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

[Chloe]

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.

 

I've often thought this as well. There's a history curriculum that goes through world history each year using living books and focusing on different areas of each time period each time. I know I had it bookmarked at one time but can't find it now. Anyone know about it?

[Mrs Twain]

 

 

I've often thought this as well. There's a history curriculum that goes through world history each year using living books and focusing on different areas of each time period each time. I know I had it bookmarked at one time but can't find it now. Anyone know about it?

You may be thinking of Epi Kardia.

[LaughingCat]

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?

 

I don't read the "making biscuit" thing that way - the way I understand his point is that hands on (or "making biscuits") is bad only when it does not focus the children on what is desired they learn (what exactly is making biscuits supposed to go with anyway? I suppose if you make them over a fire then they would be cowboy style? but what teacher in a classroom can have an open fire?) So, an example of making biscuits being effective would be if you were attempting to teach the child to cook or you maybe could use them to teach multiplying fractions (IF converting the recipe bigger/smaller - and if you take the focus away from the gathering/cooking portion) but you can't use them effectively to teach about cowboys. His point being (IMO :laugh: ) that many hands on activities are used ineffectively - taking the focus away from what needs to be learned instead of enhancing it.

[Mrs Twain]

There are many good articles on Willingham's blog:

http://www.danielwillingham.com/articles.html

 

Here is the intro to one of the articles on learning styles:

 

By Daniel T. Willingham

 

"Question: What does cognitive science tell us about the existence of visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learners and the best way to teach them?

 

"The idea that people may differ in their ability to learn new material depending on its modality—that is, whether the child hears it, sees it, or touches it—has been tested for over 100 years. And the idea that these differences might prove useful in the classroom has been around for at least 40 years.

 

"What cognitive science has taught us is that children do differ in their abilities with different modalities, but teaching the child in his best modality doesn't affect his educational achievement. What does matter is whether the child is taught in the content's best modality. All students learn more when content drives the choice of modality. In this column, I will describe some of the research on matching modality strength to the modality of instruction. I will also address why the idea of tailoring instruction to a student's best modality is so enduring—despite substantial evidence that it is wrong."

 

[Chloe]

You may be thinking of Epi Kardia.

 

Oh, yes, I think that's it! Thanks!

[SarahW]

I don't read the "making biscuit" thing that way - the way I understand his point is that hands on (or "making biscuits") is bad only when it does not focus the children on what is desired they learn (what exactly is making biscuits supposed to go with anyway? I suppose if you make them over a fire then they would be cowboy style? but what teacher in a classroom can have an open fire?) So, an example of making biscuits being effective would be if you were attempting to teach the child to cook or you maybe could use them to teach multiplying fractions (IF converting the recipe bigger/smaller - and if you take the focus away from the gathering/cooking portion) but you can't use them effectively to teach about cowboys. His point being (IMO :laugh: ) that many hands on activities are used ineffectively - taking the focus away from what needs to be learned instead of enhancing it.

 

I used the biscuits as just a random example.

 

I do think there is value in handing a student a piece of papyrus, a stick, and some ink and telling them to write something. The problem I see with this is when this activity becomes the lesson. Was writing that way tough? Sure, but an ancient Egyptian scribe would find my typing ability utterly mysterious. So a lesson plan about how hard a life a scribe had because he was writing on papyrus all day is dramatically missing the point.

 

But I have seen lesson plans like that floating around, under the guise that this is "multi-sensory" and helps students "connect to the material" and that it is "memorable." All of those are fine things in their own way, but is the point of studying ancient Egypt to remember how easily ink runs on papyrus?

 

What I felt Willingham was saying is that these "extras" are actually completely unnecessary. That they don't actually help students build the content knowledge they need to understand and interact with the world.

[Pen]

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. ...

 

Yes. That is probably another aspect of learning and memory.

 

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.

 

The main book on intelligence being malleable and to praise for effort is Mindset by Carol Dweck. I highly recommend it. It was life changing.

[Pen]

There are many good articles on Willingham's blog:

http://www.danielwil...m/articles.html

 

Here is the intro to one of the articles on learning styles:

 

By Daniel T. Willingham

 

"Question: What does cognitive science tell us about the existence of visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learners and the best way to teach them?

 

"The idea that people may differ in their ability to learn new material depending on its modality—that is, whether the child hears it, sees it, or touches it—has been tested for over 100 years. And the idea that these differences might prove useful in the classroom has been around for at least 40 years.

 

"What cognitive science has taught us is that children do differ in their abilities with different modalities, but teaching the child in his best modality doesn't affect his educational achievement. What does matter is whether the child is taught in the content's best modality. All students learn more when content drives the choice of modality. In this column, I will describe some of the research on matching modality strength to the modality of instruction. I will also address why the idea of tailoring instruction to a student's best modality is so enduring—despite substantial evidence that it is wrong."

 

Oh good! An actual quote. Okay. Teach in the content's own best modality.

 

 

It is very interesting with regard to the subject of memory and learning to be confronted with a real quote and realize that one's memory had it wrong. I will go back and see where (if not out of thin air) I had got my idea from.

[Soror]

Thank you for the rec Pen, I need to put it on my ILL list.

 

I went and read the article specific to the modalities on his site. It seems that I hear from others promoting this book that it is damning against "new" materials but that was not my impression. Rather I hear him lauding using all memory styles, which is often the point of many new curriculums. It is interesting that "old school" teachers did this in their own way though with blackboards (visual) and recitations (auditory). I don't see the problem however in using those various styles in new and interesting ways. As he mentions switching modes can help keep interest if they accomplish nothing else. *As an aside this is further proof for dh that I do *need* a white board* :)

 

Interestingly I just read Boys Adrift and Girls on the Edge and it discussed various studies about both and their relationships and how they best learn. He explicitly discusses the differences in how *most* boys and girls learn best and how they express that knowledge. He talks about the actual physical differences in hearing and seeing, preferences for movement and relationships, which I found very fascinating.

 

Oh, and I feel well vindicated in my thoughts that a great amount of projects are not learning endeavors but rather crafts and busywork. Nonetheless they can be fun but not necessarily related to the subject to which they are linked.

 

From his blog and other articles I see this general info so far:

 

1) Address various modalities when teaching, consider the subject when choosing a modality

2) We need background info in order to be able to process info and learn, read widely

3) Learning takes time and effort, more for some than others, but intelligence can be changed.

[Runningmom80]

Thank you for the rec Pen, I need to put it on my ILL list.

 

I went and read the article specific to the modalities on his site. It seems that I hear from others promoting this book that it is damning against "new" materials but that was not my impression. Rather I hear him lauding using all memory styles, which is often the point of many new curriculums. It is interesting that "old school" teachers did this in their own way though with blackboards (visual) and recitations (auditory). I don't see the problem however in using those various styles in new and interesting ways. As he mentions switching modes can help keep interest if they accomplish nothing else. *As an aside this is further proof for dh that I do *need* a white board* :)

 

Interestingly I just read Boys Adrift and Girls on the Edge and it discussed various studies about both and their relationships and how they best learn. He explicitly discusses the differences in how *most* boys and girls learn best and how they express that knowledge. He talks about the actual physical differences in hearing and seeing, preferences for movement and relationships, which I found very fascinating.

 

Oh, and I feel well vindicated in my thoughts that a great amount of projects are not learning endeavors but rather crafts and busywork. Nonetheless they can be fun but not necessarily related to the subject to which they are linked.

 

From his blog and other articles I see this general info so far:

 

1) Address various modalities when teaching, consider the subject when choosing a modality

2) We need background info in order to be able to process info and learn, read widely

3) Learning takes time and effort, more for some than others, but intelligence can be changed.

 

 

 

I've had boys adrift in my amazon cart for a while. I need to just get it and read it already, is it a quick read?

[Soror]

I thought it was a quick read but I tend to speed read and skim more than I should :)

[fraidycat]

My book is already here! I just ordered it last night.

[Arcadia]

I've had boys adrift in my amazon cart for a while. I need to just get it and read it already, is it a quick read?

 

 

It is one of those books that I do a quick read to see what it is about and than a slow read when free to ponder on the contents.

 

The book's website

http://www.boysadrift.com/factors.php

[Penelope]

Here's what he says about learning styles, in a nutshell: http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=sIv9rz2NTUk&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DsIv9rz2NTUk

[Rosie_0801]

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.

 

Oh dear. It was a poor choice of language on my part if I led anyone to think I equated tiling the bathroom with learning about the workings of the Roman Empire.

[birchbark]

I just finished chapter two and was interested in these comments: "Some educational thinkers have suggested that a limited number of ideas should be taught in great depth, beginning in the earlier grades and carrying through the curriculum for years as different topics are taken up and viewed through the lens of one or more of these ideas. From the cognitive perspective, that makes sense."

 

Does anyone have ideas of what that would look like? Perhaps Mrs Twain's history approach would be an example of this?

[Meriwether]

I just finished this book. I've been reading it over the past couple of weeks. I just happen to be reading Climbing Parnassus at the same time. It is an interesting juxtaposition. I've got a few thoughts about the book, but I'm still mulling them over.

[Rebecca VA]

Thank you, OP, for introducing this thread. I love book discussion threads!

[T'smom]

Ok, I have not read the book (but I have put it on ILL) but I want to know what people think of this idea. Doing projects (such as biscuit making) do not teach about cowboys.....but they may provide a memory that the child can more easily access what WAS learned. I know for me, one memory often sparks another.....if we came across something in a book about cowboys and I said to my ds "remember when we talked about cowboys?" He would give me a withering look, and say no. But if I then remind him of the biscuits, which he will remember, he can then access more of the memories surrounding that......hopefully including the content that was learned. Does anybody think this could be true for some kids?

 

Regardless, I feel like doing projects (in addition to content, not at the expense of it) makes my son see school in a positive light. And that is worth many times it's weight in gold. But it is not an efficient method, to be sure!

[Pen]

Ok, I have not read the book (but I have put it on ILL) but I want to know what people think of this idea. Doing projects (such as biscuit making) do not teach about cowboys.....but they may provide a memory that the child can more easily access what WAS learned. I know for me, one memory often sparks another.....if we came across something in a book about cowboys and I said to my ds "remember when we talked about cowboys?" He would give me a withering look, and say no. But if I then remind him of the biscuits, which he will remember, he can then access more of the memories surrounding that......hopefully including the content that was learned. Does anybody think this could be true for some kids?

 

Regardless, I feel like doing projects (in addition to content, not at the expense of it) makes my son see school in a positive light. And that is worth many times it's weight in gold. But it is not an efficient method, to be sure!

 

 

Yes.

 

Along those lines, at some point in the book W. mentions several different teachers who are considered by their students to make dull material seem interesting--each in his/her own way. Aside from a question in my mind of whether teachers to whom students give high ratings are necessarily the ones from whom they are learning the most, I think that it fits with what you are saying above. It could be part of a teaching style that helps make boring material interesting.

[Pen]

Though, if you could find an activity more related to cowboy study or where the cowboy study took most of the time and the special activity less, I gather he would think it better.

[Mrs Twain]

Ok, I have not read the book (but I have put it on ILL) but I want to know what people think of this idea. Doing projects (such as biscuit making) do not teach about cowboys.....but they may provide a memory that the child can more easily access what WAS learned. I know for me, one memory often sparks another.....if we came across something in a book about cowboys and I said to my ds "remember when we talked about cowboys?" He would give me a withering look, and say no. But if I then remind him of the biscuits, which he will remember, he can then access more of the memories surrounding that......hopefully including the content that was learned. Does anybody think this could be true for some kids?

 

Regardless, I feel like doing projects (in addition to content, not at the expense of it) makes my son see school in a positive light. And that is worth many times it's weight in gold. But it is not an efficient method, to be sure!

 

The point of that chapter was that you remember what you think about. With the biscuits example, the students probably spent only a small amount of time thinking about runaway slaves. They spent almost all of the time thinking about measuring flour and water and making the biscuits. So when you plan projects or lessons, try to consider what your studenta will be thinking about and therefore what they are going to remember long-term. It is better to plan projects that cause students to think about the material you want them to remember.

[Meriwether]

I don't think he meant activities were bad. I think his point was that that time spent wouldn't teach much about the underground railroad. It was a caution to to know what your lesson was actually teaching. When I taught, I couldn't prolong class time to do something fun. Every activity was chosen at the expense of another. Sometimes I chose something more fun over something more academic, but I usually tried to get the most bang for my buck. Homeschooling is much more flexible this way. In the case of homeschooling, making biscuits is home ec and a worthwhile way to integrate lessons. It isn't that the kids weren't learning anything, they just weren't learning about the UR. Again, I think he meant to be aware of what learning is taking place and be purposeful in deciding how to use instructional time.

[threedogfarm]

I have just placed an order for the Willingham book (my library doesn't have a copy). I also put a hold in the library on the other books mentioned. I look forward to participating in this discussion. I am especially interested in how this applies to history and math. I let learning new math concepts take a backseat to drilling this year and saw rapid improvements with this approach in both children when the facts became more natural. I'm glad to see that there are "experts" backing up this approach. We also have horses and I just purchased a youngster to bring along. Exploring HOW horses learn (based on factual research, not theories) really helps in approaching the training of this boy. It even has helped with my daughter's pony who is well trained but that good training is hidden under a couple of layers.

 

Are there other books that discuss cognitive development of children as it relates to how they learn (in an accessible way)? SWB mentions how children learn in many of her audio lectures. One example would be how a child processes being told to write about what he did yesterday and what a daunting task that can be because so many different things need to happen BEFORE the child puts that on paper. This kind of information was very helpful to me when I started homeschooling. Where did she find this information and other info like it?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Michelle

[T'smom]

I don't think he meant activities were bad. I think his point was that that time spent wouldn't teach much about the underground railroad. It was a caution to to know what your lesson was actually teaching. When I taught, I couldn't prolong class time to do something fun. Every activity was chosen at the expense of another. Sometimes I chose something more fun over something more academic, but I usually tried to get the most bang for my buck. Homeschooling is much more flexible this way. In the case of homeschooling, making biscuits is home ec and a worthwhile way to integrate lessons. It isn't that the kids weren't learning anything, they just weren't learning about the UR. Again, I think he meant to be aware of what learning is taking place and be purposeful in deciding how to use instructional time.

 

I'm still waiting on my book to come in from ILL, so I am only going on posts here. I always knew that kids weren't learning content from those activities. It never entered my mind that they were. I just think that they have value in different ways. A classroom is entirely different, time there must be used much more carefully. I can't wait to read this book! And I'm so glad we homeschool so I have plenty of time for both types of activities!

 

 

[8filltheheart]

I haven't read the book, but I am curious if it discusses the middle school yrs?? I am constantly reading about "brain fog" and American education seems to spend middle school reviewing skills that should often have been mastered in elementary school.

 

This is contrary to what I have witnessed in my own children. My kids have experienced mental "explosions" during their pre-pubescent and early puberty yrs.....quite dramatic ones.

 

I know current brain research is showing that what was formerly believed about the brain and cognitive development was quite incorrect in believing that the brain stopped major development by age 6. Does this book address this at all?

[Tress]

I haven't read the book, but I am curious if it discusses the middle school yrs?? I am constantly reading about "brain fog" and American education seems to spend middle school reviewing skills that should often have been mastered in elementary school.

 

This is contrary to what I have witnessed in my own children. My kids have experienced mental "explosions" during their pre-pubescent and early puberty yrs.....quite dramatic ones.

 

I know current brain research is showing that what was formerly believed about the brain and cognitive development was quite incorrect in believing that the brain stopped major development by age 6. Does this book address this at all?

 

Great question, 8filltheheart!!!

 

Noonein the Netherlands talks about 'brain fog', actually....the first time I heard about it was here on this forum. In the Netherlands children are tracked, starting in 7th grade, and within those tracks the difficulty of the work is ramped up every year.

 

I have not yet received the book, so I hope someone else will chime in about this topic :bigear:.

[SarahW]

I haven't read the book, but I am curious if it discusses the middle school yrs?? I am constantly reading about "brain fog" and American education seems to spend middle school reviewing skills that should often have been mastered in elementary school.

 

This is contrary to what I have witnessed in my own children. My kids have experienced mental "explosions" during their pre-pubescent and early puberty yrs.....quite dramatic ones.

 

I know current brain research is showing that what was formerly believed about the brain and cognitive development was quite incorrect in believing that the brain stopped major development by age 6. Does this book address this at all?

 

 

That's really interesting. My research takes me into anthropology a bit, and sometimes I pick up random anthropology articles to read (I'm a terribly boring person, I guess). One thing that I've been pondering about is that in other human societies the 12-14 yo range is a time when the culture actively tries to accelerate maturity. The "coming of age" rituals at this time are just a part of this overall acceleration process. But in modern America we tend to decelerate at that age range. It's not intentional infantilizing, but I have grown increasingly weary of people making surprised comments about a 12 yo acting "mature" when he is doing little more than minding his p's and q's like I expect my 6yo to do. We teach, teach, teach children, and then when they hit puberty we expect them to just sit around being non-verbal and play video games? I'm starting to wonder if the pre-teen attraction to video games is because it offers them an outlet for the maturation that our society denies to them.

 

And... that's my completely random stream of consciousness for the day!

 

There's got to be someone who is a professional sociologist or anthropologist or et. al. that has studied this. Anyone have any book recs for me?

[8filltheheart]

Sarah,

 

I haven't read any book from a sociology or anthropology perspective, but there is a lot of current research available from the cognitive development/neuron development perspective.

 

Fwiw, this is a topic I normally avoid on the forum bc "brain fog" is commonly accepted as the norm. I, ummmm, don't, however, believe it myself. My kids definitely experience "brain dead" moments, but it means they are not getting enough sleep, exercise, or drinking enough water/eating enough protein.

[SarahW]

Ah, well I haven't really run across "brain fog" per se yet. I thought the part in WTM where SWB points out that the logic stage is where kids start learning to express themselves, and our goal is to teach them how to do that rationally, was very interesting. It made to wonder if a lot of the angst that makes early teens clam up and bury their heads in games is because we don't respect their growing need for communication.

[TracyP]

I haven't read the book, but I am curious if it discusses the middle school yrs?? I am constantly reading about "brain fog" and American education seems to spend middle school reviewing skills that should often have been mastered in elementary school.

 

This is contrary to what I have witnessed in my own children. My kids have experienced mental "explosions" during their pre-pubescent and early puberty yrs.....quite dramatic ones.

 

I know current brain research is showing that what was formerly believed about the brain and cognitive development was quite incorrect in believing that the brain stopped major development by age 6. Does this book address this at all?

 

To your last paragraph, I don't remember this being addressed in Willingham's book, but The Brain That Changes Itself is entirely about this.

 

I have been thinking about these two books and how they relate to puberty brain fog. My thoughts are not well formed, but here is one study from TBTC that I found interesting. There is research showing that when you practice something, the part of your brain being used grows larger. After going unused (over a weekend in their study) it shrinks back down. This continues for about 6 mos. At that point the increase in size starts to hold. What I found interesting, was that the book said this meant a person could look like they learned something, but have it disappear very quickly. If the person kept the practice up even after they appeared to have learned it(6 mos was the minimum), the brain changes will become permanent.

 

This made me wonder if some of the "fog" could be skills that parents assumed their child learned, but haven't been consistently practiced through the elementary years. There was another study I was going to mention, but I guess I am too distracted because I can't remember it. I will post back when it comes to me.

[Wildiris]

Yes.

 

Along those lines, at some point in the book W. mentions several different teachers who are considered by their students to make dull material seem interesting--each in his/her own way. Aside from a question in my mind of whether teachers to whom students give high ratings are necessarily the ones from whom they are learning the most, I think that it fits with what you are saying above. It could be part of a teaching style that helps make boring material interesting.

 

From my experience of teaching four kids at home, if I am enthusiastic and willing to learn along with my child, then my enthusiasm kindles a flame within my child. For example, DD~10 claimed she did not like math and really dug her heals in when it came time to do math. I changed my attitude and so did she. So yes, teaching style matters more than anything in our house, and of course that means my attitude and level of engagement in what ever activity we are doing need to be high.

 

Yes, I also think drill is very important, as is building background knowledge in science and history. We use what we learn in history and science on a daily basis when listening to to news, watching movies, or discussing stories. How helpful it was to know about WWII when reading The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.

[SarahW]

Here's what he says about learning styles, in a nutshell: http://m.youtube.com...h?v=sIv9rz2NTUk

 

On topic (a bit)...

 

That was a good explanation. I thought the third reason at the end about ambiguous meaning was helpful.

 

I'm wondering if a part of "learning style" can be trained. I can read a dense book and understand it. But when I simply hear a book read aloud I am apt to let my mind wander, and I have to really work to listen to what is being said and I often need to hear it repeated to understand it. It's easy for me to conclude that "oh, I'm very visual, and not auditory at all."

 

But I wonder if what is actually going on here is that I have received more training in visual reading than auditory reading. For example, I grew up in a church where you were expected to read the Bible passage during the sermon - now I go to a church where the Bible passage is read aloud (and I often fail to look it up in my Bible to read along) and the sermon is purely auditory. This is a big shift, and I'm wondering if my childhood training towards visual-first is the main reason why I now struggle with my auditory-first setting.

 

I suppose I'm saying that maybe "learning styles" as we see them are because of nurture, not nature. Oy, that's another sticky debate, sorry! lol.

[Mrs Twain]

I haven't read the book, but I am curious if it discusses the middle school yrs?? I am constantly reading about "brain fog" and American education seems to spend middle school reviewing skills that should often have been mastered in elementary school.

 

This is contrary to what I have witnessed in my own children. My kids have experienced mental "explosions" during their pre-pubescent and early puberty yrs.....quite dramatic ones.

 

I know current brain research is showing that what was formerly believed about the brain and cognitive development was quite incorrect in believing that the brain stopped major development by age 6. Does this book address this at all?

The book gives general principles and how to apply them for K-12. I don't think it ever mentioned teen brain fog directly. However, it may have something to do with the background knowledge issue. Since John Dewey, the public schools tried to go away from the concept of teaching younger children content knowledge in favor of focusing on learning critical thinking skills. This is very commonly heard among people talking about their goals in educating K-5 children now. However, the problem with this is that content knowledge is a prerequisite for critical thinking and analysis skills. What is evidently happening to a lot of public schooled kids is that they arrive in middle school without the required background knowledge or ability to do deeper critical thinking. The middle schools then need to go back and try to teach the background knowledge that should have been taught in elementary. Ironically, it seems that by emphasizing critical thinking skills early, the public schools are actually delaying their students' critical thinking abilities! However, many people who homeschool tend to focus on teaching background knowledge in various ways, including reading broadly and doing memory work. Therefore, homeschooled kids may be arriving at middle school age much better prepared for critical thinking, "logic," and analysis. Maybe that is why your kids never had the brain fog. I don't know, but that could be one explanation.

[TracyP]

 

On topic (a bit)...

 

That was a good explanation. I thought the third reason at the end about ambiguous meaning was helpful.

 

I'm wondering if a part of "learning style" can be trained. I can read a dense book and understand it. But when I simply hear a book read aloud I am apt to let my mind wander, and I have to really work to listen to what is being said and I often need to hear it repeated to understand it. It's easy for me to conclude that "oh, I'm very visual, and not auditory at all."

 

But I wonder if what is actually going on here is that I have received more training in visual reading than auditory reading. For example, I grew up in a church where you were expected to read the Bible passage during the sermon - now I go to a church where the Bible passage is read aloud (and I often fail to look it up in my Bible to read along) and the sermon is purely auditory. This is a big shift, and I'm wondering if my childhood training towards visual-first is the main reason why I now struggle with my auditory-first setting.

 

I suppose I'm saying that maybe "learning styles" as we see them are because of nurture, not nature. Oy, that's another sticky debate, sorry! lol.

It seems the latest brain science would absolutely agree with you on this.

[Meriwether]

Okay, I am at my computer for the first time this week (bad back acting out), and I'm feeling up to more typing than I would attempt on the Kindle.

 

I enjoyed reading this book, because it affirmed some long held beliefs of mine - facts memorization is profitable, intelligence is malleable. Other bits made me think about some things in new ways - our brains would rather not think, memory is the residue of thought (which I would have agreed with before reading the book, but didn't think about it those particular words). I felt that it was a broad overview. For example, E.D. Hirsch's The Knowledge Deficit was much more detailed than the chapter on background knowledge.

 

I'm not sure how this book is going to affect our homeschool. One of my friends has been doing CC this year. She really loves what they are learning in their foundations book. She let me look through it. I liked the layout of memory work, but I knew I couldn't buy it and implement it. I have other things that I want the kids to learn. I have a very full lineup for my kids, and I couldn't even think about adding random bits of information. But...I liked the layout. I have wanted my kids to do more memory work for years, but I have had trouble implementing it. Even before I read the book, I had decided to write my own Foundations book for next year. I'll have all our memory work in booklet form. The kids will have facts, poems, Bible verses, latin chants, etc. that correspond with their school year. It will be a lot of work for me, but it is a relief to have a plan that I can actually follow. I read this book at just the right time to give me enthusiasm for the work involved.

[SarahW]

It seems the latest brain science would absolutely agree with you on this.

 

Oh, good! I may read anthropology for fun, but not neuroscience! B)

 

And the pp about the 6-month thing is helpful. Auditory learning has gotten a bit easier over the past few years. But I'm lazy and don't work at it. I obviously spend too much time on my laptop reading stuff to bother!

 

I wonder how easy or hard it is to rewire the "learning style" learned in childhood.

[Rosie_0801]

 

I wonder how easy or hard it is to rewire the "learning style" learned in childhood.

 

I think it depends how far you are from the middle of the spectrum. I spent my Sunday mornings one year listening to Jane Austen novels while folding the washing. It certainly got easier over time, and by the end of the year I could listen to books I hadn't read before without feeling like I wasn't hearing them. On the other hand, someone on this forum, a few years back, talked about how their year 11 dd still had to do an art project to process information before she could write her essay. I doubt someone like that is going to be able to train themselves out of needing the art project without putting the rest of their life on hold.

[Pen]

Oh good! An actual quote. Okay. Teach in the content's own best modality.

 

 

It is very interesting with regard to the subject of memory and learning to be confronted with a real quote and realize that one's memory had it wrong. I will go back and see where (if not out of thin air) I had got my idea from.

 

 

What I had recalled was not out of thin air. For example, on page 165, "Rather than individualizing the required mental processes for each student, give all of your students practice in all of these processes, and view the transitions as an opportunity for each student to start fresh and refocus his or her mental energies."

 

Where he gives the idea of thinking in terms of content, he gives examples, that a national anthem should be heard, a diagram of a fort seen, and a cheche turban should be worn. I found myself thinking that wearing the turban might be like the biscuits project, and that unless one has also the culture present, and the wind and sun and so on in which to experience the turban, it could be a lot of doing for relatively little understanding. We would probably look up the turban to see a picture and get an understanding.

 

Imagine having one available and letting children try it on and how that would help them to understand this turban and its significance

vs. more likely not having one available, and so making it a project to make one and then be able to wear it

 

vs. looking at a picture and reading about it here or elsewhere.

 

What do you think?

[SarahW]

What I had recalled was not out of thin air. For example, on page 165, "Rather than individualizing the required mental processes for each student, give all of your students practice in all of these processes, and view the transitions as an opportunity for each student to start fresh and refocus his or her mental energies."

 

Where he gives the idea of thinking in terms of content, he gives examples, that a national anthem should be heard, a diagram of a fort seen, and a cheche turban should be worn. I found myself thinking that wearing the turban might be like the biscuits project, and that unless one has also the culture present, and the wind and sun and so on in which to experience the turban, it could be a lot of doing for relatively little understanding. We would probably look up the turban to see a picture and get an understanding.

 

Imagine having one available and letting children try it on and how that would help them to understand this turban and its significance

vs. more likely not having one available, and so making it a project to make one and then be able to wear it

 

vs. looking at a picture and reading about it here or elsewhere.

 

What do you think?

 

If you have one, I say wear it.

 

When I was in the Middle East I bought a head scarf. I wear it as neck scarf, or a shawl, they're darn useful, and oh so pretty. Anyways, a local friend once wrapped my head up in it for me like it was meant to be worn, and it was an interesting experience to feel and see what it was like to wear one. I appreciated it more when I was trying to wash all the sand out my hair after the trip to Wadi Rum, but that wasn't strictly necessary to appreciate the basic experience of wearing it.

 

I think that since clothing is meant to be worn, wearing it is the best way to experience it, is what Willingham is saying.

 

But in this case, what is the point of the lesson? If it is purely a lesson of an historical event of N. Africa, then I think a brief explanation with a picture is fine. But if it is a social studies lesson on the way of life in N. Africa then I think wearing the turban is more important.

[Pen]

... But if it is a social studies lesson on the way of life in N. Africa then I think wearing the turban is more important.

 

Or if it is about the way of life, is it then most wrong to wear the turban?-- since it is only supposed to be worn by adult men (and perhaps also since the real thing is supposed to possibly dye one's skin indigo permanently, which is apparently a sign of social status--though I suppose one wearing would not do that). And can one get the real feeling of the social situation or the feeling of blowing sand by putting on a turban? Your description of an actual experience seems to me to give more of a feeling for it.

 

What does a child learn by putting on a cheche turban? I am trying to picture if we did have one, here where it is around 60 deg. F. and dampish, though dry and warm for us, and where it is not considered wrong to show ones nose and mouth in public...

 

When learning about the time before Columbus in the Americas should they put on a headdress of the Arawaks?

 

Would wearing some head garment, perhaps a tricorn hat? help learn about the American Revolutionary era? Would a tall Stovepipe hat help learn about the ways of life from the Civil War era? What? How?

 

I can understand that to understand velvet vs. silk vs. burlap it would help to be able to kinesthetically feel it, just as to understand a national anthem it would help to hear it. I am not so sure about the turban. I think maybe W did not follow his own advice and think it through.

[Pen]

Looks like maybe we are done with the learning styles part?

 

I was struck by and interested in his cautions about "discovery learning" p.82: "students will remember incorrect "discoveries" as much as they will remember the correct ones.

 

Do any of you have any thoughts about this? It made me wonder about discovery math programs and whether that is or is not a good direction to go.

[Mrs Twain]

Looks like maybe we are done with the learning styles part?

 

I was struck by and interested in his cautions about "discovery learning" p.82: "students will remember incorrect "discoveries" as much as they will remember the correct ones.

 

Do any of you have any thoughts about this? It made me wonder about discovery math programs and whether that is or is not a good direction to go.

I also thought that point was interesting. Personally, I have never liked discover-type of programs when I was in school because I was always worried about making an incorrect "discovery" and because of that learning wrong information. I tend to avoid discovery learning with my kids, probably for the same reason. I never thought about discovery math programs (I suppose you are thinking of AoPS?), but you have a good point.

[RoundAbout]

Looks like maybe we are done with the learning styles part?

 

I was struck by and interested in his cautions about "discovery learning" p.82: "students will remember incorrect "discoveries" as much as they will remember the correct ones.

 

Do any of you have any thoughts about this? It made me wonder about discovery math programs and whether that is or is not a good direction to go.

 

I thought he was saying discovery based learning was bad *if* it did not provide immediate feedback. I don't remember the exact passage but I remember thinking that something like Miquon where you get immediate answers from lining up c-rods would fit his criteria of good discovery based learning.

 

I dont know what would be an example of bad discovery learning, but I can see some science programs getting pretty murky if they are based on formulating theories just from observation, or if basic principles are not discussed right away. I think this was a fad in the early 80s because I was really frustrated with a lot of my elementary school science as a kid. They didn't explain things until after the lesson and it was all very Scooby Dooish - "you just spent an hour thinking the answer is x but really its y! Aha fooled you again!" (No they didn't say that, but the feeling was similar). Willingham's book made me realize why this ticked me off.

[wapiti]

I was struck by and interested in his cautions about "discovery learning" p.82: "students will remember incorrect "discoveries" as much as they will remember the correct ones.

 

Do any of you have any thoughts about this? It made me wonder about discovery math programs and whether that is or is not a good direction to go.

 

 

I also thought that point was interesting. Personally, I have never liked discover-type of programs when I was in school because I was always worried about making an incorrect "discovery" and because of that learning wrong information. I tend to avoid discovery learning with my kids, probably for the same reason. I never thought about discovery math programs (I suppose you are thinking of AoPS?), but you have a good point.

 

 

I thought he was saying discovery based learning was bad *if* it did not provide immediate feedback. I don't remember the exact passage but I remember thinking that something like Miquon where you get immediate answers from lining up c-rods would fit his criteria of good discovery based learning.

 

 

In my library copy, this is on page 63 (disclaimer: I looked at this page but still have not read this far):

 

An important downside, however, is that what students think about is less predictable. If students are left to explore ideas on their own, they may well explore mental paths that are not profitable. If memory is the residue of thought, then students will remember incorrect "discoveries" as much as they will remember the correct ones.

 

Now this doesn't mean that discovery learning should never be used, but it does suggest a principle for when to use it. Discovery learning is probably most useful when the environment gives prompt feedback about whether the student is thinking about a problem in the right way.

 

 

"Discovery math" typically refers to "fuzzy math," e.g., Everyday Math, Connected Math, TERC Investigations, etc. They may well include the open-ended types of problems without the immediate feedback to which the author refers. AoPS is not in the category of fuzzy math. In AoPS, each of the Lesson Problems involves a tiny bite of the whole lesson and the Lesson Problems are followed by full solutions in the text itself. I vaguely recall Rusczyk expressing surprise when people (posters here?) began referring to his lessons as involving discovery. The "discovery" is very guided.

 

At any rate, I'm not sure the author is right about remembering incorrect discoveries as much as correct ones. Perhaps he assumes that discovery of the correct solution did not occur or the correct method was not taught after the incorrect path was abandoned.

[MBM]

Are there other books that discuss cognitive development of children as it relates to how they learn (in an accessible way)?

 

You might want to start with James Zull's book The Art of Changing the Brain (Amazon link). Eric Jensen has also written some books about this topic. If you do an Amazon search on either Zull or Jensen, you'll find other authors as well.

 

I would also recommend neuroscientist Richard Davidson's book The Emotional Life of Your Brain if you plan to read about neuroscience and education. His explanations will help to flesh out what you'll read in other books so that you'll understand the *why's* better. It's not a difficult book to read.

[Catherine]

 

Yeah it's much easier to address the difficulty level of problems in a homeschooling situation. I doubt that is my son's "problem". He is naturally very curious, asks tons of questions, will look up information on his own, etc., but ask him to sit through an explanation of fractions and he just can't stand it. I don't always know what to do about that!

 

I always liked school. My husband says he always hated it though. So maybe some people just don't like school.

 

 

I started homeschooling initially for a child who hated school with such intensity that when he was 6, he told me he knew that people are allowed to quit school when they are 16 and that is what he was planning to do. I forced it down his throat for 5 more years though until things reached a crisis point. So, yes, some people just hate school.

 

However, homeschooling really worked for this kid, although teaching him was NOT always a picnic. He was a million times happier at home than he was in school. I think the combination of not being in a classroom, plus having some latitude to choose what he was doing, made home schooling tolerable for him. But, yes, he hated plenty of stuff I made him do, it was just that he was not acting out majorly at home, or clinically depressed.

 

So, Wendy, things might actually be worse if your ds was in school! Not sure if that helps you much right now, though.

[Mrs Twain]

I am wondering if anyone knows of data or studies about teaching Latin to students. I have read many arguments for teaching Latin (and Greek), but I haven't seen any research about it. I agree that there are benefits for studying Latin, but I wonder if the time required is commensurate with the benefits. For example, according to the research kids primarily learn vocabulary most often and most effectively in quite a different a method than learning Latin roots. People also say that studying Latin is beneficial for sciences. However, I went to medical school, and I don't think the very small benefit I would have had to learn vocabulary would have been worth the time invested to achieve it. I think if I were to have studied something to prepare for medical school, anatomy or physiology or something more practical would yield more benefits for the time to be spent. Also, some people argue that Latin is the basis of the Romance languages, and learning Latin will help learning these other languages. However, if my goal is to learn French, would it be better if I just started out studying French? Then knowing French would help me learn Spanish since they are related...? Is it necessary to learn Latin first to get the benefit of learning languages? Perhaps some will say studying Latin will give you all of these additive benefits (language learning, a little bit of vocabulary, grammar, logic), so all in all it is worth the time. That may be true. I am not trying to start an argument, but I would like to know if there is any evidence that studying Latin is worth the time invested. Is the time (as well as pain and suffering) to learn Latin justified according to the research?

[8filltheheart]

I am wondering if anyone knows of data or studies about teaching Latin to students. I have read many arguments for teaching Latin (and Greek), but I haven't seen any research about it. I agree that there are benefits for studying Latin, but I wonder if the time required is commensurate with the benefits. For example, according to the research kids primarily learn vocabulary most often and most effectively in quite a different a method than learning Latin roots. People also say that studying Latin is beneficial for sciences. However, I went to medical school, and I don't think the very small benefit I would have had to learn vocabulary would have been worth the time invested to achieve it. I think if I were to have studied something to prepare for medical school, anatomy or physiology or something more practical would yield more benefits for the time to be spent. Also, some people argue that Latin is the basis of the Romance languages, and learning Latin will help learning these other languages. However, if my goal is to learn French, would it be better if I just started out studying French? Then knowing French would help me learn Spanish since they are related...? Is it necessary to learn Latin first to get the benefit of learning languages? Perhaps some will say studying Latin will give you all of these additive benefits (language learning, a little bit of vocabulary, grammar, logic), so all in all it is worth the time. That may be true. I am not trying to start an argument, but I would like to know if there is any evidence that studying Latin is worth the time invested. Is the time (as well as pain and suffering) to learn Latin justified according to the research?

 

I don't think any of the reasons you have listed are the benefits I see from studying Latin. (i dont know any research. This is simply based on observations of my own children.) Latin requires very orderly thinking and understanding the precision of language. It has improved my kids logic and their ability to decipher rhetorical arguments. By paying close attention to how sentences are constructed, they are keenly aware of just what the author is actually saying even though they may be deliberately obscuring the actual message. ;)

 

(ETA: Basically, by studying Latin my kids have improved on their understanding of language and structure in general and are able to transfer that skill across all reading material.)

[TracyP]

The first link is not the full text.(you can read it by request) It looks to me like the full text would be worth reading, but I don't have time right now. It does look like the research shows those benefits are present.

 

http://www.eric.ed.g...&accno=ED143200

 

http://teach.valdost...iles/latin.html