This past weekend I went to the HMS Colloquium held by my department chair, Young-Key Kim-Renaud. It was on Korean linguistics and I found it more interesting than I thought I would. The focus of the speakers was the use of honorifics in Korean, and this got me to thinking about how true it is that language provides insights into a society and its culture.
One speaker mentioned the levels of honorifics that I found amazing and scary at the same time. In Japanese, a speaker needs to understand the social position of the listener, while in Korean one also needs to consider the social position of the topic in the utterance. This is true in Japanese to an extent, but in Korean, one needs to manifest the social position of even family members when speaking: A daughter speaking to her mother about her older sister will require--if I understood this correctly--three levels of honorifics: A low one for the speaker, a high level of respect for the mother and a level of respect to the elder sister but not as high as the mother. Whew! As a stubborn everyone-is-equal American, this level of distinction might prevent me from studying Korean. Or not.
Either way, there is no doubt that it is worth studying. Today's academic administrators give short shrift to foreign language teaching by devaluing it when they insist it is no longer necessary as a requirement in general education. This is a reflection of their short-sightedness. and shows that they really don't know what they are talking about. Language is not only a communicative tool. It is a reflection of the society and culture in which it is embedded, and Korean is a rather pointed example. Social hierarchy, familial hierarchy are all manifested in each speech act.
Why are foreign languages undervalued so? This used to be the bedrock of a liberal arts education--an education that promotes an understanding among different interests, fields and cultures--but now, at many institutes of higher education--foreign language is not even required for a single year. Literature, philosophy, anthropology, and other fields are equally important as we strive to educate a group of individuals that are the future of our society and culture. What are we teaching them? That you don't need to know other points of view? That understanding different thoughts and cultures is a waste of time?
I sometimes worry that we have lost too much perspective regarding what is important in our $ociety.
Showing posts with label Teaching. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Teaching. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 06, 2014
Friday, January 24, 2014
What I Learned Today: Teaching Critical Thinking
Went to a workshop today run by Tom Angelo Asst. Provost at Queens University in Charlotte, NC. It was a good exercise for me in that it forced me to evaluate certain teaching attitudes I have.
The Workshop was called, "Promoting Critical Thinking in Your Courses and Across the Curriculum." It may sound boring, but I assure you it is not, and it was not. He posed a number of questions that got the group of about 40 faculty members to think about how they view their students and their teaching philosophies.
He began by asking us how what kind of learning we were exposed to as undergraduates: factual, conceptual, procedural conditional, metacognitive and reflective learning. We were asked to give a percentage of our learning experience for each type, and then he asked us the percentage of what we teach--or try to teach--to our current students. Of course, I was stuck on factual and conceptual as that is old school education. But I want to convey to my students metacognitive and reflective developments and the scale we had as undergraduates and what we want for our graduates was inverse.
He made us feel guilty--I'm sure in a kidding kind of way--but reminding us that these scholars gave us the best that they had, but by inverting the focus we were in a way rebelling against our education and educators.
Anyway, with this and other ideas, he tried to open us up to what we might think is important for students to learn in college.
Now there were a couple of things that he seemed to be out of sync with--he said explicitly that information that can be found on the Internet or from a fellow student is not worth testing for. I cannot accept this for, at its foundation, critical thinking requires factual knowledge. You can't think about "nothing". I should say, however, that Tom realizes that importance of facts, too. He just may have been a bit hyperbolic in conveying how facts are not as important if you don't do anything with them, i.e. critically analyze them.
Still it was enlightening and I will see what I can implement into my course this semester.
The Workshop was called, "Promoting Critical Thinking in Your Courses and Across the Curriculum." It may sound boring, but I assure you it is not, and it was not. He posed a number of questions that got the group of about 40 faculty members to think about how they view their students and their teaching philosophies.
He began by asking us how what kind of learning we were exposed to as undergraduates: factual, conceptual, procedural conditional, metacognitive and reflective learning. We were asked to give a percentage of our learning experience for each type, and then he asked us the percentage of what we teach--or try to teach--to our current students. Of course, I was stuck on factual and conceptual as that is old school education. But I want to convey to my students metacognitive and reflective developments and the scale we had as undergraduates and what we want for our graduates was inverse.
He made us feel guilty--I'm sure in a kidding kind of way--but reminding us that these scholars gave us the best that they had, but by inverting the focus we were in a way rebelling against our education and educators.
Anyway, with this and other ideas, he tried to open us up to what we might think is important for students to learn in college.
Now there were a couple of things that he seemed to be out of sync with--he said explicitly that information that can be found on the Internet or from a fellow student is not worth testing for. I cannot accept this for, at its foundation, critical thinking requires factual knowledge. You can't think about "nothing". I should say, however, that Tom realizes that importance of facts, too. He just may have been a bit hyperbolic in conveying how facts are not as important if you don't do anything with them, i.e. critically analyze them.
Still it was enlightening and I will see what I can implement into my course this semester.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
