Education

Add a Comment

Comment by Erica. Stewart on October 7, 2011 at 5:42

caz we all build our lives around de word thinkin lik dahhhhhh, without thinkin u cant really be certain about anything yuh know!!!!! but most of all thinkin is de most important part living it help us 2 decide wat and who ect...........i strongly believe thinkin shud b taught in skol....

Comment by Steven Wu on July 31, 2010 at 17:32

Whilst I reserve judgement as to whether dBT can significantly boost the creative potential of students, I would support teaching dBT for two reasons :
a. dBT provides a common language/terminology so that students can understand each other and thus promotes team formation
b. dBT provides a well-tested methodology / framework / thinking tool so teachers / students can work on a variety of projects

Now, there may be alternatives to dBT so I don't want to sound too religious about the choice of tools or frameworks so along as they have been proven to work with a reasonably wide spectrum of people with different learning/social styles.

I left teaching about 20 years ago. Nonetheless, having been educated in top universities in UK & USA, I can say with some confidence that many brilliant students, including those with some working experience, have been handicapped by not having a common working language when doing team projects.

As I have made the point before, the real driver of creativity is internal motivation or a passion for creativity. Instilling such a passion isn't enough; students should also be cautioned that been original for its own sake may not go down well with the powers that be. Anything new is often treated with suspicion. Bringing a new idea to fruition could be a long and arduous journey.

Comment by Jimm Meloy on July 31, 2010 at 15:39

Hi Dobias et al,
Just a quick note...
I am reading your posts via my phone (while traveling) - but not able to post responses from it. More when get online in a few days... J

Comment by Jimm Meloy on July 27, 2010 at 18:12

Dobilas,

I agree that "Education" is too broad a topic for this group - and we should narrow our focus if we desire an outcome rather than just banter.

Even groupings like K-12, College, Corporate Education or another major eduction segments may be too broad - plus each has different learning dynamics. Thus, we may want to even pick a sub-segment of one of these.

Re terminology = education, training, learning (and other terms) tend to be used synonymously, when they may not the same thing, serve the same function or have the same primary stakeholder. We should clarify our terminology. Also, in USA, where educators promotes "thinking skills", they are more often than not referring to critical thinking (judgment & comparison) rather creative thinking skills. Thus that adjective in front of the word thinking is critical.

Just a background, my particular interest is (student centric) learning - c.f. (system centric) education - irrespective of the source of that learning (e.g. formal school education, after-school, out-of school, parent, peer, training, discovery, random, social network or ? - and particularly all forms of informal learning).

What specific thinking competencies a student would benefit from - and at what time/age - is my interest. Applying EdB lateral thinking methods to investigate HOW - and when - the students can develop those skills is of interest. There may be an initial (and erroneous, IMHO) assumption that the delivery vehicle must be via school - whereas, I see school as only one of many places, and not necessarily the primary one, where creative thinking skills could be developed.

The specific age segment that interests me most is 3 to early teens, say 15, both genders (I have an 8 year old daughter) - especially those with ready high speed web access, (it *may* changes the learning dynamic significantly). But, I will not assume this will be the primary point of interest for this group.

However, I'm a seasoned enough "educator" that I can probably add value to whatever education focus/segment we decide on. I'm hoping Dobilas (or someone else) can lead us to pin down that specific segment.

J

Comment by Steven Wu on July 27, 2010 at 17:03

I have only been through one dB Thinking course - 6TH. The sort of problems that were tackled in the course appeared to be useful for extra-curricular activities within the school context. ECA is no doubt an important part of an all-round education and to be able to plan, evaluate & execute well should be a key part of personal development in the broadest sense. But there is a semi-religious nuance to this. Why 6TH and not some other tools? Why not, say, Covey's 7 habits to inculcate good personal values ? Is 6TH a pop technique that may fade when something else comes along or a fundamental skill like writing good grammatical prose?

Comment by Monita Roughsedge on July 27, 2010 at 16:21

Instead of asking why should thinking be taught in schools, shouldn't we be asking why it isn't?

Comment by Jimm Meloy on July 27, 2010 at 14:48

Hi Anthony,
Welcome - your participation will defintely add some spice here.
Is your primary interest learning, teaching, education, training - or other ?
J

Comment by Jimm Meloy on July 27, 2010 at 14:38

MY interest is on "learning & thinking" rather than education - or training - & creative thinking.
Does anyone else have this learner rather than system centric focus ?

Comment by Steven Wu on July 18, 2010 at 2:05

The question as I understand is whether a generic style of anaylsis and creative thinking should be taught in schools.
Qn #1 : is there really a generic analytical skill for everyone of us? Who is to say that a mathematician's symbolic approach is superior to a poet's preceptive style? If there is indeed a lowest common denominator of cognitive skills, would it be so dilute as to be useless, ie, a one-size-fits-all that is in fact good-for-nothing?
Qn #2 : Is being creative in the arts the same as in the "hard" sciences"? If so, can teaching one set of creative skills/tools be useful for all fields of knowledge?
Qn #3 :The term "creative" can be confusing as applied to the arts. Some people differentiate between artistic expression and creation of a new genre of art, eg, an impressionist painting vs impressionism. Should schools focus on artistic expression using several styles or the development of individual styles in students? One can justifiably argue that without mastering any one style, students cannot really develop their own style. They have not learnt enough to be constructively critical and judgemental.
Qn #4 : Physics is said to be the hardest (conceptually and quantitively) of the sciences. Most physicists use a reductionist approach to problem-solving, so whatever thinking skill that is taught in school must somehow be aligned with this mode of creative problem solving so as to be acceptable by the mainstream scientists. Biology is supposed to be holistic so a more systems-approach to thinking is required. Is there a nexus between the two styles of problem-solving / creativity?
Qn #5 : Are schools supposed to be a vehicle for transferring existing knowledge to students or to encourage new thinking? At what educational level should schools start to encourage creative thinking?
Would students be wasting their time trying to solve old problems using "thinking" tools with the likely result that their solutions would have to be discarded due to inadequate mastery of the subject?

Comment by Asa Jomard on April 25, 2010 at 22:50

Hi,
A couple of questions.
Is thinking taught at school?
And is it dangerous to teach thinking in schools?
And what is thinking?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page