This issue has been on my mind for very long....it probably started more than ten years ago remotely, and have sharpened significantly over the past year...
i remembered dk once remarked to me, if a student needs a teacher in order to do well, the teacher has failed. ( or something to that effect).
i was duly offended. I was then the super teacher, who was the key factor to my students performance in math. Students tell me how much they need me especially when the exams got nearer etc etc etc....So, by dk's 'definition', i have failed. And i disagreed with his view strongly then.
one of my greatest strength, is, i value criticism, especially if it opens up perspectives entirely different from mine. And of cos, i value dk.
Those words remain in my mind for a long time, and i gradually see what he meant. Knowledge is objective. Thinking should be objective. And i now tell my students, if you can only do math because of me, then, i have failed.
========================================
What is cognition?
"Cognition is a term referring to the mental processes involved in gaining knowledge and comprehension, including thinking, knowing, remembering, judging and problem-solving."
Cant remember where i extracted this definition from, an internet source. I realised if i help students to develop their own mental processes, so that they can apply them independently and effectively, that is a greater job than being the 'reason' for their 'working hard', or their 'studying for me'. The first will abide. The second will not sustain, and i did see it...how kids who scored well, by sheer 'affective' and dependence on teachers, falter when put to the test later on....
i also saw how unreliable 'popularity' rating is. But that i saw from the very start. I therefore am uncomfortable when students 'like' me as a teacher because i am 'nice'. 'nice' is a description of a person, not a description of the effectiveness of the transfer of knowledge, values or experience.
Results of course is never reliable, and whilst data tells something, what the something is, need to be very carefully analysed. A set of data showing good results doesnt mean anything, as it depends on a lot of factors. Similarly, a set of data showing abysmal results point also to a whole range of factors. And many of the factors are the result of earlier causes, which the present has to take responsibility for.
i note that there are so many comments about the teaching profession, especially those touted on mass media, and all focus on heartstring pull....the affective aspect. I am not for one moment saying that is not important. It is very important.
But it is an over-sell, leading to teachers being 'pre-occupied' with 'problems' , activities, events....and focusing on affective issues...
yet i still feel, the primary reason for students to be in school, is to develop their mind, and if possible, elevated to a noble platform, and with their mind, and heart, serve the society. It is the mind, ultimately, that, weighs both sides of issues, and sets the direction.
I fear the constant emphasis of 'caring', 'nurturing' without a corresponding hard work to engage the thought processes will have its due backlash in 'education' as it is already seen, if one wants to see....
of course the counter argument is the emphasis on results which is the key to the next phase of pursuit is ample evidence that cognitive aspect is very much valued in the education system.
My reply is, is it? Results, at all cost, is valued. Not sure about thinking processes.
I thought the foreign experts in transportation issues gave us a good slap in the face at the SMRT Inquiry, proposing remediation steps that is, 'common-sensical'.
Common-sense is a thought process, which most people know, is not common, at least not in many local context. I wont add further.
Labels: Education, Teaching
