ehMac.ca

ehMac.ca (http://www.ehmac.ca/index.php)
-   Everything Else, eh! (http://www.ehmac.ca/forumdisplay.php?f=8)
-   -   The Education Thread (http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=149537)

Freddie_Biff Sep 24th, 2017 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macfury (Post 2549009)
I'm seeing media reports in the UK softening up on pedophelia. For example, a strict division between pedophiles who simply get off on watching children being molested, or on depictions of children being molested. The argument goes that they're avoiding attacks on children by accessing child pornography--so lets go easy on child pornography. Then the notion that perhaps pedophilia harms some people, but not all people. That many children grow up to find it was a positive experience for them.



The first line of infiltration is media attempting to normalize the behaviour, so that pedophiles are not absolutely bad, pedophilia is not absolutely wrong and the experiences of children who are molested are not 100% negative. When media looks for authority in matter such as this, it's usually an academic or psychiatrist.



What makes you think there are not pedophiles who lean to the right? I'd start with Trump himself and his fists to the dressing rooms of teenage girls in the Miss Universes pageants.

Freddie_Biff Sep 25th, 2017 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rps (Post 2549025)
I have read about that as well, but I believe the notion is child pornography lessens the chance of actual child abuse by some of the population......personally I believe pornography is the “ gateway drug”, but back to your reply which was on dogma, and you nicely avoided. Does dogma inform or influence a society or does the society influence and inform dogma. As I indicated above, dogma presumes an authority that presents a view as a truth, your example hardly would count as an item held by authority, or as a truth.......it might be an outlier opinion though......look at climate change, is it a true truth or a dogma truth?



In education, we deal with both. The curricula is determined by the government...so when a politicalised subject matter is to be taught, is it dogma or a truth? My answer to that is based on two things, time and social change. Again I hate to bring up our old friend Louis Riel but, at my age, he fits.


Louis Riel is a classic example of how history is written by the victors. Another pertains to who won. The battle of the Plains of Abraham. The answer largely depends on whether you sympathize with the French or the English. If one teaches history with any sort of objectivity, there are many on the right who will accuse the teacher of being leftist.

Macfury Sep 25th, 2017 01:52 AM

Your comment is so far off the mark, it's clear you either failed to read the original post or simply don't understand it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freddie_Biff (Post 2549089)
What makes you think there are not pedophiles who lean to the right? I'd start with Trump himself and his fists to the dressing rooms of teenage girls in the Miss Universes pageants.


Macfury Sep 25th, 2017 01:54 AM

What does England vs. France have to do with left or righ? Might be better if you take a long nap before returning to the forum,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freddie_Biff (Post 2549097)
Louis Riel is a classic example of how history is written by the victors. Another pertains to who won. The battle of the Plains of Abraham. The answer largely depends on whether you sympathize with the French or the English. If one teaches history with any sort of objectivity, there are many on the right who will accuse the teacher of being leftist.


Freddie_Biff Sep 25th, 2017 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macfury (Post 2549121)
What does England vs. France have to do with left or righ? Might be better if you take a long nap before returning to the forum,



When did I claim this post was about left vs. right? It is about history and victors and who gets to say what happened. Clearly you misunderstood the original post.

Macfury Sep 25th, 2017 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freddie_Biff (Post 2549129)
When did I claim this post was about left vs. right? It is about history and victors and who gets to say what happened. Clearly you misunderstood the original post.

The fact that you finished the post with:

Quote:

If one teaches history with any sort of objectivity, there are many on the right who will accuse the teacher of being leftist.

Freddie_Biff Sep 25th, 2017 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macfury (Post 2549185)
The fact that you finished the post with:



That's a different post, but for the sake of argument, was it not you who's been claiming a leftist slant in the school system?

Macfury Sep 25th, 2017 10:19 AM

It's the same post.

A leftist slant would not claim that the French won the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. They' be pissing and moaning that the British victory was somehow unfair or unearned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freddie_Biff (Post 2549217)
That's a different post, but for the sake of argument, was it not you who's been claiming a leftist slant in the school system?


FeXL Sep 25th, 2017 11:49 AM

I proved what? That if someone says enough stupid things he'll get a response from the target market?

CONGRATULATIONS!!! You win. Your mother would be proud.

Quote:

Originally Posted by screature (Post 2548985)
You just proved my point.

If you had a shred of decency in the first place you would have written off the entire right as a bunch of uncharitable louts in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by screature (Post 2548985)
It was my stated opinion at the time and as expected you added ad an hominem attack. 'Nough said. I could say more but decency dictates that I don't.


FeXL Sep 25th, 2017 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rps (Post 2549025)
...look at climate change, is it a true truth or a dogma truth?

What part of it?

FeXL Sep 25th, 2017 12:32 PM

There's been a lot of talk about opinions on the boards lately. I'd like to wade into the fray with my opinion on opinions.

First off, I recognize two types of opinions: Informed & uninformed.

Second, I recognize the right of anybody to be able to offer an opinion, no matter how daft.

Third, I have no issues with a differing opinion, as long as it can be defended.

However, that's where I draw the line. Trite statements like, "Rachel's smart! She's 50" are stupid but basically harmless. Statements like, "People on the right, in general, seem to just want to help themselves" are not only hurtful to the right en masse but are born of true ignorance of the topic.

Both of the above I would place in the uninformed category, unqualified opinions and both can be easily dealt with. Neither of them are defendable, neither carry any weight and neither will add to one's credibility. In the eyes of many, repeating such uninformed opinions reduce one's credibility.

Statements like, "Merkle's popularity has dropped 25% since the last election" is an example of an informed, a qualified opinion.

It can be easily defended by comparing the number of votes between the two elections. It carries weight because of its factual basis & the continued use thereof will increase one's credibility.

Why do I bring up credibility?

One of the few currencies on these boards (any boards?) realistically worth anything is credibility. You defend (or at least attempt to defend) your position, your opinion, with facts, you've earned a certain amount of credibility and along with it, a certain amount of respect.

You can't/don't/won't, you have none of either.

screature Sep 25th, 2017 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rps (Post 2548945)
Yes, but it is interesting about the reply on dogma, it has all the current political trappings. First take an emotionally charged topic, frame it as if a movement is supporting a contention, then place it in a distant area that by doing so somehow is a threat to “us”, all using unnamed sources as having the power to elicit an undesirable social change.....if this were the American Political Thread I would say it was right out of Trump’s playbook.

I see what you are getting at, unfortunately all things become political depending on who is speaking. Somethings can just be about practicality, general knowledge and introducing young people to the vast array of ideas are out there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rps (Post 2548945)
But back to the root ...the contention that a left driven authority is using its dogma to influence curricula......so the driver, which was not really answered, does dogma drive society or does society drive dogma remains a fair point to debate, all trolling aside. This “Hidden Curriculum” can not be cast aside....but is it generational or constantly evolving? That said, what play does social media have on our view of education?

Now that is a truly interesting question! I think it is somewhat like yin and yang. It can be good and it can be bad it is all a matter of how it is used and understood. Obviously there is a lot more to it than that, but it is a starting point.

screature Sep 25th, 2017 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FeXL (Post 2549289)
There's been a lot of talk about opinions on the boards lately. I'd like to wade into the fray with my opinion on opinions.

First off, I recognize two types of opinions: Informed & uninformed.

Second, I recognize the right of anybody to be able to offer an opinion, no matter how daft.

Third, I have no issues with a differing opinion, as long as it can be defended.

However, that's where I draw the line. Trite statements like, "Rachel's smart! She's 50" are stupid but basically harmless. Statements like, "People on the right, in general, seem to just want to help themselves" are not only hurtful to the right en masse but are born of true ignorance of the topic.

Both of the above I would place in the uninformed category, unqualified opinions and both can be easily dealt with. Neither of them are defendable, neither carry any weight and neither will add to one's credibility. In the eyes of many, repeating such uninformed opinions reduce one's credibility.

Statements like, "Merkle's popularity has dropped 25% since the last election" is an example of an informed, a qualified opinion.

It can be easily defended by comparing the number of votes between the two elections. It carries weight because of its factual basis & the continued use thereof will increase one's credibility.

Why do I bring up credibility?

One of the few currencies on these boards (any boards?) realistically worth anything is credibility. You defend (or at least attempt to defend) your position, your opinion, with facts, you've earned a certain amount of credibility and along with it, a certain amount of respect.

You can't/don't/won't, you have none of either.

Who exactly are you talking to and who made you the judge, jury and executioner?

FeXL Sep 25th, 2017 04:20 PM

Everybody & nobody.

Quote:

Originally Posted by screature (Post 2549417)
Who exactly are you talking to...

Who made you the judge, jury and executioner of the right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by screature (Post 2549417)
...who made you the judge, jury and executioner?


screature Sep 25th, 2017 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FeXL (Post 2549489)
Everybody & nobody.



Who made you the judge, jury and executioner of the right?

Lest you forget, I support whoever seems reasonable to me. Last time it was someone on the right. But now I am critical of their policies. See politics to me is not like having a favorite team in whatever your sport of preference is, it is a lot more complicated than that.

I am not a Conservative, Liberal, NDP, PQ or another anachronism or ism you may choose. I am who I am and do not and will not be defined upon who I vote for in a given election or by the ideas that I hold, because they cross many boundaries. I define myself, no one else does, they may have their opinions, but they are just that, opinions.

Capiche?

Freddie_Biff Sep 25th, 2017 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by screature (Post 2549521)
Lest you forget, I support whoever seems reasonable to me. Last time it was someone on the right. But now I am critical of their policies. See politics to me is not like having a favorite team in whatever your sport of preference is, it is a lot more complicated than that.



I am not a Conservative, Liberal, NDP, PQ or another anachronism or ism you may choose. I am who I am and do not and will not be defined upon who I vote for in a given election or by the ideas that I hold, because they cross many boundaries. I define myself, no one else does, they may have their opinions, but they are just that, opinions.



Capiche?



Well said, Steve. The desire to pigeonhole people by something they said months or years ago is really quite silly. It is also possible to entertain multiple points of view at the same time.

Rps Sep 25th, 2017 05:33 PM

Hi Steve, the issue I see with social media is might is right, which is not the same as truth. I see this all the time and it is sad really.

Freddie_Biff Sep 25th, 2017 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rps (Post 2549609)
Hi Steve, the issue I see with social media is might is right, which is not the same as truth. I see this all the time and it is sad really.


Like reality game shows, singing contests, and elections, popularity seems to dictate what's "the truth" too often today. If enough people declare something to be the truth, why then it must be the truth. Burn Dixie Chicks records for suggesting they were ashamed of Pres. Bush for starting a war using WMD's as a justification. You almost see the same thing happening today with North Korea. If enough people believe it, it must be true!

Rps Sep 25th, 2017 06:42 PM

However Frank, we do know that North Korea is after an atomic arsenal....which was different than Iraq’s WMD.....which were never found. Getting back to curricula.....climate change would be a more current and valid issue in this case. Twitter, Instagram, FB all work up postings and doctored photographs...both pro and con....certainly will impact a student’s view and possibly be at variance to the instructor. Ranters chew up bandwidth and if they resonate gain followers which increase the likelihood that those rants become accepted as truth.....

eMacMan Sep 25th, 2017 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rps (Post 2549665)
However Frank, we do know that North Korea is after an atomic arsenal....which was different than Iraq’s WMD.....which were never found. Getting back to curricula.....climate change would be a more current and valid issue in this case. Twitter, Instagram, FB all work up postings and doctored photographs...both pro and con....certainly will impact a student’s view and possibly be at variance to the instructor. Ranters chew up bandwidth and if they resonate gain followers which increase the likelihood that those rants become accepted as truth.....

Still if you look at the history in the area and recent US actions in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen then North Korea could well believe their only hope of survival is to acquire nuclear weapons and be prepared to use them.

We like to forget the terrible destruction that North (and South) Korea suffered during the Korean war. We ignore that the Korean cease fire has held for over 60 years. We also forget the news about North Korea comes from the very same sources that lied through their teeth about Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Bengazi.

Freddie_Biff Sep 25th, 2017 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rps (Post 2549665)
However Frank, we do know that North Korea is after an atomic arsenal....which was different than Iraq’s WMD.....which were never found. Getting back to curricula.....climate change would be a more current and valid issue in this case. Twitter, Instagram, FB all work up postings and doctored photographs...both pro and con....certainly will impact a student’s view and possibly be at variance to the instructor. Ranters chew up bandwidth and if they resonate gain followers which increase the likelihood that those rants become accepted as truth.....



Good examples. And with the hue and cry on both sides of the political spectrum about "fake news" today, including on this forum, it's difficult to know whom to trust anymore. We believe what we want to believe, or as Macfury calls it, confirmation bias. That is one thing I will agree with him about.

Dr.G. Sep 25th, 2017 07:44 PM

"I define myself, no one else does, they may have their opinions, but they are just that, opinions." An excellent point, Steve. Paix, mon ami.

Dr.G. Sep 25th, 2017 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freddie_Biff (Post 2549577)
Well said, Steve. The desire to pigeonhole people by something they said months or years ago is really quite silly. It is also possible to entertain multiple points of view at the same time.

A valid point, Rp. Personally, I am very liberal/progressive on most social issues, but have sided with fiscal conservatives on issues that I feel waste taxpayer's money.

FeXL Sep 25th, 2017 08:00 PM

Jeezuz... (for the third time)

This is what I'm talking about:

Quote:

Originally Posted by screature (Post 2545937)
People on the right, in general, seem to just want to help themselves.

Now, same question: Who made you the judge, jury and executioner of the right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by screature (Post 2549521)
Lest you forget...blah, blah-blah, blah, blah-blah-blah


FeXL Sep 25th, 2017 08:01 PM

It's actually pretty easy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freddie_Biff (Post 2549689)
...it's difficult to know whom to trust anymore.


CubaMark Sep 25th, 2017 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.G. (Post 2549713)
A valid point, Rp. Personally, I am very liberal/progressive on most social issues, but have sided with fiscal conservatives on issues that I feel waste taxpayer's money.

With all due respect, it may be commonplace to do so, but this accusation of the Left as a bunch of free-wheeling spenders on whatever strikes their fancy is a complete fallacy. Conservative governments have been just as guilty of throwing bad money after good when the purpose suits them. The insane —and long ago discredited— ideology that cutting taxes - economic growth is a fine example. Cutting taxes in Canada has only resulted in higher profits and return to shareholders, as the economic growth that should conceivably result from freed-up cash for investment is, oddly enough, rarely invested. Left governments also are concerned for the value of taxpayer's money - and you can point to NDP balanced / surplus budgets as evidence as well as you can certain Conservative and Liberal budgets.

Interestingly, Conservative and some Liberal governments tend to immediately generate surpluses by cutting taxes while also cutting government spending on social programmes, education, health and infrastructure. But after a few years, this comes back to bite them in the ass as under-investment in human beings is not a rapidly elastic economic indicator. Left governments are often elected following economic disaster (see Nova Scotia's NDP election in 2009, following two PC governments) which they then were forced to address by following many of the Right-wing economic playbook (cutting gov't spending and some social services) in order to get the books back in some kind of order. That NDP government made a lot of boneheaded moves ("governed like Liberals" was the frequent comment), though it did make certain advances in the highly important health sector.

The problem with our democracy - most of them, one could generalize - is that voters have very short memories. The NDP screwed the pooch, and the Liberals promised the moon (the current Liberal government being among the most hated in NS history). This see-saw of disaster does nothing to move our province forward.

Dr.G. Sep 25th, 2017 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CubaMark (Post 2549769)
With all due respect, it may be commonplace to do so, but this accusation of the Left as a bunch of free-wheeling spenders on whatever strikes their fancy is a complete fallacy. Conservative governments have been just as guilty of throwing bad money after good when the purpose suits them. The insane —and long ago discredited— ideology that cutting taxes - economic growth is a fine example. Cutting taxes in Canada has only resulted in higher profits and return to shareholders, as the economic growth that should conceivably result from freed-up cash for investment is, oddly enough, rarely invested. Left governments also are concerned for the value of taxpayer's money - and you can point to NDP balanced / surplus budgets as evidence as well as you can certain Conservative and Liberal budgets.

Interestingly, Conservative and some Liberal governments tend to immediately generate surpluses by cutting taxes while also cutting government spending on social programmes, education, health and infrastructure. But after a few years, this comes back to bite them in the ass as under-investment in human beings is not a rapidly elastic economic indicator. Left governments are often elected following economic disaster (see Nova Scotia's NDP election in 2009, following two PC governments) which they then were forced to address by following many of the Right-wing economic playbook (cutting gov't spending and some social services) in order to get the books back in some kind of order. That NDP government made a lot of boneheaded moves ("governed like Liberals" was the frequent comment), though it did make certain advances in the highly important health sector.

The problem with our democracy - most of them, one could generalize - is that voters have very short memories. The NDP screwed the pooch, and the Liberals promised the moon (the current Liberal government being among the most hated in NS history). This see-saw of disaster does nothing to move our province forward.

Mark, I never said that the Left were "free spenders". I am opposed to spending that is needless, such as more and more and more weapons and hardware, when it could be spent on people who are in need.

screature Sep 27th, 2017 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rps (Post 2549609)
Hi Steve, the issue I see with social media is might is right, which is not the same as truth. I see this all the time and it is sad really.

Well there definitely is that, but sometimes it back fires when the "might" is supporting a fraudulent or "wrong/misguided cause". But then again it is just those online who decide, it is not democracy.

I think this is the big myth about the the internet, somehow it it democratic because anyone can say anything at any time. That is just a rabble of people spouting whatever crosses their minds. Democracy is a bout a system whereby the citizens of a given state can freely vote for who they chose to be their representative.

However the internet can be educational, if before people spout off and they do a little and maybe a lot of research online and dare I say go to the library to do some further research it can be a beneficial source of "information". Educationally the internet is what it is and as a free entity should always be so. It is up to individuals to do further research and filtering, beyond that I do not know what else there is to do other than enter into the dark realm of a controlled internet, which scares the hell out of me.

Rps Sep 27th, 2017 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by screature (Post 2550377)
Well there definitely is that, but sometimes it back fires when the "might" is supporting a fraudulent or "wrong/misguided cause". But then again it is just those online who decide, it is not democracy.

I think this is the big myth about the the internet, somehow it it democratic because anyone can say anything at any time. That is just a rabble of people spouting whatever crosses their minds. Democracy is a bout a system whereby the citizens of a given state can freely vote for who they chose to be their representative.

However the internet can be educational, if before people spout off and they do a little and maybe a lot of research online and dare I say go to the library to do some further research it can be a beneficial source of "information". Educationally the internet is what it is and as a free entity should always be so. It is up to individuals to do further research and filtering, beyond that I do not know what else there is to do other than enter into the dark realm of a controlled internet, which scares the hell out of me.

The trouble is where does one get honest unbiased information? I think the day will come that the internet will be controlled somehow.

Freddie_Biff Sep 27th, 2017 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rps (Post 2550385)
The trouble is where does one get honest unbiased information? I think the day will come that the internet will be controlled somehow.



I think the source of honest unbiased information needs to be agreed upon. The local news channels have always seemed unbiased to me, while someone with an alt-right perspective, like Ezra Levant, would call it left-wing prog brainwashing. Of course he would, just as I have a hard time taking his "news sources" seriously. Finding a source that all can regard as truly unbiased may pose a problem.

Rps Sep 27th, 2017 03:52 PM

Hi Frank, Steve’s point, if I may, on the internet is interesting.....especially since history is constantly changing. Getting back to curricula and education...biased sources camouflaged as fair and balanced may pose a problem for designers and instructors if what is being delivered is at variance to the common belief either supported or slanted by social or other media. It’s been 20years and people still believe that the 9-11 perpetrators were let into the U.S. via Canada...thus we were responsible. When in fact most came directly to the U.S. from Saudi Arabia. To me, subjects which are media ripe such as history, civics, geography, language, culture would be prone to this dichotomy of facts.

Freddie_Biff Sep 27th, 2017 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rps (Post 2550489)
Hi Frank, Steve’s point, if I may, on the internet is interesting.....especially since history is constantly changing. Getting back to curricula and education...biased sources camouflaged as fair and balanced may pose a problem for designers and instructors if what is being delivered is at variance to the common belief either supported or slanted by social or other media. It’s been 20years and people still believe that the 9-11 perpetrators were let into the U.S. via Canada...thus we were responsible. When in fact most came directly to the U.S. from Saudi Arabia. To me, subjects which are media ripe such as history, civics, geography, language, culture would be prone to this dichotomy of facts.



And if you had polled the average American in the summer of 2003, there was no question that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (and the Dixie Chicks should be boycotted). What I couldn't understand is if Iraq had WMD's, why on earth didn't they use them to defend themselves?

What I learned from that 24 hour a day news coverage was that the truth could really be whatever you wanted it to be. There is no actual cold hard objectivity.

eMacMan Sep 28th, 2017 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rps (Post 2550489)
Hi Frank, Steve’s point, if I may, on the internet is interesting.....especially since history is constantly changing. Getting back to curricula and education...biased sources camouflaged as fair and balanced may pose a problem for designers and instructors if what is being delivered is at variance to the common belief either supported or slanted by social or other media. It’s been 20years and people still believe that the 9-11 perpetrators were let into the U.S. via Canada...thus we were responsible. When in fact most came directly to the U.S. from Saudi Arabia. To me, subjects which are media ripe such as history, civics, geography, language, culture would be prone to this dichotomy of facts.

Only if you can ignore the blatantly obvious clues that 9-11 was an inside job. If you fail to achieve that level of ignorance then those Wahabi Saudis become conveniently dead patsies and a gentleman named Silverman, along with Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz suddenly look like prime candidates for lethal injections.

Worse than that it becomes glaringly obvious that millions in the Middle East have been killed, maimed and/or made homeless to satisfy the greed of the MIC.

IOW education should never be about getting the student to parrot the official view but rather trying to reason things out and sort fantasy from fiction.

Rps Sep 28th, 2017 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eMacMan (Post 2550705)
Only if you can ignore the blatantly obvious clues that 9-11 was an inside job. If you fail to achieve that level of ignorance then those Wahabi Saudis become conveniently dead patsies and a gentleman named Silverman, along with Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz suddenly look like prime candidates for lethal injections.

Worse than that it becomes glaringly obvious that millions in the Middle East have been killed, maimed and/or made homeless to satisfy the greed of the MIC.

IOW education should never be about getting the student to parrot the official view but rather trying to reason things out and sort fantasy from fiction.

And thus the root of the problem......

screature Sep 28th, 2017 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rps (Post 2550385)
The trouble is where does one get honest unbiased information?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rps (Post 2550385)
I think the day will come that the internet will be controlled somehow.

Agreed. It is impossible. It is all anecdotal or fabricated or sometimes the actual truth. The problem is in filtering out what "makes sense" and what doesn't and then that is only based on the biases of the researcher. It is the snake eating its tail. The victors and conspirators write the history books. When it comes to the history of the actions of mankind all we have is what we have been told and not told that maybe lurks in the shadows. Everyone has their own opinion based on the "facts" that they believe to be the facts and then there are the conspiracy theorists who believe what they think lurks in the shadows.

That is what makes it such great fun!!! ;)

Then we will truly be living in an Orwellian world. Like I said, it scares the hell out of me.

screature Sep 28th, 2017 02:52 PM

Mr. Pitt
 
I have written about this in other threads but it is very pertinent to this thread especially.

When I was in grade 8 I had a "religion" teacher named Mr. Pitt. He was one of the kindest and wisest men I have ever known until this day.

He taught his students what is to me one of the most important lessons you can learn at a very early age and made it into a game so that you would remember and I still do.

He wrote a "saying" on the chalkboard that we all had to write down, then we had two days (Religion class was only twice a week) to practice saying it out loud as fast we could with every would still being intelligible.

Everyone had to participate and go to the front to the class to say it as fast as they could while he ran a stop watch, so everyone wanted to win. But the winning of being the fastest was not the point. The point was that in performing the exercise of saying it over and over again out loud, it would stick with you even if you didn't understand it at the time, which was the case with me and I am sure with many of his other students.

The saying goes like this this:

When I hear I forget,
When I see I remember,
But when I begin to think, act and experience,
Then I understand.

42 years later and I still remember because of his great pedagogical technique and the wisdom that the saying contained. It conveys so much more about the condition of living on this planet as a human being than the simple, humble words say alone.

To me this is an example of great teaching and what should be at the heart of education.

Rps Sep 28th, 2017 03:04 PM

Steve, yes it is a great lesson...thanx for sharing!

Dr.G. Sep 28th, 2017 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by screature (Post 2550977)
I have written about this in other threads but it is very pertinent to this thread especially.

When I was in grade 8 I had a "religion" teacher named Mr. Pitt. He was one of the kindest and wisest men I have ever known until this day.

He taught his students what is to me one of the most important lessons you can learn at a very early age and made it into a game so that you would remember and I still do.

He wrote a "saying" on the chalkboard that we all had to write down, then we had two days (Religion class was only twice a week) to practice saying it out loud as fast we could with every would still being intelligible.

Everyone had to participate and go to the front to the class to say it as fast as they could while he ran a stop watch, so everyone wanted to win. But the winning of being the fastest was not the point. The point was that in performing the exercise of saying it over and over again out loud, it would stick with you even if you didn't understand it at the time, which was the case with me and I am sure with many of his other students.

The saying goes like this this:

When I hear I forget,
When I see I remember,
But when I begin to think, act and experience,
Then I understand.

42 years later and I still remember because of his great pedagogical technique and the wisdom that the saying contained. It conveys so much more about the condition of living on this planet as a human being than the simple, humble words say alone.

To me this is an example of great teaching and what should be at the heart of education.

Sounds like he was a fine teacher, Steve. :clap::clap:

screature Sep 28th, 2017 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rps (Post 2550993)
Steve, yes it is a great lesson...thanx for sharing!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.G. (Post 2551121)
Sounds like he was a fine teacher, Steve. :clap::clap:

Sadly he died two years later from a massive heart attack on the 3rd floor of the High School with teachers and students watching. I thank god I was not there to see it, it broke my heart enough as it was.

The lesson for teaching is this, do not give students information alone. Give them something to think about, even at a young age, the younger the better.

Dr.G. Sep 28th, 2017 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by screature (Post 2551169)
Sadly he died two years later from a massive heart attack on the 3rd floor of the High School with teachers and students watching. I thank god I was not there to see it, it broke my heart enough as it was.

The lesson for teaching is this, do not give students information alone. Give them something to think about, even at a young age, the younger the better.

Sad to hear of his death, Steve.

Still, what you said about "the lesson for teaching" is very true. Paix, mon ami.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © 1999 - 2012, ehMac.ca All rights reserved. ehMac is not affiliated with Apple Inc. Mac, iPod, iTunes, iPhone, Apple TV are trademarks of Apple Inc.