Posted on 09/02/2009 10:42:10 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion
This is a heads up for those interested in education/homeschooling.My take is that this book, which is slanted toward teachers and contains allusions to political figures which mark the author as a "liberal," is one which conservatives can generally endorse, and argue from.
What follows is mostly the author's own words in his concluding chapter with, in some instances, my own paraphrase of the author.
People are naturally curious, but they are not naturally good thinkers. Think of material to be learned as answers, and take the time necessary to explain the questions.
Factual knowledge precedes skill. It is not possible to think well on a topic in the absence of factual knowledge
Memory is the residue of thought. What thought is provoked by a lesson is the central issue.
We understand new things in context of things we already know. Deep knowledge is the objective, but shallow knowledge inevitably comes first.
Proficiency requires practice. Students must practice what is important.
Cognition is fundamentally different early and late in training. Students can't create new knowledge unless they already have deep knowledge.
Intelligence can be changed through sustained hard work. Always talk about successes and failures in terms of effort, not ability.
Teaching must be practiced to be improved.
Think of material to be learned as answers, and take the time necessary to explain the questions.Sort of like the punch line of a joke has to be set up and not be blurted out before the rest of the joke has set it up.
Children are more alike than different in terms of learning. Knowledge of students' learning styles is not necessary.So much for "multiple intelligences."
Intelligence can be changed through sustained hard work.This means that "intelligence" is not an intrinsic characteristic of a given person, but rather is significantly affected by how much that person has thought - and about what.Always talk about successes and failures in terms of effort, not ability.This is IMHO a crucial point the author makes. If you praise effort and success, you increase morale. If you praise ability apart from effort, you are actually flattering the student - which can only tend to produce arrogance and a reluctance to apply effort because a "smart" person doesn't have to study.
Bump.
A for effort even tough you deserved a D?
A for effort even tough you deserved a D?
There, there - I know you can spell better than that! :)
BTTT
Or even ADHD...
I believe that’s why many boys are bypassing college. They had to put up with that nonsense in public school and they’ll be damned if they’ll pay good money to put up with it in college.
A for effort even though you deserved a D?
If you recognize that morale comes only through successful effort, and that flattery produces arrogance rather than morale, you see that the idea of attempting to teach self-esteem directly is worse than useless.Certainly that does not preclude pointing out what you did right even though the result wasn't good. If you laid off of a bad pitch that you usually chase, that is worth pointing out and trying to build on. Just don't pretend that the result was good when everyone knows you were trying to hit a homer, and that in fact you struck out.
I fundamentally disagree with the author. As an adult, I well remember my school days, and why I didn’t like them.
School was a punishment for a crime I didn’t commit. I was forced to get up early, to interact with people I didn’t care to associate with, forced to sit still, and to study topics I had no interest in. I was taught facts that may not necessarily be true (let’s call this propaganda).
More effort was place on topics to satisfy whatever politcal cause was considered ‘important’ than was vested in skills that would prove vital later on. Simple things like how ‘compound interest’ works, what are the differences between a credit card with 7% and 22% interest. Why is it important to save a little bit out of your income, now; instead of wait until you are ready to retire.
No, but a significant effort was made to teach how America failed the American Indians, Blacks, and every other minority all over the world.
or Maybe DDT! ;-)!
Why don’t students like school?
‘Cause they have to listen indoctrination from Libs?
Hey I am half blind and I have fat fingers and I type too fast and I don’t proofread.
You hit the nail on the head.
The Childrens’ Story by James Clavell (author of Shogun and Nobel House). Clavell was very concerned about Big Brother brainwashing children.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/llefler/clavell.htm
Exactly. And I think that had some to do with my boys’ reasons for going military - so they could “be boys”.
Not enough 0bama?
/s
Maybe because where my kids went to high school some of the teachers did everything they could to make sure that they did not succeed.
I fundamentally disagree with the author. As an adult, I well remember my school days, and why I didn’t like them.
School was a punishment for a crime I didn’t commit. I was forced to get up early, to interact with people I didn’t care to associate with, forced to sit still, and to study topics I had no interest in. I was taught facts that may not necessarily be true (let’s call this propaganda).
I noted that there was some "liberalism" planted in the book, and I can certainly agree with your complaints about severely misplaced emphasis on various subjects. I am the product of an earlier era, when PC wasn't pervasive.The only thing I think back on and say, "That was actually an attempt at indoctrination" was when a teacher claimed that "society" and "government" were the same thing. That could be true only in the absence of freedom.
FWIW...
“If the colleges were better, if they really had it, you would need to
get the police at the gates to keep order in the inrushing multitude.
See in college how we thwart the natural love of learning by leaving
the natural method of teaching what each wishes to learn, and insisting
that you shall learn what you have no taste or capacity for. The
college, which should be a place of delightful labor, is made odious
and unhealthy, and the young men are tempted to frivolous amusements to
rally their jaded spirits. I would have the studies elective.
Scholarship is to be created not by compulsion, but by awakening a pure
interest in knowledge. The wise instructor accomplishes this by
opening to his pupils precisely the attractions the study has for
himself. The marking is a system for schools, not for the college; for
boys, not for men; and it is an ungracious work to put on a professor.”
— Ralph Waldo Emerson
I absolutely hated school, and had a persistent nightmare, even years after graduation, that I was stuck in high school and couldn’t get out.
I loved only one subject - math. I think I loved math because once I learned it, it always worked the same way. IOW, math was apolitical.
I’m dating myself, but my teachers certainly weren’t worried about my self-esteem. I earned/deserved the grades I received, and appreciate not being strung along. My teachers were teachers, not babysitters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.