Re: Andrew 4/20/11

If we were more informed about others' religions would we still be likely to have wars and think negatively about their cultures or is it harder to hate someone who you understand?

Should children be told which religion they want to follow or should they be allowed to choose?

I can understand where Andrew is coming from when it comes to defeating our egocentrism and possibly discontinuing wars. Unfortunately, I do not think that teaching world religions in high school will stop congress from declaring war, there are more factors that contribute to their decisions other than egocentric tendencies. I do however think that learning about other cultures will diminish negative thoughts about them. Understanding is at least one step toward eliminating hatred. With an empathetic mind set one can understand the other countries from their shoes yet still not like them. If we can still hate ourselves for things we have done or do, that shows that empathy does not solve hatred. That said, empathy and egocentrism is not the problem that we face, the problem is the overriding amount of patriotism to the point where pride turns into the need to win and be best.

As for children choosing their own religion, I'm not to sure I believe in that or not. Children do not tend to spend their days contemplating the meaning of life or what religion to follow. Technically you are born whatever your mother is (at least in my religion, I'm not sure about others). Yet, again you can't really stop someone from believing in a certain religion or not, if that is what they truly believe, yelling, trying to convince or questioning probably will not do anything. Children are pretty stubborn on their beliefs whether they be true or not. If a child is taught all the different religions thoroughly I don't see why they couldn't choose which to believe. If you really want your child to believe the same things you do if you engage in religious activities with them on a regular basis they are less likely to feel the need to convert.

Question: Why are some people so concerned by the beliefs of others? Why do they get upset when others do not have the same views as they do?

Creationism in schools

Reading Pennock's article got me a little irritated. Public schools tend to teach only evolutionary theories and when catholic schools teach them it is only as a "false theory." The YEC is working to ban the practices of public schools only teaching evolution-science and have only creationist point of views be taught. This is both unrealistic and stubborn. Getting rid of the teaching of things like plate tectonics does not go against anything that the bible says and getting rid of it would be a shame because those are important things that we should know about the earth. And even if it did, educators are so concerned with not making the the knowledge exposed in the classroom contradict itself yet that is the way the world is. My first thought was, 'why not instead of arguing that this way is the only way, we compromise?' Why not have a unit of going over scientific theories as well as western and eastern theories. Sadly, Arkansas tried to create a plan like this by making the "Balance treatment" act that entailed equal treatment to creation-science and evolution-science. Unfortunately it was 'unconstitutional' because it went against our freedom to religion.

Question: Is it against that same freedom to ban mentioning of the possibility that western or eastern religions are true?

Philosophy of Children

Since our topic this week was philosophy for children, I thought it would be relevant to go over the philosophy of children. The philosophy of children (SEP) first attempts to define what children are. In our reading this week, Piaget's theories were used as one of the arguments against philosophy in the elementary classroom. Yet, Piaget classifies children as what they are not able to do rather than what they are capable of doing. This negative outlook and classification of "deficit conception" puts up a barrier of what they may be capable of. The second way to examine the philosophy of children is to understand their cognitive development. Theories clash from famous developmental psychologists like Chomsky, Skinner, and Vygotsky when it comes to the development of language. Chomsky feels that we have a "LAD" (Language acquisition device) or seed language because children all over the world learn language in the same steps and at the same ages. Skinner believes that we learn language from the reinforcement we receive from others. And Vygotsky agrues that social interaction as well as culture plays a role. Yet the formation of concepts for the most part do not follow skinners theory, the use of "prototypes" as a tool for concepts has been shown as a way to form concepts (SEP). In neuroscience it has been shown that children actually have more neural pathways than adults do. This suggests that they are more able to form concepts. The third aspect that is examined is the theory of moral development. Rousseau and Kolberg have differing moral stages of development which could aid the argument for philosophy in the pre-college classroom. Rousseau suggests that there are five stages of moral development: 1. infancy (birth-2); 2. the age of sensation (3 to 12); 3. the age of ideas(13 to puberty); 4.The age of sentiment (puberty to 20) and 5. The age of marriage and social responsibility (21 and on) (SEP). According to Rousseau's theory children do not fully understand morals until they are 13. Kolberg has a different approach to determine one's moral stage. He believes that there are six stages yet most adults do not reach the sixth or sometimes even the fifth stage. In my high school psychology class we used this model to determine everyone's moral level. The scenario was that your wife (or husband) has cancer and you can not afford the drug to save their life, what do you do? It was not whether you decided to steal the drug or not that determined your moral level, but your reasoning for why. This model can be used in children's classrooms to determine each child's initial level of moral development. When children are young they do not fully understand right from wrong (and that is why they are not treated as adults, government wise). Yet, instead of them figuring it out as they go along why not have philosophical conversations in the classroom about what is right and wrong and why things are wrong and right. Having philosophical conversations of this nature may even lower crime rate. This article went into five other aspects of the philosophy of children concerning: children's rights, childhood agency, the goods of children and more. To wrap it all up, understanding how children learn helps adults understand how to explain things to their level of understanding. Of course children are not going to understand lots of big words and college level writting, but anything even philosophical concepts can be understood by children. We first need to grasp where they are initially, and then explain the concepts simply, starting with the easiest to understand. Using a protype helps, the children must hear an example or senerio of the concept and where it is used to fully understand. Question: How else does understanding the philosophy of childhood and psychological development help teachers?

Re: Brittany 4/14/11

Brittany asked, "Should philosophy be required for all educators?"

I personally think that education classes should be required not only for educators but for everyone. Yet, educators should take these courses especially, because it allows one to see things in a completly different way. Learning logic helps you become a better arguer, and evaluate things you read in every day life. In addition, it teaches you to reevaluate opinions of yours and others and determine if they are sound or not sound. Philosophy in general questions the things that otherwise people just accept, like unfair treatment to people of different races, gender inequality, and many other cultural norms. If it wasn't for people questioning the ethicacy of many problems the world would be in a detrimental state. I may not think that math and science teachers need philosophy but history and English teachers should definitely take philosophy courses. History teachers should be well informed on the "history of ideas" portion of philosophy because well that has a great impact on history. English teachers should be informed in the realm of philosophy because of it's creative and literature based nature is almost inseparable from philosophy.

Question: What can philosophy teach us?

Traits to Success

In the article by Bowles and Gintis they also talk about the traits that are "correlated" with success in school and the work place. The traits they mention that are penalized in the classroom are: Creativity, independence, and aggressiveness. The traits that are disapproved in the work place are creativity and independence.

The traits that are rewarded in the classroom are: perseverant, dependable, consistent, identifies with school, empathizes with others, punctual, defers gratification, externally motivated, predictable, and tactful. The traits that are approved of in the work place are all of these in addition to temperamental.

It makes sense that always trying, being reliable, and being on time is rewarded and approved. Yet, some of these seem a little contradictory to me. If one defers gratification that means that they turn down praise and award, yet that is behavior is said to be rewarded. If one is externally motivated that would mean that they would be always striving towards gratification or some external motivator. Which would mean that they would not necessarily be enjoying what they were doing, because if they enjoyed it then they would be internally motivated.

Question: Do you think that those who enjoy their jobs and school work do better than those who do not?

economics, education, and the self

In the Bowles and Gintis article they discuss the relationship between economics and self-perceptions. Individual needs and self concepts are shaped by social and economic systems. The way the works force is structured guides people’s perceptions and involvement in aspects and activities outside of these systems. When people are younger and developing these self-concepts, consciousness, and personality the family and educational system play a large role. Economics shape how well educated someone is by the town they live in, those who live in a less funded area will not have as good of an education. It also effects students self-perceptions by giving them an idea of where they should lie on the socio-economic spectrum. The types of jobs their parents have, they should too. Yet, with a good education, their predispositions are challenged by the concept of hard work and reassured by knowledge of governmental aid for further education.

Question: what other factors besides economic standing and education contribute to one’s self perceptions?

Re:Shelby classroom seating

What types of seating arrangements are best for learning? What physical changes should be made to the classroom to make them more conducive to learning?

Shelby mentioned how the typical seating in classrooms are rows of uncomfortable seats and how it has always been this way. The typical classrooms are like this, yet I have experienced two different kinds of seating arrangements regularly in classrooms, one is with one or more semi-circle(s) of chairs facing the instructor and the second is large tables (about 3-5) with students at each. I think that like with almost everything, it depends on what is the best.

With discussion based classes it is really annoying to have row seating. It is in our culture to look at people when they are talking, it is a sign of respect, yet, I hate straining my neck every time someone at an odd angle from me is talking. People take that into consideration though, certainly I do not find people disrespectful if they are not looking at me in this set up, yet I probably would if it was a semi-circle.

Row seating is well-suited for the standard talk-and-chalk lectures. That type of teaching is not suitable for semi-circle seating because there is no need to see everyone and when you get stuck on the end it is tough to read the board. I agree with Shelby, this is also my favorite type of seating.

Group seating is efficient for group work and project based classes. This type of seating is not effective when there are lectures because some of the student's backs are towards the front of the class. Most of these classes are art or English classes through my experience.

Anything other than light colors I feel would be distracting or would look bad in the classroom. Neon, or dark colored walls would not benefit the learning environment, yet light and dull colors might benefit learning more than white.

When it comes to lighting, studies have actually shown that bright light is beneficial to learning. It makes sense when you think about it, when there is more light you are more aware, yet I'm not sure if that's the reason.

Question: What would make the classroom more enjoyable?