Literary Insights

Here is a summary of the key ideas and arguments in the book ‘Teaching as a Subversive Activity’ by Neil Postman and Charles Weingartner:

The authors argue that our society faces many unprecedented and unsolved problems that threaten its survival. These include mental health issues, crime, suicide, misinformation, problems from new technologies, overpopulation, pollution, etc.
The education system does little to help solve these problems. It is focused on the past and not adequately preparing students for the future. It needs radical change to become relevant and help society grapple with these issues.
The authors believe the education system can be changed to better prepare students for the future. There are many ideas from visionary thinkers that can be used to improve schools. The authors draw on many thinkers outside of education to develop new ideas.
Change is constant and accelerating in the modern world. But schools have not adjusted to this new reality. They argue schools need to help students develop the abilities and attitudes to deal with change.
Schools can be redesigned to achieve this goal. The institution of school is the way it is because we have made it that way. If it is not working, it can be changed. There are many ideas for how to change it.
The authors reject many assumptions in the education establishment. They argue there are not enough new, relevant ideas in the education field. So they draw on thinkers from other fields who understand the modern world and how to educate for it.
In summary, the authors argue the education system is not viable as it currently exists. It needs radical change to become relevant to the modern world, focus on the future rather than past, and help students develop the mindset to deal with change. New ideas, including from outside education, are needed to achieve these transformations.

The passage argues that schools should teach students critical thinking skills that allow them to question and challenge aspects of society. The authors believe that for society to continue improving, citizens must develop “crap detecting” skills - the ability to see through falsehoods, prejudices, and misleading ideas.

The authors point out that those in power often try to discourage dissent and criticism to preserve their interests. However, in a democratic society, people must be free to express themselves and question accepted ideas. Schools should cultivate students’ abilities to think critically about their society and culture. Students need to develop an “anthropological perspective” that allows them to observe their own cultural beliefs and practices with objectivity. Achieving this detached and critical perspective is difficult, as people are born into a culture and absorb its beliefs and values. People tend to see their own culture’s doctrines as natural and obviously true.

The authors argue that an inability to see beyond the biases and constraints of one’s own culture leads to close-mindedness and limited choices. Those who start to break free of their culture’s ideological constraints may seem subversive to others still enthralled by them. The authors see the spread of certain ideological concepts, like “white supremacy” or “black power,” as examples of how uncritical acceptance of cultural doctrines can lead to violence and harm. Overall, the authors believe schools should work to foster independent thinking and teach students to evaluate ideas - their own and others’ - objectively.

The key ideas in the passage are:

There are significant differences between the political and economic systems of the West and the Soviet Union. However, they also share important similarities that are obscured by the ideologies and rhetoric of both sides.
Religious and intellectual indoctrination limit openness to new ideas. We need to question existing knowledge and beliefs.
There are three major problems that require rethinking education:

The communications revolution and rise of mass media. New technologies have transformed our environment and the way we live and think. We need to understand the impact of media on society and ourselves.
The rapid pace of social and political change. Changes that once took centuries now happen in decades or less. This change revolution requires adaption to a world transforming quickly.
The increasing concentration of power and marginalization of dissent. Access to communication is concentrated in a few large corporations and institutions. This makes it difficult for alternative or dissenting ideas to spread and gain influence.

In summary, the key argument is that we live in a time of rapid technological, social, and political change that requires openness, adaptability, and wariness of indoctrination. Schools need to teach critical thinking and understanding of the forces shaping the modern world to meet these challenges.

There has been an explosion of knowledge and advancement of technology in nearly every field in the last few minutes of human history, especially the last second. Things like telecommunications, transportation, and medicine have progressed more in the last few minutes than in the previous hundreds of years.
This rapid change is creating difficulties for humans to keep up and adapt. There is no stability or predictability anymore. People have to continuously revise their values and behaviors to keep up with change. What they learn becomes quickly outdated.
Bureaucracies and institutions are resistant to change and prefer to maintain the status quo. They care more about precedent and procedure than progress. New ideas have a hard time gaining traction. Schools are bureaucracies that need to teach students how to adapt to change rather than just disseminate outdated information.
Many teachers are in the wrong “business”. Some think they are just disseminating information, but that model is outdated. Some think they are transmitting culture, but they ignore the massive changes of the last few minutes. Students need help understanding the modern world, not just learning “subjects” that no longer exist. Schools need to adapt to the right business to serve students living in a world of rapid change.
“Future shock” occurs when people realize the world they were educated for no longer exists. The language and metaphors they were taught no longer map to the current territory. Some withdraw in the face of this, while others keep acting is if nothing has changed, repeating behaviors that no longer work. Schools need to help students adapt to the modern world to avoid future shock.

That covers the essence of the key ideas around knowledge change, institutions, education, and the need to adapt to a world of rapid progress. Let me know if you would like me to clarify or expand on any part of the summary.

The author argues that schools should focus on fostering an anti-entropy learning environment that helps students develop useful knowledge and skills to survive and thrive, rather than just transmitting static information or producing passive consumers. The structure and methods of a learning environment, not just its content, shape what students learn. The common separation of content and method in education is misguided. Method, or the learning process, is itself the message that students receive.

Students mostly just sit, listen, and repeat what teachers say. They rarely question or determine what is worth studying. Classrooms primarily teach passive acceptance of ideas, reliance on authority, and rote recall. The ostensible content of courses is rarely remembered. The classroom structure and methods, not the stated aims, shape what students actually learn.

The key points are:

Schools should promote survival-relevant, anti-entropy learning.
The medium (learning environment) shapes the message (what students learn). Method and content cannot be separated.
Students learn what they repeatedly do in classrooms - mostly passive listening, acceptance of authority, and recall.
The implicit messages of classroom methods and structure, not the stated aims or content, shape students’ learning.
Rote recall and repetition of authority are the primary achievements assessed and rewarded. Questioning and determining what matters are rarely encouraged.
The content of most courses is quickly forgotten. The learning environment itself communicates the most critical and lasting lessons.

In summary, the author argues for more active, student-centered learning environments that teach critical thinking and inquiry skills, not just the passive reception of static content and facts. The process of learning in a classroom is itself the primary determinant of what students learn from it.

Here are the main ideas I found in the summary:

Education currently values the recall of random, disconnected facts over critical thinking and understanding.
Students are taught to accept what authority figures say without question. Independent thinking is discouraged.
Students’ own ideas and questions are seen as irrelevant. Education focuses on pre-determined ‘right’ answers.
Subjects are treated as separate, discrete entities. Interconnections between areas of knowledge are ignored.
Feelings and emotions are seen as unimportant in education. Only logical, rational thinking is valued.
Students are rewarded for providing any answer, even if it is wrong or they don’t understand the question. The ability to say ‘I don’t know’ is not fostered.
The structure and methods of the classroom teach these messages implicitly. The teacher asks questions and students must provide answers. Questioning the process itself is not allowed.
These behaviors and beliefs then propagate through the rest of society, as people act in the way they have been taught in school. Original or critical thinking is rare.
The inquiry method is proposed as an alternative. It restructures the classroom environment to encourage questioning, critical thinking, and understanding over rote learning and memorization.
Three metaphors are used to illustrate this: 1) naming something is not the same as understanding its workings. 2) Complex media/processes should not be reduced to simplistic ‘things’. 3) Static maps do not represent the dynamic territories they aim to describe.
In summary, the current education system teaches students unquestioning acceptance of authority and rote recall of facts. The inquiry method aims to foster real understanding, critical thinking, and independent judgment. A new classroom structure is needed to achieve this.
The author argues that too much focus has been placed on labeling and categorizing the inquiry method rather than understanding its process and impact. Labels and taxonomies are less important than understanding how the inquiry method works and affects learning.
The author compares an overfocus on labels and categories to McLuhan’s metaphor of the “rearview-mirror syndrome.” Just like drivers focused on the rearview mirror rather than the road ahead, educators focused on labels and categories are focused on the past rather than the future. They are more concerned with whether the inquiry method will achieve the goals of older methods than understanding how it will revolutionize learning.
The author argues the inquiry method is a completely new “medium of learning” that will change education in ways that extend far beyond answering teachers’ questions or improving test scores. It activates new senses and perceptions and generates a different kind of intelligence.
The author criticizes “Seductive Method[s] of learning” that use the inquiry method to merely elicit predetermined “right answers” from students, likening them to “using television to resuscitate vaudeville.” The inquiry method is meant to disrupt older models, not imitate them.
The author argues the inquiry method disrupts the “lineality of information flow” and the reliance on “story line[s]” in traditional education. Rather than passively receiving predetermined stories, students actively investigate structures and relationships. The syllabus is “someone else’s story”; the inquiry method lets students “generate their own stories.”
The author compares the inquiry method to Socrates’ method, which focused on process over content and syllabi. But Socrates’ method also made authorities “nervous” because thinking without a syllabus is unpredictable.
The author argues sequential curricula based on a assembly line model are inadequate because students’ learning is not sequential. Curricula prescribe both what is learned and the order in which it’s learned, unlike the inquiry method.

In summary, the author argues the inquiry method is a revolutionary new learning method focused on process, not content. But rather than understanding its impact, many fixate on labels and taxonomies, wanting to know if it will achieve the goals of older methods. The author criticizes efforts to use the method superficially and argues it should disrupt older, linear models of learning, not imitate them. Overall, the essay highlights the differences between the inquiry method and traditional, syllabus-based education.

Traditional educators have created the ‘spiral curriculum’ to represent learning, but this is still too orderly and structured to capture the actual chaotic and explosive nature of learning. Learning is more like a Jackson Pollock painting.
There is logic to learning, but it is ‘psychlogic’ - it follows the rules of our living, questioning minds. The inquiry method aims to help students become better learners by modeling the behaviors of good learners.
Good learners have confidence in their ability to learn. They enjoy solving problems. They know what is relevant and rely on their own judgment. They are not fearful of being wrong and are willing to change their minds. They delay judgment and are flexible in their thinking. They respect facts and are skilled in inquiry behaviors like asking good questions and examining assumptions. They are comfortable saying ‘I don’t know’.
An inquiry environment has four components: the teacher, the students, the problems, and strategies for solving problems. The teacher’s attitudes are the most important factor. Inquiry teachers:
Rarely tell students what they should know. They believe telling deprives students of discovering for themselves.
Question students to open their minds, not just get pre-determined answers. They don’t accept single answers and want students to consider multiple reasons and causes.
Encourage student-student interaction over student-teacher interaction. They minimize acting as a judge of ideas to help students develop their own criteria for evaluating ideas.
Rarely summarize to avoid ending further thinking. They see learning as an ongoing process, not an endpoint. Summaries are hypotheses, not definitive answers.
Assume learning skills, knowledge, and understandings are continually developing, not fixed end points. The inquiry method aims to help students become lifelong learners.
The teacher rejects the idea of defining precise learning outcomes or endpoints for students. He believes that learning is an ongoing process and does not occur at the same pace or in the same way for all students.
The teacher develops his lessons based on students’ responses and questions, not a predetermined structure. He aims to engage students in knowledge-producing activities like questioning, observing, and generalizing. He measures his success based on changes in students’ thinking and behavior.
The teacher plays a different role than the traditional teacher. He avoids terms like “teach” and “teaching” and focuses on what students learn, not what he teaches. Shifting to student-centered language and practices can transform a teacher’s approach.
The parody dialogue illustrates the absurdity of the belief that any activity, like surgery, is good “for its own sake” without consideration of purpose or relevance. The teacher aims to pursue relevance and meet students’ authentic needs. His lessons center on students’ responses, questions, and ideas, not a set curriculum or doctrine.
In summary, the teacher takes an inductive, student-centered approach focused on developing students’ thinking skills and understanding their learning processes. He avoids rigid or predetermined endpoints and eschews traditional teaching practices that lack relevance to students.

The passage discusses the issue of “bad patients” and “bad students” using an analogy between medicine and education. Just as medicine cannot help patients who do not follow instructions, education cannot help students who are not receptive or motivated. Many teachers make excuses for ineffective teaching by blaming “bad students,” just as the fictional doctors in the playlet blame “bad patients” for the failure of penicillin.

The playlet illustrates the many poor reasons used to justify worthless curricula and teaching methods. For example, some claim that certain subjects are inherently good, regardless of usefulness. Others teach subjects they personally enjoy, not what students need. Still others assume that subjects will benefit students even without evidence. The key issue is that these approaches ignore the learners and their needs. Effective education must focus on the students, not the subjects.

A review of a textbook series also shows the lack of concern for students. The reviewer praises the books for superficial reasons unrelated to student needs, such as the title, organization, and inclusion of poems. The review fails to mention how students might actually benefit or whether the books meet students’ needs. The passage suggests this review is typical of the educational system’s lack of concern for students.

In summary, the key message is that education needs to focus on the learners - their skills, interests, motivations, and needs. Subjects and teaching methods should suit the students, not vice versa. An approach that ignores students is doomed to fail, just as medicine that ignores patients will not heal. The analogy highlights the need for an educational system centered on learning and learners.

The excerpt is from Let Us Now Praise Famous Men, published in 1936. It provides a critique of the school curriculum in Alabama at that time.
The author, James Agee, argues that the curriculum fails to address the actual problems and situations that students face in their lives. It does not expose students to “economic, social or political facts” or attempt to address social issues like race relations.
The curriculum does not help students understand themselves, their communities or develop skills that would be useful for their futures. It does not encourage inquisitiveness, creativity or independent thinking.
Agee argues that little has changed and his critique applies today. He provides an example of a modern curriculum focused on studying ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome. He criticizes this curriculum as irrelevant trivia that bores students.
Students realize the curriculum is disconnected from their lives and interests. This results in alienation from education and disrespect for the standards used to judge them. As evidenced by widespread cheating in schools.
In summary, Agee argues that schools fail to provide a relevant education that prepares students for life. The curriculum is dull and disconnected, which leads to student disengagement and alienation.

The key points are that Agee finds schools and curricula to be largely irrelevant to students’ lives, interests and futures. This irrelevance cultivates a lack of engagement in education and breeds alienation, cynicism and contempt for the system itself. Agee argues for an education that addresses real issues, helps students develop useful skills, and promotes independent thinking - rather than one focused on rote learning of dull and meaningless information.

Students were retested after an initial test where some received answers in advance. Most students objected to the retest.
Raymond Rodriguez said it was unfair and he passed the first time without cheating. He doesn’t want to risk doing worse on a retest.
Edward Torres said students will do worse on a retest because they study hard for the first test, take it, and then forget the material.
Felix Figueroa said only those caught cheating should retest, not the whole school.
Domingo Maldonado thought the retest was fair and that he might even do better the second time now that he knows what to expect.
An anonymous student admitted cheating on the English test and doesn’t think he can pass without the answers.
The authors argue this situation shows an “ecological imbalance” in the learning environment with issues involving the learner, teacher, subject matter, and learning strategies. For meaningful learning to occur, these elements must complement each other.
Learners must see the subject matter as relevant and worth learning. They need to play an active role in determining the process. Teachers can suggest areas of study but students must be engaged.
The “inquiry method” of learning often fails when the subject matter, like characteristics of pendulums, is not relevant or interesting to students. Learning requires an emotional connection and reason.
Innovators have focused on “how” people learn but not “what” is worth learning, especially for students. As a result, new curricula like “new math,” “new science,” and “new English” often fail to engage students by applying learning to relevant, real-world problems.
The authors use English teachers as an example. While accepting inquiry-based learning, they have focused on grammar, not the range of language situations and human discourses that would genuinely interest and engage students. The reasons for this include teachers’ own limitations and fears.
The author criticizes most English teachers for being detached from real life and human concerns. They are more interested in grammatical rules and labels rather than the actual experience of language. The author thinks Kafka would find this focus on “everyday” life rather strange.
The author says that while grammarians serve a purpose, their interests should not be the central focus of English education. Most children do not care about how nouns are defined or the rules for forming the passive voice. As long as English teachers think children care about these things, not much will change.
The author says this problem exists in other subjects as well. Real change depends on getting teachers who care about student learning rather than following a set curriculum. However, teachers are not solely to blame. Many other groups like politicians, businessmen, and bureaucrats benefit from an irrelevant curriculum and do not want real questions being asked. They support superficial innovations but not real reforms.
The author asks us to imagine schools with no set curricula or syllabi and to think about what would be “worth knowing” in that scenario. The author suggests basing the curriculum around open-ended questions that students and teachers think are important and help students survive in the modern world.
The author provides some sample questions, acknowledging the limitations of an adult projecting what students might find important. Some questions come from what students have actually asked when given the chance. Others are based on translating what students seem to really be asking with their statements and questions they don’t know how to ask. The final questions are what the authors imagine would be helpful based on working with many students. The goal is to elicit what matters to students rather than teach a set curriculum.
In summary, the key ideas are: 1) Teachers focus too much on trivial grammatical concerns rather than the actual experience of language. 2) This problem exists across subjects, not just English. 3) Real change requires new kinds of teachers and facing the ways society exploits youth. 4) An open-ended question-based curriculum focused on student concerns could make school more relevant. 5) Adults have to make some assumptions but can determine good questions based on listening to and working with students.
Education should be active and student-centered, not passive. Students should be producers of knowledge, not just recipients.
Learning builds on what we already know. We can only learn based on our existing knowledge. If we know little, our ability to learn is limited.
There are many questions worth reflecting on to develop a new approach to education. Questions around our worries, experiences, desires, values, ideas, knowledge, change, survival, and symbol systems can help reimagine education.
Standards in education should not just be about the amount or difficulty of content, but whether they achieve the goals of learning - increasing a student’s will and joy of learning, confidence in their ability, inquiry and questioning skills. Good standards are appropriate for the educational goals and help students become self-directed, competent learners.
References to “high standards” and “basic fundamentals” often reflect a flawed approach to education focused on uniformity, following rules, and grades rather than genuine learning and the development of confident learners.
Education should focus on the “hearts and minds of learners” and standards should be based on the real activities of engaged, self-motivated learners - not just completing set amounts of reading, writing and footnotes. Talk of high standards means little without standards for actual learning.
A new, higher conception of fundamentals is needed in education - one focused on learning, not just grading and following rules.

The passage discusses that while the ‘three R’s’ (reading, writing and arithmetic) are traditionally viewed as fundamental for students, there are other needs that are equally or even more important for human thriving and development. Earl Kelley lists five such needs:

The need for other people.
The need for good communication.
The need for loving relationships.
The need for a coherent self-concept.
The need for freedom.

The author argues that any curriculum that does not address these kinds of fundamental human needs cannot be considered as focused on ‘fundamentals’.

The passage then provides an example of a ‘Questions Curriculum’ that aims to address these needs. In this curriculum, students explore open-ended, divergent questions that often generate more questions. The process of exploring these questions leads students to expand their consciousness and discover new areas of inquiry.

The passage provides a transcript of a lesson exploring the meaning of the word ‘right’ in different contexts. In just five minutes, this exploration generates many new questions about related concepts like ’ education’ and ‘correctness’. This demonstrates how divergent questions can rapidly expand an inquiry in new directions.

In summary, the key ideas are:

There are fundamental human needs beyond the ‘three R’s’.
A good curriculum should address these fundamental needs.
Open-ended, divergent questions are a useful tool for exploring concepts in a way that addresses human needs and expands consciousness.
Exploring the meaning of one word or concept can rapidly lead to many new questions and directions of inquiry.

Does this summary accurately reflect the key ideas and arguments presented in the passage? Let me know if you would like me to clarify or expand on any part of the summary.

The teacher posed an open-ended question to the students about whether they listen to their English teachers.
The discussion led to many follow-up questions about dialects, rules of language, the role of lexicographers, etc.
The author argues that this type of open-ended questioning and discussion leads students to generate many of their own questions. In just 5 minutes, they came up with a half dozen questions.
The author gives an example of another class that spent 2 weeks discussing the question “What is language?” and generated a long list of follow up questions on the language of advertising, news, politics, religion, science, etc.
The author argues that this type of open-ended questioning causes subjects to become less distinct and defined. It is hard to determine what subjects to include, and focusing on questions leads to exploring the relationships between subjects and developing a more holistic view of knowledge.
The author disagrees with Jerome Bruner, who advocated for discovery learning and questioning to help students understand the “structure of the subject.” The author argues that knowledge is not static or predetermined but rather is constructed by the learner. Subjects are not closed systems of finite bits of information.
The key idea is that open-ended questioning and discussion leads students to generate their own questions, explore the relationships between topics, and develop a more holistic view of knowledge — rather than focusing on predefined “subjects” and bits of information. Knowledge is actively constructed, not passively received.

Does this summary accurately reflect the key ideas and arguments presented in the passage? Let me know if you would like me to clarify or expand on any part of the summary.

The meaning we attribute to the world around us is constructed by us. It is not inherent in the world itself. We impose meaning on the world through our methods of questioning and perceiving.
Jerome Bruner suggests that there is an objective ‘structure’ to any subject or area of knowledge that exists in the world, and that education involves translating this structure for students so they can perceive it. However, the perceived structure actually comes from the perceiver, not the world itself. The meaning and organization we see in the world is created by us.
Simply presenting students with the meanings and structures perceived by authorities is more akin to traditional education, not a ‘new’ education. It encourages students just to parrot what they have been told by experts rather than think for themselves.
The divisions we make between subject areas are arbitrary and limiting. The world is complex and interconnected, and true inquiry often crosses these artificial boundaries. Students should be free to follow their questions wherever they lead.
A curriculum centered around asking and exploring open-ended questions is most conducive to real learning and meaning-making. Students can pursue questions that they find personally meaningful and relevant at their own level. Answers will vary. The key is the process of inquiry, not arriving at predefined ‘correct’ answers.
The goal of education should be to teach students the vital skill of constructing meaning - constantly questioning, evaluating, and interpreting the world around them. This is how we make sense of a rapidly changing world.
There are many metaphors used to describe the ‘purpose’ of education and the ‘minds’ of students, e.g. illuminating them, cultivating them, filling them up. But these metaphors can be limiting and misleading. The mind is not something that is acted upon - it actively makes meaning, and education should aim to facilitate this process.

In summary, the key argument here is that meaning is not something we acquire from the world but something we make through an active process of inquiry and interpretation. Education should aim to nurture and strengthen this vital human capacity in students through an open-ended curriculum centered around questioning, exploring, and constructing meaningful understanding. The goal is not to pour knowledge into students or force them to accept predefined meanings, but rather to teach them how to think - how to make their own meanings.

All language is metaphorical to some degree. Words are not reality itself. They are representations of reality.
The mind is usually conceptualized as a noun, a thing. But it is more accurate to think of minding as an ongoing process. The mind is not a static entity with separate parts like ‘the intellect’ and ‘the emotions.’ Humans function as an integrated whole.
Schools often focus on ‘the intellect’ in isolation, but people learn in an integrated fashion. Emotions, spirituality, and other aspects can’t be separated from thinking. Teaching ‘the whole child’ is most realistic.
Nouns tend to dominate as metaphors in our language, representing things. But process metaphors, like ‘happening,’ ‘be-in,’ and ‘making the scene’ are increasing, especially among youth. These may better reflect reality as an ongoing process.
Schools tend to reflect a world of fixed categories, sequences, and compartments. This can seem unrealistic and stifling, especially to youth. Reality is more integrated and spontaneous.
Our language structure, with subject-verb-object sentences, implies that we are separate from the outside world. But perception is a transactional process. We ‘make’ the reality we perceive; it doesn’t exist independently. The perceiver and the perceived co-create each other.
In summary, more process-oriented and transactional metaphors of the mind and of reality may be needed to overcome the limitations of more static, noun-based metaphors. Schools and society will need to become more open to these kinds of metaphors to stay aligned with how humans actually function.

The key ideas here relate to moving beyond overly static metaphors to more dynamic, transactional ones that better reflect the complexity of the human mind and the co-creative nature of reality. The metaphorical structure of language itself poses challenges, but may be evolving. Youth culture provides some examples of more process-based metaphors that could inform education.

Adelbert Ames, Jr. conducted studies in the 1930s and 40s on visual perception that showed that our perceptions are constructed by us, not directly obtained from the world.
According to Ames, our perceptions depend on our previous experiences, assumptions, and purposes. We perceive what we expect and need to perceive.
We usually don’t change our perceptions unless we are frustrated in trying to act on them. But we can change them if needed. The ability to learn involves changing inappropriate perceptions.
Each individual perceives the world uniquely, based on their own experiences, assumptions, and purposes. We have no fully shared perception of the world.
Perception depends heavily on the language and concepts we have available. We perceive the world based on how we can categorize and describe it.
The meaning of a perception depends on how it causes us to act. People can perceive the same event differently.
The metaphor of “meaning making” is better than most metaphors of the mind used in education. It captures the active, individual, and open-ended nature of the mind.
If teachers saw students as “meaning makers,” education would change dramatically. Most education wrongly assumes students passively receive and accept knowledge as given. But students actively construct their own meanings.

In summary, Ames’s work suggests our perceptions are constructed, not passively received. We each perceive and understand the world differently, based on our own experiences, assumptions, and purposes. The mind is active and open-ended, not passive. Education should account for how students actively make meaning, not just transmit knowledge.

Does this summary accurately reflect the key ideas and arguments presented in the passage? Let me know if you would like me to clarify or expand the summary in any way.

Here are the key ideas conveyed in the summary:

Knowledge and subject matter are not abstract or objective. They exist within the minds of individuals based on their perceptions and experiences. Each person constructs knowledge and meaning in their own unique way.
Because each student has their own perceptions and life experiences, they make their own meanings from what they are taught. The meaning intended by the teacher is not necessarily the meaning that is learned by each student. Learning is an individual and subjective process.
A student-centered curriculum and teaching approach is necessary because each student learns and perceives in their own way. There is no single truth or body of knowledge that can be poured into students. Students actively construct knowledge through their perceptions and experiences.
Standardized curricula, tests, and lecturing are problematic because they assume knowledge and learning are objective and the same for all students. But each student perceives and learns uniquely based on their experiences.
Students will learn and perform based on the expectations set for them. If teachers believe students are capable and expect them to do well, students are more likely to perceive themselves as capable and meet those expectations. The opposite is also true. Expectations and perceptions of students have a significant impact on their learning and performance.
An inquiry-based learning environment that focuses on the students and their perceptions is most conducive to learning. Such an environment recognizes that knowledge is constructed within each student, so their experiences, perceptions, and meanings are the content of the curriculum. The teacher’s role is to understand how each student is perceiving and making meaning, not just transmit a fixed body of knowledge.
Meaning is made through transactions between individuals and texts or environments. The meaning of a literary work, for example, emerges from the transactions between individual readers and the text, not from the text itself. The text provides the opportunity for meaning making, but meaning itself is constructed by the reader. The same is true in learning environments. Meaning is made through the transactions between students and teachers and their surroundings.

That covers the essence of the key ideas and arguments conveyed in the summary regarding learning, meaning making, and the subjective nature of knowledge and perception. Please let me know if you would like me to clarify or expand on any of these points.

Meaning making is central to reading and learning. Teachers can only work with the meanings students construct. Lessons should focus on helping students understand how they make meaning and improve their meaning making abilities.
Once students realize lessons are about their meaning making, the psychological context of learning changes. Students no longer feel inadequate or resist changing their perceptions. They feel engaged and empowered.
The idea that we construct our own perceptions and realities is profoundly consequential. It means no one has a privileged access to absolute truth and we each live in our own unique world. But it also means we are not isolated and can work to understand each other.
Language shapes perception and thought. It is not neutral. The words we use influence what we perceive and believe to be real. Our beliefs about time, space, and categories stem from the language system we use.
We often project our own feelings and judgments onto the world around us, not realizing how much we reveal about ourselves in the process. When we say something like “John is stupid,” we are talking more about ourselves and our reactions than about John.
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis suggests each language represents a unique way of perceiving and understanding the world. We cannot escape the constraints of the linguistic system we inhabit. But by recognizing those constraints, we can gain more perspective on our own perceptions and meanings.
There is widespread acceptance across fields that language shapes thought and perception in profound ways. What we are able to perceive and learn depends a great deal on our language use. In education, recognizing the role of language is key.

In summary, the passage argues for putting meaning making, language, and perception at the center of education. By focusing on how we construct meanings, we can empower students and improve their ability to learn and cope with change. But we must also recognize the constraints that language places on thought to gain a more reflective understanding of our own meaning making.

The key points in the passage are:

Knowledge is deeply connected to language. The language we use shapes how we understand and perceive the world. Each discipline or subject is defined by its specialized vocabulary and ways of talking.
Education should focus on developing students’ understanding of language and how it works. This is more than just learning proper grammar or studying literature. It means analyzing how language creates meaning and shapes thinking.
The linguist Alfred Korzybski developed theories about how language works that are relevant for education. Two key ideas are:

The medium is the message: The form of our language has a strong influence on us, often unconsciously. How we say things is as important as what we say.
Words are not the things they represent: We need to avoid confusing words with the realities they refer to. Words take on meanings through how people use them, not inherently.

Korzybski proposed various strategies for cultivating awareness of how language functions. These include recognizing that meaning comes from people, not words themselves; that words are not the same as what they refer to; and that many linguistic abstractions and categorizations can mislead us.
Education has largely failed to apply the insights of linguists and philosophers of language like Korzybski. But their work is highly relevant for developing students’ critical thinking and “crap detecting” abilities.

In summary, the key proposals are that education should focus on metalinguistic awareness and applying theories of language like Korzybski’s general semantics. The ultimate goal is to produce thinkers who can evaluate language and meaning in a sophisticated, critical way.

Words themselves are not what upset the Post Office; rather, it is the meaning and connotations of certain words that are deemed objectionable. The Post Office censors not events themselves but the words and language used to describe those events.
There are two kinds of ‘semantic awareness’ or consciousness of language:

a) Awareness that we abstract only certain portions of reality to pay attention to, and we label and categorize what we abstract. What we see and how we see it is linked to how we talk about it.

b) Awareness of different levels of abstraction, from concrete to abstract. As language becomes more abstract, meaning shifts from external to internal. Scientific language aims to be concrete, while the language of the mentally ill is highly abstract.

Language can have a ‘photographic’ effect, fixing and blurring our view of a constantly changing reality. General terms and oversimplification blur distinctions and details. Blurring can lead to prejudice and hastened, poorly informed action.
The example social studies discussion shows the complexities of determining ‘facts’ and interpreting language and events. There are many possible interpretations of the tone, meaning, and significance of what was said. The meanings of words and the inferences we draw are not straightforward.
General semantics aims to cultivate an awareness of language and higher-order thinking about complexity and abstraction. It encourages thinking that is scrutinizing, circumspect, and oriented toward problem-solving.

That covers the essence of the key points and main takeaways from the passage on general semantics and consciousness of language. Please let me know if you would like me to explain or expand on any part of the summary.

History is communication and subjective. There are no absolute facts, only interpretations of events.
The reliability of historical accounts depends on evaluating the motives and credibility of the people providing the accounts. Like in a courtroom, some accounts can be ruled out.
The study of any subject, including history, is essentially the study of language. How we inquire, observe, define, classify, generalize, verify, and theorize depends on the language we use.
Different subjects have different kinds of facts, definitions, generalizations, theories, and answers. What constitutes a fact, theory or answer in one subject is not the same as in another.
To avoid irrelevant answers, we need to determine what kind of system we’re dealing with, e.g. closed systems with definitive yes/no answers vs. open systems with more possibilities. Most school subjects present closed systems, but the real world involves more open systems.
We tend to assume closed-system either/or thinking applies everywhere, but that approach does not work for open systems where more imagination and possibility is required.

The key ideas seem to be that language shapes how we understand the world, and we need to apply different kinds of thinking to different kinds of systems. Closed systems with definitive answers are simpler to deal with but open systems require more sophisticated thinking that allows for ambiguity and multiple interpretations.

Most situations in life are open systems with many possible answers, rather than closed systems with only two opposing sides. Approaching problems with an open mindset leads to better solutions.
Solutions require seeing situations openly and considering many interrelated factors. They often require new ways of thinking and communicating.
Many fields have evolved from closed systems with predetermined answers to open systems that require choice and solution-finding. Examples include religion, politics, science, and education.
Closed systems limit thinking by relying on predetermined answers and narrow language. Open systems foster improved thinking and solutions by allowing new insights and ways of communicating.
People tend to get locked into closed systems and predetermined decisions due to unexamined assumptions and limited language. An open, inquiring mindset can overcome these limitations.
Education should aim to develop open-minded, solution-finding thinkers. It can do so by teaching students to examine the language and assumptions behind various systems of thinking. Students can then perceive and act in new, more effective ways.
Questions are tools for shaping perception and determining answers. The types of questions we ask, and the language we use, powerfully influence the answers we find.
Definitions, metaphors, and the language we use strongly shape how we perceive and interact with the world.

In summary, the key message is that open, inquiring minds which examine the language and perceptions behind various systems of thought can gain improved insights and find better solutions. closed systems of thought severely limit our ability to perceive and act effectively.

• Symbols systems like language are instruments for thinking and have no authority beyond the context in which they are used. They represent a particular point of view.

• The number and kinds of symbol systems one has determines how much one can observe and perceive. More symbol systems allow one to see more and develop more solutions and choices.

• Meaning is created by people. Without people, there are no meanings. The more meanings one has in one’s experience, the more new meanings one can generate or acquire.

• The level of abstraction in language indicates how much in touch with reality one is. Higher abstraction indicates less contact with reality.

• Facts are human judgments based on human perceptions. They are tentative. The rules for judging the reliability of perceptions are also language systems that only apply within a given context.

• Knowing is inseparable from language. Language mediates all human perception. Education should focus on language and symbolic codification as a unifying area of inquiry.

• Concepts and conceptual systems only have legitimacy if they represent human experiences. They have no a priori justification. Philosophers have had a harmful effect by making some concepts a priori.

• Metaphorical language can be abused when its metaphorical nature is hidden. Hygienic use of metaphor depends on recognizing its limitations, generalizations, analogies and abstractions.

• Language selects only certain aspects of experience to represent. To fully understand an event, one needs many different linguistic representations of it. But language often omits many details. This can lead to overemphasizing what is said and ignoring what is not said.

• Much traditional philosophy is nonsensical obedience to grammar and imprisonment in the denotations and connotations one has created. Language shapes thought, culture, and science. Words can be used for both good and evil. Education should focus on the nature and limitations of language.

• Every language represents a particular way of interpreting the world and experience. Language trains us to see certain things in experience. This bias is hard to see because we are so accustomed to our native language.

• Knowledge, errors, and neuroses must be expressed in language. So the meaning we give language confers weight and ambiguity on knowledge. We rarely examine the role of language even though it parallels nothing else in importance.

• We perceive nature through the categories and distinctions of our native language. We organize the kaleidoscope of impressions into concepts and ascribe significance based on agreements in our speech community encoded in language patterns.

• Scientists also think by analogy and metaphor. The atom was once thought of as a hard little ball. Metaphor pervades even scientific thinking.

Light exhibits properties of both particles and waves, which are seemingly incompatible concepts. This was hard to accept because it did not fit into existing ways of thinking. Concepts and language shape how we perceive and understand the world.
Thought and language are deeply interconnected. We think in words and language, and have trouble conceptualizing without it. Language influences and shapes thought. The language we speak impacts how we perceive and understand the world.
Diagnostic labels and the language we use to talk about illness and disease shape how we perceive them. Seeing illnesses as external invading “entities” is problematic. Illness arises from an interaction between person and environment. The language of diagnosis and illness can further negatively impact patients.
Conventional knowledge depends on social agreements embedded in language and culture. The delineation and classification of experiences into concepts like “objects” and “actions” is culturally dependent. Languages differ in how they conceptualize experience. The language we speak influences how we perceive and understand the world.
In summary, thought, perception, and understanding are shaped by language and culture in profound and not always obvious ways. We should be aware of how the conceptual schemes embedded in language can influence and limit our thinking. Alternative linguistic and cultural schemes may offer different perspectives that can broaden our understanding.
Language develops from associating words with bodily sensations, parts, and needs. As language matures, these connections weaken and words become linked to more abstract concepts and objects.
Words allow for complex thought, communication, and conceptualization. Without words, our thinking would be very limited. Words shape how we think.
Different languages reflect different ways of interpreting the world. They embody different assumptions and “common sense.” What makes sense in one language may seem nonsensical in another.
Language both enables and constrains thought. It gives us the means to think in new ways but also channels our thinking down familiar paths.
The development of language has enabled self-awareness, social responsibility, ethics, and law. It has made us self-conscious social beings.
New teachers will be needed to implement new educational approaches as existing teachers are too committed to current practices and ways of thinking. It will be hard for them to change.
An example is given of teachers walking out of a meeting on improving student-teacher communication, showing their resistance to new ways of thinking. However, some teachers were open to the students’ perspectives.
New teachers will need to be able to facilitate the “frustration” and “change in purpose” that allows for changes in perception. They must be able to create the right conditions for students and teachers to modify how they think and see the world.

The key ideas are that language shapes thinking in both enabling and constraining ways, new educational approaches require openness to new ways of thinking, and effecting real perceptual change is challenging but possible by facilitating frustration of current practices and shifts in purpose. New, open-minded teachers will be needed to bring about such change.

The authors acknowledge that teachers know their students’ problems but are unable to help them. They suggest this could be because teachers don’t fully understand the problems or feel unable to resolve them within the existing school system. The authors propose radical changes to address this, though they recognize these may seem impractical. Their goal is to change teachers’ perceptions by altering their environment and forcing them to see things from a new perspective.

The authors propose a 5-year moratorium on textbooks, reassigning teachers to subjects outside their expertise, requiring teachers to write books on their subjects, dissolving subjects and courses, limiting teacher speech, prohibiting teachers from asking questions they know the answers to, eliminating tests and grades, requiring teacher psychotherapy, publicly ranking teachers by ability, requiring teachers to pass student-created tests on student knowledge, making all classes elective and pay dependent on student interest, requiring periodic teacher sabbaticals in other fields, and requiring evidence that teachers have had loving relationships.

They also propose displaying school graffiti prominently and banning certain words and phrases like “teach,” “covering ground,” “IQ,” and “administrative necessity.” Though some proposals seem silly, the authors argue they address real issues, e.g. requiring loving relationships recognizes learning depends on the teacher-student relationship, and displaying graffiti addresses the hypocrisy in schools.

The authors aim to produce profound changes in education. Though their proposals may seem bizarre, they believe schools’ current state is similarly bizarre if facilitating learning is the goal. They hope their ideas spur more practical changes, believing perception change requires confronting frustration from faulty assumptions. Still, they can’t determine if the teachers they mention, who know their students’ problems but can’t help them, will actually change. Change depends on whether these teachers truly understand the problems and see how to resolve them despite the existing system.

The author argues that for educational reform to happen, teachers must change. However, many current teachers want change and are willing to implement it. Future teachers must drive the revolution.
The author proposes redesigning teacher education to prepare students to become “inventors of viable new teaching strategies.” Students would confront questions about teaching methods and evaluate their effectiveness.
The author describes a course where students design an ideal high school for the current era. However, students struggle with this at first because traditional education has taught them not to think critically or ask questions. They are used to just memorizing and repeating information.
The author argues students must “unlearn” many assumptions about education that are not supported by evidence. For example, there is no evidence that more content knowledge makes a better teacher or that subject matter must be taught in a particular sequence.
The author shares Carl Rogers’s view that significant learning that influences behavior cannot be directly taught. Rogers lost interest in teaching and focused on learning. Students react to this idea in different ways. Some dismiss it, while others gain a new perspective on teaching.
Rogers defines “significant learning” as learning that leads to changes like greater self-acceptance, flexibility, and realistic goals. The author argues some students start to reconsider their views of teaching and learning based on Rogers’s ideas.

In summary, the author calls for reimagining teacher education to promote more innovative and impactful learning. By challenging students’ assumptions, the author’s course pushes students to develop their own philosophies of teaching that focus on students’ personal development.

The students go through a process of self-inquiry as they develop recommendations for a hypothetical high school called Quo Vadimus High School (QVHS). This process leads them to examine their own beliefs and assumptions. Developing QVHS requires the students to ask many questions to determine the purpose and objectives of the school, understand the students, determine what concepts and skills the students need, figure out how to help students develop those concepts and skills, and develop procedures to evaluate the school’s effectiveness.

By going through this process, the students go through a metamorphosis and become “creative agents” in developing new approaches to education. They become less dependent on authority, gain more confidence in themselves as professionals, become more willing to question institutional practices, and become “agents of self-renewal.” The process of developing QVHS, not the end result, is most important for helping students develop in this way.

The key principles that the students apply in developing QVHS are based on what is known about learning, as summarized by Goodwin Watson. These include that behavior is more likely to recur if rewarded, repetition without reward is ineffective, punishment can produce avoidance, readiness to learn depends on many factors, people will not learn if they believe they cannot or if the subject seems irrelevant or threatening, novelty is rewarding, self-selected learning is most effective, participation enhances learning, an authoritarian environment stifles learning while an open environment promotes learning, and people learn best when a subject is immediately useful. The methods course aims to have students apply these principles through practice, not just learn about them theoretically. The ideal would be for all college courses to teach in this manner, applying knowledge about learning, so a separate methods course would not be needed. But most college professors do not teach this way.

In summary, the inquiry process of developing QVHS helps transform students by fostering examination of beliefs and assumptions, independence from authority, confidence, willingness to question institutional practices, and ability to renew oneself. The principles of learning applied in this process emphasize reward, relevance, participation, openness, and immediacy. The methods course cultivates these qualities through experiential learning, unlike typical college courses.

The authors argue that conventional schools are inadequate learning environments, especially for disadvantaged students. They criticize common features of schools like testing, courses, requirements, administrators, and restrictive physical spaces.
They believe schools should be redesigned to be model learning environments. This would require young, progressive teachers to “subvert” the current system by eliminating tests, courses, requirements, administrators, and restrictive spaces.
The authors argue these components do not achieve the goals of education and in fact hamper learning. Testing causes teaching to focus on grades rather than learning. Courses are contingent on testing and reduce learning to a “quiz show.” Requirements limit students and turn attention away from learning. Administrators become overly focused on enforcing requirements rather than helping students learn. And restrictive spaces are not conducive to learning.
The authors suggest replacing administration and requirements with student responsibility and accountability. Schools should use technology to help students learn strategies to cope with change, not just to improve the current system.
Specifically regarding city schools, the authors argue that the current system produces problems like student dropouts and dissent. It does not teach disadvantaged students properly and turns them against society. Modifying the school environment could help students become productive community members. Viewing schools as a process for serving communities could help in this.
In summary, the authors present a critique of the conventional education system, especially regarding disadvantaged students in city schools. They suggest progressive reforms to teaching, administration, requirements, and the physical space of schools to make them model learning environments that help students learn skills to cope with change. Implementing these reforms could benefit both students and communities.
The school would function as a local think tank to solve problems identified by the students and staff.
The curriculum would focus on the immediate community and its needs. There would be no conventional subjects.
Students of all ages, especially male dropouts, would have leadership roles. Teachers would act as consultants.
The goal would be to give students constructive participation in the community.
The whole city could be a continuous learning lab. Services could include:

Community planning and action programs like newsletters, magazines, films, rat extermination, etc. Students would be paid/rewarded.
Services for daily problems like repairing appliances.
Cultural services like student musical/dramatic productions, films, TV shows, talent shows, etc.
Athletic services and competitions, possibly leading to the Olympics.
Services for city agencies like hospitals, police, fire department, sanitation, parks, museums, etc.

Students could produce goods and services like clothing, food, decorations to sell. They could have gardens, shops, shelters, etc.
The school’s goal would be developing community leadership through participation in improving the community.
This approach could free students from alienating schools and minimize bureaucratic agencies. It could channel adolescent energy into constructive directions and create political networks.
The school system could become an instrument for dealing with city problems. Traditional schools and curricula are irrelevant to today’s problems. Public schools should help resolve real problems or not exist.
McLuhan extended the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (that language shapes perception of reality) to new media. New media are new languages that schools should teach literacy in, given their large effects.
Speech was the first mass communication and let humans symbolize unlike other animals. Little is known about language’s origins, though people have likely used meaningful sounds for 100,000+ years.
The alphabet was invented around 1500 BC, representing speech sounds with graphic signs. It captured speech and expanded language in time and space. Many surfaces were tried before papyrus scrolls.
New media are often greeted with anxiety, suspicion and pessimism. People tend to resent new media.
Socrates was hostile to the written word and believed the spoken word was superior for education. He argued that writing cannot answer questions or know who it should address.
However, writing eventually won out and led to many benefits, like the spread of commerce, the expansion of empires, the fixing of historical tradition, the spread of science and Christianity, and the development of law.
Still, for most of history, the spoken word remained dominant. Literature and education were primarily oral. Only with the printing press did the written word take precedence.
The printing press was a hugely impactful invention. It enabled the mass production and distribution of books, which revolutionized society in many ways:
It enabled the Protestant Reformation by allowing the mass printing of Bibles. This promoted a more personal religion and weakened the power of religious authorities.
It promoted individualism by isolating readers, but also nationalism by enabling vernacular literatures.
It changed literary forms and styles. Poetry and prose were adapted for reading, not just hearing. New forms like the novel emerged.
It transformed education by shifting the focus to reading, writing, and studying texts. It enabled new methods like written examinations and assignments.
Print media dominated for centuries but began losing its monopoly in the 19th century with new technologies like photography, telegraphs, telephones, film, radio, and television.
These new media should be studied to understand their effects on our perceptions and cognition. To avoid being constrained by any medium, we must develop a critical perspective on how it works and what it does. New media, as mediators of perception, are crucial subjects of study.

That’s a high-level summary of the key points and arguments presented in the passage on societies’ transitions from primarily oral to written cultures with the advent of new media technologies. Let me know if you would like me to explain or expand on any part of this summary.

The key idea in the passage is that to understand any subject matter or idea, it needs to be studied structurally. This means understanding how the elements within the subject relate to and interact with each other. The passage argues against studying subjects in an isolated, fragmented way.

Some key points in support of this:

According to Marshall McLuhan, any subject can be taught as a model of perception. Teaching subjects structurally shows how they relate to other subjects. This provides new insights even at an elementary level.
The idea of education as imparting content into the mind like a container is outdated. Structures cannot be contained. Any container is part of the structure.
The 20th century discovered the technique of ‘suspended judgment’ - understanding a process without being subject to its consequences or effects. This is like achieving ‘weightlessness’. It allows one to see causes and effects simultaneously.
In a fast-changing, complex world, the conventional fragmented academic approach threatens our survival. Education must replicate the integrated nature of the real world.
The new integrated education will differ radically from the old, just as a space capsule differs from an old steamboat. We need new languages and concepts to operate in the modern ‘nuclear space age’.
Examples of integrated curricula that relate to students’ interests and questions are given, e.g. the ‘black attache case game’ and ‘questions curriculum’. These elicit students’ questions and build the curriculum around what students want to know.
The key failure in education is when the ‘stuff in the teacher’s head’ is inadequately related to the ‘stuff in the learners’ head’. Integrated, student-centered approaches address this.

In summary, the passage is arguing for a radically new, integrated form of education that focuses on structures, relationships, and students’ interests and questions. The old fragmented, content-centered approach is seen as outdated and even dangerous. A new conceptual language is needed to understand and operate in the modern world.

The instructor told the students that the computer had trouble answering vaguely phrased questions. It needed very specific questions in order to provide a clear answer.
For three weeks, the students interacted with a ‘black attaché-case’ which they believed contained a computer. Though there was no actual computer, the students found the experience worthwhile.
The students developed a list of questions about how to phrase questions to get good answers. They felt this was useful for determining what information they wanted and whether a question could be answered.
The instructor then had the students write him personal letters about topics or questions they were interested in. He would write detailed responses. The students were hesitant but grew to appreciate this exercise.
The quality of the students’ writing improved through these personal communications. The curriculum became driven by the students’ natural curiosity and desire to communicate.
The instructor kept records of the classroom interactions and found most questions dealt with issues around relationships, identity, and life transitions - not typical ‘school’ topics. The instructor had to respond wisely to these personal questions.
In one exercise, the instructor had students respond to sensory questions with short phrases. One student’s responses were poetic, demonstrating how a person’s experiences and personality create an integrated whole.
The students enjoyed these experiences and discussions, though they didn’t see them as typical ‘school subjects’. The interactions felt personally relevant and connected in a way school often does not.

The key themes are:

Vague questions are hard for computers/AI systems to answer. Specificity is key.
Authentic writing and communication exercises, driven by students’ interests and questions, can be highly engaging and help improve skills.
A curriculum centered around students’ personal experiences and questions can feel highly relevant, even if it does not resemble typical schooling.
The curriculum was not a predetermined sequence of topics. Instead, it flowed from one idea to the next based on students’ thinking. The instructor didn’t declare what would be discussed each day. Students knew what to discuss because the previous discussion continued.
The author raises questions about the nature of “subjects.” Are they things? Can they grow? Where do they exist? Why do we make students study subjects? Do young children think in terms of subjects? If not, why are they such avid learners? The author doesn’t have answers but says we need to ask these questions to improve education.
The program described didn’t resemble typical school subjects. This positively impacted students. The instructor asked thought-provoking questions on various topics. Students also asked their own questions on many subjects. In discussions, students applied what they knew from experiences, reading, and feelings. This allowed the real world to enter the classroom.
Achieving a new education can involve a questions curriculum, a systems curriculum, or an games curriculum. Although “games” usually aren’t associated with learning, they can teach skills and concepts. Games make the learning environment more aligned with how we know learning works. They shift the teacher’s role to consultant or coach. They eliminate harmful competition for grades.
Games that replicate aspects of the human condition and confront players with problems to solve can work at any grade level and teach any concept. There are usually many possible solutions. Games could form the basis of most learning systems. They encourage an open learning environment where the school and teachers are resources to explore new questions. This could transform schools into learning laboratories.
The article describes how high school students competed in academic games, not athletics, at a Florida school’s “Olympics.” Schools are using problem-solving games to teach many subjects due to dissatisfaction with textbooks. Some schools use games to motivate struggling students. elementary schools designed games to teach economics and business.
Universities, especially business schools, use management games. About 50 schools use them, double the number in 1963. Some schools use games to teach political science and international relations.
Gaming itself isn’t new. War games date back centuries. Non-military strategy games have been used in schools since 1956. They provide an engaging way to study decision making.
Strategy games were first developed in the 1950s to train managers. They were soon adopted in universities and businesses. Despite their complexity, the educational value of such games is still not firmly established. However, they are used in various contexts to study decision making.
Games are considered effective learning aids for several reasons:

They spur motivation and engagement. Students get very involved in the competitive aspects of games and try harder than in regular courses.
They allow students to practice applying concepts and techniques learned in the classroom. Students experience the consequences of their decisions, which is hard to achieve in a classroom setting.
Business games aim to provide experience with managerial decision making under competitive conditions. They improve skills in analysis, negotiation, and advocacy.
Complex games like Inter-Nation Simulation place students in decision-making roles to experience the challenges of international politics and diplomacy. Students gain empathy for the positions of different nations. However, the educational value of such simulations is still debated, as they oversimplify real-world complexities.

While some educators and schools are enthusiastic about using games, others are more critical. Games are seen as mere entertainment by some or as too simplified to reflect the complexity of real situations. However, the use of games in secondary and higher education is growing due to their ability to simulate future scenarios, allow for role playing, and provide self-judgment of performance.
In summary, strategy games and simulations are considered by some as useful for education and skill development but their effectiveness is still debated due to concerns about oversimplification and a perception of them as merely entertainment. However, their use is increasing in schools and universities to model complex real-world situations.
The author discusses various simulation games used in schools to teach students in an engaging way. These include games that simulate life events, disasters, politics, and consumer economics.
Schools like Johns Hopkins University, some schools in Baltimore and San Diego, and Nova High School have incorporated these games into their curriculum, especially for students who are unmotivated or struggling. The games aim to motivate these students and match their needs.
However, some research has found little evidence that these games improve learning, retention, critical thinking, or attitudes compared to conventional teaching methods. More research is needed on their socio-psychological impact. Some research has found they can increase students’ feelings of political efficacy and confidence in dealing with real-world problems.
While games have value when used properly and can supplement other teaching, they also have downsides. Used alone, they can encourage passive and conformist thinking. They focus on succeeding in the simulated reality rather than examining its flaws. They also often focus too much on winning, which can distort learning objectives. More research is needed, but games reflect a move away from unrealistic textbooks and a shift to more student-centered learning.
For teachers interested in using games, the author recommends starting by questioning what students will do each day, how it’s valuable, and how you know it’s valuable. This can help weaken interest in just “following the syllabus” and lead to challenging current practices. However, this approach also risks professional consequences like job loss. Change is risky, but the status quo also has risks. The key is using good judgment about what’s right for students.

In summary, the passage discusses the pros and cons of using simulation games in schools, with a particular focus on their risks and limitations that educators should keep in mind. But the author also believes that questioning traditional practices and assumptions can be a useful first step toward improving education, even if it means facing difficulties. The key is making judgments focused on benefiting students.

The passage provides suggestions for teachers to improve their teaching methods and understanding of students. Specifically, it recommends that teachers:

Avoid giving students answers and instead confront them with problems to solve on their own. This helps students develop independent thinking skills.
Listen to students carefully to understand their perspectives and frame of mind. Teachers should ask questions to clarify students’ thoughts, not just react to what they say. Listening helps teachers design activities tailored to what students actually know and are interested in.
Require students to ask questions, not just make statements. This helps students develop question-asking skills, a key part of problem-solving and critical thinking. Teachers can present a problem and have students generate many questions about it.
Examine the reasons and criteria behind the grades they give to students. This helps teachers become aware of potential subjectivity, prejudice, or unfairness in their grading. Teachers can reflect on whether the grades reflect more about their own perceptions than students’ actual learning or performance.
Track the judgments they make about students, both verbal and nonverbal. Noting tendencies to label students as “good/bad,” “smart/stupid,” “polite/impertinent” and so on helps teachers recognize potential negative impacts of such judgments on students and their learning. Judgments can impede learning or make students overly reliant on teachers’ opinions.

In summary, the key suggestions are for teachers to relinquish some control and authority in the classroom, make an effort to understand students’ perspectives, help students develop independent thinking skills, and reflect on how their own judgments and perceptions affect students and learning. The goal is for teachers to gain a more balanced, objective, and empathetic view of students that supports their growth as learners.

Become more aware of how you make judgments about others. Judging others often causes us to stop thinking deeply about them and behave according to our judgments rather than the actual situation.
Judgments turn people and situations into fixed states rather than the dynamic processes they really are. Judgments are often self-fulfilling - they shape how we interact with others and influence their behavior. For example, judging a student as dumb can cause teachers to behave in ways that lead the student to underperform.
Suspend judgment as much as possible. Avoid stereotyping and remain open-minded. An example is given of a father who judges his son for going out on a weeknight before finishing homework. The mother reveals the son was finishing a birthday gift for the father, showing how easy it is to misjudge based on limited information. Suspending judgment can help you become a better learner and teacher.
Imagine your students are the smartest and most capable. Expect them to achieve greatly. This self-fulfilling prophecy can cause students to rise to those expectations. Becoming is shaped profoundly by expectations, whether one’s own or others’. Let go of the notion that you know what makes someone “smart.” See how much your students know and are capable of.
Consider telling students they will all get A’s, then actually giving them A’s. This releases them from worrying about grades and allows them to focus on learning. Most will still work hard, and the few who don’t are a small price to pay for providing most students an opportunity to learn meaningfully. Follow the students’ interests and suggestions without coercing them.
Include more future-oriented questions and discussions. The future is largely neglected in schools but crucial to prepare students for the rapid changes coming. Ask students open-ended questions about the future to provoke their thinking, even for young students. Make future questions a regular part of your teaching, especially for younger students since their future will soon be the present.
Be concerned with helping students deal with the present and future, not just the past that most curriculum focuses on.

The authors recommend studying media and its effects on society, as suggested by Marshall McLuhan. However, rather than focusing on whether McLuhan’s statements are right or wrong, it is better to examine different media and how they are influencing society. Students and teachers can gain valuable insights from this process.
Media study should be an integral part of all subjects and classes. Different subjects can explore the effects of media from different angles. For example, history can look at media’s impact on political and social changes; science can examine how technology shapes evolution; English can analyze how media creates new forms of literature and changes how people appreciate literature.
Students today often understand new media better than their teachers. For example, many are interested in music and poetry shared through media like records, as well as social and political commentary from comedians and commentators.
The authors are not suggesting eliminating conventional teaching methods altogether. However, there needs to be a shift to focus more on the process of learning rather than the products, being learner-centered, and allowing students to pursue topics that interest them.
Teachers should reflect on how they gained the knowledge and skills they value. For many, little was gained by being told information by others or learning in a strict sequence. This reflection can be unsettling but helps teachers better understand why they chose their profession and how to best help students develop intelligence and build a good society.
Education’s basic role is to improve a group’s survival. When the threats a group faces change but education does not, the group’s survival may be jeopardized. Selectively forgetting outdated concepts and skills is necessary for survival in a fast-changing environment.
Rapid environmental changes have made many traditional concepts and institutions irrelevant and even threatening. Recognizing and addressing this is critical for survival. Some examples of institutions changing in response to the environment include the Catholic Church through the Ecumenical Council called by Pope John XXIII.

Institutions like the Church have to change in response to changes in the external environment to avoid becoming irrelevant. The Church’s traditional concepts and beliefs were challenged by social and technological changes.
Concepts that were once useful can become outdated and even counterproductive. The concept of uncontrolled population growth as a threat to survival has challenged the religious sanction against birth control. Legal restrictions on abortion are being repealed in response to social changes.
The use of scientific method and new technologies has forced humanity to unlearn many traditional concepts. For example, Galileo and Darwin challenged religious doctrines about humanity’s place in the universe and origins. New electronic technologies are bringing massive changes that societies have to adapt to.
Coping with the rapid rate of social and technological change can lead to ‘future shock.’ Education has an important role to play in helping societies adapt to change by teaching new concepts and ways of thinking relevant to the modern world.
In the early 20th century, debates over new educational methods did not seem to traumatize educators in the way that more recent, radical changes have. Since the 1950s, many educators have had to confront new approaches that their past experience did not prepare them for.
According to Lynn White, seven major ‘canons’ or cultural assumptions of Western civilization have changed or begun to change in recent decades: the supremacy of Western civilization, the image of humans as made in God’s likeness, fixed social classes, the stability of knowledge, the unchanging character of human nature, limited natural resources, and humanity’s right to exploit nature.

The key argument is that social institutions and education need to adapt to radical, rapid changes in society’s environment by promoting new concepts and ways of thinking. Failure to change in response to the changing environment results in a loss of relevance and ‘future shock.’

The canon of logic and language established by the Greeks has dominated Western thought for over 2000 years. This canon assumes that mastery of logic and language leads to clear and efficient thinking.
There is now a new canon of symbols that provides a wider context for the canon of logic and language. Humans are symbol-making animals and the symbols we create come to shape how we think and experience the world.
The canon of rationality, also from the Greeks, assumes that reason is the supreme human attribute. But we now recognize the importance of the unconscious and the unconscious plays a key role in human thinking and behavior.
The old canon of the hierarchy of values ranked human activities and forms of knowledge. The new canon sees all human activities as having the potential for greatness and insight. There is an “equality of values.”
Although the old canons still dominate much of culture and education, society has experienced a “trans-substantiation” to new ways of thinking. We must learn to see the world through new canons of the globe, of symbols, of the unconscious, and of the spectrum of values.
Schools are still devoted to inculcating the old canons, even as society has moved on. Students learn outdated concepts like absolute truth, certainty, fixed identity, simple causality, and oppositional thinking.
Education needs to teach new concepts like relativity, probability, contingency, uncertainty, process, multiple causality, and degrees of difference. Learning these concepts will produce people able to deal with change and uncertainty.
The new education aims to develop inquiring, flexible, creative, tolerant people who can thrive in uncertainty. Education should teach students “learning how to learn” and help them develop “built-in, shockproof crap detectors.”
Much insightful thinking about education has come from outside academia. Educators need to recognize and incorporate these perspectives.

The key argument is that modern society requires new ways of thinking that education has failed to provide. By clinging to outdated concepts and canons, education is not cultivating the kinds of thinking needed today. A new education focused on new concepts can remedy this.

The book Teaching as a Subversive Activity is one of five books published together by Penguin Education.
Though the authors have different writing styles and perspectives, they share some common views:

They believe radical changes are needed in education.
They think education should primarily benefit students.
They believe education is in a crisis, especially in America.

The authors argue for an education system that teaches students “how to learn” and helps them develop a skeptical and questioning mindset.
They see teachers as key to creativity, questioning, and addressing changes in society.
The book provides recommendations for teaching students to ask important and critical questions.
The authors call themselves “simple romantics” who believe education can improve the human condition.
A review states it is impossible to fully capture the wealth of ideas about education in the past, present and future discussed in the book.

#book-summary

Microsoft Word - taasa.doc - Administrator