Does an abstract curriculum lead to an inability to define purpose of task?
I teach law, and I try very hard to get my students to form solid arguments, often finding this challenging and frustrating. ”Why can’t they clearly articulate what I know they know?” or “why on earth would they use that piece of evidence when it doesn’t really coincide with what the point they are making?”
Students are living in the abstract. Reading is abstract. Math is abstract. What exactly is experienced in the classroom anymore? Does this level of abstraction make the question , “why?” more complicated for students to answer.
In other words, are students less and less able to reason, justify, or make evident because they don’t study tangible experiences? Evidence that isn’t tangible is highly complex to process; the brain has to fill in the missing pieces the best that it can.
