13th October 2010, 6:56 AM
A fair enough set of points Weltall. (GR, I don't think "giving up" is a valid response to the problem).
It's simply a fact that rote memorization IS a part of learning. You can't teach kids the alphabet by real world application and experimentation. That also goes for numerous basic things like years of important historical events, the periodic table of elements, and commands for a command line interface in a modern system like Unix. That's the sort of thing standardized testing, ideally, would test for.
However, as you mention there's far more than just memorizing things. Too many science teachers only bother to teach kids "science facts" without bothering to explain HOW those conclusions were arrived at. That's a far more important piece of information in the long run than just listing off scientific information. It's important, perhaps most important, to teach kids how to teach THEMSELVES later on in life and be able to distinguish nonsense from valid information in the real world. Mind you, this isn't at all limited to today's generation. Today's vitamin water is yesterday's snake oil.
Science classes that never actually do science are worthless. An underfunded school can't afford such things, so that's important. Is it just a result of poor spending? Maybe, but then you see schools that are dilapidated, no air conditioning, and with books from 10 years ago. Are they really just spending the money badly? If so, where exactly is it going? It's a good question to ask. Also, an average leaves a lot of questions. How's the distribution of this average? Do some schools get much more funding while others have barely enough to keep a skeleton staff afloat? If so, that's something to be dealt with.
Teaching kids how to think critically and scientifically is an important part, as you say. To do that, certain tools are needed.
As to the physical education thing, I think that can be boiled down to basic health and fitness lessons. School football teams just aren't important. Kids can get plenty of exercise on their own time, in the playground or at home. Really all anyone needs to work out is a yard.
Kids can be taught a lot of basic science just by getting them to ask a question, and then boil it down to a basic yes/no proposition as a possible answer. Figure out a test that by design HAS to conclude one way or another in that proposition and you've got yourself some science. The worst thing any science teacher can say to a class full of kids is "just learn this stuff because it will be on the test". Teaching science that way is no different than dogma and results in adults that think science is "just another bunch of claims, what do THEY know anyway?". If they learned the way to arrive at an answer as a kid, they'd know exactly how scientists know things, and maybe we wouldn't have people wasting their time on psychics or homeopathy.
Applied math is important too. Teaching kids how to actually apply math to a unique problem is important. It's no good to teach someone what a hammer is, or even how to use one, you must teach WHERE to use it and when it is appropriate. That photo above sums it up perfectly. A small note: that question could have been phrased more specifically to remove that ambiguity, but that's beside the point. The kid figured it out, but the teacher couldn't. The teacher used the wrong tool for the job. In this case understanding that it was a question of how fast a cut can be made, not how fast can boards "multiply", would be important. One doesn't even need to know about woodworking. It's enough to realize that if it's a question about turning one thing into two things, you need to simply add up the time it takes to do that. It's two of those events. Teach math and how to apply it correctly, and maybe kids won't throw away their lives in something like gambling (only later waking up enough to make up an excuse like they're just playing it to have fun, but that's just a comforting lie, they know that).
It's simply a fact that rote memorization IS a part of learning. You can't teach kids the alphabet by real world application and experimentation. That also goes for numerous basic things like years of important historical events, the periodic table of elements, and commands for a command line interface in a modern system like Unix. That's the sort of thing standardized testing, ideally, would test for.
However, as you mention there's far more than just memorizing things. Too many science teachers only bother to teach kids "science facts" without bothering to explain HOW those conclusions were arrived at. That's a far more important piece of information in the long run than just listing off scientific information. It's important, perhaps most important, to teach kids how to teach THEMSELVES later on in life and be able to distinguish nonsense from valid information in the real world. Mind you, this isn't at all limited to today's generation. Today's vitamin water is yesterday's snake oil.
Science classes that never actually do science are worthless. An underfunded school can't afford such things, so that's important. Is it just a result of poor spending? Maybe, but then you see schools that are dilapidated, no air conditioning, and with books from 10 years ago. Are they really just spending the money badly? If so, where exactly is it going? It's a good question to ask. Also, an average leaves a lot of questions. How's the distribution of this average? Do some schools get much more funding while others have barely enough to keep a skeleton staff afloat? If so, that's something to be dealt with.
Teaching kids how to think critically and scientifically is an important part, as you say. To do that, certain tools are needed.
As to the physical education thing, I think that can be boiled down to basic health and fitness lessons. School football teams just aren't important. Kids can get plenty of exercise on their own time, in the playground or at home. Really all anyone needs to work out is a yard.
Kids can be taught a lot of basic science just by getting them to ask a question, and then boil it down to a basic yes/no proposition as a possible answer. Figure out a test that by design HAS to conclude one way or another in that proposition and you've got yourself some science. The worst thing any science teacher can say to a class full of kids is "just learn this stuff because it will be on the test". Teaching science that way is no different than dogma and results in adults that think science is "just another bunch of claims, what do THEY know anyway?". If they learned the way to arrive at an answer as a kid, they'd know exactly how scientists know things, and maybe we wouldn't have people wasting their time on psychics or homeopathy.
Applied math is important too. Teaching kids how to actually apply math to a unique problem is important. It's no good to teach someone what a hammer is, or even how to use one, you must teach WHERE to use it and when it is appropriate. That photo above sums it up perfectly. A small note: that question could have been phrased more specifically to remove that ambiguity, but that's beside the point. The kid figured it out, but the teacher couldn't. The teacher used the wrong tool for the job. In this case understanding that it was a question of how fast a cut can be made, not how fast can boards "multiply", would be important. One doesn't even need to know about woodworking. It's enough to realize that if it's a question about turning one thing into two things, you need to simply add up the time it takes to do that. It's two of those events. Teach math and how to apply it correctly, and maybe kids won't throw away their lives in something like gambling (only later waking up enough to make up an excuse like they're just playing it to have fun, but that's just a comforting lie, they know that).
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)