Sunday, July 29, 2007
Role of Education and the meaning of learning
Read something interesting from a book...
Eudcation can be a vehicle for social change. - Freire (1993)
"Education's role is to challenge inequality and dominant myths rather than socialize students into status quo. Learning is directed toward social change and transforming the world, and 'true' learning empowers student to challenge oppression in their lives" - Stage, Muller, Kinzie, and Simmons (1998).
Freire worked as an educator in Brazil and has developed his theories of education and social change as he taught illiterate peasnats to read and write.
More and more educationist are advancing the teaching of critical thinking in students.
E.g Tompkins (1991)
"We tell ourselves we need to teach our students to think critically so that they can detect the manipulations of advertising, analyze the fallacious rhetoric of politicians and expose the ideology of popular TV shows, resist the stereotypes of class, race and gender...But I have come to think more and more that what really matters ...is not so much what we talk about in class as what we do...The classroom is a microcosm of the world; it is the chance we have to practice whatever ideals we cherish. The kind of classroom situation one creates is the acid test of what it is one really stands for."
Surface learning vs Deep learning (Marton and Sadjo
SL - occurs when students concentrated on memorising the facts, focused on the discrete elements of the reading, failed to differentiate between evidence and information, were unreflective, and saw the tasks as an external imposition.
DL - occurs when students focused on what the author meant, related new information to what they already knew and had experienced, worked to organize and structure the content, and saw the reading as an important source of learning.
Eudcation can be a vehicle for social change. - Freire (1993)
"Education's role is to challenge inequality and dominant myths rather than socialize students into status quo. Learning is directed toward social change and transforming the world, and 'true' learning empowers student to challenge oppression in their lives" - Stage, Muller, Kinzie, and Simmons (1998).
Freire worked as an educator in Brazil and has developed his theories of education and social change as he taught illiterate peasnats to read and write.
More and more educationist are advancing the teaching of critical thinking in students.
E.g Tompkins (1991)
"We tell ourselves we need to teach our students to think critically so that they can detect the manipulations of advertising, analyze the fallacious rhetoric of politicians and expose the ideology of popular TV shows, resist the stereotypes of class, race and gender...But I have come to think more and more that what really matters ...is not so much what we talk about in class as what we do...The classroom is a microcosm of the world; it is the chance we have to practice whatever ideals we cherish. The kind of classroom situation one creates is the acid test of what it is one really stands for."
Surface learning vs Deep learning (Marton and Sadjo
SL - occurs when students concentrated on memorising the facts, focused on the discrete elements of the reading, failed to differentiate between evidence and information, were unreflective, and saw the tasks as an external imposition.
DL - occurs when students focused on what the author meant, related new information to what they already knew and had experienced, worked to organize and structure the content, and saw the reading as an important source of learning.
Monday, July 23, 2007
De-criminalising Homosexuality in Singapore
This is a really hot issue lately and as an educator, I have to make a stand.
There is nothing wrong with the homosexual as a person, and I'll go as far to say that we should treat them as normal people. But to have that person asking the nation to repeal (or remove) the law against criminalising their sexual activities, then I think that's where my support ends.
Why?
I'm for the argument that goes for personal responsibility. It is one thing to say that you are born with certain tendencies, but another to say that you want the law to look the other way when you commit a crime base on the law of the land.
I came across a good story to highlight the above reasoning. Please bear with me as I relate the story below:
It is a well documented and scientifically proven that children born to abusive fathers tend to be abusive. A child who has watched his father systematically abuse his mother, his siblings and himself, will most likely grow up under such circumstances to be abusive. Say now this child is in school and his classmates has provoked him unknowing of his tendencies. He bashes up the classmate and leaves him with broken bones and smashed up face. He is brought before a judge and conducts his own defense by telling the judge the following. I've an abusive father and I've been conditioned from young like that. So it is really not my fault that I bashed my classmate up. Question - do you think the judge will release him because he is not responsible for what he did? Obviously not. The judege will hold him accountable for what he did, inrrespective of his tendencies.
Fast forward to our discussion on homosexuals. The reasoning that the supporters of homosexuals are asking us to remove the law that has criminalise homosexual acts amounts to the line of thinking in the abusive child above. We should not repeal (remove) the law that has upheld certain values and truth that has served us well for so many years base on (1) some compassionate arguments that they are born like that. (2) Neither should we do so because some of these people are highly creative and can bring economic gains to the country. We can see the effects of this in countries that has allowed this to happen.
If the law is repealed, firstly, it will begin the downward slide in moral values in the country, and secondly there will be a breakdown in the "family" unit as we know and lastly, there will be a slide in the economic value of the nation when families struggle to handle the crisis.
So, don't begin the downward slide by standing firm against repealing the law against decriminalising homosexuals activities in Singapore.
Decriminalising homosexual activities is the right decision of our forefathers, let's uphold it.
There is nothing wrong with the homosexual as a person, and I'll go as far to say that we should treat them as normal people. But to have that person asking the nation to repeal (or remove) the law against criminalising their sexual activities, then I think that's where my support ends.
Why?
I'm for the argument that goes for personal responsibility. It is one thing to say that you are born with certain tendencies, but another to say that you want the law to look the other way when you commit a crime base on the law of the land.
I came across a good story to highlight the above reasoning. Please bear with me as I relate the story below:
It is a well documented and scientifically proven that children born to abusive fathers tend to be abusive. A child who has watched his father systematically abuse his mother, his siblings and himself, will most likely grow up under such circumstances to be abusive. Say now this child is in school and his classmates has provoked him unknowing of his tendencies. He bashes up the classmate and leaves him with broken bones and smashed up face. He is brought before a judge and conducts his own defense by telling the judge the following. I've an abusive father and I've been conditioned from young like that. So it is really not my fault that I bashed my classmate up. Question - do you think the judge will release him because he is not responsible for what he did? Obviously not. The judege will hold him accountable for what he did, inrrespective of his tendencies.
Fast forward to our discussion on homosexuals. The reasoning that the supporters of homosexuals are asking us to remove the law that has criminalise homosexual acts amounts to the line of thinking in the abusive child above. We should not repeal (remove) the law that has upheld certain values and truth that has served us well for so many years base on (1) some compassionate arguments that they are born like that. (2) Neither should we do so because some of these people are highly creative and can bring economic gains to the country. We can see the effects of this in countries that has allowed this to happen.
If the law is repealed, firstly, it will begin the downward slide in moral values in the country, and secondly there will be a breakdown in the "family" unit as we know and lastly, there will be a slide in the economic value of the nation when families struggle to handle the crisis.
So, don't begin the downward slide by standing firm against repealing the law against decriminalising homosexuals activities in Singapore.
Decriminalising homosexual activities is the right decision of our forefathers, let's uphold it.
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Taiwan Sceneries
