I mean, there’s a large body of statistical data that says most people do not behave rationally unless absolutely forced to. Children most definitely do not behave rationally unless deeply emotionally engaged. The idea of humans as “rational actors” has about as much evidentiary support as Luminiferous Aether and balancing humours.
Much of education is based on following a rational thought through to its conclusion regardless of age.
I’m confused as to why the idea of teaching a logical subject is up for debate. Kids are taught math and science early and through logical foundations.
Education is built on logic! Yes, by all means wrap that boring unemotional logic up in a shiny emotional wrapper. That makes sense. That’s the sign of a great teacher or a great curriculum or materials. But in that is the difference of delivery versus content.
From Ancient Greece to modern times - logic is something that still persists in education because the universe we live in is a logical rules based one. It might be boring, and not very engaging to some, not emotive enough, but it is neccessary.
In the UK kids are taught a basic version of the scientific method between the age of 5-7 years old according to the UK goverenment website. Should they scrap that because it’s not naturally emotive?
Respectfully, your point seems to be a moot one. Criticising delivery, when I was talking about the subject matter and delivery is as much a skill of those delivering as anything else.
I am with you. The guy above seems to treat children as the r word.
I can say for myself that having to relearn a ton of stuff as an adult is traumatizing and I agree with you that we should teach reality no matter the age (we can tackle it from various angles but saying that teaching bollocks is ok, that is a different story).
Targeting the cognitive level of the child is not the same as not teaching logic. Your hierarchy example works fine for some levels, not for others was the point. It’s a lot easier to teach a rote methodology than a hierarchy of trust.
Except, research shows that even at preschool level kids are able to distinguish expertise through various social cues. At this age it’s more about authority than a hierarchy of trust.
But by the age I’m talking of, between 6 and 8, we have a wealth of research that shows that children are capable of understanding hierarchies of trust:
If your point is instead about the minority of students that are struggling to keep up, then that becomes more a discussion on the structure of education as a whole. Rather than this particular subject. Where funding and logistical problems meet conflicting needs of different kids.
But, the idea that we’d dumb down a curriculum for the minority is… troubling. But then so is the idea of that minority continually falling behind.
Takes a well rounded and healthy mind to change your mind in the face of new information. It’s increasingly rare to find this online and it takes courage especially in a public forum.
It’s moments like this that renew my faith in human beings. Thank you for that gift tonight mate :).
Okay. I don’t agree with you, but that’s fine. We can disagree.
I know you don’t agree, because you have no real world experience.
The funny thing about the real world, is it tends to laugh in the face of our expectations about how it ‘should work’.
Try teaching sometime and see how well you do with your ‘just repeat at the children and they will learn’ philosophy…
I mean, there’s a large body of statistical data that says most people do not behave rationally unless absolutely forced to. Children most definitely do not behave rationally unless deeply emotionally engaged. The idea of humans as “rational actors” has about as much evidentiary support as Luminiferous Aether and balancing humours.
Much of education is based on following a rational thought through to its conclusion regardless of age.
I’m confused as to why the idea of teaching a logical subject is up for debate. Kids are taught math and science early and through logical foundations.
Education is built on logic! Yes, by all means wrap that boring unemotional logic up in a shiny emotional wrapper. That makes sense. That’s the sign of a great teacher or a great curriculum or materials. But in that is the difference of delivery versus content.
From Ancient Greece to modern times - logic is something that still persists in education because the universe we live in is a logical rules based one. It might be boring, and not very engaging to some, not emotive enough, but it is neccessary.
In the UK kids are taught a basic version of the scientific method between the age of 5-7 years old according to the UK goverenment website. Should they scrap that because it’s not naturally emotive?
Respectfully, your point seems to be a moot one. Criticising delivery, when I was talking about the subject matter and delivery is as much a skill of those delivering as anything else.
I am with you. The guy above seems to treat children as the r word.
I can say for myself that having to relearn a ton of stuff as an adult is traumatizing and I agree with you that we should teach reality no matter the age (we can tackle it from various angles but saying that teaching bollocks is ok, that is a different story).
Targeting the cognitive level of the child is not the same as not teaching logic. Your hierarchy example works fine for some levels, not for others was the point. It’s a lot easier to teach a rote methodology than a hierarchy of trust.
Except, research shows that even at preschool level kids are able to distinguish expertise through various social cues. At this age it’s more about authority than a hierarchy of trust.
But by the age I’m talking of, between 6 and 8, we have a wealth of research that shows that children are capable of understanding hierarchies of trust:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232520123_Children's_Reasoning_About_Three_Authority_Attributes_Adult_Status_Knowledge_and_Social_Position
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25425347/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022096518305666
If your point is instead about the minority of students that are struggling to keep up, then that becomes more a discussion on the structure of education as a whole. Rather than this particular subject. Where funding and logistical problems meet conflicting needs of different kids.
But, the idea that we’d dumb down a curriculum for the minority is… troubling. But then so is the idea of that minority continually falling behind.
Huh. I stand corrected. I was under the impression that expressed more in the 8-12 “Pre-Teen” range.
Appreciate the humility.
Takes a well rounded and healthy mind to change your mind in the face of new information. It’s increasingly rare to find this online and it takes courage especially in a public forum.
It’s moments like this that renew my faith in human beings. Thank you for that gift tonight mate :).
“No Child Left Behind” peering out from the shadows, gutting programs for more advanced students.
It’s easier to lower the bar than make people jump higher.