|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Religious education in state schools
|
fat-tony
Shipmate
# 13769
|
Posted
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
Posts: 74 | From: Springfield( The South) | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
From anyone on the thread? Or just a general impression?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
fat-tony
Shipmate
# 13769
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 74 | From: Springfield( The South) | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
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
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
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.)
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sleepwalker
Shipmate
# 15343
|
Posted
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'?
Posts: 267 | From: somewhere other than here | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
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).
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PhilA
shipocaster
# 8792
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
To err is human. To arr takes a pirate.
Posts: 3121 | From: Sofa | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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]](rolleyes.gif)
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?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I must say I'm really uncomfortable with the notion of the state mandating a development of spiritual development. Makes me shudder.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
markprice81
Shipmate
# 13793
|
Posted
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'.
Posts: 126 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PhilA
shipocaster
# 8792
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
To err is human. To arr takes a pirate.
Posts: 3121 | From: Sofa | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
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]](biggrin.gif) ) 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.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
Sorry, Sleepwalker. It was the avatar: I thought you were Rosa Winkel. Hence the Poland reference.
My point stands.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
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 fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
