Comment by Aurornis | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Aurornis | Hacker News Reader

I have several teacher friends who started their careers when the hot topic was all about replacing old methods line rote memorization with new methods like creative engagement. They would be measured on things like how much their lessons fostered engagement and they were encouraged to let the kids lead the learning direction. At the time, they presented it like the obvious better solution and looked down on the old ways of lecturing and homework.

It’s interesting to see how pessimistic they’ve become about the push for engagement and downplaying of lecturing. I sense a growing backlash and a sense that maybe the old ways weren’t as bad as everyone assumed at the time. A common topic at gatherings is how they’re frustrated that some times rote learning and challenging homework are the only way to really get into subjects, but their school district is making it hard to do that without risk of impacting their evaluations. Then at the end of the school year they’re confused about how teachers are nailing their marks and following the best practices but students aren’t doing well.

For what it’s worth, this isn’t an isolated viewpoint. Browse /r/teachers on Reddit and you’ll find no shortage of similar complaints and teachers who are tired of administrators pushing unrealistic idealistic ideas like Bloom’s hierarchy on teachers who are being asked to get students to learn a lot of material without being pushed to, well, learn it.

Education fads come and go, and if you wait long enough you'll notice that what's old is new again. It's a great career-building tool: just identify where you are in the pendulum's path and see where it will move next. Make a prediction from that and you're a visionary, a leader. Many education administrators and theorists have made their names like this.

To be honest recurring cycles happen in tech too, and people play the same game.

>> To be honest recurring cycles happen in tech too, and people play the same game.

NeoOO, maybe?

This rings true for me.

I remember about 20 years ago I would read a lot of think-pieces in Time, The Atlantic, and other such magazines about how kids were doing too little homework, and how the US is falling behind other nations in academic achievement, and how one caused the other.

Now the think pieces are all about how there is too much homework and we're suffocating children under the burden.

For what it's worth, I have an elementary school student, and I like that she has 10-15 minutes of homework most nights. It gives me a chance to keep up with what she's learning about.

Why is the applied pedagogy of teachers in classrooms even falling way behind the educational psychology and neuroscience research anyway in most of the world? It's been long known that things like active recall, spaced repetition, immediate application of knowledge, interleaved practice, and maximizing intrinsic motivation are the most effective ways to learn. There are even meta-analyses that outline each of these techniques effects and nuances. Shouldn't future policy build around what's proven to be effective and further figure out how to extend the effect sizes of such? Instead, we continue to go on education fads with vague terms and gur feeling much like some of the business management world (e.g. some people don't like "frameworks" such as Scrum when it comes to achieving objectives).

Sadly, I'm both grateful & frustrated that my brain only excels in rote memorization.

I have no critical thinking and problem-solving skills.

I didn't fully realize the repercussions until interviewing for management consulting jobs; it was humiliating. I became a CPA in my first career, which aligned much more smoothly :)

My brother-in-law earned his degree at a top Liberal Arts college and I witnessed what it means to actually be taught "how to think." He's an interesting case to me, however - a genius at that thinking style, but merely above-average in rote memorization.

As a medical student learning thousands of facts about the human body, I think I have a relevant perspective on how to learn effectively.

The meta in medical school is currently to focus on active learning via flashcards and practice questions, and to minimize the amount of time spent watching lectures passively. I think this is, generally speaking, a good idea. The things I learn from practice questions stick in my head a lot better than the things I heard once in a lecture. However, where practice questions and flashcards come short is in making cohesive mental frameworks that organize several related topics in your head. I still think that good old-fashioned lectures are the best way to present those frameworks to students, because they don't lend themselves well to the rapid-fire questions I use for active learning. However, for learning more discrete details, I think sitting through a lecture is a waste of time. So it's about knowing the tools in your toolbox and when to use which one, if you ask me.

TL;DR active learning generally good, but need some passive lectures to show the big picture

Reply on news.ycombinator.com