Pinker wrote: "Finally, a better understanding of the mind can lead to setting new priorities as to what is taught. The goal of education should be to provide students with new cognitive tools for grasping the world".
Brian and Selma, I read Pinker's NYT piece after both of your posts, and tried to find something argumentative or provocative in it to see some disagreement. Although I agree that we should be teaching more things than traditional subjects, for the life of me, I could not find much to be excited about. In fact, I have been going to bed with Pinker for a few weeks now, but alas, he has not been able to keep me awake. However, I am determined to see this through (The Blank Slate) because I want to learn it and I am hoping that the subtitle The Modern Denial of Human Nature will keep me awake soon. Which brings me to the emotional reaction I have to this kind of educational debate: Pinker is approaching the subject of getting into a student's mind from his practice as a theorist from science. Well, not quite. I know he is a linguist and know something about the study, but that's the best I can do right now. Brian, a teacher's teacher, I perceive as approaching the subject of a student's mind from the tangible experience of seeing what works, watching light bulbs go on in minds all the time. Pinker, as a technician who presumably does not spend as much time in classroom activities as Brian does, concentrates his search on what goes wrong as a way to find what is right, and Brian hopefully experiences much more of what is right while coming across instances where things don't work right. If I haven't lost everyone there, let me put it another way. We have made many other things sexy. Why isn't education? We make becoming older and wiser the province of the ancient and wrinkled. At least in the West , it seems, we confine sensuality just to the bedroom when it belongs in the kitchen and the living room, the library and the garden, and we worship the visual pleasures of art and beauty, and the aural pleasures of music and song, but we seem to confine the Joy of Learning to a geekiness for which too few young minds are seduced. Now, I am not going to write here in a tantalizing way just to make my point, although that would be fun. But I don't know everyone on this list, and I've written a few things in my time that didn't read as well after I'd sent them as when I typed them and heard it in my head, so I'm not going to become an educational voyeur online. But I have found some wonderful books for preschoolers that are absolutely joyful in what they urge the child to discover. I absolutely love it when a certain four year old turns to me after I've read him a book with an interactive voice and he hugs me with joy on his face at what he has just unleashed in his little inquisitive, active, turned on brain. When do we lose that for older students, especially when their minds are becoming more sophisticated? A friend sent me an amusing story about an old dog the other day with the lesson that adults miss too much joy from everyday learning. We make classroom education tedious for young people who are drowning in hormones, we hide creativity as if it belongs to a few special and unique individuals who are burdened with the task of enlightening us to our own artistic natures. We imply that only by going to exotic locales or by watching unreal Reality TV can we be refreshed and "stimulated". We have mass-marketed everyday and classroom learning into dehydrated vacumn packed rations. Why can't learning be more sensual? Karen I will cloak myself in my cape now, and retreat to the convent until such a time as I have vanquished this hedonism from my thoughts, sipping only green tea and walking barefoot over sharp stones in penance. Like hell I will. Hi Selma, I saw Pinker on TV the other night and my reaction then has been reinforced by this piece. I wonder what experiences Pinker has had helping kids learn to read? He says: > We already know that some methods of reading instruction work >better than others, yet many schools still use methods proved >ineffective like >"whole language" techniques. How does one respond to such inaccurate statements? The work of Ken and Yetta Goodman on miscue analysis in reading might cause him to stop and ponder. Or if he really wants to ponder children's minds then he should read Margaret Donaldson's book "Children's Minds". The great Piaget had to rethink much of his opus because of this book. "A little learning is a dangerous thing" Take care, Brian >This article from NYTimes.com >has been sent to you by [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >As always, what one chooses to think is important to do depends upon >one's values. > >For example: of what value to the development of a person's HUMAN >potential is the study of the classics vs. economics. > >Selma > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >How to Get Inside a Student's Head > >January 31, 2003 >By STEVEN PINKER > > > > > > >CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - The scant mention of education in >President Bush's State of the Union address suggests that >the administration feels its work on the subject is done, >at least for now. Last year's sweeping bill was a >significant achievement, but as with most federal >initiatives, it dealt primarily with administrative issues >like financing and achievement tests. Little attention was >given to the actual process of education: how events in the >classroom affect the minds of the students. > >Yet a bit of White House leadership might encourage >educators and scientists to apply a better understanding of >thinking and learning to what happens in the classroom. >Bill Clinton, in fact, did show some enthusiasm for this >approach - particularly research on the brain. But as >exciting as neuroscience is, I suspect it will provide >little enlightenment about education. All learning changes >the brain, but the changes at the level of brain cells are >similar in all complex organisms - including mice, which >don't learn to read, write or add. > >Rather, it is the patterns of changes across billions of >neurons that determine the distinctively human forms of >learning in the classroom. To understand these patterns, we >need to apply insights from cognitive science, behavioral >genetics and evolutionary and developmental psychology. > >An important place to start might be in working to apply a >scientific mindset to education itself - that is, to >determine as best we can whether various beliefs about >educational effectiveness are true. Classroom practice is >often guided by romantic theories, slick packages and >political crusades. Few practices have been evaluated using >the paraphernalia of social science, such as data >collection and control groups. We already know that some >methods of reading instruction work better than others, yet >many schools still use methods proved ineffective like >"whole language" techniques. > >The sciences of the mind can also provide a sounder >conception of what the mind of a child is inherently good >and bad at. Our minds are impressively competent at >problems that were challenges to our evolutionary >ancestors: speaking and listening, reading emotions and >intentions, making friends and influencing people. They are >not so good at problems that are far simpler (as gauged by >what a computer can do) but which are posed by modern life: >reading and writing, calculation, understanding how complex >societies work. We should not assume that children can >learn to write as easily as they learn to speak, or that >children in groups will learn science as readily as they >learn to exchange gossip. Educators must figure out how to >co-opt the faculties that work effortlessly and to get >children to apply them to problems at which they lack >natural competence. > >Finally, a better understanding of the mind can lead to >setting new priorities as to what is taught. The goal of >education should be to provide students with new cognitive >tools for grasping the world. Observers from our best >scientists to Jay Leno are appalled by the scientific >illiteracy of typical Americans. This obliviousness leads >people to squander their health on medical flimflam and to >misunderstand the strengths and weaknesses of a market >economy in their political choices. > >The obvious solution is instruction at all levels in >relatively new fields like economics, evolutionary biology >and statistics. Yet most curriculums are set in stone, >because no one wants to be the philistine who seems to be >saying that it is unimportant to learn a foreign language >or the classics. But there are only 24 hours in a day, and >a decision to teach one subject is a decision not to teach >another. The question is not whether trigonometry is >important - it is - but whether it is more important than >probability; not whether an educated person should know the >classics, but whether it is more important to know the >classics than elementary economics. > >This is not just a question of "relevance" to everyday >life; these fields are as rigorous and fundamental as those >in traditional curriculums. Nor is it a question of >tradition being bad and innovation good - many fad >movements are just as evasive about setting priorities. >Even if learning music were shown to enhance math skills, >that doesn't mean it is as effective as the same number of >hours spent learning math. > >In a world with complexities that constantly challenge the >abilities nature gave us, serious thinking about trade-offs >in education cannot be responsibly avoided - by scientists, >educators or policy makers. > >Steven Pinker, professor of cognitive science at >Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is author of "The >Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature." > >http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/31PINK.html?ex=1045021616&ei=1&en =0bcd1a2c6790cc8d > > > >HOW TO ADVERTISE >--------------------------------- >For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters >or other creative advertising opportunities with The >New York Times on the Web, please contact >[EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit our online media >kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo > >For general information about NYTimes.com, write to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company >_______________________________________________ >Futurework mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework -- ************************************************** * Brian McAndrews, Practicum Coordinator * * Faculty of Education, Queen's University * * Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6 * * FAX:(613) 533-6596 Phone (613) 533-6000x74937* * e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * "Education is not the filling of a pail, * * but the lighting of a fire. * * W.B.Yeats * * * ************************************************** _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
