4 ms·

The 21st century skill students really lack

25 points by tokenadult 14y ago

ncasenmare 14y ago
Having access to digital distractions is just half of why students get bored. The other problem is that the material taught in K-12 schools feels irrelevant, because it is. As an example, OP brings up art analysis. Done properly, it is a rewarding endeavour. But the kind of art analysis you find being taught by dispassionate high school teachers are of the "The Curtains Were Fucking Blue" variety. And so, students come away thinking that's what all art analysis is: irrelevant. Students need real-world, meaningful context for what they're learning. Not contrived word problems or symbolism-searching.
- tokenadult 14y ago
  Students need real-world, meaningful context for what they're learning. What are some examples of real-world, meaningful context, in a field of study that interests you?
  - ncasenmare 14y ago
    Off the top of my head, I can think of 3 ways to provide real-world context for your studies. The first would be a project-based curriculum. Students get to apply what they learn as soon as they learn it. I remember fondly the Twitter clone I made in Computer Science! Another way is guest lecturers. In my high school, they would bring in a university professor to lecture once in a while. Students have more confidence when they know the teacher is immersed in the field. Finally, internships. My internship at Electronic Arts taught me more than just technical skills - it also taught me communication, management, and design. Soft skills not taught in a curriculum.
    - fixxer 14y ago
      I tend to agree. It is easy for professors to complain about bored students and claim it to be a symptom of some broader problem, but I can just as easily claim that it is a symptom of too many professors regurgitating the text and calling it "teaching".
- SiVal 14y ago
  Students need real-world, meaningful context for what they're learning. Not contrived word problems.... This unfortunate meme is spreading like foot fungus in our schools, because there is some truth to it: you DO need SOME experience applying your skills in real-world contexts for your brain to decide they are worth keeping. Unfortunately, this is misunderstood to mean that you don't learn things that aren't learned in realistic contexts. This is false and reflects a misunderstanding of the nature and value of math. Math is the study of abstractions. When you learn that adding two apples to three apples gives you five apples and adding two bunnies to three bunnies gives you five bunnies, you soon discover that you can think of all such problems abstractly: adding a number to a number. When you then study how to add pure numbers, you are gaining experience with an infinite number of concrete, real-world problems simultaneously. The point is not to give you experience with specific, realistic problems that you might encounter later, but to give you enough experience with different, concrete instances of an abstract concept that you begin to see the underlying similarity of all such problems. You don't need the instances to be "realistic", you need them to be recognizable enough that they lead you to an understanding of the abstraction. If problems are too realistic, people are tempted to solve them on the basis of domain experience and possibly miss the abstraction they represent. You also need enough practice working directly with the abstraction (e.g., adding numbers that don't represent anything specific: pure numbers) that the result is fluency in recognizing a problem at an abstract level and easily solving it with your skills in manipulating the abstractions. I think applying these abstract skills to some realistic problems is a great thing to do. But the fashionable notion among "progressive educators" that the study of "contrived problems" and "meaningless symbol manipulation" is to be avoided is a sad example of the blind leading the blind, robbing students of the true power of math: the ability to think in mathematical abstractions instead of being limited to the real-world contexts they've directly experienced.
  - rickhanlonii 14y ago
    Willingham would be proud, as this is a recurring theme and a whole chapter in his book "Why Don't Students Like School: A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions About How the Mind Works and What It Means for the Classroom." He also made this case on this on his blog when responding to Andrew Hacker's ridiculous suggestion to change math so that you don't actually learn math: "The problem is that if you try to meet this challenge by teaching the specific skills that people need, you had better be confident that you're going to cover all those skills. Because if you teach students the significance of the Consumer Price Index they are not going to know how to teach themselves the significance of projected inflation rates on their investment in CDs. Their practical knowledge will be specific to what you teach them, and won't transfer. The best bet for knowledge that can apply to new situations is an abstract understanding--seeing that apparently different problems have a similar underlying structure. And the best bet for students to gain this abstract understanding is to teach it explicitly. (For a discussion of this point as it applies to math education in particular, see Anderson, Reder, & Simon, 1996). But the explicit teaching of abstractions is not enough. You also need practice in putting the abstractions into concrete situations." Neither of us, though, can make the point as well as he does. In the book he explains what transfer is, as well as surface knowledge, deep knowledge, etc, and how an understanding of these concepts ca inform a philosophy of education and shape education practices. Everyone, read his book! If the title worries you that it's too focused on educators, then ignore the title. The content is applicable to anyone interested in learning at all, especially if you want to improve the way you learn. Obviously, I strongly recommend that book, but alternatively, he covers a lot of what's in the book in his articles[2]. </willingham_fan_boy> [1] http://www.danielwillingham.com/1/post/2012/07/yes-algebra-is-necessary.html http://www.danielwillingham.com/1/post/2012/07/yes-algebra-i... [2] http://www.danielwillingham.com/articles.html http://www.danielwillingham.com/articles.html
NoodleIncident 14y ago
I want to comment, but I feel obliged to study this article for two more hours before I do so.
- tokenadult 14y ago
  I want to comment, but I feel obliged to study this article for two more hours before I do so. Isn't the time limit for editing a Hacker News comment approximately two hours long? Go for it.
j-m-o 14y ago
I suppose I fall into the category of a 21st century student, although I finished my CS degree in the early 'noughts. I think the thesis of the article is generally accurate, that students are capable, but less inclined, to pay attention to things not deemed worthy of the effort. However, I think the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff of stimulus is also an important lesson. I look back to most of my courses fondly, but there were definitely periods where the professor was rehashing previously covered material, or pushing their own research agendas well beyond the course curriculum. As a student with limited hours (and in my case limited again with several part-time jobs), does it make sense to pay perfect attention to the lectures at hand, or maybe put the finishing touches on that assignment for another class? That said, coming back to the author's example of art history, that was one of the most rewarding classes I took in university. Albeit a 3-hour examination of one work seems excessive, there's a lot to gain from the appreciation of fine works outside of algorithms and data structures.
cinquemb 14y ago
Seeing how the educational system that we have now was nonexistent 100 years ago that routinely offers information one can find online now, I feel like the author is referring to something that was more valuable and more applicable to a point in history than the current state of affairs (at least in the way our society values/rewards formal education with assumed employability and/or a necessary prerequisite for any further study for many things) . Though on some level I can appreciate the need for patience when undergoing a process with a well defined end-point worth the wait that is understood by the person doing the waiting, I am failing to see how the current state of affairs in the education system deliver this to the students as they apparently have in the past (which I doubt seeing they ways things are now). I would even doubt career academics would attribute their success to their patience (or being told that they should be patient) before their own curiosity.
- coldtea 14y ago
  >Seeing how the educational system that we have now was nonexistent 100 years ago I'm not sure what you mean with "nonexisting". Attended by fewer people? If so, yes. Still, a century ago (and quite a lot more for that matter), there were excellent universities and great curriculums, of the kind that put a lot of modern university curriculums to shame. Is fields such as literature, history, sociology and such there is no comparison even, compared to the watered down modern equivalents. But also in hard sciences. Our knowledge might has progresses, but university courses have more often than not declined, to adapt to "market needs" (something with is also widely admitted by professors). >that routinely offers information one can find online now It's not about information, it's about knowing how to evaluate information. Information without the skills to evaluate it is just white noise. To put it in another way, a 20 year old with full access to the Internet, is not (as a sum of his and the internets information) smarter and wont be more productive than Einstein or Bertrand Russell. >I feel like the author is referring to something that was more valuable and more applicable to a point in history than the current state of affairs Nope. The availability of huge amounts of information online even makes it much more important a skill -- for if you can show the necessary patience, then you have much more information at your disposal to evaluate and take advantage off. Just the information without the patience = the typical internet user's attention span and non-productivity. >I would even doubt career academics would attribute their success to their patience (or being told that they should be patient) before their own curiosity. Most of them (of what I've read in biographies and interviews) attribute their success to hard work and study, which sure sounds like "patience" to me. Curiosity without patience = Reddit.
chipsy 14y ago
The replacement is already being piloted in schools: mindfulness meditation. It encourages the same kinds of depth and discovery, in a more general-purpose fashion. After all, if you aren't patient enough to do nothing at all, how are you going to be patient enough to study challenging material?
jwatte 14y ago
The other half of patience: grit. Also lacking.
gdsimoes 14y ago
School sucks and students are aware of it.
nsxwolf 14y ago
I don't see the ear/squirrel/shoulder thing mentioned in the article. I looked really hard.
- pistacchioso 14y ago
  you can spot the resemblance only after two hours of staring at the painting.

25 points by tokenadult 14y ago

Having access to digital distractions is just half of why students get bored. The other problem is that the material taught in K-12 schools feels irrelevant, because it is. As an example, OP brings up art analysis. Done properly, it is a rewarding endeavour. But the kind of art analysis you find being taught by dispassionate high school teachers are of the "The Curtains Were Fucking Blue" variety. And so, students come away thinking that's what all art analysis is: irrelevant. Students need real-world, meaningful context for what they're learning. Not contrived word problems or symbolism-searching.

tokenadult 14y ago
Students need real-world, meaningful context for what they're learning. What are some examples of real-world, meaningful context, in a field of study that interests you?
- ncasenmare 14y ago
  Off the top of my head, I can think of 3 ways to provide real-world context for your studies. The first would be a project-based curriculum. Students get to apply what they learn as soon as they learn it. I remember fondly the Twitter clone I made in Computer Science! Another way is guest lecturers. In my high school, they would bring in a university professor to lecture once in a while. Students have more confidence when they know the teacher is immersed in the field. Finally, internships. My internship at Electronic Arts taught me more than just technical skills - it also taught me communication, management, and design. Soft skills not taught in a curriculum.
  - fixxer 14y ago
    I tend to agree. It is easy for professors to complain about bored students and claim it to be a symptom of some broader problem, but I can just as easily claim that it is a symptom of too many professors regurgitating the text and calling it "teaching".
SiVal 14y ago
Students need real-world, meaningful context for what they're learning. Not contrived word problems.... This unfortunate meme is spreading like foot fungus in our schools, because there is some truth to it: you DO need SOME experience applying your skills in real-world contexts for your brain to decide they are worth keeping. Unfortunately, this is misunderstood to mean that you don't learn things that aren't learned in realistic contexts. This is false and reflects a misunderstanding of the nature and value of math. Math is the study of abstractions. When you learn that adding two apples to three apples gives you five apples and adding two bunnies to three bunnies gives you five bunnies, you soon discover that you can think of all such problems abstractly: adding a number to a number. When you then study how to add pure numbers, you are gaining experience with an infinite number of concrete, real-world problems simultaneously. The point is not to give you experience with specific, realistic problems that you might encounter later, but to give you enough experience with different, concrete instances of an abstract concept that you begin to see the underlying similarity of all such problems. You don't need the instances to be "realistic", you need them to be recognizable enough that they lead you to an understanding of the abstraction. If problems are too realistic, people are tempted to solve them on the basis of domain experience and possibly miss the abstraction they represent. You also need enough practice working directly with the abstraction (e.g., adding numbers that don't represent anything specific: pure numbers) that the result is fluency in recognizing a problem at an abstract level and easily solving it with your skills in manipulating the abstractions. I think applying these abstract skills to some realistic problems is a great thing to do. But the fashionable notion among "progressive educators" that the study of "contrived problems" and "meaningless symbol manipulation" is to be avoided is a sad example of the blind leading the blind, robbing students of the true power of math: the ability to think in mathematical abstractions instead of being limited to the real-world contexts they've directly experienced.
- rickhanlonii 14y ago
  Willingham would be proud, as this is a recurring theme and a whole chapter in his book "Why Don't Students Like School: A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions About How the Mind Works and What It Means for the Classroom." He also made this case on this on his blog when responding to Andrew Hacker's ridiculous suggestion to change math so that you don't actually learn math: "The problem is that if you try to meet this challenge by teaching the specific skills that people need, you had better be confident that you're going to cover all those skills. Because if you teach students the significance of the Consumer Price Index they are not going to know how to teach themselves the significance of projected inflation rates on their investment in CDs. Their practical knowledge will be specific to what you teach them, and won't transfer. The best bet for knowledge that can apply to new situations is an abstract understanding--seeing that apparently different problems have a similar underlying structure. And the best bet for students to gain this abstract understanding is to teach it explicitly. (For a discussion of this point as it applies to math education in particular, see Anderson, Reder, & Simon, 1996). But the explicit teaching of abstractions is not enough. You also need practice in putting the abstractions into concrete situations." Neither of us, though, can make the point as well as he does. In the book he explains what transfer is, as well as surface knowledge, deep knowledge, etc, and how an understanding of these concepts ca inform a philosophy of education and shape education practices. Everyone, read his book! If the title worries you that it's too focused on educators, then ignore the title. The content is applicable to anyone interested in learning at all, especially if you want to improve the way you learn. Obviously, I strongly recommend that book, but alternatively, he covers a lot of what's in the book in his articles[2]. </willingham_fan_boy> [1] http://www.danielwillingham.com/1/post/2012/07/yes-algebra-is-necessary.html http://www.danielwillingham.com/1/post/2012/07/yes-algebra-i... [2] http://www.danielwillingham.com/articles.html http://www.danielwillingham.com/articles.html

NoodleIncident 14y ago

I want to comment, but I feel obliged to study this article for two more hours before I do so.

tokenadult 14y ago
I want to comment, but I feel obliged to study this article for two more hours before I do so. Isn't the time limit for editing a Hacker News comment approximately two hours long? Go for it.

j-m-o 14y ago

I suppose I fall into the category of a 21st century student, although I finished my CS degree in the early 'noughts. I think the thesis of the article is generally accurate, that students are capable, but less inclined, to pay attention to things not deemed worthy of the effort. However, I think the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff of stimulus is also an important lesson. I look back to most of my courses fondly, but there were definitely periods where the professor was rehashing previously covered material, or pushing their own research agendas well beyond the course curriculum. As a student with limited hours (and in my case limited again with several part-time jobs), does it make sense to pay perfect attention to the lectures at hand, or maybe put the finishing touches on that assignment for another class? That said, coming back to the author's example of art history, that was one of the most rewarding classes I took in university. Albeit a 3-hour examination of one work seems excessive, there's a lot to gain from the appreciation of fine works outside of algorithms and data structures.

cinquemb 14y ago

Seeing how the educational system that we have now was nonexistent 100 years ago that routinely offers information one can find online now, I feel like the author is referring to something that was more valuable and more applicable to a point in history than the current state of affairs (at least in the way our society values/rewards formal education with assumed employability and/or a necessary prerequisite for any further study for many things) . Though on some level I can appreciate the need for patience when undergoing a process with a well defined end-point worth the wait that is understood by the person doing the waiting, I am failing to see how the current state of affairs in the education system deliver this to the students as they apparently have in the past (which I doubt seeing they ways things are now). I would even doubt career academics would attribute their success to their patience (or being told that they should be patient) before their own curiosity.

coldtea 14y ago
>Seeing how the educational system that we have now was nonexistent 100 years ago I'm not sure what you mean with "nonexisting". Attended by fewer people? If so, yes. Still, a century ago (and quite a lot more for that matter), there were excellent universities and great curriculums, of the kind that put a lot of modern university curriculums to shame. Is fields such as literature, history, sociology and such there is no comparison even, compared to the watered down modern equivalents. But also in hard sciences. Our knowledge might has progresses, but university courses have more often than not declined, to adapt to "market needs" (something with is also widely admitted by professors). >that routinely offers information one can find online now It's not about information, it's about knowing how to evaluate information. Information without the skills to evaluate it is just white noise. To put it in another way, a 20 year old with full access to the Internet, is not (as a sum of his and the internets information) smarter and wont be more productive than Einstein or Bertrand Russell. >I feel like the author is referring to something that was more valuable and more applicable to a point in history than the current state of affairs Nope. The availability of huge amounts of information online even makes it much more important a skill -- for if you can show the necessary patience, then you have much more information at your disposal to evaluate and take advantage off. Just the information without the patience = the typical internet user's attention span and non-productivity. >I would even doubt career academics would attribute their success to their patience (or being told that they should be patient) before their own curiosity. Most of them (of what I've read in biographies and interviews) attribute their success to hard work and study, which sure sounds like "patience" to me. Curiosity without patience = Reddit.

chipsy 14y ago

The replacement is already being piloted in schools: mindfulness meditation. It encourages the same kinds of depth and discovery, in a more general-purpose fashion. After all, if you aren't patient enough to do nothing at all, how are you going to be patient enough to study challenging material?

jwatte 14y ago

The other half of patience: grit. Also lacking.

gdsimoes 14y ago

School sucks and students are aware of it.

nsxwolf 14y ago

I don't see the ear/squirrel/shoulder thing mentioned in the article. I looked really hard.

pistacchioso 14y ago
you can spot the resemblance only after two hours of staring at the painting.