We try to teach bodies of knowledge that allow people to make inferences within those domains and with analogy to other domains.
We also try to teach, within those bodies of knowledge, very specific facts that are required to be able to work quickly and without losing too much state. Knowing 6x9 or that the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776 or how you name organic compounds are in these categories--rote.
But we also try to teach reasoning, forming sound arguments, debate, academic discourse, systematic research, etc. And, sure-- we need some rote knowledge and some bodies of knowledge to have some arenas to play with these concepts in. But too much of the direction in recent education has been to pile more and more knowledge into educational standards and less of these types of synthesis and higher order reasoning.
I find this frustrating in particular in that one subject I teach is AP Microeconomics, which is just crammed absolutely full of material that students will not retain most of after the exam. I'd rather go really deep in a couple of sub-areas and really have the students show they've thought deeply, but that is not what the system incents. I have 36.5 block-period-equivalents with the students and about 34 block periods of content, which means that I can't just spend a couple of extra periods on game theory, which I love and students tend to love, too-- it's a very small part of the exam.
The confound, of course, is that it's very easy to measure the difference that a teacher has made in knowledge, but a lot harder to measure the efficacy of an intervention in higher order thinking.
We try to teach bodies of knowledge that allow people to make inferences within those domains and with analogy to other domains.
We also try to teach, within those bodies of knowledge, very specific facts that are required to be able to work quickly and without losing too much state. Knowing 6x9 or that the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776 or how you name organic compounds are in these categories--rote.
But we also try to teach reasoning, forming sound arguments, debate, academic discourse, systematic research, etc. And, sure-- we need some rote knowledge and some bodies of knowledge to have some arenas to play with these concepts in. But too much of the direction in recent education has been to pile more and more knowledge into educational standards and less of these types of synthesis and higher order reasoning.
I find this frustrating in particular in that one subject I teach is AP Microeconomics, which is just crammed absolutely full of material that students will not retain most of after the exam. I'd rather go really deep in a couple of sub-areas and really have the students show they've thought deeply, but that is not what the system incents. I have 36.5 block-period-equivalents with the students and about 34 block periods of content, which means that I can't just spend a couple of extra periods on game theory, which I love and students tend to love, too-- it's a very small part of the exam.
The confound, of course, is that it's very easy to measure the difference that a teacher has made in knowledge, but a lot harder to measure the efficacy of an intervention in higher order thinking.