Contents and Competencies (Generic Skills)
Public.icon
The focus of education is moving from "what you know" (Contents) to "what you can do" (Competencies) through the lens of Knowledge. Education has two functions: Contents (such as math and science), and training (learning training).
The former is not used in society, but the latter is extremely necessary.
I feel that those in humanities acquire theoretical and conceptual thinking better.
For those in science, the image is that they are purely involved with science and correlations are predetermined.
It becomes the ability to connect the dots for the former.
Personally, I think that it is not about dividing into humanities or science, but about dividing into Knowledge and Wisdom. Also, I think it is not a matter of choice, but something that changes depending on the learning phase.
It is important to start with the Knowledge phase and then connect them later (make them into a systematic Wisdom). Online classes cannot be simply labeled as bad.
It is wrong to create the idea that "online classes = bad" when considering mixed classes.
I feel that Knowledge can be learned by oneself. It is greatly systematized, and textbooks and MOOCs are available.
Wisdom is not systematized, is it? It may be difficult to teach concepts and Wisdom directly, even if you are in a space rich in implications (there may be too many of them). It may not be verbalized much either (there may be infinitely many of them).
What I thought was the strongest while thinking about this, is that it is best to have an interest in technical and Knowledge-oriented science while taking humanities classes that center around history, logic, or application (which can be applied anywhere) to acquire transferable skills (which can be used anywhere) from the latter (humanities). Can people gain transferable skills from the latter?
This was a story of how I stopped thinking that "what I want to learn in college is CS!" because it is highly valued in the job market and ended up in a state of mental paralysis.
When it comes to transferability, it's probably similar to "transfer" in education terminology. If we consider the transfer of general abilities, Minerva is definitely a good reference.
The definition of competency summarized by Chiba University is interesting. When the liberal arts department was added to the University of Tsukuba, the Twitter response was almost entirely negative.
Reason: The evaluation system used to determine advancement is relative. There are cases where mistakes in advancement lead to dropping out of university.
Related: Kyushu University, ICU, Kanazawa University, Hokkaido University, University of Tokyo, Tsukuba (New)
In America, liberal arts departments are common, and there are options like "I want to take the class, but I don't want grades" at places like Yale.
The cause of failure seems to be the structure and design, such as relative evaluation or setting a limit on the number of students.
It seems that this kind of failure occurs when creating a liberal arts department based on humanities and sciences.
Q: Separating humanities and sciences is nonsense, so where should we go?
E: Ivy League and domestic liberal arts systems
P: The system for separation is important when dividing.
The same concept applies to online classes.
MOOCs and other similar courses teach "knowledge," while one of the interpersonal skills is "wisdom."
"The results of this study suggest that, if limited to the acquisition of new knowledge and concepts, face-to-face classroom instruction is not necessarily superior to on-demand instruction. In other words, if face-to-face classroom instruction is limited to conveying knowledge, its significance may be lost." https://t.co/nNH5kOwRDD