Book Discussion--Why Don't Students Like School? (Willingham)

[Mrs Twain]

This thread is “book club†of sorts to discuss applications of the book Why Don’t Students Like School? (Willingham). What I wrote below are the most important personal applications of this book to homeschooling for me personally. I hope others will share their conclusions and personal applications.

 

I agree with reviewers who stated that this book is the best practical resource for teachers. In it the author summarizes the most important findings from cognitive science about how students learn, and then suggests practical applications for teachers in K-12. I highly recommend this book and have found it to be one of the most useful resources for homeschooling. In particular, I think a good number of the ideas of the “classical†homeschool method are supported by the evidence.

 

I also included applications from Hirsh’s book entitled The Knowledge Deficit. That book is another one I consider to be most valuable for homeschooling.

 

Applications of Why Don’t Students Like School? (Willingham)

1.

One chapter (potentially contentious for many homeschoolers) emphasized the importance of drill work. Gasp! It also discussed the need to continually practice old material so that it will be retained long-term.

 

Personal applications:

--Continue drill work to practice math facts in grades 1-5. Yes, of course teaching conceptual understanding is of primary importance in math, but drill work is necessary, too.

--Continue memory work and expand it. For us this includes history lists, science principles, Awana Bible verses, Geography facts, and memorizing poetry and speeches.

--History: I will continue to do world history and American history overview books every year as my main spines, along with studying three specific history subjects in depth. Alternatively I could see a 4-year history cycle working for families if they could think of a way to do review of the three years of the cycle they were not currently covering.

 

2.

Another chapter delivered the startling news that there is no evidence for the popular homeschool “teach your children according to their individual learning styles†method. Double gasp!

 

Personal applications:

--Ignore all workshops and curricula at the homeschool convention which berate me for not teaching each of my kids differently based on his or her learning style (auditory, visual, kinesthetic).

--Continue my current practice of presenting all lessons the same way to each child using verbal explanations as well as visual explanations on the white board, and requiring my kids to demonstrate understanding with both verbal and written responses. I can’t remember the source, but I learned that retention of new material is high if a person hears an explanation of the lesson, verbalizes it himself, and writes it.

 

3.

I loved learning the evidence behind the Asian concept that hard work can increase intelligence. Dh and I are busy reorienting our minds away from the western idea that our kids are born with a set amount of intelligence which can’t be changed.

 

Personal applications:

--Praise my kids for working hard rather than for “being smart.†Give them credit for good performance, emphasizing that it was due to their hard work.

 

4.

One chapter was about the importance of background knowledge as a requirement for learning skills. Hirsch’s book The Knowledge Deficit fleshes this one out much more completely, but ends up with the same conclusion.

 

Personal applications:

--The Core Knowledge K-8 Sequence contains comprehensive lists of content and skills which are necessary for learning the relevant background knowledge and becoming well educated. My goal is to teach this information systematically in K-8, reviewing often.

--Start early with learning and memorizing factual knowledge. “Better early than late†is the best course, not the other way around!

 

5.

Kids need to understand underlying concepts before they try to commit something to memory. I know a family who did Classical Conversations Memory Masters in which their kids memorized all of the material, but they had not covered the content. It ended up that they could recite all of the memory work but didn’t know what a lot of it meant. For example, one of the history sentences they learned went something like, “King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215.†The kids knew this sentence by heart, but they had no idea who King John was, what the Magna Carta said, or why the Magna Carta was important. This is contrary to how we should do memory work.

 

Personal application:

--Develop my own body of memory work which follows the content we are covering. This way the kids will understand the concepts behind the memory work and will hopefully retain the information in long-term memory.

 

6.

The final chapter of the book gave me an excuse to continue reading this forum. Hahaha.

 

Those were the most notable applications I found in this book, though there were others. I would like to give a big thanks to Daniel Willingham and E.D. Hirsch for writing these practical books for people like me!

[Tress]

Bookmarking this thread!

 

I ordered the book, but it's going to take a couple of weeks before it arrives.

I skimmed your post, but I want to read the book first, after that I will come back to read your post again :).

[alef]

I'm about halfway through this book. Don't have time to type right now but I will be back to join in the discussion. Thanks for starting this thread!

[lorisuewho]

Thank you for this review! I love how you organized your thoughts.

 

I felt a lot of relief when I read the book on giving up the learning styles guilt.

I also found the concept of the more you know, the more you can learn and know profound. Although he put it into words so much better than I can! This was such a bolster to using the classical methodology.

[Mimmy]

I recently read both of these books as well. I just pulled out the notes I made as I was reading and they are very similar to what you just posted. One thing that really stood out to me was the idea of not wasting students time during language arts. Every time I have my kids read or write something I should be sure it is something of value.

[wapiti]

What I took away from chapters 1 and 2 (though I was sort of skimming/half-asleep):

 

ch 1:

- we like to avoid thinking when possible (by relying on memory whenever that's sufficient)

- problem-solving is fun only when it's at that just-right level - not too hard, not too easy

 

ch 2:

"The very processes that teachers care about most - critical thinking processes such as reasoning and problem-solving - are intimately intertwined with factual knowledge that is stored in long-term memory (not just found in the environment)." "We must ensure that students acquire background knowledge parallel with practicing critical thinking skills." (p. 22; emphasis mine). Does this contradict his stated principle that "Factual knowledge must precede skill" (p. 19; emphasis mine again)?

 

- Background knowledge helps memory of facts and helps reading comprehension

 

This is no surprise - context has long been known to be important for visual-spatial learners to retain information, especially if they struggle with rote methods. The author is speaking of all people though.

 

I'm not finished with this chapter... I wonder what I'll think it says if I don't wait until bedtime to try to read :tongue_smilie:.

[briansmama]

I ordered the book too and this thread is super helpful to see how it will apply to homeschooling- thanks so much for starting this and sharing your thoughts here!

[RoundAbout]

Thanks for starting this thread. I care a great deal about evidence based techniques and this book fits the bill like no other. I love that he demonstrates his principles with little puzzles throughout the book. Thoroughly impressed. I wish I had taken notes, but will probably buy to read again.

 

Things I gleaned:

 

1) The importance of background knowledge aiding reading comprehension. Even shallow knowledge. For instance he says even just knowing that baseball is a game played with a ball and a bat will give you a significant leg up in understand a baseball sports essay vs. if you know nothing. He demonstrates this with several examples. This has convinced me to go very broad when it comes to background knowledge and content areas.

 

2) Periodic review as an aid towards long term retention.

 

3) That discovery based learning has enormous value, but only if you can get immediate feedback.

 

4) Be careful about projects and what you are actually teaching. He talks about a teacher who was really proud of doing hands on learning with his students by having them bake biscuits like the runaway slaves they were studying in their underground railroad unit. The author points out that in actuality the students spent 45 minutes thinking about flour and water and measurements and almost no time contemplating the life of slaves. The important stuff got lost amidst the mechanics of implementing the project.

 

I'm sure there's more, but can't wait to see what others have to say.

[briansmama]

Ok, I'm going to love this book. I read research years ago supporting the summary of Ch 2- no evidence for teaching to specific learning styles.

[wapiti]

Ok, I'm going to love this book. I read research years ago supporting the summary of Ch 2- no evidence for teaching to specific learning styles.

 

FWIW, although I'll need to read the chapter more thoroughly (because I was merely skimming and may have missed it), I do not necessarily see this conclusion in the chapter itself - OP, can you discuss that? Was that your own conclusion or did the author make such conclusion?

[briansmama]

RoundAbout, thanks for giving that example about the hands-on projects. I definitely can relate to that!

 

Mimmy, I can also relate to busy-work when it comes to Lang Arts. I despise reading comp worksheets and now I know why :)

[FloridaLisa]

Just put both books on my library request list. Woohoo for summer reading!

 

Regarding your point 2, I have never catered to my children's learning styles. I have 7 children and I know that have learning style preferences, but I tend to teach according to my teaching style! I have to be excited to use the curriculum and I've found that my dc can adapt pretty easily.

 

Lisa

[Rosie_0801]

I've just read a few things on this thread thinking "Uh, not true here!" I don't suppose the book would be useful to me, since I don't have textbook children?

[Runningmom80]

I've just read a few things on this thread thinking "Uh, not true here!" I don't suppose the book would be useful to me, since I don't have textbook children?

 

 

I was thinking the same thing. I thought maybe I was being too close minded.

[Arcadia]

I've just read a few things on this thread thinking "Uh, not true here!" I don't suppose the book would be useful to me, since I don't have textbook children?

I was thinking the same thing. I thought maybe I was being too close minded.

This is the article by the author in American Educator. Kind of like a summary of the book. I'll have to see if my library has a copy of the book just for curiosity reading.

http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/spring2009/WILLINGHAM%282%29.pdf

[Mrs Twain]

Ok, I'm going to love this book. I read research years ago supporting the summary of Ch 2- no evidence for teaching to specific learning styles.

FWIW, although I'll need to read the chapter more thoroughly (because I was merely skimming and may have missed it), I do not necessarily see this conclusion in the chapter itself - OP, can you discuss that? Was that your own conclusion or did the author make such conclusion?

Briansmama's quote is true, but it is in chapter 7. The author gives quite a bit of background on this subject, and it is very interesting reading.

[Pen]

Hurrah! I am so glad you started this thread! I am still reading it and will likely have more to contribute when I am done. A few thoughts interspersed below:

 

... In it the author summarizes the most important findings from cognitive science about how students learn, and then suggests practical applications for teachers in K-12. I highly recommend this book and have found it to be one of the most useful resources for homeschooling. In particular, I think a good number of the ideas of the “classical†homeschool method are supported by the evidence.

 

Yes. From what I've read so far, I agree.

 

I also included applications from Hirsh’s book entitled The Knowledge Deficit. That book is another one I consider to be most valuable for homeschooling.

 

...

--History: I will continue to do world history and American history overview books every year as my main spines, along with studying three specific history subjects in depth. Alternatively I could see a 4-year history cycle working for families if they could think of a way to do review of the three years of the cycle they were not currently covering.

 

I'm not sure if I am following this. I gather you mean in order to keep review going you will have an overview book be the spine. But what do you mean by an "overview book" and what do you mean by 3 specific areas in depth? That may be like what we have been doing, such as using SOTW as a spine (would that be an overview book?) and then going into depth on Vikings, Greece and Rome. ???

 

...

3.

I loved learning the evidence behind the Asian concept that hard work can increase intelligence. Dh and I are busy reorienting our minds away from the western idea that our kids are born with a set amount of intelligence which can’t be changed.

 

Personal applications:

--Praise my kids for working hard rather than for “being smart.†Give them credit for good performance, emphasizing that it was due to their hard work.

 

 

I think a big plus of the Willingham book is that is gathers much other research into one place, but just as you mention the Hirsch book, I'd like to mention Mindset by Carol Dweck as giving more in depth on this particular subject (that is on the credit to effort idea).

 

...

The final chapter of the book gave me an excuse to continue reading this forum. Hahaha. That's intriguing...

 

Those were the most notable applications I found in this book, though there were others. I would like to give a big thanks to Daniel Willingham and E.D. Hirsch for writing these practical books for people like me!

 

 

 

 

Looking forward to reading and learning more!

 

We are currently getting to work on foreign language--did it give any particular insight into that?

[Mrs Twain]

We are currently getting to work on foreign language--did it give any particular insight into that?

Not that I recall. I have friends who have told me what they researched as the best way to learn foreign language. I can't remember what the method is called, but it mostly involves listening to the new language and specifically not reading any it before you learn to speak. For example, one only listens to the language for a certain high number of hours. Then with a language tutor, he will attempt to repeat words and vocabulary, all by listening. This is supposed to result in the best pronunciation. Someone else told me that Rosetta Stone was the best way to learn a language according to research, but I don't know where that came from either. My apologies that this is probably not a very helpful answer! Maybe someone else can chime in.

[TKDmom]

I've just read a few things on this thread thinking "Uh, not true here!" I don't suppose the book would be useful to me, since I don't have textbook children?

 

Not to start an argument... ;) but what specific points do you disagree with?

 

I tend to accept everything I read at face value, and always have to read the negative reviews before I'm able to form valid conclusions of my own. :tongue_smilie:

[Mrs Twain]

Quote--"I'm not sure if I am following this. I gather you mean in order to keep review going you will have an overview book be the spine. But what do you mean by an "overview book" and what do you mean by 3 specific areas in depth? That may be like what we have been doing, such as using SOTW as a spine (would that be an overview book?) and then going into depth on Vikings, Greece and Rome. ???" Here is what I do for history. First I read a world history overview book for the first half of the school year. Examples are CHOW and Builders of the Old World. Then I read an American History overview book for the second half of the year. Examples are A First Book in American History, The Rainbow Book of American History, or maybe next year I will use Calvert's choice of "Build Our Nation: American History and Geography" textbook. That way we are covering the same history content year after year after year after year, though using different texts. The repetition is what I am aiming for since students need a lot of practice in learning information in order for it to be retained long-term. In addition, I plan three history subjects for in-depth study. For example, one year I did Ancient Egypt, Ancient Rome, and New World Explorers as our three in-depth subjects. The kids did lapbooks and reports as well as listened to supplemental books on these subjects. In this way I can get depth on major subjects which is not possible just by reading the overview books. Does that make any sense? I generally do not like the 4-year cycle idea because I don't believe that there is adequate review with that method. It is hard for me to believe that my kids would remember information that I only teach them every four years. Maybe I am wrong, but I am sticking with my current plan, especially after reading the research in Willingham's book.

[Rosie_0801]

Not to start an argument... ;) but what specific points do you disagree with?

 

I tend to accept everything I read at face value, and always have to read the negative reviews before I'm able to form valid conclusions of my own. :tongue_smilie:

 

Lol, I can tell you learning styles matter here. But I have a kid with Echolalia, which means I have to work with it if I want to get any work done at all. The Echolalia also means there is value in having my dd memorise things she doesn't understand.

 

Obviously I have a child with, uh, "different abilities" so it would not be appropriate for me to extrapolate our situation out to cover everyone. It's more that I read those recommendations thinking "'scuse me Miss, I have an exception to that rule here!"

 

I think the issue of learning styles matters if you have kids way down at the ends of the spectrum, but I'm quite willing to believe it's an overrated concept for those around the middle. When it comes to memorising outside of context, I really believe it depends on the individual child as to whether it is a good or bad thing to attempt. A whole to parts learner often can't fix anything in their brain without context. A parts to whole learner may be better off learning the fact by rote, then exploring the context to prove the truth of it. Perhaps it also depends on age/ language proficiency. A smaller child doesn't expect to understand everything, where an older or more verbally proficient child does. Sometimes knowing a fact is useful even if you don't understand it all properly yet, the proverbial pegs to hang information on. With my dd, if I waited until she was reading to understand (some kinds of) concepts before I asked her to memorise, it could be years before we got started and I know for sure that would not be a better path to take.

 

Like I said, general rules absolutely have their place, but some of us have kids they don't apply to. I think a lot of us homeschool because we have kids who don't fit a lot of general rules.

[birchbark]

Thanks for this thread! I just started the book myself.

 

--History: I will continue to do world history and American history overview books every year as my main spines, along with studying three specific history subjects in depth. Alternatively I could see a 4-year history cycle working for families if they could think of a way to do review of the three years of the cycle they were not currently covering

 

Lightbulb moment! I love this idea as opposed to slogging through all of history for four years (and wondering if we are getting enough American in). We just finished year three of the cycle with one more to go and I'm already wondering how much DS is remembering. I'm thinking the in depth subjects could be chosen by my student for a partial interest-led approach.

 

I loved learning the evidence behind the Asian concept that hard work can increase intelligence. Dh and I are busy reorienting our minds away from the western idea that our kids are born with a set amount of intelligence which can’t be changed.

 

Personal applications:

--Praise my kids for working hard rather than for “being smart.†Give them credit for good performance, emphasizing that it was due to their hard work.

 

This is really good, I will try to remember to do this.

 

 

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

Quote--"I'm not sure if I am following this. I gather you mean in order to keep review going you will have an overview book be the spine. But what do you mean by an "overview book" and what do you mean by 3 specific areas in depth? That may be like what we have been doing, such as using SOTW as a spine (would that be an overview book?) and then going into depth on Vikings, Greece and Rome. ???" Here is what I do for history. First I read a world history overview book for the first half of the school year. Examples are CHOW and Builders of the Old World. Then I read an American History overview book for the second half of the year. Examples are A First Book in American History, The Rainbow Book of American History, or maybe next year I will use Calvert's choice of "Build Our Nation: American History and Geography" textbook. That way we are covering the same history content year after year after year after year, though using different texts. The repetition is what I am aiming for since students need a lot of practice in learning information in order for it to be retained long-term. In addition, I plan three history subjects for in-depth study. For example, one year I did Ancient Egypt, Ancient Rome, and New World Explorers as our three in-depth subjects. The kids did lapbooks and reports as well as listened to supplemental books on these subjects. In this way I can get depth on major subjects which is not possible just by reading the overview books. Does that make any sense? I generally do not like the 4-year cycle idea because I don't believe that there is adequate review with that method. It is hard for me to believe that my kids would remember information that I only teach them every four years. Maybe I am wrong, but I am sticking with my current plan, especially after reading the research in Willingham's book.

 

This is fascinating. Thank you for posting... really gives me some food for thought!!!

[Free]

 

Lol, I can tell you learning styles matter here. But I have a kid with Echolalia, which means I have to work with it if I want to get any work done at all. The Echolalia also means there is value in having my dd memorise things she doesn't understand.

 

Obviously I have a child with, uh, "different abilities" so it would not be appropriate for me to extrapolate our situation out to cover everyone. It's more that I read those recommendations thinking "'scuse me Miss, I have an exception to that rule here!"

 

I think the issue of learning styles matters if you have kids way down at the ends of the spectrum, but I'm quite willing to believe it's an overrated concept for those around the middle. When it comes to memorising outside of context, I really believe it depends on the individual child as to whether it is a good or bad thing to attempt. A whole to parts learner often can't fix anything in their brain without context. A parts to whole learner may be better off learning the fact by rote, then exploring the context to prove the truth of it. Perhaps it also depends on age/ language proficiency. A smaller child doesn't expect to understand everything, where an older or more verbally proficient child does. Sometimes knowing a fact is useful even if you don't understand it all properly yet, the proverbial pegs to hang information on. With my dd, if I waited until she was reading to understand (some kinds of) concepts before I asked her to memorise, it could be years before we got started and I know for sure that would not be a better path to take.

 

Like I said, general rules absolutely have their place, but some of us have kids they don't apply to. I think a lot of us homeschool because we have kids who don't fit a lot of general rules.

 

 

I am another one here who thinks learning styles not only matter in actually grasping concepts, but can also make a huge difference in child's attitude towards school. I learned this the hard way by trying to approach schooling with my ds the way I like to learn only to see him shun learning and all things school.

 

If doing school with your child starts feeling like banging your head against a brick wall, then it I bet it would help to re-assess the "way" school is done. Being flexible about methods go a long way in making school more effective for both parent and child.

[Mrs Twain]

I suppose I should actually read the book, but I don't understand how any of this helps when one has a child who hates school. I have one who hates it. I'm using all the methods mentioned. I've tried other things as well. The best I've managed is to basically develop a routine with my school hater that at least gets him through his school work quickly. I can't say anything has changed in terms of his feelings about it though.

 

Why don't you start by reading the article that someone posted above? It includes several of the chapters of the book, including the first chapter which discusses why children don't like school. It is quite interesting and may shed light.

[TracyP]

It has been 18 mos or so since I read this book so I can't remember exactly what he said about learning styles, but I will say that he was very convincing. My recollection of this was that he said that all students benefited from having info presented in more than one way and that you also need to take each individual topic to see the best way to present it. Hands on building of a motor is far better than reading about it, while baking cornbread while studying America in the 1800's is a waste of time. My takeaway was that if everything is being presented in the best way *for that particular topic* - learning styles won't matter.

[stripe]

If this counts as a hijack, then please ignore it.

 

I read Willingham some time ago, and have requested it at my library but am still waiting.

 

However having just taken a look at a Michael Gurian book about boys' learning styles, I have this on the brain, but I thought it before: many schools cater to a tidier, quieter form of learning, e.g. sitting still, reading a book, and filling out worksheets. What insights can Willingham bring to making education applicable and interesting to typical boys, and any girls who like active projects? He suggests active, hands-on things, plenty of physical exercise, and mentoring/apprenticeships.

 

I have to say, I hate cutting and pasting and activities like that don't get done here. I am not into lapbooking, but I would like to do more hands on activities. My kids are in lower elementary.

[Halcyon]

i am picking this up at my local library today. Will post my thoughts when I read it. Sounds fascinating.

[TracyP]

3.

I loved learning the evidence behind the Asian concept that hard work can increase intelligence. Dh and I are busy reorienting our minds away from the western idea that our kids are born with a set amount of intelligence which can’t be changed.

 

A slight bunny trail, but have you read The Brain That Changes Itself by Doidge? Fascinating, fascinating book that touches on this. It is also a book that points to the benefits of Classical Education that educators moved away from because it was rigid and boring. He said that the classical educators had an innate understanding of what brain science is now proving.

[Wee Pip]

I needed this discussion 2 yrs ago when I read the book;) I loved the book and really wanted to delve into the question "ok, now how do we apply this to homeschooling?" - so this thread is excellent! The book actually led me toward Classical Conversations memory work, because unlike the CC family mentioned, I was all "concept" driven, with no memory work. I really think a family needs both, and CC Foundations guide helped me with what to memorize. I love the suggestion in a pp about history - reading through world and American each year (repetition), but choosing 3 time periods to explore deeper each year. One thing the author mentions at the beginning of the book, and it gets sort of lost in the intro (if I'm remembering it right) is the ultimate answer is reading a lot. I think he mentioned reading magazines and books to give that background knowledge. I'm seeing this with my 2 children: the 1st dd hates academics and shuns reading anything except the same 5 books repeatedly, the 2nd dd loves to read a myriad of different things and takes Usborne books to bed with her. The 2nd dd performs better on standardized tests, and I think it is directly related to all the reading she does.

[lorisuewho]

 

A slight bunny trail, but have you read The Brain That Changes Itself by Doidge? Fascinating, fascinating book that touches on this. It is also a book that points to the benefits of Classical Education that educators moved away from because it was rigid and boring. He said that the classical educators had an innate understanding of what brain science is now proving.

 

I'm reading this book now.

[Wee Pip]

I suppose I should actually read the book, but I don't understand how any of this helps when one has a child who hates school. I have one who hates it. I'm using all the methods mentioned. I've tried other things as well. The best I've managed is to basically develop a routine with my school hater that at least gets him through his school work quickly. I can't say anything has changed in terms of his feelings about it though.

I can relate, and that's what led me to read the book. No, some dc aren't going to looove school just because you read the book and implemented some of the ideas:p Some kids are just wired to hate academics. I've been experimenting on my 1st dd (lol) and feeding her a lot of easy to read books (waaay below her reading/ability level) on various subjects, and I think this is helping her form that background knowledge. She doesn't love this, but she admits that if she has to read anything, she'd rather read these sorts of books for school. If I can hear an occasional "hmmm, that's interesting," than I feel like I did a job well done, lol! So, you could interpret what I'm doing as hitting her learning style (boldly visual books with little word blurbs to match her cut-and-dry style of learning), or you could say that I'm giving her background knowledge by simple, easy to understand books. Either way, I think it's helping, and I wish I'd done this sooner rather than fighting with her to do more on-grade level reading. (note: I still struggle with this, though, feeling like I'm not doing enough to make her do harder, more grade level stuff, so right now I'm pressing her through an Abeka science textbook). Also, I noticed when I switched up history to these easy books, plus CC memory work with the history flashcards, she is getting a better history education now than when she was forced through SOTW or any other wordier book (my 2nd dd loves SOTW, so to each his own). Again, you could call it learning styles, or you could call it background info, given on an easy level that she can understand and relate to. Will she ever hug me and say "I love school, mom"? No, but I do think these kids find more "joy" (can I use that strong of a word?) when they encounter info in the real world that they are already familiar with (like going to a museum after studying the topic, and the dc can say "hey, I read about that!"). I think that is, ultimately, what we are after - those pegs in the memory on which to hang more info and the ability to say, "I've heard of that before!" So I guess that is my interpretation of the book, but I think I need to re-read it.

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

Contrary to popular belief, the brain is not designed for

thinking. It’s designed to save you from having to think, because

the brain is actually not very good at thinking.

 

This is from the article linked above. I found it interesting, as I think this falls into step with the Charlotte Mason idea of good habits. The idea that, once you have "trained" the brain in perfect execution, focus, accuracy, whatever, it actually becomes easier to "stay on the rails" of that habit, because you don't need to think to do so.

[RoundAbout]

. My takeaway was that if everything is being presented in the best way *for that particular topic* - learning styles won't matter.

 

This is kind of how I remember it as well. For instance no amount of visual material is going to help someone learn a spoken foreign language, its just by nature, an auditory task. His case against learning styles is pretty convincing.

 

 

He does say that people differ in their capacity for auditory or visual memory. So the example he uses is that someone with a great auditory memory sitting in a foreign language class will probably do really well on accents because they can remember the tone of the speakers voice. But he gives good evidence why this doesn't pertain to actually remembering the information better. I don't remember all of e details though.

[RoundAbout]

I suppose I should actually read the book, but I don't understand how any of this helps when one has a child who hates school. I have one who hates it. I'm using all the methods mentioned. I've tried other things as well. The best I've managed is to basically develop a routine with my school hater that at least gets him through his school work quickly. I can't say anything has changed in terms of his feelings about it though.

 

It's kind of a dumb title for the book, as I don't think it completely fits what it is about. It's also aimed at classroom teachers, so it's kind of shooting at the general cases. I did think his stuff about problems having to be not too easy, and not too hard, but just right was valuable. He also had a bit about effective (and ineffective) attention grabbers that seems to work like magic when I remember to use it.

 

 

[Sammish]

I've got one chapter left, but I wanted to get my thoughts down on what I've read so far.

 

In chapter three he discusses how stories can help make learning more interesting, which to me reinforced the idea of using "living books" (a la Charlotte Mason).

 

Apparently we need to do some memory work. Start now, get in the habit, and buckle down and do it.

 

The constant reviewing over a long period of time is exactly what Math on the Level does with their "five a days," so I really should dust that off and take it back out.

 

In reading chapter 6, I kept thinking of lewelma's posts on how she does science with her kids. It seems to me she's able to do just what the author says you can't - get her kids to think and do what real scientists think and do. Is this just an example of something we can do while homeschooling that just isn't feasible in a classroom, and so the author never even considered it?

 

I found his dismissal of different learning styles reassuring - it means I can stop trying to figure out what my child's learning style is, and finding the perfect curriculum to match it, and just get on with doing what's working.

 

The book "Nurture Shock" also has a chapter on praise, and describes some more studies that have been done. I found it very interesting, and felt like it went into more detail. It's still something I struggle with implementing on a day to day basis, so reading this was a good reminder.

[Mrs Twain]

Lol, I can tell you learning styles matter here. But I have a kid with Echolalia, which means I have to work with it if I want to get any work done at all. The Echolalia also means there is value in having my dd memorise things she doesn't understand.

 

Obviously I have a child with, uh, "different abilities" so it would not be appropriate for me to extrapolate our situation out to cover everyone. It's more that I read those recommendations thinking "'scuse me Miss, I have an exception to that rule here!"

 

I think the issue of learning styles matters if you have kids way down at the ends of the spectrum, but I'm quite willing to believe it's an overrated concept for those around the middle. When it comes to memorising outside of context, I really believe it depends on the individual child as to whether it is a good or bad thing to attempt. A whole to parts learner often can't fix anything in their brain without context. A parts to whole learner may be better off learning the fact by rote, then exploring the context to prove the truth of it. Perhaps it also depends on age/ language proficiency. A smaller child doesn't expect to understand everything, where an older or more verbally proficient child does. Sometimes knowing a fact is useful even if you don't understand it all properly yet, the proverbial pegs to hang information on. With my dd, if I waited until she was reading to understand (some kinds of) concepts before I asked her to memorise, it could be years before we got started and I know for sure that would not be a better path to take.

 

Like I said, general rules absolutely have their place, but some of us have kids they don't apply to. I think a lot of us homeschool because we have kids who don't fit a lot of general rules.

 

Rosie, actually a lot of what you said above is in the book. There are quite a few caveats in the learning styles chapter. He explicitly says multiple times that he doesn't mean you shouldn't individualize your teaching to your students and find out what works for your individual students. His comments on the learning styles theory is a review on the last fifty years of learning styles theories and the lack of consistent evidence. But if I remember correctly, he also says that perhaps there is a valid theory that no one has yet come up with. Definitely he encourages teachers to individualize teaching according to what works with their students. He also says some of the same things you say about the value of memorizing material before a student understands the meaning. He even mentions mnemonics as a useful device in some situations. I think it is easy to read someone's personal applications of the book outside of the context of the underlying principles and misunderstand what Willingham is saying. Rosie, you may really like the book if you read it. Or at least read the article posted by a pp here to get a feel for it.

[SarahW]

 

Lol, I can tell you learning styles matter here. But I have a kid with Echolalia, which means I have to work with it if I want to get any work done at all. The Echolalia also means there is value in having my dd memorise things she doesn't understand.

 

Obviously I have a child with, uh, "different abilities" so it would not be appropriate for me to extrapolate our situation out to cover everyone. It's more that I read those recommendations thinking "'scuse me Miss, I have an exception to that rule here!"

 

I think the issue of learning styles matters if you have kids way down at the ends of the spectrum, but I'm quite willing to believe it's an overrated concept for those around the middle. When it comes to memorising outside of context, I really believe it depends on the individual child as to whether it is a good or bad thing to attempt. A whole to parts learner often can't fix anything in their brain without context. A parts to whole learner may be better off learning the fact by rote, then exploring the context to prove the truth of it. Perhaps it also depends on age/ language proficiency. A smaller child doesn't expect to understand everything, where an older or more verbally proficient child does. Sometimes knowing a fact is useful even if you don't understand it all properly yet, the proverbial pegs to hang information on. With my dd, if I waited until she was reading to understand (some kinds of) concepts before I asked her to memorise, it could be years before we got started and I know for sure that would not be a better path to take.

 

Like I said, general rules absolutely have their place, but some of us have kids they don't apply to. I think a lot of us homeschool because we have kids who don't fit a lot of general rules.

 

I think (and I just read the article and the excerpts on Amazon) that the book is about general and average classroom teaching. In college I worked in the Learning Center and yes, there were students who just couldn't read a book and process the information at the same time (I forget what the disability is called, the director didn't bother teaching us the theory, we just followed the process that would help, we didn't get paid enough to try to understand it all anyways). So for certain students a personalized program needs to be followed for certain aspects of the education.

 

The Learning Center also tried to encourage the profs to use different A/V materials in their classroom. For certain students this was, I suppose, very helpful. But in general, I think (after reading the overview of the nine principles) that the largest benefit was for lectures where the prof tried to make us hold too much info in our working memory. The visual powerpoint outline helped us make sense of what the prof was trying to introduce. Willingham's point, I think, is that a good teacher shouldn't have to rely on an external crutch like that, they should be able to introduce information in an effective way via the sequence of their own presentation of the material. This sort of teaching would be helpful to everyone, whether or not they would then need to go use the Learning Center to overcome a learning disability.

 

So my feeling is that Willingham is talking about the very basic level of learning something new. If you have a kid that needs that and something else, then you should also provide the something else. Does that make sense?

 

Sorry, this isn't particularly about you and your situation. I was considering learning disabilities and the like myself as I was reading the article.

[Chelli]

I just requested this through ILL. Some of the comments are really resonating with me and how I'd like to shake up our homeschool next year.

 

Hopefully this thread is still active once I get my book. If not, I might have to resurrect it!

[fraidycat]

I'd not heard of this book before this thread. Now, it's in my Amazon cart. Bookmarking to come back to this! Thank you for the discussion.

[kitten18]

Bookmarking this thread!

 

I ordered the book, but it's going to take a couple of weeks before it arrives.

I skimmed your post, but I want to read the book first, after that I will come back to read your post again :).

 

:iagree: I'm waiting for my library hold to come in.

[Mom-ninja.]

I haven't read the book yet. I want to. I'll be back to read this thread.

[Rosie_0801]

What insights can Willingham bring to making education applicable and interesting to typical boys, and any girls who like active projects? He suggests active, hands-on things, plenty of physical exercise, and mentoring/apprenticeships.

 

I have to say, I hate cutting and pasting and activities like that don't get done here. I am not into lapbooking, but I would like to do more hands on activities. My kids are in lower elementary.

 

 

I don't know about the rest, but I can tell you my dd will not be making a tissue paper mosaic when we "study" the Romans. My aunt was teaching her to cut tiles the other day, and we're going to mosaic the bathroom wall.

 

She said "if this is what you do in grade prep, what will you do in high school?"

I replied "by then, you'll be telling her she's big enough to drive the tractor and she ought to excavate her own cave for cave painting!"

(My aunt would do that too.)

 

Rosie, you may really like the book if you read it. Or at least read the article posted by a pp here to get a feel for it.

 

Yes, I read the article posted up thread yesterday. :)

 

Sorry, this isn't particularly about you and your situation. I was considering learning disabilities and the like myself as I was reading the article.

 

Oh, not everything needs to be about me. As my mother often helpfully pointed out, I'm not the only one in the world. :laugh:

[Mrs Twain]

To all of you who are or will be reading the book, please do post your thoughts whenever you get finished. I am interested in your ideas about applying these principles to homeschool. It is one thing to read the book and understand the principles, but it can be more difficult to see how to use them in our day to day homeschool routine.

[ktgrok]

 

A smaller child doesn't expect to understand everything, where an older or more verbally proficient child does. Sometimes knowing a fact is useful even if you don't understand it all properly yet, the proverbial pegs to hang information on. With my dd, if I waited until she was reading to understand (some kinds of) concepts before I asked her to memorise, it could be years before we got started and I know for sure that would not be a better path to take.

 

 

 

He agrees with this, and says that sometimes you have to memorize things before you will understand them, and that can actually be beneficial to understanding later on. He just thinks it is EASIER to memorize if you have context. But some things it's just better to memorize.

[ktgrok]

I suppose I should actually read the book, but I don't understand how any of this helps when one has a child who hates school. I have one who hates it. I'm using all the methods mentioned. I've tried other things as well. The best I've managed is to basically develop a routine with my school hater that at least gets him through his school work quickly. I can't say anything has changed in terms of his feelings about it though.

 

I think the overarching theme is that kids like what they are good at. If they are very successful with school they like it more.

[Soror]

I read the article yesterday. I find it interesting that of those who have read it their take away is different from person to person. I think the danger, as it is with anything, is that people seem to hear what they want to hear. People have brought up the bit about learning styles not mattering several times but also mention teaching in a way that reaches auditory, visual and kinesthetic learners. I also am reading that it depends on the subject matter.

 

Reading the article and the take-away from various people I do think we are on a good path. I also think it fits in somewhat with what Hunter and others have stated about not just picking curriculum based on your kid but on what you can teach well.

 

Regarding intelligence I read a book or article recently that discussed this, now I wish I could remember where it was from(likely it was from here). It strongly encouraged specific praise, for hard work or such. It also talked about intelligence and how malleable it is. I had a conversation with the kids about this, in a very simplistic way, I told them the brain is like a muscle so the more it works the stronger it gets. I wanted to reinforce this idea but to also explicitly let them know it.

[MBM]

Po Bronson has written some interesting books that discuss education: Top Dog and Nurture Shock. Top Dog discusses competition and motivation. It's too complicated for me to explain here but one thing I found interesting was the part about how testosterone exposure in utero affects individual's later.

 

Another good one is How Children Succeed by Paul Tough. Young children who have secure attachments and who don't experience much trauma are ready to learn. The more secure they are, the better. At least three caring adults is best. Children who grow up without that, are not doomed but it takes more effort to help them later on.

 

My son's school district gets a lot of good childhood experts to speak to interested parents. If you're interested, the links where you can find their videos, TED talks, books and whatnot are

 

FAN

http://www.familyact...twork.net

 

PEC

http://www.peccalend...endar.org

 

I heard Paul Tough talk at a FAN presentation. There should also be a video of Howard Gardener in the FAN link, I believe.

[Pen]

A few more thoughts as I continue to read:

 

1) On the learning styles issue, it looks to me as if people here are interpreting Willingham (or synopses/exerpts of his work?) to mean that learning styles don't matter and any child can learn from any style. This is not the way I understood Willingham. What I understood ( leaving aside unusual exceptions like that a 100% deaf person may not profit from any auditory method/input at all), was that he meant that the cognitive research to date shows that everyone learns best when ALL the styles are utilized. Not so much that a teacher in a large class should use all because that way he/she can reach each child as she/he learns best, but because each child (according to the research) will learn best when multiple modes are invoked, so that with just one child (assuming no total deficit in a particular sense of other unusual situation) will learn best with a method that is multi-faceted.

 

2) MBM: I second the Paul Tough book recommendation. And thank you for the video links.

 

3) Mrs. Twain, Thank you for clarifying what you are doing in history. I think the idea of using a different overview book from time to time is good. I know for myself if I read the exact same thing over and over I am likely to tune out, but a new approach to same material freshens it up.

 

4) Rosie, I think with regard to tissue paper projects or tiling a room with regard to learning about Rome, that the point made in Willingham is that neither would be much use in learning about Rome. The latter might be a great deal of use with regard to learning how to do real tiling of a room (in Roman style perhaps) in current times, however. It is like the analogy of making biscuits or hard tack or whatever to learn about slavery, on the grounds that slaves ate such things. Making biscuits would teach a lot about making biscuits, but little about slavery.

[SarahW]

A few more thoughts as I continue to read:

 

1) On the learning styles issue, it looks to me as if people here are interpreting Willingham (or synopses/exerpts of his work?) to mean that learning styles don't matter and any child can learn from any style. This is not the way I understood Willingham. What I understood ( leaving aside unusual exceptions like that a 100% deaf person may not profit from any auditory method/input at all), was that he meant that the cognitive research to date shows that everyone learns best when ALL the styles are utilized.

 

 

Yes, I just read the excerpts, but what I thought I read him saying was that the classic lecture/chalkboard/notetaking model was already multi-sensory enough to cover the learning styles of 99% of humans. The only difference between that model being good or bad was the skill of the teacher in method of presentation. To add on more "multi-sensory" things like making biscuits is just a distraction.

 

Am I understanding the gist of it correctly?

 

 

ugh, my library doesn't have this book, but I did put in a purchase request. I really can't buy more books right now... :o