Why learn 'facts' about the French Revolution?

[DataDoxy]

pseudoreality

Alright, I'll bite. How come kids are taught about things like the French Revolution, but nothing with respect to the fundamentals of the world around them? Why aren't students taught things like where their water comes from or how their furnace works?

This question is at the forefront of education leaders around the world and has been for the past few years. Countries around the globe are scrambling to redesign curriculum to move us beyond the traditional, industrial-model schools system which we have become accustom to. (Watch this short video for more info https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U).

New curriculum will focus on making learning relevant, personalized, engaging and meaningful. As such, students will engage in learning in new ways using new methodologies and new technologies. For example, instead of learning historical facts like we have done for decades, students will learn how to think like historians by engaging in social project-based activities. This may include things such as computer based 'quests' and/or collaboration with students from other countries.

This trend will cross the curriculum into all subjects. For example, mathematics will focus on teaching students to think mathematically and to problem-solve as opposed to the traditional method of memorizing rote procedures. As such, the traditional algorithms will be taught conceptually so that students understand them and can 'see' how they are derived. Don't get me wrong, "facts" will still be important, they will just be taught in ways that ensure students can understand them and apply them to the real world. Teaching students to think, not memorize is the key. Students will be encouraged to think about things like where we get our water from, and furthermore, they will be given opportunities to think about new, more efficient ways to do this. Curiosity and innovation will be rewarded!

Why?

This global shift in education is being driven by the rapid changes in our technologically advanced society. Schools need to prepare students for a future that is vastly different from what schools have traditionally prepared students for and this requires changing curricula as well as delivery models. (Watch this fascinating video to see the demands of tomorrow's reality https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmwwrGV_aiE and this video out about the need for a "revolution" in education http://blog.ted.com/2010/05/24/bring_on_the_re/

Since our current education system was created for and modeled from the industrial revolution, it's purpose was to have students follow rules and procedures and memorize important facts. As such, 'learning' in our schools has predominately been associated with performance on a standard test, rather than on knowing 'why' things work and questioning the status quo. In our current education system, if I can memorize facts about the French Revolution for example, I could pass (or ace) that unit test and would be deemed a 'good' student. In the future, students will need to know how to think, how to solve problems that we may not even be aware of yet, and how to learn what they have not been taught.

'Thinking' is going to be the new 'capital' in education.

For more information on Canada's plan for the future of education check out this link http://www.c21canada.org/wp-content/...ds-Revised.pdf

I'd love to know what you think.... any comments/question?

[GGG]

On the math front isn't rote learning essential to the math basics. Things like multiplication tables all the way to the basic trig identities and derivatives and integral shave a large degree of rote learning. Do enough of these problems and you will understand them.

[DataDoxy]

In short, I agree that automatization of facts is important, however I advocate for understanding before automatization.

There is no question that basic skills are fundamentally important for doing math. However, I do not personally believe that these skills should be taught through traditional rote learning methods. They reason I believe this is because neuroscience tell us that when we learn something by understanding it first (as opposed to memorizing it), we make stronger neural connections which allow us to more effectively and efficiently access and use that information later. By understanding something deeply, we are better able to apply what we have learned to other situations. For example, we can solve novel or non-routine problems and we are more apt to use our knowledge in real-world applications. This is missing in math today.... kids have no idea why they learn certain things because they do not understand how concepts apply to the world around them.

Although repeated practice and rote memorization works for some people who are able to attach meaning later, this is not the case for the majority of learners. Most people who memorize facts first forget much of what they have learned after a given period of time. As such my opinion is that students should learn the desired mathematical procedures and algorithms conceptually first, then work on the automatization of these concepts after that. This will lead to more students who can understand and do math.... and maybe even more students who like it?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by DataDoxy

In short, I agree that automatization of facts is important, however I advocate for understanding before automatization.

There is no question that basic skills are fundamentally important for doing math. However, I do not personally believe that these skills should be taught through traditional rote learning methods. They reason I believe this is because neuroscience tell us that when we learn something by understanding it first (as opposed to memorizing it), we make stronger neural connections which allow us to more effectively and efficiently access and use that information later. By understanding something deeply, we are better able to apply what we have learned to other situations. For example, we can solve novel or non-routine problems and we are more apt to use our knowledge in real-world applications. This is missing in math today.... kids have no idea why they learn certain things because they do not understand how concepts apply to the world around them.

Although repeated practice and rote memorization works for some people who are able to attach meaning later, this is not the case for the majority of learners. Most people who memorize facts first forget much of what they have learned after a given period of time. As such my opinion is that students should learn the desired mathematical procedures and algorithms conceptually first, then work on the automatization of these concepts after that. This will lead to more students who can understand and do math.... and maybe even more students who like it?

Isn't this how math is currently taught? Addition is I have 5 apples Jill has 4 so if we put them together how many do we have. Then you draw all the apples and count them.

Multiplication of 10 x 9 is 10 groups of nine things so draw them out and count.

A derivative is the slope of the line at any point.

Is this what you are getting at or is there more to it.

[DataDoxy]

Yes and no. We do want kids to draw the pictures of the two different sized groups of apples being joined together (4 apples and 5 apples). This way we can “see” they do in fact understand the concept of adding two different groups together. However, there is a little more to it…


It would be ideal to have the students actually perform the action of joining groups together with manipulatives even before they draw this and well before they learn the math symbols for simple addition. When adding 4 apples to five apples, students will use different strategies for this action as some kids will touch all the apples (or manipulatives) counting as they touch each one, others will know there are 4 in the first group and will count-on five more (5, 6, 7, 8, 9) touching the apples one by one, yet others will use fingers despite the manipulatives because they are still attached to this kind of concrete model. (There are many other strategies but I wanted to touch on a couple that showed concrete thinking and the need to touch to count).



We want students to move beyond these concrete strategies towards abstraction before we have them learning math symbols and being timed on quizzes to see if they know their addition facts. I would not have students learn the symbols (4 + 5) until I felt comfortable that the students understood the action and the process of adding. After I felt comfortable with this, I would go back and forth between symbolic questions, drawings or visual representations, and combinations of these questions (draw and do). Finally, when I was sure the students were ready, I would have them use symbols and would work on automatizing of their facts.



Traditionally, we have often taught the symbols and the picture together. Then we moved into timed tests of addition facts. For some kids, this jump to automaticity came way too early and they were still not clear about the process. Additionally, some of them need to learn more efficient strategies for adding (I.e. move from concrete touching to counting on, or skip counting, or perhaps abstraction seeing that 4 + 5 is 9) before they should practice automaticity.

Does this make sense? I know this was a pretty simple example... it gets more complex as the math gets more difficult as I know you can appreciate.

[pseudoreality]

Thank you for your response. Your response went into an interesting area of education, but not really what I was asking. My question was not facts versus skills, but rather on what facts make the cut. I've always wanted to know how things work and that lead me to a career as a Professional Engineer, but my non-technical friends are blissfully unaware how things work. I think its important for people to have a general understanding of the world around them works, but that doesn't seem to be a priority in the education system. Not everyone needs to be a technical expert, but I see so much waste because of things like people not understanding how their house keeps them dry and warm.

[DataDoxy]

Oh.... ok, got it!

Interesting question. I think certain facts make the cut because they always have. We really have not significantly altered our curriculum for many, many years. The facts we learn today are still basically the ones we "needed to know" during the Industrial Revolution for the most part. Education has not exactly kept up with the times.

In terms of why we do not teach more common sense things that would help kids better understand and appreciate the systems in their homes, communities, and the world around them... I don't know. I agree that we could do a better job of this. On a positive note, I taught in the US for a couple years and I can tell you their curriculum was far worse in my opinion. High school and university kids had no idea about basic concepts like balancing a budget or how interest rates work.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by pseudoreality

Thank you for your response. Your response went into an interesting area of education, but not really what I was asking. My question was not facts versus skills, but rather on what facts make the cut. I've always wanted to know how things work and that lead me to a career as a Professional Engineer, but my non-technical friends are blissfully unaware how things work. I think its important for people to have a general understanding of the world around them works, but that doesn't seem to be a priority in the education system. Not everyone needs to be a technical expert, but I see so much waste because of things like people not understanding how their house keeps them dry and warm.

4 Months later....

As I recall, a whole lot of what you think is missing IS actually covered in school curricula (or was, 20 years ago). That's what science classes are about, generally progressing from higher-level "scientific method" and "this is how the world works" type things at lower grades to more detailed theories at higher levels. If your peers are lacking knowledge on things that we, as engineers, see as pretty fundamental, it's possibly because (a) they aren't quite as able to extend the specific, detailed concepts from science class experiments into general concepts, or (b) because they skipped the physics and chemistry (that you probably studied as a pre-engineer) in favour of the more fun biology classes. Or perhaps they're just not as curious as you are.

It boils down to "those who want to learn will figure it out." With Google, that's true of just about anything, in or out of school.

On the other hand, the French Revolution, as an example, absolutely belongs in a Social Studies course. It helps us understand how we got to where we are in Canada today and, with luck, avoid repeating the past. I tend to think that without a course focusing on civilization, society, and history, people wouldn't even think to ask "why" a lot of things are the way they are.

I'm a pretty big wiki-surfer, and I'm often amazed at some of the important events I learn about just by chance and curiousity. I wonder why more of this world-shaping information isn't touched on in schools.