I read in Tuesday's TODAY this article about the introduction of Philosophy for Children into some primary schools.
So... teacher asks children, 'Would bees be suitable to keep as pets in your home?'
Students come up with answers which teacher finds 'fascinating'.
Response A:
'bees would make "fabulous pets" because they could produce pots of honey, which could later be eaten or sold'
Response B:
'the tiny creatures were "dangerous" and could sting if provoked'
Response C:
'Yet another group questioned whether the true meaning of having a pet was to make it work for you or have it for companionship'
No offence to the teacher but while I find Response C insightful for P3/4 kids, I fail to see what is fascinating about Responses A and B.
My questions:
1. Aren't Responses A & B rather 'expected', mundane answers?
2. Why were they considered 'fascinating'? Or was the teacher being diplomatic and just saying in general that some (having in her own mind Response C types) answers were 'fascinating'?
3. I know that Philosophy for Children isn't about teaching them Socratic theories, etc, but how appropriate is a question like 'Would bees be suitable to keep as pets in your home?' for generating thinking and discussion? It seems like a rather close-ended question to me. Obviously there are different possible perspectives but it isn't a really debatable issue, is it? Might a question like 'What is a pet?' - which looks close-ended but isn't - be more useful in eliciting Response C-type answers?
4. Or did the teacher find all the answers 'fascinating' because she hardly even heard the children's voices prior to introducing such lessons. She said, 'In the past, it was the teacher talking 80 per cent of the time. Now, it's the students who are doing most of the talking and debating. Even the quieter students have become more vocal.'
5. If students talking 80% of the time is desirable, why can't teachers let them talk 80% of the tim
e? They don't have to introduce Philosophy for Children to achieve this, do they?
Yup, I think bees are a very good idea.
Well, I'm all for improving people's thinking skills and the idea of Philosophy for Children looks appealing:
Philosophy for Children is a community-based approach to the teaching of critical and creative thinking.
Within the philosophy classroom children learn how to articulate, examine and discuss ideas which they find puzzling or intriguing. In doing so they become more effective and discerning thinkers.
They discover that the processes of discussion, inquiry and reflective thinking are powerful tools.
In the course of this discovery they build classroom communities of inquiry in which interpersonal communication, respect for ideas and heightened self-esteem are key features.
(from the Philosophy for Children Association, NSW, Australia)
But I think they could use more open-ended or even 'controversial' questions to achieve the above.
Also, it should lead to greater awareness among students about the 'meaning of meaning', different perspectives, etc.
The thing is are we adults prepared for and accepting of young people with this awareness, and, in fact, are we ourselves thinking people? Like when we bandy about that over-hyped and under-understood term 'Asian values', what do we really mean? Do we realise that Asia is the largest continent in the world (hence the importance of map-reading skills) and thus ask if there really is such a thing as 'Asian' values? Do we realise that societies all over the world have somewhat similar human and humane 'values' but they have different perspectives?
Wah, you so clever to say, you go and teach the children Philosophy, lah!
No lah, no lah, I'm not so clever. I'm just wondering.
I'm also wondering about when we started using this term 'roll out', as in 'Workers' Party, SDA to roll out candidates over next few days' (headline in today's ST), or 'these programmes will be rolled out over the next 5 years'.
Dictionary.com says it means 'to get out of bed.' Ha ha ha...
I also checked our Collins Cobuild dictionary, which has roll about, roll down, roll in, roll on, roll over, roll up but no 'roll out'.
So... teacher asks children, 'Would bees be suitable to keep as pets in your home?'
Students come up with answers which teacher finds 'fascinating'.
Response A:
'bees would make "fabulous pets" because they could produce pots of honey, which could later be eaten or sold'
Response B:
'the tiny creatures were "dangerous" and could sting if provoked'
Response C:
'Yet another group questioned whether the true meaning of having a pet was to make it work for you or have it for companionship'
No offence to the teacher but while I find Response C insightful for P3/4 kids, I fail to see what is fascinating about Responses A and B.
My questions:
1. Aren't Responses A & B rather 'expected', mundane answers?
2. Why were they considered 'fascinating'? Or was the teacher being diplomatic and just saying in general that some (having in her own mind Response C types) answers were 'fascinating'?
3. I know that Philosophy for Children isn't about teaching them Socratic theories, etc, but how appropriate is a question like 'Would bees be suitable to keep as pets in your home?' for generating thinking and discussion? It seems like a rather close-ended question to me. Obviously there are different possible perspectives but it isn't a really debatable issue, is it? Might a question like 'What is a pet?' - which looks close-ended but isn't - be more useful in eliciting Response C-type answers?
4. Or did the teacher find all the answers 'fascinating' because she hardly even heard the children's voices prior to introducing such lessons. She said, 'In the past, it was the teacher talking 80 per cent of the time. Now, it's the students who are doing most of the talking and debating. Even the quieter students have become more vocal.'
5. If students talking 80% of the time is desirable, why can't teachers let them talk 80% of the tim
e? They don't have to introduce Philosophy for Children to achieve this, do they?Yup, I think bees are a very good idea.
Well, I'm all for improving people's thinking skills and the idea of Philosophy for Children looks appealing:
Philosophy for Children is a community-based approach to the teaching of critical and creative thinking.
Within the philosophy classroom children learn how to articulate, examine and discuss ideas which they find puzzling or intriguing. In doing so they become more effective and discerning thinkers.
They discover that the processes of discussion, inquiry and reflective thinking are powerful tools.
In the course of this discovery they build classroom communities of inquiry in which interpersonal communication, respect for ideas and heightened self-esteem are key features.
(from the Philosophy for Children Association, NSW, Australia)
But I think they could use more open-ended or even 'controversial' questions to achieve the above.
Also, it should lead to greater awareness among students about the 'meaning of meaning', different perspectives, etc.
The thing is are we adults prepared for and accepting of young people with this awareness, and, in fact, are we ourselves thinking people? Like when we bandy about that over-hyped and under-understood term 'Asian values', what do we really mean? Do we realise that Asia is the largest continent in the world (hence the importance of map-reading skills) and thus ask if there really is such a thing as 'Asian' values? Do we realise that societies all over the world have somewhat similar human and humane 'values' but they have different perspectives?
Wah, you so clever to say, you go and teach the children Philosophy, lah!
No lah, no lah, I'm not so clever. I'm just wondering.
I'm also wondering about when we started using this term 'roll out', as in 'Workers' Party, SDA to roll out candidates over next few days' (headline in today's ST), or 'these programmes will be rolled out over the next 5 years'.
Dictionary.com says it means 'to get out of bed.' Ha ha ha...
I also checked our Collins Cobuild dictionary, which has roll about, roll down, roll in, roll on, roll over, roll up but no 'roll out'.
Comments
What about "roll out the red carpet"?
You aren't trying to teach Philosophy for Children, so you're don't have to ask thought-provoking questions if you don't feel like it!
Anyway, you are right. It's a good thing children today are at least encouraged (or maybe even forced) to think and to open their mouths more.
Oh yes, I remember now: 'Roll out the barrel...'