To learn to solve problems, kids (as well as adults) must first get rid of all biases, taken-for-granted knowledge, and apply material evidence to sensible questions.
While this is easy to talk about, it is far more unmanageable to apply than it seems. Setting aside your deep-seated, taken-for-granted knowledge is not an easy task. If you cannot set aside your beliefs, if you already presume to know the "Truth" then all contradictory evidence will perfunctorily be dismissed and there is no real hope for you to find reasoned solutions to new problems.
I learned to set aside my beliefs by adopting the stance of a debater. The simple task of the debater is to have a competent grasp of the issues on both sides of an argument in order to be able to argue either side productively, without regard to one's own biases and beliefs. The discipline to explore issues from every angle, using the best evidence available, is almost always a road to the best solution to any academic problem.
An Example
While teaching in the middle school, I helped students explore their reasoning skills by exposing them to an ethical problem and forcing them to make a reasoned decision. As an example, I would ask them to play the role of a hospital executive making a decision as to which of three worthy candidates would receive the only heart available for transplant. One candidate would live as a result of the transplant while the other two were likely to die soon unless another match was found.
One candidate is a single-mother of three young kids, ages three, five and seven. Her death would leave her children without a mother.
Candidate two is a medical doctor researching a cure for cancer and his research is about to produce breakthrough results.
The third candidate is an ambitious college student with political aspirations; should he live he will become the President of the United States whose leadership will prove to be the catalyst for world peace, a result that will not happen if he doesn't survive.
Students had to gather evidence, make arguments and solve the ethical problem of awarding the heart to the candidate most worthy of the heart. Given what you know, which one of these candidates gets to live?
How it Works
By asking students to work with a set of facts, a set a bit more extensive than what I shared above, students had to use these facts and come to grips with how the facts impacted their own ethical values. In groups, their values came into conflict with the other members of the group and, as such, they had to confront their own taken-for-granteds. In the end, every group was able to reach a reasoned decision, share that decision with their peers and be comfortable with the reconciliation of facts with values.
While this is easy to talk about, it is far more unmanageable to apply than it seems. Setting aside your deep-seated, taken-for-granted knowledge is not an easy task. If you cannot set aside your beliefs, if you already presume to know the "Truth" then all contradictory evidence will perfunctorily be dismissed and there is no real hope for you to find reasoned solutions to new problems.
I learned to set aside my beliefs by adopting the stance of a debater. The simple task of the debater is to have a competent grasp of the issues on both sides of an argument in order to be able to argue either side productively, without regard to one's own biases and beliefs. The discipline to explore issues from every angle, using the best evidence available, is almost always a road to the best solution to any academic problem.
An Example
While teaching in the middle school, I helped students explore their reasoning skills by exposing them to an ethical problem and forcing them to make a reasoned decision. As an example, I would ask them to play the role of a hospital executive making a decision as to which of three worthy candidates would receive the only heart available for transplant. One candidate would live as a result of the transplant while the other two were likely to die soon unless another match was found.
One candidate is a single-mother of three young kids, ages three, five and seven. Her death would leave her children without a mother.
Candidate two is a medical doctor researching a cure for cancer and his research is about to produce breakthrough results.
The third candidate is an ambitious college student with political aspirations; should he live he will become the President of the United States whose leadership will prove to be the catalyst for world peace, a result that will not happen if he doesn't survive.
Students had to gather evidence, make arguments and solve the ethical problem of awarding the heart to the candidate most worthy of the heart. Given what you know, which one of these candidates gets to live?
How it Works
By asking students to work with a set of facts, a set a bit more extensive than what I shared above, students had to use these facts and come to grips with how the facts impacted their own ethical values. In groups, their values came into conflict with the other members of the group and, as such, they had to confront their own taken-for-granteds. In the end, every group was able to reach a reasoned decision, share that decision with their peers and be comfortable with the reconciliation of facts with values.
Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/k-12-education-articles/guidelines-for-solving-problems-for-kids-4648039.html
About the Author
David Longstreet wants you to have his mini-course, Study Smarter…Not Harder absolutely FREE. Just ask him to send it to you. On his website you'll find more informational articles like Practical Tips for Problem Solving
.
No comments:
Post a Comment