Smoove_B wrote: ↑
Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:38 pm
EDIT: I've also come to learn that students over the last decade have changed noticeably; currently they are really, really good at memorizing things. Application of theory? They parrot back lists and don't actually know how to apply any of it. It's creepy. Also, get off my lawn.
It is my experience that this is not limited to students of the now. I can't speak to how that may be worse today than it was "back in the day" but it seems to me that is stretches across all generations and people tend to fall in to one or more of several buckets.
People with a natural desire and ability to understand
People who have families who nurtured the desire to understand
People who essential become geeks and have the desire to understand narrow topics
People who can be taught that understanding is better following a script
Some people, you can't reach...
My largest effort and failure as a teacher was trying to teach kids to break away from script following.
As a tutor or mentor for many in one on one or one to small group situations throughout life, sometimes in topics where I'm teaching as I learn, I've had varying levels of success.
OtOH, I am always legitimately impressed by people who can take in flash cards or highlight chapters and repeat them or give speeches from 3x5 bullet points, etc... I almost think my drive to understand is a coping mechanism for my inability to recall anything but song lyrics and cartoons.
Isgrimnur wrote: ↑
Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:03 pm
Which tells you how they’ve been trained up to that point.
In part, I would agree. Learning to understand, I think can be taught to most, especially if their curiosity and desire to learn everything
is fostered at a young age. I'm not sure everyone is wired to keep sponging or has the capacity to keep applying but I woudln't bet my life savings on it.
Kraken wrote: ↑
Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:03 pm
I hope that just means that you start with the worst students to get them out of the way.
I was taken aback when I learned that a C is a failing grade now. Eventually there will only be A+, A, and A-.
It's been that way since not too long after you were a student. It's not so much that C was failing but C meant not that you were average but that you had between a 73 and 77 percent "objectively" tested" mastery of a skill. It was considered passing when I was school, but how often is a 73 percent success rate considered acceptable in most livelihoods? I suppose as I hitter or hunter it's a huge success. Not so much for a doctor or machinist.
Oh yeah, absolutely. I know I'm going to sound like an even older, crotchety man but I seriously wonder how some of them are going to make it in the workplace.
By following scripts and making the people lives around the miserable when there is no script for the situation.
. I know having someone that's an automaton is ideal in certain situations, but being able to apply your knowledge or realize how things are connected? That's what I'm after.
Was a communicated and clear expectation from the beginning? Was it a skill you worked on with them? Was it a known per-requisite?
morlac wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:13 am
I have noticed the most important time of year (according to her school) for my 10 year old is the National and State testing. They probably spend a good 3-4 weeks just on prepping and taking these every year. They are doing a wonderful teaching kids how to pass test...
When I was teaching and I don't doubt it is still the case today, funding was based on 1) students in seats at a certain day of the year. 2) students performing on "objective" tests at the state/federal level. So that is what administrations enforced/emphasized. I think when I went to school the thing we learned to do best was anticipate the bell and then move to where we were supposed to be. 6 of my 13 years of primary and secondary education were dedicated to the bell.
Also, I would love to make a living following bells and scripts. Working with an active mind all day for something you are not passionate about is exhausting.