Thread by @ndarney

"The capacity to critically think emerges from a solid foundation of well-sequenced factual background knowledge."

That's... not true.

#ableg #abed

calgaryherald.com/opinion/column…

Dr. Mrazik is making two of statements in that single sentence:
1) critical thinking *is a result of* background knowledge
2) specifically well-sequenced knowledge (and in context he means chronologically sequenced)
#ableg #abed

1) The capacity to critically think is aided by background knowledge, but it doesn't emerge from it. If CT emerged from content knowledge then the banking/blank slate method of education would always lead to CT. We have over a century showing that isn't true.
#ableg #abed

What is true is that critical thinking is *improved* by and *relies on* background knowledge, which is wildly different from *emerges from*.
#ableg #abed

Second statement. Chronological sequencing is one way to teach, and this curriculum is very interested in that. However, concept based sequencing is another way, and one that is more supported by constructivist and humanist educational theories.
#ableg #abed

The problem is one I've discussed before when this same professor wrote a very similar editorial for the Edmonton Journal
#ableg #abed

https://twitter.com/ndarney/status/1392972351617175554?s=20

Basically, chronological sequencing makes it so that in the early grades students are taught an uncritical version of the content because the critical assessment of it is beyond their current abilities.

#abed #ableg

Final thought: why is the same professor, who's specialty is in concussion research and psychometric assessment, the only one defending the curriculum?
#ableg #abed