What If We Gave Toddlers An 'F' In Walking?
from the rethinking-education dept
theodp writes "To improve math and science education, Physics prof Dr. Yung Tae Kim thinks professors and teachers should take a page from skateboarding. 'The persistence and the dedication needed in skateboarding — that's what we need to be teaching,' explains Kim. 'No one says to a toddler, 'You have ten weeks to walk, and if you can't, you get an F and you're not allowed to try to walk anymore.' It's absurd, right? But the same thing is true with math and science education. If you want to learn trig or calculus, it's set at such a pace in schools that it guarantees that only the absolutely best students will learn it.' Kim says it's possible to 'polish the turd' of high school and college education, and lays out his plan for doing so in Building A New Culture Of Teaching And Learning (YouTube: parts 1-2-3), a video drawn from a farewell talk he gave to his Northwestern students. There's more on The Way of Dr. Tae at DrTae.org and PhysicsOfSkateboarding.com."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yes, it's absurd. Learning to walk takes longer than ten weeks
Yes, it's absurd. Babies take a lot longer than ten weeks to learn to walk. "By nine or ten months your baby will most probably have begun to pull himself up to a standing position using whatever support is to hand and may have begun cruising around the room moving along from support to support ... By eighteen months most babies are walking well"
http://www.thinkbaby.co.uk/baby-development/learning-to-walk/1181.html
Not a good start for someone who claims to know about learning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, it's absurd. Learning to walk takes longer than ten weeks
Or maybe he has, and he's trying to make a point here.
"If you want to learn trig or calculus, it's set at such a pace in schools that it guarantees that only the absolutely best students will learn it."
Maybe the "absolutely best children" (whatever that means) can learn walking in 10 weeks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, it's absurd. Learning to walk takes longer than ten weeks
I think you're reading it way too literally. Replace "weeks" with "months" and the point he's making stands. I think you're overly nit picking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yes, it's absurd. Learning to walk takes longer than ten weeks
Yes, even non-experts agree that it takes months not weeks to learn to walk. There are developmental stages that need to be completed before the next stage can be accomplished (successfully). This is true in math and locomotion(walking).
This is why it may be ill-advised to prematurely prop children in sitting position.
I am excited to hear of this person's work. Anything that can help educators and therefore children is worth pursuing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yes, it's absurd. Learning to walk takes longer than ten weeks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yes, it's absurd. Learning to walk takes longer than ten weeks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's absurd. Learning to walk takes longer than ten weeks
Why not let those who learn math fast, do math fast, and let those who learn math slow, learn math slow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's absurd. Learning to walk takes longer than ten weeks
A major reason some are faster is because they have past experiences (which need not even be in the same subject but allow them to make the mental connections faster). It's thus not reasonable to expect the person with less experience to go as fast in order to learn as well.
A second major issue is that learning that is fastest is self-paced. Only you can figure out what is holding you back from picking up a concept or skill (though the teachers can try to help you discover it).
A third reason is that motivation is a major factor in having you learn something well and fast. And actually pushing someone too fast for what is their ideal pace can be a significant demotivator, especially if you then tack on an "F", especially if this becomes a pattern.
A teacher can help by trying to give you a reason to learn and by providing an environment that you can leverage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's absurd. Learning to walk takes longer than ten weeks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, it's absurd. Learning to walk takes longer than ten weeks
Some people are able to learn difficult subjects/topics very quickly whilst others take more time to understand the same material. This is what is trying to be highlighted and not a fact about how long it takes babies to learn to walk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, it's absurd. Learning to walk takes longer than ten weeks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, it's absurd. Learning to walk takes longer than ten weeks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yes, it's absurd. Learning to walk takes longer than ten weeks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, it's absurd. Learning to walk takes longer than ten weeks
From there, if you gave new toddlers 10 weeks, many would fail. Many are good crawlers and don't want to give it up. Some are naturally afraid of falling, and don't want to risk it. Some kids are walking at 9 months.
His example is, most babies can't learn to walk in ten weeks, just like most kids can't learn trig in 10 weeks.
Your retort is, that baby had 9 months to learn to walk, just like that kid has had 15 years to learn trig. Not very smart of him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yes, it's absurd. Learning to walk takes longer than ten weeks
At no point he says "from the moment he's born".
He says "he has 10 weeks to learn", doesn't specify a course starting date.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, it's absurd. Learning to walk takes longer than ten weeks
Are you available to help me settle the matter of confusion in some trademark cases?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yes, it's absurd. Learning to walk takes longer than ten weeks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, it's absurd. Learning to walk takes longer than ten weeks
We've given you a lifetime to master reading comprehension and analytical thinking and you just proved that you can do neither.
So, you get an F, and you're not allowed to try any more.
Don't go away mad, just go away.
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moron in a hurry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Article about how *not* to design games
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A good point and one that I have been pointing out
Hell, why are we even teaching those things to people who are not going into scientific fields in the first place, or trying to force children to learn those things?
It's stupidity. We should be focusing on finding out what each individual child is good at after the basics of math (A,D,S,M,F), reading (at least to a 10th grade level, which ANY child can get to before going to school if they are encouraged to read), writing, etc. and then focus on encouraging them to move into things that they are good at.
For me, that would have been computer science, non-religious philosophy, and music. For others, it might be advanced math, advanced science, and advanced English or whatever you wish to name.
Trying to pigeonhole everyone just makes for a bunch of people who are mediocre in EVERYTHING, who don't exceed in anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A good point and one that I have been pointing out
So just why are AMERICAN students too stupid (or lazy) to learn any subject even remotely advanced?
No one expects them to be experts in the field. On the other hand, EVERYONE should be able to read and write, handle math, know how to communicate, and have a basic knowledge of history, civics, science, the arts, and so on.
Let children learn only what they want, and you'll end up with a generation of video game junkies and ex-high school football player wannabes that will fight tooth and nail for the next opening at Wal-Mart. They're CHILDREN. They have no clue what they're going to need later on in life.
We need doctors and engineers and scientists and teachers. Lot's of them. We do not need stupid, ignorant couch-potatoes unable and unqualified to hold a job or make even the simplest of decisions. "How do I feel about global what???"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A good point and one that I have been pointing out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A good point and one that I have been pointing out
While I agree with you, your point about education would be better taken if you had properly used "you're" instead of "your."
Back to those basics, eh...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A good point and one that I have been pointing out
seriously, so many people learn a lot better if you explain the logic behind stuff. even spelling. at least when i went to school spelling was just taught by rote lists... of course people are going to get these things wrong when it's never clearly explained when which should be used.
(note: i don't live in the USA)
example: that classic 'f for th' thing resulted in some of the kids in my primary school class saying 'fink' instead of 'think' a lot. repeated corrections didn't make it stick until one teacher got sick of it and actually went and looked up the dictionary and told the class what 'fink' meant. the fact that they were Different Words with Different Meanings stuck, and i don't think i heard that mispronunciation again in the entire time i was at that school.
'course, the meaning of 'fink' might have had something to do with that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A good point and one that I have been pointing out
Of course, the Japanese manage to do it. The Chinese manage to do it. Students who go to school in India manage to do it. Calculus. Physics. Latin, for Christ's sake.
I won't even tackle the fact that Christianity isn't the main religion in any of those countries (in case you were looking for commonalities), but I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. That those countries are superior to the US in terms of scholastic achievement? That they are culturally superior? That the kids are smarter and work harder? Im just wondering why you didn't pick other countries as an example. Could it be some stereotype? Did you ever think that most of the Asian languages interpret numbers in sets of ones and tens that make math an easier concept at a younger age.
Let children learn only what they want, and you'll end up with a generation of video game junkies and ex-high school football player wannabes that will fight tooth and nail for the next opening at Wal-Mart. They're CHILDREN. They have no clue what they're going to need later on in life.
Now while I do agree that children do need some structure, the point of the article was not that children should be able to only learn what they want, it was about the timeframe and how they should be learning. Adults as well as children learn faster and try harder when they are interested in something whether it's fun or not. Children may not know what they need later in life, but that doesn't mean they should be forced to do something they are poor at when they could excel at something they are interested in that has just as much value.
Maybe if society didn't place such a high value on professions like LAW and POLITICS, we would see a cultural shift.
Oh and for Christ's sake, there are groups that want to teach the Bible version of creation in SCIENCE classes. How's that for a step forward? Don't look to physics or calculus for answers that are already in your Bible.
I don't know the answers to improving education, but Im not ready to claim any group of people is too stupid or too lazy based on their nationality. On a positive note I do agree that everyone should learn to read and write and learn math to the level of algebra, because with those tools you can go in just about any direction you like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A good point and one that I have been pointing out
You know our society was actually more religious back when we were world leaders in education. As atheism and a decline in social mores has occurred, we've seen our academics fall off as well.
I can detect that you probably hate Christianity or some specific Christian (who is probably a jerk). But the reality is that a decline in education isn't Christianity's fault.
You can find people using Christianity as a justification to pursue knowledge. You can look throughout history and see places where Christianity has pushed knowledge forward. You can also find places where Christians have worked against the advancement of human knowledge.
Right now, in the US, we do have a large number of anti-science Christians. They feel that many are blaming them for things that aren't their fault, and that this bias leads them to attack Christianity on false grounds.
The way to deal with this is to focus on the science and not on the religion.
Jesus stated that those who seek shall find. If you search out knowledge to the fullest, no Christian can object to that.
However, if you read that Chinese kids do better in school than American kids, and your first thought is to blame Christianity, then maybe the Christians have some basis in saying that you are biased.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A good point and one that I have been pointing out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A good point and one that I have been pointing out
also, 'at that time'? it's still ongoing in a lot of places.
(not really disagreeing with your point here though)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A good point and one that I have been pointing out
Dr. Yung Tae Kim isn't saying anything drastic, he's suggesting we tweak our teaching to make it more efficient and better for more people. Why should only one or two people out of a class get "it" and the rest just get shoveled along?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A good point and one that I have been pointing out
OK, so spell-check passed "threw", but ANY broad education for an english speaking person would use "thru" -grin- "through"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A good point and one that I have been pointing out
Yeah - why would anyone want to know about things which are not needed for their menial retail position? It is simply not needed and why should you have to pay for it?
It is this sort of thinking which drives the "dumbing down" in education that is more prevalent everyday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A good point and one that I have been pointing out
education was still fairly broad within those divisions though, and with institutions such as the way polytechs now work in New Zealand there someone who went through the more practical branch could then work through the other stuff as well (it's not uncommon for people to go through polytech here and Then go to university for the same thing... end up with the same qualification at the end, just takes longer and they get the earlier stuff taught in a different style which suits more hands on people better)
and this isn't even a 'dumbing down', because under the current system anyone who doesn't fit the absolute average misses out (unless they're just all around brilliant. but if you're really good at one thing and bad at another, you're not going to get the education you should in the first and will fail horribly at the latter)
humm... i'm not explaining this very well, but splitting things up along at least general lines in terms of learning style should improve education quality.
of course, so does having teachers who aren't terrible, curriculum that make sense, and not loading the teachers with administrative duties to the point where they don't have time to plan lessons (and most basically don't get holidays, whatever their contracts may say, because that's the time they DO have to sort lesson plans... )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A good point and one that I have been pointing out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A good point and one that I have been pointing out
Here is a good math teacher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Escalante that helped a bunch of slow "losers" learn calculus and achieve some of the top AP test scores in the nation during their high school senior year. The movie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_and_Deliver
What you need is "ganas" (desire).
>> Hell, why are we even teaching those things to people who are not going into scientific fields in the first place, or trying to force children to learn those things?
I don't believe we should, but it would be nice if people over their lives were able to gain appreciation of various things. Basic familiarity might be useful.
Even those that were good at that material once forget if they don't use the material, but they may have learned some concepts that are applicable in disguise in many areas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No Child Left A Dime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Teach triangles using rockets and how they can be tracked and have their altitude measured, teach calculus to what it was intended to discover the volume of things, get a good story going and a goal to reach that needs those skills and you will have winner I believe.
Now if you want to see everyone sleeping just starting putting formulas on the board and say you need to understand them because it is important but don't say why it is important.
Use dinosaurs to teach physics, how fast a dinosaur run, how powerful his jaw could come down, what do you need to do perfume, extract oil from plants(girls will love this one), how chemical mix together, how much pressure a skateboard can support etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
My dad likes to tell the story of how he asked one of his maths teachers fairly early on at highschool what the point was in the subject and was told 'you just have to learn it'... and then just stopped bothering. never learnt another thing in maths at school.
later on he went to polytech to get some qualifications or something and one of the classes he had to take to get it was basically highschool maths to make up for this *laughs*
... i actually learnt a chunk of maths i'd missed out on due to health reasons out of his old textbook from that, come to think of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regrettably, he didn't make it. Very disappointing. Now he is 5 and he is permanently grounded - we have him strapped to a little chair. Every now and then we have a little parade in front of him just to remind him of what he *could* have been doing if he had applied himself a bit harder. When he gets older, I might get him a wheel chair.
Sheesh! The kids now-a-days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coddle the weak
Society owes nothing to the weak and lazy, and they should be rewarded as mother nature intended. If they can't walk when the lion comes to feed they are left behind and fed upon. If they can't learn then they are left behind to clean the toilets.
The human race is weaker and less fit because we coddle the weak, and we go out of our way to protect them. Maybe if we let them starve, and die off instead of giving them disability rewards or welfare rewards for being weak and lazy then we would have less weak or lazy people.
But instead we coddle them by forcing businesses to waste money on ramps, give them tax payer's money to sit at home and watch TV instead of getting a job like the rest of us. We have fund raisers to send billions to them when mother nature shakes the earth etc...
I'm sorry, there are no examples that can convince me that coddling the weak is a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Coddle the weak
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Coddle the weakminded
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Coddle the weak
It's a good thing your mother thought differently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Coddle the weak
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Skateboarding
So when they get something wrong, do we throw them down a flight of stairs or crack their nuts on a hand rail?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So many problems
Our real problem is bad teachers, and not being able to fire them. Studies have shown that good teachers can teach 2 years worth of material in 1 year, while bad teachers usually teach half a years material in 1 year. Thats a year and a half loss in education each year you get a bad teacher.
Our hiring standards are also way too high. The truth is you don't need to be very smart to be a good teacher - you shouldn't need a masters. Good teachers are people persons, they teach well because they make a connection with their students. I don't care how smart you are or how much education you have, if you can't connect with your students you ought not be a teacher.
The best way to ensure good teachers is to increase the pool from which we hire, and increase the rate at which we get rid of new teachers who are bad. Malcolm Gladwell has a great article on this idea comparing it to scouting quarterbacks for the NFL. The fact is you don't know how a quarterback (or a teacher) will do in their profession until you put them in.
http://gladwell.com/2008/2008_12_15_a_teacher.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So many problems
Yes, there are some bad teachers out there. However, it is the school and state administrations that perpetuate their presence.
I currently live in Arizona, home to the worst educational system in the nation. I moved out here to teach. Due to various reasons, I ended up subbing around the Valley rather than being in one classroom my first year. And that was enough for me. They may put on a brave face in front of their students, but the teachers are bitter and cynical. Why? Because the school and state administrations have failed them, not just the students with their ridiculous pressure to teach to standardized tests that there's hardly time left to teach actual subject matter. The schools run roughshod over teachers, giving them enormous class sizes but witholding the disciplinary authority to be able to manage them. If we're going to fix schools, the changes need to start at the top.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So many problems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So many problems
Hopefully soon enough we will have great go-at-your-own-pace well taught online tutorials and interesting materials. This would help all teachers.
>> Sure that is a problem, the pace may be too fast for some, but slowing it down means less content to learn, and really our high school math is not nearly advanced enough to compete globally.
I was always ahead of the teacher's pace when I enjoyed a subject (eg, mathematics) and hardly paid any attention in those classes. In some instances the teachers could have reverted to teaching Russian or simple addition for a while during each class and I wouldn't have noticed.
We have access to books. Many books are well-written. The goal of a teacher is to motivate and be there as a resource. The learning can only happen in the students head and many books already have many words of wisdom.
When I didn't like a subject, OTOH, I usually ended up cramming at the last minute and did not excel to the same degree as with courses I liked more.
I should also mention that my early family upbringing was such that I learned to value education. Not everyone is so fortunate (although different people grab different values, each of which has positives and negatives).
>> The fact is you don't know how a quarterback (or a teacher) will do in their profession until you put them in.
Well, we aren't paying teachers a million dollars and we aren't going to quickly get enough of them to be passionate and focused to teach all of our many millions of kids.
First society has to decide to value teachers. Then this has to seep in over years to build up a workforce that is skilled and motivated.
Remember as well that we are a huge "melting pot" with many different cultures and respects for freedoms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Students working with students would help. Are we looking at those incentives? Should we pay a little bit of money to the "senior partner" (not to have them do junior's homework but to help junior succeed when tested)? Should we offer other incentives? Are we even trying? I don't think we are because I went through that system, like to help others, yet hardly found myself in that position. It would have been nice if their were interesting projects for both partners and suitable incentives for each to participate. [And it need not be a 1-1 pairing]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Junk analogy, really...
A college student failing trig has had years to figure out whether or not he wanted to bother applying himself and excelling at things he may not be naturally talented with. Once you've moved beyond the basic developmental stages of your life, you make the decision to either be a damned find student, or suck in academia and refuse to put in the massive effort needed to succeed where you naturally struggle.
Everyone has their special fields where they're a rock star, and they also have fields where they're hobbled by a lack of natural talent. That doesn't mean you can't knuckle down and make it work.
The toddler reference was a pretty lame attempt to incite sympathy toward a child and project that on a lazy 20-something student who whines that calculus is just too hard to figure out quickly and easily.
The best students of a particular field will excel at it easily. This is a good thing. Students who are NOT the best in a particular field won't excel at it easily. This is not a bad thing. The idea is to have only the best in a field pursue said field. Again, though... not being one of the best in a field is no excuse to demand an inordinate amount of time to gain basic competency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Junk analogy, really...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Junk analogy, really...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Junk analogy, really... Or failure to comprehend
By the end of your post you somehow equate the entire argument with just allowing an "inordinate" amount of time to learn a subject. Did you you hear the *whoosh* after you posted? It was the discussion flying way over your head!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Junk analogy, really...
I don't find anything wrong with that reference; however, after reading your first paragraph, I realized that learning to walk generally is something you have to learn, whereas that is not true for many other things.
In any case, babies learn largely by themselves. They gain from the goal of being able to keep up with others in games and have greater access generally.
The key is to find a (good) reason to learn something. If you can't, maybe you should not be wasting time learning it?
Perhaps we can do better than by giving out failure grades and instead focus more on carrots. On the other hands, a failure grade might represent something different for different kids because of their upbringing.
Another comment on this page suggested that administrators often hold back teachers from doing more because of the constraints they place on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]