Flipped instruction and self-regulated learning

From Robert Talbert’s “Flipped learning skepticism: Can students really learn on their own?“:

[Students’] primary experience is with pedagogy that emphasizes dependence. They are brainwashed through years of instructor-centered pedagogy that they are helpless when it comes to learning. But the fact remains that as human beings, they retain the capacity to learn and to regulate their learning. It’s just difficult and takes time and patience.

I’ve long believed that the most important quality which a good teacher must possess is the belief that all students can learn. I’ve also come to believe that self-directed learning is a valuable skill which must be explicitly nurtured and sustained from early childhood education on. As Talbert notes, we all start with it, but it can fade quickly in discouraging environments.

 

Advertisements

Pink as cultural construction

I’m glad to see the increasing mainstream media attention to the pink phenomenon‘s past and possible future:

Via Susan Stamberg’s “Girls Are Taught To ‘Think Pink,’ But That Wasn’t Always So“, at NPR:

Before Gatsby, a 1918 trade catalog for children’s clothing recommended blue for girls. The reasoning at the time was that it’s a “much more delicate and dainty tone,” Finamore says. Pink was recommended for boys “because it’s a stronger and more passionate color, and because it’s actually derived from red.”

Via Jeanne Maglety’s “When Did Girls Start Wearing Pink?“, in Smithsonian Magazine:

In 1927, Time magazine printed a chart showing sex-appropriate colors for girls and boys according to leading U.S. stores. In Boston, Filene’s told parents to dress boys in pink. So did Best & Co. in New York City, Halle’s in Cleveland and Marshall Field in Chicago.

Today’s color dictate wasn’t established until the 1940s, as a result of Americans’ preferences as interpreted by manufacturers and retailers.

Via Cordelia Fine’s “Biology doesn’t justify gender divide for toys“, in the New Scientist:

Some have “expressed concern that the ‘pinkification’ of toys for girls was adding to gender inequality in careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.”

“But the detrimental effects of this kind of marketing, though clearly only one factor in a mix of many influences on the young, may run broader and deeper. It polarises children into stereotypes. It’s not just that vehicles, weapons and construction sets are presented as ‘for boys’, while toys of domesticity and beautification are ‘for girls’. Toys for boys facilitate competition, control, agency and dominance; those for girls promote cooperation and nurturance. These gender stereotypes, acquired in childhood, underlie a host of well-documented biases against women in traditionally masculine domains and roles, and hinder men from sharing more in the responsibilities and rewards of domestic life.”

Let’s hope that society can use this awareness to help everyone focus on actions over appearances.