The soft bigotry of low expectations

[Archon]

Simple, emphasise the skills and method. Work in teams (Since teamwork is a modern skill EVERY SINGLE PERSON will find useful when they want to get a job) and have them assign different group roles, journal their progress, and such. Give some marks for the final product, more marks for the journal and reflection.

Methods such as this are precisely what I dislike. This is why people cant actually write a paper, but they can tell you how they tried to write a paper. The product is what is important. All of the steps that the school thinks you should take are not. Journaling progress is superfluous. We have had papers that we had to write like that, and most of the people I know wrote the paper first and then went back and did all of the other steps of the "writing process", like brainstorm sheets and pre writing sheets, afterward. This is just additional frills, they dont really matter and yet they are emphasized more than the work itself. If a person can write a clean, concise, and effective paper, then I really dont see why how they do it matters.

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

students are taught answers - the, single, correct answers, by rote. This is WRONG and STUPID.

Intepretation is a much better idea, but not the whole deal, just part of it.

Well, the problem in teaching interpretation is that in the sciences, in which I include mathematics, as they are a science, there IS a right answer, and there IS a wrong answer, and the IS a way to prove it.  It isn't like literature, art, history, you know, subjects that can be seen from different viewpoints.

Because of this sure thing answer, finding the answer must be stressed.  In the sciences, memorizing answers isn't a good way to teach someone something, but interpretation doesn't make a lot of sense.  The trick is to teach them (the students) formulas with which you find the answer, and give them different types of problems that use the same formula or concept to find the answer.  Then having the formula right, and therefor getting the correct answer, would be how to idealy teach the sciences.

So interpretation in the sciences is really not possible when it comes to facts and figures, since all the facts of science can be proven, and therefor there is nothing to interpret.  You either did it wrong or not.  Interpretation is really a tool for the arts.

MOD: Hey Archon, get on AIM before I taunt you.

[fuzzyoctopus]

I think we should just weed out the stupid people.

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

 .

[Archon]

That would be ideal Fuzzy, especially as you would not only wipe out a good deal of (at our school at least) the student body, but also many of the same teachers that use the teaching methods that pander to stupid people (once again I am referring to our school).

[JP Dogberry]

How is it that you all managed to just MISS MY POINT ENTIRELY?

Archon - the product is important in the real world. But in shcool, where students are able to plagerise and live in a culture where this is accepted, it is not realistic. What is truly important isn't having a finished paper, but knowing HOW to write a succeful paper. This is a radical shift from modernist values, which so many schools still embrace. Thing is, most subjects are teaching facts of little value, when they should be teaching skills.

The fact that you go back and do what you see as "frills" last, means you have entirely missed the point of the exercise.

Gorgan - Science proves to us that their are gravity waves.   Two years later, science proves that their are no gravity waves. Three years later, science proves to us their are gravity waves. This is an actual occurence of what the media disseminated based on scientific research. What actually happened was that based on which sicentist had the highest job and mpst coporate backing, his PERSONAL opinion on the gravity wavres issue was disemminated.

So I ask you: Are their gravity waves? What is the value of teaching a single right answer when it changes so readily, and there isn't actually a correct answer?

More importantly, which do you think will be of more use to more people when it comes to getting a job: knowing the atomic mass of Hydrogen, or knowing how to work in a team?

Now, exposure to science is useful, else people wouldn't know if they wanted to work in the field. Equally, some science knowledge is very useful, like knowing lighting a match in a gas leak is a crap idea. I'm not saying at all that facts don't need to be taght. Facts do need to be taught, just they need to be not central or emphasised.

Oh, here's the real kicker: The entire notion of having a seperate "Science" class and "literature" class is a modernist notion completely ignoring the ideas of Relation and Rigor.

(No I don't suggestw e combien the two classes - I'm saying you need to think outside the box of "This is what you learn in science and this in literature - a postmdoernist stance requires using the subjects as factual backgrounds for teaching skills.)

[Archon]

Archon - the product is important in the real world. But in shcool, where students are able to plagerise and live in a culture where this is accepted, it is not realistic. What is truly important isn't having a finished paper, but knowing HOW to write a succeful paper. This is a radical shift from modernist values, which so many schools still embrace. Thing is, most subjects are teaching facts of little value, when they should be teaching skills.

The fact that you go back and do what you see as "frills" last, means you have entirely missed the point of the exercise.

     You say that it is unrealistic that people are going to write their own paper. It is impossible to keep people from cheating absolutely. Unless you watch every person every minute, they can get around your rules.

    You say that it isnt important to have a finished paper, but to know how to write a paper. I say that the only way that you can guarantee that a person knows how to write a paper is to have them write one. If they write a satisfactory paper then why should they have to go through the motions that the teacher decides? I think that if the student proves that they have the skill then that should be all they are required to do.

    You say that I missed the point of the exercise, I say that I saw it but dismissed it as being insignificant.

[JP Dogberry]

Apart from the obvious being that their is no way to ensure they did in fact write and not steal it, I was using a paper because you rose a specific example. A paper is not generalyl the best task anyway. I'll tell you a good task? A presentation. So is a project with multple parts.

I'm studying the disciplines of English and Computing. For English, a paper is a very appropriate assignment type, of course, but not the only form. An oral presentation would also be a good idea, as would some sort of listening task where you have to relate the book/film bein studied to a comment on it read in class. But even writing a paper, in this case, the best task would involve some sort of extrapolation of information and such.

In computers, though, the paper is completely inappropriate. A good task would be something like such:

In a group, design a website for (X reason). Your group should document the design process, research appropriate webdeisgn techniques, etc. On the due date, present the website to your class, and explain the deisgn process.

So what skills are learnt? Teamwork, webdeisgn, HTML, presentation and public speaking etc. A more traditional, "Deisgn a Webpage" task would teach Some HTML and some webdeisgn that was inferred, but typically no research would be done.

The fact that teaching a number of relevent skills in addition to the basics of HTML for the task is better is self evident.

[Archon]

   I disagree with that for a couple reasons. First, I believe that if you turn out a quality product then you know what you are doing well enough that you should not be required to explain the steps you took. Secondly, a task that is that multisided is going to take much more time than a simpler project focusing on one subject. Since it is a computer class I think that it would be appropriate to learn the most you can about computers. If a student would like to learn about public speaking and presentation then they should take a speech class. Having taken that class, they can easily connect it to other subjects that they know well when it comes to the real world. Yes your task would incorporate all of those skills, but the students' attention would be drawn away from the primary material by the extra material that you decided to add in. It would be more effective to teach the different skills at separate times so that the students attention is focused on what is really important, not divided between several different things.

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

yway

So I ask you: Are their gravity waves? What is the value of teaching a single right answer when it changes so readily, and there isn't actually a correct answer?

I got this far before wanting to comment, and didn't finish reading your comment, so if I missed something in my rush I'm sorry.

No, but gravity waves were a theory, which is part of science.  In laws there is a single right answer, and there are formulas used to prove such, and these formulas are the concepts that need to be tought, and these concepts are applicable in the real world should you land a job in the scientific area.

As for the atomic mass of whatever you asked for, in high school that is very rarely required to be memorized, so all you need it for is plugging into formulas.  And if you are memorizing it for college, more than likely you are concidering a job in science, in which case it is important.

I'm not trying to say that learning teamwork isn't important, and learning teamwork can be done while still stressing that in the area of science answers are important.  If answers weren't important enough to base a grade around then it wouildn't BE science, it would be philosophy.  Science is science because you can prove what is right and everything you CAN'T prove is wrong.

Teamwork can be tought whether you focus on getting things right or focus on interpretation, but focusing on interpretation is something that can be succesfully done in the arts, but not in the sciences.

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

JP,

I have to er... respectfully disagree with your relativistic viewpoint.

Just because some understood facts are misperceived does NOT mean that any viwepoint is true. The premise of that argument has, and always will be absolutely absurd, more worth of Becket than and educator.

You used gravity waves as an example. Let's make it more basic. I don't care if it's waves or not, but there is SOME force that exists that makes two objects get closer. we think it's a pull, but I'll readily concede it may be some kind of push. ie, GRAVITY is a fact. There IS gravity. And your viewpoint is completely irrelevant. There ARE facts. There are facts that apply to everyone. So let's get away from that. As you can tell, relativism really bugs me and I think it is at once the most dishonest and dangerous pseudo-intellectual idea that exists in the acadamy and it alarms me that bright young people like yourself readily accept it.

I don't want to quibble, but this whole discussion seems to really hang on one word: "emphasize." To that end, I feel compelled to point out to both sides that this word in no way excludes emphasizing other methods as well. There can be multiple emphases in one curriculum or even one lesson, or, for that matter, even one exercise.

I think the facts and the correct answers need to be emphasized. The first part of any project - written paper or oral presentation  - involves getting your facts correct. starting with bad facts will ruin ANY process, teamwork, or what have you that you do. However, a poorly presented set of accurate facts can still carry the day. refusing to emphasize the need for knowing and using accurate and correct facts throws us back nearly three millenia to sophists who argued that the only important thing to know was how to present well. Ridiculous.

However, you do need to emphasize the need to find a good organizational and strategic creation process. Heck, when it comes down to it, the only place that relativism is actually a good idea is presentation and execution. some people can make detailed outlines. some people are actually stifled and delayed by such approaches. This is another reason why the process shouldn't be graded, at least, not the way I've experienced it being graded.  If someone can't provide certain details the instructor is looking for in hsi process, but can present and arrive at an excellent presentation (written, oral, or whatever) it hardly seems relevant whether he did it the way the professor wanted.

[fuzzyoctopus]

You used gravity waves as an example. Let's make it more basic. I don't care if it's waves or not, but there is SOME force that exists that makes two objects get closer. we think it's a pull, but I'll readily concede it may be some kind of push. ie, GRAVITY is a fact. There IS gravity. And your viewpoint is completely irrelevant. There ARE facts.

`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

[JP Dogberry]

Well, at least  someone whose disagreeing with me hassn't completly missed my point yewt agin. Thankyou SE. I think I do agree with the way you've actually put that into words.

Facts are important in the sense that you need facts to back anything up etc. However, the idea of a school being a place to learn facts is outdated. In the modern era, you can find any fact you want readily through various information sources  - internet, library, CD-ROM, Journals etc. Teaching litercery (information literacy, not reaidng and writing, and that's a whole different debate) on how to find and apply the facts is of much more value. Not that facts should be ignored at all, and some groundwork factual knowledge is certainly essential. But in the end, it's not aboput memorising all the facts, its about learning how to work with them. Again, it's about skills.

Now, if someone presents poor facts excellently, they don't desevre a good mark, because finding the facts is part of the skills necessary. Someone presenting good facts poorly also should receieve a poor mark for te same reason.

Dangerous and Dishonest? You'll need to explain that sometime, sicne I'm not even quite sure what relativism IS.

[Archon]

    Relativists believe that nothing is certain. We might not really be here, life may be an illusion. Some say that life is just a dream, or that the whole world is just a trick of our brain. Maybe we arent really here, we just think we are. That is a really brief and rough summary of it but you get the idea. SE is trying to say that there are some things that are certain, there are some things that we can prove, whereas relativists would argue that we cant prove anything because we cant trust that our senses are reliable.

[Master Xaio]

To both sides of the arguement here; you are both very sure of your points.  And you're both making good points.  However, it is often those who are prepared to move outside what they see as right, and to not be so totally sure of themselves, that make the best teachers in my experience.

Just a point to keep in mind.