Group items tagged

Doing vs. Developing habits of mind...

This article seems to connect with habits of mind claiming that eastern cultures are more able to persevere with difficult tasks that western cultures. I question whether the cultural differences are accurately described but found it has some good reminders in relation to habits of mind.

It reminds me that I need to be more specific when I point out achievement. I tend to acknowledge what has been done and the actual practice, but I tend to leave out the overall skill or concept. Also, I am reminded that I privilege creativity over perseverance. If a student works diligently to find a solution, and they arrive at a creative solution, then I praise the creativity and not the diligence or downplay the diligence.

Habits of mind....

This prezi presentation explains more about the habits of mind and the journey that is often undertaken by teachers as they begin to focus on the HoM more explicitly and integrate them with content and thinking skills.

Interesting discussion about the evolution of the concept of a fact. I think we all probably claim the authority of a 'fact' sometimes, so it's relevant to understand how they are changing. The psychology behind wanting to believe facts is fascinating.

This has some interesting perspectives, but it does little to address belief. The people interviewed seem frustrated by belief, so they take a negative stance. I would like to know more about the experiment where participants had a more open-minded response to climate change after writing an essay about a time they fought for something they believe in. In that case, belief played a constructive role because of their lateral entry. There is a greater thinking level to this issue.

Another interesting avenue my mind took while reading this was toward Owen Barfield's early 20th century investigation of history in English words. He shows how thinking develops through language. It is a good read if you can get past some of the antiquated language he uses to categorize his thoughts. It is titled, History in English Words. I have a copy if anyone wants to check it out.

The Institute for Habits of Mind

How many times in a class do you say the word 'think"?

Some of these might be interesting to consider not only for ourselves but also if we want to come up with our own set of Habits of Mind which are most applicable to our students....resilience, grit, etc.

I finally got around to reading this, and even though it is short, it outlines what we do internally very well. In AES this last year, we constantly modeled the series of questions they mentioned, especially the consciousness, craftmanship, and flexibility questions. Students often want us to provide them with the answers to these questions, but do not readily realize that the question is the important part. If you can experience conflict, which I tend to label crisis because of the cognitive or cultural gap, by calling it into question, then you can see both the origin and yourself in it. I know this is simplistic, but the courage to question plays a major role in validating the crisis and your stake in it.

"Again, intellectual virtues are the character traits required for good thinking and learning. They presuppose no controversial moral commitments. " Yes. This. An important distinction to keep in mind. If we come in to the classroom teaching moral or even civic character directly, then we rightly run the risk of being accused of educational imperialism. But, if the moral and civic values we may hold have any real worth, then the inherent value of them should be revealed through the application of intellectually virtuous learning and thinking actions.

and if moral/ethical positions are reached (or deconstructed) either in the classroom, or outside, through the sound application of intellectual actions, they have validity. Anything does not go, not all opinions, values etc... are valid unless we can expose the process by which they were reached and allow that process to be scrutinized.

I know this is just a bit of redundancy, but this suggests that not all values are created equal, and they are not. The must have good reason. Good might be defined imperialistically as Jeremy stated, in that a unilateral agency imposes them, but a reciprocal communicative action may prevail, especially within the ideal or virtuous framed by intellectual character. I have been accussed of esoteric comments, but I think this warrants a visit from Habermas: "We can only exercise tolerance towards other people's beliefs if we reject them for subjectively good reasons. We do not need to be tolerant if we are indifferent to other opinions and attitudes anyway or even appreciate the value of such 'otherness'. The expectation of tolerance assumes that we can endure a form of ongoing non-concurrence at the level of social interaction, while we accept the persistence of mutually exclusive validity claims at the cognitive level of existentially relevant beliefs." In other words, Habermas believes you can't just say, "I don't care" or "This doesn't matter" or "This doesn't happen here" and claim tolerance. You must engage to be tolerant, and you must engage in a way that presents your ideas or beliefs in contrast to the other, and that contrast must be relatable, or what Habermas means by "relevant" is communicable in the logical sense that rational ideas are modular, and they may be fitted into intellectual chains of rational arguments and "ongoing non-concurrence" in social interactions. Through this lens, intellectual virtues occupy toleration/tolerance because intellectual virtues "naturally" lend themselves or, as Jeremy stated, display the inherent value of the ideas through engagement and action which must be communicable and reciprocal, i.e. function as tolerant.