4 ms·
This isn't as obvious as you might think. I've had the opportunity to teach kids of a variety of ages. Something I found surprising is that even by primary kids
by rjf72 8y ago
This isn't as obvious as you might think. I've had the opportunity to teach kids of a variety of ages. Something I found surprising is that even by primary kids show remarkably different aptitudes. And this is not some aberrant thing. These differences tend to just continue to grow year after year. This can making teaching remarkably frustrating because it leads to a stark polarization in the class room. You have some kids that do not have any interest in learning, others that browse their textbook for entertainment, and then a good chunk in the middle.
So how do you teach to a class like this? The current trendy solution for this is supposed to be 'differentiation'. [1] There's a lot of fancy research and terminology associated with it, but it's a very simple idea - approach topics in a way appropriate to the aptitude of the group whom is learning. It's an extreme burden on the teacher and there's scant evidence of it providing any benefit.
However, tracking [2] is another solution. Tracking is essentially dividing a single group of children based on aptitudes. And unlike differentiated instruction there is substantial evidence of this in both directions. By both directions I mean that above average aptitude students tend to overperform even more when also surrounded by other above average students. But there is also substantial evidence showing that these students start to underperform once placed back into educational environments with lower performing students. The main argument against tracking is are primarily related to equality of result instead of equality of opportunity. E.g. - aiming for everybody performing the same as a goal, rather than everybody performing to the max of their individual potential. That is, in my opinion, very literally a 'Brave New World' style dystopia - hamstring overperformers to try to bring everybody down to the same scale of performance.
And so tracking gets back to the question at hand. When you jam everybody together, 'gifted for everybody', it's not the case that you retain the same level of achievement with even more people able to express their aptitude. Instead you end up a situation where everybody starts getting pulled down by the lower performing individuals. In effect instead of the desired result of "magically seeing more gifted children" you may very well end up seeing fewer.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differentiated_instruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differentiated_instruction
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracking_%28education%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracking_%28education%29
- taneq 8y agoIt always seems to me that views on this nature vs. nurture topic are very clearly divided, between people who've ever taught other humans (and tend to believe that, while training is important, nature plays a strong role in determining peoples' abilities) and those who haven't, and believe all humans are blank slates and aptitude is all down to training. (Of course, now I'll get a bunch of teachers commenting that they believe in nurture over nature, but c'est la vie.)
- neffy 8y agoThe real challenge of teaching is reaching everybody - not just the kids who want to learn, and are effectively teaching themselves with a little guidance.
- taneq 8y agoAnd this goal is laudable when you're teaching basic literacy and numeracy. If you're trying to teach mathematics or professional software development then it's less practical and probably not even possible.
- peteretep 8y agoI'd be sad if in ten years time children aren't being taught via software that's pushing them exactly as much as they can be pushed, and adaptive to the way the child enjoys learning and modes of explanation that have proven effective for the child in the past. There's (I believe) plenty of value in exposing children to other children for socialization, but I'm not sure this needs to be at the same time as they're learning, rather than via play and activities designed to promote interaction, rather than learning per-se.
- sethammons 8y agoAbout 10 years ago, I started to design a learning system like this. It was before I had heard of Khan Academy. The idea is like that, but on steroids. Imagine a wiki where every lesson is available as a lecture and in writing (and where possible, an interactive lab, either in app or in real life). Every topic forms a graph that is explorable via links to get proper scaffolding. See or hear a word or topic you don't remember or understand? Click and follow the rabbit hole. The system would provide different styles of lecture and reading that align with a given student's preference. Educators could upload new content and students could rate that content as to help the best content raise to the top for other students to explore. To advance up the tree of a subject, a student would have to pass quizzes and the system would identify the holes in the student's understanding and provide content to fill the hole. Such a system could effectively flip teaching where teachers facilitate and help with questions while the software ensures the "best in class" content is provided and assessed. I still think about building that from time to time, but life and work don't leave me with the time to start building that. 10 years ago, I got a little ways into the engine for it for an algebra course and that was it.