Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Marnie Ginsberg's avatar

I was so pleased by the thoroughness and ease of use of this report! Thank you for highlighting it. I was especially gratified to see the debunking of the “developmentally appropriate” myth. We hear that accusation a lot when we quickly and easily teach pre-K kids how to read, for instance.

I wonder about the “learning is hard” conclusion, however. It’s a myopic look at the literature because procedural learning is often effortless, although it takes time and practice. And procedural learning includes important aspects of academics.

Even declarative knowledge, which is probably the domain from which they gathered their conclusion, can be fairly easy learned when we bring sufficient background knowledge to the topic. I didn’t find the history of the Civil War hard because I had read several historical fiction books about that time period. The learning that prepared me for lectures and academic readings on the Civil War was fun and seemed nearly effortless.

I’m not arguing with the research on how challenging it can be to learn new info when you approach a brand new domain (I can’t imagine trying to learn medicine or physics at this age!); I just think their statement is too sweeping. Teachers need to know that sometimes “learning is hard” because the system, the curriculum, and/or the lesson has done a poor job building a bridge to the new knowledge for the students.

Guest007's avatar

When anyone wants to discuss education policy, my first question is "What percentage of high school seniors in the U.S. are capable of mastering calculus?"

What does the "science of learning" say about everyone learning calculus? Because, if anyone ever implies or states that most or all high school students can master calculus is a certain method is followed, then I know that person has no idea about education.

2 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?