Education Today

In response to today's class discussion about education licenses versus content degrees (literature, history, etc.) I agree strongly with something Jess said. Earlier in life teachers do not need content degrees. Young children do not need a teacher with a Ph.D. in shapes or colors to learn. Teachers working with young children need to introduce the child to learning and develop basic learning skills and tools.

As the child ages and advances into more complex subjects, teachers that know a lot about the subject they teach become more essential. I would rather have a teacher with a content degree teaching Spanish or Physics than a teacher with just a license. The licensed teacher would simply write notes and examples and not be able to help confused students. Conversely, a teacher with a content degree could explain topics in a much fuller and clearer manner. I believe that if the student developed correct learning habits and tools at a young age (taught by a teacher with just a license), he/she should be able to learn effectively even if the teacher doesn't have a license but only a content degree.

"The best laid schemes o' mice an men Gang aft agley..."

This may be a bit old, but in class we were talking about the difference between humans and animals. The conversation made me think of the Burns poem "To a Mouse." In it, the speaker turns up a mouse's nest with his plow. He reflects that man's (and mouse's) best plans often go awry. But he says that animals are blessed in the primary way that they differ from humans: animals are concerned only with the present. The mouse's house is destroyed, and she must create a new house. She does not lament the fact that her first house is destroyed, nor does she fear winter without a house; she only knows that now she must build one. The speaker, however, and all humans, look back on "prospects drear" and look to the future, which, one can "guess an' fear." We worry about the past and future. Animals do not. I think this underscores the idea that humans have some greater purpose than just survival, which is animal's primary concern and the reason for their focus only on the present.

Secondly, on a completely unrelated note, I wanted to respond to what Rob said at the end of class, that psychologists cannot be wrong, that it's only interpretation. I'm pretty sure that is completely false. If a psychologist diagnoses someone with schizophrenia, causing them to seek a prescription for antipsychotics (which change brain function, and can create tick disorders, among other side effects), and it turns out that person doesn't even have schizophrenia...... well, I would say that psychologist was very much wrong, in a very big way.

From Mr. Coleman

I was so impressed the discussion on Tuesday that I forwarded my last post about it to several people, including Mr. Coleman. He emailed me the following, which he has given permission for me to post on the blog.


If I understand the two sides properly, it doesn't seem like we're going to have too many problems with the scenario as it might unfold. First, many students depend solely on authority for knowing, either because in high school they are receiving the facts, skills, and information that make deeper knowing possible later. Those students who are advanced and use reason and logic to evaluate what they are being taught (and we hope that's all kids, but in reality it isn't), will ideally be set up with knowledgeable teachers who recognize that the governmental standards aren't everything and who, in small forms of rebellion and resistance, just teach what is important anyway (when what is important isn't dictated by state standards; I happen to think that the standards are more descriptive of what we already do than some people think. It's the measurement of those standards that's faulty.)

I'd be further interested in what kids know about teacher training in schools of education. Are they basing their knowledge on new teachers and then arguing from effects? Or if they are accurate in their assessment, do new teachers actually feel that their own use of logic and reason is subordinated to some higher governmental authority? There are ways to align yourself with standards that still allow for the exercise of logic and reason on the part of our students. From the way the scenario looks based on your discussion, one would think that future teachers are being taught to walk into a classroom and just exercise authority, whatever that means, worrying little about applying reason. I bet the reality is somewhat different. I remember my first years of teaching as being experimental and exciting, because my authority was not a given. I was able to connect to students on a much more real level (I started late, at 27, and had a strong background in literature, rather than education. I still think that people need content degrees rather than education degrees to be teachers.).

WOK in Education

You are such great thinkers! You always take us to the next level!

In our discussion today, one group (Group 1) explored ways of knowing in education, where education was taken to be what goes on in a high school. Another group (Group 2) looked at the field of education in college, which is basically about the training of future teachers. When asked of good ways to come to knowledge, which is the best and which is the weakest, the groups answered as follows.

Group 1 said the best way of knowing is through reason and logic, with the weakest of the good ways of knowing being authority. The group said that students in classes must apply their own reason and logic to the subjects they study, and while they depend a great deal on authority, an obstacle can form when authority and reason/logic are opposed. Group 2 said the best way of knowing is through authority, with the weakest of the good ways of knowing being reason and logic. The group said that teachers have little if any latitude in what they teach, given government standards. They must learn from the authorities in the departments of education what and how to teach. Their own logic and reason could run afoul of this.

What a fascinating, possibly frightening, scenario this produces, if it is accurate! Those who must lead in an environment where authority is devalued and individual reason is triumphed are trained in a system where reason is devalued and authority is triumphed.

Is this scenario accurate? If so, what consequences does it bring? What are we to do with or do about these consequences?

Ways of Knowing

I had an interesting discussion with one of you right after class and want to share some of it here. There seems to be a question about what is meant by "ways of knowing" and how to discuss them in different areas. Here is an example:

If I want to know about your height, I use my eyes and perhaps a measuring stick with some lines on it. I use this same way of knowing to determine the height of a trash can. If I want to know how fast you can run, I ask you to run from point A to point B while timing you with a stopwatch. I use this same way of knowing to determine the speed of a horse or a car.

Now, if you say there is something more to humans than there is to trash cans, horses, or cars, then we may need to use different ways to know about it. If you say humans have a rich emotional life, how am I to know what your emotions are? Surely I do not look at you and use a measuring stick. I will probably watch your face and think, "Whenever I wrench my face into such an appearance, it means I have just tasted something sour. I suppose, then, that my friend has just tasted something sour, too." I have brought experience and empathy into the mix as new ways of knowing. These ways, of course, would be useless when trying to know something about a trash can.

How to know me

I think there is most assuredly a difference between knowing a person and knowing about a computer.* The primary difference is that you can ask a human to tell you about himself/herself. If you ask a person this, they will not tell you that they can run a mile in 6 minutes, that they can effectively remember approximately 8 new names per day. Instead they are likely to tell you about what is important to them (hobbies, religion, family, etc). The information given, and the fact that the person feels the information reveals their own defining characteristics, can give much insight in getting to know a person. A computer, on the other hand, does not define itself. To know about my computer, I go to start->control panel->system, and there I have all the information that my computer's creator thought vital to give me. I can thus know the essence of my computer. But to study a human being's birth certificate, high school transcript, and medical records... that gets me no closer to knowing that person than asking questions like "How fast is your mile?"

*As a side note that may or may not be relevant, the idea that knowing about a computer is different from knowing a human is demonstrated in the French language with simply a difference of terms to refer to the kinds of "knowing." "Savoir" means to know facts, while "Connaitre" means to know a person, or be familiar with someone (or a place/idea). One is able "savoir" a computer's memory, its processing speed, etc. And one is able "savoir" a person's birth date and grades in school. But as far as knowing people... one is able "connaitre" a person, but one is never able "connaitre" a computer. (To be accurate for French speakers of the class, I realize there are ways connaitre could be used in talking about a computer, but in such a context you lose the meaning “know”, which is of course the focus of this post.) With these terms, it is obvious that the French, at least, recognize an intrinsic difference between knowing people and knowing about such things as computers.

IB Criteria for TOK

This is a different kind of post, but as I shared with a few of you after class, the criteria with which I graded your ethics papers are new and they are tough. IB has certainly raised the bar. I spoke with another TOK teacher recently who said that she would have a hard time getting a perfect paper.

This was your first time to write a paper graded on these criteria. Don't sweat! :) I would suggest you go back through the criteria I gave you and see if you can understand why I gave you the points I did. If you can see it, with maybe a one point difference, then you are on the track to figuring out how to do better. On the other hand, if you thought you should have received a 9 and I gave you a 2, then we need to talk. In this case, go through your paper with four different colored highlighters, one for each criterion. Highlight the parts of your paper that you think correspond with the different criteria. That will give us something to talk about. I may agree with you. I could have missed something when I read, or misread something. On the other hand, if what you think counts for a particular criterion really doesn't, then we need to talk.

What Do I Want To Know About You?

Based on our discussion today of the video, I ask you the following. What kinds of things do humans want to know about each other? When it comes to a computer, there is a fairly limited range. I want to know how fast it runs, how much memory it holds, what kinds of software it can handle.

My ways of knowing these things also fall into a short range. I measure speed in computations per second. I measure memory in bits and bytes. Certain hardware and software features, such as video card or MS Windows, permit certain types of other software.

How do I know the things I want to know about humans? Presumably I can use similar ways of knowing to discover similar kinds of facts. I measure the speed of a computer in computations per second and the speed of a person in yards per second or kilometers per hour. But how do I approach knowing the kinds of things about humans that cannot be known or are irrelevant to knowledge about computers? Or are there any such things?

multiple choice or essay...?

In my experience, multiple choice tests have done what teachers need them to do, in showing that the student has studied/done the reading/understood what is being talked about in class. I really don't think they do as much for the student, though. It's a lot easier to spit back something that has been memorized from a book or a study guide than it is to actually apply and organize the ideas learned in an essay, for example. But...even with an essay, it has to do more with being able to take something from class or the text book and digest it a little bit, and then spit it back to the teacher. I can't say that I've learned a lot from ten or so years of multiple choice and essay tests, except how to prepare for them and show the teacher that I have expended some effort over the subject. I don't remember much from math last year except how Mrs. South would print off the names of the people who got A's and post them on the wall, and how I always wanted to have my name on that list. I remember multiple choice tests in World History, and studying for the AP test, but I can't remember the order of the Chinese dynasties up to 1914 or whenever it was they had that revolution. But by taking tests like that over and over again, I have practiced being able to show the teacher what I know about the subject, and they have an easy way to grade me based on how much work I did. I don't know if that's going to help me that much later in life, but I hope it's more important than knowing some of the seemingly useless information that's been shoved down my throat every day at school since first grade. So I guess that whatever kind of test you're taking is important based on the teacher, because to pass a class you have to be able to show that you can memorize stuff. But in terms of helping me know more about the subject area, no test is great.

Testing

What does a multiple choice test reveal? Does it tell what a student has learned? Does it reveal something about the teacher? What about an essay, short answer, or true/false test? How can teachers know the students have learned what they are supposed to? How much humanity must be factored in, e.g. whether or not the student is sick, whether or not the student and the teacher have a chemistry that makes learning easy or difficult, whether or not the student cares about the material?

Indianapolis Monthly: How do you make decisions? Head, heart, or gut?

Dr. Michael Turner: All of them. Medicine is an art and a science.  People aren't cars.  They don't come with blueprints.  They're not all the same.

^Something I randomly came across today...sometimes natural sciences are not always so cut and dry.

Ethical Argument?

A few nights ago, I was deciding on a topic to talk about for our recent paper. I wanted to discuss something not well-known so I asked my mom if she'd heard any recent, debatable stories in the news. Her first idea was about a law that is recently being introduced in Mississippi:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/04/ap/strange/main3788922.shtml

As this is recent, not much has been reported on it. However, it is addressing a growing problem in the United States. The obese population is growing and our country isn't doing much to stop it. I'm wondering if the government is justified in helping eliminate obesity. I think they should contribute to decreasing the obesity rate but not in the manner Mississippi is proposing. Although the ideas they are proposing sound humorous, they are in fact taking it seriously. Although these obese people don't need to be out for an unhealthy meal anyway, they shouldn't be denied the right for food. As a Kantian ethicist would say, you shouldn't deny a person their right to live. Without food, you die. Eventually. I'd just like to ask what anyone else thinks about this "interesting" law. I thought my mom was joking at first when she told me but, thinking about it, it's actually a valid question but is it the moral way to decrease obesity?

The Reach and The Grasp

As British poet Robert Browning famously said, "Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?" I have never been so excited by a strand of student conversation! Thank you, Ibutterfli4life, for adding significant lines to this discussion.

I hardly know where to begin. What you and Meowmix515 are talking about is hope, the absence of which is despair. We must believe in and hope for our ability to advance, both as individuals and as communities, from the tiny community of a group of friends to the macro-community of a nation. Some branches of faith call this sanctification, and ongoing process that cannot reach completion in this life.

Yet it is the striving you talk about and the application of, not just the familiarity with, wisdom that has come before us that lead us to feats of accomplishment previously undreamt in the human mind. Of course America is not perfect, but despite the fashionable trend among some to bash all things American, it was precisely this vision, based on hope, founded on the conviction of the possibility of human advancement, and fueled by past wisdom carefully evaluated through present lenses, that have enabled this country to lead the world in countless endeavors.

Never before, and I mean this, have I felt such confidence for the future of Indiana, the United States, and the world, as I do from the posts by this TOK class. These are the conversations with having!

Always striving, even if never reaching, PERFECTION

Magister P wrote:

The reason certain works have lasted over time is because of their ability to speak to people of all stages of life, in all places of the world, in all times.

I completely agree with this, but I also want to tie in the idea of "desiring perfection" meowmix brought in. We read literature these days for different reasons, but I think that the most basic (though sometimes forgotten- yes, Kat!) reason is to get the meaning of the writer's words, and SOMEHOW apply it to our own lives. Most usually, writers do not write for the simple sake of passing the time, amusing themselves, or trying out the latest fonts and colors, however fun that may be! The written word is most generally distributed for the sake of education, and by education I mean this: learning the author's point, establishing your own opinion of the point, and, if necessary, actually using what the author said to "perfect" yourself.
As humans we naturally strive for excellence, and though perfection is a thing of most people's dreams, and it may never be reached, most people see more good in shooting for it and getting somewhere rather than failing forever. This part of humans is also the part that defines "moral" and "ethical," and creates the "morality" of each person, degrees varying widely. Kat's Ben Franklin example also works here: Franklin realized that with his system, he could never achieve moral perfection. But he did not just burn up all his journals and charts and say, "If I can't be perfect, then why try!?" He continued his attempts at morality, and most people function in this way, always R---E--A--C----H--I--N--G for the gold, but being content (and still determined!) with the cheaper silver-gold blend.

Why We Read

I have never been so taken by a response as I was by the post of Meowmix515, "in response to practicing morality." As a teacher of literature, I cannot agree more. In fact, the issue that Meowmix515 addresses is the very reason I chose not to complete a Ph.D. in Classics. While in graduate school and listening to the philological discussions of my classmates and professors, discussing this or that influence on this or that author and getting, to my mind, bogged down in issues of literary analysis, I found myself continually asking the question, "but is what this author said true?"

Meowmix515, you are not wrong in your desire to apply to present life the literature of the past. I cite the following from our Latin website. The source is Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics 1104b:

[W]e ought to have been brought up in a particular way from our very youth, as Plato says, so as both to delight in and to be pained by the things that we ought; this is the right education. (David Ross, translator)

Add to this a line from Cicero's Pro Archia, "Let others be ashamed if they have so hidden themselves away in literature that they can bring forth nothing for public benefit or into the light to be seen."

The reason certain works have lasted over time is because of their ability to speak to people of all stages of life, in all places of the world, in all times. We study matters of literary style so we can see more clearly the content of the works. By knowing something of the art of stained glass work, we see the brilliance of the complete work. We also study literary matters so those who wish can compose likewise, with the tools of persuasive, powerful, and creative communication. We must never, however, lose sight of the truths and falsehoods great writers have given to us. By interacting with the thoughts of those who have gone before us, we enter into the great conversation of humanity.

Thank you, Meowmix 515. You have rightly identified the point studying the humanities. Continue your search for and application of the truths you find.

Practice makes Perfection!!

I just read the post before me. I agree that nothing is perfect but I believe that it is possible to practice the art of being moral and becoming a more moral person! For example, if Bob forces himself to give one dollar to the poor everyday, then years later, Bob will get used to it. He will not have to force himself to do it; he will naturally give one dollar to the poor. It's just like when someone always tells himself or herself something, gradually, this person will believe it even if it's a lie. If people always force themselves to be moral (practice the art of being moral), then they will become a more moral person! Practice makes perfection.

in response to practicing morality

Although I think we thoroughly analyze plenty of literary works in English, i wish we would discuss their contextual significance and current application instead of this constant barrage of literary techniques and methods an author uses to convey a certain idea he or she has. Personally, despite the significance of metaphors and similes and style and tone, i think this year we have done a good job of ignoring the ideas the author is trying to convey. And this seems to me to defeat the purpose of the author's writing...unless he or she actually intended their work to be a stylistic tool for others to learn from instead of a method to convey their personal thoughts....
But i do enjoy some of the works we have read and i think that some are applicable today...even though we don't always discuss it in class ( i guess HOMEWORK is how we are suppposed to apply it to our lives, but really i think it just eats up your time-haha i used a literary device, oh look i'm learning :) ). I found parts of Ben Franklin's Autobiography to be really interesting, especially where he addresses morality and sets out to perfect society by improving his own morals. He made charts and used inspirational quotes and kept journals and journals of his work. Franklin tried to focus on perfecting different aspects of his life, and he would devote a week to this aspect (ex: temperance) and record his success and failure at perfection in a journal. Interestingly, he ran away from his family at 17, and never really rekindled any bond with them, so his family played a thoroughly unimpressive role in supporting his views ( perhaps it can be argued however, that Franklin drew examples of how "not" to act from them). To continue...So after a year of trial and error, Franklin concluded that perfection was not possible, but the "attempt" did improve his character. And i think that i agree with him; that moral restructuring is a worthwhile goal to work towards, but perfection is not necessarily attainable.

Trial and Error of Morals

The model of the development of a person's moral code that i take to be the most applicable draws from both of the ideas brought up by Mr. Perkin's in the last 2 posts: the idea of moral models and the idea of practicing morality. People constantly grow, change, and adapt the way they are to achieve the most satisfying style of life for themself. In the sense of morality people often use a form of trial and error to make their moral code. This of course cannot be applied to those that have a predetermined and strict code they already follow closely, such as a religious code, but for those that do not have rigid code it seems to occur the most.

When people grow up it is almost always their parents that give them guidance and direction as to how they should be "good" or moral; whether this comes in the form of suggestions or commands it has a profound effect on the child or teen. If a child grows up and their parents consistently consume alcohol around them they will come to believe that it is morally correct for them to do so even if their parents tell them it isn't, this is where trial and error comes into play. That person takes this new morally questionable activity and tries it out, if they enjoy what they are doing, gain satisfaction or happiness from it then it is likely they will continue to do it and henceforth accept it as a morally correct action. On the other hand if they have a horrible experience with it they will see that the action is really not morally right for them and realize that their parents or whoever/whatever else was telling them it wasn't were right. This process continues for an infinite amount of various actions a person chooses to try which is how people develop a method for practicing a moral code. The practicing is a constant form of trial and error that continually reshapes the code while testing it. This means a person can add or take away any action any amount of times they desire at any time. For many people this becomes the most convenient and easy to way to. continue a happy and "good" or moral life because they can always change how they are to make themself feel better. Although this is not true for everyone it seems to be the most socially acceptable and common of our society today.