Brain Calesthenics for Abstract Ideas.
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2011/06/07/health/07learn.html?sort=oldest&offset=3
slimfairview
ny nj metro area
June 7th, 2011
4:37 pm
Inveigh against the norms during a time of declining test scores and be hailed a hero.
Case in point: If math scores are going down, condemn "teaching to the test", "memorisation", "rote learning" and you will be an expert and the darling of the Talk Show Television industry.
However, if you call those methods "bottom up learning" you become the Fair haired Person of academics. (And, the darling of the Talk Show Industry.)
Of course, it is easy for me to agree with the new way of teaching equations and graphs. Like the old saying, "The new morality sounds a lot like the old immorality," we seem to have renamed, repackaged and are now reselling what we've always known really does work.
"Everybody knows what everybody knows." The Quotations of Slim Fairview.
Take the following from the article:
"Yet recent research has found that true experts have something at least as valuable as a mastery of the rules: gut instinct, an instantaneous grasp of the type of problem they’re up against. Like the ballplayer who can “read” pitches early, or the chess master who “sees” the best move, they’ve developed a great eye."
Imagine trying to say only a few years ago that some children are better than others at math because they have a gut instinct? However, compare it to a baseball player and you've hit an ideological home run.
Oh, wait. We need a catchy name. I've got it. "Perceptual Learning".
Perhaps that replaces the slogan "strategic thinking" when math scores began to decline and we needed to attack memorising the times-tables.
Of course, you know what is coming next. No reason why someone with an eye for fashion cannot learn algebra using the same skills. (Perhaps not the same desire, but the same ability.)
This is analogous to teaching children phonics and letting them learn to read at a more advanced level on their own merit. Unless test scores decline. If that happens: "Whole language approach."
This is eerily similar to a perception posted on my blog:
Time was:
If you did well in school, you were "intelligent".
If you did well at sports, you were "athletic".
If you were good at painting, you were "artistic".
If you played the piano well, you were "talented".
Not anymore.
Today,
If you play the piano well, you have musical intelligence.
If you paint well, you have artistic intelligence.
If you are good at sports, you have athletic intelligence.
However, if you are good at school, well....you must have worked very hard.
(Now, you have bottom-up ability.)
None-the-less, I am grateful that we are coming full circle. Some students have a gut instinct. Other students can benefit from rote learning for the basics before going on to higher level learning: phonics, memorising the times-tables, and now--perceptual learning.
Regards,
Slim
http://slimviews.blogspot.com/
Copyright (C) 2011 Slim Fairview
Slimfairview@yahoo.com
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2011/06/07/health/07learn.html?sort=oldest&offset=3
slimfairview
ny nj metro area
June 7th, 2011
4:37 pm
Inveigh against the norms during a time of declining test scores and be hailed a hero.
Case in point: If math scores are going down, condemn "teaching to the test", "memorisation", "rote learning" and you will be an expert and the darling of the Talk Show Television industry.
However, if you call those methods "bottom up learning" you become the Fair haired Person of academics. (And, the darling of the Talk Show Industry.)
Of course, it is easy for me to agree with the new way of teaching equations and graphs. Like the old saying, "The new morality sounds a lot like the old immorality," we seem to have renamed, repackaged and are now reselling what we've always known really does work.
"Everybody knows what everybody knows." The Quotations of Slim Fairview.
Take the following from the article:
"Yet recent research has found that true experts have something at least as valuable as a mastery of the rules: gut instinct, an instantaneous grasp of the type of problem they’re up against. Like the ballplayer who can “read” pitches early, or the chess master who “sees” the best move, they’ve developed a great eye."
Imagine trying to say only a few years ago that some children are better than others at math because they have a gut instinct? However, compare it to a baseball player and you've hit an ideological home run.
Oh, wait. We need a catchy name. I've got it. "Perceptual Learning".
Perhaps that replaces the slogan "strategic thinking" when math scores began to decline and we needed to attack memorising the times-tables.
Of course, you know what is coming next. No reason why someone with an eye for fashion cannot learn algebra using the same skills. (Perhaps not the same desire, but the same ability.)
This is analogous to teaching children phonics and letting them learn to read at a more advanced level on their own merit. Unless test scores decline. If that happens: "Whole language approach."
This is eerily similar to a perception posted on my blog:
Time was:
If you did well in school, you were "intelligent".
If you did well at sports, you were "athletic".
If you were good at painting, you were "artistic".
If you played the piano well, you were "talented".
Not anymore.
Today,
If you play the piano well, you have musical intelligence.
If you paint well, you have artistic intelligence.
If you are good at sports, you have athletic intelligence.
However, if you are good at school, well....you must have worked very hard.
(Now, you have bottom-up ability.)
None-the-less, I am grateful that we are coming full circle. Some students have a gut instinct. Other students can benefit from rote learning for the basics before going on to higher level learning: phonics, memorising the times-tables, and now--perceptual learning.
Regards,
Slim
http://slimviews.blogspot.com/
Copyright (C) 2011 Slim Fairview
Slimfairview@yahoo.com
