tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029419017923677229.post1607381427329306118..comments2023-10-26T04:38:06.297-04:00Comments on TeachPaperless: Diane Ravitch could use some critical thinking skills.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14091328599818819777noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029419017923677229.post-65747744996124247322009-12-31T19:05:46.877-05:002009-12-31T19:05:46.877-05:00A basic understanding of logic is necessary to be ...A basic understanding of logic is necessary to be able to read critically and write with coherence. Good critical thinking follows rules of logic to observe, interpret, apply, and revise ideas or problems. Check out these rules of logic and a great list with examples of fallacious reasoning:<br />http://penningtonpublishing.com/blog/reading/how-to-teach-logic/Mark Penningtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13184265967777133129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029419017923677229.post-69163715831513609972009-09-15T19:11:01.595-04:002009-09-15T19:11:01.595-04:00You've done such a thorough job of evisceratin...You've done such a thorough job of eviscerating Prof. Ravitch's arguments, that I can't help but try to give her the benefit of the doubt on a few things. Her central argument is ridiculous, as you have pointed out, but I do think she brings up some issues that bear further thought.<br /><br />1. "For over a century we have numbed the brains of teachers with endless blather about process and abstract thinking skills. We have taught them about graphic organizers and Venn diagrams and accountable talk, data-based decision-making, rubrics, and leveled libraries."<br /><br />I wonder if this reaction to the idea of 21st Century skills is actually really a reaction to the content of this paragraph. If you look at any current reading program, you will see explicit skill instruction. Skills are taught to teachers and students as if they are pieces of knowledge to be learned, as if one can read about the process of critical thinking and arrive at critical thinking. Now there is obviously research that backs this up in some manner, but taking time away to explicitly "teach" skills (along w/ the canned reading and critical thinking questions that go along w/ this) is time taken away from discussion/activities that would teach by doing through legitimate engagement w/ content knowledge. Clearly there is value is self-reflection, but one wonders if the current focus on explicit skill instruction misses the point, and I think Prof. Ravitch is right to question this. <br /><br />2."Inevitably, putting a priority on skills pushes other subjects, including history, literature, and the arts, to the margins."<br /><br />The arts and humanities do feel like they're being pushed to the margins. But I'm not sure why she's chosen "a priority on skills" as the bogeyman, except that she seems to equate skills with a push to make students competitive "for jobs in the global economy." Unfortunately, that is probably all this means for some people. But in a time when information is becoming more available than ever before, wouldn't it be criminal NOT to give students the skills needed to navigate this sea of information--not to replace knowledge w/ skills, whatever that even means--but so they are equipped to acquire the knowledge that matters most to them and view w/ a critical eye information that may be misleading or damaging? Not only so they can compete in the global economy, but for their own enrichment in whatever they may pursue?<br /><br />That said, I do think it's legitimate to worry about the fate of the arts and humanities. What we are still figuring out in the nascent digital age is how to restrict or even turn off the firehose of information. Doesn't it at times feel that we are so busy w/ NOW that our grasp on history (and by the same token literature and the arts) seems just a bit tenuous? Is the fear that 21 Century skills are a way to deal w/ now w/o engaging w/ the past? It may be misguided to think that's what 21st Century skills are necessarily, but I can understand the fear that that's what they could be. The example of your classroom is a great counterargument to that fear, but it's not wrong to fear that 21st Century skills could end up being taught as poorly in the majority of classrooms as the current skills in the curriculum are. But to me, that is not an indictment of skills themselves, but of the standards, pedagogy, and practice that suck the life out of both knowledge AND skill acquisition. Because as you allude to, the teaching of knowledge and the teaching of skills should reinforce each other, not detract from each other.N. Tardiffhttp://twitter.com/ntardiffnoreply@blogger.com