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.
I think the idea is that most subjects are interesting enough to engage most students if they are presented in an effective matter. It's not about catering to the lazy boy in the class but to the majority of students.
Education like other subjects is being researched to find more effective ways to deliver information to students.
But here's the thing, the assumption that everything *MUST* be made fascinating is insane. A lot of subject matters are simply not interesting to the majority of folks. Case in point: my nephew is studying physics, which he finds fascinating and constantly reads about. I'm bored to tears with physics, but to him, a physics textbook is awesome, a challenge, etc. Most folks I know don't find it particularly interesting, and even worse, cannot understand it. For most, getting through physics simply means buckling down big time and getting through it, or simply not studying it. For people who have disabilities, it's, well, something that perhaps they shouldn't be studying. Some folks aren't meant to study certain things, and they shouldn't.
Are we now going to try to get everyone through med school by presenting it in the format of Broadway musicals? No. Subjects are what they are. Either a student will do the work, or he won't. And each student has to figure out what his best way of studying is, because each student knows himself better than anyone else. Except, again, for people with learning disabilities, who require others to help them find ways of studying, and there's no shame in that. But for the rest, buckling down, spending the time, and figuring out the best way to study each subject matter so it will stick.
And most students today are simply spoiled because they are allowed to be that way.
What does it mean to be well-educated? To me, it means the ability to learn & to take what you have learned to understand. I have discovered that those who are well-educated never stop learning. They read to learn more. If they have a question, they seek the answer. Having a college degree may sound like someone is well educated but not necessarily. My chiropractor for instance, graduated from Lehigh University and you would think that would make him well educated. But, this same guy asked me if they had plumbing in Puerto Rico.
I like to think that I am well-educated. I have a B.A. in History & Education, I graduated "With Honors", & I have done some graduate school. What I really learned as an undergraduate was HOW to learn. Even though I didn't finish my M.A., I still learn. I read newspapers, I "read" books (usually audiobooks), I watch the news, & I am proficient at Googling.
I think the idea is that most subjects are interesting enough to engage most students if they are presented in an effective matter. It's not about catering to the lazy boy in the class but to the majority of students.
Education like other subjects is being researched to find more effective ways to deliver information to students.
I don't necessary disagree with you, but at some point we can't blame the education system for a student's lack of motivation and not taking responsibility for their own education. These are students, not customers. Not every subject or unit is going to captivate the imagination (some may be downright boring), but we have to get through them the best we can anyway. If nothing else, it prepares them for the reality of the working world.
But here's the thing, the assumption that everything *MUST* be made fascinating is insane. A lot of subject matters are simply not interesting to the majority of folks. Case in point: my nephew is studying physics, which he finds fascinating and constantly reads about. I'm bored to tears with physics, but to him, a physics textbook is awesome, a challenge, etc. Most folks I know don't find it particularly interesting, and even worse, cannot understand it. For most, getting through physics simply means buckling down big time and getting through it, or simply not studying it. For people who have disabilities, it's, well, something that perhaps they shouldn't be studying. Some folks aren't meant to study certain things, and they shouldn't.
Are we now going to try to get everyone through med school by presenting it in the format of Broadway musicals? No. Subjects are what they are. Either a student will do the work, or he won't. And each student has to figure out what his best way of studying is, because each student knows himself better than anyone else. Except, again, for people with learning disabilities, who require others to help them find ways of studying, and there's no shame in that. But for the rest, buckling down, spending the time, and figuring out the best way to study each subject matter so it will stick.
And most students today are simply spoiled because they are allowed to be that way.
You are making extreme exaggerations and strawman arguments. Nobody ever said to make education into entertainment. Good educational practice, however, would be developmentally appropriate, relevant, and in some way geared towards the interests and/or practicality of a student's wants or needs.
You are making extreme exaggerations and strawman arguments. Nobody ever said to make education into entertainment. Good educational practice, however, would be developmentally appropriate, relevant, and in some way geared towards the interests and/or practicality of a student's wants or needs.
Let me not exaggerate then and make it nice and succinct. Catering to lazy students is not the way to get lazy students to get off their @#$.
If nothing else, it prepares them for the reality of the working world.
Poor excuse for education policy. If school is "preparation," then it is simply "preparing" people to be corporate drones in a totalitarian society. Some of us do not believe in those motives. Don't be a sockpuppet for political and corporate agendas.
I do not believe the purpose of school should be to turn people into "useful idiots."
Let me not exaggerate then and make it nice and succinct. Catering to lazy students is not the way to get lazy students to get off their @#$.
Try re-arranging your words:
Teaching developmentally-appropriate and interesting, relevant, practical material in a personalized manner contributes positively to the education and intelligence of the student, and therefore, society.
Using methods of compliance to force students into carrying out tasks and go through the motions, does not produce well-educated citizens. Rather, it produces thoughtless worker bees. Students are rightfully rebelling against this whole philosophy of education.
Poor excuse for education policy. If school is "preparation," then it is simply "preparing" people to be corporate drones in a totalitarian society. Some of us do not believe in those motives. Don't be a sockpuppet for political and corporate agendas.
I do not believe the purpose of school should be to turn people into "useful idiots."
The "drone" society you fear is a result of unbridled capitalism. Making students lazier will not fix that.
The "drone" society you fear is a result of unbridled capitalism. Making students lazier will not fix that.
You don't get it. School affects the development of people more than anything else. Our attitudes, perspectives, and habits are founded, to an extreme extent, in our schools.
I never SAID to make the students lazier. Nobody did. You are being intellectually dishonest by warping peoples' words and ideas.
I don't necessary disagree with you, but at some point we can't blame the education system for a student's lack of motivation and not taking responsibility for their own education. These are students, not customers. Not every subject or unit is going to captivate the imagination (some may be downright boring), but we have to get through them the best we can anyway. If nothing else, it prepares them for the reality of the working world.
I believe we have many teachers who don't have the skills to do their jobs who bore the hell out of the students. Some teachers are naturally talented. Others are not buy they try hard to engage their students because they are very dedicated and empathetic. The rest are just do their jobs like robots without taking into account anything that is going on in their environment or they teach just to one student or two, the Einsteins of the class. You don't need a PhD in Psychology to figure out that most students are lost or bored. You can read body language, blank stares or figure it by the comments or questions people make.
Most students who take the most abstract subjects like physics and advanced math are not taking those classes because they are lazy or because they have learning disabilities. If that was the case they would have chosen other majors or easier classes in high school.
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.
