President Obama plans to address the students of the United States on Tuesday, September 8th with a message stressing the importance of graduating from high school. The entire speech has been made available for everyone to read.What should never have surprised me is the fact that many people are demanding that schools not allow the speech to be heard or seen in the schools and that students not be "exposed" to the President's message. One could argue that regardless of the President's party affiliation or stance regarding such issues as health care or war, all Americans owe the President the respect of hearing his messages. But that is not the position I want to take. My point is that it is wrong to pass judgment on any text without first having read or heard the message. What many people are advocating is contrary to the development of reasoning and critical thinking, which should be the primary goal of schools.
Understand, schools are neither Democratic or Republican. Schools are non-denominational with regard to religion. Schools are neither liberal or conservative. Schools must be neutral. By showing the President's speech, a school is not saying that it supports the President's position on health care or on the war in Iraq. The school is allowing a text to be presented so that the students may consider the text and weigh it against what they already know or what they thought they knew. Students may also get to hear opposing views so that they may learn to appreciate the varying perspectives that exist regarding an issue. This is key to critical thinking.
Preventing students from hearing a speech or from reading a text because of the adults' prejudices is a violation against the educative process. Such practice also stresses that intolerance is preferred to tolerance; is it any wonder that prejudice, racism, and hatred still exists in America?
The President's message is that students should stay in school and get their diploma. I've heard self-proclaimed conservatives on the television state that they are opposed to President Obama's views and do not want their children to hear his speech. This can only be interpreted that such conservatives do not want children to stay in school and believe that it is not important for students to earn their high school diploma. Okay, I'm sure that is not their position, but isn't that what it sounds like?
Don't make an uneducated decision. Suspend judgment until you have the facts. You may arrive at the same conclusion, but you will have done so intelligently.
To learn more about President Obama's address to our nations children, go to http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/academic/bts.html.
Showing posts with label critical thinking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label critical thinking. Show all posts
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
The Last Five Minutes
In my last post--Lesson Design and Classroom Management, June 14, 2009--I stated that teachers need to find ways to engage students during the last five minutes of class as much as students are engaged in learning throughout the class period. When faced with finding something to engage students during that time, all teachers are initially over-whelmed with the task and uncertain as to what to do. Perhaps this blog can serve as a forum for teachers to begin posting ideas as comments. If it happens, I will then compile the suggestions into a later blog for easier access.
Thinking about the last five minutes and considering what I would have students do, I came up with the following, which is directly related to teaching grammar--as I was an English teacher. I believe the basic idea could be applied to other disciplines:
As I enter the last five minutes of class, I turn on the overhead projector or pull off a sheet of paper that had been concealing the task as written on the board or hand the assignment to students, copied onto a half sheet of paper. The assignment contains two sentences; for instance, "Larry asked that I keep the information between he and I." and "Larry asked that I keep the information between him and me." The assignment states that one of the sentences is correct. Students are to determine which sentence is correct and write a single paragraph (100-300 words) explaining their reasoning. The assignment is due as they leave.
This would certainly cause a bit of hysteria at first, but as students became accustom to this, they would engage immediately and be able to complete the task successfully. The writing is important. It is through the writing that the teacher is able to assess the reasoning skills of the student. I suggest that this would be used no more than twice a week, but that it would definitely be used at least once every week for the entire semester.
What are your ideas?
Thinking about the last five minutes and considering what I would have students do, I came up with the following, which is directly related to teaching grammar--as I was an English teacher. I believe the basic idea could be applied to other disciplines:
As I enter the last five minutes of class, I turn on the overhead projector or pull off a sheet of paper that had been concealing the task as written on the board or hand the assignment to students, copied onto a half sheet of paper. The assignment contains two sentences; for instance, "Larry asked that I keep the information between he and I." and "Larry asked that I keep the information between him and me." The assignment states that one of the sentences is correct. Students are to determine which sentence is correct and write a single paragraph (100-300 words) explaining their reasoning. The assignment is due as they leave.
This would certainly cause a bit of hysteria at first, but as students became accustom to this, they would engage immediately and be able to complete the task successfully. The writing is important. It is through the writing that the teacher is able to assess the reasoning skills of the student. I suggest that this would be used no more than twice a week, but that it would definitely be used at least once every week for the entire semester.
What are your ideas?
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Critical Thinking and the Intentional Non-Learner
In the fall of 2008 I attended the CELL conference in Indianapolis and was privileged to hear Katy Haycock, of the Education Trust, (The link will take you where you can hear Haycock's keynote.) speak about student achievement. Among many gems that I tried to capture with my cell phone keypad, I recorded Haycock as saying that the United States is the only country that believes kids can catch up by slowing down. She was speaking about the importance of providing a rigorous curricula for every student. I've been thinking about what that means.
Many schools are guilty of slowing down the learning of the struggling learners in a well-meaning effort to improve learning. There is sound reasoning in doing this, to some extent. Students learn at different rates, some faster and others slower. It is reasonable to allow more time for those who need more time, if it results in learning. But I don't believe that such is the problem with the "remedial" learning that is provided for the struggling students. Often, the struggling student is assigned to an education of low-level thinking. Recognizing that the student struggles with knowledge, comprehension, and application, we educators determine that the student needs more work with the same. When the student shows proficiency in the low-level thinking, we'll give him a shot at some higher-order thinking.
Every student needs the opportunity to engage in higher-order thinking--in analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Through critical thinking a student is able to experience greater engagement in the learning experience and perhaps the joy of learning. Through engaging in higher-order thinking the student sees a reason to know, comprehend, and apply the other learning--lower-order thinking--that to this point has been meaningless.
Before I became an administrator I taught English to resistant freshmen and sophomores. I engaged these students in Socratic Seminars. When I wrote quizzes over something they were to have read, I wrote six questions: one from each of the six levels of the taxonomy of knowledge attributed to Bloom. I found that my students did well on the higher-order thinking questions but struggled on the lower-order thinking questions. However, as the semester progressed, students began to answer all questions better. Now, this only leads to a hypothesis and I do not suggest this to be anything more. But it does lead me to suggest that students will benefit from a more rigorous curriculum focused on challenging students to engage in higher-order thinking.
If we believe our students are not capable of higher-order thinking, we are right. And if we believe our students are capable of higher-order thinking, we will find this also to be true.
Why not give a kid a chance?
Many schools are guilty of slowing down the learning of the struggling learners in a well-meaning effort to improve learning. There is sound reasoning in doing this, to some extent. Students learn at different rates, some faster and others slower. It is reasonable to allow more time for those who need more time, if it results in learning. But I don't believe that such is the problem with the "remedial" learning that is provided for the struggling students. Often, the struggling student is assigned to an education of low-level thinking. Recognizing that the student struggles with knowledge, comprehension, and application, we educators determine that the student needs more work with the same. When the student shows proficiency in the low-level thinking, we'll give him a shot at some higher-order thinking.
Every student needs the opportunity to engage in higher-order thinking--in analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Through critical thinking a student is able to experience greater engagement in the learning experience and perhaps the joy of learning. Through engaging in higher-order thinking the student sees a reason to know, comprehend, and apply the other learning--lower-order thinking--that to this point has been meaningless.
Before I became an administrator I taught English to resistant freshmen and sophomores. I engaged these students in Socratic Seminars. When I wrote quizzes over something they were to have read, I wrote six questions: one from each of the six levels of the taxonomy of knowledge attributed to Bloom. I found that my students did well on the higher-order thinking questions but struggled on the lower-order thinking questions. However, as the semester progressed, students began to answer all questions better. Now, this only leads to a hypothesis and I do not suggest this to be anything more. But it does lead me to suggest that students will benefit from a more rigorous curriculum focused on challenging students to engage in higher-order thinking.
If we believe our students are not capable of higher-order thinking, we are right. And if we believe our students are capable of higher-order thinking, we will find this also to be true.
Why not give a kid a chance?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)