4 ms·

>> all teaching was a process of lying > Well put! Shudder. Consider a thought experiment - a military briefing. A captain briefing generals. One must nece

>> all teaching was a process of lying > Well put! Shudder. Consider a thought experiment - a military briefing. A captain briefing generals. One must necessarily simplify. But imagine a briefing that is grossly incomplete, assortedly incorrect, very misleading, written without understanding and without mentioning and characterizing that lack, and pervasively incompetently bogus, and that captain later on the carpet before the generals, defending the briefing with "well, all briefing is a process of lying". Shudder. I consider the "teaching is lying" meme to be vile. I've heard it most often associated with pre-college chemistry. Chemistry education research describes pre-college chemistry education content as "incoherent", leaving both students and teachers deeply steeped in misconceptions. Oh well. You mentioned microscale, so I write just to note the top "How to remember sizes" section of my slowwwly-loading wasn't-intended-to-be-public page http://www.clarifyscience.info/part/Atoms http://www.clarifyscience.info/part/Atoms . It might help you provide a framework for your kid to think about small things. FWIW.

oska 8y ago
> Shudder. I consider the "teaching is lying" meme to be vile. Couldn't agree more. And when I read this in the article I also thought of high school chemistry even before I read your comment. I was put off chemistry in high school precisely because of its incoherence. The best thing to do, as always, is to be honest. Tell your students that what you are teaching them is a simplification; a model that is useful at this level. Many will be satisfied with this answer and not want to go to a deeper level. But some children, those with a greater need for coherence and for things to make deep sense, will be reassured to know it's only a model and either wait for the deeper model to be taught or want to start exploring the deeper model at that time. Which is fine. I found the approach taken by the author of this article quite patronising and rather distasteful.
- vilhelm_s 8y ago
  The approach in this article is to give a "technically unimpeachable" definition. It doesn't involve any lies.
  - oska 8y ago
    My comment, and I believe the one I replied to, is directed at the first paragraph in this piece, which is about the idea of teaching as 'a process of lying' and one which the author agrees with 'in principle'. I also do not like his suggested definition. It comes across as smartarse-ish and I think most children would feel the same way.
keithnz 8y ago
a military briefing is different from teaching. A military briefing should be communicating things the generals already understand. teaching is a process of lying is kind of provocotaive, but teaching is a set of progressions, each progression necessarily leaves the edges blury while trying to make one aspect clear.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  Pretty much. If generals are learning battlefield tactics and logistics from a captain, then the war is already lost. There's a massive difference between sharing/communicating intelligence and teaching. The former relies on a common understanding of terminology, technique, etc, the later involves one side attempting to understand all of that to be able to facilitate the former.

oska 8y ago

> Shudder. I consider the "teaching is lying" meme to be vile. Couldn't agree more. And when I read this in the article I also thought of high school chemistry even before I read your comment. I was put off chemistry in high school precisely because of its incoherence. The best thing to do, as always, is to be honest. Tell your students that what you are teaching them is a simplification; a model that is useful at this level. Many will be satisfied with this answer and not want to go to a deeper level. But some children, those with a greater need for coherence and for things to make deep sense, will be reassured to know it's only a model and either wait for the deeper model to be taught or want to start exploring the deeper model at that time. Which is fine. I found the approach taken by the author of this article quite patronising and rather distasteful.

vilhelm_s 8y ago
The approach in this article is to give a "technically unimpeachable" definition. It doesn't involve any lies.
- oska 8y ago
  My comment, and I believe the one I replied to, is directed at the first paragraph in this piece, which is about the idea of teaching as 'a process of lying' and one which the author agrees with 'in principle'. I also do not like his suggested definition. It comes across as smartarse-ish and I think most children would feel the same way.

keithnz 8y ago

a military briefing is different from teaching. A military briefing should be communicating things the generals already understand. teaching is a process of lying is kind of provocotaive, but teaching is a set of progressions, each progression necessarily leaves the edges blury while trying to make one aspect clear.

craftyguy 8y ago
Pretty much. If generals are learning battlefield tactics and logistics from a captain, then the war is already lost. There's a massive difference between sharing/communicating intelligence and teaching. The former relies on a common understanding of terminology, technique, etc, the later involves one side attempting to understand all of that to be able to facilitate the former.