homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Religious education in state schools (Page 7)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ...  14  15  16 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Religious education in state schools
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546

 - Posted      Profile for oldandrew   Author's homepage   Email oldandrew   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/

Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ..

--------------------
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
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546

 - Posted      Profile for oldandrew   Author's homepage   Email oldandrew   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/

Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546

 - Posted      Profile for oldandrew   Author's homepage   Email oldandrew   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/

Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546

 - Posted      Profile for oldandrew   Author's homepage   Email oldandrew   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/

Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
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      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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'.

--------------------
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
PhilA

shipocaster
# 8792

 - Posted      Profile for PhilA   Email PhilA   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
To err is human. To arr takes a pirate.

Posts: 3121 | From: Sofa | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546

 - Posted      Profile for oldandrew   Author's homepage   Email oldandrew   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/

Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
PhilA

shipocaster
# 8792

 - Posted      Profile for PhilA   Email PhilA   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
To err is human. To arr takes a pirate.

Posts: 3121 | From: Sofa | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Although he claims knowledge to be all important, he declines any offers that we make to help him obtain some.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546

 - Posted      Profile for oldandrew   Author's homepage   Email oldandrew   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/

Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
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      Profile for oldandrew   Author's homepage   Email oldandrew   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/

Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
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
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546

 - Posted      Profile for oldandrew   Author's homepage   Email oldandrew   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/

Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163

 - Posted      Profile for Sir Pellinore   Email Sir Pellinore   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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]

--------------------
Well...

Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
PhilA

shipocaster
# 8792

 - Posted      Profile for PhilA   Email PhilA   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
To err is human. To arr takes a pirate.

Posts: 3121 | From: Sofa | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Emma Louise

Storm in a teapot
# 3571

 - Posted      Profile for Emma Louise   Email Emma Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546

 - Posted      Profile for oldandrew   Author's homepage   Email oldandrew   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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."

--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/

Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546

 - Posted      Profile for oldandrew   Author's homepage   Email oldandrew   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/

Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
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      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
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
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546

 - Posted      Profile for oldandrew   Author's homepage   Email oldandrew   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/

Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546

 - Posted      Profile for oldandrew   Author's homepage   Email oldandrew   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes.

I agree.

--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/

Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
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
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546

 - Posted      Profile for oldandrew   Author's homepage   Email oldandrew   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/

Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546

 - Posted      Profile for oldandrew   Author's homepage   Email oldandrew   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/

Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546

 - Posted      Profile for oldandrew   Author's homepage   Email oldandrew   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/

Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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...

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
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
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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...

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546

 - Posted      Profile for oldandrew   Author's homepage   Email oldandrew   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/

Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dinghy Sailor

Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507

 - Posted      Profile for Dinghy Sailor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546

 - Posted      Profile for oldandrew   Author's homepage   Email oldandrew   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/

Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546

 - Posted      Profile for oldandrew   Author's homepage   Email oldandrew   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/

Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
metacognitive strategies

They sound fun. I'll take twelvety please... [Biased]

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ...  14  15  16 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools