The soft bigotry of low expectations

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

actually, no.

I'm not saying that (as far as the "correct answer" or "fact" part of it goes) the student has to defend or apply the theories. But they should at least know that these theories exist. Knowing that existentialism was a school of thought that dealt more with responsibility of being here more than the causal action that brought us into existence is a fact. Being able to attack or defend it's ideas and impact more thoroughly than that is theory and development. Yes, I think they should do that too, if they're engaged in any sort of philosophical work (including much literary and artistic theory) but knowing the very basics of what existentialism is, that's correct answer territory. While I balk at it, I feel I should also include that it would be good to know names and dates to go with this. It's important to know if Jean Paul Satre was an existentialist or not (a fact), and if he was, how did the events and people of his time impact his existentialist ideas (not a fact, but to do so you have to know facts like when he was working out his philosophy, what other people were around, what those people were doing, what were the major historical events of the time). I agree that most of that can be done by research (knowing how to find the data rather then memorizing it) but if you're a philosopher, you're wasting lots of time by not remembering it without looking it up. You should memorize the FACTS of his era and so forth to be able to conduct intelligent discourse on the matter

[House of Mustard]

All right, 42, that's twice now on this thread where it's been suggested that history is not fact.  Frankly, you're wrong wrong wrong, and it's making me mad.  History is fact.  Sloppy history is not.  Most high school history textbooks are NOT fact (which only leads to more education reform issues).  But, the fact of the matter (har har har) is that if you actually are responsible with your history research, you're looking at primary sources.

Yes, there are conflicts in history -- the debate of social issues, and the controversy over causations.  But the facts are rarely called into question -- it's the interpretation that is debated.

(Incidentally, this insistence that several people have had here--that of teaching interpretation--leads to all kinds of potential conflicts: particularly the threat of indoctrinating kids with the 'interpretation' of the teacher's own political views.)

[42]

And get serious 42--why would you use art as an example of using facts in teaching?  I don't think anyone here will argue with you on that.

Becasue administrators learn how to teach emphasizing facts and then expect all teachers to use the same teaching method, regardless of the subject. When they encounter a subject that can't comply, they punitively ignore that subject and neglect it's importance. This results in school policies that punish subjects that require different learning skills or teaching methods, or they just cut the subject out the school sysytem entirely.

Art Educators (at least at BYU) are taught to violently defend the arts in school even if it means beating down other subjects like english, math, science or history. They're tired of playing second fiddle and are willing to take drastic means to get noticed. I'm not joking. There are legislative movements, fund-raisings, protest gatherings, ad campaigns, national organizations, and a few violent incidents in places like New York and L.A.

And some future teachers I met while in the secondary education program were flakier than any art, drama or music teacher. Particularly, some english and history teachers who made no effort what so ever to justify anything they taught. (I'm sorry, but people who say that reading Pride and Prejudice gives you an understanding of psychology are just idiots, particularly when they haven't actually studied any psychology.)

[42]

Maybe one thing that hasn't struck you is that you can give a student a term with a definition. That student can then repeat the term to you with the defintion. However, in doing so that student does not demonstrate that they understand how to use that term. Just look how often people use words incorrectly, or even more often, inappropriately.

And not all history is fact. Sure there are a lot of undisputed facts, but there are also a lot of opinions in history. And there are plenty of nuts out there to questoin the undisputed facts. In the mere presentation of facts you present opinions. And facts get called into question all the time, particularly when the primary source is faulty or missing.

[House of Mustard]

What I'm saying, 42, is that you're not making a point that anyone in this particular debate will argue.  Yes, we're all aware of the second-rate status given to art and music and drama, and boo hoo.  But, if you're going to argue, then argue the issue, not some other straw-man issue that no one disagrees about.

[42]

As I see it, if all you want to do is to teach facts, then you are teaching trivia and little else.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

but who's actually arguing that? Is anyone here arguing that the only thing education should do is teach facts? I don't see that anywhere.

[House of Mustard]

Right SE.  I'm not arguing that at all.  I'm arguing simply that facts come first, and interpretation comes second.  Without a factual base, interpretation and application is meaningless.

Yes, critical thinking and deductive reasoning should be the ultimate goal, but facts, evidence and correct answers have to be emphasized before you can get to that point.

It's like my earlier example of constitutional law.  There are many versions of constitutional interpretation, and all lawyers, judges, and justices have their own opinion on consitutional interpretation.  But if you only teach the interpretations, without teaching The Constitution first, then none of those interpretations will be valid in the least.  A student can't say "I believe that the constitution favors x", until they actually read and study the thing.

If we are neglecting facts and correct answers, then we'll raise a generation of students that may know how to work as a team, or know how to give their opinions, but not have any solid foundation for anything they do.

[42]

If you choose to EMPHASIZE facts and correct answers, then teaching other skills like adapatation, or analysis almost always suffer.

Here's an example, in history even. At BYU I had an Ancient Art History class. The teacher did not teach a single date in the class. She didn't even teach the names of the art works to be covered. The names and dates of the art works were all given beforehand and expected to be known by each student before coming to class. So each student had to learn the facts on their own. During class the instructor went over various theories and opinions about the different civilizations and art works. The test were all essay, but required students to name artworks with the name of the artist, the date is was created, the culture is belong to, and the site where it was found. The instructor was not directly teaching any of the facts nor emphasizing the facts. She simply expected the students to learn them on their own time and they did.

Okay, so this example may not hold up very well in high school where most of the students are too apathetic to put forth the effort to educate themselves like that, but it does show it is possible to teach history without emphasizing facts.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

that's twice now on this thread where it's been suggested that history is not fact.  Frankly, you're wrong wrong wrong, and it's making me mad.

Ok, there is no need to get mad at someone just because he doesn't agree with you, after all this is a subject hotly debated by a lot of really bright people.
Speaking as a history major, history is not always a fact, but facts are important to study of history. Interpretation of facts or deciding which fact to emphasize over others changes how people understand events.

Example
During the end of WWI and into the early 1920's there was a general strike in West Virginia, Miners mistreated by mining concerns decided to strike for better working conditions. Things escalated very quickly especially when veterans returned from the war and soon fighting broke out on both sides complete with large scale use of maxim machine guns and rifles. Eventually the US government was called in to quell the strike (which it did, very bloodily)

What is taught in school about that time period.
After world war I society in the United States became decadent and large organized crime syndicates sprung up with the creation of prohibition.This whole world came crashing down when the stock market collapsed.

Both things are true, and both of them are facts but one of them is seen as more important and therefore taught to students, while the other is largely ignored.

Im not sure which is more important either, I think that society in general was dissatisfied at that time, looking for answers and better things in life. Its easier to describe that malaise to kids as a kind of hedonistic attitude, but many different subsets of society experienced it in different ways. Still flappers and speakeasies are more recognizable for kids thanks to the influence of broadcast and print media (the Untouchables, the Great Gatsby etc) and they require much less political discussion than the socialistic views of miners fighting for their rights in the hill country.

But the important thing is that someone made that choice, and thats what is meant when people say history is about interpreting facts, and not the facts themselves. Because honestly there are just too many facts to make sense of when your talking about the past. At some point you have to stop and say "what does this mean?"

I am not saying that knowing facts in history isn't important mind you just that the primary job of a historian is to put the facts together decide what is more of value. You only have to go to a high school history class for ten minutes to see the effect of drilling facts and dates into kids heads without any explanation. Its the reason so many people dont care about history at all.

Ideally a good historian should be like a good journalist, totally without bias
Realistically we can hope to have a lot of different history teachers with a lot of different ideas about the past, so we can formulate our own understanding of the past.

Incidentally, this insistence that several people have had here--that of teaching interpretation--leads to all kinds of potential conflicts: particularly the threat of indoctrinating kids with the 'interpretation' of the teacher's own political views.

And that is somehow different than indoctrinating them with the views of the writer of a text book or some school executives views. Honestly, their views are more likely to be shaped by their families contact with the real world and their environment than any single teacher that they have for a year. At least letting a teacher work his mojo opens up kids eyes that recorded fact may be just the tip of the iceberg and that they want to learn a little more about something. Which I think would be positive for everyone.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

so, 42, you were graded on knowing facts? Yup. I'm sorry, but that's an emphasis. Maybe the teacher isn't iterating them in class, but she has made it clear they're important and she expects you to learn them.

[42]

Teaching is what you do during class time. Grading and assessment is a completely seperate activity. Gradding and assessment has it's own theories and is it's seperate field of study.

I'm sorry, but if you think handing a student a textbook and then testing them on what they've gleaned out of it is teaching, you're both ignorant and offensive.

In many schools the tests are written and graded by an assistant who decides on their own what the class should be getting out of the lessons taught by the teacher and how to evaluate that. In some ways it is a lot more efficient and more accurate to have the teaching and assessment activities done by seperate people.

[House of Mustard]

42:  

The names and dates of the art works were all given beforehand and expected to be known by each student before coming to class. So each student had to learn the facts on their own.

Let me quote from another "Red Flag of Ineffective Teaching."  '[The teacher] Tells students to "know the material"'

Jeffe:
The problem with your arguement there, Jeffe, is that both of the examples are undisputed fact.  Both of them happened.  The choice between telling two facts is not at issue.  I really can't see how that example relates at all.  (And I'm not just trying to be difficult.)

the primary job of a historian is to put the facts together decide what is more of value.

Whether or not you have time to explain every event in world history, that doesn't change the facts.  The facts happened.

Yes, the debate about which facts are more important is an important debate (that's a weird sentence), but you can't make that debate until you KNOW THE FACTS.  That's my whole point.  You can't argue about interpretation or misinterpretation until you know the evidence.

[House of Mustard]

I'm sorry, but if you think handing a student a textbook and then testing them on what they've gleaned out of it is teaching, you're both ignorant and offensive.

Has anyone said that mindless teaching from textbooks is what we want?  On the contrary, I've been arguing for use of primary sources.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Teaching is what you do during class time. Grading and assessment is a completely seperate activity. Gradding and assessment has it's own theories and is it's seperate field of study.

I'm sorry, but if you think handing a student a textbook and then testing them on what they've gleaned out of it is teaching, you're both ignorant and offensive.

if what your teacher did is not "teaching" then, you had a poor example. Your teacher did NOT evaluate what the students knew ahead of time. Part of teaching is making sure the students have the tools to do the rest of the work. If that teacher is doing hte evaluation as well (which in your example, she did) then she also has the responsibility of teaching that information.  So, is it a teaching method or not? I'm not commenting on whether you were taught effectively or not, but I do think the teacher expected you to gain that information during the course of her teaching, which, to me, means it was part of the education process. I'm sure you'll pick nits with the difference between "educating" and "teaching" though.

I don't see that teaching is only what happens in the classroom environment. Any interation between the students and the teacher, even vicariously, it teaching if the object is to make you more educated. Part of teaching is giving assignments that help the student learn as well. That teacher gave you that assignment as part of her teaching plan. I don't understand how that's not part of teaching? And if that means i'm "Ignorant and offensive" than enlighten me. Because I think you've made a HUGE jump in logic that no one here can be expected to follow if assigned tasks that are meant to achieve one of the purposes of the class are not part of teaching.