One Child

One Child is the title of a book written by Torey Hayden that I am reading. It is the story of how a teacher managed (I hope, I don’t know because I am still reading it) to win the trust of a child who was sent to a class of special children after committing an atrocious act of violence against another child. In this class of nine special children (each with a unique case of disability), this one child stood out because she has an IQ of 185 (a genius) but had a history of violent acts. Her first question after each violent act was always “Are you going to whip me?” Maybe the ministry is right in banning corporal punishment in schools. Am I being oversimplistic in my thinking when I think that a child is naughty each time a child is disruptive? Maybe there are hidden implications. Last Thursday, I remembered seeing Ridzuan (not his real name) sitting with Samal (Not his real name too) after school. They were sitting quietly at one corner, waiting. I asked for some food from the muslim stall which was about to close. The lady offered a sunny side up and some biscuits to them. Samal looked very happy; he ate the egg contentedly while Ridzuan ate the biscuits. Maybe he has more problems than just not being able to spell from one to ten. At least one of the problem could be solved.

Thinking about reflection again

Confucius once said that Learning without thinking is labour lost; thinking without learning is perilous. I reflected on the first part last week. The second part “thinking without learning is perilous” sets me thinking again. It appears to be a chicken and egg problem. How is it possible to think without learning? Isn’t the act of thinking itself an act of learning? French philosopher, Descartes once said, “Cogito ergo sum”. In English, “I think, therefore I am.” To him, the ability to think ascertains a person's existence as a conscious being. Could it be that the crux of the problem lies in the quality of the thinking. So what is the definition of quality thinking? Maybe Benjamin Bloom had the answer. Evaluating the questions we posed against Bloom’s taxonomy could help us to see the levels of children’s thinking we are actually engaging with. More questions in the higher levels may mean a better chance of bringing the pupils to that level of thinking. Just for the records, here are Bloom’s levels: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation. There’s no guarantee but we should try.

Thinking about reflection

I enjoy writng and I enjoy thinking. Therefore I enjoy reflecting. Agreed. Thinking is a distinctively human activity (I say that because I am a human and have no reliable way of asessing whether other living things can think too.) Confucius once said that Learning without thinking is labour lost; thinking without learning is perilous. This reflection section has set me thinking about learning and how I should teach and facilitate pupils' learning. One important component should be reflection; reflecting on what they have learnt. In other words, to process what they have learnt. As teachers (yes, me too.), we sometimes rush through the syllabus without really reflecting and getting the pupils to reflect on what they have learnt. Why waste all these "Learning without thinking" when you could prompt them to ask questions, get them to think about some reflective questions and to question what they have learnt. In the process, they develop their thinking skills and really awaken their unquenchable thirst for knowledge.