Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Despite what NCLB says, the system is designed to breed FAILURE while uplifing the ones who are successful at playing the game.
Unfortunately, you are correct. The agenda is served by those who play the game well playing it well. The trick is to have the right agenda. Then those who play the game well will serve society well.
The truth is, kids are not into learning for learning's sake unless there are IMMEDIATE pay offs (ie, fun, status or other natural rewards). Much of what we ask them to learn has future pay offs. Sure, if you give them something novel and fun to learn, they'll bite but you just can't do that with 95% of what they need to learn to move on.
Sure, if you give them something novel and fun to learn, they'll bite but you just can't do that with 95% of what they need to learn to move on.
I disagree. What do they NEED to learn?
At least in the early grades, kids are learning HOW to learn, with structure and discipline, and it doesn't matter WHAT they learn. So if they learned what was fun, they would still get the same outcome.
OK, there are certain fixed fundamentals of mathematics that they have to be grounded in, and English grammar and spelling. But it doesn't matter what country or culture they learn the history of, it doesn't matter what experiment they learn about scientific method with. What if math was sports statistics or casino odds? What if their readers were about aliens and UFOs, instead of Dick and Jane. Would they still learn to read? Let them learn whatever they want, and see that they are properly tutored and mentored in the learning process.
How many facts that are essential to your life did you learn in elementary school? What if you had learned different facts instead, but still learned to use logic and judgment and reason in the process of learning them and learning from them?
So give them something novel and fun. Maybe a few more will wake up in the back row.
At least in the early grades, kids are learning HOW to learn, with structure and discipline, and it doesn't matter WHAT they learn. So if they learned what was fun, they would still get the same outcome.
OK, there are certain fixed fundamentals of mathematics that they have to be grounded in, and English grammar and spelling. But it doesn't matter what country or culture they learn the history of, it doesn't matter what experiment they learn about scientific method with. What if math was sports statistics or casino odds? What if their readers were about aliens and UFOs, instead of Dick and Jane. Would they still learn to read? Let them learn whatever they want, and see that they are properly tutored and mentored in the learning process.
How many facts that are essential to your life did you learn in elementary school? What if you had learned different facts instead, but still learned to use logic and judgment and reason in the process of learning them and learning from them?
So give them something novel and fun. Maybe a few more will wake up in the back row.
They need to learn everything they may need later and they need to learn everything it takes to grow a decently functioning brain.
It's not what I learned in school that matters. It's the brain I grew learning it. Things are just things and you forget them but reasoning skills stick with you for life. It's not about what I'm teaching the kids. It's about that they are learning it and how that changes the way they think. As a chemistry teacher, I challenge the way they think all the time. And I teach them stuff that most of them will never use again. However, we don't know going in which kids will need what so we have to teach it all.
So, how would you go about making, oh, say, stoichiometry novel and fun for kids???? Or maybe thermodynamics??? Or, how about oxidation reducation reactions??? Sorry, but 95% of what I teach isn't novel or fun. It's hard. It's meant to be. It challenges them to think in ways they haven't had to before. THAT is the pay off for learning what I teach. A brain that thinks in different ways they can use their entire lives. There is no immediate pay of to learning subjects like mine for most kids.
It's funny, but it's the things they made me learn that I didn't want to learn and saw no use for that have turned out to be the things that shaped who I am today. They made me step out of my comfort zone. They made me try things that were hard. They made me work....and I learned a lot in the process. Can't remember fact one but I still have the brain I grew learning it and THAT is what matters.
IMO, we've already spent too much time making school fun and novel for kids. The more fun we make it, the more fun they expect it to be. What we need to do is teach them the importance of an education and that they have to work to earn one. If you want entertaining and novel, buy a Wii. If you want to learn, go to school.
So, how would you go about making, oh, say, stoichiometry novel and fun for kids???? Or maybe thermodynamics??? Or, how about oxidation reducation reactions??? Sorry, but 95% of what I teach isn't novel or fun.
By saying "Guess what, boys and girls, we're going to learn about stoichiometry today".
You've taken what I said about elementary school and applied it to advanced high school. Thermodynamics becomes a lot more fun to study, after you have been inspired to think that learning is fun.
I did not learn thermodynamics in high school, or if I did, I forgot. I learned it later in life, when I read about it and wanted to know more and understand. Learning was not work, it was pleasure, and it was a pleasure to learn what I HAD to know in order to understand. A concept that is not downloaded into children with a blunt instrument.
My suggestion is not about preparing second graders to be stoichometrists, it is about leading them to think that it will be fun to learn stoichiometry when they need to, as they pass through escalating fields of knoweldge.
I didn't think this thread was about motivating seniors to learn stoichiometry, but motivating first graders to become wide-eyed with interest when learning was dangled in front of them. Once that is done, stoichiometry might fall within a potential range, but not until that is done.
And really, don't you think a good writer of juvenile stories could write a gripping 4th-grade level book about Carnot and Joule and Planck and their struggle to understand thermodynamics, instead of one about Paul Revere? Since the purpose is (one hopes) to learn to read.
By saying "Guess what, boys and girls, we're going to learn about stoichiometry today".
You've taken what I said about elementary school and applied it to advanced high school. Thermodynamics becomes a lot more fun to study, after you have been inspired to think that learning is fun.
I did not learn thermodynamics in high school, or if I did, I forgot. I learned it later in life, when I read about it and wanted to know more and understand. Learning was not work, it was pleasure, and it was a pleasure to learn what I HAD to know in order to understand. A concept that is not downloaded into children with a blunt instrument.
My suggestion is not about preparing second graders to be stoichometrists, it is about leading them to think that it will be fun to learn stoichiometry when they need to, as they pass through escalating fields of knoweldge.
I didn't think this thread was about motivating seniors to learn stoichiometry, but motivating first graders to become wide-eyed with interest when learning was dangled in front of them. Once that is done, stoichiometry might fall within a potential range, but not until that is done.
And really, don't you think a good writer of juvenile stories could write a gripping 4th-grade level book about Carnot and Joule and Planck and their struggle to understand thermodynamics, instead of one about Paul Revere? Since the purpose is (one hopes) to learn to read.
Um, I've been talking about high school all along. That's what I teach.... However, the point stands. There's a lot of basics to learn in elementary school and IF you train kids young to expect novel and fun, guess what they'll expect when they get to my class? HINT: It won't be to study and work hard in order to learn
No, concepts are not downloaded. Children have to be willing to learn and if they're used to being entertained, they will resist when education doesn't seem entertaining anymore.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 09-22-2010 at 08:17 PM..
We need one of those smilies eating popcorn and slurping a soda...enjoying a good drama...isn't this a re-run of last season?
I've come to the conclusion that educational theories revolve faster than fashion trends, lol. Just stick around. The same old tired arguments will come back again and again in a slightly altered form so they can put the word "new" in front of them.
The truth is, people have not changed in hundreds of years. Brians still work the same way they did long ago. What needs to be learned has changed but kids still need to learn that learning is their job. Making teachers entertainers just trains kids to expect to be entertained and to reject anything that isn't entertaining and let's face it, most of what we have to teach isn't.
I'm getting a fast lesson in what expectations can do. Last year, I had kids who wanted to be entertained or I was dealing with discipline problems. This year I have kids who were raised to take education seriously. I have ZERO discipline problems. They do their work (ok they grumble but they do it). They listen. And my class average is about 12% higher on tests.
They keep trying to tell me it's the teacher that makes the difference but I'm the same teacher I was last year teaching the same stuff I did last year. The difference is the kids. These kids don't expect me to compete with a Wii. They don't have a 20 second attention span. They have parents at home who WILL ground them for the weekend if their grades drop. They WILL lose that phone and that car. Last year I had mom and dad calling me to see what I could do for their child. This year I have kids coming to me and asking what .... shock of all shocks...THEY CAN DO!!
I could get used to this.
I know it's early in the year but I'm willing to predict now that I will have few students fail my class and I will have a lot of kids who do very well. Last year, it was the opposite. A lot of failures and a few who did well. I don't think it's the teacher that makes the difference here. It's kids being willing to learn vs. kids who expect to be entertained because they really don't want to be in school in the first place.
. Making teachers entertainers just trains kids to expect to be entertained and to reject anything that isn't entertaining and let's face it, most of what we have to teach isn't.
... And if you think this goes away by the time students enter college, think again. You should see faculty working hard at getting their "clown" and "entertainer" accreditations.
Um, I've been talking about high school all along. That's what I teach.... However, the point stands. There's a lot of basics to learn in elementary school and IF you train kids young to expect novel and fun, guess what they'll expect when they get to my class? HINT: It won't be to study and work hard in order to learn
No, concepts are not downloaded. Children have to be willing to learn and if they're used to being entertained, they will resist when education doesn't seem entertaining anymore.
No, not they WILL resist. The MIGHT resist. You know, from experience, that there are a lot of people for whom education always seems entertaining, even in school systems that try not to make it entertaining. The more people there are who think education is entertaining by itself, the more bang we will get for the education buck.
There is a steep transition from high school to college, requiring a great deal more work, but people make the transition. We can deal with the same kind of transition from fun grade school to disciplined high school, and people will make that transition, because it will still be learning, and that will equate with intellectual pleasure. For some people. You probably know some.
... And if you think this goes away by the time students enter college, think again. You should see faculty working hard at getting their "clown" and "entertainer" accreditations.
Funny you should say that. My DH went to Cal Tech, and had the highly venerated physicist, Richard Feynman as a professor. DH said he was a regular P. T. Barnum, meaning an entertainer, in the classroom.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
However, the point stands. There's a lot of basics to learn in elementary school and IF you train kids young to expect novel and fun, guess what they'll expect when they get to my class? HINT: It won't be to study and work hard in order to learn 
