Session 1: Are we Smarter than Our Kids

This is the first 'debate' question that the class has - of course, since it's a debate, there are only 2 positions:

• Yes, we are smarter than our kids
• No, we aren't

It was a long time since I was engaged in such 'debate' topics. I think, the last time was in JC2. I can't recall the topic, but I recall these were times when we had to write long essays to state and justify our stand. Indeed, that was one of my weakest link.

So, our team's stand was "We are Smarter".

• Indeed, a point of clarification here... the comparison is between generations:
• To be specific, it is to compare children of this generation with children of our generation (haha... that would be at least 30 years ago); the topic should therefore be re-stated as "Kids of our generation are smarter than those of this generation"

Some points we brought forward includes:

• The Environment: Indeed, at our times (considering more than 30 years ago), the lack of resources did not imply that we were disadvantaged. In the contrary, we became more creative and more resourceful because of the lack of materials and resources. This indirectly created opportunities for us to generate more creative juices when we needed to problem solve.
• Some examples that our team members came up with included creating games when at that time, many folks would not be able to afford the luxury of expensive toys. As a result, some even learnt to sew clothes for their dolls! Oh yes, ask your kids today, do they sew clothes for their toys? Not really, indeed, they could buy 'clothes' off the shelf for their Barbie dolls!
  
• In fact, I agree with this point, that is, the lack of resources does not mean we are shortchanged, but it sharpened our creativity and critical thinking skills. I recall my days in Bhutan when I needed to creatively find solutions to my everyday activities because the basic provisions in Singapore are 'non-standard' items in this developing country; of course, being someone who did not enter the kitchen, I faced more challenges. When there was no gas stove available, which the Bhutanese deemed it as a basic (must have) item in the kitchen, I could not get one set up despite going through the trouble of checking stores, etc. In the end, I was happy with the 'hot-plate' style of heater - which was equivalent to those that we used in the Science labs (but much larger). It was something new (to me) that time. I survived. But I guess nothing beats using mineral water bottles to grow spring onions. I'm still very proud of my "masterpieces" (Link).
• So, what does this say about? Environment is one of the key factors to bring out one's latent potential and "talents".
  
• Compare the kind of classroom experiences that we had and what our students have today. There are lots of 'don't haves' in our classrooms in the past, in particular the use of technology and the way we learnt. Technology was absent in our classroom.
  
• The only technology that our teacher used was... the chalk! Of course, in my secondary school days, I still remember how Ms Rama embraced the overhead projector (OHP) - every lesson, without fail, she would get us to copy pages and pages of transparencies - which were taken out from the textbooks, etc. In fact, think about it, I learnt Physics by copying (so, that's rote learning)? Now, looking back, it's not wise us of technology!
  
• Of course, this was only one of the many ways we learnt. However, there were also teachers who, creatively tapped on resources around the classroom, outside the classrooms for learning. I could remember going around the neighbourhood to collect different kinds of leaves (single leaves, compound leaves) and flowers for the Science project.
  
• Shading coins for my Maths lessons where we learnt about money. These are many things that our children do not do in schools nowadays. Why? I guess (I suspect) it was because of the convenience of technology - a click at the button, we could retrieve 'coins' for counting; we could view the different kinds of leaves, zoom in to view at the microscopic levels. So, what's missing? It's the authentic experience! Imagine, when we shade the coins, it's not just the mathematical part (dealing with different values or denominations), but we also 'felt' the texture the physical sizes, etc.
  
• The feel and touch are important - at least for the "emotional/ personal connection". We use more senses to learn. We sharpen our alertness and sensitivity to the surroundings. Hence, varied classroom experiences counts!
• People is part of the environment (as I once mentioned in my strategic objectives). People shape the culture. Compare the tone that the teachers set in the classrooms - past and present. Disciplined classroom was the key in classrooms in the past - it does not mean that it's no longer the key now, but more effort has to be put in, in order to create a conducive one - because our students nowadays require a different way to engage. It brings another component in, i.e. Enforcement of discipline, enforcement of a conducive environment. It does not just come from classroom teachers, but parents, too. So, the other "people" that we are referring to is the "Parents". On the whole, parents in the old times seemed to be more supportive to the practices in schools, as compared to the past. This is evident as MOE now has to set up the MCare centre to handle 'complains' by parents! Oops! Parents nowadays complain more, too? (OK, there it goes... more factors and entities start to kick in the argument).
• Back to the disciplined classroom - a classroom with a positive tone would be conducive to learning and therefore students learnt better in the past. Of course, there are several "assumptions"/ debate-able points:
  
• Point #1: More disciplined classroom does not imply it comes with a positive tone! We know that tone of the classrooms includes creating a safe environment for learning to take place. Point #2: When students learn better, it doesn't mean they are smarter.
• This brings us to the next point: What defines smart? Perhaps we should look at 'survival' skills - people being street smart survive better than those who don't, when both are thrown into ambigous environment.
  
• There comes the 21st century skills! Of which, some key ones (which relates closely to what's happening in the classroom) are communication skills, collaborative skills, critical thinking and creativity. In fact, in the past, the many face-to-face interaction, the many opportunities to problem solve helped to develop such skills!
• Compare to what the children are going through today - they missed those opportunities, but to learn and acquire these skills through designed curriculum, as there are fewer and fewer authentic situations which their 'latent' potential and "giftedness" in these areas could be uncover naturally.

Well, well... interesting perspective (which I never thought I could pen down so much). This is just one side of the argument. In fact, it would be interesting if there's time to sit down and start arguing from the other stand... hm...

On the other hand, I think it's quite clear that I'm looking at the statement, more from the sociological and philosophical perspectives when putting forth my thoughts... hm...
I understand the terms "epistemology" and "ontology" slightly better as I went through my train of thoughts, in particular epistemology - influences due to our experiences and beliefs. Ontology - the knowledge/ perceptions of reality.

From wikipedia
Ontology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
Epistemology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology