retained.
The problem is not with using something entertaining. The problem is that the video you used is NOT teaching the concept. It is teaching a rote way of applying the formula. That's not good enough.
But if you're going to end up a cosmetologist, a plumber, an auto mechanic...do you actually need geometry?
A plumber does need geometry--quite a lot of it, actually, especially when he's designing the plumbing architecture for an entire building.
But a high school should not be training a kid to be a plumber or electrician any more than it trains a kid specifically to be a doctor or lawyer. A tech-prep program should give the kid a foundation to go into any technical training just as a college prep program is intended to prepare a kid for any college program.
That's why I'd recommend paying attention to the military ASVAB as an example of what a kid going through a tech-prep program should be graduated able to do. A properly tech-prepped kid should be able to excel across the board on the ASVAB.
A plumber does need geometry--quite a lot of it, actually, especially when he's designing the plumbing architecture for an entire building.
But a high school should not be training a kid to be a plumber or electrician any more than it trains a kid specifically to be a doctor or lawyer. A tech-prep program should give the kid a foundation to go into any technical training just as a college prep program is intended to prepare a kid for any college program.
That's why I'd recommend paying attention to the military ASVAB as an example of what a kid going through a tech-prep program should be graduated able to do. A properly tech-prepped kid should be able to excel across the board on the ASVAB.
Um, college is not just about getting LA degrees. That may have been the route you went, but may of us go into various science and highly technical majors. With that said what you seem to be saying is to educate students to a greater degree and I agree. The vast majority of westerers should be technically knowledgable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
