View Full Version : Education Theory
I've been tossing ideas around in my head about what good education should encompass. I'm not just talking about the traditional subjects loaded with theory but, rather, a school system that actually takes a "praxis" approach and is designed to prepare the students for life.
I'm not an expert on the subject, but I've been doing some reading and a lot of thinking (probably not enough yet), and I'd appreciate some civil help from educators out there. Hopefully, I'm not making myself look like a complete moron! :)
Some key elements I believe should be incorporated:
leadership development and independent thinking
critical & analytical thinking
creativity
problem-solving/resolution
social skills and emotional intelligence (as established by Daniel Goleman's compilation of research on and related to the topic)
self or group-paced learning
respect for self and others
study skills
relaxation techniques (for various situations-tests, interviews, emergencies, etc.)
team workpractical home skills (sewing, cooking, cleaning, gardening, etc.) ala home economics
marital and parental training
diversity teaching in subjects like religion, race, gender, etc.
civic responsibility, morality and ethics
I believe that active learning that is fun, interesting, stimulating and challenging is critical. There are too many things (positive and negative) that compete for students' attention. A "Challenge" Day approach to teaching unity through diversity on a regular basis would probably be a good idea, too.
I think it's also important that the curriculum, in line with being self-/group-paced, be focused more on the teacher-as-facilitator approach, and that group interaction/networking should be learned from an early age.
I also believe that some mandatory uptraining for parents should be included. I've noticed that many parents are woefully unaware of their role, and have almost no ability to assess whether a school is good or bad. Further, they often fail to see the big picture in a student's development and become distressed or overly pushy when their child's performance doesn't meet their expectations. They tend to meddle in affairs that they don't understand and put unnecessary pressure on a schools administration, resulting in ridiculous things being done. While I believe that parents may have important things to say, but I don't believe they should have too much power.
I think school layout needs to be reconsidered. I suspect that schools designed with natural/real locations for practical application of material taught would be a big plus. The Green School in Bali appears to be one such example.
Next, I believe that alternatives to out-and-out testing need to be applied - like situational, group dynamics and thematic testing that are more in line with what they'll experience in life. How many times do we actually take a TEST or EXAM on the job, after all?
The "prehistoric" teaching techniques and styles of our forefathers, for the most part, need to be abandoned. It is not the students who hold back educational quality - it is the teachers who refuse to adapt and grow as educators. that do so In Indonesia, this is a HUGE problem.
I'm also concerned with the ever-increasing amount of material that kids have to absorb in school. What I learned in senior high school (and I went to an excellent public college-prep that ranked very high) is now taught in middle school, and what I learned then has partially been moved into primary. I find this disturbing and I believe it needs to be addressed. Should education be extended til 14th grade;should students be allowed to channel themselves based on their interests; should education focus only on each student's strengths; should schools channel students (such as in Singapore's streams) based on academic ability or, perhaps, a combination of interests, ability, intelligence, etc.; should there be more elective classes; or ...?
I believe that maths, the sciences, languages, art & music, and most other standard subjects still need to be taught - but in a new way. I also suspect some aspects of learning that are used in Waldorf schools might be of benefit (without the odd religio-philosophical foundation).
In regards to Maths, I believe that the prohibition of the use of finger maths in school is a major error, in that it is of particular benefit to students who are kinesthetic/visual learners. Heck, I can now count 0 to 99 on my hands because my pre-school child has learned it.
While I have several objections to Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences, I believe there is truth to the idea that we are all born with our own strengths and weaknesses, and that teachers need to adapt by using techniques that reach as many different types of learners as possible.
I am not so much interested in creating a system that will be immediately compatible with other systems (i.e.: the student will have probably have some trouble transitioning to a school using a more traditional system). I'm more interested in creating a system that will develop students in a way so that, because of the critical skills acquired, they will be able to excel in any environment, no matter what educational system is being used. Further, I'm looking to their future as adults. I want them to have more than a diploma - I want them to have a truly complete education - one that is based on much more than just academic info.
Please share with me your thoughts on what I've written. If you know of any schools that actually do this, I'm interested.
In advance, :yield: and thank you!
Glenn :lol:
Hombre de Maiz
20-10-09, 15:58
where does reduction in hierarchichal social relations and iconoclasm come in?
where does reduction in hierarchichal social relations and iconoclasm come in?
I suspect that'll be one of your subjects to teach, wise guy! :)
Glenn
Hombre de Maiz
20-10-09, 16:16
I was being serious. What do you hope to achieve when kids grown up in an environment in which deference to totems, elders, inherited customs and received knowledge are sacrosanct? Here you are, thinking that you are teaching critical thinking, when in fact, critical thinking is something that they only do in school. Outside of school, they don another hat.
I'd be deported out of the country, this country, were I ever to set foot in the classroom as a teacher!
mattyboy43
20-10-09, 17:17
An excellent well thought out post ReveurGAM. I agree with you on many of your points and can comment on some things that are done currently in my school or that I do in my classroom.
relaxation techniques (for various situations-tests, interviews, emergencies, etc.)
I do this with my batch for about 30 minutes a week, they say that they really enjoy the time and they find they are less stressed than their peers because of it. We mostly focus on meditation and finding a 'happy place'. I have encouraged my co-workers to do this with their classes but have found a lot of reluctance as most of them don't feel comfortable enough applying the techniques to their own lives to be able to teach them.
leadership development and independent thinking
critical & analytical thinking
creativity
problem-solving/resolution
social skills and emotional intelligence (as established by Daniel Goleman's compilation of research on and related to the topic)
respect for self and others
study skills
diversity teaching in subjects like religion, race, gender, etc.
I can't imagine any school where the teaching of these things is not part of the ultimate goal. I know even the local school that my niece goes to works hard to promote these skills and qualities. I do think though that many teachers and schools need to be more aware of them and how they are being taught. I think what often happens is that they are taught but more as an afterthought or accompaniment to the content than as content themselves.
civic responsibility, morality and ethics
I couldn't agree more that this should be a mandatory, taught part of any curriculum. I believe that all our students from every type of school must be taught self-humility. They should all be required to perform community and service work as well as be taught to think about moral issues from varying perspectives and be given the skills necessary to express their own unique opinions in a respectful open manner.
team workpractical home skills (sewing, cooking, cleaning, gardening, etc.)
I too think that this is a very important part of the curriculum (as part of my subject load I teach the sewing and cooking in my school) but it is very often overlooked in schools. I find that I am often having debates with my co-workers about why practical real life skills are equally important as knowledge. Unfortunately they don't get treated as such in most schools where the content based subjects often get 3-5 times more class time than the skills based subjects.
I think it's also important that the curriculum, in line with being self-/group-paced, be focused more on the teacher-as-facilitator approach, and that group interaction/networking should be learned from an early age.
Individualized instruction is a wonderful goal and can really help kids to understand what they are being taught. From a practical perspective though it is very difficult to do and not all teachers are prepared to devote or have the time necessary to successfully bring it into their classrooms. As well, in most of our current systems there is still (unfortunately in my own opinion) some test of knowledge based on a standard at the end of the course and all students need to work at the pace that is needed for them to cover all of required material. I do believe that we should remove a lot of material from our courses to allow us more time to go at individual paces.
marital and parental training
I have never really thought about teaching this but I do think that it would be very useful. Although I don't think that I personally would feel qualified outside of sharing my own experiences and what I have seen in my life that works and does not work.
be focused more on the teacher-as-facilitator approach, and that group interaction/networking should be learned from an early age.
Absolutely agree with you, teachers should be guides.
I also believe that some mandatory uptraining for parents should be included. I've noticed that many parents are woefully unaware of their role, and have almost no ability to assess whether a school is good or bad. Further, they often fail to see the big picture in a student's development and become distressed or overly pushy when their child's performance doesn't meet their expectations. They tend to meddle in affairs that they don't understand and put unnecessary pressure on a schools administration, resulting in ridiculous things being done. While I believe that parents may have important things to say, but I don't believe they should have too much power.
This would make for a much more peaceful and harmonious society. My school did try this once, they offered courses to parents after school and on the weekend. The courses were on a range of topics from 'positive discipline' to 'keeping your kids safe online'. We had different teachers giving classes and even brought in some outside experts. Everything was well advertised and the parents were given several reminders as well as over a month to clear their schedules. Still we had a turnout of less than 10% of our parents and of course the ones that did come were already the 'Model' parents who are very involved in the kids life in a positive way. I have suggested several times that we should make these classes mandatory if the parent wants to enrol their child in our school but of course from a business perspective it makes little sense.
I think school layout needs to be reconsidered. I suspect that schools designed with natural/real locations for practical application of material taught would be a big plus. The Green School in Bali appears to be one such example.
It would be a big plus but I also think that many of these elements can be brought into the classroom by the creative teacher. Schools need to be located close to where their students are and in an urban setting with high land costs creating schools like the Green School is very difficult without having very high tuition rates or very deep pockets backing the project.
Part 2 Below ...... :typing:
mattyboy43
20-10-09, 17:19
Part 2 ....
Next, I believe that alternatives to out-and-out testing need to be applied - like situational, group dynamics and thematic testing that are more in line with what they'll experience in life. How many times do we actually take a TEST or EXAM on the job, after all?
The "prehistoric" teaching techniques and styles of our forefathers, for the most part, need to be abandoned. It is not the students who hold back educational quality - it is the teachers who refuse to adapt and grow as educators. that do so In Indonesia, this is a HUGE problem.
I do think that many schools are trying to move in this direction and that the biggest resistance to the change comes from the parents who were taught using the 'prehistoric' techniques and want their kids to be taught the same way. Again if they would attend classes they may become more informed and be open and accepting to new models and methods. I can remember how many parents yelled at me the first time that I taught science in grade 5 and at the open house I said that there would be no written exams only practical projects. Eventually they came around though. I believe that 'contrived' learning and projects are of very little use the students. Assessments should be practical and should be as 'real-world' as possible. Why do something just for the sake of doing it when you can do something that will benefit someone and still learn the same material.
I'm also concerned with the ever-increasing amount of material that kids have to absorb in school.
Students in my school have 7 hours a day of classes and regularly do 2-3 hours a night of homework in addition to the 2-3 extra curricular activities that each of them do. I find the fact that they are able to cope with that amount of material to be remarkable. By comparison my nephew in Canada does 5 hours of class a day and 2-3 hours of homework a week. Will the students be better for handling more from a young age, I don't know but I do know that in an increasingly competitive society I wouldn't want my kid to be disadvantaged by not learning a strong work ethic.
In regards to Maths, I believe that the prohibition of the use of finger maths in school is a major error, in that it is of particular benefit to students who are kinesthetic/visual learners. Heck, I can now count 0 to 99 on my hands because my pre-school child has learned it.
A couple of teachers at my school have done this and I can't believe it. If that is how you learn that is how you learn, isn't it more important that you learn the skill not how you learn it.
Again, an excellent post ReveurGAM, many of your ideas are spot on. Sorry if all that I did was discuss your thoughts rather than moving the conversation forward. I will contribute a few original ideas of mine own in the future when I can finally get them unjumbled from my mess of a brain and down on paper as articulated thoughts.
:Thumb:
critical thinking is something that they only do in school. Outside of school, they don another hat.
Depending on the school this is a very real possibility. I had a (completely fruitless) discussion with the principal of a school in China who seemed to think you can teach kids to think critically in the classroom then slavishly follow the daftest orders, unquestioning, out of class. Critical thinking and asking searching questions about religious matters is a minefield in most faith-based schools, too...
While ReveurGAM makes some valid points, I'd like to take him up on middle school kids learning what used to be high school material - at least in my own subject of science. The fact is that the ICT at my disposal these days means that I can use animations and simulations to help students to visualise concepts that no amount of scribbling on the board with chalk would convey in the time available. All my students have laptops and our school-wide network means that they can access all the multimedia materials at their own pace and download them for revision. I have high school kids getting concepts - and really getting them - that I never really grasped until I went to university. I don't waste their time or mine trying to memorise what I regard as science trivia, however.
I agree with the point that teachers are the major brake against progress in school education, and the teacher who expects to churn out the same material year on year is a walking, chalking disaster zone. There is, however, another extreme to that continuum and I'm very conscious of the risk of educational fads and fashions.
Again, I can only comment from my own subject of science, but some years ago the buzzword was 'discovery learning'. Kids would learn how science worked by playing with things and figuring it out for themselves - given the right materials and enough time. With hindsight, the discovery approach when used as an end in itself was a very inefficient use of time and resources and it is quite possible for a child to make his/her own observations and use these to reinforce misconceptions rather than to challenge them. In more recent times we have tried to keep the positive aspects of the discovery approach and incorporate them into a more balanced programme of inquiry. To paraphrase words I picked up from secondary science teacher mentoring in the UK: purist discovery learning is a bit like letting kids play in the valleys between the misty mountains of knowledge but never quite letting them see the mountain tops.
The 'best' educational approach is something we haven't discovered yet and probably never will so all we can offer is the best that we have today.
waarmstrong
20-10-09, 19:25
Not that you are fishing for confirmation or consensus, Glen, I find very little in your very thoughtful piece that I cannot wholeheartedly endorse.
I see that the Globe today had an article summarizing a Cambridge University study saying that introducing children at age 5 to the "constraints and discipline of the classroom provides little benefit and could even be harmful." I am wondering what sort of classroom was the study talking about? Certainly not the one you envision.
Contrast the study findings to other recent articles (the reference escapes me, at present) of parents who feel the need to go to great lengths to give their offspring a head-start on their peers. I am thinking of the dubious techniques currently in favor of providing "instruction" through the walls of the womb, as one example. In my opinion, such parental paranoia on behalf of the future success of their children is perhaps more harmful that the overly structured Kindergarten classroom.
Its certainly a deficiency of our educational systems that education in parenting skill is not part of the curriculum.
crazyhorse
21-10-09, 06:01
THe current education systems all over the world seem to reflect the current society they are designed for.As an individual all you can do is to be true to yourself and if you are educating you can lead by example. It seem to me that teachers teach what they want to learn rather than what students want to learn. We seem to learn inspite of the education that was served up to us. There is still time for all of us to change we dont have to wait until someone to tell us. Once you begin to change it is remarkable how other people come out of the woodwork to help you.
ken
I see that the Globe today had an article summarizing a Cambridge University study saying that introducing children at age 5 to the "constraints and discipline of the classroom provides little benefit and could even be harmful." I am wondering what sort of classroom was the study talking about? Certainly not the one you envision.
I read that study and it didn't ring true. Among its many weaknesses, a major strength of the British school system has always been the head start that UK school leavers had over their peers from some other nations because they began school earlier. By age 16 they could compete with 18 year olds internationally. My answer to the study is to make sure the 'constraints and discipline' are kept in their box. I fear the study itself is politically motivated as it would help out the economic stats enormously if British kids were the financial responsibility of their parents for a year or two longer and didn't enter the job market until later.
I am thinking of the dubious techniques currently in favor of providing "instruction" through the walls of the womb, as one example. In my opinion, such parental paranoia on behalf of the future success of their children is perhaps more harmful that the overly structured Kindergarten classroom.
Indeed, there is as much quackery in education as there is in medicine. Womb learning, bombarding babies with Mozart, predicting academic aptitudes from fingerprint analysis etc are all out there in the Indonesian marketplace. The voice of reason is seldom heard because it doesn't generate advertising revenue.
bombarding babies with Mozart
Do not underestimate the power of Mozart. It is akin to "The Force"
I read that study and it didn't ring true. Among its many weaknesses, a major strength of the British school system has always been the head start that UK school leavers had over their peers from some other nations because they began school earlier. By age 16 they could compete with 18 year olds internationally.
By the same rational, are British 98 year olds enjoying their "head start" over foreign 96 year olds?
waarmstrong
21-10-09, 10:59
I read that study and it didn't ring true. Among its many weaknesses, a major strength of the British school system has always been the head start that UK school leavers had over their peers from some other nations because they began school earlier. By age 16 they could compete with 18 year olds internationally. My answer to the study is to make sure the 'constraints and discipline' are kept in their box. I fear the study itself is politically motivated as it would help out the economic stats enormously if British kids were the financial responsibility of their parents for a year or two longer and didn't enter the job market until later.
You make some good points Gffgold. I hope that one day we can get away from the concept of eduction as a competition, especially where the winners are judged by how far along they are at a certain age measured by some sort of standardized test of knowledge in the traditional categories. As the OP pointed out nurturing creativity, curiosity, an exploratory spirit, and social skills among other things are as important as acquiring knowledge.
Hombre de Maiz
21-10-09, 11:23
How about teaching the long-lost discipline of calligraphy? You have to admit, our latin characters pale in comparison to the elegance of Arabic, Kawi and Chinese characters. Rather than giving toddlers coloring books and crayons, how about proto-calligraphy?
The country that is reported to top league tables for educational excellence is ... Finland.
They don't start formal education until 7 years old.
"Its certainly a deficiency of our educational systems that education in parenting skill is not part of the curriculum."
And relationship skills especially with the opposite sex. Two extremely important parts of all our lives are parenting and relationships. Why is it then that everyone is left to wingit on their own. Its no wonder there is so much divorce and uncared for children in the world. The results of these important functions end up influencing society greatly. It seems ubsurd they are barely discussed ever in schools.
Ever read, losely quoted because i forget the exact name of the book, "Men who don't ask for directions and women who can't read maps". I know the title sounds cheesy but it is full of very interesting topics often based on science. It would be a terriffic teachers guide to put forth to students for great discussions. Get the children talking and facilitate openess. That is key for us to learn about each other. The more we learn the more respect we can have for others and what we don't always understand.
waarmstrong
21-10-09, 14:43
Are you thinking of Women are from Venus, Men are from Mars? Your point about including parenting and relationship training as part of education is well taken. There is a wealth of vetted scientific information on which to base such an addition to the curriculum. There is no need to resort to popular anecdotal gender-stereotypical crappola.
There is no need to resort to popular stereotypical crappola.[/I]
Agreed... :whistle:
Are you thinking of Women are from Venus, Men are from Mars? Your point about including parenting and relationship training as part of education is well taken. There is a wealth of vetted scientific information on which to base such an addition to the curriculum. There is no need to resort to popular anecdotal gender-stereotypical crappola.
Oops, actually the title is Why Men Don't Listen And Women Can't Read Maps: How We're Different And What To Do About It
Agreed.
Hahahaha can you imagine I am talking about Women Are From Venus And Men Are From Mars but I think the title is "Men Who Don't Ask For Directions And Women Who Can't Read Maps"? It's not even close is it? I never read the former but the latter is extremely interesting. Again it sounded cheesy to me when someone gave it to me but the content isn't anything like the title sounds. It is mostly based on scientific research from various sources and makes one think a lot about the sexes and our natural differences.
Here is an example;
It is now believed by many top minds in the Scientific community that in ratio of testicle size to body size it can be determined how strong in each species the male sex drive is and the likelyhood of promoscuity. A particular bird is at the top of the chain on this one. What it does all day is eats and boinks( Ya sure ya do Fred or did). It boinks every female it comes across all day long. Human males are just above the middle of the chain so they tend to enjoy some promiscuity but arent usually over the top. They can also then be somewhat tamed by societies pressure to couple. There may be some truth to the saying, " He's really got balls" used in correlation to a man doing something daring. Different men, different size balls. The bigger the testicles the more likely he will be promiscuous. Men who are in places of greater power over others are thought to possibly have larger than average size testicles. Often to get to hold that power they do things that most wouldn't "have the balls to try".
Many birds species once thought for years to be attached to one mate only at a time or for life have been found to have multiple partners. I forget exactly how they found that out but I know DNA was used to prove it.
Here's a book review:
Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com Review
Ever wonder why women can brush their teeth while walking and talking on various subjects while men generally find this very difficult to do? Why 99 percent of all patents are registered by men? Why stressed women talk? Why so many husbands hate shopping? According to Barbara and Allan Pease, science now confirms that "the way our brains are wired and the hormones pulsing through our bodies are the two factors that largely dictate, long before we are born, how we will think and behave. Our instincts are simply our genes determining how our bodies will behave in given sets of circumstances." That's right: socialization, politics, or upbringing aside, men and women have profound brain differences and are intrinsically inclined to act in distinct--and consequently frustrating--ways.
The premises behind Why Men Don't Listen and Women Can't Read Maps is that all too often, these differences get in the way of fulfilling relationships and that understanding our basic urges can lead to greater self-awareness and improved relations between the sexes. The Peases spent three years researching their book--traveling the globe, talking to experts, and studying the cutting-edge research of ethnologists, psychologists, biologists, and neuroscientists--yet their work does not read a bit like "hard science." In fact, the authors go to considerable lengths to point out that their book is intended to be funny, interesting, and easy to read; in short, this is a book whose primary purpose is to talk about "average men and women, that is, how most men and women behave most of the time, in most situations, and for most of the past." Why Men Don't Listen, therefore, deals largely in generalizations, and this is bound to alienate some readers. "We don't beat around the bush with suppositions or politically correct clichés," the Peases claim. Those up for an irreverent and unapologetic take on why men and women just can't help themselves sometimes may just decide to read on. --Svenja Soldovieri --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
waarmstrong
21-10-09, 16:01
OK Pimpin, sorry I made the jump to light speed without checking the map or listening to directions. I will check out your title.
An excellent well thought out post ReveurGAM. I agree with you on many of your points and can comment on some things that are done currently in my school or that I do in my classroom.
Not that you are fishing for confirmation or consensus, Glen, I find very little in your very thoughtful piece that I cannot wholeheartedly endorse.
Indeed, I'm not fishing for compliments, nor do I want this this forum to be merely consensus. I do seek confirmation as to whether or not I'm on the right track and, when wrong, I hope for some gentle guidance in correcting my mistakes. I'm a teacher by experience, not education, although one might claim by heredity since Dad was a teacher. ;)
Further, I hope for input from all of you on how to mold all these theories into one comprehensive system - techniques, references, etc., and then how to implement it into new and existing schools. Think of this as a collaborative effort under the GNU from which the world might possibly benefit. Heck, who knows, we might set up first school in Indonesia (where it's so badly needed). :)
I do ask that sharp tongues, diatribes and pointless wit be kept to a minimum. I find it hard enough to keep my own temper, let alone everyone else's. :evil:
Glenn
More later - time to teach
The "prehistoric" teaching techniques and styles of our forefathers, for the most part, need to be abandoned. It is not the students who hold back educational quality - it is the teachers who refuse to adapt and grow as educators. that do so In Indonesia, this is a HUGE problem.
no kidding, and not just the teachers, the parents and parental expectations are also a major problem.
I'm going to propose GFFGold's Law of Parental Paranoia:
The degree of fuss made by parents is inversely proportional to the age of the student.
I was being serious. What do you hope to achieve when kids grown up in an environment in which deference to totems, elders, inherited customs and received knowledge are sacrosanct? Here you are, thinking that you are teaching critical thinking, when in fact, critical thinking is something that they only do in school. Outside of school, they don another hat.
I'd be deported out of the country, this country, were I ever to set foot in the classroom as a teacher!
With respect to your seriousness, I think that you've overgeneralized the populace. I've met some who can think critically just fine.
I'm talking here about a paradigm shift in the educational system - not just of Indonesia, but of the world. I'm an idealist, hence I hope to achieve something lofty, noble and, possibly, unreachable. That's what we idealists do, right? :drama:
Granted, Indonesia has long used a Confucian-style educational system, but the times are changing - and not always only superficially. Consultants like Dr. Helena I.R. Agustien have got the government to move to a more open format, wherein the gov't only provides the standards and the teachers must figure out how to meet those standards. It caused lots of panic, especially in outlying areas where support is scarce, but I understand why she pushed for it. However, not providing adequate support for such a major change throughout the archipelago was nothing short of foolhardy and probably did more damage than good - after all, the majority of teachers have become far too comfortable with not actually having to do anything other than lectures. (Note: I was part of a team that provided some support in NTT last year.)
Depending on the school this is a very real possibility. I had a (completely fruitless) discussion with the principal of a school in China who seemed to think you can teach kids to think critically in the classroom then slavishly follow the daftest orders, unquestioning, out of class. Critical thinking and asking searching questions about religious matters is a minefield in most faith-based schools, too...
Which is why I'm talking to you people - not some narrow-minded school authority figure (I've met a few). Except for a seemingly small group, most of the older educators and educational institution leaders lack the ability to realize that there need to be some major changes in education.
While ReveurGAM makes some valid points, I'd like to take him up on middle school kids learning what used to be high school material - at least in my own subject of science. The fact is that the ICT at my disposal these days means that I can use animations and simulations to help students to visualise concepts that no amount of scribbling on the board with chalk would convey in the time available. All my students have laptops and our school-wide network means that they can access all the multimedia materials at their own pace and download them for revision. I have high school kids getting concepts - and really getting them - that I never really grasped until I went to university. I don't waste their time or mine trying to memorise what I regard as science trivia, however.
Either I'm misunderstanding you, or you're misunderstanding me. I wasn't talking about the use of ICT as a teaching tool (which I wholeheartedly support) - thus my confusion over your response.
I'm glad you don't force them to memorize science trivia. Science should be taught in the lab as much as possible, doing experiments.
I was talking about the fact that (now, remember, I was born in '66) some things I learned in Maths and Science in Junior/Senior High School are now being taught in lower grades than when I learned the same things. I know this from Singaporean materials I used to teach Science, as well as having seen Indonesian and Singaporean materials for Maths and Science. For example: I learned algebra in middle school, which is now taught in primary.
To recapitulate, I went to a college-prep middle/high school, Rufus King in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, that out-ranked most other schools in the city. They offered IB classes, for example, and some credits were transferable to universities.
You can call me...
Glenn
(It's easier than ReveurGAM.)
Regarding relaxation techniques:
I do this with my batch for about 30 minutes a week, they say that they really enjoy the time and they find they are less stressed than their peers because of it. We mostly focus on meditation and finding a 'happy place'. I have encouraged my co-workers to do this with their classes but have found a lot of reluctance as most of them don't feel comfortable enough applying the techniques to their own lives to be able to teach them.
Teaching relaxation techniques is actually easy. You can do this initially by talking about relaxation, its benefits, and give some examples. You can then solicit further examples from the students. Even primary students can "grok" this - at least the ones I've done this with. You can then add on a little "homework" wherein they make a list of everything that helps them relax, then divide the list:
"Those which can be done at home," "those which can be done anywhere," and "those which can only be done in private."
The latter will vary vastly depending on the person's sensitivity to public scrutiny. Of course, older audiences will suggest racier things than just, "playing video games, sleeping and watching TV." That's ok, though.
Sports, singing, listening to music, dancing, exercise, meditation, breathing deeply, counting and numerous other examples are easily taught.
I typically teach deep breathing because it's the pre-cursor to many active and passive meditation techniques, and I'm not a master meditator yet.
There's no reason for your co-workers to feel ill-at-ease. I bet they'd be happy to learn just how easy it can be.
If this is extended to a daily or weekly basis (like you do), it can have a lasting impact on students' performance in many different areas as they learn to get their emotions and, especially, performance fears out of the way. You'll be able to see improvement in interpersonal activities, problem-solving, test-taking, presentations, and much more. Add to that the lifetime benefits that the students will get when being interviewed, in a crisis situation, etc.
Glenn
Regarding these skills:
leadership development and independent thinking
critical & analytical thinking
creativity
problem-solving/resolution
social skills and emotional intelligence (as established by Daniel Goleman's compilation of research on and related to the topic)
respect for self and others
study skills
diversity teaching in subjects like religion, race, gender, etc.
Twas said:
I can't imagine any school where the teaching of these things is not part of the ultimate goal. I know even the local school that my niece goes to works hard to promote these skills and qualities. I do think though that many teachers and schools need to be more aware of them and how they are being taught. I think what often happens is that they are taught but more as an afterthought or accompaniment to the content than as content themselves.
Although there are many schools that PROFESS to teach these subjects and skills, how many actually give more than a token nod to them? How many teachers have actually learned how to teach and incorporate them? These things, too often, fall by the wayside.
Someone else pointed out that (sorry, maybe another thread), more often than not, critical life and learning skills are shunted to the side in preference of academic and theoretical materials.
However, there are several universities, including Harvard, that have incorporated the learning of social/emotional intelligence into their core curriculum in response to both research and market demand.
In Goleman's books on E.I. (Emotional Intelligence), he pointed out that some studies showed that young learners are less able to pick up these skills than are older learners. Yet, I believe it is definitely within the realm of possibility, given the correct program.
The question for all of you: How?
Glenn
Regarding real-life skills classes:
I too think that this is a very important part of the curriculum (as part of my subject load I teach the sewing and cooking in my school) but it is very often overlooked in schools. I find that I am often having debates with my co-workers about why practical real life skills are equally important as knowledge. Unfortunately they don't get treated as such in most schools where the content based subjects often get 3-5 times more class time than the skills based subjects.
If I'd had less real-life skills classes (home ec, shop, etc.), I might have been completely lost in the world when I got booted from my home for arguing with mum-in-law. I bless those RLS teachers for the practical skills that helped me in so many different situations every bit as much as all the academic stuff. How someone can fail to recognize their obvious value is completely beyond me.
Now, the question is, which core skills should be taught? (Later on, we can broaden our discussion to include other types of subjects, and how to categorize/prioritize them.) I suggest: home ec (sewing, cooking, washing, cleaning, first aid, etc.), shop (aka woodworking)/DIY, student skills (incl. organization, note-taking, relaxation, study skills), typing, money management, and awareness/diversity (alcohol/drugs, race, religion, etc.). It might also be possible that the latter could be part of an ongoing series under the category of E.I.
Comments anyone?
Glenn
Individualized instruction is a wonderful goal and can really help kids to understand what they are being taught. From a practical perspective though it is very difficult to do and not all teachers are prepared to devote or have the time necessary to successfully bring it into their classrooms.
Absolutely agree with you, teachers should be guides.
I'm not quite sure how you got individualized teaching from what I said. My intent is that the teacher is a resource to be made use of by students whenever they come to a "sticking point." A guide. The students move at their own pace, like in PYP/MYP. Testing can be done at appropriate points along the way.
As well, in most of our current systems there is still (unfortunately in my own opinion) some test of knowledge based on a standard at the end of the course and all students need to work at the pace that is needed for them to cover all of required material. I do believe that we should remove a lot of material from our courses to allow us more time to go at individual paces.
...I can remember how many parents yelled at me the first time that I taught science in grade 5 and at the open house I said that there would be no written exams only practical projects. Eventually they came around though. I believe that 'contrived' learning and projects are of very little use the students. Assessments should be practical and should be as 'real-world' as possible. Why do something just for the sake of doing it when you can do something that will benefit someone and still learn the same material.
I must admit that I'm bit confused on how to reconcile individual study with alternatives to testing. Group-paced study allows (much more readily) for any type of assessment of comprehension and application of what was learned. Individual-paced study seems, IMHO, to limit the options rather severely.
So, people, is there a solution? If not, which is best: traditional, group or individual?
Glenn
I have never really thought about teaching this but I do think that it would be very useful. Although I don't think that I personally would feel qualified outside of sharing my own experiences and what I have seen in my life that works and does not work.
"Its certainly a deficiency of our educational systems that education in parenting skill is not part of the curriculum."
And relationship skills especially with the opposite sex. Two extremely important parts of all our lives are parenting and relationships. Why is it then that everyone is left to wingit on their own. Its no wonder there is so much divorce and uncared for children in the world. The results of these important functions end up influencing society greatly. It seems ubsurd they are barely discussed ever in schools.
Ever read, losely quoted because i forget the exact name of the book, "Men who don't ask for directions and women who can't read maps". I know the title sounds cheesy but it is full of very interesting topics often based on science. It would be a terriffic teachers guide to put forth to students for great discussions. Get the children talking and facilitate openess. That is key for us to learn about each other. The more we learn the more respect we can have for others and what we don't always understand.
...Your point about including parenting and relationship training as part of education is well taken. There is a wealth of vetted scientific information on which to base such an addition to the curriculum...
Statistics on divorce and separation, child abuse, spousal abuse, troubled marriages, marriage counseling etc clearly demonstrate the need is there. I've heard so many couples complain, "Why wasn't I given a manual on having a successful marriage?" or "Where's this baby's user manual?" The number of dysfunctional families greatly outweighs the functional ones, yet this is a subject I've almost never heard tell of. I had the good fortune in high school to take a related elective (and I was the ONLY male), although it fell short of what I had hoped for.
Obviously, this would be a subject that'd have to be dealt with carefully, and a great deal of research would need to be done. Ultimately, however, I think that the rewards of such a course would be so undeniably great that the dividends would be in quality of life, not money.
So, then, which marriage experts have yet to divorce and are proven to truly understand their topic?
Indeed, which child-rearing experts (Nanny 911 and Super Nanny notwithstanding) out there are above reproach?
Glenn
This would make for a much more peaceful and harmonious society. My school did try this once, they offered courses to parents after school and on the weekend. The courses were on a range of topics from 'positive discipline' to 'keeping your kids safe online'. We had different teachers giving classes and even brought in some outside experts. Everything was well advertised and the parents were given several reminders as well as over a month to clear their schedules. Still we had a turnout of less than 10% of our parents and of course the ones that did come were already the 'Model' parents who are very involved in the kids life in a positive way. I have suggested several times that we should make these classes mandatory if the parent wants to enrol their child in our school but of course from a business perspective it makes little sense.
no kidding, and not just the teachers, the parents and parental expectations are also a major problem.
I'm going to propose GFFGold's Law of Parental Paranoia:
The degree of fuss made by parents is inversely proportional to the age of the student.
I'm not talking about optional classes. I'm talking about mandatory classes for parents. Classes that are supported by the government, for which time off is paid much like American jury duty, and for which parents subsequently receive a certificate (assuming they pass). All schools would need to offer this, clearly, for the effects of the marital/parenting classes to really pay off. Parents who have never taken the class must complete the course or some sort of penalty'd be assessed that would encourage most anyone. Those who fail would have to retake it the next time the series was offered.
Matt's comment (a quote, I assume, from someone who vetoed his idea),
But of course from a business perspective it makes little sense, is all too typical of the older business people who look at education, medicine and other NON-business topics through economics, is all too indicative of just how little value education - IN AND OF ITSELF - has in the eyes of "suits." They just look for the dollar signs, the idiots. At least my school's owner has the common sense to realize (paraphrasing): "You can't expect a profit from a school. That's not what education is supposed to be about."
Gffgold, I've seen that it's not necessarily related to age, although that is predominant. I've seen older students receive much more mollycoddling than their younger siblings and school mates. It's more a parental style (spare the rod and spoil the child) that is the situation. Parents want to give their kids unconditional love but fail to realize what such a technique yields. It took me years to undo that in my own life - and my mom, who did it, is the one who had to suffer patiently 'til I got my head straight.
I mentioned the requirement of such classes because it reinforces the marital/parenting/relationship classes, creates less tension between parents and the school since they're on the same page, and produces a better society, for starters.
What would be subjects that would need to be taught in such a class?
Glenn
It would be a big plus but I also think that many of these elements can be brought into the classroom by the creative teacher. Schools need to be located close to where their students are and in an urban setting with high land costs creating schools like the Green School is very difficult without having very high tuition rates or very deep pockets backing the project.
At this point, I'm going to step out into the "deep end." I have to point out that the current trends in economics, liberalization (I'm a centrist) and western society are such that we're on a self-destruct path going at high speed. Thus it seems evident (to me, anyways), that a rethinking of city planning is required in order to prioritize key societal services with nearly complete disinterest for land value/cost/availability. This means not just schools, but also hospitals, police stations, fire stations, etc.
Anyone willing to bite?
Glenn
waarmstrong
29-10-09, 19:32
Originally Posted by Hombre de Maiz http://www.livinginindonesiaforum.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.livinginindonesiaforum.org/showthread.php?p=44576#post44576)
I was being serious. What do you hope to achieve when kids grown up in an environment in which deference to totems, elders, inherited customs and received knowledge are sacrosanct? Here you are, thinking that you are teaching critical thinking, when in fact, critical thinking is something that they only do in school. Outside of school, they don another hat.
With respect to your seriousness, I think that you've overgeneralized the populace. I've met some who can think critically just fine.
Perhaps Hombre is over stating the case, but you might want to consider an opinion in the most recent Jakarta Post Weekender by Tessa Wijaya, a Western educated Indonesian frustrated by a lack of critical thinking skills in the leadership she has encountered back home. Her article, "Critical Thinking," noted that suggestions made to power and authority are taken as an affront when coming from a person viewed as being of lower status. She goes on to say,"Indonesia is a land where respect and politeness are held in the highest esteem....Too much emphasis on politeness can lead to a stupefied workforce. Too much emphasis on respect for hierarchy leads to a 'yes sir' mentality that can cause some very bad decisions..."
Tessa may be one of the critical thinkers you have met, Glen, but they appear to be a small minority and not part of leadership which is still operating according to the structure both Hombre and Ms Wijaya described.
I do think that many schools are trying to move in this direction and that the biggest resistance to the change comes from the parents who were taught using the 'prehistoric' techniques and want their kids to be taught the same way. Again if they would attend classes they may become more informed and be open and accepting to new models and methods. I can remember how many parents yelled at me the first time that I taught science in grade 5 and at the open house I said that there would be no written exams only practical projects. Eventually they came around though. I believe that 'contrived' learning and projects are of very little use the students. Assessments should be practical and should be as 'real-world' as possible. Why do something just for the sake of doing it when you can do something that will benefit someone and still learn the same material.
Now we get to the root: pre-historic educators and their "offspring" - the parents. I applaud your approach.
Students in my school have 7 hours a day of classes and regularly do 2-3 hours a night of homework in addition to the 2-3 extra curricular activities that each of them do. I find the fact that they are able to cope with that amount of material to be remarkable. By comparison my nephew in Canada does 5 hours of class a day and 2-3 hours of homework a week. Will the students be better for handling more from a young age, I don't know but I do know that in an increasingly competitive society I wouldn't want my kid to be disadvantaged by not learning a strong work ethic.
Even if it meant that your kid would suffer from mental ailments as a result of such competition? Haven't you been paying attention to what such advanced curriculae have done in countries like S. Korea, Japan and Singapore, where school stress is so high that many kids drop-out, give up or suicide?
Depending on the school this is a very real possibility. I had a (completely fruitless) discussion with the principal of a school in China who seemed to think you can teach kids to think critically in the classroom then slavishly follow the daftest orders, unquestioning, out of class. Critical thinking and asking searching questions about religious matters is a minefield in most faith-based schools, too...
One reason why I avoid faith-based education.
I agree with the point that teachers are the major brake against progress in school education, and the teacher who expects to churn out the same material year on year is a walking, chalking disaster zone. There is, however, another extreme to that continuum and I'm very conscious of the risk of educational fads and fashions.
I'm not trying to create a fad. I hope we can produce something substantial and transcendental (or, at least, transformational in the best sense).
Again, I can only comment from my own subject of science, but some years ago the buzzword was 'discovery learning'. Kids would learn how science worked by playing with things and figuring it out for themselves - given the right materials and enough time. With hindsight, the discovery approach when used as an end in itself was a very inefficient use of time and resources and it is quite possible for a child to make his/her own observations and use these to reinforce misconceptions rather than to challenge them. In more recent times we have tried to keep the positive aspects of the discovery approach and incorporate them into a more balanced programme of inquiry. To paraphrase words I picked up from secondary science teacher mentoring in the UK: purist discovery learning is a bit like letting kids play in the valleys between the misty mountains of knowledge but never quite letting them see the mountain tops.
The 'best' educational approach is something we haven't discovered yet and probably never will so all we can offer is the best that we have today.
Isn't discovery learning how humans determined that the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around it? ;) I'd definitely agree that UNGUIDED discovery learning is foolish!
However, your final comment disturbs me. Are you really of the ilk, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?" or am I reading too much into your closing?
THe current education systems all over the world seem to reflect the current society they are designed for.As an individual all you can do is to be true to yourself and if you are educating you can lead by example. It seem to me that teachers teach what they want to learn rather than what students want to learn. We seem to learn inspite of the education that was served up to us. There is still time for all of us to change we dont have to wait until someone to tell us. Once you begin to change it is remarkable how other people come out of the woodwork to help you.
ken
It's true to an extent that education reflects the society, but in many societies you'll find exceptions to the rule, or minority alternatives that are available only to a select few (usually expensive parochial/private/military/elite schools, incl. Waldorf).
You are right - we don't have to wait for the change - we can make the change. Who is on board to make the change? After all, the one TRUE certainty in life (I speak not of afterwards) is that nothing is permanent, fixed or unchangeable. Everything is in flux, albeit at any given speed. Let's embrace change instead of resisting it.
The country that is reported to top league tables for educational excellence is ... Finland.
They don't start formal education until 7 years old.
Now, that ties in to the next quote, and Matt's, too. I'll say more in a moment.
I see that the Globe today had an article summarizing a Cambridge University study saying that introducing children at age 5 to the "constraints and discipline of the classroom provides little benefit and could even be harmful." I am wondering what sort of classroom was the study talking about? Certainly not the one you envision.
Indeed, they do not refer to the educational system I'm asking for everyone's help with. The study (one of several over my entire lifetime at least- I'll have to find other references, but you can start with the history segment at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_school) refers (usually) to regular schools, the weaknesses and ineptitudes of their curriculae and teachers, peer pressure/abuse and other negative factors in direct contrast to the benefits of being in such an institution.
In fact, some studies state that it's best for a child to be nurtured and educated at home until around the age of 7 because of the harsh realities of school. I can certainly attest - I was often the target of bullies, and it did immense damage to me which took decades to undo.
Of course, then we get back to the other side of the coin - that many homes are just as dysfunctional as schools, if not moreso! How many kids are sent to school without a breakfast, let alone lunch/money, and go home to TV dinners, fast food, junk food and other things that are behind the rise in morbid obesity amongst children worldwide?
Contrast the study findings to other recent articles (the reference escapes me, at present) of parents who feel the need to go to great lengths to give their offspring a head-start on their peers. I am thinking of the dubious techniques currently in favor of providing "instruction" through the walls of the womb, as one example. In my opinion, such parental paranoia on behalf of the future success of their children is perhaps more harmful that the overly structured Kindergarten classroom...
Pre-teaching while in the womb has been around my whole life. I have no idea if it works or not, yet your point on the harm done by overly pushy parents is well taken. I have seen, first hand, the damage done by pushy parents - the stress, fear, lack of self-esteem, paranoia, etc. I've seen kids crying because they got a B+ or even an A, instead of a perfect mark!
I read that study and it didn't ring true. Among its many weaknesses, a major strength of the British school system has always been the head start that UK school leavers had over their peers from some other nations because they began school earlier. By age 16 they could compete with 18 year olds internationally. My answer to the study is to make sure the 'constraints and discipline' are kept in their box. I fear the study itself is politically motivated as it would help out the economic stats enormously if British kids were the financial responsibility of their parents for a year or two longer and didn't enter the job market until later.
Indeed, there is as much quackery in education as there is in medicine. Womb learning, bombarding babies with Mozart, predicting academic aptitudes from fingerprint analysis etc are all out there in the Indonesian marketplace. The voice of reason is seldom heard because it doesn't generate advertising revenue.
See my prior comments. I am not opposed to kids entering school later, provided that they haven't got a good school to go to where the benefits vastly outweigh the damage done. Can you recommend any schools like that which are affordable for the masses?
(cont'd next message)
You make some good points Gffgold. I hope that one day we can get away from the concept of eduction as a competition, especially where the winners are judged by how far along they are at a certain age measured by some sort of standardized test of knowledge in the traditional categories. As the OP pointed out nurturing creativity, curiosity, an exploratory spirit, and social skills among other things are as important as acquiring knowledge.
Agreed. Competition, while it has its place, has become far too important in many schools. It's mostly a manipulative game to cause students to be proud and attached to their school. What a shocker when I had to leave my precious college-prep school suddenly in senior year to go to a suburban HS (which had lower standards)! I was such a snob, I shamefully admit! Instead of tearing at the bonds that bind us all together (whether the bonds of family, friend, school, community, city, state/province/religion/color/race/sex/creed/etc), we should put competition in its place and instead try to foster bonds that will bring the world closer together so that this "global community" will stop eating itself alive.
The "prehistoric" teaching techniques and styles of our forefathers, for the most part, need to be abandoned. It is not the students who hold back educational quality - it is the teachers who refuse to adapt and grow as educators. that do so In Indonesia, this is a HUGE problem.
no kidding, and not just the teachers, the parents and parental expectations are also a major problem.
"'Nuff said." - Ben Grimm
Comments? Ideas?
Glenn
How about teaching the long-lost discipline of calligraphy? You have to admit, our latin characters pale in comparison to the elegance of Arabic, Kawi and Chinese characters. Rather than giving toddlers coloring books and crayons, how about proto-calligraphy?
Would you like to elaborate on this? I'd like to know what the benefits of such a change would be? Would it be standardized (like Korean) or non-standard (like Chinese)? How complex? How many characters? Would each character represent a sound? Based on what language/dialect? What would be the system used to create the shape and style of the characters?
(and so on)
Glenn
Hombre de Maiz
29-10-09, 20:45
Would you like to elaborate on this? I'd like to know what the benefits of such a change would be? Would it be standardized (like Korean) or non-standard (like Chinese)? How complex? How many characters? Would each character represent a sound? Based on what language/dialect? What would be the system used to create the shape and style of the characters?
(and so on)
Glenn
Nah, I was only being flippant. Please disregard. That being said, I hope my child can read and write, unlike his parents, in two or more alphabets.
I think that you should, instead about asking me about calligraphy, address Waarmstrong's and my comments about teaching critical thinking imbedded in an environment where such a thing is, for the most part, unappreciated.
Hombre de Maiz
29-10-09, 20:48
...
One reason why I avoid faith-based education.
Please exclude a Jesuit education from this.
However, your final comment disturbs me. Are you really of the ilk, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?" or am I reading too much into your closing?
No! I'm sorry, it was the way I phrased the comment. I think that it will always be at least a bit broke and that we are destined to keep on fixing it forever. And it certainly needs a lot of fixing at present.
waarmstrong
30-10-09, 09:34
No! I'm sorry, it was the way I phrased the comment. I think that it will always be at least a bit broke and that we are destined to keep on fixing it forever. And it certainly needs a lot of fixing at present.
I read you comment, Gffgold, and took it to mean something in tune with Deming's Total Quality Management regime. No apology needed for suggesting that striving for improvement is a never ending process and the responsibility of everyone within an organization.
Originally Posted by Hombre de Maiz http://www.livinginindonesiaforum.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.livinginindonesiaforum.org/showthread.php?p=44576#post44576)
I was being serious. What do you hope to achieve when kids grown up in an environment in which deference to totems, elders, inherited customs and received knowledge are sacrosanct? Here you are, thinking that you are teaching critical thinking, when in fact, critical thinking is something that they only do in school. Outside of school, they don another hat.
Perhaps Hombre is over stating the case, but you might want to consider an opinion in the most recent Jakarta Post Weekender by Tessa Wijaya, a Western educated Indonesian frustrated by a lack of critical thinking skills in the leadership she has encountered back home. Her article, "Critical Thinking," noted that suggestions made to power and authority are taken as an affront when coming from a person viewed as being of lower status. She goes on to say,"Indonesia is a land where respect and politeness are held in the highest esteem....Too much emphasis on politeness can lead to a stupefied workforce. Too much emphasis on respect for hierarchy leads to a 'yes sir' mentality that can cause some very bad decisions..."
Tessa may be one of the critical thinkers you have met, Glen, but they appear to be a small minority and not part of leadership which is still operating according to the structure both Hombre and Ms Wijaya described.
Yes, but what he's talking about is lack of critical thinking and you are referring to the cultural phenomenon wherein authority is more important than truth. This was prevalent in American business until relatively recently, and is still prevalent in American educational institutes and government to a degree.
I'm not debating whether there's a minority or majority that can think critically, nor am I interested in debating it because I'm here to discuss education. What I'm looking for is answers on how to implement such things in the curriculum, and how to overcome the stodgy (mostly Javanese) culture that damages such progress. Have you folks got the answers? I haven't noticed very many answers to my questions, and far fewer suggestions on things I've neglected to include in the educational system. Let's keep on track, ok?
Glenn
No! I'm sorry, it was the way I phrased the comment. I think that it will always be at least a bit broke and that we are destined to keep on fixing it forever. And it certainly needs a lot of fixing at present.
Thanks for the clarification. I was pretty sure of your meaning, but I didn't want to assume...
Glenn
Nah, I was only being flippant. Please disregard. That being said, I hope my child can read and write, unlike his parents, in two or more alphabets.
I think that you should, instead about asking me about calligraphy, address Waarmstrong's and my comments about teaching critical thinking imbedded in an environment where such a thing is, for the most part, unappreciated.
Disregarded.
I have addressed the issue as much as I am able. I'm here looking for advice so, if you have it, let flow.
I'd like to add the following to the list of items:
A heavy basis in music and sign language, especially in primary, but used throughout the system, from pre-primary to adult.
Glenn
In case I'm not being clear, I'm hoping that people will provide input on what else needs to be included in this system, as well as how combine it and how to go from theory to praxis.
I appreciate all constructive assistance in this matter but I'm not interested in snide remarks or abusive behaviours.
Thanks for your help in advance,
Glenn
Better avoid any 'snide remarks' or negative comments or else the moderators will intervene on this dude's behalf. Critical thinking goes well beyond the curriculum/lesson content within a school. Within the UK educational system that I experienced many years ago, our own opposition towards the school itself stemmed from a critical realization as to the function of UK state education at that time-class/social differentiation intended to 'place' people for life within a set position in the social order......I see the same here in that this is a very static society with no real concept of social movement....
Critical thinking goes well beyond the curriculum/lesson content within a school. Within the UK educational system that I experienced many years ago, our own opposition towards the school itself stemmed from a critical realization as to the function of UK state education at that time-class/social differentiation intended to 'place' people for life within a set position in the social order......I see the same here in that this is a very static society with no real concept of social movement....
Excellent comment, Gado2. This is definitely something that should be avoided at all costs. In a progressive society (and I assume that the UK is now progressive...?), such things are open to change, but in a societally frozen country like Indonesia, it's not quite as easy.
Indeed, many cultures/ethnicities in this country are tied hand and foot by strict understanding of one's place, but I have noticed that this is starting to unravel. Even in backwater Semarang, younger generations are starting to behave differently than culture dictates.
My brother-in-law (who, at the time, was around 30) had the nerve to question his grandfather's behavior in front of most of the extended family during Lebaran about 3 years ago - not that it really helped. The fact that he did it was amazing, considering the situation and his low ranking in the family.
So, although there is definitely resistance to change, it is possible that change can be brought about. Look at mattyboy43's success in winning over the parents to his modern way of doing things.
Thus, the question is not whether or not there will be resistance to critical thinking, nor whether the school's tend to reinforce social status, but what we can do to fully implement critical thinking, and how we can ignore social status in a way that the "hot shots" can accept.
It's been my experience that, for the most part, parents will go along with what I tell them if I explain things clearly.
What are your suggestions, folks?
Glenn
I'd like to propose a change to the system of supervision in education. I'd like to hear from educators about my idea, but please keep it on topic and objective. I'm too thin-skinned to put up with abuse. :shocked::hand:
Currently, education is heavily paperwork based for the teachers. I write not of the homework, classwork, tests, etc., but of documentation each teacher must create to demonstrate that they (theoretically) know what they're going to teach and how they'll go about it, both on a fine level (lesson plans), and on a broader level (curriculums/syllabuses), as well as other forms of documentation. As near as I can tell, this need for documentation is (mostly) because upper management needs to find a way to evaluate teachers without actually sitting in on classes on a regular basis. This simplifies things for management and complicates (to a degree) things for teachers.
Granted, lesson plans are of some importance. However, a requirement that an entire year (or even a month or a term [3 mo.]) must be mapped out in lesson plans is not, in my experience, very practical. That the Indonesian department of education requires such documentation in advance for licensing demonstrates the depth of the problems in this country.
If one makes lesson plans which extend that far into the future, one must either stick very strictly to them, or look at them as "general guidelines"
Lack of flexibility can create educational difficulties for some students. Flexibility in teaching is important, and if you lose it because of a piece of paper that has to be followed like instructions, you lose the ability to customize and adapt to your students needs (which you often aren't aware of at the start of a school year).
On the other hand, if one allows flexibility, then all future lesson plans are quickly invalidated in terms of dates and periods because of the need for on-the-spot changes to plans (such as extra instruction, revision, Q&A, extra practice, etc.), and may have to be changed in other greater or lesser ways. Therefore, one has needlessly wasted a ton of paper and created even more paperwork headaches.
While I believe that lesson plans have value, especially for new teachers who need guidance to get the hang of it - or old dogs like me who are forgetful - they should hold a much less "exalted" place in the minds of management. True, they are meant to be a map to our teaching, but they are NOT an indicator of teaching ability. What they DO demonstrate is knowledge of theory and the ability to make a plan. That is only the foundation of classroom teaching, and not nearly enough information with which to evaluate a teacher. In fact, I dare to suggest that any supervisor, manager, dean, rector, head of school, etc. that evaluates teachers purely on the basis this information should be removed from their position of responsibility.
I will, for the time being, sidestep the curriculum and broader guidelines that a teacher might possibly have to make (usually heads of departments, deans, or higher) and move on to what I believe is a far more important and valuable tool for teacher performance evaluation: observation.
Currently, it is the practice (in many places) of those who do observations to warn teachers in advance about a planned observation. This is, actually, counter-productive in that many teachers will prepare themselves better than normal and perform at a level above their norm in an effort to impress the observer. This has the effect of giving a "false positive" to the observer, and is a poor basis for a performance evaluation, or even for giving guidance. In the end, what the observer gets is a top-end benchmark of the person's abilities and does not learn how they usually perform. Other teachers will be so nervous (as will some students) that they'll perform worse than normal, resulting in a "false negative". Personally, I don't suffer from being observed (rather, I look forward to input), but some co-workers I've had really worked themselves into a lather (of indignation/fear) about it.
I propose that, instead, observations be done on a more routine basis, and most observations be done WITHOUT ANY prior warning. I would suggest that some teachers who are skilled in observation, training and feedback be given the full-time job of observation, feedback and up-training. In fact, I would advocate the use of surveillance cameras in the classroom.
I am aware of the opposition to such measures and, while I'm generally opposed to "big brother watching", I believe that a camera and well-placed condenser mics are the best way to observe and evaluate. Observed sessions could be recorded for playback during feedback sessions or, with the teacher's permission, during training. Further, using cameras and mics would obviate the need of on-site visits in the case where an observing teacher must take care of multiple schools, and would eliminate the "observation jitters" that some teachers and students experience when there is an "intruder" in the room. Added to that is the ability of the observer to keep an eye out for "behind the scenes" abuse of students and other atrocities (including those perpetrated by students). Cameras and mics could also be used to observe students to determine the need for intervention, counseling, etc.
Observer teachers should be given facilities they could use with which to up-train, individually or in groups. Obviously, these people would have to be very skilled, not get bored with the task of sitting and watching for hours, and not be prone to petty vendettas. In addition, observers could also be availed of to provide input into which teachers were deserving of awards for excellent teaching skills.
(Off the cuff) Weightings:
Lesson plans: 10% (because of its highly theoretical nature)
Scheduled observations: 10% (because of the tendency of teachers to try to "fake out" the observer)
Unscheduled observations: 20% (because of the disruption to the classroom in the form of increased stress)
Camera observations: 50% (least intrusive, least likely to cause stress, most accurate, etc.)
Other: 10% (evaluation of classwork, homework, tests, conduciveness of the teaching environment, etc.)
Coming back to lesson plans, I'd suggest that tentative lesson plans be made for, at most, a week at a time. Then, when the tentative lesson plans for the following week are submitted, the teacher submit a revised, more detailed lesson plan which shows what was actually taught and done, with the teacher's evaluation of its efficacy.
There are already some excellent lesson plan formats on the Internet that address all the various areas that should be addressed (such as VAKOG), so I won't go into that now.
I believe that, used in combination with "secret" observations, any leader in the school would be able to get a very good idea of each teacher's true abilities in the areas of theoretical knowledge, planning ability and teaching skills.
Have I missed something?
Glenn
Have I missed something?
The kitchen sink?
Mebbe.
Bit wordy, but I agree with informal observations, dont know about cameras. though many schools in other countries already do this.
But disagree re: lesson plans and curriculum plans. _ they are vitally important, the framework for a year needs to be in place. Sure an individual lesson within that framework may change, but that should not mean a flow on effect invalidating the entire framework, in fact, that is the point., a teacher should not go off on a tangent, never to return to the original plan.
I loathe and detest paperwork in all its manifestations but I'm with KW on the need for a long-term planning instrument. This is easiest on three levels: the syllabus (which is provided by the school and not the teacher), some kind of semester curriculum map, and finally the individual lesson plan. I can't see the need for any extra levels of admin.
If you don't have a curriculum or syllabus then you are batting on a sticky wicket. Most proper schools will have some kind of external syllabus like Cambridge IGCSE, for example. To make the semester curriculum maps you simply divi up the syllabus into chunks that will fit the three and a half semesters available, starting with the basic elements in semester 1 and building up to the complex ones later (though it is as well to save a lightweight subject for right at the end so as to give the students a gear-change). Once you have done a semester plan it probably isn't going to change much year on year. You can exhume it the following year and make amendments to reflect changes to the syllabus then change the date on it and resubmit.
Lesson plans cannot possibly be effective if they are produced more than one week in advance as they are by definition a very short-range planning instrument. If the students don't get the bit about metals bonding with non-metals in my chemistry class tomorrow, then they may need an extra lesson on it next week. Short-term flexibility is required, but at the same time if I spend weeks and weeks going off at a tangent on bonding and structure and never complete the unit on rate of reaction then I will have failed my students as they will not complete the syllabus in time for the exam.
IB entails a lot of paperwork for everyone (PYP= Paperwork's Your Priority, MYP= More Years of Paperwork, DP= Death by Paperwork) but even if that is properly organised a lot of the silly paperwork can be taken on by a paid administrator and not get passed on to subject teachers.
I don't know where this story comes from that Diknas wants a year's worth of lesson plans in advance: they don't. A semester curriculum map as I described fulfills their requirements. If they did get arsey enough to demand lesson plans then you just give them last year's anyway.
I dont like paper works too but I agree with KW that long term planning is very important. As a teacher you must have a guide and a target that at the end of this lesson youe student should be able to do this and that. It doesnt mean that you will loose the flexibility on your lessons. You can change or add something as long as you stick to you target objectives. Planning will also give you a broad understanding and step by step emphasis on how to achieve your goal.
Bit wordy, but I agree with informal observations, dont know about cameras. though many schools in other countries already do this.
But disagree re: lesson plans and curriculum plans. _ they are vitally important, the framework for a year needs to be in place. Sure an individual lesson within that framework may change, but that should not mean a flow on effect invalidating the entire framework, in fact, that is the point., a teacher should not go off on a tangent, never to return to the original plan.
I would support kingwilly's observation here. It's a nightmare in ESL classes to not have lesson plans for a term, but to take in account all subjects for a year without some sort of pre-planned path would be a Nightmare on Elmstreet 99.
There is one aspect of cameras that I didn't see mentioned - the students. I would have no problem with being observed, yes, I too am opposed to 'big brother', but what about the kids. I think this would inhibit them tremendously. My experience has been they 'shut up' during a human observer, making it more difficult for me as the teacher, which I can live with, but for them I don't know. Daily 100% observation would be a disruption in my humble opinion.
Have it so that the teacher is the only one in frame at all times? There couldn't be anything done about the sound though. Voices could be recognized and students determined also by the teacher addressing them by name but would that matter so much?
I don't know if it would matter much to some students, but there are those that it would matter a great deal. I personally don't like the invasion in the classroom. I go through great lengths to make students more confident and trusting.
The monitor would need to be well versed in all the subjects, teaching styles and methods and maybe smarter than the teacher being observed. If they are that good, then I say, put them in the classroom and don't waste good talent. Most likely that's what would occur, thus a bureaucrat would be in charge of the monitoring instead of a qualified monitor. And, we all know the wisdom and understanding of bureaucrats.
Most teachers are professionals and don't need to be monitored by some bureaucrat who might be power hungry. Pi** that guy off outside of the classroom and there goes a career and reputation possibly. Too much power in the wrong hands is dangerous.
Also, what happens if the beginning of an activity is not observed, but the middle or ending of the activity is and it 'appears' strange and non-conventional when in all reality it was a very creative and expressive teaching technique? This is a dangerous exposure to good teachers.
The purpose of this thread, I thought, was to find ways and suggestions to improve the system. This, in my judgment, hinders the process. I say do a better job at hiring from the start and do 'spot, unannounced' observations. I know darn well the teachers who would be opposed to this method would surely be opposed to cameras and the good teachers would accept it as a part of the job.
The monitor would need to be well versed in all the subjects, teaching styles and methods and maybe smarter than the teacher being observed. If they are that good, then I say, put them in the classroom and don't waste good talent.
One good teacher can make a difference with, perhaps 100 students per year. A good manager/principal/teacher trainer can make a difference with perhaps 100 teachers, and thus 10,000 students per year.
It's not good talent wasted.
Most teachers are professionals and don't need to be monitored by some bureaucrat who might be power hungry. Pi** that guy off outside of the classroom and there goes a career and reputation possibly. Too much power in the wrong hands is dangerous.
Mmmmmm, in my experience, most teachers are not professionals, maybe half are. Besides even a professional can still learn... and who says all bureaucrats are power hungry and unprofessional ? A good structure/system within the school for said appraisal visits will negate that.
Also, what happens if the beginning of an activity is not observed, but the middle or ending of the activity is and it 'appears' strange and non-conventional when in all reality it was a very creative and expressive teaching technique? This is a dangerous exposure to good teachers.
Again, a good observer will know that, several visits are required, and a decent chunk of time is required to form a fair impression.
I say do a better job at hiring from the start and do 'spot, unannounced' observations. I know darn well the teachers who would be opposed to this method would surely be opposed to cameras and the good teachers would accept it as a part of the job.
I do not think that anyone is much arguing against that.
The purpose of this thread, I thought, was to find ways and suggestions to improve the system. This, in my judgment, hinders the process.
I'm confused, your nic gives the impression that you are one of these hated, unprofessional bureaucrats, but in this thread, you come across (and please, no offence intended) as a young, idealistic teacher, or a rather more experienced and somewhat jaded teacher.
I'm confused, your nic gives the impression that you are one of these hated, unprofessional bureaucrats, but in this thread, you come across (and please, no offence intended) as a young, idealistic teacher, or a rather more experienced and somewhat jaded teacher.
No offense taken. I'm confused, too. What's a nic? Do you mean "sibschool"?
I agree that a never-ending tangent is bad. However, as I said before, a rigid plan tends to create learning difficulties for a proportion of the student, and I've yet to meet a teacher who didn't experience "flow-on" effects with their lesson plans. I guess you're the first. If you can't finish a lesson plan during the planned time frame, then it gets moved to the next period (or forgotten if it's unimportant).
Obviously, large scale "flow-on" effects should be avoided at all costs since it will mean that some material won't get taught. Ergo, a teacher must know how to pick what to eliminate in the case of a time-crunch. However, there are times when it's just not feasible. You haven't gotten terribly specific about what you disgree with, so I'll assume you mean that you feel it's best to make lesson plans for a long period of time. Is that correct?
As for curriculum plans, I've avoided going into that at this point because I'm still ruminating, so I'm not sure why you lumped that in there.
Glenn
I loathe and detest paperwork in all its manifestations but I'm with KW on the need for a long-term planning instrument. This is easiest on three levels: the syllabus (which is provided by the school and not the teacher), some kind of semester curriculum map, and finally the individual lesson plan. I can't see the need for any extra levels of admin.
If you don't have a curriculum or syllabus then you are batting on a sticky wicket. Most proper schools will have some kind of external syllabus like Cambridge IGCSE, for example. To make the semester curriculum maps you simply divi up the syllabus into chunks that will fit the three and a half semesters available, starting with the basic elements in semester 1 and building up to the complex ones later (though it is as well to save a lightweight subject for right at the end so as to give the students a gear-change). Once you have done a semester plan it probably isn't going to change much year on year. You can exhume it the following year and make amendments to reflect changes to the syllabus then change the date on it and resubmit.
Lesson plans cannot possibly be effective if they are produced more than one week in advance as they are by definition a very short-range planning instrument. If the students don't get the bit about metals bonding with non-metals in my chemistry class tomorrow, then they may need an extra lesson on it next week. Short-term flexibility is required, but at the same time if I spend weeks and weeks going off at a tangent on bonding and structure and never complete the unit on rate of reaction then I will have failed my students as they will not complete the syllabus in time for the exam.
Agreed, and thanks for addressing what I haven't yet got to. Long-term plans are necessary to provide an overall structure to the school year, and I never meant to imply (if it seemed that way) that I want to do away with them. I suppose I would prefer that a specialist handle such long-term plans because not all teachers have the ability to see "the big picture," even if they are experienced and have a haughty title.
IB entails a lot of paperwork for everyone (PYP= Paperwork's Your Priority, MYP= More Years of Paperwork, DP= Death by Paperwork) but even if that is properly organised a lot of the silly paperwork can be taken on by a paid administrator and not get passed on to subject teachers.
Interesting, thanks for the tidbits. Can you explain why there's such an over-emphasis on documentation?
I don't know where this story comes from that Diknas wants a year's worth of lesson plans in advance: they don't. A semester curriculum map as I described fulfills their requirements. If they did get arsey enough to demand lesson plans then you just give them last year's anyway.
Sorry for the inaccuracy. I think it may have just been the impression I got when the schools I was working at finally got around to getting their licensing done, and we teachers were pushed to produce tons of paperwork, including lesson plans.
In the first school, we didn't have to provide it for the full year, just for the time that'd already passed (at least six months) - some teachers had the cheek to hand in blank lesson plans!
In the second school, I was only a supporting teacher not burdened with much paperwork, and the regular teachers complained that they were being made to produce tons of paperwork, from curricula and syllabi to lesson plans (a portion of which should've already been produced by management), and it sounded like they were producing enough for 10 years!
Anyways, thanks for your insightful observations.
Glenn
I would support kingwilly's observation here. It's a nightmare in ESL classes to not have lesson plans for a term, but to take in account all subjects for a year without some sort of pre-planned path would be a Nightmare on Elmstreet 99.
If you're in a regular school and teaching ESL, plans are important. If you're in a language school that has good material, not so much. Again, I never meant to imply that curriculums and syllabuses should be done away with - I was merely pointing out they are the tools of this age of education.
There is one aspect of cameras that I didn't see mentioned - the students. I would have no problem with being observed, yes, I too am opposed to 'big brother', but what about the kids. I think this would inhibit them tremendously. My experience has been they 'shut up' during a human observer, making it more difficult for me as the teacher, which I can live with, but for them I don't know. Daily 100% observation would be a disruption in my humble opinion.
Thanks for your input. I did mention the students however I don't feel that it'll be a problem for them. Many are already accustomed to using vidcams on their computers, and after a few classes most will completely forget the presence of all but the most intrusive cameras. Case in point are all the "reality" shows where cameras catch people with their pants down (literally and figuratively). I find that a human observer is MUCH more intrusive and likely to create stress than inobtrusive technology. This is why I suggest the use of cameras.
I don't know if it would matter much to some students, but there are those that it would matter a great deal. I personally don't like the invasion in the classroom. I go through great lengths to make students more confident and trusting.
As do I.
The monitor would need to be well versed in all the subjects, teaching styles and methods and maybe smarter than the teacher being observed. If they are that good, then I say, put them in the classroom and don't waste good talent. Most likely that's what would occur, thus a bureaucrat would be in charge of the monitoring instead of a qualified monitor. And, we all know the wisdom and understanding of bureaucrats.
There are those who may be well versed in everything you mentioned but not good teachers. Such people are more theoretical and less capable in application, but know a mistake when they see one, thus making them ideal observers. Ex: Not all coaches make great players, and most players don't make good coaches. Yes, bureaucrats...sigh. I certainly would be opposed to THEM.
Most teachers are professionals and don't need to be monitored by some bureaucrat who might be power hungry. Pi** that guy off outside of the classroom and there goes a career and reputation possibly. Too much power in the wrong hands is dangerous.
The point of my message is that paperwork, as I've already said, is a poor indicator of classroom skills and thus a poor tool for evaluating teachers, which is what is done all too often. In case you're not familiar with such quality control techniques, let me explain that generally there are a group of such people with this task and they rotate who they watch or are, even better, assigned to someone randomly, thus reducing the problems you've mentioned. It's a fairly effective way of eliminating the destruction of reputation except when deserved.
Also, what happens if the beginning of an activity is not observed, but the middle or ending of the activity is and it 'appears' strange and non-conventional when in all reality it was a very creative and expressive teaching technique? This is a dangerous exposure to good teachers.
This seems very obvious to me, but observations would by their nature need to be from start to finish for the very reason you stated.
The purpose of this thread, I thought, was to find ways and suggestions to improve the system. This, in my judgment, hinders the process. I say do a better job at hiring from the start and do 'spot, unannounced' observations. I know darn well the teachers who would be opposed to this method would surely be opposed to cameras and the good teachers would accept it as a part of the job.
Yes, that's what I'm working on. What do you suggest because thus far, if you'll pardon the expression, I haven't seen anything new or earth-shaking? What is it that you feel hinders the process - it's not clear from your statement? Spot observations still have the very concern you stated in another message - they cause everyone in the classroom to become nervous - which is why cameras and mics are so useful because they're not intrusive like a human being. I know that the teachers who would be opposed to spot observations and cameras are those who don't have the skills necessary, and the good teachers would at least tolerate them.
Thanks to all for your observations and constructive feedback.
I just want to reiterate that I didn't intend to imply that I want to do away with long-term planning documents, nor indeed lesson plans. Please reread my initial post on this topic and, if you're still confused, ask me to clarify.
Glenn
I'm also still looking for feedback to the original topic of this thread. It would be greatly appreciated as I'm currently working on devising an overall plan for a school (maybe a pipe dream, but who knows?).
Thanks,
Glenn
One good teacher can make a difference with, perhaps 100 students per year. A good manager/principal/teacher trainer can make a difference with perhaps 100 teachers, and thus 10,000 students per year.
It's not good talent wasted.
Mmmmmm, in my experience, most teachers are not professionals, maybe half are. Besides even a professional can still learn... and who says all bureaucrats are power hungry and unprofessional ? A good structure/system within the school for said appraisal visits will negate that.
Again, a good observer will know that, several visits are required, and a decent chunk of time is required to form a fair impression.
I do not think that anyone is much arguing against that.
Excellent, well-considered comments, KW, thanks.
Glenn
Now, I am keen to read through this thread more thoroughly, but in the meantime I thought everyone who is interested in this topic would really enjoy this 'talk' by Sir Ken Robinson: Schools kill creativity
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
I saw him speak in Toronto a few years back, and he is truly inspirational!
Hope you enjoy!
Now, I am keen to read through this thread more thoroughly, but in the meantime I thought everyone who is interested in this topic would really enjoy this 'talk' by Sir Ken Robinson: Schools kill creativity
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
I saw him speak in Toronto a few years back, and he is truly inspirational!
Hope you enjoy!
Wonderful. Now will masses listen? He probably likes many concepts regarding Free Schools.
Here is his website: http://sirkenrobinson.com/skr/
He is definitely gaining more and more attention in recent years. However, the masses seem more concerned with the latest celebrity gossip than the state of our education systems. At least in the academic world he is liked...
I'd like to share a bit about Japanese's system, and International School where I finished my middle-high school.....
In Japanese system,
Up till 5th grades, children were taught more like in group lessons and simple daily life practice, like how to peel mangos, how to help your mother at Kitchen or fold your own clothes, simple community services like holding box of donation to help the poor at Africa,some group sports and games as well. They also emphasizes teaching in group music- subject- such as big band or strings ensembles, of course with basic notes reading as well. More subjects were aimed to stimulates social and brain development to these kids. Of course, some sciences and maths are there ( mostly like the fun experiment types), but the serious portion wasnt a lot. Then when it reach 6th to middleschool, thats where the Math and science continuous drills starts....
My International school was called Canadian Academy
we have greeks motto: Scientia, Successus, Clavis, they strongly believe that pure intelligence could only be achieved if you can balance Arts,academic and sports simultaneously
Elementaries are more like field playing grounds, story telling, etc. Pretty much adoption to the Japanese's system. But when it hit Middle school, they increase the portion of maths, sciences and they add music as a obligatory subject. In Highschool, Music is one subject that everyone must take if they want to graduate. If you cant play instrument, then you can take singing or ceramic class,or painting, anything arts. While PE/Physical education is obligatory to take every year....
My explanation wont be enough if i write down, You're at Surabaya right ? maybe we'll meet up someday and share the idea
Now, I am keen to read through this thread more thoroughly, but in the meantime I thought everyone who is interested in this topic would really enjoy this 'talk' by Sir Ken Robinson: Schools kill creativity
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
I saw him speak in Toronto a few years back, and he is truly inspirational!
Hope you enjoy!
I was recently put onto ted.com by the speaker at an IELTS seminar. I saw that video and a couple others and, while I didn't find him to be a very dynamic speaker, what he said was extremely important and he clearly believes in what he's saying. Thanks for putting that in here CF.
Glenn
Thanks, Pimpin, for the link to his website.
He is definitely gaining more and more attention in recent years. However, the masses seem more concerned with the latest celebrity gossip than the state of our education systems. At least in the academic world he is liked...
That is exactly what the politicians and megalomaniacs want - the masses to stop paying attention to important matters - so they can do whatever they please. But that's a completely different thread! :)
I have to wonder how old teachers feel about Ken's opinions. I met a principal once (older chap) who completely knocked multiple intelligences as ridiculous and said people don't have them (when it's clear we're all born with varying degrees of ability in different skills), so who knows? Granted, MI has flaws (such as the poor delineation and organization of skills) but....
Glenn
I'd like to share a bit about Japanese's system, and International School where I finished my middle-high school.....
In Japanese system,
Up till 5th grades, children were taught more like in group lessons and simple daily life practice, like how to peel mangos, how to help your mother at Kitchen or fold your own clothes, simple community services like holding box of donation to help the poor at Africa,some group sports and games as well. They also emphasizes teaching in group music- subject- such as big band or strings ensembles, of course with basic notes reading as well. More subjects were aimed to stimulates social and brain development to these kids. Of course, some sciences and maths are there ( mostly like the fun experiment types), but the serious portion wasnt a lot. Then when it reach 6th to middleschool, thats where the Math and science continuous drills starts....
My International school was called Canadian Academy
we have greeks motto: Scientia, Successus, Clavis, they strongly believe that pure intelligence could only be achieved if you can balance Arts,academic and sports simultaneously
Elementaries are more like field playing grounds, story telling, etc. Pretty much adoption to the Japanese's system. But when it hit Middle school, they increase the portion of maths, sciences and they add music as a obligatory subject. In Highschool, Music is one subject that everyone must take if they want to graduate. If you cant play instrument, then you can take singing or ceramic class,or painting, anything arts. While PE/Physical education is obligatory to take every year....
My explanation wont be enough if i write down, You're at Surabaya right ? maybe we'll meet up someday and share the idea
I think I get the point, but I'd like to hear more about it. I'm in Semarang, actually, just want to visit Surabaya.
Now, if Japanese primary is like that, doesn't it mean that they have to crunch a lot of serious material in high school, which is why Japan is famous for suicidal students (now also Korea, India and...the USA a bit)?
Pimpin, what did you mean about "free schools"? I'm not familiar with the term.
Glenn
I think I get the point, but I'd like to hear more about it. I'm in Semarang, actually, just want to visit Surabaya.
Now, if Japanese primary is like that, doesn't it mean that they have to crunch a lot of serious material in high school, which is why Japan is famous for suicidal students (now also Korea, India and...the USA a bit)?
Pimpin, what did you mean about "free schools"? I'm not familiar with the term.
Glenn
Yup, since they did not teach early age education in math and science intesively, at least compare to here, Later they just push the rest of the curriculum in a dense package during middle and finally, highschool...
Thats the side effect, thats why we often see students studied hard and committed suicide because of stress and pressures of materials they have to know.
But my previous schools adopted the lesson differently, they divided up the maths and sciences into different class sections - such as Algebra class, geometry class and calculus etc- The result is pretty good, for student's emotional growth. Only slackers like me would have tough time in that, LOL. They also manage to meet the IB/AP criteria with such system. . However, the implementation of this education method prove to be very expensive....
But the result, 40% of my class got accepted to Ivy league/ Cambridge-oxford class, some 20% got accepted into top local university, while the rest, including me are mx proportion of musical school, US Colleges non Ivy League, European universities and local original universities ( like malaysians, indonesians , Thai etc)....
I admired the system actually, and have been dreaming of adopting such school system to Indonesia........is it possible ?......
Yup, since they did not teach early age education in math and science intesively, at least compare to here, Later they just push the rest of the curriculum in a dense package during middle and finally, highschool...
Thats the side effect, thats why we often see students studied hard and committed suicide because of stress and pressures of materials they have to know.
But my previous schools adopted the lesson differently, they divided up the maths and sciences into different class sections - such as Algebra class, geometry class and calculus etc- The result is pretty good, for student's emotional growth. Only slackers like me would have tough time in that, LOL. They also manage to meet the IB/AP criteria with such system. . However, the implementation of this education method prove to be very expensive....
But the result, 40% of my class got accepted to Ivy league/ Cambridge-oxford class, some 20% got accepted into top local university, while the rest, including me are mx proportion of musical school, US Colleges non Ivy League, European universities and local original universities ( like malaysians, indonesians , Thai etc)....
I admired the system actually, and have been dreaming of adopting such school system to Indonesia........is it possible ?......
Just about anything is possible in Indonesia, if you know the right people. Two days ago the head of one of the colleges on my campus asked me to become an Indonesian and open a school, so...If I can get this system ironed out, one never knows (assuming the fanatics don't take over)...
Just about anything is possible in Indonesia, if you know the right people. Two days ago the head of one of the colleges on my campus asked me to become an Indonesian and open a school, so...If I can get this system ironed out, one never knows (assuming the fanatics don't take over)...
As long as you dont teach " ISRAEL IS GOOD" in your class, that should be Ok....LOL.....
Why would your friend asked you to become Indonesian and open a school ? Just curiousity, if your passion is really into education, I think Sampoerna FOundation might suit your dreams
But the result, 40% of my class got accepted to Ivy league/ Cambridge-oxford class, some 20% got accepted into top local university, while the rest, including me are mx proportion of musical school, US Colleges non Ivy League, European universities and local original universities ( like malaysians, indonesians , Thai etc)....
I admired the system actually, and have been dreaming of adopting such school system to Indonesia........is it possible ?......
So what happened to you then ?
As long as you dont teach " ISRAEL IS GOOD" in your class, that should be Ok....LOL.....
Why would your friend asked you to become Indonesian and open a school ? Just curiousity, if your passion is really into education, I think Sampoerna FOundation might suit your dreams
Well....I've always been opposed to the formation of Israel, and I am vehemently opposed to all the violence and abuse of human rights by both sides (but it seems the Jews are far more prone to it than the Palestinians due to the former having the upper hand perhaps?)...
You'd have to ask my friend, I really don't know for sure. Maybe he came to that conclusion based on something I said, or maybe he feels I can do a good job, or maybe he was being polite! ;) I really do like teaching, but I feel I'm more suited to doing seminars. Why do you suggest the Sampoerna Foundation?
Glenn
MI makes a lot of sense to me though it has to be said there is precious little hard evidence that it has much impact on learning outcomes in the general school population. Statistically significant improvement in language, maths or science understanding via MI has yet to be demonstrated convincingly even though many teachers accept the theory without question.
MI makes a lot of sense to me though it has to be said there is precious little hard evidence that it has much impact on learning outcomes in the general school population. Statistically significant improvement in language, maths or science understanding via MI has yet to be demonstrated convincingly even though many teachers accept the theory without question.
I've met some people who strongly implement the idea into their teaching. They seemed pretty convinced of its value, however I suspect that results will vary depending on a few factors, which may make overall statistics misleading. I don't pretend to be an expert and I won't try to list all the factors, but what comes to mind is this:
1) Success of the usage of any theory is predicated on proper understanding of the theory, excellent ability to apply it in the classroom, and the creativity needed to make exercises that will actually work better than the standard stuff.
2) Success is also dependent upon the teacher's ability to recognize through observation each student's strengths and weaknesses. Adding testing and a background in psychology would definitely improve the odds because something as "gross" as visual/auditory/kinesthetic is pretty easy to recognize in students, but sometimes more specific things, especially from the introspective domain, can be quite difficult to recognize. In fact, I would say that proper training in this ability is a must.
3) There are some flaws in Gardner's categorization of the so-called "intelligences" (which one might as well call skills, abilities and affinities). It seems to me that the naturalistic category is bogus - although it appeals to me as a science lover, it clearly is more related to visual. Next, the lumping together of visual, spatial and imaginative into the introspective domain seems wrong. Yes, we imagine things and yes, as with theories revolving around bodily movements connected to thinking, our eyes move, but that doesn't mean that they belong together. There are also sub-categories of the 9 categories that appear to be wrong or that appear to belong in more than one category.
I imagine some of you know a lot more about these problems than do I. Have at it, but play nice! :)
Glenn
It has become clear that the dominant practices currently used in education are antiquated and suited more to the needs of teachers and, especially, administrators than to the needs of the students. While there are some progressive systems (Waldorf, Montessori, IPC, etc.) which try to apply a better approach, theories which attempt to understand learning (Bloom’s taxonomy, Mastery Learning, Multiple Intelligences, etc.), and sciences which are trying to better understand how people learn so that education can be improved (cognitive neuroscience, etc.), the vast majority of countries use traditional (Confucian) or pseudo-modern styles (Singaporean, etc.) to teach, and there is a large focus on academics rather than on real-world practicalities and skills. In comparison to the old days of masters and apprentices, the results today are not convincing of the quality of education.
In short, education largely doesn’t prepare students for life and can thus be classified as a failed experiment. The long version of this is that many of today’s educational systems in general:
use “national” (a mythical name in the USA) exams: to determine the quality of education in any given school regardless of the quality of the students, teachers, materials and facilities; to determine which schools get extra funding; and which cause “teaching to pass the test” rather than “teaching to educate,” let alone “teaching to prepare for life” especially in the grade prior to the exam,
are too focused on academics and traditional testing that have little validity or value in the real world,
are not very suited to the majority of students and teachers,
tend to ignore the idea of teaching that is appropriate for the complete variety of types of learners (lecturing still predominates), including visual, auditory, experiential, logical, rhythmic, etc.
fail to be understanding of and flexible in reference to the personality types of students,
don’t develop a sense of belonging and family – the result is fragmented people with wounded psyches, and cliques of people grouped together rather superficially
don’t provide a supportive environment,
don’t prepare students for life and the workforce,
neglect the needs of society and don’t help students learn how to interact in society,
emphasize the learning of irrelevant information like trivia,
force students to learn topics which they not only do not have an interest in but also do not have the capability to deal with,
present concepts and theories that are unnecessary,
give precedence to theories and academic content over real-world skills and needs to the point that many people enter the real world fairly unprepared for the realities of work
rely too heavily on the teaching of theories and not enough on practical application,
don’t imbue an inherent comprehension of concepts via activities that teach and reinforce understanding,
don’t often properly prepare students for university,
fail to develop innate strengths and weaknesses of students, let alone recognize their existence,
don’t create and sustain interest in a broad variety of subjects for most students,
encourage a false understanding of what happens in the classroom because of a heavy reliance on documentation rather than observation
observation of classes by an “outsider” who inadvertently changes the mood and dynamics of the class by being there, which causes the objective experience to be false because of the altered behavior of students and teachers,
use grading systems involving bell curves that unfairly reward certain segments of the student population whether or not they deserve it,
encourage a lack of interest in learning and a higher drop-out rate than should exist,
cause teachers to be overworked,
may discourage the creativity and extra efforts of teachers,
give precedence to the so-called core subjects and treat subjects dealing with creativity (one of the most important skills one can have) as disposable, such that when funding is tight, these creative subjects are dumped in favor of the core subjects and (ironically) sports
Any constructive comments are welcome.
Glenn
Any constructive comments are welcome.
You've mixed in so much nonsense with gross generalities and assumptions, yet you want to limit the replies to constructive ones only ? My brain hurts just looking at all that.
Yes, some of what you have said their is quite true, most of it is garbage.
Shall we start with the first line?
It has become clear that the dominant practices currently used in education are antiquated
Become clear to who ?
Which practises ? All of them ?
There are plenty of good schools and good school systems, yes even in the United States of Amazing, many school districts are doing great jobs.
Your entire post has an agenda, as evidenced here,
While there are some progressive systems (Waldorf, Montessori, IPC, etc.) which try to apply a better approach
These systems have some benefits, and suit some students, but to start by saying all 'traditional schools are rubbish/in crisis' and that these types of schools are 'progressive or better' just sounds like the patter of the snake oil salesman.
Disclaimer: My apologies to all readers in advance for any flip or disrespectful remarks I may make in this post. I am simply tired of certain users taking advantage of the freedom of speech on this website so they can troll and flame to their hearts' content.
Ah, thank you for being so kind as to contribute in your...unique way. Whatever would we do without your...quick wit and your...to the point assessments of other people's inferiority to yours. And yet, you seemed to have fallen short of the mark of "constructive criticism" and come dangerously close to one of your patent attacks on users. Hati-hatiKW , you wouldn't want to get banned like your friend Gratilla over someone as insignificant and inferior as me.
You've mixed in so much nonsense with gross generalities and assumptions, yet you want to limit the replies to constructive ones only ? My brain hurts just looking at all that.
Apparently you overlooked when I stated at the beginning "...in general:" Sorry, should I put these less things in bold and underline them for you? You might ask Mas Fred for a massage for your headache.
Yes, some of what you have said their is quite true, most of it is garbage.
Shall we start with the first line?
Become clear to who ?
Which practises ? All of them?
I would've thought it is obvious to everyone that, as the writer, it has become clear to me. However, in a broader sense, there are many other educators that have similar opinions about education. I'll quote my father, a retired principal and teacher, if you don't mind, in reference to George Wanker Bush's "No Child Left Behind" policy as an example: "...has forced a shift in the focus of education from “teaching to learn” to “teaching to test”." Sounds a lot like Indonesia and India, don't you think? Whodathunk America'd be on a par with two developing nations? Go figure. Heck, in India, preparing for tests is big business.
I thought I was fairly clear when I said the "dominant practices currently used in education" and then proceeded to provide a bulleted list of issues relating to those practices. Perhaps the fact that educators tend to continue to use the same practices that were used when I was in school back in the days of the dinosaurs, that resistance to change has long been a problem (as evidenced by comments made in various threads by various unsavory characters regarding progressive teaching methods), or that America, in many assessments, ranks near the bottom of the list of industrialized nations might be a clue. Now, don't you get me wrong - I'm not necessarily a fan of these assessments, either, because the trends of Singapore, S. Korea, Japan and other nations (including Indonesia) where students are force-fed every subject is also something I abhor. I'm in favor of the American system of student choice, IF PROPERLY GUIDED.
There are plenty of good schools and good school systems, yes even in the United States of Amazing, many school districts are doing great jobs.
Yes, there are good schools and good systems - I never said otherwise. But, what constitutes great in academic circles doesn't automatically equate to great in the real world, and that is one of my points.
Your entire post has an agenda, as evidenced here,
While there are some progressive systems (Waldorf, Montessori, IPC, etc.) which try to apply a better approach
These systems have some benefits, and suit some students, but to start by saying all 'traditional schools are rubbish/in crisis' and that these types of schools are 'progressive or better' just sounds like the patter of the snake oil salesman.
Of course I have an agenda, just like you do, my friend. The only difference is that my agenda, which is to improve education worldwide is a good one, while yours, to harass users, is not.
Why is it that you attacked my statements in a generalized way, choosing examples in parentheses as examples of my heresy, instead of demonstrating my incompetence to the world by very specifically and pointedly lambasting me on every mistake? Why didn't you include cognitive neuroscience, Bloom's taxonomy, Mastery Learning and Multiple Intelligences on one side and Confucian teaching, and the Singaporean style in your attack, or is it just that you have a knee-jerk reaction to Montessori and Waldorf? If these two systems which have their flaws don't meet your expectations, yet current educational practices do, then why should I even listen to your ranting anyways? You claim "most" of what I wrote is wrong - well, set me straight then, oh mighty King! Don't leave me in the dark ages, you icon of intellect, you bastion of brains, you expert on education! I shall have to go crying to my mommy if you do! :)
Just to make it clear, the examples I provided in parentheses were just that - examples. There are many other types of progressive education out there, for example, but I haven't yet had time to look at them, so I didn't include them.
Try to be helpful, will you, King Willy? I really do write these things to try and improve myself and my understanding of the world, but not to endure potshots from tiny people. You don't agree with me? Fine. Explain away, but put aside your vitriol and spite, because all it serves to do is scare away users and make you look like an ( )*( ).
Glenn
A disclaimer doesn't give license to be flip and condescending. In your previous post you made a lot of general statements which equaled to saying very little. I think KW's post was spot on and should have catapulted you into getting more specific about your thoughts. Instead you reacted as you often do when being called to task.
Purposely misspelling a members nic was really cool. Get that idea from one of your 10 year old students?
Im disapointed in you. You're usually a fery nice boy and tries to get along with the other children even to a fault.
Disclaimer: My apologies to all readers in advance for any flip or disrespectful remarks I may make in this post. I am simply tired of certain users taking advantage of the freedom of speech on this website so they can troll and flame to their hearts' content.
Ah, thank you for being so kind as to contribute in your...unique way. Whatever would we do without your...quick wit and your...to the point assessments of other people's inferiority to yours. And yet, you seemed to have fallen short of the mark of "constructive criticism" and come dangerously close to one of your patent attacks on users. Hati-hatiKW , you wouldn't want to get banned like your friend Gratilla over someone as insignificant and inferior as me.
Apparently you overlooked when I stated at the beginning "...in general:" Sorry, should I put these less things in bold and underline them for you? You might ask Mas Fred for a massage for your headache.
I would've thought it is obvious to everyone that, as the writer, it has become clear to me. However, in a broader sense, there are many other educators that have similar opinions about education. I'll quote my father, a retired principal and teacher, if you don't mind, in reference to George Wanker Bush's "No Child Left Behind" policy as an example: "...has forced a shift in the focus of education from “teaching to learn” to “teaching to test”." Sounds a lot like Indonesia and India, don't you think? Whodathunk America'd be on a par with two developing nations? Go figure. Heck, in India, preparing for tests is big business.
I thought I was fairly clear when I said the "dominant practices currently used in education" and then proceeded to provide a bulleted list of issues relating to those practices. Perhaps the fact that educators tend to continue to use the same practices that were used when I was in school back in the days of the dinosaurs, that resistance to change has long been a problem (as evidenced by comments made in various threads by various unsavory characters regarding progressive teaching methods), or that America, in many assessments, ranks near the bottom of the list of industrialized nations might be a clue. Now, don't you get me wrong - I'm not necessarily a fan of these assessments, either, because the trends of Singapore, S. Korea, Japan and other nations (including Indonesia) where students are force-fed every subject is also something I abhor. I'm in favor of the American system of student choice, IF PROPERLY GUIDED.
Yes, there are good schools and good systems - I never said otherwise. But, what constitutes great in academic circles doesn't automatically equate to great in the real world, and that is one of my points.
Of course I have an agenda, just like you do, my friend. The only difference is that my agenda, which is to improve education worldwide is a good one, while yours, to harass users, is not.
Why is it that you attacked my statements in a generalized way, choosing examples in parentheses as examples of my heresy, instead of demonstrating my incompetence to the world by very specifically and pointedly lambasting me on every mistake? Why didn't you include cognitive neuroscience, Bloom's taxonomy, Mastery Learning and Multiple Intelligences on one side and Confucian teaching, and the Singaporean style in your attack, or is it just that you have a knee-jerk reaction to Montessori and Waldorf? If these two systems which have their flaws don't meet your expectations, yet current educational practices do, then why should I even listen to your ranting anyways? You claim "most" of what I wrote is wrong - well, set me straight then, oh mighty King! Don't leave me in the dark ages, you icon of intellect, you bastion of brains, you expert on education! I shall have to go crying to my mommy if you do! :)
Just to make it clear, the examples I provided in parentheses were just that - examples. There are many other types of progressive education out there, for example, but I haven't yet had time to look at them, so I didn't include them.
Try to be helpful, will you, King Wiley? I really do write these things to try and improve myself and my understanding of the world, but not to endure potshots from tiny people. You don't agree with me? Fine. Explain away, but put aside your vitriol and spite, because all it serves to do is scare away users and make you look like an ( )*( ).
Glenn
Don't worry folks, I am not going to get into an argument with this person, it aint worth my time and I've said my piece about his generalisations, assumptions and agendas.
What I will leave you with is some alternative ideas, that many mainstream schools do and can use.
http://blendedclassroom.blogspot.com/
http://www.khanacademy.org/#browse
http://vodcasting.ning.com/
http://works.bepress.com/lesley_kagan/1/
http://www.pbli.org/
http://www.pz.harvard.edu/
http://www.ronritchhart.com/Presentations_files/ICOT14_ThinkingRoutines_Intro.pdf
http://www.pz.harvard.edu/tc/routines.cfm
http://www.sciencecases.org/clicker/herreid_clicker.asp
A disclaimer doesn't give license to be flip and condescending. In your previous post you made a lot of general statements which equaled to saying very little. I think KW's post was spot on and should have catapulted you into getting more specific about your thoughts. Instead you reacted as you often do when being called to task.
Purposely misspelling a members nic was really cool. Get that idea from one of your 10 year old students?
Im disapointed in you. You're usually a fery nice boy and tries to get along with the other children even to a fault.
Hehehehe, you're such a card! You, disappointed in ME? Please, stop, I'm laughing much too hard at something so ludicrous! Purposely misspelling a word to imply something about a user was really cool, Pimpin. Did you get that idea from one of your...[fill in the blank]. It's like watching twins - the two of you. Maybe you should try using that vast intellect of yours to be more constructive and helpful rather than constantly tearing people new orifices.
Why doesn't a disclaimer give me license? You two regularly are flip and condescending to new and old users alike, so why can't I give it back to you? Oh, the hypocrisy of life! Boo hoo! Spot on in that it said very little about what was wrong with what I said? Spot on in that it was more of an attack than constructive criticism? Oh, PLEASE, give me a break! Stop being holier-than-thou!
Don't worry folks, I am not going to get into an argument with this person, it aint worth my time and I've said my piece about his generalisations, assumptions and agendas.
What I will leave you with is some alternative ideas, that many mainstream schools do and can use.
http://blendedclassroom.blogspot.com/
http://www.khanacademy.org/#browse
http://vodcasting.ning.com/
http://works.bepress.com/lesley_kagan/1/
http://www.pbli.org/
http://www.pz.harvard.edu/
http://www.ronritchhart.com/Presentations_files/ICOT14_ThinkingRoutines_Intro.pdf
http://www.pz.harvard.edu/tc/routines.cfm
http://www.sciencecases.org/clicker/herreid_clicker.asp
If either of you can specifically point out what's wrong with my comments, I'll be HAPPY to respond. However, if all you're going to do is to lump everything together and call it a bunch of crap, I see no point. How can I respond specifically to something that is NOT specific? It just doesn't make sense to expect me to respond to a blanket remark that has so very little content. Is that enough of an explanation for you?
I knew I could count on you to come up with some interesting links, KW, if I pushed you beyond your comfort zone. Atta boy! Too bad you didn't actually come through with an explanation of your condemnation of what I wrote.
Glenn
I knew I could count on you to come up with some interesting links, KW, if I pushed you beyond your comfort zone. Atta boy! Too bad you didn't actually come through with an explanation of your condemnation of what I wrote.
Yawn.
fill yer boots then. enjoy your thread.
"Too bad you didn't actually come through with an explanation of your condemnation of what I wrote."
Seems to be a common practice, innit ...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.