Philosophical Vegan Forum

I'm gonna split this into another topic.

brimstoneSalad wrote:More that it's not engaging and it burns kids out. I'd rather they be engaged and interested, not forced.

While I'm personally engaged most of the time in my classes, I can see how others become bored. Not sure how they expect to teach kids when they can not conceivably give a flying fuck about the material. Do you think it's ADD, or just how the material is taught?
It's just a competition to see who is the best, but most kids don't give a fuck, which I can understand completely.

I think there are far too many people out there who don't think that critical thought should be a part of education, and just memorization. I've learned that it isn't about learning as much as it is memorizing. Ch, no wonder why people are the way they are sometimes.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Language requires immersion and conversation practice; worksheets aren't the best bet.

And so I've heard. I'm pretty sure you've heard of the bloke Paul Pimsleur?
I've heard that the way we currently teach language is highly impractical, by virtue of the fact that most Americans can't speak anything other than English. People waste money going to college courses that they might fail.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Likewise, for math the real challenge is stimulating interest, not rote memorization.

Call me weird, but I get an odd sense of satisfaction whenever I know what I'm doing when it comes to math.
Anyways, I suggest we teach math by letting students go at their own pace. In our current system, we learn a chapter, then move onto the next, and you are expected to forget everything in the previous chapter to focus your attention on the current one. But then, you have to remember it all for some standardized test that doesn't really mean much.
My geometry teacher from last year had the right idea: learn the material together as a class and share thoughts, and absorb the information together. Seriously, he made geometry a breeze.

By the way, my Health teacher showed us an article that SAT scores have almost nothing to do with college performance. I think he had the right idea when he said that it's only done for money.

I don't really have any informed views on this matter, but this particularly resonated with me:

brimstoneSalad wrote:Likewise, for math the real challenge is stimulating interest, not rote memorization.

The way math has been taught to me at school makes it seem a dull and monotonous task of memorization and application. Everything seems incredibly arbitrary, for only Geometry do we ever discuss how these mathematical systems come to be and derive them ourselves. Recently, I have done a little study on logic in computer science, and its incredibly exciting to put together a system with proofs.

RedAppleGP wrote:Call me weird, but I get an odd sense of satisfaction whenever I know what I'm doing when it comes to math.

But the issue is that you never really know what you're doing. Its just a superficial application of memorized rules of unknown origin.

RedAppleGP wrote:Anyways, I suggest we teach math by letting students go at their own pace. In our current system, we learn a chapter, then move onto the next, and you are expected to forget everything in the previous chapter to focus your attention on the current one. But then, you have to remember it all for some standardized test that doesn't really mean much.

What happens to students who intentionally take too much time or are incredibly slow?

RedAppleGP wrote:My geometry teacher from last year had the right idea: learn the material together as a class and share thoughts, and absorb the information together. Seriously, he made geometry a breeze.

geometrey teachers > other math teachers

I've written a paper on motivation in schools and basically my conclusion is that the current system does a terrible job at it. The problem is that they rely heavily on external motivators like grades, the teacher getting angry or job prospects. Studies indicate that external motivators only work well for very simple tasks.

Purpose is very important here; it's extremely frustrating having to put a ton of effort into something you perceive to be useless. For every subject the first order of business should be convincing the students it's worth their time. And we should be very careful of wasting their time; they could be having fun or learning something useful, but instead they are spending their most precious resource (time) on freaking poetry.

Another problem is learning speed; one student gets it immediately, the other needs an hour. Forcing every student to move at the same pace bores the quick students and causes the slow students to fall behind. Digital learning environments can solve this issue and help students learn better through gamified learning; interactivity and rapid feedback.

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: What happens to students who intentionally take too much time or are incredibly slow?

If they take more time, they need it. If the material is engaging, they will not be intentionally slow; what possible motivation could they have? All they'd be doing is boring themselves and wasting their own time by going slower than they need to.

Students who genuinely aren't interested in learning calculus or trig (and for whom we do not have methods to stimulate interest) shouldn't be taught it. They should be taught only immediate and practical for them applications of math, like creating and balancing a budget, or understanding nutrition information.

brimstoneSalad wrote:If they take more time, they need it. If the material is engaging, they will not be intentionally slow; what possible motivation could they have? All they'd be doing is boring themselves and wasting their own time by going slower than they need to.

I was going to say that.
It's like playing a game: it's meant to be fun and engaging, and you just fooling around and getting nothing done is boring, and inhibiting you from experiencing the game.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Students who genuinely aren't interested in learning calculus or trig (and for whom we do not have methods to stimulate interest) shouldn't be taught it. They should be taught only immediate and practical for them applications of math, like creating and balancing a budget, or understanding nutrition information.

Why the hell do we teach math that most of us aren't interested in?
I read a poster that said "Think you don't need math? (input 70 jobs, some of which only require basic math and a calculator) Think again!"
I've never seen anyone deny that math is useful. But they are talking about how topics like algebra are not going to be of any use to them in the long run. Last year before freshman year, I asked Chris which math course I should take, algebra or geometry. He said geometry, since he actually used that in his life, and I think it was a good decision to choose it.

I don't think we should force kids to learn things they're not interested in, or at the very least isn't intriguing, or just won't be useful for most. This is a stretch, but it kinda sounds immoral when you think about it.

Cirion Spellbinder wrote:The way math has been taught to me at school makes it seem a dull and monotonous task of memorization and application. Everything seems incredibly arbitrary, for only Geometry do we ever discuss how these mathematical systems come to be and derive them ourselves. Recently, I have done a little study on logic in computer science, and its incredibly exciting to put together a system with proofs.

Geometry was probably the most fun math course I've had in the past 3 years. Maybe because I actually cared about what I was learning, and my teacher did his job well.

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: But the issue is that you never really know what you're doing. Its just a superficial application of memorized rules of unknown origin.

You're right, and that always pissed me off. We never learn about how some math laws are found, nor why some things are just the way they are. Just accept it, y'know.

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: geometrey teachers > other math teachers

Maybe for you and me. I've had some friends with other teachers for geometry, and they often complained about how the teacher was shit. Well, I guess beggars can't always be choosers.

Cirion Spellbinder wrote:geometrey teachers > other math teachers

No way, algebra is way easier...

miniboes wrote:I've written a paper on motivation in schools and basically my conclusion is that the current system does a terrible job at it. The problem is that they rely heavily on external motivators like grades, the teacher getting angry or job prospects. Studies indicate that external motivators only work well for very simple tasks.

I'd like to see this paper. If you can, post it to this thread if it isn't too much trouble.
Grades can potentially cause anxiety too, so that helps. Or if you're Holden Caulfield and just don't care.
I mean, I do care about my grades (partially because I have to), but they are never my top priority.

miniboes wrote:Purpose is very important here; it's extremely frustrating having to put a ton of effort into something you perceive to be useless. For every subject the first order of business should be convincing the students it's worth their time. And we should be very careful of wasting their time; they could be having fun or learning something useful, but instead they are spending their most precious resource (time) on freaking poetry.

That actually sounds kinda depressing. Wasting the formative years of life on things they couldn't care about.




I'm starting to realize how much I hate school now..

EquALLity wrote:

Cirion Spellbinder wrote:geometrey teachers > other math teachers

No way, algebra is way easier...

Nah, geometry. Maybe because my 8th grade math teacher sucked and always wasted the first half of the class bitching to us about how the regents are coming up and how half of us are failing.

But algebra 2 seems to be a lot easier than algebra 1 for me this year. Probably because my teacher actually does her job well.

RedAppleGP wrote:

miniboes wrote:I've written a paper on motivation in schools and basically my conclusion is that the current system does a terrible job at it. The problem is that they rely heavily on external motivators like grades, the teacher getting angry or job prospects. Studies indicate that external motivators only work well for very simple tasks.

I'd like to see this paper. If you can, post it to this thread if it isn't too much trouble.
Grades can potentially cause anxiety too, so that helps. Or if you're Holden Caulfield and just don't care.
I mean, I do care about my grades (partially because I have to), but they are never my top priority.

I don't have the paper anymore. It was largely inspired by the following talks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrkrvAUbU9Y
https://youtu.be/iG9CE55wbtY
https://youtu.be/wX78iKhInsc
https://youtu.be/qp0HIF3SfI4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRb7_ffl2D0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3jYVe1RGaU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MTRxRO5SRA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFMZrEABdw4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81Ub0SMxZQo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ht4qiDRZE8