Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: blue_cristal on 04/11/2007 15:54:19
-
We already know that almost every human physical or mental traits obeys a bell curve of distribution in the population. That means that humans vary in both, physical and mental attributes.
However, I have heard mainly three types of opinions about those differences.
The first one is very unrealistic and it is based almost on just wishful-thinking, pure belief and no evidence. It claims that all people are “equal” and that the different levels of intelligence are due to the fact that some people are privileged and get a fine education while others get a poor education.
If that was true how they would explain that siblings that belong to the same social class, same family and receive the same education end up with different IQs ?
And even worst, how they would explain that some people originated in low social classes and had unprivileged education showed high IQ and made great achievements in their lives –and- conversely there are people from upper classes who are underachievers and have mediocre IQ despite receiving privileged education?
The second type of opinion is: People are born with different genes for intelligence ( or types of intelligence ) and their upbringing and type of education has little influence to the outcome.
The third kind of opinion is: Yes, people are born with different intellectual potentials ( due their genes and their particular biologic development ) but also the type of education that they receive has a significant influence to the outcome.
The scientific evidence that I know favours the third opinion.
However, in societies with almost homogeneous types of educational systems, the differences of outcome should be logically related to their genetic and biologic developmental differences.
In developed countries like UK , most people ( middle class ) receive almost the same type of education ( with he exception of the upper class ) and yet only a minority has high levels of all types of intelligence ( logic-mathematic, creativity, intuition, etc ). Only a minority have interest on matters that demand high intellectual skills like scientific investigation, inventions, philosophy, mathematics, fine arts, etc.
1) In your opinion, in an almost homogeneous educational system, which factors contribute the most for the generation of this small elite of intellectuals ? Genetic and biologic developmental differences –or- different types of upbringing and educational models?
2) If you consider that both genetic/developmental and upbringing/education influence the outcome, which percentage you credit to each of them accordingly to your educated guess or reliable evidence ?
-
One serious problem with your analysis is to assume that IQ can be equated to social achievement. There are plenty of people with high IQ who are underachievers. There are only a few vocations where exceptionally high IQ is a particular advantage (this is where you get issues surrounding concepts such as EQ vs IQ).
Secondly, education is more than just schooling (very many people have learnt to read before they ever get into the school system, and continue to get greater support from their family background than other children may have).
Thirdly, contrary to popular mythology, all schools, even within the UK State sector, are not equal; and even within the schools, the performance of individual teachers can vary.
Finally, different pupils work better in different in different environments (there was a school teacher in my primary school who my sister (who went to the same school) thought was hopeless, but I thought was the best teacher I had throughout my time in the education system - what worked very well for me simply did not work for her).
-
Do you really think that all the publicly funded schools in the UK offer a similar level of education? Also, education isn't just school. The home environment can make a huge difference. Of course it can be difficult to distinguish between genetics and familial traits.
If you have bright parents and you are bright is that because you got "bright" genes or because they taught you a lot? I'm not sure it;s possible to tell- it's certainly very difficult and I don't think a poll of people on a website will give a very meaningful response.
edit
Looks like anopther someone beat me to it.
-
I am not a psychologist or educator. I am a student of my fellow man by understanding myself and looking for those traits in others. Quantization of humanity seems to mean that we (read scientists) can understand all of the subtleties of the human condition and the expression of the human intellect and then derive some mathematical formula to express all of the variations - I don't really think it is possible.
Examples:
My mechanic - wizard with engines, cooling systems, electrical systems but cannot have a normal relationship with anyone outside of work, drinks all the time when not working and sometimes when he does work, makes poor monetary decisions and lives a miserable life. Good person underneath all the outer shell.
Frances - the black woman, grand-daughter of slaves, who was my babysitter when I was young. Never went to school but could read, mainly the Bible, had a memory a mile long, grossly overweight but the embodiment of the word LOVE. If she held you you knew there was such a thing as unconditional love. I never felt that from my parents or anyone else. But I do know what unconditional love is because of 'Aunt' Frances.
Mike - This guy was a "floor man" on a drilling rig, i.e., he had the lowest, most dangerous job on a drilling rig and he did want anything else, just to put in his 8 hour shift of one of the dirtiest, most dangerous jobs in the oil field and then go drink beer and sleep. That was his life. Except for his reading. There was always slack time when everything was going on well and only and occasional joint of pipe to be added to the drill string as the rig went deeper that Mike would go to the back of the "dog house" or shack on the drilling floor, sit on the steel bench and study philosophy. He could explain Kierkegaard better than any philosopher I had ever met because he put the concepts in human terms and examples rather than in the structure of the philosophy, its relationship to the human condition (very few examples, aways esoteric ones given), etc.
Harvey - Shabby all the time, worked only seasonally at the Internal Revenue Service and spent the rest of the year in India studying with a teacher of inner wisdom.
All of these people I have know, and many others as well, have shown me that in each person there is brilliance of some sort. You just need to look for it. This is true even of a Downs Syndrome child. The innocence and simplicity of these children have taught me what real joy is all about - this moment, not what is past now or next to come but NOW, this instant.
How does a scientist quantify this wisdom?
-
wisdom = IQ?
-
I think we need to move away from the presumption that an IQ level or test, relates to ones intelligence. there are many people who have a low IQ, who go on to be Doctors or other highly skilled professionals.
I (a long time ago), was invited to join MENSA. I was at the time, an avid reader of newspapers and got bored of the printed IQ tests, and out of curiosity i eventually took the supervised test. I never joined, because i personally saw no challenge in the membership...and then, as now became easily bored.
Schools, teachers and your environment are factors, but so is capturing the persons enthusiasm and once you have it maintaining it.
At my middle school I was advanced in to a higher year, at the time i never know why, but i was given so many opportunities then and my enthusiasm was nurtured and i made good progress through school. Eventually at the end of my 5th year of high school we moved counties, so i started my last year at school in an alien environment, this was a great setback for me.
In the "top" classes they were learning things that i had learned 3 years previous, did this make be any brighter or more intelligent than the others? well, no, i just became bored and bummed my way through that last year totally uninterested in the whole process.
There is greatness in all of us, and IQ is no measure of it. Some people of high IQ can be content with a job you may consider "menial", a job that does not show or call for their intelligence to be used all of the time.
Someone with a lower IQ may be your boss, but he/she is so damn good at their job that IQ is not a factor.
The reason why people are not going in to the sciences at any form of further education (i believe) is because the subjects are not being made interesting enough, they are not capturing the child's imagination. Also why learn for x years and become saddled with debt, when you can do an easier course and get out in to the real world making money.
we need to start rewarding those that take science, ease the debt burden...and make it sexier.
sorry for going slightly, off topic.
-
wisdom = IQ?
Wisdom only for the last case. I was talking intelligence in the other cases.
The point I am trying to make is "how does one measure real intelligence?"
-
Wow, never realised we had so many different views on the subject of intelligence, I must say I am impressed by the responses to a question that tries to pigeon hole people’s intellect based on grades in schools.
I guess the real measure of a persons intelligence is not to assume that someone else is of lower intelligence simply because they do not specialise in their subject matter.
Education rewards people for remembering lessons and repeating the answers or using the methods to find the answers previously learned in class. Unfortunately, education seldom teaches a student to question the very subject matter being taught to them. Sad really when some of the subject matter is in serious need of updating.
Teaching a child to remember someone else’s thoughts on a particular subject may be a significant part of the reason that people are turning their backs on science. Indoctrinating a belief into children that most of the science has already been discovered and is well understood and documented leaving nothing left for them to do produces a disinterested student from the onset of science education. Instead, we should be more open and inform these budding young minds about the real situation in science by explaining that there are many avenues open for investigation and we as scientists do not know very much in comparison to the real world outside of our safety zones.
Intelligence should not be assumed to relate to an IQ test but as JimBob stated should be found in many people who are making a difference in the real world and who couldn’t give two hoots if anyone thinks they are intelligent or not.
Some of the wealthiest people of our time are hard pressed to score on an IQ test, but clearly excel in making money, perhaps these people should compile the next IQ test.
-
IQ tests favour a particular type of person and they are not a bad indicator of general ability. They could, possibly, claim to be the best single indicator. That's as far as they go and we can all quote exceptions to this rule.
Choices of employee are always made on a very condensed view of candidates. It may seem unfair but, what can you do with a list of 100 candidates, when you need 1?
You filter down to a few and, often, that filter is based on classical IQ type ratings.
You might also complain that car insurance takes so few factors into account when premiums are to be calculated.
Decision makers have to act on limited knowledge because life is too short for the holistic approach. It's often the least worst way to deal with things, despite the large number of times when it fails to give the 'best' solution.
-
Some of the wealthiest people of our time are hard pressed to score on an IQ test, but clearly excel in making money, perhaps these people should compile the next IQ test.
But would such wealthy people really make good employees. Often self made millionaires are people who went out on their own because they were hopeless working for anybody else. If you were looking for your next employee, would you really want to employ one of these people?
-
Teaching a child to remember someone else’s thoughts on a particular subject may be a significant part of the reason that people are turning their backs on science.
It worries me that kids are turning their backs on Science because people are giving them the wrong idea of what it's all about. Questioning some well founded idea is fine if you actually have earned and appreciate a lot of basics. It is not possible for a single person to start from scratch and build up a new version of Science, singlehanded. You have to build up from existing knowledge and understanding.
Science is trivialised in the Media and in much of the National Curriculum. Learning , as a discipline seems to have no place in education - it's no wonder kids are bewildered by Science, the way it is presented, because they simply don't know enough. Once they start at A level, they are brought up with a jolt and many fall by the wayside because they are just not prepared to learn what is needed.
Trying to get kids to learn established and well verifiable models is not indoctrinationn - it is education. If they are not brilliant, it will enable them to have a reasonable understanding and if they are brilliant, it will give them the tools to progress Science further.
How arrogant to think that the body of existing Science can be challenged by any Tom Dick or Harry. Yes - the occasional genius can overturn current models and ideas but don't kid yourself that a child who knows very little maths or basic Science is in any position to advance human knowledge.
'Questioning' is only a valid process when you already know a lot. A humble approach will get you much further.
-
It worries me that kids are turning their backs on Science because people are giving them the wrong idea of what it's all about. Questioning some well founded idea is fine if you actually have earned and appreciate a lot of basics. It is not possible for a single person to start from scratch and build up a new version of Science, singlehanded. You have to build up from existing knowledge and understanding.
Science is trivialised in the Media and in much of the National Curriculum. Learning , as a discipline seems to have no place in education - it's no wonder kids are bewildered by Science, the way it is presented, because they simply don't know enough. Once they start at A level, they are brought up with a jolt and many fall by the wayside because they are just not prepared to learn what is needed.
Trying to get kids to learn established and well verifiable models is not indoctrinationn - it is education. If they are not brilliant, it will enable them to have a reasonable understanding and if they are brilliant, it will give them the tools to progress Science further.
How arrogant to think that the body of existing Science can be challenged by any Tom Dick or Harry. Yes - the occasional genius can overturn current models and ideas but don't kid yourself that a child who knows very little maths or basic Science is in any position to advance human knowledge.
'Questioning' is only a valid process when you already know a lot. A humble approach will get you much further.
I would suggest you are confusing science with engineering (not trying to denigrate either, merely emphasising the difference).
Science is inherently about pushing the boundaries, and therefore about questioning the ideas that create the present boundaries. Engineering is about applying existing knowledge to create practical outcomes.
I would suggest that is is established science that is arrogant if it feels threatened by being challenged by Tom, Dick, or Harry.
Ofcourse, you may validly argue that the nation needs far more engineers than it needs scientists.
-
What I am saying is that Tom Dick and Harry are not in a position to anything about advancing Science unless they already have a sound body of knowledge. The popular idea, nowadays, is that you can start from scratch, without any rigour and make valid comments / criticisms about scientific matters which are virtually anassailable.
You only have to read some of the whacky posts on these fora to realise that many people just don't know the basics. Science and engineering both hang on their history.
-
What I am saying is that Tom Dick and Harry are not in a position to anything about advancing Science unless they already have a sound body of knowledge. The popular idea, nowadays, is that you can start from scratch, without any rigour and make valid comments / criticisms about scientific matters which are virtually anassailable.
You only have to read some of the whacky posts on these fora to realise that many people just don't know the basics. Science and engineering both hang on their history.
Firstly, there is a difference between teaching scientific method, and indoctrination with the whole body of scientific knowledge.
Secondly, a good scientist does not seek to extend the scientific knowledge of humanity, he seeks to extend his own scientific knowledge, and if he does this for long enough he will reach the boundaries of the scientific knowledge of humanity, and then keep seeking to extend his own knowledge beyond that. The point is that scientists don't go from being dumb recipients of other people's information to suddenly switching modes to becoming seekers of new information; they continue doing what they did before.
Ofcourse, the key point is that arrogance does not make for good science, whether it is the arrogance of an outsider who believes he knows better than all the insiders, or the arrogance of an insider who believes only he is competent to judge what is true and what is false.
Having schoolkids question established science is good, not because they are very likely to create revolutionary theories in science, but because it gives them a grounding in how to ask questions, and how to apply scientific method in answering those questions. If they become afraid to challenge the ideas of their 'superiors', then they will have all sense of curiosity drummed out of them, and will make useless scientists later in life.
-
Have you ever taught kids?
Have you heard them mix up 'fact' and 'fiction' in the same sentence / statement?
What do you mean by 'question things'?
How can it be wrong to tell kids the fundamentals of Electricity, Forces, Energy etc., which are, for most purposes, 'correct' - (in as far as it predicts what will happen)? Are they not entitled to be told that stuff in case it could be interpreted as indoctrination? Is learning your times tables 'indoctrination'? Or is it giving someone a skill and knowledge to help them cope with other stuff?
If you are lucky enough to be capable of formal thought processes then have a regard for the huge number of people who, either because of nature or nurture, choose to stick to concrete thought.
I can only think that the people who complain of poor Science teaching were unfortunate to be taught by very poor (and ignorant) teachers. That's not the fault of the system - except in as far as you can't get enough teachers who actually understand the subject.
or the arrogance of an insider who believes only he is competent to judge what is true and what is false.
It is far from arrogant to respect the pedigree of thousands of cleverer people than ones self and to accept what they, as a majority, have agreed to believe. Neither is it weak-mindedness. No one is in a position to criticise, with any validity, the opinions of established Science until they have understood what it is actually telling them. How will you get to understand? You have to put yourself out and actually learn the stuff. Know your enemy - if that is how you view it.
Of course, if you really want to shake the Science world with a new, properly worked-out ,theory, you need a high level of arrogance - to carry you through the process - but that's down to human nature, not Science.
In any case, established science seldom feels 'threatened' by T,D&H - except when it affects the funding and T,D orH happen to be controlling the purse strings. Science may, however, feel threatened by someone who has credibility and who then rocks the boat.
Science is not just the surface of 'knowledge space'; it is the whole body of that space. The majority of people's experience of science is when it is applied (established) science with the occasional little nugget of the fringe -like black holes and time dilation. How can you 'explain' concepts like that to anyone who hasn't got a grasp of the basics of science?
'Questioning' is a useful skill when it relates to reliability of evidence - as in politics, history etc. but most of the evidence that most kids are given relating to Science is a million times better founded than an opinion about who caused the first World War.
Get a copy of the National Curriculum and see how much is in any way, shaky, before you just criticise the system.
I am aware that the list of topics in the National Curriculum is far from optimal but it is far from a list of ideas with which to indoctrinate kids. The main problem it has is that it attempts to treat all students in the same way. The 'levels' thing is another issue and very fraught.
-
Now why couldn't I have put it like that? If indeed we are to advance science we must not settle for anything less than sound repeatable, demonstrational science. If indeed there are fundamental flaws in any paradigm, from any field then the paradigm itself might be in need of a revamp and who better to do this than an upcoming young scientist who dares to question the paradigm without fear of rebuttal from people who are more concerned with safeguarding their own careers than admitting the subject matter they hold grades for accepting might become obsolete along with themselves.
Andrew
What I am saying is that Tom Dick and Harry are not in a position to anything about advancing Science unless they already have a sound body of knowledge. The popular idea, nowadays, is that you can start from scratch, without any rigour and make valid comments / criticisms about scientific matters which are virtually anassailable.
You only have to read some of the whacky posts on these fora to realise that many people just don't know the basics. Science and engineering both hang on their history.
Firstly, there is a difference between teaching scientific method, and indoctrination with the whole body of scientific knowledge.
Secondly, a good scientist does not seek to extend the scientific knowledge of humanity, he seeks to extend his own scientific knowledge, and if he does this for long enough he will reach the boundaries of the scientific knowledge of humanity, and then keep seeking to extend his own knowledge beyond that. The point is that scientists don't go from being dumb recipients of other people's information to suddenly switching modes to becoming seekers of new information; they continue doing what they did before.
Ofcourse, the key point is that arrogance does not make for good science, whether it is the arrogance of an outsider who believes he knows better than all the insiders, or the arrogance of an insider who believes only he is competent to judge what is true and what is false.
Having schoolkids question established science is good, not because they are very likely to create revolutionary theories in science, but because it gives them a grounding in how to ask questions, and how to apply scientific method in answering those questions. If they become afraid to challenge the ideas of their 'superiors', then they will have all sense of curiosity drummed out of them, and will make useless scientists later in life.
-
How many Tom Dick and Harry's have advanced science by going against existing and very well established beliefs, often working alone without any support other than a thirst to advance their own understanding of a subject that has captured their thoughts only to show that what was believed to be etched in stone has been washed away by the waves of time along with the bones of the people who held onto the belief? Oddly enough, we didn't always have a scientific community to guard science from intruders.
-
How can it be wrong to tell kids the fundamentals of Electricity, Forces, Energy etc.
Where did I say it was wrong to tell them anything - have I advocated censorship?
All I suggested was that it was good that they should question things, including things they are told - but that is not the same as not telling them.
The point then is to teach them how to resolve the challenges the dream up - to teach them to do their own research so that they can either reaffirm what you have told them, or come up with situations where what you have told them does not quite make sense.
Is learning your times tables 'indoctrination'? Or is it giving someone a skill and knowledge to help them cope with other stuff?
I'm afraid learning by rote (such as the times table) has always been a contentious issue with me, but I do recognise that some people are better at learning by rote. I'm afraid I was always the kind of person who wanted to understand what multiplication was (i.e. to better understand multiplication in terms of number theory) than is simply memorising a pre-set calculations (this is the more true now that we have easy access to calculators that will do that work for us).
Ofcourse, memorising information (whether it be times tables, or learning a collection of physical constants to the 20th decimal place) is a useful skill; but in the real world, I would suggest that cookery is at least as valid a skill (this may not have been so true 30 years ago, but certainly is today).
or the arrogance of an insider who believes only he is competent to judge what is true and what is false.
It is far from arrogant to respect the pedigree of thousands of cleverer people than ones self and to accept what they, as a majority, have agreed to believe.
That is a recipe for religion, not for science; and, yes, I do regard it as extremely arrogant to laud one's intelligence (or cleverness) over another, and expect people to treat what you have to say as gospel merely because by some measure they are considered more intelligent than you. If they are that clever, then let them show you by clearly explaining in a way that makes the truth of what they are saying self evident, rather than saying it must be true because they are more intelligent than you.
Neither is it weak-mindedness. No one is in a position to criticise, with any validity, the opinions of established Science until they have understood what it is actually telling them. How will you get to understand? You have to put yourself out and actually learn the stuff. Know your enemy - if that is how you view it.
You seem to be confusing different concepts. Those who think they can extend science would not regard science as their enemy (there are indeed people who may regard science as their enemy, but the are not scientists, and they have a different agenda).
If one looks at your proposal that you should not condemn something until you have been fully immersed in a total understanding of it - is it your contention that nobody should condemn astrology unless they have firstly totally understood it and become expert in it (personally, I would take a middle road, and would say that before you you condemn something, such as, but not limited to, astrology; you should at least seek to understand it from a sympathetic perspective, but maybe not necessarily become expert in it).
Of course, if you really want to shake the Science world with a new, properly worked-out, theory, you need a high level of arrogance - to carry you through the process - but that's down to human nature, not Science.
I would not confuse confidence with arrogance. One can be confident in one's own ability without having to be arrogantly dismissive of others.
'Questioning' is a useful skill when it relates to reliability of evidence - as in politics, history etc. but most of the evidence that most kids are given relating to Science is a million times better founded than an opinion about who caused the first World War.
The issue is not whether science is resting on better foundations than history, but whether one is taught the mindset of questioning everything, or questioning nothing. If science is on such a firm foundation, then it should not be afraid of being challenged, since it should be able to easily meet such challenges, and should even welcome such challenges, knowing that having successfully met such challenges it will have greater credibility than if it had never been challenged.
Get a copy of the National Curriculum and see how much is in any way, shaky, before you just criticise the system.
I am aware that the list of topics in the National Curriculum is far from optimal but it is far from a list of ideas with which to indoctrinate kids. The main problem it has is that it attempts to treat all students in the same way. The 'levels' thing is another issue and very fraught.
My own criticism of the education system is down to my own personal experiences (which pre-date the National Curriculum), and what I have heard since then from teachers who complain that in practical terms they are not given the space to allow pupils to offer challenges simply because of lack of time, whatever the intents of the system.
But in any case, my earlier post was not about attacking the system so much as saying that as a generality pupils should be taught to critically question what they are taught, and to do otherwise will not give us good quality scientists for the future. My own experience is that this is not done, and nothing you have said seems to clearly indicate the contrary (rather you seemed to have defended a position where you say pupils should not be questioning their 'betters').
-
You are probably right about people like Branson not making very good employees. But I think you are wrong to assume that they were hopeless at working for other people. Instead, they were lateral thinkers who thought to themselves, I can either work for these guys for the rest of my life or I can have people working for me instead and I can sit on the deck of my own Yacht sipping a glass of Champaign while fishing for blue marlin. Any up coming business could do a lot worse than have one of these guys working for their company.
Some of the wealthiest people of our time are hard pressed to score on an IQ test, but clearly excel in making money, perhaps these people should compile the next IQ test.
But would such wealthy people really make good employees. Often self made millionaires are people who went out on their own because they were hopeless working for anybody else. If you were looking for your next employee, would you really want to employ one of these people?
-
You are probably right about people like Branson not making very good employees. But I think you are wrong to assume that they were hopeless at working for other people. Instead, they were lateral thinkers who thought to themselves, I can either work for these guys for the rest of my life or I can have people working for me instead and I can sit on the deck of my own Yacht sipping a glass of Champaign while fishing for blue marlin. Any up coming business could do a lot worse than have one of these guys working for their company.
I suspect we may have to agree to disagree about this.
Firstly, there are two classes of wealthy people - those who set about with the intention of becoming wealthy, and one means of achieving that were as good as another; and another group who just wanted to do their own thing (the James Dysons of this world), who just happened to make money as a by-product of creating their vision.
But in both cases, these people tend to be headstrong, and don't take orders well (because they'd rather be giving orders than taking them). Often these people don't like working for big companies because they don't like the constraints the bureaucracy places upon their freedom of action.
Ofcourse, this is not true of all wealthy people. Some wealthy people do climb up through the corporate ladder, and gain their wealth through the corporate route, and will thrive within that bureaucracy; but I rather doubt the Richard Branson's or James Dyson's of this world fit into that category (or probably not even Bill Gates, although I would place Bill Gates as one of those people who sought money as a primary rather than a secondary goal, but still not a corporate animal).
-
(rather you seemed to have defended a position where you say pupils should not be questioning their 'betters').
I would not include myself amongst their 'betters' but I am better informed than many of them. Scientifically speaking , yes- I would say that they would need a lot more than a minute's thought before they were, in any way, qualified to question 'betters' like Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Hawkin and the others. If I tell a child not to run across the road I don't think anyone would criticise me for imposing my superior knowledge and experience. Neither should a teacher be criticised for strongly advocating a view at which he has arrived through well informed choice.
Do you realise just how little the average child knows about any of these academic matters? I talk to them every day and ignorance is rife - dominated by garbage that they hear in films and TV.
It is not for nothing that the word 'education' includes the Latin word for 'to lead'. It does not imply "help yourselves to any old idea you fancy, kids".
Is the idea to help them or to allow complete anarchy of ideas in a desperate attempt to avoid 'indoctrination'?
In any case, A-S, your function on this forum (just like mine) seems to 'put people right' when they stray outside the reasonable bounds of Science thinking. How can you criticise this when it's carried out with kids who, even more, need protection from 'the evil- Science Fiction'?
-
It is not for nothing that the word 'education' includes the Latin word for 'to lead'. It does not imply "help yourselves to any old idea you fancy, kids".
Is the idea to help them or to allow complete anarchy of ideas in a desperate attempt to avoid 'indoctrination'?
In any case, A-S, your function on this forum (just like mine) seems to 'put people right' when they stray outside the reasonable bounds of Science thinking. How can you criticise this when it's carried out with kids who, even more, need protection from 'the evil- Science Fiction'?
I think the key distinction is between 'lead' and 'choral' - I do not see myself as ever imposing my view of reality, but that is not to say that I do not try and provide leadership.
There is nothing wrong with kids helping themselves to any ideas - but they should learn to be able to then learn to judge those ideas, to accept challenges on those ideas (the right to challenge comes with an obligation to accept challenges) and thence to learn which ideas are defensible and which are not. That is very different from telling kids 'you must not go there' or 'that idea is forbidden'.
-
sophiecentaur, do you think einstein knew everything about physics before he questioned it?
No, einstein spent his whole life questioning. When he was five his dad gave him a compass. He became infatuated with trying to figure out how it worked. When he was sixteen he had written up a big theory that he used to try to enter a university. He was denied.
when he was sixteen he had no degree, his knowledge of the subject was limited, and his theories (I'm pretty sure) reflected that. A knowledgable person could see his flaws, and to them, he would look like one of those wackos you were referencing.
Does that mean, that coming up with theories when he was younger, and questioning modern physics was a waste of time? Do you think he should of waited until he was 26 and knew exactly what he was talking about before he ever questioned the current theories?
If you answer yes to those questions, then me and you will just have to agree to disagree. Cuz, I think, if you spend your whole life trying to memorize what other people think, when your older, you're going to be very good at memorizing what other people think. And if you spend your whole life thinking for yourself, when you're older you're going to be very good at thinking for yourself.
-
I must agree with Sophie. Science depends and revolves around a priori reasoning.
Only with a firm foundation in physics did Einstein know WHICH questions to ask and HOW to formulate the answer. He did have a degree in Physics and read advanced physics before he went to high school, all before 16. Or did the mathematics proving his theory come out of fresh air?
Lord people, were eating our own here so far. Let's not get out of hand.
-
I suspect a more interesting example than Einstein would be Faraday - who was totally self taught - and quite prescient:
"One day sir, you may tax it." Faraday's reply to William Gladstone, then British Minister of Finance, when asked of the practical value of electricity.
Or, more recently, Richard Feynmen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman#Biography
The young Feynman was heavily influenced by his father, Melville, who encouraged him to ask questions to challenge orthodox thinking.
-
Im not saying you dont need some form of education to formulate a good theory that can hold up to modern day theories. In fact I said, einstein didnt have a good grip on physics when he was sixteen, and his theories refected that. (he didnt write special relativity when he was 16)
Im saying if you dont question science when you are young and dont know what your talking about, you'll never know how, when you're older.
this is like saying tiger woods could never win majors untill he is at least twenty, so it is a waste of time for him to play golf untill then.
you become good at physics theory the same way you get good at everything else in the world, through repitition and effort. You can't just start once you're 26, and expect to know how to be any good at it. And just like in athletics, you have a prime, einstein didnt come up with relativity when he was 40.
Ill tell you exactly why your method of "learn everything question later" process doesnt work. Predicting the unknown is the skill we are trying to perfect. How does a teacher telling you all the unknown variables before you ever think about them for yourself help you become good at predicting the unknown?
In order to be good at predicting the unknown, you need to practice predicting the unknown. And if some teacher tells you the unknown, its not unknown anymore. How are you supposed to be able to figure out the hard stuff, if you've never tried to figure out the easy stuff?
I mean, I guess you could say, well the teacher could tell you what who and who said, and you could think about it yourself anyways. But that is just too hard, the power of suggestion is too great, knowing alternative answers would get in the way of formulating your own.
Or as einstein once said "the only thing that gets in the way of my learning, is my education"
-
I disagree one need the drive when young. I questioned nothing when young, but learned only after getting into college that there was such a thing as a "multiple working hypothesis" or the need to question the authority of traditional thinking. But once exposed to it, this way of thinking became second nature. I have used it well and have been very successful over the 30 years I have been practicing my science.
All a person needs is a flexible mind and the will to use it.
-
I questioned everything when I was at school and was labeled a trouble maker when I kept saying that does not make sense, could you explain it again only to say it does not make sense again, eventually being ordered to write it down whether I thought it made sense or not.
I set up an experiment at a local college to show the head of science how gravity lifts water inside a tree and inside a simple plastic tubular model. We both looked on as water was observed to flow up to the classroom window, which was way over the 10 metres written in the textbooks he was teaching from. A number of students also looked on and heard the head of science say. "I have no problem with this explanation for how trees lift water, it is now perfectly obvious. But, hey what can I do? I have to keep teaching the National Curriculum and cannot deviate from it in the slightest”. This was unfortunately not by any means an isolated case. And when the experiments were presented to the Association of Science and Education, lots of empty promises were made and all of them broken.
A little ignorance of the many reasons why something won’t work according to the literature does little harm. In fact it is probably the reason research advances and existing paradigms are overturned and established views are eventually abandoned. Children may not benefit as much as you feel they might from being told everything is written in stone and nothing remains to be challenged. In fact, I remember someone on this forum saying real science is boring, it consists mostly of repetition, dotting the I’s and crossing the t’s and maybe refining existing models. I think this is horse-crap. How many times have we heard, “it is not fully understood” “we do not know how it works” “it is believed to be” “insufficient data” “Our best guess is” “that thing will never get off the ground” “it is thought to be” “not enough evidence to support it” and the best one of all, “Our predictions were wrong”
How many times do we hear a glass of wine is good for you and a week later even one glass of wine is bad for you? We have not investigated the ocean depths, yet we convince our students that we know everything about the universe?
Maybe if we were a little more honest in our schools about the real limitations to our understanding of science we might encourage a few more bright young people to advance science further than anyone thought possible, other than the bright young students of course.
-
Faraday - who was totally self taught
Do you mean he invented everything out of thin air - or did he read a lot?
What you learn from books is no different from what you are 'told'.
This seems, suddenly turned into a 'beat up the educators' thread.
Education is essential.
Until it is given some status, in the UK,many potentially great teachers will stay away from it. Most complaints about 'the system' really stem from experiences of teachers who do not know enough or who cannot actually control disrespectful kids.
What alternative have all you complainants? (This has to be a mass - low budget service so don't expect the luxury of one-to-one teaching) Suggest a formula which will deliver the same or better for all the kids in our Schools -using people of the ability of current teachers.
P.S.
I set up an experiment at a local college to show the head of science how gravity lifts water inside a tree
With respect, you set up an experiment in which water was lifted. You didn't actually prove what was lifting it. I suspect that your explanation may have been little better than the dodgy one you had been given. Remember, ASE can make no promises about how Science must be taught - they can only recommend.
-
Faraday - who was totally self taught
Do you mean he invented everything out of thin air - or did he read a lot?
What you learn from books is no different from what you are 'told'.
Both from books, and from attending public lectures.
The main point is that he adapted his education to his needs, rather than having education prepackaged and thrust down his throat.
This seems, suddenly turned into a 'beat up the educators' thread.
Education is essential.
Until it is given some status, in the UK,many potentially great teachers will stay away from it. Most complaints about 'the system' really stem from experiences of teachers who do not know enough or who cannot actually control disrespectful kids.
It seems to me that it is you who is beating up the educators - my complaint was more about the system than the people. I know lots of teachers who will say that they have as much problem with the system as the pupils do (I cannot say how much this is a peculiarity of State education, as State schools are essentially an arm of government, and has to operate pretty much as if it were part of the civil service).
As for disrespectful kids (and this is a problem with society at large, not only with education) - respect, in my view, is something one earns, and not something one merely expects and demands due to one's status.
The problem with teaching is not that it cannot attract good people, but it is very difficult to retain them after you have pushed them into a nervous breakdown.
I totally agree that education is necessary (and am certainly not suggesting I would have wished never to have been educated), but I am critical of the structure of the educational system (to be fair, no human endeavour can ever be without fault, but that is no reason to be sanguine about the faults it has).
What alternative have all you complainants? (This has to be a mass - low budget service so don't expect the luxury of one-to-one teaching) Suggest a formula which will deliver the same or better for all the kids in our Schools -using people of the ability of current teachers.
Simply, try and do less, but do it better. The notion that we should have 50% of our young people educated to degree level is only meaningful if you drag degrees down to the same problems we have with schools. I would be happy to reduce the school leaving age (but improve adult education possibilities), so you educate people that want to be educated, rather than turning schools into prisons with forced education.
-
I agree it is beat up the educators. I am partial to educators as both my mother and my sister were educators. The persevered in spite of the challenges.
Had I not had a high school geometry teacher that taught me how to think, not just do Euclidean geometry, I would never have considered science. And despite all of the remarks to the contrary about being taught and the problems resulting, education was the most important factor in my choice of science as a career.
Einstein's mentor at 10 years of age was Max Talmud (or Talmey), a medical student). "The young Feynman was heavily influenced by his father, Melville, who encouraged him to ask questions to challenge orthodox thinking." (Wikipedia)
"The young Michael Faraday, one of four children, having only the most basic of school educations, had to largely educate himself.[6] At fourteen he became apprenticed to a local bookbinder and bookseller George Riebau and, during his seven-year apprenticeship, he read many books, including Isaac Watts' The Improvement of the Mind, the principles and suggestions contained therein he enthusiastically implemented. He developed an interest in science and specifically in electricity. In particular, he was inspired by the book Conversations in Chemistry by Jane Marcet.[7]
At the age of twenty, in 1812, at the end of his apprenticeship, Faraday attended lectures by the eminent English chemist and physicist Humphry Davy of the Royal Institution and Royal Society, and John Tatum, founder of the City Philosophical Society. Many tickets for these lectures were given to Faraday by William Dance (one of the founders of the Royal Philharmonic Society)."
also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday
As for Richard Feynmen: "The young Feynman was heavily influenced by his father, Melville, who encouraged him to ask questions to challenge orthodox thinking."
All this illustrates that these brilliant people were educated BASED ON THE BUILDING BLOCKS LAID DOWN PRIOR TO THEIR INVESTIGATIONS. They either had a mentor in the flesh, as in the cases of Einstein and Feymen or by the means of books as was one of the traditional forms of education in the early 18th century.
Teachers do an amazing job. I have seen my mother come home crying because a student was having problems - There are still teachers out there like this. The system does its best.
The problem today is poor parenting - not poor education.
-
Neither of us is advocating that education is of little use. We are merely stating that in science education we should not state theories are facts just because the teachers before have done so. This is what is wrong with science education today. State that this is what is currently thought to happen and until further evidence is presented to the contrary. Leaving theories open ended stimulates interest in young potential scientists allowing them to enter into this fascinating field with an open mind and endless prospects, rather than stamping out any hopes of advancing the boundaries of science simply because we can't be humble enough to admit we don't have answers to many of the main problems that science struggles to explain in a coherent manner,
Brilliance is typically the act of an individual, but incredible stupidity can usually be traced to an organization.
-- Jon Bentley
-
Self educating from books does not equate to indoctrination. It equates to a personal choice of reading and a personal choice as to whether the author is leaving a subject open for debate or closing it. The reader is invited to form an opinion, whereas the teacher has already formed an opinion and demands that the pupil accepts their opinion. Einstein read a lot of patents from lateral thinkers working in a Patent Office. He must have observed a number of brilliant patents and an even greater number of not so brilliant patents, but I suspect he became inspired by the minds of individuals who go against the grain and strive to present their individuality to the world. He must have admired this quality found in inventors.
I disagree with using self education from books as a comparison to general education.
-
I suspect from my personal experience ( though I have no scientific evidence for it ) that the majority of people long for certainties ( I wished that reality was different and I actually would gladly thank whoever prove me wrong ).
It seems that only a minority of people are not only non dependable of certainties but they like to challenge them and offer alternative views / solutions / theories.
Most of creative and deep thinking students certainly get frustrated with an educational system that teaches science ( and anything else ) in a dogmatic way. The system is tailored for the needs of the majority and frequently discourages independent and creative/lateral thinking.
Here is the problem. If the system was totally dedicated for critical and imaginative thinking and showed that there are a lot of unknowns, uncertainties, incompleteness and even confronting theories in science, it would probably frighten and confuse the majority.
Conversely, the system, as it is now, dogmatic, uncritical and with little space for creativity and lateral thinking disappoints and holds back bright students or even cause some of them to abandon school.
I think that creative people with a critical and independent mind should have a different educational system, tailored to their needs and talents.
-
Knock, Knock. Not being one of the brilliant minority, i wonder if i may add a few lines?
Firstly; it is all well and good knocking the education system, but how many of the contributers have first hand knowledge of the present education system? How many are involved in the education system? May i humbly note that as far as i know, only Andrew can answer yes to those two questions.
Secondly; Anyone who undertakes the profession should be treated with respect, so should we all. Respect should be automatic, not earned.
and lastly, Andrew, some of your arguments seem very much like those used by creationists to when arguing about evolution.
Thank you for your time.
-
Hi Paul. Definitely not a creationist, sorry to disappoint you. I struggle to see where you are coming from by saying this. A creationist believes he knows the answers because he was told so by other creationists. I don’t believe anything unless I have examined the logic myself and fail to find a connection with the idea that there is a god, unless of course god is the suns energy and earth is the mother of everything on Earth, I could live with these gods. I would indeed have a job of living without them for sure.
The problem as I see it is that the shakiest theories when talked about frequently enough become accepted as factual by the masses. All this serves is to subdue the advancement of science and guarantee academia jobs for those that perpetuate the shaky theories. As George said it is better to have science baring its chest and facing a continual barrage of assaults from challengers rather than defending it against all challengers. This would definitely sort out the wheat from the chaff and any established science that stood the test would indeed be less likely to be false science.
The idea oh having separate schooling for the few people that shine would not work either as money would inevitably make sure that their son or daughter was going to the advanced school, and not because of the way their children think but because of the way their parents think.
I have a better suggestion, move them up a year or two or three, this would not only keep the challenging minds occupied and interested but would inspire others to move forward too and at the same time inspire the students sitting next to a pupil 3 years younger than themselves and doing well, to increase the amount of effort they are putting into the lessons. This way the only students that move forward are those that can move forward under their own merit. I have experienced this scenario with my own sons who at the age of five and six could recite their times tables backwards including up to and beyond their 19x tables in reverse.
This was met with ferocity saying it was wrong to encourage ones children to learn at a far greater rate than students of the same age or higher. One would have thought they might have been interested in how the lads learned to do this using my own methods of recognising numbers in patterns. The end result was they told us not asked us that out children would have to be held back because they could not cope with the additional demand they needed from the staff. We argued and argued that they should be encouraged to move forward but alas they were indeed held back.
-
Hi Andrew
I agree with a lot of what you said but I have some criticism to address.
The idea oh having separate schooling for the few people that shine would not work either as money would inevitably make sure that their son or daughter was going to the advanced school, and not because of the way their children think but because of the way their parents think.
Not if such new system was genuinely and honestly based unmistakably and solely on MERIT.
If classism ( or privilegeism ), corruption and dishonesty is allowed then NO SYSTEM, no matter how rational, wise and scientifically sound is, will ever work satisfactorily ( or work at all ). Fairness and honesty are paramount for any efficient social system to work.
I have a better suggestion, move them up a year or two or three, this would not only keep the challenging minds occupied and interested but would inspire others to move forward too and at the same time inspire the students sitting next to a pupil 3 years younger than themselves and doing well, to increase the amount of effort they are putting into the lessons. This way the only students that move forward are those that can move forward under their own merit. I have experienced this scenario with my own sons who at the age of five and six could recite their times tables backwards including up to and beyond their 19x tables in reverse.
Sorry to disagree with this solution, Andrew, but this is rather a palliative than a true solution.
It is not just =more information= what creative and bright people are eager to obtain.
I think that you probably know that Einstein said: "Imagination is more important than information…"
I am not entirely familiar with the current UK or USA schools curriculum and educational methods but if they are similar to what I experienced in my youth then I would say this:
Actually if you shove excessive trivial ( or even irrelevant ) information in one person’s head he might become confused or distracted inside this chaotic informational “noise” and miss or lose a lot of core concepts and important functional relationships.
( I remember that I had to memorize mountains of useless rubbish when I was a student ).
It is information COUPLED with stimulating and wise guidance and challenging tasks that helps them to develop the sharp mental skills capable to observe and critically analyze facts and concepts, find relevant relations and conceptualize them synthetically; and find ingenious and original solutions to important and challenging problems.
-
RE: Actually if you shove excessive trivial ( or even irrelevant ) information in one person’s head he might become confused or distracted inside this chaotic informational “noise” and miss or lose a lot of core concepts and important functional relationships.
You are not wrong about this, thank you for reminding me about my school days. We walked into a classroom and was told to sit down and shut up. We were then instructed to write down everything on the blackboard, which usually contained a huge amount of text, then when we copied that side the blackboard was rotated and low and behold there was equally more text to copy with no explanation about the subject, time and time again this happened and if we became distracted, a board rubber was thrown at us and often connected with our heads.
This was not the same for all of our teachers, some were great at providing stimulating and thought provoking lessons, but sadly not many teachers shared this skill.
I had the cane many times throughout school, even belted with a plank of wood for going in the gymnasium with shoes on. I was born in the BLACKCOUNTRY a heavy industrialised area near Birmingham, so industry required a lot of manual labour and skilled tradesmen. We were, I believe to this day, conditioned and indoctrinated into accepting that we had to work with our hands rather than our brains and ink on paper. Great emphasis was placed on using tools in metal work and carpentry, building go-carts out of petrol lawn mowers was definitely more interesting than a blackboard full of text to copy down so no guesses for where most of the male pupils excelled here. Even so, it did little to knock it out of a few friends and me, we were fascinated by chemistry biology and physics and made bombs, done crazy experiments, I had a microscope of my own and an impressive self collected chemistry set, courtesy of HN Hoggs in Birmingham where we used to spend all our pocket money after sneaking on a train and dodging the ticket inspector by hiding in the toilets, not recommended now though as the penalties are probably more severe than being made to get off at the wrong station and having to walk miles to get home. Our physics teacher was right obnoxious and aggressive woman from India who frequently refused to continue with the lessons due to some of the pupils being disruptive who had learned how to wind her up so she would blow a fuse and walk out calling us all the worst names you could think of only to reward the pupils for disrupting the class. This stupid immature behaviour often ended up with the cane for many of us. And on reflection the pupils were the losers failing exams and becoming cannon fodder for the local industry. And now we don't have an industry in the U.K. coutousy of the greatest environmentalist of all time who put an end to pollution and over use of non renewable energy sources like coal and oil by single handedly wiping out the entire manufacturing backbone of Great Britain. Her name of course was Margaret Thatcher.
-
Firstly; it is all well and good knocking the education system, but how many of the contributers have first hand knowledge of the present education system?
We are all conversant with the education we received, and the system as it existed at that time.
Certainly, if someone is willing to come along and say that the present education system is 150% better than that which we experienced in our youth, I would be interested to hear of it. Many have tried to deny us the right to criticise, but no-one has indicated that out past experience is now obsolete, and that people leaving the education system today are so much better equipped by the system that they experienced than we were by our own experiences within the education system.
Certainly, the politicians seem consistently unhappy with the results of the system; while the teachers themselves seem to continually complain about the lack of an environment in which they can deliver the desired results; none of which leads ordinary members of the public to develop confidence about exactly how superior the present education system is to the one's of our youth, of which we have direct experience, and much to criticise.
Secondly; Anyone who undertakes the profession should be treated with respect, so should we all. Respect should be automatic, not earned.
I think we are talking about two different things here.
Clearly, every human being, whether they be Prime Minister, teacher, or tramp, deserves respect as a human being. That is different from having respect for their competence and authority, which in my view must be earned, whether you be Prime Minister or teacher.
The problem ofcourse, and I don't give this as a justification, only as an explanation; is that when someone demands respect for their authority, but then fail to earn it, they risk having their respect as a human being being compromised in the eyes of the general public. It is for this reason that many people will verbally attack politicians as people, when all they really deserve is to be attacked as politicians.
-
Sorry, but this reply is rather rushed as i am quite busy with other matters.
Andy, i was not attacking you when i said "some of your arguments seem very much like those used by creationists to when arguing about evolution." I was merely pointing out that, to me, your argument sounds rather like this:
Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
And as for your attack upon the great Mrs T, well shame on you.
George, you should respect both the person and the position held. By all means disagree with their actions, but the fact that they have that position does deserve respect.
I respect your position as a moderator and you as a person, yet i don't happen to agree with what you say. The respect is still there.
But you are making your judgement on a system that for both of us was a long time ago, things change. You say "Certainly, if someone is willing to come along and say that the present education system is 150% better than that which we experienced in our youth, I would be interested to hear of it."
well i don't think either of us did GCSE's, they were not around, but A levels were. Judge the pass rates for A levels from when we were at school to the present, you will see that the pass rate is much higher. This leads me to conclude that the teachers must be doing something right.
The only argument that the figures do not tell the whole story is that this is because the exams have got easier, this argument does a dis-service to our youth, and their teachers.
sorry have to go...
-
I keep reading phrases like "thrust down our throats" and "forced to", in this thread - relating to the education that was received by contributors.
Quite honestly, if you had been given the option at the age of, say 13, to sit in class or to be out playing, which would you have done? There are very very few teenagers who would volunteer for a week in School if they could choose an alternative. If they are not to be 'forced' to be there, how are we to get them educated?
Were you all so amazingly mature that you would have come into lessons just through a thirst for knowledge? My Sixth formers, who have actually chosen to study Physics and who find a lot of it interesting, still take every opportunity to avoid work, unless 'forced' to do it. Many kids who would be quite capable of A level Physics, choose softer courses because they are aware that they can get grades easier and with less work by avoiding Physics, Chemistry and Maths. (This is a common fact, voiced in the media).
As far as presenting 'core Science' to 95% of kids goes - (no, > 99%) there is little point in suggesting that they should doubt its content - it just unsettles them and, "if it may not be true, it's not worth knowing". In any case, what proportion of core Science is, actually, up for question, in as far as it can be used to predict pretty well all that happens to us in every day life? Is the only real complaint about the semantics of the word 'fact'? How much more 'factual' can you get than Newton's Laws of Motion or Snell's Law? Can you suggest a better way of describing those two everyday phenomena? Those two 'laws' describe and predict just what happens - (what more can you ask for? ) - in pretty well every event that we involve ourselves in. THAT is Science, as it hits most of the people most of the time. How can you complain about presenting kids with that?
I suspect that a lot of these posts are ranting against possibly unfortunate personal experiences and the inverse of rosy tinted spectacles.
I wonder how many modern-day Faradays and Einsteins are making similar comments, criticising their education. It's always easy to blame the system when things have gone wrong. Anyone under the age of 60 is welcome to roll up their sleeves and show us how to do it better - they are crying out for Science teachers.
I speak as one who put his money where his mouth is and who took up Science teaching for the final 15 years of employment. (I still do some supply, so I have not developed Rosy Tints, yet)
Finally , paul.fr.
I should say that there have been a lot of improvements in Science education BUT, the changes in attitude of parents and the state to the education system have not helped at all. There is an age, below which, humans are not capable of mature choice. In some matters, that age is beyond the late teens, even. Society seems to have forgotten this and produced an education system that assumes an unrealistic level of self discipline for school kids .
That idea of 'respect' for a system which may be locally flawed but is, basically, sound seems to have died. This is a pity because young people need a bit of 'blind allegiance' to a few core values to help them through a confusing period in their lives.
-
Well said Andrew (sophie)
-
I keep reading phrases like "thrust down our throats" and "forced to", in this thread - relating to the education that was received by contributors.
Quite honestly, if you had been given the option at the age of, say 13, to sit in class or to be out playing, which would you have done? There are very very few teenagers who would volunteer for a week in School if they could choose an alternative. If they are not to be 'forced' to be there, how are we to get them educated?
Quite honestly, my only recollection of school playgrounds was being bullied in them - not a place I ever considered I wished to be in if I did not have top be. I was far happier reading science books than being in the playground.
May be some years later, I think it was when I was doing A levels, I remember during lunchtime, sneaking into an empty classroom, and (having not so long ago been taught to integrate an area) sitting down and working out from first principle how to integrate a line (far preferable to have intellectual games than physical games). Some weeks later we went over the same thing in class, but I was quite chuffed with myself that I had got there first from first principles.
Around the same time, during some of my free periods, I would go to the school library (by no means was this true of all my free periods - there were times when I would walk out of the school gates and walk the street - but I would not stay in the playground). Alas, the school library did not have much in terms of interesting (from my perspective) books, but they did have one general law book, and it was the beginning of my rekindling of interest in history (something I was interested in before I started secondary school, but lost interest in because I found the way it was taught to be so boring, and the attitude of the teachers often more interesting in teaching conformity than in teaching knowledge).
Maybe not at age 13, but certainly in the last year before I started school I remember very much looking forward to starting school, to be going to a place of learning. It did not take long for that enthusiasm to be knocked out of me, and it certainly was not there at age 13.
Were you all so amazingly mature that you would have come into lessons just through a thirst for knowledge?
Mature - no. I would play up in class as much as anybody else (mostly because I felt class was not actually a very efficient place to learn).
My Sixth formers, who have actually chosen to study Physics and who find a lot of it interesting, still take every opportunity to avoid work, unless 'forced' to do it.
Oh yes, I would avoid work - what I saw (whether rightly or wrongly) as pointless work - but I certainly would not shy away from learning. This was what I always felt was an unresolved conflict between myself and school - I saw school as a place of learning, and if I could demonstrate that I had learned, then I saw no reason for school to enforce systems that in no way contributed to that education. The message I was receiving from school was that other students who were more conformist, but only half as capable of learning the subjects, were considered superior pupils, and education and learning was only a secondary objective for the school (whereas it had always been my own personal primary objective).
Many kids who would be quite capable of A level Physics, choose softer courses because they are aware that they can get grades easier and with less work by avoiding Physics, Chemistry and Maths. (This is a common fact, voiced in the media).
This may well be the perception of many - it was not my own view in my time (at least from a personal perspective).
My own personal view was that maths and sciences were the softer option, because the answers were objectively right or objectively wrong, and the personal subjectivity that existed in most other subjects simply had no place in science.
As far as presenting 'core Science' to 95% of kids goes - (no, > 99%) there is little point in suggesting that they should doubt its content - it just unsettles them and, "if it may not be true, it's not worth knowing".
Nothing like as frustrating as when you are taught something as being absolutely right, when either you are already aware that the theory is an oversimplification; or if you are not yet aware, yet two years later you are going to be told to forget what you were taught two years prior, and the right theory is something else. You quickly learn to doubt whether anything you are told is the right theory. I would not mind if people are honest, and say that this is an approximate theory, and that you will be taught a better approximation in the future - but to claim that this is an absolute truth, and then to be told it is wrong, is to be dishonest, and makes the teachers untrustworthy (at least, that was by black and white view as a child/teenager - now maybe I do see more shades of grey in human nature, but that was no use to me in my teens).
In any case, what proportion of core Science is, actually, up for question, in as far as it can be used to predict pretty well all that happens to us in every day life? Is the only real complaint about the semantics of the word 'fact'? How much more 'factual' can you get than Newton's Laws of Motion or Snell's Law? Can you suggest a better way of describing those two everyday phenomena?
Yes, some of it is down to semantics (and certainly, Newton's laws of motion are qualified by relativity and QED - but that really is not the main issue, since no doubt relativity and QED will be qualified by something else).
The point is to recognise that Newton's laws are two things - they are observations (which anybody can make, and is the core of all science), and modelling. It is to demonstrate that models are merely a way of linking together observations, and making predictions (which are then testable) from that. None of this is about 'fact' in any absolute sense, but it is about a functioning mathematical model (which is only considered a close approximation of fact, and its closeness of approximation depends totally on how well the predictions agree with observed fact - but only the observations can be regarded as actual fact). This allows the notion that if a better model comes along, it does not make the previous model 'wrong', or untrue, or not worth knowing, and it certainly does not make the proponents of those models out to be liars. It also demonstrates to pupils both how models are created, as well as their limitations. It demonstrates that the best you have is merely the leading edge of knowledge, and not any right or wrong; and it gives them an idea of how they can push forward that leading edge of knowledge.
It's always easy to blame the system when things have gone wrong.
If not the system, then what, or who? If you can point to one person, I might seek to blame them; but there are so many people involved that one cannot blame them all, so one must find the fault with the system itself.
Ofcourse, I suppose you can seek to blame the pupil (and I often find that this seems to be the option that the system itself chooses). This might be more reasonable if the pupil was given more freedom in the choices they may exercise, but you cannot blame a prisoner (and, yes, when you start sending parents to prison for the absence of their child, then I do regard school as a prison) who has been denied their freedom of action for less than enthusiastically embracing that over which they have been given no ownership.
I should say that there have been a lot of improvements in Science education BUT, the changes in attitude of parents and the state to the education system have not helped at all.
Since the State is a core part of the education system (being the both employer, and the agent that sets the objectives for the system), thus this fact alone reasonably supports the argument that the system is seriously flawed, and flawed in a way that is beyond the control of any single teacher (which was my argument from the start).
As for the role of the parents, this has been a long standing issue, in that parents are perpetually being blamed for everything, but being provided with no support at all in anything (exactly how much of the education system itself - moving away from science - is geared towards making good parents). Aside from that, there is a perpetual tug og power between the parents, the schools, and the State - so it is no surprise if maybe their is not as much good will as their ought to be between the three groups (this was, maybe to a lesser extent than today, something my mother used to complain about when I was at school). Schools seem to believe that parents should be doing as the schools demand of them, while parents believe that schools should be answerable to them as parents rather than the other way around.
Maybe one reason why the private sector remains more effective in education than the State sector is because the schools are paid by the parents, rather than the State, thus making them aware that the ultimately remain answerable to the parents rather than the State, thus defusing the power struggle between parent and school.
That idea of 'respect' for a system which may be locally flawed but is, basically, sound seems to have died. This is a pity because young people need a bit of 'blind allegiance' to a few core values to help them through a confusing period in their lives.
Indeed - the Hitler Youth, and Young Communists, both believed as you do - and took good advantage of it (even the Jesuits were fully aware that if you can indoctrinate them when they are young, you have the power to change society, even to undermine the family values their parents may be trying to teach them).
-
George, you should respect both the person and the position held. By all means disagree with their actions, but the fact that they have that position does deserve respect.
I respect your position as a moderator and you as a person, yet i don't happen to agree with what you say. The respect is still there.
I have no problem with your disagreeing with me - I don't demand agreement, merely demand to be heard, as I would give a hearing to others of a different opinion.
I certainly would never demand respect as a moderator, and I would like to think that any respect I have in that regard is merely that which I have earned. If it becomes apparent that respect shown to me in that position is not being earned by me, then I would very genuinely feel I would be obliged to resign that position. I could not in all conscience retain any position, whether professional or voluntary, if I ever felt that I could not honestly earn respect in that position. I would not (could not) demand, expect, or desire, respect (excepting that to be expected by all human beings) that I felt was not earned by me. Clearly, I do not expect that I am perfect in anything, so in earning that respect, I would not expect to be beyond criticism, but I would nonetheless hope that any respect accorded is earned rather than merely automatically given.
If it is your genuine contention that your respect for me as a moderator as in unearned respect, then I would have to take that into account (I am hoping that it is merely an academic position you are holding with regard to this, rather than a true declaration of your position).
-
The point is to recognise that Newton's laws are two things - they are observations (which anybody can make, and is the core of all science), and modelling. It is to demonstrate that models are merely a way of linking together observations, and making predictions (which are then testable) from that. None of this is about 'fact' in any absolute sense, but it is about a functioning mathematical model (which is only considered a close approximation of fact, and its closeness of approximation depends totally on how well the predictions agree with observed fact - but only the observations can be regarded as actual fact). This allows the notion that if a better model comes along, it does not make the previous model 'wrong', or untrue, or not worth knowing, and it certainly does not make the proponents of those models out to be liars. It also demonstrates to pupils both how models are created, as well as their limitations. It demonstrates that the best you have is merely the leading edge of knowledge, and not any right or wrong; and it gives them an idea of how they can push forward that leading edge of knowledge.
And just how many kids in your average school would really make sense of that particular (very reasonable, well written) paragraph?
One problem is that people who complain about the way they were taught are viewing what they experienced, and sometimes resented at the time, in the light of many years' experience and with a more mature mind. Post hoc rationalisation is understandable. It is easy to delude oneself that one provided all one's own motivation against overwhelming odds.
It is very lucky and rare to be the sort of person who is that self motivated at such an early age. I know many who are not.
We can all have a good moan about the state, education and parents but the people who are ultimately responsible for the government in power - which, in turn, is responsible for the system of education- are the parents. These parents have, if they choose, much more time than the 1000 hours a year during which kids are in School in which to have some influence. They also have the power to vote for a political / educational system they want. Apathy seems to rule in both respects.
On the subject of 'respect', I think the attitude in the services says it all - you are saluting the rank and not, necessarily, the man.
It is the responsibility of society to produce an environment where this 'blind allegiance' is morally well founded. It would be foolish to expect the young people to respect the path of 'good' automatically and without help. How much 'help' is permissible before it is looked on as'indoctrination'?
BTW, I have seen no volunteers to get stuck into the system, yet. How about it guys?
-
The point is to recognise that Newton's laws are two things - they are observations (which anybody can make, and is the core of all science), and modelling. It is to demonstrate that models are merely a way of linking together observations, and making predictions (which are then testable) from that. None of this is about 'fact' in any absolute sense, but it is about a functioning mathematical model (which is only considered a close approximation of fact, and its closeness of approximation depends totally on how well the predictions agree with observed fact - but only the observations can be regarded as actual fact). This allows the notion that if a better model comes along, it does not make the previous model 'wrong', or untrue, or not worth knowing, and it certainly does not make the proponents of those models out to be liars. It also demonstrates to pupils both how models are created, as well as their limitations. It demonstrates that the best you have is merely the leading edge of knowledge, and not any right or wrong; and it gives them an idea of how they can push forward that leading edge of knowledge.
And just how many kids in your average school would really make sense of that particular (very reasonable, well written) paragraph?
How many people have tried - or is this merely starting from a presumption of defeat before you even make the attempt?
People complain that the young people of today don't understand science - but if the do not understand the above, then how can they possibly understand what lies at the core of science?
If you do not teach the above, then you are not teaching true science, but are teaching science in the same way that the Jesuits taught Christianity. OK, maybe you might argue that the Jesuits knew a thing or two about teaching, so in that respect you are following a well proven formula, but it is not science.
One problem is that people who complain about the way they were taught are viewing what they experienced, and sometimes resented at the time, in the light of many years' experience and with a more mature mind. Post hoc rationalisation is understandable. It is easy to delude oneself that one provided all one's own motivation against overwhelming odds.
It is very lucky and rare to be the sort of person who is that self motivated at such an early age. I know many who are not.
I would both agree and disagree.
Firstly, my view is that all children are inherently self motivated - but self motivated at what is the question. No adult can motivate a child, they can only try and find constructive ways of channelling their innate motivation. Too often, the education system (again, like the prison system, but to follow your other analogy, also like the army) seems to desire to first break the child so as to be able to reconstruct the child in the way it desires.
No, I really don't believe that my own motivation did withstand the overwhelming odds. It did not break my desire to learn, but it did leave me feeling isolated, and certainly disincentivised me from striving to do better for myself. It failed to channel who I was, and tried to turn me into someone I was not, with the result that it did almost as much harm as good.
Ofcourse, all recollections are subjective, even recent recollections are subjective (which is what makes witness statements inherently unreliable); yet if one dismisses one's recollections of one's own childhood as worthless, then how is one supposed to have empathy for the children of today - merely by reading about them in textbooks written by eminent child psychologists?
We can all have a good moan about the state, education and parents but the people who are ultimately responsible for the government in power - which, in turn, is responsible for the system of education- are the parents.
This is grossly simplistic and inaccurate.
Firstly, even if one naively assumed that giving people the right to choose which party forms the next government really gives them much direct power at all, it assumes that the electorate equates to the parents of the land, ignoring the significant proportion of the population who are not parents.
But, as I said, even that assumes that the power of the vote really makes that much difference, much less that such a crude instrument of power (even if it were effective) could really make such fine detailed changes in the structures of government as to influence the structures of the education system. What influence did the electorate make regarding the UK entering the Iraqi war (an event that is likely to constrain UK government action, in terms of foreign policy, law and order, social policy (particularly race relations policy, freedom of speech, and religious tollerance), and economic constraints - wars are expensive) for many years to come. It is yet to be determined if the UK electorate will have any say in whether the UK government will sign up to the revisions to the terms of our involvement in the EU. So amidst all this, you think the electorate really has the power to influence education policy (let alone that the fraction of the electorate that are parents, and so are most influenced by the education policy, would have an exclusive control over it)?
These parents have, if they choose, much more time than the 1000 hours a year during which kids are in School in which to have some influence.
Certainly, mothers can, if they elect (and can financially afford) stay at home to concentrate on bringing up their children. It is a policy that is actively discouraged by modern society (both by government policy itself, which seeks to bring mothers as quickly as possible back into the work place, and thus as active contributors to the tax base; but also by society at large, that regards being a wife and mother as a primary occupation as being demeaning to women, and that women can only seek public respect through their careers outside of the home; and finally, it is scarcely a financially affordable option for most couples in the present economic climate).
Certainly, my mother did greatly contribute to my interest in science and maths; but equally, was unable to stimulate my interest in history (which is why that interest was on the wane during the period when I was totally reliant upon my school for stimulating my natural curiosity in the matter). Then again, there are many who might regard that a parent becoming too involved in their child's education may undermine the role of the school, since it will probably mean that the child will become more bored being taught alongside children who are not as effectively supported by their parents, and it may undermine the particular curriculum that the teacher might wish to teach in class.
On the subject of 'respect', I think the attitude in the services says it all - you are saluting the rank and not, necessarily, the man.
You mean the kind of 'respect' where you salute an officer to his face, and stick to fingers up at him when his back is turned. Is that really 'respect', in any meaningful way - or just going through the motions.
In any case, in many ways the loss of that attitude is part of what is seen as a breakdown of the remnants of the feudal order, where people were expected to 'know their place in society', in a society where rank mattered more than personal merit. Even the military eventually learned (as long ago as the aftermath of the Crimean war) that placing social position above personal competence does not make for the best results.
It is the responsibility of society to produce an environment where this 'blind allegiance' is morally well founded.
Is that not a contradiction. If allegiance is to be truly blind, then how can anyone judge whether it is morally well founded or not?
Yes, I realise you are suggesting that we should teach children to accept blind allegiance, and are somehow expecting that as adults they will suddenly learn to be more critical of this allegiance, but it will not happen - as they are taught as children, so they will take into adulthood (that after all is what the premise of education is about - it is to teach people how to become functioning adults).
BTW, I have seen no volunteers to get stuck into the system, yet. How about it guys?
I really do not see myself as having anything like the formal qualifications to do any such thing (and am less than 9 years away from my 60th birthday).
In any event, I have met far too many teachers who have been turned into nervous wrecks by the system, that I really am not sure I am that masochistic.
-
Just a quick question for you guys. Is homeschooling allowed in the UK?
-
Just a quick question for you guys. Is homeschooling allowed in the UK?
Technically, yes, although it causes a lot of controversy. Not least, the police often assume the school age pupils on the streets during school hours are playing truant, and will pick them up (this was not the case when I was a child, but I have heard of it happening more recently), which makes it very difficult for parents who are home schooling, and don't lock their kids up at home throughout the school day. There is a lot of pressure also from many councils who do not like home schooling because they feel that applying quality control on how it is done is very difficult.
-
Firstly, my view is that all children are inherently self motivated - but self motivated at what is the question. No adult can motivate a child, they can only try and find constructive ways of channelling their innate motivation.
Do you have a lot of personal experience / evidence of this or is that comment based on your own childhood?
-
Certainly, mothers can, if they elect (and can financially afford) stay at home to concentrate on bringing up their children.
One doesn't have to stay at home in order to clock up well in excess of 1000 hours of contact time with your children.
You have to bear in mind, also, that of the 1000 total hours of School time, an individual teacher will not be likely to see a student for more than about 80 hours in a year. The potential for parents to influence a child is a lot more than this, you must agree.
Is there no age limit for my 'blind allegiance' idea to apply? Are infants expected to come to their own conclusions and make suitable choices for life? My comment was supposed to apply to kids who actually need guidance and a formal , imposed, structure. The question is "what age child".
The values which are most important, of course, are the family values which parents should be providing long before School starts.
My use of the word 'fact' is, of course shorthand for 'established knowledge and models which work in a huge number of situations etc. etc'. How much time do you think your average kid has to find all that out for him / herself from scratch and in an academically rigorous way? Do you not acknowledge that it is easy to confuse a young mind when every bit of information is over-qualified with caveats and warnings? Listen to how the talk to each other. That is the way they take in information best; concrete assertions with the very occasional opinion. The 'fact' they heard about Science on the TV, the previous night is swallowed hook line and sinker. If I had £1 for every time I had to help with some mis-conception that had been pedaled in a popular Science program I would not be needing my pension. I have certainly done my share of suggesting that they should be selective and 'questioning' of the information they hear. Should I not be 'putting them right'?
I think you are under-valuing the grounding that you surely received, at least at Primary School, if not in your early Secondary education. You cannot reasonably take all the credit for all your present level of competence. Might I suggest that someone during your schooling might have got a few things right?
I cannot understand why you seem so angry about this.
it gives them an idea of how they can push forward that leading edge of knowledge.
How many students out of the 350 in each year of my School would you be expecting to be planning on doing that? I have to teach them ALL, not just the potential Hawkings.
btw, 51 is not too late to start a PGCE course - you could expect a good 15 years of productive teaching.
I was not much younger than that when I started. Equal ops for older people is the thing nowadays.
-
Motivation is extinguished by people saying: "you can't do that" If we try adopting the same principles as teaching a puppy by rewarding rather than scolding or belittling. And when we do reward, make sure the rewards fit the results, we might just find a larger proportion of children willing to be educated.
Although self-motivation is in most children, it could be perceived that when a child does not want to get out of bed in the morning and is forced to go to school that the parents are providing the motivation. But if we examine the reasons why the child does not want to go to school in the first place we might find the root cause of educations failures. Making the lessons stimulating and interesting rather than mundane and boring might go a long way to achieving better attendance at least. And this is at the heart of this whole thread. Militarising schools is no longer possible due to the limited freedom now in place. The television no longer manipulates the masses any more than religion does thanks to the Internet. Having the world’s largest library in ones living room has probably done more for budding scientists than anything the education system has achieved. The Internet will eventually replace the whole education system by finding its unique way into the homes of the families as an instrument of direction and incentive. Indeed many entrepreneurs who have earned unprecedented wealth have done it using the Internet. The Internet can bring all of the best educators into the homes of anyone anywhere in the World. In Africa for example, there are many people advancing faster thanks to the Internet. Including the Nigerian Letter Scammers, unfortunately.
In its present format we are not yet ready to hand over education to the Internet, but in a few more years we will have found many ways to provide many choices and directions for science to evolve. There will be some pretty amazing educational sites developed that provide two way education, And even hologram Teachers honed to perfection in the art of encouraging and expanding expression and development, possibly sponsored by the companies who seek to employ the rising generation of free thinkers.
A good friend of mine works in a local Prison, he has observed that over two thirds of prisoners are illiterate!
Andrew K Fletcher
-
What is the one, major thing that drives the internet?
What is the only reason for it to exist in its present form?
-
Do you think, honestly, that the vested interests involved in the internet give a monkey's about our children except in as far as they can spend money?
The internet is a snare and delusion as far as our children's education is concerned.
There is no regulation and no accountability.
It is full of non-information and non-Science. How are children expected to find their way, reliably, to a good education on that particular path?
You may not be too confident about our education system but, at least, its raison d'etre is to provide something and not to take something away.
-
Why would we not expect a variation in human intelligence? It seems clear that there is a lot of variation in every other aspect of human life; physical height, body structure, athletic ability, musical ability, mathematical ability, and much more. Of course, genetics, family influences, societal pressures, diet, access to educational opportunities, are influencing factors. Yet I suspect that even if the "field were level", we would still find variation in human intelligence. Moreover, it seems clear that there are many components to human intelligence. The author, Howard Gardner, in his book, "Frames of Mind", The Theory of Multiple Intelligence, makes the case that there are potentially a multiplicity of intelligences; musical, mathematical, bodily mastery, spacial reasoning, and more. Evelyn Underhill, the author of the book "Mysticism", makes note of individuals, lacking any formal training, that harbor an innate understanding of spiritual matters. It seems to me that as a result of evolutionary demands, that a wider manifestation of "intelligences" is necessary in order to support human existence, and the need/hope for our continuance and survival.
-
Why would we not expect a variation in human intelligence?
Precisely.
But the reason that people are hung up about this is that the rewards of being 'cleverer' in some respects than others can be large. This introduces unfairness, jealousy and value judgments about individuals which may not be justified. I wonder whether there is a satisfactory solution to this situation.
-
Andrew, your thoughts on this:
School rewards systems;
Anastasia (aged 9) has recently moved schools (last 8 months). in her old school she was the top in her year and regularly got small prizes and certificates. In her new school she is third, and gets upset that she is not getting the prizes and certificates.
She rationalises this to herself by saying, "well i suppose it's not fair if i keep getting them, so the new school must just be sharing the prizes out so one person does not win all the time"
I'm all for introducing a bit of competition with some sort of reward, do you as a teacher think this is a good system for young kids?
-
Paul, I am not a teacher, Never said I was so wondering how you came to this conclusion?
Rewarding children is the way forward, definately. Remember a school handing out impressive prizes for pupils that have done well and some pretty impressive runner up prizes also. Can you imagine how a child would feel when rewarded for efforts and results. More importantly how other children would be inspired to give it their all and providing the rewards are presented fairly this system cannot fail to stimulate higher grades in schools that use it. However, we are still rewarding the children for sticking to the protocol rather than rewarding them for thinking about problems that remain unsolved or at best poorly understood.
Andrew
-
Paul, I am not a teacher, Never said I was so wondering how you came to this conclusion?
I was actually addressing the question to Andrew, also known as sophie, captain, skipper....Sorry, ermmm Andrew. Too many Andrew's.
However, your and anyoneelse's input is appreciated.
-
I'm all in favour of prizes at School.
They tend to be of two kinds, prizes for being 'best' at things and prizes for 'improvement' .
Self - referenced assessment and improvement is for everyone and a good School makes just as big a thing of it as norm - referenced assessment.
The unfortunate thing is, in Comprehensive education, the brightest students find it so easy to do better than the rest that they sit back, once they have had their prizes, and coast. The system, having already rewarded them for being 'best', holds back on rewarding further personal advancement because, that way, they would be getting two sets of prizes. So why should they bother?
And the converse? There is just not enough 'fear' at work in Schools. It isn't acknowledged as a valid tool to be used for encouragement of children. Unfortunately, the kids don't understand that the rules have changed in this way and that they're supposed to be motivated without any kind of fear. The fact is that a large proportion of them just wont be. Kids come in at 11 years of age and have no idea of how to 'behave'.
At the same time, most adults freely admit that the only reason that they go along with a lot of Society's rules because the are afraid of some dire consequence.
Why not treat kids a bit more like adults? They are constantly asking us to!
-
Prizes implies winners and losers. Even adults suffer from such circumstances. I believe children should be taught to appreciate that knowledge and learning are the real prize. Teaching can be designed to bring out the best in every student, without intimidating the less bright students, or limiting the gifted student. Difficult, yes, impossible, I don't think so. What about the quality of teachers? I have encountered, a precious few teachers, that love to teach and really care about every student. They constantly remind you how important an educations is, and provide real world examples of success and failure. They encourage their students to study, and provide study aids. Moreover, intellectual and moral courage can be taught and learned, and overcomes irrational fear. Using fear as a teaching method leads to aggressive behavior. Kid are not adults. Challenge kids, and let them have fun, and enjoy the experience. Give them the bases for growing into intelligent and mature adults.
-
First prize, a day trip to The British Science Museum for the whole class
First Prize, a day trip to the London National Inventions Fair for the whole class.
Achieved because the more advanced students are helping others to understand the lessons and becoming teachers themselves. Prize awards for students that have progressed the most, irrespective of initial abilities.
Prizes from what I remember don't have to be materialistic nonsense.
They can include camping events and even visiting other countries, funding these events can be part lottery funded, part government funded and part parent funded, then everyone is rewarding.
-
I am popping in way down here in this thread.. Rewards can have their place but also can be misplaced if you do not give the proper reward.I have always used reward as a last resort. Mostly I value encouragement, and knowledge is their rewards.... Here is an example mind you this is 5 year olds and under about 2yrs 9 months to 5. I always loved doing projects and learning things by doing them or working with something experimenting with things even at this age..I would encourage my children through a special project that they loved or a magic show that made them think.. I would do things weekly and if it was a huge hit I would save it to do again but as a reward for their learning eventually the rewards evolve and become much more complicated. Their favorite has always been the gravity experiment . I would give lessons through out the year where we would study say space, or sea life, or learning disabilities,.... weather, water, wind, ice, fog, rain, evaporation tons of things.. But I would pick a project that I would set up to have for a goal for the whole class it was not so much individual but the class working as a unit to accomplish goals.. It may have been sitting through a whole book on planets and solar systems and explanations and questions in between.. but if they participated they would get to add a item to a list of things with which we would drop out of the second floor window at the end of the unit! The unit was obviously the solar system, space.. we made planets listened to stories about planets studied detailed things brought things from home pertaining to the planets etc.. atmosphere etc. They loved the gravity project and would do it everyday if they could .. and they often did . they became quite good judges about weight and how gravity works.. you would be surprised what was on those lists, and what they would remove from the list the last week before the project because by the time we did it they knew that we could not drop a baby person dog cat rat glass etc. out the window.. because they had learned about what happens with gravity.. we tried to fly of the step at school but we found we did not have wings... but we also found playing with scarves in the wind that maybe they would float more and be ok when they hit the ground so we worked on things we added to our list.. they earned chances to add to the list through participation but also through coperation.. being a good friend not being disruptive when others wanted to learn.. etc.. Make sure the reward matches the efforts put forward... I was not about to reward them with a movie I wanted them to take reward in what they had learned even though they never really thought of it like that it was a special day and they loved it. My kids from 6 years ago still come visit me and ask about the gravity project.. some like spider unit others the weather.. but we always did a fun project for learning reward.. but it always fit the course of study and involved them participating and learning how to do it!.. Volcanos were great for reward as we did a whole unit on them.. LOL...
Anyway..There are times when other rewards work also but you need to remember kids are all different and you will run in to children who will not try anything without a reward that is not appropriate those children need different reasons to learn or moreover different ways to learn...
Rewards can be good but you must know your children and be careful that your reward system does not exclude other less involved children because some rewards single children out and these days competition at young ages are discouraged not encouraged until they are older and understand the concepts behind competition and that is difficult for the very young and can cause some real problems with some children making them feel inadequet and giving them lo self esteem.. so you need to be careful how you reward if you decide to do so and make it appropriate.
-
i think some individual awards are ok. when i was in elementary school (ages 5-11 for me, but my birthday fell at an odd time so usually until people were twelve i think) our school had a little program where every month someone from every grade was chosen to be the "name of our school salute" but they set it up so that everyone had a chance. sometimes it would be the smartest kid, sometimes the most organized, most athletic... and you worked hard at what you WERE good at so you
-
oops. could win. they gave you a certificate and had an assembly and most of the time everyone's parents came.. you got your picture taken and put on the bulletin board. it was fun, and everyone wanted to win, and since we weren't all competing to do one thing, but what we were good at, nobody really felt excluded. so i don't think it's a terrible idea.
-
It's not terrible but you must be careful!..we had awards like that also!
-
But life outside School is a competition in virtually every respect. Kids are quite aware of this - they follow sport.
Prizes make people and kids try harder - which is good for them and everyone.
Without rewards - and that means some get them and some don't - people don't bother.
Make them feel special - payment by results is how adults do it.
That's life. That's human nature.
This doesn't mean, of course, that we can't be nice to people who don't get prizes.
-
Oh I agree with that also.. Its just that these days what they are teaching the young teacher is to stay away from reward... But I am not a young teacher I do reward but am careful not to exclude or illiminate other children in doing so.. I think it helps children set goals and nobody on earth does anything without expecting some kind of award or satisfaction from it. weather it is the pure joy you get by giving a gift or the appreciation for the gift or the happiness you know it provides... It doesn't make a person selfish to want to feel good about something they have done or accomplished it is great!
Everybody gets something from everything they do... they do things because it benefits them in some way or another...
-
But we don't get cheques for our contributions here- or do you?
-
The very first time you put your hand up in class to answer a question, certain you are correct only to find the teacher shouting you are wrong even to the point of ridiculing you in front of the class sends the wrong signal to a child who with only encouragement from their parents has learned to walk, learned to speak and understands most of the common words used by everyone around them. And if they are in a family that speaks two languages they are most likely bilingual by the time they have their first lesson, and if their parents are musically orientated they have probably learned to play a tune or two without anything other than encouragement and rewards. Now for the first time, thanks to a hostile environment the child encounters negative feedback and it’s not long before more negative feedback comes their way from the teachers and students, further denting their confidence causing brain lockup and withdrawal. From now on learning is far from a pleasant experience as the pressure is piled on. Punishment for failure to comply with the new aggressive negative teaching soon has the child dreading each and every day.
Turn on some music and let the kids look out of the window instead of staring at the teacher and blackboard and see how much more information these kids can absorb and understand, use positive teaching rewarding for getting things correct and supporting those that are having trouble understanding the lessons and we might find we will improve the class results and introduce well balanced students into the workplace rather than generating students who frankly couldn’t give a toss about whether they achieve anything or not.
Genius however bypasses the negativity by good fortune or even a little favouritism or because their parents provide the correct learning environment.
Every single student has a phenomenal learning capacity; it takes some careful guidance and balanced positive tuition to enable them to feel confident and comfortable enough to strive forward. Providing a comfortable safe learning experience eliminates the need for truancy.
However the home environment for many students is far from safe and comfortable and can be part of the problem with disruptive students, but even this can be turned to an advantage by generating a much better study environment in the school, allowing students from less fortunate backgrounds to excel in class.
Andrew
-
It really upsets me to read of the bad experiences so many of the above posts recount. I wonder if the proportion is really representative, though. People rarely feel strongly enough to publish an 'it was ok, really' opinion, so the sample may be a bit skewed.
A common thread here is the need for inspirational and exceptional teachers - a 'motherhood' statement..
A good idea but where are they all going to come from? It's all very well making such demands but, until you pay teachers a vast amount of money, you won't get enough of the 'right' callibre of person. They may not exist in enough quantity, even. This is the real world.
Many teachers go into the job because the holidays and timetable allow them to look after their own kids, conveniently, so it is not surprising that they are not necessarily inspired.
Meanwhile, the teaching courses ALL promote the sort of sensitive approach that we all crave. Lesson observations by peers, which, I admit, are not carried out enough in most Schools, also are supposed to deal with this. That is about the best that can be done. Needless to say, a class of 18, rather than 30+, would give every teacher considerably more time and surplus energy to perform more positively. Have you any idea what it's like just to keep 30 kids quiet enough to tell them about the next thing on the agenda (even if it is going to be exciting)? This is an every day of the week, every lesson of the day, problem.
If you want to make kids more positive about stuff then turn your attention to the media and the advertisers. Their input dominates and they have infinitely more money to spend on what they dish out than the education system has. Unfortunately, the harm they are doing is insidious and certainly not spotted by the kids it is affecting.
I wonder how many of the contributers to this thread (or their descendants) will write about how they were let down by the Rap lyrics they heard or the adverts for junk food they saw.
-
But we don't get cheques for our contributions here- or do you?
Of course not! But I do get something from being here. I feel good here, I get pleasure from learning and sharing ideas and exchanging experiences and meeting new people! It is my reward! Rewards certainly do not need be monetary! Especially better with children if they are not! I mean sure sometimes it is fun a a nice treat to reward them with something really special..as long as you are careful about it~!
-
I was delighted to be listening to the radio this morning while in bed. A school in Totnes, Devon has realised that it is far better to teach children how to think independently than to fill their heads full of facts!
School scraps subjects for themes
Supporters say tests can inhibit children's learning
A Devon secondary school has scrapped traditional lessons in a new way of teaching its entry-level students.
King Edward VI Community College, in Totnes, has abandoned the national curriculum for its year 7s, in favour of what it calls a "foundation year".
Separate subject lessons, with the exception of modern languages and PE, have been replaced with themes.
A question like "What makes a good citizen?" is taught across all the subject areas to improve learning.
The idea of the pilot scheme is that children become good learners, and think independently, rather than being stuffed with facts.
The school, which in 2003 was the first in Devon to scrap school uniforms, is believed to be the first in the county to adopt the new approach to teaching.
The idea behind it that is to discourage children from just thinking in boxes
Jane Richardson, assistant principal
Assistant Principal Jane Richardson said: "Students are still learning English and maths, and history and geography and ICT, and all other subjects they would learn in year 7. It's just that we don't call them by their individual names.
"The idea behind it that is to discourage children from just thinking in boxes."
She expects that as a result they will be better learners "without being told how to think".
The lessons last two hours instead of one.
One of the youngsters said: "I think it's good because we get two-hour sessions to work on it.
"We have more time to get involved with it."
Subject 'straitjackets'
Another said: "Sometimes you don't know what particular lessons you are doing.
"Sometimes it would be quite nice to have teachers for each subject, so you know what subject you are doing."
Terry Wrigley, an academic from the University of Edinburgh who has written widely on the subject of education, said: "I find it a great relief that schools are beg to break out of the straitjacket that has held them for nearly 20 years.
"People talk about standards and tests as if they were synonymous.
"Yet we have a lot of evidence that testing can reduce learning.
"As soon as teachers start teaching to the test, anything more complex goes out of the window."
Devon County Council said that several other secondary schools were watching the Totnes pilot with interest and may be about to follow its lead.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/7470751.stm
-
How does a scientist quantify this wisdom?
This sounds like 'the ability in the abstract' that Joseph Conrad refers to at the beginning of Lord Jim. You've worked with some amazing people.
-
Re: Andrew K Fletcher, I believe the educational methods you have described fit well within this discussion. The demonstrable fact that there is a variation in human intelligence, and intelligence has a multiplicity of elements, leads to the question, "why does traditional teaching fail to recognize this fact, and assume that their methods are specifically designed to address this fact". Obviously, their methods do not. Stimulating children to think individually takes advantage of their "distinct" abilities and learning styles. Eliminating or minimizing, otherwise distinct subjects, can potentially engender creative and original thinking. In my view, these alternative methods are more in accord with the way the mind actually learns, and makes logical connections; allowing, or permitting the student to reference the information in the context of his/her particular mode of thinking and mind-set. I find this method accords with my approach to learning, and that of original thinkers. Teaching methods of this kind, which do not focus on the "box", do not, at the same time, eliminate the box. It views the box from a much wider angle, allowing for individuals to discover their own way to approach its significance and meaning. As to the issue of testing, I am far from sure if that practice is sound. I agree, just, "teaching to the test", is a narrow and uninspiring way to teach, and, "anything more complex goes out the window". But how do we access the value of said methods without some testing?
-
Thanks for your input and remarks John.
Totnes is a place you have to see to believe. It’s a place one can believe has either slipped into the past or slipped forward into the future depending on your viewpoint. It is not surprising to find that the first move in allowing pupils to think for themselves with regards to the learning process stems form this quaint, warm and charming town. The town itself appears to attract many individual thinkers and this can be seen in the clothes they wear as one drives through.
RE: testing. Perhaps some day there will be no need to test but to feed hungry students with fascinating subjects at their own pace and their written work will reflect how well they have grasped each subject rather than placing them under the pressure of a stopwatch and a silent frowning onlooker instead of a friendly interactive tutor.
Does anyone realise that some people abhor being placed under pressure while others perform well from memory rather than from thinking about the subject at hand?
I think King Edward VI Community College has set a president that will be followed by many other schools in the not too distant future. And I applaud them for recognising the shortfalls in the current curriculum processes.
I would go so far as to say a Test awakens a fight or flight fear in some pupils and penalises them for seizing up when normally they would function well.
-
Hm, it's all very cosy, all this project stuff, and it may well work wonders (if well taught, otherwise it's just a patronisng attempt to slip normal lessons through under some other heading and the bright kids will get very pissed off, can you tell what I thought of the two occasions teachers tried themes with us at school?).
However, I would be really interested in how these themes are going to incorporate the really serious feats of memory required to get to grips with a modern foreign language (the only way I've ever come across that works is regular, small vocabulary tests). Also, I don't see how something like calculus fits in (and if you're going to do science in any meaningful sense you have to learn calculus and statistics).. it's important and it has to be taught not just imbibed alongside other stuff, it needs lots of tedious examples to embed it.
I have no doubt that for English/humanities/RE/whatever it's all very lovely, but I'd want to see the details before I subjected any child of mine to that sort of teaching scheme.
-
Hi Rosy
This might be of interest to you with regards to this school being suitable for a child.
Against that background, the governors voted by a large majority to support a non-uniform policy for a pilot period of three years, a decision that prompted another wave of parental protest and media interest.
What sustained the decision-makers was their confidence in the students, who have responded as we thought they would. There have been no incidents of bullying relating to student dress, standards of behaviour have not fallen, designer looks have not been a feature, and a growing number of parents admit that their fears have proved groundless.
We emphasised from the start that the decision had to be based on the school's values, one of which is the importance of listening to the student voice. The majority view was that school uniform is more about control and conformity than promoting the learning of creative and questioning individuals.
We are totally committed to raising educational standards within a courteous and self-confident community of learners. This summer, our GCSE results were the best ever.
So, although it is not easy, it is still possible to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy – although, of course, there are some who say it could only happen in Totnes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/main.jhtml?xml=/education/2004/10/21/tefform20.xml
-
Heh, I didn't mean in this school it wasn't working/wouldn't work... more that the "pilot effect" is huge, if you're trialling a new (or rediscovered, I believe Dave's primary in the South Hams did a lot of teaching like this which he thinks worked pretty well) and interesting way of teaching it's always motivating for students and teachers and (unless it's amazingly awful, which this clearly isn't) will get great results. I was reacting more to the idea that it was *the* answer to the creativity suppressing effect of the current increasingly exam-oriented system (which I think for many subjects, including science, is very real and depressing). It sounds to me like a really good idea in many respects (I remain worried about the effect on the teaching of maths, which is mostly a skill that needs practice rather than a set of facts to learn/imbibe), but... it's always as well to check the bathwater for lurking babies.
On the other hand, I would have hated to go to a school without a strict uniform code. My uniform was hideous and I loathed it, I would have done anything for a uniform in a sensible colour (not red) with which I was allowed to wear trousers, but I hated clothes shopping more. I guess it has to do with whether kids are interested in expressing their personality through their clothes, which I wasn't (never have been)... I had other ways of doing that.
Anyway, surely challenging the prevailing orthodoxy surely is the prevailing orthodoxy in Totnes?
-
Your right Rosy a group punk rockers are indeed uniformed. The uniform may be different but they have followed the same dress code in the end. Totnes is an amazing place and oozes with character and characters
-
I may be wrong here, but the title of this topic " Why Brilliant People Are A Minority ?" is not actually a question...is it? More of a statement.
-
To get the most out of genetic intelligence, a positive environment is necessary.
-
Absolutely 100% correct
To get the most out of genetic intelligence, a positive environment is necessary.