Critical thinking

[Mark Hammer]

But you have to admit that a portion of that arises out of the assumption that the student will spend a grand total of maybe 4 months "immersed" in a subject before leaving it behind. The texts, assessments, and entire pedagogical approach is not geared towards the accumulation of knowledge in any area. It's all educational hors d'oeuvres.

My earlier point about the "adolocentric society" also creates obstacles to being able to accomplish much at the secondary and junior college level because the learners don't see much point in acquiring and extending what the teachers are offering, simply because of who it is coming from - a culture perceived as necessarily obsolete.

As someone who worked in test development, and has had to generate plenty of tests at the junior college and undergraduate level, I have no problem with standardized tests or testing, provided they observe all the traditional criteria for validity and reliability. I do have a problem, however, with the mindless or sometimes political use of such tests, the pissing contests they tend to elicit, and the manner in which they engender stereotypy in instruction/preparation.

[GregS]

Interesting thread. I thought I'd add my thoughts.

I think education has not been that pratically oriented throughout time. One example that comes to mind is financial planning which was not taught in school (at least during the time I attended) and is one of the most important things in one's life.

With regards to critical and logical thinking I don't think it is so much of a learned thing. Some people naturally think that way and others don't at all and the rest fall between the two extremes. I think it's a way of thinking that's pre-programmed into us and some naturally have more aptitude for logical thinking and troubleshooting as a result. Of course, a certain component can be and is learned but I think it's mostly what we start with.

In my profession (computer systems programmer/analyst) critical and logical thinking is essential whether troubleshooting a system problem or designing a new system that has to integrate into the existing larger system. I see others abilities with critical thinking and, perhaps surprising to some, there are many in this field that are actually not that good at thinking this way. These are people of all ages too - not just young people. They typically take a lot longer to find problems if they can find them at all. Their development work also takes a lot longer because of a not so logical approach which results in a lot of time spent trying to fix errors and problems later on. The ability to think critically has helped me a lot with my electronics work also as I've been able to zero in on problems quickly through logical tests and come up with sensible solutions - so it can be applied to many things.

For the past 11 years, I've been teaching basic electronics at the high-school level. I've seen a steady decline during my time in critical thinking skills as well as a DESIRE to understand what is happening.

Interesting. I just wanted to point out that it was not always teh case in the past that students wanted to learn or understand things. I took technical courses when I was in high school back in the early eighties - electricity and electronics mainly. There was not much learning that went on. At this time these courses were overrun with the rough types that hung out in the smoking area. The class was pretty much constant screwing around, throwing parts around the room at each other, blowing up parts in the desk power supplies, taunting the teacher and other students etc. It was like these guys were in a competition to see who could get the worst marks. Anyone who understood or wanted to understand the theory was some sort of dweeb.

Perhaps it wasn't like this in the 60's, 70's, or 90's. I don't know but my point with all that was it certainly wasn't always all about learning and being conscientious in the past either. Perhaps we selectively remember what we want to when we think to the past and choose to find the negative in the present. I find myself thinking that way too about kids now - never play sports anymore, have no hands-on ability to do anything, just want the easy answers. It's probably that I'm only noticing the ones that are like that. I'd like to think anyway that they're not all like that.

[hasserl]

Perhaps it wasn't like this in the 60's, 70's, or 90's. I don't know but my point with all that was it certainly wasn't always all about learning and being conscientious in the past either. Perhaps we selectively remember what we want to when we think to the past and choose to find the negative in the present.

I'd say there is a fair amount of romanticizing going on along with some narcissistic self loathing, and a little existentialism to boot. Interesting place.

[Mark Hammer]

It's a combination of revisionist history AND truth. You're right that we weren't all eager little knowledge sponges back in the day, and even those who were so inclined were not interested 24/7. They liked a good fart joke as much as the next guy.

At the same time, I stand by my assertion that we've seen a big shift in the perceived face validity of what "grownups" have to teach us in high school these days, because of a shift in the perceived value of information from non-peers. Some 70 years ago or more, Margaret Mead proposed a very powerful notion that the age group one seeks knowledge about the culture and life from will depend on the rate of culture change. If one lives in a stable traditional culture (think indigenous peoples, or tribal cultures), then the people with the most vald and useful knowledge are those who have been in the culture longest, namely elders. If the culture changes at a modest rate, then the most useful source of information are those of the immediately preceding generation; cumulative expertise, but not yet obsolete. As the rate of culture change picks up speed, the most vital source of knowledge about the culture comes from ones peers, and finally from those with the most recent experience within the culture - your kids who show you how to work your cellphone. This corresponds flawlessly to the degree of respect shown by youth towards different age groups in different parts of the world, in conjunction with the degree of industrialization. It also corresponds to the intergenerational difficulties one sees in some immigrant families, who may have come from a culture that was fairly stable and accorded considerable respect to parents and grandparents, but emigrated to a place where people older than oneself are seen as hopelessly out of date and irrelevant.

So, it becomes harder to encourage critical thinking in youth because the source of that encouragement is not viewed as a valid source by virtue of their generation. That's not to say it would be completely rejected, but it's a bit like slicing a tomato with a slightly dull knife; once you get through the skin it's easy but unless the tomato is "receptive" to the knife, you have a hard time getting through the skin without squishing the tomato. The perceived illegitimacy of the source of whatever information is to be passed along makes that tough skin.

[Zipslack]

GregS, I understand where you are coming from with your memories of "vo-tech", but today's technical education is a much different environment. Even in the 80's, vo-tech was where the dummies/drugheads went to learn a trade and get them out of the mainstream academic classes. The school I taught at up until 2 years ago actually had an entrance application - students had to apply for spots in the program and get their parents to sign-off on it. We reviewed their grades and discipline records back to the 7th grade and got to decide "yes" or "no" based on that information and a personal interview (if needed). One of my biggest hurdles was convincing students to voluntarily enroll in a math-heavy class that required critical thinking and problem-solving skills. The other biggest hurdle was overcoming the prejudices of parents who only knew about the old "vo-tech" environment.

The State of Mississippi has decided to phase-out secondary Electronics, so I'm transitioning to teaching a brand new program - "Simulation and Animation Design". Basically, it's geared toward video game design and development. Students will be expected to learn marketing, teamwork, project management, digital photography and photo editing, vector graphics, game mechanics/rules/conditions, 2D and 3D graphics/modeling/animation, and C++ programming. Also, by the end of the second year, they have to complete a professional portfolio and do a presentation before a panel of judges where they present a prototype or working demo of a game they (individual or team) have created. I'm sorry, but you don't get through this class by being a "wastoid" or a "slacker".

By the way, notice how the term "vocational" has disappeared from educational institutions? They are trying to get rid of the stereotype image and just go with "technical" or "career" as descriptions. Even VICA (Vocational-Industrial Clubs of America) changed to SkillsUSA for this reason - students actually get penalized if they refer to VICA instead of SkillsUSA.

[Enzo]

Yes, terminology creep. The girl at the salon that does your mom's nails is now a "technician."

Electronics is a vocational dead end. I have been watching for teaching positions in electronics in this area. The local junior college here no longer even teaches it. COmputer tech guys learn how to see if a power supply is working ot not, that's about it. VOltmeter 101. I had zero interest in teaching it at the high school level, because I wanted to teach motivated people. SHop class was not a high priority to high schoolers. At the college level, most people there are motivated to learn, and are paying to be there.

[Steve Conner]

I've heard those tales too, from people who came up through the "vo-tech" route. Drug dealing in class, desks set on fire with lighter fluid and so on. I should add that the guys turned out to be great technicians who I had a fair bit of respect for.

I've also had some experience as a teaching lab assistant for the 1st year electronics courses. I won't say much due to the 1 in a million chance that my employers might be reading my posts. But the #1 complaint was, "We hate electronics! It's so difficult. Do we have to do this?" Funny, they were paying to be there, but they didn't want to be there anyway.

The odd situation is, every day electronics becomes a bigger part of our lives, and every day more people forget how to design it. It's like people forgot how to procreate, but more and more babies kept appearing. Where are all these new smartphones and gizmos coming from?! Is all the design getting done in China too? Or does "electronic design" now just consist of slapping a microprocessor and LCD display onto a board, while all the real innovation happens in the software inside the thing.

[Zipslack]

Another issue is the younger generation wants instant gratification with little or no effort. I get really tired of explaining to kids why they can't jump straight in to working on stereos or other equipment before they even know Ohm's Law and how to properly use a meter. If they don't understand basic components and circuit configurations (series, parallel, ser-par, etc..), how are they going to "repair" anything? I've had kids that thought they would be doing car stereo installations for two years! I always tried to stress that the program was to get them ready to carry on their education into a 2-year technician program or a 4-year engineering program - not to just play around with old TVs and radios. Yes, soldering and tinkering is fun, but you have to know "why" you are doing what you are doing.

[Mark Hammer]

One of my oldest friends is a medieval studies prof. One day we were commiserating about students, and he noted in passing that when universities were first started, the assumption was that ALL who entered university would be teachers.

A lot of lights went on for me that day. It dawned on me that learning is fundamentally yoked to purpose, and purpose is harnessed to presumed social role. If your role is to be a teacher, then your purpose is to be able to facilitate learning in others, implying that what you learn, and the manner in which you learn, is geared towards a form and degree of comprehension and mastery that is required in order for one to be able to achieve that purpose and fulfill that role. If you're going to teach, then you have to make sense of things for others, and in order to do that you have to be several steps ahead of them. Being able to do that implicitly evokes a different style of learningm, even when the teaching methods are identical.

If you don't see your role and purpose as that of teaching and moving the discipline forward, then everything people have to teach you is simply stuff you have to get through to get it out of the way. It's completion is harnessed to accreditation and getting on with your life, but its acquisiton is harnessed to pretty much nothing.

[big_teee]

One of my oldest friends is a medieval studies prof. One day we were commiserating about students, and he noted in passing that when universities were first started, the assumption was that ALL who entered university would be teachers.

A lot of lights went on for me that day. It dawned on me that learning is fundamentally yoked to purpose, and purpose is harnessed to presumed social role. If your role is to be a teacher, then your purpose is to be able to facilitate learning in others, implying that what you learn, and the manner in which you learn, is geared towards a form and degree of comprehension and mastery that is required in order for one to be able to achieve that purpose and fulfill that role. If you're going to teach, then you have to make sense of things for others, and in order to do that you have to be several steps ahead of them. Being able to do that implicitly evokes a different style of learningm, even when the teaching methods are identical.

If you don't see your role and purpose as that of teaching and moving the discipline forward, then everything people have to teach you is simply stuff you have to get through to get it out of the way. It's completion is harnessed to accreditation and getting on with your life, but its acquisiton is harnessed to pretty much nothing.

I was always of the assumption that "Those Who Can, Do, and Those Who Can't, Teach"!
T

[Enzo]

Ah! So therefore, if I stop teaching, I'll be better at doing.

That must be the secret.

[Mark Black]

Ah! So therefore, if I stop teaching, I'll be better at doing.

That must be the secret.

Hah! Great wrap-around to the beginning.

I find this thread quite interesting. I wonder if what a lot of people used to refer to (maybe they still do) as "intuition" is actually a result of a wide-based set of learning plus life experience, and may be in fact an unconscious and rapid form of critical thinking. Though there are plenty of realities I have encountered which I would deem "non-intuitive".

All-in-all a pretty thought-provoking thread...

[hasserl]

For a little practicality, here is a scanned doc I got from a course on troubleshooting just about 20 years ago when I was working as a heavy equipment mechanic (at a Komatsu dealership at the time), taught by the author of the paper. I know the topic isn't strictly about troubleshooting, but since that has been a big part of the discussion I thought this was appropriate. You guys don't need the information, but maybe you can use it with someone you work with or teach. It may be written for someone working ojn heavy equipment, but the principals of effective troubleshooting are the same regardless of the type of equipment, and IMO this doc works just as well with electronics techs.

http://hasserl.com/Amp_Mod_Docs/effe...leshooting.pdf

[Enzo]

There you go. Troubleshooting is a universal skill. You use it to diagnose an amplifier that doesn;t work, and you can use it to diagnose a PTA committe that can;t get anything done.

[km6xz]

It can also be a source of frustration when neighbors, friends and strangers figure out you can fix anything. A typical day when I lived in a rural area commuting by air to the studio would have someone drop by with broken CB or fence charger, or a tractor, or well that is struggling, or colicky sow, or the volunteer fire department needing a radio officer to fix the com gear or deal with licensing because they have no budget. It all is the same, just different terminology. Getting to the studio it started all over, "the producer can't get the drum sound", tracking down a noise, fixing a personality conflict between the bass player and the singer's GF, day and day out, that has been every day for 50 years. Solving problems regardless of the technology or field have many common elements.