In his essay, The First Liberal Art, David Mulroy says the liberal arts make students better learners not better speakers. For Mulroy, pragmatism is built upon the liberal arts, and I like this far better than the inverse.
Indeed, I would rather sit down and discuss philosophy, religion, culture, etc than the how-to's of chicken genocide for mass consumption or the how-to's to the extraction of precious resources for the greatest profit-margin on a balance sheet.
I, too, like Mulroy believe that "perfection" of any discipline can be reached through the synergy of the liberal arts with pragmatics. If the liberal arts make us better thinkers, then no matter what discipline we drift toward, we can excel in said discipline if we use the tenets from the liberal arts. And, that is the case the higher up the food chain a person reaches in the job market, no matter what field they enter.
For example, consider a sales associate at Wal-Mart. Their primary role is greet, scan, pack, exchange money, and express gratitude, low, low thinking skills right? I mean where are you gonna use liberal arts there. Now, let's look at the assistant manager of Wal-mart. He's got to coordinate, judge, prioritize, based upon employee quotas. Then we can include the manager of the whole store. He's got to be creative, motivational, and a thinker, which sounds a lot like the liberal arts.
And, while advances in technology will always be linear and static, the thinking that goes behind them are fluid and organic. So, with that being said, any one can be taught practical sciences, but not many people can connect them to humanity.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Opus Duo: Confusus Hominus Consilio Ab Lingua. Mei Menda
The prompt: Why Should SWE be taught in school, if so, how?
It’s hard for me to imagine anyone suggesting that SWE should not be taught in school. And, in fact, if someone suggested otherwise I would be wondering how they reasoned it away.
The first obvious fact that SWE should be taught in school resolves around the principle of language and how we, as a society communicate with one another. Besides the obvious mediums of the visual, audible and text, we are also taught body language, eye contact, idiosyncrasies, dress, etc.
This cornucopia of communication allows us to express our how, what and why’s to the other person, sometimes getting extremely complicated when one person says one thing and they mean another, “He’s sooo bad!” An expression like this could be taken as a sign of affection, depending on who said it: Grandma or Groupie.
With that being said, the written medium has to be explicit in form, because the writer does not know for sure who their audience is going to be. And, even if they do know for sure, the syntax has to express what facial, pitch and body language cannot, hence the complication. However, grammar can be exciting! While it may sound ridiculous to say, especially given my cynicism toward the subject, my background in education has allowed me to see the “light.”
Indeed, Bloom’s Taxonomy, a theory that says there are six hierarchical levels of cognitive functionality, claims that we as humans learn more, and retain more, when the higher levels are in operation. Typically, the highest level—evaluation—is used at the college and postgraduate level, resulting in assignments that ask us to “evaluate if SWE is necessary for success.”
Conversely, the lowest end of Bloom’s Taxonomy says that knowledge is the most primal way of learning and retaining information. For example, “a noun is a person, place or thing.”
It is here where I believe the education system needs to be overhauled.
I believe the “how” to teaching grammar should be more deductive: give the big picture first and then “assemble” the parts. Analogously, no one solves a jig-saw puzzle without knowing what it is they are putting together; they see the picture then they assemble.
If we continue this metaphor, and use me as bait, I HAVE BEEN PUTTING TOGETHER MY JIG-SAW PUZZLE WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THE HELL IM SUPPOSED TO BE PUTTING TOGETHER!!
When I hear commands like, “Never start a sentence with a conjunction” and “Never end a sentence with a preposition,” my instinct is to ask “why?” (evaluative). I do not think I’m smarter than other people, I just want to know. It helps me process my thoughts, gives me peace and allows me to be more productive as a learner.
In short, I think kids need to be given more faith, trust and autonomy. Teachers need to explain the big picture first and then work forward in creative, evaluative ways.
I sincerely believe if teachers would explain the nuts and bolts behind SWE, then the appreciation for it would increase exponetially.
Help with Title? Go here > http://www.online-dictionary.biz/latin/english/vocabulary/reference/consilio.asp
It’s hard for me to imagine anyone suggesting that SWE should not be taught in school. And, in fact, if someone suggested otherwise I would be wondering how they reasoned it away.
The first obvious fact that SWE should be taught in school resolves around the principle of language and how we, as a society communicate with one another. Besides the obvious mediums of the visual, audible and text, we are also taught body language, eye contact, idiosyncrasies, dress, etc.
This cornucopia of communication allows us to express our how, what and why’s to the other person, sometimes getting extremely complicated when one person says one thing and they mean another, “He’s sooo bad!” An expression like this could be taken as a sign of affection, depending on who said it: Grandma or Groupie.
With that being said, the written medium has to be explicit in form, because the writer does not know for sure who their audience is going to be. And, even if they do know for sure, the syntax has to express what facial, pitch and body language cannot, hence the complication. However, grammar can be exciting! While it may sound ridiculous to say, especially given my cynicism toward the subject, my background in education has allowed me to see the “light.”
Indeed, Bloom’s Taxonomy, a theory that says there are six hierarchical levels of cognitive functionality, claims that we as humans learn more, and retain more, when the higher levels are in operation. Typically, the highest level—evaluation—is used at the college and postgraduate level, resulting in assignments that ask us to “evaluate if SWE is necessary for success.”
Conversely, the lowest end of Bloom’s Taxonomy says that knowledge is the most primal way of learning and retaining information. For example, “a noun is a person, place or thing.”
It is here where I believe the education system needs to be overhauled.
I believe the “how” to teaching grammar should be more deductive: give the big picture first and then “assemble” the parts. Analogously, no one solves a jig-saw puzzle without knowing what it is they are putting together; they see the picture then they assemble.
If we continue this metaphor, and use me as bait, I HAVE BEEN PUTTING TOGETHER MY JIG-SAW PUZZLE WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THE HELL IM SUPPOSED TO BE PUTTING TOGETHER!!
When I hear commands like, “Never start a sentence with a conjunction” and “Never end a sentence with a preposition,” my instinct is to ask “why?” (evaluative). I do not think I’m smarter than other people, I just want to know. It helps me process my thoughts, gives me peace and allows me to be more productive as a learner.
In short, I think kids need to be given more faith, trust and autonomy. Teachers need to explain the big picture first and then work forward in creative, evaluative ways.
I sincerely believe if teachers would explain the nuts and bolts behind SWE, then the appreciation for it would increase exponetially.
Help with Title? Go here > http://www.online-dictionary.biz/latin/english/vocabulary/reference/consilio.asp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)