Dead versus alive
Dawn · Faisal Bari ·
People have argued that children need to be introduced to ethics and values early.
WHEN teaching and learning are reduced to imitation, rote learning, technique, or formula, they go dead. They prevent learning from taking place. Students might be able to reproduce thoughts they’ve learned by heart, but they can’t apply that learning in real life or in places where it is supposed to help. They cannot make learning part of themselves and who they are. This type of ‘dead’ learning is shallow and doesn’t go beyond the surface. Students forget it easily too. In fact, many students say they forget the material right after exams or once the semester ends.
Movements around the world argue that schools should teach critical thinking, argumentation, debate, and reflection to support deep learning. These are essential skills and abilities that students need to develop. Curricula are designed to facilitate the development of these abilities, but when evaluations are done, we usually find mixed success. What is going wrong? When curricula are reduced to formula-based methods and techniques because teachers care more about getting through the syllabus than ensuring students engage with the learning process, the benefits become limited.
Movements around the world even argue for introducing philosophy in schools. As a subject, philosophy is generally regarded as more appropriate for older children. For the most part, it has been taught in the final years of high school or at the university level. But the Philosophy for Children (P4C) movement argues that philosophy should be introduced to younger students. There are many books on content and pedagogy in this area, and philosophy is taught in many schools.