Live data from Hacker News

How a Radical New Teaching Method Could Unleash a Generation of Geniuses

wired.com

11–20 of 78 posts

Re: How a Radical New Teaching Method Could Unleash a Generation of Geniuses

#11
There have always been techniques and methods available to vastly improve the outcomes of students. The problem is that education is a very political subject and the winds shift as quickly as the politicians do.

Education is a favorite pet issue of every wanna-be FDR and for whatever reason, they can't just let teachers do their jobs. They have to tell them what they can and can't teach, what targets they have to meet, create arbitrary and senseless metrics of merit.

So forgive me if I'm unimpressed with this so-called solution to education. Would it be better than what we have now? Sure it will, virtually anything would be that reduces the amount of oversight in the system. Could you sell it to the public? Not a snowball's chance in hell. It wouldn't last a year.

Re: How a Radical New Teaching Method Could Unleash a Generation of Geniuses

#12

Aaawww nuts. Yes, education could be vastly improved, but you know what, my sons school is vastly improved over what I had. Since 1913 when IQ tests started being nationally or internationally graded, the IQ median has been kept at 100. But without that smoothing the median level of 1913 would be 77 or so today, and the median today would be in the 130s We have got smarter, or perhaps we have had mental tools passed…

Yes, and isn't that change usually attributed to types of IQ test questions becoming outdated and part of popular knowledge? Attributing any change in IQ tests to a more intelligent population seems dubious at best. Any chance you have a link to that ted talk?

Also, my ability to communicate instantaneously is absurdly better than what my parents had, doesn't mean we should stop striving to improve improve improve, especially in an area as important as education.

Re: How a Radical New Teaching Method Could Unleash a Generation of Geniuses

#13
“I think the big mistake in schools is trying to teach children anything, and by using fear as the basic motivation. Fear of getting failing grades, fear of not staying with your class, etc. Interest can produce learning on a scale compared to fear as a nuclear explosion to a firecracker.” ― Stanley Kubrick

Re: How a Radical New Teaching Method Could Unleash a Generation of Geniuses

#14
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. But it is VERY hard to encourage the enthusiasm of a 4 year old who asks "Why?" 600 times a day. :-)

That's what YouTube and Netflix documentaries are for. My kids love them and they give you a break from coming up with all the answers. :)

Don't forget PBS. Lacking cable growing up I pretty much watched nothing but PBS and a few Saturday morning cartoons. I think that worked out pretty well :).

Re: How a Radical New Teaching Method Could Unleash a Generation of Geniuses

#15

Aaawww nuts. Yes, education could be vastly improved, but you know what, my sons school is vastly improved over what I had. Since 1913 when IQ tests started being nationally or internationally graded, the IQ median has been kept at 100. But without that smoothing the median level of 1913 would be 77 or so today, and the median today would be in the 130s We have got smarter, or perhaps we have had mental tools passed…

for interest sake, its called the Flynn effect [1]. Lots of reasons have been given for it, of which better schooling is just one.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

Re: How a Radical New Teaching Method Could Unleash a Generation of Geniuses

#16
post #4
post #2

Children want to learn, and if you dont beat out their love of learning by forcing them into a box that hardly anyone fits in, their inherent need to understand the world comes out. Its almost... logical.

I am a fervent proponent for modern constructionistic learning environments, but affecting change in the current system is almost impossible. Some teachers are enthusiastic and willing to spend their own time to develop and implement these modern* ideas about learning, but in the end, one way or another, they have to conform to the traditional educational system. If it isn't for management that presses for better tes…

"...affecting change in the current system is almost impossible."

As the kids say, nowadays: This. Any major change in education will take a cultural shift. And cultural shifts are generally very, very slow to form.

Re: How a Radical New Teaching Method Could Unleash a Generation of Geniuses

#17

Aaawww nuts. Yes, education could be vastly improved, but you know what, my sons school is vastly improved over what I had. Since 1913 when IQ tests started being nationally or internationally graded, the IQ median has been kept at 100. But without that smoothing the median level of 1913 would be 77 or so today, and the median today would be in the 130s We have got smarter, or perhaps we have had mental tools passed…

Here is your reference, the talk by James R. Flynn on TED (spoken in March 2013, published on TED in September 2013) "James Flynn: Why our IQ levels are higher than our grandparents'."

http://www.ted.com/talks/james_flynn_why_our_iq_levels_are_h...

The research by James R. Flynn on changes in IQ raw score levels over time in many different countries has been described by intelligence researcher N. J. Mackintosh like this: "the data are surprising, demolish some long-cherished beliefs, and raise a number of other interesting issues along the way." (IQ and Human Intelligence 1998, p. 104) In general, Flynn is a very respected researcher on human intelligence. Here is what the late Arthur Jensen said about Flynn back in the 1980s: "Now and then I am asked . . . who, in my opinion, are the most respectable critics of my position on the race-IQ issue? The name James R. Flynn is by far the first that comes to mind." Modgil, Sohan & Modgil, Celia (Eds.) (1987) Arthur Jensen: Concensus and Controversy New York: Falmer. Here's what Charles Murray says in his back cover blurb for Flynn's book What Is Intelligence?: "This book is a gold mine of pointers to interesting work, much of which was new to me. All of us who wrestle with the extraordinarily difficult questions about intelligence that Flynn discusses are in his debt." Flynn has earned the respect and praise of any honest researcher who takes time to read the scholarly literature on human intelligence. Robert Sternberg, Ian Deary, Stephen Pinker, Stephen Ceci, Sir Michael Rutter, and plenty of other eminent psychologists recommend Flynn's research.

Re: How a Radical New Teaching Method Could Unleash a Generation of Geniuses

#18
The article reports, without references, "So in 2011—when Paloma entered his class—Juárez Correa decided to start experimenting. He began reading books and searching for ideas online. Soon he stumbled on a video describing the work of Sugata Mitra, a professor of educational technology at Newcastle University in the UK. In the late 1990s and throughout the 2000s, Mitra conducted experiments in which he gave children in India access to computers. Without any instruction, they were able to teach themselves a surprising variety of things, from DNA replication to English."

Where are the publications about this? How much peer review have they had? We have discussed Mitra's work here on HN before. What is the latest news about follow-up on his studies? I would be delighted to hear about new and more effective methods of helping young learners learn (I am a teacher of young learners) and I am especially interested in following up on the research to make sure that it is accurate.

http://www.epsiloncamp.org/RepetitionPractice.php

(Above link is an example of my following up on educational research claims. I do this continually.)

AFTER EDIT: I find by Google Scholar search that most of Mitra's publications on education research are reposted on his own Hole-in-the-Wall website.

http://hole-in-the-wall.com/

Re: How a Radical New Teaching Method Could Unleash a Generation of Geniuses

#19

“I think the big mistake in schools is trying to teach children anything, and by using fear as the basic motivation. Fear of getting failing grades, fear of not staying with your class, etc. Interest can produce learning on a scale compared to fear as a nuclear explosion to a firecracker.” ― Stanley Kubrick

That's been a popular view among progressive education reformers as well. It's the basis of Montessori schools, for example. I went to one up through Kindergarten and liked it, finding regular 1st grade utterly dull in comparison. But I don't have a good guess as to whether it would've been a better overall schooling (I still found plenty of time to learn things on my own).

I've also long liked this Seymour Papert quote vaguely along those lines: http://www.kmjn.org/snippets/papert85_logovisions.html

However in parallel to these kinds of views being popular among education reformers, it's also been popular to mock them as idealistic hippie views of education. And a different category of education reformer has had almost 180º opposite ideas, based around standardized, repeatable, scientifically measurable education (the basis of NCLB, MOOCs, etc.).

Re: How a Radical New Teaching Method Could Unleash a Generation of Geniuses

#20
let's have some dissenting opinion here.

not all kids are equal. not all kids want to learn. in each and every discussion over this topic people bring up quotes by very smart people, like kubrick, sagan, etc. on how organised learning is not needed, a young mind wants to learn, grows like a flower, all by itself, even better without the shackles of structured education.

i call bullshit. this is biased through the people stating these arguments. if you're a genius or borderline genious then of course the standardized school system is not for you. if you're smarter and faster than your teachers the whole thing can't work.

but the vast majority of kids is not like that. yes, some people are plain dumb. nothing to do, not a bad thing, pure nature. might be great at something, sports, fine manual labor, but simply not good with high mental tasks. some kids don't like reading, it's too hard and does not bring any value to them, nothing sticks, no mental images are formed. just letters stuck together.

this romantic view of humans is the root of a lot of failed social experiments. from open school systems (montessori, waldorf,...) to the new humans that communism wanted to create.

the modern school system is built to provide a base level of education, targeted for the medium range intellect. learn basic skills, through repetition - tried and tested method, from sports to art to education. reading, writing, counting, calculating. if you're one of those kids that taught yourself how to read at age 4, well, guess what, your experience in school will be subpar. but just don't go around and push for school reform to have schools fitted for your style of self learning. the vast majority is not like you.

Post reply on HN