Ship of Fools: Purgatory: Religious education in state schools

Thread: Purgatory: Religious education in state schools Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000787

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :

What place, if any, should dogmatic (as a pose to comparative) religious education have in the education system, particularly in the public (state) schools of jurisdictions with no state religion.

Here in New South Wales there is legal provision for members of recognised faith groups to deliver up to an hour a week of Special Religious Education (SRE) in public schools. Parents may choose for their child(ren) to attend the classes of any available denomination/faith or none.

Typically you will find Catholic and Anglican scripture/SRE classes in most schools, with Muslim classes where there is demand and capacity. The teachers in SRE classes are clergy and volunteers; teachers from the school may themselves be volunteers but do not receive compensation from the state for the loss of non-contact time. The school has to arrange continued supervision for those whose parents have opted for no SRE; more on that later.

The provision came about many years ago when the state took over the primary responsibilty for the delivery of education from the churches.

It is a legislative requirement that the time be allowed. The Department of Education's policy on SRE states that

quote:
Schools are to provide appropriate care and supervision at school for students not attending SRE. This may involve students in other activities such as completing homework, reading and private study. These activities should neither compete with SRE nor be alternative lessons in the subjects within the curriculum or other areas, such as, ethics, values, civics or general religious education.

Here is the rub. The non-religious, especially those militantly so, are among those who particularly object to the provision of SRE. Their children spend the time sitting quietly, with no active educational engagement, underthe terms of the policy. There have even been anecdotal reports of such children picking up litter under the guise of 'recycling'. In our local school, a parent-run alternative on comparative religions was halted after 18 months by the Department when they learned of it; comparative religions is what is referred to in the quote above as general religious education.

Enter St James Ethics Centre. The regulations have been set aside in order to allow pilot ethics classes to run for years 5/6 in 10 schools across the state, including our local school. The religious groups are up in arms, with significant web content established by the Australian Christian Lobby and the Anglican Diocese of Sydney. The ethics classes have so far been a successful competitor to SRE, made up not only of some of the non-SRE kids, but also those who were previously attending SRE. The religious groups see the ethics classes as a threat, and are presenting two potentially contradictory arguments:

The ethics content has a secular humanistic basis and should be opposed as being inappropriate.
Holding ethics classes at the same time as SRE disadvantages those children whose parents would like them to attend ethics and SRE.

Let me nail my colours to the mast: I believe in a firm separation between church and state. I am therefore opposed to the provision of SRE. I see the ethics classes as a good first step to their eventual removal.

From an evangelical point of view (I was, and may still be, an evangelical), church-state links lead to nominalism: I'm English so I'm Church of England/Christian; our kids attend SRE so we're Christian. From a more liberal point of view, it is an unnecessary imposition of religion on a pluralistic society. Christians lobbying for a special place in society neither edifies them nor glorifies Christ. One of my (atheist) friends posted on a Facebook discussion (he did later apologise for the strength of the 'fools' reference):

quote:
I think they should arrange SRE on a special day each week, lets say Sunday. Set aside special buildings, lets call them churches, with specialist teachers, lets call them pastors. Finally make it available to all people who think this stuff makes sense, lets call them fools.

I will probably have more to say depending on where this thread goes, but that seems to be a bit of a bumper OP. What do others think?

[ 15. June 2016, 18:47: Message edited by: Belisarius ]

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Yawn. My jurisdiction got rid of religious education in public schools* when I was in Grade 1. I didn't miss it, the school lessons were never that good anyway. When it comes to religion you will never please everybody. Ever. Taking religion out of public schools seems to anger everybody equally, so it must be the right decision.

*Ontario has publicly-funded Catholic schools since this mandated under the Constitution. If they weren't constitutionally protected they would have disappeared a long time ago.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

I wondered when our little NSW war would make it to the front page of the Ship. (As opposed to 6.4 billion letters in the SMH.)

As another ex-pat I think there are loads of related issues here:

1. Separation of Church and State. There is an argument to be had about this, but ISTM that this is a really dishonest way of having that argument. The government should have that discussion out in the open first ... but since the State government is trying its hardest to bring democracy into disrepute I hardly expect SRE is top of its list. The simple fact is that the state government did a deal with the churches in the past to take over education and until they revoke that deal (politically and legally) they've got to work within it.

2. The Ethics class (currently run as a trial) is obviously a fore-runner to replacing religious SRE altogether, so why don't they just come clean about that? ... see point 1.

3. It is not hard to see how this is going to play out. After the trial is heralded as a success then there will be political pressure to offer it in all schools. Who is going to implement it? Once all the hype has died down I can't see parents volunteering to come in every week, during the working day throughout the school year, for free. Don't forget, we are not talking about a little bit of reading with a couple of kids, this would mean teaching curriculum to a whole class. The way it works with Christian SRE is that it dies out in some schools where the local churches can't find the volunteers. So are they going to get the teachers to do it instead? As you say this would have to be for free or it would be an unequal playing field for religious SRE. I can't see the Teachers' Unions taking on this extra responsibility across the state for nothing. So we're going to be left with a course which has a a fair bit of popular support but no way of making it happen without the government intervening... oh look, let's build another metro.

So, in short, I do think there should be a discussion about the separation of church and state. However, until that happens we should play by the rules. At our church we teach Christian SRE in lots of local schools. We're not afraid of any competition - as long as the rules stay the same for everyone.

PS The thing about the rest of the class doing nothing while Christian SRE is on is a bit of a red herring IMO. As a parent I'm amazed how often the kids 'do nothing' in an average week. If you took every 40 minute lesson on a Friday and squeezed them all together it wouldn't come close to the three weeks before Christmas!? [Biased]

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
What place, if any, should dogmatic (as a pose to comparative) religious education have in the education system, particularly in the public (state) schools of jurisdictions with no state religion.

You pretty much indicate what answer you want when you dismiss anything other than comparative religion as "dogmatic".

Religious education in a particular faith has its place where the students are part of a particular faith community otherwise the state is imposing its own values. Where students aren't part of a particular faith community, being taught general knowledge about whichever religions are around in the locality is an appropriate alternative. I'd steer clear of trying to dumb down philosophy or ethics for kids.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
.

*Ontario has publicly-funded Catholic schools since this mandated under the Constitution. If they weren't constitutionally protected they would have disappeared a long time ago.

But isn't it the case that the government had discretionary power as to just how much of Catholic education to fund? I seem to remember a heated controversy, mid-to-late 80s, when Bill Davis decided to extend funding of Catholic education to include high school, and this caused a lot of consternation, not only among his dwindling constituency of Orangemen, but among liberal, secular-minded Ontarions in general. It even ended up in the courts as I recall.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

I didn't realise this issue was quite so complicated.

At our gov't primary school, there was Catholic Ed, Bahai Ed and Anglican Ed (until the Anglican stopped for lack of time).

My sons government high school offers no RE whatsoever.

In my opinion, Christian religious ed should be taught at a high school level, offered as an elective, just as philosophy or engineering or art is an elective.

But just like all those other electives, the RE teacher should be paid, not a volunteer.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

In my opinion, Christian religious ed should be taught at a high school level, offered as an elective, just as philosophy or engineering or art is an elective.

But just like all those other electives, the RE teacher should be paid, not a volunteer.

This is a good solution imo. The other proposals look like indoctrination to me.

...

Posted by Emma Louise (# 3571) on :

I thought Peter Vardy (from over here in UK) was working with some Australian schools to try to introduce a more academic philosophy, religion and ethics course a bit like the one we have over here?

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
What place, if any, should dogmatic (as a pose to comparative) religious education have in the education system, particularly in the public (state) schools of jurisdictions with no state religion.
You pretty much indicate what answer you want when you dismiss anything other than comparative religion as "dogmatic".

Sorry, I wasn't intending to use the word "dogmatic" in a prejudicial way. I was aiming to differentiate between RE that is based on a particular faith/belief system (what NSW terms "Special RE") and comparative RE (what NSW terms "General RE"). Please read the term as "faith-based" if that sounds more neutral.

ETA: Bracket

[ 29. May 2010, 08:15: Message edited by: Vulpior ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

In England and Wales, the term 'confessional' was used for what the OP called 'dogmatic'.

I have spent 35 years in RE as a teacher and, later, in an advisory capacity. I have always fought for a comparative (a flawed term but let it stand) religion approach taught by graduate specialists who are trained and paid just like any other teachers.

Clergy and other volunteers (apart from a few charismatic exceptions) do not command the respect of most pupils because they aren't proper teachers and do not have the skills involved to keep kids in their seats unless a 'proper' teacher is present.I wisah other countries would follow the English approach as it is l;ight years ahead and allows children to reflect up on the meaning and purpose of life from a variety of viewpoints, religious and secular.

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :

Agree with Leo.

I haven't taught RE for as long as he has (4 years) but in my experience, teaching in a state school in an ex-mining town in Barnsley, find that the vast majority of students are engaged with the subject and ask many questions and actually want to learn about different people and want to think about life and whether or not there is any meaning to it.

I also believe it is absolutely wrong to attempt to tell the students what to believe. I will talk about my beliefs when appropriate but state them as my beliefs and carefully distinguish from 'beliefs' and 'facts'. I would feel uncomfortable teaching my faith in a school as 'truth' rather than 'belief' because education is about discovering things not being told things.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

How can people seriously be holding up the UK as some kind of model for secondary RE?

Three years of colouring in pictures of festivals followed by two years of "Ethics for Dummies" for those who want it is probably the worst of all possible options.

Posted by jugular (# 4174) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Emma Louise:
I thought Peter Vardy (from over here in UK) was working with some Australian schools to try to introduce a more academic philosophy, religion and ethics course a bit like the one we have over here?

Dr Vardy is working with Dialogue Australasia Network to advance the 'Five Strands' approach to Religious kand Values Education. This is focussed almost entirely around independent religious schools, and has been particularly popular with high-fee, long-established schools.

If something along the lines of the Five Strands approach was included in the new National Curriculum this would be, IMHO, a Good Thing™ from an educational perspective.

Interestingly, though, anecdotal evidence suggests two serious problems with the Five Strands approach in independent religious schools.

Firstly, you can teach it with almost no faith content, depending on which strands get your focus. For example, in a Lutheran School you could teach a course on 'love' which includes ethics, silence and stillness, world religions and philosophy - and only a cursory reference to the bible. This is a tempting option for Heads and staff of religious schools who want to be seen to be doing a bit of religion, but don't really see discipleship as an important responsibility.

Secondly, the Vardy resources all tend to be predicated on Natural Law as the pinnacle of philosophical development. Other views are given air-time, but certainly Vardy himself sells the Natural Law line very strongly. This is unattractive to protestants and lots of liberal Catholics.

To return to the OP, I support the teaching of RE, though I think the 'English model' is preferable to the historical accident that created SRE in Australia. Ethics should also be part of the curriculum, but integrated into other areas. Our curriculum is sufficiently full already and adding a whole new Key Learning Area is just going to make everyone's job harder.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
.

*Ontario has publicly-funded Catholic schools since this mandated under the Constitution. If they weren't constitutionally protected they would have disappeared a long time ago.
But isn't it the case that the government had discretionary power as to just how much of Catholic education to fund? I seem to remember a heated controversy, mid-to-late 80s, when Bill Davis decided to extend funding of Catholic education to include high school, and this caused a lot of consternation, not only among his dwindling constituency of Orangemen, but among liberal, secular-minded Ontarions in general. It even ended up in the courts as I recall.

Yes, and the courts have ruled that the existence of Catholic schools is constitutionally protected. The funding for Catholic schools was increased until full funding was achieved. The fact that "Public" traditionally meant Protestant was what allowed this to happen.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
How can people seriously be holding up the UK as some kind of model for secondary RE?

Three years of colouring in pictures of festivals followed by two years of "Ethics for Dummies" for those who want it is probably the worst of all possible options.

Where do you get colouring in from?

At Key Stage 3 we have to get kids working to the following levels:

4
For the religions studied, pupils can:
• describe the key beliefs and teachings
of the religion;
• connecting them accurately with other
features within the religion;
• make some comparisons between
religions;
• use specific religious terminology.
They show understanding of:
• what belonging to religions involves;
• how religious beliefs, ideas and
feelings can be expressed in a variety
of forms of behaviour or worship;
• the meanings of some symbols, stories
and language.
Pupils can ask questions and suggest answers
from their own and others’ experiences and ways
of seeing the world about:
• significant experiences of key figures from
the religions;
• puzzling aspects of life;
• beliefs and behaviour;
• spiritual and religious issues;
• reasons why particular things are held to
be right or wrong.
They can:
• refer clearly to the teaching of religions;
• show understanding of different ways of
seeing the world.

5
Pupils can explain how some principal beliefs, teachings and selected features of religious life and behaviour:
• are shared by different religions;
• make a difference to the lives of individuals and communities;
• show how individuals and communities
use different ways to worship and express their religions.
In the light of their learning about religions, pupils can make informed responses to:
• the teachings and examples of key figures in religions;
• questions of identity, belonging and experience, meaning and purpose;
• other people’s values and commitments (including religious ones).
6
Pupils can use their knowledge and understanding to explain:
• the principal beliefs and teachings;
• what it means to belong to a faith community;
• how religious beliefs and ideas can be expressed in a variety of forms;
• some of the diversity of groupings, denominations and traditions for the
religions studied.
They correctly employ a range of specific religious terminology and language.
Pupils can explain clearly:
• the experiences of inspirational people and relate it to their own and others’ lives;
• different religious perspectives on questions of meaning and purpose,
worship and belief and a range of contemporary moral issues.
They relate these to their own and others’ ways of seeing the world.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I would love to be in any one of those classes.

[Big Grin]

...

Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :

Religious education on the premises of public school, and with "released time" to attend said-religious education classes, should NOT at any level be provided BY the State: but only paid for by said-religions offering the classes. The State can accommodate the student by allowing the released time, or not, depending (in some places the religious classes are before or after the regular time blocked out for public education). The point is, the State in no way provides with tax money any part of the religious education: that is the responsibility of the religion. How the student helps pay for these classes is also between the student and the religion....

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

What Leo and PhilA are referring to is religious education. Other people seem to have got this confused with religious instruction, or if you want to be pejorative, indoctrination. There is a big difference.

[ 29. May 2010, 17:09: Message edited by: Angloid ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I would love to be in any one of those classes.

...

Indeed - kids say, 'What are we doing today, sir?' and 'This is my favourite subject because it is about me and what I think, not stuff they pour into your head for exams.'

I think it is a tragedy that kids in other countries don't get the chance to debate life, the universe and everything.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
two years of "Ethics for Dummies" for those who want it is probably the worst of all possible options.

Assuming you are referring to he GCSE short course, this does not meet the requirements for Key Stage 4 and is being replaced. The level descriptors required are (and have been for about eight years so either you or your school are out of touch):

7
Pupils can relate:
• religious beliefs, teachings, practices and lifestyles and their influence on
individuals, communities and society to their historical and cultural contexts;
• to which they also relate the variety of forms of religious expression, including
texts, figurative language, and symbolism.
Using appropriate evidence and examples from different religions and spiritual ways of seeing the world, pupils can evaluate:
• religious and other views on human identity and experience;
• questions of meaning and purpose; • values and commitments.
8
Pupils can use appropriate evidence and examples to analyse and account for:
• the influence of religious beliefs and teachings on individuals, communities
and society;
• different views of religious practices and lifestyles;
• different interpretations of religious expression in texts, figurative language
and symbolism.
In the light of different religious and other views, feelings and ways of seeing the world, pupils can give informed and well argued accounts of:
• their own views, values and commitments regarding identity and experience;
• questions of meaning and purpose;
• contemporary moral issues.
Exceptional Performance
Pupils can distinguish and actively explore:
• different interpretations of the nature of religious belief and teaching, giving a
balanced analysis of their sources, validity and significance;
• the importance for believers of religious practices and lifestyles and of
the issues which are raised by their diversity within a plural society;
• the meaning of language in religion in the light of philosophical questions
about its status and function.
Pupils can make well informed and reasoned judgements about the significance of religious and non-religious views about:
• human identity and experience;
• the nature of reality;
• religious and ethical theories concerning contemporary moral issues.
They explain these views and judgements within a comprehensive religious and philosophical context.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
How can people seriously be holding up the UK as some kind of model for secondary RE?

Three years of colouring in pictures of festivals followed by two years of "Ethics for Dummies" for those who want it is probably the worst of all possible options.
Where do you get colouring in from?

Experience.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

At Key Stage 3 we have to get kids working to the following levels:

And level descriptors are, of course, an infallible guide to what actually happens in the classroom?

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
What Leo and PhilA are referring to is religious education. Other people seem to have got this confused with religious instruction, or if you want to be pejorative, indoctrination. There is a big difference.

Yes and I think a comparison between the Australian and UK systems highlights the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches:

As far as Religious Education is concerned the UK model is much better. Leo is quite right - professionally trained teachers operating within an overall curriculum will be much better. Volunteers will never be able to reproduce that.

However, I think the deeper question is about the aims of such education. I have no problem with the UK model (comparative) as far as religious education is concerned but wonder if the method is presenting a view of religion which is about orthodoxy and not orthopraxis. Religious instruction, on the other hand, will not divorce the two.

My experience of UK RE is that it is a pretty effective turn-off for religion unless one is already a practitioner. It's a bit like comparing paid professionals teaching swimming in the classroom (entirely theoretical) with volunteers teaching it in a local pool. One hopes the professionals will be better teachers but only the volunteers will allow the pupils to experience what swimming actually is.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
How can people seriously be holding up the UK as some kind of model for secondary RE?

Three years of colouring in pictures of festivals followed by two years of "Ethics for Dummies" for those who want it is probably the worst of all possible options.
Where do you get colouring in from?
Experience.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

At Key Stage 3 we have to get kids working to the following levels:
And level descriptors are, of course, an infallible guide to what actually happens in the classroom?

Yes because children have to be assessed and the level attained has to be reported.

Agreed Syllabuses are drawn up so as to help teachers select the subject content suitable to enable students/pupils meet the targets set.

Posted by Sleepwalker (# 15343) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
What Leo and PhilA are referring to is religious education. Other people seem to have got this confused with religious instruction, or if you want to be pejorative, indoctrination. There is a big difference.

Indeed there is. My second teaching placement was at a Catholic school where the children received religious instruction for half an hour every morning. I opted out of teaching that as I did not feel sufficiently qualified to instruct catholics in their faith. However, my present placement includes religious education in the timetable and this is much easier to teach. In the UK model two elements are involved when teaching RE: about the faith and of the faith. I recently taught a Year 1 class (5-6 year olds) RE and I had to introduce them to Judaism. Part of the time was given over to what Judaism was about, where Jews worshipped, etc, and part given over to day-by-day issues arising from Judaism, for example keeping promises. There is no obligation on the part of the teacher to believe anything in order to teach RE but a teacher must be sensitive to and respectful of the beliefs of the children.

My first adventure into RE teaching - during my present placement - brought an argument among a number of the children the following morning as they were waiting to be let into the classroom. I had to deal with a couple of upset children whose backgrounds were actively Christian because one child was telling them how stupid they were to believe in God at all and another was stating categorically that humans came from apes. Even at the ages of 5 and 6, religion (and lack of it!) causes strife!

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

I agree with the approach described by Leo which I think of as phenomenology of Religion.

When I was on the exec of the Queensland Council of Parents and Citizens Association back in 1997 I though we were moving toward that, and it would have complemented the philosophy classes that were being introduced in primary schools. However, an internet search failed to mturn up anything.

In a multicultural society it is good to be able to understand/appreciate/respect the people you have say to day contact with. Not that I am am saying that that will happen automatically because of these classes.

But I do think it would be better than my school division where we 90% had a christian service and a rabbi came along for a Jewish service for the other 10%.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

In a multicultural society it is good to be able to understand/appreciate/respect the people you have say to day contact with. Not that I am am saying that that will happen automatically because of these classes.

But I do think it would be better than my school division where we 90% had a christian service and a rabbi came along for a Jewish service for the other 10%.

It is definitely time for a general religious education in Australian schools.

When can I start?

[ 10. June 2010, 07:09: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :

Dogmatic religion should not have a place in any school that is paid for by the taxpayer.

Simple as that.

Comparative religion, OTOH, should be taught, although in my view mainly from a phenomonological and sociological perspective.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
And level descriptors are, of course, an infallible guide to what actually happens in the classroom?
Yes because children have to be assessed and the level attained has to be reported.

Are you serious?

Are you actually claiming that all grades given to students are based on an analysis of level descriptors?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

<tangent>

Nice to see you back, oldandrew and I'm glad to see the teaching battleground website has lost none of its edge.

</tangent>

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
And level descriptors are, of course, an infallible guide to what actually happens in the classroom?
Yes because children have to be assessed and the level attained has to be reported.
Are you serious?

Are you actually claiming that all grades given to students are based on an analysis of level descriptors?

Yes. Then a sample of teachers' assessments are moderated within departments. They, in turn, are inspected by OFSTED during a subject inspection (less often than before.)

That being said, some (very few) Agreed Syllabus conferences have voted to ingore the National Framework.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Are you serious?

Are you actually claiming that all grades given to students are based on an analysis of level descriptors?
Yes. Then a sample of teachers' assessments are moderated within departments. They, in turn, are inspected by OFSTED during a subject inspection (less often than before.)

That being said, some (very few) Agreed Syllabus conferences have voted to ingore the National Framework.

Are you talking abour coursework, or actually claiming this is how things are done in general before any grades are given in reports and the like?

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

In Scotland state schools provide a general education for children of the adult citizens who are often taxpayers.State Schools provide an education in the name of the parents who are the 'first educators' of their own children.

In the past most state schools provided a form of religious education based on bible teachings,because most parents wished their children to learn about this.In most secondary schools in Scotland there is somewhat less emphasis on bible teachings as fewer parents are interested in their children learning about this.

Since most of the bible teachings concurred with the views of the various Protestant bodies most of the public schools were in the past called,in popular parlance, 'Protestant' schools. In 1918 virtually all Catholic schools and about three episcopalian schools were transferred into the public system.The existence of Catholic schools depends upon the wishes of parents.If a sufficient number of parents wish a Catholic school then the state will set up a school which has a 'Catholic' ethos,but which is open to those of all'persuasions' and for which children ,provision must be made.Muslim parents often opt for Catholic schools rather than 'non-denominational' schools. Religious education in public Catholic schools is not what it was 50 years ago when one learned and re-learned the catechism. Whilst presenting christianity as a living faith and the cornerstone of many people's lives it has to show other possibilities and cater for those who come from nominally Catholic families and indeed from non Catholic families as well as for those for whom Catholicism is important.
Specifically Catholic schools supported by the state are sometimes attacked as divisive,but they need not be seen as that - they can be seen as an enrichment of the wider community offering aslightly different view of general education -in accordance with the wishes of the parents of the children.

Posted by +Chad (# 5645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Dogmatic religion should not have a place in any school that is paid for by the taxpayer.

Simple as that.

Is it?

What about voluntary aided schools which are jointly funded by the taxpayer and by a foundation?

Such schools are 90% funded by the state and 10% by the foundation.

In the case of the CofE 10% is a hell of a lot of money.

In my diocese alone the Borad of Education oversees nine secondary schools, two academies and 192 primary schools. 10% of that is a hell of a lot of money.

The Board of Education also provides support services over and above those provided by the Local Authority. That's a lot of personnel and, still more money.

In the case of my parish we contribute at least 33% of the cost of the insurance for two aided primary schools.

There is also a local CofE charitable trust which provides financial assistance on request.

I think that gives us the right to put our mouth where our money is!

Having said that, none of the religion taught in either of the primary schools or the secondary school could be described as dogmatic in any perjorative sense. It's all according to the relevant syllabus.

[ 15. June 2010, 09:27: Message edited by: +Chad ]

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :

Returning to the OP, and going broader, I would hold that education is indoctrination. Children are indoctrinated about what someone thinks is a 'healthy lifestyle' with all the food policing and exercise zealotry that goes with it. Children are indoctrinated to vacuous technology such computers, digital art and internet surfing rather than picking up a book. I don't see parents objecting to computer class and wanting to start up a replacement with books, nor do I see carnivorous parents objecting to stylish vegetable ideas in health classes and wanting offer of classes in meat cutting. So why is religion so special?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

RE is supposed to be anti-indoctrination in that it encourages to think, question, evaluate and challenge.

A curriculum that excluded RE would be secular indoctrination.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
Children are indoctrinated to vacuous technology such computers . . .

Most computers these days use microchips.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
Returning to the OP, and going broader, I would hold that education is indoctrination. Children are indoctrinated about what someone thinks is a 'healthy lifestyle' with all the food policing and exercise zealotry that goes with it. Children are indoctrinated to vacuous technology such computers, digital art and internet surfing rather than picking up a book. I don't see parents objecting to computer class and wanting to start up a replacement with books, nor do I see carnivorous parents objecting to stylish vegetable ideas in health classes and wanting offer of classes in meat cutting. So why is religion so special?

It's an irregular verb.

I educate.
You teach.
He indoctrinates.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
RE is supposed to be anti-indoctrination in that it encourages to think, question, evaluate and ...

... colour in?

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

Here is the way a school teaches youngsters religion:

This school "is a multi-faith community and we value the variety and diversity of faiths within our school. RE lessons aim to teach the children to understand and respect world religions and encourage tolerance and spiritual awareness. There is a daily act of collective worship. Parents have the right to withdraw their child from assemblies and RE if they so wish, after consultation with the Headteacher. Children who are withdrawn from RE are given alternative work."

It does give really interesting info and examples and performances about many religions - and is really useful re anti-racism etc. This is a state school, not a specific religion one.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
RE is supposed to be anti-indoctrination in that it encourages to think, question, evaluate and ...
... colour in?

You've talked about colouring in before - anecdotally, we always thought they did that in geography.

Do you have some contempt for RE, that you belittle it?

Have you ever witnessed a class colouring in? Was it a lesson you were covering, because the absent teacher thought you couldn't cope with teaching something demanding?

OFSTED reported on colouring in at Key Stage 3 in schools which were about to go into special measures and no lesson would get a decent grade that used that method, unless it was some exercise in colour coding statements as a brief starter.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

quote:
This school "is a multi-faith community and we value the variety and diversity of faiths within our school. RE lessons aim to teach the children to understand and respect world religions and encourage tolerance and spiritual awareness.

Note the assumption that all "world religions" are equally valid and entitled to "respect". Are they? I'm not sure why anything should be entitled to respect just because it happens to be a religion. RE as currently taught in UK schools isn't 'non-indoctrination' (IMO almost all education contains a degree of indoctrination...its hard to comvey anything at all without implying hierarchies of ideas or subscribing to agendas). Its just indoctrination in a particular largely relativist view of religion as a series of interchangeable ethical/ritual systems, occasionally marred by nasty 'extremists'. It is designed to serve a particular purpose, just as traditional RE curriculums were. Its dangerously niave to argue that modern secular RE is somehow value free.

[ 16. June 2010, 16:54: Message edited by: Yerevan ]

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
RE is supposed to be anti-indoctrination in that it encourages to think, question, evaluate and ...
... colour in?
You've talked about colouring in before - anecdotally, we always thought they did that in geography.

Colouring in the A to Z is the geography course at KS3 isn't it? If you own a compass and can colour between the lines, you get to do GCSE.

PE is GCSE catching and throwing, English is all about reading a comic and watching a film about Shakespeare, and GCSE Art is all about colouring in with posh pencils...

It is easy to belittle each others subject and we can all point to crap teachers in various subjects who make that subject boring, turning the kids off and making up grades as they go along. It happens in nearly every school and those teachers give all other teachers in that subject a bad name.

Yes RE has a murky past with a previously poor reputation but if that still holds as in any way true, then the RE department you are familiar with is shit and needs to re-staff.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
RE is supposed to be anti-indoctrination in that it encourages to think, question, evaluate and challenge.

All school subjects were supposed to encourage those when I was at school, except for PE of course.

And to tell the truth most did - certainly all the sciences, and RK (as we called it then), and English. History and Geography depended on who you got as your teacher, and I never was good enough at languages to "question, evaluate and challenge" anything much in French or Latin.

But, apart from PE where unthinking obedience was the expected norm, the only sunbjects that required much in the way of rote learning rather than questioning and challenging were maths, languages (at my pathetic level), and history (when taught by some but not all of the teachers - well, one in particular to be honest)

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I did an RE GCSE before focusing on science for the remainder of my eduction, but I remember it as a class where I was first taught to think through an argument and to debate emotive issues with objectivity. Too much of the rest of my education at secondary level was rote learning.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
RE is supposed to be anti-indoctrination in that it encourages to think, question, evaluate and ...
... colour in?
You've talked about colouring in before - anecdotally, we always thought they did that in geography.

Do you have some contempt for RE, that you belittle it?

Have you ever witnessed a class colouring in? Was it a lesson you were covering, because the absent teacher thought you couldn't cope with teaching something demanding?

Last time I had an RE cover I was given a photocopied sheet out of a book entitled "Big questions" explaining that big questions like "Does God is exist?" were ones for which there is no right answer.

The reason I keep mentioning colouring in is because you seem to be trying to sell a picture of RE that is all about philosophical thinking and absorbing vast amounts of relevant knowledge about other cultures.

No, I don't think that in reality there is nothing but colouring in, but there is very little evidence for your description as a claim about what happens in bog standard schools. It is not as if people need to have good degrees in philosophy or theology in order to be RE teachers or that the curriculum requires in-depth knowledge of any specific religion. What we tend to see is a multiple choice subject where departments are free to pick what they look at, and not surprisingly, asking kids what they think about animal rights, or making vague comments about all religions, is much more popular than getting them to familiarise themselves with the doctrines, history, or texts of particular religions.

It is a scandal (in both history and RE teaching) that English teachers find themselves having to explain to students of Shakespeare what the Reformation was.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I suspect oldandrew's point has had force for some time. One anecdote does not make a point, but a C of E clergyman I know well told me this story recently. The late Christmas Eve service has become very popular in recent years and it's by no means unknown for folks to turn up "having drink taken"; my friend say he tells servers not to let go of the chalice.

But that's not his story. At a service last year at which he was presiding, a young woman, smartly dressed and clearly sober, looked at the chalice and asked in a well-spoken voice "do you have white?". As he observed, she clearly had no idea what she was saying or doing. [He said, "not on this occasion" - which I thought was pretty smart- and moved on discreetly. Tried to find the young woman at the end - but she'd left. Possibly critical at the lack of choice on offer?]

I don't think that could have happened thirty of forty years ago. Initially, the story made me chuckle, but pretty soon I was asking the "why" questions.

Posted by MrAlpen (# 12858) on :

I have lurked my way with interest through this thread (and wasted far too much time on oldandrew's blog), but I don't think I've seen any examination stats for the number of young people voting with their feet and taking up RE. My data points are either old or anecdotal, but I believe GCSE RE is in the top ten most popular. There's a lot more than colouring-in needed to achieve this.

I would say oldandrew's picture is about what I remember from my own childhood, but having had two children of my own go through our local school system, my experience is that it is taught at least as well if not better than the other humanities, commands a strong following and has charismatic and committed teachers. Only one data point, but I have often discussed with my wife how surprised we are by its popularity.

In addition, my wife is a primary sector RE specialist, and in my thoroughly objective opinion quite easily the best teacher in the school!

So if RE is in such dire straits the national stats don't back it up (as far as I know: please correct me if you know better), and my local anecdotal experience is much more positive too.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
RE is supposed to be anti-indoctrination in that it encourages to think, question, evaluate and ...
... colour in?
You've talked about colouring in before - anecdotally, we always thought they did that in geography.

Do you have some contempt for RE, that you belittle it?

Have you ever witnessed a class colouring in? Was it a lesson you were covering, because the absent teacher thought you couldn't cope with teaching something demanding?
Last time I had an RE cover I was given a photocopied sheet out of a book entitled "Big questions" explaining that big questions like "Does God is exist?" were ones for which there is no right answer.

The reason I keep mentioning colouring in is because you seem to be trying to sell a picture of RE that is all about philosophical thinking and absorbing vast amounts of relevant knowledge about other cultures.

No, I don't think that in reality there is nothing but colouring in, but there is very little evidence for your description as a claim about what happens in bog standard schools. It is not as if people need to have good degrees in philosophy or theology in order to be RE teachers or that the curriculum requires in-depth knowledge of any specific religion. What we tend to see is a multiple choice subject where departments are free to pick what they look at, and not surprisingly, asking kids what they think about animal rights, or making vague comments about all religions, is much more popular than getting them to familiarise themselves with the doctrines, history, or texts of particular religions.

It is a scandal (in both history and RE teaching) that English teachers find themselves having to explain to students of Shakespeare what the Reformation was.

It is very difficult to set work for cover lessons when you don't know who will be standing in so it tends to be easy work that will keep the pupils occupied and give the supply teacher less than a hard time. It doesn't necessarily reflect what happens in a lesson taught by a specialist.

People DO have to have degrees in Theology, RS or Philosophy in order to be accepted on to a PGCSE course (or at least they have to here, where I was an associate tutor on the PGCE course for 30 years).

'Bog standard' schools have to follow the same syllabus as any other community school. (VAs, academies and Independents don't). Most Agreed Syllabuses give very little in the way of 'multiple choice'. The trend has been towards more detail and prescription. I don't know which LA you are in - if I did, I'd look at its syllabus and probably prove that you are wrong.

As for pupils giving their opinion on animal rights etc., I was involved in a consultation, for the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, on changes to GCSE and A' level specs. As far as I can recall, very few marks are allocated for a pupil's opinion and that these have to be backed up by reasons. I think, out of 25, 10 marks would go for Christian doctrine(s) about animal rights, a further 10 for another religion e.g.Islam and a further 5 for evaluating these.

As for it being a 'scandal' that they don't know what the Reformation was, RE is about process, not content. I don't think the issues of the Reformation(s) is relevant to helping young people theologise. Reformation Studies belongs to 'Church History' and most church historians say that there is no such thing as 'Church History', only 'History' so the topic belongs in the History curriciulum (though I have serious misgivings about the way it is taught at KS3, i.e. Protestants = good; Catholics = bad.)

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

As for it being a 'scandal' that they don't know what the Reformation was, RE is about process, not content. I don't think the issues of the Reformation(s) is relevant to helping young people theologise.

Up until that point I had almost started to believe you about the demands of RE (well except the bit about what degrees the teachers need). Now you tell us the single historical event in the last 1000 years that shaped religion in this country is not relevant to their understanding of religion. It kind of demolishes the idea that they are learning anything important about religion in this country.

If the content of RE is that obscure then no wonder you are making the bizarre claim that there is a "process" of religion that allows us to dispense with the content of religion.

Does this process involve crayons, by any chance?

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:

quote:
This school "is a multi-faith community and we value the variety and diversity of faiths within our school. RE lessons aim to teach the children to understand and respect world religions and encourage tolerance and spiritual awareness.
Note the assumption that all "world religions" are equally valid and entitled to "respect". Are they? I'm not sure why anything should be entitled to respect just because it happens to be a religion. RE as currently taught in UK schools isn't 'non-indoctrination' (IMO almost all education contains a degree of indoctrination...its hard to comvey anything at all without implying hierarchies of ideas or subscribing to agendas). Its just indoctrination in a particular largely relativist view of religion as a series of interchangeable ethical/ritual systems, occasionally marred by nasty 'extremists'. It is designed to serve a particular purpose, just as traditional RE curriculums were. Its dangerously niave to argue that modern secular RE is somehow value free.

They all enjoy the performances done at special religious happening times, and some of them who don't belong to that particular religion often also perform - dancing, singing, speaking, acting, drawing, making things...

And by getting them to "respect" religions, that is also to prevent racism and to not be against a person because they are in a particular religion.

It also helps them to genuinely understand what goes on in all sorts of peoples' lives.

They can, of course, think, decide, believe what they choose...

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

As for it being a 'scandal' that they don't know what the Reformation was, RE is about process, not content. I don't think the issues of the Reformation(s) is relevant to helping young people theologise.
Up until that point I had almost started to believe you about the demands of RE (well except the bit about what degrees the teachers need). Now you tell us the single historical event in the last 1000 years that shaped religion in this country is not relevant to their understanding of religion. It kind of demolishes the idea that they are learning anything important about religion in this country.

If the content of RE is that obscure then no wonder you are making the bizarre claim that there is a "process" of religion that allows us to dispense with the content of religion.

Does this process involve crayons, by any chance?

Event? The Protestant Reformation or the Catholic Reformation?

The most devastating event in the Church's history of the last 1,000 years, Church historians argue, is the Schism of 1054.

If we are going to include content for the sake of cultural education, would you mathematicians please give us some of your curriculum time? At present you haver three times as much as us for sums.

If we are going to explain the origin of different Christian denominations, then it is only fair that we go into detail about shi'a/sunni, orthodox/conservative/reform/masorti, saivite/vaishnavite, Theravada/Mahayana .... in the other religions.

As for 'learning anything important about religion in this country' - 'learning about' in one attainment target. The other is 'learning from'. The two are meant to be holistic so content is chosen that is relevant to pupils and will result in their lively engagement with it. What happened 400 years ago is not very relevant to now except for the minority of people who go to church.

I do not think you understand when you use the phrase '"process" of religion'. I was talking about classroom 'process' i.e. education is not about the imparting of knowledge but the enabling of pupils to engage with content as it effects their own lives.

Why do you not believe me about the degree qualifications required of those who do PGCEs? Are you saying that I am a liar? I have been an associate tutor at Bristol's PGCE course for 30 years and have interviewed candidates and was not allowed to bend the rules about admissions criteria laid down by the TTA (Teacher Training Agency re ITT - Inital Teacher Training).

Your blog. (much of which is excellent) says what area of the country you are from but you haven't yet told me what local authority you work for so that I can give you more details about the syllabus your school is supposed to be following.

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

leo,
If we are going to explain the origin of different Christian denominations, then it is only fair that we go into detail about shi'a/sunni, orthodox/conservative/reform/masorti, saivite/vaishnavite, Theravada/Mahayana .... in the other religions.

I had to teach all that sort of info, in a CofE Secondary School, necessary for GCSE and A-level, and it was a school that was not just teaching Christians, and so many of different religions were also given all that sort of info regarding their own religions that they were not being taught well either at home or in their worshipping place.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

Event? The Protestant Reformation or the Catholic Reformation?

The most devastating event in the Church's history of the last 1,000 years, Church historians argue, is the Schism of 1054.

I specified in this country, and this isn't to say a wider picture might not also be helpful but that it seems ridiculous to claim to educate students in England about religion and leave them in profound ignorance of religion in England.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

If we are going to include content for the sake of cultural education, would you mathematicians

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

please give us some of your curriculum time?

Strangely enough I would have thought that religion in this culture might have already come up in the existing course. It seems bizarre to me that you could claim to be teaching students about religion without covering religion in their own culture.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

If we are going to explain the origin of different Christian denominations, then it is only fair that we go into detail about shi'a/sunni, orthodox/conservative/reform/masorti, saivite/vaishnavite, Theravada/Mahayana .... in the other religions.

I'm sure in countries and communities significantly shaped by those schisms then that would be a good choice of topic.

I fail to see why we should ignore the culture of the country we live in out of "fairness".

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

As for 'learning anything important about religion in this country' - 'learning about' in one attainment target. The other is 'learning from'. The two are meant to be holistic so content is chosen that is relevant to pupils and will result in their lively engagement with it. What happened 400 years ago is not very relevant to now except for the minority of people who go to church.

If we are going to take that attitude then we might as well get rid of RE altogether.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

I do not think you understand when you use the phrase '"process" of religion'. I was talking about classroom 'process' i.e. education is not about the imparting of knowledge but the enabling of pupils to engage with content as it effects their own lives.

That's what I feared. I got into education so that my students could have different lives opened up to them. You are content to confine their knowledge to what you think matters in the lives they already have.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

Why do you not believe me about the degree qualifications required of those who do PGCEs? Are you saying that I am a liar?

Calm down.

I'm just pointing out that your experience isn't universal.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

Event? The Protestant Reformation or the Catholic Reformation?

The most devastating event in the Church's history of the last 1,000 years, Church historians argue, is the Schism of 1054.
I specified in this country, and this isn't to say a wider picture might not also be helpful but that it seems ridiculous to claim to educate students in England about religion and leave them in profound ignorance of religion in England.

We are citizens of the world, not merely English subjects. It is greatly impoverishing to limit RE to religion in one country (and, in any case, there are 6 major religions, plus Humanism and Atheism, in England.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
I fail to see why we should ignore the culture of the country we live in out of "fairness".

RE is not cultural studies. Schools are charged with Social, Moral, Spiritual and Cultural - that is a whole school responsibilty, not merely one subject. Maths has to contribute to SMSC as well.

RE has to be 'broad and balanced' It would be imbalanced if it merely focussed on one particular religion or life-stance.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
QUOTE]Originally posted by leo:

As for 'learning anything important about religion in this country' - 'learning about' in one attainment target. The other is 'learning from'. The two are meant to be holistic so content is chosen that is relevant to pupils and will result in their lively engagement with it. What happened 400 years ago is not very relevant to now except for the minority of people who go to church.

If we are going to take that attitude then we might as well get rid of RE altogether. [/QUOTE]
Why? Churchgoing is out of fashion but RE is not about churchgoing.

Young people have a spirituality and they are entitled to be helped to understand it, alongside the spirituality of others.

The Protestant and Catholic Reformations are largely irrelevant now that there is so much agreement, e.g. through ARCIC.

The differences between Roman Catholics, Anglicans and Protestants are very slight compared to the differences between Judaism and, say, Hinduism.

In any case, as I have already said, my subject is RE not History.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I do not think you understand when you use the phrase '"process" of religion'. I was talking about classroom 'process' i.e. education is not about the imparting of knowledge but the enabling of pupils to engage with content as it effects their own lives.
That's what I feared. I got into education so that my students could have different lives opened up to them. You are content to confine their knowledge to what you think matters in the lives they already have.

Life can only be 'opened up' if you start where they are. Only by so doing can we get them to engage with further possibilities.

I assume you don't teach quadratics before you teach number.

Equally, I assume you don't teach stuff that is no longer relevant like how to use a slide rule or log tables.

The Reformation is not relevant.

[ 20. June 2010, 19:15: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Why do you not believe me about the degree qualifications required of those who do PGCEs? Are you saying that I am a liar?
Calm down.

I'm just pointing out that your experience isn't universal.

Not universal but it does pertain to England and Wales. The rules of the TTA on ITT do not merely apply to the University of Bristol, they apply to all universities offering the PGCE.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
you haven't yet told me what local authority you work for so that I can give you more details about the syllabus your school is supposed to be following.

OldAndrew still has not told us this so I cannot verify his claim.

What is he hiding?

A PM will suffice if he wants to stay in the closet.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I do not think you understand when you use the phrase '"process" of religion'. I was talking about classroom 'process' i.e. education is not about the imparting of knowledge but the enabling of pupils to engage with content as it effects their own lives.
That's what I feared. I got into education so that my students could have different lives opened up to them. You are content to confine their knowledge to what you think matters in the lives they already have.
Life can only be 'opened up' if you start where they are.

If we're starting from where people are and teaching them stuff that's relevant to their own lives, surely it's an important lesson as to why there are both CofE and Catholic parish churches on their street, or the difference between Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley? Far more of them will encounter those questions than will ever hear of ARCIC.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

Leo, you appear to be splitting up your response into contradictory points.

One moment you are arguing that RE should be global and should not be about religion in the culture it is being taught with in, the next you are saying it must be immediately relevant to the life experience of the students.

One moment you are defending the low-content RE courses that I described, the next you are challenging me about whether I am describing the RE course accurately.

You can't have it both ways on either of these points, and I'm not going to engage with two contradictory arguments from the same person. Please decide what you actually think. Relevant or global? Low-content for a good reason or not low-content at all?

Posted by DangerousDeacon (# 10582) on :

In New South Wales there is no established religion, and an awful lot of nominalism in the major denominations and religions. After two generations of nominalism, most parents are not capable of teaching about religion - indeed, would be hard pressed to find a church on a map.

Seven years ago, when I last taught at an Australian University, there was also an abysmal ignorance about ethics among the average undergraduate. So IMHO it would be good if both GRE (including ethics) and SRE were taught in NSW schools. Ideally they should complement each other (though that is probably hoping too much) and at least shed light on each other, rather than heat.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Leo, you appear to be splitting up your response into contradictory points.

One moment you are arguing that RE should be global and should not be about religion in the culture it is being taught with in, the next you are saying it must be immediately relevant to the life experience of the students.

One moment you are defending the low-content RE courses that I described, the next you are challenging me about whether I am describing the RE course accurately.

You can't have it both ways on either of these points, and I'm not going to engage with two contradictory arguments from the same person. Please decide what you actually think. Relevant or global? Low-content for a good reason or not low-content at all?

You still haven't told me which local authority you are in so that in can check its syllabus - third time of asking.

Relevant AND global. You need to be aware that the subject is not Religious KNOWLEDGE, nor Religious STUDIES but Religious EDUCATION. So it isn't about content for its own sake but uses material from world religions to provoke young people's thinking. We want them to theologise, not to learn 'facts'.

As for the difference between RC and other churches down their street, that is of no interest to most teenagers and will merely incite boredom.

As for Gerry Adams and Ian Paisely, that isn't RE, that's History and/or Citizenship. However, i did create a scheme of work on forgiveness which featured these two men prominently. However, the background for understanding that has more to do with the Sermon on the Mount than with the Reformation(s).

OldAndrew accuses me of contradiction yet he seems to have his own contradictions. For example, he says he went into teaching to raise children's horizons, yet he wants RE to create little Englanders, with their 'own culture' predominant. (White, Christian culture at that, oblivious to the cultures of black and Asian kids)

[ 21. June 2010, 14:34: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

Leo, I haven't spotted any of that "little Englander" talk in oldandrew's writing. What I have spotted is that your rapidfire posts have approached incoherence, Leo. Maybe if you calmed down a bit and had the good manners to put all your arguments in one structured post (or two, or three ... definitely not six) people would be more amenable to nnswering your questions. Accusing someone of "hiding something" four hours after you asked them the question is also going to put people's backs up, we don't all live on here you know.

Also Leo, sorry to disappoint you but the Reformation is not a closed book, nor is it irrelevant. My point about Gerry Adams et al was that if you don't know about the Reformation, you can't possibly have a full understanding of Britain's own recent local war, nor why an English king was driven to abdication in recent history. Have you never taught any kids with Irish connections? Deny them 'facts' and you deny them an understanding of where they're at and why they got there. Why do 'facts' deserve scare quotes anyway?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

You still haven't told me which local authority you are in so that in can check its syllabus - third time of asking.

Ask 100 times. I will not be discussing the content of my local RE syllabus with you. Are you going to explain why you need to know? You seem to have accepted that my claims were correct.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

Relevant AND global.

How is what believers do on the other side of the globe relevant, but the churches in their own communities not?

You can't have it both ways.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

You need to be aware that the subject is not Religious KNOWLEDGE, nor Religious STUDIES but Religious EDUCATION. So it isn't about content for its own sake but uses material from world religions to provoke young people's thinking. We want them to theologise, not to learn 'facts'.

How can they "theologise" from a position of utter ignorance of theology? There isn't some abstract theology skill that exists independently of knowledge.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

As for the difference between RC and other churches down their street, that is of no interest to most teenagers and will merely incite boredom.

So? I thought you wanted to educate them. It's hard to see how you can educate people if you only tell them things that already interest them.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

OldAndrew accuses me of contradiction yet he seems to have his own contradictions. For example, he says he went into teaching to raise children's horizons, yet he wants RE to create little Englanders, with their 'own culture' predominant. (White, Christian culture at that, oblivious to the cultures of black and Asian kids)

Straw man. I objected to "religious education" which kept students ignorant of even the most basic facts of Christianity in England. That doesn't mean that should be the limit of the curriculum, just something that can't really be missed if you want somebody to have been educated in religion.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Accusing someone of "hiding something" four hours after you asked them the question is also going to put people's backs up, we don't all live on here you know.

To be fair I am hiding it. I write an anonymous blog, so I try not to reveal unnecessary information about myself.

However, I'm pretty certain Leo already knows this so I'm not sure why he is wasting time asking other than to use the fact that I'm not answering an irrelevant question as a distraction.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
How can they "theologise" from a position of utter ignorance of theology? There isn't some abstract theology skill that exists independently of knowledge.

Boy, have we had different experience...

--Tom Clune

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Why do 'facts' deserve scare quotes anyway?

Because RE is not about imparting facts. it isn't RK nor is it RS.

As the QCDA never tires of saying, education is about process, not content.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Accusing someone of "hiding something" four hours after you asked them the question is also going to put people's backs up

I first asked last Saturday.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

You still haven't told me which local authority you are in so that in can check its syllabus - third time of asking.
Ask 100 times. I will not be discussing the content of my local RE syllabus with you. Are you going to explain why you need to know? You seem to have accepted that my claims were correct.

As I explained when I first asked, you seem to be ignorant of the demands made by most Agreed Syllabuses. The type of lesson you described would not be tolerated by OFSTED. They criticise some LAs for not updating their syllabuses to make them more demanding (typically for teaching at KS3 stuff on festivals that belong in KS2) and for not using the National Framework.

I wanted to know what your local authority was (there are seven in your area) to see if it was one of those criticised, in which case what describe is, sadly, accurate. If it is not, then your school is breaking the law by not teaching the Agreed Syllabus.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
I thought you wanted to educate them. It's hard to see how you can educate people if you only tell them things that already interest them.

It is not about 'telling them things'. Education has moved on from chalk and talk. It is about getting the pupils to talk, animatedly - that is what theology is - Theos logos - 'talk about God'. Only things that interest people get talked about with passion. Into that conversation, the teacher selects 'content' that provokes reflection and further conversation.

You have a model of teacher as 'imparter of knowledge'.

My model (and QCDA's) is 'enabler of learning'.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
How is what believers do on the other side of the globe relevant, but the churches in their own communities not?

A syllabus is meant to have progression and challenge. Local churches get visited at KS1 in most syllabuses. I have only taught KS3,4 and 5. By that time, pupils'/students' horizons have broadened considerably.

Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It is not about 'telling them things'. Education has moved on from chalk and talk. It is about getting the pupils to talk, animatedly - that is what theology is - Theos logos - 'talk about God'. Only things that interest people get talked about with passion. Into that conversation, the teacher selects 'content' that provokes reflection and further conversation.

You have a model of teacher as 'imparter of knowledge'.

My model (and QCDA's) is 'enabler of learning'.

As a parent I want teachers to be both 'imparters' and 'enablers'. Why do you have to make it either/or?

Leo you really are the sort of teacher who gives teachers a bad name by being too wedded to your pet educational theories.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Leo you really are the sort of teacher who gives teachers a bad name by being too wedded to your pet educational theories.

And Spawn, you are the sort who confuses Purgatory with Hell. We do not engage in personal attacks here.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host

Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Leo you really are the sort of teacher who gives teachers a bad name by being too wedded to your pet educational theories.
And Spawn, you are the sort who confuses Purgatory with Hell. We do not engage in personal attacks here.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host

Sorry, I'll try that again.

"Leo it is this sort of attitude of being too wedded to educational theory that gives teachers a bad name."

[ 21. June 2010, 17:22: Message edited by: Spawn ]

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
As a parent I want teachers to be both 'imparters' and 'enablers'. Why do you have to make it either/or?

Because, in RE, we only teach for one hour a week. We don't have time to do both.

THE most important thing we can do in RE is to get people to think. Think about the big questions in life, think about how to put forward your own beliefs and not back down from what you believe, but also without offending others. Learning from religion is more important than learning about religion.

We also teach about the major beliefs of the main religions and make them as interesting and 'relevant' to the students as possible.

All this in one lesson a week.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It is not about 'telling them things'. Education has moved on from chalk and talk. It is about getting the pupils to talk, animatedly - that is what theology is - Theos logos - 'talk about God'. Only things that interest people get talked about with passion. Into that conversation, the teacher selects 'content' that provokes reflection and further conversation.

You have a model of teacher as 'imparter of knowledge'.

My model (and QCDA's) is 'enabler of learning'.
As a parent I want teachers to be both 'imparters' and 'enablers'. Why do you have to make it either/or?

Leo you really are the sort of teacher who gives teachers a bad name by being too wedded to your pet educational theories.

Imparters and enablers - yes, in an ideal world. However, we get 2 lessons a week. Maths teachers like OldAndrew get 6.

As for 'theories', the stuff I quoted from QCDA, TTA and OFSTED are not 'mere' theories. They are based on empirical research.

The bottom line is getting kids to be excited about their learning.

The teacher who is getting it right is the one to whom kids run up to at the start of the day and ask, 'Sir, what are we doing in RE today?' and who gets large numbers opting for GCSE and A' Level and who later gets Christmas cards and letters from those who went on to read theology at university.

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
we get 2 lessons a week.

Show off.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

That's the legally required timetable allocation in our, and most, Agreed Syllabus(es).

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Why do 'facts' deserve scare quotes anyway?
Because RE is not about imparting facts. it isn't RK nor is it RS.

As the QCDA never tires of saying, education is about process, not content.

There is no process worth having without content.

If there's one thing that has been firmly established by educational history, philosophy and psychology, it is that reasoning does not take place in a vacuum, it requires knowledge.

Which presumably is why you are now appealing to (soon-to-be-defunct) authority rather than making an argument.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
As I explained when I first asked, you seem to be ignorant of the demands made by most Agreed Syllabuses. The type of lesson you described would not be tolerated by OFSTED.

Well we appear to be back to judging things by how the paperwork says they are, rather than how they actually are, but I can't see what precisely this has to do with anything.

You have confirmed my claim that RE doesn't even teach very basic knowledge about religion in this country. I'm not sure what you are hoping to dispute by referring to the syllabi. Or are you still smarting over the colouring-in comments?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
I thought you wanted to educate them. It's hard to see how you can educate people if you only tell them things that already interest them.
It is not about 'telling them things'.

Otherwise known as "teaching".

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

Education has moved on from chalk and talk.

We've been hearing this for 100 years. Yet, "direct instruction" and "giving feedback" still top the list of the most effective things a teacher can do with a class. Schools that believe in "chalk and talk" still get the best results. Teachers still learn pretty quickly that nothing causes learning like teaching does.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

It is about getting the pupils to talk, animatedly - that is what theology is - Theos logos - 'talk about God'.

And there's me thinking it was the study of God.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

Only things that interest people get talked about with passion. Into that conversation, the teacher selects 'content' that provokes reflection and further conversation.

You have a model of teacher as 'imparter of knowledge'.

My model (and QCDA's) is 'enabler of learning'.

I do love the fact that the authority you are appealing to is one that's being abolished.

Look, the teacher as facilitator model has been tried for well over 100 years. It hasn't worked. Kids do not need to be taught how to have an opinion, have a talk, have an argument. That comes naturally.

We shouldn't be training kids to act like kids, we should be teaching them to be intelligent adults. They need to be taught the best of what has been thought and known, not entertained by getting to express uninformed opinions. Let's not rob them of their intellectual heritage for the sake of "relevance" and "interest".

[ 21. June 2010, 19:43: Message edited by: oldandrew ]

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
How is what believers do on the other side of the globe relevant, but the churches in their own communities not?
A syllabus is meant to have progression and challenge. Local churches get visited at KS1 in most syllabuses. I have only taught KS3,4 and 5. By that time, pupils'/students' horizons have broadened considerably.

But not their knowledge apparently.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

As for 'theories', the stuff I quoted from QCDA, TTA and OFSTED are not 'mere' theories. They are based on empirical research.

Come off it.

The advice from the above changes with precisely no new research findings to justify it. "Interactive whole class teaching" was the order of the day 10 years ago. Then the pendulum swung back to progressivism again, and now (I'm glad to say) it's going the other way again. None of it was ever empirical.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

THE most important thing we can do in RE is to get people to think.

The thing is, we already think. Sometimes we think well, sometimes we think badly.

It turns out knowledge is a huge part of what makes a difference. If you are that terribly short of time I suggest leaving them knowledgeable but quiet, rather than opinionated but ignorant.

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

Think about the big questions in life, think about how to put forward your own beliefs and not back down from what you believe,

...you are teaching teenagers to have opinions and not to back down?

That's incredible. What next? Are you going to teach them to have acne? To sulk? To hang around in gangs? To buy trainers? To listen to loud music? To be embarrassed by their parents?

There was me trying to teach my students things that would make them cleverer, and all along I could have been teaching them to act like teenagers.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

oldandrew

A teacher at one of our colleges of further education told me, a few years ago, about an essay he marked which was full of the virtues of self-asssertiveness. He told me that he wrote the following question in the margin - "What about the virtue of self-denial?" - and was harangued by the self-confident student about the masochistic tendencies of his "antique belief system". [She knew he was a Christian of course.]

I think you put your finger on a big issue in education; the extent to which those being taught recognise their own ignorance and the value in doing something about it.

But then I am also a man who has "antique beliefs"! And I still take my own continuing ignorances seriously - one of the best things I got out of further education.

I read recently (it was probably on Ship of Fools but then Hosts get to read so much that sometimes it blurs into itself) that things become dangerous when the ability to be self-critical is superseded by the ability to justify oneself.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I did an RE GCSE before focusing on science for the remainder of my eduction, but I remember it as a class where I was first taught to think through an argument and to debate emotive issues with objectivity. Too much of the rest of my education at secondary level was rote learning.

I posted this higher up the thread and the (unintended) irony is now hurtling back down like a boomerang in warp drive.

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

THE most important thing we can do in RE is to get people to think.
The thing is, we already think. Sometimes we think well, sometimes we think badly.

It turns out knowledge is a huge part of what makes a difference. If you are that terribly short of time I suggest leaving them knowledgeable but quiet, rather than opinionated but ignorant.

Knowledgeable about what? Who gives a shit about the reformation? They do that in history. Knowledgeable about how religion here and now affects their lives and in what ways it affects their lives- surely that is more important.

quote:
...you are teaching teenagers to have opinions and not to back down?

You misquoted me. If you read the rest of it I said without causing offence. Huge difference.

quote:
There was me trying to teach my students things that would make them cleverer, and all along I could have been teaching them to act like teenagers.

I got into trouble with my maths department a while ago. We were having a discussion about what is meant by 'real'. A few of the kids (having had there maths teachers trying to make them 'cleverer') pointed out that maths was real because it was factual. I pointed out to them that numbers weren't 'real' in that they could only have either a symbol that represented a number - like a '3', or 'III' - or a number of objects with the label 'three'. There was no such thing as an actual 'three'.

They promptly toddled off to maths where the maths teacher promptly put half of them in detention for being 'clever' and sent me an email that basically asked me to stop teaching them to think and that I had to teach them some knowledge stuff. It basically turned out that said maths teacher had never studied any philosophy, didn't have a bloody clue how to think and didn't like it when a bunch of Y9's tied him in knots. I thought it was fucking funny.

As they had started thinking and questioning things, I was quite happy with the outcome of that lesson. I was also utterly delighted when a couple of kids came back the week later and told me the faults in my arguments - bloody brilliant! Thinking out of the classroom! Well chuffed!!

No, children don't already know how to think. What they do is parrot what their parents think when at school and parrot what their teachers think when at home. I know this because I deal with the letters and phone calls when parents complain that I am teaching their little Chanttelle-Marie that them Islams aren't all trying to steal our jobs and blow us up and not learning them about our English religions.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That's the legally required timetable allocation in our, and most, Agreed Syllabus(es).

Could be a difference in timing. Our lessons are 1 hour each, which is (I believe) the legal minimum.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

THE most important thing we can do in RE is to get people to think.
The thing is, we already think. Sometimes we think well, sometimes we think badly.

It turns out knowledge is a huge part of what makes a difference. If you are that terribly short of time I suggest leaving them knowledgeable but quiet, rather than opinionated but ignorant.

Knowledgeable about what? Who gives a shit about the reformation? They do that in history. Knowledgeable about how religion here and now affects their lives and in what ways it affects their lives- surely that is more important.

quote:
...you are teaching teenagers to have opinions and not to back down?
You misquoted me. If you read the rest of it I said without causing offence. Huge difference.

quote:
There was me trying to teach my students things that would make them cleverer, and all along I could have been teaching them to act like teenagers.
I got into trouble with my maths department a while ago. We were having a discussion about what is meant by 'real'. A few of the kids (having had there maths teachers trying to make them 'cleverer') pointed out that maths was real because it was factual. I pointed out to them that numbers weren't 'real' in that they could only have either a symbol that represented a number - like a '3', or 'III' - or a number of objects with the label 'three'. There was no such thing as an actual 'three'.

They promptly toddled off to maths where the maths teacher promptly put half of them in detention for being 'clever' and sent me an email that basically asked me to stop teaching them to think and that I had to teach them some knowledge stuff. It basically turned out that said maths teacher had never studied any philosophy, didn't have a bloody clue how to think and didn't like it when a bunch of Y9's tied him in knots. I thought it was fucking funny.

As they had started thinking and questioning things, I was quite happy with the outcome of that lesson. I was also utterly delighted when a couple of kids came back the week later and told me the faults in my arguments - bloody brilliant! Thinking out of the classroom! Well chuffed!!

No, children don't already know how to think. What they do is parrot what their parents think when at school and parrot what their teachers think when at home. I know this because I deal with the letters and phone calls when parents complain that I am teaching their little Chanttelle-Marie that them Islams aren't all trying to steal our jobs and blow us up and not learning them about our English religions.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That's the legally required timetable allocation in our, and most, Agreed Syllabus(es).
Could be a difference in timing. Our lessons are 1 hour each, which is (I believe) the legal minimum.

It sounds like they already knew how to think, and you just gave them a good new way to wind up the maths teacher.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
It sounds like they already knew how to think, and you just gave them a good new way to wind up the maths teacher.

Or let them know that thinking was valid. My most memorable school times (from 45 years ago)include all the occasions when a teacher put aside the straight curriculum for a while and engaged us to make us think and see that was how we should approach life. Of course kids will play around with it. Teachers should be big enough to say they don't know and will find out. That attitude is more likely to earn respect.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
I got into trouble with my maths department a while ago. We were having a discussion about what is meant by 'real'. A few of the kids (having had there maths teachers trying to make them 'cleverer') pointed out that maths was real because it was factual. I pointed out to them that numbers weren't 'real' in that they could only have either a symbol that represented a number - like a '3', or 'III' - or a number of objects with the label 'three'. There was no such thing as an actual 'three'.

Real numbers are real, imaginary numbers are imaginary and complex numbers contain both real and imaginary parts [Snigger]

As for whether numbers fit the non-technical definition of 'real', it depends who you ask.

[I can't spell]

[ 22. June 2010, 00:14: Message edited by: Dinghy Sailor ]

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
As a parent I want teachers to be both 'imparters' and 'enablers'. Why do you have to make it either/or?
Because, in RE, we only teach for one hour a week. We don't have time to do both.

What difference does the amount of time make?

It comes down to educational philosophy - if you genuinely think that the role of teacher is both imparting AND enabling then you will do that even if you only have 5 minutes.

In fact the less time you have the more it will reveal what your priorities really are in teaching.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
if you genuinely think that the role of teacher is both imparting AND enabling then you will do that even if you only have 5 minutes.

The logic seems wrong. What aspect of genuine belief equips one to do the impossible?

[ 22. June 2010, 02:24: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
It sounds like they already knew how to think, and you just gave them a good new way to wind up the maths teacher.
Or let them know that thinking was valid. My most memorable school times (from 45 years ago)include all the occasions when a teacher put aside the straight curriculum for a while and engaged us to make us think and see that was how we should approach life. Of course kids will play around with it. Teachers should be big enough to say they don't know and will find out. That attitude is more likely to earn respect.

I prefer to think that maths lessons, and how to approach them, are part of life.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
It sounds like they already knew how to think, and you just gave them a good new way to wind up the maths teacher.
Or let them know that thinking was valid. My most memorable school times (from 45 years ago)include all the occasions when a teacher put aside the straight curriculum for a while and engaged us to make us think and see that was how we should approach life. Of course kids will play around with it. Teachers should be big enough to say they don't know and will find out. That attitude is more likely to earn respect.
I prefer to think that maths lessons, and how to approach them, are part of life.

Did I say they were not?
It is reasonable to infer that I said that the maths curriculum by itself is not a sufficient education.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

Fine then. Let's all bunk maths, or use maths lessons to entertain ourselves by noising up the teacher.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Fine then. Let's all bunk maths, or use maths lessons to entertain ourselves by noising up the teacher.

Why do you conclude that? You seem to be taking it personally.

PhilA related a story which just happened to involve numbers and a maths teacher. It could have been another subject. He relates (and I have no other account to work on) a story about a teacher who was not able to think outside the bounds of his curriculum who came up against students who had been inspired by a slight exposure to thinking about more fundamental concepts than the mechanics of solving problems to actually pursue knowledge for its own sake. Maybe they also had the motive of testing their teacher. But good students do that, and good teachers often appreciate that. I would hope the same inspiration would occur for religious education.

If they go on to university they will need those sorts of skills in analysis and synthesis. They also did not accept PhilA's teaching as authoritative, but he seemed to be able to take it. Again, we have only his account, but why not take it at face value? It does not harm us if there are other sides to the story that we have not heard.

Now this is just one episode. It is likely to affect a small fraction of the course. It is in no way bunking maths (by which I assume you mean treating it as worthless).
I have been provided too little information about the teacher, but I would think it would be better if he learnt to deal positively with a situation that is not uncommon in teaching.

But then my old colleagues from university have sometimes said that I asked difficult questions at lectures. So maybe that partly explains my sympathies.

Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
RE is supposed to be anti-indoctrination in that it encourages to think, question, evaluate and challenge.

A curriculum that excluded RE would be secular indoctrination.

You cannot think, question, evaluate or challenge anything which you do not already have a good grounding in. Knowledge of scripture or catechesis in schools is next to nil. RE is reduced to, 'Try not to poke fun at those people who wear funny clothes'.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The logic seems wrong. What aspect of genuine belief equips one to do the impossible?

That's what I'm talking about.

It is only impossible if they are two separate and distinct things that are competing for time. However, if good teaching is both imparting and enabling (i.e. at one and the same time) then it is never a question of having to choose.

There is no impartation without enabling, and there is no enabling without impartation ... if it is good education that is.

[ 22. June 2010, 06:53: Message edited by: Johnny S ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

This seems like semantics to me, along the lines of the sort of management speak that says "you can put the elephant in the fridge if you really want to - it's wanting to that is the key".

Well, sometimes it just isn't possible to do it. Belief or no belief.

It seems to me that imparting a list of facts and enabling a student to critique them both take up time. One could do more enabling if one reduced the list of facts, or focus simply on process based on a very few facts, or aim for a balance.

But even with the balance, there are still choices to be made.

I can see how belief that both are important would lead one to a balanced approach, but it was your implication that time was irrelevant that I struggled with.

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Fine then. Let's all bunk maths, or use maths lessons to entertain ourselves by noising up the teacher.

No, lets just learn about many different subjects and learn in many different ways with many different emphasis on different parts of those subjects.

I'm not into teaching facts and figures, I leave that to other subjects - it is important to learn 'head knowledge'. It is also important to learn what to do with that head knowledge and how to apply that to life. I don't do the 'head knowledge' bit. Maths don't do the 'apply it to life' bit. However, a balanced curriculum of both...

The problems start to come when teachers of one subject assume that their subject is so much more important than any other and the way that they teach is the only, or best, way to teach. I don't think that anyone is saying that learning about things isn't important, or that learning from things isn't important. What is being argued about is whether or not every subject must do both. I don't think it should. It's a waste of time.

For example, part of my GCSE philosophy & ethics course requires a discussion of the rightness and wrongness of various medical things like cloning, abortion, euthanasia and vivisection. I leave it to the science department to teach the head knowledge of what these things are and how they are done - the science teachers are much more expert on that than I am. The science department leaves it up to me to teach about the moral issues and legalities of these issues because that is what I do best. I only give a brief 're-cap' about the head knowledge side of things because that is all that is needed. The same will come when I am teaching various cosmologies. I ain't going into the big bang in detail - not my counter. Science will.

When it comes to symbology, I draw on what they have learned in algebra to understand symbols better. When I teach the morals of the Ramayana, I work with the drama department who teach them the story and get them to act it out(we normally do joint lessons and get them to make puppets and then do a puppet show - the kids love it), when teaching about the holocaust, I work closely with the history department. When it comes to reading a text book, worksheet or powerpojnt I use what they have learned at primary school - I don't try to teach them to read again.

If all the different subjects don't complement each other, then the school isn't providing a 'well rounded' education. I don't need to teach both aspects of education all the time because I know my colleagues are teaching to their expertise and it will all dovetail together in the end.

Obviously, there are things that the students need to learn from me and I do that when needed, but for many topics, it just isn't necessary.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
What difference does the amount of time make?

First, it indicates the value a school places on a subject. If Science gets 6 lessons per week and RE gets one, that speaks volumes to the kids about what is really important.

In the 'bad old days' RE usually got 35 minutes per week. The RE teacher could teach about 800 different children per week - hard to learn their names.

There is no 'legal minimum' because the law, in successive education acts, has fought shy of imposing one but most locally agreed syllabuses, which have the force of law but are viewed by most head teachers as 'guidance' specify a minimum of 5% curriculum time. That equates to two 35 minute lessons.

One lesson, of an hour, feels very different to two shorter lessons since the teacher is likely to do half as much content but in more detail.

The last school I taught at gave me 3 x 50 minute lessons per fortnight.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Just to tie up some issues raised by OldAndrew and Spawn:

I have just read Ofsted's latest report: Transforming religious education: Religious education in schools 2006 ̶ 09 (so I'm not merely quoting opinions from the soon-to-be-abolished QCDA but actual findings by inspoectors.

On the issue of colouring in and other low-level tasks and also on the suggestion that we should go back to content-based teaching:

The weaker aspects of teaching and learning included:
a persistent lack of challenge in many tasks
narrowness of learning, with an over-emphasis on providing students with information rather than encouraging enquiry and engaging with more challenging concepts

The following weaknesses were evident in many of the primary and secondary schools visited.
Lessons tended to focus on gathering information rather than on developing pupils’ skills of investigation, interpretation, analysis, evaluation and reflection

On the issue of the importance of relevance:

Promoting challenging learning in religious education
engaged with some of the more evocative, personal and imaginative dimensions of religion and belief, relating these to their own lives

On assessment by levels (OldAndrew seemed surprised that we were supposed to do this):

Very few of the schools were using levels effectively in developing assessment tasks. Many of the tasks, particularly in secondary schools, did not challenge pupils because they were not pitched at the right level.

In the primary schools, assessment was most effective where:
planning clearly identified the criteria to be used in assessing progress
the wording of the levels was reflected in the planning and in the reports to parents

High quality assessment in the secondary schools was characterised by:
regular reference to assessment criteria so that the students understood how particular tasks were designed to help them achieve higher levels

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
I thought you wanted to educate them. It's hard to see how you can educate people if you only tell them things that already interest them.
It is not about 'telling them things'.
Otherwise known as "teaching".

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

Education has moved on from chalk and talk.
We've been hearing this for 100 years. Yet, "direct instruction" and "giving feedback" still top the list of the most effective things a teacher can do with a class. Schools that believe in "chalk and talk" still get the best results. Teachers still learn pretty quickly that nothing causes learning like teaching does.

So do the kids in your lessons actually get to any sums or do their merely listen to you telling them how to do sums?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It is about getting the pupils to talk, animatedly - that is what theology is - Theos logos - 'talk about God'.
And there's me thinking it was the study of God.

logos means word

spoudason mas study

It's theology, not theospoudasis

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

Knowledgeable about what?

In RE I would hope it would be knowledgable about religion.

If not I suggest you change the name of the subject to something like "bad philosophy".

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

Who gives a shit about the reformation? They do that in history.

The trouble is that too often they don't.

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

Knowledgeable about how religion here and now affects their lives and in what ways it affects their lives- surely that is more important.

Strangely enough I would have thought a basic knowledge of the major religions in thiis country would be useful in understanding how they affect the live of people in this country.

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

You misquoted me. If you read the rest of it I said without causing offence. Huge difference.

I didn't realise you were teaching etiquette.

I foolishly thought you were teaching about religion.

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

I got into trouble with my maths department a while ago. We were having a discussion about what is meant by 'real'. A few of the kids (having had there maths teachers trying to make them 'cleverer') pointed out that maths was real because it was factual. I pointed out to them that numbers weren't 'real' in that they could only have either a symbol that represented a number - like a '3', or 'III' - or a number of objects with the label 'three'. There was no such thing as an actual 'three'.

They promptly toddled off to maths where the maths teacher promptly put half of them in detention for being 'clever' and sent me an email that basically asked me to stop teaching them to think and that I had to teach them some knowledge stuff. It basically turned out that said maths teacher had never studied any philosophy, didn't have a bloody clue how to think and didn't like it when a bunch of Y9's tied him in knots. I thought it was fucking funny.

As they had started thinking and questioning things, I was quite happy with the outcome of that lesson. I was also utterly delighted when a couple of kids came back the week later and told me the faults in my arguments - bloody brilliant! Thinking out of the classroom! Well chuffed!!

No, children don't already know how to think. What they do is parrot what their parents think when at school and parrot what their teachers think when at home. I know this because I deal with the letters and phone calls when parents complain that I am teaching their little Chanttelle-Marie that them Islams aren't all trying to steal our jobs and blow us up and not learning them about our English religions.

I'm struggling to make sense of this anecdote. For starters I would have thought that maths was pretty low down on the list of subjects that were thought to be simply about learning facts. But what is really baffling to me is what you think you've achieved (other than disrupting somebody's lesson and given yourself reason to think you are so much cleverer than a maths teacher). Are you under the impression that by getting kids to ask "where do numbers come from?" you have somehow achieved something? If that's meant to be some kind of eduction in philosophy then I guess every 6 year old who winds up their mother by asking "why?" to everything she says is some kind of mini-Aristotle.

Blanket scepticism does not show some kind of philosophical understanding even if it may catch out people who haven't been confronted by it before. If you had taught your students some of the answers to the question then you might have been educating them. As for the teacher who couldn't answer it, most maths teachers don't even have maths degrees, let alone a background in the philosophy of maths so it is hardly a difficult victory.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

It seems to me that imparting a list of facts

Since when was memorising a list of facts the only way to gain knowledge?

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

and enabling a student to critique them both take up time. One could do more enabling if one reduced the list of facts, or focus simply on process based on a very few facts, or aim for a balance.

The point is that years of research have failed to find anything much in the way of teachable processes that work well without a grounding in knowledge.

This whole "knowledge versus thinking" thing is a false dichotomy. We think better for having more knowledge; we absorb more knowledge by thinking. My complaint here is not that students should have knowledge rather than opinions, but that opinions need to be based around sound knowledge to be worth having. Uninformed opinions are something that no teenager needs to be taught how to have.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

I'm not into teaching facts and figures, I leave that to other subjects - it is important to learn 'head knowledge'. It is also important to learn what to do with that head knowledge and how to apply that to life. I don't do the 'head knowledge' bit. Maths don't do the 'apply it to life' bit.

It did when I was at school. Possibly a bit too much.

Anyway it sounds like you are trying to teach some kind of generic life skills, rather than to teach about religion.

Forgive me if this serves only confirm my views that what widely passes as RE is a non-subject.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
(OldAndrew seemed surprised that we were supposed to do this)

No I wasn't. I was surprised that anybody took the level descriptors as some kind of meaningful evidence as to what is actually happening in the classroom.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So do the kids in your lessons actually get to any sums or do their merely listen to you telling them how to do sums?

I've been dodging this for a while as my subject (like my Local Authority) is one of those details I try not to give out and it's bad enough that I may have already implied that I'm not an RE teacher.

But I have to ask, why do you think I'm a maths teacher?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
logos means word

You are not seriously suggesting that that's the only possible interpretation or implication of logos are you?

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Strangely enough I would have thought a basic knowledge of the major religions in this country would be useful in understanding how they affect the live of people in this country.

How would, for example, knowing about the ten Gurus of Sikhism teach anybody about life in the UK? Surely it would be much more important to teach about how these ten Gurus (and they obviously need to know that there are ten and maybe a couple of sentences about each one - a small amount of head knowledge) affect the lives of the people that follow them and how some of the cultural influences of Sikhism has affect the culture of the UK.

When it comes to RE, there are much more important things to worry about than the facts and figures. This is not a blanket statement for all subjects. Each subject has its strengths and weaknesses. You appear to be expecting all subjects to fit the same mould. It doesn't work like that.

quote:
I didn't realise you were teaching etiquette.

[/qb]I'm not. I'm teaching people, in part, how to argue and debate without causing offence to people who believe diametrically opposed views. Questions such as 'is abortion right?', or ' does God exist?'. These are questions that the students will face and I am helping - along with many other people in their lives - them find answers to these question. I utterly refuse to tell them what to think about these subjects - I don't teach people what to believe, not my job, and I don't think that the question 'does God exist' can be answered with a fact of by teaching them what to think. They can only be guided to make up their own mind by looking at the evidence for and against.

quote:
I foolishly thought you were teaching about religion.

In part, yes, but teaching about religion is a very small area of what RE does. As people on this thread as well, we do a lot of thinking skills and debate/opinion based teaching as well.

quote:
I'm struggling to make sense of this anecdote. For starters I would have thought that maths was pretty low down on the list of subjects that were thought to be simply about learning facts. But what is really baffling to me is what you think you've achieved (other than disrupting somebody's lesson and given yourself reason to think you are so much cleverer than a maths teacher).

What I hope I achieved in that is to get the kids to think in a structured way that they haven't done before and to question the presuppositions they have previously taught as 'true'. I, of course, expect them to use those same skills in my lessons as well. I enjoy being questioned.

quote:

Are you under the impression that by getting kids to ask "where do numbers come from?" you have somehow achieved something? If that's meant to be some kind of eduction in philosophy then I guess every 6 year old who winds up their mother by asking "why?" to everything she says is some kind of mini-Aristotle.

A kid who asks 'why' all the time expects an answer. Someone who accepts that there are no answers is more likely to ask much more interesting questions.

quote:
Blanket scepticism does not show some kind of philosophical understanding even if it may catch out people who haven't been confronted by it before.

Of course it doesn't. There is no 'blanket scepticism' involved. I don't see how exploring what is meant by the word 'reality' counts as scepticism in any capacity let alone blanket scepticism.

I would also argue that any teacher that cannot put forward a good argument for why their subject should be studied shouldn't be in the job.

quote:
If you had taught your students some of the answers to the question then you might have been educating them.

Again, you are failing to grasp the point. In philosophy, and many of the topics covered in RE, there aren't any answers. There is no 'true' and 'false', there is only the question and 'this person thinks this and that person thinks that'. There is practically nothing factual to tell the kids as 'true'. That is the beauty of it and one reason why a lot of people can't do it, but on the other hand, it is a reason why a lot of people can do it.

quote:
As for the teacher who couldn't answer it, most maths teachers don't even have maths degrees, let alone a background in the philosophy of maths so it is hardly a difficult victory.

There is no victory in it at all. I found it quite funny in a way that I was getting told off for getting kids to think and that a teacher didn't know how to deal with kids who were thinking.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
First, it indicates the value a school places on a subject.

Yep, agree with you here. Not sure what that has to do with how you use the time you've been given though.

Was there a second point to your post that you missed out?

[ 23. June 2010, 00:22: Message edited by: Johnny S ]

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew: Strangely enough I would have thought a basic knowledge of the major religions in this country would be useful in understanding how they affect the live of people in this country.
How would, for example, knowing about the ten Gurus of Sikhism teach anybody about life in the UK?

If it wouldn't then that would be a reason for doubting the extent to which Sikhism is a major religion in the UK, not a reason for doubting the value of knowledge.

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

When it comes to RE, there are much more important things to worry about than the facts and figures.

You are back again to describing all knowledge as facts and figures. The point about the Reformation is not that there are some "facts and figures" about it to be taught by rote. the point about the Reformation is that if you don't know anything about it then you do not know much about religion in this country.

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

This is not a blanket statement for all subjects. Each subject has its strengths and weaknesses. You appear to be expecting all subjects to fit the same mould. It doesn't work like that.

I am expecting religious education to impart knowledge about religion because you cannot consider yourself educated about a topic if you are pig-ignorant about it.

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

I'm not. I'm teaching people, in part, how to argue and debate without causing offence to people who believe diametrically opposed views. Questions such as 'is abortion right?', or ' does God exist?'. These are questions that the students will face and I am helping - along with many other people in their lives - them find answers to these question. I utterly refuse to tell them what to think about these subjects - I don't teach people what to believe, not my job, and I don't think that the question 'does God exist' can be answered with a fact of by teaching them what to think. They can only be guided to make up their own mind by looking at the evidence for and against.

You seem to suggest that having an informed opinion is "being told what to think". Having an argument about abortion, even one when you observe the social niceties in such a way that nobody is offended is not education. It is certainly not education about religion.

quote:
In part, yes, but teaching about religion is a very small area of what RE does.

We know. That's the complaint. Curriculum time has been given up for teaching about religion, and it is being used for something else: colouring in and philosophy for dummies.

quote:

As people on this thread as well, we do a lot of thinking skills and debate/opinion based teaching as well.

The point I'm getting at is that there is no such thing as generic thinking skills. Your ability to think well about a subject depends to a large degree of your knowledge of it.

quote:

What I hope I achieved in that is to get the kids to think in a structured way that they haven't done before and to question the presuppositions they have previously taught as 'true'. I, of course, expect them to use those same skills in my lessons as well. I enjoy being questioned.

The point is that there is no evidence of structured thinking in your example at all. It is an example of philosophy as pedantry. The type of thing that come naturally to a 6 year old.

quote:

A kid who asks 'why' all the time expects an answer. Someone who accepts that there are no answers is more likely to ask much more interesting questions.

...

Again, you are failing to grasp the point. In philosophy, and many of the topics covered in RE, there aren't any answers.

It gets worse.

Now we appear to have gone from simply failing to teach them about religion to indoctrinating them with relativism instead.

quote:
There is no victory in it at all. I found it quite funny in a way that I was getting told off for getting kids to think and that a teacher didn't know how to deal with kids who were thinking.

Again, I do not accept that asking where numbers comes from is "thinking" in any meaningful way.

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

"How would, for example, knowing about the ten Gurus of Sikhism teach anybody about life in the UK?

If it wouldn't then that would be a reason for doubting the extent to which Sikhism is a major religion in the UK, not a reason for doubting the value of knowledge."

Also we need to teach them the 5 K "esssential" things to wear and carry always.

And in varying places, Sikhism is a "major" religion in UK, not everywhere in UK, but lots in Southall, west London. They are allowed to wear their turban necessity on their heads when they are policemen.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
"How would, for example, knowing about the ten Gurus of Sikhism teach anybody about life in the UK?

If it wouldn't then that would be a reason for doubting the extent to which Sikhism is a major religion in the UK, not a reason for doubting the value of knowledge."

Also we need to teach them the 5 K "esssential" things to wear and carry always.

And in varying places, Sikhism is a "major" religion in UK, not everywhere in UK, but lots in Southall, west London. They are allowed to wear their turban necessity on their heads when they are policemen.

Oh. I had learnt that and about the Guru Granth Sahib, plus the ideas of a balance between the uncut hair and the comb, the dagger and the bracelet, and the shorts and the sex. And that knowledge did help me to connect with Sikh co-workers.

A practically useful thing for me to learn when I was a house-parent at an adolescent girls' hostel (in Nottingham) from a Sikh girl who put herself into the care of the authorities was that they didn't consider themselves too different from Hindus, but having a Moslem boyfriend was enough for her father to threaten to kill her. I doubt if that knowledge would have come come from teaching about the religion, but it may well have come out if Sikh pupils were encouraged to talk about what their religion means to them.

Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
The point I'm getting at is that there is no such thing as generic thinking skills. Your ability to think well about a subject depends to a large degree of your knowledge of it.

Well, but there is such a thing as skill in reasoning and arguing correctly, which is applicable in any subject. There are entire college courses in Logic. I believe that if more people took them, there would be fewer idiots who listen to political talk radio.

Whether logic skills should be taught as part of a religious education class is another question, but as I'm from the US I don't have any knowledge what RE is supposed to cover.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So do the kids in your lessons actually get to any sums or do their merely listen to you telling them how to do sums?
I've been dodging this for a while as my subject (like my Local Authority) is one of those details I try not to give out and it's bad enough that I may have already implied that I'm not an RE teacher.

But I have to ask, why do you think I'm a maths teacher?

I don't remember but I assumed it from a previous debate. My apologies if I am wrong. It seems likely that the tone of your posts and style of argument remind me of a colleague who teaches Maths, with whom I disagree on most things but whose company I frequently enjoy over a pint or three.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
The point I'm getting at is that there is no such thing as generic thinking skills. Your ability to think well about a subject depends to a large degree of your knowledge of it.
Well, but there is such a thing as skill in reasoning and arguing correctly, which is applicable in any subject. There are entire college courses in Logic. I believe that if more people took them, there would be fewer idiots who listen to political talk radio.

Whether logic skills should be taught as part of a religious education class is another question, but as I'm from the US I don't have any knowledge what RE is supposed to cover.

There is such a thing as reasoning and arguing correctly, and the first thing to distinguish it from inane pontification is whether you've got your facts straight at the start.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
The point I'm getting at is that there is no such thing as generic thinking skills. Your ability to think well about a subject depends to a large degree of your knowledge of it.
Well, but there is such a thing as skill in reasoning and arguing correctly, which is applicable in any subject. There are entire college courses in Logic. I believe that if more people took them, there would be fewer idiots who listen to political talk radio.

Whether logic skills should be taught as part of a religious education class is another question, but as I'm from the US I don't have any knowledge what RE is supposed to cover.
There is such a thing as reasoning and arguing correctly, and the first thing to distinguish it from inane pontification is whether you've got your facts straight at the start.

And how do we know whether we have all our 'facts straight at the start'?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
And how do we know whether we have all our 'facts straight at the start'?

It's an irregular verb:

I have facts.
You have opinions.
They have prejudices.

The idea that we can have 'all' our facts straight is a philosophical construct. Not only is it nearly always possible to know in more detail, it is also possible to know more widely.

Perhaps it should be 'sufficient facts agreed to be common beforehand in order to be able to engage in a meaningful discussion'.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Perhaps it should be 'sufficient facts agreed to be common beforehand in order to be able to engage in a meaningful discussion'.

I was hoping to draw AA on whether AA had sufficient facts for his/her reasoning and arguing here to be more than inane pontification.

[ 24. June 2010, 09:29: Message edited by: Latchkey Kid ]

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

I'm unclear, are you confusing me with Antisocial Alto or with anyone else on here?

Beyond the simple cases*, I'd further modify Doc Tor's line to be whether someone endeavours to check that their facts are correct before starting on their reasoning. If they don't do that, they're showing no care for the truth and their logic is an exercise in mental masturbation. We can't know whether the facts are right, but we can know whether someone's made an effort to get them right.

*eg someone I know who ranted at Margaret Thatcher for saying "there is no such thing as community" - an open and shut case of not checking facts.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Part of the problem is that facts can not only be disputed, but the meaning of even the common facts can be disputed (As exhibit A, can I present the current thread on public pensions?).

Checking a source, or even several sources that agree with you is insufficient for very many 'facts'. Checking with sources that disagree with you, working out for yourself why they disagree with you and how you would counter their arguments is clearly high level thinking, and exactly the sort of thing that people like PhilA seem to be trying to get their students to emulate.

Science stuff can, for most practicable purposes, be empirically proved. Maths stuff can be worked from first principles. But even then, we're making all sorts of a priori assumptions that as you go further and deeper, you genuinely do need to know about.

Getting children to the point where they can do some of this 'heavy lifting' for themselves has to be incredibly rewarding.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

Yebbut what got us here was that higher up the thread, Leo et al were making an assault on the learning of 'facts' (the scare quotes were his I believe) and AA has just weighted in against oldandrew to contrast knowledge and logic. To repeat oldandrew's tired refrain, there is no logic that isn't grounded in knowledge (or at least, any logic that doesn't start from knowledge is starting from ignorance and isn't worth the symbols it's written with). I'm not disagreeing with you here.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
I'm unclear, are you confusing me with Antisocial Alto or with anyone else on here?

Yup. I matched the quotes wrongly. Good reasoning to show I did not have the facts correct.

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
If it wouldn't then that would be a reason for doubting the extent to which Sikhism is a major religion in the UK, not a reason for doubting the value of knowledge.

No one is doubting the value of knowledge. Let me repeat that for the hard of understanding: no one is doubting the value of knowledge.

What is being doubted is the value of some pieces of knowledge when we have such a small amount of time in which to teach. The idea that we can teach everything about our subject is plain silly, we have to teach what is most important about our subject primarily because we don't have time to teach any more than the basics and the right ways in which to think about those basics. Fortunately, we can hang a lot of out thinking and debating on what is learned in other subjects. We couldn't do even that if we didn't value knowledge.

For example, I am teaching GCSE Philosophy and Ethics in 1 hour a week. Thr topics I am covering are:
Wealth and Poverty (causes of poverty, the work of Christian Aid, biblical teachings about money, what can be done to help the poor, why it should/shouldn't be done)

Medical ethics (abortion, euthanasia, cloning, vivisection, genetic manipulation, whether any of the above are right/wrong and in what circumstances)

Belief about God (reasons some people believe in God and reasons why they don't, the nature of God, how God works in the world)

Evil (the problem of evil and its answers)

Prejudice and discrimination (Martin Luther King and how he helped change things, racism, homophobia, sexism and gender issues in the church/priesthood)

Life after death (what different people believe about it - including atheists- and why)

War and peace (Just war theory, religious conflicts, bullying and domestic abuse)

The relationship between science and religion (various cosmologies, big bang and evolution, creationism)

Justice (theories of punishment, the role of law in society, God as judge, eschatological thought)

All this in round about 70 hours of teaching over 2 years and many of these subject are bloody huge - you could do a PhD on any one of them. Fortunately, many of them also overlap and some by quite a long way. We simply can't do all the knowledge bits and this is partly because in the RE exam, the students get more marks and higher marks for talking bout their opinions on these subjects. Defining key words and answering questions on Christian teachings covers less than 50% of the marks. A question such as ' "if God were real we would have proof" Discuss.' is worth over 50% of the marks. Like it or not, that's how it is and we have to put our priorities into covering the most marks rather than the least marks and hoping we generate enough interest in the subjects that they will learn independently. The ones that do tend to do very well in the course.

quote:
You are back again to describing all knowledge as facts and figures. The point about the Reformation is not that there are some "facts and figures" about it to be taught by rote. the point about the Reformation is that if you don't know anything about it then you do not know much about religion in this country.

Bollocks. Yes the reformation is an important part of church history, but its hardly the most important part of religion in this country.

quote:
I am expecting religious education to impart knowledge about religion because you cannot consider yourself educated about a topic if you are pig-ignorant about it.

But in a constrained amount of time, all we have the time to do is impart the bare bones of knowledge. Its a case of finding the right balance between leaving the kids pig-ignorant and taking up all the time with the lower level skills and the knowledge bit.

As far as the RE levels go, you can only get a level 4 by describing what other people believe. 5 by explaining why they think it, 6 by comparing their belief with other peoples beliefs (for example, the students own beliefs compared with whichever religion we are looking at at the time) and level 7 for explaining where those differences come from. So we can get our Y9s up to level six by teaching them how to be opinionated following the right structure.

quote:
You seem to suggest that having an informed opinion is "being told what to think". Having an argument about abortion, even one when you observe the social niceties in such a way that nobody is offended is not education. It is certainly not education about religion.

We are obviously talking past each other rather than to each other. I was reading you as suggesting that I ought to be telling them stuff and not allowing them to think. You are accusing me of only allowing them to gob off at each other.

quote:

We know. That's the complaint. Curriculum time has been given up for teaching about religion, and it is being used for something else: colouring in and philosophy for dummies.

Curriculum time has not been given up for teaching about religion. That is Religious Instruction. We do Religious Education. Teaching about religion is a small part of Religious Education, but only about 30%-40%.

If you think that teaching about religion is what is being done - or supposed to be done - then you are wrong. It isn't. You are obviously mistaken not only about what RE does but what it is supposed to do. I think this may lie at the crux of the debate.

quote:

The point I'm getting at is that there is no such thing as generic thinking skills. Your ability to think well about a subject depends to a large degree of your knowledge of it.

Again, you are wrong. There are such a thing as generic thinking skills and these should - according to Ofsted - be used in all subjects. For example, when given a piece of text or a picture, a student should be asking the '5W's'; who what where when why. They should be analysing and questioning all the time, and showing their knowledge by asking intelligent questions. hey should also be able to accept a 'some people think, other people think' answer and accept that many things in life don't have answers.

quote:

The point is that there is no evidence of structured thinking in your example at all. It is an example of philosophy as pedantry. The type of thing that come naturally to a 6 year old.

That's because its a short anecdote not a lesson plan or transcript of a conversation. It was a structured lesson with set outcomes. If you honestly think that a few Y9s going up to a maths teacher coming out with unstructured opinion bollocks about 'you can't say where numbers come from' would wind up a maths teacher then you obviously have a very, very low opinion of maths teachers.

quote:

It gets worse.

Now we appear to have gone from simply failing to teach them about religion to indoctrinating them with relativism instead.

As I've said above, I don't teach religious instruction.

As for relativism, some people think relativism is a good ethical model because it allows people the freedom of their own opinions. Other people think it is bad because it is individualistic and can be blamed for societies breaking down. Read page 121 of Philosophy and Ethics, draw up a table giving three positives and three negatives and then at at least 100 word on what you think about it and why. I'll give you 20 minutes to make your notes, then we'll go to the hall (outside if the weathers still good) and put relativism on trial.

Oh, shit, sorry, had a flash back, you're not in Y10. Are you? [Paranoid]

quote:
Again, I do not accept that asking where numbers comes from is "thinking" in any meaningful way.

I do. Its a spring board thought process to thinking about what is 'real' and what is 'not real' (of course, the first part of that is defining 'real'. Most use the OED and also want to say numbers and various other concepts as real. Most also want to say colours are real but scents and sounds are not - its actually really interesting when you get into it). In and of itself as an isolated lesson, its an academic exercise with no real benefit, but in a scheme of work which is teaching the basics of philosophical though, it is a 'way in' to a way of thinking about things that they need to learn about and learn how to do. As part of the same lesson I show them the bit in The Matrix where Neo is learning about what The Matrix is and the bit where he learns Kung Fu. I then to a Jackanory on Plato's Cave to link the ideas. We also look at other symbols, such as words and whether or not words that are not nouns class as symbols when they don't represent a physical object or name something... again fascinating stuff and the kids get a lot out of it. They certainly view maths and physics in a different light, as well as suddenly getting the point of impressionism in art. It may not be 'knowledge' but to say its not education is just plain silly.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
there is no logic that isn't grounded in knowledge (or at least, any logic that doesn't start from knowledge is starting from ignorance and isn't worth the symbols it's written with).

"I think, therefore I am" was one philosopher's starting point - in his system, it was the only thing he could be certain of. If everything flows thereafter, it looks like PhilA's course should be allowed a hell of a lot more than a couple of lessons a week.

quote:
I'm not disagreeing with you here.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
we have to teach what is most important about our subject primarily because we don't have time to teach any more than the basics and the right ways in which to think about those basics.

"The right ways in which to think about those subjects"?

And who gets to decide what those "right ways" are?

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
we have to teach what is most important about our subject primarily because we don't have time to teach any more than the basics and the right ways in which to think about those basics.
"The right ways in which to think about those subjects"?

And who gets to decide what those "right ways" are?

Sorry, my sloppy use of words. It would be better to say critical, questioning and structured. Or, 'the right way for the exam board.'

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
there is no logic that isn't grounded in knowledge (or at least, any logic that doesn't start from knowledge is starting from ignorance and isn't worth the symbols it's written with).

Other than the knowledge that logic has to be grounded in knowledge, what possible knowledge base led you to that conclusion?

The problem is, DS, that you can't possibly know that. It is impossible to design an experiment that falsifies or verifies your statement as it is not a statement based on knowledge or any empirical source but on an abstract construct which is only internally, not externally, logical.

As your statement does not come from a base of knowledge it is therefore grounded in ignorance and isn't worth the symbols its written with. It doesn't pass its own test.

[turns out I can't spell].

[ 24. June 2010, 17:23: Message edited by: PhilA ]

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

Well done. I was basing it on experience, if you would like me to modify it to "I have not yet found" rather than "there is no", that's fine. I could argue the empricist line but since you've just apologised for sloppy wording, I'll do the same and leave it at that.

Philosophical pedantry aside, I'll take issue with

quote:

No one is doubting the value of knowledge. Let me repeat that for the hard of understanding: no one is doubting the value of knowledge.

You weren't and Doc Tor wasn't, but I'd say that eg. Leo's arguments weren't giving it a sufficiently prominent place.

I'm not a teacher but grew up with them and have worked with teachers, and with children both in and out of school. The point where I agree with oldandrew is that teenagers really do not need any encouragement to take an argument as far as it will go and beyond, what they lack is the grounding from which they can start their arguments properly. I've run far too many groups where a teen will rabbit on about what they think [eg. God's like], and at the end of it all my returning question is basically, "That's nice, why do you think that? Where do you get that from?" The difference with the kids who've done Philosophy & Ethics is that they think they know how to think, which is all very well but not much use if they can't stand on the shoulders of giants and apply centuries of religious thought before they start their own thinking - their ideas about religion are generally still as loopy as the rest. I'll put that down to the arrogance of youth* rather than blaming a whole school subject but I hope you get where I believe oldandrew and (to a lesser extent, afaict) I are coming from.

To bring this thread back to earth, we were specifically discussing the example of the reformation. He thinks it's irrelevant but he probably would say that, he's constantly trying to pretend that his church isn't protestant. I'd dearly love to take his class on an RE trip to outside Balliol College, but there we go. The religion of this country has shaped who we all are and we need to find out who and where we are before we can start using our mental skill to work out who we're going to be.

*Jeez, how old do I sound? I'm still in my mid twenties!

[ 24. June 2010, 21:59: Message edited by: Dinghy Sailor ]

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
The point I'm getting at is that there is no such thing as generic thinking skills. Your ability to think well about a subject depends to a large degree of your knowledge of it.
Well, but there is such a thing as skill in reasoning and arguing correctly, which is applicable in any subject. There are entire college courses in Logic.

I don't think people were talking about logic.

This is because a) in schools in the UK "thinking skills" doesn't mean logic and b) maths (the most logical subject of all) was being presented as the opposite of RE and its thinking skills.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Part of the problem is that facts can not only be disputed, but the meaning of even the common facts can be disputed.

Again we seem to be doing that "philosophy as pedantry" thing.

Yes, we can become complete sceptics about everything. We can doubt that academic disciplines have any kind of store of learnable knowledge.

But the same kind of scepticism would also throw out everything else we might want in an education system. The existence of knowledge is a lot more certain than the existence of "thinking skills" or the "process" of RE, or anything else that has been put up as an alternative to knowledge.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
If it wouldn't then that would be a reason for doubting the extent to which Sikhism is a major religion in the UK, not a reason for doubting the value of knowledge.

No one is doubting the value of knowledge. Let me repeat that for the hard of understanding: no one is doubting the value of knowledge.

Oh right.

So nobody started talking about "facts" when the subject turned to knowledge?

Nobody claimed "the meaning of even the common facts can be disputed"?

Or that "The idea that we can have 'all' our facts straight is a philosophical construct"?

Presumably nobody said of philosophy "There is no 'true' and 'false', there is only the question and 'this person thinks this and that person thinks that'. There is practically nothing factual to tell the kids as 'true'"?

And nobody would ever have claimed "Someone who accepts that there are no answers is more likely to ask much more interesting questions"?

And nobody would have responded to a comment about religious knowledge by saying "there are much more important things to worry about than the facts and figures"? Or said only "a small amount of head knowledge" is required?

Presuably in this discussion where nobody doubted the value of knowledge you couldn't have said "Obviously, there are things that the students need to learn from me and I do that when needed, but for many topics, it just isn't necessary"? Or "I'm not into teaching facts and figures, I leave that to other subjects"? Or "Who gives a shit about the reformation?"? Or "Learning from religion is more important than learning about religion"?

And I guess I must also have imagined leo saying "It is not about 'telling them things'" and attacking the "model of teacher as 'imparter of knowledge'"? And he couldn't possibly have said (my favourite) "RE is not about imparting facts. it isn't RK nor is it RS. As the QCDA never tires of saying, education is about process, not content."

Hmmmm. Either I have been hallucinating quite badly, or this thread has been full of people doubting the value of knowledge. Or perhaps what I have read with my own eyes is simply one of the facts that are infinitely disputably according to Doc Tor.

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Hmmmm. Either I have been hallucinating quite badly, or this thread has been full of people doubting the value of knowledge.

Or maybe you're not reading for comprehension.

I would love to teach a lot more knowledge aspects of my subject, but that is less important for the exams than the thinking skills and the opinion based side of things. IO can't give both full justice because I don't have time. This is not because I don't value knowledge, but because its less important for the goals I have for my students.

If, after a three page thread, examples, different ways of explaining things, you still don't get it, I don't think you ever will.

quote:
Or perhaps what I have read with my own eyes is simply one of the facts that are infinitely disputably according to Doc Tor.

I'm struggling to think of a fact that isn't, cogito ergo sum not withstanding, but that's probably for a different thread.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

Or maybe you're not reading for comprehension.

Is this kind of belittling response to being caught out what you mean by "how to put forward your own beliefs and not back down from what you believe, but also without offending others"?

If so, I think you are doing better on the "not backing down" part than the "without offending" part.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
This is not because I don't value knowledge, but because its less important for the goals I have for my students.

I think we are going round in circles because of this statement.

Where does this idea that thinking skills are of more importance than knowledge come from?

(I would say that both are very important and equally important.)

[ 26. June 2010, 02:50: Message edited by: Johnny S ]

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
This is not because I don't value knowledge, but because its less important for the goals I have for my students.
I think we are going round in circles because of this statement.

Where does this idea that thinking skills are of more importance than knowledge come from?

(I would say that both are very important and equally important.)

These are just figures of speech. There are no measurement scales by which they can be compared.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
he's constantly trying to pretend that his church isn't protestant. I'd dearly love to take his class on an RE trip to outside Balliol College, but there we go.

1) The C of E is 'catholic and reformed'. 'Protestant' is not a work you will find in its historic formularies, i.e. the BCP and the 39 articles.

2) 'his class' - you think teachers only have one class? In primary, perhaps.

3) Your suggested location would be fine for a History trip. However, this thread is about RE (unless you are a fan of integrated humanities - something Michel Gove will get rid of.)

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The more I think about this thread, the more I remember the old question:

'The master taught the boy Latin.'

Which is the object of the verb 'to teach'?

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
1) The C of E is 'catholic and reformed'. 'Protestant' is not a work you will find in its historic formularies, i.e. the BCP and the 39 articles.

Leo that is like saying Demerra isn't sugar. Reformed means PROTESTANT. In fact Reformed more accurately means Archetypical Protestants.

I of course speak as a Reformed Christian, who has taken the stick for that.

Jengie

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
This is not because I don't value knowledge, but because its less important for the goals I have for my students.
I think we are going round in circles because of this statement.

Where does this idea that thinking skills are of more importance than knowledge come from?

(I would say that both are very important and equally important.)

The cynical answer to that question is 'the exam board'.

Another way of looking it is to say that no one really cares about who said what about churchmanship 300 years ago. What matters is how these things affect peoples lives. Yes you can argue that you can't separate the two, but when you actually get into teaching the reformation, where do you actually stop? For that matter, where do you start? The works vs faith debate can go right back to James and Paul in the NT. Should we start there? How far into Martin Luther's life should we go? On top of that, should we argue whether Henry VIII was Roman Catholic when he died, or should we argue it was Elizabeth I who founded the C of E and brought about true and stable reformation in the UK? When it comes to the stripping of the altars, should we talk about the religious reasons or the financial reasons as well? How far into the politics of the day should we go, because at that point in history, the idea of a separation of church and state was ridiculous. At what point should we say the reformation ended? After Vatican 1 or maybe after Vatican 2?

However far down the road of teaching about a single issue goes, it won't be far enough for some people and too far for others. Personally, I do about 15 mins on the entire reformation and about another 15 on major differences between major denominations. This is because, as far as the exam board goes, that is all they need to know about it. Even then, they will never be asked an exam question on that subject, but they will be asked why different Christians think different things about the same subjects. Even then, that normally boils down to three different approaches; Conservative Protestant, Liberal Protestant and Roman Catholic and looking at the different sources of authority in a very 'black and white' way.

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

Or maybe you're not reading for comprehension.
Is this kind of belittling response to being caught out what you mean by "how to put forward your own beliefs and not back down from what you believe, but also without offending others"?

If so, I think you are doing better on the "not backing down" part than the "without offending" part.

That's not intended to be belittling at all - I am sorry if you took it that way. It is simply a statement that I believe to be true. I don't believe you are engaging with what is being said. You hold a mistaken understanding of what RE is and you are failing to understand the purpose and place of RE in the curriculum after three pages of RE teachers telling you what its purpose and place is.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

What is being doubted is the value of some pieces of knowledge when we have such a small amount of time in which to teach. The idea that we can teach everything about our subject is plain silly, we have to teach what is most important about our subject primarily because we don't have time to teach any more than the basics and the right ways in which to think about those basics.

The point is that you appear to be missing things as basic as the difference between Catholics and Anglicans, but you find time for teaching bad philosophy, encouraging relativism and trendy nonsense like thinking skills.

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

Bollocks. Yes the reformation is an important part of church history, but its hardly the most important part of religion in this country.

It's hard to see how the division between the two largest Christian denominations in the country (not to mention the origin of many other denominations) is not incredibly important, particularly when you find time for so much stuff that isn't important.

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

But in a constrained amount of time, all we have the time to do is impart the bare bones of knowledge.

As I have pointed out, if we got rid of the opinions, relativism and thinking skills you'd have plenty more time.

Not to mention the colouring in.

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

We are obviously talking past each other rather than to each other. I was reading you as suggesting that I ought to be telling them stuff and not allowing them to think. You are accusing me of only allowing them to gob off at each other.

Again, what I am disputing is that you are allowing them to think meaningfully, partly because they don't have the knowledge needed, and partly because you have told them to accept relativism and partly because the examples given so far have shown anything other than thinking.

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

Curriculum time has not been given up for teaching about religion. That is Religious Instruction. We do Religious Education.

The usual distinction between the two is that the first is telling people what to believe the latter telling people about religions.

What you have described doing is closer to the former (although it is relativism not religion you are promoting). It is certainly not religious education, which, if taken literally, would have to involve imparting the basic facts about religion.

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

Teaching about religion is a small part of Religious Education, but only about 30%-40%.

Yes. That's the problem. 60-70% of the curriculum has been hijacked.

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

If you think that teaching about religion is what is being done

This is staggering.

My entire point is that it isn't being done.

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

- or supposed to be done - then you are wrong. It isn't. You are obviously mistaken not only about what RE does but what it is supposed to do. I think this may lie at the crux of the debate.

Well I am glad your grasp of thinking skills has got you to the point where you have realised we disagree about what RE is supposed to do.

I'm a little shocked that you appear to be simply declaring my view simply to be wrong as a matter of fact. I thought that was the sort of thing you objected to?

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

quote:

The point I'm getting at is that there is no such thing as generic thinking skills. Your ability to think well about a subject depends to a large degree of your knowledge of it.
Again, you are wrong. There are such a thing as generic thinking skills and these should - according to Ofsted - be used in all subjects.

I have trouble getting my head round how comfortably your side can go from advocating scepticism and independent thought one moment, to using an argument from authority the next.

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

For example, when given a piece of text or a picture, a student should be asking the '5W's'; who what where when why. They should be analysing and questioning all the time, and showing their knowledge by asking intelligent questions. hey should also be able to accept a 'some people think, other people think' answer and accept that many things in life don't have answers.

Except of course, "what RE should be" where apparently you have all the answers.

Anyway, the point which you have again missed is that knowledge pays a vital part in one's ability to answer the 5W's.

The opinion of somebody who has never heard of the Reformation on any text about Anglicanism or Protestantism is close to worthless.

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

As for relativism, some people think relativism is a good ethical model because it allows people the freedom of their own opinions.

It's used as a term of abuse by philosophers.

But that's not the point. The question is why are you telling them that relativism is right?

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

Most use the OED and also want to say numbers and various other concepts as real. Most also want to say colours are real but scents and sounds are not - its actually really interesting when you get into it). In and of itself as an isolated lesson, its an academic exercise with no real benefit, but in a scheme of work which is teaching the basics of philosophical though, it is a 'way in' to a way of thinking about things that they need to learn about and learn how to do.

The trouble is that you are providing a slow way in to philosophy instead of given them even a basic amount of education about religion.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The more I think about this thread, the more I remember the old question:

'The master taught the boy Latin.'

Which is the object of the verb 'to teach'?

The direct object or the indirect object?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
The cynical answer to that question is 'the exam board'.

And once more we have the appeal to authority.

Do you not understand that the criticism being made here is not just of RE teachers who don't teach basic knowledge about religion, but all the authorities that bring that situation about?

I'm quite willing to accept that in your average secular mainstream comprehensive it is hard for even the most dedicated RE teacher to teach RE (similar things are true about plenty of other subjects) but that is not an excuse for the dumbed down nonsense that makes up RE lessons, is is a cause.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

Or maybe you're not reading for comprehension.
Is this kind of belittling response to being caught out what you mean by "how to put forward your own beliefs and not back down from what you believe, but also without offending others"?

If so, I think you are doing better on the "not backing down" part than the "without offending" part.
That's not intended to be belittling at all - I am sorry if you took it that way. It is simply a statement that I believe to be true. I don't believe you are engaging with what is being said. You hold a mistaken understanding of what RE is and you are failing to understand the purpose and place of RE in the curriculum after three pages of RE teachers telling you what its purpose and place is.

Oh for pity's sake.

Don't apologise. I would much rather you were clear but offensive than you were unclear. However, it doesn't fit well with your claim to teach how to express opinions in a way that won't cause offense.

That said it is no worse than the way your claim that I must have misunderstood because I don't agree with you doesn't fit with your claim to teach how to have a reasoned disagreement. Or the way your appeals to authority don't fit with your claims to teach thinking skils or scepticism about facts. Or the way your claim to have the answer to what RE is supposed to be doesn't fit with your claim that there are no answers.

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
That said it is no worse than the way your claim that I must have misunderstood because I don't agree with you doesn't fit with your claim to teach how to have a reasoned disagreement. Or the way your appeals to authority don't fit with your claims to teach thinking skills or scepticism about facts. Or the way your claim to have the answer to what RE is supposed to be doesn't fit with your claim that there are no answers.

Once more you don't read for comprehension.

You have said that you don't think that RE teachers don't do a good job of teaching about religion.

I, and others, have told you that RE is not supposed to be just about teaching about religion and that this aspect is only a small [art of what we do.

You have said that you don't think RE teachers do a good job of teaching about religion and that other things RE does is pointless because we should be teaching about religion.

I, and others, have pointed out it is not pointless but important to teach young people how to think.

You said that we don't teach about religion enough and we don't teach people how to think properly which isn't important anyway.

We then started going round and round in circles and won't ever stop.

Oh, the only thing that is new in the last half page of this thread is that I am appealing to authority and aren't allowed to do that because an authority is an answer and I don't have any answers. (Apparently, I'm not allowed to tell you what I do in my classroom either because that is also an answer and I don't have any answers...)

This whole damn thing is circular and ultimately pointless.

I am not in any way telling you to agree with everything I say nor assuming you don't understand because you don't agree, but constantly repeating what I should be doing in my classroom - and simultaneously telling me I'm bad at it - whilst refusing to accept anything I do actually do and simply making the same point over, and over, and over again is a complete waste of time. You either don't understand on purpose, pretending you don't understand or have no concept on how to discuss something when people think you are wrong. I am no longer sure which is true.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The more I think about this thread, the more I remember the old question:

'The master taught the boy Latin.'

Which is the object of the verb 'to teach'?
The direct object or the indirect object?

I guessed you'd ask that question. As you well know, I expect, the point of the question is which is more important, the boy or Latin?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
You have said that you don't think that RE teachers don't do a good job of teaching about religion.

I, and others, have told you that RE is not supposed to be just about teaching about religion and that this aspect is only a small [art of what we do.

WE know what the job is like. WE know that OldAndrew wouldn't last more than half a day if he had to teach our subject.

However, if you look at his blog, for which there is a link at the end of each of his posts, you'll see that he is also out of his depth if asked to teach things like PSHE, so he rubbishes them as well.

He only appears on The Ship if there is a thread about education so I expect he is on some sort of mission.

The more we write of our teaching experience, the more he comes back with a slightly different attack. Perhaps we should shut up the the weekend and stop giving him ammunition. After all, there are always books to mark and there is a rather interesting football match tomorrow.

In his defence, however, much o0f what he writes, for example, about the pointless of Baker Days, the spinelessness of SMTs who don't support their staff, are spot on as well as being well-written.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
Once more you don't read for comprehension.

Once more you resort to an ad hominem, despite claiming to be somebody who teaches how to argue.

Can you please consider the possibility that I have understood you but disagree?

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

You have said that you don't think that RE teachers don't do a good job of teaching about religion.

There appears to be a mistaken double negative in there, but if one of those don'ts becomes a do, then this is right.

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

I, and others, have told you that RE is not supposed to be just about teaching about religion and that this aspect is only a small [art of what we do.

Yes. And I have replied to this point.

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

You have said that you don't think RE teachers do a good job of teaching about religion and that other things RE does is pointless because we should be teaching about religion.

I, and others, have pointed out it is not pointless but important to teach young people how to think.

And I have replied to this point.

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

You said that we don't teach about religion enough and we don't teach people how to think properly which isn't important anyway.

Yes. And I explained why I think this to be the case.

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

We then started going round and round in circles and won't ever stop.

No. What happened was you started ignoring my arguments and simply claiming that I must have misunderstood you.

If you want to return to the discussion you are free to at any point, but "you don't understand me, let me repeat myself" is not an argument, and it is particularly unbecoming from someone who claims to teach children how to discuss difficult issues.

And please don't accuse me of "going round in circles" when I am simply waiting for you to address the points made.

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

Oh, the only thing that is new in the last half page of this thread is that I am appealing to authority and aren't allowed to do that because an authority is an answer and I don't have any answers. (Apparently, I'm not allowed to tell you what I do in my classroom either because that is also an answer and I don't have any answers...)

I have not told you what you are allowed to do and that strawman is just ludicrous. I am simply contrasting your method of discussion here with your claims that you teach your children how to discuss issues. You appeal to authority for definitive answers here but you tell your students there aren't answers. The inconsistency is glaring.

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

This whole damn thing is circular and ultimately pointless.

An argument is circular if you end up deducing one of your premises. You haven't done that. You have simply repeated yourself and ignored my points.

Don't you teach this stuff?

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

I am not in any way telling you to agree with everything I say nor assuming you don't understand because you don't agree,

Well so far you have provided no evidence of my lack of understanding, but you have continually repeated the points I disagree with and suggested I must not have understood them. If there is some reason for your claims of misunderstanding then I look forward to seeing it.

As it stands, it looks like an excuse for not justifying your argument or responding to my argument.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The more I think about this thread, the more I remember the old question:

'The master taught the boy Latin.'

Which is the object of the verb 'to teach'?
The direct object or the indirect object?
I guessed you'd ask that question. As you well know, I expect, the point of the question is which is more important, the boy or Latin?

I think both are essential (to teaching the boy Latin).

Tell me, when eating your dinner do you stop putting food in your mouth in order to think "which is more important, the food or my mouth?"?

Or do you simply accept that you'd go hungry if you stopped having access to either?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
WE know what the job is like. WE know that OldAndrew wouldn't last more than half a day if he had to teach our subject.

Another ad hominem from the self-proclaimed teachers of reasoned debate.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

However, if you look at his blog, for which there is a link at the end of each of his posts, you'll see that he is also out of his depth if asked to teach things like PSHE, so he rubbishes them as well.

The point is that I try and avoid getting out of my depth by staying in familiar waters.

Others try to avoid getting out of their depth by draining out the water and then, while standing in the remaining puddle, trying to persuade everybody else that it's a particularly deep ocean.

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Well so far you have provided no evidence of my lack of understanding, but you have continually repeated the points I disagree with and suggested I must not have understood them. If there is some reason for your claims of misunderstanding then I look forward to seeing it.

OK then, lets start again.

RE does not primarily teach about religion; it is not supposed to. If you think that RE ought to primarily teach about religion then that is your prerogative, but it doesn't, and as far as the curriculum is concerned, it isn't supposed to.

To back up my claims of what RE is supposed to do I have given examples of what we do and argued why we don't teach more about religions, appealed to the authorities that tell us to do that and provided evidence as to why we do that.

I'm not asking you to agree that what we do in RE is what you want us to do, but I have outlined exactly why we do it. Yet you are still arguing that we ought to teach only about religions after having evidence provided from the various education authorities that we don't. you are still coming out with the shite about RE being all about colouring in and provided no evidence for your claims for what RE ought to be about.

So let me ask you this as a direct question: Where do you get your information from concerning what RE is and what it ought to be about?

I can't think of what else to say to be honest. You don't think what we do is any good, I do think what we do is good. It could be better - much better - but as has been previously argued, a lot of that is down to time constraints.

There is nothing new in any of these posts - its all repeated stuff from way back in the thread.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
WE know what the job is like. WE know that OldAndrew wouldn't last more than half a day if he had to teach our subject.
Another ad hominem from the self-proclaimed teachers of reasoned debate.

Not just self-proclaimed. If I were to be pompous and post my CV here, listing the various committees, exam boards and so on that I was/am involved with....

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
WE know what the job is like. WE know that OldAndrew wouldn't last more than half a day if he had to teach our subject.
Another ad hominem from the self-proclaimed teachers of reasoned debate.

Oh yes and, by the way, how are your remarks not also 'ad hominem from the self-proclaimed teachers of reasoned debate'?

When did you see colouring in going on? What year group? What course? Which calendar year?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
OK then, lets start again.

You are just going to repeat all your points again aren't you?

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

RE does not primarily teach about religion;

Yes I know. That is my point. You know this is my point. Why are you repeating it?

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

it is not supposed to.

This is a point of disagreement. I tend towards the view that if curriculum time is to be given to religious education then it should take the form of educating students about religion. We haven't found any good reason why it shouldn't, and it has a certain simplicity in that the content of the subject matches up with the name of the subject. I thought this was obvious.

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

If you think that RE ought to primarily teach about religion then that is your prerogative, but it doesn't, and as far as the curriculum is concerned, it isn't supposed to.

Which sums up my complaint admirably.

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

To back up my claims of what RE is supposed to do I have given examples of what we do

An "is" statement cannot possibly back up a "should" statement. Especially when you are arguing with somebody who is saying things shouldn't be how they are.

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

and argued why we don't teach more about religions,

The nearest we have had to such an argument is the two contradictory arguments of (1) a lack of time and (2) an intention to spend the time doing other things.

Obviously, if you stopped wasting the time on other things you would no longer have the lack of time problem, so one argument has undermined the other.

Even if this wasn't obvious, I'm fairly certain I have already explained this.

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

appealed to the authorities that tell us to do that

I have been perfectly happy to hold the authorities responsible for the mess all along. So unless you are claiming that the authorities are always in the right then this is an utterly irrelevant point and I have already pointed this out.

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

and provided evidence as to why we do that.

I don't believe you have.

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

I'm not asking you to agree that what we do in RE is what you want us to do, but I have outlined exactly why we do it. Yet you are still arguing that we ought to teach only about religions after having evidence provided from the various education authorities that we don't.

Again, I am not claiming that RE teachers are in defiance of the authorities in failing to educate about religion. I simply do not accept the authorites are automatically in the right.

Hang on, haven't I made all these points before? Haven't you just repeated your same points again and answered none of mine?

You haven't even explained what it is that I haven't understood. You have just repeated yourself again.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Another ad hominem from the self-proclaimed teachers of reasoned debate.
Not just self-proclaimed. If I were to be pompous and post my CV here, listing the various committees, exam boards and so on that I was/am involved with....

And how exactly would any of that prove that you successfully taught students to debate reasonably?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Oh yes and, by the way, how are your remarks not also 'ad hominem from the self-proclaimed teachers of reasoned debate'?

In the literal way.

i.e. my remarks are not ad hominems and I don't claim to teach students how to debate reasonably.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
OK then, lets start again.
You are just going to repeat all your points again aren't you?

Why not? That's all you do. You push for a style of RE that doesn't work, you ignore the views of practitioners because you think you know best.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Why not? That's all you do.

There's a difference between repeating points that have been ignored and pretending that you haven't been understood as an excuse for repeating points that have already been answered.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

You push for a style of RE that doesn't work,

Doesn't it? Are you seriously claiming that teaching about religion doesn't increase knowledge and understanding of religion?

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

you ignore the views of practitioners because you think you know best.

What have I ignored? If there is a point I have missed I will reply to it now. I thought I'd been very thorough. Too thorough if anything, in that I have spent so much time answering the same points again and again that I haven't chased people up for repeatedly ignoring the points I have made.

Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

You push for a style of RE that doesn't work,
Doesn't it? Are you seriously claiming that teaching about religion doesn't increase knowledge and understanding of religion?

The teaching of it is so prone to caricature, or to a skimming of the surface, that it probably contributes to a weakening of knowledge and understanding.

[Code edited]

[ 27. June 2010, 16:41: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I think the argument is about the syllabus, not the teaching quality. There seems to be to be no reason in principle why the teaching of religion should be especially prone to caricature or surface-skimming.

[ 27. June 2010, 17:11: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Why not? That's all you do.
There's a difference between repeating points that have been ignored and pretending that you haven't been understood as an excuse for repeating points that have already been answered.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

You push for a style of RE that doesn't work,
Doesn't it? Are you seriously claiming that teaching about religion doesn't increase knowledge and understanding of religion?

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

you ignore the views of practitioners because you think you know best.
What have I ignored? If there is a point I have missed I will reply to it now. I thought I'd been very thorough. Too thorough if anything, in that I have spent so much time answering the same points again and again that I haven't chased people up for repeatedly ignoring the points I have made.

You seem to be going round in circles telling others that the are going round in circles.

You seem to think you are one of a handful of good teachers and that other teachers are rubbish.

You only post on The Ship when there is a thread about education and you behave in the same way as on this thread.

I see no point in engaging further with you.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
You seem to be going round in circles telling others that the are going round in circles.

Nobody here is going round in circles. Repetition is not "going round in circles".

The fact that some people want to restart the debate from scratch whenever they find they can't answer a point doesn't mean we are going round in circles. It means we are waiting for an answer.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

You seem to think you are one of a handful of good teachers and that other teachers are rubbish.

Bringing in a straw man like that one hardly helps debate either.

Look, you've had plenty of opportunity to identify something useful that you teach and justify calling it "Religious Education".

The more you stop to shower me with ad hominems and straw men the more it appears that you simply can't do this.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

You only post on The Ship when there is a thread about education and you behave in the same way as on this thread.

I see no point in engaging further with you.

An ad hominem followed by a flounce as a response to being questioned and challenged.

Not really unusual on the internet but surely some part of you must be embarrassed at doing this after you claimed to encourage students "to think, question, evaluate and challenge"?

By the way, earlier today you accused me of ignoring views. Please can you identify what I have ignored or have the manners to apologise for the accusation? Thank you.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I said I will no longer engage.

'Look, you've had plenty of opportunity to identify something useful that you teach and justify calling it "Religious Education".' - have identified plenty but you disagree that it is RE.

Your definition of RE isn't the one held by practitioners and subject associations.

There is no point in arguing with anyone who thinks they are the only one who is right and that everybody else is wrong.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

An afterthought.

OldAndrew - Have you any experience in teaching RE (apart from the odd cover lesson)?

Have you ever read any books about RE teaching?

If you want more examples of 'content', read the South Gloucester RE Syllabus. I wrote the programmes of study for Key Stages 3 and 4, OFSTED's chief HMI gave it an 'outstanding.'

If you still don't like it, why don't you become an HMI and share your unique insights into how children learn with the rest of the world instead of winding us up here?

[ 27. June 2010, 19:31: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I said I will no longer engage.

Yeah, I know, you flounced. But I thought I'd give you one last chance to defend your position with a coherent argument.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

'Look, you've had plenty of opportunity to identify something useful that you teach and justify calling it "Religious Education".' - have identified plenty

You really haven't idenntified anything coherent and useful. You haven't even't resolved the contradictions in what you said. (Remember back at the start when you suggested simultaneously suggested it should be applicable to the students' ordinary lives, and it shouldn't reflect their culture?)

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

but you disagree that it is RE.

I disagree that it has any right to go by that name. But you could always try to justify this.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

Your definition of RE isn't the one held by practitioners and subject associations.

I think we've done the appeal to authority thing enough times haven't we?

And you still haven't resolved how your calling on me to blindly accept the views of authority fits in with how you encourage your students to think, question, evaluate and challenge.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

There is no point in arguing with anyone who thinks they are the only one who is right and that everybody else is wrong.

I love the idea that you are only willing to argue with people who don't think they are right.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
An afterthought.

OldAndrew - Have you any experience in teaching RE (apart from the odd cover lesson)?

Have you ever read any books about RE teaching?

If you want more examples of 'content', read the South Gloucester RE Syllabus. I wrote the programmes of study for Key Stages 3 and 4, OFSTED's chief HMI gave it an 'outstanding.'

If you still don't like it, why don't you become an HMI and share your unique insights into how children learn with the rest of the world instead of winding us up here?

No, yes, and please don't go back to telling me that I have to read the paperwork about the content of RE, when you and Phil A have already confirmed repeatedly that my descriptions of the limited content were accurate.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

If I might be so bold, can I suggest that no protagonist has really shown why their vision of RE is righter than the others'?

It's clear that oldandrew thinks more factual background should be imparted, particularly the reformation, and that the reformation provides a backdrop for understanding religious life at the moment.

It's clear that PhilA and Leo think that teaching process, debate and understanding is their current focus, time is limited for much else, and that the former is more useful.

What I'm not clear about is why either version is *the* right way and the other version wrong. It's hard to imagine there's no value to an understanding of the reformation, and hard to imagine there's no value to learning debate and ethics etc.

How does one make the case though that it is essential to teach either in a school?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
If I might be so bold, can I suggest that no protagonist has really shown why their vision of RE is righter than the others'?

It's clear that oldandrew thinks more factual background should be imparted, particularly the reformation, and that the reformation provides a backdrop for understanding religious life at the moment.

It's clear that PhilA and Leo think that teaching process, debate and understanding is their current focus, time is limited for much else, and that the former is more useful.

What I'm not clear about is why either version is *the* right way and the other version wrong. It's hard to imagine there's no value to an understanding of the reformation, and hard to imagine there's no value to learning debate and ethics etc.

I have identified two problems with the debate/ethics version of Religious Education.

1) It isn't religious (i.e. about religion).
2) It isn't education.

More precisely, on the second point, expressing uninformed opinions is not a skill, nor is it something that teenagers need to trained to do. It also, if promoted as a way of dealing with ethics, tells students that there is no wrong or right in ethical questions which amounts to promoting relativism which, apart from being bad philosophy, is not something that anyone has signed their children up for.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

How does one make the case though that it is essential to teach either in a school?

I'm assuming that schools will want students to leave who aren't in a state of debilitating ignorance. At the very least they should be able to study Shakespeare at A-level without the English teacher having to stop and teach them the basics of religion in England.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Whether it is religious or not seems an opinion.

Your view that it isn't education seems to rest more on the opinion that it's crap, rather than a qualitatively based view.

How do we know it's about ill-informed opinions? If it was about expressing well-informed opinions would you still be able to argue against it?

I don't see how anyone can teach any serious amount of philosophy, religion, English literature or even science without communicating that there isn't always a clear right and wrong answer. Of course there often is a clear right and wrong in science at secondary level, but there are a few areas of uncertainty. RE is on the other end of the spectrum, with English lit somewhere inbetween.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Your definition of RE isn't the one held by practitioners and subject associations.
I think we've done the appeal to authority thing enough times haven't we?

If that is the case, why do you believe that your authority, as a non-practitioner, is superior to that of those who have taught the subject every day for the past (in may case) 30 years?

How is that you know so much that others don't?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Whether it is religious or not seems an opinion.

We have frequently been told RE is not learning about religion.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

Your view that it isn't education seems to rest more on the opinion that it's crap, rather than a qualitatively based view.

Apart from the obvious fact that "it's crap" is a "qualitatively based" view, I did just explain why I didn't think it was education.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

How do we know it's about ill-informed opinions?

We have been repeatedly told that they aren't taught much in the way of knowledge.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

If it was about expressing well-informed opinions would you still be able to argue against it?

If they were being well-informed then no.

Obviously.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

I don't see how anyone can teach any serious amount of philosophy, religion, English literature or even science without communicating that there isn't always a clear right and wrong answer.

You appear to have added the word "clear" in order to completely change the meaning of what was being discussed.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Your definition of RE isn't the one held by practitioners and subject associations.
I think we've done the appeal to authority thing enough times haven't we?
If that is the case, why do you believe that your authority, as a non-practitioner, is superior to that of those who have taught the subject every day for the past (in may case) 30 years?

I have never appealed to my authority. (What authority?)

Do you understand what an "appeal to authority" is?

(Again, I would have thought that it is something you would teach if you are teaching students to think, challenge, evaluate etc.)

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
You appear to have added the word "clear" in order to completely change the meaning of what was being discussed.

I'm not following you. I think that RE (and most other subjects) cover ground where the teacher cannot be didactic about right and wrong answers (and indeed nor can anyone else). What does the presence or absence of the word "clear" have to do with changing the sense of that?

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
We have been repeatedly told that they aren't taught much in the way of knowledge.

Does that necessarily mean ill-informed? It seems a rather narrow view of informed that necessitates it occuring in the same lesson. I knew a reasonable amount about abortion at school, some of which was right and some of which was wrong, and we debated it in my RE lessons. It didn't start with a didactic "here are 10 facts about abortion", but to characterize the debate as ill-informed because of that seems rather narrow-minded. I learnt how to conduct that debate without shouting, and how to take account of others' views. How does one weigh the view of that compared with a list of factual information about the reformation? Personally I think there's no right answer. Perhaps you think there is.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Your definition of RE isn't the one held by practitioners and subject associations.
I think we've done the appeal to authority thing enough times haven't we?
If that is the case, why do you believe that your authority, as a non-practitioner, is superior to that of those who have taught the subject every day for the past (in may case) 30 years?
I have never appealed to my authority. (What authority?)

Do you understand what an "appeal to authority" is?

(Again, I would have thought that it is something you would teach if you are teaching students to think, challenge, evaluate etc.)

You are so insufferable. I wonder how your colleagues feel about you.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
You are so insufferable. I wonder how your colleagues feel about you.

Leo, you know that this has no place in Purgatory. If you can't control yourself, take it to Hell.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

What I'm not clear about is why either version is *the* right way and the other version wrong. It's hard to imagine there's no value to an understanding of the reformation, and hard to imagine there's no value to learning debate and ethics etc.

Because the way that RE is being done at the moment is the way that the education authorities and the exams boards want it done. At the end of the day, at work, you do what your boss says.

As far as student interest goes, it works. Many of my students are excited about what is done in RE and enjoy the lessons - most of the time. Obviously, we have to get through the 'boring stuff' in order to get onto the 'fun stuff'.

These things go in fashions and at the moment skills based learning is all the rage. A few years ago it was subject based and I am sure that it will all circle round again in another few years. These things always do.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
At the end of the day, at work, you do what your boss says

That's certainly one very sound working definition of *right*.

And your post seems very balanced to me. As I said earlier, my recollection of being taught RE was of being taught thinking skills and processing stuff. I enjoyed it, and I think it helped me frame arguments in subjects unrelated to RE.

My history lessons were much more "lists of information" orientated, and I didn't take to them so well. Although I remember very clearly a lesson where we were given various source documents around the sinking of the Lusitania and asked to construct a likely narrative. Unfortunately that was a temporary history teacher and it was back to dictation and reading in silence after he left.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

What I'm not clear about is why either version is *the* right way and the other version wrong. It's hard to imagine there's no value to an understanding of the reformation, and hard to imagine there's no value to learning debate and ethics etc.

Because the way that RE is being done at the moment is the way that the education authorities and the exams boards want it done. At the end of the day, at work, you do what your boss says.

As far as student interest goes, it works. Many of my students are excited about what is done in RE and enjoy the lessons - most of the time. Obviously, we have to get through the 'boring stuff' in order to get onto the 'fun stuff'.

These things go in fashions and at the moment skills based learning is all the rage. A few years ago it was subject based and I am sure that it will all circle round again in another few years. These things always do.

Really good post. Maybe we should only respond to those who have some experience in the field which we love and work and avoid those who seek to pontificate from afar.

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

My history lessons were much more "lists of information" orientated, and I didn't take to them so well. Although I remember very clearly a lesson where we were given various source documents around the sinking of the Lusitania and asked to construct a likely narrative. Unfortunately that was a temporary history teacher and it was back to dictation and reading in silence after he left.

I do think that the personality of the teacher counts a long way towards student enjoyment as does the way that things are taught and the tasks you want the students to do.

For example, One of the things I was doing earlier this year was about miracles. The assessment task was to write a newspaper article about the miracles of Jesus. This would get a level 4. For higher levels, students must explain why they think Jesus performed that miracle, compare that miracle with other miracles Jesus did and somewhere in all that define a miracle.

However, rather than getting them to write a newspaper report, I got them to write a script and do a TV news broadcast. This was filmed and then shown to them the week later where they then reviewed their performances and evaluated how they could have done better. This then gave them a level for that task.

The main part of that wasn't teaching them a miracle of Jesus. Thanks to these things called 'Bibles' and 'Youtube', that took 20 mins (we did Lazarus). The main part was in what they thought of miracles and whether or not they believed they happened, why Jesus behaved in the way he did, (didn't go see Lazarus when he was ill but waited till he was dead) and what the miracle meant to them. We also looked at the difference between miracles and magic and I did a couple of card tricks to illustrate the point.

With the same year group, we are currently looking at the street children of Brazil and they want to look into the possibility of sponsoring a child. Something which I think would be a good idea.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Maybe we should only respond to those who have some experience in the field which we love and work and avoid those who seek to pontificate from afar.

I would imagine that's a recipe for getting insular and out of touch in most fields.

One of the most helpful exercises I did was justifying the teaching objectives of a lecture to colleagues in different fields. Those outside my field made me think quite hard about why I thought certain objectives were essential, having a fresh perspective and not sharing the same founder effects and group thinking that I did.

That isn't to say it's worth listening to everybody.

[ 28. June 2010, 21:18: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

I find that OldAndrew's posts have a lot of substance to them, and this:-

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
You are so insufferable. I wonder how your colleagues feel about you.

and this:-

quote:
leo again:
Maybe we should only respond to those who have some experience in the field which we love and work and avoid those who seek to pontificate from afar.

do not seem to provide any answer to him.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Maybe not, but I think I outlined why I found my experience of RE to be an education.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

One of my sons decided to read Theology and Religious Studies at university because he was inspired by his RE teachers. The main reason he gave was because they presented the issues and then let the students explore and discuss them thoroughly. In other words, the content mattered less than the way in which it was handled.

I guess people are different and they will respond to the RE teaching they get in different ways, but I present this as an example of one success story.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
At the end of the day, at work, you do what your boss says
That's certainly one very sound working definition of *right*.

"I was only following orders" is a sound working definition of "right"?

quote:
And your post seems very balanced to me. As I said earlier, my recollection of being taught RE was of being taught thinking skills and processing stuff. I enjoyed it, and I think it helped me frame arguments in subjects unrelated to RE.

I have no problem with pupils being taught thinking skills and processing stuff. It sounds like a noble and valuable pursuit.

BUT - it's not Religious Education. Religious Education should be teaching about religion, as it was in my day (and that's not that long ago). If you want to teach thinking skills, or debating skills, or how to process information, then call it "Intellectual Development" or something else that actually says what it does.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
BUT - it's not Religious Education. Religious Education should be teaching about religion, as it was in my day (and that's not that long ago). If you want to teach thinking skills, or debating skills, or how to process information, then call it "Intellectual Development" or something else that actually says what it does.

It seems to me from what PhilA's been saying that they're tackling RE from the basis of "what questions are religions trying to answer?" So questions about the existence of God, miracles, reproductive ethics, gender roles are entirely within their remit.

The students then get to see what the various religious and secular texts say on the subject, and test them for robustness. This is, I would argue, education.

Like you, it's not the RE syllabus that I got. But I would have much preferred PhilA's.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
"I was only following orders" is a sound working definition of "right"?

"I was only following orders" vs the rogue maverick, taking on the teaching establishment and cutting through the bunkum that the profession has got itself into.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
BUT - it's not Religious Education. Religious Education should be teaching about religion, as it was in my day (and that's not that long ago). If you want to teach thinking skills, or debating skills, or how to process information, then call it "Intellectual Development" or something else that actually says what it does.

All subjects should teach thinking skills and processing information. What good is learning maths if all one does is learn rote to reproduce algorithms? In science one doesn't learn rote scientific conclusions, one needs to learn the thought process for arriving at them.

In geography I'd be happier with a course that taught students to discuss urbanization, soil erosion and climate change than a course that taught a list of countries, capital cities, population densities and lengths of rivers. Some would call the latter "proper geography" and say the former wasn't geography.

Personally, I think debating abortion is very relevant to religion. And I'd be happier with a course that taught students to think through those issues than a course that taught them to list world religions, date the reformation, and recite the history of it.

Education should be about learning to think.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
At the end of the day, at work, you do what your boss says
That's certainly one very sound working definition of *right*.
"I was only following orders" is a sound working definition of "right"?

quote:
And your post seems very balanced to me. As I said earlier, my recollection of being taught RE was of being taught thinking skills and processing stuff. I enjoyed it, and I think it helped me frame arguments in subjects unrelated to RE.
I have no problem with pupils being taught thinking skills and processing stuff. It sounds like a noble and valuable pursuit.

BUT - it's not Religious Education. Religious Education should be teaching about religion, as it was in my day (and that's not that long ago). If you want to teach thinking skills, or debating skills, or how to process information, then call it "Intellectual Development" or something else that actually says what it does.

RE has two attainment targets: 'Learning ABOUT religion' and 'Learning FROM religion.' They should be equal in importance and the assessment levels reflect this though GCSE and A' levels ave only recently caught up.

These targets go back to the 1988 Education Reform Act, which led to subjects developing ridiculously long lists, e/g. the Association of Advisors and Inspectors of RE drew up 10 targets. I was part of a research project based at the University of Exeter and drawing on the work of Prof. Michael Grimmitt. We drew up the 2 targets as they are today.

We believed that there is no point in learning knowledge just for the sake of it. In an information-rich age, there is simply too much content around. So the knowledge-base has to be relevant to the concerns of teenagers (this goes back much further, to the work of Harold Loukes in the 1960s) so that they can apply it in their own lives.

This is why the subject is called Religious Education rather than Religious Studies. (from the spurious belief that 'educere' means to draw out)

I suspect that Marvin was at a school in the Midlands. That area was heavily influenced by the 1974 Birmingham Agreed Syllabus, which was content-heavy, i.e. 6 religions and 2 non-religious life stances. Birmingham has repudiated that approach (in its 2009 syllabus, largely based on work and pressure of Tory city councillors).

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Maybe we should only respond to those who have some experience in the field which we love and work and avoid those who seek to pontificate from afar.
I would imagine that's a recipe for getting insular and out of touch in most fields.to say it's worth listening to everybody.

RE is the least insular subject on the curriculum because it is locally determined. That is to say that the syllabus is determined by an Agreed Syllabus Conference drawn up by representatives of:

the Church of England
other Christian denominations
other religions
locally elected members (councillors) - usually one from each of the main political parties
teachers (not necessarily RE teachers) from the main professional associations/trade unions
co-opted members e.g. humanists, university lecturers.

That is in contrast to the National Curriculum subjects, whose syllabusses were drawn up by a few people with vested interests in a hotel over one or two weekends (e.g. History was largely the work of a museum curator.)

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
RE has two attainment targets: 'Learning ABOUT religion' and 'Learning FROM religion.' They should be equal in importance...

Says who?

quote:
We believed that there is no point in learning knowledge just for the sake of it.

And yet we're always being told that education is an end in itself! Which is it?

quote:
In an information-rich age, there is simply too much content around. So the knowledge-base has to be relevant to the concerns of teenagers (this goes back much further, to the work of Harold Loukes in the 1960s) so that they can apply it in their own lives.

I pray for the day when this fad of thinking all subjects in education must be directly relevant to the pupils' lives and concerns. It's a form of dumbing down IMO.

quote:
I suspect that Marvin was at a school in the Midlands. That area was heavily influenced by the 1974 Birmingham Agreed Syllabus, which was content-heavy, i.e. 6 religions and 2 non-religious life stances.

Yes, and I feel richer for being taught such a diverse syllabus than if I'd spent the whole time debating the fashionable issues of the day. I actually learnt something I didn't already know.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
RE has two attainment targets: 'Learning ABOUT religion' and 'Learning FROM religion.' They should be equal in importance...
Says who?

The National Framework for RE, most Agreed Syllabus Conferences and, more recently, the exam boards.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I pray for the day when this fad of thinking all subjects in education must be directly relevant to the pupils' lives and concerns. It's a form of dumbing down IMO.

Applied thinking is much more difficult that regurgitating facts (which are usually forgotten straight after the exam).

On RE assessment levels, factual knowledge that is recalled by pupils gets a Level 4 - the average 11 year-old's ability.

Evaluation and so on goes up to Exceptional performance (above average 16 year old.

And it isn't just 'trendy issues'. Pupils have to explain a Muslim, Sikh, Christian, humanist etc. teaching as related to the issue. Harder still, they have to explain that there is a diversity of views within a religion, e.g. not all RCs oppose abortion.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

OR, to quote OFSTED:

125. The following weaknesses were evident in many of the primary and secondary schools visited.
Lessons tended to focus on gathering information rather than on developing pupils’ skills of investigation, interpretation, analysis, evaluation and reflection
Literacy activities were limited to writing accounts, with pupils rarely being challenged to use writing to discuss, persuade or explain.
Assessment tasks were confined to recalling and re-ordering information.
The focus of the lessons was limited to low level ‘learning about’ religion with very little reference to ‘learning from’ religion.
Teachers with limited RE background often found the subject difficult because of an over-emphasis on content, as opposed to helping pupils develop their learning by planning and conducting their own investigations.

Some of the best practice was seen in local authorities where the locally agreed syllabus focused very clearly on developing skills and conceptual understanding as well as content.

Schools should:
ensure that RE promotes pupils’ spiritual development more effectively by allowing for more genuine investigation into, and reflection on, the implications of religion and belief for their personal lives

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
The point is that you appear to be missing things as basic as the difference between Catholics and Anglicans, but you find time for teaching bad philosophy, encouraging relativism and trendy nonsense like thinking skills.

*headdesk*

The difference between Roman Catholics now and Anglicans now has very little to do with the Reformation other than that the reformation happened. It takes ONE LINE to say that in a multi-page essay. And it's one line that's even less relevant than the story of who gave whom a pearl necklace five hundred years ago and whether someone was really a fat mare with glanders. (Hint: The C of E didn't actually split as part of the Reformation. Fid Def comes from that period precisely because of this).

So, now that it's been shown that you fail even at the Religious Instruction part, what's the difference between that and Religious Education? What matters is what's going on now - with a little background thrown in for good measure.

quote:
It's hard to see how the division between the two largest Christian denominations in the country (not to mention the origin of many other denominations) is not incredibly important, particularly when you find time for so much stuff that isn't important.

How they are different is important, and covered in detail. What exactly our 'Enery said about Katherine the Arrogant to spark off the whole feud really doesn't matter - you just need to know it was there. (You might have a case to include the Tractarians).

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

Teaching about religion is a small part of Religious Education, but only about 30%-40%.

Yes. That's the problem. 60-70% of the curriculum has been hijacked.[/qb][/quote]

No it hasn't. The purpose of religious education is not religous instruction. Just because you wish to hijack 60-70% of the curriculum into chewing over the fat of old arguments that are largely irrelevant to 95% of the population rather than learning how it influences people today no matter the specifics doesn't mean that it's a good idea.

quote:
I'm a little shocked that you appear to be simply declaring my view simply to be wrong as a matter of fact. I thought that was the sort of thing you objected to?

The goals of RE are easy to find. And what you want is something else entirely. You are simply wrong on a matter of fact here.

Now you can argue that the goals of RE are incorrect. Feel free. But what you find staggering is simply basic information.

quote:
Except of course, "what RE should be" where apparently you have all the answers.

Of course we have the answers to that question already. What you are asking is "Should RE be changed to RS?" To which the answer I have is "Hell, No!"

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
RE is the least insular subject on the curriculum... representatives of:

the Church of England
other Christian denominations
other religions
locally elected members (councillors) - usually one from each of the main political parties
teachers (not necessarily RE teachers) from the main professional associations/trade unions
co-opted members e.g. humanists, university lecturers.

That sounds all well and good but it's not quite what was implied when you said;

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Maybe we should only respond to those who have some experience in the field which we love and work and avoid those who seek to pontificate from afar.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
*headdesk*

I found myself moved by my unexpected near total agreement to just about all you posted.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
RE is the least insular subject on the curriculum... representatives of:

the Church of England
other Christian denominations
other religions
locally elected members (councillors) - usually one from each of the main political parties
teachers (not necessarily RE teachers) from the main professional associations/trade unions
co-opted members e.g. humanists, university lecturers.
That sounds all well and good but it's not quite what was implied when you said;

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Maybe we should only respond to those who have some experience in the field which we love and work and avoid those who seek to pontificate from afar.

I can see how you would think that but two things stop 'pontificating':

1) SACRE and ASC members have an induction which tales them into schools to see what works

2) Each ASC committee has one vote. The voting has to be unanimous. So if we get one hothead on one committee (as happened last time I chaired an ACSC), the others on that committee will overrule him/her. If s/he persuades the whole committee of his/her view, then the other committees will outvote them and the syllabus will fall. The local authority will either choose a new ASC with completely different members of refer the matter to the secretary of state for education, who will impose a syllabus from another local authority which has a good tract record.

That is very different from a certain person on this board who believes that he is always right, has no experience in RE and doesn't listen to those who have.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I realise that, but I thought it was an unhelpful generalization to suggest that one should close one's mind to a category of people outside RE on the basis of a single encounter.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

I suspect that Marvin was at a school in the Midlands. That area was heavily influenced by the 1974 Birmingham Agreed Syllabus, which was content-heavy...

I assume 'content-heavy' means, in crude terms, that the pupils were required to learn a proportionally significant amount of information compared to discussing / debating it.

Do you have any knowledge of the London syllabus circa 1997-2000?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Isn't it great the way spin works. "Proportionally significant", "content heavy", or even "not enough" vs "too much" - could anyone define where the percentage cut-offs between these categories are?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
You appear to have added the word "clear" in order to completely change the meaning of what was being discussed.
I'm not following you. I think that RE (and most other subjects) cover ground where the teacher cannot be didactic about right and wrong answers (and indeed nor can anyone else). What does the presence or absence of the word "clear" have to do with changing the sense of that?

Can you really not see a huge difference between saying there is no clear answer and saying there is no answer?

The first implies you will need to study and think about it a lot to reach a conclusion. The second suggests there's no point, and you might as well think anything.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
We have been repeatedly told that they aren't taught much in the way of knowledge.
Does that necessarily mean ill-informed? It seems a rather narrow view of informed that necessitates it occuring in the same lesson.

Obviously, as in any situation where no learning takes place there is nothing to stop students learning in their own time. They may even be able to share that knowledge in lessons in the absence of anyone better qualified being willing to teach them.

However, it is hard to grasp either why the taxpayer should be funding courses where students have to resort to teaching themselves, or why such a course should take the slot designated for religious education.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Can you really not see a huge difference between saying there is no clear answer and saying there is no answer?...The second suggests there's no point, and you might as well think anything.

Now you seem to be dropping words. We were talking about no right and wrong answer, not simply "no answer". If I ask "What is the effect of urbanization on culture?" I hope you'd agree there's no "right answer" (clear or not). However, to argue you might as well think anything is a step too far. There may be no defined inarguably "right answer" or "wrong answer" but there will definitely be right and wrong forms of answer, and forms of argument and discussion that get more or less marks, and that demonstrate more or less intellectual capacity.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
However, it is hard to grasp either why the taxpayer should be funding courses where students have to resort to teaching themselves, or why such a course should take the slot designated for religious education.

But that wasn't at all what I was talking about. I'm talking about a situation where one identifies a reasonable core knowledge about an issue (e.g. abortion) and teaches students to think the issue through and justify what the believe. You seem to lean towards a more didactic approach.

How would you characterize, for instance, a history lesson where students are taught to evaluate some example source data? The lesson might end without much in the way of factual impartation, but nevertheless have taught a useful skill. Is that OK? Is it history or should history be confined to lists of dates and events?

[ 29. June 2010, 19:39: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
At the end of the day, at work, you do what your boss says
That's certainly one very sound working definition of *right*.

For pity's sake.

It is bad enough to discover that there exist people who do not distinguish between what is right and what the authorities say is right, but don't you think it is particularly out of place on the part of people who claim that they are teaching children to think, debate and challenge?

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

And your post seems very balanced to me. As I said earlier, my recollection of being taught RE was of being taught thinking skills and processing stuff. I enjoyed it, and I think it helped me frame arguments in subjects unrelated to RE.

There are two obvious questions here.

1) Are there really such things as generic thinking and processing skills that can be taught?

2) Is teaching them actually "religious education"?

I think the answer to 2) is pretty obviously "no". There is more debate about 1) and I accept that your anecdotal experience seems to differ significantly from my anecdotal experience.

However, if we move beyond anecdote it has to be said that psychologists have spent a long time failing to establish any teachable, generic thinking skills. Similarly, education research suggests that there are far greater gains from teaching domain-specific rather than generic "processing".

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

My history lessons were much more "lists of information" orientated, and I didn't take to them so well. Although I remember very clearly a lesson where we were given various source documents around the sinking of the Lusitania and asked to construct a likely narrative. Unfortunately that was a temporary history teacher and it was back to dictation and reading in silence after he left.

The automatic strawman in a lot of education debates is that of the didactic lecture in which students are given information but do not engage.

That is not what I am arguing for here. (Does anyone argue for that? Maybe Michael Gove?) However, I still see an unavodiable role for direct teaching of knowledge, make that as interactive, challenging and stimulating as possible, but it is indispensible to learning. As I keep saying, teaching kids to express ill-informed opinions is not really teaching them anything they don't already know.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It seems to me from what PhilA's been saying that they're tackling RE from the basis of "what questions are religions trying to answer?"

Which seems fundamentally misguided.

We cannot simply assume that all religions are answering the same questions. Even if we were to reach the conclusion that we can identify a finite list of questions that religions try to answer, and we can do so without being bogged down in obscure religions answering obscure questions, we could still only do so on the basis of extensive study of the available knowledge about religions.

We learn by going from the specific to the general. Trying to go the other way is a sure fire method of spreading misconceptions. It has been an ongoing educational myth that we can teach understanding without teaching knowledge.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
1) Are there really such things as generic thinking and processing skills that can be taught?

2) Is teaching them actually "religious education"?

With regard to 2) you sound a touch opposed to change. Didn't we hear the same thing from geography teachers who thought teaching the length of the nile, capital cities and naming countries was "geography" and essays on urbanization and climate change were dumbing down? And the same from history teachers who wanted lists of dates and events rather than evaluations of source material and constructing narratives?

On 1) I just don't believe that a psychologist could convincingly demonstrate that there are no generic skills. In any case, the skills we're talking about (rational debate) are useful in their own right.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
We cannot simply assume that all religions are answering the same questions. Even if we were to reach the conclusion that we can identify a finite list of questions that religions try to answer, and we can do so without being bogged down in obscure religions answering obscure questions, we could still only do so on the basis of extensive study of the available knowledge about religions.

Those sound like interesting questions that one could debate in an RE class. Would that be on? If so, presumably your approach would be to teach that the right answer is "NO!" and move on to the next question.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Here I go for the triple. But as an afterthought, learning to assimilate lists of facts is probably a learning skill that generalizes very well. If you can hone it and learn to cram it in at the last minute you can do very well in a range of examinations.

That's probably the most generic skill I learnt from school.

[ 29. June 2010, 20:27: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

I suspect that Marvin was at a school in the Midlands. That area was heavily influenced by the 1974 Birmingham Agreed Syllabus, which was content-heavy...
I assume 'content-heavy' means, in crude terms, that the pupils were required to learn a proportionally significant amount of information compared to discussing / debating it.

Do you have any knowledge of the London syllabus circa 1997-2000?

Not in detail - because there are so many of them when ILEA was disbanded. I have a passing knowledge of Redbridge, Dagenham and Barking.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
RE has two attainment targets: 'Learning ABOUT religion' and 'Learning FROM religion.' They should be equal in importance...
Says who?
The National Framework for RE, most Agreed Syllabus Conferences and, more recently, the exam boards.

And when exactly did the Spirit of God descend upon those bodies to lead them into all truth and protect them from error?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Applied thinking is much more difficult that regurgitating facts (which are usually forgotten straight after the exam).

On RE assessment levels, factual knowledge that is recalled by pupils gets a Level 4 - the average 11 year-old's ability.

Evaluation and so on goes up to Exceptional performance (above average 16 year old.

This isn't about exams and assessments, it's about education. That very few in the business seem to be able to tell the difference any more is, IMO, part of the problem.

So you end up teaching all these thinking skills and debating styles because that's what the pupils will be marked on, rather than their actual knowledge of the subject itself.

quote:
And it isn't just 'trendy issues'. Pupils have to explain a Muslim, Sikh, Christian, humanist etc. teaching as related to the issue. Harder still, they have to explain that there is a diversity of views within a religion, e.g. not all RCs oppose abortion.

So at some point you must actually teach them what the Muslim/Sikh/Christian/Humanist/etc teachings on such matters actually are, including the fact that there are also different teachings within those religions? Marvellous. That's exactly the sort of thing I think RE should be about.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Applied thinking is much more difficult that regurgitating facts (which are usually forgotten straight after the exam).

On RE assessment levels, factual knowledge that is recalled by pupils gets a Level 4 - the average 11 year-old's ability.

Evaluation and so on goes up to Exceptional performance (above average 16 year old.
This isn't about exams and assessments, it's about education. That very few in the business seem to be able to tell the difference any more is, IMO, part of the problem.

So you end up teaching all these thinking skills and debating styles because that's what the pupils will be marked on, rather than their actual knowledge of the subject itself.

quote:
And it isn't just 'trendy issues'. Pupils have to explain a Muslim, Sikh, Christian, humanist etc. teaching as related to the issue. Harder still, they have to explain that there is a diversity of views within a religion, e.g. not all RCs oppose abortion.
So at some point you must actually teach them what the Muslim/Sikh/Christian/Humanist/etc teachings on such matters actually are, including the fact that there are also different teachings within those religions? Marvellous. That's exactly the sort of thing I think RE should be about.

I's not about getting hem through exams., though a lot of schooling is these days. ather, these are the skills we wish to foster so he exam boards hel[ us to see whether we have succeeded.

Yes, we 'actually teach them' - but not in the way Oldandrew wants. Rather, we thrown in the facts during discussion, as and when appropriate, or else get the kids to research them rather than us telling them.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

It's good to see that these facts aren't in scare quotes anymore.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I's not about getting hem through exams., though a lot of schooling is these days. ather, these are the skills we wish to foster so he exam boards hel[ us to see whether we have succeeded.

Well, that comes back to the point of what good are those skills without the knowledge base to back them up?

(the knowledge of how to spell and/or proof read, for one thing...)

quote:
Yes, we 'actually teach them' - but not in the way Oldandrew wants. Rather, we thrown in the facts during discussion, as and when appropriate, or else get the kids to research them rather than us telling them.

It sounds like you're teaching the kids how to use information, but making them actually find it for themselves. As opposed to teaching them the information and leaving them to decide how to use it.

While I've got nothing against teaching kids information processing skills, I'm pretty sure they're not worth squat without some information to process. Surely imparting that information should be the first priority in any education system?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It sounds like you're teaching the kids how to use information, but making them actually find it for themselves. As opposed to teaching them the information and leaving them to decide how to use it.

This sounds far more durable and generalizable to me. I was just recalling last night that I had some history lessons on Georgian and Victorian society when I was 12/13. We wrote some stuff down about them long hand in our exercise books, and reproduced some drawings. I can't remember anything about it except that the clothes looked funny.

On the other hand I had one lesson where we were given some written accounts, reproduced photos and shipping records around the sinking of the Lusitania.

I can still remember scrutinising the cargo manifest, arguing whether the quantities of cheese being shipped were a cover for ammunitions, whether it might have been a cunning double-ruse and various other consipiracy theories. It taught me to weigh evidence and I can still remember the lesson. The teacher facilitated our assimilation of the facts and discussion, but didn't lead us through by the hand.

I'm pretty clear which of those lessons was really education.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Surely imparting that information should be the first priority in any education system?

Absolutely not. Do you seriously expect 30 teenagers to sit in silence while a teacher talks no stop for fifty minutes?

Education is about equipping people to be lifelong learners, not lifelong sponges.

I believe your background is in science - did you not learn more through doing experiments than from someone explaining second-hand, an experiment while you wrote it all down?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

To put is better: The major Difference between Education and Information lies in the fact that education empowers one with greater values whereas information is acquiring of new knowledge....Educate is further defined as "to develop the knowledge, skill, or character of..." Thus, from these definitions, we might assume that the purpose of education is to develop the knowledge, skill, or character of students......What is meant by knowledge? Is it a body of information that exists "out there"—apart from the human thought processes that developed it? ....knowledge arises in the mind of an individual when that person interacts with an idea or experience.

“The only purpose of education is to teach a student how to live his life-by developing his mind and equipping him to deal with reality. The training he needs is theoretical, i.e., conceptual. He has to be taught to think, to understand, to integrate, to prove. He has to be taught the essentials of the knowledge discovered in the past-and he has to be equipped to acquire further knowledge by his own effort.” ~Ayn Rand

“The aim of education should be to teach us rather how to think, than what to think—rather to improve our minds, so as to enable us to think for ourselves, than to load the memory with the thoughts of other men.” ~Bill Beattie

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
RE has two attainment targets: 'Learning ABOUT religion' and 'Learning FROM religion.' They should be equal in importance...
Says who?
The National Framework for RE, most Agreed Syllabus Conferences and, more recently, the exam boards.
And when exactly did the Spirit of God descend upon those bodies to lead them into all truth and protect them from error?

And what/who else, exactly, would you like to determine the curriculum. We live in a democracy. We vote for a government. The government draws up the curriculum through experts whom it appoints on our behalf.

[ 30. June 2010, 16:45: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
"The only purpose of education is to teach a student how to live his life-by developing his mind and equipping him to deal with reality. The training he needs is theoretical, i.e., conceptual. He has to be taught to think, to understand, to integrate, to prove. He has to be taught the essentials of the knowledge discovered in the past-and he has to be equipped to acquire further knowledge by his own effort.” ~Ayn Rand

Or information= supply of fish, education=learning to fish.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
"I was only following orders" is a sound working definition of "right"?
"I was only following orders" vs the rogue maverick, taking on the teaching establishment and cutting through the bunkum that the profession has got itself into.

Oh please. I hardly think myself maverick for thinking that kids should, you know, learn about religion, in RE lessons.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

All subjects should teach thinking skills and processing information.

What good is learning maths if all one does is learn rote to reproduce algorithms? In science one doesn't learn rote scientific conclusions, one needs to learn the thought process for arriving at them.

In geography I'd be happier with a course that taught students to discuss urbanization, soil erosion and climate change than a course that taught a list of countries, capital cities, population densities and lengths of rivers. Some would call the latter "proper geography" and say the former wasn't geography.

Personally, I think debating abortion is very relevant to religion. And I'd be happier with a course that taught students to think through those issues than a course that taught them to list world religions, date the reformation, and recite the history of it.

Education should be about learning to think.

Here we go again.

The point is that although "thinking skills" has become educational jargon there is no evidence that such skills exist independently of content (i.e. thinking is different in different disciplines) but there is evidence that knowledge, and fluency of knowledge, is a major part of how we think, and that we learn knowledge best through thinking about it. We don't think and learn knowledge separately. A course that replaces knowledge with thinking just dumbs down.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Applied thinking is much more difficult that regurgitating facts (which are usually forgotten straight after the exam).

Again we have the idea of knowledge as "facts"

Aren't you tired of this straw man?

Knowledge isn't simply learning a list of facts by rote. To genuinely know something you have to grasp its meaning as well.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

On RE assessment levels, factual knowledge that is recalled by pupils gets a Level 4 - the average 11 year-old's ability.

And we're back to appealing to authority again.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
"The only purpose of education is to teach a student how to live his life-by developing his mind and equipping him to deal with reality. The training he needs is theoretical, i.e., conceptual. He has to be taught to think, to understand, to integrate, to prove. He has to be taught the essentials of the knowledge discovered in the past-and he has to be equipped to acquire further knowledge by his own effort.” ~Ayn Rand
Or information= supply of fish, education=learning to fish.

Other than my general distaste for Ayn Rand, the problem that I have with this view of education is that it undervalues the place of information in thought. The model seems to be that there is a content-free cognition engine that we need to develop, and we can throw data at it as necessary. The notion that data is an active part of the thought process seems to be missed in this.

But information has a structure to it that can easily be missed without developing a foundation of factual appreciation. The desire to teach "thinking" (good) at the expense of "facts" (bad) strikes me as the pedagogical fallacy of modern times. Because facts cohere, it is difficult to pick them up in isolation. WRT religion, we can see that when we approach Biblical studies. Without, for example, a thorough familiarity with the Hebrew Testament, we form a very odd notion of the New Testament.

If that view of information is substantially correct, then imparting enough context (i.e., related data) to allow students to approach additional data productively is a critical aspect of education. Until the student is grounded in the matrix of information that defines the field, the notion of thinking about the subject matter is simply inappropriate. At least on an introductory level, imparting an overview of the relevant facts is precisely what education requires. Or so ISTM.

--Tom Clune

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
*headdesk*

The difference between Roman Catholics now and Anglicans now has very little to do with the Reformation other than that the reformation happened.

Are you serious?

Do you seriously believe that there are no longstanding doctrinal differences over say, the role of the priesthood or Papal authority?

Have you ever met any evangelical Anglicans and asked them what they think of Roman Catholicism?

I might add that the influence of the Reformation on religion and culture in Britain hardly ends with Catholics and Anglicans. All of Protestantism has its roots in the Reformation.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

It takes ONE LINE to say that in a multi-page essay. And it's one line that's even less relevant than the story of who gave whom a pearl necklace five hundred years ago and whether someone was really a fat mare with glanders. (Hint: The C of E didn't actually split as part of the Reformation. Fid Def comes from that period precisely because of this).

This is just baffling.

I have to ask: what do you think the Reformation actually was?

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

So, now that it's been shown that you fail even at the Religious Instruction part,

Did this thread move to Hell while I wasn't looking?

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

what's the difference between that and Religious Education? What matters is what's going on now - with a little background thrown in for good measure.

Last time I looked the Reformation hadn't been undone.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

How they are different is important, and covered in detail. What exactly our 'Enery said about Katherine the Arrogant to spark off the whole feud really doesn't matter - you just need to know it was there. (You might have a case to include the Tractarians).

Sorry, are you saying that you understood all reference in this discussion to learning about the Reformation to be simply about historical personalities in the English reformation, rather than about the more general doctrinal split?

Are you saying that this is taught after all?

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

No it hasn't. The purpose of religious education is not religous instruction.

Haven't we dealt with this bit of argument by equivocation before?

There is a difference between religious instruction and religious education but it is not the one you are describing here.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

The goals of RE are easy to find. And what you want is something else entirely. You are simply wrong on a matter of fact here.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Are you doing a leo and confusing what the paperwork says with what should be the case? There is no claim in my argument that the paperwork supports me. I am under no illusion that the dumbing down of RE was done by classroom teachers acting alone without official sanction.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

What you are asking is "Should RE be changed to RS?" To which the answer I have is "Hell, No!"

Oh for pity's sake.

Do you really think "we've stolen the name RE" is some kind of argument here? I am arguing for religious education. If we have to distinguish what I am arguing for, from what goes on in schools under the name RE then Religious Instruction and Religious Studies simply don't cover it. How about we call it "Religious Education (literal)"? I suppose we could call the relativism/debating/thinking skills lessons "Religious Education (nominal)".

Alternatively, we could discuss the issues rather than fight over labels.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Other than my general distaste for Ayn Rand, the problem that I have with this view of education is that it undervalues the place of information in thought. The model seems to be that there is a content-free cognition engine that we need to develop, and we can throw data at it as necessary. The notion that data is an active part of the thought process seems to be missed in this.

I've not had the opportunity to develop such a distaste but at face value didn't react to that quote. I suppose one could emphasise a fishing rod to all exclusion of actual fish, but it seems a slight danger to me.

Personally I think there is a balance to be struck. I must accept that content-free thinking isn't possible. And I think that presenting it as two exclusive choices is undesirable, and I think it is also undesirable to suggest one should reach a certain level of knowledge before one is allowed to think about it and be critical.

When I was first taught a foreign language the process was entirely passive. I was given lists of grammatical rules and vocabulary and I worked my way through them.

The last time I learnt a foreign language, I was critical about how I assimilated information from the start. I had a clear view about how I wanted to learn, and what kind of things we weren't going to do. This was a much more enjoyable experience, and I learnt more rapidly and thoroughly.

That doesn't devalue grammer and vocabulary - I still learnt it, but I was thinking about it and engaging from the first moment.

Likewise the example I gave about a history lesson above didn't require much overview to get stuck in and start thinking about it.

I accept there is a potential danger with "all fishing rod and no fish", and I can see that some aspects of thinking about subjects are best done when a critical mass of knowledge has been built up - but I don't see why all thinking must be deferred.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
The point is that although "thinking skills" has become educational jargon there is no evidence that such skills exist independently of content

Why do they need to exist independently of content? I don't think anyone was suggesting content-free lessons.

Also, I wonder what research has been done on thinking skills?

My own view is that you only have to see academics discussing very different disciplines together and trying to find common ground to get a very strong sense that there is a shared set of skills involved.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
...and I think it is also undesirable to suggest one should reach a certain level of knowledge before one is allowed to think about it and be critical.

Not only did I make no such suggestion, I can't even imagine what it would mean to disallow anyone from thinking about anything. But, while we may not disallow a kindergartener from thinking about quantum mechanics, we would be foolish to expect too much of the endeavor...

--Tom Clune

[ 30. June 2010, 23:40: Message edited by: tclune ]

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Or information= supply of fish, education=learning to fish.

And RE = being taught how to fish without being shown a fish or even told what one looks like.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Until the student is grounded in the matrix of information that defines the field, the notion of thinking about the subject matter is simply inappropriate.

That sounds to me like thinking is off the menu until a certain stage. You can argue the semantics of "disallowed" vs "discouraged" vs "not facilitated in class" but it seems to come to the same thing to me.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Or information= supply of fish, education=learning to fish.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
And RE = being taught how to fish without being shown a fish or even told what one looks like.

Well it wouldn't take too long to work that one out once one started fishing would it?

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

Leo, what I understand you to describe is a type of teaching reminiscent of Socrates, ie question-answer with the teacher prompting the answers.

So, for example, an issue is thrown into the debate, and the class is meant to think about it and come to possible conclusions.

Perhaps this concern has been raised earlier in the thread, but it seems that the issues must necessarily be ones either of the class' choosing or one that will interest the class. Doesn't that run the risk of, if you like, an educational introspection? By catering to the interests of the children, it seems to me that there is a risk of not broadening the children's horizons.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
That sounds to me like thinking is off the menu until a certain stage. You can argue the semantics of "disallowed" vs "discouraged" vs "not facilitated in class" but it seems to come to the same thing to me.

If you honestly believe that those come to the same thing, I sincerely hope you have nothing to do with teaching language skills.

--Tom Clune

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
it seems that the issues must necessarily be ones either of the class' choosing or one that will interest the class. Doesn't that run the risk of, if you like, an educational introspection? By catering to the interests of the children, it seems to me that there is a risk of not broadening the children's horizons.

There are those who argue for a 'negotiated curriculum' in which you 'brainstorm' and get a list of issues on the whiteboard and then get them to vote.

However, that would limit their thinking and mean that some topics on the syllabus didn't get covered.

Most experienced RE teachers know what issues get the kids passionate so select for them.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I believe your background is in science - did you not learn more through doing experiments than from someone explaining second-hand, an experiment while you wrote it all down?

The experiments wouldn't have been worth shit if we hadn't known what we were doing. They were fabulous ways to enhance our appreciation and knowledge of the subject, but without having that knowledge in the first place we'd just have been pissing around with prettily coloured liquids and/or cutting stuff up.

I mean, dissecting a pig heart was great because we got to see the atria, ventricles, valves etc. for ourselves. But it would have been pointless if we hadn't first learnt what atria, ventricles and valves actually are. Without that knowledge we may as well have been slicing into a pork chop.

You need to teach the theory first.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
I am under no illusion that the dumbing down of RE was done by classroom teachers acting alone without official sanction.

How can this be since RE is locally determined. RE teachers cannot simply teach what they like.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
And we're back to appealing to authority again.

What 'authority' do you appeal to? Your own? As one teacher of a different discipline? Thinking that you know more about RE than all the practitioners put together? How have you become such a polymath and multi-skilled know-all?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The experiments wouldn't have been worth shit if we hadn't known what we were doing.

While I'm a great advocate of not having to reinvent the wheel every week, a great many scientific breakthroughs have come about by someone thinking "I wonder what happens if I do this?"

Maybe some educated guesswork, standing on the shoulders of giants probably, but often a shot in the dark.

When folk like Leonardo were dissecting (illegally) human bodies to find out how they worked, they were going against the "we can teach this without actually having to do it" school of thought. And we're richer (in every sense) for it.

When we teach Hooke's law in Primary school, we give the kids springs and weights and a ruler. We tell them what to do - put various weights on, measure the extension, plot the graph. We don't tell them what they're going to find. When they've found the linear relationship for themselves, then we tell them about Hooke and Young.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
And we're back to appealing to authority again.
What 'authority' do you appeal to? Your own? As one teacher of a different discipline? Thinking that you know more about RE than all the practitioners put together? How have you become such a polymath and multi-skilled know-all?

When you're teaching Philosophy & Ethics, do you teach children about the pitfalls of ad hominem arguments as well as of appeals to authority?

I don't think oldandrew's actually revealed his subject, has he?

Posted by fat-tony (# 13769) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
RE has two attainment targets: 'Learning ABOUT religion' and 'Learning FROM religion.' They should be equal in importance...
Says who?
The National Framework for RE, most Agreed Syllabus Conferences and, more recently, the exam boards.
And when exactly did the Spirit of God descend upon those bodies to lead them into all truth and protect them from error?

It didn't. Though I believe that in, "Screwtape Proposes a Toast" C.S. Lewis suggests what would happen if the devil got hold of the Education syllabus:

"Let children make mudpies and call it modelling"

sounds a lot like

"Let children express opinions (loudly and intransigently) and call it RE."

fat-tony

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
That sounds to me like thinking is off the menu until a certain stage. You can argue the semantics of "disallowed" vs "discouraged" vs "not facilitated in class" but it seems to come to the same thing to me.

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
If you honestly believe that those come to the same thing, I sincerely hope you have nothing to do with teaching language skills.

It seems to me that the end result is that thinking isn't going to be encouraged. It seems to me an unhelpful belief that thinking is appropriate at some later stage.

If you think this is evidence of poor language skills you must demonstrate your teaching ability by using simple words to show me where I'm wrong.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I mean, dissecting a pig heart was great because we got to see the atria, ventricles, valves etc. for ourselves. But it would have been pointless if we hadn't first learnt what atria, ventricles and valves actually are. Without that knowledge we may as well have been slicing into a pork chop. You need to teach the theory first.

Why can't you learn the theory while you are dissecting the pig's heart? It might go in better when immediately demonstrated by reality.

A lot of medical school anatomy used to be taught during dissection.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Or information= supply of fish, education=learning to fish.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
And RE = being taught how to fish without being shown a fish or even told what one looks like.
Well it wouldn't take too long to work that one out once one started fishing would it?

This is getting silly. (Or rather sillier.)

Yes it would take ages, unless you were told to fish in water, and where the fish are likely to be, and what bait to use ... and ... you know, information stuff.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fat-tony:
"Let children express opinions (loudly and intransigently) and call it RE."

How ironic. And, in any case, it isn't clear to me that anyone is advocating volume and intransigence in the classroom.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
That sounds to me like thinking is off the menu until a certain stage. You can argue the semantics of "disallowed" vs "discouraged" vs "not facilitated in class" but it seems to come to the same thing to me.

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
If you honestly believe that those come to the same thing, I sincerely hope you have nothing to do with teaching language skills.
It seems to me that the end result is that thinking isn't going to be encouraged. It seems to me an unhelpful belief that thinking is appropriate at some later stage.

If you think this is evidence of poor language skills you must demonstrate your teaching ability by using simple words to show me where I'm wrong.

I have complete confidence that it is beyond my skill to teach you anything. You may now declare victory.

--Tom Clune

[ 01. July 2010, 13:29: Message edited by: tclune ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Yes it would take ages, unless you were told to fish in water, and where the fish are likely to be, and what bait to use ... and ... you know, information stuff.

Well one can push metaphor too hard. I would imagine that the location in which to use the rod, bait etc. would all be part of fishing.

I don't think anyone is advocating removing all information from lessons. Certainly I'm not. But what I would like to see is an emphasis on learning to process, evaluate and be critical of information. I gave examples earlier of the sorts of lessons I thought did this, without all the fishing stuff. If you think the fishing is silly maybe you could critique those.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I have complete confidence that it is beyond my skill to teach you anything. You may now declare victory.

Clearly somewhere I've communicated that I'm out to declare victory. I was in it for a discussion. I'm not defending a deeply held position, and wouldn't feel destroyed if I found much of what I said needed rethinking.

Why post an opinion and refuse to engage in explaining it?

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Why post an opinion and refuse to engage in explaining it?

Because, if noting that "disallow" is a different concept from "fail to encourage" is seen as opaque, there is no possibility of debate -- we simply do not speak the same language.

--Tom Clune

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I can note it's a different concept. I can note that "disallowing thinking" isn't an appropriate description, since one doesn't rush around the classroom with a thinking vacuum cleaner, and that isn't what I meant.

What I was imagining was a didactic lesson of information with an underlying ethos that thinking isn't appropriate until you've learnt a lot more.

Whatever expression one uses to cover that (and I accept "disallow" is a sloppy word) the end result is a class of children not doing much thinking.

My own education was very mixed. I had some inspiring teachers, and some lessons that put my brain to sleep. My memory is that the latter often involved shovelling of information.

Posted by fat-tony (# 13769) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by fat-tony:
"Let children express opinions (loudly and intransigently) and call it RE."
How ironic. And, in any case, it isn't clear to me that anyone is advocating volume and intransigence in the classroom.

No-one ever advocates it.

It's only the impression I've received.

fat-tony

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

From anyone on the thread? Or just a general impression?

Posted by fat-tony (# 13769) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
From anyone on the thread? Or just a general impression?

Probably just extrapolating from my own experience of observing humanities lessons which, I felt, lacked content.

It is the feeling I've gotten from the description of some lessons ealrier in the thread.

Also the description of some pupils winding up a maths teacher as a result of an R.E. lesson would concern me. Particularly if it was something the R.E. teacher was proud of.

Regardless of how the maths teacher dealt with it, I'm never a great fan of staff taking pleasure from undermining other staff, either intentionally or unintentionally.

fat-tony

Starting to remember why I usually just read the ship rather than get into debates.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Are you serious?

Do you seriously believe that there are no longstanding doctrinal differences over say, the role of the priesthood or Papal authority?

Do you seriously believe that the pre-Reformation Roman Catholic Church is very similar to the one today? The nature of Papal Authority for one has changed. So, for that matter, has the role of the priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church, and in most Protestant churches. Those discussions are not relevant to the 21st Century because the entire context has changed.

The parts that are still relevant can be dealt with in five minutes flat in much the same way that yes, the Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria was in the roots of WWI - but that doesn't get more than about five minutes in a WWI history course.

quote:
Have you ever met any evangelical Anglicans and asked them what they think of Roman Catholicism?

Yes. And a lot of it is complete crap and based on misrepresentations - including issues raised such as Papal Infallibility (which massively postdates the Reformation anyway). One of the purposes of RE is to minimise these misunderstandings by educating people on what is believed now. Not what was being argued five hundred years ago. (The Catholicism module of RE on the other hand should go into Vatican II - issues such as Latin Masses are still fought, and Ratzinger was extremely involved. It's directly rather than indirectly relevant).

And for a counter-question, have you ever met a group of Anglo-Catholics and asked them what they think of Roman Catholicism?

quote:
I might add that the influence of the Reformation on religion and culture in Britain hardly ends with Catholics and Anglicans. All of Protestantism has its roots in the Reformation.

And all of Western Christianity has its roots in Constantine the Great the (First) Council of Nicea, the Great Schism, and numerous other events. But what's important isn't minutae about people dead hundreds of years before any of us were born. It's what happens now.

And I know a number of Anglican churches where calling them Protestant would be fighting words...

quote:
This is just baffling.

I have to ask: what do you think the Reformation actually was?

The final (long overdue) ignition of a powder keg caused by a mixture of changing demographics, the church losing its near monopoly on learning, a protest (particularly from the peripheral countries) at corruption within the Church, and Simony to fund the Vatican in specific.

quote:
Last time I looked the Reformation hadn't been undone.

Last time I checked the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, and the 30 Years War were all over. Sure there are some repercussions - but I wouldn't expect a course about the sociology of Sweden in the 20th Century to treat as a foundation the 30 Years War, however ultimately influential it was - or one about modern day Austria to go into the War of the Austrian Succession and the Seven Years War.

quote:
Sorry, are you saying that you understood all reference in this discussion to learning about the Reformation to be simply about historical personalities in the English reformation, rather than about the more general doctrinal split?

I'm saying that there was almost no doctrinal split other than in personalities (including who should be "Head of the Church in England, so far as the law of God allows") at the foundation of the Church of England.

quote:
Are you saying that this is taught after all?

History lessons. Not R.E.

quote:
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Are you doing a leo and confusing what the paperwork says with what should be the case? There is no claim in my argument that the paperwork supports me. I am under no illusion that the dumbing down of RE was done by classroom teachers acting alone without official sanction.

I'm saying that you appear to have not understood the Why. And that you can't tell the difference between the standard "Who, what, how, why, when, where" with the fundamentally more active "Whether we should" - which isn't part of the list.

I'm also saying that the version of RE you are advocating would be dumbing it down and rendering it irrelevant to 95% of the religious population of Britain and 99% of the atheistic population.

Yes, it's easy to claim your lessons aren't dumbed down when you get rid of 90+% of students. (Which is why O levels were harder than GCSEs - only the bright ever took them - you can call making things accessible to the 80% of the population that actually needs it "dumbing down" if you like, but if that's what you call it then dumbing down is something I'm all for).

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
What I was imagining was a didactic lesson of information with an underlying ethos that thinking isn't appropriate until you've learnt a lot more.

But the notion that "thinking" is equivalent to something like "theorizing" is ill-formed. Of course, one must think to absorb information at all. It is a cognitive function.

However, the point that I wished to make is that encouraging people to theorize before they have an adequate foundation in a discipine is either disingenuous or counter-productive.

An excellent example of the first type is Doc Tor's illustration of teaching Hooke's Law. Doing so experimentally is perfectly appropriate, but pretending that the kids are "discovering" the law is wildly distorting -- the kids are given springs and weights, told how to use them to collect data, and then left to create a graph.

But not all materials are linearly deformable -- dropping a spring on the table for them to use for this purpose has already done a huge part of what is hard in scientific progress, and the kids simply don't recognize that. Next, presenting them with weights that are marked as "100g,", "250g," etc., and glossing over the circularity of what is going on here is failing to impart the fundamental point of science -- there is a matrix of hard-won concepts and tools that hang together in a productive way.

If the kids were truly allowed to "think," they would not come up with any of this in their lifetimes. If they don't "get" that first and foremost, they aren't being educated. Rather, the instructor has prepared a parlor trick to make the kids feel better about themselves than is justified by the facts. This is at the expense of appreciating that Hooke actually did something noteworthy -- the point communicated is that a 10-year-old can do the same thing in a 30-minute class that Hooke spent years working to achieve. That is simply false, and if that is the take-away, the kid has not been educated at all.

The alternative, of telling the kids to find out something about the material world, is just not going to get the job done of educating them at all. The plain fact is that none of us is very bright. As a culture, we are spectacular. That is not a credit to the inner genius of individuals, but to the power of culture. Without making that point, you aren't educating kids, you're entertaining them. Or so ISTM.

--Tom Clune

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Can you really not see a huge difference between saying there is no clear answer and saying there is no answer?...The second suggests there's no point, and you might as well think anything.
Now you seem to be dropping words. We were talking about no right and wrong answer, not simply "no answer".

Are you seriously claiming that in the context of what I was saying you didn't understand that when I said "no answer" this meant "no right answer"?

What on earth did you think I was talking about? I can't think of any other possible interpretation of what I said in this context. It's almost as if you misunderstood me deliberately in order to evade the point.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

If I ask "What is the effect of urbanization on culture?" I hope you'd agree there's no "right answer" (clear or not). However, to argue you might as well think anything is a step too far.

This is a case of a question being so vague that it is hard to identify what is being asked, or to provide a fully comprehensive answer.

This is hardly the same as being unable to answer a moral or religious question question because there is no [right] answer to moral or religious questions.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

However, it is hard to grasp either why the taxpayer should be funding courses where students have to resort to teaching themselves, or why such a course should take the slot designated for religious education.
But that wasn't at all what I was talking about. I'm talking about a situation where one identifies a reasonable core knowledge about an issue (e.g. abortion) and teaches students to think the issue through and justify what the believe. You seem to lean towards a more didactic approach.

Only in as much as I think teachers should be involved in ensuring the students have the knowledge.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

How would you characterize, for instance, a history lesson where students are taught to evaluate some example source data? The lesson might end without much in the way of factual impartation, but nevertheless have taught a useful skill. Is that OK? Is it history or should history be confined to lists of dates and events?

And again we have the same deliberate attempt to suggest knowledge is learning lists of facts by rote.

I do consider "skills-based" history, as taught in our schools, to be dumbed down. I do think any decent history course would teach knowledge. This is pretty much for the same reasons as already presented in this argument. One's ability to analyse sources invariably hinges on one's historical knowledge. You can't teach it in isolation and trying to do so in place of teaching knowledge is counter-productive.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
If the kids were truly allowed to "think," they would not come up with any of this in their lifetimes. If they don't "get" that first and foremost, they aren't being educated. Rather, the instructor has prepared a parlor trick to make the kids feel better about themselves than is justified by the facts. This is at the expense of appreciating that Hooke actually did something noteworthy -- the point communicated is that a 10-year-old can do the same thing in a 30-minute class that Hooke spent years working to achieve. That is simply false, and if that is the take-away, the kid has not been educated at all.

This is so far wrong as to be boggling.

Firstly, we teach science in order for them to think like scientists, and maybe even become scientists. It worked for me: I was one of those kids, and I got a PhD at the end of it. In my own lifetime, too. Fancy that.

No parlour tricks involved, either. That a ten year old can replicate Hooke's experiment is not silly or stupid. It's brilliant. We can do acceleration due to gravity too, without pissing on Newton's grave. This year we've made our own hovercraft without dissing Sir Christopher, our own rockets without laughing Tsiolkovsky to scorn. We celebrate science and scientific discovery, and I'm sorry if it's not made hard enough for you.

The mere idea that I have to make my pupils weep and gnash their teeth in empathy for all these poor, dead scientists and stress how they'll never amount to anything is surreal.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
1) Are there really such things as generic thinking and processing skills that can be taught?
2) Is teaching them actually "religious education"?
With regard to 2) you sound a touch opposed to change.

Could we go without the ad hominem arguments please?

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

Didn't we hear the same thing from geography teachers who thought teaching the length of the nile, capital cities and naming countries was "geography" and essays on urbanization and climate change were dumbing down? And the same from history teachers who wanted lists of dates and events rather than evaluations of source material and constructing narratives?

Again we have the strawman that knowledge is learning lists by rote.

This time it is made even more obvious by the way you have put narratives on the thinkings skills side rather than the knowledge side. Isn't a narrative something you know?

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

On 1) I just don't believe that a psychologist could convincingly demonstrate that there are no generic skills.

You appear to have dropped some words here. We weren't talking about all skills.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

In any case, the skills we're talking about (rational debate) are useful in their own right.

Is this now our content? That's a long way from thinking skills and a lot of it is knowledge (for example, the knowledge that ad hominems aren't valid arguments).

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
We cannot simply assume that all religions are answering the same questions. Even if we were to reach the conclusion that we can identify a finite list of questions that religions try to answer, and we can do so without being bogged down in obscure religions answering obscure questions, we could still only do so on the basis of extensive study of the available knowledge about religions.
Those sound like interesting questions that one could debate in an RE class. Would that be on? If so, presumably your approach would be to teach that the right answer is "NO!" and move on to the next question.

Which part of "we could still only do so on the basis of extensive study of the available knowledge about religions" did you not understand?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Applied thinking is much more difficult that regurgitating facts (which are usually forgotten straight after the exam).

On RE assessment levels, factual knowledge that is recalled by pupils gets a Level 4 - the average 11 year-old's ability.

Evaluation and so on goes up to Exceptional performance (above average 16 year old.
This isn't about exams and assessments, it's about education. That very few in the business seem to be able to tell the difference any more is, IMO, part of the problem.

So you end up teaching all these thinking skills and debating styles because that's what the pupils will be marked on, rather than their actual knowledge of the subject itself.

Actually if the last RE lesson I observed is anything to go by they teach what an exam answer that is meant to show evidence of thinking and debating skills looks like.

That's one of the problems here. Efforts to move away from learning knowledge by rote often turn into learning exam answers by rote.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
In any case, the skills we're talking about (rational debate) are useful in their own right.

Is this now our content? That's a long way from thinking skills and a lot of it is knowledge (for example, the knowledge that ad hominems aren't valid arguments). [/QB][/QUOTE]
Knowing that ad hominems are not valid arguments is indeed knowledge. The knowledge can be acquired in two ways: you can be told what an ad hominem argument is, and that it is not valid; or you can learn the thinking skills which enable you to identify that the truth or otherwise of a person's case is not dependent upon the qualities or otherwise of the person making the case. In other words it can be taught as propositional knowledge or learnt as a consequence of the application of thinking skills.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Applied thinking is much more difficult that regurgitating facts (which are usually forgotten straight after the exam).

On RE assessment levels, factual knowledge that is recalled by pupils gets a Level 4 - the average 11 year-old's ability.

Evaluation and so on goes up to Exceptional performance (above average 16 year old.
This isn't about exams and assessments, it's about education. That very few in the business seem to be able to tell the difference any more is, IMO, part of the problem.

So you end up teaching all these thinking skills and debating styles because that's what the pupils will be marked on, rather than their actual knowledge of the subject itself.
Actually if the last RE lesson I observed is anything to go by they teach what an exam answer that is meant to show evidence of thinking and debating skills looks like.

That's one of the problems here. Efforts to move away from learning knowledge by rote often turn into learning exam answers by rote.

I agree with you here, for once. That's why I'd abolish exams.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Absolutely not. Do you seriously expect 30 teenagers to sit in silence while a teacher talks no stop for fifty minutes?

And once again we have the "teaching knowledge means lecturing to passive students" strawman.

It's getting old.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
it seems that the issues must necessarily be ones either of the class' choosing or one that will interest the class. Doesn't that run the risk of, if you like, an educational introspection? By catering to the interests of the children, it seems to me that there is a risk of not broadening the children's horizons.
There are those who argue for a 'negotiated curriculum' in which you 'brainstorm' and get a list of issues on the whiteboard and then get them to vote.

However, that would limit their thinking and mean that some topics on the syllabus didn't get covered.

Most experienced RE teachers know what issues get the kids passionate so select for them.

What if ths children aren't likely to be passionate about any of them? Would you just choose the best of a bad lot?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
To put is better: The major Difference between Education and Information lies in the fact that education empowers one with greater values whereas information is acquiring of new knowledge....Educate is further defined as "to develop the knowledge, skill, or character of..." Thus, from these definitions, we might assume that the purpose of education is to develop the knowledge, skill, or character of students......What is meant by knowledge? Is it a body of information that exists "out there"—apart from the human thought processes that developed it? ....knowledge arises in the mind of an individual when that person interacts with an idea or experience.

“The only purpose of education is to teach a student how to live his life-by developing his mind and equipping him to deal with reality. The training he needs is theoretical, i.e., conceptual. He has to be taught to think, to understand, to integrate, to prove. He has to be taught the essentials of the knowledge discovered in the past-and he has to be equipped to acquire further knowledge by his own effort.” ~Ayn Rand

“The aim of education should be to teach us rather how to think, than what to think—rather to improve our minds, so as to enable us to think for ourselves, than to load the memory with the thoughts of other men.” ~Bill Beattie

Oooooh, let's all play the quoting game:

"Data from the last thirty years lead to a conclusion that is not scientifically challengeable: thinking well requires knowing facts, and that’s true not simply because you need something to think about. The very processes that teachers care about most-critical thinking processes such as reasoning and problem solving-are intimately intertwined with factual knowledge that is stored in long-term memory (not just found in the environment)." Dan Willingham

"...what I have called the two components of knowledge ('information' and 'judgement') can both be communicated and acquired, but cannot be communicated or acquired separately - at least not on separate occasions or in separate 'lessons' ... 'judgement' may be taught; and it belongs to the deliberate enterprise of the teacher to teach it. But, although a pupil cannot be explicitly instructed in how to think (there being here no rules), 'judgement' can be taught only in conjunction with the transmission of information. That is to say it cannot be taught in a separate lesson which is not, for example, a geography, a Latin or an algebra lesson. Thus from the pupil's point of view, the ability to think is something learned as a by-product of acquiring information; and from the teacher's point of view, it is something which, if it is taught, must be imparted obliquely in the course of instruction." Michael Oakeshott

"...philosophical depth depends in key part on having learned a great deal in other disciplines."
Alasdair Macintyre

"How is education supposed to make me feel smarter? Besides, every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain. Remember when I took that home winemaking course, and I forgot how to drive?" Homer Simpson

(Okay that last one doesn't really agree with me, but I still like it.)

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
it seems that the issues must necessarily be ones either of the class' choosing or one that will interest the class. Doesn't that run the risk of, if you like, an educational introspection? By catering to the interests of the children, it seems to me that there is a risk of not broadening the children's horizons.
There are those who argue for a 'negotiated curriculum' in which you 'brainstorm' and get a list of issues on the whiteboard and then get them to vote.

However, that would limit their thinking and mean that some topics on the syllabus didn't get covered.

Most experienced RE teachers know what issues get the kids passionate so select for them.
What if ths children aren't likely to be passionate about any of them? Would you just choose the best of a bad lot?

How many young people do you actually know and engage with? They are far more passionate about 'issues' than we cynical grown ups.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
"How is education supposed to make me feel smarter? Besides, every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain. Remember when I took that home winemaking course, and I forgot how to drive?" Homer Simpson

(Okay that last one doesn't really agree with me, but I still like it.)

Agreed!

What, in your view, is the purpose of RE:

1) Knowledge about religion

2) the spiritual development of children and young people?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

Another quotation I should have included:

"One of the great virtues of the academic tradition is that it organises knowledge and makes it comprehensible to the learner. It aims to make a chaotic world coherent. It gives intellectual strength to those who want to understand social experience and the nature of the physical world. Despite sustained efforts to diminish it the academic tradition survives; it survives because knowledge builds on knowledge, and we cannot dispense with the systematic study of human knowledge without risking mass ignorance." Diane Ravitch

[ 01. July 2010, 20:36: Message edited by: oldandrew ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
"How is education supposed to make me feel smarter? Besides, every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain. Remember when I took that home winemaking course, and I forgot how to drive?" Homer Simpson

(Okay that last one doesn't really agree with me, but I still like it.)
Agreed!

What, in your view, is the purpose of RE:

1) Knowledge about religion

2) the spiritual development of children and young people?

Please answer the question.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

I am all for (completely voluntary) religious education in state schools if it is taught by sane, rounded mainstream individuals. This, in a multifaith culture, would include options for Buddhists; Sikhs; Jews; Hindus and other faith traditions.

There should also be the option for nonreligious ethics to be taught. Obviously this also needs to be done by sane, rounded mainstream individuals.

Posted by Sleepwalker (# 15343) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Obviously this also needs to be done by sane, rounded mainstream individuals.

And you can tell what these look like then? And what exactly do you mean by 'mainstream'?

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
it seems that the issues must necessarily be ones either of the class' choosing or one that will interest the class. Doesn't that run the risk of, if you like, an educational introspection? By catering to the interests of the children, it seems to me that there is a risk of not broadening the children's horizons.
There are those who argue for a 'negotiated curriculum' in which you 'brainstorm' and get a list of issues on the whiteboard and then get them to vote.

However, that would limit their thinking and mean that some topics on the syllabus didn't get covered.

Most experienced RE teachers know what issues get the kids passionate so select for them.
What if ths children aren't likely to be passionate about any of them? Would you just choose the best of a bad lot?
How many young people do you actually know and engage with? They are far more passionate about 'issues' than we cynical grown ups.

Are you going to answer the question?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
What, in your view, is the purpose of RE:

1) Knowledge about religion

2) the spiritual development of children and young people?
Please answer the question.

I'll answer it. It should be (1).

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

When I was still at school (ok, ok, many moons ago...), I found it fascinating to discover that different schools in the area called Religion lessons by a different name. Ours was RK which taught pretty much what it said on the can - Religious Knowledge, and was almost exclusively Biblical Knowledge. Other schools had RS - Religious Studies and yet others had RE - Religious Education - the broadest of the lot: a study of all the major religions and discussion about them as well as straightforward imparting of knowledge. People of my parents' and grandparents' generation simply called it 'Scripture' - purely and simply the learning of bible stories and also memorising of verses.

You can tell a lot from a name.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
What, in your view, is the purpose of RE:

1) Knowledge about religion

2) the spiritual development of children and young people?

Neither of the above. At least, not exactly.

Spiritual development always needs content - it doesn't exist in a religious vacuum. Unpack any 'spirituality' and there is an underlying (if sometimes unacknowledged) theology/philosophy. Spiritual development comes through the application of particular beliefs to personal practice. For all these reasons I don't believe it should be taught in RE.

Knowledge about religion can too easily become a dry recitation of phenomenological facts. Religious practitioners/adherents become no more than a collection of exotic species being viewed from some implicit 'normal' standpoint - often non-religious or even anti-religious.

Since I am criticising both options perhaps I ought to suggest an alternative - how about knowledge and understanding of a range of world religions, and of the human questions/issues for which people often seek answers from religion, and an ability to learn from the perspectives and beliefs of people of different religious beliefs (including non-religionists).

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Surely, though, if the junior years have done their job properly, the older students will already have the knowledge of things taught further down the school and then be able to use this knowledge to form opinions, being able to discuss from a position of strength? That, after all, is what you always began to do in History - particularly when moving from O level (GCSE) to A level.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

It seems to me there is a lot of talking past going on. Of which I'm also guilty.

Although oldandrew pointed it out before, I've only just worked out that we are using the "knowledge" vs "thinking" distinction in quite different ways (i.e. in that distinction I'm considering knowledge as a list of facts, whereas for oldandrew it includes skills).

There are clearly other differences - for instance oldandrew thinks there are no generic thinking skills, whereas I do.

But it may help to get the definitions straight in the first place. I don't know any educational theory so I may be using standardized terms in the wrong way.

But I'd appreciate a quick check on how words are defined. To my mind there are two things;

a) the skill of processing/thinking about information.
b) information.

I accept they can't be kept separate (anymore than kicking can be done without a ball) but it would help me to see what other schemes others have for dividing these up.

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
What, in your view, is the purpose of RE:

1) Knowledge about religion

2) the spiritual development of children and young people?
Please answer the question.
I'll answer it. It should be (1).

Both. So long as you allow philosophy to be taught alongside it all.

When learning about what people belief, not examining our own beliefs is a missed opportunity for education.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
What, in your view, is the purpose of RE:

1) Knowledge about religion

2) the spiritual development of children and young people?
Please answer the question.
I'll answer it. It should be (1).

- is the wrong answer. Both the 1944 (Tory) Education Act and the 1988 (Tory) Education Reform Act charge us with spiritual development.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
is the wrong answer. Both the 1944 (Tory) Education Act and the 1988 (Tory) Education Reform Act charge us with spiritual development.

Another appeal to authority? Really? [Roll Eyes]

Look, I'm talking about what I think education should be. Your question was phrased as "in your view, what should it be?". As such my answer was completely and totally true and correct.

Now do you want to argue the principles and ideals of education as we both see them, or do you want to keep apealing to authority as if that's the only arbiter of right and wrong that ever has mattered or ever will matter?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Sorry, point taken, though the question was addressed to Oldandrew originally.

As for an appeal to 'authority', unless one sets up a private school, unfunded by the state, the Education Acts were drawn up and passed by democratically elected governments and anyone who teaches RE, or any other subject, is bound by those laws.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
As for an appeal to 'authority', unless one sets up a private school, unfunded by the state, the Education Acts were drawn up and passed by democratically elected governments and anyone who teaches RE, or any other subject, is bound by those laws.

Being bound by the law does not prevent one from discussing the morality of that law. Not in this country, at least.

Come on, we discuss all sorts of things on this board that could be answered by "the law says this, and that's the end of it", but we still manage to have a decent discussion about them. What's different about education?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I must say I'm really uncomfortable with the notion of the state mandating a development of spiritual development. Makes me shudder.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
To put is better: The major Difference between Education and Information lies in the fact that education empowers one with greater values whereas information is acquiring of new knowledge....Educate is further defined as "to develop the knowledge, skill, or character of..." Thus, from these definitions, we might assume that the purpose of education is to develop the knowledge, skill, or character of students......What is meant by knowledge? Is it a body of information that exists "out there"—apart from the human thought processes that developed it? ....knowledge arises in the mind of an individual when that person interacts with an idea or experience.

“The only purpose of education is to teach a student how to live his life-by developing his mind and equipping him to deal with reality. The training he needs is theoretical, i.e., conceptual. He has to be taught to think, to understand, to integrate, to prove. He has to be taught the essentials of the knowledge discovered in the past-and he has to be equipped to acquire further knowledge by his own effort.” ~Ayn Rand

“The aim of education should be to teach us rather how to think, than what to think—rather to improve our minds, so as to enable us to think for ourselves, than to load the memory with the thoughts of other men.” ~Bill Beattie

Hmmmmm.

I spent all that time finding quotations from my favourite writers to respond to your quotations only to discover that all your stuff seems to have been half-inched from here:

http://www.teachersmind.com/education.htm

I hope that you don't teach your students that this is an acceptable way to advance debate. Did you even know who Ayn Rand was? Do you even know who Bill Beattie is/was?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Did you even know who Ayn Rand was?

That's what the porters ask when you're arriving at Joberg International Airport.

[ 02. July 2010, 15:53: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
The point is that although "thinking skills" has become educational jargon there is no evidence that such skills exist independently of content
Why do they need to exist independently of content? I don't think anyone was suggesting content-free lessons.

My point is not that they can't be learned independent of context but that learnable, thinking skills don't exist independent of context. You can teach someone to think effectively about particular things, you can't teach them to think effectively about everything.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

Also, I wonder what research has been done on thinking skills?

You might want to look at the claims and references in this:

http://www.archive.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/summer07/Crit_Thinking.pdf

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

My own view is that you only have to see academics discussing very different disciplines together and trying to find common ground to get a very strong sense that there is a shared set of skills involved.

There may well be characteristics shared by experts in different disciplines. That does not mean those characteristics can be taught as generic skills, rather than acquired as a by-product of becoming an expert.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
And we're back to appealing to authority again.
What 'authority' do you appeal to?

I was trying to establish my case through rational argument rather than an appeal to authority.

You know, this is all very strange given that some of your fellow RE teachers seem to think that rational argument is what RE teachers teach and yet you don't seem to know this stuff.

Posted by markprice81 (# 13793) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

The parts that are still relevant [about the reformation] can be dealt with in five minutes flat in much the same way that yes, the Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria was in the roots of WWI - but that doesn't get more than about five minutes in a WWI history course.

I must admit this is rather sad. I remember spending at least a term on the causes of the first world war and a lot of it was spent discussing why the assassination was important. It was one of the reasons I did GCSE history and still love it today.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Sorry, are you saying that you understood all reference in this discussion to learning about the Reformation to be simply about historical personalities in the English reformation, rather than about the more general doctrinal split?
I'm saying that there was almost no doctrinal split other than in personalities (including who should be "Head of the Church in England, so far as the law of God allows") at the foundation of the Church of England.

I'm really reluctant to go down this tangent, not least because it involves far to many weasel words, but it was this that made me start posting on the ship again. I also have some free time again.

It is claims along the lines that there were [almost] no doctrinal splits between the Church of England and the Catholic Church under Henry VIII which really do need discussing at school and the myths associated with them debunked.

Replacing the Pope as head of the Church, dissolving the monasteries and 'stripping' the altars all relate to major doctrinal changes.

Also, you may want to check out some of the literature that the Catholic Church is putting out as part of the Papal visit to dispel myths associated with Catholicism. For something which you seem to think is irrelevant to Christians today, the literature and websites I have seen dedicate quite a large amount of their available space to the Reformation.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

I'm also saying that the version of RE you are advocating would be dumbing it down and rendering it irrelevant to 95% of the religious population of Britain and 99% of the atheistic population.

I really want the reasoning behind this as I cannot imagine how requiring students to be taught knowledge about something they are ignorant of is dumbing down. Could you elaborate please?

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

Yes, it's easy to claim your lessons aren't dumbed down when you get rid of 90+% of students. (Which is why O levels were harder than GCSEs - only the bright ever took them - you can call making things accessible to the 80% of the population that actually needs it "dumbing down" if you like, but if that's what you call it then dumbing down is something I'm all for).

I'm really confused by the argument here. Are you really claiming that if we wish to educate more people we need to lower the standards required?

I'm guessing I must be naive in the view that one of the aims of education is to educate people. A consequence of which is helping them understand difficult material and topics and requiring them to become 'more intelligent'.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I must say I'm really uncomfortable with the notion of the state mandating a development of spiritual development. Makes me shudder.

Why? Remember that the Church pioneered education before the state stepped in. England has a proud tradition of concern for the whole child, not just the 'brain'. Hence we do PE, PSHE etc.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Are you serious?

Do you seriously believe that there are no longstanding doctrinal differences over say, the role of the priesthood or Papal authority?
Do you seriously believe that the pre-Reformation Roman Catholic Church is very similar to the one today?

I think that if you want to understand the Roman Catholic Church the similiarities between then and now are more important than the differences.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

The nature of Papal Authority for one has changed. So, for that matter, has the role of the priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church, and in most Protestant churches. Those discussions are not relevant to the 21st Century because the entire context has changed.

Are the Anglicans in communion with the Pope now? If not, then no the entire context hasn't changed.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

The parts that are still relevant can be dealt with in five minutes flat in much the same way that yes, the Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria was in the roots of WWI - but that doesn't get more than about five minutes in a WWI history course.

Really?

Can you put your money where your mouth is? I challenge you to give us that 5 minutes of work that will cover all relevant points of the Reformation, and for every point that somebody comes up with that is still discussed by people today that you haven't mentioned, you give a fiver to that person's nominated charity.

Do you agree to this?

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:
Have you ever met any evangelical Anglicans and asked them what they think of Roman Catholicism?
Yes. And a lot of it is complete crap and based on misrepresentations - including issues raised such as Papal Infallibility (which massively postdates the Reformation anyway).

It strikes me that is one of very, very few things they come up with that is post-Reformation.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

And for a counter-question, have you ever met a group of Anglo-Catholics and asked them what they think of Roman Catholicism?

Yes. Theologically speaking I was pretty much Anglo-Catholic back in the day.

Then I started to find out about church history...

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:
I might add that the influence of the Reformation on religion and culture in Britain hardly ends with Catholics and Anglicans. All of Protestantism has its roots in the Reformation.
And all of Western Christianity has its roots in Constantine the Great the (First) Council of Nicea, the Great Schism, and numerous other events. But what's important isn't minutae about people dead hundreds of years before any of us were born. It's what happens now.

For pity's sake, are you seriously arguing that tradition is not important to understanding the Church? Even the Catholic Church?

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

I'm saying that there was almost no doctrinal split other than in personalities (including who should be "Head of the Church in England, so far as the law of God allows") at the foundation of the Church of England.

I would have said that declaring the Pope to have no more authority than any other foreign bishop was a doctrinal change. And the destruction of the monasteries, chantries and shrines. And the diplomatic efforts towards the Lutherans, and the introduction of Protestant Bibles, and allowing clergy, and in particular bishops, to marry. Then there's the introduction of Protestant (even Reformed Protestant) liturgy into the prayer books.

I don't think your claim withstands a moment's scrutiny.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

I'm saying that you appear to have not understood the Why.

I haven't attempted to explain why people support dumbing down because I don't think a circumstantial ad hominem is a valid argument.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

I'm also saying that the version of RE you are advocating would be dumbing it down and rendering it irrelevant to 95% of the religious population of Britain and 99% of the atheistic population.

Whereas everyone finds what happens in RE at the moment completely relevant?

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

Yes, it's easy to claim your lessons aren't dumbed down when you get rid of 90+% of students. (Which is why O levels were harder than GCSEs - only the bright ever took them - you can call making things accessible to the 80% of the population that actually needs it "dumbing down" if you like, but if that's what you call it then dumbing down is something I'm all for).

Picking your nose is accessible. It doesn't make it worth teaching in lessons. Looking for the lowest common denominator instead of an intellectual inheritance is most certainly dumbing down.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
This is so far wrong as to be boggling.

It never ceases to amaze me how, as people's own arguments get more dubious, they start getting shocked at other people daring to hold different opinions.

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

Firstly, we teach science in order for them to think like scientists,

Not really.

The way experts think is simply not a good model for the way learners need to think.

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Really?

Can you put your money where your mouth is? I challenge you to give us that 5 minutes of work that will cover all relevant points of the Reformation, and for every point that somebody comes up with that is still discussed by people today that you haven't mentioned, you give a fiver to that person's nominated charity.

Do you agree to this?

I'm up for it, so long as we keep the 'points that somebody comes up with that is still discussed' is in the OCR GCSE (B) philosophy and ethics specification then your on.

As we are talking about school children's education in RE, this is the spec I teach and am expected to teach, I think it fair that this test is limited to what is expected of school children to achieve.

BTW, if I do manage to fill the info needed on the Reformation in the above spec in 5 mins, you give £20 to the Ship.

Deal?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
BTW, if I do manage to fill the info needed on the Reformation in the above spec in 5 mins, you give £20 to the Ship.

If you manage it, I'll chip in a tenner just for the [Overused]

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Obviously this also needs to be done by sane, rounded mainstream individuals.
And you can tell what these look like then? And what exactly do you mean by 'mainstream'?

Not a matter of what they look like - though I do hope they're clean - but what they are.

Bear in mind I'm Australian (no, it's not catchy but a rare privilege [Big Grin]

) and our situation is very different from the UK (or Poland, where I believe you are).

We have voluntary (usually Christian) education in state schools. When my daughter attended in NSW - about 18 years ago - she asked to be removed. I did so.

'Mainstream' would mean within the normal sane bounds of Anglicanism; Catholicism etc. No fanatics or manipulators of guilt.

Sorry, a broad definition. I believe you're very precise on the Continent. Sorry, I don't feel like a 100 point manifesto. [Big Grin]

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

Sorry, Sleepwalker. It was the avatar: I thought you were Rosa Winkel. Hence the Poland reference.

My point stands. [Big Grin]

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
it seems that the issues must necessarily be ones either of the class' choosing or one that will interest the class. Doesn't that run the risk of, if you like, an educational introspection? By catering to the interests of the children, it seems to me that there is a risk of not broadening the children's horizons.
There are those who argue for a 'negotiated curriculum' in which you 'brainstorm' and get a list of issues on the whiteboard and then get them to vote.

However, that would limit their thinking and mean that some topics on the syllabus didn't get covered.

Most experienced RE teachers know what issues get the kids passionate so select for them.
What if ths children aren't likely to be passionate about any of them? Would you just choose the best of a bad lot?
How many young people do you actually know and engage with? They are far more passionate about 'issues' than we cynical grown ups.
Are you going to answer the question?

Leo, I'm still waiting for a straight answer. Furthermore, your response is capable of being interpreted as somewhat patronising, and I'm sure you had no intention of being so.

You cannot expect readers and contributors to this discussion to accept your point of view if this is the best you can do.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Really?

Can you put your money where your mouth is? I challenge you to give us that 5 minutes of work that will cover all relevant points of the Reformation, and for every point that somebody comes up with that is still discussed by people today that you haven't mentioned, you give a fiver to that person's nominated charity.

Do you agree to this?

I'm up for it, so long as we keep the 'points that somebody comes up with that is still discussed' is in the OCR GCSE (B) philosophy and ethics specification then your on.

That would defeat the point wouldn't it?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:

Knowing that ad hominems are not valid arguments is indeed knowledge. The knowledge can be acquired in two ways: you can be told what an ad hominem argument is, and that it is not valid; or you can learn the thinking skills which enable you to identify that the truth or otherwise of a person's case is not dependent upon the qualities or otherwise of the person making the case. In other words it can be taught as propositional knowledge or learnt as a consequence of the application of thinking skills.

The point is that you can't learn the thinking skills that enable to deduce everything that you would otehrwise have been taught.

This is because:

1) Generic, teachable thinking skills don't appear to exist.

2) Deductive or inquiry learning is hugely ineffective and won't allow you to learn a fraction of what you can learn from being taught directly.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I agree with you here, for once. That's why I'd abolish exams.

And if I was advocating teaching kids content-free lessons I'd want exams abolished too.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
You might want to look at the claims and references in this:

http://www.archive.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/summer07/Crit_Thinking.pdf

oldandrew

Since this seems to relate directly to the crux of the argument in this thread, I'd love to read it. But that link wouldn't open for me.

It seems clear that the article is on this site and is the one labelled Summer 2007/Vol 31 No2. Can Critical Thinking be Taught. But exploring the site suggests that access to the article requires membership either by direct association through teaching - or one can join as an associate at a cost.

Maybe I'm missing a route in, but if I'm not, do you know of any other similar article online which we might all access? Googling didn't help me to come up with much but I found this link which suggests that academic opinion is divided on the matter. Which suggests to me that your firm opinion is very reasonable but not conclusively proven.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
You might want to look at the claims and references in this:

http://www.archive.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/summer07/Crit_Thinking.pdf

oldandrew

Since this seems to relate directly to the crux of the argument in this thread, I'd love to read it. But that link wouldn't open for me.

It doesn't seem to be working now. It was working, and available for free, when I posted it, so I think it is a temporary glitch.

I'll come back to you when it's working again.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

On the topic, I own up to being educated but not a professional educator.

I've been thinking about the argument in various contexts, one of which is that for some folks cognition is affected by a medical condition. I'm pretty sure there are means of restoring cognitive abilities which are not teaching-subject related. Since cognitive abilities reside in the brain, then access to them may very well be affected by brain damage caused e.g. by strokes and traffic accidents. I'm no expert in this field either, but I think in principle rehabilitation requires, if possible, some kind of brain re-routing, as well as replacing memories permanently lost.

Why I'm inclined to go along with oldandrew's argument is that from inner reflection it does seem to me that the mind needs content to work on. If one considers a related field like games-playing, chess for example is learned by first learning the moves, then learning how to write and read moves in accordance with some sort of notation. At that stage, one is able to access games played by others and learn something about openings, middle game, endings, tactics and strategies. By analogy, one moves from "letter recognition" to "spelling" to "grammar". Somewhere in that process one learns how to "read" and "write" in rudimentary fashion, with skill levels developing through aptitude and interest.

And I guess that the cognitive abilities developed this way may help one to pick up on other similar difficult board games, such as draughts or Go. But for both of those games, one still has to go through the "letter recognition", "spelling", "grammar", learning how to "read and write" in rudimentary fashion, and moving from rudimentary to more skilled. In short, I can see how cognitive skills developed in a defined context may accelerate a learning process elsewhere, but one still has to do the hard rudimentary work in the different context.

I'm not sure if this kind of analogy is particularly helpful, but FWIW ..

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Why I'm inclined to go along with oldandrew's argument is that from inner reflection it does seem to me that the mind needs content to work on. If one considers a related field like games-playing, chess for example is learned by first learning the moves, then learning how to write and read moves in accordance with some sort of notation. At that stage, one is able to access games played by others and learn something about openings, middle game, endings, tactics and strategies.

I think I used it as an example before. Chess is seen as very much a matter of pure thought, yet expert chess players have memorised a huge amount.

It is also the case that chess players can memorise the positions of chess pieces in a game (i.e. not placed randomly) far better than non-chess players without any advantage in remembering other things.

This perfectly illustrates the way that:

a) thinking incorporates the recall of information
b) thinking within a discipline aids the future recall of information within that discipline

These two facts are what fundametally undermines attempts to separate thinking and knowledge, or to abstract thinking as a context-free skill.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

What, in your view, is the purpose of RE:

1) Knowledge about religion

2) the spiritual development of children and young people?

Knowledge and understanding of religion.

I find "spiritual development" to be pretty vacuous as a concept and just another confusion between the aims of education and the virtues of education.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It seems to me there is a lot of talking past going on. Of which I'm also guilty.

Although oldandrew pointed it out before, I've only just worked out that we are using the "knowledge" vs "thinking" distinction in quite different ways (i.e. in that distinction I'm considering knowledge as a list of facts, whereas for oldandrew it includes skills).

Well I'm not saying skills are knowledge. I'm just saying that a lot of skills rely on knowledge. Knowledge includes "know-how" as well as "know-what" and we really can't have a great divorce between knowledge and intellectual performances.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

There are clearly other differences - for instance oldandrew thinks there are no generic thinking skills, whereas I do.

I thought you said you didn't know what the research said?

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

But it may help to get the definitions straight in the first place. I don't know any educational theory so I may be using standardized terms in the wrong way.

But I'd appreciate a quick check on how words are defined. To my mind there are two things;

a) the skill of processing/thinking about information.
b) information.

I accept they can't be kept separate (anymore than kicking can be done without a ball) but it would help me to see what other schemes others have for dividing these up.

The point here is that there is no learnable skill of processing/thinking all types of information.

When we get good at thinking then it will be better in some areas than others and it will be extensively related to knowledge.

I think this goes beyond the kicking a ball analogy. A learnt kicking skill could exist in a person regardless of what ball they currently have. A learnt thinking skill cannot exist in a person regardless of what information they have.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
it seems that the issues must necessarily be ones either of the class' choosing or one that will interest the class. Doesn't that run the risk of, if you like, an educational introspection? By catering to the interests of the children, it seems to me that there is a risk of not broadening the children's horizons.
There are those who argue for a 'negotiated curriculum' in which you 'brainstorm' and get a list of issues on the whiteboard and then get them to vote.

However, that would limit their thinking and mean that some topics on the syllabus didn't get covered.

Most experienced RE teachers know what issues get the kids passionate so select for them.
What if ths children aren't likely to be passionate about any of them? Would you just choose the best of a bad lot?
How many young people do you actually know and engage with? They are far more passionate about 'issues' than we cynical grown ups.
Are you going to answer the question?
Leo, I'm still waiting for a straight answer. Furthermore, your response is capable of being interpreted as somewhat patronising, and I'm sure you had no intention of being so.

You cannot expect readers and contributors to this discussion to accept your point of view if this is the best you can do.

I already did - post 11640

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

What, in your view, is the purpose of RE:

1) Knowledge about religion

2) the spiritual development of children and young people?
Knowledge and understanding of religion.

I find "spiritual development" to be pretty vacuous as a concept and just another confusion between the aims of education and the virtues of education.

It's good to see 'virtues' bought into a debate. Too much is utilitarian and has been so since Callaghan's Ruskin speech.

The tradition, in England and Wales, has been for 'spiritual development' in RE, with knowledge and understanding as subservient goals, except for a blip in the Birmingham syllabus of 1974 and its imitators.

Two factions arose:

SHAP - named after the hotel in the Lake District, where proponents of a world religions knowledge base met annually.

The Christian Education Movement (now RE Today Services), child of the Student Chtistian Movement which is older and more influential and whose journal had the title 'Learning for Living', which sums up its view of the purpose of RE. That journal has been superceded by the internationalls acclaims, peer-reviewed 'British Journal of RE'.

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Really?

Can you put your money where your mouth is? I challenge you to give us that 5 minutes of work that will cover all relevant points of the Reformation, and for every point that somebody comes up with that is still discussed by people today that you haven't mentioned, you give a fiver to that person's nominated charity.

Do you agree to this?

I'm up for it, so long as we keep the 'points that somebody comes up with that is still discussed' is in the OCR GCSE (B) philosophy and ethics specification then your on.

That would defeat the point wouldn't it?

In what way would it defeat any point? We are discussing the teaching of RE in a school. Surely it is only reasonable to keep the knowledge level required to what is actually required by the curriculum taught.

When at Uni, I did a module on the reformation and still had/have questions about it. We couldn't possibly expect school children to be educated on any topic in any subject area where they left that subject with no valid questions.

If there is a subject taught at school that educates students to the point where they have no more valid questions to ask on that subject, I can't think of one. Hell, I can't think of a subject at degree level, Masters, doctoral or post-doctoral level that answers all valid question on a give subject. That's why these people still do research - as a job.

You are either serious on this or you are trolling by winding people up with a knowingly unwinable bet.

I'm still up for it though. I've got the URL to the spec lined up so you can see that the only knowledge needed is where the ideas of 'some Christians think... other Christians think...' comes from, I've got the (3 min) youtube clip all cued up and a 'Church denomination family tree' worksheet ready to email to you. All just sat here waiting to go... I am sure Simon is looking forward to his £30 as well. It would be a shame to disappoint.

Come on oldanderw, put you money where your mouth is. I'm seriously up for it.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
In what way would it defeat any point?

Well in that I'd lose the money if I'm right and win if I am wrong.

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
In what way would it defeat any point?
Well in that I'd lose the money if I'm right and win if I am wrong.

Eh?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Although he claims knowledge to be all important, he declines any offers that we make to help him obtain some.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
In what way would it defeat any point?
Well in that I'd lose the money if I'm right and win if I am wrong.
Eh?

I challenged the claim that there was little relevant about the Reformation.

The claim that there is little about the Reformation in the RE syllabus is not one I have challenged and if true would obviously only serve to confirm how dumbed down RE is.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

How many times do we have to tell you that the Reformation is part of KS2 History?

[ 03. July 2010, 19:30: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
How many times do we have to tell you that the Reformation is part of KS2 History?

As I recall, when we discussed it before you were simultaneously claiming that the topic of the Reformation was irrelevant to student lives, and too biased towards their culture.

Are you giving us another reason now?

What's the important bit? That it's history? Are you agreeing with those who have claimed it was about historical personalities and forces and nothing to do with religion at all? Or that it's KS2? Are you claiming the students already know it?

[ 03. July 2010, 20:28: Message edited by: oldandrew ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

As for it being a 'scandal' that they don't know what the Reformation was, RE is about process, not content. I don't think the issues of the Reformation(s) is relevant to helping young people theologise. Reformation Studies belongs to 'Church History' and most church historians say that there is no such thing as 'Church History', only 'History' so the topic belongs in the History curriciulum (though I have serious misgivings about the way it is taught at KS3, i.e. Protestants = good; Catholics = bad.)

Presumably you meant this, leo?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
In what way would it defeat any point? We are discussing the teaching of RE in a school. Surely it is only reasonable to keep the knowledge level required to what is actually required by the curriculum taught.

The point is, oldandrew and I are saying that the curriculum itself is wrong. Thus your* continual appeals to the curriculum in support of your* arguments for teaching what you do is not actually answering the points we're making.

*- "your" in this post is plural, not singular.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
It is not as if people need to have good degrees in philosophy or theology in order to be RE teachers or that the curriculum requires in-depth knowledge of any specific religion...
...People DO have to have degrees in Theology, RS or Philosophy in order to be accepted on to a PGCSE course (or at least they have to here, where I was an associate tutor on the PGCE course for 30 years).

I knew this one didn't add up.

Have a look at this old thread:

http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=008798;p=2#000057

leo says:

"I have traıned teaschers of RE for 25 years - though I would love all of them to be Theology or RS graduates, I can remember many good Polıtıcs, Socıology graduates teachıng ıt well too."

Do you just make stuff up in order to try and win arguments?

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

The situation in England (where most of the posters to this thread appear to come from) is obviously very different to that in Australia, where the teaching of RE in state schools was traditionally done by volunteers (not necessarily clerical or tertiary qualified) from various denominations. My own daughter (now 32) asked to be excused from RE classes in her Blue Mountains, NSW high school at 14. Given the, ahem, 'rather conservative' stance of most Blue Mountains churches, I concurred as I didn't want her brainwashed nor anti-Christian.

In Queensland the Scripture Union funds and trains RE teachers - called Chaplains, as they have a wide remit - in state schools. I suspect much of their work would be of the absolutely necessary pastoral variety with disfunctional families and adolescents with really serious problems who fall between the cracks.

Basic biblical and theologico-historical literacy would be on my wish list. [Votive]

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :

My wife taught RE for a couple of years and her degree is in law and criminology. My current HOD is trained in PE but has been teaching RE for about 12 years.

Marvin,
If the problem is with the curriculum then there are parts of it I dislike as well. Its not perfect by a long way but all any teacher can do is make the best of what they have to teach. The main idea of teaching more skills based than knowledge based is in order to engage the students more and it is based on a different philosophy of education to a knowledge based one.

As I trained in the 'skills' based way, its what I'm comfortable with and it and to be honest, it does engage the kids. The idea is rather than having a learning objective "students will learn how the reformation was started." There is a learning outcome. "By the end of this lesson, students will be able to explain how Martin Luther's actions led to a break in the church". Both cover the same period and events in history, but the first objective based lesson merely conveys information, but the outcome based lesson enables students to work with information to develop a skill, it is measurable for success and lets the students know exactly what is happening in the lesson. Also the first question to a learning outcome like that is usually "what did Martin Luther do then?" and because they are asking the question, they want to know the answer.

To be honest, that's all I've been arguing for. All this crap about 'content free lessons' is just a load of rubbish.

Posted by Emma Louise (# 3571) on :

I taught in a grammar school and all 3 of us had philosophy and/or theology degrees from "good" universities. I should imagine that it depends on the school partly. Many schools would use a Physics teacher to teach biology to younger students or a generic "humanities" teacher could be history geography or RS trained, so the situation isn't unique to RS.

As for the Australian differences - I get the impression we go into detailed teaching earlier in the UK and are more likely to use specialist teachers for each subject at secondary than using teachers to teach several subjects. The RE/RS situation is definitely different. Some schools here have chaplains but their role is usually more pastoral. As we have external exams at 16 and 17/18 they are at a similar(ish) standard across the subjects.

I am aware Peter Vardy has been doing some training in some private schools over there with a philosophy and ethics basis - this is much more similar to what is taught over here.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

To be honest, that's all I've been arguing for. All this crap about 'content free lessons' is just a load of rubbish.

Oh for pity's sake. We can read the thread you know.

You told us:

"I'm not into teaching facts and figures, I leave that to other subjects - it is important to learn 'head knowledge'. It is also important to learn what to do with that head knowledge and how to apply that to life. I don't do the 'head knowledge' bit."

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
It is not as if people need to have good degrees in philosophy or theology in order to be RE teachers or that the curriculum requires in-depth knowledge of any specific religion...
...People DO have to have degrees in Theology, RS or Philosophy in order to be accepted on to a PGCSE course (or at least they have to here, where I was an associate tutor on the PGCE course for 30 years).
I knew this one didn't add up.

Have a look at this old thread:

http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=008798;p=2#000057

leo says:

"I have traıned teaschers of RE for 25 years - though I would love all of them to be Theology or RS graduates, I can remember many good Polıtıcs, Socıology graduates teachıng ıt well too."

Do you just make stuff up in order to try and win arguments?

Politics and sociology graduates are a recent addition to those who might be acceptable on a PGCE RE course but the do a 'converter/booster course' during the summer vac. after they graduate.

Dick Powell, of Culham Institute, was employed by the RE Council, the National Society and others to recruit RE teachers and his project, 'Teach RE' states: Having a degree in Theology or Religious studies is the traditional route but increasingly there is a trend for graduates in humanities and other disciplines to consider RE teaching as a career. Psychologists, Sociologists, Anthropologists and many other graduates come into RE teaching.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Politics and sociology graduates are a recent addition to those who might be acceptable on a PGCE RE course but the do a 'converter/booster course' during the summer vac. after they graduate.

Dick Powell, of Culham Institute, was employed by the RE Council, the National Society and others to recruit RE teachers and his project, 'Teach RE' states: Having a degree in Theology or Religious studies is the traditional route but increasingly there is a trend for graduates in humanities and other disciplines to consider RE teaching as a career. Psychologists, Sociologists, Anthropologists and many other graduates come into RE teaching.

Yeah, I know this. That's why I brought it up earlier.

The point is that it directly contradicts what you said earlier on in the discussion. It kind of makes a mockery of the whole "what does he know, he isn't an RE teacher?" argument if you are wrong and I am right on purely factual points about RE teaching.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Politics and sociology graduates are a recent addition to those who might be acceptable on a PGCE RE course but the do a 'converter/booster course' during the summer vac. after they graduate.

Dick Powell, of Culham Institute, was employed by the RE Council, the National Society and others to recruit RE teachers and his project, 'Teach RE' states: Having a degree in Theology or Religious studies is the traditional route but increasingly there is a trend for graduates in humanities and other disciplines to consider RE teaching as a career. Psychologists, Sociologists, Anthropologists and many other graduates come into RE teaching.
Yeah, I know this. That's why I brought it up earlier.

The point is that it directly contradicts what you said earlier on in the discussion.

No, because I was quoting Bristol PGCE's requirements. They rarely take anyone without a Theology or RS degree and very rarely anyone below a 2:1

[ 05. July 2010, 11:09: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
In what way would it defeat any point? We are discussing the teaching of RE in a school. Surely it is only reasonable to keep the knowledge level required to what is actually required by the curriculum taught.
The point is, oldandrew and I are saying that the curriculum itself is wrong. Thus your* continual appeals to the curriculum in support of your* arguments for teaching what you do is not actually answering the points we're making.

*- "your" in this post is plural, not singular.

So successive Tory Education acts got the curriculum wrong?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

Yes.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Politics and sociology graduates are a recent addition to those who might be acceptable on a PGCE RE course but the do a 'converter/booster course' during the summer vac. after they graduate.

Dick Powell, of Culham Institute, was employed by the RE Council, the National Society and others to recruit RE teachers and his project, 'Teach RE' states: Having a degree in Theology or Religious studies is the traditional route but increasingly there is a trend for graduates in humanities and other disciplines to consider RE teaching as a career. Psychologists, Sociologists, Anthropologists and many other graduates come into RE teaching.
Yeah, I know this. That's why I brought it up earlier.

The point is that it directly contradicts what you said earlier on in the discussion.
No, because I was quoting Bristol PGCE's requirements. They rarely take anyone without a Theology or RS degree and very rarely anyone below a 2:1

The point is that:

a) You presented what you quoted from Bristol as being generally the case (the possibility that it might be different elsewhere was admitted at one point but you didn't let on that you knew for a fact that what I was saying was true, even if it wasn't the case for Bristol).

b) When I told you that you hadn't got it right about what qualifications RE teachers need you replied: "Why do you not believe me about the degree qualifications required of those who do PGCEs? Are you saying that I am a liar? I have been an associate tutor at Bristol's PGCE course for 30 years and have interviewed candidates and was not allowed to bend the rules about admissions criteria laid down by the TTA (Teacher Training Agency re ITT - Inital Teacher Training)"; again suggesting that what you were saying was true more generally.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes.

I agree.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Politics and sociology graduates are a recent addition to those who might be acceptable on a PGCE RE course but the do a 'converter/booster course' during the summer vac. after they graduate.

Dick Powell, of Culham Institute, was employed by the RE Council, the National Society and others to recruit RE teachers and his project, 'Teach RE' states: Having a degree in Theology or Religious studies is the traditional route but increasingly there is a trend for graduates in humanities and other disciplines to consider RE teaching as a career. Psychologists, Sociologists, Anthropologists and many other graduates come into RE teaching.
Yeah, I know this. That's why I brought it up earlier.

The point is that it directly contradicts what you said earlier on in the discussion.
No, because I was quoting Bristol PGCE's requirements. They rarely take anyone without a Theology or RS degree and very rarely anyone below a 2:1
The point is that:

a) You presented what you quoted from Bristol as being generally the case (the possibility that it might be different elsewhere was admitted at one point but you didn't let on that you knew for a fact that what I was saying was true, even if it wasn't the case for Bristol).

b) When I told you that you hadn't got it right about what qualifications RE teachers need you replied: "Why do you not believe me about the degree qualifications required of those who do PGCEs? Are you saying that I am a liar? I have been an associate tutor at Bristol's PGCE course for 30 years and have interviewed candidates and was not allowed to bend the rules about admissions criteria laid down by the TTA (Teacher Training Agency re ITT - Inital Teacher Training)"; again suggesting that what you were saying was true more generally.

Which still stands - 'not allowed to bend the rules about admissions criteria laid down by the TTA' - but the rules have changed from time to time - I have been in this business for over 30 years - a lot can happen in 30 years.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

Leo and oldandrew -- you are falling into the habit of quoting the entire thread to add a line or two or comment. Please prune the quoted material to only the part needed to understand your remarks.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Which still stands - 'not allowed to bend the rules about admissions criteria laid down by the TTA' - but the rules have changed from time to time - I have been in this business for over 30 years - a lot can happen in 30 years.

The point is that these criteria presumably don't prove me wrong, and you knew this when you brought them up.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So successive Tory Education acts got the curriculum wrong?

I can think of other examples of Tory legislation which are probably wrong.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
It is also the case that chess players can memorise the positions of chess pieces in a game (i.e. not placed randomly) far better than non-chess players without any advantage in remembering other things.

This perfectly illustrates the way that:

a) thinking incorporates the recall of information
b) thinking within a discipline aids the future recall of information within that discipline

These two facts are what fundametally undermines attempts to separate thinking and knowledge, or to abstract thinking as a context-free skill.

I don't quite follow the logic there. I see how you get to a) and b), but one possible conclusion from that is that one should always teach knowledge (or facts, I'm still struggling with definitions here) through thinking.

In fact, as an aside, I'm not completely sure that your definition of knowledge doesn't include that.

However, it still leaves open the possibility that there is such a thing as generalizable thinking skills.

Which brings me to the research link you posted. It was, as one would expect, not a black and white case presented. There was a very definite last page summing up, which I didn't think was well justified by the review of evidence.

quote:
Despite the difficulties and gen-eral lack of rigor in evaluation, most researchers reviewing the literature conclude that some critical thinking programs do have some posi-tive effect.

The definitions of what we're arguing about might need rehashing though. I think I've got it straight now that you aren't arguing for lists of facts in education in the absence of critical thought. (That was my misreading). I think you are arguing for teaching knowledge, by which you include scope for thinking skills to be employed, but with the belief that the latter are not generalizable, not divorcable from the factual content. I wonder if you think they can be explicitly taught, or if your view is that they simply need to be encouraged to develop given the right environment and factual content.

I have to say I still think generalizable thinking skills exist, and that isn't based on any research - simply my observation of how people educated and allowed to intellectually develop in a certain way seem able to apply their thinking very widely, and people who have followed a very narrow intellectual development can't do that.

I should add that I'm not arguing for content-free teaching of thinking skills. I'm not sure if anyone else is, but I'm certainly not.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
It is also the case that chess players can memorise the positions of chess pieces in a game (i.e. not placed randomly) far better than non-chess players without any advantage in remembering other things.

This perfectly illustrates the way that:

a) thinking incorporates the recall of information
b) thinking within a discipline aids the future recall of information within that discipline

These two facts are what fundametally undermines attempts to separate thinking and knowledge, or to abstract thinking as a context-free skill.
I don't quite follow the logic there. I see how you get to a) and b), but one possible conclusion from that is that one should always teach knowledge (or facts, I'm still struggling with definitions here) through thinking.

And? That wouldn't contradict anything I have said.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

In fact, as an aside, I'm not completely sure that your definition of knowledge doesn't include that.

Doesn't include what? This makes no sense at all. Are you arguing against some strawman position that I think students shouldn't think?

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

However, it still leaves open the possibility that there is such a thing as generalizable
thinking skills.

I don't mean to turn turn into Richard Dawkins here, but this has turned into cosmic teapot territory.

No argument is going to prove that generic, teachable thinking skills don't exist. But if we can't identify them then we can't deliberately teach them and therefore we can conclude that a curriculum based around them is nonsensical.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

Which brings me to the research link you posted. It was, as one would expect, not a black and white case presented.

I linked to it because I believed it had the references you were after. I wouldn't recommend reading the main article - that is only going to confuse matters by bringing in critical thinking (as a discipline) which is something distinct from thinking skills (as the author points out).

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

There was a very definite last page summing up, which I didn't think was well justified by the review of evidence.

quote:
Despite the difficulties and gen-eral lack of rigor in evaluation, most researchers reviewing the literature conclude that some critical thinking programs do have some posi-tive effect.

He explains that critical thinking is not the same as thinking skills so that is all pretty irrelevant.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

The definitions of what we're arguing about might need rehashing though. I think I've got it straight now that you aren't arguing for lists of facts in education in the absence of critical thought. (That was my misreading).

For pity's sake. How many times did I object to that straw man?

My point here has always been about the apparent absence of basic knowledge being taught in RE.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

I think you are arguing for teaching knowledge, by which you include scope for thinking skills to be employed, but with the belief that the latter are not generalizable, not divorcable from the factual content.

Which is a good reason not to put the word "skills" after the word "thinking".

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

I wonder if you think they can be explicitly taught, or if your view is that they simply need to be encouraged to develop given the right environment and factual content.

Depends what you mean by "explicitly taught". You can certainly teach routine types of thinking, and model less routine types. You just can't teach judgement on its own.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

I have to say I still think generalizable thinking skills exist, and that isn't based on any research - simply my observation of how people educated and allowed to intellectually develop in a certain way seem able to apply their thinking very widely, and people who have followed a very narrow intellectual development can't do that.

As I said, my experience differs.

When it comes to the curriculum though, don't you think the research should have the deciding vote between anecdotal evidence?

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

I should add that I'm not arguing for content-free teaching of thinking skills. I'm not sure if anyone else is, but I'm certainly not.

Is there some kind of contagious amnesia spreading through this thread?

We had one person say he didn't do facts and figures or head knowledge and another saying he taught a process rather than knowledge.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
When it comes to the curriculum though, don't you think the research should have the deciding vote between anecdotal evidence?

But there wasn't any to speak of. Most of the studies reviewed didn't pass the reviewer's criteria, and very few were peer reviewed.

Serious question: how much of what is done in education is rigorously evidence based?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
But there wasn't any to speak of. Most of the studies reviewed didn't pass the reviewer's criteria, and very few were peer reviewed.

What on earth are you talking about?

Are you still looking at the stuff in the article about critical thinking programmes rather than the psychology references?

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

Serious question: how much of what is done in education is rigorously evidence based?

Very, very little.

It is hard to empirically research methods when aims are not agreed.

However, I am not appealing to the education research, but to the psychology research, or rather the established consensus in psychology.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So successive Tory Education acts got the curriculum wrong?
I can think of other examples of Tory legislation which are probably wrong.

Bear in mind that leo was probably just trying to score a rather petty political point, seeing as how I always support the Conservative party over the other two. Maybe he even thought I'd balk at the very idea of criticising a policy they'd come up with. Only he knows for sure...

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So successive Tory Education acts got the curriculum wrong?
I can think of other examples of Tory legislation which are probably wrong.
Bear in mind that leo was probably just trying to score a rather petty political point, seeing as how I always support the Conservative party over the other two. Maybe he even thought I'd balk at the very idea of criticising a policy they'd come up with. Only he knows for sure...

More to the point, who should decide the curriculum? Is it:

a) a democratically elected government?

b) Marvin and OldAndrew?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

Sure, because oldandrew and I are actually engaged in a bloodless coup whereby we're going to overthrow the Department for Education and install ourselves as sole arbiters of the curriculum.

Alternatively, we're two posters on an internet bulletin board, giving our opinions on what should be. Are you going to actually start justifying your opinion of what should be in your own words, or are you going to continue with your "this is what the elected government says it should be, and elected governments are always right" schtick?

I warn you that if it's the latter, I will totally hit back with the "then everything Thatcher did was right and you can't argue that it wasn't" line. Or the "everything the Lib-Con coalition does is right and you can't argue that it isn't" one. But I really hope it's the former, because then we can have a proper debate about it. You know, one of those things you claim to be teaching your kids to do rather than teaching them facts and figures...

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Sure, because oldandrew and I are actually engaged in a bloodless coup whereby we're going to overthrow the Department for Education and install ourselves as sole arbiters of the curriculum.

Does it have to be bloodless?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

What on earth are you talking about?

Are you still looking at the stuff in the article about critical thinking programmes rather than the psychology references?

I was talking about the article you linked. Quoting from it directly, in fact. Did you have a particular reference in mind, because the overall impression I get from the article isn't terribly supportive of what you were telling me before.

By the way, given that most educational practice isn't rigorously evidence based, it does seem difficult to invoke the Dawkins approach - since on that basis (i.e. of only believing and practising only the rigorously evidenced) just about everything would get thrown out.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
More to the point, who should decide the curriculum? Is it:

a) a democratically elected government?

b) Marvin and OldAndrew?

Leo, teacher of logic and thinking skills, once again falls foul of a basic logical fallacy. He argues that Marvin and oldandrew are bad and wrong because they want to coerce people, but even if they did want to coerce anyone, leo's argument rests on the evils of coercion and not on the validity of any of the points Marvin and oldandrew have actually made.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
seeing as how I always support the Conservative party over the other two.

And I'd generally support the Labour party over the other two, but wouldn't feel bound to accept every policy they advanced as the right way. I wouldn't expect the average Tory voter to be any different. I'm sure you'd be the first to admit when the Labour party had a good idea.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

What on earth are you talking about?

Are you still looking at the stuff in the article about critical thinking programmes rather than the psychology references?
I was talking about the article you linked. Quoting from it directly, in fact. Did you have a particular reference in mind, because the overall impression I get from the article isn't terribly supportive of what you were telling me before.

Okay this is getting silly now.

The references at the end list the psychological research used to establish the psychological facts mentioned, often in passing, in the article.

Most of the article is about critical thinking not about thinking skills, so talking about the "overall impression" of the article suggests you are confusing crticial thinking and thinking skills.

It is not an article about thinking skills. It is an article explaining why critical thinking cannot be considered a set of generic thinking skills because such skills don't exist. I linked to it because its claims about thinking skills (which are not the main point of the article, but are not in any way ambiguous) is drawn from references about generic thinking skills. It is these that I was under the impression you wanted to see.

Do you understand?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

By the way, given that most educational practice isn't rigorously evidence based, it does seem difficult to invoke the Dawkins approach - since on that basis (i.e. of only believing and practising only the rigorously evidenced) just about everything would get thrown out.

Eh?

How does that follow? There's a difference between saying the evidence isn't influential, and saying there's no evidence for anything. There's also a difference between something which is without evidence but nobody has really looked for it, and things that are apparently empirically based, but are without evidence after a century of looking for it.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
And I'd generally support the Labour party over the other two, but wouldn't feel bound to accept every policy they advanced as the right way. I wouldn't expect the average Tory voter to be any different. I'm sure you'd be the first to admit when the Labour party had a good idea.

Yeah, I'll grant you that. Giving control of interest rates back to the Bank of England, for example.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Do you understand?

No!

Especially when the article contains sentences like;

quote:
This proper and commonsensical goal has very often been translated into calls to teach “critical thinking skills” and “higher-order thinking skills”...

and

quote:
First, critical thinking (as well as scientific thinking and other domain-based thinking) is not a skill. There is not a set of critical thinking skills that can be acquired and deployed regardless of context. Second, there are metacognitive strategies that, once learned, make critical thinking more likely.

then perhaps it's forgiveable to be confused between critical thinking and thinking skills - and is "critical thinking skills" meaning skills involved in thinking critically, or critical (as in important) thinking skills, which by your use excludes critical thinking.

Perhaps the article isn't a model of clarity.

On skimming the references and what was written about them I couldn't see any that screamed at me "this will show that thinking skills don't exist". Could you?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
There's also a difference between something which is without evidence but nobody has really looked for it, and things that are apparently empirically based, but are without evidence after a century of looking for it.

Agreed, but I'm not sure that the article you linked to was very good evidence of a century spent looking for thinking skills without finding any.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
metacognitive strategies

They sound fun. I'll take twelvety please... [Biased]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'm sure you'd be the first to admit when the Labour party had a good idea.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yeah, I'll grant you that. Giving control of interest rates back to the Bank of England, for example.

And as soon as I spot a sensible Tory policy... but seriously, I understand the government has decided not to re-write the national curriculum on taking up the reigns, and it strikes me as sensible to allow a bit of stability. Early days, of course. They might be about to revise the religious education curriculum, I suppose.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
More to the point, who should decide the curriculum? Is it:

a) a democratically elected government?

b) Marvin and OldAndrew?
Leo, teacher of logic and thinking skills, once again falls foul of a basic logical fallacy. He argues that Marvin and oldandrew are bad and wrong because they want to coerce people, but even if they did want to coerce anyone, leo's argument rests on the evils of coercion and not on the validity of any of the points Marvin and oldandrew have actually made.

I have sought to engage with the arguments put forward by OldAndrew and Marvin the martian earlier, usually along the lines of our experience of what works and what doesn't work.

My citing of government policy was to make the point that this is how we do things in this country. We don't merely consult a couple of people with bees in their bonnets but consult widely before legislation.

My lesser point about Tory policy was in order to show that spiritual development is not some liberal/lefty idea.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
metacognitive strategies

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
They sound fun. I'll take twelvety please...

And do they exist, I wonder. Has anyone spent a century looking for them?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
My lesser point about Tory policy was in order to show that spiritual development is not some liberal/lefty idea.

But is it a *good* idea? It seems to me an odd thing for a government to be involving itself in through the state education system. I'm sure the evidence for the existence of such a thing as spiritual development is even more shaky than the evidence for thinking skills (or metacognitive strategies for that matter).

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
[Spiritual development] seems to me an odd thing for a government to be involving itself in through the state education system.

Odd is one way to put it. Personally, I find the idea that the government can define what spiritual development is, put it in the national curriculum, and teachers will make sure the kids develop that way (because that's what the curriculum says, and dammit they teach the curriculum be it right or wrong), nothing short of terrifying.

Surely if anything should always be left to personal choice/preference, spiritual development is it...

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
and teachers will make sure the kids develop that way

I think it's less terrifying if one considers the likelihood of successful indoctrination under the present system, but nevertheless failing to qualify for terrifying on grounds of implausibility seems very faint praise.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
There's also a difference between something which is without evidence but nobody has really looked for it, and things that are apparently empirically based, but are without evidence after a century of looking for it.
Agreed, but I'm not sure that the article you linked to was very good evidence of a century spent looking for thinking skills without finding any.

Was it meant to be? You were acting like you wanted to research the matter. I gave you something to get started with.

Can I conclude that you were actually demanding proof?

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
More to the point, who should decide the curriculum? Is it:

a) a democratically elected government?

b) Marvin and OldAndrew?
Leo, teacher of logic and thinking skills, once again falls foul of a basic logical fallacy. He argues that Marvin and oldandrew are bad and wrong because they want to coerce people, but even if they did want to coerce anyone, leo's argument rests on the evils of coercion and not on the validity of any of the points Marvin and oldandrew have actually made.
I have sought to engage with the arguments put forward by OldAndrew and Marvin the martian earlier, usually along the lines of our experience of what works and what doesn't work.

My citing of government policy was to make the point that this is how we do things in this country. We don't merely consult a couple of people with bees in their bonnets but consult widely before legislation.

Since neither oldandrew nor Marvin have made any attempt to take over the running of education in this country, your point is wide of the mark and has absolutely no bearing on this discussion!

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

My lesser point about Tory policy was in order to show that spiritual development is not some liberal/lefty idea.

Was anyone saying it was?

You quoted Ayn Rand earlier so I hardly had you pegged as a leftwinger (assuming you knew who Ayn Rand was and didn't cut and past in iognorance).

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Was it meant to be? You were acting like you wanted to research the matter. I gave you something to get started with.

Can I conclude that you were actually demanding proof?

I wanted to know something about the matter, and thought you knew about it so could get me started. If you don't I'll do a google search. It would be easier than starting with the article you linked to. Are you interested in the results if I go and do the search?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I wanted to know something about the matter, and thought you knew about it so could get me started. If you don't I'll do a google search. It would be easier than starting with the article you linked to. Are you interested in the results if I go and do the search?

How can I possibly know if I'm interested before I see the results?

I'm certainly not interested in a load of "grey" literature. I'm still at a loss as to why you aren't interested in the psychology references in the Willingham article.

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

What do you folks think of taking Year 4 pupils to Neasden Temple to learn about that religion - and maybe enjoy it, being all sorts of religion in their families?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

So I've unearthed a review commissioned by lsnlearning. It can be downloaded here.

Interesting quotes;

quote:
In the US, critical thinking is often considered to be synonymous with thinking skills.

(Which may explain our joint confusion earlier.

quote:
In this section, we summarise evidence from over 4000 empirical studies to show that thinking skills approaches can be very effective...

quote:
we refer here to two relevant meta-analyses. In each of these, a thinking skill framework was used to categorise the results; and in both cases, it was found that interventions directed at metacognitive thinking skills were highly effective.

quote:
...found that ‘unistructural’ approaches (interventions directed at single-skill outcomes) were the most effective, with a large mean effect size of 0.83. Among the most effective unistructural interventions were those addressing memory and reproductive performance. However, ‘relational interventions’ with ‘near transfer’ were also highly effective, the mean effect size being 0.77....

The report is authored by a team from Newcastle University and an additional two authors from Sunderland University.

It seems hard to maintain there is no support for the existence of thinking skills in the psychological literature.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
So I've unearthed a review commissioned by lsnlearning. It can be downloaded here.

Interesting quotes;

quote:
In the US, critical thinking is often considered to be synonymous with thinking skills.
(Which may explain our joint confusion earlier.

Joint confusion?

I posted an article saying that critical thinking wasn't thinking skills because generic thinking skills didn't exist and had references to the psychological literature on that which you could look up.

You refused to look into that literature, and apparently could not distinguish between what it said about critical thinking and what it said about thinking skills.

How is that "joint confusion"?

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
In this section, we summarise evidence from over 4000 empirical studies to show that thinking skills approaches can be very effective...

quote:
we refer here to two relevant meta-analyses. In each of these, a thinking skill framework was used to categorise the results; and in both cases, it was found that interventions directed at metacognitive thinking skills were highly effective.

quote:
...found that ‘unistructural’ approaches (interventions directed at single-skill outcomes) were the most effective, with a large mean effect size of 0.83. Among the most effective unistructural interventions were those addressing memory and reproductive performance. However, ‘relational interventions’ with ‘near transfer’ were also highly effective, the mean effect size being 0.77....
The report is authored by a team from Newcastle University and an additional two authors from Sunderland University.

It seems hard to maintain there is no support for the existence of thinking skills in the psychological literature.

The claim is that the empirical work in psychology suggests that there is an a lack of evidence for generic thinking skills.

You appear to have provided "grey" literature. Produced by a government agency, not peer reviewed, not in a psychology journal or produced by people working in psychology. Moreover it appears to be a summary of models and theories not empirical studies, and only mentions empirical studies where people have claimed they can be used to support particular models and dismisses the mainstream view.

Nobody has claimed that you won't find educationalists who believe in teaching thinking skills and have models for doing so. The claim was that the empirical psychological research suggests that the empirical evidence does not support generic teachable thinking skills. Your article dismisses this as "selectively Supported" and "word play" yet strangely enough the authors don't appear to have got this conclusion published in any peer-reviewed psychology journal. Why do you think this is?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
I posted an article saying that critical thinking wasn't thinking skills because generic thinking skills didn't exist

You see I don't think it was saying that. And it seems to me that it's actually quite hard to distinguish between critical thinking and thinking skills, particularly when the terms are used interchangeably in some literature.

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
You refused to look into that literature

Not really refusal, I looked at some of the references but I couldn't find anything that clearly said critical thinking/thinking skills don't exist, and you didn't direct me to any particular reference.

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
The claim was that the empirical psychological research suggests that the empirical evidence does not support generic teachable thinking skills.

The article cited a lot of published stuff.
Here and here are individual studies in peer reviewed journals.

Here is a meta-analysis that went for peer review.

I'll be the first to admit that it's tricky coming to a literature one hasn't read before in another discipline and getting it right, and it does appear to be an area of some controversy. But to say that "the empirical evidence does not support generic teachable thinking skills" seems to be simplistic based on what I've read so far.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

So can someone tell me what one or two of these "generic teachable thinking skills" actually are?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
I posted an article saying that critical thinking wasn't thinking skills because generic thinking skills didn't exist
You see I don't think it was saying that.

I simply do not understand what could make you think this. I thought it was fairly clear.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
You refused to look into that literature
Not really refusal, I looked at some of the references but I couldn't find anything that clearly said critical thinking/thinking skills don't exist, and you didn't direct me to any particular reference.

That was because you said you wanted to research the matter.

That said, now you've got me onto this I will no doubt research it myself and put the results on a blog post in the next few weeks.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
The claim was that the empirical psychological research suggests that the empirical evidence does not support generic teachable thinking skills.
The article cited a lot of published stuff.
Here and here are individual studies in peer reviewed journals.

Here is a meta-analysis that went for peer review.

Judging from the abstracts I don't think even one of those articles is directly about empirical evidence for generic thinking skills, and none of them have appeared in a peer reviewed psychology journal.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So can someone tell me what one or two of these "generic teachable thinking skills" actually are?

From the first article;

quote:
‘thinking skill’ means expertness,
practical ability or facility in the process or processes of thinking

Which are then divided into;

quote:
metacognition
critical thinking
creative thinking
cognitive processes (such as problem solving and
decision making)
core thinking skills (such as representation and
summarising)
understanding the role of content knowledge

Metacognition is, apparently, refers to one's own knowledge of one's cognition - including the ability to appraise and guide the way one is thinking.

To my mind, it seems to make imemdiate sense that, for instance, representation and summarising is a transferable skill. It also seems a bit nihilistic to think that one can't possibly teach that skill.

However, judging by the length of the reviews I think one could argue that the authors certainly haven't learnt it.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
What do you folks think of taking Year 4 pupils to Neasden Temple to learn about that religion - and maybe enjoy it, being all sorts of religion in their families?

Wonderful - I would take my Y5 class.

When my son was 10 he had two best friends - one Hindu and one Muslim. They all agreed to become Hindus when they grew up as Hindus have far more parties.

Great decision!

[Big Grin]

[ 13. July 2010, 12:02: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
‘thinking skill’ means expertness,
practical ability or facility in the process or processes of thinking
Which are then divided into;

quote:
metacognition
critical thinking
creative thinking
cognitive processes (such as problem solving and
decision making)
core thinking skills (such as representation and
summarising)
understanding the role of content knowledge

Actually that list is meant to be what is taught on thinking skills programmes rather than a definition.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

To my mind, it seems to make imemdiate sense that, for instance, representation and summarising is a transferable skill.

The question over that one is "is it actually a thinking skill?". It seems to me that these are actually a collection of skills, many of which are taught quite explicitly as part of subject areas.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Judging from the abstracts I don't think even one of those articles is directly about empirical evidence for generic thinking skills

Didn't

quote:
The developmental model of critical thinking outlined here derives from contemporary empirical research

sound promising to you?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Judging from the abstracts I don't think even one of those articles is directly about empirical evidence for generic thinking skills
Didn't
quote:
The developmental model of critical thinking outlined here derives from contemporary empirical research
sound promising to you?

No.

You do recall that there is a difference between critical thinking and thinking skills? A difference that becomes even more significant when we are talking about the development of critical thinking, as opposed to the teaching of thinking skills?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
You do recall that there is a difference between critical thinking and thinking skills?

The articles seem to be saying that critical thinking is a thinking skill.

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
A difference that becomes even more significant when we are talking about the development of critical thinking, as opposed to the teaching of thinking skills?

Point one is the existence of generic thinking skills. If they exist, we can then move on to see if it is possible to teach them. I'd view those as separate questions.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
From the first article;

quote:
‘thinking skill’ means expertness,
practical ability or facility in the process or processes of thinking
Which are then divided into;

quote:
metacognition
critical thinking
creative thinking
cognitive processes (such as problem solving and
decision making)
core thinking skills (such as representation and
summarising)
understanding the role of content knowledge
Metacognition is, apparently, refers to one's own knowledge of one's cognition - including the ability to appraise and guide the way one is thinking.

So basically, they're just using your brain. The standard, run of the mill things that everyone does whenever they actually think about something.

Strikes me as being remarkably similar to a syllabus that requires teachers to teach the kids how to breathe or walk.

I mean, decision making? Seriously? You mean those poor kids just don't know how to choose between one thing and another until they're taught how to do it?

As for creative thinking - how can you teach creativity? Surely the ability to think creatively is the absolute antithesis of being taught how to think!

quote:
To my mind, it seems to make imemdiate sense that, for instance, representation and summarising is a transferable skill. It also seems a bit nihilistic to think that one can't possibly teach that skill.

Of course one can teach it. But one teaches it by providing information! How on earth can you teach someone to summarise without giving them information to summarise in the first place! For that matter, how on earth can "summarising" ever be considered a skill that can be taught independently of any other subjects - the way one summarises a biochemical research project will be very different to the way one summarises a theological position, and without the correct background information one would struggle to summarise either!

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How on earth can you teach someone to summarise without giving them information to summarise in the first place!

Marvin, I'm pretty much with you and oldandrew on the general thrust of this argument, but on this point I can see a qualification. The art of Precis does not depend on the nature of the information provided. One gets better at doing it by practising the art in relationship to a variety of different contents.

And being able to precis well is a most useful transferable skill, working whatever the context and content.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The art of Precis does not depend on the nature of the information provided.

Perhaps, but to claim that it can be taught independently of information is like claiming you can teach someone to speak independently of language.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

That's right of course - but the info is not central to the skill. It's a kind of practice ground.

Personally I cannot conceive of how one would learn how to precis without the "practice ground". I've no doubt one could categorise the skills involved, some of which would indeed be thinking skills, but it doesn't strike me as the sort of art one could learn "in vacuo".

Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on :

There's a recent interesting Newsweek article about this. (The article is titled as being about creativity, but seems to be more about what the layperson would call problem solving or critical thinking; not sure what the technical definitions of those terms are.)

"Creativity isn’t about freedom from concrete facts. Rather, fact-finding and deep research are vital stages in the creative process. Scholars argue that current curriculum standards can still be met, if taught in a different way."

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Perhaps, but to claim that it can be taught independently of information is like claiming you can teach someone to speak independently of language.

I don't think any of the articles were claiming that.

Personally, I come across people all the time who aren't very good at summarizing information or rational decision making. I don't think it is like eating or breathing. I think they are skills that need to be worked at, and I don't see why, in theory, one couldn't structure lessons around facilitating the development of thinking skills. I'm not sure of the evidence about what one can achieve in practice, on the other hand.

Posted by wilson (# 37) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The art of Precis does not depend on the nature of the information provided.
Perhaps, but to claim that it can be taught independently of information is like claiming you can teach someone to speak independently of language.

If I learn to stack tins of beans I can now stack tins of peas - does the fact that I needed some tins to learn with mean the skill is not transferable? Of course not.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
You do recall that there is a difference between critical thinking and thinking skills?
The articles seem to be saying that critical thinking is a thinking skill.

The article suggests that the "skills" relevant to critical thinking are the ways one manages one's knowledge. This hardly suggests thinking skills can be separarted from knowledge. The empirical evidence provided is all about the developmental stages involved in different ways of managing one's knowledge, not empirical evidence of teachable generic thinking skills.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
A difference that becomes even more significant when we are talking about the development of critical thinking, as opposed to the teaching of thinking skills?
Point one is the existence of generic thinking skills. If they exist, we can then move on to see if it is possible to teach them. I'd view those as separate questions.

It is only the second question that is relevant to our discussion.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How on earth can you teach someone to summarise without giving them information to summarise in the first place!
Marvin, I'm pretty much with you and oldandrew on the general thrust of this argument, but on this point I can see a qualification. The art of Precis does not depend on the nature of the information provided. One gets better at doing it by practising the art in relationship to a variety of different contents.

And being able to precis well is a most useful transferable skill, working whatever the context and content.

I think we have to be careful about the difference between "transferable skills" and "(transferable) thinking skills".

Skills such as numeracy and literacy are transferable to other disciplines. However, they are not generic skills which can be taught outside of a conventional academic framework - they are part of recognised subject areas - nor are they well described as "thinking" skills.

I think summarising and representing are more in this sort of category, transferable but not generic or "thinking".

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Perhaps, but to claim that it can be taught independently of information is like claiming you can teach someone to speak independently of language.
I don't think any of the articles were claiming that.

What articles?

Marvin didn't mention any articles.

And now I think about it when we were talking about the content of one article earlier you replied by talking about "the articles" rather than the content of a particular article.

Please don't suggest that challenging your views is to challenge "the articles".

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

I think summarising and representing are more in this sort of category, transferable but not generic or "thinking".

Not sure. Maybe this question from Edward de Bono will be illuminating.

"Why do people think?"

de Bono's surprising answer is

"In order to stop thinking".

The underlying premise of the answer (as I understand him) is that, much of the time, human beings follow learned patterns of behaviour. Thinking is the means by which the "pattern library" is searched for some appropriate match to current perceived circumstances.

I suppose the ability to precis falls into the category of a learned pattern of behaviour - but my own inner reflection tells me that there is dynamic and quite hard work going on, applying the "lessons" of the "learned pattern" to the specific information to hand. In short, nothing makes the process of precis easy, but practice seems to make it less difficult!

Back on the main theme of this thread, this argument is I think pretty supportive of your general assertion, but suggests to me that much remains to be learned about how these processes we loosely describe as "thinking" actually work in practice.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Back on the main theme of this thread, this argument is I think pretty supportive of your general assertion, but suggests to me that much remains to be learned about how these processes we loosely describe as "thinking" actually work in practice.

Which is why I think we have to keep reminding ourselves that it is teachable, generic thinking skills which can be taught without emphasis on the transmission of knowledge that are relevant to our discussion, rather than all possible skills that might be described as "thinking".

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
The article suggests that the "skills" relevant to critical thinking are the ways one manages one's knowledge. This hardly suggests thinking skills can be separarted from knowledge. The empirical evidence provided is all about the developmental stages involved in different ways of managing one's knowledge, not empirical evidence of teachable generic thinking skills.

I agree with the summary of the article, and I don't think that thinking skills can be separated from knowledge either. The other point I was making was that critical thinking is a thinking skill and I don't see an inconsistency there.

I thought earlier that you were challenging the very existence of generic thinking skills. Perhaps I misread. In any case, I thought it important to look at the evidence that such things existed before asking whether they could be taught.

If it's clear that, on balance, they probably do exist then I think next step is to look at the evidence on their teachability.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Please don't suggest that challenging your views is to challenge "the articles".

I'm not with you here. My views are perfectly challengable, and I have to admit they are changing as the thread goes on. I'm not really in education (except on occasion as a bit of a conscript) and certainly haven't studied the area, so I don't have fixed views. I'm very likely to be swayed by data.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Which is why I think we have to keep reminding ourselves that it is teachable, generic thinking skills which can be taught without emphasis on the transmission of knowledge that are relevant to our discussion, rather than all possible skills that might be described as "thinking".

(My added italics).

Personally, I think it very likely that there are generic thinking skills. I think they can probably be taught (although less confidence in that conclusion), depending on what one means by "taught".

If one includes facilitating and encouraging their development in "taught" then I'd say yes. However, whether they can be taught "without emphasis" on the transmission of knowledge seems a less certain step.

Certainly I think it's unlikely they can be taught with little or no transmission of knowledge. Similarly, I think it's unlikely they can be taught if one focuses entirely on transmission of knowledge (although we may fall back into the problem of defining knowledge, particularly in what one excludes from the definition of knowledge).

I guess that leaves me concluding that there's an optimal balance somewhere inbetween those extremes.

[ 13. July 2010, 19:58: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Back on the main theme of this thread, this argument is I think pretty supportive of your general assertion, but suggests to me that much remains to be learned about how these processes we loosely describe as "thinking" actually work in practice.
Which is why I think we have to keep reminding ourselves that it is teachable, generic thinking skills which can be taught without emphasis on the transmission of knowledge that are relevant to our discussion, rather than all possible skills that might be described as "thinking".

Yes. I don't mind showing my ignorance at this point. Thinking about thinking is something I don't think I'm particularly expert about!

There may be a need for some more precise language about thinking processes - or there may be a need for me to do some hard work coming to terms with language currently in use by psychologists, educators, etc. I'll have to think about that!

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

If you do I wouldn't mind a summary of what you find out. I've been drowning on my few attempts so far.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

I thought earlier that you were challenging the very existence of generic thinking skills. Perhaps I misread. In any case, I thought it important to look at the evidence that such things existed before asking whether they could be taught.

If it's clear that, on balance, they probably do exist then I think next step is to look at the evidence on their teachability.

This amounts to saying: "if we can't find what we were looking for, let's find something else, call it by the same name as the thing we were looking for, and then try and work out if it is in some way actually the thing we wanted after all".

Forgive me if I don't take this approach. If you can't identify any teachable, generic thinking skills we need to drop this now, not change the topic.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
This amounts to saying: "if we can't find what we were looking for, let's find something else, call it by the same name as the thing we were looking for, and then try and work out if it is in some way actually the thing we wanted after all".

I don't follow this. Are you saying the things I am now talking about as generic thinking skills aren't in fact what was originally identified as the question, or that you never challenged their existence, or that they don't count as generic thinking skills unless they're teachable?

It seemed to me perfectly logical to break the question down into a) do they exist? then b) if so can they be taught? Maybe I'm missing something, but it would seem odd to leap in with the "are they teachable" question before establishing if they even exist.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
[QUOTE]I don't follow this. Are you saying the things I am now talking about as generic thinking skills aren't in fact what was originally identified as the question, or that you never challenged their existence, or that they don't count as generic thinking skills unless they're teachable?

I'm saying that if you are not talking about teachable, generic thinking skills, then you have unilaterally changed the topic of discussion without telling anyone. This would explain some of your contributions to the discussion, particularly the posting of irrelevant links. However, I am not interested in this changed subject, and telling me that changing the subject was step 1, and step 2 will be returning to the original point just makes me want to call it a day until you do return to the original point.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I thought I was clear earlier. Perhaps not. But in any case, I'd be grateful if you would humour my attempt at breaking the question down in what I thought was a logical way.

Is your position then that generalizable thinking skills exist but aren't teachable? Or that they don't exist in the first place and therefore aren't teachable?

It does seem to make a difference to the sort of study one now goes looking for, to me.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Simple set theory is a generisable thinking skill, and its teachable.

Memorising things by making up ordered images for them is a thinking skill, and its teachable. May not be a very useful one (made obsolete by the invention of the card index) but it can be done. Ditto for slightly m,roe useful mnemonic verses.

Cladistic analysis is a thinking skill, and its teachable.

Simple graph theory is a thinking skill and its teachable.

None of those need be taught in the place we typically teach them nowadays (school maths;
history of science if at all; undergraduate biology; undergraduate maths) They could all be parts of courses in rhetoric or logic or philosophy of science if we taught such courses to most students which we typically don't.

All are independent of context and content (though of course there has to be a contect when they are actually taught, though it could be an abstract one)

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Is your position then that generalizable thinking skills exist but aren't teachable? Or that they don't exist in the first place and therefore aren't teachable?

My position is that the sort of thinking skill we were discussing apparently doesn't exist. I can go further still, and say the sort of thinking skill that has been a fad in education in recent years apparently doesn't exist.

What I cannot do, however, is give a guarantee that there is nothing in existence could ever be labelled a thinking skill. Remember, ages ago when somebody suggested logic could be a thinking skill? I didn't say it wasn't, or that it didn't exist. I just pointed out that it was not what we were discussing.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
My position is that the sort of thinking skill we were discussing apparently doesn't exist.

I am honestly still unclear about this. Was the list of thinking skills I quoted further up the page not the sort of thinking skill that we were discussing? Do any of Ken's examples count as that sort of thinking skill?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I am honestly still unclear about this. Was the list of thinking skills I quoted further up the page not the sort of thinking skill that we were discussing?

Some were. Some could be challenged (and indeed were).

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

Do any of Ken's examples count as that sort of thinking skill?

I don't think so. I can't imagine leo trying to teach any of them.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I can't possibly comment on what Leo might be able to teach.

Can I ask, then, what of the potential list above do you think are indeed thinkings skills that exist, which exist (but aren't in fact thinking skills), and which don't exist at all.

And then, finally, why Ken's list aren't thinking skills. (Aside from the fact that Leo can't teach them).

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I can't possibly comment on what Leo might be able to teach.

Can I ask, then, what of the potential list above do you think are indeed thinkings skills that exist, which exist (but aren't in fact thinking skills), and which don't exist at all.

And then, finally, why Ken's list aren't thinking skills. (Aside from the fact that Leo can't teach them).

I'm not going through lists of irrelevant items trying to identify what might be relevant.

We were discussing teaching generic thinking skills instead of content in RE lessons. Obviously any "thinking skill" which has a definite content, is based around a specific content, is part of a specific subject area, or is a method of recalling content, is not relevant to this discussion.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

That was the starting point. But discussions and threads develop.

In any case, it seems to me that the positions "Thinking skills don't exist" or "Some thinking skills do exist but can't be taught" or "Thinking skills exist, but can't be taught without some degree of content to ground them in" or "Thinking skills exist, can be taught, but just don't apply to RE lessons" are worth distinguishing. It seems to me that they lead to very different discussions.

(Read generalizable thinking skills for all uses above).

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
That was the starting point. But discussions and threads develop.

...into discussion of straw men?

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

In any case, it seems to me that the positions "Thinking skills don't exist" or "Some thinking skills do exist but can't be taught" or "Thinking skills exist, but can't be taught without some degree of content to ground them in" or "Thinking skills exist, can be taught, but just don't apply to RE lessons" are worth distinguishing. It seems to me that they lead to very different discussions.

That's the point, isn't it? You haven't made these distinctions.

Or to put it another way, who do you think you are actually disagreeing with and about what?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I am honestly still unclear about this. Was the list of thinking skills I quoted further up the page not the sort of thinking skill that we were discussing?
Some were. Some could be challenged (and indeed were).

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

Do any of Ken's examples count as that sort of thinking skill?
I don't think so. I can't imagine leo trying to teach any of them.

No - because I am not into teaching 'thinking skills' (except for a Philosophy course I used to run for gifted and talented).

I am into getting kids to do theology, to initiate them into that discourse.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Or to put it another way, who do you think you are actually disagreeing with and about what?

Well I'm trying to work that out.

My view is that there are generalizable thinking skills and that they can be taught (and by taught I mean you can do stuff in a classroom to facilitate their acquisition - not necessarily that one can go through prescribed steps to acquire them).

Out of the list I got from the article I think that;

metacognition
critical thinking
cognitive processes (such as problem solving and
decision making)
core thinking skills (such as representation and
summarising)
understanding the role of content knowledge

sound like they fit they bill, I'm less sure about "creative thinking".

Out of Ken's list, it seems to me that;

Learning to memorise information does fit, and is definitely teachable, and a large part of my education was about that. People who learn to memorise information and reproduce it generally do well in exams of all sorts, but I'm not sure that's what we should be aiming for and don't think the usual proponents of thinking skills would like that example.

Cladistic analysis, set theory and graph theory on their own probably seem a bit narrow, but I think that if one is getting at a set of techniques for making sense of data, and learning how and when to apply them then that comes into the category of thinking skills.

I also think that one does need to teach these skills in lessons that contain a reasonable amount of content, or the skills can't operate. But that the acquisition of thinking skills is at least as important (if not more important) than the content taught, and certainly what any examination should focus on.

It seems to me that doing this is difficult in some subjects (History, geography, for instance) and almost automatic in others (Mathematics, which has always been about application of cognitive process rather than content anyway - no-one spends time learning the names of great mathematicians, but they do learn how to solve simultaneous equations, for instance).

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am into getting kids to do theology, to initiate them into that discourse.

How can you do that without teaching them about religion?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
But that the acquisition of thinking skills is at least as important (if not more important) than the content taught, and certainly what any examination should focus on.

Then why not scrap multi-disciplinary GCSEs and A Levels, and just have one exam which tests thinking skills?

After all, if the content itself is less important then it shouldn't matter which actual subjects a student has any particular aptitude for or just doesn't get, as long as they're thinking properly.

Come on people, knowledge is vitally important! I don't want a doctor who can process information brilliantly but can't tell his medulla oblongata from a hole in the ground! I don't want civil engineers who can summarise anything you throw at them but wouldn't recognise a cantilevered beam if they walked into one! Content. Is. Everything!

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Then why not scrap multi-disciplinary GCSEs and A Levels, and just have one exam which tests thinking skills?

Because a) there is still a skill in applying those thinking skills to different disciplines and b) I don't say that content doesn't matter at all - just that it matters less.

Where courses concern applied knowledge it is clearly vital that eg. doctors/engineers know that information. But similarly thinking skills are to be valued and medical education is getting more and more interested in them both as a means to enhance the acquisition of knowledge and as an important competence to medical practice.

Doctors who can boil down a patient's problems to the essentials and be critical about what is relevant to the patient are often highly effective. Doctors who know loads but can't apply it aren't.

I don't say that content is nothing. I realise it matters. But it isn't everything.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Content. Is. Everything!

Well, no.

I wouldn't want a civil engineer who could recognise a cantilevered beam without the wisdom to know when to use one.

And in a situation, even, that they hadn't directly learnt about.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
(Mathematics, which has always been about application of cognitive process rather than content anyway - no-one spends time learning the names of great mathematicians, but they do learn how to solve simultaneous equations, for instance).

I wish our teachers had taught us maths in a historical way, including the lives of the great mathematicians. It would have made it a lot easier to learn!

Basically they did it by giving us long lists of repetitive sums to do, and if you got too many wrong you had to go back and do simpler ones - which of course was even more boring and the more boring it gets the more mistakes you make...

There was no overview, no roadmap, no big picture, no general context, no discussion, bo background, no commentary, just rote learning of techniques which had to be reproduced exactly before you were allowed to do anything else. Crazy way to teach.

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
I'm not going through lists of irrelevant items trying to identify what might be relevant.

This really isn't intended to be an attack, its a genuine observation, but there, and in a lot of other places in this thread, you have employed the neat little rhetorical trick of taking what someone else says, classifying it or redefining it in some way, then throwing it back at the other speakers, perhaps with some little but of apparently logical analysis that in fact merely reproduces your premises, without really engaging with what other said.

If you are a teacher, as you claim to be, I hope you do not talk to your students the way you write here. It mist be very frustrating for them.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I wish our teachers had taught us maths in a historical way, including the lives of the great mathematicians. It would have made it a lot easier to learn!

Euclid ftw!

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Basically they did it by giving us long lists of repetitive sums to do, and if you got too many wrong you had to go back and do simpler ones - which of course was even more boring and the more boring it gets the more mistakes you make...

I think you could sort that out without resorting to history. I would find the history of maths interesting now, but I doubt I would have at 14. My experience of maths teaching wasn't like yours, though, we did get a roadmap and a big picture.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am into getting kids to do theology, to initiate them into that discourse.
How can you do that without teaching them about religion?

We've been round this one before.
In short, we select 'content' in so far as it is relevant to them and gets them enthusiastic.

That is not the same as teaching 'content' for its own sake.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I was thinking about this earlier, in the context of my PhD - where the rapid assimilation of complex data from a wide variety of disciplines was vital. I've used that skill often, and sometimes intensively, since then, and very valuable it is too.

However, no one formally taught that to me. Is it so far off the mark to believe that by having the right conditions (and the incentive), the skill was encouraged?

Is it a step too far to suggest that what PhilA and Leo are doing is using specific knowledge in deliberately engineered scenarios in order to encourage the learning of 'thinking skills'?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

What you describe rings true to me also from my research experience. I think I acquired the skill to think critically about data during my undergraduate course on a laboratory attachment. I'm sure that it could have been acquired earlier if I'd been taught it. (Or facilitated to learn it, however you want to put it).

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Or to put it another way, who do you think you are actually disagreeing with and about what?
Well I'm trying to work that out.

Don't you think you should have done this before arguing with people?

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

My view is that there are generalizable thinking skills...

...but these are not necessarily anything to do with the thinking skills that people talk about in education that were proposed as a reason for downgrading content in RE and, therefore, not necessarily relevant to the discussion.

I do feel that I have wasted a lot of time trying to get you back to the point at hand so as to avoid attacks on strawmen, only to be ignored so comprehensively that now people can barely remember what the point at hand was.

The post I am replying to is a case in point. You were given a chance to clarify what you were disagreeing with, instead you just repeated your own views, using your own terminology.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am into getting kids to do theology, to initiate them into that discourse.
How can you do that without teaching them about religion?

Or Latin?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Content. Is. Everything!
Well, no.

I wouldn't want a civil engineer who could recognise a cantilevered beam without the wisdom to know when to use one.

And in a situation, even, that they hadn't directly learnt about.

I can't help noticing that arguments now seem to be veering again towards the idea that all knowledge is memorisation and all thinking is a form of generic thinking skill.

A key point here is that the learning of information and the development of the ability to use it are normally developed side by side and you can't usually get much of one without the other.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
This really isn't intended to be an attack, its a genuine observation, but there, and in a lot of other places in this thread, you have employed the neat little rhetorical trick of taking what someone else says, classifying it or redefining it in some way, then throwing it back at the other speakers, perhaps with some little but of apparently logical analysis that in fact merely reproduces your premises, without really engaging with what other said.

Please don't describe me being wrong, without explaining why I'm wrong. What you consider to be a rhetorical trick, i.e rephrasing for clarity, is in my book the best way to deal with an unclear claim. Getting rid of the ambiguity allows a clear challenge. Anyone is entitled to reply by saying "hang on that's not what I meant, I meant this..." but simply complaining about rephrasing without explaining how the rephrasing is inaccurate is equivalent to complaining "you make it obvious when people are wrong."

Oh, I've just done it again. I've rephrased your complaint to make it clearer. How unfair.

Oh and "redefining" is a fairly serious misdemeanour when it comes to reasoned debate. I would particularly like you to back this one up.

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

If you are a teacher, as you claim to be, I hope you do not talk to your students the way you write here. It mist be very frustrating for them.

And this is not a personal attack how?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
In short, we select 'content' in so far as it is relevant to them and gets them enthusiastic.

That is not the same as teaching 'content' for its own sake.

Or indeed teaching them anything worthwhile at all.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I was thinking about this earlier, in the context of my PhD - where the rapid assimilation of complex data from a wide variety of disciplines was vital. I've used that skill often, and sometimes intensively, since then, and very valuable it is too.

However, no one formally taught that to me. Is it so far off the mark to believe that by having the right conditions (and the incentive), the skill was encouraged?

Is it a step too far to suggest that what PhilA and Leo are doing is using specific knowledge in deliberately engineered scenarios in order to encourage the learning of 'thinking skills'?

They have made it pretty clear they aren't teaching "the rapid assimilation of complex data".

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am into getting kids to do theology, to initiate them into that discourse.
How can you do that without teaching them about religion?
Or Latin?

Latin? Even the RCC doesn't give future priests a thorough grounding in Latin in seminaries any more. they read Aquinas in translation.

In my view, it's a shame they no longer require Hebrew and Greek.

German is useful too, for reading Barth and Tillich.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
In short, we select 'content' in so far as it is relevant to them and gets them enthusiastic.

That is not the same as teaching 'content' for its own sake.
Or indeed teaching them anything worthwhile at all.

Are these 'worthwhile'?

L7/8/EP Key question: How do people justify their truth claims?
Students will explore sources of authority e.g. religious, scientific, political and legal.

L6/7 Key question: How have people’s practices and lifestyles differed according to their historical and/or cultural context?
Students will relate George Fox and the Society of Friends to the established church of the time and/or study different views, held by Sikh women and youth, about arranged / assisted marriage in Britain from 1960-1980. Why has the Hijjab become an important issue?

L7/8 Key question: How do people differ in their interpretations of religious texts?
Students will analyse opinions of fundamentalists, conservatives and liberals and and evaluate critically both the power and limitations of religious language e.g. how much is religious language metaphorical and how much is it intended to be taken literally? Can humanists value religious metaphors?

L7 Key question: What experiences might make people give up, change or adopt religious belief?
Students will evaluate e.g. Shlomo Schmaltzer’s story of why he became an atheist after his escape from Sobibor.

L6/7 Key question: What explanations for suffering are most convincing?
Students will respond to religious teachings and scientific ideas about evil and suffering e.g. compare Hindu ideas about Karma with genetic inheritance.

They come from my Key Stage 4 syllabus.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Or indeed teaching them anything worthwhile at all.
Are these 'worthwhile'?

L7/8/EP Key question: How do people justify their truth claims?
Students will explore sources of authority e.g. religious, scientific, political and legal.

L6/7 Key question: How have people’s practices and lifestyles differed according to their historical and/or cultural context?
Students will relate George Fox and the Society of Friends to the established church of the time and/or study different views, held by Sikh women and youth, about arranged / assisted marriage in Britain from 1960-1980. Why has the Hijjab become an important issue?

L7/8 Key question: How do people differ in their interpretations of religious texts?
Students will analyse opinions of fundamentalists, conservatives and liberals and and evaluate critically both the power and limitations of religious language e.g. how much is religious language metaphorical and how much is it intended to be taken literally? Can humanists value religious metaphors?

L7 Key question: What experiences might make people give up, change or adopt religious belief?
Students will evaluate e.g. Shlomo Schmaltzer’s story of why he became an atheist after his escape from Sobibor.

L6/7 Key question: What explanations for suffering are most convincing?
Students will respond to religious teachings and scientific ideas about evil and suffering e.g. compare Hindu ideas about Karma with genetic inheritance.

They come from my Key Stage 4 syllabus.

No.

I mean they are good questions, but without answers, no they aren't worthwhile in themselves.

[ 15. July 2010, 15:51: Message edited by: oldandrew ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Don't you think you should have done this before arguing with people?... You were given a chance to clarify what you were disagreeing with, instead you just repeated your own views, using your own terminology.

I'm not arguing with you.

But seriously, do we have to? We'd reached a point where I wasn't sure what your position was on certain points. So I asked. I wasn't quite sure what to make of your response, and it seems to me the best way to clarify what we're disagreeing over was for me to lay out my side, and then see what you made of that.

On the narrow RE/thinking skills vs content issue, it seemed to me that one way of pursuing that was to look at the broader principles that might explain disagreement. There's little point in arguing hard about the specifics of generalizable thinking skills in RE if one has an underlying view that generalizable thinking skills or teachable thinking skills or whatever don't exist in the first place.

Also, I'm not arguing from exactly Leo or PhilA's points earlier in the thread because I'm not exactly Leo or PhilA.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
I mean they are good questions, but without answers, no they aren't worthwhile in themselves.

And on that point, might it not be worthwhile learning how to go about answering such questions? There clearly is some information that must be available to deal with them, without which I'd agree the questions aren't worthwhile, but I can't imagine how an authority or course would go about determining what the answers are in any specific terms.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'm not arguing with you.

But seriously, do we have to? We'd reached a point where I wasn't sure what your position was on certain points. So I asked. I wasn't quite sure what to make of your response, and it seems to me the best way to clarify what we're disagreeing over was for me to lay out my side, and then see what you made of that.

So when confronted with my opinions, you deliberately changed the subject rather than, say, seeking clarification? And this is to see what I would make of it? Surely it's obvious how I'd feel about that?

If not, here's a hint: [brick wall]

[ 15. July 2010, 19:55: Message edited by: oldandrew ]

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
I mean they are good questions, but without answers, no they aren't worthwhile in themselves.
And on that point, might it not be worthwhile learning how to go about answering such questions? There clearly is some information that must be available to deal with them, without which I'd agree the questions aren't worthwhile, but I can't imagine how an authority or course would go about determining what the answers are in any specific terms.

Surely you need to know how to determine the answer in order to teach how to go about answering the question?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
So when confronted with my opinions

Well I'm not sure I have been confronted by your opinions. I'm having trouble making sense of them. So I'm asking you to clarify. Since you seemed not so forthcoming I thought I'd at least clarify what I thought I was talking about (in fact I interpreted you as asking me to do just that).

You're clearly frustrated and disagree, I get that, but I'm still unclear how you think it all works in terms of the wider picture. It seemed to me that at one point we were discussing that, and you sent me off to do some reading (although I had trouble engaging you on the specifics of that immediately afterwards too).

Is there no place for trying to draw your opinions on the wider issues about thinking skills into a coherent whole for the purpose of further discussion?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
might it not be worthwhile learning how to go about answering such questions? ... I can't imagine how an authority or course would go about determining what the answers are in any specific terms.

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Surely you need to know how to determine the answer in order to teach how to go about answering the question?

Obviously. But "how" is probably more important than "what" the details of the final answers are in this case, and neither can be specified except in general principle.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
L7/8/EP Key question: How do people justify their truth claims?
Students will explore sources of authority e.g. religious, scientific, political and legal.

Requires knowledge of what the truth claims are, and of the justifications people use for them. Also requires knowledge of sources of authority.

This one hardly sems to back your side up at all.

quote:
L6/7 Key question: How have people’s practices and lifestyles differed according to their historical and/or cultural context?
Students will relate George Fox and the Society of Friends to the established church of the time and/or study different views, held by Sikh women and youth, about arranged / assisted marriage in Britain from 1960-1980. Why has the Hijjab become an important issue?

Again, requires quite extensive knowledge of (some of) the following: changes to lifestyles, cultural/historical effects thereon, George Fox and the Quakers, the established church, Sikhism, arranged marriage and the Hijab!

Obviously the ability to compare and contrast two different things is important to this qestion, but is that ability really something that requires much time to teach? Surely anyone who knows what the words mean will be able to do it?

quote:
L7/8 Key question: How do people differ in their interpretations of religious texts?
Students will analyse opinions of fundamentalists, conservatives and liberals and and evaluate critically both the power and limitations of religious language e.g. how much is religious language metaphorical and how much is it intended to be taken literally? Can humanists value religious metaphors?

Again, how any student could answer this well without extensive knowledge of the religious texts and the differing approaches to their interpretation is beyond me.

quote:
L7 Key question: What experiences might make people give up, change or adopt religious belief?
Students will evaluate e.g. Shlomo Schmaltzer’s story of why he became an atheist after his escape from Sobibor.

This strikes me as being more about a student's ability to empathise with Schmaltzer than anything else. That or they're being taught exactly why he became an atheist and then regurgiating it as one experience that would lead someone to give up religion.

quote:
L6/7 Key question: What explanations for suffering are most convincing?
Students will respond to religious teachings and scientific ideas about evil and suffering e.g. compare Hindu ideas about Karma with genetic inheritance.

Again, extensive knowledge of the various explanations is required. Compare/contrast comes into play again, but as for the basic question of which explanations are most convincing, surely that's an incredibly subjective issue, even for an arts subject! All the student has to do is say "I find this one the most convincing because..."!

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Marvin, I think that arguing for contentless thinking is as doomed a concept as arguing content is all.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I'm certainly not arguing for contentless thinking, btw. I don't see how that could be done, and I'm reasonably certain that's not what PhilA or leo are arguing for either.

However, if you're a master carpenter and you're training an apprentice*, ISTM that what the apprentice makes in their apprenticeship is less important than the skills they learn while making it. You'd hope that once they'd bodged their way through a simple box, their chest of drawers would be more competent, even though they hadn't made one before.

No one's expecting the kids to suddenly emulate the Socratic school, but asking them to be able to analyse a question, identify the main arguments both for and against, weigh the evidence and provide reasons for their opinions seems both laudable and necessary.

*analogies can be stretched too far, terms and conditions apply

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
*analogies can be stretched too far, terms and conditions apply

Hey, at least you didn't try the bloody fishing rod/ fish analogy. That really helped crystalize it all out.

Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Surely you need to know how to determine the answer in order to teach how to go about answering the question?

Not in math. If I know how to solve an algebraic equation, it isn't necessary for me to know the answer in advance in order to show or help a student come up with the answer. Knowing the process is enough.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

The process is the "how", surely? I agree you don't need to know "what" the answer is, but you do need to know "how" to get there.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
So when confronted with my opinions
Well I'm not sure I have been confronted by your opinions. I'm having trouble making sense of them. So I'm asking you to clarify. Since you seemed not so forthcoming...

What?

I have been nothing but forthcoming.

And even if I hadn't been, I can't see how difficulties understanding a discussion are in any way actually resolved by changing the discussion.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
might it not be worthwhile learning how to go about answering such questions? ... I can't imagine how an authority or course would go about determining what the answers are in any specific terms.

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Surely you need to know how to determine the answer in order to teach how to go about answering the question?
Obviously. But "how" is probably more important than "what" the details of the final answers are in this case, and neither can be specified except in general principle.

Can you please just clarify which of your contradictory statements you are withdrawing?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm certainly not arguing for contentless thinking, btw. I don't see how that could be done, and I'm reasonably certain that's not what PhilA or leo are arguing for either.

Just to remind you,

leo told us "It is not about 'telling them things'" and attacked the "model of teacher as 'imparter of knowledge'". He also said "RE is not about imparting facts. it isn't RK nor is it RS. As the QCDA never tires of saying, education is about process, not content."

Phil A told us "I'm not into teaching facts and figures, I leave that to other subjects - it is important to learn 'head knowledge'. It is also important to learn what to do with that head knowledge and how to apply that to life. I don't do the 'head knowledge' bit"

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Surely you need to know how to determine the answer in order to teach how to go about answering the question?
Not in math. If I know how to solve an algebraic equation, it isn't necessary for me to know the answer in advance in order to show or help a student come up with the answer. Knowing the process is enough.

You appear to be arguing against a straw man here. The words "know the answer in advance" did not appear in, nor were they implied by, what you are replying to. The words were "know how to determine the answer" i.e. knowing the process.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm certainly not arguing for contentless thinking, btw. I don't see how that could be done, and I'm reasonably certain that's not what PhilA or leo are arguing for either.
Just to remind you,

leo told us "It is not about 'telling them things'" and attacked the "model of teacher as 'imparter of knowledge'". He also said "RE is not about imparting facts. it isn't RK nor is it RS. As the QCDA never tires of saying, education is about process, not content."

Phil A told us "I'm not into teaching facts and figures, I leave that to other subjects - it is important to learn 'head knowledge'. It is also important to learn what to do with that head knowledge and how to apply that to life. I don't do the 'head knowledge' bit"

The point is that we start with the questions, with the issues that ignite the enthusiasm of teenagers. Then, fired up, they go and find out the 'content' to help them pursue the issue, e.g. if it's the Holocaust and Schlomo, we watch extracts from the film 'Escape from Sobibor' (I think I know the entire film off by heart now.)

If it's the Quakers, then an internet search of George Fox will help.

I am not against content. I am against a content-driven curriculum and in favour of a child-centred (cliche) one.

[ 16. July 2010, 11:38: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Can you please just clarify which of your contradictory statements you are withdrawing?

What I'm saying is that the questions Leo describes couldn't have a prescribed set of expected answers attached to them. The process the students use in answering the questions can be appraised, and the quality of the answer appraised, but the teacher and education authority could not ask those questions with a particular set of answers in mind.

I still don't know what you think of the general principles underlying all this, but you seem to not want to be drawn. You might view it as "changing the discussion", but it seems a natural extension to me.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The point is that we start with the questions, with the issues that ignite the enthusiasm of teenagers. Then, fired up, they go and find out the 'content' to help them pursue the issue, e.g. if it's the Holocaust and Schlomo, we watch extracts from the film 'Escape from Sobibor' (I think I know the entire film off by heart now.)

The question that remains is why should it be given the slot and the resources for "religious education" if it is about what interests teenagers rather than about religion, and if they are being left to educate themselves rather than being educated?

And that's without the obvious moral question about the fairness of depriving them of important but uninteresting aspects of the subject.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Can you please just clarify which of your contradictory statements you are withdrawing?
What I'm saying is that ...

Can you just answer the question please?

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

I still don't know what you think of the general principles underlying all this, but you seem to not want to be drawn.

Last time I looked you were claiming not to understand my opinions. Now you are claiming that I haven't expressed them. Which is it?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
And that's without the obvious moral question about the fairness of depriving them of important but uninteresting aspects of the subject.

Well time has certainly deprived me of all the apparently important aspects of much of what I was taught at school, and I'm left with the things that made an abiding impression, the things that interested me, and the generalizable thinking skills that I learnt.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Can you just answer the question please?

I'm not sure which bits you are finding contradictory, so I started again. What is it you find contradictory?

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Last time I looked you were claiming not to understand my opinions. Now you are claiming that I haven't expressed them. Which is it?

It seems to me much of this is a distraction. I've outlined my current view (shaped largely during this thread actually) on what generalizable thinking skills might be and how that might apply to education, and I'm inviting you to engage with that. Do you want to?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Oh, I've just done it again. I've rephrased your complaint to make it clearer. How unfair.

No you didn't. You redefined it in your own terms in order to rule it out of order. As you have been doing to almost everything anyone says on this thread. Including your own comments - so that if anyone answers any of your questions you can continue to say "but you haven't answered my questions", whatever they actually said. And you can continue to refuse to engage with any points they are trying to make.

[ 16. July 2010, 17:20: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Can you just answer the question please?
I'm not sure which bits you are finding contradictory, so I started again.

Can you stop doing that, please?

Confusion, particularly confusion that seems to occur whenever you are challenged about your argument, is not grounds for changing the subject. If you genuinely cannot follow the points put to you, then just explain clearly what you are confused about.

[ 16. July 2010, 17:24: Message edited by: oldandrew ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Can you stop doing that, please?

Confusion, particularly confusion that seems to occur whenever you are challenged about your argument, is not grounds for changing the subject. If you genuinely cannot follow the points put to you, then just explain clearly what you are confused about.

Accusing him of doing what you are doing is another cheap trick.

I've just gone back four pages through this and the last substantive contribution to the discussion you made seems to have been a link to some article about "Critical thinking" which no-one else could read. Since then its just been whinging about everyone else changing the subject (as if it was up to you to make rules about what they were talking about) or claiming that they don't understand you, but consistently and repeatedly backing away from any actual engagement with what they are saying.

What you are doing is not argument or discussion, its just a way to grab centre-stage and try to define disagreement out of existence.

Its very irritating, and the main reason this thread has come out the say it has.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Oh, I've just done it again. I've rephrased your complaint to make it clearer. How unfair.
No you didn't. You redefined it in your own terms in order to rule it out of order.

The point is that I haven't redefined it.

Your complaint did appear to object to rephrasing of points, even in cases where you cannot identify anything inaccurate about the rephrasing.

If this is not what you meant, then please clarify what you meant. Don't just declare it to have been "redefined".

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

As you have been doing to almost everything anyone says on this thread. Including your own comments - so that if anyone answers any of your questions you can continue to say "but you haven't answered my questions", whatever they actually said. And you can continue to refuse to engage with any points they are trying to make.

Fine, if I am not allowed to summarise even my own opinions without being accused of "redefining" then I will have to quote myself verbatim:

... "redefining" is a fairly serious misdemeanour when it comes to reasoned debate. I would particularly like you to back this one up.

For some reason you are still making accusations and failing to back them up. Can you please back up your accusation or apologise?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Can you stop doing that, please?

Confusion, particularly confusion that seems to occur whenever you are challenged about your argument, is not grounds for changing the subject. If you genuinely cannot follow the points put to you, then just explain clearly what you are confused about.
Accusing him of doing what you are doing is another cheap trick.

I didn't accuse him of anything. He said that it was what he did. I just asked him to stop doing it.

Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
You appear to be arguing against a straw man here. The words "know the answer in advance" did not appear in, nor were they implied by, what you are replying to. The words were "know how to determine the answer" i.e. knowing the process.

So what you are saying, as I understand it, is that RE should be about knowing how to find an answer to a religious question, than actually memorizing historical facts or religious tenets.

If so I agree. Historical facts (the Reformation, say for one) should be taught in history class. The Reformation and the rise of Islam have had an enormous impact upon the history of the world, but not actually relevant to the day to day life of a child (in most cases).

Religious tenets can and should be covered in RE, but demanding that they be considered true would mean that the schools are determining the religious upbringing of the child.

You can have direct instruction on thinking skills. (Heavens, I just went to 2 whole workshops on how to directly teach critical thinking skills!) Teaching those thinking skills does require content to analyze. I would seem that the content in RE to analyze would be the tenets of religions.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
So what you are saying, as I understand it, is that RE should be about knowing how to find an answer to a religious question, than actually memorizing historical facts or religious tenets.

No. I was just correcting your misunderstanding of my request to mdijon for clarification. I'm trying not to put forward new opinions, when we still have so many unanswered points still outstanding.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The point is that we start with the questions, with the issues that ignite the enthusiasm of teenagers. Then, fired up, they go and find out the 'content' to help them pursue the issue, e.g. if it's the Holocaust and Schlomo, we watch extracts from the film 'Escape from Sobibor' (I think I know the entire film off by heart now.)
The question that remains is why should it be given the slot and the resources for "religious education" if it is about what interests teenagers rather than about religion, and if they are being left to educate themselves rather than being educated?

And that's without the obvious moral question about the fairness of depriving them of important but uninteresting aspects of the subject.

You've said the before and Iii have answered t before.

The role of the educator is to equip people with the skills of lifelong learning so s/he helps them to find out the things s/he needs to know. To do the work for them, to tell them, is 'instruction' not education.

The point about following their interests is that they are starting point, not an end point.

'Depriving them' of uninteresing content is better than them switching off and being bored. That would be to deprive them of good RE.

Did you do a PGCE and did it include the philophy7 of education? Your posts suggests that you have never considered the purpose of education.

Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
So what you are saying, as I understand it, is that RE should be about knowing how to find an answer to a religious question, than actually memorizing historical facts or religious tenets.
No. I was just correcting your misunderstanding of my request to mdijon for clarification. I'm trying not to put forward new opinions, when we still have so many unanswered points still outstanding.

I started with Ken's questions, your answer to those, and then my answer to your answer.

Mdigon was not part of the sequence that I was following (at least all he did was reiterate what I said, which means he added nothing to the discussion).

It makes me believe that you are either (1) dismissing what I have to say (which is your right) or (2) deliberately changing the subject in order not to deal with my answer. Neither of those responses furthers the discussion.

What questions do you have that haven't been answered? It seems to me that people have found answers, you simply don't like them (again, your right, but it is our right to say that we answered them).

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

OR, to quote from my departmental handbook:

The most impeccable and well—prepared content and the most exciting and suitable method will fail as RE unless plugged into what is its central purpose. What is essential, helpful or inspiring for any one pupil or class will very enormously and therefore any effective RE is dependent on the teacher’s skills and perceptiveness within a particular situation. There has to be a freshness about teaching; It cannot be pre—arranged and pre—packaged. Teaching can only be alive in the present moment, It is time—consuming to try to make stale bread palatable; why bother when fresh bread is available?

Whitehead believes, ‘For successful education there must always be a certain freshness in the knowledge dealt with. Knowledge does not keep any better than fish’ He goes onto say that all knowledge must come to the students ‘just drawn out of the sea and with the freshness of its immediate importance’. He sees the process of teaching as nothing less than a way of life in which imagination is the sine qua non.

‘Imagination is a contagious disease. It cannot be measured by the yard, or weighed by the pound, and then delivered to the students. It can only be communicated by a faculty whose members themselves wear their learning with imagination. . . . Imagination cannot be acquired once and for all, and then kept indefinitely in an ice box to be produced periodically in stated quantities. The learned and imaginative life is a way of living, and is not an article of commerce.

In helping pupils to explore the inner life it is not enough simply to hand on stories and doctrines from religious traditions, These sprang from human experience and were later preserved in words yet the experiences cannot be contained in words alone. Passing on the doctrine or story without the experience is second-hand and unreal for most people yet it is not our role as educators to convert children to a religion. What we can do is to help pupils explore and to question such experiences, as others have had to, in order to try to relate them to their own experiences.

[ 16. July 2010, 18:02: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The point is that we start with the questions, with the issues that ignite the enthusiasm of teenagers. Then, fired up, they go and find out the 'content' to help them pursue the issue, e.g. if it's the Holocaust and Schlomo, we watch extracts from the film 'Escape from Sobibor' (I think I know the entire film off by heart now.)
The question that remains is why should it be given the slot and the resources for "religious education" if it is about what interests teenagers rather than about religion, and if they are being left to educate themselves rather than being educated?

And that's without the obvious moral question about the fairness of depriving them of important but uninteresting aspects of the subject.
You've said the before and Iii have answered t before.

Last thing I recall you were complaining that by disagreeing with you Marvin and I were against democracy.

I don't recall you actually addressing this point (or for that matter a large number of other points put to you).

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

The role of the educator is to equip people with the skills of lifelong learning so s/he helps them to find out the things s/he needs to know.

Oh come on. That's just jargon. Being good at looking things up, while a useful skill, is not the same as being an educated person.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

To do the work for them, to tell them, is 'instruction' not education.

I believe it's usually called "teaching".

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

The point about following their interests is that they are starting point, not an end point.

The point is that it is a start point as far away as possible from any worthwhile endpoint.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

'Depriving them' of uninteresing content is better than them switching off and being bored. That would be to deprive them of good RE.

Is there not even some part of you that sees the contempt for your subject in this? You'd rather throw out anything that didn't fit their passing fancy than risk boring them? Why is it worse for a child to be bored than ignorant?

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

Did you do a PGCE and did it include the philophy7 of education? Your posts suggests that you have never considered the purpose of education.

Didn't take you long to resort to ad hominems again.

This seems a particularly odd one when I have quoted some of my favourite philosophers in this thread.

(By a strange coincidence I was reading R.S.Peters' essay on the aims of education on the way to work this morning, so your timing here seems particularly poor.)

[ 16. July 2010, 21:12: Message edited by: oldandrew ]

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
I started with Ken's questions, your answer to those, and then my answer to your answer.

Mdigon was not part of the sequence that I was following (at least all he did was reiterate what I said, which means he added nothing to the discussion).

I suggest you go back and look. Your straw man came in response to something I said to him.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

What questions do you have that haven't been answered?

Do you want me to work backwards?

We have midijon failing to say which of his contradictory statements he is withdrawing and refusing to clarify how he can simultaneously accuse me of not answering and giving answers he doesn't understand.

We have no explanation from leo as to why a course that isn't based on what is important to know in religion should be called religious education.

We also have ken just "forgetting" to back up his accusations about my conduct with any actual justifications.

And that's just this evening. There are major, more relevant issues, from earlier in this thread that have barely been touched. I don't think we have ever truly established what leo and Phil A actually teach in their lessons instead of content (although admittedly this is more a problem of too many contradictory answers rather than no answers). I can't think of a single straight answer from midijon, even when asked who he disagrees with. There's major issues about the impact of the Reformation that haven't been dealt with properly. There's still a significant issue of the evidence from psychology about thinking skills. More personally, I still retain a significant curiosity about leo's claims about RE teachers' qualifications which were directly contradicted by what he wrote on another thread, and his use of material from another website without acknowledging it.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
I suggest you go back and look. Your straw man came in response to something I said to him.

....or her.

I don't actually know that he's a bloke.

Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

We have midijon failing to say which of his contradictory statements he is withdrawing and refusing to clarify how he can simultaneously accuse me of not answering and giving answers he doesn't understand.

If you speak in a way that someone doesn't understand you, then they really don't have an answer. He's trying to clarify himself as best he can.

quote:
We have no explanation from leo as to why a course that isn't based on what is important to know in religion should be called religious education.

Because that is what the state calls it. Would renaming it philosophy or applied thinking work better?

quote:
And that's just this evening. There are major, more relevant issues, from earlier in this thread that have barely been touched. I don't think we have ever truly established what leo and Phil A actually teach in their lessons instead of content (although admittedly this is more a problem of too many contradictory answers rather than no answers).

Then that's a problem of you not liking the answer. If I ask a student what is 1+1 and they tell me a green frog, then they've given me an answer (whether or not the answer makes sense is a totally different thing...)

quote:
I can't think of a single straight answer from midijon, even when asked who he disagrees with.

I don't think that midijon has a set answer to what RE or education is about. He's trying to find an answer in what we are discussing.

quote:
There's major issues about the impact of the Reformation that haven't been dealt with properly.

I believe that I stated that it can and should be covered in World History. It is in Texas. World History Standards Texas

quote:
There's still a significant issue of the evidence from psychology about thinking skills.

Which I would like to know where EXACTLY you stand on that. Either you can teach a child skills that can be generalized or you can't. You seem to waffle back and forth. At one point you say that students need to know content and not process, and then you say that processes should be taught. It's confusing. (and yes, that's IMHO)

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
I don't think that midijon has a set answer to what RE or education is about. He's trying to find an answer in what we are discussing.

Exactly right.

oldandrew, most of your last posts are all about the process of an argument - I'm honestly just seeking a discussion and trying to clarify what I think as we go through. I've set out what I think at the moment in several posts above on the general points about thinking skills and education. If you want to engage, why not clarify your own position as a coherent whole along similar lines and we can take it from there? Then we can focus on the content of a discussion rather than the detail of its process.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

We have midijon failing to say which of his contradictory statements he is withdrawing and refusing to clarify how he can simultaneously accuse me of not answering and giving answers he doesn't understand.
If you speak in a way that someone doesn't understand you, then they really don't have an answer. He's trying to clarify himself as best he can.

By changing the subject? That's not clarifying anything.

It wasn't as if the original question was that complicated.

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

quote:
We have no explanation from leo as to why a course that isn't based on what is important to know in religion should be called religious education.

Because that is what the state calls it. Would renaming it philosophy or applied thinking work better?

Apart from the fact that it does not appear to be either philosophy or applied thinking, this misses the point in that we don't have a situation where the subject was created, resourced, legislated for, and then named badly. We have a situation where one subject has been replaced with another, but without openly admitting the change.

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

quote:
And that's just this evening. There are major, more relevant issues, from earlier in this thread that have barely been touched. I don't think we have ever truly established what leo and Phil A actually teach in their lessons instead of content (although admittedly this is more a problem of too many contradictory answers rather than no answers).

Then that's a problem of you not liking the answer. If I ask a student what is 1+1 and they tell me a green frog, then they've given me an answer (whether or not the answer makes sense is a totally different thing...)

You appear to be confusing answering and responding. An answer is a response which fits the question. So for instance, if you ask what is the square root of 169 and your student replies "I'm getting my hair cut tomorrow", you wouldn't say they have answered wrongly, you would say they didn't answer the question, and you might even ask them again to answer it.

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

quote:
I can't think of a single straight answer from midijon, even when asked who he disagrees with.

I don't think that midijon has a set answer to what RE or education is about. He's trying to find an answer in what we are discussing.

Way back in one of his early contributions he explicitly took sides, saying he agreed with every word of Justinian's explanation of how everything relevant about the Reformation could be covered in one line, that "old arguments" are not part of religious education, that there are easily found goals of RE, and that my suggestion we teach about religion in religious education was "religious instruction" or "religious studies".

Yet his response to the other side of the argument has been to claim he doesn't understand, to claim he doesn't have a view, to redefine terms unilaterally, and to change the subject.

Which of those opinions he agreed with at the start do you think he has defended, or engaged with the opposing position on?

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

quote:
There's major issues about the impact of the Reformation that haven't been dealt with properly.

I believe that I stated that it can and should be covered in World History. It is in Texas. World History Standards Texas

The point is why? How can study of religion in this country, shaped as it is by the Reformation, leave the Reformation to history lessons?

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

quote:
There's still a significant issue of the evidence from psychology about thinking skills.

Which I would like to know where EXACTLY you stand on that. Either you can teach a child skills that can be generalized or you can't.

What kind of ridiculous false dichotomy is that?

Of course there are general skills that can be taught. I would say literacy and numeracy are skills that can be applied widely. But, of course, while they can be used generally, they are taught specifically and, even when used more generally, they involve subject knowledge.

The question at hand is the more narrow one, can we meaningfully teach generic "thinking skills" (cognitive capacities not dependent on subject knowledge) in place of subject knowledge.

My answer, and the one that appears to have been has been accepted in psychology, is no. For some reason every effort has been made to change the question so that "thinking skills" has been turned into 100 other things that blatantly do exist and nobody has denied. Study skills, subject knowledge, content of existing academic disciplines, and unteachable features of cognition, are not thinking skills in the conventional (i.e. generic) sense. Moreover, thinking skills that arise from gaining subject knowledge cannot be taught in place of subject knowledge.

There has been very little effort to engage with discussion of any of the things that do fit the description. The only one I recall was (I think) Anti-Social Alto's discussion of creativity, and that was to point out an article saying it couldn't be taught.

On top of that, this has also been a huge digression in that the more imaginative the interpretation of "thinking skills" has become, the more unlikely that they in any way resemble something that can be taught by RE teachers.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
I don't think that midijon has a set answer to what RE or education is about. He's trying to find an answer in what we are discussing.
Exactly right.

oldandrew, most of your last posts are all about the process of an argument - I'm honestly just seeking a discussion and trying to clarify what I think as we go through.

Enough.

You are not some kind of undecided independent trying to clarify arguments.

You laid out which side you were on here: http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=014493;p=4#000199

And just to be clear, I am not saying that the fact youu took sides once means that you are not open to persuasion. However it does mean that I have completely lost patience with your repeated efforts to change the subject whenever your side is under pressure, your sudden inability to understand people who are on the other side of the argument, and your inability to give straight answers about your position.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
However it does mean that I have completely lost patience with your repeated efforts to change the subject whenever your side is under pressure, your sudden inability to understand people who are on the other side of the argument, and your inability to give straight answers about your position.

oldandrew, I find this statement fascinating. From the phrasing, you seem to be trying to win an argument here, rather than discuss and debate an issue - to explore ideas and understand the thinking of other people. Some of these posts are trying to control the argument to only follow one particular strand. As I understand it, threads are allowed to develop as they do on the Ship - the one I recently started on the role of the priest is following a completely different path to the one I hoped, but that's the Ship. It's not my thread and where it's going is interesting.

Having followed this thread, you seem to be taking on the way that religious education syllabus is set. Is it that you're really railing against the implementation of functional skills and the skills based changes in the national curriculum?

When I have seen thinking skills taught, it has been specifically to teach skills like:

research, ways of checking that what they are looking up is relevant, and provides the level of information they require for the task;
observation tasks, looking at pictures and spotting all the details that give you clues to more information - same with written piece of work - identifying explicit and implicit information;
classification - how do you put things into groups;
linking things together - so what is the link between some objects, pictures;
how to use the spider diagrams and different techniques for using them
note taking

This is from memory. Part of the reason I haven't got involved in this before is I haven't had time to go and look up the information from when we discussed it a couple of years ago.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
However it does mean that I have completely lost patience with your repeated efforts to change the subject whenever your side is under pressure, your sudden inability to understand people who are on the other side of the argument, and your inability to give straight answers about your position.
oldandrew, I find this statement fascinating. From the phrasing, you seem to be trying to win an argument here, rather than discuss and debate an issue - to explore ideas and understand the thinking of other people.

Once more someone decides to talk about me not the issues.

I find the best way to explore how people are thinking is to see what happens when you challenge their views. That said, I am far more interested in the issues than the people.

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

Some of these posts are trying to control the argument to only follow one particular strand.

As I understand it, threads are allowed to develop as they do on the Ship - the one I recently started on the role of the priest is following a completely different path to the one I hoped, but that's the Ship. It's not my thread and where it's going is interesting.

I don't care about the direction of the thread as a whole; I can ignore posts that don't interest me. I object to people ignoring my arguments by unilaterally changing the subject in the middle of a discussion with me. I found it particularly objectionable when it is done by redefining words without saying that you've done so.

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

Having followed this thread, you seem to be taking on the way that religious education syllabus is set. Is it that you're really railing against the implementation of functional skills and the skills based changes in the national curriculum?

Strangely enough I don't feel the need to classify educational ideas by which official documents produced by defunct quangoes have adopted them.

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

When I have seen thinking skills taught, it has been specifically to teach skills like:
research, ways of checking that what they are looking up is relevant, and provides the level of information they require for the task;
observation tasks, looking at pictures and spotting all the details that give you clues to more information - same with written piece of work - identifying explicit and implicit information;
classification - how do you put things into groups;
linking things together - so what is the link between some objects, pictures;
how to use the spider diagrams and different techniques for using them
note taking

This is from memory. Part of the reason I haven't got involved in this before is I haven't had time to go and look up the information from when we discussed it a couple of years ago.

Well some of those, looking things up, putting things on diagrams and note taking, aren't really thinking are they?

The others seem to be pretty much standard thinking skills stuff, and the already stated objection, that these skills are not transferable between disciplines, remains.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

oldandrew, I really don't view it as a matter of taking sides. That particular post of Justinian's was one that I agreed with at the time. I'm prefectly persuadable out of that, and I don't expect to agree with everything else he says on the thread, or with the other posters that you might view as being on that "side". You will see that I've taken issue with Leo and PhilA and (even) Ken at some point. Yet none of them viewed this as me "siding" against them.

It's a discussion thread.

I really have been trying to clarify what I think, and my use of terms, rather than "unilaterally changing the subject" - which isn't terribly well defined to start with.

Neither do I view myself as an independent arbiter of any sort - except as regards my ability to form my own view.

Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

quote:
Because that is what the state calls it. Would renaming it philosophy or applied thinking work better?

Apart from the fact that it does not appear to be either philosophy or applied thinking, this misses the point in that we don't have a situation where the subject was created, resourced, legislated for, and then named badly. We have a situation where one subject has been replaced with another, but without openly admitting the change.

Then I have a question for you. When was the change made and legislated? I assume that there are governmental bodies (or just one) either instituted the change (most likely) or agreed to the change.

quote:
You appear to be confusing answering and responding. An answer is a response which fits the question. So for instance, if you ask what is the square root of 169 and your student replies "I'm getting my hair cut tomorrow", you wouldn't say they have answered wrongly, you would say they didn't answer the question, and you might even ask them again to answer it.

Depends upon the student. I work with many special needs students and sometimes what they tell me doesn't make sense from my point of view, but it does from theirs. When I get answers that don't make sense I ask them why they said that or to explain how they got the answer to me. (and if a student can connect the square root of 169 and getting his hair cut then they obviously are more intelligent that it seems! [Biased]

)

quote:
The point is why? How can study of religion in this country, shaped as it is by the Reformation, leave the Reformation to history lessons?

The Reformation is part and parcel of an age of thinking that lead to the creation of Nation-States which are the precursors to the current political makeup of Europe. Why wouldn't you teach something that lead to wars and political upheaval in history class?

quote:
Of course there are general skills that can be taught. I would say literacy and numeracy are skills that can be applied widely. But, of course, while they can be used generally, they are taught specifically and, even when used more generally, they involve subject knowledge.

Of course using a skill means using content. The question is whether or not you test the content or the skill.

quote:
The question at hand is the more narrow one, can we meaningfully teach generic "thinking skills" (cognitive capacities not dependent on subject knowledge) in place of subject knowledge.

My answer, and the one that appears to have been has been accepted in psychology, is no. For some reason every effort has been made to change the question so that "thinking skills" has been turned into 100 other things that blatantly do exist and nobody has denied. Study skills, subject knowledge, content of existing academic disciplines, and unteachable features of cognition, are not thinking skills in the conventional (i.e. generic) sense. Moreover, thinking skills that arise from gaining subject knowledge cannot be taught in place of subject knowledge.

There has been very little effort to engage with discussion of any of the things that do fit the description. The only one I recall was (I think) Anti-Social Alto's discussion of creativity, and that was to point out an article saying it couldn't be taught.

On top of that, this has also been a huge digression in that the more imaginative the interpretation of "thinking skills" has become, the more unlikely that they in any way resemble something that can be taught by RE teachers.

Teaching study skills is akin to teaching creativity?

So if I teach a student how to work through a text and how to work through a set of questions attached to the text in order to be able to select the correct question, I'm teaching something that can't be taught?

I agree that creativity is something either people have or they don't. Study Skills and Comprehension Skills can (and are regularly) directly taught to students.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
I agree that creativity is something either people have or they don't. Study Skills and Comprehension Skills can (and are regularly) directly taught to students.

Do you think so? Isn't creativity actually a set of different skills - one could be creative in terms of writing music, but utterly unable to be what people call creative in coming up with unusual solutions to practical problems. In the former case, I've seen people develop the ability to write music that was less formulaic than they previously were writing, and in the latter I think people can probably learn from watching.

I guess one could argue that those are specific applications, but there's an underlying "creativity driver" that you either have or don't have - but perhaps if you develop it in enough specific areas it starts to have a knock-on effect?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
I agree that creativity is something either people have or they don't. Study Skills and Comprehension Skills can (and are regularly) directly taught to students.

I'm not sure about this either: I've been at both the giving and receiving ends of creative writing workshops, and I still don't know if what I'm doing is increasing my knowledge of the craft so I can express myself better and differently, or whether I'm actually being more creative.

Creativity can be crushed, for sure, so it can certainly be encouraged; whether that's the same as teaching it as a skill to someone who hasn't got it to start with, I don't know.

You could also argue that, as human beings (whether or not you believe we were created in God's image) and therefore innately creative, everyone has some capacity which can be explicitly trained.

Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
I agree that creativity is something either people have or they don't. Study Skills and Comprehension Skills can (and are regularly) directly taught to students.
Do you think so? Isn't creativity actually a set of different skills - one could be creative in terms of writing music, but utterly unable to be what people call creative in coming up with unusual solutions to practical problems. In the former case, I've seen people develop the ability to write music that was less formulaic than they previously were writing, and in the latter I think people can probably learn from watching.

I guess one could argue that those are specific applications, but there's an underlying "creativity driver" that you either have or don't have - but perhaps if you develop it in enough specific areas it starts to have a knock-on effect?

I'm separating what can be taught through direct instruction and what can only be demonstrated and practiced.

If someone practiced being creative, then they would probably become more creative over time. Can a teacher directly teach someone how to be creative, not really. Can you test creativity? Not with any reliability (IMHO).

Can I directly teach the thinking skill of summarizing? Yes. I can show them the steps using a text, then have them show me the steps using a different text. Can I test their ability to summarize using the steps that I've taught? Yes.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
oldandrew, I really don't view it as a matter of taking sides. That particular post of Justinian's was one that I agreed with at the time.

And it was one that was highly partisan.

The point is not that I think it is unnacceptable for you to have views, or that you might be too stuck in your ways to change your mind. I am just fed up with giving you the benefit of the doubt over the way you change the subject or redefine the terms when the debate isn't going your way.

Your alleged neutrality is no more of an excuse for a subject change than your alleged confusion. How about actually answering some of the points?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Then I have a question for you. When was the change made and legislated? I assume that there are governmental bodies (or just one) either instituted the change (most likely) or agreed to the change.

Education is a bureaucracy. These changes don't happen in a planned or coherent way. Usually this sort of dumbing down occurs through a mix of incoherent aims being adopted in the official literature, and the official or unoffical promotion of fads.

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

quote:
You appear to be confusing answering and responding. An answer is a response which fits the question. So for instance, if you ask what is the square root of 169 and your student replies "I'm getting my hair cut tomorrow", you wouldn't say they have answered wrongly, you would say they didn't answer the question, and you might even ask them again to answer it.

Depends upon the student. I work with many special needs students and sometimes what they tell me doesn't make sense from my point of view, but it does from theirs. When I get answers that don't make sense I ask them why they said that or to explain how they got the answer to me. (and if a student can connect the square root of 169 and getting his hair cut then they obviously are more intelligent that it seems! )

Oh for pity's sake.

The obvious explanation that they are ignoring you, doesn't spring to mind?

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

The Reformation is part and parcel of an age of thinking that lead to the creation of Nation-States which are the precursors to the current political makeup of Europe. Why wouldn't you teach something that lead to wars and political upheaval in history class?

Are you now arguing against the strawman that I think the Reformation is not important in history, as opposed to my actual position that it is important in religion?

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

Of course using a skill means using content. The question is whether or not you test the content or the skill.

Normally you'd do both at once. Again, knowledge and thinking cannot be separated.

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

quote:
The question at hand is the more narrow one, can we meaningfully teach generic "thinking skills" (cognitive capacities not dependent on subject knowledge) in place of subject knowledge.

My answer, and the one that appears to have been has been accepted in psychology, is no. For some reason every effort has been made to change the question so that "thinking skills" has been turned into 100 other things that blatantly do exist and nobody has denied. Study skills, subject knowledge, content of existing academic disciplines, and unteachable features of cognition, are not thinking skills in the conventional (i.e. generic) sense. Moreover, thinking skills that arise from gaining subject knowledge cannot be taught in place of subject knowledge.

There has been very little effort to engage with discussion of any of the things that do fit the description. The only one I recall was (I think) Anti-Social Alto's discussion of creativity, and that was to point out an article saying it couldn't be taught.

On top of that, this has also been a huge digression in that the more imaginative the interpretation of "thinking skills" has become, the more unlikely that they in any way resemble something that can be taught by RE teachers.
Teaching study skills is akin to teaching creativity?

So if I teach a student how to work through a text and how to work through a set of questions attached to the text in order to be able to select the correct question, I'm teaching something that can't be taught?

I agree that creativity is something either people have or they don't. Study Skills and Comprehension Skills can (and are regularly) directly taught to students.

You are making no sense here at all.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The point is that we start with the questions, with the issues that ignite the enthusiasm of teenagers. Then, fired up, they go and find out the 'content' to help them pursue the issue, e.g. if it's the Holocaust and Schlomo, we watch extracts from the film 'Escape from Sobibor' (I think I know the entire film off by heart now.)
The question that remains is why should it be given the slot and the resources for "religious education" if it is about what interests teenagers rather than about religion, and if they are being left to educate themselves rather than being educated?

Because it is about the RELIGIOUS interests of teenagers.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The point is that we start with the questions, with the issues that ignite the enthusiasm of teenagers. Then, fired up, they go and find out the 'content' to help them pursue the issue, e.g. if it's the Holocaust and Schlomo, we watch extracts from the film 'Escape from Sobibor' (I think I know the entire film off by heart now.)
The question that remains is why should it be given the slot and the resources for "religious education" if it is about what interests teenagers rather than about religion, and if they are being left to educate themselves rather than being educated?

And that's without the obvious moral question about the fairness of depriving them of important but uninteresting aspects of the subject.
You've said the before and Iii have answered t before.
Last thing I recall you were complaining that by disagreeing with you Marvin and I were against democracy.

What I said was on the lines of: RE is the most democratic subject in the curriculum in that an elected government draws up an education act and then every local authority convenes a group of about 25 people, drawn from elected councillors, reps. of the C of E, of the free and Roman Catholic churches, of the other religions/world views - mostly Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Humanism, and Sikhism, and teachers drawn fro both primary and secondary phases.

Where there is such democratic concensus, why on earth should we seriously listen to OldAndrew and Marvin, who have no background, qualificatons or experience in the subject?

As for following students' interests, the QCDA website, quoted earlier, explains: RE helps to develop successful learners by asking life’s largest questions and presenting interesting, important conceptual challenges to pupils. Learning about religion and learning from religion has the capacity to motivate and empower pupils, enabling them to enjoy and value learning.
Now I challenge you to produce a scheme of work and a few lesson plans on the Reformation that 'has the capacity to motivate' and to 'interest' teenagers.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Because it is about the RELIGIOUS interests of teenagers.

Which are what exactly?

Last time I looked one's religious interests were not dependent on one's age.

Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Then I have a question for you. When was the change made and legislated? I assume that there are governmental bodies (or just one) either instituted the change (most likely) or agreed to the change.
Education is a bureaucracy. These changes don't happen in a planned or coherent way. Usually this sort of dumbing down occurs through a mix of incoherent aims being adopted in the official literature, and the official or unoffical promotion of fads.

So what people want to know now are fads. What people wanted to know then is education. Got it.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

quote:
You appear to be confusing answering and responding. An answer is a response which fits the question. So for instance, if you ask what is the square root of 169 and your student replies "I'm getting my hair cut tomorrow", you wouldn't say they have answered wrongly, you would say they didn't answer the question, and you might even ask them again to answer it.

Depends upon the student. I work with many special needs students and sometimes what they tell me doesn't make sense from my point of view, but it does from theirs. When I get answers that don't make sense I ask them why they said that or to explain how they got the answer to me. (and if a student can connect the square root of 169 and getting his hair cut then they obviously are more intelligent that it seems! )
Oh for pity's sake.

The obvious explanation that they are ignoring you, doesn't spring to mind?

Yep. But challenging them is much more fun and amusing than yelling at them. And better for my blood pressure.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

The Reformation is part and parcel of an age of thinking that lead to the creation of Nation-States which are the precursors to the current political makeup of Europe. Why wouldn't you teach something that lead to wars and political upheaval in history class?
Are you now arguing against the strawman that I think the Reformation is not important in history, as opposed to my actual position that it is important in religion?

You seem to imply that it is the most important part of teaching religion. I had been happily an Anglican (sort of [Biased]

) for 15 years without needing to know about the Reformation, and I know many people who are Anglicans their whole lives without caring about it.

The Reformation is important to church history not the day to day application of religious thought on one's daily life.

How does the Reformation affect your personal religious life?

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

Of course using a skill means using content. The question is whether or not you test the content or the skill.
Normally you'd do both at once. Again, knowledge and thinking cannot be separated.

You can test that way, agreed.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

quote:
The question at hand is the more narrow one, can we meaningfully teach generic "thinking skills" (cognitive capacities not dependent on subject knowledge) in place of subject knowledge.

My answer, and the one that appears to have been has been accepted in psychology, is no. For some reason every effort has been made to change the question so that "thinking skills" has been turned into 100 other things that blatantly do exist and nobody has denied. Study skills, subject knowledge, content of existing academic disciplines, and unteachable features of cognition, are not thinking skills in the conventional (i.e. generic) sense. Moreover, thinking skills that arise from gaining subject knowledge cannot be taught in place of subject knowledge.

There has been very little effort to engage with discussion of any of the things that do fit the description. The only one I recall was (I think) Anti-Social Alto's discussion of creativity, and that was to point out an article saying it couldn't be taught.

On top of that, this has also been a huge digression in that the more imaginative the interpretation of "thinking skills" has become, the more unlikely that they in any way resemble something that can be taught by RE teachers.
Teaching study skills is akin to teaching creativity?

So if I teach a student how to work through a text and how to work through a set of questions attached to the text in order to be able to select the correct question, I'm teaching something that can't be taught?

I agree that creativity is something either people have or they don't. Study Skills and Comprehension Skills can (and are regularly) directly taught to students.
You are making no sense here at all.

Retry: I can teach a student to work through a text. I can then teach them to work through a set of multiple choice questions over that text in a way that leads them to select the correct answer to the question.

I cannot directly instruct someone in how to be creative, I can only show them creative things and have them practice being creative. There is no way for me to teach them a series of steps that would lead to creativity.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
What I said was on the lines of: RE is the most democratic subject in the curriculum in that an elected government draws up an education act and then every local authority convenes a group of about 25 people, drawn from elected councillors, reps. of the C of E, of the free and Roman Catholic churches, of the other religions/world views - mostly Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Humanism, and Sikhism, and teachers drawn fro both primary and secondary phases.

Well no that's not what you said.

But even if you had been you'll have a hard time to convince me that a committee of local worthies is "democracy".

It also makes a mockery of your constant refrain about how non-RE teachers can't possibly have opinions worth listening to.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

As for following students' interests, the QCDA website, quoted earlier, explains: RE helps to develop successful learners by asking life’s largest questions and presenting interesting, important conceptual challenges to pupils. Learning about religion and learning from religion has the capacity to motivate and empower pupils, enabling them to enjoy and value learning.

So? Plenty of teenagers would enjoy and value learning how to break into cars. It doesn't mean that tax payers should fund it, or that it should replace the teaching of basic knowledge.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

Now I challenge you to produce a scheme of work and a few lesson plans on the Reformation that 'has the capacity to motivate' and to 'interest' teenagers.

Why would I do that?

I am in favour of designing a curriculum on the basis of what they should know, not what somebody thinks is the sort of thing that might interest them. I don't want them to know about the Reformation because it's what they are interested in, it's because it's what they should know if they are to understand even the most basic thing about religion in this country. Whether they are more interested in education or ignorance is neither here nor there, schools are there to educate not entertain.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

The reason we have the National Curriculum we have got is that a number of teachers and experts in their fields decided what it was necessary for pupils to know. And that worked out so well, didn't it?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

So what people want to know now are fads. What people wanted to know then is education. Got it.

I use "fad" to describe something that is fashionable but worthless. Are you really denying the existence of educational fads?

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

quote:
You appear to be confusing answering and responding. An answer is a response which fits the question. So for instance, if you ask what is the square root of 169 and your student replies "I'm getting my hair cut tomorrow", you wouldn't say they have answered wrongly, you would say they didn't answer the question, and you might even ask them again to answer it.
Depends upon the student. I work with many special needs students and sometimes what they tell me doesn't make sense from my point of view, but it does from theirs. When I get answers that don't make sense I ask them why they said that or to explain how they got the answer to me. (and if a student can connect the square root of 169 and getting his hair cut then they obviously are more intelligent that it seems! )
Oh for pity's sake.

The obvious explanation that they are ignoring you, doesn't spring to mind?
Yep. But challenging them is much more fun and amusing than yelling at them. And better for my blood pressure.

So just to check, your concept of an answer includes being deliberately ignored, which is something you advocate tolerating?

I guess that would explain why we differ on whether my questions have been answered

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

quote:

Are you now arguing against the strawman that I think the Reformation is not important in history, as opposed to my actual position that it is important in religion?
You seem to imply that it is the most important part of teaching religion.

Nope, just that it is utterly basic to knowledge of religion in this country.

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

I had been happily an Anglican (sort of ) for 15 years without needing to know about the Reformation, and I know many people who are Anglicans their whole lives without caring about it.

My immediate thought here is "then maybe they shouldn't be Anglicans". The test of whether knowledge is important or not, is not the existence of people who form opinions without it. There will always be people whose views are based on ignorance, but that is not a point in favour of ignorance.

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

The Reformation is important to church history not the day to day application of religious thought on one's daily life.

How does the Reformation affect your personal religious life?

Are you serious?

It affects where I go to church, how I pray, how I relate to my family's beliefs, who I talk to if I need religious guidance, what I believe (and not just about religion), what I read, my morality and my political beliefs.

You cannot be a Christian in England without the Reformation having affected you, your religion and your culture. The Church is church history.

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

quote:
You are making no sense here at all.
Retry: I can teach a student to work through a text. I can then teach them to work through a set of multiple choice questions over that text in a way that leads them to select the correct answer to the question.

I cannot directly instruct someone in how to be creative, I can only show them creative things and have them practice being creative. There is no way for me to teach them a series of steps that would lead to creativity.

When I said it made no sense, I meant, it did not seem to follow on from anything I said. It is just bafflingly random.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The reason we have the National Curriculum we have got is that a number of teachers and experts in their fields decided what it was necessary for pupils to know. And that worked out so well, didn't it?

You are a bit behind the times.

The latest version of the curriculum isn't based on identifying what knowledge children should have. It is based on these aims:

It should enable all young people to become:

* successful learners who enjoy learning, make progress and achieve
* confident individuals who are able to live safe, healthy and fulfilling lives
* responsible citizens who make a positive contribution to society.

i.e. ill thought-out waffle about teaching the unteachable that can be used as an excuse for further dumbing down.

Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

So what people want to know now are fads. What people wanted to know then is education. Got it.
I use "fad" to describe something that is fashionable but worthless. Are you really denying the existence of educational fads?

I believe that there are educational cycles. Don't like what's being done now, just wait, the old stuff will be coming back.

quote:
So just to check, your concept of an answer includes being deliberately ignored, which is something you advocate tolerating?

I guess that would explain why we differ on whether my questions have been answered

It's all in one's perspective.

quote:

My immediate thought here is "then maybe they shouldn't be Anglicans". The test of whether knowledge is important or not, is not the existence of people who form opinions without it. There will always be people whose views are based on ignorance, but that is not a point in favour of ignorance.

Strangely enough when I was baptized and confirmed, no one asked me about Martin Luther or the Reformation. We obviously (according to you) need to add that part to what people are asked before becoming members of the church. [Roll Eyes]

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

The Reformation is important to church history not the day to day application of religious thought on one's daily life.

How does the Reformation affect your personal religious life?
Are you serious?

It affects where I go to church, how I pray, how I relate to my family's beliefs, who I talk to if I need religious guidance, what I believe (and not just about religion), what I read, my morality and my political beliefs.

You cannot be a Christian in England without the Reformation having affected you, your religion and your culture. The Church is church history.

So RE should be teaching about The Church of England's history instead of current religious thought in the country?

What if I'm Jewish? Should my children have to learn about a religion that I don't believe in or are raising my children to be? What if I'm atheist? Pagan? What if I just don't care about any religion?

quote:
When I said it made no sense, I meant, it did not seem to follow on from anything I said. It is just bafflingly random.

To you maybe, but not to others reading.

Edit (Sings Someday I will learn how to spell...Maybe not...)

[ 17. July 2010, 15:27: Message edited by: PataLeBon ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The reason we have the National Curriculum we have got is that a number of teachers and experts in their fields decided what it was necessary for pupils to know. And that worked out so well, didn't it?
You are a bit behind the times.

The latest version of the curriculum isn't based on identifying what knowledge children should have. It is based on these aims:

It should enable all young people to become:

* successful learners who enjoy learning, make progress and achieve
* confident individuals who are able to live safe, healthy and fulfilling lives
* responsible citizens who make a positive contribution to society.

i.e. ill thought-out waffle about teaching the unteachable that can be used as an excuse for further dumbing down.

You are also behind the times. The aims you quote are from New Labour's 'Every Child Matters' agenda. That informed the Rose Report and the revised primary and secondary curriculums which didn't get passed before parliament was dissolved.

There is talk of Michael Gove reducing/rewriting the national Curriculum but that has not happened yet so the top-heavy curriculum of the last Tory government, as modified by Labour BEFORE Every Child Matters, still stands.

[ 17. July 2010, 15:59: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Because it is about the RELIGIOUS interests of teenagers.
Which are what exactly?

Last time I looked one's religious interests were not dependent on one's age.

Then maybe you didn't look hard enough. Spend any time around teenagers discussing ultimate questions about the meaning and purpose of life and you will see that different age-groups tend to be excited about different things.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
schools are there to educate not entertain.

Since when did anyone learn anything unless they found it fun and interesting?

Your view of 'education' seems to be entirely based on 'facts. Who selects the facts that are important and the ones that aren't, given that polymaths are few on the ground these days as the knowledge explosion has been exponential.

Are you at all interested in the development of young people or do you see them merely as tabula rasa to be filled up with 'facts'?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

The Reformation is important to church history not the day to day application of religious thought on one's daily life.

How does the Reformation affect your personal religious life?
Are you serious?

It affects where I go to church, how I pray, how I relate to my family's beliefs, who I talk to if I need religious guidance, what I believe (and not just about religion), what I read, my morality and my political beliefs.

You cannot be a Christian in England without the Reformation having affected you, your religion and your culture. The Church is church history.

So what? The majority of our pupils are not Christian. The majority of those who profess any religion are likely to be Muslim.

Why should they learn about a squabble in someone else's family. How will this assist in their own spiritual development? (and remember, the aim of RE has always, for over a century, been spiritual development).

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Then I have a question for you. When was the change made and legislated? I assume that there are governmental bodies (or just one) either instituted the change (most likely) or agreed to the change.
Education is a bureaucracy. These changes don't happen in a planned or coherent way. Usually this sort of dumbing down occurs through a mix of incoherent aims being adopted in the official literature, and the official or unoffical promotion of fads.

So what people want to know now are fads. What people wanted to know then is education. Got it.

Indeed. OldAndrew seems to think that helping young people to be confident, safe, responsible etc. is a fad.

Presumably his method of teaching is to knock any confidence out of them, because HE is the expert. Presumably he wants them to be irresponsible, so that he can accuse them of car theft (as he suggested earlier on this page) and generally whinge about 'young people today' and thus keep his position of superior authority.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
It should enable all young people to become:

* successful learners who enjoy learning, make progress and achieve
* confident individuals who are able to live safe, healthy and fulfilling lives
* responsible citizens who make a positive contribution to society.

i.e. ill thought-out waffle about teaching the unteachable that can be used as an excuse for further dumbing down.

You clearly think that these things are 'unteachable'. By which you mean that you are unable to teach them. Are you sure you are in the right job?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
I am in favour of designing a curriculum on the basis of what they should know

So Physical Education should be abolished because that is skills-based more than knowledge-based.

Sports Studies instead?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Because it is about the RELIGIOUS interests of teenagers.
Which are what exactly?

Last time I looked one's religious interests were not dependent on one's age.

You didn't look very hard. Is a five-year old going to be interested in discussions on the differences between PSA and CV?

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
I am in favour of designing a curriculum on the basis of what they should know
So Physical Education should be abolished because that is skills-based more than knowledge-based.

PE should be abolished because it's cruel and unusual punishment, detrimental to self worth, of no benefit physically, and thus a total waste of students' time and taxpayer dollars.

[ 17. July 2010, 17:14: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Because it is about the RELIGIOUS interests of teenagers.
Which are what exactly?

Last time I looked one's religious interests were not dependent on one's age.
You didn't look very hard. Is a five-year old going to be interested in discussions on the differences between PSA and CV?

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
I am in favour of designing a curriculum on the basis of what they should know
So Physical Education should be abolished because that is skills-based more than knowledge-based.
PE should be abolished because it's cruel and unusual punishment, detrimental to self worth, of no benefit physically, and thus a total waste of students' time and taxpayer dollars.

Indeed - I hated PE and tried to forge sick notes to get out of it!

As for 5 year olds, I am sure OldAndrew will come along eventually and tell us that the reformation fascinates them (though he still doesn't say which Reformation, the Protestant one or the catholic one).

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I remember when I was 7 doing a 20-page paper on the filioque. But then I was considered precocious.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
If someone practiced being creative, then they would probably become more creative over time. Can a teacher directly teach someone how to be creative, not really. Can you test creativity? Not with any reliability (IMHO).

Can I directly teach the thinking skill of summarizing? Yes. I can show them the steps using a text, then have them show me the steps using a different text. Can I test their ability to summarize using the steps that I've taught? Yes.

Yes, I can see that distinction. But I think that teaching by example is probably still teaching. Also, I think that one can teach strategies to learn to be self-aware about one's creativity, and to be critical of it and develop strategies for maximizing it. For instance, one can't really teach someone to improvise jazz solos in any way that you can put down on paper - but being exposed to someone who can do it and playing with them for a period really helps. Maybe that can count as teaching? I see the point about objectivity in assessing it, of course.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Teaching study skills is akin to teaching creativity?

So if I teach a student how to work through a text and how to work through a set of questions attached to the text in order to be able to select the correct question, I'm teaching something that can't be taught?

I agree that creativity is something either people have or they don't. Study Skills and Comprehension Skills can (and are regularly) directly taught to students.

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
You are making no sense here at all.

Makes perfect sense to me. Perhaps because of my generalizable comperhension skills that I learnt in RE.

Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I remember when I was 7 doing a 20-page paper on the filioque. But then I was considered precocious.

Did you hand write it or did you use a typewriter?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
How about actually answering some of the points?

Would you believe I've entirely lost sight of them in this trainwreck of a thread.

Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
If someone practiced being creative, then they would probably become more creative over time. Can a teacher directly teach someone how to be creative, not really. Can you test creativity? Not with any reliability (IMHO).

Can I directly teach the thinking skill of summarizing? Yes. I can show them the steps using a text, then have them show me the steps using a different text. Can I test their ability to summarize using the steps that I've taught? Yes.
Yes, I can see that distinction. But I think that teaching by example is probably still teaching. Also, I think that one can teach strategies to learn to be self-aware about one's creativity, and to be critical of it and develop strategies for maximizing it. For instance, one can't really teach someone to improvise jazz solos in any way that you can put down on paper - but being exposed to someone who can do it and playing with them for a period really helps. Maybe that can count as teaching? I see the point about objectivity in assessing it, of course.

I'm making a distinction between what can be directly taught and what can be figured out.

Both are legitimate ways of obtaining knowledge and have been since teaching started. However, in these days of teachers having to prove what they have taught their students, it's more reliable to test what can be directly taught than what can't.

I do believe that my students learn more and understand more when they construct their own knowledge, but some students can get there and some can't.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Or indeed teaching them anything worthwhile at all.
Are these 'worthwhile'?

L7/8/EP Key question: How do people justify their truth claims?
Students will explore sources of authority e.g. religious, scientific, political and legal.

L6/7 Key question: How have people’s practices and lifestyles differed according to their historical and/or cultural context?
Students will relate George Fox and the Society of Friends to the established church of the time and/or study different views, held by Sikh women and youth, about arranged / assisted marriage in Britain from 1960-1980. Why has the Hijjab become an important issue?

L7/8 Key question: How do people differ in their interpretations of religious texts?
Students will analyse opinions of fundamentalists, conservatives and liberals and and evaluate critically both the power and limitations of religious language e.g. how much is religious language metaphorical and how much is it intended to be taken literally? Can humanists value religious metaphors?

L7 Key question: What experiences might make people give up, change or adopt religious belief?
Students will evaluate e.g. Shlomo Schmaltzer’s story of why he became an atheist after his escape from Sobibor.

L6/7 Key question: What explanations for suffering are most convincing?
Students will respond to religious teachings and scientific ideas about evil and suffering e.g. compare Hindu ideas about Karma with genetic inheritance.

They come from my Key Stage 4 syllabus.
No.

I mean they are good questions, but without answers, no they aren't worthwhile in themselves.

Why do questiions always havwe top have answers?

Whenever people asked Jesus a question, he replied with another question - good paedogogy.

Sudhakar Ram: Our education system places undue emphasis on providing answers – often to questions that children do not have. In other words, too often we teach children concepts without context; we need to show them why learning is important. We need to focus on awakening kids’ natural curiosity and teaching them to love learning. A good way to do this is to place children in natural experiences or in games where they can ask questions. In these settings, learning is immediate and strong. Learning can be a structured discovery process, offering students varied learning outcomes – just as our situations and decisions later in life offering different outcomes.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
How about actually answering some of the points?
Would you believe I've entirely lost sight of them in this trainwreck of a thread.

Easily done. The main issue is, and I'd like to hear OldAndrew's view, what is(are) the purpose(s) of education:

The process of gaining knowledge

inculcating forms of proper conduct

acquiring technical competency

preparing people for the world of work

the cultivation of the mind

the instilling of values and principles

the development of skills

the achievement of physical, mental and social development.

to bring about profoundness to a person's emotions

to broaden a person’s perspectives

to lead to a healthier approach of looking at life
???

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
However, in these days of teachers having to prove what they have taught their students, it's more reliable to test what can be directly taught than what can't.

I do believe that my students learn more and understand more when they construct their own knowledge, but some students can get there and some can't.

Certainly I have to accept the first statement I've quoted. However, I was also getting at the idea that students can be taught to figure things out. My example of learning Jazz improvisation works in that one can just figure it out alone, listening to records, or one can figure it out being led along by a master. The latter is faster and easier.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
When I have seen thinking skills taught, it has been specifically to teach skills like:
research, ways of checking that what they are looking up is relevant, and provides the level of information they require for the task;
observation tasks, looking at pictures and spotting all the details that give you clues to more information - same with written piece of work - identifying explicit and implicit information;
classification - how do you put things into groups;
linking things together - so what is the link between some objects, pictures;
how to use the spider diagrams and different techniques for using them
note taking

This is from memory. Part of the reason I haven't got involved in this before is I haven't had time to go and look up the information from when we discussed it a couple of years ago.
Well some of those, looking things up, putting things on diagrams and note taking, aren't really thinking are they?

The others seem to be pretty much standard thinking skills stuff, and the already stated objection, that these skills are not transferable between disciplines, remains.

What makes you say these skills are not transferable?

Spider diagrams or mind maps if that's what you are categorising as drawing diagrams, is all about classifying and organising ideas - which I would have described as thinking. Having learnt how to do them as an adult so I could teach them, I use them when I'm planning schemes of work, when I'm planning a report or extended piece of work, when I'm thinking around how to do something ...

Note taking is a skill - as someone who regularly takes minutes for meetings - it's something you have to think about to do and get the right information down that you need for later. It's also transferable - notes I take during a course or to write an essay or report or minutes are all using the same skills of spotting the important information, making sure that's noted appropriately and accurately, knowing what is unimportant and can be ignored ...

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I'd agree that they all involve thinking also. Notes taken by people who aren't able to think critically about the material they're taking notes from are often not much use. Likewise diagrams drawn by people who don't understand the structure of the information they are displaying. And people looking up information without critical thinking often get it wrong.

Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Study skills, subject knowledge, content of existing academic disciplines, and unteachable features of cognition, are not thinking skills in the conventional (i.e. generic) sense. Moreover, thinking skills that arise from gaining subject knowledge cannot be taught in place of subject knowledge.

There has been very little effort to engage with discussion of any of the things that do fit the description. The only one I recall was (I think) Anti-Social Alto's discussion of creativity, and that was to point out an article saying it couldn't be taught.

Um... actually that article was saying that creativity CAN be taught. Here's another quote from it:

"The good news is that creativity training that aligns with the new science works surprisingly well. The University of Oklahoma, the University of Georgia, and Taiwan’s National Chengchi University each independently conducted a large-scale analysis of such programs. All three teams of scholars concluded that creativity training can have a strong effect. “Creativity can be taught,” says James C. Kaufman, professor at California State University, San Bernardino."

FWIW I am kind of on OldAndrew's side here, although his discussion style is giving me a headache. It sounds like most of the people having this argument are of an age that suggests they were themselves educated the "old-fashioned" way. (Please correct me if I'm wrong about this.)

Being born in the late '70s, I was educated the supposedly empowering, new-fangled way, with people engaging my interest and raising my self-esteem left and right. From first-hand experience I can tell you that it was more misleading than empowering. I'll be happy to give examples if it would be helpful to hear about the real world results.

Are there any other Gen-Xers/Millenials still reading who might talk about their experiences of actually having been educated the new way? It seems like, as the intended beneficiaries of these educational experiments, our opinions might be relevant.

Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
Being born in the late '70s, I was educated the supposedly empowering, new-fangled way, with people engaging my interest and raising my self-esteem left and right. From first-hand experience I can tell you that it was more misleading than empowering. I'll be happy to give examples if it would be helpful to hear about the real world results.

Are there any other Gen-Xers/Millenials still reading who might talk about their experiences of actually having been educated the new way? It seems like, as the intended beneficiaries of these educational experiments, our opinions might be relevant.

I entered school in the mid 70's. I know that I started out in a "new" school, but my mother decided quickly that I was having problems and moved me to a school with more traditional teaching methods. Eventually I ended up back being taught "new" methods, but by then I had a foundation in "old" methods.

Whether or not it worked, is actually a hard question to answer as by the time I was 9, I was diagnosed with what would today be called dyslexia. Neither the "old" way nor the "new" way would have helped me with my problem. What I do know is that the teachers who taught the "old" way were most reluctant to acknowledge or deal with my learning disability and the teachers who taught the "new" way at least acknowledged it, but they were unsure how to deal with it either.

Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :

The only technique that worked for teaching me was passion. If the teacher showed some passion for what he/she taught I tended to be interested and learned from them. Other than that I learned what I wanted and muddled through the rest.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

I believe that there are educational cycles. Don't like what's being done now, just wait, the old stuff will be coming back.

At a political level it appears to be. At the school level it seems nothing changes.

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
So just to check, your concept of an answer includes being deliberately ignored, which is something you advocate tolerating?

I guess that would explain why we differ on whether my questions have been answered
It's all in one's perspective.

I don't think the meaning of commonly used words is simply a matter of perspective. I think ignoring someone's question and answering it are something that can genuinely be distinguished.

Even if it was possible to redefine "answer" in that way though I'm not sure it would do your argument any good. Yes you could say people had "answered" my questions, but the phrase would have become hollow and meaningless and we'd still be in the same situation of important points being ignored.

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

quote:

My immediate thought here is "then maybe they shouldn't be Anglicans". The test of whether knowledge is important or not, is not the existence of people who form opinions without it. There will always be people whose views are based on ignorance, but that is not a point in favour of ignorance.

Strangely enough when I was baptized and confirmed, no one asked me about Martin Luther or the Reformation. We obviously (according to you) need to add that part to what people are asked before becoming members of the church.

I must admit I do think it would fairer if people knew the basic facts about a religious group before they formally comitted themselves to it.

But that's not really the point here. The existence of ignorant Anglicans is no excuse for allowing the education system to leave its students ignorant.

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

So RE should be teaching about The Church of England's history instead of current religious thought in the country?

There's no "instead" in this. Christianity is not recreated from scratch with every new generation. You cannot understand current religious thought without understanding the tradition it appears in.

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

What if I'm Jewish? Should my children have to learn about a religion that I don't believe in or are raising my children to be? What if I'm atheist? Pagan? What if I just don't care about any religion?

Obviously the religious knowledge to be taught in a Jewish school would be different. But the existence of people who with no interest in the major religions of England, can only be an excuse for not teaching religious education at all, it cannot be an excuse for hijacking religious education and replacing it with something other than education about religion, and calling that religious education.

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

quote:
When I said it made no sense, I meant, it did not seem to follow on from anything I said. It is just bafflingly random.
To you maybe, but not to others reading.

Perhaps next time you reply to me you could consider answering in a way that makes logical sense in plain English, rather than in a way that makes a mysterious form of sense to other initiates.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
You are also behind the times. The aims you quote are from New Labour's 'Every Child Matters' agenda. That informed the Rose Report and the revised primary and secondary curriculums which didn't get passed before parliament was dissolved.

I am quoting from the current secondary National Curriculum.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Then maybe you didn't look hard enough. Spend any time around teenagers discussing ultimate questions about the meaning and purpose of life and you will see that different age-groups tend to be excited about different things.

What excites a group of kids and what interests individuals are very different things. If you are now suggesting that you teach what will cause excitement in a group then that is an even lower standard than the one about meeting interests.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
schools are there to educate not entertain.
Since when did anyone learn anything unless they found it fun and interesting?

Since time immemorial.

Humanity would never have survived as a species if we were only capable of learning from highly pleasurable experiences.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

Your view of 'education' seems to be entirely based on 'facts. Who selects the facts that are important and the ones that aren't, given that polymaths are few on the ground these days as the knowledge explosion has been exponential.

Are you at all interested in the development of young people or do you see them merely as tabula rasa to be filled up with 'facts'?

I guess it was inevitable that, having managed to get this discussion back on topic, then all the old straw men would reappear.

As you have already been told many, many times before, knowledge consists of more than memorising a list of facts. Nobody is arguing for rote. The point is that knowledge is indispensible, not that it shouldn't be engaged with.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]So what? The majority of our pupils are not Christian. The majority of those who profess any religion are likely to be Muslim.

Who are you referring to by "our pupils"?

There are still more Christians than Muslims in this country by a long way.

I'm perfectly happy to suggest that if a school is in a community that is strongly Islamic then the relative balance between religions should change. However I think you'd have a hard time arguing that most people in this country don't encounter the Christian religion.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

Why should they learn about a squabble in someone else's family. How will this assist in their own spiritual development? (and remember, the aim of RE has always, for over a century, been spiritual development).

Once again you have confused an official statement with what should be. As you know, I do not agree with the use of vague statements describing personalities as aims in education. The state cannot make anybody "spiritually developed".

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Just to clarify something, the current, as in about to be changed by the new Government, no doubt, secondary history curriculum guidelines include: How the mediaeval church affected people's lives in the history curriculum for year 7 (first year secondary, age 11-12) followed by a unit on Elizabeth I, which includes a section on What did Elizabeth do about the religious problem in England? So why the Church of England exists is covered - in history.

And from here:

quote:
The previous Government accepted recommendations put forward by Sir Jim Rose to implement a new primary curriculum from September 2011. Ministers announced on 7 June 2010 that the Government does not intend to proceed with the new primary curriculum.
<snip>
Ministers have also decided not to proceed with the revised level descriptions which were due to come into force for Key Stage 3 from this September. Secondary schools should therefore continue to use existing level descriptions.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Indeed. OldAndrew seems to think that helping young people to be confident, safe, responsible etc. is a fad.

Removing content from curriculum subjects is a fad. The excuses people use to do it are neither here nor there.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

Presumably his method of teaching is to knock any confidence out of them, because HE is the expert.

My method is to get them to learn. It is an unfortunate fact of human psychology that the less competent people are at something the more they overestimate their ability to do it, and therefore learning often does involve the lowering of confidence. However, this is not an educational aim, it is simply that knowing what you don't know is educationally useful. Certainly we can see the educational consequence of trying to raise self-esteem by lowering standards.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

Presumably he wants them to be irresponsible, so that he can accuse them of car theft (as he suggested earlier on this page) and generally whinge about 'young people today' and thus keep his position of superior authority.

Hmmmm.

Is there anything in here that isn't just a personal attack?

And a pretty odd one from somebody who has repeatedly told us about his own position and expertise.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So Physical Education should be abolished because that is skills-based more than knowledge-based.

I don't mind training pupils to play sport and take exercise.

But calling it "physical education" and giving it a curriculum has always been an absurdity.

[ 18. July 2010, 07:16: Message edited by: oldandrew ]

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Because it is about the RELIGIOUS interests of teenagers.
Which are what exactly?

Last time I looked one's religious interests were not dependent on one's age.
You didn't look very hard. Is a five-year old going to be interested in discussions on the differences between PSA and CV?

Are you seriously arguing that because some material may be beyond 5 year olds then there are universal teenage religious interests?

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

I would've thought certain things - puberty & an interest in sex for two - would be common teenage experiences. [Big Grin]

I'd like to put my two bobs worth in and say I really think it needs to be religious education, not narrow denominational indoctrination of 'De Church say' or 'De Bible say' variety. Remember Milton on Censorship? Now he was a good Protestant and a very decent man but no obscurantist.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Teaching study skills is akin to teaching creativity?

So if I teach a student how to work through a text and how to work through a set of questions attached to the text in order to be able to select the correct question, I'm teaching something that can't be taught?

I agree that creativity is something either people have or they don't. Study Skills and Comprehension Skills can (and are regularly) directly taught to students.

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
You are making no sense here at all.
Makes perfect sense to me. Perhaps because of my generalizable comperhension skills that I learnt in RE.

Well go on.

Explain to us how it in anyway relates to what it was replying to.

Of particular interest I'd love to know:

Where the question in the first line came from.

What working through a text has to do with anything.

Where the implication that reading through a text was teaching something that can't be taught came from.

When PataLeBon expresses agreement about creativity, who is being agreed with?

Why we need to be told that students are taught study skills and comprehension skills.

Like I said, it just seems bafflingly random.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
It should enable all young people to become:

* successful learners who enjoy learning, make progress and achieve
* confident individuals who are able to live safe, healthy and fulfilling lives
* responsible citizens who make a positive contribution to society.

i.e. ill thought-out waffle about teaching the unteachable that can be used as an excuse for further dumbing down.
You clearly think that these things are 'unteachable'. By which you mean that you are unable to teach them.

Oh for pity's sake.

Don't you see how absurd it is to suggest that the content of the curriculum can give everyone a fulfilling life? Or that, by the correct choice of material, a teacher can change 30 personalities at a time to the point where the shy become confident, the irresponsible become responsible, and the lazy enjoy the effort of learning? It represents an utter confusion about what a curriculum is.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
How about actually answering some of the points?
Would you believe I've entirely lost sight of them in this trainwreck of a thread.

Well I guess you achieved what you set out to do then.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Why do questiions always havwe top have answers?

I wasn't saying they do as a matter of logical necessity, but a list of unanswered questions does not make a curriculum. It's what you do with them that counts.

[ 18. July 2010, 13:14: Message edited by: oldandrew ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
You are also behind the times. The aims you quote are from New Labour's 'Every Child Matters' agenda. That informed the Rose Report and the revised primary and secondary curriculums which didn't get passed before parliament was dissolved.
I am quoting from the current secondary National Curriculum.

Which is quoting from Every Child Matters.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]So what? The majority of our pupils are not Christian. The majority of those who profess any religion are likely to be Muslim.

Who are you referring to by "our pupils"?

There are still more Christians than Muslims in this country by a long way.

I'm perfectly happy to suggest that if a school is in a community that is strongly Islamic then the relative balance between religions should change. However I think you'd have a hard time arguing that most people in this country don't encounter the Christian religion.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

Why should they learn about a squabble in someone else's family. How will this assist in their own spiritual development? (and remember, the aim of RE has always, for over a century, been spiritual development).
Once again you have confused an official statement with what should be. As you know, I do not agree with the use of vague statements describing personalities as aims in education. The state cannot make anybody "spiritually developed".

It's the schools in mainly 'white' areas than most need to teach 'other' religions because pupils need to be prepared to live in a multi-cultural world that is beyond their current understanding and experience.

Re - spiritual development, every Education Act has stated that as a primary aim and there is plenty of guidance on how schools can promote it.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
It is an unfortunate fact of human psychology that the less competent people are at something the more they overestimate their ability to do it, and therefore learning often does involve the lowering of confidence. However, this is not an educational aim, it is simply that knowing what you don't know is educationally useful. Certainly we can see the educational consequence of trying to raise self-esteem by lowering standards.

Did they teach you how to use commas?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
It should enable all young people to become:

* successful learners who enjoy learning, make progress and achieve
* confident individuals who are able to live safe, healthy and fulfilling lives
* responsible citizens who make a positive contribution to society.

i.e. ill thought-out waffle about teaching the unteachable that can be used as an excuse for further dumbing down.
You clearly think that these things are 'unteachable'. By which you mean that you are unable to teach them.
Oh for pity's sake.

Don't you see how absurd it is to suggest that the content of the curriculum can give everyone a fulfilling life? Or that, by the correct choice of material, a teacher can change 30 personalities at a time to the point where the shy become confident, the irresponsible become responsible, and the lazy enjoy the effort of learning? It represents an utter confusion about what a curriculum is.

Yes I seriously suggest that - a gradual process though.

As a teacher, YOU are charged with the same aims. All subjects have that in their preface.

The fact that you believe this to be impossible shows the limitations of teaching mere content without any interest in the personal development of students beyond the aim of 'knowing stuff'.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

The point about following their interests is that they are starting point, not an end point.
The point is that it is a start point as far away as possible from any worthwhile endpoint.

The distance matters. researchers such as Goldman, on Religious Development, Kohlberg on moral development, Fowler on spiritual development and Piaget on cognitive development tend to use something to an eight-level-scale and argue that people, of any age, can only understand something that is two stages further on than their current stage.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

My I (another teacher) pop into this conversation?

Personally speaking I 'learn' very little of facts, figures and content. I have a poor working memory and poor retrieval memory, typical of my fellow dyslexics.

I am a quick thinker and problem solver and a good teacher with consistently good results and AST status.

But for me the content is the vehicle for education, not the aim. I also find that when children study things they are genuinely interested in they make great progress - so I much prefer the old, old ways of self directed study with guidance and skills imparted by the teacher.

A basic curriculum, yes - but then freedom for teachers and children to become enthusiastic and enjoy creative freedom.

But then I would, wouldn't I? Having the brain wiring that I do.

<Edited because I am a terrible speller [Smile]

>

[ 18. July 2010, 14:32: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Easily done. The main issue is, and I'd like to hear OldAndrew's view, what is(are) the purpose(s) of education:

To make people smarter.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Well some of those, looking things up, putting things on diagrams and note taking, aren't really thinking are they? The others seem to be pretty much standard thinking skills stuff, and the already stated objection, that these skills are not transferable between disciplines, remains.
What makes you say these skills are not transferable?

The consensus from psychology.

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

Spider diagrams or mind maps if that's what you are categorising as drawing diagrams, is all about classifying and organising ideas - which I would have described as thinking.

You included "classification" as a separate item, so I interpreted this as being more about designing the diagram than the classification.

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

Note taking is a skill - as someone who regularly takes minutes for meetings - it's something you have to think about to do and get the right information down that you need for later.

You now appear to be redefining "thinking skills" as "skills which involve thinking" rather than "skills which are thinking".

Learning to take notes is not what we would normally call learning to think.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Study skills, subject knowledge, content of existing academic disciplines, and unteachable features of cognition, are not thinking skills in the conventional (i.e. generic) sense. Moreover, thinking skills that arise from gaining subject knowledge cannot be taught in place of subject knowledge.

There has been very little effort to engage with discussion of any of the things that do fit the description. The only one I recall was (I think) Anti-Social Alto's discussion of creativity, and that was to point out an article saying it couldn't be taught.

Um... actually that article was saying that creativity CAN be taught.

Sorry, that's me trying to remember the quotation you gave us rather than reading the article.

What I should have said was "saying it couldn't be taught without learning relevant content".

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

Whether or not it worked, is actually a hard question to answer as by the time I was 9, I was diagnosed with what would today be called dyslexia. Neither the "old" way nor the "new" way would have helped me with my problem. What I do know is that the teachers who taught the "old" way were most reluctant to acknowledge or deal with my learning disability and the teachers who taught the "new" way at least acknowledged it, but they were unsure how to deal with it either.

Last time I looked the "old" method of teaching reading and writing (i.e. drilling with phonics) had been widely identified as the best way to help dyslexics.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

Whether or not it worked, is actually a hard question to answer as by the time I was 9, I was diagnosed with what would today be called dyslexia. Neither the "old" way nor the "new" way would have helped me with my problem. What I do know is that the teachers who taught the "old" way were most reluctant to acknowledge or deal with my learning disability and the teachers who taught the "new" way at least acknowledged it, but they were unsure how to deal with it either.
Last time I looked the "old" method of teaching reading and writing (i.e. drilling with phonics) had been widely identified as the best way to help dyslexics.

Not so, the best way is to have a dyslexia friendly classroom. For severe dyslexia a one-to-one multisensory, cumulative, structured programme has been proved to be the best way forward.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
for me the content is the vehicle for education, not the aim.

Well put. That is what I have been trying to say for the whole of this thread!

[ 18. July 2010, 19:09: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

Whether or not it worked, is actually a hard question to answer as by the time I was 9, I was diagnosed with what would today be called dyslexia. Neither the "old" way nor the "new" way would have helped me with my problem. What I do know is that the teachers who taught the "old" way were most reluctant to acknowledge or deal with my learning disability and the teachers who taught the "new" way at least acknowledged it, but they were unsure how to deal with it either.
Last time I looked the "old" method of teaching reading and writing (i.e. drilling with phonics) had been widely identified as the best way to help dyslexics.

Teaching systematic phonics in the lower grades has been shown to be the best way to keep the majority of students from having reading disabilities later.

My problem has to do with the discrimination of sounds. I can't tell the difference between vowels (being one of my main problems). It's akin to teaching a child who is color blind the difference between red and green. I can make a guess, but I'm going to be wrong quite a bit of the time. Teaching me the vowels systematically really means nothing to me, because I don't understand how sound a is different from sound e or how sound o is different from sound u. Gray is gray is gray to me even if you tell me one is red, one is green, one is blue, and one is yellow.

And my mother deliberately moved me to teachers who taught systematic phonics. No luck. I still can't tell the difference...

(edit: dyslexics still can't spell!!)

[ 18. July 2010, 19:36: Message edited by: PataLeBon ]

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Last time I looked the "old" method of teaching reading and writing (i.e. drilling with phonics) had been widely identified as the best way to help dyslexics.
Not so, the best way is to have a dyslexia friendly classroom. For severe dyslexia a one-to-one multisensory, cumulative, structured programme has been proved to be the best way forward.

I'm baffled here. Which of your claims do you think contradicts my claim? Last time I looked having a dyslexia friendly classroom, and a one-to-one multisensory, cumulative, structured programme were perfectly compatible with drilling in phonics. In fact, isn't that what the use of the words "cumulative" and "structured" is getting at?

Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

I believe that there are educational cycles. Don't like what's being done now, just wait, the old stuff will be coming back.

At a political level it appears to be. At the school level it seems nothing changes.

Obviously your school doesn't have the changeover in administration ours has.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
So just to check, your concept of an answer includes being deliberately ignored, which is something you advocate tolerating?

I guess that would explain why we differ on whether my questions have been answered
It's all in one's perspective.
I don't think the meaning of commonly used words is simply a matter of perspective. I think ignoring someone's question and answering it are something that can genuinely be distinguished.

Even if it was possible to redefine "answer" in that way though I'm not sure it would do your argument any good. Yes you could say people had "answered" my questions, but the phrase would have become hollow and meaningless and we'd still be in the same situation of important points being ignored.

I have met very gifted children whose thought processes are so quick that their answers don't make sense unless you make them explain it to you.

I've met students with learning problems that the only way I understood what they were seeing or thinking was for them to explain how they got their wrong answer so I can correct them.

You can learn a lot from wrong answers. More than right ones, sometimes.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

So RE should be teaching about The Church of England's history instead of current religious thought in the country?
There's no "instead" in this. Christianity is not recreated from scratch with every new generation. You cannot understand current religious thought without understanding the tradition it appears in.

Don't ask an closet evangelical that. [Biased]

My religion is based on my personal relationship with my savior. Religious thought and philosophy really has nothing to do with my personal worship.

I actually believe that Jesus can start a relationship with someone without them knowing a thing about church history or church thought.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

What if I'm Jewish? Should my children have to learn about a religion that I don't believe in or are raising my children to be? What if I'm atheist? Pagan? What if I just don't care about any religion?

Obviously the religious knowledge to be taught in a Jewish school would be different. But the existence of people who with no interest in the major religions of England, can only be an excuse for not teaching religious education at all, it cannot be an excuse for hijacking religious education and replacing it with something other than education about religion, and calling that religious education.

I'm not sure if you are advocating different schools for different religions, different RE classes for different religions, or that all English citizens should be instructed in the history and theology (what ever it is lately) of the C of E. Care to choose?

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

quote:
When I said it made no sense, I meant, it did not seem to follow on from anything I said. It is just bafflingly random.
To you maybe, but not to others reading.
Perhaps next time you reply to me you could consider answering in a way that makes logical sense in plain English, rather than in a way that makes a mysterious form of sense to other initiates.

I'm writing in English. It's the common language of these boards. Comprehension is the job of the reader. Mdijon and others can comprehend what I wrote, so I'm not convinced that what I wrote was incomprehensible.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

No, the cumulative structured multi-sensory approach is using all the teaching methods for reading systematically. So you teach phonics and reading and memorising whole words - phonics being absolutely no use for reading, for example, honey, come, was or because, at word level.

Then you also teach at sentence and text level, so the meaning of words and the meaning of text and how to guess from context what a word might be, and how verbs work in different situations, or nouns or adjectives. Then you also use sound, touch, actions and visual stimuli to reinforce this, touch, for example, being the following fingers around letters and words.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Last time I looked the "old" method of teaching reading and writing (i.e. drilling with phonics) had been widely identified as the best way to help dyslexics.
Not so, the best way is to have a dyslexia friendly classroom. For severe dyslexia a one-to-one multisensory, cumulative, structured programme has been proved to be the best way forward.
I'm baffled here. Which of your claims do you think contradicts my claim? Last time I looked having a dyslexia friendly classroom, and a one-to-one multisensory, cumulative, structured programme were perfectly compatible with drilling in phonics. In fact, isn't that what the use of the words "cumulative" and "structured" is getting at?

'Drilling' implies sargeant major style teaching!

Dyslexia friendly means understanding the condition and working to the students' strengths - of which there will be many.

Yes, synthetic phonics works very well as part of teaching reading - but it's far from the whole story.

I think the most important thing for any SpLD students/adults is a 'No blame' approach. Teachers who say 'Why can't you ..... ' need to find out why instead to blaming the child or parent.

<This is quite a tangent from RE teaching, but maybe the principles transfer?>

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
I'm writing in English. It's the common language of these boards. Comprehension is the job of the reader. Mdijon and others can comprehend what I wrote, so I'm not convinced that what I wrote was incomprehensible.

That's crap. If you can't make yourself understood, you can't blame the reader. Just because some can understand what you say doesn't mean it's plain as day to all. Those some may share background with you that enables them to decode what you wrote, where others are left cold. This is exactly the kind of attitude we cannot afford in our teachers. Any teacher who said this in my presence, had I the power, would be fired.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Comprehension is the job of the reader.
That's crap. If you can't make yourself understood, you can't blame the reader.

This would indeed normally be the case: when I get reader comments about not something not being clear, I go back and take a good long look at the passage in question. However, these are professional editors, and it's their job to make me comprehensible.

There is a line below which I won't go though. I want to write smart. I use long words, minimal description and a fast pace. Fortunately SF readers are generally both well-educated and willing to learn new stuff.

I'd contend that PlB is understood by pretty much everybody. He might have used that unfortunate turn of phrase to indicate he's being wilfully and deliberatly misunderstood. We've all had students like that, surely...

Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

... hijacking religious education and replacing it with something other than education about religion, and calling that religious education.

And back to the point, religious history or how to apply religion. Which is religious education? Or are they both?

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
... knowledge consists of more than memorising a list of facts. Nobody is arguing for rote. The point is that knowledge is indispensible, not that it shouldn't be engaged with.

So maybe you believe both?

[ 18. July 2010, 21:24: Message edited by: rugasaw ]

Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
schools are there to educate not entertain.
Since when did anyone learn anything unless they found it fun and interesting?
Since time immemorial.

Humanity would never have survived as a species if we were only capable of learning from highly pleasurable experiences.

I have not entered the conversation because I no little about religious education. This is a little different. It does not have to be fun nor highly pleasurable just interesting. If you don't make what you teach interesting you are not really teaching. That is not to say you must teach what the students would normally find interesting but that you must make what the student needs to learn interesting. And yes survival is always interesting. Now what the student needs to learn is a different story.

Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
I'm writing in English. It's the common language of these boards. Comprehension is the job of the reader. Mdijon and others can comprehend what I wrote, so I'm not convinced that what I wrote was incomprehensible.
That's crap. If you can't make yourself understood, you can't blame the reader. Just because some can understand what you say doesn't mean it's plain as day to all. Those some may share background with you that enables them to decode what you wrote, where others are left cold. This is exactly the kind of attitude we cannot afford in our teachers. Any teacher who said this in my presence, had I the power, would be fired.

Instead of comprehension being the job of the reader, would it be better said that is a job of the reader?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

No, that doesn't help. That still leaves it all on the reader's shoulders.

Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :

So a reader in a discussion* needs not put forth any effort to understand what is being written in the discussion?

*Please do remember we are on a message board discussing things with people who are are peers not in a classroom teaching students.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
So a reader in a discussion* needs not put forth any effort to understand what is being written in the discussion?

You are a black-or-white thinker, aren't you? Note where I said the problem with your phrasing was that it put it ALL on the reader's shoulders (emphasis added).

Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :

To MT

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Instead of comprehension being the job of the reader, would it be better said that is a job of the reader?

Where does this say anything not being the job of the writer? She is talking about the reader so she gives the directives of what the reader should be doing. Why should she as the writer restate what Old Andrew already told her. That would be his job (which he kind of did) to tell her to be more clear. By the way both Pata and Old Andrew are teachers so one might assume they have similar background training. On the other hand if you had requested clarification I would be more understanding since to the best of my knowledge you are not and never have been a teacher.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

No but I've been a taught. Or not taught, as the case may be.

Saying "comprehension is the job of the reader" doesn't imply the reader doesn't have any other jobs, so saying "comprehension is A job of the reader" says exactly the same thing. The fact of the matter is that it requires both the writer and the reader, but the writer cannot excuse sloppy or uninformative writing by foisting the "job" of comprehension off on the reader. Which is far too often what I've seen on the Ship of Fools.

And I don't need to be a teacher to know that, and it's rather pretentious to imply I do. In point of fact I have taught at a university level when I was a grad student, and I think I'd have been flayed alive if I proved unable to teach the subject in a way that the students could learn it, and then blamed it on the students.

Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Saying "comprehension is the job of the reader" doesn't imply the reader doesn't have any other jobs, so saying "comprehension is A job of the reader" says exactly the same thing. The fact of the matter is that it requires both the writer and the reader, but the writer cannot excuse sloppy or uninformative writing by foisting the "job" of comprehension off on the reader. Which is far too often what I've seen on the Ship of Fools.

So did Pata excuse sloppy or uninformative writing by foisting it off on the reader or did she reexplain the post in a more understandable way and realized from the reader's subsequent post that the reader probably did not want to understand her post so foisted off on the reader since any amount of her explaining would not clarify her post enough for that particular reader?

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And I don't need to be a teacher to know that, and it's rather pretentious to imply I do. In point of fact I have taught at a university level when I was a grad student, and I think I'd have been flayed alive if I proved unable to teach the subject in a way that the students could learn it, and then blamed it on the students.

One remember no students are being blamed here. Repeat after me this is not a classroom setting. Two I was implying that as teachers both Pata and Old Andrew get training that is different from people who are non-teachers and therefor may have similar backgrounds. I was not accusing you of anything. I did state that I had no knowledge of your background regarding teaching.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
The only technique that worked for teaching me was passion. If the teacher showed some passion for what he/she taught I tended to be interested and learned from them. Other than that I learned what I wanted and muddled through the rest.

Why do I suspect you are reading back into the past what you think is important about teaching now?

I guess it's because if the enthusiasm of the teacher that was that important to learning then we'd see those brand new highly excitable teachers fresh out of training getting their classes really good exam results and the world-weary, veteran teachers getting awful results from their classes. Instead we see the exact oppsite: teachers becoming more effective with experience, even though their passion tends to dim.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

Well the discussion of whether Pata is the sort of person who makes sense, whether anyone claims to have understood what was said, and where responsibility lies for comprehension of what was said, is all well and good.

But can't somebody just explain what it meant? My post asking about the bits that seemed completely random has been completely ignored.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

I don't know. Having passion is not the same as communicating passion. I think that being able to come across as though you give a damn about what you're trying to teach is something that teachers can get better at with experience. It's quite possible to love your subject and be unable to convey that by the way you teach. We've all met people who are passionate experts in something but can't teach it to others worth shit. Whereas a good teacher may well be able to convey a greater level of enthusiasm which might even be out of proportion to what they feel themselves - but what the students take away is that the teacher thinks this is worth learning. Not to mention that someone who's stuck at teaching for 20 years probably does have a fair amount of enthusiasm for their subject and for teaching or they'd have given up a long time ago.

[Crosspost with OldAndrew]

[ 19. July 2010, 11:15: Message edited by: Liopleurodon ]

Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
The only technique that worked for teaching me was passion. If the teacher showed some passion for what he/she taught I tended to be interested and learned from them. Other than that I learned what I wanted and muddled through the rest.
Why do I suspect you are reading back into the past what you think is important about teaching now?

I guess it's because if the enthusiasm of the teacher that was that important to learning then we'd see those brand new highly excitable teachers fresh out of training getting their classes really good exam results and the world-weary, veteran teachers getting awful results from their classes. Instead we see the exact oppsite: teachers becoming more effective with experience, even though their passion tends to dim.

You are right at least to a degree. I should have said enthusiasm was part of what made learning possible for me. Remember I am talking about me not the masses. Most people don't have parents who consider an A as average.

Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

quote:
The question at hand is the more narrow one, can we meaningfully teach generic "thinking skills" (cognitive capacities not dependent on subject knowledge) in place of subject knowledge.

My answer, and the one that appears to have been has been accepted in psychology, is no. For some reason every effort has been made to change the question so that "thinking skills" has been turned into 100 other things that blatantly do exist and nobody has denied. Study skills, subject knowledge, content of existing academic disciplines, and unteachable features of cognition, are not thinking skills in the conventional (i.e. generic) sense. Moreover, thinking skills that arise from gaining subject knowledge cannot be taught in place of subject knowledge.

There has been very little effort to engage with discussion of any of the things that do fit the description. The only one I recall was (I think) Anti-Social Alto's discussion of creativity, and that was to point out an article saying it couldn't be taught.

On top of that, this has also been a huge digression in that the more imaginative the interpretation of "thinking skills" has become, the more unlikely that they in any way resemble something that can be taught by RE teachers.
Teaching study skills is akin to teaching creativity?

So if I teach a student how to work through a text and how to work through a set of questions attached to the text in order to be able to select the correct question, I'm teaching something that can't be taught?

I agree that creativity is something either people have or they don't. Study Skills and Comprehension Skills can (and are regularly) directly taught to students.

I read in both posts a theme of teaching or not teaching creativity and perhaps other thinking skills.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
what is(are) the purpose(s) of education:

The process of gaining knowledge

Yes, definitely.

quote:
inculcating forms of proper conduct

Yes, discipline, good behaviour and respect for others should be taught. But this should really be the primary responsibility of the parents.

quote:
acquiring technical competency

Yes.

quote:
preparing people for the world of work

Yes.

quote:
the cultivation of the mind

It depends what you mean by that. When a farmer cultivates a field he does so in order to grow a specific crop, not in order to leave it alone and see which weeds grow first. And the cultivation is a means to an end, not the end in itself.

quote:
the instilling of values and principles

Again, this really should be something that is done by parents, church/mosque/temple, and society itself rather than schools.

quote:
the development of skills

Yes. But isn't this the same as acquiring technical competency, which you already said?

quote:
the achievement of physical, mental and social development.

Not as a specific goal, but if education is done right I'd have thought it would be a side effect.

quote:
to bring about profoundness to a person's emotions

No. What the hell does that have to do with education?

quote:
to broaden a person’s perspectives

...by introducing them to ideas, subjects and knowledge that they would otherwise not have encountered. Yes.

quote:
to lead to a healthier approach of looking at life
???

I suppose nutrition is a subject that could be taught as part of biology or home ec. And stuff like preventing disease, the harmful effects of drugs, etc. can easily be taught in biology/chemistry as well.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes, discipline, good behaviour and respect for others should be taught. But this should really be the primary responsibility of the parents.

quote:
the instilling of values and principles
Again, this really should be something that is done by parents, church/mosque/temple, and society itself rather than schools.

I'm not going to disagree with this in theory, but in practice, the adults at the front of the classroom (or anywhere else in the school) may be the only non-dysfunctional role models that any given child may see that day. God help us.

Even some kids from 'good' families seem to think they can do what they like in class because they don't get told off at home.

For better or worse, that's the raw material.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
what is(are) the purpose(s) of education:

[QUOTE][qb]the instilling of values and principles
Again, this really should be something that is done by parents, church/mosque/temple, and society itself rather than schools.

quote:
to bring about profoundness to a person's emotions
No. What the hell does that have to do with education?

How does 'society' do this except through its schools? And most mids have never been inside a church/mosque/whatever.

Emotions are very much part of education - are you unaware of SEAL?http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/primary/publications/banda/seal

If you are and don't approve ot if, does that mean that you think schools should turn a blind eye to bullying?

If schools are there merely to impart facts, why not save shed loads of money and buy each child a computer with broadband and send round a personal tutor once a week for an hour to set targets for the coming week?

The Tory 1988 act insisted that schooling: "promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society"

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
How does 'society' do this except through its schools? And most mids have never been inside a church/mosque/whatever.

Through interactions with others. Through friendships, families, neighbourhoods, and yes schools. But it shouldn't be a specific lesson taught in a classroom, it should be an ongoing process of learning how to interact with other people in social settings.

quote:
Emotions are very much part of education - are you unaware of SEAL?

If you are and don't approve ot if, does that mean that you think schools should turn a blind eye to bullying?

Bullying is a discipline issue, not an educational one.

quote:
If schools are there merely to impart facts, why not save shed loads of money and buy each child a computer with broadband and send round a personal tutor once a week for an hour to set targets for the coming week?

Because there are social and behavioural benefits to gathering in numbers. The kids learn to socialise with each other, not through structured lessons that tell them how to do it but through actually being together.

But all that learning about how to coexist in society and interact within a group is something that's learned in the playground, not the classroom.

quote:
The Tory 1988 act insisted that schooling: "promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society"

And so it should. But not necessarily in the way you think it should.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
]Bullying is a discipline issue, not an educational one.

So you just punish bullies without getting to the roots of what causes the bullying?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
]Bullying is a discipline issue, not an educational one.
So you just punish bullies without getting to the roots of what causes the bullying?

Original sin?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Just to clarify something, the current, as in about to be changed by the new Government, no doubt, secondary history curriculum guidelines include: How the mediaeval church affected people's lives in the history curriculum for year 7 (first year secondary, age 11-12) followed by a unit on Elizabeth I, which includes a section on What did Elizabeth do about the religious problem in England? So why the Church of England exists is covered - in history.

I think we've already done this bit repeatedly. What I'm really after here is that it is important, if you want to be educated about religion in this country, that you know where the beliefs of the Church of England, and the other Protestant sects, come from. Yes, there are historical events in this that might be covered in history, but what I'm talking about is basic knowledge about the religions in this country and it is staggering that years of RE can just miss it out.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
I would've thought certain things - puberty & an interest in sex for two - would be common teenage experiences.

Nobody doubts there are common teenage experiences.

Just that they actually provide a suitable basis for a curriculum.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
You are also behind the times. The aims you quote are from New Labour's 'Every Child Matters' agenda. That informed the Rose Report and the revised primary and secondary curriculums which didn't get passed before parliament was dissolved.
I am quoting from the current secondary National Curriculum.
Which is quoting from Every Child Matters.

So? It is the current secondary National Curriculum and is in place, and not, as you implied, something that is "behind the times" or affected by the cancellation of the revised primary curriculm.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It's the schools in mainly 'white' areas than most need to teach 'other' religions because pupils need to be prepared to live in a multi-cultural world that is beyond their current understanding and experience.

You do realise that this argument utterly contradicts your other argument, the one about appealing to their interests?

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

Re - spiritual development, every Education Act has stated that as a primary aim and there is plenty of guidance on how schools can promote it.

There you go again, the argument from authority.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Don't you see how absurd it is to suggest that the content of the curriculum can give everyone a fulfilling life? Or that, by the correct choice of material, a teacher can change 30 personalities at a time to the point where the shy become confident, the irresponsible become responsible, and the lazy enjoy the effort of learning? It represents an utter confusion about what a curriculum is.
Yes I seriously suggest that - a gradual process though.

So gradual that it is indistinguishable from "growing up"?

I'm sorry, but if you think it's been the curriculum causing those changes in children's personalities as they grow up then you are kidding yourself.

If teaching alone caused that kind of personality transformation, then nobody would ever pay for counselling, or psychotherapy, or psychiatric treatment, they'd just sign up for a few RE lessons.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

As a teacher, YOU are charged with the same aims. All subjects have that in their preface.

Once again you appear to be confusing the description of things that appears in the official paperwork with the reality.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

The fact that you believe this to be impossible shows the limitations of teaching mere content without any interest in the personal development of students beyond the aim of 'knowing stuff'.

Well done. You've exposed my approach as one that doesn't seek to achieve the impossible.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Just to clarify something, the current, as in about to be changed by the new Government, no doubt, secondary history curriculum guidelines include: How the mediaeval church affected people's lives in the history curriculum for year 7 (first year secondary, age 11-12) followed by a unit on Elizabeth I, which includes a section on What did Elizabeth do about the religious problem in England? So why the Church of England exists is covered - in history.
I think we've already done this bit repeatedly. What I'm really after here is that it is important, if you want to be educated about religion in this country, that you know where the beliefs of the Church of England, and the other Protestant sects, come from. Yes, there are historical events in this that might be covered in history, but what I'm talking about is basic knowledge about the religions in this country and it is staggering that years of RE can just miss it out.

Just as maths teaches rearranging formulae and drawing graphs, not science, even though they use them equally, the National Curriculum tends not to teach the same thing twice in different curriculum areas, but assume (I'm not saying this is right or wrong) that is the way the National Curriculum is set up.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
]Bullying is a discipline issue, not an educational one.
So you just punish bullies without getting to the roots of what causes the bullying?

Some kids are just bad. I know it's not PC to say so in such an unambiguous way, but we all know it.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
I would've thought certain things - puberty & an interest in sex for two - would be common teenage experiences.
Nobody doubts there are common teenage experiences.

Just that they actually provide a suitable basis for a curriculum.

Obviously not a whole curriculum but it would be extremely silly not to make them a part of it.

I really don't see a substantial disagreement between us.
[Big Grin]

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
...Some kids are just bad. I know it's not PC to say so in such an unambiguous way, but we all know it.

Scientists these days would probably agree that certain kids have serious, genetically based behavioral problems.

Most psychiatric treatments for these are chemical.

The non-release of the Yorkshire Ripper - after who knows how much Legal Aid - is a pretty obvious acceptance of this fact.

One of James Bolger's murderers is back in the can for offences connected with viewing paedophilia.

However 'liberal' or 'Christian' one wishes to be... [Disappointed]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Some kids are just bad. I know it's not PC to say so in such an unambiguous way, but we all know it.

Geez. Which planet have you been on? There's nothing shocking about the fact that some kids are little shits. Every teacher, every TA, every dinner nanny and every school secretary can name at least one horror.

That doesn't mean schools can just kick them out, though. May be you think they ought to be able to, but with compulsory education/training till 18, someone, somewhere has to deal with it. What's your solution?

(and in a vague attempt to stay on topic, it strikes me that some of what PhilA and leo do in lessons addresses some of their problems in a way that algebra just won't)

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
That doesn't mean schools can just kick them out, though. May be you think they ought to be able to, but with compulsory education/training till 18, someone, somewhere has to deal with it. What's your solution?

Firstly, I'd get rid of compulsary education until 18. It's just a fiddle to keep them out of the unemployment stats for a few more years anyway. 15 is enough.

Secondly, I'd set up separate institutions to keep all the bad 'uns in one place, and try to educate them there. That way the majority of decent kids can get a good education without their disruptive ways.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Firstly, I'd get rid of compulsary education until 18. It's just a fiddle to keep them out of the unemployment stats for a few more years anyway. 15 is enough.

Secondly, I'd set up separate institutions to keep all the bad 'uns in one place, and try to educate them there. That way the majority of decent kids can get a good education without their disruptive ways.

Granted on the first - but unless you can persuade the little treasures that fruit picking is a valid career path, they're going to spend the rest of their lives on the dole or, assuming your answer is to cut their dole, in and out of other people's houses, then in and out of prison. Which is more expensive than Eton. I'm thinking that money would be better used in the education sector...

On the second, we already have PRUs. What level of disruption were you thinking as a threshold, and how much would be willing to spend on more PRUs?

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

PRUs work because they have a very high staff to student ratio - 1:1 isn't unusual. That's why those students are in mainstream, cos people aren't prepared to spend what it takes.

[ 19. July 2010, 21:19: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The distance matters. researchers such as Goldman, on Religious Development, Kohlberg on moral development, Fowler on spiritual development and Piaget on cognitive development tend to use something to an eight-level-scale and argue that people, of any age, can only understand something that is two stages further on than their current stage.

Now who's behind the times?

Does anyone still believe this stuff?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
for me the content is the vehicle for education, not the aim.
Well put. That is what I have been trying to say for the whole of this thread!

It's not that you've tried to say it and failed, it's just that it's not very convincing when it goes beyond sloganising.

I mean, if the content is incidental, why not educate children in nosepicking rather than reading? Or crime rather than chemistry? Would Fagin give us an acceptable model of education? Content matters in determing whether learning is actually educational; if the content of some teaching or learning is not considered worthwhile then it can't be considered to be education.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
That doesn't mean schools can just kick them out, though. May be you think they ought to be able to, but with compulsory education/training till 18, someone, somewhere has to deal with it. What's your solution?
Firstly, I'd get rid of compulsary education until 18. It's just a fiddle to keep them out of the unemployment stats for a few more years anyway. 15 is enough.

Secondly, I'd set up separate institutions to keep all the bad 'uns in one place, and try to educate them there. That way the majority of decent kids can get a good education without their disruptive ways.

How do you define a 'bad' pupil. Most teachers observe that when you suspend one disruptive pupil, another takes his/her place - a sort of group dynamic.

And how are the teaches going to keep order with classes full of disruptive children? Guns, perhaps?

In fact, why not just shoot them all and save social services and the police a heck of a lot of money?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The distance matters. researchers such as Goldman, on Religious Development, Kohlberg on moral development, Fowler on spiritual development and Piaget on cognitive development tend to use something to an eight-level-scale and argue that people, of any age, can only understand something that is two stages further on than their current stage.
Now who's behind the times?

Does anyone still believe this stuff?

Yes. It is certainly used as a tool for RE teachers, for assessment levels and by clergy, especially in spiritual direction.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And how are the teaches going to keep order with classes full of disruptive children? Guns, perhaps?

A higher staff-to-student ratio perhaps? An environment which can focus more on basic discipline so that the kids who aren't into throwing chairs can get on with learning stuff?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
for me the content is the vehicle for education, not the aim.
Well put. That is what I have been trying to say for the whole of this thread!
It's not that you've tried to say it and failed, it's just that it's not very convincing when it goes beyond sloganising.

I mean, if the content is incidental, why not educate children in nosepicking rather than reading? Or crime rather than chemistry? Would Fagin give us an acceptable model of education? Content matters in determing whether learning is actually educational; if the content of some teaching or learning is not considered worthwhile then it can't be considered to be education.

How silly. Nosepicking is unlikely to lead to much theologising - though it could lead in to emotivism.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
How do you define a 'bad' pupil. Most teachers observe that when you suspend one disruptive pupil, another takes his/her place - a sort of group dynamic.

Bad pupils are the ones that disrupt lessons and bully (be it physically or emotionally) their classmates. And if others rise to take their place then expel them as well. The message must get across that some behaviours are not acceptable.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

I mean, if the content is incidental, why not educate children in nosepicking rather than reading? Or crime rather than chemistry? Would Fagin give us an acceptable model of education? Content matters in determing whether learning is actually educational; if the content of some teaching or learning is not considered worthwhile then it can't be considered to be education.

The content is not incidental, it just is not the prime aim of education. I teach children how to learn. And, just as importantly, I motivate them to want to learn and to enjoy it.

I detested school because the teachers thought that learning = memorising content. I can't learn by rote and was therefore made to feel utterly stupid.

There are many more things we can learn than facts and figures, thankfully - and, these days, the facts and figures are at our fingertips anyway.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

Marvin, you make an excellent point which could be spun off into another thread.

The simple topic is:

'Should "compulsory" education be compulsory imprisonment?'

I think many teachers feel they are more like prison warders.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The content is not incidental, it just is not the prime aim of education.

Well it bloody well should be. Or else why should we even bother with having different subjects - we could just have one "the joy of learning" course and leave it at that [Roll Eyes]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

There's a middle ground between "content is all" and "content is nothing do nose picking/joy of learning" that is worth striving for, I think.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

I must admit I’ve been holding back here because I know that I have a strength of opinion which may make me unpopular(!) and I’m not a teacher. That said, I have had some direct experience of some of the methods discussed here and so I thought I’d explain how it worked out for me:

In the late 90s I started A-levels at a trendy sixth form college. I think this was about the time when teaching styles started to change and the college I went to was very informal, student-oriented, call teachers by their first name and all that jazz. Students were supposed to be service-users who directed their own learning. I was bright but lazy and I knew it, but figured that since everyone wanted to be there and had chosen their subjects they were likely to be motivated.

Lesson 1: English. Here I came across my first real experience of hard work being punished and no work being rewarded. Knowing anything about Shakespeare (or even understanding the text, or even being able to read it without stumbling over every word) marked you out to the teacher as a smart arse. People stopped doing homework very very quickly. After half term I was the only person who had bothered to do the homework at all. I went up to the teacher in exasperation and said “Nobody else has done the homework. Aren’t you going to say anything to them?” She immediately laid into me: “You’re lucky enough to have the kind of supportive home environment which allows you to do homework. Don’t be so judgemental about them!” The fact that she knew nothing about my home environment, or that there was nothing clearly wrong with anyone else’s, didn’t seem to be an issue. In fact the only time I ever got any positive reaction from this teacher was when I showed up for a lesson with a black eye (after falling over – my coordination is terrible) and she quickly lost interest in me when she established that nobody had been violent towards me.

As a note, this was not a class full of desperately poor, abused and beleaguered kids. These were, for the most part, spoilt middle class brats who had been the apple of their parents’ eye from day one. I befriended one girl who had failed the first year of A-levels twice already – mostly because she spent most of her time in the park smoking weed instead of attending lessons. She never got into trouble for not showing up; she just failed the year repeatedly, which worked for her because it meant that she could continue to sit in the park and smoke weed for another year.

Lesson 2: History. This was clearly being directed by keeping the students interested. We were supposed to be studying the English Civil War – that’s what the syllabus said. In the term that I was there, the topic was barely mentioned. Instead the teacher did a kind of stand-up comedy routine, constantly joking in order to befriend the kids, who all sat in stony silence ignoring him. Whenever any historical information came up it was about the bits of life in the 17th century that he thought would be of interest to teenagers: so basically what peoples’ sex lives were like, gross diseases, and how people did their hair and makeup. Nothing about the civil war. The teacher seemed to think that we’d die of boredom if exposed to lists of dates… or any relevant facts at all, really.

Lesson 3: Psychology. All I really remember about this lesson is utter chaos: students shouting out over the teacher, nothing productive happening and nobody ever getting into trouble.

After most of a term of this I went to my parents and said “I’m not learning anything. I’m not going to get any A-levels. Please get me out of there.” I was fortunate enough that they had the money and I had the GCSE results to get into a private school with a completely different ethos the following term. Even so there was a substantial culture shock when I discovered that things like falling asleep in lessons were suddenly not allowed at my new school.

Now bear in mind that this was a 6th form college – so supposedly the worst kids had already left education and actually, the kids at the college were not stupid or incapable of learning. It’s just that the monkeys were in charge of the organ grinders. The students were being treated as infallible, unique little snowflakes who deserved to pick the syllabus, do whatever they wanted, never be criticised or kicked out for smoking weed all day. At the time, this college was considered modern, student-focused and forward thinking – it was going to turn them all into well-rounded confident people. I suspect that in the decade since then these techniques have spread like wildfire and from what I’ve heard the results have been similar (and I can only imagine, worse on younger students). That scares the hell out of me.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

My school was pretty bad on discipline, and the teahcing was a mixture of teaching methods. I'm not sure that the thinking skills vs content axis of disagreement necessarily determines the stand taken on discipline, or the degree of autonomy to determine one's own education.

I guess it follows that one can't rule with a rod of iron and do open discursive thinking skills, but I think that's only relevant to extreme situations.

But I'm not a teacher either. Only of adults, which I think is very different.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

That *may* be the case but in my experience the two somehow seemed to go together. That is to say that as soon as it was decided that the way to improve the student experience was to effectively put them in charge, it became clear that students weren't keen on the effort involved in learning content and so content started to disappear in favour of befriending and entertaining students in an attempt to make learning "fun" and make them want to learn and learn how to learn and all of that stuff. It didn't work. Which is not to say that you should make lessons deliberately boring, but simply trying to engage interest is not enough.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
...but simply trying to engage interest is not enough.

I completely agree. I think that teaching thinking skills is not simply about trying to engage interest. It is also likely to be hard work, and not the first choice activity of many 13 year olds. There's no reason why it can't be a goal-driven activity with a syllabus to work through.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Liopleurodon

For an old guy like me who benefitted greatly from the rather different state educational environment which was in place over 50 years ago, your long post was truly scary.

In the 1970's, on a course at the Civil Service college, I met a very bright high flyer then working in the Department of Education. During one coffee break, she got into rant mode, based on a recent policy discussion she'd attended at the D of E. "Bloody department" she said. "It needs to make up its mind whether the State system is about education or baby-sitting".

Liopleurodon, up to now, I'd thought that dilemma was mostly related to support for working parents. I'd never really thought that it might apply also to keeping adolescents off the unemployment lists. Actually I'm in favour of education being both stimulating and entertaining. But not placatory.

[ 22. July 2010, 05:44: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Yes - I do think schools play a huge 'child minding' service in society for parents of children and adolescents. I wish we were paid as child minders, two pounds per hour per child would go down very nicely thank you!

My son is like me - a creative, intuitive, lateral thinker. His school said he wasn't capable of going to university and they discouraged him.

He was determined and has just graduated with a BEng with prize for Best Student in the whole faculty. He has a way of 'seeing' inside machines and problem solving which many others don't.

We both learn by doing, not by reading up - there is nothing wrong with that.

People are all different and should not be labelled as unintelligent just because they don't think and learn conventionally.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

My issue with that is that (and this is going to sound horribly glib but I can't put it any other way) some kids are just unintelligent. Not your son, clearly. It doesn't make them less worthwhile either - when the brains were handed out, some people obviously had to receive less than others. I'm all for encouraging them, giving them extra support, and looking for ways to help.

But where these kids are concerned, there seems to be a move towards "find what they're good at. They must be good at something. Keep changing until you find out what it is." If nature's dealt them a bum hand then that sucks for them, but ultimately when they leave school they're going to be screwed if they didn't learn to read and write and add up because someone decided that they weren't naturally talented at these things and therefore should focus on something else.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I don't agree - of course there are levels of inate ability and talent, but narrow ways of seing 'intelligence' have always tried to prevent brilliant people from moving on. Fortunately a lot of them have buckets of resilience and make their way despite the system which would put them in boxes.

I was made to copy and colour in until age 10, as I was unable to 'learn' inside the box - thank God I was brought up in South Africa and finished school at 1pm every day. The real education started then - with my wonderful dad at home, who never lost faith in me and was the proudest person on the planet when I became Deputy Headtecher.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

PS - of COURSE they need to learn to read, write and add up!

That is my whole focus now as specialist SpLD teacher. But your assumption that intelligence is fixed and static is way off the mark. Self esteem is a huge issue - as soon as you show children they really can learn, they do.

My son is not an exception at all. Many, many children are constantly underrated by our system - I see it happeing every day - especially with children who have ADHD.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

I didn't say that intelligence was fixed and static. I said that some people have more of it than others, and some people are always going to fall behind, other things being equal. In the same way that fitness is not fixed and static - I can exercise and improve but the simple fact is that I'm never going to be a professional athlete. Which is not to say that I'm worth less than someone who has more physical coordination and grace than a drunken rhinoceros, is not to say that it's all pointless and I shouldn't try.

I'm a little concerned that saying this kind of thing is taboo, to be honest. We can say that someone is incredibly bright. We can hail someone else as a genius. Particularly in the case of adults. But even admitting that there are people at the other end of the scale (without saying what to do with them, or writing them off) is taboo when you're talking about children.

My issue here is that we're in danger of refusing ever to admit that maybe someone's not overendowed in the talent department. You can say that it's low self-esteem, or a bad home life, or that they think differently (and I'm on the autism spectrum, so I'm aware that people sometimes think differently), or their needs aren't being met. The trouble is when you reach a point where you're just not prepared to say under any circumstances: "Actually he's not very bright, but we'll do the best we can to help him learn."

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:

I'm a little concerned that saying this kind of thing is taboo, to be honest.

<snip>
My issue here is that we're in danger of refusing ever to admit that maybe someone's not overendowed in the talent department.
<snip>

For teachers these days there is this challenge of talking with a parent or parents. Professional candour is not always easy to take.

And this is a difficult issue. Motivation and hard work can compensate for a lack of natural talent. But only up to a certain point. People surprise us. I've met many "late developers". On the whole it is not a good idea to rush to judgement re the capabilities and potential of others.

So I'm not surprised if many teachers these days take the prudent path of "softening" any judgements they may be forming about a pupil's limitations. Of course there are casualties there - young people spending time and effort in pursuit of a forlorn dream. But there are casualties the other way as well - those whose potential is thwarted by a critical judgement reached too early. It pays the teacher to be hopeful (even if they aren't all that hopeful in their private thoughts). This isn't political correctness, just practical survival.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It pays the teacher to be hopeful (even if they aren't all that hopeful in their private thoughts). This isn't political correctness, just practical survival.

I know what you are saying - but it is so much more than that for me. My hope is genuine. After 32 years of teaching I have seen far too many children who had been written off by others achieving amazing things.

It's interesting that the teachers who want to put children in boxes seem to have one dimentional learning styles themselves, so they expect children to have this way of learning.

Anyway - some of those teachers will be depending on the very students they wrote off for heart surgery/piloting their aircraft/building their bridges/making decisions on their care homes etc. So they shouldn't be so dismissive of the next generation!

Posted by fat-tony (# 13769) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I know what you are saying - but it is so much more than that for me. My hope is genuine. After 32 years of teaching I have seen far too many children who had been written off by others achieving amazing things.

In my slightly shorter career I have not seen much of that...I can think of one example of a pupil almost written off who went on to do fantastically.

I can think of many more examples of people who have had the opportunity to achieve amazing things being ruined.

Ruined by pupils who were unable to behave, thus stealing their education. If you can't behave in a classroom you have no place in it.

Ruined by teachers who didn't wish to push them and stretch them as far as their public(private for American readers)school equivalents. Teachers more interested in appeasing or managing groups; rather than helping, encouraging and pushing the brightest to shine.Teachers who did not aim to educate but to fascillitate.

Runined by the Dept of Education. Initiatives such as SEAL,BLP,PLTS meaning our state school pupils often receive a dumbed down curriculum with no actual content.

Ruined by poor advice. Non subjects being pushed to improve league standings so pupils are unable to go to university because they've studied Media, Thetre Studies or Eng Lit Lang rather than English Literature. BTEC Science instead of seperate sciences and so on...

The state sector and the teachers in it are very very good at not writing off pupils, unfortunately they have become very bad at actually doing what's best for the majority.

fat-tony

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

What happens to the children who can't behave in the classroom in this scenario? Are you not writing them off?

If you've ever followed a class around for a day it is surprising how much difference the teacher makes to the behaviour tolerated and how well that class behaves in any particular lesson. And yes there are students who don't behave in any class, who do not conform to mainstream school, but they are fewer than some teachers would have you believe.

But what do you do with these children? Write them off? That's just adding to the problem, as when you look at most of these students and their parents you can see that this is a continuing problem. Do we really want write these kids off, and therefore their children, or do we want to try and help them? To find ways of teaching them to read and basic maths, how to work and to hopefully not see school and authority as the enemy to fight?

And Barnabas, what teachers say between themselves and what they say to the family may not bear much resemblance to one another.

Posted by Mad Cat (# 9104) on :

I start a PGDE in 4 weeks time and I'd just like to ask......

.....are staffrooms generally this fraught? [Help]

I had a traditional pre-Munn and Dunning Scottish education, which suited me very well.

I know if I'd gone to a private school I'd have been stretched more, but in the context of my very socially mixed and fairly challenging school, the teachers did a great job.

Tellingly, the school fell apart when a new Rector arrived, just after I moved away. Discipline vanished and the school's now at the bottom of the league table.

My life chances were transformed by the education of the 2 generations above me in my family. It grieves me to think of kids missing out on opportunities because they're in classes that are disrupted.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
What happens to the children who can't behave in the classroom in this scenario? Are you not writing them off?

If you've ever followed a class around for a day it is surprising how much difference the teacher makes to the behaviour tolerated and how well that class behaves in any particular lesson. And yes there are students who don't behave in any class, who do not conform to mainstream school, but they are fewer than some teachers would have you believe.

But what do you do with these children? Write them off? That's just adding to the problem, as when you look at most of these students and their parents you can see that this is a continuing problem. Do we really want write these kids off, and therefore their children, or do we want to try and help them? To find ways of teaching them to read and basic maths, how to work and to hopefully not see school and authority as the enemy to fight?

And Barnabas, what teachers say between themselves and what they say to the family may not bear much resemblance to one another.

I suppose it depends to a large extent on why they're not behaving, and to what extent they're not behaving. I'm not very convinced by the argument that there are a lot of kids who "can't" behave. Kids who don't want to behave, don't see what's in it for them, and so on, yes. Kids whose parents have never disciplined them, of course. It strikes me that in this situation the worst thing that someone can do is make their excuses for them. If they don't hear "no" from their parents and then don't hear it from schools either, eventually they'll end up hearing it from the police.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

quote:
If you've ever followed a class around for a day <snip> there are students who don't behave in any class, who do not conform to mainstream school, but they are fewer than some teachers would have you believe.

Those kids are often already in trouble with the police and have been for years. The 8 year old who was proud of getting an ASBO was also being fought over by his parents in the middle of a messy divorce.

Posted by fat-tony (# 13769) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Cat:
I start a PGDE in 4 weeks time and I'd just like to ask......

.....are staffrooms generally this fraught?

If I remember correctly...Yup.

It's just like a school playground. Instead of the groups you get in schools, smokers, lovers, fighters, goths, emo's, handbag brigade, artyones, geeks etc; you've got effectively 4 groups with subsets overly enthusiastic(broken down into iniative careerists and NQT's), overly cynical (near retirement, seen it all before types), Realists( What's the least crap I have to do to teach the kids and stay out of trouble, or the ones just trying to get promoted through being good at their job) and PE staff.

Just people watch a bit don't be over the top, and don't be anonymous. Oh and never ever do anything to make meetings go on longer than they have to.

quote:

My life chances were transformed by the education of the 2 generations above me in my family. It grieves me to think of kids missing out on opportunities because they're in classes that are disrupted.

That last sentence is what had kept me coming to work for years. You cannot do anything to allow pupils education to be disrupted by another pupil..

fat-tony

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fat-tony:

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Cat:
I start a PGDE in 4 weeks time and I'd just like to ask......

.....are staffrooms generally this fraught?

If I remember correctly...Yup.

It's just like a school playground. Instead of the groups you get in schools, smokers, lovers, fighters, goths, emo's, handbag brigade, artyones, geeks etc; you've got effectively 4 groups with subsets overly enthusiastic(broken down into iniative careerists and NQT's), overly cynical (near retirement, seen it all before types), Realists( What's the least crap I have to do to teach the kids and stay out of trouble, or the ones just trying to get promoted through being good at their job) and PE staff.

Brilliant. That describes every staff common room that I have belonged to.

Posted by Mad Cat (# 9104) on :

Thanks Tony. In the 6th form common room we all sat in 'Goth Corner'. Didn't think I'd be headed back there aged 40, but it'll be a laugh...

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
I don't think the meaning of commonly used words is simply a matter of perspective. I think ignoring someone's question and answering it are something that can genuinely be distinguished.

Even if it was possible to redefine "answer" in that way though I'm not sure it would do your argument any good. Yes you could say people had "answered" my questions, but the phrase would have become hollow and meaningless and we'd still be in the same situation of important points being ignored.
I have met very gifted children whose thought processes are so quick that their answers ...

Sorry this is just getting ridiculous.

There are major points, and I listed them earlier, that haven't been answered. No amount of stories about how sometimes we have different perspectives about whether an answer is an answer is going to change that. If you think I have missed an answer, identify it, don't just imply that it's there somewhere if only I wasn't so damn thick.

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

quote:
There's no "instead" in this. Christianity is not recreated from scratch with every new generation. You cannot understand current religious thought without understanding the tradition it appears in.
Don't ask an closet evangelical that. My religion is based on my personal relationship with my savior. Religious thought and philosophy really has nothing to do with my personal worship.

I actually believe that Jesus can start a relationship with someone without them knowing a thing about church history or church thought.

I suggest the evangelical idea that their doctrines came directly from God without being mediated through their religious tradition has as much claim to be considered a valid description of Christianity as the idea the world was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago, has a claim to be considered a valid description of scientific fact.

The education system cannot be neutral over ignorance. It either educates or it doesn't, and calls to emulate the ignorant are no argument for a different kind of education; they are an argument against education.

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

quote:

Obviously the religious knowledge to be taught in a Jewish school would be different. But the existence of people who with no interest in the major religions of England, can only be an excuse for not teaching religious education at all, it cannot be an excuse for hijacking religious education and replacing it with something other than education about religion, and calling that religious education.
I'm not sure if you are advocating different schools for different religions, different RE classes for different religions, or that all English citizens should be instructed in the history and theology (what ever it is lately) of the C of E. Care to choose?

I'm dealing with the school structures as they exist. I was just pointing out that the existence of Jews in a school is not in itself an excuse for skipping a basic knowledge of Christianity, and outside of a faith school of a non-Christian religion there would be little excuse for not having a substantial part of RE time spent on Christianity.

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
I'm writing in English. It's the common language of these boards. Comprehension is the job of the reader. Mdijon and others can comprehend what I wrote, so I'm not convinced that what I wrote was incomprehensible.

Still waiting for you or Mdijon to explain the stuff that made no sense. It's been several days now.

My conclusion is that .... it really didn't make sense.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
No, the cumulative structured multi-sensory approach is using all the teaching methods for reading systematically. So you teach phonics and reading and memorising whole words - phonics being absolutely no use for reading, for example, honey, come, was or because, at word level.

Then you also teach at sentence and text level, so the meaning of words and the meaning of text and how to guess from context what a word might be, and how verbs work in different situations, or nouns or adjectives. Then you also use sound, touch, actions and visual stimuli to reinforce this, touch, for example, being the following fingers around letters and words.

If you are continually switching from one way of teaching to another, how is it cumulative?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
'Drilling' implies sargeant major style teaching!

Oh for pity's sake.

"Drill" is a commonly used word for a routine or exercise.

To "drill" as a method of instruction would imply methodical instruction, involving practice and repetition. i.e. structured, cumulative teaching.

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

Dyslexia friendly means understanding the condition and working to the students' strengths - of which there will be many.

The definition I've seen is about awareness of difficulties, not "working to strengths" which, let's face it, is rarely a good idea if you want students to make progress at overcoming their weaknesses.

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

Yes, synthetic phonics works very well as part of teaching reading - but it's far from the whole story.

Well it's the bit of the story that's proven to work. That makes it pretty central in my book.

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

I think the most important thing for any SpLD students/adults is a 'No blame' approach.
Teachers who say 'Why can't you ..... ' need to find out why instead to blaming the child or parent.

What are you talking about? Has anyone in here suggested we blame dyslexics and their parents for difficulties with literacy?

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

<This is quite a tangent from RE teaching, but maybe the principles transfer?>

Definitely. Dumbing down the teaching of reading and dumbing down the teaching of RE are two sides of the same coin and many of the excuses for doing so are the same.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The distance matters. researchers such as Goldman, on Religious Development, Kohlberg on moral development, Fowler on spiritual development and Piaget on cognitive development tend to use something to an eight-level-scale and argue that people, of any age, can only understand something that is two stages further on than their current stage.
Now who's behind the times?

Does anyone still believe this stuff?

First sensible thing you have said on this thread.

Piaget was a researcher, and an interesting one (if not always a very good one), but he missed a lot of good stuff and his main model is quite untenable now.

Fowler isn't a researcher, he is a polemicist.

Those scales are nonsense.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

I'd contend that PlB is understood by pretty much everybody. He might have used that unfortunate turn of phrase to indicate he's being wilfully and deliberatly misunderstood. We've all had students like that, surely...

If you are going to imply I have wilfully misunderstood something, then I suggest you answer my questions about the passage that made no sense.

If you can't then I would hope you have the good manners to apologise.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It is certainly used as a tool for RE teachers, for assessment levels and by clergy, especially in spiritual direction.

I suffered three years of it in the Southwark Readers training course. That and Myers bloody Briggs. Maybe a quarter of the classes were wasted on all that stuff.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

... hijacking religious education and replacing it with something other than education about religion, and calling that religious education.
And back to the point, religious history or how to apply religion. Which is religious education? Or are they both?

It includes history in so far as history is needed to know about and understand religion. I don't know what "how to apply religion" means (or rather, before we have another argument about what I should or shouldn't understand, I'm not convinced it is a coherent concept given that religion is, by its very nature, applied.)

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
... knowledge consists of more than memorising a list of facts. Nobody is arguing for rote. The point is that knowledge is indispensible, not that it shouldn't be engaged with.
So maybe you believe both?

Or maybe I believe what I say I believe?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
I have not entered the conversation because I no little about religious education. This is a little different. It does not have to be fun nor highly pleasurable just interesting.

Are you suggesting that we throw out everything that isn't interesting?

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:

If you don't make what you teach interesting you are not really teaching.

Ermmm...

... I hate to do this, I'd much rather identify a counter-argument but ...

...isn't that just obviously wrong?

Haven't we all been successfully taught boring stuff at some point in our lives? We can certainly learn boring things.

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
I'm not convinced it is a coherent concept given that religion is, by its very nature, applied.)

What do you mean by applied?

I assume you know a bit about Islam; a few key teachings, a bit of history about Muhammad (p.b.u.h) maybe the 5 pillars and what p.b.u.h means. Would you say that you applied that?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
So did Pata excuse sloppy or uninformative writing by foisting it off on the reader or did she reexplain the post in a more understandable way and realized from the reader's subsequent post that the reader probably did not want to understand her post so foisted off on the reader since any amount of her explaining would not clarify her post enough for that particular reader?

I think the first option here is much nearer the mark.

But if you think Pata's post made sense feel free to answer my questions about it.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
You are right at least to a degree. I should have said enthusiasm was part of what made learning possible for me. Remember I am talking about me not the masses. Most people don't have parents who consider an A as average.

Surely pressure at home would make the teacher's emotional state less, not more, important to your motivation?

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
No, the cumulative structured multi-sensory approach is using all the teaching methods for reading systematically. So you teach phonics and reading and memorising whole words - phonics being absolutely no use for reading, for example, honey, come, was or because, at word level.

Then you also teach at sentence and text level, so the meaning of words and the meaning of text and how to guess from context what a word might be, and how verbs work in different situations, or nouns or adjectives. Then you also use sound, touch, actions and visual stimuli to reinforce this, touch, for example, being the following fingers around letters and words.
If you are continually switching from one way of teaching to another, how is it cumulative?

The particular methods that use this, CatchUp or the early NZ version of Reading Recovery, give the children 15 minutes 1:1 reading teaching a day and it structures the session to make sure all areas are covered within the session.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
I read in both posts a theme of teaching or not teaching creativity and perhaps other thinking skills.

Is this meant to be your explanation of how Pata's post made sense?

And if so are you really claiming that Pata communicates by following the theme of posts rather than the meaning?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The particular methods that use this, CatchUp or the early NZ version of Reading Recovery, give the children 15 minutes 1:1 reading teaching a day and it structures the session to make sure all areas are covered within the session.

All I can say is that I dispute the effectiveness of that programme, and stand by my claim that phonics instruction is the most effective method.

[ 22. July 2010, 18:23: Message edited by: oldandrew ]

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

Emotions are very much part of education - are you unaware of SEAL?http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/primary/publications/banda/seal

If you are and don't approve ot if, does that mean that you think schools should turn a blind eye to bullying?

If schools are there merely to impart facts, why not save shed loads of money and buy each child a computer with broadband and send round a personal tutor once a week for an hour to set targets for the coming week?

The Tory 1988 act insisted that schooling: "promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society"

Your capacity to continue with both the argument from authority and the use of straw men never ceases to amaze me.

You're not dealing with kids now. People can see right through this way of arguing.

No amount of official documents or claims about the position of anyone who disagrees with you can change the simple fact: no curriculum can determine how children feel.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

We trialled the phonics programme from Warwick University with University support. When we started, some students did make huge gains. After using it for 5 years, as the primary schools explicitly taught phonics as part of the county-wide teaching programmes, there were fewer and fewer gains in teaching phonics. To do it, the group of students were pulled out of lessons three times a day to do a 15 minute phonics session and a few years in, the gains weren't worth the hassle. The more holistic 1:1 approaches did work.

You'll find the research on CatchUp shows good gains and the suggestion is that it works because it doesn't rely on one method.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
We trialled the phonics programme from Warwick University with University support. When we started, some students did make huge gains. After using it for 5 years, as the primary schools explicitly taught phonics as part of the county-wide teaching programmes, there were fewer and fewer gains in teaching phonics.

According to whom?

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

To do it, the group of students were pulled out of lessons three times a day to do a 15 minute phonics session and a few years in, the gains weren't worth the hassle. The more holistic 1:1 approaches did work.

You'll find the research on CatchUp shows good gains and the suggestion is that it works because it doesn't rely on one method.

It would take more research than that to overturn more than half a century of research favouring phonics over mixed methods.

But here's a tip: Try teaching them for more than 15 minutes at a time.

[ 22. July 2010, 18:42: Message edited by: oldandrew ]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

You're not reading my argument. You're saying that the way to teach children to read in secondary if they don't already read is to teach them phonics. I am saying, that from experience, and from running a reading programme, that many students in secondary school have already been taught phonics. When we did intensive phonics teaching as remedial reading it worked so long as the students had not already been taught phonics. When the primary schools started teaching phonics, as part of a county wide programme, teaching phonics as a reading programme stopped being effective.

What is effective to teach those who have not already learnt to read is a multi-sensory cumulative programme that doesn't rely on one method only, because the normal methods haven't worked at this stage.

By the way, the other thing you didn't read was that the phonics catch up programme was 3 x 15 minutes every day. Teachers don't like their less able students arriving late or leaving early for most of their lessons.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Just as maths teaches rearranging formulae and drawing graphs, not science, even though they use them equally, the National Curriculum tends not to teach the same thing twice in different curriculum areas, but assume (I'm not saying this is right or wrong) that is the way the National Curriculum is set up.

Last time I looked "cross curricular links" were actually very much encouraged in the National Curriculum.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

And that doesn't work for RE and history?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
You're not reading my argument. You're saying that the way to teach children to read in secondary if they don't already read is to teach them phonics. I am saying, that from experience, and from running a reading programme, that many students in secondary school have already been taught phonics. When we did intensive phonics teaching as remedial reading it worked so long as the students had not already been taught phonics. When the primary schools started teaching phonics, as part of a county wide programme, teaching phonics as a reading programme stopped being effective.

What is effective to teach those who have not already learnt to read is a multi-sensory cumulative programme that doesn't rely on one method only, because the normal methods haven't worked at this stage.

I don't know why you think I'm not reading your argument. I have already acknowledged this when you said it before.

If I remember correctly I acknowledged it by saying "according to whom?", a question which you appear to have ignored.

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

By the way, the other thing you didn't read was that the phonics catch up programme was 3 x 15 minutes every day. Teachers don't like their less able students arriving late or leaving early for most of their lessons.

I am pretty certain I did read this before.

I am pretty certain I commented that I didn't think 15 minute lessons were a good idea.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
And that doesn't work for RE and history?

What?

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

The 3 x 15 minutes a day was the prescribed method by the University of Warwick,

And no, I'm not identifying myself any more than you will, but funding decisions and research feedback requires good record keeping, so we kept them.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
...Some kids are just bad. I know it's not PC to say so in such an unambiguous way, but we all know it.
Scientists these days would probably agree that certain kids have serious, genetically based behavioral problems.

Would they?

Are you sure about this?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The 3 x 15 minutes a day was the prescribed method by the University of Warwick,

And no, I'm not identifying myself any more than you will, but funding decisions and research feedback requires good record keeping, so we kept them.

Are you saying that the evidence on effectiveness was based on your own record keeping?

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

No, but that if I go too far into this I'm identifying more than I am prepared to on an open internet discussion.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

That doesn't mean schools can just kick them out, though. May be you think they ought to be able to, but with compulsory education/training till 18, someone, somewhere has to deal with it. What's your solution?

To what?

I mean I support provision for students that are kicked out of school, but even if that wasn't provided I can't see why kicking them out of a place where they aren't learning (and are stopping others from learning) is somehow worse than keeping them in. I don't see why people only raise the issue of provision for the unteachable only if it's suggested they be kicked out of mainstream schools. Surely it's just as much, if not more of an issue, if they are still in mainstream schools and causing chaos?

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

(and in a vague attempt to stay on topic, it strikes me that some of what PhilA and leo do in lessons addresses some of their problems in a way that algebra just won't)

That's a really good demonstration as to how much people just write a nice little story in their heads about the personalities in an argument rather than consider the actual arguments.

Last time I looked we were finding it pretty hard to establish what leo and Phil do in their classrooms ("theologising", anybody?). Yet somehow you have not only established this to your satisfaction but have decided which students it's good for.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
No, but that if I go too far into this I'm identifying more than I am prepared to on an open internet discussion.

Oh for pity's sake. You were the one who named the University. All I wanted to know is (roughly) where your conclusion came from: teacher judgement; staff meeting; practitioner research; academic research. If it involves you directly then fair enough, I won't ask for the details, but can you at least indicate that it's more than a personal opinion by yourself, or you and a few others?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

Secondly, I'd set up separate institutions to keep all the bad 'uns in one place, and try to educate them there. That way the majority of decent kids can get a good education without their disruptive ways.
Granted on the first - but unless you can persuade the little treasures that fruit picking is a valid career path, they're going to spend the rest of their lives on the dole or, assuming your answer is to cut their dole, in and out of other people's houses, then in and out of prison.

As opposed to...?

What do you think happens to them now?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The distance matters. researchers such as Goldman, on Religious Development, Kohlberg on moral development, Fowler on spiritual development and Piaget on cognitive development tend to use something to an eight-level-scale and argue that people, of any age, can only understand something that is two stages further on than their current stage.
Now who's behind the times?

Does anyone still believe this stuff?
First sensible thing you have said on this thread.

Piaget was a researcher, and an interesting one (if not always a very good one), but he missed a lot of good stuff and his main model is quite untenable now.

Fowler isn't a researcher, he is a polemicist.

Those scales are nonsense.

Why is it untenable?

Most people who reject such research do so because they show up as rather low down the scales.

[ 22. July 2010, 20:01: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

Last time I looked we were finding it pretty hard to establish what leo and Phil do in their classrooms ("theologising", anybody?). Yet somehow you have not only established this to your satisfaction but have decided which students it's good for.

I have explained some of what I do (quite polemically I'll agree) in the classroom. Would you like full schemes of work and lesson plans?

You obviously disagree with the methods I use to teach and with what I do, but to say that I haven't said what I do is a lie.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

He can't be bothered to read lesson plans. I have offered them and he rejected them. He'd rather pontificate from his great his of all-knowingness.

Methinks it is the holiday and we should get some fun while it lasts.

Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fat-tony:

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Cat:
I start a PGDE in 4 weeks time and I'd just like to ask......

.....are staffrooms generally this fraught?

If I remember correctly...Yup.

It's just like a school playground. Instead of the groups you get in schools, smokers, lovers, fighters, goths, emo's, handbag brigade, artyones, geeks etc; you've got effectively 4 groups with subsets overly enthusiastic(broken down into iniative careerists and NQT's), overly cynical (near retirement, seen it all before types), Realists( What's the least crap I have to do to teach the kids and stay out of trouble, or the ones just trying to get promoted through being good at their job) and PE staff.

That's one reason I stay out of the staff rooms.

Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
I have not entered the conversation because I no little about religious education. This is a little different. It does not have to be fun nor highly pleasurable just interesting.
Are you suggesting that we throw out everything that isn't interesting?

No I did not suggest such a thing please reread. But to expand on it, the subject itself does not necessarily have to hold interest but something must interest the student to learn it. A student could be interested in learning to stay out of trouble at home or to stay out of the principal's office, or to better said students chances at university. In the case of a lack of parental support to encourage learning, a personal desire to keep admins out of my hair, and in the hope of inspiring somebody in my subject I choose to be the one to try to make my lessons/being in my class interesting. Besides, if my subject did not interest me I wouldn't be teaching it.

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:

If you don't make what you teach interesting you are not really teaching.
Ermmm...

... I hate to do this, I'd much rather identify a counter-argument but ...

...isn't that just obviously wrong?

Haven't we all been successfully taught boring stuff at some point in our lives? We can certainly learn boring things.

Again not exactly what I said. Please address the point. By the way we learn boring things because there is an interest for us to have learned said boring thing.

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
You are right at least to a degree. I should have said enthusiasm was part of what made learning possible for me. Remember I am talking about me not the masses. Most people don't have parents who consider an A as average.
Surely pressure at home would make the teacher's emotional state less, not more, important to your motivation?

And yet.

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
I read in both posts a theme of teaching or not teaching creativity and perhaps other thinking skills.
Is this meant to be your explanation of how Pata's post made sense?

And if so are you really claiming that Pata communicates by following the theme of posts rather than the meaning?

Remember this is a discussion not necessarily an argument. In discussions sometimes themes are followed instead of meanings.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
By the way we learn boring things because there is an interest for us to have learned said boring thing.

Indeed, but that really isn't what you said the first time around. You said that teachers have to make what they teach (i.e. the subject) interesting, which doesn't mean the same thing as making the students interested in learning it.

Posted by markprice81 (# 13793) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

Last time I looked we were finding it pretty hard to establish what leo and Phil do in their classrooms ("theologising", anybody?). Yet somehow you have not only established this to your satisfaction but have decided which students it's good for.
I have explained some of what I do (quite polemically I'll agree) in the classroom. Would you like full schemes of work and lesson plans?

You obviously disagree with the methods I use to teach and with what I do, but to say that I haven't said what I do is a lie.

Having read your descriptions, the impression I get of your lessons is that they are very similar to this.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Whereas presumably you'd prefer something like this as the model.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I think the term "boring", or as I hear it used often these days "boring, boring", often says more about either the teacher or the pupils or both than it does about the subject being taught.

And that's a major issue in this long discussion. Learning and teaching can be hard work, particularly if a pupil is ignorant - and either doesn't know that, or, worse, doesn't care.

[ 23. July 2010, 13:28: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
How do you define a 'bad' pupil. Most teachers observe that when you suspend one disruptive pupil, another takes his/her place - a sort of group dynamic.

I think there's a bit of a difference between the way classes where there is a lot of low level disruption often have a change of ringleader, and what happens when you permanently exclude a child who is a continual problem.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The distance matters. researchers such as Goldman, on Religious Development, Kohlberg on moral development, Fowler on spiritual development and Piaget on cognitive development tend to use something to an eight-level-scale and argue that people, of any age, can only understand something that is two stages further on than their current stage.
Now who's behind the times?

Does anyone still believe this stuff?
Yes. It is certainly used as a tool for RE teachers, for assessment levels and by clergy, especially in spiritual direction.

I think that's just a further point against what goes on in RE lessons as opposed to a point in favour of brinbging back Piaget, Kohlberg et al.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The content is not incidental, it just is not the prime aim of education.

I don't know about it being the prime aim, but it is often essential. You can't have an education system that is unconcerned about what people know.

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

I teach children how to learn. And, just as importantly, I motivate them to want to learn and to enjoy it.

I'm afraid children already know how to learn.

As for motivation, well there's nothing wrong with that, but it's not an alternative to content. There's no point motivating them to learn if it's at the price of the opportunity to learn.

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

I detested school because the teachers thought that learning = memorising content. I can't learn by rote and was therefore made to feel utterly stupid.

This really is the strawman that will not die.

Again, nobody here is arguing for learning by rote.

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

There are many more things we can learn than facts and figures, thankfully - and, these days, the facts and figures are at our fingertips anyway.

Unfortunately most of us think with our brains not our fingertips.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
My school was pretty bad on discipline, and the teahcing was a mixture of teaching methods. I'm not sure that the thinking skills vs content axis of disagreement necessarily determines the stand taken on discipline, or the degree of autonomy to determine one's own education.

There's some overlap between progressive teaching methods and an anti-authoritarian attitude to discipline.

That said, the stuff about what should happen in lessons so far has been so vague and contradictory that I'd hesitate to label anybody as clearly advocating "progressive teaching methods" but some of the arguments here have been in that direction.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think that teaching thinking skills is not simply about trying to engage interest. It is also likely to be hard work, and not the first choice activity of many 13 year olds. There's no reason why it can't be a goal-driven activity with a syllabus to work through.

You're talking as if you have previously identified a clear and coherent notion of thinking skills.

Just to remind you, you haven't.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

My son is like me - a creative, intuitive, lateral thinker.

Did he get your modesty too?

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

His school said he wasn't capable of going to university and they discouraged him.

When was this and at what type of school? It's hard to imagine this nowadays.

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

He was determined and has just graduated with a BEng with prize for Best Student in the whole faculty. He has a way of 'seeing' inside machines and problem solving which many others don't.

We both learn by doing, not by reading up - there is nothing wrong with that.

People are all different and should not be labelled as unintelligent just because they don't think and learn conventionally.

You appear to be confusing differences in ability with differences in how people learn.

People generally don't differ much in how they learn. It is far more likely your son is good at engineering, rather than he has some kind of special learning style that engineering has somehow tapped into.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
PS - of COURSE they need to learn to read, write and add up!

That is my whole focus now as specialist SpLD teacher. But your assumption that intelligence is fixed and static is way off the mark. Self esteem is a huge issue - as soon as you show children they really can learn, they do.

My son is not an exception at all. Many, many children are constantly underrated by our system - I see it happeing every day - especially with children who have ADHD.

Oh for pity's sake.

Our current system is built on encouraging the least able and including them in things that they can't possibly benefit from and also lying to them and their parents about how they are doing. In a system where you can win prizes for just turning up, and where you can get exam marks for writing "fuck off!" on the exam paper then it is hard to identify a problem of underrating.

As for self-esteem being a huge issue, I hope you are talking about high self-esteem. There is a big, big problem of the least able being unaware of their disadvantages and therefore not motivated to improve. I fail to see how this would fit in with your talk of children being "underrated by our system". One of the biggest problem in our system is that it seem to encourage unrealistically high self-esteem.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

It's interesting that the teachers who want to put children in boxes seem to have one dimentional learning styles themselves, so they expect children to have this way of learning.

There is no such thing as a learning style.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
I'm not convinced it is a coherent concept given that religion is, by its very nature, applied.)
What do you mean by applied?

I assume you know a bit about Islam; a few key teachings, a bit of history about Muhammad (p.b.u.h) maybe the 5 pillars and what p.b.u.h means. Would you say that you applied that?

No.

I was just pointing out that I can't see a difference between learning about a religion and learning how its followers apply it to their lives. If you aren't learning about the latter you aren't really learning about the former.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

Our current system is built on encouraging the least able and including them in things that they can't possibly benefit from and also lying to them and their parents about how they are doing. In a system where you can win prizes for just turning up, and where you can get exam marks for writing "fuck off!" on the exam paper then it is hard to identify a problem of underrating.

I wonder why they feel like writing 'fuck off' on their exam papers?

I know I did. I simply truanted most of high school due to the constant put downs by teachers. I am dyslexic but treated as lazy. Fact is I put in more effort to get the same results.

My other son also has ADHD and has been living in Heidelberg this year, teaching English - having completed his Masters in Ecology. He hopes to undertake research for Heidelberg university. He was hugely underestimated by his teachers at primary school - not so bad in high school.

Inclusion matters - and works when the teachers have an inclusive attitude, which teaches the rest of the class that conformity is not king. We are all different.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

It's interesting that the teachers who want to put children in boxes seem to have one dimentional learning styles themselves, so they expect children to have this way of learning.
There is no such thing as a learning style.

Our learning style is the way we most easily process information.

I process information visually, which is probably why I'm an artist.

I struggle with auditory processing and these days use a voice recorder in lectures to be sure I haven't missed things - as I invariably have.

(I'm studying for an MA is SpLD)

[Smile]

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I wonder why they feel like writing 'fuck off' on their exam papers?

Original sin?

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

I know I did. I simply truanted most of high school due to the constant put downs by teachers. I am dyslexic but treated as lazy. Fact is I put in more effort to get the same results.

My other son also has ADHD and has been living in Heidelberg this year, teaching English - having completed his Masters in Ecology. He hopes to undertake research for Heidelberg university. He was hugely underestimated by his teachers at primary school - not so bad in high school.

I can't help but notice that your examples of this problem seem to come from your own life and that of your son. I suppose that makes it very relevant to you, but I have to say not knowing your son, and not knowing you, but having taught for years in a system where the exact opposite problem exists makes it very difficult for me to be convinced.

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

Inclusion matters - and works when the teachers have an inclusive attitude, which teaches the rest of the class that conformity is not king. We are all different.

Sorry? You are asking the teacher to teach the class to conform to an idea of not conforming?

Can you see the problem with that?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
There is no such thing as a learning style.
Our learning style is the way we most easily process information.

Yes, I know what a learning style is.

I just thought I'd mention the fact that they don't exist.

Posted by Japes (# 5358) on :

If learning styles don't exist, how can you know what one is?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

Most people who reject such research do so because they show up as rather low down the scales.

And where do people who don't understand why a circumstantial ad hominem is not a valid argument appear on the scale?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Japes:
If learning styles don't exist, how can you know what one is?

Do you know what a unicorn is?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

It's interesting that the teachers who want to put children in boxes seem to have one dimentional learning styles themselves, so they expect children to have this way of learning.
There is no such thing as a learning style.

There certainly is. Everyone is unique but people generally fall into certain types. I am an introvert and can listen to long lectures, sit still and read a book from cover to cover. However, I can't relate to diagrams.

Others have to talk a lot about what they are doing, study in short bursts, move around etc.

If you treat all your pupils as if there is only one learning style, you are seriously disadvantaging 7/8ths of them

Posted by Japes (# 5358) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by Japes:
If learning styles don't exist, how can you know what one is?
Do you know what a unicorn is?

I've won my bet with myself.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Japes:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by Japes:
If learning styles don't exist, how can you know what one is?
Do you know what a unicorn is?
I've won my bet with myself.

Did you bet that if you asked a really silly question you'd get the simple and obvious answer? Or did you guess that a unicorn is the most obvious example?

For what it's worth I toyed with writing a list of things that didn't exist including Klingons, Father Christmas and Nick Clegg's integrity, but I thought that might just confuse matters, and it really doesn't seem to take much to confuse matters.

Posted by Japes (# 5358) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by Japes:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by Japes:
If learning styles don't exist, how can you know what one is?
Do you know what a unicorn is?
I've won my bet with myself.
Did you bet that if you asked a really silly question you'd get the simple and obvious answer? Or did you guess that a unicorn is the most obvious example?

For what it's worth I toyed with writing a list of things that didn't exist including Klingons, Father Christmas and Nick Clegg's integrity, but I thought that might just confuse matters, and it really doesn't seem to take much to confuse matters.

Wrong. On all counts.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
There is no such thing as a learning style.
There certainly is.

There certainly isn't.

I mean seriously, "learning styles" make "thinking skills" look almost scientific.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

If you treat all your pupils as if there is only one learning style, you are seriously disadvantaging 7/8ths of them

I'd love to know how you calculated that.

Presumably, if I don't take account of my students' star-signs in my lesson planning I'm disadvantaging 11/12 of them?

[ 23. July 2010, 15:14: Message edited by: oldandrew ]

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Japes:

quote:
Did you bet that if you asked a really silly question you'd get the simple and obvious answer? Or did you guess that a unicorn is the most obvious example?

For what it's worth I toyed with writing a list of things that didn't exist including Klingons, Father Christmas and Nick Clegg's integrity, but I thought that might just confuse matters, and it really doesn't seem to take much to confuse matters.
Wrong. On all counts.

No, I really did start to write the longer list.

Well I got as far as "Klingons".

Posted by Japes (# 5358) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by Japes:

quote:
Did you bet that if you asked a really silly question you'd get the simple and obvious answer? Or did you guess that a unicorn is the most obvious example?

For what it's worth I toyed with writing a list of things that didn't exist including Klingons, Father Christmas and Nick Clegg's integrity, but I thought that might just confuse matters, and it really doesn't seem to take much to confuse matters.
Wrong. On all counts.
No, I really did start to write the longer list.

Well I got as far as "Klingons".

You didn't try very hard then, did you?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I like to give examples from personal experience - they are more heartfelt imo.

I adore teaching and am passionate about inclusion, especially for intelligent children who have undiagnosed specific learning difficulties.

[Smile]

Posted by Japes (# 5358) on :

I think my learning style is not for Purgatory.

Pity. I would've enjoyed discussing RE in state schools, as it is a subject very dear to me, but I know myself very well, and I will only get annoyed, and not learn anything profitable from this.

Other than to think, actually, I probably teach RE pretty well to those who think they have no interest in the subject, and who had previously been made to think they couldn't engage with someone of the deeper issues of faith and religion with because they weren't capable of it.

I'll go back to my corner, and carry on decent debates with my 16-19 year olds, who don't have any qualifications, of any kind - yet - but who know how to make discussion interesting, who are lovely people, despite their difficulties, and who make me believe there is a God!

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

It's interesting that the teachers who want to put children in boxes seem to have one dimentional learning styles themselves, so they expect children to have this way of learning.
There is no such thing as a learning style.
There certainly is. Everyone is unique but people generally fall into certain types.

I have a feeling that what oldanderw is getting at is that people can be 'taught' (I use that word in absence of a better one) to learn from different styles of learning rather than sticking to the type that is initially most comfortable. I used to prefer kinaesthetic learning, but when doing my degree learnt to be an auditory learner, because I had to. Listening to a lecture is the main way you learn at uni, or is certainly where you get most ideas and further reading suggestions from. Without being able to fully learn from a lecture, I wouldn't have done very well.

To say there is no such thing as a learning style is demonstrably untrue, but to say that students who are predominantly one type can only learn from that type is most probably untrue.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I like to give examples from personal experience - they are more heartfelt imo.

I adore teaching and am passionate about inclusion, especially for intelligent children who have undiagnosed specific learning difficulties.

The point I'm getting at is that when considering complex empirical questions, the most heartfelt opinion is not the most reliable.

You appear to have gone from what felt important to you in your life, to believing a similar experience must have been important in your son's life, to suggesting that you have identified what is important in the education system as a whole, to accepting theories about how people think and learn that back up that belief rather than accord with the evidence.

The power of learning styles and the problem of low self-esteem are common myths in education. They allow people to ignore the flaws, faults and weaknesses of children and simply blame their teachers instead. It might be comforting to accept these myths if it allows us to ignore the flaws, faults and weaknesses in ourselves and those we care about; it might also be comforting to accept those myths if the alternative is to have to make difficult decisions about what can actually done to help a child we want to help. But at the very least, we owe it to teachers, to children and to ourselves, to consider these issues on the basis of the established facts of human psychology rather than on emotionally charged memories.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

If you treat all your pupils as if there is only one learning style, you are seriously disadvantaging 7/8ths of them
I'd love to know how you calculated that.

On the basis that there are 8 learning styles, I think, and that you only cater for one. Actually it is probably an underestimate on my part because the styles are not evenly distributed and 'traditional' teaching style suits a very small minority.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

If you treat all your pupils as if there is only one learning style, you are seriously disadvantaging 7/8ths of them
I'd love to know how you calculated that.
On the basis that there are 8 learning styles, I think, and that you only cater for one. Actually it is probably an underestimate on my part because the styles are not evenly distributed and 'traditional' teaching style suits a very small minority.

Last time I looked you didn't seem to be able to talk about a traditional teaching style without misrepresenting it.

Still come on, let's get this over with, what are the 8 learning styles?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

Last time I looked we were finding it pretty hard to establish what leo and Phil do in their classrooms ("theologising", anybody?). Yet somehow you have not only established this to your satisfaction but have decided which students it's good for.
I have explained some of what I do (quite polemically I'll agree) in the classroom. Would you like full schemes of work and lesson plans?

You obviously disagree with the methods I use to teach and with what I do, but to say that I haven't said what I do is a lie.

I haven't said that you have said nothing. In fact I suspect I have quoted what you did say more than anybody.

What I am getting at is that there are significant unresolved issues about what you (and leo) do in the classroom.

You told us you don't teach facts or head knowledge, but then you said you do teach what the major religions believe and that nobody was doubting the value of knowledge.

You said you helped students answer ethical questions, then you said there were no right answers and talked approvingly of students accepting there are no right answers.

You said you taught how to think, express opinions and not back down but didn't explain how you could teach something that teenagers already do naturally.

You said you taught them how to express opinions without causing offence, but then managed to be rude to me when asked about your opinions.

You said you taught thinking skills but couldn't identify any thinking skills which actually exist.

So, no, I'm not claiming you have said nothing. I am claiming that it is nevertheless far from clear, and certainly not to the extent that we can declare who benefits from such lessons.

That said it is still probably a lot clearer than leo, who seems to think that the word "theologising" explains everything.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Are you suggesting that we throw out everything that isn't interesting?
No I did not suggest such a thing please reread. But to expand on it, the subject itself does not necessarily have to hold interest but something must interest the student to learn it. A student could be interested in learning to stay out of trouble at home or to stay out of the principal's office, or to better said students chances at university.

Aren't you just changing which meaning of "interest" we are using?

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
I read in both posts a theme of teaching or not teaching creativity and perhaps other thinking skills.
Is this meant to be your explanation of how Pata's post made sense?

And if so are you really claiming that Pata communicates by following the theme of posts rather than the meaning?
Remember this is a discussion not necessarily an argument. In discussions sometimes themes are followed instead of meanings.

The importance of this distinction escapes me.

Argument, discussion, conversation, whatever you call it, it didn't make sense.

Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Aren't you just changing which meaning of "interest" we are using?

No, I am sticking with the meaning of interest that I am using(#3).

Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
By the way we learn boring things because there is an interest for us to have learned said boring thing.
Indeed, but that really isn't what you said the first time around. You said that teachers have to make what they teach (i.e. the subject) interesting, which doesn't mean the same thing as making the students interested in learning it.

I expanded what I meant earlier in the post you quoted. But because I believe teachers should make their lessons interesting does not exclude me from believing that students need to have an interest in learning the lesson.

Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
I read in both posts a theme of teaching or not teaching creativity and perhaps other thinking skills.
Is this meant to be your explanation of how Pata's post made sense?

And if so are you really claiming that Pata communicates by following the theme of posts rather than the meaning?
Remember this is a discussion not necessarily an argument. In discussions sometimes themes are followed instead of meanings.
The importance of this distinction escapes me.

Argument, discussion, conversation, whatever you call it, it didn't make sense.

I am sorry you are unable to follow that part of the conversation.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Aren't you just changing which meaning of "interest" we are using?
No, I am sticking with the meaning of interest that I am using(#3).

Which is different to how we started, isn't it?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
I am sorry you are unable to follow that part of the conversation.

Well you need only answer my questions to sort out my confusion. Do you think I haven't noticed that not one of the people trying to make out that the problem is my comprehension, not the original incoherent comments, has even tried to answer them?

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

You told us you don't teach facts or head knowledge, but then you said you do teach what the major religions believe and that nobody was doubting the value of knowledge.

Yes I did. As I said, it was a very polemic way of putting it. I do value the teaching of subject knowledge and one of the reasons why I don't do as much of it as I would like to is time. In RE, there are matters which are more important than teaching the finer depths of, for example, the te4achings of the 10 Gurus, and it is more important to teach the basic knowledge and spend more time on how their teachings influence the lives of Sikhs.

quote:

You said you helped students answer ethical questions, then you said there were no right answers and talked approvingly of students accepting there are no right answers.

Yes. For many ethical issues we look at in RE, there are no universal right answers. Questions such as 'is abortion right?' There isn't a 'yes' or 'no' answer to this question - it is a matter of belief as to the answer, not fact. Questions such as 'is it OK to put babies on spikes?' are slightly different, but doesn't pop up in the curriculum.

quote:
You said you taught how to think, express opinions and not back down but didn't explain how you could teach something that teenagers already do naturally.

I don't think teenagers question and think about the things I am teaching about on a regular basis. They don't think about what it means to die, or think about the responsibilities of having babies, or whether or not there is a God. Teenagers tend not to think about questions they can't answer. They tend to shrug such questions off and think about easier things instead.

There are many classroom tactics to get kids to focus on what you want them to focus on

quote:

You said you taught them how to express opinions without causing offence, but then managed to be rude to me when asked about your opinions.

Yes I did. I find your debating style to be utterly infuriating and would drive me bat-shit crazy if we were in the same room as each other. I find it frustrating that you ask for evidence for points of view and where we get our ideas from and then complain when we quote an authority. That was why I stopped reading and posting on the thread for a bit.

quote:
You said you taught thinking skills but couldn't identify any thinking skills which actually exist.

I'd dropped out of the thread by this time. Many of the skills taught include time and resource management skills, explanatory and evaluation skills etc. The stuff every departemnt teaches through the medium of the subject matter.

Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Aren't you just changing which meaning of "interest" we are using?
No, I am sticking with the meaning of interest that I am using(#3).
Which is different to how we started, isn't it?

Again, I am not part of this we you are talking about.

Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
I am sorry you are unable to follow that part of the conversation.
Well you need only answer my questions to sort out my confusion. Do you think I haven't noticed that not one of the people trying to make out that the problem is my comprehension, not the original incoherent comments, has even tried to answer them?

This post refers to only one question not questions. I told you how I followed the connection between your post and Pata's post. That was the only thing I did. You stated that you still did not understand. What is the problem? If you wish to understand I am sorry because I don't think I can help you. Not after I pointed out the specific points in your post and Pata's post that were connected and you still do not understand how they are connected. I thought when you said that it was just baffingly random that you understood what she wrote(whether or not you agree with it I don't really care) but did not understand how it was connected to what you wrote. I supplied the connection. If you still do not understand the connection that creativity has with creativity I doubt that I can help you. If you don't understand what Pata typed means then I suggest you meditate on it a while.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

You told us you don't teach facts or head knowledge, but then you said you do teach what the major religions believe and that nobody was doubting the value of knowledge.

Yes I did. As I said, it was a very polemic way of putting it. I do value the teaching of subject knowledge and one of the reasons why I don't do as much of it as I would like to is time. In RE, there are matters which are more important than teaching the finer depths of, for example, the te4achings of the 10 Gurus, and it is more important to teach the basic knowledge and spend more time on how their teachings influence the lives of Sikhs.

Well I'm glad you seem to be backing off of your previous position.

That said, I think it still speaks volumes that your reaction to the suggestion that your subject is failing to teach basic knowledge is a polemic against knowledge.

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

quote:

You said you helped students answer ethical questions, then you said there were no right answers and talked approvingly of students accepting there are no right answers.
Yes. For many ethical issues we look at in RE, there are no universal right answers. Questions such as 'is abortion right?' There isn't a 'yes' or 'no' answer to this question - it is a matter of belief as to the answer, not fact.

If all you are saying is that there is no answer which you have a mandate to teach as fact then fair enough.

But you are wrong to say that there is no right answer. This relativist position would strip ethics of all meaning. It certainly undermines any claim that you help people reach answers.

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

quote:
You said you taught how to think, express opinions and not back down but didn't explain how you could teach something that teenagers already do naturally.
I don't think teenagers question and think about the things I am teaching about on a regular basis. They don't think about what it means to die, or think about the responsibilities of having babies, or whether or not there is a God. Teenagers tend not to think about questions they can't answer. They tend to shrug such questions off and think about easier things instead.

This is a different claim i.e. you get them to express opinions on particular things, as opposed to you teach them to express opinions etc.

It is also one where the educational benefit is less clear.

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

quote:

You said you taught them how to express opinions without causing offence, but then managed to be rude to me when asked about your opinions.
Yes I did. I find your debating style to be utterly infuriating and would drive me bat-shit crazy if we were in the same room as each other. I find it frustrating that you ask for evidence for points of view and where we get our ideas from and then complain when we quote an authority.

Do you not get the difference between evidence for an empirical point, and an authority figure telling you what is right on a question of values?

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

quote:
You said you taught thinking skills but couldn't identify any thinking skills which actually exist.
I'd dropped out of the thread by this time. Many of the skills taught include time and resource management skills, explanatory and evaluation skills etc.

Resource management? What do you mean by that?

Explanatory and evaluation skills are subject and knowledge dependent which brings us back again to the point about knowledge.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Aren't you just changing which meaning of "interest" we are using?
No, I am sticking with the meaning of interest that I am using(#3).
Which is different to how we started, isn't it?
Again, I am not part of this we you are talking about.

Next time you want to unilaterally depart from the existing discussion, you might want to let everyone else know. Otherwise people will assume that what you say relates to what has gone before, and how you are using the word "interest" follows on from how it has just been used.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
I am sorry you are unable to follow that part of the conversation.
Well you need only answer my questions to sort out my confusion. Do you think I haven't noticed that not one of the people trying to make out that the problem is my comprehension, not the original incoherent comments, has even tried to answer them?
This post refers to only one question not questions. I told you how I followed the connection between your post and Pata's post. That was the only thing I did. You stated that you still did not understand.

I don't believe I did.

I think I just pointed out that your explanation was ridiculous.

I also observed that if what Pata had said had actually made sense then my questions would have been answered by now.

The attempts to either rewrite the rules of communication or to blame me for the fact that I can't make sense of the senseless are becoming more and more absurd.

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:

If you don't understand what Pata typed means then I suggest you meditate on it a while.

I think we've now reached the "you couldn't make it up" point.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Explanatory and evaluation skills are subject and knowledge dependent which brings us back again to the point about knowledge.

oldandrew - I would agree that you need to practise explanation and evaluation skills with content, but what makes you say that they are subject and knowledge dependent?

Once the student has learnt the skills of ordering their thoughts and learnt different ways of expressing themselves to explain something, shouldn't what they are explaining not matter? Explanation is far more about what the hearer knows and how to hook into that, then clearly breaking down what is being explained into steps leading on from that prior knowledge.

And what about evaluating a source document or other research? The same research and evaluation skills apply across a whole range of subjects. Admittedly, the student has to learn where to find the sources when they switch between subjects, but the same evaluation skills are used researching science or history. The same questions are asked, who wrote it and why? what were they trying to achieve? are there any double checks (peer review, other letters from the time)? And the same understanding of the research process to work back from what the student has to primary source documents / original scientific papers.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

If you treat all your pupils as if there is only one learning style, you are seriously disadvantaging 7/8ths of them
I'd love to know how you calculated that.
On the basis that there are 8 learning styles, I think, and that you only cater for one. Actually it is probably an underestimate on my part because the styles are not evenly distributed and 'traditional' teaching style suits a very small minority.
Last time I looked you didn't seem to be able to talk about a traditional teaching style without misrepresenting it.

Still come on, let's get this over with, what are the 8 learning styles?

You know as well as I. They are on your blog together with highly selected research that denigrates them.

Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Next time you want to unilaterally depart from the existing discussion, you might want to let everyone else know. Otherwise people will assume that what you say relates to what has gone before, and how you are using the word "interest" follows on from how it has just been used.

Since I was the one who started using the word "interest" I think I know how I meant the word. My meaning of the word has not changed.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Explanatory and evaluation skills are subject and knowledge dependent which brings us back again to the point about knowledge.
oldandrew - I would agree that you need to practise explanation and evaluation skills with content, but what makes you say that they are subject and knowledge dependent?

I mean that your ability to evaluate and explain things depends on what you know about the thing you are evaluating or explaining.

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

Once the student has learnt the skills of ordering their thoughts and learnt different ways of expressing themselves to explain something, shouldn't what they are explaining not matter?

It depends how vaguely you are defining these skills. If by "ordering your thoughts" you mean "rote memorisation" then subject might become irrelevant. If by "expressing yourself" you mean communication skills in general (i.e. speaking, writing, debating) then subject isn't important. But such skills are not "thinking skills".

If, however, ordering your thoughts and explaining is meant to be based on understanding, evaluating, or any other form of thinking then they are subject dependent.

You can find generic skills. You can find thinking skills. What you cannot find is generic thinking skills.

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

Explanation is far more about what the hearer knows and how to hook into that, then clearly breaking down what is being explained into steps leading on from that prior knowledge.

Talking clearly is not a form of thinking. Breaking a complex subject down into steps is not independent of subject.

Again we have generic skills, thinking skills, but not generic thinking skills.

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

And what about evaluating a source document or other research? The same research and evaluation skills apply across a whole range of subjects. Admittedly, the student has to learn where to find the sources when they switch between subjects, but the same evaluation skills are used researching science or history.

The point is that they aren't. The way you evaluate scientific evidence and historical evidence is fundamentally not the same.

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

The same questions are asked, who wrote it and why? what were they trying to achieve? are there any double checks (peer review, other letters from the time)? And the same understanding of the research process to work back from what the student has to primary source documents / original scientific papers.

We might do some if this if we are reading something about science in a newspaper, but generally, no, scientists do not in the first instance evaluate research by considering the writer and their motivation.

A course on evaluating scientific research would cover issues such as research techniques, trial protocols, statistics and induction.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

Still come on, let's get this over with, what are the 8 learning styles?
You know as well as I. They are on your blog together with highly selected research that denigrates them.

For pity's sake.

There is nothing on my blog about 8 learning styles.

The nearest to this is the stuff about multiple intelligences, which are sometimes misrepresented as learning styles. However I don't have any research (selective, selected, or otherwise) to denigrate multiple intelligences, I just have a series of quotations from the man behind the theory of multiple intelligences explaining that they are not learning styles.

Do I take it, that you have once again attacked me based on opinion, hearsay and jargon, and presented with the evidence you can't actually admit you are wrong you are just going to dismiss the evidence as "selected" with no actual explanation or argument?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
Since I was the one who started using the word "interest" I think I know how I meant the word. My meaning of the word has not changed.

Nope. Following it back, leo and I were talking about whether content had to be "fun and interesting" and you joined in.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
And what about evaluating a source document or other research? The same research and evaluation skills apply across a whole range of subjects. Admittedly, the student has to learn where to find the sources when they switch between subjects, but the same evaluation skills are used researching science or history. The same questions are asked, who wrote it and why? what were they trying to achieve? are there any double checks (peer review, other letters from the time)? And the same understanding of the research process to work back from what the student has to primary source documents / original scientific papers.

Sorry, but this is just wrong. Scientific papers are heavily reliant on describing their experimental methodology in excruciating detail, in order that the reader could, if they desired and if they had the right equipment to hand, reproduce the reported results. The conclusions are driven by the results. As such, evaluating the paper requires in depth knowledge of the processes used - you simply cannot do it if you don't know a pipette from a petri dish.

Also, with scientific papers there aren't primary/secondary/tertiary sources as such. The reproducability of results means all papers (barring those that are purely reviews of other people's work) are primary sources in their own right, while the references to previous research which has shaped/inspired the paper makes them all secondary or tertiary sources as well.

Evaluating historical sources is, as you say, very much a case of determining author motivation, and of separating sources into primary/secondary/tertiary depending on their closeness to the event itself. The skills and methdology required for evaluating them as sources are completely different - it really is not just a case of having to learn where the new subject's shelves are in the library.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

Still come on, let's get this over with, what are the 8 learning styles?
You know as well as I. They are on your blog together with highly selected research that denigrates them.
For pity's sake.

There is nothing on my blog about 8 learning styles.

The nearest to this is the stuff about multiple intelligences, which are sometimes misrepresented as learning styles. However I don't have any research (selective, selected, or otherwise) to denigrate multiple intelligences, I just have a series of quotations from the man behind the theory of multiple intelligences explaining that they are not learning styles.

Do I take it, that you have once again attacked me based on opinion, hearsay and jargon, and presented with the evidence you can't actually admit you are wrong you are just going to dismiss the evidence as "selected" with no actual explanation or argument?

Never Forget: Learning Styles are Complete Arse - on your blog.

Posted by markprice81 (# 13793) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Whereas presumably you'd prefer something like this as the model.

Are you agreeing with the style of teaching parodied in the video I posted?

I actually just want the children to be taught by the teacher so that they become less ignorant.

To get an idea of the style of teaching I prefer, you could look at some of the teachers I think are examplars: Jaime Escalante; Joe Clark; and, Ken Carter.

[ 26. July 2010, 11:51: Message edited by: markprice81 ]

Posted by markprice81 (# 13793) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Last time I looked you didn't seem to be able to talk about a traditional teaching style without misrepresenting it.

Still come on, let's get this over with, what are the 8 learning styles?
You know as well as I. They are on your blog together with highly selected research that denigrates them.

I am not going to comment on the posts on oldandrew's blog but suggest you look at the following journal article. It is a reasonably thorough review of the literature and concludes

quote:
... that at present, there is no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning styles assessments into general educational practice.

I am always amazed that people actually believe this stuff. It doesn't take more than a moments self reflection to realise it is nonsense. The following video shows how simple and straightfoward the arguments against learning styles are. I should point out that the author is a cognitive pyschologist and is very poor at geography. [Frown]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
I don't think teenagers question and think about the things I am teaching about on a regular basis. They don't think about what it means to die, or think about the responsibilities of having babies, or whether or not there is a God. Teenagers tend not to think about questions they can't answer. They tend to shrug such questions off and think about easier things instead.

When I was a child, and later when I was a teenager, I sometimes used to wonder how so many adults seemed to understand nothing about how children were feeling. That they didn't seem to realise how bad the school I went to was and how badly we wwere being treated. I'm not just saying that - I remember one specific afternoon in the playground at my junior school when I must have been about 8 or 9 promising myself, taking a vow almost, that I woudl never forget how shit it was when I grew up. I'm sure most kids feel like that at least some of the time - and at least some a lot of the time. Sometimes I'd fantasise that there was some drug they were given when they grew up tomeke them for get what childhood or teenage had been like and make them into good little conformists. I never really beleived that of course, but it was a neat fictional explanation.

But frankly, its the only one I can think of for what you just said. If you were ever a teenager you must have forgotten what its like.

And that's not just based on memories. I don't work with teenagers, I don't teach, I avoid "youth work" like the plague in church, so there aren't that many occasions when I've found myself talking about all this sort of stuff with teenagers (other than with my daughter of course and she isn't a teenager any more). But yes I have on occasions over the years, and yes, I think most teenagers do worry about such things, at least some of the time.

You might have had hald an argument if you were talking about older children rather than teenagers - a hell of a lot of ten year-old boys are smugly self-confident and ignore what the rest of the world thinks. (though not all of them) But when puberty kicks in it brings the self-doubt with it. That's partly *why* there is so much macho bluster.

They might not want to talk about them in class, or to you, or even to their friends. Certainly not to their parents - for lots of teenagers almost the last people they would reveal any possible fear or weakness or doubt to (just behind teachers and just ahead of potential boyfriends or girlfriends I'd guess). And it still seems that its not cool to be clever, just as it was when I was at school, so teenage boys who have any desire to look good to the other boys in the class will be reluctant to try to look good to the teachers.

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

You said you taught them how to express opinions without causing offence, but then managed to be rude to me when asked about your opinions.

Yes I did. I find your debating style to be utterly infuriating and would drive me bat-shit crazy if we were in the same room as each other. I find it frustrating that you ask for evidence for points of view and where we get our ideas from and then complain when we quote an authority. That was why I stopped reading and posting on the thread for a bit.

On that though we can agree. I'd already been pretty rude here to oldandrew saying something along the lines of that I woudl n't want any child of mine to be taught by him if he used the same style of debate and discussion in class as he does here. But I meant it. It is infuriating - a sort of false pretence of not understanding what others are saying when I'm sure he understands very well what they mean and just disagrees with it. And a relentless repetitive attack on the style and structure of what others say, rather than engaging with the issues, as if the point was to train them to argue using his methods rather than to understand what they meant. I hope he doesn't teach like that, if he does the kids must hate it.

Its a pity really. I honestly do think most of this "learning styles" stuff is rubbish, so I suppose I agree with him on that at least.. But his refusal to engage with the discussion isn't exactly helping to make those points!

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

We all need to be able to learn 'outside our comfort zone' but learn much better inside it. I learn by doing and discussing, so chalk and talk teachers are far from ideal for me. Whatever label you give it - we are all different in the way we learn.

The worst teachers are those who blame the students and parents.

A 'no blame' approach works the best, in my experience.

I am unfortunate in being on the far end of a spectrum when it comes to paying attention and focussing - but it sure helps me to understand and work with the little 'frogs in boxes'!

Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
schools are there to educate not entertain.
Since when did anyone learn anything unless they found it fun and interesting?
Since time immemorial.

Humanity would never have survived as a species if we were only capable of learning from highly pleasurable experiences.
I have not entered the conversation because I no little about religious education. This is a little different. It does not have to be fun nor highly pleasurable just interesting. If you don't make what you teach interesting you are not really teaching. That is not to say you must teach what the students would normally find interesting but that you must make what the student needs to learn interesting. And yes survival is always interesting. Now what the student needs to learn is a different story.

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
Since I was the one who started using the word "interest" I think I know how I meant the word. My meaning of the word has not changed.
Nope. Following it back, leo and I were talking about whether content had to be "fun and interesting" and you joined in.

You are right in that you and Leo were talking about "content being fun and interesting". I thought I clearly changed what I considered the meaning of interest when I stated that "it did not have to be fun nor highly pleasurable, just interesting"and when I stated "survival is always interesting". I suppose my attempt was missed. When questioned I did clarify what I considered interest.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
For pity's sake.

There is nothing on my blog about 8 learning styles.

The nearest to this is the stuff about multiple intelligences, which are sometimes misrepresented as learning styles. However I don't have any research (selective, selected, or otherwise) to denigrate multiple intelligences, I just have a series of quotations from the man behind the theory of multiple intelligences explaining that they are not learning styles.

Do I take it, that you have once again attacked me based on opinion, hearsay and jargon, and presented with the evidence you can't actually admit you are wrong you are just going to dismiss the evidence as "selected" with no actual explanation or argument?
Never Forget: Learning Styles are Complete Arse - on your blog.

That's what I was talking about (this one), but there's nothing about 8 learning styles, and nothing selective about the evidence, on there.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
...as if the point was to train them to argue using his methods rather than to understand what they meant.

Ironically, this is a darn good parallel with teaching kids thinking skills rather than content...

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
We all need to be able to learn 'outside our comfort zone' but learn much better inside it. I learn by doing and discussing, so chalk and talk teachers are far from ideal for me. Whatever label you give it - we are all different in the way we learn.

The point is that we are not.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
You are right in that you and Leo were talking about "content being fun and interesting". I thought I clearly changed what I considered the meaning of interest when I stated that "it did not have to be fun nor highly pleasurable, just interesting"and when I stated "survival is always interesting". I suppose my attempt was missed. When questioned I did clarify what I considered interest.

The change in meaning was not particularly clear. But the main reason for confusion is that when I did observe that you had changed the meaning of the word "interest" you replied by saying "No, I am sticking with the meaning of interest that I am using". I'm glad you now acknowledge the change.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
We all need to be able to learn 'outside our comfort zone' but learn much better inside it. I learn by doing and discussing, so chalk and talk teachers are far from ideal for me. Whatever label you give it - we are all different in the way we learn.
The point is that we are not.

I'd like to discuss that further, rather than accept your statement. I am sure there is a good deal of commonality in the way human beings learn, but that does not preclude the kind of diversity one would expect as a result of normal human variation.

Extremes may illustrate the point. Severely autistic children appear to be incapable of learning in the same way as children who do not suffer that way. It is not that they cannot be taught, nor is it clear what may be the best approach to teaching them.

Personally I am not sure that the phrase "wired differently" is more than an analogy in such cases, but it seems likely to me that all of us have some "wiring variations" - in other words our cognitive processes show the same kind of variety as our physical attributes.

It may be a good generalisation to say that human beings are not different in the way they learn - but I'd rather say that there are many similarities to be found in the way most people learn.

Denial that there is any variation in the way folks learn would seem to be an extreme position. Is that what you intended to convey?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
For pity's sake.

There is nothing on my blog about 8 learning styles.

The nearest to this is the stuff about multiple intelligences, which are sometimes misrepresented as learning styles. However I don't have any research (selective, selected, or otherwise) to denigrate multiple intelligences, I just have a series of quotations from the man behind the theory of multiple intelligences explaining that they are not learning styles.

Do I take it, that you have once again attacked me based on opinion, hearsay and jargon, and presented with the evidence you can't actually admit you are wrong you are just going to dismiss the evidence as "selected" with no actual explanation or argument?
Never Forget: Learning Styles are Complete Arse - on your blog.
That's what I was talking about (this one), but there's nothing about 8 learning styles, and nothing selective about the evidence, on there.

Fair enough - it was in the comments made by others beneath your stuff.

However, the authors you quite are selective. You don't seem to have read material by those in favour of the idea that there are different learning styles.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'd like to discuss that further, rather than accept your statement.

I believe a certain amount of discussion and evidence went up before the statement.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

I am sure there is a good deal of commonality in the way human beings learn, but that does not preclude the kind of diversity one would expect as a result of normal human variation.

Do you expect to see similar variation in what gases people breathe? What colour blood is? How many livers people have?

The basic mechanism for learning is the same for everybody, and it is about grasping meaning. Once the meaning is grasped then it doesn't matter how it was originally communicated.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Extremes may illustrate the point. Severely autistic children appear to be incapable of learning in the same way as children who do not suffer that way. It is not that they cannot be taught, nor is it clear what may be the best approach to teaching them.

Personally I am not sure that the phrase "wired differently" is more than an analogy in such cases, but it seems likely to me that all of us have some "wiring variations" - in other words our cognitive processes show the same kind of variety as our physical attributes.

There's a difference to be distinguished here between learning and communicating. Yes, there are differences in communication, for instance a blind person is not going to learn from a diagram. But the point is that, provided effective communication occurs, the method of communication does not make a difference between individuals.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

It may be a good generalisation to say that human beings are not different in the way they learn - but I'd rather say that there are many similarities to be found in the way most people learn.

Denial that there is any variation in the way folks learn would seem to be an extreme position. Is that what you intended to convey?

I am denying that there are individual learning styles which can be identified and used to teach more effectively. The evidence is with me on this.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

However, the authors you quite are selective. You don't seem to have read material by those in favour of the idea that there are different learning styles.

I quoted a number of advocates of learning styles, just to prove how widespread the myth was. If I wasn't familiar with the ideas, I'd hardly have been in a position to point out that it was based on pseudo-science.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Extremes may illustrate the point.

Or obfuscate it. The truth does seem to be that most people will learn most things when taught well, whatever method the teaching uses.

The business with reading schemes and so on is a good illustration. We have good figures for reading methods. So we do know what works and what doesn't. (unlike all the wishy-washy bollocks about personality types and learning styles and stages which is not based on real research) There are loads of different ways to teach reading and most of them work with most learning readers.

The spats about methods we've been going through over the last few decades have been party politics by proxy - one lot promotes key words look-and-say and flashcards, so another decides to push for real books. The worm turns and another party comes in, screaming about how crap all that is and demanding phonics. But they nearly all work for nearly everybody. (Only nearly everybody - ITA was a bad idea - it was great at teaching ITA but didn't help with English much)

Most methods work with nearly everybody. Just about any system quickly produces literacy rates of 60-80%. The hard question is what to do with the 20-40% who are having difficulty. (Very often if one method fails with one person another seems to work for them. So the lesson really is, teach reading whatever way seems to work for you, but be prepared to try other methods if needed. No need for rigid prescriptions.

Now it does seem to be measurably true that the minority of slow learners who get started on reading using synthetic phonics but are not helped by other systems is genuinely larger than the minority who are best helped by other systems. So if a class uses a system that's not based on synthetic phonics then one that is ought to be the next option for pupils who aren't getting it.

But these absurd claims for One True Method that rubbish all the rest don't help (I still haven't quite forgiven the Daily Mail fore the evil lies they told about teachers and students when they were rubbishing the idea of using real books - but thats just one more votegrabbing evil lie added to a long list of theirs) But neither does handwaving about learning styles.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Extremes may illustrate the point.
Or obfuscate it. The truth does seem to be that most people will learn most things when taught well, whatever method the teaching uses.

I agree. All that extremes demonstrate is that "most" is not "all". But in the context of oldandrew's response on which I commented, it seemed fair enough to me. YMMV

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But these absurd claims for One True Method that rubbish all the rest don't help (I still haven't quite forgiven the Daily Mail fore the evil lies they told about teachers and students when they were rubbishing the idea of using real books - but thats just one more votegrabbing evil lie added to a long list of theirs) But neither does handwaving about learning styles.

Agreed again. I had a pretty modest aim in re-entering the discussion, ken. From my limited understanding of the current state of analysis of brain function, it strikes me as a bit of a stretch to argue that grasping meaning falls into the same category as breathing function or the colour of blood i.e. that all human brains grasp meaning in the same way.

I suspect there may be some kind of "core" common functioning allied to various individual variations which relate to the composition and chemistry of human brains. But how these things work together is I think still a fascinating field of basic research. I shouldn't be surprised if some pretty counter-intuitive findings are awaiting discovery.

In general, I think the description of learning styles (and MBTI) as pseudo sciences is spot on. Where I probably differ from you is that the absence of a sound base means that these models are bollocks. There is I think some decent pragmatic value to be got out of them, provided one takes them as speculative descriptions, rather than some kind of Holy Grail.

Posted by markprice81 (# 13793) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But how these things work together is I think still a fascinating field of basic research. I shouldn't be surprised if some pretty counter-intuitive findings are awaiting discovery.

The thing is that the majority of the basic research into how the brain works has been done and the majority of the research does actually match with common sense. The main reason for this is that we all have minds and can carry out self reflection.

The biggest problem is that there is a lot of pseudo-science around. Consider the fact that there is a lot of creation 'science' around but evolutionary theory is reasonably well developed.

The majority of the current 'research' into learning styles is either being published in non-peered reviewed journals and / or published by companies hoping to sell their learning system.

Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :

Regarding grasping meaning vs learning styles. I find in math when slope is taught I can use analytical, verbal, visual, graphical, and tabular representations of slope. Does this teach slope by using multiple learning styles or by giving enough detail that more people grasp the meaning? In the end it doesn't matter why it works but that it works.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by markprice81:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But how these things work together is I think still a fascinating field of basic research. I shouldn't be surprised if some pretty counter-intuitive findings are awaiting discovery.
The thing is that the majority of the basic research into how the brain works has been done and the majority of the research does actually match with common sense. The main reason for this is that we all have minds and can carry out self reflection.

Well, that's not the way I've heard it, but no matter. On general grounds, and looking at the more mature sciences as a guide, an absence of counter-intuitive findings may well be a sign that there is much to be done. Common sense as a reliable guide has often been a rather naive form of "realism" and led many up garden paths. In the "real world", paradoxes abound.

Posted by markprice81 (# 13793) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Originally posted by markprice81:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But how these things work together is I think still a fascinating field of basic research. I shouldn't be surprised if some pretty counter-intuitive findings are awaiting discovery.
The thing is that the majority of the basic research into how the brain works has been done and the majority of the research does actually match with common sense. The main reason for this is that we all have minds and can carry out self reflection.
Well, that's not the way I've heard it, but no matter. On general grounds, and looking at the more mature sciences as a guide, an absence of counter-intuitive findings may well be a sign that there is much to be done. Common sense as a reliable guide has often been a rather naive form of "realism" and led many up garden paths. In the "real world", paradoxes abound.

I should point out that I was referring to the psychological perspective, particularly cognitive psychology and about questions around how the mind learns and 'processes' information, which have been answered.

That is not to say that there isn't a lot to be done and I suspect it depends on your viewpoint of what counts as basic research. There are plenty of, relatively complex, models of the mind out there.

I'm not suggesting that common sense should be taken as the guide rather that, so far, research has confirmed it, which is slightly different, and further that it is much easier to test the ideas against our own experience than say the claims of quantum mechanics.

Posted by markprice81 (# 13793) on :

quote:
Originally posted by markprice81:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Originally posted by markprice81:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But how these things work together is I think still a fascinating field of basic research. I shouldn't be surprised if some pretty counter-intuitive findings are awaiting discovery.
The thing is that the majority of the basic research into how the brain works has been done and the majority of the research does actually match with common sense. The main reason for this is that we all have minds and can carry out self reflection.
Well, that's not the way I've heard it, but no matter. On general grounds, and looking at the more mature sciences as a guide, an absence of counter-intuitive findings may well be a sign that there is much to be done. Common sense as a reliable guide has often been a rather naive form of "realism" and led many up garden paths. In the "real world", paradoxes abound.

I should point out that I was referring to the psychological perspective, particularly cognitive psychology, and about questions around how the mind learns and 'processes' information, where the majority of the basic questions have been answered.

That is not to say that there isn't a lot to be done and I suspect it depends on your viewpoint of what counts as basic research. There are plenty of, relatively complex, models of the mind out there.

I'm not suggesting that common sense should be taken as the guide rather that, so far, research has confirmed it, which is slightly different, and further that it is much easier to test the ideas against our own experience than say the claims of quantum mechanics.

[Edited for poor code and to add majority]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
And that doesn't work for RE and history?
What?

Sorry, I missed this earlier.

The argument had been going that RE lessons were failing because they didn't teach the Reformation. I linked to the Year 7 History Syllabus to prove that the Reformation was taught in history to be told that was irrelevant. I then pointed out the cross-curricular links between science and maths, where graphs and reorganisation of formulae are taught in maths but used extensively in science. oldandrew then said cross-curricular links were the way the syllabus worked, this quotation is me suggesting, without explaining the full train of thought that if cross curricular links were OK in maths and science, why not between history and RE? As it was a strand of an argument that had been continuing, and I had been quoting to show what strand I was following I didn't think I needed to follow the full strand through.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Also, with scientific papers there aren't primary/secondary/tertiary sources as such. The reproducability of results means all papers (barring those that are purely reviews of other people's work) are primary sources in their own right, while the references to previous research which has shaped/inspired the paper makes them all secondary or tertiary sources as well.

But doesn't most scientific research start with a literature search to find out what has gone before? Which continues as unusual findings occur, to see if there is anything in the literature to explain those unusual findings?

I was also thinking of Cochrane reviews of medical research which is what most of our medical protocols are based on. And many of the medical papers I have been reading over the past few years have been macro studies of the literature - when the first questions are Who funded this? What were they asking? How much weight did they give to different studies? Which are very similar questions to those I've asked when doing historical research.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

The business with reading schemes and so on is a good illustration. We have good figures for reading methods. So we do know what works and what doesn't. (unlike all the wishy-washy bollocks about personality types and learning styles and stages which is not based on real research) There are loads of different ways to teach reading and most of them work with most learning readers.

The spats about methods we've been going through over the last few decades have been party politics by proxy - one lot promotes key words look-and-say and flashcards, so another decides to push for real books. The worm turns and another party comes in, screaming about how crap all that is and demanding phonics. But they nearly all work for nearly everybody. (Only nearly everybody - ITA was a bad idea - it was great at teaching ITA but didn't help with English much)

Most methods work with nearly everybody. Just about any system quickly produces literacy rates of 60-80%.

I can't agree with this account. The debates over reading methods haven't really been party political. No party would risk being explicitly against phonics.

More importantly I don't agree that all the methods work. I acknowledge that in education research most trials of a given method will show a positive effect. However, this is a general fact of education research. John Hattie observed that 95% of educational interventions had a positive effect and suggested that an effect size of 0.4 was "neutral". From this point of view there is a stark difference between reading methods. Phonics instruction (according to 14 meta-analyses covering 425 studies) has an effect size of 0.6. Whole language programmes had an effect size of 0.06 (based on 4 meta-analyses of 64 studies). The latter might "work" but only marginally.

This result is in line with the surveys of research done by governments in recent years (e.g. Rose in the UK and the National Reading Panel in the US) and has pretty much been what the evidence indicated since Jeanne Chall's survey back in 1967. Far from being one method among many effective methods, it is hard to think of any result in the whole of the social sciences more firmly established by the evidence than the greater effectiveness of phonics. These days even most opponents of phonics tend to advocate some kind of "mixed method" rather than no phonics at all.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

markprice81

Very fair points, and thanks for your reply.

As an odd example of paradox, you can probably see that my argument re "common sense" is actually a commonsense-type argument. "If it's paradoxical there, why shouldn't it be paradoxical here?" I've got no conclusive evidence re brain research and psychology to prove my assertion - it may indeed be an unwarrantable parallel.

But I'm a nonconformist with a penchant for minority viewpoints and paradox. So maybe I would have that view anyway? Ah me - perhaps that piece of inward reflection needs to be added to the mix!

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Agreed again. I had a pretty modest aim in re-entering the discussion, ken. From my limited understanding of the current state of analysis of brain function, it strikes me as a bit of a stretch to argue that grasping meaning falls into the same category as breathing function or the colour of blood i.e. that all human brains grasp meaning in the same way.

All psychology runs into the old philosophical problem of being unable to experience another's mind from the inside, even if the processess seem identical from the outside.

However, it is pretty difficult to imagine how two people can grasp the same meaning in a different way (as opposed to giving different meanings to the same thing).

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Do you expect to see similar variation in what gases people breathe? What colour blood is? How many livers people have?

The knowledge of the human genotype is leading researchers to design medicines and therapies specifically for different genotypes. Here is just one example of that. As we learn more, we are finding that people aren't one homogeneous mass where one size fits all.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
Regarding grasping meaning vs learning styles. I find in math when slope is taught I can use analytical, verbal, visual, graphical, and tabular representations of slope. Does this teach slope by using multiple learning styles or by giving enough detail that more people grasp the meaning? In the end it doesn't matter why it works but that it works.

The point at issue was a claim about teaching students more effectively by identifying their learning style, rather than teaching a topic by presenting it in a variety of ways. Repetition with variety is a perfectly sensible method (although not necessarily any better than repetition without variety).

That said, I would add that, assuming "slope" is American for "gradient", it is not really teaching the same thing in different ways if you explain the different properties of the gradient. I don't think someone could be considered to have a grasp of gradient without understanding (at the very least) both the graphical and algebraic concepts.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Which is what I have been attempting to say. When we teach, if we treat the students as one homogenous group we will miss a great deal.

Bringing out the best in our students and helping them reach their potential allowing for, and working with, incredible diversity and difference is the great challenge and the great joy of teaching.

My Mum had a real truism which is true of everyone imo -

"They don't come on if they are not loved."

[Overused]

<edited to remove one too many 'greats' - hehe>

[ 27. July 2010, 08:52: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
And that doesn't work for RE and history?
What?
Sorry, I missed this earlier.

The argument had been going that RE lessons were failing because they didn't teach the Reformation. I linked to the Year 7 History Syllabus to prove that the Reformation was taught in history to be told that was irrelevant. I then pointed out the cross-curricular links between science and maths, where graphs and reorganisation of formulae are taught in maths but used extensively in science. oldandrew then said cross-curricular links were the way the syllabus worked, this quotation is me suggesting, without explaining the full train of thought that if cross curricular links were OK in maths and science, why not between history and RE? As it was a strand of an argument that had been continuing, and I had been quoting to show what strand I was following I didn't think I needed to follow the full strand through.

I think the confusion is that I thought cross-cuuricular links meant covering the same thing in two subjects, whereas you seem to think that it means not covering the same thing in two subjects.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Do you expect to see similar variation in what gases people breathe? What colour blood is? How many livers people have?
The knowledge of the human genotype is leading researchers to design medicines and therapies specifically for different genotypes. Here is just one example of that. As we learn more, we are finding that people aren't one homogeneous mass where one size fits all.

The point of my examples was that you cannot simply assume variety. An example of where variety exists does not change this. Nobody is claiming that humans do not differ, simply that we cannot assume they do in cases where all the evidence suggests they don't.

[ 27. July 2010, 09:01: Message edited by: oldandrew ]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I think cross-curricular links assume that because something is taught explicitly in one area, the assumption is that it does not need taught explicitly to be carried over into another area - as the syllabus is set up. I am not agreeing it works like that, I'm saying that's the underlying assumption

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Which is what I have been attempting to say. When we teach, if we treat the students as one homogenous group we will miss a great deal.

Bringing out the best in our students and helping them reach their potential allowing for, and working with, incredible diversity and difference is the great challenge and the great joy of teaching.

On the other hand, students lose out when they are pigeon-holed by teachers who have pre-conceived expectations about them. Teachers should assess their students and give them feedback based on their individual performance, but there is also a time for not discriminating between students. There is not necessarily anything loving about labelling somebody as "different". Too much differentiation is as harmful as too little.

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :

Let me give an example of how I've used different learning styles to teach about the concept of the Trinity (Please note that this is a GCSE level understanding of the Trinity for a specific exam board and, just like a GCSE understanding of the big bang is not exactly what top end physicists would say is right, this lesson on the Trinity is not exactly what every Christian is going to accept as true).

First of all, I introduce the theme of the Trinity and saying that this is the idea that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three different persons but one God. I do this by talking and fielding questions, although most of these questions answer themselves by the activities in the lesson.

Then, I get the students to think about how they come across to others in different ways. For example, to me they are a student, to their parents they are a son/daughter, to their friends they are a friend, or maybe they belong to a team or club and have a specific role. I get them to write down three different ways in which they are seen by others and to try to be as imaginative as possible and for all of them to try and think of different things to the other students around them.

Then, I ask them to copy down this diagram and to write a short paragraph as to how their 3 different ways of understanding themselves is an analogy of the Trinity, or to write a short paragraph explaining that diagram.

Whilst they are doing that, I give each of them a post it note with one word on it. They are all jumbled up. These words are things like dough, bread, toast. Ice, water, steam, blond, brunette, ginger. Ham, pork, bacon etc. They have to get out of their seats and find the other two people that make a 'threesome' with their own word. They then write a short paragraph on how these analogies can be compared to the Trinity.

We then read out of a text book as a class which gives a couple of paragraphs about the beliefs in the Trinity and some basic information about ow the doctrine came about.

After this, I give them an exam style question, such as 'explain Christian beliefs in the Trinity' (this type of question is worth 6 marks, so they need to make either 6 simple points of 3 extended points).

As a plenary then I pick on a few students to read out their answers and then as a class we mark them.

The only thing that is needed in this lesson and where the main content comes in is the text book and exam question part of the lesson. The other activities are there in order to help engage those who find text books hard to access and also as a vehicle for questions and thinking.

I don't go fully down the line that the 'kinaesthetic' students will only learn from the moving about trying to find their threesomes, but some students will find it easier to learn from that than thinking about their own lives, and the same is true the other way round. But finding learning easier does not mean exclusively as some would suggest. You can also tell when they begin to understand something and they all begin to understand at different points in the lesson. One way to tell when they begin to 'get it' is when they start asking intelligent questions. Also, getting the kids out of their seats for a bit breaks up the lesson and allows those who find it hard to sit still for an hour (normally down to drinking Red Bull for breakfast) a short bit of release.

I also have a worksheet with a word-search of key words, some sentence fillers, a paragraph of information and the exam question on for those who can't handle - for whatever reason - the above lesson and need extra support in the classroom. They can work one on one with the support staff either in my classroom of in the support room in school.

[ 27. July 2010, 09:16: Message edited by: PhilA ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Agreed again. I had a pretty modest aim in re-entering the discussion, ken. From my limited understanding of the current state of analysis of brain function, it strikes me as a bit of a stretch to argue that grasping meaning falls into the same category as breathing function or the colour of blood i.e. that all human brains grasp meaning in the same way.
All psychology runs into the old philosophical problem of being unable to experience another's mind from the inside, even if the processess seem identical from the outside.

However, it is pretty difficult to imagine how two people can grasp the same meaning in a different way (as opposed to giving different meanings to the same thing).

Let us say that the result is that the same meaning has been grasped by two different people. That does not mean that the means by which they have grasped it are the same.

Here is an example from the chess board again. In my student days I found a new opening variation in the Sicilian defence which led to an elegant mate for White. And found it over the board from first principles. And was chagrined to find later (after writing to MCO) that the identical variation had been played 18 months earlier in an Eastern European tournament. It was going into the next edition of MCO.

I've no way of knowing that the means by which I became aware of the "O I see" moment over the board in that game were the same as the Eastern European player who won. Maybe he found it over the board as well, but maybe he found in practice and preparation what I found over the board, tried it out and got a win? And certainly in any future games, anyone winning that way may have been an MCO swot, or someone who spotted the possibility in practice, or someone who found it over the board.

If "O I see" moments are invariably some mixture of inspiration and perspiration, who is to say that "one size fits all" when it comes to learning and teaching? For any individual what means -if any - of teaching help concentration, motivation, inspiration in a pupil? Surely there must be some variation there, given the diversity of our natures?

I suppose the more difficult inner questions relate to what exactly is going on in the mind/brain which produces the "O I see" moments and experiences and our response to them. From personal experience and reflection, such moments seem very rewarding. I get this very satisfying "buzz". That reward, I guess, encourages me to "go for it again". Maybe that positive response made me very teachable? But from conversations with friends, that experience does not appear to be common to all when learning.

oldandrew, it is indeed possible that in the close arguments on this thread that you may have covered these points and I have overlooked that. If so I apologise. Hosts read a lot, sometimes for detailed comprehension, sometimes for rule observance, and I lay no claim to perfect recall.

[ 27. July 2010, 09:22: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Which is what I have been attempting to say. When we teach, if we treat the students as one homogenous group we will miss a great deal.

Bringing out the best in our students and helping them reach their potential allowing for, and working with, incredible diversity and difference is the great challenge and the great joy of teaching.
On the other hand, students lose out when they are pigeon-holed by teachers who have pre-conceived expectations about them. Teachers should assess their students and give them feedback based on their individual performance, but there is also a time for not discriminating between students. There is not necessarily anything loving about labelling somebody as "different". Too much differentiation is as harmful as too little.

Um .... what is 'on the other hand' about this?

I am arguing against labelling and making assumptions about pupils, especially assumptions made about their ability by looking at their behaviour.

I am saying that every last one of us is different, every last one of us has special needs. Getting to know our students and their needs is paramount and lasts for the whole time we teach them. Assumptions about pupils ability and aptitude work against good teaching.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Which is what I have been attempting to say. When we teach, if we treat the students as one homogenous group we will miss a great deal.

Bringing out the best in our students and helping them reach their potential allowing for, and working with, incredible diversity and difference is the great challenge and the great joy of teaching.
On the other hand, students lose out when they are pigeon-holed by teachers who have pre-conceived expectations about them. Teachers should assess their students and give them feedback based on their individual performance, but there is also a time for not discriminating between students. There is not necessarily anything loving about labelling somebody as "different". Too much differentiation is as harmful as too little.
Um .... what is 'on the other hand' about this?

I am arguing against labelling and making assumptions about pupils, especially assumptions made about their ability by looking at their behaviour.

I am saying that every last one of us is different, every last one of us has special needs. Getting to know our students and their needs is paramount and lasts for the whole time we teach them. Assumptions about pupils ability and aptitude work against good teaching.

What is "on the other hand" is that treating them as different and treating them as the same are exact opposites. You cannot be against labelling them as different and against treating them the same. I was just trying to get across that discrimination/differentiation (two words for the same thing) is not necessarily a good thing.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Are you arguing that we shouldn't differentiate? So we should assume that everyone in the class should be doing exactly the same work, whatever? No extension activities, no reinforcement activities, they all do exactly the same?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Are you arguing that we shouldn't differentiate? So we should assume that everyone in the class should be doing exactly the same work, whatever? No extension activities, no reinforcement activities, they all do exactly the same?

Which part of "teachers should assess their students and give them feedback based on their individual performance" did you miss?

My objection was simply to the appeals to a recognition of human difference which suggest that discriminating is, in itself, a good thing. Discriminating on grounds of learning styles, or for that matter on grounds of star-signs or race, is not a good thing. It cannot be justified by appeals to the virtue of recognising human difference. Discrimination can be wrong; believing people to be different can be wrong. Not because we are all the same, but because we should only be treated differently on good grounds.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

OK - so what are your good grounds?

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

But feedback isn't the same as teaching them according to their needs and where they are, which is how I understand differentiation and what I was querying here.

Which is along the lines of the common school insistence that all pupils are entered for GCSE in all subjects, whether or not they have shown prior achievement that suggests they are capable of meeting the requirements.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Agreed again. I had a pretty modest aim in re-entering the discussion, ken. From my limited understanding of the current state of analysis of brain function, it strikes me as a bit of a stretch to argue that grasping meaning falls into the same category as breathing function or the colour of blood i.e. that all human brains grasp meaning in the same way.
All psychology runs into the old philosophical problem of being unable to experience another's mind from the inside, even if the processess seem identical from the outside.

However, it is pretty difficult to imagine how two people can grasp the same meaning in a different way (as opposed to giving different meanings to the same thing).
Let us say that the result is that the same meaning has been grasped by two different people. That does not mean that the means by which they have grasped it are the same.

Here is an example from the chess board again. In my student days I found a new opening variation in the Sicilian defence which led to an elegant mate for White. And found it over the board from first principles. And was chagrined to find later (after writing to MCO) that the identical variation had been played 18 months earlier in an Eastern European tournament. It was going into the next edition of MCO.

Isn't this just an example of learning in different ways, not grasping meaning in different ways? The point about grasping meaning is that once you grasp it then how you got to it doesn't affect recall.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

We all bring meaning to what we learn - I am an artist and see different meanings in my own paintings every time I look at them.

[Smile]

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
OK - so what are your good grounds?

Empirical evidence that the differences are of a sort that affect learning.

So ability (both cognitive or communication related) are good grounds.

Learning styles, star-sign or race are not good grounds.

No discrimination can be justified on the non-specific claim that "people are different" and certainly not on appeals to the existence of differences in genotype.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
We all bring meaning to what we learn - I am an artist and see different meanings in my own paintings every time I look at them.

Not really a good analogy for teaching, which is usually about communicating a particular shared meaning.

[ 27. July 2010, 11:08: Message edited by: oldandrew ]

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But feedback isn't the same as teaching them according to their needs

Well, no in as much as "teaching according to needs" is jargon that really doesn't make sense as you can't have needs without purposes.

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

and where they are, which is how I understand differentiation and what I was querying here.

The point of feedback is that it should address where they are. But I was referring to formative assessment in general here.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

It's an excellent analogy for teaching because it illustrates how complex human perceptions are and the fact that we can't make assumptions about anyone.

When asked what I teach I always answer 'children'.

Enthusiasm and passion matter - but not only for subjects, for students too.

I have trained many student teachers and always ask 'Do you love children?' because that is what will see them through - especially in these days of endless paperwork and red tape.

<cross posted>

[ 27. July 2010, 11:16: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
It's an excellent analogy for teaching because it illustrates how complex human perceptions are and the fact that we can't make assumptions about anyone.

Unless it's assumptions about differences it would appear.

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

When asked what I teach I always answer 'children'.

Enthusiasm and passion matter - but not only for subjects, for students too.

I have trained many student teachers and always ask 'Do you love children?' because that is what will see them through - especially in these days of endless paperwork and red tape.

Just out of interest, would you prefer a doctor who loved patients, or one who was very good at treating them? Or a policeman who loved victims of crime or one who was very good at catching criminals?

We're not substitute parents. Some children just want to learn and are mortally embarassed by teachers who try and like a friend, parent, or something they are not. We can't help caring about our students, but let's not pretend that this is our job, it is simply a virtue people in our job often have.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

oldandrew

Aren't learning and grasping meaning dynamically inter-related rather than separate categories? At least that is the way I think of them. But then I'm not a teacher.

[This may be a matter of language definition within teaching as a discipline and we may as a result be somewhat at cross purposes. If so, I'm happy to leave the discussion. I know you are precise.]

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Aren't learning and grasping meaning dynamically inter-related rather than separate categories?

No. You can understand something at the time and not remember it afterwards. Learning has that element of recall in. The point about "grasping meaning" was with regard to the recall part of learning. A different method of taking something in does not affect recall, once it has been taken in.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I get you. We were at cross purposes. You're quite right about recall. Thanks for your patience.

Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
...assuming "slope" is American for "gradient"...

Correct.

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
... it is not really teaching the same thing in different ways if you explain the different properties of the gradient. I don't think someone could be considered to have a grasp of gradient without understanding (at the very least) both the graphical and algebraic concepts.

Obviously(to me at least) you can use different understanding of slope to explain other representations of slope. In other words I can use algebraic concept of slope to explain the graphical concept of slope to explain the tabular concept of slope. Now these concepts you may just consider to be properties. You would be wrong in the since that it would be property (not ies). Each of these concepts are the exact same thing explaining the exact same thing in different ways. More specifically slope is the ratio of the change in y and the change in x. Graphically rise/run. Algebraically (y2-y1)/(x2-x1). These are the exact same thing. Both mean the ratio of the change in y over the change in x. They are the same property.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
...assuming "slope" is American for "gradient"...
Correct.

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
... it is not really teaching the same thing in different ways if you explain the different properties of the gradient. I don't think someone could be considered to have a grasp of gradient without understanding (at the very least) both the graphical and algebraic concepts.
Obviously(to me at least) you can use different understanding of slope to explain other representations of slope. In other words I can use algebraic concept of slope to explain the graphical concept of slope to explain the tabular concept of slope. Now these concepts you may just consider to be properties. You would be wrong in the since that it would be property (not ies). Each of these concepts are the exact same thing explaining the exact same thing in different ways. More specifically slope is the ratio of the change in y and the change in x. Graphically rise/run. Algebraically (y2-y1)/(x2-x1). These are the exact same thing. Both mean the ratio of the change in y over the change in x. They are the same property.

To be fair, when you said "algebraically", I thought you meant reading it from the equation of a line, so I had in mind the distinction between, say, knowing the gradient was how many units a line goes up for one unit across, and knowing it was the coefficient of x in the equation y=mx+c.

Even so, I would still maintain there is a distinction between teaching how to find a gradient from a graph and how to find it from a table, and a further distinction between that knowledge and applying a formula for the gradient. Fair enough, you could teach these aspects in a different order, or leave students deriving one aspect from another, but that still wouldn't demonstrate that the different ways of teaching it are different in effectiveness according to student learning style.

Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

Even so, I would still maintain there is a distinction between teaching how to find a gradient from a graph and how to find it from a table, and a further distinction between that knowledge and applying a formula for the gradient. Fair enough, you could teach these aspects in a different order, or leave students deriving one aspect from another, but that still wouldn't demonstrate that the different ways of teaching it are different in effectiveness according to student learning style.

I said nothing about teaching to students learning styles except that it doesn't really matter. You can convince me that learning styles theory is absolute truth or that it is complete bunk. I am still going to teach slope from different representations so that students have the best chance to truly understand slope.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Yesterday I found myself teaching a group of (adult) students and expressed concern to them about their lack of factual knowledge on a particular subject. I've just looked back over my contributions on this thread and compared my attitudes in theory and in practice. Oh well.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

There are loads of books they can read.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Indeed - I said as much in my tutorial.

It could be that my chief role is to encourage them to read them.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

Or it could be that your chief role as a teacher is to teach them the knowledge.

Clue's in the name, guys.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

Actually, I feel strongly enough about this to double post about it.

A teacher has just dismissed the knowledge deficiency of a group of students with "there are plenty of books they can read". It's right there. He said it.

Think about it. A teacher has just said what boils down to "it's their own damn fault if they can't be bothered to learn for themselves".

Not "we should teach them better". Not "it's our job as teachers to ensure they learn as much as they can so that such knowledge gaps don't occur". Oh no. Teachers are apparently incidental to the process these days.

Christ, it almost makes me want to avoid having kids lest they have to go through this excuse for an educational system.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

If the students get their knowledge by just reading books, we may as well scrap the teachers. I must tell David Cameron at once, will anyone join me?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Or it could be that your chief role as a teacher is to teach them the knowledge.

Clue's in the name, guys.

No, the role of the teacher is to teach people how to learn, not to short-circuit the process.

What would you think of a driving instructor who told you all the theory and then drove you round while you watched, without getting hands-on experience of the wheel yourself?

The official title of the job is not 'teacher' but 'assistant master/mistress - assisting the head.

[ 09. August 2010, 13:54: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No, the role of the teacher is to teach people how to learn, not to short-circuit the process.

When you've finished teaching them how to learn, do you teach them to breathe, eat and excrete?

Do you ever teach them things that human beings aren't already naturally able to do?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Or it could be that your chief role as a teacher is to teach them the knowledge.

Clue's in the name, guys.
No, the role of the teacher is to teach people how to learn, not to short-circuit the process.

That's rubbish. If I ever send a kid of mine to a French class I'll expect him to learn "French", not "how to learn French". If I send him to a maths class I'll expect him to come back knowing how to add, subtract, multiply and divide, not which shelves of the library to go to in order to find the books that will show him how to do those things. And if I send him to an RE class I'd expect him to come back knowing a little about the various religions of the world, rather than a bunch of loosely-defined thinking skills.

While you're "teaching people to learn", the actual skills and knowledge base of the country is going down the pan. Have you not noticed the increased exasperation of University tutors at their students' inability to do simple things like writing and maths? The increasing dispair of employers at the lack of any discernable intelligence in their employees? Has it occurred to you that maybe that's because they haven't been taught properly?

quote:
What would you think of a driving instructor who told you all the theory and then drove you round while you watched, without getting hands-on experience of the wheel yourself?

About the same as I'd think of one who gave me an hour's classroom teaching then said "you're ready to learn for yourself now - there's the car" and pissed off to the staffroom for a coffee, leaving me to get to grips with the actual car on my own.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Do you ever teach them things that human beings aren't already naturally able to do?

What, like walk on water, fly using their arms?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
and pissed off to the staffroom for a coffee, leaving me to get to grips with the actual car on my own.

Any teacher who left a pupil in a classroom, with or without dangerous equipment, would be in breach of duty of care etc. Leaving classes unsupervised would lead to disciplinary proceedings, ending in dismissal.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
knowledge base of the country is going down the pan. Have you not noticed the increased exasperation of University tutors at their students' inability to do simple things like writing and maths? The increasing dispair of employers at the lack of any discernable intelligence in their employees? Has it occurred to you that maybe that's because they haven't been taught properly?

First, it seems to me that universities have 'lowered' the knowledge base. In my own field, it was unheard of to get a Theology degree without any Greek, Hebrew or Patristics. Today's Theology course, outside Oxbridge, seem to be a pick and mix or subjects chosen by the student.

Second, it would require a thread all of its own but, it seems to me that more students than before get firsts and 2:1s yet they do less work, spending lots of time on part-time jobs.

Third, it seems that the 'knowledge base' of pupils in schools and the skills involved has improved. For example, philosophy and world religions were thought to be only suitable for 6th formers when I was a pupil. Now it is being done by Year 8 = 12-year-olds. In another subject at which I was good, maths, quadratic equations was taught in O 'Level Additional Maths, which only a tiny fraction of us were entered for at age 16. Now, it is taught in year 9 = 13-year-olds.

Fourth, the knowledge explosion - the RATE of new information is DOUBLING every six months? Do you seek to raise the school leaving age to, say 25 and increase it annually by one year thereafter? If would still not keep pace.

Fifth, MOST of what we learn today will be OBSOLETE in two years?

Sixth, you mention 'inability to do simple things like writing and maths? The increasing dispair of employers' Given that you were at school in the good old days and were taught spelling of such words as dispair' - then I despair or the good old days and am glad that matters have improved.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
In another subject at which I was good, maths, quadratic equations was taught in O 'Level Additional Maths, which only a tiny fraction of us were entered for at age 16. Now, it is taught in year 9 = 13-year-olds.

Just in case anybody is daft enough to take this seriously, here are a selection of vintage O level papers (no calculator papers here):

http://www.btinternet.com/~mathsanswers/html/o_level_papers.html

Here are a selection of year 9 exams (I believe the median grade before SATs were abolished was a level 6, so the level 5-7 papers should be a reasonable indicator), remember that paper 2 is a calculator paper and don't forget to look at the mental test too.

http://www.emaths.co.uk/KS3SAT.htm

When you've done that, come back if you are convinced that your average year 9 is anywhere close to an old O'level student.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

I just found the solving quadratics problem from the 1957 O-level paper (no calculator, or formula sheet remember):

"Solve the equation 3x^2 – 6x + 2 = 0, giving the roots correct to two places of decimals."

Anyone able to find anything even nearly as difficult in a SATs paper?

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
I just found the solving quadratics problem from the 1957 O-level paper (no calculator, or formula sheet remember):

"Solve the equation 3x^2 – 6x + 2 = 0, giving the roots correct to two places of decimals."

Anyone able to find anything even nearly as difficult in a SATs paper?

I think it is a mistake to think of this as particularly difficult. Rather, since the advent of calculators, students are not taught how to hand-calculate square roots any more. It's a mechanical process and hardly one that counts as an intellectual challenge. You might as well say that kids now aren't as well-educated as they used to be because they don't know how to use slide rules.

--Tom Clune

[ 09. August 2010, 18:02: Message edited by: tclune ]

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I think it is a mistake to think of this as particularly difficult. Rather, since the advent of calculators, students are not taught how to hand-calculate square roots any more. It's a mechanical process and hardly one that counts as an intellectual challenge.

Even accounting for this can anyone find anything as difficult as that question in a SATs paper?

(By the way, how do you hand-calculate square roots?)

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
I just found the solving quadratics problem from the 1957 O-level paper (no calculator, or formula sheet remember):

"Solve the equation 3x^2 – 6x + 2 = 0, giving the roots correct to two places of decimals."

Anyone able to find anything even nearly as difficult in a SATs paper?

I can't remember where I left my slide rule.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

You hand calculate square roots by iteration - which is still a method tested in the current GCSE maths non-calculator paper. They don't call it that, they call it trial and error.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Or it could be that your chief role as a teacher is to teach them the knowledge.

Actually, in my subject that's just not possible. The knowledge base required to get through the graduate medicine course is said to be the equivalent of the vocab required for several modern languages. For acute general medicine students have two 4mth blocks, with once weekly tutorials. You just can't cover all the factual knowledge step by step with them. And even if you could, it will be partially out of date in a few years.

The trick is to teach them to work out what they need to know, what the important questions to guide developing practice are, and how to assess the answers and retain important information.

There is a place for a core lecture course to drum in some basics, but it's neither practical nor desirable to make that the chief means of delivering knowledge.

I recognize the above probably applies better to adult education, however.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
You hand calculate square roots by iteration - which is still a method tested in the current GCSE maths non-calculator paper. They don't call it that, they call it trial and error.

But there's another algorithmic method. And I share tclune's view that it doesn't necessarily demonstrate a special quality of intellectual challenge - just another algorithm that can be learnt if necessary, or not if other things are now more important.

Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :

Looking at what is tested in year 9 (specifically binomial expansion) I suspect factoring quadratics would be taught in year 10. When are O levels taken year 11 or year 13 or some other time?

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
Looking at what is tested in year 9 (specifically binomial expansion) I suspect factoring quadratics would be taught in year 10. When are O levels taken year 11 or year 13 or some other time?

They were taken in either year 10 or year 11 (4th year or 5th year as it was then).

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Give each group a computer and see which can produce a Computer Aided Design or a website.

[Smile]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
and pissed off to the staffroom for a coffee, leaving me to get to grips with the actual car on my own.
Any teacher who left a pupil in a classroom, with or without dangerous equipment, would be in breach of duty of care etc. Leaving classes unsupervised would lead to disciplinary proceedings, ending in dismissal.

You have said yourself that your job is to "teach them how to learn". Surely that means that they have to do the actual learning on their own?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
First, it seems to me that universities have 'lowered' the knowledge base.

They've not really had any choice, given that to maintain previous standards would mean not having enough capable students to make the courses viable.

quote:
Third, it seems that the 'knowledge base' of pupils in schools and the skills involved has improved. For example, philosophy and world religions were thought to be only suitable for 6th formers when I was a pupil. Now it is being done by Year 8 = 12-year-olds.

Except they're not being taught philosophy and world religions - they're being taught "thinking skills" instead.

quote:
In another subject at which I was good, maths, quadratic equations was taught in O 'Level Additional Maths, which only a tiny fraction of us were entered for at age 16. Now, it is taught in year 9 = 13-year-olds.

That's more to do with the widespread availability of electronic calculating devices than anything else. Why bother teaching stuff like mental arithmetic when everyone has a computer to work it out for them?

It's a dumbing down, but one which enables people to look at subject headings like you just have and call it a smartening up. Very insidious.

quote:
Fourth, the knowledge explosion - the RATE of new information is DOUBLING every six months? Do you seek to raise the school leaving age to, say 25 and increase it annually by one year thereafter? If would still not keep pace.

Once you filter out the crap (which celebrity did what, etc.) there isn't much more expansion of knowledge than there was before. Not all new information is of value, and even if it was the core stuff that schoolkids should be learning doesn't change that much. They can learn the peripheral stuff themselves once (if) they pick a field to specialise in.

quote:
Fifth, MOST of what we learn today will be OBSOLETE in two years?

Really? The ability to do maths will be obsolete? The English/French/German/etc language will be obsolete? Christianity/Islam/Hinduism/etc will have changed out of all recognition, rendering all teachings about them obsolete? History will be obsolete? Molecules will interact with each other in completely novel ways, rendering most science obsolete?

Are you sure about that, leo? I mean, some chemical research will lead to new thinking in some areas but a covalent bond will always be a covalent bond. The core principles and ideas don't change.

quote:
Sixth, you mention 'inability to do simple things like writing and maths? The increasing dispair of employers' Given that you were at school in the good old days and were taught spelling of such words as dispair' - then I despair or the good old days and am glad that matters have improved.

I'll cop to that - I made a spelling mistake. Oops. leest Im not ritin like sum skool leavers do. wen they're not using l33t spk or txt that is.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No, the role of the teacher is to teach people how to learn, not to short-circuit the process

Are you sure? There are plenty of books for that. Problem solved. Unless you mean to teach the students how to use the books. But then that's short circuiting the whole process, no?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

It seems to me most teachers have to do a bit of both (i.e. teach knowledge and also encourage students to develop the interest and skills to acquire knowledge themselves), but the emphasis will change from subject to subject.

There will be some adult education scenarios (e.g. medicine) where one needs to provide students with guidance about how to acquire knowledge, what direction to take, and whether they have got enough of it but not necessarily to directly teach it all. The will be some subjects for school-children where I expect it is appropriate to directly teach various thinking skills. I would also expect some factual knowledge to be directly taught at various ages through school, and expect that to be a less common feature of university level education. (And almost never to be a feature of PhD-level study).

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The will be some subjects for school-children where I expect it is appropriate to directly teach various thinking skills.

I think I'm in Groundhog Day.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It seems to me most teachers have to do a bit of both (i.e. teach knowledge and also encourage students to develop the interest and skills to acquire knowledge themselves), but the emphasis will change from subject to subject.

There will be some adult education scenarios (e.g. medicine) where one needs to provide students with guidance about how to acquire knowledge, what direction to take, and whether they have got enough of it but not necessarily to directly teach it all. The will be some subjects for school-children where I expect it is appropriate to directly teach various thinking skills. I would also expect some factual knowledge to be directly taught at various ages through school, and expect that to be a less common feature of university level education. (And almost never to be a feature of PhD-level study).

I think the expectation of self-directed study and learning needs to be directly correlated with age, and tbh I don't think there should be all that much reliance on kids choosing to put effort into subjects they haven't chosen to study. If you're studying Medicine at uni, you know you're going to have to put in the hours of independent study and you've chosen that as part of the deal. All the same, in practice it probably takes an incredible level of self-discipline, restraint and delayed gratification to do what's required, and many students won't manage it.

There may be the occasional 13-year-old who will choose to study over watching TV or playing on their Xbox, and no doubt these kids will go far. But giving them the option of avoiding content is dangerous. If you go for teaching skills rather than content, with the understanding that the content is easily available, a lot of them will never bother to seek out the content. I remember being bluntly told around the time of my GCSE exams "We don't give you study leave, because experience has taught us that you're not going to use it to study." They were absolutely right. Discipline, self restraint and delayed gratification are hard enough to muster for a 20-something who has chosen Medicine and plans to get a great career out of it. For a 15 year old who already finds lessons boring (and believe me, most do, in spite of the often cringeworthy attempts from teachers to be down wid da kidz) - how's this going to work?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I agree with mdijon - I believe thinking skills are important, as is metacognition. Some students never consider how they came up with an answer, and need to learn to do so.

I also believe that flexible thinking is valuable – an incredible thing about the human brain is its plasticity — it can change, repair and re-wire itself. Flexible thinkers can change their mind as they receive new information. They know when it is appropriate to see the big picture and when a situation needs detail and precision. Can ‘picture’ solutions and use lateral thinking. They are good at considering alternative points of view, dealing with a lot sources of information simultaneously. Their minds are open to change based on additional information, opinions or ideas, which may contradict their beliefs.

Flexible thinkers show confidence in their intuition. They don't mind (or they even enjoy) confusion and ambiguity - and are willing to let go of a problem, trusting their subconscious to continue creative and productive work on it. Artists are often good at allowing the sunconscious mind to do the 'thinking'.

I believe that flexibility of thinking is important for humour, creativity and learning.

Some students find it difficult to see alternative points of view or see that there may be a variety of ways to do things. Their way to solve a problem seems to be the only way. They perceive situations from a very ego-centric point of view. ‘My way or no way’ kind of thinking can be found in some teachers too. They sometimes tend to be the ones who stifle creativity.

I think of this poem when I think of such teachers.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
There may be the occasional 13-year-old who will choose to study over watching TV or playing on their Xbox, and no doubt these kids will go far. But giving them the option of avoiding content is dangerous. If you go for teaching skills rather than content, with the understanding that the content is easily available, a lot of them will never bother to seek out the content.

I don't quite understand the link between the option to play Xbox rather than study and thinking skills. One can be a lax or disciplinarian teacher of content or a lax or disciplinarian teacher of skills.

I had a history teacher who taught us to evaluate accounts critically and justify our arguments, but who was terrifying and demanding with it.

In any case, I think what I'm arguing for now is balance rather than one over the other. I think all content and no thinking is probably as bad as all thinking and no content.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

It was more a response to Leo saying things like "there are plenty of books to read" and "we are teaching them how to learn" - the message seems to be that if you "teach them how to learn" then for some reason they'll become motivated and go off and do it. It's a lovely idea but seems to go completely against the grain of human - and in particular teenage - nature.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I agree with mdijon - I believe thinking skills are important,

It is Groundhog Day.

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

as is metacognition. Some students never consider how they came up with an answer, and need to learn to do so.

For what purpose do they need that?

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

I also believe that flexible thinking is valuable
– an incredible thing about the human brain is its plasticity — it can change, repair and re-wire itself. Flexible thinkers can change their mind as they receive new information.

You aren't seriously suggesting that changing your mind is a result of brain plasticity?

And how on earth do you have the cheek to extol the cirtues of changing one's mind when you have simply ignored challenges to your opinions on this thread?

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

They know when it is appropriate to see the big picture and ...

Enough already with the cod psychology. Nobody thinks it is bad to change your mind. You are arguing against a strawman when you extol the virtues of "flexibility".

What would, however, be useful is some kind of demonstration as to why the low-content education being advocated on this thread would improve flexibility. It is far from obvious that the ignorant are more receptive to correction.

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

‘My way or no way’ kind of thinking can be found in some teachers too. They sometimes tend to be the ones who stifle creativity. I think of this poem when I think of such teachers.

And when I hear teachers claiming their authority is a bad thing I think of this.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think of this poem when I think of such teachers.

There is of course a risk of stifling creativity by being too prescriptive. I think that current teaching philosophy seems to have such a complete terror of this, however, that it's in danger of going to the other extreme. You could write a poem in which the boy is told that every single approach to a task is equally praiseworthy, however slapdash, and then he goes out into the world and discovers that those horrible employers don't see it the same way.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
they're not being taught philosophy and world religions - they're being taught "thinking skills" instead.

Thinking skills belongs in tutor period/pastoral time, not academic subject time.

[ 10. August 2010, 15:18: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think of this poem when I think of such teachers.
There is of course a risk of stifling creativity by being too prescriptive. I think that current teaching philosophy seems to have such a complete terror of this, however, that it's in danger of going to the other extreme. You could write a poem in which the boy is told that every single approach to a task is equally praiseworthy, however slapdash, and then he goes out into the world and discovers that those horrible employers don't see it the same way.

I agree - in fact it's those teachers who went to the 'other extreme' who spoiled it for the rest of us, and brought in a 'tick box' system which ties us all in knots [Frown]

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
But there's another algorithmic method. And I share tclune's view that it doesn't necessarily demonstrate a special quality of intellectual challenge - just another algorithm that can be learnt if necessary, or not if other things are now more important.

Yup, that's the method I was taught in grade school back in the day. You have provided a brief trip down memory lane...

--Tom Clune

Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
Looking at what is tested in year 9 (specifically binomial expansion) I suspect factoring quadratics would be taught in year 10. When are O levels taken year 11 or year 13 or some other time?
They were taken in either year 10 or year 11 (4th year or 5th year as it was then).

So we are comparing what 14 or 15 year olds were taught in the 60's versus what 13 year olds are taught now? Just trying to understant the sutleties.

Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
In another subject at which I was good, maths, quadratic equations was taught in O 'Level Additional Maths, which only a tiny fraction of us were entered for at age 16. Now, it is taught in year 9 = 13-year-olds.
That's more to do with the widespread availability of electronic calculating devices than anything else. Why bother teaching stuff like mental arithmetic when everyone has a computer to work it out for them?

It's a dumbing down, but one which enables people to look at subject headings like you just have and call it a smartening up. Very insidious.

Calculators can cause a dumbing down. But paper and pencil also dumbed down the public by allowing students not to do mental arithmetic. The upswing of calculators is that you can teack some things faster(i.e. transformations of equations) I note that it is interesting that the tests students are taking over there have a non-calculator portion.

Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

as is metacognition. Some students never consider how they came up with an answer, and need to learn to do so.
For what purpose do they need that?

If they can not state how they came up with an answer they do not understand how to solve the problem well enough. So I would say to better understand the objectives being taught. But I am not sure if that is really metacognition.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
they're not being taught philosophy and world religions - they're being taught "thinking skills" instead.
Thinking skills belongs in tutor period/pastoral time, not academic subject time.

Then why the hell have we been arguing for sixteen pages about you teaching them during RE?

Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

‘My way or no way’ kind of thinking can be found in some teachers too. They sometimes tend to be the ones who stifle creativity. I think of this poem when I think of such teachers.
And when I hear teachers claiming their authority is a bad thing I think of this.

I was listening to a sports psychologist yesterday. He had an interesting thought on the stages of coaching. the stages are

survival
success
significance
stagnation
stale

Success being a stage where we may be good but we make the coaching about us* and significance is about the player and team**. Interestingly some of the greastest college coaches have succeeded in both of these stages but espouse the latter. I wonder if this appies to teaching as well. I am not sure if this applies to what you two are arguing about but I thought this was a good place to put the thought.

*ie I have never coached a losing team before and it is not going to happen now.
**ie We are going to correct the problems.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
It was more a response to Leo saying things like "there are plenty of books to read" and "we are teaching them how to learn"

Yes, I see that now. It's unlikely that the average 13yr old will do a lot of self-directed learning I agree. I guess the question is how much self-directed learning is required at that moment. I think one can teach skills in class without relying on self-directed teaching.

For instance, my strict history teacher's approach to teaching us critical evaluation wasn't to tell us to go read books somewhere and come back and talk about it - it was a very directed and monitored approach with standards to be met.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Then why the hell have we been arguing for sixteen pages about you teaching them during RE?

William Blake said, "If the fool were to persist in his folly, he would become wise." Perhaps you are demonstrating that very point...

--Tom Clune

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

It was Einstein who said "Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school."

[Smile]

Here is a mind map which looks at thinking skills.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
So we are comparing what 14 or 15 year olds were taught in the 60's versus what 13 year olds are taught now? Just trying to understant the sutleties.

Year 9 = 13-14
Year 10 = 4th year = 14-15
Year 11 = 5th year = 15-16 (but finishing before the year is out)

To make things more complicated, the school leaving age only moved to 16 in 1972. As I understand it there was a movement in the late 1960s towards students doing O-levels early, i.e. in the 4th year, but I do not know how widespread it was.

Leo's claim was that a topic (solving quadratics) that appeared in the additional O level paper (so presumably more advanced than regular O level) was now taught in year 9.

Of course, the exam papers indicate that it was part of the regular O level, and while I'm sure it is taught to some very advanced year 9s, nobody has yet identified it in any of those SATs papers.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
as is metacognition. Some students never consider how they came up with an answer, and need to learn to do so.
For what purpose do they need that?
If they can not state how they came up with an answer they do not understand how to solve the problem well enough. So I would say to better understand the objectives being taught. But I am not sure if that is really metacognition.

Agreed.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Thinking skills belongs in tutor period/pastoral time, not academic subject time.
Then why the hell have we been arguing for sixteen pages about you teaching them during RE?

Nope. Phil A was the "thinking skills" man. Leo was the "theologising" man.

Personally I think it just gives the impression that when teachers cease having to pass on well-defined subject knowledge then they just teach anything.

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Here is a mind map which looks at thinking skills.

Here is a picture of some puppies.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Definition (metacognition)

* Knowledge about one's own cognitive system; thinking about one's own thinking; essential skill for learning to learn
* Includes thoughts about (1) what we know or don't know and (2) regulating how we go about learning.

"Metacognitive deficiencies are the problem of the novice, regardless of age. Ignorance is not necessarily age related; rather it is more a function of inexperience in a new (and difficult) problem situation" (A. L. Brown, 1980)

Bringing the thread back to RE. I would say that condisering our own thinking processes is useful in that subject. Religion can be full of subjectivity and emotion. To be able to reflect on how we learned our religious ideas would be a good thing imo.

[ 10. August 2010, 17:24: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Definition (metacognition)
* Knowledge about one's own cognitive system; thinking about one's own thinking; essential skill for learning to learn
* Includes thoughts about (1) what we know or don't know and (2) regulating how we go about learning.

The trouble with metacognition is not that it isn't necessary but that it is too wide. It can include study skills, understanding, self-assessment, working out and no doubt plenty of other things too. Short of learning by rote in class (without the help of mnemonics) it's hard to see what type of learning wouldn't involve metacognition.

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

Bringing the thread back to RE. I would say that condisering our own thinking processes is useful in that subject. Religion can be full of subjectivity and emotion. To be able to reflect on how we learned our religious ideas would be a good thing imo.

I think it would be a good idea too.

I utterly hate the idea of it being part of a school lesson though. It really is no business of anybody else.

Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Leo's claim was that a topic (solving quadratics) that appeared in the additional O level paper (so presumably more advanced than regular O level) was now taught in year 9.

Just trying to understand the situation. Over hear Leo's general claim of students being taught higher maths at younger ages is true. But that may be that our standards were piss poor years ago. Some advance 12-13 year olds are learning factoring quadratics. Although factoring quadratics is taught to the general populace when they are 14-15 year olds.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
when teachers cease having to pass on well-defined subject knowledge then they just teach anything.

Not in the case of RE. We have to teach what is on the Agreed Syllabus and nearly ever one of them tends to be highly detailed these days.

Our South Glos. one of over 100 ages. The Avon syllabus when I came here in 1978 (Marvin's good old days) ran to a mere four pages.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Here is a mind map which looks at thinking skills.
Here is a picture of some puppies.

Brilliant - I agree with your sentiment here.

I have 'mind maps' largely because I am not a spatial; thinker (but you don't believe in learning styles, do you).

Although I also hate dogs, I thought the puppies were rather cute.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:

quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:

quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
Looking at what is tested in year 9 (specifically binomial expansion) I suspect factoring quadratics would be taught in year 10. When are O levels taken year 11 or year 13 or some other time?
They were taken in either year 10 or year 11 (4th year or 5th year as it was then).
So we are comparing what 14 or 15 year olds were taught in the 60's versus what 13 year olds are taught now? Just trying to understant the sutleties.

It is even more difficult than that.

The old O'level papers tended to test what you did NOT know. (Very brief questions such as 'Paul's missionary journeys in Acts cannot be historically true. Discuss')

GCSEs try to test what you DO know/Can do. (List the ...journeys in Acts. list.... in Galatians. Where are there discrepancies. How can these discrepancies be accounted for? Does this undermine 'the authority of the bible?'

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Some words in the editorial of this week's Church Times seem apposite.

First, on education for its own sake as opposed to relevance to the word of work:

Cardinal Newman wrote that a liberal education was the process of training “by which the intellect, instead of being formed or sacrificed to some particular or accidental purpose, some specific trade or profession, or study or science, is disciplined for its own sake, for the perception of its own proper object, and for its own highest culture” (The Idea of a University, 1854). It is, of course, through the study of particular subjects that mental discipline is inculcated, regardless of the value of such studies in themselves.

Second, on the importance of training the mind rather than of passing exams:

For that reason, achievements of memorisation are ranked lower than the use to which re¬membered facts are put.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I don't know how many this will convince, but when I came across this report in science I couldn't help thinking of this thread.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0