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.
Um, we're talking about kids If I were teaching an adult class, I'd let them do what they want and flunk them if they couldn't defend their choices. What you learn in pain...you retain....
My students, like too many of the under 30 set, think googling something IS research when it is not. They need to be forced to do real research. Even after telling my students that .com sources have to be supported, they still turned in their papers with nothing to support what they wrote other than a .com resource. They're going to be really shocked at their grades. One of my requirements was three types of sources. Apparently, that means google three times...
Next year, the issue is being forced. They'll keep going back until they get it right. The starting point is not allowing them to use unpoliced sites. Teaching them that .edu, journals and books are better sources of information.
In my opinion, teaching them critical reasoning skills would be better and more helpful to our republic.
Last edited by danielpalos; 01-22-2010 at 09:03 AM..
Daniel, what public high schools have teaching assistants? You've mentioned them several times. I've never heard of teaching assistants in a public high school. I can't imagine a charter school having any, especially in this time of budget cuts.
If you are merely concerned about forms of scarcity without intentional forms of prohibition, then simply requesting or assigning volunteers from your students (as assistants who can help you teach while learning more about the process themselves) who already have good grasp of the subject; could be helpful in providing any extra help for those students who may need it to avoid those errors in reasoning. It could be a form of better allocation of resources that you have authority over that does not involve mere lucre.
Teaching "assistants" could help filter those simple mistakes, potentially learn more about the subject, practice their own critical reasoning ability, and potentially earn extra credit for their efforts.
You may also want to assign research topics for "ease of application" for those students who are more inclined to argue without any supporting facts. It will be easier to illustrate the concept you are having issues with, if you already have a "boiler plate" with most refutations of common mistakes in reasoning. This could also be accomplished by teaching assistants for extra credit.
In my opinion, teaching them critical reasoning skills would be better and more helpful to our republic.
Why do you think I wouldn't be? I'm telling them they cannot use .com sites because they are unreliable and telling them they have to defend the sites they use. How is that not teaching critical thinking skills? They're going to have to think critically or fail.
I would hope they have to think critically to defend their choices. I'll start with banning .com resources because you can find a .com source to say anything you want. They're more opinion than fact. That's something most under 30's don't seem to realize. I have parents come in trying to tell me I taught something wrong because they found something on the internet contrary to what I taught. Acorns don't fall far from the tree....
Daniel, what public high schools have teaching assistants? You've mentioned them several times. I've never heard of teaching assistants in a public high school. I can't imagine a charter school having any, especially in this time of budget cuts.
Why do you think I wouldn't be? I'm telling them they cannot use .com sites because they are unreliable and telling them they have to defend the sites they use. How is that not teaching critical thinking skills? They're going to have to think critically or fail.
I would hope they have to think critically to defend their choices. I'll start with banning .com resources because you can find a .com source to say anything you want. They're more opinion than fact. That's something most under 30's don't seem to realize. I have parents come in trying to tell me I taught something wrong because they found something on the internet contrary to what I taught. Acorns don't fall far from the tree....
Why would forms of arresting development by prohibiting access to information be more beneficial than requiring better use of critical reasoning skills that can also be beneficial to Commerce?
Is a potential electorate better served by forms of prohibition than forms of freedom of the "press"?
Why would forms of arresting development by prohibiting access to information be more beneficial than requiring better use of critical reasoning skills that can also be beneficial to Commerce?
Is a potential electorate better served by forms of prohibition than forms of freedom of the "press"?
Arresting development???? Would it be "arresting development" to tell my students they can't use a comic book or a Dr. Suess book to do a book report? Setting parameters within which they have to work is typical at all grade levels. It's not censorship or arresting development. It's called removing the training wheels. There was a time when a Dr. Suess book would have been ok for a book report but not now . When they were first learning to use the internet, certain .com sites were ok(early on, they were told, exactly, which .com sites to use, now I'm telling them to use .edu or .org or journal or book sources because they are more reliable, but they still get to choose choose their own sites, journals and books...this is how they grow.). Now, they need to learn that there are other more reputable sources and the first step to getting them to stretch is to tell them google, search and cut and paste from the first .com site they find won't cut it.
And would you please stop referring to my students as an "electorate". They're students....teenagers....children...they are not an electorate and I'm not worried about the fact they will fit into that category someday. Using big words over and over doesn't make you look any smarter than it makes my kids look. It's just annoying.
Throw the damn computers out of the class room and let them learn and absorb knowledge from their own time consuming source of retrieving knowledge. Such as reading, understanding, LEARNING HOW TO THINK AND ABSORB, that will give retention of what they learn.
There is nothing wrong with knowing how to operate a computer to find out what's going on in the world or explore subjects that interest you.
But when it replaces the need of human brain activity to solve problems then that is a serious problem.
When it gets to the point of not knowing or being taught how to figure out a problem without being able to get an instant answer with a few strokes on a key board versus the ability TO THINK THINGS OUT, it is a negative resource.
Technology is great and gives us a more informed and quaility way of life if used in the right way.
But when it replaces the need for the human brain to function as intended instead of just keeping our ears from slapping together we will eventully lose the capacity of working out problems without the aid of a key board.
We wont even know how to boil water and not spill it on us unless a computer tells us how.
Use it or lose it. We are losing the ability to use our own minds to solve problems. We just depend on a technological device to do our thinking for us.
And that is a sad situation and will eventualy be our doom.
Already the cashier at the super market can't give you the correct change without seeing what the screen tells him/her is correct.
They never had to learn how to figure it out themselves. Centuries ago people knew how to calculate without aid because they could USE THEIR BRAIN.
Throw the damn computers out of the class room and let them learn and absorb knowledge from their own time consuming source of retrieving knowledge. Such as reading, understanding, LEARNING HOW TO THINK AND ABSORB, that will give retention of what they learn.
There is nothing wrong with knowing how to operate a computer to find out what's going on in the world or explore subjects that interest you.
But when it replaces the need of human brain activity to solve problems then that is a serious problem.
When it gets to the point of not knowing or being taught how to figure out a problem without being able to get an instant answer with a few strokes on a key board versus the ability TO THINK THINGS OUT, it is a negative resource.
Technology is great and gives us a more informed and quaility way of life if used in the right way.
But when it replaces the need for the human brain to function as intended instead of just keeping our ears from slapping together we will eventully lose the capacity of working out problems without the aid of a key board.
We wont even know how to boil water and not spill it on us unless a computer tells us how.
Use it or lose it. We are losing the ability to use our own minds to solve problems. We just depend on a technological device to do our thinking for us.
And that is a sad situation and will eventualy be our doom.
Already the cashier at the super market can't give you the correct change without seeing what the screen tells him/her is correct.
They never had to learn how to figure it out themselves. Centuries ago people knew how to calculate without aid because they could USE THEIR BRAIN.
This is the problem I see. BECAUSE information is so readily available, people think they don't need to learn it. The attitude is "I can always look it up when I need it.", but that doesn't lead to understanding. It reduces the human in the equation to a fact retrieval machine.
Funny. The complaint about education when I was a kid was that it was memorize and regurgitate. Now it's google and regurgitate. We really need to get some rumination in here.
I wouldn't throw the computers out. I'd require higher level sources and require students to defend both their source and the quality of the information presented. Of course most of my students wouldn't do this so they'd just flunk.
I do, however, agree that we need to get back to books as a source of knowledge. You should have seen the deer caught in headlights looks I got when I told my students they had to have three different types of sources and that internet searches are only one. They looked dumbfounded and then asked what else there was. I wish I had a picture of their reactions when I said "How about books and journals?".
Wow...I really get the impression that you hate your job.
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.
If I were teaching an adult class, I'd let them do what they want and flunk them if they couldn't defend their choices. What you learn in pain...you retain....
