Want smarter kids? Make them study something - one thing - for a long time.
I found this very intriguing and potentially a way to lead students from our weak current training in how to think to actual scholarship. The suggested deep focus on something like apples or dust reminded me of the Confuscian quote "A common man marvels at uncommon things; a wise man marvels at the commonplace".
Makes sense to me, but i question whether most could maintain enough focus to study one thing continuously for 12 years. Seems like it would get pretty tedious.
^ Don't think the 12 years is necessary. It's more the idea of really learning how to study something I think.
This seems to be the central poitn of the article:
Quote:Egan, a professor of education at Canada's Simon Fraser University, hopes that by the time such students finish high school, they will be world-class experts on their topics - as well as more effective citizens and better people.
"People who know nothing in depth commonly assume that their opinions are the same kind of thing as knowledge," Egan writes in his forthcoming book "Learning In Depth: A Simple Innovation That Can Transform Schooling," which will be available in January. He also contends that "a central feature of becoming a moral person is to learn to become engaged with something outside the self."
I don't understand what in that says "smarter".
Whatever the object is, it doesn't look very effective to me. I don't know why so many people fight the general practice of standardized eduction when nearly the entire world runs on professional standards of some sort. It makes perfect sense to me to teach children how to conform to professional standards since that's what the vast majority of them will be required to do as adults in order to make a living.
I also think kids already study things in-depth in pre-college education. Calculus is pretty in depth.
(11-08-2010 09:30 AM)Supersport Wrote: [ -> ]Whatever the object is, it doesn't look very effective to me. I don't know why so many people fight the general practice of standardized eduction when nearly the entire world runs on professional standards of some sort. It makes perfect sense to me to teach children how to conform to professional standards since that's what the vast majority of them will be required to do as adults in order to make a living.
I also think kids already study things in-depth in pre-college education. Calculus is pretty in depth.
I think we teach kids, sometimes, to learn what is known, but not how to go from there. Very few significant problems in any field or endeavor will be solved by anything we can teach kids in school. They need instead to learn how to find information and how to apply principles to new situations. That's the value of incorporating this sort of approach imo. That's not to say they don't need to learn the three R's, etc., but being able to really learn something in depth goes a lot further than the 'mile wide and an inch deep' approach we take in many subjects otherwise. Rote memorization is great for standardized tests, but it won't be a standardized test that determines how these kids do post-school or what they contribute to society.
Quote:His idea goes like this: Assign each student a single, specific topic, which he or she will study over and over again, from every possible angle, from early elementary school through high school.
Assign them a topic they are stuck with all those years? Sounds like the makings of disaster. They will grow to resent that being thrust upon them. Students need balance and the chance to explore their own interests. I have found that only when I find something that truly intrigues me can I delve into it and desire to excel. IOW, the heart has to be in it.
(11-08-2010 10:27 PM)crufus Wrote: [ -> ]I think we teach kids, sometimes, to learn what is known, but not how to go from there. Very few significant problems in any field or endeavor will be solved by anything we can teach kids in school. They need instead to learn how to find information and how to apply principles to new situations. That's the value of incorporating this sort of approach imo. That's not to say they don't need to learn the three R's, etc., but being able to really learn something in depth goes a lot further than the 'mile wide and an inch deep' approach we take in many subjects otherwise. Rote memorization is great for standardized tests, but it won't be a standardized test that determines how these kids do post-school or what they contribute to society.
A large % of students don't need to learn how to do research and solve problems. A large % of jobs require learning what to do and then doing it, and the jobs can be very sophisticated. Further, virtually all professions start with a standardized test of knowledge, and only then can progress to research and problem solving. That progression can't be circumvented. The opportuity to learn to do research and solve problems is there for as many as are needed. For others what is needed is more employable skills. Frankly for many what is needed are simple jobs, which is a fact of life we seem determined to deny.
^ There's nothing wrong with 'simple' jobs, although it's increasingly difficult to earn a decent living at one (unless you live in India). Both my grandfather's did 'simple' jobs that were great contributions to society (and not that simple if you wanted to do well) and that I'm very proud of. However, I'd argue that we suffer not from a dearth of people to do the simple jobs, but from an increasing threat that overseas competitors are going to clean our clock on the innovation side. We have some natural advantages there I think in terms of how our society is structured, laws, attitudes towards innovation, etc., but a stultifying educational system can negate a lot of those imo.
This leads to Joey's point. I see nothing incompatible here with letting students find something they are really passionate about. The difference is that they would then be expected to really know it as opposed to a lot of the superficial stuff that passes for knowledge and learning now.
(11-09-2010 08:19 AM)crufus Wrote: [ -> ]^
However, I'd argue that we suffer not from a dearth of people to do the simple jobs, but from an increasing threat that overseas competitors are going to clean our clock on the innovation side. We have some natural advantages there I think in terms of how our society is structured, laws, attitudes towards innovation, etc., but a stultifying educational system can negate a lot of those imo.
you don't have to argue that with me. fits hand in glove with my position on trade deficits. the massive transfer of our simple jobs to China, Mexico, India et al is leading to a natural progression to more sophisticated jobs in those places. the US has no monopoly on brains, education or innovation. the old trade theory that we would advance by replacing our simple jobs with better jobs has obviously failed. we're losing both simple jobs and now more complex jobs, in part because we first allowed simple jobs to be sent to China.
Andy Grove, retired CEO of Intel, saying that among other things I agree with:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/con...358596.htm
conventional free trade theory is working completely backward of what it says