3 ms·
>There is a parade of 'content' to get through Did you know that the content is also shallow? According to E.D. Hirsch [1], one of the reasons low-income and o
by triangleman 9y ago
>There is a parade of 'content' to get through
Did you know that the content is also shallow? According to E.D. Hirsch [1], one of the reasons low-income and other marginalized groups do bad in schools after elementary school is because they lack the exposure to "cultural vocabulary" and end up feeling like a fish out of water when any more challenging material comes up.
So in line with the spirit of the OP, some of the "tooling" that we need in education is simply a deeper understanding of the national culture that all well-educated people have naturally adopted.
For instance, you could help low income students by simply having them watch shows like The Big Bang Theory and then maybe have a discussion about it in class. (And I say this as someone who doesn't like that show. But I know it speaks a very strong cultural language used by well-educated Americans.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_literacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_literacy
- npsimons 9y agoFor me, a big turning point, in learning anything really, came when I started looking at the bibliography/references. Any text can be considered "introductory", and I believe all classes are. If you really want to go deeper, you have to go to the references and study outside class, and no one tells you this.
- jacobolus 9y agoI don’t think watching TV sitcoms is going to cut it. If you look at the density of ideas, richness of references, complexity of sentences, etc., pretty much any written material (novels, nonfiction aimed at teenagers, magazines, newspapers, ...) blows those out of the water. The teacher would do better to just read to the students for 30m every day, instead of having them watch a show for that time.