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.
Assuming, for a moment, that the heart of what is wrong with education in the US is the attitude of student's towards education, what can we do to change that? How do we make them want to learn? I'm not talking about the top of the class who already know that what they do now determines things like their choice of college. I'm talking about the student who does not want to learn. The one that is hard to teach.
There are so many reasons that it's difficult to address them all. For the most part, it's a societal issue that stems from the "us versus them" attitude between parents and teachers; between teachers and administrators; and between administrators and the politicians/government entities that make the mandates and hold the purse strings.
Kids pick up on this quite easily, especially since it pervades into the popular media and regular day-to-day conversations. If I grew up hearing (from parents, media, practically everyone) that our schools are terrible and that teachers are awful, then why on earth would I want to learn from them? I think the heart of US education's problems lies in societal attitudes and perceptions and that placing the blame solely on students only perpetuates the "us versus them" attitude.
Edited to add: Here's something ironic... within the field of science education, folks from other countries (including ones with higher science achievement) flock to us with a real interest in learning more about our pedagogy AND implementing it back in their own countries. Seriously, I see it with my own eyes at our annual international conference every year. I am very curious to see how it affects their students' achievement several years down the road. I have a feeling they will still out compete us on TIMMS and NAEP assessments because their society still respects education.
There are so many reasons that it's difficult to address them all. For the most part, it's a societal issue that stems from the "us versus them" attitude between parents and teachers; between teachers and administrators; and between administrators and the politicians/government entities that make the mandates and hold the purse strings.
Kids pick up on this quite easily, especially since it pervades into the popular media and regular day-to-day conversations. If I grew up hearing (from parents, media, practically everyone) that our schools are terrible and that teachers are awful, then why on earth would I want to learn from them? I think the heart of US education's problems lies in societal attitudes and perceptions and that placing the blame solely on students only perpetuates the "us versus them" attitude.
Edited to add: Here's something ironic... within the field of science education, folks from other countries (including ones with higher science achievement) flock to us with a real interest in learning more about our pedagogy AND implementing it back in their own countries. Seriously, I see it with my own eyes at our annual international conference every year. I am very curious to see how it affects their students' achievement several years down the road. I have a feeling they will still out compete us on TIMMS and NAEP assessments because their society still respects education.
I agree. But how do WE get there?
I singled out students not because they caused this but that's where the rubber meets the road and the friction happens. The classroom is the ultimate battle ground to educate our kids. In the classroom you have teachers and students and the student's attitudes determine the quality of the education. I have come to the conclusion that all the subject matter experts in the world will be useless if we cannot get our students to want to learn what we are teaching. We need to change their attitude about learning. Where do we start?
There is a very interesting book by a man named Frank Smith called Joining the Literacy Club. Its premise is that people organize themselves into groups based on various connections and that children are accepted as junior members into many of these clubs. Some of them are based on family, neighborhood, and common interests like music or sports. Smith proposes that school is another kind of club where some students immediately feel like members and others feel like outsiders, excluded from full membership and even antagonistic towards the prospect of becoming a member. Part of the discussion in the book is how to motivate children to want to be in the literacy club when they come from families where reading is just not done. The teacher has to make the club seem like a place the child wants to be, where he will be welcomed as a member, and where there are benefits to the child through membership. I'll have to dig out my copy and post the high points.
Assuming, for a moment, that the heart of what is wrong with education in the US is the attitude of student's towards education, what can we do to change that? How do we make them want to learn? ... I'm talking about the student who does not want to learn. The one that is hard to teach.
I think my post in the STEM thread applies, somewhat cropped:
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist
I can understand the frustration in response to students who simply do not care. If the student is not conditioned to see education as a necessity for personal advancement, the student is not incentivized to push their performance. Worse, if the student is not conditioned to enjoy scientific pursuits, but, instead, to "be who they want to be," then the student is not incentivized to pursue a STEM education, instead taking a "lighter" path in college (e.g., business management, marketing, or, my favorite to harp on, poetry). The latter is, in my opinion, the bigger problem because it is the easier problem to solve, yet the more destructive to the future of the economy and society.
To the former problem, I say it is far more difficult to solve because the only solution is an economy which requires large numbers of college-educated, non-STEM-specialized individuals. If that need doesn't exist, how can anyone convince a family that investing large amounts of time, energy and money to a child's education is worth it?
What if the students are simply bored by the content of the courses and overwhelmed by the number? Modern high school students take a wide variety of required courses, many of which rely on rote memorization yet present little near-term applicability to their lives. This is in addition to busy after-school schedules and an increasing number of technologies competing for the attention of teens. This situation does not strike me, at least, as an incentive for students to focus on school. Then, beyond the problem of focus on school, that focus is spread thin across courses within school.
In such a situation, it is no wonder students don't remember items from past courses. It's just not the way the human brain works, trying to remember a lode of facts taught hurriedly, repeated rarely, and presented with little focus on practical value (not practical application, mind you, but practical value to the students).
Basically, make it easy and make it worth it. Focus education on courses relevant to living and working. If nothing else, behavioral sciences, behavioral economics included, says people respond to ease and value.
Make it hard (i.e., tedious or over complicated) or pointless (no near future benefit to the individual) and participation rates fall of a cliff.
From the STEM thread, so as not to duplicate our efforts:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist
Your sentiment "We've conditioned them for this" suggests students are the result of a system, but would contradict parts of this and earlier posts which focus on students as the problem itself.
I can understand the frustration in response to students who simply do not care. If the student is not conditioned to see education as a necessity for personal advancement, the student is not incentivized to push their performance. Worse, if the student is not conditioned to enjoy scientific pursuits, but, instead, to "be who they want to be," then the student is not incentivized to pursue a STEM education, instead taking a "lighter" path in college (e.g., business management, marketing, or, my favorite to harp on, poetry). The latter is, in my opinion, the bigger problem because it is the easier problem to solve, yet the more destructive to the future of the economy and society.
To the former problem, I say it is far more difficult to solve because the only solution is an economy which requires large numbers of college-educated, non-STEM-specialized individuals. If that need doesn't exist, how can anyone convince a family that investing large amounts of time, energy and money to a child's education is worth it?
Given the number of students who have gone on to college from the Millennial generation, at great financial cost to themselves and their families, it doesn't make sense to me to suggest that there is a problem with the outlook of students on the whole. Some, yes, but not all. This is not a generation without inertia.
What if the students are simply bored by the content of the courses and overwhelmed by the number? Modern high school students take a wide variety of required courses, many of which rely on rote memorization yet present little near-term applicability to their lives. This is in addition to busy after-school schedules and an increasing number of technologies competing for the attention of teens. This situation does not strike me, at least, as an incentive for students to focus on school. Then, beyond the problem of focus on school, that focus is spread thin across courses within school.
In such a situation, it is no wonder students don't remember items from past courses. It's just not the way the human brain works, trying to remember a lode of facts taught hurriedly, repeated rarely, and presented with little focus on practical value (not practical application, mind you, but practical value to the students).
As things are, the students are the problem. However, I never said they caused the problem. Just that they are now. Their attitude determines success or failure. Their willingness to work determines the amount of material that can be taught.
I'm aware that much of what we teach has no immediate use. That's one of the problems. Students don't care to learn that which might be useful to them in 5 years. I'm lucky if I can get them to memorize it for the next test. THIS is part of the problem. How come students abroad are willing to learn Algebra in 7th grade and actually remember it to be used later and we can't get our students to learn it in 9th and what little they learn is forgotten and has to be reviewed when used in classes like chemistry later. (I swear I'm teaching math sometimes) How do we fix this?
Foriegn students DO learn to mastery. In other countries they spend LESS time teaching math yet their students know and can use MORE math. It's expected that students know what they learned for the next class and they live up to that expectation. Because they live up to it, they review less. In math, once we introduce a topic, we review it for 3-7 years before putting it down. They review for 1-3 years before putting it down. That's 2-4 years of review they do not have to do for EVERY TOPIC taught in math. That results in, significantly, less time being needed to teach math.
Let's be clear about one thing, when you compare the US to other countries, you're falling in to the fallacy of choosing winners as your basis. You've admitted that, in some other countries, if, as a student, you do not succeed, you're left to rust. Does that mean student outcomes are better there than here? Or, is it that the outcomes of successful students are better there than the outcomes of the whole student population here? That's the comparison you're making.
Of course, with that comparison, the US is going to be worse. You've written it yourself that the US teaches all students, not just the ones that want to be there or can afford to be there.
The students who succeed aren't the problem, there or here. You wrote as much in the opening post. So, we don't need to think about them.
Maybe the proportions of "successful" (we've yet to define criteria for that) students are higher abroad. If it's a significant difference, it's worth investigating.
Which leaves us to focus on the attitudes of the unsuccessful students. But, so long as we focus on them as a problem, not as a symptom, we won't solve anything.
How do we solve attitudes, then? By understanding that outcomes depend on attitudes and educational inputs (ie, teachers, curriculum, family support, etc), and that attitudes depend on an individual's cumulative experiences with those educational inputs. In their experiences, education has been boring (ie, hard) and pointless (ie, low value). If you want attitudes to change, education must have purpose (ie, high value) and design (ie, easy).
If you want students to continue to fail, then continue to stretch their attention spans across many classes a day and week in courses which are uninteresting and of little value (ie, maintain our current high school system).
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist
Basically, make it easy and make it worth it. Focus education... If nothing else, behavioral sciences, behavioral economics included, says people respond to ease and value.
1) I think kids todays minds wander to much on what he said on facebook, or what text I got back. To remove this distraction we can simply remove all related items from the class room, unless for emergency purposes, or we can leave it in the room and if it is used we fine the parents. Yes this may be harsh but this way we get the parents involved.
2) What the kids are learning is too standard and outdated. Every student going into a class knows that its going to be boring. I am not saying lets rewrite the books but make it more interesting and make it more relatable to the students your teaching it too.
The bottom line is school is just boring, and more of a place to socialize then anything. Do kids learn, sure but could they learn more...yes! I also think that if we do more hands on and less lecture you will learn much more in a shorter time.
1) I think kids todays minds wander to much on what he said on facebook, or what text I got back. To remove this distraction we can simply remove all related items from the class room, unless for emergency purposes, or we can leave it in the room and if it is used we fine the parents. Yes this may be harsh but this way we get the parents involved.
2) What the kids are learning is too standard and outdated. Every student going into a class knows that its going to be boring. I am not saying lets rewrite the books but make it more interesting and make it more relatable to the students your teaching it too.
The bottom line is school is just boring, and more of a place to socialize then anything. Do kids learn, sure but could they learn more...yes! I also think that if we do more hands on and less lecture you will learn much more in a shorter time.
I'll be honest, I don't know how to make school exciting every day. It's just not happening. The funny part is, IF our kids would simply decide to do it, they'd be in school less like their counterparts in other countries. They'd also have less homework. If the students took the attitude, let's learn this and get it over with, there'd be more time for socializing. It's because we're fighting them every step of the way that we need more time.
I do agree what they learn is standard but not outdated. They're expected to go farther than their parents WRT education but the basics are the same. You still need to know algebra to take chemistry and trig to take calculus.
What do you think is out dated that we should get rid of?
You know what's funny? My students asked for more lecture less hands on in my class when they filled out my end of year survey. They don't like being left to figure it out on their own. They'd rather be told what to do.
Unfortunately, lecture is, often, the most effective way to teach something. While some science classes, like physics, lend themselves to investigations, you have to remember that investigations take more time. I love using them, when I can, but there is a time hit and kids don't like them because they have to think. I like them because they have to think.
From the STEM thread, so as not to duplicate our efforts:
Let's be clear about one thing, when you compare the US to other countries, you're falling in to the fallacy of choosing winners as your basis. You've admitted that, in some other countries, if, as a student, you do not succeed, you're left to rust. Does that mean student outcomes are better there than here? Or, is it that the outcomes of successful students are better there than the outcomes of the whole student population here? That's the comparison you're making.
Of course, with that comparison, the US is going to be worse. You've written it yourself that the US teaches all students, not just the ones that want to be there or can afford to be there.
The students who succeed aren't the problem, there or here. You wrote as much in the opening post. So, we don't need to think about them.
Maybe the proportions of "successful" (we've yet to define criteria for that) students are higher abroad. If it's a significant difference, it's worth investigating.
Which leaves us to focus on the attitudes of the unsuccessful students. But, so long as we focus on them as a problem, not as a symptom, we won't solve anything.
How do we solve attitudes, then? By understanding that outcomes depend on attitudes and educational inputs (ie, teachers, curriculum, family support, etc), and that attitudes depend on an individual's cumulative experiences with those educational inputs. In their experiences, education has been boring (ie, hard) and pointless (ie, low value). If you want attitudes to change, education must have purpose (ie, high value) and design (ie, easy).
If you want students to continue to fail, then continue to stretch their attention spans across many classes a day and week in courses which are uninteresting and of little value (ie, maintain our current high school system).
Why would I choose losers as my basis? Of course I choose winners. The fact is the top 10% here compare well to the top 10% worldwide, however, the rest drop off the map really fast. Yes, they lob off the bottom but that is not the issue. Our 75 percentile student doesn't compare to their 50th percentile student. THERE is the issue. Far more than their top 10% are successful and they're successful because they know their job is to learn and if they don't, they won't get to go to school.
I agree on too many classes but that's politicians getting their paws in education. Now that the four year graduation rate is part of AYP, schools are going to even more hours to make sure kids have a chance to make up credit if they fail a class. I really think we need year round schools with trimesters. Drop to a 5 class day but have longer class periods. Two trimesters would equal one semester now or for kids who need longer, teach classes as a year long class. However, this does not solve the real problem of too many kids resisting learning. Everything takes longer and less gets done because too many resist learning.
Why would I choose losers as my basis? Of course I choose winners. The fact is the top 10% here compare well to the top 10% worldwide, however, the rest drop off the map really fast. Yes, they lob off the bottom but that is not the issue. Our 75 percentile student doesn't compare to their 50th percentile student. THERE is the issue. Far more than their top 10% are successful and they're successful because they know their job is to learn and if they don't, they won't get to go to school.
When I say
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist
Let's be clear about one thing, when you compare the US to other countries, you're falling in to the fallacy of choosing winners as your basis.
I mean that you are selecting a part of one group and comparing to the whole of a different group. You were comparing their “winners” (students who made it in to the system) to our whole system. That’s not equivalent, and will provide an inaccurate result.
In response, you suggest comparing percentiles. I don’t think that makes sense to do, as percentiles are representations of relative positions. So, being in a percentile is a comparison to everyone else in a peer group. It doesn’t say anything about the peer group, itself, so we cannot use that method. We would need to compare fixed, not relative, values if we are comparing individuals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
I agree on too many classes but that's politicians getting their paws in education. Now that the four year graduation rate is part of AYP, schools are going to even more hours to make sure kids have a chance to make up credit if they fail a class. I really think we need year round schools with trimesters. Drop to a 5 class day but have longer class periods. Two trimesters would equal one semester now or for kids who need longer, teach classes as a year long class. However, this does not solve the real problem of too many kids resisting learning. Everything takes longer and less gets done because too many resist learning.
What I actually wrote was
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist
How do we solve attitudes, then? By understanding that outcomes depend on attitudes and educational inputs (ie, teachers, curriculum, family support, etc), and that attitudes depend on an individual's cumulative experiences with those educational inputs. In their experiences, education has been boring (ie, hard) and pointless (ie, low value). If you want attitudes to change, education must have purpose (ie, high value) and design (ie, easy).
Which was an extension of an earlier post: “What if the students are simply bored by the content of the courses and overwhelmed by the number?” What you responded to, though, was “overwhelmed by the number.”
Again, you’re blaming students without considering the why. Why are students disinterested? Why do they remember less from previous lessons than foreign counterparts?
Both of these questions I already answered in the above quote, “How do we solve attitudes, then?” We change attitudes by creating a better experience for students and giving students a clear value proposition for caring about their education.
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.
Of course I choose winners. The fact is the top 10% here compare well to the top 10% worldwide, however, the rest drop off the map really fast. Yes, they lob off the bottom but that is not the issue. Our 75 percentile student doesn't compare to their 50th percentile student. THERE is the issue. Far more than their top 10% are successful and they're successful because they know their job is to learn and if they don't, they won't get to go to school.
