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.
Kids debating endlessly over why they got docked that half a point, etc. IS tiresome. They're also going to be the ones trying to contest their performance evaluations with their bosses.
Smart, motivated, critically thinking students are great.
Students who've been conditioned their whole lives that they "deserve" 100% in everything in life, and that they are above critique are tiresome.
Critical thinking gets over used in education. It's ill defined at this point to the point of being meaningless.
Critical thinking gets over used in education. It's ill defined at this point to the point of being meaningless.
Nonsense. Critical thinking is FAR more important than useless facts, as we can see in the thread where it has devolved into a discussion of how many continents there are...as if it made a difference.
Nonsense. Critical thinking is FAR more important than useless facts, as we can see in the thread where it has devolved into a discussion of how many continents there are...as if it made a difference.
I think he has a point.
Critical thinking has become so vague as to be meaningless. Most people I know seem to think it is synonymous with problem solving. In my field it means to literally "think critically", to look at a data or someone else's data, and evaluate it and how inferences were made from it. Most public school students do not have enough subject level knowledge nor developmental maturity to actually think critically. It truly requires a level of abstract reasoning that most people won't reach until their late teens. This is why it has traditionally been left to college to really work on those skills. And realistically, many people never reach formal operational.
I am not saying critical thinking, especially as it traditionally means, is not a good skill to practice with students so as they mature they begin to think this way, but I also think we really need a more concrete definition of what it means as people use it to mean almost anything.
As for the continents discussion, that is exactly how people develop critical thinking skills. They see that there are multiple ways to define something, and how the criteria can vary and why that actually does matter. How many continents there are DOES matter, if only because it gives people the opportunity to actually think critically about things like definitions.
I like teaching honors. I appreciate that these kids want to learn, or at least try. And that they have a vision for their future, mostly.
I do not like teaching lower level classes. Mostly because their behavior is worst, they don't care, they don't study, and sometimes it makes me feel like I'm wasting my time. Teaching low level chemistry is like teaching middle school science, and I didn't sign up to be a middle school teacher. Also, lower level kids are way too much work. It's a struggle just to get them to bring a freakin pencil to class.
Yes, but you can give them a pencil (or a snack, or whatever is usually at the crux of their behavior problems). The high end kids, their issues are not fixed that way.
I love my students, but I also miss teaching in the Abbott district occasionally. Those kids NEEDED their teachers. The smart kids would be fine with just about anyone teaching.
Critical thinking has become so vague as to be meaningless. Most people I know seem to think it is synonymous with problem solving. In my field it means to literally "think critically", to look at a data or someone else's data, and evaluate it and how inferences were made from it. Most public school students do not have enough subject level knowledge nor developmental maturity to actually think critically. It truly requires a level of abstract reasoning that most people won't reach until their late teens. This is why it has traditionally been left to college to really work on those skills. And realistically, many people never reach formal operational.
I am not saying critical thinking, especially as it traditionally means, is not a good skill to practice with students so as they mature they begin to think this way, but I also think we really need a more concrete definition of what it means as people use it to mean almost anything.
As for the continents discussion, that is exactly how people develop critical thinking skills. They see that there are multiple ways to define something, and how the criteria can vary and why that actually does matter. How many continents there are DOES matter, if only because it gives people the opportunity to actually think critically about things like definitions.
"Critical thinking" is like "pornography"...difficult to define, but I know it when I see it. Anything beyond basic facts is, to some degree, critical thinking.
But here's the point, in elementary school (don't remember which grade), we had an assignment to learn all 50 states and their capitals. Why? I don't care what the capital of Nevada is. If I need to know, I can quickly look it up. Being able to figure out why certain cities are important or why they became capitals...that could be of value...NOT IN AND OF ITSELF...but as a lesson in learning how to think, how to use information, how to arrive at valid conclusions.
Yes, but you can give them a pencil (or a snack, or whatever is usually at the crux of their behavior problems). The high end kids, their issues are not fixed that way.
I love my students, but I also miss teaching in the Abbott district occasionally. Those kids NEEDED their teachers. The smart kids would be fine with just about anyone teaching.
And that is one important aspect of working with the different kids in a school.
As a principal in a school which had a very diverse student body (and I am talking way beyond the diversity of race), I was occasionally criticized for not personally giving enough attention to the GT kids, and spending more time with the ESL and Sped kids. My answer to those criticisms when they came from teachers was: "So many of you are focuses so much attention on the GT kids, I'll give some attention to those who get so much less attention, where it be the ESL kid, or the Sped kid, or the kid who just doesn't seem to fit in anyplace."
Whatsoever you do for the least of your brothers...
Going back to memorization.
You taught Science, I was Social Studies. Both have "facts" which have to be memorized before you get to critical thinking.
Not knowing certain basic information will cripple the walk to expanding to critical thinking. You can't just keep looking up basic knowledge.
Design an experiment to illustrate the function of Conditioned Response in guiding human behavior.
"Critical thinking" is like "pornography"...difficult to define, but I know it when I see it. Anything beyond basic facts is, to some degree, critical thinking.
But here's the point, in elementary school (don't remember which grade), we had an assignment to learn all 50 states and their capitals. Why? I don't care what the capital of Nevada is. If I need to know, I can quickly look it up. Being able to figure out why certain cities are important or why they became capitals...that could be of value...NOT IN AND OF ITSELF...but as a lesson in learning how to think, how to use information, how to arrive at valid conclusions.
Rote memorization has its place. Learning how to memorize that stuff is a skill in and of itself. As for the state capitals, I still know them.
The worst thing you can do to a student, is tell them they are gifted and are entitled to special status. Truly gifted students will take charge of their own education and will have learned more pre-school, than many will during school. Take a close look at the life-outcomes of those who are put in honor classes. Their performance in the real world, is mediocre.
From my supposedly "high-achieving" high school class, three of them graduated four years later from our university, with three of the places in the "Senior-Six", the highest level of 130, who made Phi Beta Kappa. Ten years later, one of them was an attendant at a day-care center, working with 3-year olds. Another was the divorced wife of a very wealthy guy, who she later found was a homosexual. She had no job. The other completely vanished and no one in town had any idea what had happened to her. There was another honor-roll member from our high school, who was class president and voted "Most Likely to Succeed". At age 35, he was working as the janitor at a chain of banks.
When I met and talked to this guy, I was with a new woman-friend. He had been describing how much he liked working as a janitor. Later, I pulled out my high school annual and showed her his pictures and the honors I described. She was speechless. The lesson is, that if you try to manufacture honors students our of those who just don't have the chops for it, the end result won't be good. The really good ones don't need your help and they don't have a need for recognition by others-------they just learn a lot and perform well. Far too much fuss is made over the appointed scholars, whose progress is stifled by the unearned status that is handed to them.
A sampling of honors students from my class: one is an artist, another is an actress, another is the Dean of Admissions at a well-regarded private university, another teaches history at a local high school, yet another is an archaeologist, another is a nurse practitioner, another is an audiologist, another earned her Doctorate in Pharmacology and Toxicology, another is a research fellow at NIH, another is president of a large IT company, another served in the Navy, several run their own businesses, and one became a SAHM (me). I'm sure if I looked hard enough I could find a janitor in there, too. Why are you carrying around so much baggage from high school? Move on already.
Going back to memorization.
You taught Science, I was Social Studies. Both have "facts" which have to be memorized before you get to critical thinking.
Not knowing certain basic information will cripple the walk to expanding to critical thinking. You can't just keep looking up basic knowledge.
Design an experiment to illustrate the function of Conditioned Response in guiding human behavior.
I tend to agree with most of this. But there's the problem:
I taught mostly earth science. Love the content. Loved teaching it. BUT, when I think back of the mineral and rock unit, where did memorizing all those key minerals and rocks lead us in the 9th grade. Pretty much nowhere. In reality, there were only 2 reasons to take earth science (well, 3 since it was required) -- first, because some students might get turned onto a content area and make it a career. That's legitimate. Second, the point of the rock and mineral unit was really to get students to understand the human trait to classify virtually everything. But today, if I went back and asked some of those students what do they remember about my class, one of the things I would hear (and have heard) would be, "Oh we learned about rocks and minerals, and I never used that again in my whole life." Which would be a fair criticism. I've never used geometry or algebra once in the last half century. Oh, there are a couple of geometric theorems I might still be able to rattle off if I really thought about it...but so what. I've never used SAS in real life.
To me, the problem is that in education we almost never really get beyond the facts.
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.
