Bad ideas in education

Great Debates
221

Bolding mine. I find nothing in my posts that demonstrates hostility on my part. Yours though is rampant throughout. Enough said on that subject.

If we are truly now leaving behind the travesty of parsing the meaning of “reality” as relevant, I will be pleased. I’m sure we all forgive you for wasting everyone’s time for over 100 posts.

You have an ongoing objection to the demonstration wherein the adult directs the child to “look at” the glasses of liquid, asserting that this somehow confuses the child and invalidates the experiment. Did you wish the child to be told to sniff the containers, fondle them, taste them, or listen to them? In what manner should the adult have directed the child’s attention otherwise? Of course the child is going to look at the containers, else what is the point? If he watches his toes, or gazes out the window, or falls asleep, his answer will have little relevance to the liquid in the containers. You then apparently realize the foolishness of this argument, stating that it probably wouldn’t have made any difference anyway, probably, maybe, but somebody ought to prove this to you anyhow, probably, maybe, somehow. And you insist this is a good faith argument.

You are now dialing back your generalized claims about “children” and focusing on the 5 to 7 year old range. And you seem to be admitting that something is changing in the child’s understanding of the world at this point. Strange that this is the exact age that LHOD described as capable of understanding conservation for the first time. And the same range at which researchers from Piaget on down have observed this phenomenon. Methinks you are waffling now. Or learning. One may only hope.

I suppose you are correct that no one has bothered to provide exhaustive citations to demonstrate that you do not know what you are talking about. Nevertheless, you do not. Should you wish to inform yourself before continuing, Dogpile is your friend. In case you don’t have a spare browser window available, here are a few cites:

I realize this is merely an appeal to authority, and not even a strictly relevant authority at that. But I think it goes to your statement “I disagree that this is not a controversial matter. Your claims are not simple or uncontroversial”. Einstein may not have settled the matter, but his acceptance seems to carry more weight than your rejection.

The cite above goes on to describe Piaget’s stages. I suggest you take advantage of it. Also,

here is Wiki’s explication. I know, it’s Wiki, but it has lots of links providing further documentation. Call it like a literature search.

And here’s one more:

http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cogsys/piaget.html

This one includes a nice graphic representation showing how “most” children move through the stages of development. Sure enough, there is a range, not a magic age. And what do you know, it seems that the overwhelming majority of 5 year olds are “pre-operational” while the majority of 7 and 8 year olds are “concrete operational”. Amazing that this is what LHOD has been telling you all along.

Yes there is some controversy in the realm of childhood development, and not everyone in the field takes their Piaget straight up, without ice or branch water. But the main point of discussion seems to be whether or not individuals move from one stage to another automatically as they biologically mature, or if environmental factors are required. The conclusion so far is that the former applies to the first three stages

but

However, I don’t think that your contrarian claims are sufficient for you to assert ownership of this argument.

In sum, it appears that the current state of relevant scientific thought in the field of cognitive development is that childhood cognition proceeds by stages, that those stages are discrete and describable, that they are present in virtually all children, that virtually all children progress through them in a certain order and within a reasonably narrow age range, and that children at a given stage cannot successfully be taught or instructed to operate at a higher stage except as their developmental level approaches the next level in succession.

Accept it.

222

Now I think you’re misunderstanding my question. It appears to me that you have shifted to a nonfalsifiable position: it is possible to teach most pre-school-age children the principle of conservation (but most teachers are too shitty to be able to do it). You could prove it true by doing it, but how could anyone prove it false? If there is in fact a way to prove it false (rather than just showing that lots of people have tried and none have succeeded, which others in the thread have already provided citations for), I would appreciate your telling us what you think it might be. If there is no way to prove it false, then no one need waste his time in this thread trying.

223

Hi All, before responding to any posts I’d like to offer these definitions to avoid micommunication and time waste.

Weak Principle of Conservation: This is the one we want to use. If you pour water from one container to another, the volume stays the same. This is what would be known to people through their life experiences unless they have a lot of highly sensitive lab equipment.

Strong Principle of Conservation: This is one we don’t really need. If you pour water from one container to another, the volume will probably change because of the involvement of many physical principles. The change would not normally be detected by people without the highly sensitive lab equipment.
Here are 4 different definitions for the terms ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’

  1. The terms ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’ are just labels for two possible answers to a question. It wouldn’t matter which label was attached to which answer because the labels do not characterize the answer. (Personal opinion: It’s bad form because the words have other meanings which could lead to confusion, but would be fine if just called A and B.)

  2. The terms ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’ mean the absolute factual answer in reality. This would only apply if the Strong Principle of Conservation were in use, and I think we all agree it shouldn’t be.

  3. The terms ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’ are used in reference to the Weak Principle of Conservation. In this sense if water is transferred from one container to another, it would be ‘correct’ to say the volume stays the same.

  4. The terms ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’ refer to the honest answer to the question based on the subjects perception of the question and circumstances. Example: Does 1+1=3? The ‘correct’ answer may be yes for someone who is really bad at math.
    Please feel free to offer alternatives, additions, or editing, or complete rejection, if it would make the discussion clearer. I think we could avoid wasting time if we refer to a particular definition.

More later. Sorry, it’s been a busy day, what with the DST and the Pi and everything.

224

TriPolar, none of that is very valuable.

Every single person in this thread immediately knows what is meant by “the volume stays the same”.
Myself and others have asked you directly multiple times and you still haven’t answered, others have probably given up but I’m a glutton for punishment.

What exactly is your point about volume and the accuracy of measure? Seriously, just state your point like any other poster is capable of doing.
Here is an example:
My (RaftPeople’s) position is that the volume of water in those experiments is so close to being the same that we can just use the phrase “the same”. We haven’t really lost any information within the context of that experiment.
See how easy and clear that is? Can you try?

225

Seems we aren’t done wasting posts yet.

Let me have Complete Rejection for two thousand dollars, Alex!

Somebody send me my pony.

226

Now next time someone accuses me of hostility, look at the previous two posts. I’m trying to avoid making statements that aren’t clear. I want to be specific about what I’m saying. I don’t understand the need for those responses. Canny or Raft, what is your objection? Those are the terms that have been used so far, and I don’t see the need to use the word ‘correct’ or same volume and then be misunderstood about what I meant, or misunderstand what you mean. Do you find something wrong with definitions?

I was asked many times about the issue of volume, and always responded to explain exactly what I meant, and the result was that others said I was wasting time and posts. Now I want to find a way to be clear to avoid wasting time.

Canny or Raft, could you please explain your objections to being more clear?

227

YOu may wish to click on this post to reread it. This is where you started appearing obsessed with volume, and this is where you (I think) first made your claim that there’s nothing wrong with the thinking of the child in the experiment. And this is where your totally weird fruit analogy first came up–an analogy that I still don’t think anyone understands.

Read your posts starting around here to see why folks are so exasperated with your behavior in this thread. They’re really totally bizarre, IMO, and it makes it hard to figure out what your point was then, or what it is now.

228

I don’t want to rehash that. I’m willing to drop all that and stick to a technical discussion. I’ll take responsibility for all the hostility and confusion. I’m sure there might be a need for some to vent still, and I can ignore that. I’m going to continue without any of that. If I do it again, feel free to call me on it. I didn’t think clarifying my terms was more of the same. Can you suggest a better approach?

229

You’ve brought up a good point. I will have to consider that. I’m not sure how to falsify this category of argument. While I ponder that, can you tell me if the counter argument is also falsifiable? If so, and my argument is not, that would be a victory for your side.

230

Seriously? A better approach would be to explain what you were getting at with the fruit, or an apology for all that rigmarole. I know you don’t want to rehash it, but ideally an explanation would be great.

As for your definitions, #2 and #3 are close to what we’re getting at, although neither really gets there. But this is all a sideshow to the main point–the one I was originally making, way back before the tangerines and the absolute reality showed up–which is that kids think differently from adults in some pretty fundamental ways. Do you seriously disagree with this assertion?

231

I fail to see hostility coming from either **RaftPeople **or myself. Frustration, exasperation, incredulity, yes-- hostility, no. We quite frankly cannot figure out what you’re going on about. The rest of us are talking about early childhood development, and you are stuck in some alternate universe where children are or are not “correct” and reasonable, simple answers are not congruent with “reality”. In four or more different versions of correctness, no less.

I’ve given you several cites to help elucidate current understanding of childhood development, as well as links to more, and have attempted to explain these in clear and simple terms. So have others here. But you insist on rejecting all such attempts, relying upon your own anecdotal evidence. Or something. I really don’t know where to go from here.

Oh, and just out of curiosity, why do you keep shortening our user names? It isn’t like you are creating diminutive nicknames from our given names. User names are themselves nicknames. So you are creating diminutive nicknames from our nicknames. I’m not complaining, really, it just strikes me as strange.

232

Ok, this is the really interestng stuff. I think someone else asked if I thought a 5 year-old would have the same ability to use deductive reasoning as an older chld. I would say that the abilities of the children improve over time in this area. That seems somewhat obvious. I’m not sure how to integrate that in my argument though. I didn’t mean to say otherwise, although apparently I’ve been very unclear about some things. I’ll state, as an interim, the 5 year old could learn to avoid the error, but even then, not the same way as the older child. Some of this I think is due to experiences, but another part is the growing brain. This is just a loose analogy, I think a childs developing brain is more akin to adding memory to a computer, than getting a better CPU. I want to be clear I’m not making an equivalence between children and computers, just trying to find a way to describe something. I’d also say that a 5 year old has little experience in using deductive reasoning because they’ve lacked the necessary background for it. But I think you’re bring up a point about abstract thought. For instance., a 5 year old can learn not to touch things that might be hot, through deductive reasoning (as opposed to simple conditioning not to touch some particular thing). But the 5 year old doesn’t have the ability to abstract that much, and probably would be limited to applying that to things which are more similar than an older child could distinquish.

As to the second question, I’d have to assume too much to answer that right away. I don’t think physical immaturity is the long and short of it all, as I’ve said before, there is the experience, and the acquisition of background knowledge also. I want to try and answer accurately. I would say that a 5 year old could learn to stop making the error within a certain scope. For instance, the 5 year old could learn to count the quarters, and not make that mistake, but may not be able to apply the same concept to the glasses of water. The 5 year old might be able to approach the glasses of water problem with more complex reasoning, but not necessarily find a solution that way. In other words, the child might understand that the glasses of water may not have changed in volume (or more probably learned that things aren’t always what they seem), based on the experience with the quarters, but might not be able to apply the principal of measurement to the water. Some of that because of ability to reason, and some of that from lacking the background knowledge and experience. I do think a 5 year old could learn to avoid the error in most reasonable cases by experience with enough different cases, but not as readily as the older child.

I assume we are both referring to ages generally, and not that there is some precise age at which children develop certain things. I use 5 year old to refer to a child just starting school. And I think comparisons to 7 or 8 year olds would be reasonable to talk about differences.

This really doesn’t have much to do with what I’m trying to say though. I think the capacity to learn is there in the 5 year old, possibly at a higher level than older children, but that would tend to lean more towards absorbing new information rather than using reasoning.

If you give me some feed back, and explain how you think it would be different, I might be able to be more precise.

233

No I don’t seriously disagree with that. My disagreements were about the way you described things. I seriously don’t want to rehash anything, and I think I’ve explained my point about the fruit clearly. I’ll do this one more time though. I think that the 5 year old child does not have the background knowledge and experience to answer the question, just as anybody else would not with the boxes of fruit. I think if you can understand the position the child is being placed in by considering how you would answer the question about the fruit. You would both be limited by a lack of knowledge, even though I assume you have much more ability to reason than the child, I think that the child could answer the question about water with the requisite background knowledge, just as you could answer about the fruit.

I regret having brought up the fruit if it has caused so much distress. But I still do not understand why. If you think that is important to resolve, could it wait until we’ve addressed the issues that we both consider important and relevant?

234

Ok. It is quite clear you are unwilling, for whatever reason, to even explain your position.

I will not ask you any more, I will simply log away that you are a poster that is simply not capable of engaging in a reasonable, clear, up front discussion.

235

Raft, I have answered that numerous times. You know that the volume is different in reality. I did not bring that up to start with. Are you saying that the volume is constant in reality? I never said it was in any way applicable to the experiment being discussed. I don’t have any position except to say that in reality, the volume of the water changes, and that is irrelevant to the experiment being cited. I don’t see an indication that anyone else has a problem grasping that concept. I have not said anyone is wrong because the volume of the water does in reality change by some unimportant amount, except those who said (probably unintentionally) that it did not. Others question why I brought it up. I did not. I responded to a statement that in reality it did not change. I have never stated that to have any bearing on the experiment, or anything to do with my position in this argument. And I will add, if I have done so, it was not intentional, because at no time did I intend to point out the difference as being pertinent to the discussion. It is no different than pointing out that in reality, the sun does not rise and set, it is stationary relative to th earth. That has no significance to anyone I’ve ever heard of, except for people who deny the reality. Words have different meanings in different contexts. In the context of reality, you know that the volume changes. You are claiming that I said two different things at different times by taking a single word out of context. That’s the reason I offered specific definitions, so I could point to the specific definition for a particular content.

Here are your words:
‘You just agreed that we can say the volume of water is the “same”, yet you’ve been arguing for about 100 posts that everyone is wrong, they aren’t the “same”.’

I agreed that that 'we can say the volume of water is the “same”. That does not mean that in reality they are the same. Just as we can say “the sun rises in the east”, but in reality it does not rise, or move, relative to the earth. Everything anyone says is interpretted by agreement. I agreed that for the purpose of discussing the experiment, “same” is satisfactory. I did not agree that in reality it is the “same”, because it isn’t. And I didn’t say that was relevant to the discussion.

Do you still not understand that? I’ll keep attempting to explain it if necessary.

236

Ah, then you missed my point about the fruit, which was to show you my thought processes in answering the question: I had a deep suspicion and examined the question for any additional parameters. THere appear to be additional parameters that you are still unwilling to provide, and as I said originally, those additional parameters make it impossible for me to answer your question.

Compare that to the child in the video.

I’m able to think about how I’m thinking about the problem. I’m able to step back and examine your approach to the question, your motives behind asking me. I’m able to provide a hedged answer and explain the reasons for the hedging. These are higher-order thinking skills–metacognition, I call it with my students–that a five-year-old typically does not possess.

237

Well, shit, I’m sorry if I resurrected a dropped topic. I agree its a tangent and not really germane to the topic of the worst ideas in education (unless you think that applying developmental psychology in teaching was a bad idea).

238

Maybe you’ve said this before but this is the first time you have said this clearly enough for me to understand what the fuck you were going on about.

I don’t know if this will help but I recently had my first child so natuarlly I am reading a bunch of stuff on developmental psychology. One experiment I read about was putting toy under an opaque bowl.

Up to a certain age, you can show them the toy and ever so slowly put the bowl over the toy and no matter how many times you do it, the child is simply not capable of understanding the notion that that the toy still exists underneath that bowl. You can’t teach them that the toy is underneath that bowl. It takes a certain level of development for the child to be ABLE to learn that the toy is still under the bowl. There is nothing innate about knowing the concept of permanence but you are not capable of understanding it until you have developed the ability to understand it and children all seem to develop along the same track. The same set of cognitive skills develop in pretty much the same order in every child at about the same physical age. Its not because there is a lack of parents TRYING to get their kids to understand stuff sooner (i must have done the bowl thing a hundred times).

At least that is how I understand what I am reading.

239

Of course it is - I said so in my post. You just have to teach some children to do it, before the “critical” age. You probably want to do it for several children, to make it unlikely that you’ve got an unusually fast developer, but I think that successfully teaching a kindergarten or pre-K class to understand the principle would falsify the statement that it is not possible to teach before a critical age (which tends to be greater than 5).

240

Right. Being able to memorize battle formations or lists of commanding officers and regurgitating them is less important than being able to organize information, sift for relevance (you aren’t going to use that entire book on “The History of Pennsylvania”, are you?), and assert a thesis and provide evidence. Years later, one may be asked by a supervisor at work to explore the new Microcontroller Enhanced Widgetmakers that are coming out and make a recommendation (to be considered by the Board along with other proposals) as to whether or not the company should transition all traditional Widgetmakers to Microcontroller Enhanced Widgetmakers. They’d have to research costs, benefits as projected and experienced by industry researchers, etc. That’s research.