It is time we had an interdisciplinary world. It is time we created a society where all levels of thinking and society can work together – so the individual psychologies can live together in a more integrated society. Interdisciplinary thinking tries to promote environmentalism, capitalism, religion, heroic individualism, and families simultaneously. Beauty, truth, and ethics are united.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Skills vs. Content
One of the biggest problems with education is that content-education is being replaced by skills-education. Certainly we needs skills, but what sense does it make to teach "critical thinking skills" when students don't have anything to think about? We will ignore for the moment the fact that "critical thinking skills" itself is essentially meaningless. I saw this problem when I tried to teach "integration" to interdisciplinary studies students who didn't know anything and, thus, had nothing to integrate. A similar problem occurred in my composition classes, where somehow I was supposed to teach students how to write and how to make arguments without teaching them vocabulary, grammar, or logic, and without them knowing enough about any subject to even write about it. All of this is due to the emphasis on "higher order thinking skills" in Bloom's taxonomy -- by people who clearly have no understanding of Bloom's taxonomy, and the fact that the "higher order thinking skills" are at the top of a pyramid, the base of which is made up of facts and knowledge. Bloom understand that you cannot think without knowledge, that thinking without objects of thought is impossible, but his followers latch on to the fact that he says that "higher order thinking skills" are most important. He knows you can't skip levels -- they do not. As a result, we have precisely this problem of trying to teach skills but not content. It can't be done.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think many teachers in the trenches misunderstand Bloom's Taxonomy because they misunderstand hierarchy in general. They think it's a simple ranking system--a lot of people think this is what hierarchy means-- with the least desirable ways of teaching (direct instruction, first order questions, memorization) at the bottom of the list and the most desirable (second order and opinion questions, synthesis, evaluation) at the top. It doesn't help that education professors who don't undersand it either are always extolling the virtues of "higher order thinking skills" and condemning "lower order thinking skills" as the fare of tweed-clad fossils and inbred Bush voters (a caricature of their opinion, not mine).
The concept of a nested, self-referential hierarchy makes perfect sense once one has made a certain intuitive and intellectual leap (they're everywhere in nature, after all) but it's tricky for people who have spent their whole lives thinking of natural processes as circles and human processes as straight lines. And if you start going off in the staffroom about fractals and feedback loops, exhausted and cynical teachers say things like "Hey, man, lay off the acid," or "You need to stop watching the Da Vinci Code."
Post a Comment