Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man
From: patty (pattyNO_at_SPAMicyberspace.net)
Date: 12/06/04
- Next message: The Sophist: "Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man"
- Previous message: David Longley: "Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man"
- In reply to: David Longley: "Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man"
- Next in thread: The Sophist: "Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man"
- Reply: The Sophist: "Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 22:23:31 GMT
David Longley wrote:
> In article <LF_sd.16790$dC3.309412@news20.bellglobal.com>, Wolf
> Kirchmeir <wwolfkir@sympatico.ca> writes
>
>> Greg Alexander wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>>> "Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> Have we humans figured out how to pass on our knowledge? Yes, but
>>>>> not
>>>>> very well. If we really knew how to do it, and if we also knew what
>>>>> knowledge was worth passing on, human society would become pretty
>>>>> well perfect within a generation or two.
>>
>>
>>> I hadn't thought of it that way. Hmmm!
>>> Is there a field focussed on how to pass on knowledge more
>>> effectively. I mean, psychology has the application side, and the
>>> research side is relatively distinct. But teaching is largely
>>> application. Does sociology research learning?
>>> I wonder how our learning systems could be improved.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Just my thoughts :)
>>> Greg
>>
>>
>> Yes, our teaching-learning systems can be imnproved, but it's a hard
>> slog. We know very little, and basically all we can do is wait for a
>> child to exhibit some behaviour like the one desired, and then shape
>> it. Sadly, curricula imposed on teachers and students assume that
>> behaviours can be imposed or created rather than shaped, despite all
>> the evidence to the contrary.
>>
>> IMO, the only attempt to understand learning that have had any success
>> is EAB, in all its guises (many people who use EAB principles in their
>> educational research either don't acknowledge that they are doing so,
>> or explcitly deny it - there's some sort of political correctness at
>> work here. Bah!).
>>
>> EAB shows that certain kinds of learning can be rather easily induced
>> and controlled -- that is, any existing behaviour is more or less
>> easily shaped. The kind of learning we expect children to do in
>> schools works only with such behaviours. For example, it's quite easy
>> to to teach young children to play games. Young children engage in
>> game-playing without being prompted, so shaping this behaviour (eg,
>> teaching chess, basketball, etc) is easy. For this reason, if some
>> desired skills can be incorporated into games, game-playing is an
>> effective teaching method, as all teachers know, and most teachers do
>> (there are unfortunately some teachers and parents who believe that
>> learning and fun are mutually exclusive.)
>>
>> Similar observations apply to, for example, "critical thinking
>> skills." Humans exhibit such behaviour from about mid-puberty on.
>> (It's one of the reasons for the difficulties between parents and
>> teenage children.) Given critical thinking behaviour, it's relativley
>> easy to shape it, eg, to develop "rules of clear thinking". The
>> student must of course be willing to cooperate with the teacher, but
>> in my experience, most student want to cooperate.
>>
>> As for "knowledge as such", observe that children from about 6 to 10
>> years of age equate "being smart" with "knowing stuff." That IMO is a
>> clue as to how to proceed. Children resist acquiring knowledge that's
>> "boring," so the trick is to make it interesting enough that the child
>> will go to the effort of learning "stuff" that you want him or her to
>> learn. That merely involves finding a link between the stuff the child
>> likes knowing, and what you want him to know - IOW, it involves
>> observing the actual behaviour of the child, and shaping it, rather
>> than imposing some paradigm on it. Again, that's what successful
>> teachers do.
>>
>> BTW, all the above "teaching strategies" were explicitly taught in my
>> pedagogical training. NB that whatever the current educational jargon,
>> at bottom it's all about shaping behaviours.
>
>
> Skinner was aghast at the state of US education. He fought to bring the
> technology of teaching to bear on education practice (and the training
> of teachers) just as one might expect any good empirical scientist with
> a proven track record. He spent a good part of the latter part of his
> professional life trying to get "educators" to adopt what comes down to
> self-paced programmed learning, but wasn't given the support he needed
> by folk like Connant. Half a century later we still see teachers
> struggling to do a combination of crowd control and mixed ability
> teaching four or five times a day, with such large classes that for most
> it's well nigh impossible (which isn't helped by an estimated 1:20 being
> ADHD).
Gimme a break! ADHD is pretty much a made up disorder. Sure there are
some extreme cases, but when you quote ratios like "1:20" for ADHD, you
are have just fallen prey to pharmaceutical companies desire to get into
peddling speed. This disorder is not just for kids anymore, now adults
can be screened <http://www.amenclinic.com/ac/addtests/adult.asp>, which
you will fail if you live in the modern world. Take the results to your
doctor and cajole her into writing the script. Oh goodie, let's all get
high !
patty
- Next message: The Sophist: "Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man"
- Previous message: David Longley: "Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man"
- In reply to: David Longley: "Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man"
- Next in thread: The Sophist: "Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man"
- Reply: The Sophist: "Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
