5 ms·

I believe there's decent support for the idea that you could just teach them nothing until they reached the age of understanding, and theyd pick it up pretty mu

by cgag 10y ago

I believe there's decent support for the idea that you could just teach them nothing until they reached the age of understanding, and theyd pick it up pretty much just as quick without the years of rote.

dredmorbius 10y ago
Source?
- abecedarius 10y ago
  A U.S. elementary school principal in the 20th C. got his school to try leaving out any math in the first three grades (iirc), and the kids reportedly came out fine. I can't remember his name, and I'd like to be reminded too.
  - asimeqi 10y ago
    It was L. P. Benezet, superintendent of schools in Manchester, New Hampshire, who experimented with teaching no math in the first five grades in the early 1930s. See for example https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201003/when-less-is-more-the-case-teaching-less-math-in-school https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201003/wh...
    - abecedarius 10y ago
      Thanks! There's also his own report: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sanjoy/benezet/1.html http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sanjoy/benezet/1.html
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Interesting. I've been thinking about education and a few dynamics of it, including human cognitive development and individual differences. 1. Young children seem to have the biggest capability in learning languages. 2. There's the John Stuart Mill example -- homeschooled by his father in the classics and philosophy. Interesting biography (Wikipedia has a fair account). 3. There are children who are naturally skilled in art, storytelling, maths, sciences, music, etc. An opportunity to work to those strengths might be useful. I've also noticed that a short period of instruction at the appropriate time often seems disproportionately effective.
    - abecedarius 10y ago
      My guess is that math teaching can be a benefit to anyone at any age, but the usual curriculum on average mainly teaches people to hate math. (That's what's happening with my niece in grade school right now.) For some kids arithmetic may be boring, but at least it's easy, and they suffer less of this damage. If you start it later when they're readier, more of them will be open to learning a little actual math, not just gritting through baffling seemingly-arbitrary procedures. Montessori schools are said to be better on this score, though I haven't looked into them.
      - dredmorbius 10y ago
        I've been looking at John Cleese's presentations on creativity, and suspect he's very much on to something with the idea of play and humour as key to real learning. I also think that there are approaches which take this too far (video games and such), though I've learned a number of things from unexpected places. Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon, The Baroque Cycle, and Anathem, for example, are all explorations of ideas. The first two of business, banking, and money, in contemporary and historical times, respectively. The latter covers a great deal of historical thought. Better authors of topics often incorporate humour in their writing -- someting the past few generations of academic literature would do well to consider. OTOH, it's a cure for insomnia.
    - lacampbell 10y ago
      > 1. Young children seem to have the biggest capability in learning languages. Is there any evidence that this is actually due to their capability? I would say it's far more likely it's their environment. IE, people are constantly talking to young kids. They simplify what they say to make themselves understood. And children have a huge incentive to learn to communicate - to get what they want from parents, or just understand the world around them. The same isn't true for a grown adult trying to learn a second language, in isolation, that they don't really need in their day to day lives. Disclaimer: this is pure conjecture.
      - dredmorbius 10y ago

by cgag 10y ago

dredmorbius 10y ago

Source?

abecedarius 10y ago
A U.S. elementary school principal in the 20th C. got his school to try leaving out any math in the first three grades (iirc), and the kids reportedly came out fine. I can't remember his name, and I'd like to be reminded too.
- asimeqi 10y ago
  It was L. P. Benezet, superintendent of schools in Manchester, New Hampshire, who experimented with teaching no math in the first five grades in the early 1930s. See for example https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201003/when-less-is-more-the-case-teaching-less-math-in-school https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201003/wh...
  - abecedarius 10y ago
    Thanks! There's also his own report: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sanjoy/benezet/1.html http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sanjoy/benezet/1.html
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Interesting. I've been thinking about education and a few dynamics of it, including human cognitive development and individual differences. 1. Young children seem to have the biggest capability in learning languages. 2. There's the John Stuart Mill example -- homeschooled by his father in the classics and philosophy. Interesting biography (Wikipedia has a fair account). 3. There are children who are naturally skilled in art, storytelling, maths, sciences, music, etc. An opportunity to work to those strengths might be useful. I've also noticed that a short period of instruction at the appropriate time often seems disproportionately effective.
  - abecedarius 10y ago
    My guess is that math teaching can be a benefit to anyone at any age, but the usual curriculum on average mainly teaches people to hate math. (That's what's happening with my niece in grade school right now.) For some kids arithmetic may be boring, but at least it's easy, and they suffer less of this damage. If you start it later when they're readier, more of them will be open to learning a little actual math, not just gritting through baffling seemingly-arbitrary procedures. Montessori schools are said to be better on this score, though I haven't looked into them.
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      I've been looking at John Cleese's presentations on creativity, and suspect he's very much on to something with the idea of play and humour as key to real learning. I also think that there are approaches which take this too far (video games and such), though I've learned a number of things from unexpected places. Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon, The Baroque Cycle, and Anathem, for example, are all explorations of ideas. The first two of business, banking, and money, in contemporary and historical times, respectively. The latter covers a great deal of historical thought. Better authors of topics often incorporate humour in their writing -- someting the past few generations of academic literature would do well to consider. OTOH, it's a cure for insomnia.
  - lacampbell 10y ago
    > 1. Young children seem to have the biggest capability in learning languages. Is there any evidence that this is actually due to their capability? I would say it's far more likely it's their environment. IE, people are constantly talking to young kids. They simplify what they say to make themselves understood. And children have a huge incentive to learn to communicate - to get what they want from parents, or just understand the world around them. The same isn't true for a grown adult trying to learn a second language, in isolation, that they don't really need in their day to day lives. Disclaimer: this is pure conjecture.
    - dredmorbius 10y ago