Fallen Angel

Teaching subjects from a historical perspective played a large part in this chapter, and I liked that.   I think that is a very important angle to bring into education.  Learning the history or development of a subject is a great way to see how its knowledge is important and how it is still flawed.  I tried to use this in history classes when I taught them.  It is a great way to show how different times and different people saw and see things differently.  I think it is important to point out the questions that those 'facts' are the answer too.  (More about that I think when we get to the Word Weaver chapter.)

There are a few news things that he adds here that I think we worth addressing.  The first is the idea about teachers swapping subjects.  While I think something can be learned from this-- mainly a better perspective-- I think it should be used sparingly if at all.  (Maybe teacher training and workshops can be developed that will cultivate that perspective.)  I think it is important for the sake of the students and their education to have teachers that are knowledgeable and experienced in the field they are teaching.  This does not mean that they teach as if they have all of the answers, but that they have confidence and experience.  Confidence because they know things and can answer questions and deal with issues that come up surrounding the material.  This doesn't mean that they have all of the 'answers' but that they have knowledge to steer the students in an interesting and fruitful direction.  Experience is experience in do just that: taking questions and concerns of the students and working with them and helping the students work through them. 

Another idea he introduces in this chapter is getting away from textbooks.  In terms of literature and writing, I am all in favor of this.  Literature should be taught from novels and collections of stories and poems.  Writing can be done from articles (often found on-line) and examples of good writing from real life.  I think it would be hard to teach sciences and even history without some sort of textbook.  Postman is right that the textbooks need to be more oriented around teaching the subject historically and have a lot of primary texts in them.  Of course not having textbooks makes putting together a class more of a burden on the teacher, but the trade off would be that the teacher would be able to focus on things that they are interested in.  (There might also be cost issues, but then again textbooks are so expensive...)  That should add to the class as a whole because the teacher can bring enthusiasm to the classroom that can be contagious.  So, as few textbooks as possible and make the ones that are necessary need to have a different tone and more primary texts. 

Critical thinking is key, I agree with him on that.  I agree that students becoming cynical is not a big risk if we shift to teaching with an emphasis on error and correction.  However, I do think students giving up and just not caring will be an issue.  If it isn't True and if it may change then why bother?  (I have had many students that don't see the point in learning anything because they can just look it up if they ever need it and are often convinced that they don't need to know anything.) So there should be some focus on what we have gained from these imperfect ideas and knowledge.    Along with an understanding that knowledge changes, they need to have a respect for established knowledge.  This respect doesn't come from the fact that the knowledge is perfect and unquestionable, but because it was found by hard work and because it is useful.  What wouldn't we have if we hadn't discovered this idea or knowledge?

I liked this chapter quite a bit.  Next up, American Experiment.