Slashdot Mirror

First of all, I think for a meaningful discussion on this issue we need to be clear what we are talking about. "Teaching kids how to learn" is pretty vague, especially with that darned difficult to understand word "how." Anyway, I agree with you partly and with ShieldW0lf partly, as he is correct in letting children explore and play (until a certain age) and that the current "educational system" is anything but, and you are correct in your latter part, although it is somewhat obvious or at least should be. I disagree with you when you seem to imply (sorry if that's not the intent) that rote memorization is somehow bad, as memorization for young children is particularly powerful. The method by which it is done is really the issue -- children under say age 7 or 8 should not be held to a curriculum and should not be pushed in the same way one could push an older person. They memorize simply by mimicry and we take for granted all the diverse actions that children memorize and thus perform -- our jobs as parents would be unbearably difficult if this were not so.

Anyway, I will provide a link to Dorothy Sayer's excellent essay "The Lost Tools of Learning," in which she addresses these issues in much more depth and more eloquently. As a muslim, the essay is particularly relevant as it is a reaffirmation our traditional method of upbringing (although we generally would replace Latin with Arabic, but nonetheless). This piece is more important now than when it was first issued in 1947!

http://www.gbt.org/text/sayers.html

I read the first text and immediately thought of a cup of coffee or a piece of hot food or something. It's not that hard to read if you simply consider some simple example of "an object at an elevated temperature." What else does the author mean by "an object at an elevated temperature?" I then immediately looked to the cold beer sitting on my desk and considered the inverse case and realized that I had better finish it before the internal energy of the surrounding atmosphere migrated to my beer until equilibrium was reached. Or put another way, I had better drink the damn thing before it gets warm.

Since I thought of the example myself it was not hard at all for me to understand the first text. Is it really necessary for the textbook to spell out one particularly obvious example? Were you simply unable to imagine one? Or is it that you did not even attempt to imagine an example?

Have you considered the case that there is no problem with the writer but that the problem lies in the reader? That is to say the dead tree equivalent of Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair.

Now you may or may not immediately think of the example the first time you read it. If you don't you need to go back and start parsing the words more carefully. Dissect it until you start replacing "an object of elevated temperature" with a hot cup of coffee. That is the reader's responsibility, not the writer's. It may even take you two or three reads before you start doing this.

Coincidentally it was my high school physics teacher who quite bluntly told us that most of us would need to read a given textbook passage three times before understanding it. I am not sure I agree it is true for everything one reads but I figure that for any text just beyond one's current grasp three times is a good estimate. He actually had a more detailed method whereby each read was done for a different purpose. Something like the first read through just read it and keep going. Plow through the text and ignore what you don't know just to let it sink in. Then leave it alone for a while. Preferably over a night. Then you can go back and read it in a more detailed and deliberate fashion. By this time you ought to understand it and if you don't you do need to ask for help with it. Sadly I cannot even remember the specifics so that is merely my distillation of the method.

It was only later on that I wondered why it is that no one had told me this until I was less than two years away from graduating high school. Obviously by then I'd basically figured it out but no one bothered to just bluntly lay down the truth. What I perhaps didn't appreciate at the time was that he was not just teaching us entry level physics but rather teaching us how to teach ourselves.

It only began to occur to me when I read The Lost Tools of Learning. Every so often I go back and reread it because it is so very applicable to any discussion of the educational system. The author's point is mainly that we are failing to teach students how to think and instead merely teaching subjects. When one knows how to think, one can read the supposedly difficult passage you provide with ease.

So my only answer to the problem is that for the time being teaching yourself how to think is something you're going to have to mostly do yourself. The education system we have is not going to do it because it is explicitly not designed to do it.

If you have a moment, I definitely suggest reading that essay and perhaps even delving into other Sayers works. She is one of those rare authors whose works will make you think.

the real issue is that only a minority of programmers are able to take skills developed in one context and apply them in a different context

You're right -- and change "programmers" to "people" and you'll still be right.

It used to be understood that education, particularly at the college level, was intended to teach people how to think. Most now believe that education is intended to train people how to work. Not that a college education shouldn't include that, but it's much less important than learning how to learn independently, think critically, adapt quickly, and communicate persuasively -- to say nothing of other essential (and learnable!) qualities like character, discipline, initiative, leadership, cooperation, and so on.

This is why people used to graduate from university at the age of 12 or 13, and be considered ready to make their way in the world. It was assumed that they would simply pick up whatever knowledge they needed.

Granted, there's much more knowledge to be "picked up" these days. But rather than augmenting the classical model, most of the world has entirely jettisoned it in favor of stuffing untrained minds full of unstructured data so that they can pass standardized tests and industry certifications.

Here and there you'll find holdouts -- mostly in the US, at smaller, lesser-known colleges. And what you find is that these institutions accept B or C students as freshmen and turn out graduates who can out-think and out-perform competition from Big Ten and Ivy schools. In other words, a proper education makes people smarter. If it doesn't, then it's not education... it's just training.

Exactly what I was trying to say. Thank you for putting it clearly.

This is an interesting essay that I think sums up the public education system's problem nicely.

One of my major complaints of education in the United States is that it largely aims to teach facts before teaching logic and reason (critical thinking).

See Dorothy Sayer's The Lost Tools of Learning.

We should be teaching children how to learn first, then feed them various subjects.

I did well in my private school through eigth grade - definitely top 5 of my class. I did fairly well in public high school, too, finishing in three years by taking summer school and full course loads - with little effort expended. I learned basically one thing: how to be lazy. I developed an excellent work ethic over the years, but this took some effort on my part. I am just now going back to college as an adult, and the things I am learning about learning itself and critical thought are so basic that I wonder exactly what exactly I accomplished during the last 12 years of education except a smattering of random facts. With the proper learning skills developed, I could probably learn all those facts in just a few short years now. Why drag it out so long?

More recommended reading: "The Lost Tools of Learning", by Dorothy Sayers.

http://www.gbt.org/text/sayers.html/

The above link is for Dorothy Sayers' Lost Tools of Learning.

It's geared toward the traits of children and has a proven track record. Many schools, primarily Reformed Christians, are getting back to this method.

Not all homeschoolers are motivated by a desire to insulate their kids from reality. This, for example, is the basis of our homeschooling method, and it elucidates many of the aspects of the state sponsored education I want to avoid. It was written in 1947, but as far as I am concerned, it matches today quite well. Better, perhaps.

As for degenerating into a flame-fest, this entire debate hasn't been much else since it started several days ago! Even the most sober and mature of slashdotters have found themselves calling each other names and getting visibly angry. This is a volatile issue. This is why my last journal entry actually encourages this sort of flame war. We need a free and unrestricted exchange of ideas about this, and if that involves name-calling and recriminations, then so be it.

I disagree with that. I think we need more level headed (but fierce is okay) debate like we have been having. Please take a moment to read Dorothy L. Sayers's excellent essay "The Lost Tools of Learning" which touches heavily on this subject.

I don't think you are a Nazi. In fact, I don't think that you believe half of the things you are saying, not in your heart. I don't see how you could.

I think you misconstrued a few of the things I said. I'll address it there. I'm gonna go grab some fast food for lunch and write over my lunch hour... it's a rather lengthy post to write during work while compiling some code. Suffice it to say that you are right that there is a very dangerous line between what I said and what the Nazis did. It's a fine line that I am prepared to walk. And you are absolutely correct that any argument which justifies the Nazis must be wrong. My take on it is that those arguments are probably missing that often very fine distinction between living in the real world and living in the Nazi world. Benevolence and some degree of selflessness are some distinctions, among others. Not everybody in this country is just looking to go kill some A-rabs. In fact, the majority don't want that, only a few outspoken assholes need to justify a war with violence. (strange thing to do, isn't it?) That's of course the problem right there, that they are outspoken assholes, not the silent majority of good hearted people that do make up this country.

An essay by Dorothy L. Sayers I recently read contains a wealth of information pertinent to this topic. You can find the essay at the following URL: http://www.gbt.org/text/sayers.html

The essay talks about the "dumbing down" of education, as well as the loss of vision by educators. It's central argument is simple: our schools are not teaching our pupils how to learn. Instead, we are teaching specific subjects as if they were entirely unrelated.

It's long, but well worth a read.

The anti-social argument against online classrooms is old hat. While I don't have statistics I do have anectdotal evidence that homeschoolers are more well-adjusted, social, normal people by the time they reach college (which is often by age 16) than many public and formal private school kids. They often hold classes in groups, not one on one at home. Online learning has so far been a supplement to interactive (people-to-people) learning.

Who says intense socialization must occur at school? Shouldn't intense learning be occuring? How much time can efficient learning really be spent socializing. There are other ways to socialize. Plenty of homeschoolers get socialization from extracurricular activity. Often they gain deeper, long-lasting social interaction from their church.

Home schoolers, as it has been noted, have been doing online learning for several years. One site I know of that's associated with the home school group my wife studied with, http://www.gbt.org offers great in depth studies for older kids. I know there are many more like this.