Utopia Talk - Politics - Education policy

Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Thu Apr 25 10:11:57 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / Education policy

Nimatzo
iChihuaha Sun Jul 22 05:40:19
**This thread and my criticism of education policy and pedagogy have nothing to do with Trump and were expressed before he was elected. I am not trying to explain how Putin invaded the USA.**

http://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/Clark.pdf

^Minimal guidance vs full guidance and the empirical support.

This is something I have written on UP before and how this modern pedagogy is somewhat of a battle here in Sweden. The concept is that you give student tools for critical thinking and minimal guidance and then let them figure out the "truth" for themselves. Which is even on the surface a rather stupid idea, you are mostly going to think critically wrong without basic knowledge in a subject.

The lack of research to support this theory of pedagogy is partly explained by the hostile resistance to efficacy studies. To paraphrase one of Swedens leading pedagogs: everyone is unique and learn in different ways, so to try to use empirical research to find general methodology, and now I quote "inhumane". An almost complete rejection of empirical (she actually says we rely too much on it) research in favor of new epistemology.

Out with the old, rigid and traditional methodology, where the teacher is an authority, in favor of a modern and progressive path where the student guides the learning.

The result as the article says (and as my wife has explained to me anecdotally) is that the students who are structured and have discipline (academic parents upper middle) they will do just fine. But the kid (usually a boy) with non-academic parents, will do terrible in school without proper guidance and instructions.

Now does anyone think that conservatives (who are a near extinct species in the specific academic fields, 21% teachers) did this and are in favor of introducing radically new methods, anywhere?

Seb
Member Sun Jul 22 11:43:27
Mix of the two.

There comes a point (fairly late on) in secondary education where a lot of people would flourish if there was a smoother transition to self motivated study as preparation for life long learning or tertiary education.

And there is definitely a point in early years (pre 5) where heavily structured learning is not as effective as loosely guided play.

But in the middle, it needs to be structured.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha Sun Jul 22 12:21:55
The article make the difference between "novice" and "expert" and the category is "student", which excludes kindergartners. But yes, this up to high school, and I agree transition should be made during the latter half. But principally it is about level of knowledge, you need to reach a certain level of knowledge, before you can work/solve/analyse independently.

show deleted posts

Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jul 22 05:40:19 This thread and my criticism of education policy and pedagogy have nothing to do with Trump and were expressed before he was elected. I am not trying to explain how Putin invaded the USA. http://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/Clark.pdf ^Minimal guidance vs full guidance and the empirical support. This is something I have written on UP before and how this modern pedagogy is somewhat of a battle here in Sweden. The concept is that you give student tools for critical thinking and minimal guidance and then let them figure out the "truth" for themselves. Which is even on the surface a rather stupid idea, you are mostly going to think critically wrong without basic knowledge in a subject. The lack of research to support this theory of pedagogy is partly explained by the hostile resistance to efficacy studies. To paraphrase one of Swedens leading pedagogs: everyone is unique and learn in different ways, so to try to use empirical research to find general methodology, and now I quote "inhumane". An almost complete rejection of empirical (she actually says we rely too much on it) research in favor of new epistemology. Out with the old, rigid and traditional methodology, where the teacher is an authority, in favor of a modern and progressive path where the student guides the learning. The result as the article says (and as my wife has explained to me anecdotally) is that the students who are structured and have discipline (academic parents upper middle) they will do just fine. But the kid (usually a boy) with non-academic parents, will do terrible in school without proper guidance and instructions. Now does anyone think that conservatives (who are a near extinct species in the specific academic fields, 21% teachers) did this and are in favor of introducing radically new methods, anywhere?
Seb Member	Sun Jul 22 11:43:27 Mix of the two. There comes a point (fairly late on) in secondary education where a lot of people would flourish if there was a smoother transition to self motivated study as preparation for life long learning or tertiary education. And there is definitely a point in early years (pre 5) where heavily structured learning is not as effective as loosely guided play. But in the middle, it needs to be structured.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jul 22 12:21:55 The article make the difference between "novice" and "expert" and the category is "student", which excludes kindergartners. But yes, this up to high school, and I agree transition should be made during the latter half. But principally it is about level of knowledge, you need to reach a certain level of knowledge, before you can work/solve/analyse independently.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: