posted
When I'm reading, I like the journey much more than the destination. I'm a big fan of all the little things along the way that make up the whole of the story. I usually like them more (if they're done well) than the big flashy moments or plot twists. Or, to put it another way, I enjoy a story more if I understand why a plot twist happened because the author spent 50 pages setting it up. I've never understood the people who like to peek at the back of the book to find out how everything turns out.
One thing I've done a couple of time when I've first met people is to ask them to tell me a story, any story that they want. It's earned me some weird looks, but I've found that you can get some really interesting insights into someone this way. You get a feel for them, so when you do all the getting-to-know-you crap later, it means something specific to the people involved, rather than serving as just a social ritual or a method of putting the other person into a pre-defined category.
With people and with stories, I'm just generally more interested in the whys and hows than in the whats.
When I learned to program or when I was taught psychology, a big part of the introduction of my favorite classes was setting the stage for what was to come. We learned about the situations that people were in along with what they thought. I think this gave the studies an important aspect that they would otherwise have been missing. Learning the reasons for things made them easier to understand and to recall later on and when you understand a bit of why someone came out with what they did, you can see the possible alternatives to to what they came up with.
About a year and a half ago, I was looking over my stuff from grade school. (My mom, who is a absolutely great mom, saved them all). One of the things that I noticed on my essays is that, early on, I kept get points off for one particular thing. My teachers wrote that I had mastered sentence construction and my arguments were well formed, but I couldn't write a topic sentence to save my life. To this day, I still don't like thesis or topic statements.
I feel more confortable with a socratic style of argument/dicussion than the essay style. I like the interplay between people and I find that I am both more persuasive and more persuaded (or at least enlightened) in this sort of format. I thinkt that's it's due in large part to an organic nature that the more formalized essay structure doesn't have. In the socratic style, you start out with the bases for things and then move into the wider implications. The dicussion grows more from points of agreement or at least of connection than it does from disjunction. There seems to be a tendency in the essay format or in formal debate to state broad positions first and then advance the argument on points of disagreement.
Another thing I remember from school was how we had Lessons (the capital L is important). We were going to learn X today and Y tommorow. You were going to be tested on Q next week. I got into minor trouble a couple of times in college when I would follow a topic that caught my interest rather then adhere to the Lesson Plan. I was learning - a heck of a lot in most cases - but I apparently wasn't doing the right kind of learning. (I actually did the same thing in high school, but I was too far ahead to ever fall behind.)
I wonder how much of all this orientation is a product of our schooling system. The flip side of this question is how much of it is really necessary. Is it possible to educate by focusing on building from context up to the actual event or concept?
A Japanese historian, Masako Watanabe, does a pretty good job of answering this question in her cross-cultural studies of American and Japanese educational systems. She makes the point that the Japanese system does just that. The teachers start with a discussion of the relevant context and then guide the class in making inferences about the outcomes. She contrasts that with the American classroom, where the teacher first presents the concept to be learned and then presents the reasons justifying it.
So, I wanted to take a shot at writing a post that followed sort of this spirit of things. I consciouslly tried to avoid topic sentences, or at least didn't put them as the first sentence in a paragraph. I started with small causes or identifiable situations to build up to my conclusion, which isn't really even a conclusion. What do you lot think?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that's a good idea and here's why. <laughs> No, seriously, I think you've got the right idea. It's almost like reading a novel instead of a political tract. Instead of you the reader being dictated to and preached at and and told what to think, you're just going along for the ride, following the story, and then at the end you decide what you think.
I wonder if I can learn that method (as the writer or speaker, I mean)? I do know that my persuasive abilities are all negative. That is, all I manage to do ever is make someone want very badly to disagree with whatever I'm trying to persuade them of.
[ February 19, 2004, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incidentally, if you're interested in the cross-cultural portion of this. I highly, highly, highly recommend Richard Nisbett's The Geography of Thought. It's a really great book on a pretty difficult to explain topic.
On the subject of American vs. Japanese thought: I have a framed print of the famous picture of a tsunami from the Divine Wind arcing over Fujiyama.
I think the picture looks very pleasant and nostalgic; then my father, who was born in Japan, pointed out that, being American, I read left to right, but the Japanese read right to left. I held the picture up to a mirror and suddenly it had the menacing quality that I think the original artist intended it to have.
Since then I've been looking for little things here and there like that. Thanks for the interesting thought and the book recommendation.
I'm not sure how it would be related, but it just seems it might be: have you read anything by Steven Pinker? The Language Instinct touches on a lot of cognitive psychology.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never really thought about it that way. I am a big fan of why, though. Why do I have to learn this? Why is it important? And I think people would be more willing to learn new things if they had context to put them in besides "You never know when you'll need it" or "Because it's in the book" or whatever else.
It seems that everyone is so in a hurry these days. They're so focused on you getting to the point that by the time you do, they've missed it entirely anyway. I really think that if people took time to understand lessons and concepts and whatever else, and also to see things from different perspectives, we'd all get along much better.
posted
I'd have to say that characterization of Japanese education is probably at least a trifle idealistic. While I have an admittedly small sample size to work from, the rote memorization I saw at the high school I briefly attended as an exchange student (and reputed to be a good private school) was astounding. Though this could be mainly the English and math classes; my japanese was not well versed enough to follow the other classes I attended (and I could only follow those two because in one they spoke English and in the other wrote math ). The point might have applied to classes in the social sciences.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sachiko, It's kind of funny that you'd bring up Stephen Pinker in a thread where I talk about cross-cultural psych. I'll admit that I have a prejudice against sociobiological, cog sci, and psycho-linguistics people (or which I'll admit that Pinker is one of the best of the bunch). I think that they are the new incarnation of the reductionist, almost completely non-scientific psychology for people who don't like people that used to be embodied by the Behaviorists. I also think that that their sciencesque (i.e. sound really scientific, but has no basis in the actual discipline) theories are being eroded by cross-cultural research. That being said, I've read Pinker and I thought he had some really interesting things to say and that his explanations of things from a evolutionary perspective made me see things differently. I don't think I've read the book you're talking about, but then, I've never really been interested in linguistics. I'd be interested in learning what you thought were the interesting parts of it, especially as to how it relates to this topic.
Like I said, the above was an expression of prejudice of a humanist psychology against a largely anti-humanist school of psychology, so take that for what it's worth. I'm almost definitely coming across too harsh and I'm really not like that in real life. I appreciate the different perspectives that they offer (I really like John Baron), although I'll say the same thing about Determinists, which many cog sci's in my experience have a lot of contempt for.
posted
fugu, I can't say for myself because I've never been there, but that impression was also conveyed by one of my mentors, Steve Heine, who's a big guy in Japanese-American studies. There was also a documentry that I'm trying to track down that showed the differences between American, Chinese, and Japanese primary school classrooms that also showed this. Of course, I also know about the Japanese high school system, though not in any great detail, and my own impression is that the high school system is a lot like you said. I'm not really sure, I think that Watanabe was talking about more about primary and collegiate education.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Farmgirl, That was actually one of my big problems with the topic sentence. It was like, you can't see my points if I don't parade them in front of you in pink and gold ribbon? I liked to develop the ideas from where they came from and have people follow the thought trail rather than do all the thinking and present the conclusions.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Four posts in a row. I'm pretty sure I've crossed the line from watering my little thread to help it grow into full out drowning it.)
ak, I'll tell, it feels really weird to write that way. One of the things that I really noticed was how I wasn't breaking cleanly betwen paragraphs. But, I actually think that helps. You can feel that you're doing it right when you're training is screaming at you that you're DOING A BAD THING.
One of the neater descriptions of storytelling that I've heard came from a short story in The Sandman : Book of Dreams collection. The author likened telling a story to making a baby, with the author providing the creative impetus and the reader taking it and forming it into the finished thing. I liked that.
If you look at discussion that way, I think our traditional method has more than a tinge of the sado-masochistic streak to it. There are clearly defined dominance-sumissive roles. For me, I always liked it to be more like a long, sweet session of intercourse. I don't want people to just have the option of agreeing or disagreeing with me. I'm always looking for the ideas that our unique pairing can create.
I worry that I'm going overboard with the sexual metaphor, but I'm going to psuh it jsut a little bit further. Just like with sex, I find that the way to really have a sharing type of communication is to have respect and trust for the other person and to give up strict control of the situation in favor of exploring the other person and the gestalt that you create. It's when you do that that you can really make something beautiful.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
After being around my toddlers all day, I am simply reveling in all these polysyllabic words.
No, don't stop. Please go on.
*mmmmmmm*
Although, in light of your sexual metaphor for communication of concepts, maybe I shouldn't be making yummy noises.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it largely depends on what you intend to achieve with your communication. Are you imparting an idea, or are you hoping to encourage people to explore that idea at the risk of not actually getting your point?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wonder how much of all this orientation is a product of our schooling system. The flip side of this question is how much of it is really necessary. Is it possible to educate by focusing on building from context up to the actual event or concept?
A Japanese historian, Masako Watanabe, does a pretty good job of answering this question in her cross-cultural studies of American and Japanese educational systems. She makes the point that the Japanese system does just that. The teachers start with a discussion of the relevant context and then guide the class in making inferences about the outcomes. She contrasts that with the American classroom, where the teacher first presents the concept to be learned and then presents the reasons justifying it.
I dunno. I don't think the description of American education here describes my teaching style, either now as a high school math teacher or years ago as a college English instructor. With math, I begin with what the kids already know, and ask leading questions, helping them to make the connections and get new knowledge themselves. (The danger here, though, is that if I run five or ten minutes behind, we don't get to the "punchline" and we get pushed back a whole day!) For instance, we just covered the quadratic formula [x = (-B ± √(B^2 - 4AC))/2A]. I did not begin class with this formula, or even really tell them that it existed. I asked them to apply the concept of completing the square to a polynomial equation Ax^2 + Bx + C = 0. Then I just stood back and kept them on the right track.
At the end of the period, when they realize they've discovered a formula they can apply to all quadratic equations (or whatever it is we're covering), they're inevitably indignant: "Why didn't you just teach us this formula first and save us all that work?!" It's gotten to the point that they predict the discovery of an easier or better way of doing things halfway through each period. It's pretty funny, actually!
When I taught literature, I would just ask a question like "Is Huckleberry Finn a racist novel, by today's standards?" and stand back.
I don't think I'm particularly unique in this regard. At least, all the pedagogical literature I read seems to be filled with the idea of learning through discovery. You can't discover anything when stuff is given away in the first minutes of class.
I'm always leery of studies that indicate that we just need to do something like some other country in order to get it right, because, just as teaching is not homogenous here, I doubt it is anywhere else either. Usually, in such articles, the better other country is just a thinly vieled bit of anecdotal evidence for whatever methods the author prefers. This has come up a lot lately in NCTM articles (related to math instruction), where they inevitably say that the US is the only country that focuses on rote memorization, and that is why we lag behind. People I know who actually went to school elsewhere inevitably say the opposite . . . the the US is alone is having abandoned the focus on rote, and that is why we lag behind. All anybody can agree on is that the US lags behind. It's Sputnik all over again. To me, it's all just a scare tactic. We're behind, and the reason is we're not doing X, while everybody else is. X, of course, being whatever I think should be done.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This may be really touchy-feely, and therefore annoying, but (correct if I'm wrong, teachers) I think that what makes students learn msest is creating an atmosphere where they're comfortable and where their synapses are zappin' along.
That's why I think the Socratic method (or, let me gag on the overused phrase, "voyage of discovery") works so well; I know the best times I've ever had in classes was when everybody was talking and thinking and connecting the dots as a group.
But I'm a rank amateur compared to you teachers here, and I don't have much to offer in this discussion. Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus, you teach your students almost the same way some of my teachers taught me. There's something satisfying in hearing a fellow student yell, "Why didn't you just teach us this in the first place?!"
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
