• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wrong Education

Hard to make a good standard for teaching critical thinking for three reasons:

1) There is weak evidence that teaching critical thinking actually makes people better critical thinkers. The strongest evidence is that it's a personality factor.

2) The teaching of critical thinking often involves hostility toward sacred cows. In other words: the course will be controversial. (consider: in the US, 85% of highschool biology teachers confess that they do not teach evolution because they either don't believe it themselves, or are afraid of hostility from students and their parents)

3) The teaching of critical thinking does not itself have existing standards, so the course would itself be a bit of an experiment. Having said that, progress could result from the expansion of this experiment. (see point #1)

1. I partially disagree, once you teach people to remove emotion from the thought process and they understand the science behind why they need to do that I have found that there is a great increase in critical thought. This I believe should be part of the teaching process. I understand where you're coming from if you mean you just can't teach it and have people try to memorize it, it's not quite that simple, the same can be said for philosophy and social science too.

2. Yes, I don't think we have any diagreement here... but it is possible to start resocializing people, even if it's slowly, just not too slowly.

3. The teaching of algebra once did not have a set standard either, but I for one am glad someone or some group finally overcame their fears and developed a standard. Of course it would have to be pioneered but there is actually a lot of material on this subject that maybe you're overlooking.
 
I'll elaborate.

It's only to be expected with years and years and decades and decades of teacher-centered education traditions.

I'll elaborate further. I'll give a 'good' example of the type I mean. People who are baby-boomers and lived through massive changes in technology, teaching standards, from unit curriculum to outcomes based learning.

I work across the hall from a teacher who has worked in my school for forty years.

Forty. And she and her male counterpart/equivalent (who I think has been there for nearly forty years) in the same department has only ever worked at this school and they're both in their 60s or close to.

They won't retire. They'll probably fall asleep during recess one day over their knitting and we'll realise they're dead. :rolleyes: Imagine old dragons, with crotchety voices and a tendency to grumble about 'the good old days' when there was national service.... :) Who wouldn't know what rap music is and thinks that Destiny's Child is a contraceptive device.

And the tradition that they've been raised under and have (pretty much) taught under was rote learning from books. And they've slowly and I mean slowly adapted over the years. Because times do change and they've had to change (sometimes grudgingly and hesitatingly) with it.

But they scare the hell out of the Year 8s. :boggled: As they do have very traditionalist classrooms. You can see it in the seating arrangements. Everything in nice, neat lines. All facing the front of the room. You are only to answer questions if you are called upon. And you are only to ask questions by raising your hand.

It's pretty much time-warp 1950s. :) Yet they take part in cross-curricular activities, they do help out with excursions and 'get out of their element' as much as any teacher (and we do that a lot!) And that helps students relax a little more around them. They've got a sort of 'fond' reputation as being 'the last of an era'.

They have students whose mothers who were in their classes. Aunts who tell them 'say hi from me! They taught me back in the 60s!' I wouldn't be surprised if one day they'll have a granddaughter of a girl they taught turn up in their classes.

And there's plenty of them out there. The 'chalkies'. The old-guard, like I said. They have given a high-quality education... but in a very traditionalist style. If they were truly horrific, they would have gone by now, thank hades. Or at least, one hopes so. :(

And I know that there are others out there who take this model and go to the extreme - the real dragons and nasty sort who do bitch about their job and should have got out of the system. Hades knows, I was taught by quite a few, have had as a factor in my choosing to work elsewhere the experience of working with some, and I still see them at conferences. :covereyes But I think we have to be realistic and understand that there are many teachers who continue on into their fifties and even into their sixties in the profession. You can't expect a dramatic change to student-centered learning and adoption of different learning strategies by people who have been teaching longer than I have been alive.

They do have pride in themselves and a certain pride in what they do. Hell, there must be something that makes them turn up the next year that isn't just the money / sadist tendencies / free tea in the staffroom.... But sometimes what they do in their job isn't that effective as it could be. And to patronise them or force latter-day generation teachers to adopt new teaching strategies ad hoc.... could just result in passive aggressiveness and a real problem in the classroom. Just exacerbate things to become worse... :rolleyes: Everyone is a stakeholder. We have to care about teachers too, help to care about the kids as it isn't just about the kids!

There's a hell of a lot of baby-boomers out there, Clar. They're my bosses, the teachers across the hall and the fellow attendees at the teaching conferences. Gotta work with them and gotta not treat them like the enemy, even if some of their strategies leave a hell of a lot to be desired. Treat the situation as a whole and not throw out what can be a damned good teacher with consideration in supporting them and use their years of experience that should count for something. :)

Not sure where you are and/or how you are evaluated BUT in schools in Florida where many of the advancements are taught to teachers - as ineffectual as many are ( look carefully into the past - there is a cycle of educational procedures that float up in a fairly orderly progression about every 7 to 10 years. During each the kids in the firm middle, + the hard A and hard F kids stay pretty much the same while the D/modF and B/mod A kids move around a bit with the movement in D/modF being used to justify the "new" procedure) when teachers are evaluated, they are specifically given bad points if they allow questions without a raised hand, group response to a question, etc. (other points are similar - that is just to address your first negative). Oh, and as far as careful alignment - we have too many students per class in most AND we are required to use certain (good) equipment that requires that students be facing in one direction (and class wiring prevents making that anyplace but front) a reasonable amount of class time. I suspect your system is running modified Summerhill thing (that gives less responsible students better chance to get the good grades - I do not mean that as a dig at the students, I would have worked better in high school in that mode). Best to all the teachers in your system. Oh, not to advertise but your school might want to look into unitedstreaming.com .
 
It was "The Technology of Teaching"(1968). And I believe Skinner would have not agreed with your stress on "psychological defense mechanisms" in understanding human behavior, considering their origin in Freudian pseudoscience.
Skinner emphasized contingencies of reinforcement and an individual's history of reinforcement in determining human behavior.

I'm not implying that Skinner would agree with me in full or part on this or any other subject, but I was giving an example of someone that was qualified in helping to advance society to the next level of liberty.

As far as defense mechanisms being pseudopsychology, I am not aware of this. Do you have any link regarding this issue? I was under the impression that social scientists have added more defense mechanisms to the original bunch of Ms. Freud.
 
They could also be taught music...

be027704.jpg
 
Hard to make a good standard for teaching critical thinking for three reasons:

I agree it is difficult to make a good standard for 'assessing' critical thinking. Teaching it is tricky without having a concensus on what critical thinking should comprise of.

1) There is weak evidence that teaching critical thinking actually makes people better critical thinkers. The strongest evidence is that it's a personality factor.

Halpern, D., (1993), The Effectiveness of Critical thinking in Education, The Journal of General Education, Vol 42, No 4 would disagree, as would about four other papers I have which have evaluated the effect of teaching critical thinking on future information evaluation skills.

'Weak' evidence in this case means you have not looked.

2) The teaching of critical thinking often involves hostility toward sacred cows. In other words: the course will be controversial. (consider: in the US, 85% of highschool biology teachers confess that they do not teach evolution because they either don't believe it themselves, or are afraid of hostility from students and their parents)

Critical thinking is a skill, not a stance. It in itself does not involve hostility necessarily, as the teacher becomes more of a role-modelling facilitator.

The issue is that critical thinking needs to be universally applied to be effective; in other words, to numerous disciplines focussing on numerous resources. When taught correctly, it wouldn't matter if somebody taught ID, as the students would have the skills to be able to deal with diverse information resources and be able to better evaluate it.

3) The teaching of critical thinking does not itself have existing standards, so the course would itself be a bit of an experiment. Having said that, progress could result from the expansion of this experiment. (see point #1)


Teaching it as a course is inferior to teaching it as an integrated, cross-curricula skill.

Athon
 
Don't let Blake read this, Athon! He wouldn't want the wrong people asking questions in his brave new world!
 
Don't let Blake read this, Athon! He wouldn't want the wrong people asking questions in his brave new world!

I'm a gamma. I had alcohol added to my broth prior to my decanting. What would I know?

Athon
 
...Teaching it as a course is inferior to teaching it as an integrated, cross-curricula skill.
Athon
True, but very difficult to implement. I teach a "Critical Thinking in Psychology" course using Gilovich's "How We Know What Isn't So" as the primary text. The first part of the text deals with psychological determinants of questionable beliefs and examples, primarily in the areas of CAM and dubious "psycho"therapies, are analysed.
I would appreciate receiving those references you mentioned, Athon. Some of the ones I've seen in the past were a bit weak in experimental design, oddly enough.
 
True, but very difficult to implement. I teach a "Critical Thinking in Psychology" course using Gilovich's "How We Know What Isn't So" as the primary text. The first part of the text deals with psychological determinants of questionable beliefs and examples, primarily in the areas of CAM and dubious "psycho"therapies, are analysed.
I would appreciate receiving those references you mentioned, Athon. Some of the ones I've seen in the past were a bit weak in experimental design, oddly enough.

I can send a couple of interesting ones in an email if you PM me your email address. Others I have only as hard copies, which you can download from several online journal sites if you have access.

Athon
 
Let me take this quote at face value.

This is exactly what is wrong with our civilization, we pay golfers and racecar drivers millions while our teacher's are underpaid AND under educated. We are worshipful of industries who do not contribute anything or even harm while they waste resources and man-hours while our educational system faulters.

This is a flawed statement. By far the majority of golfers and racecar drivers are paid little to no money whatsover. The difference is that teaching is not a competition. Football players are a slightly different argument.

I think a better comparison is that between teachers and middle-level managment staff. Why do we value business organisation more than teaching?

More importantly, why do we give a higher weighting to the responsibilities of middle-level management than to the responsibilities of teaching?
 
I think a better comparison is that between teachers and middle-level managment staff. Why do we value business organisation more than teaching?

More importantly, why do we give a higher weighting to the responsibilities of middle-level management than to the responsibilities of teaching?

Because middle-level management makes upper-level management richer, while paying teachers more makes everyone else poorer. You didn't get into teaching for the money did you:confused:

Personally I'm doing quite well from the appalling drop in standards since working in a science based area means I'm more in demand. Keep up the good work:D
 
I just want to know what makes you think defense mechanisms is pseudoscience.
They had their origins in Freudian pseudoscience, as I said originally. At best, they merely describe some behaviors, at worst, they are harmful.
Consider repression. Ancedotal evidence soley, no falsifiable testing. As Anna Freud said of one patient, "Her penis envy was so totally repressed that no evidence of it could be detected."
The harmful part was when incompetent "therapists" induced false repressed memories that destroyed families, careers and resulted in jailing innocent people.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They had their origins in Freudian pseudoscience, as I said originally. At best, they merely describe some behaviors, at worst, they are harmful.

I think these days, Freudians are considered a bit of an embarassment among psychologists.



Consider repression. Ancedotal evidence soley, no falsifiable testing. As Anna Freud said of one patient, "Her penis envy was so totally repressed that no evidence of it could be detected."

Having said that, some Freudian elements have evolved into more scientific models of cognition.




The harmful part was when incompetent "therapists" induced false repressed memories that destroyed families, careers and resulted in jailing innocent people.

I must have missed an earlier part of the thread, so I'm not sure if this relates to the 'defense mechanisms' question. But I do recall observing that these people were indeed disproportionately represented by Freudians, Jungians, and laypersons.
 
1. I partially disagree, once you teach people to remove emotion from the thought process and they understand the science behind why they need to do that I have found that there is a great increase in critical thought. This I believe should be part of the teaching process. I understand where you're coming from if you mean you just can't teach it and have people try to memorize it, it's not quite that simple, the same can be said for philosophy and social science too.

I've had experiences, too, but I'm trying to rely on the overall research in the field. We don't have enough information right now about lifetime impacts, because the research into teaching critical thinking has not been going on for very long. Most of the early subjects are university age right now. However, the results do not look like the investment pays off. The application of critical thinking is a mechanical skill that does not appear to impact worldviews. (ie: Creation Scientists employ critical thinking strategies to dismantle evolution education, Jesuits have been using critical thinking for centuries to acquire converts, &c)

Athon indicated that it was a skillset and not a worldview, and that is true. The implications are that we will arm those with an opposing worldview.

Athon also implied that I am ignorant of the research, but this is not so. I have personally been involved with it as an undergraduate thesis with Dr. Priensperg, and as a Skeptic, I was originally very optomistic about this. My original educational vision was modelled on the Australian Mystery Investigators. (Richard Saunders, Alynda and Loretta Marron.)

I only have a batchelor's in psych, but I've been approved to go forward with graduate studies next year (2007). I intend to get re-attached to this research, as my ultimate goal is to produce a Canadian version of Mystery Investigators.

Further to this, I continue to hear examples of Skeptics who have done the same journey I have, and now I'm listening with more attention. For example, in a recent NESS Skeptic's Guide to the Universe interview, Massimo Pigliucci explained that he has concluded that more science education is not the answer, and I am compelled to agree. Nevertheless, at the grassroots, this is a constant suggestion, and I put 'we should teach more critical thinking' in the same category of wishful thinking.





3. The teaching of algebra once did not have a set standard either, but I for one am glad someone or some group finally overcame their fears and developed a standard. Of course it would have to be pioneered but there is actually a lot of material on this subject that maybe you're overlooking.

I wish. Re: algebra. Bad analogy. Not controversial.
 
...I must have missed an earlier part of the thread, so I'm not sure if this relates to the 'defense mechanisms' question. But I do recall observing that these people were indeed disproportionately represented by Freudians, Jungians, and laypersons.
Repression is supposedly a major defense mechanism which gives rise to repressed memories.
 
Repression is supposedly a major defense mechanism which gives rise to repressed memories.

Yes, I understand what it means... just wasn't sure how it related to the thread, and was confessing that I hadn't read every prior entry. Sort of a weak excuse for if my reply was out of context.
 
I've had experiences, too, but I'm trying to rely on the overall research in the field. We don't have enough information right now about lifetime impacts, because the research into teaching critical thinking has not been going on for very long. Most of the early subjects are university age right now. However, the results do not look like the investment pays off. The application of critical thinking is a mechanical skill that does not appear to impact worldviews. (ie: Creation Scientists employ critical thinking strategies to dismantle evolution education, Jesuits have been using critical thinking for centuries to acquire converts, &c)

I agree that socially involved views based on community values don't tend to be affected by critical thinking. Current speculation indicates that social bonds formed by shared views circumvent critical thinking. This makes sense, ultimately, but for skeptics, it doesn't seem to bode well.

This is not the same as saying that critical thinking doesn't improve the ability to evaluate information, however.

Athon also implied that I am ignorant of the research, but this is not so. I have personally been involved with it as an undergraduate thesis with Dr. Priensperg, and as a Skeptic, I was originally very optomistic about this.

I find it odd that your opinions run contrary to a lot of the literature, then, which is optimistic about the effectiveness of teaching critical thinking, even if it is rarely done.

Athon
 

Back
Top Bottom