3 ms·

> I’ve encountered plenty of students who struggle with spelling, grammar, or mathematical mistakes and no matter how many times I correct them it doesn’t stick

> I’ve encountered plenty of students who struggle with spelling, grammar, or mathematical mistakes and no matter how many times I correct them it doesn’t stick. Then I see other students who pick these things up so quickly without correction. I often wonder about this. I believe that each person has a certain intellectual threshold beyond which they cannot progress farther in (memory, spatial reasoning, logical reasoning, learning speed, etc.) Logically there are genetic and natural components to this threshold. I also think part of what makes a lot of modern life so disastrously ineffective is the belief by those running society that everyone can reach a similar intellectual level given the right "system". However, I think modern schooling is so brutally ineffective that barely anyone in school is operating near the real limits of their intellect. What do you think was holding those kids back? Lack of motivation, poor knowledge of fundamentals, or do you think basic high school concepts actually had maxed out their intellect?

nyrikki 3y ago
As someone who suffers from dysgraphia, which isn't well understood and commonly missed or completely misunderstood, our teaching methods simply do not translate to effective methods. In English especially where we have problems with vowel shifts multiple source languages and frankly stupid spelling of some words by ignorant prescriptivist Latinophiles, it is really rote memorization. Math is like playing the guitar or skiing, it takes practice to be good at. But if you aren't good at memorization of concepts you don't understand, the typical response is to make people spend more time with memorization. This simply doesn't work and students start to believe they aren't smart enough and give up, because they aren't offered tools to adapt and it is easier to just be thought of as stupid or slow. Mathematics, logic, and scientific reasoning are learned skills and while everyone will have ultimate limits to their abilities, they are hard for all humans but in different ways. But you are right, most this is tactic, people just ignore factors that often aren't even learning disabilities, but are advantages some students have due to their history and exposure. Moravec's paradox is probably a good analogy, where what we think is easy is only easy due to previous experience. Many authors like Ernest Hemingway and Agatha Christie were horrible at spelling and grammar but had good editors. Assuming that being bad at spelling and grammar indicates an 'intellectual threshold' is a dangerous path. Calculus is a filter class because it is taught in a way that favors rote memorization of unexplained concepts, but introduce some abstract algebra concepts to a student or coworker and many can move forward. Rote memorization does have value, but equating memorization skills wilh ultimate intellectual ability leads to far lower educational attainment for many people. Great guitarists and other difficult skills are far less about 'natural abilities' than it is about hard work and being exposed to an environment that does discourage that hard work. Stem is the same as is creative writing or effective communication. It is hard for everyone to learn, but people forget how much effort it took.
- andsoitis 3y ago
  > Moravec's paradox is probably a good analogy, where what we think is easy is only easy due to previous experience. One explanation of Moravec’s paradox is based on evolution. Human skills are implemented biologically with mechanisms that have been shaped by natural selection. The older the skill, the more time natural selection has had to shape it. Abstract thought is a recent development, so we should expect the current implementation to be relatively inefficient.
toast0 3y ago
> I also think part of what makes a lot of modern life so disastrously ineffective is the belief by those running society that everyone can reach a similar intellectual level given the right "system". Well, it's a nice belief to have, even if it's not true. But I think what's worse is the belief that everyone can reach a similar intellectutal level given the same "right system". I'm pretty sure no system could teach me how to say draw legible sketches of pretty much anything, a valuable, intellectual skill. I'm ok with that and will move on with my life. But I'm even more sure a system that could teach me that skill would be unable to teach very many others. If you want to get everyone to the same intellectual level or maybe to at least some specific level, you've got to be flexible about how and what to teach and how long it's going to take. I know plenty of people who can do basic 3d sketching with no specific instruction, but that's not me. I've got things I can pick up too. Some people are going to need a lot more time for things... But schools will say they want to do flexible, student driven teaching, but then it's more of the same one size fits some.
- v-erne 3y ago
  >>I know plenty of people who can do basic 3d sketching with no specific instruction, but that's not me I used to think that I am tone deaf and have no memory for melodies. Bu t after I forces myself to spend a lot of time singing, playing guitar and listening to music it occured that I just lacked some basic skills that combined suddenly creates magical ability of recalling melodies in my head and even repeating them. The same was with drawing and public speaking and general movement coordination (strength training can do wonders in this department). This made me believe that some of problems of education system comes from general inability to convince students to spend more (dozen times more) on practicing basic skills (being this writing, small/big motoric skills, logical thinking oraz even some seemingly unimportant stuff like voice emission)
  - DrScientist 3y ago
    I think there are three things here - which are not mutually exclusive. 1. No amount of practice will enable me to break the 100m world record - or even probably be within 30-40% of it. 2. However, training would dramatically improve my time. 3. Most importantly, in life I could beat Usain Bolt by simply starting running 5 seconds earlier - ie for most things peak performance isn't what matters - it's effort/persistence.
kwere 3y ago
>that everyone can reach a similar intellectual level given the right "system" False on absolute terms and useless for most "real life" training. Time to learn/master a subject is an enormous competitive advantage to foster, as "talented" people will always have an edge over "clumsy" people. Mediocre people can only beat a genius trough effort of luck IF the genius is lazy and/or unlucky.

nyrikki 3y ago

As someone who suffers from dysgraphia, which isn't well understood and commonly missed or completely misunderstood, our teaching methods simply do not translate to effective methods. In English especially where we have problems with vowel shifts multiple source languages and frankly stupid spelling of some words by ignorant prescriptivist Latinophiles, it is really rote memorization. Math is like playing the guitar or skiing, it takes practice to be good at. But if you aren't good at memorization of concepts you don't understand, the typical response is to make people spend more time with memorization. This simply doesn't work and students start to believe they aren't smart enough and give up, because they aren't offered tools to adapt and it is easier to just be thought of as stupid or slow. Mathematics, logic, and scientific reasoning are learned skills and while everyone will have ultimate limits to their abilities, they are hard for all humans but in different ways. But you are right, most this is tactic, people just ignore factors that often aren't even learning disabilities, but are advantages some students have due to their history and exposure. Moravec's paradox is probably a good analogy, where what we think is easy is only easy due to previous experience. Many authors like Ernest Hemingway and Agatha Christie were horrible at spelling and grammar but had good editors. Assuming that being bad at spelling and grammar indicates an 'intellectual threshold' is a dangerous path. Calculus is a filter class because it is taught in a way that favors rote memorization of unexplained concepts, but introduce some abstract algebra concepts to a student or coworker and many can move forward. Rote memorization does have value, but equating memorization skills wilh ultimate intellectual ability leads to far lower educational attainment for many people. Great guitarists and other difficult skills are far less about 'natural abilities' than it is about hard work and being exposed to an environment that does discourage that hard work. Stem is the same as is creative writing or effective communication. It is hard for everyone to learn, but people forget how much effort it took.

andsoitis 3y ago
> Moravec's paradox is probably a good analogy, where what we think is easy is only easy due to previous experience. One explanation of Moravec’s paradox is based on evolution. Human skills are implemented biologically with mechanisms that have been shaped by natural selection. The older the skill, the more time natural selection has had to shape it. Abstract thought is a recent development, so we should expect the current implementation to be relatively inefficient.

toast0 3y ago

> I also think part of what makes a lot of modern life so disastrously ineffective is the belief by those running society that everyone can reach a similar intellectual level given the right "system". Well, it's a nice belief to have, even if it's not true. But I think what's worse is the belief that everyone can reach a similar intellectutal level given the same "right system". I'm pretty sure no system could teach me how to say draw legible sketches of pretty much anything, a valuable, intellectual skill. I'm ok with that and will move on with my life. But I'm even more sure a system that could teach me that skill would be unable to teach very many others. If you want to get everyone to the same intellectual level or maybe to at least some specific level, you've got to be flexible about how and what to teach and how long it's going to take. I know plenty of people who can do basic 3d sketching with no specific instruction, but that's not me. I've got things I can pick up too. Some people are going to need a lot more time for things... But schools will say they want to do flexible, student driven teaching, but then it's more of the same one size fits some.

v-erne 3y ago
>>I know plenty of people who can do basic 3d sketching with no specific instruction, but that's not me I used to think that I am tone deaf and have no memory for melodies. Bu t after I forces myself to spend a lot of time singing, playing guitar and listening to music it occured that I just lacked some basic skills that combined suddenly creates magical ability of recalling melodies in my head and even repeating them. The same was with drawing and public speaking and general movement coordination (strength training can do wonders in this department). This made me believe that some of problems of education system comes from general inability to convince students to spend more (dozen times more) on practicing basic skills (being this writing, small/big motoric skills, logical thinking oraz even some seemingly unimportant stuff like voice emission)
- DrScientist 3y ago
  I think there are three things here - which are not mutually exclusive. 1. No amount of practice will enable me to break the 100m world record - or even probably be within 30-40% of it. 2. However, training would dramatically improve my time. 3. Most importantly, in life I could beat Usain Bolt by simply starting running 5 seconds earlier - ie for most things peak performance isn't what matters - it's effort/persistence.

kwere 3y ago

>that everyone can reach a similar intellectual level given the right "system" False on absolute terms and useless for most "real life" training. Time to learn/master a subject is an enormous competitive advantage to foster, as "talented" people will always have an edge over "clumsy" people. Mediocre people can only beat a genius trough effort of luck IF the genius is lazy and/or unlucky.