|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Hobophobic
Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Location: Sinjeong negorie mokdong oh ga ri samgyup sal fighting
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:59 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| FOX NEWS...NO PEACE FOR HEAVY METAL!!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| Satori wrote: |
| A few people here don't seem to really want to take in all the information available. You claim to be really interested in nutting this out. Well, is anyone else here a trained high school teacher? How much more authoritative do you want? I have already said that during my teacher training degree we were told explicitly several times that it was unethical to express our opinions. Our job is to give students the tools to form thier own opinions. |
In the same manner, news organizations are supposed to be unbiased. But they rarely are completely so. Heck, they even get accused of biased from both sides of the political spectrum. How does this differ than teaching? Sure, teaching isn't as high profile and over-analyzed, but if they, the media, can't maintain neutrality, how can teachers be held to that standard? |
You can't be perfectly neutral if you want to analyse it really deeply. As the saying goes, "Everything is political", from your choice of material, to your dress, your posture, tone of voice, choice of syntax, the standards you set, the way you grade, everything. The point is you're supposed to do your damndest to aim for the neutrality. And you can come close, with conscious effort, certainly a lot closer than it seems fiveagles is coming. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Qinella
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Location: the crib
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fiveeagles, I posited some pretty tough questions to you in my post before the MLK business.
Is that why you tried to shift the conversation? The red herring you tossed in the pool was ginormous, man. That's a common tactic people will use to wiggle out of having to respond to things. (A red herring is something that is said which is irrelevant, meant to take the focus off something else.)
Perhaps I'm wrong about your intentions, but what reason do you have for not answering the tough questions I asked (which you said you'd answer)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Qinella wrote: |
Fiveeagles, I posited some pretty tough questions to you in my post before the MLK business.
Is that why you tried to shift the conversation? The red herring you tossed in the pool was ginormous, man. That's a common tactic people will use to wiggle out of having to respond to things. (A red herring is something that is said which is irrelevant, meant to take the focus off something else.)
Perhaps I'm wrong about your intentions, but what reason do you have for not answering the tough questions I asked (which you said you'd answer)? |
Are you serious? I did answer your questions...did you even read my post?
It seems like you are throwing out the red herring since you won't answer my questions now.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
| fiveeagles wrote: |
How do you want me to teach Mandela to my ESL students; with or without that quote? Why do I teach on Mandela or others like him; so that my students will not be racist when they go to University. How do you want me to teach Narnia; without crediting the author? Why do I teach Narnia, because there are fabulous themes of justice, redemption and betrayal within it and those themes go towards building their character.
|
Neither Mandela nor Narnia are in your brief as an esl instructor. You are confused about your job description and overstepping boundaries in a highly unethical way. With all this time spent on big ideas and character building one wonders how you get through the syllabus of basic vocabulary and grammar. Don't you have textbooks such as "Let's Go" or "English Time" to work from? They are your syllabus, your lesson planning, your material. It's hard enough to learn a second language with an effective teacher, let alone when the teacher is too distracted by his moralising agenda to adequately cover the course material. Parents are paying good money for English instruction and you are abusing that trust and ripping them off in a flagrant manner. You gone way beyond the bounds your mandate as an esl instructor and are shamelessly breaking the teachers code of ethics. |
The Supreme Court recognized that the study of the Bible or religion when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education is consistent with the First Amendment.4 For example, a teacher may objectively teach the Bible in a history of religions class or study the Bible as part of a literature course.5 The Bible is an excellent literary source. The Bible contains acrostic poems,6 parallelisms,7 meter,8 prose and comedy.9 When discussing evolution, the teacher may also objectively overview competing viewpoints such as creation science or abrupt appearance.10 The teacher may also overview various religious viewpoints regarding the origin of the universe. To ignore one viewpoint to the exclusion of the other is pure censorship and disserves the student.
http://www.lc.org/Resources/teachers_rights_0900.html
How do you know that Narnia or Mandela isn't in my brief as an ESL instructor? I have set up the curriculum for my students and have choosen to use Narnia and Videos to enhance my teaching methods. I might as well take my students out back and shoot them if I were to teach them English time or some other dreadful english book as their only source. Narnia at least entertains them and fosters creativity. What will you do when movies on Satan and God come out and your children want to see it in class? No, let's watch Harry Potter? If my students were more advanced, then I would have them read the fall of lucifer.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591858143/104-7784984-8801509?v=glance&n=283155
There are serious rumors that this will become a major motion picture.
| Qinella wrote: |
| Satori wrote: |
| Qinella wrote: |
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
|
Is it still a logical fallacy if the authority appealled to is a specialist in the field? |
Not really. But if you look at Ghandi or MLKJ, they were not education specialists. So, appealing to them in a discussion about ESL ethics is fallacious.
What I'd like to see is a selection of quotes from education professionals. What is their opinion about discusing religion in the classroom? That would be relevant, and non-fallacious.
|
You are not seeing the point. They are a part of history and so they are very relevant when talking to class about English. Their lives are open discussion for an English class. If you can't see that, then I guess we are going to have to disagree on that.
Last edited by fiveeagles on Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:08 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:30 am Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| seoulunitarian wrote: |
If you use topics for pure debate, then I see nothing wrong with that. It is vital, though, that you do not voice disagreement with a certain student's position in a debate. Can you tell me, do you allow the debate to flow freely, not interferring, interpreting, or objecting to any points your students bring up?
Peace |
Yeah, I interfer in a friendly manner to create critical thinking. Like I have previously said, I try to play both sides of the debate. If one is arguing for Christianity, then I will pose opposing arguments. Likewise for those who are secularists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Qinella
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Location: the crib
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| fiveeagles wrote: |
| Qinella wrote: |
Fiveeagles, I posited some pretty tough questions to you in my post before the MLK business.
Is that why you tried to shift the conversation? The red herring you tossed in the pool was ginormous, man. That's a common tactic people will use to wiggle out of having to respond to things. (A red herring is something that is said which is irrelevant, meant to take the focus off something else.)
Perhaps I'm wrong about your intentions, but what reason do you have for not answering the tough questions I asked (which you said you'd answer)? |
Are you serious? I did answer your questions...did you even read my post? |
Ah that's my bad, then. I actually just skimmed that post because I didn't wanna get caught up in a side-discussion.
I read it all the way now, but don't have time to respond tonight.
| Quote: |
| It seems like you are throwing out the red herring since you won't answer my questions now. |
You're stupid.
You're stupid!
No you're stupid!
No YOU'RE stupid!
NO YOUR DAD IS STUPID!!
YOUR DAD IS STUPID!!1
etc.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fiveeagles wrote: |
The Supreme Court recognized that the study of the Bible or religion when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education is consistent with the First Amendment.4 For example, a teacher may objectively teach the Bible in a history of religions class or study the Bible as part of a literature course.5 The Bible is an excellent literary source. The Bible contains acrostic poems,6 parallelisms,7 meter,8 prose and comedy.9 When discussing evolution, the teacher may also objectively overview competing viewpoints such as creation science or abrupt appearance.10 The teacher may also overview various religious viewpoints regarding the origin of the universe. To ignore one viewpoint to the exclusion of the other is pure censorship and disserves the student. |
Nothing wrong with studying the bible in a religion or even English literature class as long as it is kept objective. It is wrong to teach creation science in science class, cause creation science isn't science.
| Quote: |
http://www.lc.org/Resources/teachers_rights_0900.html
How do you know that Narnia or Mandela isn't in my brief as an ESL instructor? I have set up the curriculum for my students and have choosen to use Narnia and Videos to enhance my teaching methods. I might as well take my students out back and shoot them if I were to teach them English time or some other dreadful english book as their only source. Narnia at least entertains them and fosters creativity. What will you do when movies on Satan and God come out and your children want to see it in class? No, let's watch Harry Potter? If my students were more advanced, then I would have them read the fall of lucifer.
|
People who show Harry Potter do not even for one millisecond say this is true. They say this is obviously made up story and is not real. Will you say the same for the fall of lucifer??? You have a strawman here. Showing Harry Potter and showing a religious movie meant to be true is apples and oranges.
| Quote: |
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591858143/104-7784984-8801509?v=glance&n=283155
There are serious rumors that this will become a major motion picture.
| Qinella wrote: |
| Satori wrote: |
| Qinella wrote: |
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
|
Is it still a logical fallacy if the authority appealled to is a specialist in the field? |
Not really. But if you look at Ghandi or MLKJ, they were not education specialists. So, appealing to them in a discussion about ESL ethics is fallacious.
What I'd like to see is a selection of quotes from education professionals. What is their opinion about discusing religion in the classroom? That would be relevant, and non-fallacious.
|
You are not seeing the point. They are a part of history and so they are very relevant when talking to class about English. Their lives are open discussion for an English class. If you can't see that, then I guess we are going to have to disagree on that. |
Don't really care about this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
| And please respond to my post above yours. MLK was not an education professional. Education is a science these days, based on hard core research and theory. The best of the best have concluded that moralising and opinions ( of teachers ) should be kept out of the classroom. I studied at the most highly regarded teachers training college in New Zealand and this is the information I have. What higher authority do you need? |
Okay, so the two reasons why you feel opinions shouldn't be expressed are this:
1. You were taught not to
2. Studies have shown that you shouldn't
Let's take a look at the first one. Why were you taught that? I see two possible reasons. The first, the schools themselves. If NZ is anything like the US, an athiest can sue for the mere mentioning of G-d in the classroom. So to avoid such a lawsuit (or maybe in reaction to one) the schools want to ban any mention of anything religious by teachers. Of course, you can't ban teacher's talking just about G-d, Christianity, or religion, so they've completely banned any opinions in the classroom. Thus, you are trained to adhere to this standard. Is this right? Maybe, maybe not. The point is moot. It's a legal decision, and the law tends to do a bad job evaluating and establishing gray areas. Gray areas which may or may not be harmful.
The second possible reason (that I see) that you were taught this is because they are basing their decision on valid academic research. Which takes us to the second reason that you oppose opinions in the classroom. So your (Satori's) appeal to two authority figures is actually one authority figure, scientific studies. So let's take a look at those.
Not having done any research into the educational studies on this topic, I have reservations about their validity for a couple of reasons. First, you cannot do hard science with education. Any social science research is full of potential difficulties that would undermine their validity. This is the nature of social sciences, and there's little that can be done about it.
Secondly, in the world of academics and academic publishing, results which show causality are much more likely to be accepted or published than results which don't show causality. That is, any study which shows some sort of effect wrt opinions in the classroom has a higher chance of being published than a study which doesn't show an effect. So the resulting literature will come out one sided.
In summary, I believe you are basing the ban of opinions in the classroom on academic research into the matter. I am hesitant to accept this "proof" due to the nature of soft-science research as well as the bias for results in the world of academics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
Nothing wrong with studying the bible in a religion or even English literature class as long as it is kept objective. It is wrong to teach creation science in science class, cause creation science isn't science.
|
Sure thing.
http://www.thefinaltheory.com/?gclid=CJjzwvjlloYCFRBgDgodp17avQ
| Quote: |
| People who show Harry Potter do not even for one millisecond say this is true. They say this is obviously made up story and is not real. Will you say the same for the fall of lucifer??? You have a strawman here. Showing Harry Potter and showing a religious movie meant to be true is apples and oranges. |
So, many say that the bible isn't true. Regardless, that's not the point. The point is, that witchcraft/Occult is a Religion and many take it very serious. Harry Potter is like a Sunday school teaching. It influences a lot of kids to investigate witchcraft/Occult.
Qinella? Is that it or are you just having a good weekend? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Qinella
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Location: the crib
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry for the slow response. I've been too busy with other things to get involved in a post of this length.
I hope you weren't on the edge of your seat, awaiting my mighty response!
| fiveeagles wrote: |
| Qinella wrote: |
| Quote: |
The function of education, therefore, is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. But education which stops with efficiency may prove the greatest menace to society.
The first sentence is fine. The second sentence is hyperbole. How can any reasonable person agree with hyperbole? |
|
When the writer is MLK, then you probably need to listen to his hyperbole. It might have incredible significance. |
If it does, you haven't pointed it out yet. My counter argument was that there are several versions of morality, so whose do we teach in the schools? It's better to simply allow the parents to teach their kids whatever morality they see fit, and leave the science teacher to teach only science. What do you say to that?
| Quote: |
| 1The question is �where do you find balance Qinella�? 2Where is your source? 3 Did it come when you were in school and learned about evolution? 4Was that critical reasoning? 5 Or did it come through the internet and all your news sources? 6Where did that knowledge come from? 7What was its source? 8Where is truth in all of it? 9What is your truth? |
I numbered to make it easier to respond.
1. Where do you find balance in what? Teaching morality in the classroom? It's my opinion that morality should not be talked. The classroom is a place to equip students with knowledge and critical inquiry skills. Humans will naturally seek morality without any help from their teachers. To deny this would be to deny the nature of humanity.
Simply put, the only reason to teach morality in the classroom is to spread one's own personal ideas by influencing young children.
2. I don't understand this question. What is my source of balance? If you meant my source of morality, it's many things. Way too many to count. Not relevant to this discussion.
3. No, but I see what you're trying to do there. You're trying to equate teaching evolution with teaching morality. Sorry, but that's a false comparison. Evolution is science. Morality is not.
4-8. These questions don't really make sense, and I don't see how they are relevant. Let's try to stay focused.
| Quote: |
| You asked me why I used debates in class. |
No, I didn't. Be careful with your words. I asked why you present arguments, not why you use debates. I think it's fine to have the students debate each other, or in the case of private instruction, the teacher as a generic opposition opinion holder.
However, if you're "presenting arguments" to your students, it sounds like you're trying to convince them of your point (which is what arguments are meant to do). Your arguments are probably more well-thought out, tested and honed, and you are a college-educated adult. It is not fair to present premeditated, calculated arguments about morality to a classroom of people who still have the brains of children and have not had the years and years you've had to think of a counter-argument.
| Quote: |
| I use arguments so they can become discerners of right and wrong. |
What does this mean? What is right and wrong? Is praying to Buddha wrong? How about communicating with the dead? Is Harry Potter? Is magic? Is praying to Jesus good? Is giving money to church good? I don't expect you to answer these questions, I'm just trying to get an idea of what you mean. Are those the types of things you teach your students?
| Quote: |
| Can I hope to influence them in a year? Maybe some, but hopefully by the influence of their parents and people close to them. My hope is only to create a thinking environment where they can learn how to debate and how to understand deeper topics. I do this, because I believe it builds character and character will build into hope. Have I ever told them that Christianity is the best religion? Never. I tell them I am Christian, but I openly embrace the kids that are Buddhists, Secularists and so on. Some of my better relationships are with those who have different faiths. Maybe you haven�t noticed, but I don�t get along with all the Christians and it�s the same thing in my class. I find a lot of Christianity to be stifling and full of hypocrisy and I enjoy challenging their faith. Unfortunately, the topics can�t go deep with the kids, but when I teach adults. I enjoy teaching evolution and its points. Why not play both sides of the fence�right? I try not to do it in a mean spirited way, but I believe it is good to evaluate both sides of the argument. |
I think I understand now. See, with all your talk earlier of promoting excellence and whatnot, it sure sounded like you were pushing your own version of morality on the students. It's a really sticky topic, you know, arguing religion in the classroom. People can get very emotional and irrational about it.
Come to think of it, let's pretend you are a parent. You send your kid to a class to learn a foreign language, and he comes back with a list of arguments against the Christian faith you'd taught him. You may say, okay well here are some counter arguments, but it doesn't matter. "The seed" of doubt has been planted, as Christians like to say, and within a few months your kid is an atheist. He can't trust any religion.
Do you see what you could be causing? I'm an atheist, so my morality says that would be a wonderful outcome. But rationally speaking, I think it's unethical to encourage students in an ESL classroom to argue against the teachings their parents provide. Highly unethical.
| Quote: |
| So, now you are in class and teaching your kids about English. Do you ever talk about evolution or watch shows on discovery channel? |
No.
| Quote: |
| Most of them will point towards that this universe was created by the big bang. Will you discuss the possibility that God created the universe? If not, why not? |
If I were to teach a lesson that involved science, I would not bring up irrelevant religious beliefs. Why should I bring up God in a discussion about science? Should I talk about Rael, also? How about Romulus and Remus? See, when you "discuss the possibility that God created the universe," what you are actually doing is pushing your own version of morality. This is unethical.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| The main part of his article focuses on the primary purpose of education, which is to assist students in thinking critically and achieving practical goals in life. You, as an ESL instructor, are there to help students communicate to the world by knowing English. However, King's comments about morality in the classroom are too simplistic. He did not bother to ask whose morality should be taught. That is so important. |
You are right when you say it is so important.
Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech (Dec 1964)
I still believe that one day mankind will bow before the altars of God and be crowned triumphant over war and bloodshed, and nonviolent redemptive goodwill will proclaim the rule of the land.
Lest we never forget. Which is exactly my point. How do you separate the MLK from his religious convictions? But why focus on MLK, what about Nelson Mandella
"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It is not just in some of us; it is in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others." - Marianne Williamson, as written for Nelson Mandela.
How do you want me to teach Mandela to my ESL students; with or without that quote? |
What? I was asking why you quoted MLK and Gandhi in a discussion about classroom ethics. I never said you shouldn't talk about Nelson Mandela in class.
| Quote: |
| Why do I teach on Mandela or others like him; so that my students will not be racist when they go to University. How do you want me to teach Narnia; without crediting the author? Why do I teach Narnia, because there are fabulous themes of justice, redemption and betrayal within it and those themes go towards building their character. |
So your selection of material is chosen in order to best promote your own ideas of morality and righteous living. I really shouldn't have to say this, but you know... that's not your job. You should be choosing selections based on how much it will help them learn English.
Sure, Narnia is fine to teach to kids. It's a great story. Yes, the themes should be taught (if it's an advanced class that can understand). For the next reading, though, you should choose something with opposing concepts. This is a practical step to creating objectivity. Objectivity is achieved not only by having NO opinion, but also by balancing opinions.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| As I and others have said so far, is it okay if I teach the students that having lots of sex with multiple partners without protection is okay? Hey, some people find no problem with that. Can I be your child's teacher? How about Ward Churchill? |
I have already answered L on this, but how about this.
Sure, if your educators are ok with it and if you are in a country where the government is ok with it. Which might make it acceptable before the laws of man, but it doesn�t make it just. If you are ok with it, then that�s your choice. How do I feel about it, well I will make every attempt to make it not by voting for parties that stand against it. I will use my freedom of speech to speak out against it, but I will not violently try to stop you. |
That's pretty much a non-answer. Since when does the government have an opinion about casual sex and sexual protection? You simply avoided answering my question, but I already know the answer. It was more of a rhetorical question. The answer is, OF COURSE you don't want your kids going to school to learn about morality that is different and possibly damaging to them.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Mr. King was not a professional educator. Devising a practical set of classroom ethics was not ever his goal. His goal was to push his own version of morality on people. |
Maybe Mr.King never taught in a classroom for a profession, but he still teaches millions today. Likewise do all the lights of hope that went before us in which we can follow into their blazing trails. |
That's 100% irrelevant, fiveeagles. Good grief.
| Quote: |
| Do you think he pushed it or do you think people embraced it? |
He pushed it, and people eventually embraced it. Of course he pushed it! I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But see, just because the word "push" has a negative connotation, you want to shy away from using that word by supplanting it with "embrace". That's not intellectually honest.
| Quote: |
| Qinella wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
You don't belong in a classroom, unless it's a religious school. Were you in my employ, I'd kick your ass just before I fired you. The ass kicking would be for being so utterly stupid that you cannot understand the difference between teach and preach.
A good teacher not tell if they know how to ask. When you ask, you empower. When you tell, you enslave.
Now shut up, slave. |
Don't you mean slavemaster?
Thanks for the insightful post, though.  I'm interested in having a real discussion about classroom ethics, but you and others are making that difficult. |
If man will only realize that it is unmanly to obey laws that are unjust, no man's tyranny will enslave him. -- Mahatma Gandhi |
Well, basically, we've said all that needs to be said, Fiveeagles. It's clear to me that you:
- intentionally promote your own moral values in the classroom.
- incite students to question what their parents teach them about religion.
- know that what you're doing is questionable, which is why you've been so difficult to squeeze a proper answer out of. Everything you say is loquacious. In my experience, people do this to soften the impact of what they say. (Politicians do this a lot.)
You are using the classroom as a pulpit. You cloak everything in the veil of "honest debate". For example, the way you think God should be mentioned if evolution is discussed. This is a sneaky, conniving trick. You present tough arguments to vulnerable, young minds. You are teaching the students to question what their parents teach them is the truth.
I call your behavior into question. This is a discussion of ESL ethics. I don't think most college graduates would agree with you that these things you do are copacetic.
It's possible I won't respond again, because these responses just take too long, and I feel like there's not much left to be said. It was nice chatting with you. I do encourage you to keep an eye on yourself in class, and scrutinize your motives and actions, as we all should.
Cheers,
Q. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Qinella
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Location: the crib
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| Not having done any research into the educational studies on this topic, I have reservations about their validity for a couple of reasons. |
I love when people say things like this. "Well, I have no idea what I'm talking about, but here's my opinion! Weee!"
| Quote: |
| First, you cannot do hard science with education. |
What is hard science? Is it not simply using the scientific method of , observation, hypothesis, and experimentation?
| Quote: |
| Any social science research is full of potential difficulties that would undermine their validity. This is the nature of social sciences, and there's little that can be done about it. |
There are actually controls for this very thing. You think researchers don't know about that when they perform tests? Have you ever taken a course on statistics?
| Quote: |
| Secondly, in the world of academics and academic publishing, results which show causality are much more likely to be accepted or published than results which don't show causality. That is, any study which shows some sort of effect wrt opinions in the classroom has a higher chance of being published than a study which doesn't show an effect. So the resulting literature will come out one sided. |
What is your proof for this???
| Quote: |
| In summary, I believe you are basing the ban of opinions in the classroom on academic research into the matter. I am hesitant to accept this "proof" due to the nature of soft-science research as well as the bias for results in the world of academics. |
Wow. It never ceases to amaze me when people hand-wave entire fields of science just to continue holding on to their opinions. Is it so difficult to change your opinion about something? Did you learn ANYTHING in college, or did you battle your professors every step of the way to avoid having to change your mind about things? Do you intend to be so anti-intellectual?
Now, that being said, where are these studies? I'd like to see them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Qinella wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| Not having done any research into the educational studies on this topic, I have reservations about their validity for a couple of reasons. |
I love when people say things like this. "Well, I have no idea what I'm talking about, but here's my opinion! Weee!" |
And what is your knowledge of the subject? At least I'll admit my ignorance. But I know enough to be weary of any potential (and as yet, uncited or unnamed) educational studies.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| First, you cannot do hard science with education. |
What is hard science? Is it not simply using the scientific method of , observation, hypothesis, and experimentation? |
You don't know the difference between hard science and soft science and your dissing me for my ignorance? I'm not sure why I'm even going to bother with the rest of your comments. Maybe you'll learn something.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Any social science research is full of potential difficulties that would undermine their validity. This is the nature of social sciences, and there's little that can be done about it. |
There are actually controls for this very thing. You think researchers don't know about that when they perform tests? Have you ever taken a course on statistics? |
And do you really think all of these things can be accounted and controlled for? I'm sure you are aware of random assigment and control groups. How about bootstrapping? Care to show me one of your studies that uses bootstrapping? I've worked for a professor that did exactly this, and it's no walk in the park. In fact, he won a Nobel Prize in Economics for his work.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Secondly, in the world of academics and academic publishing, results which show causality are much more likely to be accepted or published than results which don't show causality. That is, any study which shows some sort of effect wrt opinions in the classroom has a higher chance of being published than a study which doesn't show an effect. So the resulting literature will come out one sided. |
What is your proof for this??? |
I ask for proof, and you dismiss me as anti-intellectual (below). Now you ask for proof? Are you at all familiar with research academics and academic publishing? People don't get published for "inconclusive". They get published for results. That should be pretty easy to understand.
| Quote: |
| Wow. It never ceases to amaze me when people hand-wave entire fields of science just to continue holding on to their opinions. Is it so difficult to change your opinion about something? Did you learn ANYTHING in college, or did you battle your professors every step of the way to avoid having to change your mind about things? Do you intend to be so anti-intellectual? |
I'm not hand-waving an entire field of science (if that's what you want to call it). The fact is, studies of humans and human behavior are fraught with difficulties and problems of validity. Even the best of human studies with the best of statistical methodology will not maintain the same standards of validity as an experiment in physics, chemistry, or biology.
As for being anti-intellectual, being able to make my own decisions on the matter seems a lot more intellectual than buying into someone else's theory, hook, line, and sinker.
| Quote: |
| Now, that being said, where are these studies? I'd like to see them. |
Yes, that being said, we still haven't seen any of these studies which keep be referred to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
FiveEagles and HuffDaddy.
Imagine I am hired to teach English in a Christian school. Now there are ads for this all the time on this site and they ask for someone who can uphold Christian ideals and ways. Now, I think Christian child brainwashing is inherently immoral, so if I was hired, should I promote different views in the classroom (ie Buddhist, Atheism, Hindu, etc)? The answer is no!
Taking out all ethics from this conversation, I was hired by the school to be a teacher who promotes Christian values. Schools here and back home hire teachers to promote secular learning environments with no religion. Is this right? Doesn't matter for this line of reasoning. You were hired to perform that job. If you go outside it, you are not being a professional. You should be reprimanded, and eventually fired if it is repeated.
Think of it another way. I use to be a web programmer. For a while, a contract was in the works to put up a page showing how smoking isn't so horrible for a cigarette lobby. I loathe the cigarette industry. I would never work for them due to my own morals. So I was faced with a deciision (the contract didn't go through so it didn't matter, but I still thought of this). I could do it up, but add a bit of my own information and opinion to the website. The cigarette company would be pretty mad and my company would probably fire me. And they would be well within their rights to. If I have a moral objection, I should quit or refuse to do it. I think most people would agree it would be ethical to screw the tobacco company and their false information about the lack of dangers from smoking. But not by sabotage.
FiveEagles is going outside the duties he was hired for. Most parents assume their kid is not going to be given Christian English brainwashing sessions. Same for back home (or NZ as Satori is going on). Maybe teachers should be able to show all their opinions in class. Maybe everything the education boards there think and implement are completely wrong. Doesn't matter. They were hired to offer a secular learning environment (which the parents are expecting) and as an employee (ie teacher), you are supposed to do what you were hired for. If you don't like it, quit, go to a private school, change the government, get a seat on the PTA, whatever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| FiveEagles and HuffDaddy. |
not sure why you are lumping me in with fiveeagles, but...
| Quote: |
Imagine I am hired to teach English in a Christian school. Now there are ads for this all the time on this site and they ask for someone who can uphold Christian ideals and ways. Now, I think Christian child brainwashing is inherently immoral, so if I was hired, should I promote different views in the classroom (ie Buddhist, Atheism, Hindu, etc)? The answer is no! |
Promoting an agenda and expressing an opinion are two different things. I'm not defending the former. I'm suggesting that a teacher expressing an opinion in class (within certain bounds) is not detrimintal to the students - and may even be beneficial. Meanwhile, I'm waiting for anyone to show me any study that says otherwise. We can then consider its validity and applicability (see my previous post regarding this). In the meantime, I'm not really interested in hashing out hypotheticals that don't represent my viewpoint. (although I do find it interesting that you'd use an intellectually-insular Christian school as an analogy for an ideal educational experience).
Again, please don't confuse me with fiveeagles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
