6 ms·
All this confirms is that kids are unfocused and need someone to focus their attention. Remote learning requires you to take responsibility and takes getting us
by excsn 4y ago
All this confirms is that kids are unfocused and need someone to focus their attention. Remote learning requires you to take responsibility and takes getting used to. Parents generally aren't going to get involved in students learning, clearly, as this confirms.
If you aren't motivated in some way, you will not do well. In person school was boring for me and wouldn't have made a difference for me since I always looked up youtube videos to learn math and science anyway. We can see here that remote learning needs more work and time in order to catch up to in person school scores.
- _aavaa_ 4y agoI disagree. "kids are unfocused and need someone to focus their attention" is simply not true on its own. I think it needs the caveat of "focus their attention on things they're not interested in". "Remote learning", or sitting in front of a computer and using it for a few hours in a row, is something many children do willingly and must be pried away from with continual arguments, see video games. I argue the problem, generally, isn't the fact that students need to sit at a computer, but that remote learning, much like current in-person learning as you say yourself, is simply boring.
- apetresc 4y agoThe fact that school is less addictive than modern video games is not as slam-dunk of an argument against schools as you seem to think it is.
- _aavaa_ 4y agoA) I never said modern. Video games have been enthralling to people for decades. B) The word "addictive" gets bandied about very freely when it comes to video games. Unless we're talking about loot boxes or pseudo (or not so pseudo) gambling in video games, there's a pretty big difference between video game "addiction" and an alcohol/nicotine addiction. My hobbies are not "addictive", and nor are the things I find boring "anti-additive". Video games are designed primarily for the person playing them to want to be there, to learn what the games world has to teach, and in some cases to draw as much money out of the whales as possible. Standardised schooling is designed primarily to be quantifiable and scaleable.
- Der_Einzige 4y agoIf my kid gets addicted to the right video games, they WILL learn more than the same time classes. Case in point? Paradox interactive grand strategy titles. You'll learn more history and geography in a CK2 campaign than a whole year of the average 8th grade history/geography course. Of course, we always assume children get addicted to video games that don't teach anything.
- _aavaa_ 4y agoI agree. But also, we shouldn't throw around the word "addicted" so freely. Aside from the argument of if it's really an addiction, there's the issue of framing: Addicted to video games or simply absorbed in an interactive medium? Uninterested in learning or simply bored by the un-engaging monologue?
- quadrifoliate 4y ago> Case in point? Paradox interactive grand strategy titles. You'll learn more history and geography in a CK2 campaign than a whole year of the average 8th grade history/geography course. What proof do you have about this? Stuff like this sounds highly attractive – "If we just designed the right games, our kids would learn as they play", but it's about as useful as your CEO saying "I could just have my 16-year old write that program, he learns programming at schools". Curricula to teach specific subjects have been designed by professionals to carefully cover learning with reinforcement over time. They don't stop being valid just because you played a game one time that you think you enjoyed a lot.
- _aavaa_ 4y agoAnd when we test students a few months later on what they learned and remembered from that carefully designed curriculum, what do those outcomes look like?
- quadrifoliate 4y agoCurricula are typically designed for learning, not to guarantee outcomes on standardized tests. "But...we want a way to measure!" Keep thinking that way and you'll end up with a test prep industry for fourth grade. Take it from an immigrant who comes from that culture and hopes American schools don't get it any time soon. If you really want to measure progress on history and geography, you have to measure minor intangibles like whether your kid can find their neighborhood on a city map, or can recognize similarities between strategic problems in history and the problems that they face. I at least have not heard of any meaningful attempt to measure minute aspects like this, but would be interesting if there were any.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 4y agoSchool was boring too, you were just forced to do it (personal opinion)