Bad ideas in education

Great Debates
141

Watch this video. You’re falling into a classic lame argument method, where you search for the least reasonable interpretation possible of someone’s statements and then argue against that ridiculous interpretation. It really doesn’t do any good.

Seriously? I mean, for real? Okay.

I have 2 boxes. One has 20 pounds of tangerines in it. The other has 10 pounds of grapefruit. Do I have more tangerines or grapefruit?

First stop, I suspect you’re trying to trick me, so I ask clarifying questions. Are these normal tangerines and normal grapefruits? Are you talking about quantity or mass? What’s the average weight of each tangerine and grapefruit? Please let me see each box and handle their contents. Are there any parameters to this situation that I should know about?

Assuming that, as a hostile interviewer, you are uncooperative for each of these questions, I’ll answer that I have a greater quantity and mass of tangerines, since on average tangerines are smaller than grapefruits. But I’ll hedge my answer with caveats: if you’ve found some mutant-huge tangerines or if the grapefruits are actually tiny unripe grapefruit buds, or if in some other relevant way these are not what I’m thinking of when I think of tangerines and grapefruit, I’ll need to change my answer.

Look at my thought process in approaching your hypothetical, and watch that video again of the pre-operational kid, and explain to me how my thought process and hers are exactly the same.

What you’re missing from the metaphor is that constructivism is all about getting the STUDENT to construct the knowledge. The teacher’s scaffold is put there to help the students in their own construction: the metaphor suggests that this scaffolding is what we teachers do, rather than building the knowledge for the students.

When we were measuring rainwater in different-shaped containers as part of a unit on measuring weather, one girl said that the largest container would have the least water when measured by cups, because the water barely covered the bottom of the container, whereas the smallest container would have the most water, because it was nearly full. If I’d built her knowledge for her, I would have said, “No, Maria, you’re wrong: the smallest container has the least amount of water in it, because it just can’t hold that much water.”

Because I see a lot of value in constructivist approaches, I just said, “Interesting. You guys ready to measure?” And I showed them how to use the measuring cup to figure it out for themselves. That is, I provided the scaffold (the materials for the experiment, the probing questions that would get them thinking about volume comparisons, and directions how to use the measuring tools), and let them build the knowledge for themselves.

This question is baffling, but FWIW I’ll answer it: neither. Certainly they’re thinking incorrectly. However, that’s not what I was trying to say: rather, I was making a completely different point with that example.

142

Left Hand, please try to focus.

  1. If you pour water from container A, to container B, the volume of water in container B will almost always be different.

  2. The volume of water is not immutable.

  3. Your concept of reality is false if you believe the volume would remain the same.

  4. You didn’t answer the question about the fruit. Your thought processes are way off. I explained that it is was based on a physical principle you know nothing about. But you stuck to using a thought process that you should have known would not give you the answer. You must have a worse deficiency you claim children do.

143

I’ll post more later, but I think the real problem is that families take public education for granted, don’t raise their kids right, and use school as a babysitter.

Originally I though the problem was bad teachers who keep their jobs only because of a union, but in my experience I’ve only had one really bad teacher, the ones who were not so great, were probably that way because they had an unruly classroom. For the most part, teachers, union or not, like to teach. If the student doesn’t want to learn, and the parents don’t put education as a top priority to them, the current situation is the result.

Bad idea: teachers keeping their job based on classroom performance. They can only do so much, and it will never be enough if the parents aren’t doing their part.

144

Are you for real? Technically, yes, the volume of water will decrease very slightly when poured into a second glass. But that has nothing to do with the fact that young children think it increases when the second glass is tall and thin.

Of course I answered it: “I’ll answer that I have a greater quantity and mass of tangerines.” If that’s too complicated, I’ll say, “I have more tangerines.” I have no fucking idea what point you’re trying to make here–and if you look around, nobody else can figure it out, either.

This may be a good time to step away and take a deep breath: nobody can figure out what you’re on about at this point. You seem to be taking this very personally and are getting increasingly incoherent.

145

Left Hand, reality is that the volume of water changes. You claim that the child (who has at least incorrectly arrived at the right answer) has a defective thought process, yet you (who should have known the correct answer), answer incorrectly, and then insist your answer is based on reality, when it is not.

Are you going to now tell me that the child has been given the opportunity to understand that in your false reality the volume of water is immutable? Your answer about the fruit is wrong. Why do you think that is different from the child’s answer about the volume of water (except that the child has at least accidently provided the correct answer)?

You should take a deep breath, admit that you are wrong, and stop trying to justify the incorrect beliefs you have when they are obviously not based on reason. The volume of water is not immutable, and pouring water from one container to another does not transfer all of the water from one container to another. Your incorrect conclusions do not reflect reality.

You either do not understand the so called science that you are citing, or it is wrong. I think you have taken this personally, and it is clouding your ability to think. I am not incoherent, you are avoiding facing realtity.

146

My grade school teachers weren’t smart enough to figure out what was fun though they probably agreed with the idea that school wasn’t supposed to be fun. I learned science as a result of science fiction books.

I didn’t find this at the time though. In 1959 someone wrote a story about a prospector finding water on the moon.

In 2009 NASA bombed the south pole of the Moon looking for water. They found it.

That story is now in the public domain. With all of this talk about kids being weak at reading and science it is truly amazing that our educators do not promote GOOD Science Fiction. But then the Liberal Arts people want to emphasize the FICTION.

All Day September, by Roger Kuykendall
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/24161/24161-h/24161-h.htm

GOOD SCIENCE fiction was 50 years ahead of its time. Not to be confused with Star Wars. Most science fiction was not good back in the day but it is even crappier now. But if the good stuff was refined out of the junk it could be really useful.

The anti-science teachers might not like it though.

I learned about atheism and agnosticism from science fiction books. LOL

Ultima Thule by Dallas McCord Reynolds
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30334/30334-h/30334-h.html

Of course the kids would need e-book readers or computers to access the public domain books. But the computers are so cheap the e-book readers make no sense. Who cares whether it is a netbook or a tablet?

http://tipstir.the-talk.net/t2406-cvs-craig-android-os-21-7-tablet-deal-79-bucks-with-20-off-coupon

psik

147

I picked up an interest in science from science fiction, but not much science. Still it’s a good idea to expose children to a variety of different learning sources. Until recently there have been serious practical limitations to doing this, but technology allows it now. We just need to overcome the inertia of a fixed system that tries to justify it’s failings instead of correcting them.

148

Good grief. In what way are you saying that the volume of water changes?

In what way is my answer about the fruit wrong?

149

Besides the unlikelihood of transferring all of the water from one container to another, the volume of water is based on a variety of factors, the most obvious one being temperature. If you didn’t have a faulty memory you’d recall this is why ice floats. You are expecting a child to understand that you want the incorrect answer based on the false reality you have created in your mind where the volume of water is immutable and mechanical processes are flawless. You did not at any time inform the child that this was the context of the question. Further, I started to watch your video, was disgusted by the first case shown, and stopped. Did you watch it? A child is deliberately mislead to belief she was being asked whether the amount of water**** looked different. She was prompted twice to consider how the amount of water looked. Then on the final question the word looked was omitted. That was intentional deceit designed to have the child believe that she was being asked if the amount looked different after it was poured into a different container. The child answered the question correctly based on the only context which she could apply to the question.

Because there is an answer to the question based on a physical principle that you know nothing about. Your answer was incorrect, and you didn’t apply that physical principle in your reasoning. You did answer correctly based on the only context you know. But you are the one claiming that is a sign of some kind of deficiency, not me. I could give you the consideration that you refuse to provide a child and say that your answer was correct, but then I wouldn’t be having any fun.

150

Ooookay. I’m backing slowly away now. If someone else is seeing something non-completely-crazy in the above post, lemme know, but at this point the vibe I’m getting isn’t one that makes me think there’s anywhere productive to go with this conversation with you, Tripolar.

151

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

152

I am “old” by teacher standards and have more degrees and endorsements than I care to think about considering what I am paid…but none of the professional development I have received has ‘one iota’ with why I went into this field, or why I have stayed. If I truly did not feel I make a genuine difference in my students lives each and every day, I’d hang up my shingle. But like many other ‘veterans’ we are under appreciated and under valued. Newbies fresh out of college may cost less in salaries, but guess who will suffer? And I am speaking in the most general of terms because I know there are some that truly pick this field for reasons other than prestige. We ‘oldies’ have the skill to handle unruly children and their equally unruly parents, we know how to soothe wounds inflicted by child abuse both physical and verbal. We are the watchtowers over abusive guardians, sometimes court appointed. We know how to comfort and teach at the same time and occasionally we know how to feed and clothe those who are to young to speak on their own behalf. What we may have problems with is fully understanding the newest technology! But seriously, if you ask an adult who their most memorable teacher was, do you really think it will have anything to do with which one of us understood how to use a ‘smart board’ or who gave them the comfort they needed during a time of crisis in their life! Education is not broken but the people who say they want to fix it are!

153

Yep, probably best to just back away slowly. Tripolar makes some interesting points? Sometimes? But he so often completely misses the point that it’s hard to believe he’s arguing in good faith.

I shouldn’t…but I can’t resist. Tripolar, try to swallow your bile and look again at the video that LHoD posted. If you can’t manage that, I’ll transcribe it.

Your conceit that the experimenter is trying to trick the child is ridiculous. It’s clear from the context that the questions are about the appearance of the water; your points about the imperfect mechanical transformation and the variance of density with temperature are ridiculous for a number of reasons.
First, the experimenter is simply not trying to trick the child. Did a psychologist abuse you as a child? We study problems in cognition like this not because it makes us feel awesome that young children make an error, but because it reveals an interesting fact about how human cognition develops.
Second, and this is the really baffling part, but your objections undermine themselves. Yes, you’re right that some water is left behind in the original container and so it’s not strictly correct to say that the quantity was conserved. But that doesn’t matter! The original quantity was never measured exactly; it was poured so that the quantities looked about the same. A few drops don’t change the result; the important thing is what the quantity looks like. The fact that the child cannot conserve this quantity through a mechanical transformation is entirely the point. As to your other objection, that the density (and hence ‘quantity’) of water changes with volume: yes, but do you think the temperature of the liquid changes an appreciable amount when it gets poured? And incidentally, saying the density of ice is different from that of water because of temperature is, ah, also missing the point. A better explanation would involve hydrogen bonds.
Even if we grant your objections that the quantity of water really does change when it’s poured into a different container, why would the child think the quantity increases?
Most importantly I think it’s time to come clean, Tripolar. What the hell are you on about with your question about fruit? Please explain your thought process.

154

I think I’m arguing at the same level of good faith that Left Hand is, and I’m not making an equivalence to you. Yes, I am playing with Left Hand, who is not even attempting to comprehend what I am saying, and simply responding with empty denials. You have been reasonably reasonable so far. I don’t miss the point at all. I contend the point is wrong. Left Hand insists that the volume of water observations are an indication of some kind of deficiency in a child that requires fixing. As I’ve repeatedly stated, the observations do not support that. The volume of water changes, as does it’s weight and mass. The correct answer to the question is that the amount of water has changed. The imagined answer that it is the same is based on a context of a false reality that has been passed down through the generations. That false reality has endured because it comes as close to actual reality as people have been able to commonly observe. But that doesn’t make the Sun rotate around the Earth either. I doubt any human ever considered that the volume of water was immutable until humans first developed fixed containers for liquid. Until someone made accurately measured containers, no one actually knew that to the extent of their limited ability to observe, that the volume of water seemed to be immutable. Yet the experiment cited is based on the idea that humans would know these things lacking any such resources. I do not think a rational person would conclude that. I believe you and Left Hand heard about this experiment, believed the conclusions without consideration of their validity, and have not examined them yourselves. It’s easy to be mistaken by having confidence in transferred knowledge. The books are full of mistakes. And many or most of them are unintentional. But they are still mistakes, and they should be recognized as such, used as a ‘teaching moment’, and an effort should be made to avoid making the same mistake, and certainly the mistake should not be propogated.

Please note the words that I bolded. Even given the context of the question that the answer is supposed to be based on, the expermenter has intentionally cued the child to use her powers of visual observation to answer the question. The question cannot be answered on the basis of visual observation. It requires the knowledge that volume of water is considered immutable in the context. The child does not know that, and the child has been lead to believe that the answer can be found using visual observation. How do you draw a conclusion from that, that the child has some kind of deficiency?

My points about the actual physical properties of water were in regard to someone’s statement that the ‘reality’ is that the volume of water does not change. That is patently wrong, the volume of water does change.

It doesn’t matter what the experimenter is trying to do. Scientific method is not based on intentions. As I pointed out, the experimenter** is** tricking the child.

The phrase ‘not strictly correct’ is synonmous to ‘wrong’. Science does not allow for loosely correct conclusions and ambiguous definitions. The child is doing exactly what the experimenter has asked and using her visual observation to answer the question, just like you or any rational person would have done using the same context. The child is not incapable of conserving a quantity through a mechanical transformation. The child had no idea that was the question being asked, or what the answer was. The only way you know the answer in the context based on a false reality is because someone told you. There is nothing about this experiment that reveals anything about a child’s capacity to understand the concepts upon which it is based.

[/quote]

My only point on that subject is that the volume of water is not immutable, yet the very basis of the experiment is the false notion that the volume of water is immutable. Anyone who believes that the volume of water is immutable is incorrect, and no scientific conclusion can be drawn based upon it.

I don’t care if you grant that the quantity of water changes, it does whether you grant it or not. The child thinks the quantity increases because the water level is higher in the tall thin container. If you were asked the same thing, at any age you would give the same answer, unless someone had explained the context, and false physical principle of the immutability of the volume of water to you.

The question about fruit is to simply put you in the same position as the child in the experiment. You do not have the context necessary to form the answer to the question, just as the child did not. You shouldn’t know the answer to the question, derive the answer, nor as Left Hand does, believe not knowing the answer is a sign of deficiency on your part.

155

I think this is where you’re missing the point. The child thinks the quantity of water increases. Even if we grant your objections, the child should think that the quantity of water decreases. In what way is the child correct?

You’re strangely focused on this example with pouring a liquid. The error of conservation has been established with more experiments than just this one. Consider the example with lines of quarters, as I mentioned several posts ago. Imagine:

No doubt you’ll object that some of the atoms from the quarters were scraped off onto the table when the experimenter moved them, and so there really aren’t the same number of quarters in the second row! But then why would they child think there are more when some of the material was scraped off the quarters?

Imagine:

No doubt you’ll object that some of the clay was left on the experimenter’s hands, and so there isn’t really the same amount of clay in each pile! But then why would the child think there’s more clay in the tube?

These experiments have been performed; I’m not making them up. Your objection that the mechanical transformation is not perfect is irrelevent. If you’d rather continue on your argument that we foolish adults are wrong when we say that the amount of [water/quarters/clay] really doesn’t change, sure, but you’re being ridiculous. The end point of that argument is that the child should say, “What water? All I see is a probabilistic waveform,” rather than “Yes, there is the same amount of water in the glasses,” at the start of the experiment.

156

I’d like to address this as well. No, it’s not. One of the hallmarks of scientific thought is that there are multiple levels of explanation for any given phenomenon. We usually explain human behavious through psychology (as naive as our understandings sometimes are). Sometimes we explain behaviour through biology or chemistry (i.e. a genetic explanation for some behaviour, or an imbalance of neurotransmitters causing a particular behaviour.) In principle, all of these things are reducible to the physics underlying the situation; in that case, the physical description of what is going on would be the most correct, because it’s the most accurate.

But that is ridiculous. We exist at the macroscopic level. Explanations at the same level have the most explanatory power for us. When I’m in pain, I say, “Ow!” or, “That hurt!” to communicate the information that I am in pain. I don’t say “The C-fibers in my lateral sensorimotor cortex are activated.” (Or whatever.)
The experiments in question are testing the macroscopic phenomena of perception and cognition in children. The belief that the quantity of [water/quarters/clay] does not change is appropriate, because that is what our senses tell us.

157

You keep missing it. My point about the physical properties of water is only about the term ‘reality’ being used. In reality the volume of water changes. It is not about the point of the experiment.

I did not bring up this experiment, Left Hand did. You have added new factors into the discussion to counter my observations, which is the way to prove a point. My point about the child’s thoughts are the same. The line of quarters looks longer, therefore it must be greater. That’s rational thought within the child’s context. My argument with Left Hand was about a claim that the results of these experiments demonstrate a deficiency in the thought processes of children. I don’t actually believe that was the conclusion of the research, just Left Hand’s misunderstanding. I would find it remarkable that human beings evolved through millenia of millenia with defective brains until the study came along and allowed teachers to fix our brains.

Ok, since you aren’t acting all that irrational, I don’t get any fun out of pursuing this along the same lines as my argument with Left Hand. So let me try again from the beginning with you.

I percieve, through my own experiences with teachers as a child, through the experiences of my classmates as a child, through the experiences of my children going to school, and the experiences of their classmates, and through associations with teachers and other education professionals, that there is an intrinisic problem with the education system in this country (and probably every other country as well, but I don’t have much information to work with in regard to that).

I have noticed one specific thing that stands out above everything else. Most children are learning things like crazy, without prompting or structure, just before they start school. Some parents become overwhelmed by how readily children are learning, and even seek to limit their opportunities to learn, and sometimes even wish the children would unlearn things. Then they go to school, and the learning slows to a crawl. Could it just be that around 5 or 6 years old the brain changes and the capacity to learn suddenly reduces? It’s possible. But I think the most likely answer is that schools do not provide the ideal circumstances for education, and that in some ways they are not only less than ideal, but detrimental. I’m also sure that a large part of this is due to practical considerations (we probaly don’t have the resources to provide the ideal educational enviroment for each individual child), and another large part is due to ideologies that are irrlevant to education (children should be seen and not heard as an example from the past). I think they should be corrected. Not by willy-nilly changes made based on someone’s intuition, but by expansion of the known methods, and introduction of new ones in a regulated manner to prevent unintended consequences, and rigorous examination of the results.

I’ll be glad to discuss this further unless you think the previous paragraph is some kind of crazy rant, and then I’d have to put you in the same category as Left Hand.

158

Tripolar, want to know something funny? Something that should give you a laugh?

LHoD is in complete agreement with you.

You haven’t been reading what LHoD has been saying. You’ve been bringing preconceived notions of what you think teachers do. You’ve been interpreting his words in the least charitable way possible. You’re ignorant of the cognitive development of children, and you think that we adults who are aware of some of the problems that children have with interpreting their environment are gloating over the stupidity of children. Understanding the problems of cognition help us to better understand who the learners are.

The errors that children make are systematic and happen at very predictable stages in their development. Perhaps you’ve played ‘Peekaboo’ with a small infant; were you aware that the infant literally does not know your face is still there when you cover it with your hands? Children develop past this stage fairly quickly, but it’s an example of something an infant will believe that is simply not true. Is the infant stupid for not having this concept of object permanence? Of course not.

Incidentally, there are many things that adult humans have trouble with. I encourage you to read about cognitive biases if you’d like to learn more. These are some things that a knowledgeable educator could help with; we develop incorrect tendencies in our thoughts when left to our own devices.

159

Awhile ago I read an article in American Conservative, which I unfortunately cannot find, that argued that American schools are doing as well as they always have with what they have to work with. For example, in the past a smaller percentage young people graduated from high school. It is reasonable to assume that a smaller percentage would have a higher average IQ, and would perform better.

In specific schools demographics change. If the black population in a student body goes from 5 percent to 85 percent we can expect a decline in average performance.

When people complain about the quality of public schools I suspect they have an agenda they would rather conceal. Economic conservatives do not like the public sector of the economy and will always try to discredit it. Social conservatives dislike sex education classes and the absence of prayer and Bible reading. Liberals want to spend more money on public schools, even though there is little relationship between the cost of a public school system and the results.

I think the worst idea to come along has been No Child Left Behind. It assumes that all children can do well in school. This is not true. No Child Left Behind makes teachers even less willing to teach in inner city schools than they used to be.

160

Please explain this. What’s your reasoning here?

How do you measure volume?