Toward Good Thinking On Essential Questions(值得我们思考的一篇文章)
2013-05-29 07:29
543 查看
Toward Good Thinking On Essential Questions
By HOWARD GARDNER
A s one concerned with precollege education, I'm gratified by the attention paid to this topic over the last two decades. At the same time I have to signal my uneasiness that so much of the discussion centers on means: should we have charters, vouchers,
teachers' unions, national tests etc. I think it is essential that we step back, at least periodically, and ask about the ends or aims of education.
My own answer can be stated succinctly. A dozen or more years of education should yield students who can think well about the essential questions of human life: who are we, where do we come from, what's the world made of, what have humans achieved and what
can we achieve, how does one lead a good life? Many people, institutions and experiences can contribute to formulating these questions and the answers. The distinct contribution of formal education is to equip students with the ways of thinking, the scholarly
disciplines, that have been constructed over the years to allow individuals to think well and deeply about these questions and some viable answers.
In speaking of disciplines, I have something specific in mind. Disciplines did not always exist; they are human-created methods and structures for approaching long-standing puzzles. Historians evaluate documents and testimony to reconstruct plausible accounts
of past events. Scientists generate hypotheses about how the world works, collect data relevant to those hypotheses, analyze the data objectively and then revise or endorse the original hypotheses or theories. The arts are also disciplines: they involve clear
procedures for production (how does one write a fugue, stage a ballet, render a portrait) and for interpreting the productions of others. For those inclined to dismiss the disciplines, imagine a world without such mental furniture.
By a convenient pun, the attainment of disciplines requires discipline. This is because our natural, common-sense ways of making sense of the world are non- or even anti-disciplinary. Only through years of asking questions and following well-honed strategies
can we replace common-sense accounts (e.g., human beings have always existed, the best portraits are photographs) with more nuanced and grounded disciplinary accounts.
The disciplines are arguably the most important human inventions of the last two millenniums. Yet their importance tends to be obscured, especially in the rhetoric-filled discourse of education. Instead, we hear a lot about facts, skills, tests and subject
matter. None of these terms should be dismissed, but they attain fresh significance when they are considered in a disciplinary context.
First, skills. I know no one who opposes the acquisition of basic skills: reading, writing, calculation. One cannot even enter the disciplinary worlds unless one has mastered the three R's. Basic skills are the means for acquiring the disciplines, just as
the disciplines (and ultimately interdisciplinary amalgams) provide the means for thinking well about important issues.
Next, facts. You cannot think well about a topic or question unless you have information, data, facts. However, that information should be acquired not for its own sake but as a means of finding a better answer to a consequential question. Facts can only
be well used if they relate to one another in a meaningful way: otherwise, to use Alfred North Whitehead's term, they are simply "inert knowledge." Facts need the connective tissue of disciplines, or they are undisciplined, rote information.
Subject matter is typically collapsed with disciplines, but it is important to honor a distinction. One can have lots of facts in a subject without having any disciplinary understanding. Too often a person is considered a master because she or he has taken
a certain number of courses, often called Carnegie units. A person understands to the extent that he or she can apply knowledge appropriately in a new situation. Only an individual in possession of disciplinary moves can do this.
Which brings us to tests, or assessments. There may be some who oppose assessments, but I am not in their ranks. Not in the least! At the same time, I reject as inadequate most of the short-answer instruments currently being adopted at the state level. These
instruments may probe factual or subject-matter knowledge, but they typically fall short of probing disciplinary mastery and understanding. In life no one presents us with four choices, the last of which reads "none of the above."
I favor instruments that actually determine whether a person can think in a disciplined way. So rather than ask students to name nine Civil War battles, I would ask them to assess two historical accounts based on the same primary documents (or create their
own). Rather than asking students to recall a chemical formula, I would provide them with data from an experiment and ask them to extract the regularities (and perhaps indicate which other data need to be collected next). Rather than asking students to memorize
authors or lines from a poem, I would ask them to edit or complete an unfinished poem.
Every educational philosophy reflects a certain knowledge base and a certain value system. My educational regimen builds on findings from cognitive science. These findings indicate that, when young, individuals develop intuitive theories that are very powerful
and difficult to eradicate. While some are on the mark, most are remote from the disciplines. Only a concerted effort over years to establish disciplinary ways of thinking can eradicate or educate the unschooled mind. My own belief is that this goal is best
achieved by focusing in depth on certain important topics; not only does one come to understand those topics well, but in the process one gains incipient mastery for what it is like to use the methods of a discipline.
This incipient mastery can be built upon for the rest of one's life. I am idealistic enough to believe that once individuals have genuinely understood a theory like evolution, a historical period like the Holocaust, a work of art like "The Marriage of Figaro,"
they will insist on commensurate understanding of other topics in the future.
Pursuing this line of reasoning, I find myself out of sympathy with a preordained canon. One can acquire disciplinary ways of thinking from a variety of topics, and it simply does not matter that much which ones happen to be used. It is more important, in
my view, to use examples that are valued by the community and that come alive for students than to insist that everyone read the same play or master the same theorem or learn the same topics in science. I don't care that much if one can name the planets; one
can always request that information from a Palm Pilot. I care mightily that half of the American population (and perhaps some of our recent Presidents) can't distinguish astronomical from astrological ways of thinking and that two-thirds of Americans don't
see the disciplinary difference between evolutionary and creationist accounts of the origins of human beings.
In putting forth these views, I find myself at odds with much of the program put forth by E.D. Hirsch Jr. Perhaps it is possible to reconcile our work to some extent -- for example, by emphasizing his "Core Knowledge" in early grades and my disciplinary
focus for the later grades. I have admiration for his democratic vision, his belief in public education and his sponsoring of programs in our schools. Still I think it is valuable to put forth these quite different educational visions: one focusing on questions
and on ways of thinking, the other on factual answers and on shared knowledge. The value is in part epistemological, different views of the mind's use; in part cultural, different views of an educated society.
By HOWARD GARDNER
A s one concerned with precollege education, I'm gratified by the attention paid to this topic over the last two decades. At the same time I have to signal my uneasiness that so much of the discussion centers on means: should we have charters, vouchers,
teachers' unions, national tests etc. I think it is essential that we step back, at least periodically, and ask about the ends or aims of education.
My own answer can be stated succinctly. A dozen or more years of education should yield students who can think well about the essential questions of human life: who are we, where do we come from, what's the world made of, what have humans achieved and what
can we achieve, how does one lead a good life? Many people, institutions and experiences can contribute to formulating these questions and the answers. The distinct contribution of formal education is to equip students with the ways of thinking, the scholarly
disciplines, that have been constructed over the years to allow individuals to think well and deeply about these questions and some viable answers.
In speaking of disciplines, I have something specific in mind. Disciplines did not always exist; they are human-created methods and structures for approaching long-standing puzzles. Historians evaluate documents and testimony to reconstruct plausible accounts
of past events. Scientists generate hypotheses about how the world works, collect data relevant to those hypotheses, analyze the data objectively and then revise or endorse the original hypotheses or theories. The arts are also disciplines: they involve clear
procedures for production (how does one write a fugue, stage a ballet, render a portrait) and for interpreting the productions of others. For those inclined to dismiss the disciplines, imagine a world without such mental furniture.
By a convenient pun, the attainment of disciplines requires discipline. This is because our natural, common-sense ways of making sense of the world are non- or even anti-disciplinary. Only through years of asking questions and following well-honed strategies
can we replace common-sense accounts (e.g., human beings have always existed, the best portraits are photographs) with more nuanced and grounded disciplinary accounts.
The disciplines are arguably the most important human inventions of the last two millenniums. Yet their importance tends to be obscured, especially in the rhetoric-filled discourse of education. Instead, we hear a lot about facts, skills, tests and subject
matter. None of these terms should be dismissed, but they attain fresh significance when they are considered in a disciplinary context.
First, skills. I know no one who opposes the acquisition of basic skills: reading, writing, calculation. One cannot even enter the disciplinary worlds unless one has mastered the three R's. Basic skills are the means for acquiring the disciplines, just as
the disciplines (and ultimately interdisciplinary amalgams) provide the means for thinking well about important issues.
Next, facts. You cannot think well about a topic or question unless you have information, data, facts. However, that information should be acquired not for its own sake but as a means of finding a better answer to a consequential question. Facts can only
be well used if they relate to one another in a meaningful way: otherwise, to use Alfred North Whitehead's term, they are simply "inert knowledge." Facts need the connective tissue of disciplines, or they are undisciplined, rote information.
Subject matter is typically collapsed with disciplines, but it is important to honor a distinction. One can have lots of facts in a subject without having any disciplinary understanding. Too often a person is considered a master because she or he has taken
a certain number of courses, often called Carnegie units. A person understands to the extent that he or she can apply knowledge appropriately in a new situation. Only an individual in possession of disciplinary moves can do this.
Which brings us to tests, or assessments. There may be some who oppose assessments, but I am not in their ranks. Not in the least! At the same time, I reject as inadequate most of the short-answer instruments currently being adopted at the state level. These
instruments may probe factual or subject-matter knowledge, but they typically fall short of probing disciplinary mastery and understanding. In life no one presents us with four choices, the last of which reads "none of the above."
I favor instruments that actually determine whether a person can think in a disciplined way. So rather than ask students to name nine Civil War battles, I would ask them to assess two historical accounts based on the same primary documents (or create their
own). Rather than asking students to recall a chemical formula, I would provide them with data from an experiment and ask them to extract the regularities (and perhaps indicate which other data need to be collected next). Rather than asking students to memorize
authors or lines from a poem, I would ask them to edit or complete an unfinished poem.
Every educational philosophy reflects a certain knowledge base and a certain value system. My educational regimen builds on findings from cognitive science. These findings indicate that, when young, individuals develop intuitive theories that are very powerful
and difficult to eradicate. While some are on the mark, most are remote from the disciplines. Only a concerted effort over years to establish disciplinary ways of thinking can eradicate or educate the unschooled mind. My own belief is that this goal is best
achieved by focusing in depth on certain important topics; not only does one come to understand those topics well, but in the process one gains incipient mastery for what it is like to use the methods of a discipline.
This incipient mastery can be built upon for the rest of one's life. I am idealistic enough to believe that once individuals have genuinely understood a theory like evolution, a historical period like the Holocaust, a work of art like "The Marriage of Figaro,"
they will insist on commensurate understanding of other topics in the future.
Pursuing this line of reasoning, I find myself out of sympathy with a preordained canon. One can acquire disciplinary ways of thinking from a variety of topics, and it simply does not matter that much which ones happen to be used. It is more important, in
my view, to use examples that are valued by the community and that come alive for students than to insist that everyone read the same play or master the same theorem or learn the same topics in science. I don't care that much if one can name the planets; one
can always request that information from a Palm Pilot. I care mightily that half of the American population (and perhaps some of our recent Presidents) can't distinguish astronomical from astrological ways of thinking and that two-thirds of Americans don't
see the disciplinary difference between evolutionary and creationist accounts of the origins of human beings.
In putting forth these views, I find myself at odds with much of the program put forth by E.D. Hirsch Jr. Perhaps it is possible to reconcile our work to some extent -- for example, by emphasizing his "Core Knowledge" in early grades and my disciplinary
focus for the later grades. I have admiration for his democratic vision, his belief in public education and his sponsoring of programs in our schools. Still I think it is valuable to put forth these quite different educational visions: one focusing on questions
and on ways of thinking, the other on factual answers and on shared knowledge. The value is in part epistemological, different views of the mind's use; in part cultural, different views of an educated society.
相关文章推荐
- 转贴: 转一篇关于数据库SQL执行效率的文章,值得我们学习
- 听说此文又是一篇找砖头的文章, 善良,可爱型的人请速速离开。 1: 模板引擎。 模板引擎是否得继续使用及发挥作用, 成为phper们在争论的第一话题。 其实我们可以换个立场来思考, 如果d
- 寒门难再出贵子(1),一篇值得思考的文章
- 寒门难再出贵子(2),一篇值得思考的文章
- 寒门难再出贵子(3),一篇值得思考的文章
- 寒门难再出贵子(4),一篇值得思考的文章
- 寒门难再出贵子(5),一篇值得思考的文章
- 寒门难再出贵子(6),一篇值得思考的文章
- 一篇值得关注的文章
- 听说懂以太坊开发的程序员都被抢疯了!分享一篇价值10万的文章,来自10年经验的大咖对以太坊数据存储的思考与解读
- 中国人唯一不认可的成功——就是家庭的和睦,人生的平淡(做为程序员的我们又追求什么样的人生呢?)值得思考???
- 现在的我们已经到了谈婚论嫁的年龄(在网上看到的一篇很好的文章,看了以后很是感慨)
- 对张子阳先生对委托和事件的两篇文章的读后思考(说得很透,内附故事一篇)
- 一篇关于如何写注释的文章,值得收藏
- 昨天在微信里看到的一篇文章,应该不算是个新闻,但是还是值得仔细读一下。特别是对于那些在一个公司干了很多年却没有发展,或者每年跳槽两三次的同学确实应该反思看一看。原文地址 以下是正文 我曾经带过一个
- 谈谈软件从业者的学习方向和职业规划(同济大学的一篇文章,good)
- 一篇让我思考很久的文章
- 我的出差时侯老师发给我们的一篇文章(和大家一起分享分享)
- 关于职业规划,尤其值得我们程序员学习、思考
- 值得我们国人思考,只有中文才写得出的天才之作