By Nathan Woods
Humans are not always good thinkers. We excel in discriminating against ‘others’, conforming to group pressures, blindly obeying authority figures, being arrogant, lazy, self-serving, and narrow-minded. We are often reckless in our pursuit of wealth, status, and power. We cling desperately to our existing beliefs and ideologies, exaggerate our own good intentions, and see evil in those who disagree with us. However, we are also a species with the potential and the moral responsibility to take control of our thinking – to examine it and improve it. We can harness our intellectual capacity to create a better world, to cooperate, and to prevent suffering. We can endeavour to be fair-minded, wise, and rational. In this article I will explain what I think critical thinking is and why it should be at the heart of education policy in New Zealand and around the world. Continue reading
By Nathan Woods This statement, written by a NZ high school principal, and published by the NZ Ministry of Education on an education leaders website (link) reflects a set of ideas about education that are prevalent in our society today. Here’s the statement:
“The new curriculum is intended to be a curriculum to take us into the 21st century. Part of the rationale of emphasising key competencies over a knowledge based curriculum is the notion that knowledge is increasing at an exponential rate and it cannot all be absorbed, but modern information storage and retrieval systems makes this knowledge easily accessible to all. There is now less of a need to learn key information and more of a requirement to learn how to access information, to process it, think about it critically, use it in new ways and be open minded about receiving new ideas and information.” Continue reading
By BRENT SILBY
Robinson argues that schools are primarily concerned with conformity and that this has a negative impact on creativity. He suggests that by grouping students by age, delivering a standard curriculum, and testing them against standardized criteria, schools are essentially diminishing the individuality and creativity of students. In his Do Schools Kill Creativity TED Talk, Robinson states that:
“…all kids have tremendous talents. And we squander them, pretty ruthlessly.” He goes on to suggest that “creativity is now as important as literacy, and we should treat it with the same status”. (Robinson 2006).
Robinson seems to be implying that schools currently place little value on creativity. He is also creating a distinction between literacy and creativity, suggesting that somehow schools value one but not the other. But literacy and creativity go hand-in-hand. A highly literate person can become hugely creative in the production of written works. It is not the case that schools favor literacy over creativity. Schools encourage both. Furthermore, in other areas of creativity, schools excel. During their life in school, students are exposed to an immense array of creative endeavors from music to visual art; from fiction to game design. It is simply false that schools place little value on creativity. Robinson, himself, is a product of what he might call “traditional schooling”, and he is clearly creative. Arguably the most creative people on the planet are the products of traditional schooling. Given the fact that there is so much creativity in society, it seems to be misleading to make the bold claim that “schools educate the creativity out of kids”. Continue reading
By Richard McCance
Most teachers around the world now are probably well aware of the threats from what Pasi Sahlberg has labeled “the GERM” (Finnish Lessons, 2012). However, while some of these threats are blatantly designed to shock the system and impose a new paradigm onto existing structures, others are more subtle and covert. High stakes accountability measures and the privatisation of public education are two obvious examples of the former. One of the more nuanced and often overlooked threats comes in the form of the language used to redefine or reshape the educational system towards particular goals or outcomes.
By Graham Mundy
The intention of this paper is to suggest that New Zealand has no philosophy of education, and that the many problems permeating our education system are a consequence of this. A selection of some of these problems will be outlined, and will be shown to have arisen from a lack of underlying principles which, had they existed, would have provided both epistemological and ethical touchstones, which in turn would have exposed these inadequacies.
By Nathan Woods
This review illustrates a need for research on how teachers in New Zealand have interpreted the Key Competency ‘thinking’ and how they have attempted to embed critical thinking as a Key Competency into English courses. The review is divided into four sections. Section one, What are the Key Competencies, outlines broader issues related to the implementation of a competencies-based curriculum in New Zealand, relating these broader issues specifically to the Key Competency ‘thinking’. Section two, What is Critical Thinking, reviews the literature on critical thinking, paying close attention to how critical thinking has been defined, and how this definition reflects the idea that critical thinking is a competency that draws on skills, dispositions, knowledge, values and attitudes. Section three, What is English, briefly outlines the key features of the English learning area, as stipulated by the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007). Finally, section four, Critical Thinking in English, provides a brief review of literature showing how critical thinking can be embedded in English courses. Key themes arising from the review are: (1) critical thinking can be expressed differently in different subject domains; (2) subject-specific content knowledge plays a key role in critical thinking; and (3) schools and teachers may overlook the subject-specific nature of critical thinking when they interpret the Key Competencies.
By Nathan Woods
Thinking taxonomies establish a hierarchy of thinking; ‘simple’ or ‘less -sophisticated’ thinking skills, such as describing, noticing, or remembering, are seen as inferior to ‘higher order’ thinking skills like analysis and evaluation. However, these taxonomies over-simplify and misrepresent thinking.