Okay, to be serious. This resonates so much with me at the moment. I'm not in literary criticism and I know I'm not qualified to make statements about the relative worth of particular works, but I do know that if a book I read doesn't make me go oh, it could be different, it's pretty well not worth reading except as a soporific. But I sense the same things in my teaching, that there is only a need for surface learning, that we do not need to question. Any teaching we do has to have measurable outcomes and quantifiable answers that can be seen. There's a tendency to want the facts. And with that comes shallow (or no) understanding of the implications.
I have been trying to develop the seeds of critical thinking in students. We get students who come in to classes thinking, oh I know all about computers, I can turn it on and stuff. But the broader implications of a technologised society are not even hinted at. We had a tutor who couldn't see the value of the stuff we were doing. But, we did get students thinking (and if you look at the snippets of their exams I posted, there are some attempts at deeper thought even within the strange turns of phrase used).
Have you seen Epic 2014 (http://robinsloan.com/epic/)? I think this is what you are talking about.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I like this
I have been trying to develop the seeds of critical thinking in students. We get students who come in to classes thinking, oh I know all about computers, I can turn it on and stuff. But the broader implications of a technologised society are not even hinted at. We had a tutor who couldn't see the value of the stuff we were doing. But, we did get students thinking (and if you look at the snippets of their exams I posted, there are some attempts at deeper thought even within the strange turns of phrase used).
Have you seen Epic 2014 (http://robinsloan.com/epic/)? I think this is what you are talking about.