5 ms·

It seems like the optimal learning environment is one where you are a) being taught at the speed and level that is at least in the ballpark of your potential.

It seems like the optimal learning environment is one where you are a) being taught at the speed and level that is at least in the ballpark of your potential. The reason this is needed is obvious: if you are being taught way beyond your capability you won't learn anything, and it's a disservice to be taught way below your capability as well. b) in the top 50% of your local group of students, for self esteem reasons and also because you'll start to feel like studying and working hard pays off if you seem to be successful in school relative to your peers. There's a real tradeoff between these two sometimes. Given two identical kids, if you send one to the school that is not up to his "gifted" potential but he is the smartest kid in his class he may well do better in the end than the one you send to a gifted school but he is obviously at the bottom of his class. The first will certainly be happier and perhaps learn the life lessons and habits that will make him super successful in high school, college and beyond. We can at least start to address a) with these gifted programs and special education for the exceptionally challenged and so on. But addressing b) is also important and the laws of statistics sort of prevent us dividing kids into groups where everyone is above average for their group. In theoretical terms I can envision some sort of frequent rotation system where you're constantly shuffled from class to class so that one week you're top of your class and another you're bottom. Perhaps that would even help illustrate to kids the extremely hard to learn lesson that judging yourself against others is fruitless and destructive.

mordae 11y ago
Actually, it's enough to be at approximately same level as your peers. Varying interests will balance things out. You might feel that some of your peers are stronger in math, but that biology is your thing and so on. Skill-based splitting is also a good thing for at least one subject: foreign languages. Practicing with peers on a very different level will not work out at all. And by the way, if your kid ends up being the best in the class for virtually everything, you need to move him somewhere where they will challenge him more. If you don't, then good luck later on.
powertower 11y ago
> being taught at the speed and level that is at least in the ballpark of your potential. There is usually 30 students to a class, and 1 teacher. So it would have to be in the ballpark of the group's potential.
cgearhart 11y ago
> in the top 50% of your local group of students This is why I feel strongly that one of the major problems in education has to do with stratifying students. Even the students who are great at _everything_ among their peers are mediocre in the right crowd. "Gifted" folks are among most susceptible to "big fish in a small pond" effects that tie them down later on. It would be better to learn early that the world is more nuanced than your rank order in a classroom.
jimbokun 11y ago
"b) in the top 50% of your local group of students, for self esteem reasons and also because you'll start to feel like studying and working hard pays off if you seem to be successful in school relative to your peers." So you want to grow up in Lake Wobegone. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/garrisonke137097.html http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/garrisonke137097....
- savanaly 11y ago
  Hah, Lake Wobegone was my old soc teacher's favorite thing to reference when we were learning about middle income parents' attitudes to education. Anyways, I'm very aware of it and that's why I mentioned it is a statistical impossiblity to achieve b) with totally static classes.

mordae 11y ago

Actually, it's enough to be at approximately same level as your peers. Varying interests will balance things out. You might feel that some of your peers are stronger in math, but that biology is your thing and so on. Skill-based splitting is also a good thing for at least one subject: foreign languages. Practicing with peers on a very different level will not work out at all. And by the way, if your kid ends up being the best in the class for virtually everything, you need to move him somewhere where they will challenge him more. If you don't, then good luck later on.

powertower 11y ago

> being taught at the speed and level that is at least in the ballpark of your potential. There is usually 30 students to a class, and 1 teacher. So it would have to be in the ballpark of the group's potential.

cgearhart 11y ago

> in the top 50% of your local group of students This is why I feel strongly that one of the major problems in education has to do with stratifying students. Even the students who are great at _everything_ among their peers are mediocre in the right crowd. "Gifted" folks are among most susceptible to "big fish in a small pond" effects that tie them down later on. It would be better to learn early that the world is more nuanced than your rank order in a classroom.

jimbokun 11y ago

"b) in the top 50% of your local group of students, for self esteem reasons and also because you'll start to feel like studying and working hard pays off if you seem to be successful in school relative to your peers." So you want to grow up in Lake Wobegone. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/garrisonke137097.html http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/garrisonke137097....

savanaly 11y ago
Hah, Lake Wobegone was my old soc teacher's favorite thing to reference when we were learning about middle income parents' attitudes to education. Anyways, I'm very aware of it and that's why I mentioned it is a statistical impossiblity to achieve b) with totally static classes.