Talk:Factory model school

Ideology?

Current ideology of some in education has resulted in this biased page. This page should be presented as explaining modern ideology and buzz words rather than relating actual history. The idea of a factory model school is more of a modern interpretation based on current ideology than actual characteristics of previous schools. Particularly suspect is the section on pedagogy. What exactly does "assembly line" instruction really mean? Clearly no assembly was done and no line existed. This label is merely political labeling to disparage past instruction in favor of an unspecified new model (i.e. "active" learning). Much of current education still relies on memorization and there is no support offered for the idea that this was the only objective addressed or that rote learning was the only method. The actual characteristics the original model stem from economic efficiency rather than modeling factories. (It is cheaper to teach a group of 30 students.)

Direct instruction includes information from a teacher, but does not require lecturing. Again, the authors of this page are just presenting a straw man to support their unstated ideology. The criticism section reveals the true purpose of this page and requires that the author present some sort of logic or evidence regarding the benefits and drawbacks of the common school (not factory school) model.

Associating school pedagogy with an architectural style is a big stretch and is not well supported. Why single out architecture or one style of architecture? It is expected that any school building supporting group instruction would include classrooms. Note that classrooms are not lecture halls found in universities, where the lecture ruled supreme for centuries. Wikipedia should present information, not proselytize. Robotczar (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• This is very timely, it seems. Please, Robotczar, indicate more clearly what in the article is supposedly biased, and how those things are not verified by reliable sources. Or are the sources wrong too? Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Neutral Points of View

The article as written attempts to convey a neutral point of view about a subject that is widely accepted. It is not a hypothesis nor is it written as such. Factory model schools are real and so is the term. This is not proselytizing nor is it a political term. One can improve on neutrality without inserting terms and phrases into the article that try to make this into a hypothesis or biased article reflecting your own point of view. That does not contribute to a NPOV or conform to an encyclopedic approach. There is a Criticism section - that is a very valid place for including different points of view with valid sources. Your editorializing was removed as not a single source was cited. Other edits that seem to contribute to the content I left alone or used as a basis for further minor enhancements.

Active learning is a specified, valid and widely accepted model. One may not agree it is appropriate, effective, etc., but that opinion does not make it any less real.

The economics behind the origins of this model are described. Perhaps you'd care to expand or emphasize that in the article.

Associating architectural style as you describe it, but not as intended, with Factory Model schools is not a stretch. They are used almost interchangeably by educators and architects. However, the images used currently in the article do not properly show how different aesthetic styles (International, Beaux Arts, etc) of buildings can all be Factory Model. It is more the plan or layout of the rooms that is what truly makes them factory model.

I agree that classrooms are not lecture halls, but they function in much the same way - dozens of students sitting in rows listening/reading/watching the information being presented by the "Sage on the stage" in a direct instructional model - and this is presented in detail in the linked article (Direct instruction). If there is a better way to convey this in the article, have at it in the body or in the Criticism section (again, with sourced cited). Architect21c (talk)

Educational History Revisons

I did a major re-write of this page as the content before did not reflect a neutral perspective and included sources that did not reflect academic rigor. The article put forth a phrase that has its origins in school criticism, rather than education history. To that end, the piece was revised to better reflect the origin of the phrase, a frame of reference for its use by early 20th century educators, and common flaws. The revisions will hopefully provide the reader with a better sense of where the phrase came from and how it's used, rather than reflect one person's opinion on what the phrase means.

EdHistory101 (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)EdHistory

I removed the addition of the architectural information as segments were historically inaccurate or the sources were misleading.

EdHistory101 (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

This sentence, "Factory model classrooms emerged in parallel with factory model education in the 19th century." is inaccurate. That is, "factory model education" is not a thing. The phrase is a rhetorical device. There are multiple misleading statements in your section that should be removed.

EdHistory101 (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

—Architecture sections— Let’s work to improve an article or section not delete one of two major components in the article or rewrote it completely to suit your own POV. There is room for both educational and architectural as well as neutral POV. If you feel something is misleading or inaccurate, let’s discuss or simply make a revision with appropriate citations. The Wiki rules are very useful and I try to follow them, perhaps sometimes not perfectly. Architect21c (talk)

Thanks