I recently finished Sway - The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior by Ori Brafman and Rom Brafman. It's a great book that might not have given me very many imminent benefits, but surely some long term ones. It discusses how humans are influenced, or 'swayed', by irrational thought. Three terms are brought up repeatedly in the book that offer a concise summary:
Loss aversion - the tendency to go to great lengths to avoid possible losses
This is the influence that leads people to stay committed to failing causes. Brafman tells a story of a professor who convinced his students to pay more than one hundred dollars for a twenty dollar bill in an auction. In his auction, everybody was free to bid; there were only two rules.
1. Bids were to be made in $1 dollar increments
2. The winner of the auction wins the bill, but the runner-up must still honor his or her bid, while receiving nothing in return.
The bidding starts out fast until it reaches $12 to $16 dollars, when people realize where it's going. Everyone except the two highest bidders drop out of the auction. They both don't want to be the one who payed good money for nothing. They play not to lose instead of playing not to win. The commitment to a chosen path inspires additional bids, driving the price up, making the potential loss larger. So students keep bidding past twenty. It's an incredibly powerful force, and you can see how irrational it is.
Value attribution - the inclination to imbue a person or thing with certain qualities based on perceived value
It's the force that leads people to assume intelligence. It's what makes us overlook phenomena. We assume too much.
I'm sure you've heard about the subway experiment a famous violin player, Joshua Bell, took part in. If not, read about it here. It's a perfect example of value attribution.
There's also something called the Pygmalion effect and Golem effect which describe how we take on positive and negative traits assigned to us by someone else, respectively. It's fascinating how this happens. When people treat us according to their perceived value of us, we actually take on the traits they assign. We are actually able to respond to the subtle hints and clues people give off while entirely unconscious of it.
Diagnosis bias - blindness to all evidence that contradicts our initial assessment of a person or situation
Like value attribution, this is presumptuous. Under this bias, people disregard things that may make their assessment of someone or something more accurate. For example, a doctor overlooking certain symptoms in favor of a simple diagnosis.
I didn't ever want to put this book down. It's all written in a story/analysis format, which I love.
If only more people were aware of these subtle forces...
11/25/10
Postprandial Jabberwocky
I can't verbalize how relieved I am to have a week of respite from school. It's so liberating and enlightening to do what I want for a week, disregarding the lingering threat of the poetic project I have to complete next week. I've become fairly adept at pardoning my forgetfulness when it comes to schoolwork, and I'm beginning to see it as a lifelong skill. I'm not going to get anything done remembering how much work I have to do, so I might as well forget it and put my mind on other things.
Today was Thanksgiving, and a good one. While my kindred feasted upon eagerly prepared delectables at supper, I pondered quietly at the foot of the table, intermittently looking up from my book. Oftentimes it's more interesting to watch and listen to people in conversation than to take part in it. Anyway, as I listened, I realized what a significant influence environment plays in what we think about and talk about. Increasingly evident, too, was the significant difference between teenager-adult conversation and adult-adult conversion.
Normally when you want to start a conversation, you say what's on your mind at the moment (after filtering it for relevancy and other things). If I see my friend and notice he has a weird looking haircut, I'll ask him about it. But sometimes what's on your mind isn't completely evident to you until you start talking. Conversation seems to prompt the subconscious more than merely thinking can. When people think about something deeply, and are unsure or interested about it, I think they hand it over to a part of their brain they can access later for inquiry. I realized this might be true when I listened to my parents and aunt and uncle talk. They talked about friends we have who have been very successful in raising their kids, dealing with hardships, earning a lot of money, etc. I'm sure that's not what was on the tip of their tongue as they initiated conversation. They somehow got to talking about that subject through subconscious means, from the place where they store interesting information they want to think about or talk about some more. Of course there are triggers, like certain words or ideas, that bring thoughts from long-term memory into working memory, but that's not all that has to happen for someone to input a certain thought into a conversation. The thought has to pass filters. (Filters that judge whether information is relevant to bring up, whether the thought might be offensive toward the listener, whether the listener will really care, how intelligent the listener is, etc.) I think one very interesting filter is one that determines whether the listener will accurately discern what you say--in some cases, the filter that determines the listener's age. I don't mean to say that age correlates with accurate discernment, but to suggest that some device used in developing conversation filters a lot of what is said based on age. This filter is very necessary most of the time, (You wouldn't want to discuss marital problems with a 10 year old) but when this filter is applied, information that could have been put into the conversation and information that could have benefited the listener is never relayed.
I'll use my experience today as an example. My parents started discussing a family that has been very successful in raising kids, dealing with hardships, earning a lot of money, etc. after dinner. They described the conditions and events that led to the family's success, intending to convey the interestingness of the its success. The listeners, my aunt and uncle, were interested in the story and could relate to the way my parents felt. I like to think of this as a successful transaction of fascination. (I don't know what else to call it) If my parents were having a conversation with only me, my parents wouldn't have said the same things about the family. I would have gotten an abridged version of the story. Their filters would have made the story more relevant to me and aimed towards my assumed relatively lower capacity to discern.
I want to make a point that many filters used in conversation are very accurate and useful, but if the filter used to gauge the capacity to discern were made more loose, so to say, teenagers like me could benefit more from adult-teenager conversation. After all, if I hadn't heard the adult-adult conversation, I wouldn't have thought of any of this.
The best example of how inefficient this filter can be is manifest in baby-adult conversation. Sometimes parents feel the need to use elementary language to communicate with their child. Often, it's very appropriate, (The baby obviously wouldn't understand you if you were yelling for it to 'stop being disrespectful and unconcerned' instead of 'stop running around.') but little kids can pick up more than you'd think. Speaking intellectually, or holding an appropriate adult conversation in front of a child, can be a rewarding educational experience for her. Using words she might not know is only going to teach her new words.
It's not a very plausible proposal, but if adults could speak with a more efficient filter--that is, speaking to kids/teenagers as they would adults (within reason)--more people would be benefited and perhaps we'd all grow up faster.
I'm sure tons of people have thought of these same ideas. There are probably psychological terms for them. If anyone knows them, I'd love to know too. And for those people who read these crazy posts, tell me what you think the answers to the questions I ask are, because I don't know and can only speculate. I'd like to hear your thoughts, or read them.
Today was Thanksgiving, and a good one. While my kindred feasted upon eagerly prepared delectables at supper, I pondered quietly at the foot of the table, intermittently looking up from my book. Oftentimes it's more interesting to watch and listen to people in conversation than to take part in it. Anyway, as I listened, I realized what a significant influence environment plays in what we think about and talk about. Increasingly evident, too, was the significant difference between teenager-adult conversation and adult-adult conversion.
Normally when you want to start a conversation, you say what's on your mind at the moment (after filtering it for relevancy and other things). If I see my friend and notice he has a weird looking haircut, I'll ask him about it. But sometimes what's on your mind isn't completely evident to you until you start talking. Conversation seems to prompt the subconscious more than merely thinking can. When people think about something deeply, and are unsure or interested about it, I think they hand it over to a part of their brain they can access later for inquiry. I realized this might be true when I listened to my parents and aunt and uncle talk. They talked about friends we have who have been very successful in raising their kids, dealing with hardships, earning a lot of money, etc. I'm sure that's not what was on the tip of their tongue as they initiated conversation. They somehow got to talking about that subject through subconscious means, from the place where they store interesting information they want to think about or talk about some more. Of course there are triggers, like certain words or ideas, that bring thoughts from long-term memory into working memory, but that's not all that has to happen for someone to input a certain thought into a conversation. The thought has to pass filters. (Filters that judge whether information is relevant to bring up, whether the thought might be offensive toward the listener, whether the listener will really care, how intelligent the listener is, etc.) I think one very interesting filter is one that determines whether the listener will accurately discern what you say--in some cases, the filter that determines the listener's age. I don't mean to say that age correlates with accurate discernment, but to suggest that some device used in developing conversation filters a lot of what is said based on age. This filter is very necessary most of the time, (You wouldn't want to discuss marital problems with a 10 year old) but when this filter is applied, information that could have been put into the conversation and information that could have benefited the listener is never relayed.
I'll use my experience today as an example. My parents started discussing a family that has been very successful in raising kids, dealing with hardships, earning a lot of money, etc. after dinner. They described the conditions and events that led to the family's success, intending to convey the interestingness of the its success. The listeners, my aunt and uncle, were interested in the story and could relate to the way my parents felt. I like to think of this as a successful transaction of fascination. (I don't know what else to call it) If my parents were having a conversation with only me, my parents wouldn't have said the same things about the family. I would have gotten an abridged version of the story. Their filters would have made the story more relevant to me and aimed towards my assumed relatively lower capacity to discern.
I want to make a point that many filters used in conversation are very accurate and useful, but if the filter used to gauge the capacity to discern were made more loose, so to say, teenagers like me could benefit more from adult-teenager conversation. After all, if I hadn't heard the adult-adult conversation, I wouldn't have thought of any of this.
The best example of how inefficient this filter can be is manifest in baby-adult conversation. Sometimes parents feel the need to use elementary language to communicate with their child. Often, it's very appropriate, (The baby obviously wouldn't understand you if you were yelling for it to 'stop being disrespectful and unconcerned' instead of 'stop running around.') but little kids can pick up more than you'd think. Speaking intellectually, or holding an appropriate adult conversation in front of a child, can be a rewarding educational experience for her. Using words she might not know is only going to teach her new words.
It's not a very plausible proposal, but if adults could speak with a more efficient filter--that is, speaking to kids/teenagers as they would adults (within reason)--more people would be benefited and perhaps we'd all grow up faster.
I'm sure tons of people have thought of these same ideas. There are probably psychological terms for them. If anyone knows them, I'd love to know too. And for those people who read these crazy posts, tell me what you think the answers to the questions I ask are, because I don't know and can only speculate. I'd like to hear your thoughts, or read them.
11/2/10
Should Kids Be Bribed to Do Well in School? Well, first we have some things to consider...
I recently read a TIME news article with the title "Should Kids Be Bribed to Do Well in School?"
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1978589-1,00.html
This data is really interesting considering the raft of research conducted on motivation that says this shouldn't happen. For a long time people have thought that money is the ultimate incentive for great performance on a task, but it has been proven to only be true when the task calls for elementary skill. As soon as a task requires even rudimentary cognitive skill, a higher reward yields a poorer performance. As soon as some level of creativity is involved in a task, a high reward can actually hurt performance. RSA Animate has a great video that explains this perfectly. (I put a link at the bottom of this post)
"The most damning criticism of Fryer came from psychologists like the University of Rochester's Edward Deci, who has spent his career studying motivation. Deci has found that money — like other tangible rewards — does not work very well to motivate people over the long term, particularly for tasks that involve creativity. In fact, there is a lot of evidence that rewards can have the perverse effect of making people perform worse.
A classic experiment in support of this hypothesis took place at a nursery school at Stanford University in the early 1970s. There, researchers divided 51 toddlers into groups. All the kids were asked to draw a picture with markers. But one group was told in advance that they would get a special reward — a certificate with a gold star and a red ribbon — in exchange for their work. The kids did the drawings, and the ones in the treatment group got their certificates.
A few weeks later, the researchers observed the children through a one-way mirror on a normal school day. They found that the kids who had received the award spent half as much time drawing for fun as those who had not been rewarded. The reward, it seemed, diminished the act of drawing. So instead of giving kids gold stars, Deci says, we should teach them to derive intrinsic pleasure from the task itself. "What we really want is for people to value the activity of learning," he says. People of all ages perform better and work harder if they are actually enjoying the work — not just the reward that comes later."
Deci says that money "does not work very well to motivate people over the long term, particularly for tasks that involve creativity." It seems like Deci was assuming that the tasks Fryer was incentivizing involved creativity, or else he wouldn't have criticized Fryer. Deci is certainly right about motivation. He's one of the many that have discovered and researched the topic for a long time. Fryer's research didn't contradict Deci's assertion; it built upon it in the other direction and reassured what Dan Pink said: if the task involves straightforward, elementary skill, then monetary incentives DO lead to a better performance.
Economist Ronald Fryer Jr. created an experiment to test whether giving money to students could improve grades and test scores. Fryer found that in some of the schools in which he performed the experiment, the monetized reward had no effect. In many others, however, monetized rewards led to either better grades or better standardized tests scores at the end of the year. (You should read the whole thing; this is just the part I want to discuss.)
This data is really interesting considering the raft of research conducted on motivation that says this shouldn't happen. For a long time people have thought that money is the ultimate incentive for great performance on a task, but it has been proven to only be true when the task calls for elementary skill. As soon as a task requires even rudimentary cognitive skill, a higher reward yields a poorer performance. As soon as some level of creativity is involved in a task, a high reward can actually hurt performance. RSA Animate has a great video that explains this perfectly. (I put a link at the bottom of this post)
This excerpt was actually in the article:
"The most damning criticism of Fryer came from psychologists like the University of Rochester's Edward Deci, who has spent his career studying motivation. Deci has found that money — like other tangible rewards — does not work very well to motivate people over the long term, particularly for tasks that involve creativity. In fact, there is a lot of evidence that rewards can have the perverse effect of making people perform worse.
A classic experiment in support of this hypothesis took place at a nursery school at Stanford University in the early 1970s. There, researchers divided 51 toddlers into groups. All the kids were asked to draw a picture with markers. But one group was told in advance that they would get a special reward — a certificate with a gold star and a red ribbon — in exchange for their work. The kids did the drawings, and the ones in the treatment group got their certificates.
A few weeks later, the researchers observed the children through a one-way mirror on a normal school day. They found that the kids who had received the award spent half as much time drawing for fun as those who had not been rewarded. The reward, it seemed, diminished the act of drawing. So instead of giving kids gold stars, Deci says, we should teach them to derive intrinsic pleasure from the task itself. "What we really want is for people to value the activity of learning," he says. People of all ages perform better and work harder if they are actually enjoying the work — not just the reward that comes later."
Deci says that money "does not work very well to motivate people over the long term, particularly for tasks that involve creativity." It seems like Deci was assuming that the tasks Fryer was incentivizing involved creativity, or else he wouldn't have criticized Fryer. Deci is certainly right about motivation. He's one of the many that have discovered and researched the topic for a long time. Fryer's research didn't contradict Deci's assertion; it built upon it in the other direction and reassured what Dan Pink said: if the task involves straightforward, elementary skill, then monetary incentives DO lead to a better performance.
What I want to point out is that whether or not he knows it or chooses to recognize it, Fryer is proving that the tasks he's incentiviting in the schools are not creative tasks. If they were creative tasks, then the students' performances surely would not be better. If anything, they would be worse. The students in the experiments were definitely not doing anything they had an initiative to do on their own. They had to be given money to do it. You can't force a student to be creative. Yes, I know that Fryer probably wasn't trying to prove anything about creativity in schools, but he certainly did.
Perhaps there are people who believe that doing non-creative activities in school is the way to educate our kids--those people are few and far between. (I've always wanted to say that.) But for those people who know that creativity is the thing we need to allow and encourage to happen in schools, here's some more proof that it's not happening.
People who are creative and curious are going to find a way to learn. It's irrefutable. Instead of letting kids take the first stair--creativity and curiosity--we're trying to make them take the second stair, which is the love of learning and the knowledge of how to learn. We have to let them take the first stair before we make them take the second.
"When researchers asked them how they could raise their scores, the kids mentioned test-taking strategies like reading the questions more carefully. But they didn't talk about the substantive work that leads to learning. 'No one said they were going to stay after class and talk to the teacher,' Fryer says. 'Not one.'"
"When researchers asked them how they could raise their scores, the kids mentioned test-taking strategies like reading the questions more carefully. But they didn't talk about the substantive work that leads to learning. 'No one said they were going to stay after class and talk to the teacher,' Fryer says. 'Not one.'"
RSA Animate - Motivation
10/30/10
School is a Breeding Ground for Cheaters
This article from PsychologyToday is fantastic. It's very true.
These are just some snippets I found meaningful. Go here to read the whole article. I highly recommend it.
"They learn that their own questions and interests don't count. What counts are their abilities to provide the "correct" answers to questions that they did not ask and that do not interest them. And "correct" means the answers that the teachers or the test-producers are looking for, not answers that the students really understand to be correct."
"Students recognize that it would be impossible to delve deeply into their school subjects, even if they wanted to. Time does not permit it. They must follow the schedule set by the school curriculum. Moreover, many of them have become convinced that they must also engage in a certain number of formal extracurricular activities, to prove that they are the "well rounded" individuals that top colleges are seeking. Anyone who really allowed himself or herself to pursue a love of one subject would fail all the others."
"Teachers often say that if you cheat in school you are only cheating yourself, because you are shortcutting your own education. But that argument holds water only if what you would have learned by not cheating outweighs the value of whatever you did with the time you saved by cheating."
"One of the tragedies of our system of schooling is that it deflects students from discovering what they truly love and find worth doing for its own sake. Instead, it teaches them that life is a series of hoops that one must get through, by one means or another, and that success lies in others' judgments rather than in real, self-satisfying accomplishments."
These are just some snippets I found meaningful. Go here to read the whole article. I highly recommend it.
"They learn that their own questions and interests don't count. What counts are their abilities to provide the "correct" answers to questions that they did not ask and that do not interest them. And "correct" means the answers that the teachers or the test-producers are looking for, not answers that the students really understand to be correct."
"Students recognize that it would be impossible to delve deeply into their school subjects, even if they wanted to. Time does not permit it. They must follow the schedule set by the school curriculum. Moreover, many of them have become convinced that they must also engage in a certain number of formal extracurricular activities, to prove that they are the "well rounded" individuals that top colleges are seeking. Anyone who really allowed himself or herself to pursue a love of one subject would fail all the others."
"Teachers often say that if you cheat in school you are only cheating yourself, because you are shortcutting your own education. But that argument holds water only if what you would have learned by not cheating outweighs the value of whatever you did with the time you saved by cheating."
"One of the tragedies of our system of schooling is that it deflects students from discovering what they truly love and find worth doing for its own sake. Instead, it teaches them that life is a series of hoops that one must get through, by one means or another, and that success lies in others' judgments rather than in real, self-satisfying accomplishments."
10/25/10
Smart People
I'm sure there are a lot of people who think that those around them are dumb because they never talk about anything interesting. The truth is there are probably some people that really have nothing interesting to talk about most of the time, but I think many very smart people don't consider sharing what they know because it's so obvious to them, and instead of being something always on their mind, it becomes a part of them--so much so that they don't even consider it knowledge.
Say someone was watching you work a math problem and you multiplied 9 by 8 in your head. They ask how you got to 72 so quickly. You'd probably think, "9x8 is just 72..."
Our multiplication tables are so deeply ingrained in us that we don't really even consider it knowledge.
When someone learns about/gets better at/practices something, they lose sight of what's common knowledge. And what tends to happen is they lose the incitement to try to share with those on a different level of understanding because it's frustratingly futile.
Regard my cheesy drawing depicting competence on an artful level.
In short, the stick man on the upper level doesn't have the motive to descend to man on the lower level using the dumb elevator. He'd rather hang around and wait for someone to come up a level to talk to him.
(I suppose a set of stairs would have been more befitting to convey my point, but I already closed Microsoft Paint.)
Say someone was watching you work a math problem and you multiplied 9 by 8 in your head. They ask how you got to 72 so quickly. You'd probably think, "9x8 is just 72..."
Our multiplication tables are so deeply ingrained in us that we don't really even consider it knowledge.
When someone learns about/gets better at/practices something, they lose sight of what's common knowledge. And what tends to happen is they lose the incitement to try to share with those on a different level of understanding because it's frustratingly futile.
Regard my cheesy drawing depicting competence on an artful level.
In short, the stick man on the upper level doesn't have the motive to descend to man on the lower level using the dumb elevator. He'd rather hang around and wait for someone to come up a level to talk to him.
(I suppose a set of stairs would have been more befitting to convey my point, but I already closed Microsoft Paint.)
10/17/10
Sir Ken Robinson on Changing Education Paradigms
Here is a talk by Ken Robinson at the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts (RSA), a rising organization that embodies much of TED’s vision.
10/14/10
Myopia
It scares me how little I know and how small we all are but how much we think we know. Does anyone feel the same way? I hate to think that some people hide in a little cave of myopia, but myopia is everywhere. If you think about it, animosity, pretentiousness, conceit, anger, depression, and even happiness are somehow tied to myopia. If we could always see the other side of things, what would our emotions be like? If we're angry, are we failing to acknowledge the precariousness of the other person's situation? If we're always happy, are we missing a depressing side of everything? If we're depressed, are we missing all that is good? I like to think the latter is true, and even if it's not, I choose to live by it obviously because it makes me happy. Perhaps our limited perspective let's us be motivated. Maybe we become ambitious because we can't see everything ahead of us. I think when I'm older I'll look back and think that things I tried were stupid, but I'll realize that if I didn't do them, I wouldn't have gained the experience that led me to do whatever it is I am glad I did.
It seems that as the human mind learns more about the world around it, things lose value. Some things that you find entrancing lose their awe when you realize that there is so much more out there, and many times, you realize you can't get to it.
The question is whether we should remain ignorant and enjoy ourselves, or strive to be wise and acquire knowledge. Unfortunately, the only way to find out is by acquiring more knowledge and becoming wise. It's a strange paradox, but since the only way to know is to become wise, we should do so.
Steps we can take to get out of the cave of myopia:
1) Be curious
Ask yourself what everyone might be thinking when people are expecting you to think your own thoughts. When you're thinking about something, think about why you are. Think about what led you to the thoughts you're having. Be skeptical of your thoughts. When you do something irrational, try to prove that it was rational. It will ultimately lead you to being more rational. When something is interesting to others and not to you, figure out why. Think about why the things around you work the way they do. Try to guess what people will say next, and try to figure out where they're thoughts might be coming from or what their premise is.
2) Be empirical
Don't be boring. Don't do the same thing everyday. Take a different way home from school or work than you normally do and try driving slow if you normally speed and vice-versa. Listen to music you normally don't. Read a book that doesn't look interesting to you. Talk to someone you don't know. Do something that makes you feel uncomfortable and get comfortable with it.
3) As banal as it sounds, consider the golden rule. (Wikipedia's definition makes it seem less cliche and more applicable, so read that if you have trouble taking it seriously.)
I hate hearing that, and it hurts to type it, and you probably stopped reading for a second after reading that, but the real value behind it isn't as cliche as the phrase. Because we cannot live inside another's mind, we have to rely on our own experiences to judge whether how we act is justified and circumspect. Before disregarding this, think about it. The best way to implement this into your instinctive, reflexive thought is when someone is angry with you for doing something, remember your thought process in that occasion. Make a conscious effort to commit to memory the defensive strategies you prepare in your mind to counter your offender. Then, the next time you are angry at someone, find this experience deep down in your brain, or at least the feelings from it, and consider them. If you do this enough, it becomes a reflex, and you'll find it increasingly easy to tolerate others. Make your anger rational. It's hard to do when you consider what the other person might be thinking.
If everyone would be little more curious and empirical, so many problems with society would be solved right away. I'm sure of it.
I feel like I'm writing some kind of self-help book on anger management or something. I don't know what happened, but I still think these things work and make people more perceptive. I don't mean to sound like I know everything about being wise. I certainly don't; these are my attempts at explaining how I think myopia can be overcome. This is really more a way for me to sort all my jumbled thoughts.
It seems that as the human mind learns more about the world around it, things lose value. Some things that you find entrancing lose their awe when you realize that there is so much more out there, and many times, you realize you can't get to it.
The question is whether we should remain ignorant and enjoy ourselves, or strive to be wise and acquire knowledge. Unfortunately, the only way to find out is by acquiring more knowledge and becoming wise. It's a strange paradox, but since the only way to know is to become wise, we should do so.
Steps we can take to get out of the cave of myopia:
1) Be curious
Ask yourself what everyone might be thinking when people are expecting you to think your own thoughts. When you're thinking about something, think about why you are. Think about what led you to the thoughts you're having. Be skeptical of your thoughts. When you do something irrational, try to prove that it was rational. It will ultimately lead you to being more rational. When something is interesting to others and not to you, figure out why. Think about why the things around you work the way they do. Try to guess what people will say next, and try to figure out where they're thoughts might be coming from or what their premise is.
2) Be empirical
Don't be boring. Don't do the same thing everyday. Take a different way home from school or work than you normally do and try driving slow if you normally speed and vice-versa. Listen to music you normally don't. Read a book that doesn't look interesting to you. Talk to someone you don't know. Do something that makes you feel uncomfortable and get comfortable with it.
3) As banal as it sounds, consider the golden rule. (Wikipedia's definition makes it seem less cliche and more applicable, so read that if you have trouble taking it seriously.)
I hate hearing that, and it hurts to type it, and you probably stopped reading for a second after reading that, but the real value behind it isn't as cliche as the phrase. Because we cannot live inside another's mind, we have to rely on our own experiences to judge whether how we act is justified and circumspect. Before disregarding this, think about it. The best way to implement this into your instinctive, reflexive thought is when someone is angry with you for doing something, remember your thought process in that occasion. Make a conscious effort to commit to memory the defensive strategies you prepare in your mind to counter your offender. Then, the next time you are angry at someone, find this experience deep down in your brain, or at least the feelings from it, and consider them. If you do this enough, it becomes a reflex, and you'll find it increasingly easy to tolerate others. Make your anger rational. It's hard to do when you consider what the other person might be thinking.
If everyone would be little more curious and empirical, so many problems with society would be solved right away. I'm sure of it.
I feel like I'm writing some kind of self-help book on anger management or something. I don't know what happened, but I still think these things work and make people more perceptive. I don't mean to sound like I know everything about being wise. I certainly don't; these are my attempts at explaining how I think myopia can be overcome. This is really more a way for me to sort all my jumbled thoughts.
10/11/10
What the weekend has taught me that school cannot...
Something peculiar happens nearly every weekend for me--something that never happens at school. Starting normally on Saturday night or Sunday morning, I find a deep curiosity for something, it escalates, and I pursue it until Monday morning. This weekend it was blind euphoria, last weekend it was cognitive dissonance. There's always something interesting to learn. The frustrating and increasingly evident fact is that these kinds of curiosities and interests are never provoked in a school setting. There's something about the way we've been taught for so long that discourages our own curiosity, and we don't even realize it. We get "educated" away from our curiosity in a school system that places right answers above questions and general intelligence above specific intelligence.
Today I learned how blue screens work, how ribbon microphones are manufactured, how ink is made, what clairvoyance has to do with pre-cognition and retro-cognition, what hot, cold, and warm reading is, that listening to an audio book at twice the normal speed is twice as productive, a myriad of other things, and I got to talk to a very talented cellist about compositional efforts and music education. All of these things I attribute to productive education, (I know at least, that the conversation I had with the cellist will greatly influence how I deal with my future) but I did them all while I should have been reading the Odyssey and taking notes from my government book. I do suck at time management and I do realize, teachers, that I could have done my homework and THEN done these things, but the reason I do this is because if I stifle my curiosity while it's at its highest point, I'll lose sense of how to achieve it and I'll lose my love of learning. I've learned that the best way to be curious is to never place anything above the need for curiosity. The reason I think students do not have high curiosity in school is because they are trained to ignore it. They're trained to get the "right answer" instead of questioning why the "wrong answer" is wrong.
A demonstrative scenario:
A teacher instructs a student to solve for the final velocity of a free falling object on a test. The student arrives at the correct answer, yet the teacher marks it wrong because he did not use the calculus based method he taught in class the day before.
The "educated student" -
Without questioning the context under which he's solving for the velocity, he tries to solve the problem logically, implementing physics, which makes the most sense to him, in order to solve the problem. The student asks why he got points deducted and is told that he must use the "correct method." He quietly submits with, "Okay" and goes to his desk.
The curious student -
Asks why he is solving for the final velocity. He receives the overly used excuse of "Because you need to know how." He seeks out a situation in which final velocity would need to be determined and ponders the benefits of solving for it. He then solves the problem using physics, which makes the most sense to him to solve the problem. He asks why he got points deducted and receives the same response as the 1st student. Instead of quietly submitting, though, he asks why the calculus based method is more efficient than the physics based method. He then argues for his case but considers the teacher's reasoning of why the calculus method is more efficient. He learns the calculus based method and applies it to the next problem he solves. He then commits to memory the different situations in which each method should be implemented and the reasoning behind both and considers its application in any other discipline that might concern him.
The first problem with both situations is that the teacher marked the problem wrong based on the rationale that the method he teaches is what the students must follow.
The second problem is that the teacher gave no context for the problem, which leaves the students with no real live application for the problem. In order to learn something, students need a reason to learn it. They need to want to learn it.
The third problem is that we have in conventional education systems way too many students like the 1st student. They have no impetus to determine why their teacher's method is the best and they don't attach what they learn in school to their lives outside of school.
The fourth problem is that students are rewarded for following the 1st student's approach. Doing exactly what the teacher tells you what to do will get you an 'A', but this approach is like reading a step by step instruction manual to playing monopoly that tells you every property to buy, which properties to build on, when to build, which token to use, with whom to trade, and what to trade. There's no fun in that. If you played that way, you would be bored and never learn why what you did produced the results you got. The potential for adaptability is lost. You would lose interest very quickly and there would be no innovation in playing.
All these problems are inhibitors of curiosity. I believe that real learning cannot happen without curiosity.
Students are losing interest. They're losing curiosity because they're being educated out of it.
If students are educated in order to be able to govern and direct the future, how can they do so without innovation? Innovation is derived from curiosity. You cannot have innovation without it. We don't know what the future will hold, but the type of education that we have is based on the presumption that we do.
Update: As a result of saying up late to write this, I probably won't get up in time to read the spark notes of the Odyssey for the quiz in 8 hours. Too bad I missed out on Homer's story of the great Odysseus for an explanation of why I could care less.
Today I learned how blue screens work, how ribbon microphones are manufactured, how ink is made, what clairvoyance has to do with pre-cognition and retro-cognition, what hot, cold, and warm reading is, that listening to an audio book at twice the normal speed is twice as productive, a myriad of other things, and I got to talk to a very talented cellist about compositional efforts and music education. All of these things I attribute to productive education, (I know at least, that the conversation I had with the cellist will greatly influence how I deal with my future) but I did them all while I should have been reading the Odyssey and taking notes from my government book. I do suck at time management and I do realize, teachers, that I could have done my homework and THEN done these things, but the reason I do this is because if I stifle my curiosity while it's at its highest point, I'll lose sense of how to achieve it and I'll lose my love of learning. I've learned that the best way to be curious is to never place anything above the need for curiosity. The reason I think students do not have high curiosity in school is because they are trained to ignore it. They're trained to get the "right answer" instead of questioning why the "wrong answer" is wrong.
A demonstrative scenario:
A teacher instructs a student to solve for the final velocity of a free falling object on a test. The student arrives at the correct answer, yet the teacher marks it wrong because he did not use the calculus based method he taught in class the day before.
The "educated student" -
Without questioning the context under which he's solving for the velocity, he tries to solve the problem logically, implementing physics, which makes the most sense to him, in order to solve the problem. The student asks why he got points deducted and is told that he must use the "correct method." He quietly submits with, "Okay" and goes to his desk.
The curious student -
Asks why he is solving for the final velocity. He receives the overly used excuse of "Because you need to know how." He seeks out a situation in which final velocity would need to be determined and ponders the benefits of solving for it. He then solves the problem using physics, which makes the most sense to him to solve the problem. He asks why he got points deducted and receives the same response as the 1st student. Instead of quietly submitting, though, he asks why the calculus based method is more efficient than the physics based method. He then argues for his case but considers the teacher's reasoning of why the calculus method is more efficient. He learns the calculus based method and applies it to the next problem he solves. He then commits to memory the different situations in which each method should be implemented and the reasoning behind both and considers its application in any other discipline that might concern him.
The first problem with both situations is that the teacher marked the problem wrong based on the rationale that the method he teaches is what the students must follow.
The second problem is that the teacher gave no context for the problem, which leaves the students with no real live application for the problem. In order to learn something, students need a reason to learn it. They need to want to learn it.
The third problem is that we have in conventional education systems way too many students like the 1st student. They have no impetus to determine why their teacher's method is the best and they don't attach what they learn in school to their lives outside of school.
The fourth problem is that students are rewarded for following the 1st student's approach. Doing exactly what the teacher tells you what to do will get you an 'A', but this approach is like reading a step by step instruction manual to playing monopoly that tells you every property to buy, which properties to build on, when to build, which token to use, with whom to trade, and what to trade. There's no fun in that. If you played that way, you would be bored and never learn why what you did produced the results you got. The potential for adaptability is lost. You would lose interest very quickly and there would be no innovation in playing.
All these problems are inhibitors of curiosity. I believe that real learning cannot happen without curiosity.
Students are losing interest. They're losing curiosity because they're being educated out of it.
If students are educated in order to be able to govern and direct the future, how can they do so without innovation? Innovation is derived from curiosity. You cannot have innovation without it. We don't know what the future will hold, but the type of education that we have is based on the presumption that we do.
Update: As a result of saying up late to write this, I probably won't get up in time to read the spark notes of the Odyssey for the quiz in 8 hours. Too bad I missed out on Homer's story of the great Odysseus for an explanation of why I could care less.
10/10/10
Sokanu: The Blog
Whoever has not visited this blog should do so. The creator of the blog got his inspiration from Ken Robinson just like I did. It's aimed at helping people find their passion and it has some excellent passages about education.
http://blog.sokanu.com/
http://blog.sokanu.com/
Blind Euphoria
Two nights ago, after returning home from the "homecoming football game" which I did not actively watch, I got to contemplate the social paradigm I'll call "blind euphoria." It happens without fail at all the large social events I've been to. And it seems that the best way to recognize this paradigm is by consciously placing yourself outside of all the excitement enveloping you. What seems to happen to attendants of these large social events is that as a result of planning to enjoy their evening and completely immersing themselves in a certain effort, (the football team, the band, the student section, the walk-around-and-look-cool people) they tend to lose their normal perception of propriety and others' perceptions. When you accomplish something fantastic, and you are just euphoric, you believe that all eyes are on you, but you don't mind it; in fact, you enjoy it. You feel more significant to others than you actually are. And even the consideration that you are experiencing blinded emotions does not help but mitigate your distorted sense of propriety. You still cannot help but have pride in yourself. But this is definitely not a bad thing because if those around you share the same state of mind, atypically progressive things can happen.
When two people have a conversation with each other while both permitting blind euphoria, a new understanding of one another or a new relationship not attainable in another setting is created. In this kind of circumstance, people tend to act in a way they normally would not, like greeting someone they never talk to or shouting something personally hilarious but not publicly hilarious. Perhaps the reason that memorable experiences are associated with large social gatherings is because the the energy normally put towards conducting oneself adequately and avoiding awkwardness is put toward living in the moment instead.
It's captivating to think: If there were some way to keep such an elevation of emotion at its place, would it be as enjoyable? Would we actually experience euphoria constantly? Just like question of "Is there light if there is no dark?", It could be argued well that there would be no euphoria because there would be no absence of it, but imagine if it were. What would perennial euphoria be like? I think the benefit of having only temporal euphoria is having depression that allows us to contemplate euphoria. That itself might prove to be a better alternative to experiencing euphoria perennially. There really isn't any application in questioning it, but it's an interesting concept that, if studied, leads to new realizations.
The most fascinating and enlightening thing for me to do is to step out of this poignant realm in which I find myself engaged and observe this blind euphoria happening. Seeing yourself objectively rather than subjectively is a door into a world of curiosity otherwise latent.
When two people have a conversation with each other while both permitting blind euphoria, a new understanding of one another or a new relationship not attainable in another setting is created. In this kind of circumstance, people tend to act in a way they normally would not, like greeting someone they never talk to or shouting something personally hilarious but not publicly hilarious. Perhaps the reason that memorable experiences are associated with large social gatherings is because the the energy normally put towards conducting oneself adequately and avoiding awkwardness is put toward living in the moment instead.
It's captivating to think: If there were some way to keep such an elevation of emotion at its place, would it be as enjoyable? Would we actually experience euphoria constantly? Just like question of "Is there light if there is no dark?", It could be argued well that there would be no euphoria because there would be no absence of it, but imagine if it were. What would perennial euphoria be like? I think the benefit of having only temporal euphoria is having depression that allows us to contemplate euphoria. That itself might prove to be a better alternative to experiencing euphoria perennially. There really isn't any application in questioning it, but it's an interesting concept that, if studied, leads to new realizations.
The most fascinating and enlightening thing for me to do is to step out of this poignant realm in which I find myself engaged and observe this blind euphoria happening. Seeing yourself objectively rather than subjectively is a door into a world of curiosity otherwise latent.
4/4/10
Conventional Education Systems’ Contribution to the Inhibition of Creative Capacities
School is a common thing, isn’t it? It is the basis on which nearly all vocation is built on, or has come to be. It’s an essential institution, one that teaches students fundamental skills necessary for a decent life and further education. A general range of subjects are taught—mainly math, science, history, and language. These subjects are taught, modernly, to produce a “well rounded student,” one that avidly pursues a diverse range of interests. A student developed in a number of subjects and showing an interest in a great range of topics, is considered suited for a college education and a prospect for a college degree. A college degree is then heavily considered in job application. Ultimately, success in school correlates with college acceptance, which correlates with job availability and societal recognition.
This type of progression and way of thinking has been prevalent since the industrial era—in which factories and advanced technology made incremental advances that increased productivity to the extent that the amount of goods actually became excessive. The industrial way of thinking is still implemented in modern education. Students are fed the same factual knowledge and encouraged to be well rounded and similar. In fact, today there are too many well-rounded students. Well-rounded students are having difficulty adapting to a rapidly changing world and an uncertain future because they lack the specificity of knowledge required in a technological revolution is transforming society. Creativity and innovation are in supreme demand. The systematic, industrialized way of schooling is outdated and products of institutional education are incapable of coping with unprecedented problems. Conventional education systems curb creative capacity so crucial to reconciling an evolving world.
Commendable education programs throughout the world teach math, history, language, and science. For example, in China, Japan, United States, Australia, New Zealand, Finland, Canada, Netherlands, Switzerland, and South Korea the primary subjects are math, science, language, and history. Their curricula stress the importance of learning basic principles and background knowledge in these subjects for a foundation that students can build upon with further education. The United States, however, focus more intensely on these subjects, and even more so on reading and math. In the US from 1994 to 2004, as time spent on teaching core academics increased, percentage of time spent on teaching science decreased by 20% and the percentage of time spent on teaching social studies decreased by 16%, when compared to teaching of math and reading. These rates have ascended since then, which demonstrates the desperate need for transforming how subjects are taught and to what degree they are taught. U.S. Department of Education research shows that, despite an increased focus on these subjects, foreign countries still outperform the U.S. in these subjects. Clearly a narrow focus is not essential to performing well in science and math—or any core subject for that matter. This narrowness of focus, so prevalent in the U.S, is the most significant problem with modern education. Students are educated so exclusively in a hierarchy of subjects that they have a very small ground on which to build their interests and creativity.
It is safe to say the ultimate goal of education is a combination of these four things: to teach the learner tools needed to understand and communicate for his true potential, to create an interest and a willingness to learn, to show the reasons for learning, and to teach the learner how to pursue her own education. Einstein was remembered to say, “The aim [of education] must be the training of independently acting and thinking individuals who, however, can see in the service to the community their highest life achievement.” With a narrowness of focus it is impossible to accomplish each of these things. It is not uncommon to see a high school student reluctant to go to school. In fact, in 2009, roughly 1.2 million students did not graduate from high school. That’s 29% percent of high school students. Obviously, an overwhelming amount of high school students dislike being educated at school. A student must be interested in the subject she is learning in order to learn and retain information. This is an axiomatic truth. The problem with such an intense focus on core subjects is students losing interest in these subjects very quickly. Visit any high school and sit in on a history lecture. Pay attention to what kinds of questions students ask and the number of students answering questions. An astoundingly few questions are asked solely from curiosity. The few questions that are asked are only because the teacher expects it and are typically required for class points. Most students are virtually apathetic about the subject and inquire only to maintain a sufficient grade. To learn and to be innovative, a desire for knowledge is essential. A focus on a wider array of subjects is principal. It is principal because students having interests in subjects omitted from school-taught subjects have no place to cultivate their specific creative capacity.
A school in Long Eaton, Nottinghamshire called Grange Primary commits to having a structure for students to cultivate talent. They understand learning has to mean something for young people—they need to see a practical use for what they’re learning. The school has established what is called ‘Grangeton,’ which is a “scaled-down but fully-functioning model of a real society, complete with a political structure and working economy.” Each of the school’s enterprises is run for and by the pupils. “It’s about placing learner skills and behavior in context in order to try out the skills they are learning in context, to see how they will be useful when they go into the real world,” says Richard Gerver, the school’s headteacher. “Why should vocational study start at 14? Why not from the age of three?” The school began a new development program for teaching students. The pupil-run program implemented a new learning system. Three years into the program, test scores in the Key Stage Test taken every year improved drastically – from 50% at level four and above in all subjects, to 100% in science, 92% in literacy, and 87% in math. One of the key features of the development program included an interesting event on the calendar every Friday. Every Friday, students are able to choose from 40 different workshops to attend during the day completely outside the curriculum. These classes include subjects such as: rounders, money management, internet marketing, needlework, pop music history, cycling proficiency, cricket, French, football, journalism, contemporary dance, cookery, cheerleading, chess, PowerPoint and Spanish. A very wide range is available for students to immerse themselves in. Students at Grange get the opportunity to find their passion, a practical use for it, and a way to further it. All of which are fundamental process of learning. Every school should put this into practice, or at least put some kind of thought into their practice.
During this technological age distractions are everywhere. Social contact between persons is virtually available all of the time, along with entertainment, news, and knowledge. Children and teenagers grow up with information everywhere they look. Opportunities are abundant and there is a great number of things to be explored and exploited. Math, science, history, and language are extremely important subjects. However, this is a huge gamut of new territories to pioneer and conceive. Psychology is advancing rapidly, brain research is gaining ground, mathematic discoveries and scientific phenomena are ubiquitous, medicine is advancing in to unanticipated synthetics, natural marvels are endangering, and technology is developing faster than society can grasp. With these conditions come a new set of required skills, which we cannot anticipate without nourishing the mindset and thought processes that develop them. With an extensive focus on a hierarchy of subjects, rather than a balance between interests and a base for development of critical thinking skills and innovation, this isn’t possible.
When placing a focus on producing a well-rounded student, certain things are left unseen, or never discovered. Most importantly, a student’s highest potential can be left out of the mix. Isn’t it tacitly understood that those who have completely mastered what they do are working at their highest potential? Famous people, such as Beethoven, Mozart, Einstein, Napoleon, Paul McCartney, Elvis, and Henry Ford—to list only a few—all worked in their profession vigorously and earnestly for years and years. They certainly found their talent and a road to their highest potential. Beethoven received musical training from three different teachers—one being his father—before he was seven, when he played his first performance. At age nine he began his formal studies, was taught composition, and wrote his first published composition. Mozart started playing at the age of four and composed his first piece at the age of five, with the help of his first teacher, his father. Einstein had a personal teacher at the age of ten who taught him about philosophy, mathematics, and science for six years. Napoleon Bonaparte started military school when he was ten years old and pursued it as a career. McCartney and Elvis were both inspired by music and pursued it fervently at very young ages. Henry Ford became fascinated with machinery and moved at the age of seventeen to become an apprentice.
These people have a raft of things in common. They were all introduced to their passions at very young ages, and cultivated them for a long period of time. It’s easily concluded that discovering your talents, passions, and creativity is beneficial and many times very lucrative. A very broad and generalized way of teaching only makes this discovery more burdensome. An avenue for discovery must be established in order to advance any student into his full potential—which is one of the ultimate goals of education.
Research by a sociologist named Malcolm Gladwell suggests a very enlightening rule that further asserts the notion that discovering talents, passions, and creativity early is beneficial. This rule is called the 10,000 hour rule. Basically, one must spend 10,000 hours doing a certain thing to achieve mastery. The study was based on detailed analyses of a number of renowned masters of their fields, including Bill Gates, J. Robert Oppenheimer, The Beatles, and Mozart, who had all reached a 10,000 hour mark. A correlation is incontestable here. The more time spent on a certain job, activity or interest, the more successful one is at that particular thing. This seems self-evident, but has lost significance in conventional education. If systems were organized allowing for a kind of dedication like this, then people would be able to take the time and effort and effort to achieve mastery.
Conventional education systems are, and have been, pushing the importance of finding the “right” answer. Tests are given to high school students every week. Assessing knowledge has become an obsession among educators. College acceptance relies heavily upon standardized tests and school is now based on measurement. This huge reliance on testing eliminates the unique personal pursuit that education must be. It also limits the scope of interest and the curiosity of the student.
Although a measuring knowledge is necessary, standardized testing emphasizing on a certain “right” answer isn’t productive and doesn’t accurately assess a student’s real aptitude. Experiments by social physiological professor, Claude Steele, and his colleague, Joshua Aronson, at Stanford University build upon this notion. They looked at how certain groups perform under pressure. They found that when they gave a group of Stanford undergraduates a standardized test and told them it was a measure of their intellectual ability, the white students did much better than their black counterparts. But when the same test was presented as a laboratory tool—with no relevance to ability—the scores of blacks and whites were virtually identical. Steele and Aronson attributed this to what they call stereotype threat. When black students are confronted directly with a stereotype about their group, the resulting pressure causes their performance to suffer. This kind of situation not only suggests that confrontation with stereotypes play a role in performance on standardized tests, but that pressure to do better than another group of people can actually stifle one’s ability to perform at his highest potential.
Scores on standardized tests determine a number of things. They determine a pupil’s reputation among his peers, what classes he is permitted to take, and frequently, where he ends up in vocationally and in college. Standardized testing is not a bad thing; it is very necessary in determining one’s competency in evaluable subjects. If one were to test a student on their grasp of Spanish vocabulary and grammar, there is no dispute of their ability to memorize the material. Still, this kind of testing is only one way to get an idea of a student’s capacity. It measures only one kind of thing, but fails to measure one thing that everyone knows to work—personal development. Instead of testing kids like we test computer components to see if they work properly, we should make education relevant to each child. Assessments contain two things: description of ability and comparison of ability. The description is a statement of what the student can do. The comparison entails comparing what they can do to what other people can do. Most standardized tests are too heavily weighted on comparison, and lightly weighted on description. Because of this, students come out from school with a letter grade, but it’s unclear what it really means. If a diagnosis were attached to this intangible letter grade, then it would be of more use. These heavily comparative tests are judgmental and uninformative, and offer little practical use to the test taker. Systems based on measurements like this are disparaging of doing practical things. It’s centered on theoretical things and thinking about doing things, rather than actually doing them. Because of a central idea like this, practical skills are in an increasing demand.
If I built a house and had it inspected, the inspector’s detailed, labor-specific, report would be helpful. The feedback would be helpful. But if I were to get a B for my work, what would I do with that? Education is a personal thing and should be treated as one. Undeniably, every student has a unique creative ability. The solution, then, is to provide the student an opportunity to develop his talents while giving him a clear view of vocational opportunity, actionable feedback, and an internal incentive to learn. Currently, far too much focus is placed upon a student’s level of intellectuality, while the focus should placed upon improving it.
This type of progression and way of thinking has been prevalent since the industrial era—in which factories and advanced technology made incremental advances that increased productivity to the extent that the amount of goods actually became excessive. The industrial way of thinking is still implemented in modern education. Students are fed the same factual knowledge and encouraged to be well rounded and similar. In fact, today there are too many well-rounded students. Well-rounded students are having difficulty adapting to a rapidly changing world and an uncertain future because they lack the specificity of knowledge required in a technological revolution is transforming society. Creativity and innovation are in supreme demand. The systematic, industrialized way of schooling is outdated and products of institutional education are incapable of coping with unprecedented problems. Conventional education systems curb creative capacity so crucial to reconciling an evolving world.
Commendable education programs throughout the world teach math, history, language, and science. For example, in China, Japan, United States, Australia, New Zealand, Finland, Canada, Netherlands, Switzerland, and South Korea the primary subjects are math, science, language, and history. Their curricula stress the importance of learning basic principles and background knowledge in these subjects for a foundation that students can build upon with further education. The United States, however, focus more intensely on these subjects, and even more so on reading and math. In the US from 1994 to 2004, as time spent on teaching core academics increased, percentage of time spent on teaching science decreased by 20% and the percentage of time spent on teaching social studies decreased by 16%, when compared to teaching of math and reading. These rates have ascended since then, which demonstrates the desperate need for transforming how subjects are taught and to what degree they are taught. U.S. Department of Education research shows that, despite an increased focus on these subjects, foreign countries still outperform the U.S. in these subjects. Clearly a narrow focus is not essential to performing well in science and math—or any core subject for that matter. This narrowness of focus, so prevalent in the U.S, is the most significant problem with modern education. Students are educated so exclusively in a hierarchy of subjects that they have a very small ground on which to build their interests and creativity.
It is safe to say the ultimate goal of education is a combination of these four things: to teach the learner tools needed to understand and communicate for his true potential, to create an interest and a willingness to learn, to show the reasons for learning, and to teach the learner how to pursue her own education. Einstein was remembered to say, “The aim [of education] must be the training of independently acting and thinking individuals who, however, can see in the service to the community their highest life achievement.” With a narrowness of focus it is impossible to accomplish each of these things. It is not uncommon to see a high school student reluctant to go to school. In fact, in 2009, roughly 1.2 million students did not graduate from high school. That’s 29% percent of high school students. Obviously, an overwhelming amount of high school students dislike being educated at school. A student must be interested in the subject she is learning in order to learn and retain information. This is an axiomatic truth. The problem with such an intense focus on core subjects is students losing interest in these subjects very quickly. Visit any high school and sit in on a history lecture. Pay attention to what kinds of questions students ask and the number of students answering questions. An astoundingly few questions are asked solely from curiosity. The few questions that are asked are only because the teacher expects it and are typically required for class points. Most students are virtually apathetic about the subject and inquire only to maintain a sufficient grade. To learn and to be innovative, a desire for knowledge is essential. A focus on a wider array of subjects is principal. It is principal because students having interests in subjects omitted from school-taught subjects have no place to cultivate their specific creative capacity.
A school in Long Eaton, Nottinghamshire called Grange Primary commits to having a structure for students to cultivate talent. They understand learning has to mean something for young people—they need to see a practical use for what they’re learning. The school has established what is called ‘Grangeton,’ which is a “scaled-down but fully-functioning model of a real society, complete with a political structure and working economy.” Each of the school’s enterprises is run for and by the pupils. “It’s about placing learner skills and behavior in context in order to try out the skills they are learning in context, to see how they will be useful when they go into the real world,” says Richard Gerver, the school’s headteacher. “Why should vocational study start at 14? Why not from the age of three?” The school began a new development program for teaching students. The pupil-run program implemented a new learning system. Three years into the program, test scores in the Key Stage Test taken every year improved drastically – from 50% at level four and above in all subjects, to 100% in science, 92% in literacy, and 87% in math. One of the key features of the development program included an interesting event on the calendar every Friday. Every Friday, students are able to choose from 40 different workshops to attend during the day completely outside the curriculum. These classes include subjects such as: rounders, money management, internet marketing, needlework, pop music history, cycling proficiency, cricket, French, football, journalism, contemporary dance, cookery, cheerleading, chess, PowerPoint and Spanish. A very wide range is available for students to immerse themselves in. Students at Grange get the opportunity to find their passion, a practical use for it, and a way to further it. All of which are fundamental process of learning. Every school should put this into practice, or at least put some kind of thought into their practice.
During this technological age distractions are everywhere. Social contact between persons is virtually available all of the time, along with entertainment, news, and knowledge. Children and teenagers grow up with information everywhere they look. Opportunities are abundant and there is a great number of things to be explored and exploited. Math, science, history, and language are extremely important subjects. However, this is a huge gamut of new territories to pioneer and conceive. Psychology is advancing rapidly, brain research is gaining ground, mathematic discoveries and scientific phenomena are ubiquitous, medicine is advancing in to unanticipated synthetics, natural marvels are endangering, and technology is developing faster than society can grasp. With these conditions come a new set of required skills, which we cannot anticipate without nourishing the mindset and thought processes that develop them. With an extensive focus on a hierarchy of subjects, rather than a balance between interests and a base for development of critical thinking skills and innovation, this isn’t possible.
When placing a focus on producing a well-rounded student, certain things are left unseen, or never discovered. Most importantly, a student’s highest potential can be left out of the mix. Isn’t it tacitly understood that those who have completely mastered what they do are working at their highest potential? Famous people, such as Beethoven, Mozart, Einstein, Napoleon, Paul McCartney, Elvis, and Henry Ford—to list only a few—all worked in their profession vigorously and earnestly for years and years. They certainly found their talent and a road to their highest potential. Beethoven received musical training from three different teachers—one being his father—before he was seven, when he played his first performance. At age nine he began his formal studies, was taught composition, and wrote his first published composition. Mozart started playing at the age of four and composed his first piece at the age of five, with the help of his first teacher, his father. Einstein had a personal teacher at the age of ten who taught him about philosophy, mathematics, and science for six years. Napoleon Bonaparte started military school when he was ten years old and pursued it as a career. McCartney and Elvis were both inspired by music and pursued it fervently at very young ages. Henry Ford became fascinated with machinery and moved at the age of seventeen to become an apprentice.
These people have a raft of things in common. They were all introduced to their passions at very young ages, and cultivated them for a long period of time. It’s easily concluded that discovering your talents, passions, and creativity is beneficial and many times very lucrative. A very broad and generalized way of teaching only makes this discovery more burdensome. An avenue for discovery must be established in order to advance any student into his full potential—which is one of the ultimate goals of education.
Research by a sociologist named Malcolm Gladwell suggests a very enlightening rule that further asserts the notion that discovering talents, passions, and creativity early is beneficial. This rule is called the 10,000 hour rule. Basically, one must spend 10,000 hours doing a certain thing to achieve mastery. The study was based on detailed analyses of a number of renowned masters of their fields, including Bill Gates, J. Robert Oppenheimer, The Beatles, and Mozart, who had all reached a 10,000 hour mark. A correlation is incontestable here. The more time spent on a certain job, activity or interest, the more successful one is at that particular thing. This seems self-evident, but has lost significance in conventional education. If systems were organized allowing for a kind of dedication like this, then people would be able to take the time and effort and effort to achieve mastery.
Conventional education systems are, and have been, pushing the importance of finding the “right” answer. Tests are given to high school students every week. Assessing knowledge has become an obsession among educators. College acceptance relies heavily upon standardized tests and school is now based on measurement. This huge reliance on testing eliminates the unique personal pursuit that education must be. It also limits the scope of interest and the curiosity of the student.
Although a measuring knowledge is necessary, standardized testing emphasizing on a certain “right” answer isn’t productive and doesn’t accurately assess a student’s real aptitude. Experiments by social physiological professor, Claude Steele, and his colleague, Joshua Aronson, at Stanford University build upon this notion. They looked at how certain groups perform under pressure. They found that when they gave a group of Stanford undergraduates a standardized test and told them it was a measure of their intellectual ability, the white students did much better than their black counterparts. But when the same test was presented as a laboratory tool—with no relevance to ability—the scores of blacks and whites were virtually identical. Steele and Aronson attributed this to what they call stereotype threat. When black students are confronted directly with a stereotype about their group, the resulting pressure causes their performance to suffer. This kind of situation not only suggests that confrontation with stereotypes play a role in performance on standardized tests, but that pressure to do better than another group of people can actually stifle one’s ability to perform at his highest potential.
Scores on standardized tests determine a number of things. They determine a pupil’s reputation among his peers, what classes he is permitted to take, and frequently, where he ends up in vocationally and in college. Standardized testing is not a bad thing; it is very necessary in determining one’s competency in evaluable subjects. If one were to test a student on their grasp of Spanish vocabulary and grammar, there is no dispute of their ability to memorize the material. Still, this kind of testing is only one way to get an idea of a student’s capacity. It measures only one kind of thing, but fails to measure one thing that everyone knows to work—personal development. Instead of testing kids like we test computer components to see if they work properly, we should make education relevant to each child. Assessments contain two things: description of ability and comparison of ability. The description is a statement of what the student can do. The comparison entails comparing what they can do to what other people can do. Most standardized tests are too heavily weighted on comparison, and lightly weighted on description. Because of this, students come out from school with a letter grade, but it’s unclear what it really means. If a diagnosis were attached to this intangible letter grade, then it would be of more use. These heavily comparative tests are judgmental and uninformative, and offer little practical use to the test taker. Systems based on measurements like this are disparaging of doing practical things. It’s centered on theoretical things and thinking about doing things, rather than actually doing them. Because of a central idea like this, practical skills are in an increasing demand.
If I built a house and had it inspected, the inspector’s detailed, labor-specific, report would be helpful. The feedback would be helpful. But if I were to get a B for my work, what would I do with that? Education is a personal thing and should be treated as one. Undeniably, every student has a unique creative ability. The solution, then, is to provide the student an opportunity to develop his talents while giving him a clear view of vocational opportunity, actionable feedback, and an internal incentive to learn. Currently, far too much focus is placed upon a student’s level of intellectuality, while the focus should placed upon improving it.
How Public Education Cripples Our Kids
This comes from a Manhattan teacher who taught for thirty years.
"I taught for thirty years in some of the worst schools in Manhattan, and in some of the best, and during that time I became an expert in boredom. Boredom was everywhere in my world, and if you asked the kids, as I often did, why they felt so bored, they always gave the same answers: They said the work was stupid, that it made no sense, that they already knew it. They said they wanted to be doing something real, not just sitting around. They said teachers didn't seem to know much about their subjects and clearly weren't interested in learning more. And the kids were right: their teachers were..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)