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.
I think a missing factor here is student persaverence. How long I'm prepared to persavere is directly related to how much I achieve. Unfortunately, school doesn't allow much/any time for this. If I don't know it by the end of the term I'm classified a failure.
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.
Written by someone who has never tried to teach high school students math. As another example, the U.S. military has studies that show that about 20% of Americans cannot be taught to read a map or do land navigation.
Anecdotally, when I ask this question of actual high school math teachers, there answer is usually 10%. Think about how many students are taking algebra in 8th grade versus how many are taking calculus in 12th grade.
But I do teach high school maths? I actually teach the kids that you say can't learn it :-). They can learn it, it just takes a long time. A longer time than school allows/can give. So yes, within the school system what you say is true, outside of the time constraints anybody is 'capable' of learning it.
There is an emerging science of learning. There are several elements that need to be integrated. One is how to deal with the complexity you rightfully identify. One way is to break the task down, a task analysis that is used in teaching disabled learners to use a washing machine or a vending machine. That works for simple common tasks, but would be very difficult with complex problem-solving.
Another area that has been overlooked by education is Commons' Model Hierarchy of Complexity. Commons expanded Piaget's stages of development to 19 stages that span into adulthood. Teachers usually function at three stages. Training teachers to function at higher levels of complex problem-solving is obvious from your description of the synthesis of the science of learning.
Spiral Dynamics is another learning theory that teachers should understand. It is complex, but we need teachers who can deal with complexity.
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.
I think a missing factor here is student persaverence. How long I'm prepared to persavere is directly related to how much I achieve. Unfortunately, school doesn't allow much/any time for this. If I don't know it by the end of the term I'm classified a failure.
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.
I'd say 100% are capable but the system only allows a set amount of time and some need more time than is available.
Written by someone who has never tried to teach high school students math. As another example, the U.S. military has studies that show that about 20% of Americans cannot be taught to read a map or do land navigation.
Anecdotally, when I ask this question of actual high school math teachers, there answer is usually 10%. Think about how many students are taking algebra in 8th grade versus how many are taking calculus in 12th grade.
But I do teach high school maths? I actually teach the kids that you say can't learn it :-). They can learn it, it just takes a long time. A longer time than school allows/can give. So yes, within the school system what you say is true, outside of the time constraints anybody is 'capable' of learning it.
There is an emerging science of learning. There are several elements that need to be integrated. One is how to deal with the complexity you rightfully identify. One way is to break the task down, a task analysis that is used in teaching disabled learners to use a washing machine or a vending machine. That works for simple common tasks, but would be very difficult with complex problem-solving.
Another area that has been overlooked by education is Commons' Model Hierarchy of Complexity. Commons expanded Piaget's stages of development to 19 stages that span into adulthood. Teachers usually function at three stages. Training teachers to function at higher levels of complex problem-solving is obvious from your description of the synthesis of the science of learning.
Spiral Dynamics is another learning theory that teachers should understand. It is complex, but we need teachers who can deal with complexity.