Everything Else

I have a very special audience here: computer people, highly educated people, a few educators, and students. Food for thought

There is nothing more demoralizing to most children than being put through an educational program they know they can't fail at. Instead of teaching them self esteem, it teaches them that you expect so little of them that you have contrived special extra-stupid lessons for their benefit. Don't think for a minute they don't know what's going on.

If you start a lesson off by telling the students "This is going to be easy", you are simultaneously telling them "We had to make this easy because we don't think you're capable of doing anything hard". And when the lesson is over, the only sense of accomplishment they can feel is that they did something easy. So what?

Learning is hard work. If you are not working hard, you are not learning. Period. Kids love hard work, as long as they see where it's going and why. Instead of killing that energy by giving them something easy, we should foster it by giving them something really hard. We should tell them it's hard. We should give them the chance to do something meaningful.

So, let's see how quickly this thread degrades into a conversation of "Steven Wolfram is an asshole, blah blah"...

I agree. I can't stand the way schools are run. I couldn't stand it when I was a kid. I constantly felt patronized. Luckily I was pulled out and home schooled.

We make it very clear to kids that they're expected to act like a bunch of little retards, and be a bunch of little retards, and lo and behold...

Frapazoid wrote: I can't stand the way schools are run...

no one can, education is a tough one to tackle

Kant went on till the end, Russel could only stand teaching kids about 5 years, Adorno smelled that the times they were a changin' and documented whatever he could...

if sense-o-humour levels low, replace family w/ school below:

This excerpt was very interesting, and I'm amazed I hadn't seen it before. It really made me think - thank you for the link.

However, as I read the excerpt I began to notice something: the authors seem to have trivialized a very complex, long-standing problem. They've come up with some excellent sound bites about how "kids want to learn," and used these to back up their assertions that rewards-based software doesn't work. This is fine, as we're seeing more and more evidence that rewards-based software really doesn't work. But where's their reasoning for discovery-based learning and simulation software? They point to an "innate desire to learn," and trash "hopeless" kids who are "video addicts," but they don't really provide any reasoning that would suggest that discovery-based learning via simulations will work any better for these kids than the dirty, evil rewards-based software did.
I entirely understand that as the introduction to Mathematica, nobody is expecting a cited paper about discovery-based learning. But there's so much coherent, well-thought reasoning behind their disdain for rewards-based flash-card software that the presentation of simulation software and discovery-based learning as a magic bullet seems out of place. Sure, giving kids flashy rewards is really helping nobody. But there's a reason people tried giving them these rewards. What's going to make a kid want to discover something in Mathematica, when they could be talking to the cute girl two seats to the left, or ditching class and skateboarding? Both involve learning - it's just not the kind of learning that will be horribly conducive to a "successful" future. If I can just set a simulation in front of a kid and have them learn calculus with a little guidance, why have countless discovery-based learning programs never made it past the pilot stage? The last question from the "skeptical bystander" sums up my question perfectly, yet the authors don't actually answer it, instead focusing on the role of flashcard-based learning in educating highly-motivated students.
These authors seem to think the fundamental problem is that kids are somehow "losing their innate desire to learn" and that it needs to be rekindled by challenging them with open-ended problems. I disagree. I think children today have just as much innate desire to learn as they always have. They've just begun directing this desire outside of academics and the things that will lead them to what the academic community think of as "success" in life.
By looking at the issue as one of rekindling, the problem becomes much easier for these authors and the academic community as a whole to "solve" in their excerpts. All that we need to do is put Mathematica in front of them, and make everything meaningful to them, and suddenly it'll work! Sadly, we've tried this, and it's just not that easy.

Education is not a shortcut to happiness.

There is no point trying to make something interesting that is not allready interesting to that person. Not everybody has to be a rocket scientist. It is only good that we are all not highly educated, as we need someone to do the cleaning or to drive the garbage truck. Some people are satisfied with less and it is a good thing. Besides there is more than one kind of wisdom. Some you can learn from the books, some not. Things like creativity do not come from schoolbench.

In my opinion studying is similar to bodybuilding, good results are achieved only with repetition. You will not get big muscles just by going to gym and sitting there watching women do their stuff. And you learn nothing just by going to school and drawing pretty pictures in the desk. (Unless it is an artschool.)

hex! sybr dropped the topic and scared all the students. where's all the young ones hiding?

bri3d wrote: ...the authors seem to have trivialized a very complex, long-standing problem. They've come up with some excellent sound bites about how "kids want to learn,"...

exactly, it was a long debate that officially died somewhere in the 70s. the toughness of the topic includes the fact that (almost) everything (except for hapiness) can be tracked back into education. another big issue is the hallucination that anyone who knows something thinks that he's able to teach kids.

bri3d wrote: ...it's just not the kind of learning that will be horribly conducive to a "successful" future.

and that was pretty much the outcome of what officially died somewhere in the 70s. academia became industrialized (just like anything else) selling degrees for "successful, future leaders" in every field. give paper, get paper.

factor in the most common misconception of our time (confusing happiness w/ success in business, balance sheets and amounts in bank accounts) and you have a big bad joke keeping people hypnotized.

eMGee wrote: Luckily in several industries having a good and solid portfolio will get you places, which I'd have to say is particularly meritocratic (especially for the naturally interested and autodidact individuals).

that's one of the oldest, proven tricks, known to work since the beginning. fear of unemployment: cultivate it, wrap it up in educational products, see where it takes you.

the sad part about this is that education per se is not nothing but get you a job. it's also a lifelong process. kinda exotic stuff when most people have lost their listening ability.

not long ago, whatever hamei wrote was a funny friendly communistic story. recently we also had a few discussions about recession, currencies hitting the bottom, and anger about the evil chinese world factory. as if this happened overnight while all of us experts were chewing buzzwords like funds, stocks and indexes. lastly, take a look at some of the most popular aphorisms like "a sucker is born every minute", "take or be taken" and you'll see why all this business runs on fear. brain rot what?

(if anyone would like bibliography about the whole educational issues of modern times, i'd be happy to oblige. lucky if you can read french/german as most concrete studies were written in these 2 languages. not sure if most/all of them have been translated)

till then, just set the kids free + enjoy spring :)

theinonen wrote: Education is not a shortcut to happiness.

wheee! where have you been hiding?

sybrfreq wrote: So, let's see how quickly this thread degrades into a conversation of "Steven Wolfram is an asshole, blah blah"...

Hmm, to start with, are you really disputing Wolfram's scientific contributions to cellular automata, Mathematica or other areas? I hope not. On the other hand, his NKS - for most parts - is indeed only trivial "blah blah", although he certainly provides totally fascinating insights nevertheless here and there. Yes, the running text of the book itself shows a rather megalomanic ego, but the last 250 pages devoted to Notes are really phantastic and a very different story (forget the book itself ) - and if you have Mathematica on your box, enjoy!

So, he might be for some of you an asshole - but then again, I do have my problems with some of Eric Raymond's papers as well...

PS: Surely you are aware that S. W. once upon a time prompted the research to find the shortest possible single axiom for Boolean algebra in terms of NAND...but of course, all Nekochaners know the answer, by now!

Oskar45 wrote: Yes, the running text of the book itself shows a rather megalomanic ego

Heck, probably at least 20% of Nekochan posts do the same!

In my opinion studying is similar to bodybuilding, good results are achieved only with repetition. You will not get big muscles just by going to gym and sitting there watching women do their stuff.

and neither one is a 4-year (or 90-day) program: it's something you do every day. What's that saying, it's not about the destination, it's about the journey... I learn new things and get stronger every day.

It is only good that we are all not highly educated, as we need someone to do the cleaning or to drive the garbage truck.

I've had so-called "professional" jobs (or co-ops/interns, as I'm still a youngin') and I've had so-called "crap" minimum-wage jobs like digging up old natural gas lines and amusement ride operator. I find being stuck in an office boring, and would much rather be playing in the dirt or watching hot chicks scream their heads off while singing over the PA.

I would say I learned more working one summer in a machine shop than any quarter at university. Even stuff related to the EE major, for example I spent two weeks installing and testing 10HP motors into new assemblies vs. a 1-quarter long class on "rotating machinery"... learned all sorts of theory and different types of machines, but all we played with in the lab were DC machines and 1/3 HP SCIMs. All knowledge is valuable... I just feel most students are missing out on the "big picture".

For example: portable electronics are becoming a huge part of our lives, yet most EE programs don't yet have any good courses on batteries. This a big problem! I've been racing both electric and nitromethane R/C cars for years, and have a passing knowledge of NI-MH cells (at least, a few tricks on how to get as much voltage as possible while sometimes pulling a few hundred amps during a 4 or 5 minute race). But a lot of EE *professors* think a battery is just a magic metal box that produces electricity by it's own volition; bulky .8 a/h ni-cads were high tech the last time they looked! Or, should batteries be left as black magic known only to mad chemists at sanyo and panasonic?

And R.E. Mr. Wolfram, last time I mentioned Mathematica as a CAS that was exactly the response I got.

But where's their reasoning for discovery-based learning and simulation software? They point to an "innate desire to learn," and trash "hopeless" kids who are "video addicts," but they don't really provide any reasoning that would suggest that discovery-based learning via simulations will work any better for these kids than the dirty, evil rewards-based software did.

Keep in mind they are in the business of selling Mathematica . Why not answer the last question posed by the "skeptical bystander"... I don't think there is an answer to that one.

josehill wrote:

Oskar45 wrote: Yes, the running text of the book itself shows a rather megalomanic ego

Heck, probably at least 20% of Nekochan posts do the same!

Glad I'm not too much of the mark Still, I insist that the Notes for NKS are incredible...absolutely phantastic. Just fire up your Mathematica, try the supplied code or experiment...

sybrfreq wrote: What's that saying, it's not about the destination, it's about the journey... I learn new things and get stronger every day.

Then towards the end of the journey you forget a few old things and get a little weaker each day

hamei wrote: Then towards the end of the journey you forget a few old things and get a little weaker each day

The longer the journey the lighter the bike at the end. Usually from losing bolts, bearings and spokes along the way. Luckily all that stuff that falls off makes a road hazard for those who are riding behind you.

sybrfreq wrote: .. Why not answer the last question posed by the "skeptical bystander"... I don't think there is an answer to that one.

unless you'd like a software-specific answer, the answer (or the understanding to its difficulty) lies in the history of the debate/studies on the educational issues. this ain't new and sure ain't easy. we should clean up our own mess before we start influencing kids w/ hard+fast rules.

sybr already gave some of his thoughts, what about the rest of our students? what is it that you like and what is it that you don't?

oT

VenomousPinecone wrote: ...the lighter the bike at the end...

bike? aw man don't scare me, is your sidewalk surf borken? found some spares while spring-cleaning, give me a shout if you could put them to use :)
/oT

fu wrote: sybr already gave some of his thoughts, what about the rest of our students? what is it that you like and what is it that you don't?

oT

Well, as some background, I am a student as well - I graduated high school only last year and am currently taking night classes at a local community college while I work my full-time day job as a programmer at a web startup.

My grades were consistently awful, and by any traditional metric public school was failing me entirely, but in reality school actually did very well for me - while I didn't get into any top-tier universities or succeed in any traditional sense, I'm doing quite well for myself and am pretty content with where I've ended up. On the other hand, I also attended a high school consistently ranked as one of the best schools in the US, and was with a peer group of intelligent, motivated people - I'm certainly not saying public schools everywhere succeed for everyone, just pointing out that a subset of people failing by a traditional metric can actually be quite successful.

I think that the ultimate understanding people (at least people in the US) fail to have about school is that external factors affect a student's performance by any metric nearly as much or even more more than than their actual schooling. These factors include parenting (the biggest one, in my opinion), peer group, neighbors, and some would even argue they go all the way down to diet and exercise. Yet too often in the US we see parents blaming schools for problems that are ultimately not the school's problem to solve, and schools and teachers being graded and funded mostly based on factors they have no control over. Or, we see academics coming out with writing like this, blaming the problems with education today on a stifling of exploration and the "dumbing down" of teaching. While I think these are symptoms of an underlying problem and can certainly be corrected, I don't think they're the issue - the dumbing down of teaching and indication to students that things should be easy is more a symptom of the expectation parents set for their students (and thus set in their students' minds) than a root problem.