|
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
 Posted - 06/25/2004 : 10:18:09
|
The standard mode of education in the United States, and I assume everywhere, is didactic. A teacher with a classroom full of students scatters knowledge about and the students absorb this knowledge—teaching by telling. I would say that it is an osmosis form of education—effortless often-unconscious assimilation.
The great advantage of this system is that the students assimilate knowledge quickly and efficiently. Our great success in the development of technology is evidence of this reality. A high technology society is dependent upon a citizenry with a large knowledge base.
Another feature of such a system is that society determines just what knowledge the citizens need and supplies that to them without wasted interference.
A much less efficient teaching method that is almost never used is the Socratic or dialogue method. This is a dialogue method because a group of students engage one another in dialogue. A teacher tries to keep the dialogue moving and on track.
In a dialogue the students interact, attempting to move a thesis forward in a dialectic method—thesis, antithesis leading to synthesis that becomes the following thesis etc. Students uncover bias and poor assumptions within the group and must remain alert and involved continuously.
The dialogue system is very inefficient in the student's assimilation of knowledge. The great advantage of the dialogue method is that students are very involved and learn quickly the fact that we all have bias and unconscious assumptions. The most important characteristic of the dialogue system is that students develop understanding skills that receive little attention in the didactic mode.
All this is probably why we are great technicians but lousy at the art of understanding. We can go to war with great skill and high technology but we seem incapable of not constantly going to war.
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2004 : 10:42:06 [Permalink]
|
My daughter just finished her first year in a Montosorri program. So far I like it quite a bit. I don't know where that falls into your essay on education or not, but I just thought I'd mention it. I recall reading an article in Harper's a while back that cited the reasoning behind the development of the US system of education. The desire was apparently to create a pool of people who could work at most jobs available and who wouldn't think too much for themselves. This served the interests of the political and economic establishment by providing capable, yet passive workers who were content enough not to get involved in politics. This certainly certainly accounts for a lot of the social phenomena we see in America today, though I'm not so sure there was an intent for this from the beginning.
I'm at work right now so I can't look up which issue it was in, but I found it very compelling. One of the biggest questions I chewed over for a while after reading the article was, if what it claims is true, is this a bad thing? Rephrase: would it be good for America if our education system produced hordes of discontent, proactive leaders who set out to change with a vengeance whatever it was they had a beef with? What would our society be like then? Is it key to our civilization that the majority of people be sheepish robots? |
-Chaloobi
|
 |
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2004 : 10:48:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by coberst
A much less efficient teaching method that is almost never used is the Socratic or dialogue method. This is a dialogue method because a group of students engage one another in dialogue. A teacher tries to keep the dialogue moving and on track.
In a dialogue the students interact, attempting to move a thesis forward in a dialectic method—thesis, antithesis leading to synthesis that becomes the following thesis etc. Students uncover bias and poor assumptions within the group and must remain alert and involved continuously.
The dialogue system is very inefficient in the student's assimilation of knowledge. The great advantage of the dialogue method is that students are very involved and learn quickly the fact that we all have bias and unconscious assumptions. The most important characteristic of the dialogue system is that students develop understanding skills that receive little attention in the didactic mode.
I only partially agree with you here. At Maastricht University in the Netherlands, this form of learning is used in "problem based learning" (PBL). Here, a group of students gets the assignment to solve a problem, which contains the necessary knowledge. In the first meeting the students study the problem and formulate questions about it, in the second meeting they present the answers they came up with by studying the problem individually.
I found that this system can be less efficient in learning facts. However, in my opinion, there is a difference between facts and knowledge. For me, knowledge does not equal facts, but also has the component of understanding the facts and what to do with it. In this part, problem based learning (or the dialogue system) gives a greater understanding of the facts than purely absorbing them.
Another advantage is that I remember facts better after I discussed them, which is something that is often done less thoroughly in a classroom/college setting. I remember more facts from my PBL than from teaching by telling (for example in lectures).
In my opinion, the dialogue method is very efficient in a students assimilation of knowledge. However, it is less efficient in the spreading of knowledge by teachers. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2004 : 11:22:59 [Permalink]
|
Chaloobi
You make a good point. I have no idea how society might be changed by a population with a greater degree of understanding. It seems a basic premiss of a liberal democracy that the better the intellectual functioning the better will be the society. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2004 : 12:25:08 [Permalink]
|
| That may be the theory, but that's not the practice in our liberal democracy today. But then, IMO, our liberal democracy isn't particularly healthy today either. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2004 : 17:54:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
All this is probably why we are great technicians but lousy at the art of understanding. We can go to war with great skill and high technology but we seem incapable of not constantly going to war.
So.... not using Socratic teaching causes war? Hrmm... Alexander the Great was a student of Aristotle. I imagine he was intimately familliar with the socratic method. How many nations did he conquer? |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2004 : 22:43:50 [Permalink]
|
Chaloobi wrote:quote:
The desire was apparently to create a pool of people who could work at most jobs available and who wouldn't think too much for themselves.
There are jobs today for which a person will not be hired if he/she is deemed to be "too smart." As I understand things, the employers for such jobs are looking for long-term stability, and since they tend to be dull, repetitive jobs, people who are very intelligent will get bored with them quickly and leave. Frighteningly, in the county in which I live, "patrol cop" is rumored to be one of those sorts of jobs.
Not a rumor, however, is this anecdote: an old roommate of mine once applied for a job with the company at which I worked already. I don't remember precisely for which job he was applying, but it was about as exciting as "mail clerk." On his application, he'd written down that he'd been trained by the Army as a "computer operator." What he didn't write down was that to the Army at the time, "computer operator" pretty much meant "typist," and also that he'd been discharged early for weight problems (which meant he wasn't a "computer operator" for very long).
If you knew the guy, you'd have thought he would have been perfect for the job. At my company, only I knew him, and nobody from HR asked me about him after he'd submitted his application. The answer from my company was that he was "overqualified" for the job, which through cautious investigation by me, revealed that they figured he was some sort of brilliant computer scientist and that he would get bored silly and quit after two weeks, losing the company much in the way of hiring and training costs.
Before I continue, let me preface the following remarks with the disclaimer that besides computer programming, skeptical issues, and the like, I also enjoy manual labor, and I don't treat a person with less respect because he/she doesn't have a degree (I don't), or works as a janitor, or what-have-you. I've voluntarily spent days washing buckets for feeding and watering horses ("what the hell is that stuff?" was a common thought), being a "gofer" at a local petting zoo (and almost having my sneaker eaten by an emu), can find my way around a carbeurator, and get a kick out of "some assembly required."
That said, there's an old story (perhaps apocryphal) about LBJ, I think. Seems he was shocked to learn that half the U.S. population was below average intelligence. The point being, a largish portion of our citizens are, to some extent, incapable of "understanding," or of technical expertise, or both. Of those who are capable, not all will choose (or have chosen) to exercise their capabilities to the greatest extent possible. And our Constitution is based upon a sort of anti-elitism which ensures that those seeking positions of power (who can lead us to war or not) cannot be denied them due to "underqualification" except due to age or citizenship. Elections are won or lost on the popular vote, which often appears to translate to "who is more likable," not "who is wiser?"
Socratic teaching isn't going to help with much of this, as a lot of people simply aren't going to "get it." Socrates, I bet, chose his students. With public education, there is not that luxury. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2004 : 02:17:05 [Permalink]
|
I wished to make three points in this posting.
1) Our school system is very good at producing citizens capable of developing a hi tech society.
2) Our school system is very bad at producing citizens capable of the understanding necessary to manage this hi tech capability.
3) The result is a society in the fast lane to perdition.
I think understanding is model building. Understanding is the house you build and knowledge is the lumber, nails and hammer needed for the construction.
This is my model of knowing and understanding and is no doubt different than yours. I bet that, even though our models are different, there is a recognition of similarity.
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2004 : 09:53:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
3) The result is a society in the fast lane to perdition.
I think your failing to apply basic critical thinking to the problem. I don't see any causal link between our education system and some future failure of society.
The US public education system has it's problems, yes. Mostly because we don't use more common sense in our approach and the system is completely subject to the whim of politics. None of which means that society is someday going to drop down the shitter because of it... |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2004 : 10:41:42 [Permalink]
|
The causaul link is that our educational system develops humans with massive strength capable of destroying the planet. But these humans with this great muscle power has little capacity for intellectual accomplishment of a nature to manage this strength with wisdom.
Our technology rides on the shoulders of the giants of the past. Our understanding and control of ourself is no more advanced than it was a thousand years ago. We have shown our intellectual social skills by a constant history of wars. We as a species have survived this inability only because we were too weak to destroy nature. We now are, thanks to technology, capable of destroying nature.
Nature has been able to heal itself so far but our technological strength has reached the ability to overcome this healing capacilty.
Our technological intelligence is accretive our wisdom intelligence is not. In wisdom we are not able to stand on the shoulders of giants of the past. The wisdom of man is buried with him his technology lives on. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2004 : 02:29:35 [Permalink]
|
baseless assertions, a whole load of them.
Provide some background and some supportive info. I disagree with just about every statement you made in that last post there. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2004 : 06:04:43 [Permalink]
|
Dude
I suspect your response was made without careful thought and consideration. It is not necessary to make your response within 60 seconds after reading a posting. Much of what I say is common knowledge to those who think about such matters. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2004 : 06:47:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by coberst
Dude
I suspect your response was made without careful thought and consideration. It is not necessary to make your response within 60 seconds after reading a posting. Much of what I say is common knowledge to those who think about such matters.
There was almost two days between the posts. What are you talking about? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2004 : 09:41:26 [Permalink]
|
coberst wrote:quote:
Much of what I say is common knowledge to those who think about such matters.
And a basic part of critical thinking is questioning such "common knowledge." It is "common knowledge," after all, that once told us that the world was flat, or still tells us today that you can only stand an egg on its end on one of the equinoxes.
On this web site, supporting assertions with evidence is the norm, especially when those assertions have been questioned. Again, it is such a basic part of critical thinking that one would be justified if one were to call into question your own skills in this area, despite your essays calling for skeptical activism.
For example, you say,quote:
We now are, thanks to technology, capable of destroying nature.
The technology of "fire" gave us that capability, actually. Wood fires are a major source of carbon dioxide emissions, and simply as our population increased, they added (and still add today) to the greenhouse effect, a shifting climate, and die-off of species which fail to adapt. This has been going on for tens of thousands of years, not just for decades or centuries.
Or this:quote:
Nature has been able to heal itself so far...
No, it hasn't. Ozone hole: still there; endangered species: mostly still endangered; extinct species: still dead; warming: turn on the A/C. "Nature," frankly, doesn't give a rat's ass about "healing itself." Species either die out or they don't (and you must be speaking biologically, since the planet itself isn't being destroyed), and ones which can take advantage of another's absence do so. There is no "normal state" to be "healed" towards, as the balance among species shifts slightly every day. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2004 : 12:02:20 [Permalink]
|
| You have a point Dave. However, if every attempt to move an idea forward is met with motions for authority for every assumption then no idea moves forward. If we must invent the wheel on each posting then the world stands still. This is a great example of the problem that the natural sciences do not encounter. Accepted facts are common in these sciences but not in the humanities thus the humanities are constantly inventing the wheel. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2004 : 12:30:01 [Permalink]
|
Coberst, even with widely-accepted claims within the natural sciences, we welcome questioning and readily provide citations to support the claims. This isn't a matter of re-inventing the wheel. It is, instead, simply a matter of you providing an independent source for your idea that nature is healing itself (for just one example).
We're not asking you to run out and do original research, just provide the sources for your information. Once we check it out, we can either move onwards and upwards, or argue your assumptions, depending. As it is, things aren't moving forward in this discussion because we're having a meta-discussion about the skeptical mores of the SFN, instead of agreeing with you and talking about possible further courses of action. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
