Let's Call The Whole Thing Off

An educational shift away from "drill and kill" to more creative/critical/scientific thinking is entirely dependent on what we're trying to achieve with public education. What do we want our children to gain? What thinking skills do we want them to carry into adulthood? If the ultimate goal is to teach them how to take standardized tests so schools don't get dinged, to process but perhaps not analyze information in set periods of time, to fill in bubbles on a scantron, then clearly we should continue with standardization. Three cheers for memorization and regurgitation!

On the other hand, if the goal of education is to produce human beings who can think analytically and creatively in order to adapt to all situations and come up with new solutions to old problems, then perhaps we should reevaluate our educational system. Encouraging creative and critical thinking will surely be better for kids in the long run, as standardized tests only get us so far and stay with us for so long. Critical and creative thinking will stick with them throughout their lives.  Evidence for the benefits of creative thinking has been seen in children who are bi-lingual, as well as children who have attended Montessori school.

"Drill and Kill" may get schools and students the mark of "proficiency" and approval, but the push for children who can take tests but not adapt to real world problems seems like an awful waste. Creative/critical thinking may not be easily taught, but it can be fostered by the right schooling. Unfortunately, standardization does not encourage creative thinking; standardization suffocates it instead.

Critical Thinking

I would suggest further researching the "quantum jumping" theory. This could be accomplished by using an empirical study on teachers and administrators, willing to devote time and effort in finding solutions through a new model of learning  theory. Quantum jumping has recently become available and suggests that the individual is able to tap into an alternate universe or twin self, which may or may not be beneficial on various levels. If this theory were to be proven true, the teachers would already be familiar with the techniques through visualization, intention, or exploration on a higher level of consciousness and could use the skills learned to assist in transitioning it into our schools, if they find it to be a worthy cause.

If you were to be interested in this type of theory or possibly researching it, you will find the link is below:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=quantum+jumping&src=IE-TopResult&FORM=IE10TR

Reply Nov. 4 Pompt

How I would convince parents, teachers, and administrators is by showing them the strong evidence out there (Newport (1991) study of bilingualism in young children) that has been found proving that these methods actually do work.  It is sad that there is not already more creative and critical thinking involved in k- 12-education material.  I understand there is budget cuts all the time and we would have to find highly qualified persons for these jobs, but if parents and teachers truly want their children to be not only smart but do well with analytical reasoning, cognitive flexibility, and many other things.  They would very much open to put a motion forward on making educational materials revolve more around creative and critical thinking.  I know if I was a parent I would want the best I or anyone could do for their future.

prompt for nov 4

Critical thinking is a skill that everyone should develop and utilize in all aspects of life. Teachers have the opportunity to help young people to develop critical thinking skills while teaching all classes simply by asking the question why. They would not have to change their teaching methods drastically they could simply reword the statement as a question. Kids learn many things because they ask the question why. It also can be used as a learning tool in schools versus the drill and kill method building a students curiosity and interest in learning.

Nov. 4 Week

First of all I do not completely agree that there is a way to incorporate a whole new way or learning in to our schools. If I was going to try and persuade others to change learning to a more critical thinking perspective, I would suggest that teachers must change the way they teach class. This is hard to do because then there is no certain way to give out grades because critical thinking does not always have a definite correct answer. Teachers would still have to give traditional tests and standardized tests, but could also give the students critical thinking assignments.

Giving critical thinking assignments on top of regular tests would be a good start to get children thinking critically and still being able to academically measure the progress the children are making.

Can you really persuade people?

It seems like it might be futile to try to persuade people to change from our current system where math, sciences and English  are the main focuses of education, today it seems more about test scores and saving money then what might be the best for children.

I went to school before no child left behind or race to the top, but right about when there were fairly large tax cuts that ended up causing a large drop in funding to public education program. When I was in middle school Spanish and French were offered to middle school students, by time I was a sophomore in high school those classes were no longer offered. As studies have shown the earlier one learns a second language the easier it was for a child to become fluent. A second language also helps with critical and creative thinking. It seems that removing these classes is only detrimental to a child's ability to think critically.

Some schools are also thinking about removing recess from recess from school to there is more time to teach the STEM classes. A recent article on NPR talked about this some schools move to remove or lessen recess time. http://www.npr.org/2013/11/07/243713419/trim-recess-some-schools-hold-on-to-childs-play

We have only move to having children that can answer text questions, but these children might not know how to use those ideas in a different way or what causes those answers to be correct.

I work with children everyday due to my job, I often make the children give me a reason why when they tell me they believe something. I start this long before children are able to think critically, this begins to build the ground work for critical thinking later.

Drill and Kill to Little Einsteins. Why not?

Even the phrase "drill and kill" for this style of teaching sounds unappealing. Information can be drilled into children's skulls for the tedious memorization used in convergent thinking only so much because the 'kill' part comes into play. The "I 'learned' it, now I can forget about it" attitude is unavailing to the child's educational career and life. In order to get our children thinking more scientifically, long term memory must be involved. Children need to be exposed to the scientific method as early as possible and understand the true importance of valid evidence. One solid way to initiate the critical thought process and divergent thinking would be to get them involved with a second language during the sensitive period. The new way of teaching children to become "little scientists and critics" should include, but is not limited to: -view learning as active exploration -view teacher as facilitator of knowledge -more open ended content and less multiple choice -children observe, test, and analyze -integrate subjects more so that children understand how they fit together (for example, Montessori's learning stations) The ability the critically think will be useful all throughout the rest of children's lives; why not start teaching them the skills to be successful in life as early as possible?? "It is the supreme art of the teacher to awaken joy in creative expression and knowledge." - Albert Einstein

Critical thinking is, arguably, the most important skill one could have. I would agree that the drill and kill method was effective for the eras it was used in, but those times are passed. As a culture, our mainstream belief is that of the individual. As Americans we not only embrace this belief, we cater to it. Standardized testing can show a certain amount of the educational base one has, when compared to  a group but leaves out much of  the strengths an individual has when it comes to problem solving and coping skills with life in general. Your ability to self manage, being able to think on your feet and adapt to any given situation are things that cannot be measured by standardized tests. And yet these abilities are the things that could make a decision between going with you or someone else in the workforce, or for a scholarship. Critical thinking, however, is a type of learning that would account for these types of abilities.The ability to be able to think critically branches out into all areas of your life where making decisions comes into play, not just work. The positive overlap of this ability cannot be overstated. I wouldn't think it would take much convincing to win this argument in favor of critical thinking, as the world we live in today values individualism above all else. That is the one thing that standardized testing, by definition, cannot measure. I watched a spelling bee once, where the girl drew the word "theater", she spelled "theatre". Initially, she was asked to be seated, but upon review, both spellings are correct. She is able to rejoin the group onstage. This example comes to mind for me as an illustration of standardized testing versus critical thinking. In that, standardized would be the theater with the "er",  while critical thinking involves a different set of logic that is open to more than one correct way of doing something. It is this allowance that demonstrates the superiority of critical thinking as opposed to standardized testing.

Critical Thinking

I think if society as a whole wants to progress then critical thinking is a must do! The drill and kill method is still being used but I think it would only be beneficial if used in certain amounts. For example if a full time student is taking classes that are strictly drill and kill then the student themselves would want to kill. Using the same method for everything will eventually just end up killing you and your brain. Critical thinking is essential and I feel as if one class asked you of this then it could help you in all other aspects including your other classes. Providing critical thinking to a drill and kill class will let your mind wander into all aspects of the course. I think a multi-dimensional thinking method would work best. I would simply use scholars and professors for my evidence. Go through tech classrooms and take an example of each teaching method, ask students what they like and see if they could add on to their ways of learning. Critical thinking in conjunction with note taking after note taking I think could be the way of progress.

favorite high school teacher

I don't have any evidence to support my stance, but I can share a personal experience that defined the processes creative & critical thinking for me.  My high school creative writing teacher, Mr. Terry Arends, was a hardass.  Nobody liked that dude.  He was a Vietnam War veteran, didn't tolerate childish behavior (he was there to get us ready for college, not babysit), and never accepted work that was a grade below what we were capable of creating.  He hated pretentious vocabularies but loved military precision.  He was famous for giving us writing assignments that were pretty heinous – once we weren’t allowed to use the letter A, we had to write our autobiographical essays in iambic pentameter, and we could never start sentences with “I, a, an or the”.  Most of us struggled at first, but he would remind us our generation didn’t invent angst – HE invented angst. 

By the end of the semester, though, we could dominate any stanza restriction or writing style he threw at us.  The last day of class, he let us in on a little secret – he didn’t like us very much.  He hated hearing about how stupid his class was, he hated our attitudes, he hated that “entitled” young people were leaches.  He could, however, tolerate us now to a certain extent because we were able to think openly and react appropriately to situations we weren’t familiar with  – restrictions, he said, were the key to creativity.  He said that creative writing wasn’t about how artistic you were, it was how well you could think your way out of a problem.  Forcing us to write in standard meters made us think outside the comfort of keeping ourselves in our own little boxes.  And he said thinking outside of the box was the first step in not being little assholes when we went out into the real world. 

Creative Thinking in Schools

Can creative thinking be taught? Can it be learned? I would argue "no" to both of those questions. Can it be encouraged, facilitated, and nurtured? I believe the answer is yes! I think that the only way to implement a more "creative thinking friendly" curriculum would be to abandon current practices. No more testing of strictly knowledge... that means, fewer standardized exams and fewer mindless busywork homework assignments for a numerical grade. This goes against everything set in place by the No Child Left Behind Act. But what if, by ensuring we don't leave anyone behind, we are actually cheating everyone? Depriving ourselves and our children of the chance to think creatively. What creative thinking requires are more personal projects and posing more thought provoking, divergent questions. We need to measure potential, not accomplishment and then feed that potential the nutrients it requires for vitality instead of starving it by feeding it only facts, dates, and equations. These things cannot be objectively measured, but maybe that is okay. America is a society focused on standardization, but America was founded by people who thought outside of the box, thought critically and creatively, and found solutions to never before encountered problems. This Psychology Today article reflects my thoughts very well: "Why can't this creative process be taught? Creativity is not simply a set of skills. Creativity is not simply familiarity with a set of behaviors or facility with a set of pre-fab strategies. Creativity is not simply a body of knowledge. Creativity only manifests when a person with the right sets of skills and knowledge invents or finds an appropriate problem that cannot be solved using any existing approach, but which is amenable to solution by that person's unique set of experiences. You never know who is going to hit that jackpot. You only know that some people have embarked on the quest."

What do you think Socrates?

My Socratic question is this.  Are we really creative thinkers on an individual basis or do we excel as a group?  Throughout history, there are very few people who usher change in a society or affect people on a global scale.  We call them geniuses, philosophers, savants, or experts.  Do we need to create a society of savants? I don’t think it is possible.

However, I spoke to Professor Pat Munday, he spent a semester teaching graduate students in China on a Fulbright scholarship award.  He mentioned that Chinese students are very strong in the “drill and kill” aspect, but they’re weak on critical and creative thinking.  They have difficulty understanding abstract concepts at times.

I think if we want to move to a more creative style of thinking, then we should teach in a more Socratic method.  Answers the questions, respond, then ask another question.  I don’t know if it will be possible, but what do you think about using the Socratic Method as a style of teaching?

interesting article on child maltreatment

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/11/04/242945454/childhood-maltreatment-can-leave-scars-in-the-brain

Prompt for November 4th

There have been many arguments for adding more creative and critical thinking to education, and moving away from "drill and kill."  If you were making an argument for more "little scientists & critics," how would you convince parents, teachers, and administrators? What support and evidence would you use to argue for critical, creative, and scientific thinking?

To Flatten A Heroine: Artist Puts Disney Princess Filter On 10 Real Life Female Role Models

Check out this article: http://www.womenyoushouldknow.net/flatten-heroine-artist-puts-disney-princess-filter-10-real-life-female-role-models/

It ties in with what we talked about on Friday with the "Who's in Charge?" article.

Here is a great quote from the artist:  "The statement I wanted to make was that it makes no sense to put these real-life women into one limited template, so why then are we doing it to our fictitious heroines? “Fiction is the lens through which young children first perceive role models, so we have a responsibility to provide them with a diverse and eclectic selection of female archetypes. Now, I’m not even saying that girls shouldn’t have princesses in their lives, the archetype in and of itself is not innately wrong, but there should be more options to choose from. So that was my intent, to demonstrate how ridiculous it is to paint an entire gender of heroes with one superficial brush."