Signin
Watching, Listening, Learning

I have been thinking about how education could be improved with technology.  Actually, I came up with an idea first and spent most of the time trying to justify the idea.  Does the order matter?  Of course, there is more self-hypnosis going on in one direction than the other.

For one thing, I believe too much emphasis is being placed on reading and writing.  A baby does not learn by reading and speaking comes before writing.  Reading is like eating which requires one to digest and integrate what one eats into.  Reading is tedious and forced reading is torturous.  Don't bother thinking too much about these bits.  They are mere justifications.

The idea, which I am amusing myself coming up with justifications for, is learning-by-experience, helping kids learn by letting them just watch and listen.  Instead of explaining how to count 1 to 10 or the multiplication table, just let them watch numbers being counted or multiplied, leaving them to discover the rules by themselves.

Learning-by-experience doesn't require technology, but technology can accelerate the rate of learning by increasing the amount of experience a child consumes.  As to the downsides, the idea turns kids into young couch potatos.  Also, some experiences will not learned but burned into the person's memory, a brainwashing of sort.

Anyway, it was a fun 10 minute break.

Comments
This works with maths to some extent, but fails dreadfully with reading, as it is an artificial system.
I agree but I think some of the insights can be 'discovered' by watching sequences of words and pictures instead of reading a description of the insight. It could potentially lead to new way of thinking at the risk of creating weirdos. ;-p
"It is hard not to feel that there must be something very wrong with much of what we do in school, if we feel the need to worry so much about what many people call 'motivation'. A child has no stronger desire than to make sense of the world, to move freely in it, to do the things that he sees bigger people doing." (John Holt "How Children Learn").
Interesting.

Don this is called "social learning" in many educational pedagogical contexts, and (unsuprisingly) is becoming more popular. check out James Farmers blog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0120501/ for more on this. Social learning is most oft used at a tertiary level though its popularity growns downwards every day
Derek Woolverton   at 2003/12/03 09:35:59 PM
It sounds like you've re-invented sesame street in particular, and PBS kids in general. Don't really see where the computer fits in here. These shows do a great job introducing counting, simple math, letters of the alphabet, socially acceptable behavior (like sharing), and even reading.

I don't think this would work because I sit in my quantum mechanics lectures for hours upon end and I don't discover jack about the rules of anything. I go in feeling fresh and leave an hours later confused and with my head hurting.

Besides, it's hard enough trying to make kids be interested in maths. I doubt somehow they'll take the inituitive to teach themselves.

You COULD of course teach them french like this.
Basically, you've stumbled upon an idea first articulated by American philosopher & psychologist John Dewey at the beginning of the 20th century.

It's certainly true that contemporary schools seem to drain motivation & imagination out of students by the time they're 12 years old, mostly, I think, by teaching to standardized tests.
Walt Lee Rullo   at 2004/04/01 02:06:11 PM
DP - The more intelligent, the better this method works, or the more effective it should prove to be. I learn this way, but I already know many of the primary rules, so building on those is easier for me than, say, a 6 year old. I think real learning is achieved by implementation, i.e., proving mathematical rules by creating problems and solving them. After all, learning is knowing, and knowing is, in part, the confidence one gains from the learned experience. Learning Quantum Mechanics using this method is probably viable, but only for the Hawking types, I'm afraid.

Nice to see/hear someone thinking - wlr...

Comment has been disabled for this post.