The most alarming part of this post is in the middle where we find out that learners “…are more concerned with grades than they are with learning. This causes the supposedly smart students to take less risks in order to get better grades. Students that take more risks are punished with bad grades.” How many symphonies have not been written in order to protect a GPA?
If you have heard the phrase that “we learn from our mistakes” you may wonder why mistakes are unacceptable in schools. The very places that we go to learn. In school, the more mistake you make the more you are scorned. Only the students that happen to give the teacher the exact answer that they want seems to succeed in the current system. However, this is not how learning works in the real world. When we make mistakes we learn not to repeat them and we find out what does work and what does not work.
According to (Tugend, 2011) in our current education system, children are more concerned with grades than they are with learning. This causes the supposedly smart students to take less risks in order to get better grades. Students that take more risks are punished with bad grades. So in other words (Tugend, 2011) is saying…
View original post 284 more words
There is a paradigm shift taking place in learning today. I have written before that there is a paradigm shift in education, but the status quo is reinforcing the traditional trenches in a way that is unbelievable in today’s world. Just as the Germans simply zipped around the impregnable Maginot line (the massively reinforced trenches from WWI) at the beginning of WWII, learning is preparing to zip around the heavily reinforced educational institutions of today.
The music industry, the publishing industry, the newspaper industry, the postal systems, the public libraries, the traditional bookstore, video stores, movie theatres – these and other sectors of our society have had to (or are in the process of) reinventing themselves to fit into the new world of digitized information. Only in education have the powers that be refused to engage in a critical self-examination to ask what digitization really means to this sector of society.
View original post 355 more words
A new post I just put up there.
I have written before about the drive for conformity in education. Given the massification of education which has led to huge classrooms with, literally, hundreds of students being taught, conformity is essential. It has become, unabashedly, one of the central and core tenants of education. When I wrote about conformity three years ago, I focussed on the loss of creativity in the learning process. However, I now believe that there is a much greater cost to our society than the simple loss of creativity. I now believe that the greatest cost that society bears as a result of the enforced conformity from the youngest to the oldest students in education is a personal tragedy borne by, literally, millions of students and former students.
That students of all shapes and sizes are forced into a mold by the educational “system” is without disagreement. Students, at least for a significant portion of…
View original post 572 more words
I know that this blog post will be old news to most of us, but I think it needs reiterating within the present context of my thinking – how do we find out what we believe in, or what are the methods of knowing?
According to Peirce (1877), there are three methods of knowing information, method of authority, method of tenacity, a priori method, and the scientific method. I will review each one of them, and consider how they impact us in our society today. I will consider the method of tenacity and the a priori method first
In both the method of tenacity and the a priori method, there is often no way to identify where knowledge of a belief came from, it just is. The fundamental difference is the willingness to change a belief.
In the a priori method, the belief is there because it…
View original post 1,169 more words
Last week I posted about the lack of ability to engage in deductive reasoning in the general adult population. As well as the problems I highlighted there, one aspect that deserves further attention is the effect that has on moral development.
Piaget assumed that all people, when they reached adolescence, would progress naturally from his “concrete operational” stage to the “formal operational” stage of cognitive development. The formal operational stage is where we see deductive reasoning emerge. However, research since Piaget’s proposal has let us know that not all (in fact a minority) of adults reach a formal operational stage of cognitive development. This is because it does not emerge naturally, but must be taught, and in our test, test, test world of education today, there is no room for teaching students how to think.
Moral development relies directly on the ability to reason, with Kolberg’s moral development stages tied neatly to Piaget’s cognitive development stages. What this means, is that the majority of people do not move beyond a concrete operational stage of moral reasoning. Here is a table outlining the stages of moral development.
Concrete operational thinkers don’t progress beyond stage 4 in their moral development. As the next table shows, there are few adults who progress beyond Stage 4 in their moral reasoning.
Why is this a problem? If you read the description of stage four moral development, you can see that there is little thinking involved. At this stage, people simply follow the rules. Right and wrong are defined by the law, and the highest moral authority is the government of the day. Whatever laws are passed defines the morality of the day for the vast majority of people.
Think of Nazi Germany, and the laws they passed targeting a group of people. With stage four moral reasoning, because it is written in law, it is the right thing. Institutional racism or bigotry become, not only okay, but right, because they are legal. Simply looking out on the events of today, and you can see the same thing happening again, both in North America and in parts of Europe.
One of the evidences that there is a lack of reasoning ability in America today is the emergence of Donald Trump as the frontrunner in the Republican race for the Presidency. Given how politics in the USA tends to swing between parties, this means that he is likely to be the next President. He is using the same language and techniques to target and oppress Muslims in America that Hitler used on the Jews 70 years ago.
Because of the failure of education to train people to think, there is an inability to engage in moral reasoning that will stop both the current, and the onrushing atrocities that are hurtling toward us. If, what is on the horizon, actually happens, we have to face the fact that we, as educators, have been complicit in shaping the society that would allow this to happen.
As the most powerful force shaping society today, we need to do better. We need to break out of the memorize and regurgitate model of education, and teach people to think. In the age of information abundance, we don’t need to focus exclusively on content, and yet, for all the innovations in education over the past ten years, that is still our predominate model. When are we going to really engage in meaningful discussion to fix what is broken.
Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably the reason why so few engage in it.
Reasoning has been divided into two basic types – inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.
Inductive reasoning is universal, emerges at a very young age, and is fundamentally attuned to the structure of the brain and how memory is stored. Inductive reasoning is the emergence of a general principle from the experiences of a person. A toddler shows basic inductive reasoning when, after touching several hot surfaces, they decide that hot surfaces burn. After this, there is an almost universal reaction to telling them something is hot – they clutch one hand with the other, and with a very concerned look say “hot” (or something like that). Deductive reasoning at its best.
Deductive reasoning, on the other hand, is not natural, and must be learned. The cognitive functioning that is necessary to engage in deductive reasoning develops during adolescence – the ability to engage in abstract thought processes. However, deductive reasoning is difficult to carry out, and normally becomes evident after formal instruction in deductive reasoning. This is the type of thinking that Henry Ford was referring to.
Unfortunately, the number of adults who ever learn to reason deductively is not high. Studies in the 1960s and 1970s demonstrated that as few as 40% of North American adults are unable to use deductive reasoning to solve problems and understand the world, with the ability being directly linked to educational attainment. More recent studies have suggested that the number of people who are able to engage in deductive reasoning has dropped from about 40% to as low as 20%. This is alarming for a number of reasons.
First, it demonstrates a serious shortfall in the education system. With our obsession in education for memorizing more stuff and finding the right answer, there is no room left for teaching people to think.
Why is this a problem? Obviously, with so large a proportion of the population unable to use deductive reasoning, and society is still functioning – or is it?
Being unable to use deductive reasoning means that an individual is unable to follow the logic that is used to reach a conclusion that is based on deductive reasoning. It is not that a person doesn’t want to, they are simply unable to because of a lack of training.
Why does this matter? Because there is a growing chasm between the scientific world and society in general. Most of the members of our society are cognitively unable to follow the arguments scientists use to demonstrate what they are finding, and scientists can’t understand why the members of our society just don’t look at the data and come to the same, obvious conclusions that they have. The lack of deductive reasoning means that members of society are simply unable to follow the logic, and so must turn to other sources to find out the truth.
Thing about climate change, or immunization. Within the scientific community, and among generally well educated members of society (and there is a strong correlation) who can engage in deductive reasoning, there is confusion about how there can even be a controversy. For those who can use deductive reasoning, there is no controversy. The facts speak for themselves when they are followed through the logical sequence that leads to a conclusion. The science is absolutely solid.
The lack of ability to engage in deductive reasoning for a majority of participants in a Western Democracy is problematic, to say the least.
Another reason, which will have to be dealt with in a future blog post, is the effect that the lack of deductive reasoning ability (or formal operational thinking in developmental terms) has on the development of moral reasoning.
We can do better than this – if we are willing to look closely at ourselves and embrace the necessary changes.