Chances are, such "loving and caring" will only produce more adults unable to put together coherent sentences or compute sales tax rather than producing more Einsteins or Mozarts.
Being taught is the easiest and the most efficient way to learn. Anybody who ever learned anything knows that. And that is not necessarily incompatible with creativity. Take music for instance. Most of us learn by being taught by the teacher rather than through experimenting with a keyboard. That does not mean that the creativity is thwarted and you would've been Mozart if you weren't made to learn. Likewise, you'll go on being a Mozart if you *are* Mozart despite being made to sit in front of the piano for 2 hours everyday. If you are not Mozart, well, you will at least know how to play piano. If you are not made to learn, on the other hand, you wouldn't.
The thwarting of creativity takes more than making children learn. It requires conditioning them to become averse to difference and independence. Unfortunately that is all too common in East Asia with Confucian culture that demands conformity and authoritarian hierarchy.
Being taught is the easiest and the most efficient way to learn. Anybody who ever learned anything knows that. And that is not necessarily incompatible with creativity. Take music for instance. Most of us learn by being taught by the teacher rather than through experimenting with a keyboard. That does not mean that the creativity is thwarted and you would've been Mozart if you weren't made to learn. Likewise, you'll go on being a Mozart if you *are* Mozart despite being made to sit in front of the piano for 2 hours everyday. If you are not Mozart, well, you will at least know how to play piano. If you are not made to learn, on the other hand, you wouldn't.
The thwarting of creativity takes more than making children learn. It requires conditioning them to become averse to difference and independence. Unfortunately that is all too common in East Asia with Confucian culture that demands conformity and authoritarian hierarchy.
15
Please read Dr. Maria Montessori, Discovery of the Child, written in 1912. Her first Casa de Bambini was established in 1907 in a working-class tent ament in Rome.
The researchers you write about here stand on the shoulders of Dr. Montessori's work.
The researchers you write about here stand on the shoulders of Dr. Montessori's work.
27
To all of you who keep referencing Piaget and Montessori. Dr. Gopnik did not say this type of thing had never been discussed or researched before, she is simply exposing you to the latest in that line of research. She's a renowned child psychologist, researcher and professor. I'm pretty sure she's heard of Piaget and Montessori. In fact, I know it for sure because I took a class from her on Child Development in 1990 which is where I learned about those people and their research. Get off your high horses people.
48
Imitation is definitely a part of learning process, and it could be enough in societies where activities are quite limited: for example, if in societies of hunters, the only profession available to you is hunter, then imitation is only what you need to learn, but in more complex societies is just not enough, just because much of knowledge is not so easy to imitate. Reading, for example.
1
Isn't it true that only we humans teach our children actively. Apes let them watch but don't expend efforts to teach them. So, let us not pretend that babies and children are not taught.
You can teach them too little or too much, but you know what neglected and resented children look like.
You can teach them too little or too much, but you know what neglected and resented children look like.
3
It is impossible to say which way of learning is better, based on few experiments that may address some aspects of learning in some setting. Much better way is to develop program based on your principle, apply it to number of students for reasonable amounts of time and show that this approach is better than traditional
The best way to promote learning in babies is by a secure attachment.
The attachment relationship is the source of meta cognition, empathy and learning, as well as of cooperative behaviors and trust. Attachemtn is the source of self regulation and self encouragement.
The best thing you can do for your baby is keep him near you and be responsive and empathic and help him understand he is safe, loved, and seen.
The attachment relationship is the source of meta cognition, empathy and learning, as well as of cooperative behaviors and trust. Attachemtn is the source of self regulation and self encouragement.
The best thing you can do for your baby is keep him near you and be responsive and empathic and help him understand he is safe, loved, and seen.
10
I teach ELLs (English Language Learners) in the kindergarten wing of an elementary school in an urban school district. These poor kids are having explicit instruction rammed down their throats on concepts that are unimportant to them at their age. As soon as they enter the classroom door, the students are told to "Hush!" while they determine the parts of speech in their tiny little books. Several times during the day, the teachers have to remind them to "Focus! Focus! Focus!" while they attempt to determine the author's purpose. Every day throughout the year, it's not unusual to hear kids crying and sometimes screaming out of their distress. Learning doesn't happen this way.
16
Maria Montessori knew all this and introduced it to the U.S. in 1911. If she hadn’t been a woman (and Italian), her superior teaching methodology would have prevailed over Dewey’s more structured approach and researchers wouldn’t have to find out what La Signora knew over 100 years ago.
10
As a 7th grade middle school teacher this article makes so much sense. I witness students' dearth of educational independence every school day.
Let's say, for example, at the beginning of the school year I pose a question (I teach English Language Arts and like to get deep:)--one that is challenging and open-ended. I look out at the room and it's either 1) every hand is up OR 2) mouths agape, pencils dead on the desk. The question from the first: "How do we start?" The comment from the second: "I don't know how to start." All hands up or no hands up, the problem, as you see, is the same. Modeling has become a crutch and regurgitation ensues.
Ironically, though, sometimes that is the first step toward independence because if children don't have the skills yet and are in a system that does not appreciate and employ critical thinking measures, then, as the article conveys, "Do as I do." But the goal should be, "What could/would/should you do given ___________?"
Modeling inquiry rather than just answers to questions is the way to go. And modeling struggling to word answers and solve problems shows students the process in synthesizing information, not just reaching one simple answer. Designing good questions is also key!
Let's say, for example, at the beginning of the school year I pose a question (I teach English Language Arts and like to get deep:)--one that is challenging and open-ended. I look out at the room and it's either 1) every hand is up OR 2) mouths agape, pencils dead on the desk. The question from the first: "How do we start?" The comment from the second: "I don't know how to start." All hands up or no hands up, the problem, as you see, is the same. Modeling has become a crutch and regurgitation ensues.
Ironically, though, sometimes that is the first step toward independence because if children don't have the skills yet and are in a system that does not appreciate and employ critical thinking measures, then, as the article conveys, "Do as I do." But the goal should be, "What could/would/should you do given ___________?"
Modeling inquiry rather than just answers to questions is the way to go. And modeling struggling to word answers and solve problems shows students the process in synthesizing information, not just reaching one simple answer. Designing good questions is also key!
11
I agree we need to lift all pre-k boats, but first we need to put out the fires on the dock. Half the states have mostly inadequate public schools and the rest have some inadequate public schools. We have turned away from our duty to educate and socialize all children to live in an advanced, technological and diverse nation. Add to the costs of sound public education the benefits of solid daycare and preschool programs.
Let us raise the quality of life in America to the level of average nations around the world.
Let us raise the quality of life in America to the level of average nations around the world.
5
Thanks to my mom who said everyday, "Go ride your bike" or "Go play outside" everyday! Good thing she also talked to me, too!
8
One has to be VERY careful when reading articles like this.
If one works with children, one has to know how children think, feel, and process information. Lots of people learn by the, "monkey see, monkey do", method but not everyone.
It's easy to speculate from an adult's-eye view about how children learn. It is more important to look at it from a child's-eye view. Anyone who has ever asked a child for an explanation for some wrongdoing would know the truth and doing the right thing rarely results.
They have their own system of logic and beliefs based on their states of development. What seems to THEM like a perfectly logical explanation of what happened or gone wrong, rarely seems logical to US.
Children are a distinct group of people with all human failings. There is nothing wrong with teaching them, too. After all, Mozart wrote his first symphony at a very tender age, but only after his father Leopold had given him a thorough education in the fundamentals of music, theory and composition.
If one works with children, one has to know how children think, feel, and process information. Lots of people learn by the, "monkey see, monkey do", method but not everyone.
It's easy to speculate from an adult's-eye view about how children learn. It is more important to look at it from a child's-eye view. Anyone who has ever asked a child for an explanation for some wrongdoing would know the truth and doing the right thing rarely results.
They have their own system of logic and beliefs based on their states of development. What seems to THEM like a perfectly logical explanation of what happened or gone wrong, rarely seems logical to US.
Children are a distinct group of people with all human failings. There is nothing wrong with teaching them, too. After all, Mozart wrote his first symphony at a very tender age, but only after his father Leopold had given him a thorough education in the fundamentals of music, theory and composition.
19
There is something ironic here: Uncomfortable when a young child is just observing the world, many modern parents refocus their child to stare at a mindless moving object accompanied by repetitive music. What is there to learn by watching something just go round and round for hours? It seems plausible that this might make a child’s brain work slower. It is as if the parent is hypnotizing the kid. And if a child has be brought up to always have mind-numbing movement and sound in the background, how does the parent expect the child’s attention span to increase? No wonder there is an epidemic of kids with ADD.
13
"But the new information economy, as opposed to the older industrial one, demands more innovation and less imitation, more creativity and less conformity."
For the majority of young children that means sitting in front of a TV screen all day!
Children need all kinds of stimulation including exposure to formal informational protocols and challenges which their young minds are more than ready for AND which undereducated kids have no access too.
My grandaughter is learning coding in private school in the third grade!
How is the the average undereducated kid going to compete with that. They can't even read or do math at reasonable levels when they graduate high School (if they do?)
AND that is MOST of america's youth!
For the majority of young children that means sitting in front of a TV screen all day!
Children need all kinds of stimulation including exposure to formal informational protocols and challenges which their young minds are more than ready for AND which undereducated kids have no access too.
My grandaughter is learning coding in private school in the third grade!
How is the the average undereducated kid going to compete with that. They can't even read or do math at reasonable levels when they graduate high School (if they do?)
AND that is MOST of america's youth!
6
Fascinating article. Thank you, Prof. Gopnik.
I think there are implications not just for babies and education but also for adults.
I conduct business war games. Confident businesspeople usually start off believing that the right answer is obvious. Often they discover that it won't work. That's when they start getting creative...except for a few who complain that the war game was unrealistic or rigged.
The war games are not set up to have a right or wrong answer. They are set up to let people experiment before they commit real money. In effect, they help people be open to unlearning what they sincerely believe they already "know."
I think there are implications not just for babies and education but also for adults.
I conduct business war games. Confident businesspeople usually start off believing that the right answer is obvious. Often they discover that it won't work. That's when they start getting creative...except for a few who complain that the war game was unrealistic or rigged.
The war games are not set up to have a right or wrong answer. They are set up to let people experiment before they commit real money. In effect, they help people be open to unlearning what they sincerely believe they already "know."
6
"Young children today continue to learn best by watching the everyday things that grown-ups do, from cleaning the house to fixing a car."
That's okay as far as it goes. And when I was a toddler, in the 1950s, it was truer in that we had fewer things geared expressly for children, and so we were always looking upwards, trying to understand. In terms of television, for example, while I watched Saturday-morning shows like "Sky King" and "Modern Agriculture," mostly I watched what my family watched: "Sugarfoot," "Bonanza," the documentary "Twentieth Century," and the like.
My six-year-old great-nephew won't sit still for the "talky" parts of Walt Disney movies like "Swiss Family Robinson."
What we give kids today is less "grown-up" and educational than in years past. At least in "Sugarfoot," you had adults stringing sentences together. In today's child-focused world, little fragments are the rule. As for children watching their parents take apart cars -- where do you live? And what cars do you drive?
Wealthier parents over-program their kids; there's little time for taking cardboard and scissors and making things. Poorer parents let the kids simply congregate, and what the kids teach one another is up for grabs.
Finally, unless you have parents and teachers talking to kids in reasoned, thoughtful, and adult ways, reading to them until they learn to read for themselves, and teaching them new concepts and, yes, facts, children cannot grow beyond their own noses.
That's okay as far as it goes. And when I was a toddler, in the 1950s, it was truer in that we had fewer things geared expressly for children, and so we were always looking upwards, trying to understand. In terms of television, for example, while I watched Saturday-morning shows like "Sky King" and "Modern Agriculture," mostly I watched what my family watched: "Sugarfoot," "Bonanza," the documentary "Twentieth Century," and the like.
My six-year-old great-nephew won't sit still for the "talky" parts of Walt Disney movies like "Swiss Family Robinson."
What we give kids today is less "grown-up" and educational than in years past. At least in "Sugarfoot," you had adults stringing sentences together. In today's child-focused world, little fragments are the rule. As for children watching their parents take apart cars -- where do you live? And what cars do you drive?
Wealthier parents over-program their kids; there's little time for taking cardboard and scissors and making things. Poorer parents let the kids simply congregate, and what the kids teach one another is up for grabs.
Finally, unless you have parents and teachers talking to kids in reasoned, thoughtful, and adult ways, reading to them until they learn to read for themselves, and teaching them new concepts and, yes, facts, children cannot grow beyond their own noses.
8
It is refreshing to know that scientific illiteracy is not natural. It is reassuring to know than foreign language ignorance is not normal. Filling our intellectual voids is all about learning more than it is about teaching.
What I have learned is how to say "I don't know" when asked a question where I have neither knowledge nor experience. What I have learned is to be curious and alert while utilizing all of my senses in observing the natural world and it's denizens.
Ignorance is a universal human condition reflecting the absence of information. Stupid is a more limited human condition involving the presence of misinformation.
What I have learned is how to say "I don't know" when asked a question where I have neither knowledge nor experience. What I have learned is to be curious and alert while utilizing all of my senses in observing the natural world and it's denizens.
Ignorance is a universal human condition reflecting the absence of information. Stupid is a more limited human condition involving the presence of misinformation.
6
I read this article and thought, well yes, Montessori School. Its process creates absorbed self-directed learners. The materials for learning are all about and the teacher adds more detail as the child needs it.
13
New flash ! Babies are mammals and all mammals learn this way. These experiments are fun but a waste of money and time. There nothing in these experiments that has not been know for hundreds of years.
All mammals seek comfort, safety and the young learn by play and imitation, much of this is also true of some birds.
All mammals seek comfort, safety and the young learn by play and imitation, much of this is also true of some birds.
Wow, this article is so true. When our now 40 year old, met a 15 month old walking child, our 7 month old decided it was time for him to walk. When we brought him home from the hospital, I placed him in his crib. Above the crib was suspended a mobile. The little guy, looked at the mobile and grabbed it with his little hand. Who knew. At 6 months, while sitting in his high chair, I gave him some plastic cups to play with. Surprise, he stacked them one on top of the other, all 7 of them. finally, by the time he was 2 months old, I discovered he had a distress call, simply 'Ma'. At 14 months old, his father placed him in his crib while he did some woodworking. Dad gave him a flash light. Dad watched him on and off. Eventually, he took the flash light apart and ate the little bulb before dad could stop him. Morale to the story: beware of those little tiny hands, smart minds and busy fast little folks . . . their innate knowledge will astound you. All you can do is love them and enjoy the wonder of life through their brand new eyes.
7
Missing in Gopnik’s developmental narrative?
Imagination.
Too folk psychology-like for brain science and behavioristic minded “empirical” types?
Imagination is the intuitive and spontaneous modality of consciousness which continuously generates representations from ones sensible presentations and affective intentionality, organizes these representations, as symbols, into mixed dispositional and occurrent models in mente, which models are then iteratively applied by imagination back to the world in the ongoing process of organizing experience.
Pre-linguistically these imaginative models - functioning as proto-language tools - are a bouillabaisse of representations of the various sensory and affective modalities, and, reflexively, of imagination itself. The initial developmental bias in homo sapiens is toward sight.
But sound is the most abstract - hence least ambiguous and most efficient - of the sensory modalities. So the bias in the imagination for symbol generation shifts - and has shifted selectively - over to the caught linguistic interplay between the remembered (by imagination) sounds of incoming language from the social environment and the iteratively constructed and trial-and-error applied proto language models constructed by the imagination itself as inner speech.
This mix eventually emerges developmentally as publicly expressed language.
An NSF grant can help refine this narrative, but is not needed to recognize, phenomenologically, this is what’s going on.
Imagination.
Too folk psychology-like for brain science and behavioristic minded “empirical” types?
Imagination is the intuitive and spontaneous modality of consciousness which continuously generates representations from ones sensible presentations and affective intentionality, organizes these representations, as symbols, into mixed dispositional and occurrent models in mente, which models are then iteratively applied by imagination back to the world in the ongoing process of organizing experience.
Pre-linguistically these imaginative models - functioning as proto-language tools - are a bouillabaisse of representations of the various sensory and affective modalities, and, reflexively, of imagination itself. The initial developmental bias in homo sapiens is toward sight.
But sound is the most abstract - hence least ambiguous and most efficient - of the sensory modalities. So the bias in the imagination for symbol generation shifts - and has shifted selectively - over to the caught linguistic interplay between the remembered (by imagination) sounds of incoming language from the social environment and the iteratively constructed and trial-and-error applied proto language models constructed by the imagination itself as inner speech.
This mix eventually emerges developmentally as publicly expressed language.
An NSF grant can help refine this narrative, but is not needed to recognize, phenomenologically, this is what’s going on.
An interesting article about teaching techniques. While it's about babies, my own experiences, observations, and beliefs would support it applying to all, at any age. And might especially be true for learning challenged children
Teaching risk adversity and fear of trying, experimenting and failing might be a major impediment to learning. I certainly believe it is.
Teaching risk adversity and fear of trying, experimenting and failing might be a major impediment to learning. I certainly believe it is.
6
As Alison Gopnik surely knows, these are not new discoveries. The principles she illustrates with current research are the principles of progressive education. Beginning with 19th century thinkers like Johann Pestalozzi and Friedrich Frobel and continuing with Piaget, Montesorri, John Dewey, Francis Parker, Jerome Bruner and many others, educators around the world knew these things.
Education should be play, discovery, construction of knowledge - not instruction and teaching. This is as true for young adults as for small children.
The dominant conventional, formal, industrial approach to schooling is a political phenomenon, not a product of enlightenment. Progressive education has always been the more powerful approach to learning. It is consistently affirmed by the kinds of research that Gopnik cites.
Education should be play, discovery, construction of knowledge - not instruction and teaching. This is as true for young adults as for small children.
The dominant conventional, formal, industrial approach to schooling is a political phenomenon, not a product of enlightenment. Progressive education has always been the more powerful approach to learning. It is consistently affirmed by the kinds of research that Gopnik cites.
7
Somewhere in the distinction of learning something, and learning how to learn things, I hear an echo of the debates of what we expect higher education to provide. Despite the primacy of "information" in our current society and economy, you could have a total command of all human knowledge and be eminently employable today, but be hopelessly out of date (and unemployed) next year if you also cannot learn effectively.
Whether at pre-school or university, we need to encourage learning and thinking skills, and provide opportunities for individual exploration and independent thinking.
Whether at pre-school or university, we need to encourage learning and thinking skills, and provide opportunities for individual exploration and independent thinking.
5
Early childhood educators know that young children learn many principles of science through play and social intercourse. Articulating the laws of physics (and other subjects) comes later, as appropriate, in middle and high school. Why are we making childhood a "race to the top"?
6
Nice to see research continue to confirm what Maria Montessori discovered and advocated a century ago.
8
Hey professor this is nothing new. Perhaps you should hit the books, and read Jean Piaget starting with his 1930 work "The Child's Conception of Physical Causality."
Allow me to quote from wikipedia an essential of Piaget's thought's: "Piaget believed that the process of thinking and the intellectual development could be regarded as an extension of the biological process of the evolutionary adaptation of the species, which has also two on-going processes: assimilation and accommodation. There is assimilation when a child responds to a new event in a way that is consistent with an existing schema.[24] There is accommodation when a child either modifies an existing schema or forms an entirely new schema to deal with a new object or event."
Allow me to quote from wikipedia an essential of Piaget's thought's: "Piaget believed that the process of thinking and the intellectual development could be regarded as an extension of the biological process of the evolutionary adaptation of the species, which has also two on-going processes: assimilation and accommodation. There is assimilation when a child responds to a new event in a way that is consistent with an existing schema.[24] There is accommodation when a child either modifies an existing schema or forms an entirely new schema to deal with a new object or event."
3
How does a child best learn, become educated?
I can speak with assurance about only my experience. And there is no difference between speaking of myself learning as a child and now as an adult. In fact the question might be more usefully phrased "How can we get an adult to learn something new"? I did best as a child, and now as an adult, by an organic, puzzle filling in method, a constant relating of whole to part and back to whole. I learned to write not so much by grammar (which however I wish I had spent time on) but by constantly reading and concentrating on substance, something essential to say, the whole rather than part, which is grammar, which is to say grammar, part, always in service of whole, something essential to say.
I learned guitar by learning first, and speaking of blues, the blues scale and essential chords and progressions, then by learning more scales and modes and lines and licks and advanced chords. This way no bogging down in mindless scale exercises or other part but always slowly adding knowledge while striving not to spoil the essential whole of having a good time and putting together a piece of music. What destroys learning for me? Any kind of fragmentation, distraction of self, bogging down in part, thwarting of seeing the whole. This means cacophony of television, overspecialization, distraction, all we mean by not allowing a person to compose self, put things together. Needless to say in our society I try to hide as much as possible to think.
I can speak with assurance about only my experience. And there is no difference between speaking of myself learning as a child and now as an adult. In fact the question might be more usefully phrased "How can we get an adult to learn something new"? I did best as a child, and now as an adult, by an organic, puzzle filling in method, a constant relating of whole to part and back to whole. I learned to write not so much by grammar (which however I wish I had spent time on) but by constantly reading and concentrating on substance, something essential to say, the whole rather than part, which is grammar, which is to say grammar, part, always in service of whole, something essential to say.
I learned guitar by learning first, and speaking of blues, the blues scale and essential chords and progressions, then by learning more scales and modes and lines and licks and advanced chords. This way no bogging down in mindless scale exercises or other part but always slowly adding knowledge while striving not to spoil the essential whole of having a good time and putting together a piece of music. What destroys learning for me? Any kind of fragmentation, distraction of self, bogging down in part, thwarting of seeing the whole. This means cacophony of television, overspecialization, distraction, all we mean by not allowing a person to compose self, put things together. Needless to say in our society I try to hide as much as possible to think.
2
The truth is, with an inquisitive learner, we need teach very little. A motivated learner will teach herself. Mr. Kay, below, is right about the screwdriver.
The problem today is so few students, particularly our disadvantaged students are so motivated. Nor are their parents motivated to motivate them.
Look to our own government for reducing the motivation to learn among so many, whose needs they already meet.
The problem today is so few students, particularly our disadvantaged students are so motivated. Nor are their parents motivated to motivate them.
Look to our own government for reducing the motivation to learn among so many, whose needs they already meet.
2
Most parents can easily recognize that children learn by observing and imitating, more challenging is directing these innate abilities to more complex activities. This requires a subtle combination of stimulating a child's interest to direct the will in carrying out more sustained and complex activities, like playing a musical instrument or in learning to read. These activities fosters cognition, which over time leads to the differences in human aptitude.
I've worked in a variety of classroom contexts throughout my academic career, and it's not hard to see the difference between a classroom of Harvard students from that of a local community college. There's nothing genetic behind these differences, rather they're a product of many years of directed reinforcing behavior that have led to the Harvard students' far greater ability to systematically assimilate new learning material, the difference in classrooms is like night and day.
I've worked in a variety of classroom contexts throughout my academic career, and it's not hard to see the difference between a classroom of Harvard students from that of a local community college. There's nothing genetic behind these differences, rather they're a product of many years of directed reinforcing behavior that have led to the Harvard students' far greater ability to systematically assimilate new learning material, the difference in classrooms is like night and day.
2
The key to human intelligence is language. Children don't have to be "taught" language but they must be exposed to it. Parents should talk with their children using varied and sophisticated vocabulary.
6
When fear and profit drive education the child suffers.
4
Agreed, Jervey, but say more: What, then, should drive education? What should fear drive?
Indeed this is fascinating and saddening for me since my memories are all of Let me show you and Don't get into anything! It's becoming clear how babies can grow oppositional by two and stay that way for life. Brava, prof! And ... Go Bears!!
1
The problem is that in age-segregated american society, children spend a large amount of their time grouped in age cohorts. In addition, a huge part of their lives is spent segregated by electronic media.
How much real learning takes place when a 5 year old's primary influence comes from other 5 year olds? Or from pre-packaged on-line games and videos? I am comparing our children to children of european and asian cultures in which children's daily lives are more integrated in that of the multi-generaton family. My comparisons are also based on the large gap I've observed in work ethic and performance between farm kids and city kids.
I am not comparing this generation to ours---the problem
How much real learning takes place when a 5 year old's primary influence comes from other 5 year olds? Or from pre-packaged on-line games and videos? I am comparing our children to children of european and asian cultures in which children's daily lives are more integrated in that of the multi-generaton family. My comparisons are also based on the large gap I've observed in work ethic and performance between farm kids and city kids.
I am not comparing this generation to ours---the problem
4
Doesn't everyone notice that children will do what you do, regardless of what you say? It is still good to say the right things as well. Maybe they will remember something of your words. Then they get to be 3 years old and they try doing other things, just to see what happens. You are still nice to them because you love them and they become civilized again. Until they are teen agers, of course. Stay calm and try to give reasoned guidance but hope for the best. They are still watching.
4
Good heavens, have these experts never had children? A baby less than one week old learns cause and effect without being "taught."
5
Very condescending article. If author wants to argue that State should not spend additional tax dollars on 'pre-kindergarten or kindergarten' education; this post seems like a round about way to argue that. The author will need to make a better case of policy change.
Saying every few lines 'new research' says 'this and that' is hardly useful for common reader as we are unlikely to access those journals, understand those articles and make informed opinions. 'I am a scientist believe me' - that is the tone of this author. No different than what The Great Donald is talking in Politics in some sens.
Poor oversight by NYT in publishing this article.
Saying every few lines 'new research' says 'this and that' is hardly useful for common reader as we are unlikely to access those journals, understand those articles and make informed opinions. 'I am a scientist believe me' - that is the tone of this author. No different than what The Great Donald is talking in Politics in some sens.
Poor oversight by NYT in publishing this article.
4
This research supports the hypothesis that babies are born human, thus capable of learning and behaving as humans.
An alternative hypothesis is that babies/infants begin walking, feeding themselves, talking and recognizing others independently of any cognitive development. (These things just happen, for no particular reason.)
Yet another hypothesis is that babies don't advance cognitively until adults are capable of interpreting their behavior. (Who cares what they're thinking if they can't change their own diapers and get jobs?)
An alternative hypothesis is that babies/infants begin walking, feeding themselves, talking and recognizing others independently of any cognitive development. (These things just happen, for no particular reason.)
Yet another hypothesis is that babies don't advance cognitively until adults are capable of interpreting their behavior. (Who cares what they're thinking if they can't change their own diapers and get jobs?)
1
The studies shore up the traditional way that parents deal with their children. More imitation, less screen time. Words, songs, picture books, nursery rhymes, play time, blocks, pots and pans, paints, crayons, surrounded by busy-ness.
It also makes a case that a good daycare is better than a bad home environment - say hours in front of the TV - to grow better brains.
We have identified things that inhibit mental growth - lead, nutrition, verbal interaction, free play and stimulation. We just have to work on finding ways to implement what we know.
It also makes a case that a good daycare is better than a bad home environment - say hours in front of the TV - to grow better brains.
We have identified things that inhibit mental growth - lead, nutrition, verbal interaction, free play and stimulation. We just have to work on finding ways to implement what we know.
3
Hooray!! Finally someone talking sense in a time when people seem unable to make a move without first consulting an app. The "real apps" are the ones described by Ms. Going, right there in our homes and playgrounds just waiting for the kids to come around. And yes, early childhood teachers have always known this - contrary to the new reforms, foisted upon them, that stifle and go against the laws of nature and nurture.
2
Whoaahh! Hands on learning is essential, but it takes both kinds. We ate for millions of years before we invented cooking, but we ate better after. We moved from place to place for millions of years before we invented the wheel, but we moved more easily after. And we learned for millions of years before we invented schools, but we learned more - a LOT more - after.
Children need a chance to exercise their problem solving capacities, but they also need direction if they're going to learn the full range of things they need to know.
Children need a chance to exercise their problem solving capacities, but they also need direction if they're going to learn the full range of things they need to know.
21
Of course, but think 'age appropriate' -- here the point is that when very very young, let them discover the world. Time enough later, in school, to provide more structure to the learning, ideally not stifling the earlier urge to explore for themselves!
1
We create failure for children by focusing on teaching instead of learning.
Policy makers, from legislatures to school district offices, have known these research findings but insist that learning time be intensely focused on teaching what will be tested instead of creating opportunities to help children help themselves and each other to learn.
The Yale University Infant Cognition Center demonstrated that all children are born with an innate preference for fairness and for doing the right thing. Instead of structuring school in a way that helps children live out their goodness, we make them rule breakers and punish them, particularly in low income communities of color.
All children would learn to read and would stay out of the pipeline to prison if we'd allow it, but we've always regulated the way teachers must teach to the point that most children aren't permitted to learn, particularly in low income communities.
Steven D. Bell
Kew Gardens, NY
125-10 Queens Blvd. Apt. 912
718-577-9289
Policy makers, from legislatures to school district offices, have known these research findings but insist that learning time be intensely focused on teaching what will be tested instead of creating opportunities to help children help themselves and each other to learn.
The Yale University Infant Cognition Center demonstrated that all children are born with an innate preference for fairness and for doing the right thing. Instead of structuring school in a way that helps children live out their goodness, we make them rule breakers and punish them, particularly in low income communities of color.
All children would learn to read and would stay out of the pipeline to prison if we'd allow it, but we've always regulated the way teachers must teach to the point that most children aren't permitted to learn, particularly in low income communities.
Steven D. Bell
Kew Gardens, NY
125-10 Queens Blvd. Apt. 912
718-577-9289
6
Richard missed the point. The article is about "early childhood education" and seems to state the obvious. Every parent who spends time with their children experiences that children essentially experiment from what they see, hear, sense etc. in their environment. The more children play in a natural environment (climbing trees and rocks, making boats out of bark and leaves, making flutes out of a stick of wood, making bows and arrows from various branches they find and cut of, collecting berries in the clearings of forests, milking and hearding cows, goats and the likes, churning butter, collecting fire wood, you name it) the better they will perform later in school. My sense is that early childhood studies more or less confirm this. There also are schools which seem to follow such ideas: Montesori, Waldorf, Summerhill etc.
7
Prof. Gopnik:
what type of innovation and creativity are you seeking?
interpersonal?
world-systems-wide?
how would you propose that i take my four year old grandson:
into a clean-room fabrication-plant to observe how wafers and chips are made?
or into the slaughterhouse to watch livestock being converted into table food?
or onto the elevated platform of a water purification plant?
or above the deck of the trawler dragging netted seafood on board?
or into the mine extracting life-sustaining minerals?
or?
21st Century activités no longer take place across a shared fire pit just outside the jungle and above the river with three generations of relatives within earshot and eyesight.
yes, the fundamentals of attaining an early understanding and concept of the basic interactions for daily survival have not changed over the past millennia or three.
however, the structures that we chose to use to assist the newest generation to become prepared for its own role in making and caring for its babies has, indeed, become more fragmented and specialized.
how long does it take for the few remaining isolated tribes in New Guinea or the Amazon to assimilate into the noisy, hectic, dangerous, artificially lighted, under-personalized environment in modern urban centers?
as to the "idea" of creativity and innovation:
it seems fairly fundamental that within any given group of h.sapiens we require very few of our mates to fill these roles in order for the group as a whole to survive.
3
sj.... it's the habits of thinking (curiosity, divergent thinking, creative problem solving) that matter in the early stages of development... not the technical specifics of adult rules on society. One should start with the basics as outlined in this article, and then gradually open up the child's world to see and experience 21st century activities you described as they become more age appropriate to his/her physical and cognitive development. Then the child can begin to explore his/her interests, aptitudes, etc. and begin to forge a path in the direction of one (or more) of these professional roles. This is what true experiential learning is all about. Also: at the end of the most important skills needed for survival are SOCIAL in nature. Social connections open and close pathways in ways that skill alone very rarely can. These skills are still easy to learn "around the firepit"
5
The "new" studies that indicate children are acting like scientists doing experiments are not all that new, considering the ideas of Jean Piaget, who suggested the same thing in the 1940s.
http://www.massey.ac.nz/~wwpapajl/evolution/assign2/LO/piaget.html
http://www.massey.ac.nz/~wwpapajl/evolution/assign2/LO/piaget.html
5
What's new is evidence from well-designed studies, as well much detail about what kids know when. It wasn't obvious that 3-month olds have glommed onto the phonemes of their local language.
3
We know schools have to be radically redone - or like the environmental mantra, Reduce, Reuse, Recycle? -- so that authentic learning can move in as we move crippling standardized and related testing out. Perhaps elementary and secondary (and college) schooling can be modeled like preschool education: more exploration, more discovery, more self-motivation, and more play which is how we all learn in the first, and last, place anyway.
2
There's a clue in here as to why the "C" student frequently does better in life than the "A" student . . .
2
"Naturally evolved learning techniques" is the key. When our species developed the class system over the recent past-- up to the last 10,000 years, we lost much of our collective wisdom in community structure and function that had served us well for hundreds of thousands of years. The natural curiosity of our species has now been permanently extinguished by junior high in our assembly line culture of training. But just spectating does not work; as adults, we no longer sing, dance or create. We watch screens, we don't do--and our children learn from us.
17
You are being sentimental about a past that never existed. People are animals, and evolved with high levels of social competition and dominance hierarchies. To fantasize otherwise is to neglect that humans now have the choice to override our evolutionary heritage (hardware) with culture (software). How we choose to do this is, ultimately, a moral choice.
Having spent the vast majority of life as a student in American academia, I've felt that the most painful part of modern schooling is seeing how much human potential just gets lost in a subpar K-12 educational standard.
Take the idea of shoving information at students and expecting them to remember concepts without real exploration--the result is superficial, and this gets thrown around a lot when discussing education. Few have had alternate experiences in which they were taught more how to fish versus being given a fish, to use the expression (N.B. I attended a school that mostly employed the "how" mentality). This seems to me a large part of why people also say school has a creativity-inhibiting effect, as students are put in a rigid setting to have concepts imposed upon them. Ultimately, a feeling as though verbatim memorization is expected becomes the widespread norm due to poorly designed examinations that reward regurgitation more than logical reasoning or creativity.
Wouldn't Physics have been a lot more interesting if, for example, the teacher used a Mirascope to introduce light? Or English grammar by way of having students construct Mad Libs and playing around with the language? Or History by spending a class using only technology available to a time period being studied? How about Engineering by figuring out how a wind up caterpillar's gearing works through observation? Some places do these kinds of things, but it's definitely not standard; the bar is too low.
Take the idea of shoving information at students and expecting them to remember concepts without real exploration--the result is superficial, and this gets thrown around a lot when discussing education. Few have had alternate experiences in which they were taught more how to fish versus being given a fish, to use the expression (N.B. I attended a school that mostly employed the "how" mentality). This seems to me a large part of why people also say school has a creativity-inhibiting effect, as students are put in a rigid setting to have concepts imposed upon them. Ultimately, a feeling as though verbatim memorization is expected becomes the widespread norm due to poorly designed examinations that reward regurgitation more than logical reasoning or creativity.
Wouldn't Physics have been a lot more interesting if, for example, the teacher used a Mirascope to introduce light? Or English grammar by way of having students construct Mad Libs and playing around with the language? Or History by spending a class using only technology available to a time period being studied? How about Engineering by figuring out how a wind up caterpillar's gearing works through observation? Some places do these kinds of things, but it's definitely not standard; the bar is too low.
1
It is true that we have become very interested in institutional learning at a young age. But the professor neglects to mention the reason for that concern. There is a very large and persistent gap between the middle class and the poor in academic achievement.
Berkeley professors aren't around poor people very often. They don't wait for buses, they don't hang out in food pantries. Generally speaking, poor people do not interact nearly as much as the middle class do with their children. Part of that difference may just be the time to relax and enjoy what are often more pleasant surroundings. And counting the petals on a flower, discussing the colors of a tree, playing with water in the bathtub, repeated thousands of times, leads to greater understanding and knowledge. Much of that takes place long before TK and preschool ever happen.
It is reasonable to assume that there are some intelligence differences between the middle class and the poor. Some of those differences are because of the exposure to language and learning that happen at a very young age. And classrooms, no matter how well-managed, with a teacher to student ratio of 12 to 1 or 20 to 1, can not make of for the advantage of 1 to 1 learning that takes place in most middle class families.
Having lots of resources to explore are great for learning. Most programs try to use that approach. But most poor students start TK far behind their middle class peers and need structured support as well as play.
Berkeley professors aren't around poor people very often. They don't wait for buses, they don't hang out in food pantries. Generally speaking, poor people do not interact nearly as much as the middle class do with their children. Part of that difference may just be the time to relax and enjoy what are often more pleasant surroundings. And counting the petals on a flower, discussing the colors of a tree, playing with water in the bathtub, repeated thousands of times, leads to greater understanding and knowledge. Much of that takes place long before TK and preschool ever happen.
It is reasonable to assume that there are some intelligence differences between the middle class and the poor. Some of those differences are because of the exposure to language and learning that happen at a very young age. And classrooms, no matter how well-managed, with a teacher to student ratio of 12 to 1 or 20 to 1, can not make of for the advantage of 1 to 1 learning that takes place in most middle class families.
Having lots of resources to explore are great for learning. Most programs try to use that approach. But most poor students start TK far behind their middle class peers and need structured support as well as play.
1
And yet the newest trend is Character Education, as if the reason kids fail to develop positive character traits is because nobody sat them down and made them memorize the definition of "grit."
5
This article speaks to learning that usually occurs with middle and upper middle class children, but it leaves out learning for those children who need it most, those from low SES households whose parents and schools do not have the skills or will to implement and encourage creative thinking. I think there is much to learn here.
Education policy makers are all about big data. Refreshingly so, this article provides a more nuanced, qualitative perspective that is usually missing from the desks of our country's policy makers who are now more than ever relying on RCTs that don't tell us much.
Education policy makers are all about big data. Refreshingly so, this article provides a more nuanced, qualitative perspective that is usually missing from the desks of our country's policy makers who are now more than ever relying on RCTs that don't tell us much.
1
Learning you do as a baby comes more naturally then learning one does as a child or even later. I was spoken in three languages at home as a baby, and effortlessly learnt which language I needed to communicate with whom with these three. Alas I did not make any effort learning other languages much to my regret now.
2
Exellent article. It is not only children that have to learn.
1
Monkey see monkey do. Of course.
Your article is important as is the research you do and other research you report here. This work is experimental or quasi-experimental and it tells us a lot about very young children and older preschoolers. However, their are also a growing number of ethnographic and observational studies (especially using video-recording) that capture the innovation, improvisation, and agency of toddlers and pre-school kids' fantasy, role play, language, and lore which supplement the work you report here and help make your point. This work shows children go beyond imitation to appropriate adult models and information and create their own peer cultures. These are processes I have referred to as interpretive reproduction in my 40 years of ethnographic studies of preschool children from different social class and cultural groups. In fact, in their improvised fantasy play children show skills they go beyond what most of us adults (except for improvisational comedians and musicians) can do routinely or well.
1
There is surely some truth to this, but it is a bit simplistic. Early development remains a mystery, with so much left to explain. For example, nobody has been able to explain why my otherwise intelligent younger child at 5 seems to be unable to learn to talk despite no neurological disorders and a learning reach environment with plenty of input for her. Specific language impairment, apraxia is labels we get, and an array of therapies seem to have only a limited impact. As a mother I suspected something was wrong as early as 18 months, but it took another two years for doctors to take me seriously. Hands off is not always the answer and truth is that glitches happen in early development that science seems to have no answers for. Much more research is needed.
1
I wonder if that's why it's so boring for us parents to play with our children. We are programmed to let them play by themselves as the optimum strategy for their development.
1
Rousseau was right - just what he proposed in "Emile."
1
It is very important that parents read to their children, as it allows them to delight in stories, enrich their language, and inspires a love of books.
But the individual creative/innovative genius is marginal, and while our society does ultimately reward him or her *very* generously (Nobel Prizes, start-up billionaires, etc), our culture also devalorizes those who fail to be creative in a way that society cares about (the struggling artist, etc.), but meanwhile we reward generously *enough* (social recognition, good paying jobs, etc.) those who acquire skills through rote imitation.
So as a strategy to teach our kids skills that will be valued in this society, while it's tempting to see Johnny as Mozart, Johnny is probabilistically more like Johnny right next door (even if all the Johnnys in Lake Wobegone are above average). And if Johnny right next door is being tutored to get into Harvard, then by God, you'd better get the same tutor. While it's hard to get into Harvard, it's even harder to get another Mozart.
So as a strategy to teach our kids skills that will be valued in this society, while it's tempting to see Johnny as Mozart, Johnny is probabilistically more like Johnny right next door (even if all the Johnnys in Lake Wobegone are above average). And if Johnny right next door is being tutored to get into Harvard, then by God, you'd better get the same tutor. While it's hard to get into Harvard, it's even harder to get another Mozart.
The path to poor pre-school and kindergarten "education" is paved with good intentions. The natural tendencies of parents and educators promote ineffective if not counterproductive programs. Developmental Science (and my years of ground reality in developmental programs) support this author. To the parent of the four year old who already knows their alphabet all I say is, yes but what age appropriate development did they miss while learning it?
1
Fascinating topic. Great summary of the research results as well. It is consistent with the findings of Laura Schulz and her team who found that babies use logic to problem-solve. This intriguing TED talk describes these findings:
http://www.ted.com/talks/laura_schulz_the_surprisingly_logical_minds_of_...
http://www.ted.com/talks/laura_schulz_the_surprisingly_logical_minds_of_...
There are two levels of learning in constructivist theory, logico-mathematical and socio-conventional. This article describes some great examples of the former. Socio-conventional knowledge must be taught, because there is no inherent logic. There is no logic that says this squiggle "3" is called "three"and represents |||. You have to teach it. We need early education experiences that allow children to construct logico-mathematical concepts AND pairs those concepts with our socially constructed conventions. As with most things, we need "both/and" not "either/or".
2
Ms. Gopnik's article reinforces something I've learned as an elementary school teacher; there are limits to what we can accomplish in classrooms using explicit instruction teaching methods.
With the introduction of PARCC testing in my state my colleagues and I are noticing an increasingly disturbing phenomenom that is the direct consequence of teaching to "the test." Students show increasing aptitude/facility in copying teacher models and examples at the expense of innovation creativity, and problem solving.
With the introduction of PARCC testing in my state my colleagues and I are noticing an increasingly disturbing phenomenom that is the direct consequence of teaching to "the test." Students show increasing aptitude/facility in copying teacher models and examples at the expense of innovation creativity, and problem solving.
2
Common Core came about because decades of education eliciting innovation, creativity and problem solving turned out generations of young people without basic reading, writing and math skills. Remember?
The paradigm of education in the United States has suffered immense damage from its inability to leave the 18th and 19th centuries' brand of pedagogy behind. No longer do kids sit passively waiting for some adult to drone on in the most uninteresting way about things that could be fascinating if discovered on one's own. Once I was able to read at the age of 5, I found that teachers let me pick up books--and we are talking adult works, the classics and so on--and forget about the baby stuff like phonetics and parsing sentences to focus on ideas. In a military family during the Vietnam war I also picked up French as a preschool kid from our Swiss neighbors in Bethesda while my dad went to his job at the DoD, a language I speak with native fluency having been educated in Canada and worked overseas. Out-of-classroom learning is by far more important than what teachers impart to their student hostages, but often regarded by educators as "out the box" because they have not controlled its development. Instead of nurturing each child's innate intellectual curiosity, we have a regimen of metrics based on arbitrary tests that stultify even the brightest child and transform the school experience into a penal situation.
5
As Gopnik illustrates, there are 2 styles of learning: from teachers and by oneself. Of course everything must ultimately be initially learned (= "discovered") by an individual. But what Gopnik leaves out is that different people vary in their styles, and both are essential. Too much of the former risks spreading parasitic memes like religion and folklore; too much of the latter prevents good ideas from spreading. Science balances, systematises and harnesses the 2 styles.
Hear, hear.
Yes, above all, interact with young children,
Yes, above all, interact with young children,
1
I like this commentary. It aligns with my own thinking. Make your child, or children, active participants in your day to day. And be active in theirs, too. Show them all the things that interest you, and all the things that your memory of your own time at their age indicates may interest them. Pull those memories to the forefront. I know as adults we tend to bury them, but they are still there and they are useful that can give you insights you may otherwise fail to comprehend. Keep your focus on their curiosity, as their focus on your actions clearly is on you, and you must might find that both of you learn a great deal not only about the larger world, but about each other as well.
John~
American Net'Zen
John~
American Net'Zen
"We don’t have to make children learn, we just have to let them learn."
Last week's NYT article by Diane Ravitch decrying the Common Core elicited several letters defending the need to provide children with rigorous standards-based schooling in order to succeed in the future. I hope that those who advocate standards-based schooling and the standardized tests that inevitably accompany this approach will heed Ms. Gopnik's findings.
Last week's NYT article by Diane Ravitch decrying the Common Core elicited several letters defending the need to provide children with rigorous standards-based schooling in order to succeed in the future. I hope that those who advocate standards-based schooling and the standardized tests that inevitably accompany this approach will heed Ms. Gopnik's findings.
4
Yes, a narrowly understood teaching to the test and drilling of meaningless facts are no good and, yes, free play and space for imagination are important for children. However, this article conflates these types of teaching with an artful one that the truly good teachers and parents excel at. American psychology is still in the thralls of behavioristically understood learning. But there are ways to get beyond them and encourage a meaningful teaching and learning. At a time when we need more support for teachers and early childhood education, smartly done, this article is counterproductive at best.
10
If all mom does all day is sit on the couch, watching TV and drinking Coke, a child's growth will be stunted. Example is not always the best teacher.
These days most middle class one year olds can use a smart phone. Handing a fussy baby in the back seat a phone is very common. By 18 months toddlers are adept at finding and using the apps they want. You can rave all you want about kids and screens, but an iPad Mini is one of the greatest inventions ever for stimulating children who are imprisoned in car seats where they can't even see out the windows.
These days most middle class one year olds can use a smart phone. Handing a fussy baby in the back seat a phone is very common. By 18 months toddlers are adept at finding and using the apps they want. You can rave all you want about kids and screens, but an iPad Mini is one of the greatest inventions ever for stimulating children who are imprisoned in car seats where they can't even see out the windows.
Sure a phone or tablet will SHUT THAT BABY UP....but it won't teach them a darn thing. It is a pacifier and it keeps them from learning how to deal with boredom, which is a normal part of living.
I know a lot of children ages 6-17 who can't tolerate even a small amount of boring time -- in the car, in a line -- without screaming for an electronic device to entertain them.
I know a lot of children ages 6-17 who can't tolerate even a small amount of boring time -- in the car, in a line -- without screaming for an electronic device to entertain them.
1
Much knowledge about the world has come about through long and painfully acquired experimentation and disciplined thought. Babies have a primitive kind of "physics" but this is not Newton's laws. The vast majority of people still do not know how momentum operates and this is demonstrated by the weird behavior of ballistic objects in movie special effects. In fact there had been many sophisticated civilizations before the actual laws were formulated by Galileo and Newton.
People usually provide supernatural explanations for things they don't understand. Of course teaching the religious explanations solidifies this, but there is no reason to think that any child would discover real scientific explanations on its own.
Scientific knowledge must be taught - it is not intuitive nor easily discoverable. But religion is intuitive.
People usually provide supernatural explanations for things they don't understand. Of course teaching the religious explanations solidifies this, but there is no reason to think that any child would discover real scientific explanations on its own.
Scientific knowledge must be taught - it is not intuitive nor easily discoverable. But religion is intuitive.
3
Math is also not intuitive and must be taught. Primitive people usually do not count beyond the number of fingers and toes.
2
The writer isn't advocating ignorance, but rather suggesting that active learning - where the learner is encouraged to observe, deduce, and strategize along with the teacher - is more conductive to creative problem solving than the passive, lecture-based approach.
Can complex, high-level concepts like quantum physics and number theory be taught via active learning? Absolutely.
Can complex, high-level concepts like quantum physics and number theory be taught via active learning? Absolutely.
One hopes that those in the Office of Head Start reads this article, along with those in Congress who insist upon accountability in awarding money to early childhood programs. Requiring assessment after assessment may not improve early childhood learning. With Kindergarten becoming more like first grade and preschool becoming more like kindergarten, something profound may be lost. Of course we want to teach literacy and math but it should be in the context of life within the classroom.
While it may impress some seeing 3 and 4 year olds read letters, sounds and words in a morning message, it is far more impressive watching children figure out how to make the block building tall without falling down or try to figure out if earthworms have eyes. Why? Because experiences such as these are like fertilizer for the brain.
Early childhood teachers have always known that the real learning in classrooms goes on in the block corner, the pretend area, the sandbox and the mud pit. How nice it is that research has vindicated them.
While it may impress some seeing 3 and 4 year olds read letters, sounds and words in a morning message, it is far more impressive watching children figure out how to make the block building tall without falling down or try to figure out if earthworms have eyes. Why? Because experiences such as these are like fertilizer for the brain.
Early childhood teachers have always known that the real learning in classrooms goes on in the block corner, the pretend area, the sandbox and the mud pit. How nice it is that research has vindicated them.
49
Alison Gopnik's article is refreshing, informative, and important for parents and educators. However the concepts are VERY FAR FROM NEW! Jean Piaget was espousing identical ideas about children's learning in the 1920's and 1930's. For decades he performed similar experiments about observational learning in babies and children, and he developed intricate theories about how children discover how the world works. Piaget was "rediscovered" in the 1960's, especially in the U. S. By then developmental psychologists were well aware of how children learned language, physics, and used imitation to develop their understanding of the world. Stan Bandura at Stanford was a pioneer in observational learning in the 1960's. So here we are 50 years later still "re-discovering" the same truths about cognitive development. Maybe a lot of parents, teachers, and other educators--rather than acknowledge what we already know!--just want to hold on to their egocentric importance in the process of learning!!
5
What happened? in 1970, the teachers formed unions, to protect them against ANY discipline or firing, and gave them lavish salaries and lux benefits (the likes of which no ordinary American workers can dream of!) and very early retirement at age 52 -- and freedom from payroll taxes and SS and Medicare -- so that they are a "elite" who rules over us, and makes us pay for their Socialist Worker's Paradise.
They stopped having to teach, or having any responsibility for FAILING to teach. They are protected no matter if they sleep in class, or don't know their own subject.
They have destroyed what was once the best public school system in the entire WORLD.
They stopped having to teach, or having any responsibility for FAILING to teach. They are protected no matter if they sleep in class, or don't know their own subject.
They have destroyed what was once the best public school system in the entire WORLD.
Yet another opinion about education written while looking in the mirror. Ms. Gopnik leaps over thousands of years during which the main structure for learning more than amateurish rudiments was apprenticeship. In apprenticeship, students learned by repeating the master, duplicating the master's hands until one day they too could become masters.
Why don't we let them, then? Answer: the Machine wants the taught... Not the learned.
2
Finally, someone realized that children actually learn from experiences, not books or instructions. In today’s world, children are just given tablets from young ages, and it is detrimentally affecting their learning curves. Instead of letting children explore, we are preventing them from having vital experiences that allow them to develop. 10 years ago, if one drove down a neighborhood street he/she would see children running around, playing, and exploring. Now, one hardly sees a handful of child outside. There has been a new movement of overprotective parents that stop their children from doing anything remotely independent. They find the need to watch every move and ensure that their children do not face any hardship. While the idea is noble, no one wants their child to be in harms way or get hurt, but that is a part of life. Children learn from doing things and being kids. We expect them to mature quickly and act sophisticated but in reality, they will never be able to if we stop them from learning.
14
if theres any new info or insight here ive missed it
1
And keep an eye on them! My early electrical experiments at imitating the classic picture in science books, light bulb a key screwed to a wooden block and wired to an electrical outlet worked great. Shocking too.
1
A wonderful essay and reminder that the harder we try to grasp what we think matters most, the more it eludes us.
As a law professor, I struggle to apply insights like these to teaching law. I recently discovered David Ausubel’s insight from the psychology of science education that the single most important factor in learning is what the student already knows, so the teacher should figure that out and teach the student accordingly. This corroborates Gopnik’s point that once we provide children with the right context, they can be astonishingly adept at teaching themselves.
There's also research showing that babies as young as 6 weeks old have already begun the process of teaching themselves about the world. Researchers set up a system to track the pupils of the babies’ eyes as they were held on their mothers’ laps in front of a table and a box. When the box was pushed off the table and fell to the floor, the babies’ eyes watched the demonstration no longer than anything else. When the box was pushed off the table but suspended in air, the babies stared at the box, indicating they could tell something was up. This was in the How We Learn course by Professor Monisha Pasupathi from Great Courses, that’s a fabulous introduction to the psychology of learning for teachers in other disciplines.
The main takeaway from all this for me? The ritualized hazing of first year law students needs to be replaced with an environment that leverages students’ natural propensity to learn.
As a law professor, I struggle to apply insights like these to teaching law. I recently discovered David Ausubel’s insight from the psychology of science education that the single most important factor in learning is what the student already knows, so the teacher should figure that out and teach the student accordingly. This corroborates Gopnik’s point that once we provide children with the right context, they can be astonishingly adept at teaching themselves.
There's also research showing that babies as young as 6 weeks old have already begun the process of teaching themselves about the world. Researchers set up a system to track the pupils of the babies’ eyes as they were held on their mothers’ laps in front of a table and a box. When the box was pushed off the table and fell to the floor, the babies’ eyes watched the demonstration no longer than anything else. When the box was pushed off the table but suspended in air, the babies stared at the box, indicating they could tell something was up. This was in the How We Learn course by Professor Monisha Pasupathi from Great Courses, that’s a fabulous introduction to the psychology of learning for teachers in other disciplines.
The main takeaway from all this for me? The ritualized hazing of first year law students needs to be replaced with an environment that leverages students’ natural propensity to learn.
7
Does that also carry over to learning at older ages and in later stages...ie. learning a profession via apprenticeship (where one learns by exposure and direct contacteading through imitation) as opposed to preparation through a university setting where the subject is addressed conceptually and then applied to a practice once the job is attained?
2
This column makes a most excellent point.
Further supporting this column, it is also true that it has long been well understood that typical U.S. education in the enforces conformity and stifles creativity. Passing along know-how accumulated over centuries is important, but we should never forget the importance of fostering creativity.
Further supporting this column, it is also true that it has long been well understood that typical U.S. education in the enforces conformity and stifles creativity. Passing along know-how accumulated over centuries is important, but we should never forget the importance of fostering creativity.
5
To add to my previous comment: One reason for such a conflated and narrow view of teaching and learning in this article is that developmental psychologists are rarely knowledgeable about research on teaching and learning. I doubt that the author has done a serious study into theories of Dewey, Freire and Vygotsky and of research based on their ideas – which is actually a burgeoning field albeit not often reported in NYT and not as well funded as research into how babies supposedly “already know everything” and there is no need for investment into early education. If I am wrong, my apologies but even a quick search on google.scholar shows that the author does not reference any of the seminal educational theories mentioned above.
3
This is true not just of babies and small children, but of all ages of children and also adults. If we're not interfered with and given freedom to explore our worlds and support to experience what interests us, we all learn like these kids.
School is not always necessary. I have known many children who were Unschooled at home (basically not given any formal instruction and allowed to decide their own interests and schedules), and quite far from the nightmare that many assume would occur if a child isn't forced to go to school and learn - laziness, lack of accomplishment, a life of poverty - these children were always active and engaged in their worlds, performed above "grade level", and even went to some of the best colleges in the country (Harvard, Curtis Institute, for example). They grew up to be accomplished adults who still pursue their interests and passions, who keep learning, and love their successful lives.
The revelation isn't that little children learn well on their own by "playing", it's that we all do.
School is not always necessary. I have known many children who were Unschooled at home (basically not given any formal instruction and allowed to decide their own interests and schedules), and quite far from the nightmare that many assume would occur if a child isn't forced to go to school and learn - laziness, lack of accomplishment, a life of poverty - these children were always active and engaged in their worlds, performed above "grade level", and even went to some of the best colleges in the country (Harvard, Curtis Institute, for example). They grew up to be accomplished adults who still pursue their interests and passions, who keep learning, and love their successful lives.
The revelation isn't that little children learn well on their own by "playing", it's that we all do.
2
I teach my students that while they already know the basics of Newton's 3 Laws of Motion just by being alive, they don't know the fine print. And it's the fine print that matters. So, yes, the fine print must be taught.
As an example, most children think that if an elevator is plummeting to Earth, they can avoid/survive the impact by jumping up just before the elevator crashes into the ground. It's the same kind of thinking that allows people to ride in cars without worrying about wearing a seatbelt, I guess. There's no way anyone learns these things by observation or intuition.
The things that separate the educated from the uneducated are the things that must be taught to be learned.
Why is the concrete hot and the pool water next to it cooler?
Why is it cooler on a mountaintop even though you're closer to the sun?
How do trees take in water from their roots and transport it to their leaves against the force of gravity?
The knowledge that matters must be taught. Unstructured play is not enough.
As an example, most children think that if an elevator is plummeting to Earth, they can avoid/survive the impact by jumping up just before the elevator crashes into the ground. It's the same kind of thinking that allows people to ride in cars without worrying about wearing a seatbelt, I guess. There's no way anyone learns these things by observation or intuition.
The things that separate the educated from the uneducated are the things that must be taught to be learned.
Why is the concrete hot and the pool water next to it cooler?
Why is it cooler on a mountaintop even though you're closer to the sun?
How do trees take in water from their roots and transport it to their leaves against the force of gravity?
The knowledge that matters must be taught. Unstructured play is not enough.
63
Read the article again.
1
Honeybee, you are talking about much older students -- age 10 and above -- or high schoolers if you mean physics -- and the author is talking about TODDLERS, and whether toddlers benefit from formal pre-school with lessons or do better with hands on learning in a home environment.
Nobody is suggesting that children NEVER got to school and NEVER learn formal science, math, history, literature.
Nobody is suggesting that children NEVER got to school and NEVER learn formal science, math, history, literature.
2
We have no more an "information economy" than Europe in the late 18th & early 19th Century, when certain banking families became the richest in history on information alone, because they had it and were able to move around to bond markets. Overall, information is no more valuable now than it was then.
What has changed is that an average worker's daily workload is now largely informational rather than physical. No improvement in this, as an information workload will earn the worker no more money today than labor did 50 years ago. It is as in the past still the "special information," held by the few, that draws in the vast majority of all income. 75% or more of all income in the last 20 years has been earned by a tiny minority of people based on knowledge limited to them.
As for very young children, a set of simple building blocks has always a classic toy, because imagination is vivid in children. Once children can read then learning is done very well in a school, and the best tool for learning is the book, not "watching an adult." The second formal tool for educating children is the consistent indoctrination in focused educational self-discipline supplied by strict teacher and controlled learning environment. From the military to the highest achievers at the best prep schools people understands that the hardest workers have on average the best success. All children are capable of hard study, the idea that you let young minds wander to best effect is, ironically; childish.
What has changed is that an average worker's daily workload is now largely informational rather than physical. No improvement in this, as an information workload will earn the worker no more money today than labor did 50 years ago. It is as in the past still the "special information," held by the few, that draws in the vast majority of all income. 75% or more of all income in the last 20 years has been earned by a tiny minority of people based on knowledge limited to them.
As for very young children, a set of simple building blocks has always a classic toy, because imagination is vivid in children. Once children can read then learning is done very well in a school, and the best tool for learning is the book, not "watching an adult." The second formal tool for educating children is the consistent indoctrination in focused educational self-discipline supplied by strict teacher and controlled learning environment. From the military to the highest achievers at the best prep schools people understands that the hardest workers have on average the best success. All children are capable of hard study, the idea that you let young minds wander to best effect is, ironically; childish.
6
How grim. Our current crop of tech billionaires might have learned to code in a class but none of their assignments involved starting Facebook or Microsoft. That was done outside the classroom. Discipline is important, but authoritarian discipline does not encourage creativity.
2
Both Facebook & Microsoft are horrible examples of monopoly and suppression of creativity and business. MS in particular is hated as an evil empire of junk technology and vicious contract sales. That you would list them is telling.
MS has bungled every single attempt it has ever made to create anything from a browser to a music player to a phone to an Operating System, while every one of it's successes has been the result of a purchase of outside technology to suppress that competition. It's big success is creating billionaires off of it's onerous monopoly practices. Facebook has conned half the world to ooh & ahh at themselves under the most nasty forms of dirty tricks in the business, in exchange for amassing endless private data to sell to advertisers. It currently uses it's monopoly to pin down the vast world of comment forum postings via forced use of it's accounts as a logon tool. No Facebook account? Then shut up, you have no voice!
A better education on your part would have allowed you to read that I state that successful study requires good discipline, and excellence in study requires premier study discipline. You don't build a Superconducting Supercollider with C- HS math, and you don't become a Shakespeare scholar reading comic books. Rembrant & Pollack, Gershwin & Ellington spent innumerable disciplined hours honing their craft.
What is grim is your lack of insight.
MS has bungled every single attempt it has ever made to create anything from a browser to a music player to a phone to an Operating System, while every one of it's successes has been the result of a purchase of outside technology to suppress that competition. It's big success is creating billionaires off of it's onerous monopoly practices. Facebook has conned half the world to ooh & ahh at themselves under the most nasty forms of dirty tricks in the business, in exchange for amassing endless private data to sell to advertisers. It currently uses it's monopoly to pin down the vast world of comment forum postings via forced use of it's accounts as a logon tool. No Facebook account? Then shut up, you have no voice!
A better education on your part would have allowed you to read that I state that successful study requires good discipline, and excellence in study requires premier study discipline. You don't build a Superconducting Supercollider with C- HS math, and you don't become a Shakespeare scholar reading comic books. Rembrant & Pollack, Gershwin & Ellington spent innumerable disciplined hours honing their craft.
What is grim is your lack of insight.
2
This is fascinating. While reading this article, I thought of coloring books , and how I was taught to "stay within the lines". I always rebelled against this, finding it more satisfying to create an original picture by ignoring the restriction. I think parents feel they need to teach kids the "right" way to use something, shutting down any creative impulse. Having said this, some teaching is critical when it comes to safety. You cannot put your hand on the hot stove, or run into the street. The difficulty arises in knowing when it is best to butt out.
1
Thanks Dr. Gopnik for a simple yet illuminating article. The 'Business' and the 'Bureaucracy' aspect of our entire system is creating unnecessary distractions which are harming the basic and fundamental truth behind the prime human instinct of rearing it's next generation and making it fit and capable of facing the challenges of the future.
4
Great article that confirms everything my mother has ever told me about educating young children. It is unfortunate that this information was omitted from my own teaching credential program.
3
My parents were sophisticated intellectuals: they jump started and nourished love of their children for the sciences and the arts, for music and foreign languages, for travel. They taught us discipline.
This article is happily ignoring the proven value of intellectual stimulus and learning opportunity for the young -- and the old.
This article is happily ignoring the proven value of intellectual stimulus and learning opportunity for the young -- and the old.
2
Children don't need structured playtime or organized activities to learn. The best learning happens when they have time to play freely and use their imagination to discover new things.
17
Like how to read?
3
My 6 year old watched some Federer matches on ESPN and in about one month he started putting a serious spin on his tennis ball. How in the world did he figure out how to do that?
2
But, this will not make your young man into a half-decent player. Only practice and discipline may help him learn anything useful.
Practice and discipline, assisted by good teachers -- aka, opportunity.
This articles message to parents is: Babies know best: let's all sit back and relax.
Practice and discipline, assisted by good teachers -- aka, opportunity.
This articles message to parents is: Babies know best: let's all sit back and relax.
1
hes a genius
arent they all
arent they all
Curious, as I do not own one, I asked a friend about the performance of his motorcycle, specifically if it brakes faster than his car. He remarked that it does not, as it's "not heavy enough to slow down quickly" which is exactly backward.
Inherently babies, like most adults and my friend, do not know a thing about physics and simply make guesses based on inferences with no substantiation whatsoever. I get the impression the author does not know much about physics either.
Inherently babies, like most adults and my friend, do not know a thing about physics and simply make guesses based on inferences with no substantiation whatsoever. I get the impression the author does not know much about physics either.
20
Please don't use TV as a baby-sitter. It entirely misinforms the baby.
3
Yes, offspring learn from imitating those adults they assess to be important. Yes. that is true for human offspring as it is for lions, tigers and bears.....(wait for it)......oh my. Please forgive that one...I'm old and grey (or is it gray...I can't remember) and those come around only so often.
Anyway, the point is: There is no job on the planet as important as being a good parent. Our teachers...our really good teachers....come very close. So .... the next time the opportunity presents, hug and thank a teacher.
Anyway, the point is: There is no job on the planet as important as being a good parent. Our teachers...our really good teachers....come very close. So .... the next time the opportunity presents, hug and thank a teacher.
31
This is true on one level, and children will continue to learn in this way during their first few years of life. But observation and intuition alone will not teach a child what they need to know about the modern world.
The problem arises when childhood patterns of learning persist into adulthood. Without structured education of the wider world, children may internalize only the scientific, social and political views of those around them. This was key to the way children were reared in tribal societies, but tribalism can get you in trouble when you must navigate a world that is large and complex.
Much of what we know about the world, and even more of what we're learning about the universe, is not intuitively obvious. Simple physics may be intuitive, but quantum physics is most certainly not.
Believing what you see around you can also promote credulous belief. You may think everything is normal, but then you wake up one day in Utah to find that you're a Mormon. Or you occupy a position on the House Science, Space and Technology committee and proclaim--proudly--that evolution is "lies from the pit of hell."
There's a crisis of ignorance in our country in which physics is ignored and foreign languages are suspect. It's no coincidence that this fact coincides with a decline in our educational standing relative to other modern countries. Once early educational opportunities are missed, they may never be reclaimed.
The problem arises when childhood patterns of learning persist into adulthood. Without structured education of the wider world, children may internalize only the scientific, social and political views of those around them. This was key to the way children were reared in tribal societies, but tribalism can get you in trouble when you must navigate a world that is large and complex.
Much of what we know about the world, and even more of what we're learning about the universe, is not intuitively obvious. Simple physics may be intuitive, but quantum physics is most certainly not.
Believing what you see around you can also promote credulous belief. You may think everything is normal, but then you wake up one day in Utah to find that you're a Mormon. Or you occupy a position on the House Science, Space and Technology committee and proclaim--proudly--that evolution is "lies from the pit of hell."
There's a crisis of ignorance in our country in which physics is ignored and foreign languages are suspect. It's no coincidence that this fact coincides with a decline in our educational standing relative to other modern countries. Once early educational opportunities are missed, they may never be reclaimed.
69
You are usually more insightful, Gemli. You extend the early childhood studies Gopnik cites to later learning, by focusing on the narrow context in which small children learn. The more important aspect of Gopnik's observations is that the essential powers of constructing knowledge, of discovery, of intrinsic motivation, imagination can be skillfully provided in secondary and post-secondary education as well. The evidence is unambiguous.
There are critical distinctions between “education and training,” between “learning and being taught” and between “discovery and instruction.” These are the deep problems of current education policy, whether the misguided push for early academic work in pre-school or the stultifying practices of the standards and accountability.
There are critical distinctions between “education and training,” between “learning and being taught” and between “discovery and instruction.” These are the deep problems of current education policy, whether the misguided push for early academic work in pre-school or the stultifying practices of the standards and accountability.
1
OR your lefty liberal parents and liberal colleges indoctrinate you into lefty liberalism as if it were a religion (which it is) and one that brooks no criticism or deviation from dogma, so you parrot what you are taught and never question anything.
For pre-schoolers, play-based learning is the best. Parents are demanding measurable 'results' for their 5-and-unders. Schools are kowtowing, and all to the detriment of the children. I've worked with pre-schoolers for 20 years and the changes that I've seen in what the parents are seeking and what schools are doing, is quite disheartening.
Faster and younger is not better. What was taught in first grade 20 years ago is now being taught in kindergarten, and sometime in pre-K. If for thousands of years children walk at about one year, talk at about two years, loose their teeth beginnning at about five years, why would a reasonable person think that they could learn things a year or two earlier?
When I started school in the 60's you could walk into first grade having had no formal schooling. By the end of the year you were reading. Now, formal reading instruction begins in pre-K, is reinforced and expanded in kindergarten, and by the end of first grade the kids are reading. They are not reading any better at 6 (after first grade) than I was 50 years ago. Why is it that what once took one year to learn now takes three.
Faster and younger is not better. What was taught in first grade 20 years ago is now being taught in kindergarten, and sometime in pre-K. If for thousands of years children walk at about one year, talk at about two years, loose their teeth beginnning at about five years, why would a reasonable person think that they could learn things a year or two earlier?
When I started school in the 60's you could walk into first grade having had no formal schooling. By the end of the year you were reading. Now, formal reading instruction begins in pre-K, is reinforced and expanded in kindergarten, and by the end of first grade the kids are reading. They are not reading any better at 6 (after first grade) than I was 50 years ago. Why is it that what once took one year to learn now takes three.
120
My mother was born in 1926 to immigrant parents, not speaking English. She was mostly cared for by my Great Grandma, who never learned English and only spoke German, Yiddish and Hungarian.
There was no kindergarten in 1932, when mom started FIRST GRADE at age six. So she started school -- along with a large group of mostly immigrant kids who also spoke little or no English -- as functionally non-English speaking.
And here is the AMAZING THING: since her school was not run by public union flunkies, but REAL TEACHERS with decent values & morals & teaching skills -- they actually taught my mom and all the rest of her first grade class how to SPEAK ENGLISH -- READ ENGLISH -- WRITE ENGLISH and do math and other skills like writing, numbers, alphabet, etc.
By the middle of the school year, my mom spoke perfect unaccented English and was an A+ student her whole time in school.
I'd think it would be worth studying how this "miracle" occurred -- not just for my mom, but for MILLIONS of Americans including immigrants.
In the 20s-60s, teachers were able to teach ALL children how to read & write English, even if those children grew up in a foreign country with ZERO English.
Today, they can't even teach kids in bilingual classes. They can't teach poor kids. They can't teach kids on welfare. They can't teach black and hispanic kids. Suddenly teachers can ONLY teach affluent white kids who have had significant prep from high-achieving parents.
There was no kindergarten in 1932, when mom started FIRST GRADE at age six. So she started school -- along with a large group of mostly immigrant kids who also spoke little or no English -- as functionally non-English speaking.
And here is the AMAZING THING: since her school was not run by public union flunkies, but REAL TEACHERS with decent values & morals & teaching skills -- they actually taught my mom and all the rest of her first grade class how to SPEAK ENGLISH -- READ ENGLISH -- WRITE ENGLISH and do math and other skills like writing, numbers, alphabet, etc.
By the middle of the school year, my mom spoke perfect unaccented English and was an A+ student her whole time in school.
I'd think it would be worth studying how this "miracle" occurred -- not just for my mom, but for MILLIONS of Americans including immigrants.
In the 20s-60s, teachers were able to teach ALL children how to read & write English, even if those children grew up in a foreign country with ZERO English.
Today, they can't even teach kids in bilingual classes. They can't teach poor kids. They can't teach kids on welfare. They can't teach black and hispanic kids. Suddenly teachers can ONLY teach affluent white kids who have had significant prep from high-achieving parents.
1
What's been going on is the subjugation of real education to the perceived needs of a economic system gone haywire. There's a reason the Common Core, developed under the aegis of the Gates Foundation, reflects the thinking of Bill Gates, thinking that is distorted by his own experience. Gates never had to fit into a system, as he was on top of it from birth. Be skeptical of the rationalization of education pushed by the plutocracy. While many are well-meaning would-be Philosopher Kings, they are often truly clueless about what's good for other people.
I'm amazed at how my 3 month old baby's eyes track my movements around the house... And not just because I'm his food source. When I'm engaged in an activity like chopping vegetables for dinner, he's watching intently. It's lovely to hear that although I feel guilty for having to accomplish tasks around the house unrelated to him, he's still learning.
2
Don't feel guilty! EVERYTHING you do is relevant to your baby -- especially your speech and how you to talk to him.
You are a learning laboratory in motion! and your baby is absorbing it all like a sponge. He is watching and you are teaching. Parenting is not any one thing; it is EVERYTHING you do and say, every minute you and your child are together.
If anything, your son benefits from NOT having you hyper-focused on him constantly -- but showing him "what life is all about".
Better yet: when you have a second child (if you do), they will learn from one another!
You are a learning laboratory in motion! and your baby is absorbing it all like a sponge. He is watching and you are teaching. Parenting is not any one thing; it is EVERYTHING you do and say, every minute you and your child are together.
If anything, your son benefits from NOT having you hyper-focused on him constantly -- but showing him "what life is all about".
Better yet: when you have a second child (if you do), they will learn from one another!
Lisa, if you talk and/or sing to your baby while you are "accomplishing tasks around the house," you will aid greatly to his growth--describe what you are doing; ask questions (that you can then answer--so he can hear different inflections); sing lullabies (or other songs, but lullabies are easy to remember and soothing); and so on--it doesn't really matter if he understands the words in the beginning. Language is huge for child development.
1
This is simply what home schoolers have been trying to convey to the rest of the world for decades now. And the truth of it extends well beyond the early years. Our children will be self-motivated learners if we let them.
4
Wonderful and illuminating article. Thank you.
3
Wonderful illustration! Clever, colorful, engaging and representative of the article. Congratulations to Keith Negley.
Humans lived for millions of years before Newton discovered the law of gravity and the inverse-square law. Babies know that physical objects can't generally pass through other physical objects, but they don't know any of the science of physics that we have discovered over thousands of years of human history; that all has to be taught, if we want to make further scientific advances and use our knowledge to create new things.
1
I have a great deal of respect and awe for children's capacity to learn. The examples Professor Gopnik cited clearly show that small children have great powers of observation and discrimination. I am extremely concerned about the broad generalizations Professor seems to have derived from these studies. Widespread universal education in the West was indeed largely a creation of the Progressive Social and Political movements of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. That does not mean that there was not significant education occuring before then. Plato's academy, Aristotle's Lyceum, the great European universities of the middle ages and the significant institutions of the United States, such as the College of William and Mary where Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall studied law with George Wythe, represent just a few notable examples. Education is now in a troubled state in this country and abroad. The humanities are struggling to justify their existence in the juggernaut of STEM. The influence of good teachers can never be exaggerated. Perhaps this piece did not mean to imply it, but just for the record the last thing this society needs is an Uber-ization of education.
1
Well geez seriously.
The "experts" are always being shocked and surprised by what any reasonably alert parent can tell them.
Create an environment in which children can learn freely, and they will.
And--preschool is nice. Even better is ensuring that all people of childbearing/reproducing age understand the basics of good nutrition and are assisted in achieving it. Healthy babies learn quickly and build on what they've learned. Children denied optimum nutrition--pre- and post-natally--will struggle.
But that's probably too simple a solution for you academic types...
The "experts" are always being shocked and surprised by what any reasonably alert parent can tell them.
Create an environment in which children can learn freely, and they will.
And--preschool is nice. Even better is ensuring that all people of childbearing/reproducing age understand the basics of good nutrition and are assisted in achieving it. Healthy babies learn quickly and build on what they've learned. Children denied optimum nutrition--pre- and post-natally--will struggle.
But that's probably too simple a solution for you academic types...
Children do far better with their own families -- their real mother & their real father, who are first in a committed marriage & living together -- and of course, with loving grandparents, aunts & uncles.
Pre-school is OK and maybe unavoidable if both parents absolutely MUST work full time due to poverty -- but it will NEVER be better for children than being in their own home with loving family. I am not talking about "a couple of hours a week in some play environment" -- but reality, which is a kind of day care that runs from 6AM to 6PM, where tired toddlers are warehoused to convenience adults.
I agree on nutrition but guess what? The place where your mother and grandmother learned about cooking and nutrition was HOME ECONOMICS CLASS in middle or high school. The feminists did away with that in the 70s, to prevent girls from "choosing domesticity and marriage" over a career. It was never just extended to boys, too! (Both men AND women need to learn how to cook and shop for food, and plan nutritious meals!) So now today, we have NOBODY in the home who knows how to cook or has the slightest knowledge of nutrition and we are suffering as a result.
Parents who BOTH work outside the home at stressful jobs with long commutes, and get home at 6PM or later....are too tired, exhausted, stressed to suddenly start cooking some big meal, which won't be ready until 7PM or later, when a toddler should be ASLEEP.
We created this system, we can change it -- if we WANT to.
Pre-school is OK and maybe unavoidable if both parents absolutely MUST work full time due to poverty -- but it will NEVER be better for children than being in their own home with loving family. I am not talking about "a couple of hours a week in some play environment" -- but reality, which is a kind of day care that runs from 6AM to 6PM, where tired toddlers are warehoused to convenience adults.
I agree on nutrition but guess what? The place where your mother and grandmother learned about cooking and nutrition was HOME ECONOMICS CLASS in middle or high school. The feminists did away with that in the 70s, to prevent girls from "choosing domesticity and marriage" over a career. It was never just extended to boys, too! (Both men AND women need to learn how to cook and shop for food, and plan nutritious meals!) So now today, we have NOBODY in the home who knows how to cook or has the slightest knowledge of nutrition and we are suffering as a result.
Parents who BOTH work outside the home at stressful jobs with long commutes, and get home at 6PM or later....are too tired, exhausted, stressed to suddenly start cooking some big meal, which won't be ready until 7PM or later, when a toddler should be ASLEEP.
We created this system, we can change it -- if we WANT to.
I agree, Concerned Citizen--but the ideal family picture you paint has rarely existed in fact. Behind the gingham curtains and despite the heartening aroma of a home-cooked meal have always been a considerable percentage of damaged, abusive or negligent families. Human nature always throws a spanner into the best-intentioned policies.
Let's do what we can to avert the worst damage and create an environment where healthier generations can thrive. Let's impress upon our middle-schoolers that a daily multi-vitamin for boys and girls is an essential life-long habit. Let's get the funding to make that possible. Even a modest increase in B-complex intake will help mitigate the damage of unplanned pregnancies and delayed or no access to pre-natal care.
And--you needn't begin cooking after you get home during the week. You can do what I did, as a full-time employed mother with a long commute--I cooked on the weekend and refrigerated or froze healthy meals.
There are many steps we can take now. But many advocacy organizations want to make noise with the splashy stuff instead of working steadily, quietly and intensely for meaningful change.
Let's do what we can to avert the worst damage and create an environment where healthier generations can thrive. Let's impress upon our middle-schoolers that a daily multi-vitamin for boys and girls is an essential life-long habit. Let's get the funding to make that possible. Even a modest increase in B-complex intake will help mitigate the damage of unplanned pregnancies and delayed or no access to pre-natal care.
And--you needn't begin cooking after you get home during the week. You can do what I did, as a full-time employed mother with a long commute--I cooked on the weekend and refrigerated or froze healthy meals.
There are many steps we can take now. But many advocacy organizations want to make noise with the splashy stuff instead of working steadily, quietly and intensely for meaningful change.
"Parents and policy makers have become" STUPIDLY "obsessed with getting young children to learn more, faster...But in fact, school are very recent..."
Ah yes! The "everything I learned I learned during the Stone Age" point of view."
"Experimental studies show that even the youngest children are naturally driven to imitate..."
As do chimpanzees, bonobos and zebra finches. But imitating is not learning.
Any human child can learn to speak two or more languages simultaneously with no confusion given the right learning environment.
But racists in countries like the U.S. continue to promote the English-only because English is a culturally superior language from a superior culture. Thus every Chinese child is getting educated in English, but almost no English-speaking children are learning Chinese.
"...the sort of teaching that goes with school and “parenting,” can be limiting."
For sure. Most schools are run like prisons because it is otherwise hard to control young people.
"In fact, children’s naturally evolved learning techniques are better suited to that sort of challenge than the teaching methods of the past two centuries."
So "The Lord of the Flies" is the answer?
Ah yes! The "everything I learned I learned during the Stone Age" point of view."
"Experimental studies show that even the youngest children are naturally driven to imitate..."
As do chimpanzees, bonobos and zebra finches. But imitating is not learning.
Any human child can learn to speak two or more languages simultaneously with no confusion given the right learning environment.
But racists in countries like the U.S. continue to promote the English-only because English is a culturally superior language from a superior culture. Thus every Chinese child is getting educated in English, but almost no English-speaking children are learning Chinese.
"...the sort of teaching that goes with school and “parenting,” can be limiting."
For sure. Most schools are run like prisons because it is otherwise hard to control young people.
"In fact, children’s naturally evolved learning techniques are better suited to that sort of challenge than the teaching methods of the past two centuries."
So "The Lord of the Flies" is the answer?
Bilingual education -- designed to appease just one group of Americans, illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America -- has been a ghastly horrific failure dooming many illegal alien children to lives of poverty and menial labor.
It has, however, made teacher's unions very wealthy.
It has, however, made teacher's unions very wealthy.
1
One of my children wanted only to follow me around and mimic what I was doing. However my other child adopted a very different approach to learning, mostly wanting to be left alone with the Legos or the computer or the guitar to experiment, asking questions only when he was stumped. He knew I was there to answer them if I could.
Home learning and school learning should go hand in hand but the former should always be as fun and as fascinating as possible. But it's OK if school is a mixed bag because it necessarily requires more discipline and structure but school hopefully socializes children under the watchful eye of good teachers.
Home learning and school learning should go hand in hand but the former should always be as fun and as fascinating as possible. But it's OK if school is a mixed bag because it necessarily requires more discipline and structure but school hopefully socializes children under the watchful eye of good teachers.
5
Please don't take this personally Prof. Gopnik but did we not already know that children (as also adults) learn via many channels one of which is observing others?
1
Unschooling!
3
This is a great article. A lot of us have known this all our lives as this is how we were raised.
3
Dr Maria Montessori devised an educational system around this exact hypothesis a hundred years ago. A system which continues to prove itself valid in studies like this one. Why are we reinventing the wheel in education instead of using her systems more widely? Dr, Gopnik should at least flip through Montessori's book The Absorbent Mind.
24
Thanks, you beat me too it. The Montessori method uses this basic system, and has for a century.
It works, but PUBLIC UNION FLUNKY TEACHERS refuse to adopt it. They refuse all innovations, and prefer to go with whatever easy "fad" is around this year ("whole language").
Every public school could be using the PROVEN Montessori Method.....they they refuse to do so.
It is very well worthwhile to ask ourselves "why this is".
It works, but PUBLIC UNION FLUNKY TEACHERS refuse to adopt it. They refuse all innovations, and prefer to go with whatever easy "fad" is around this year ("whole language").
Every public school could be using the PROVEN Montessori Method.....they they refuse to do so.
It is very well worthwhile to ask ourselves "why this is".
Read "Baby Knows Best" which builds on the work of Magda Gerber who developed Resources for Infant Educarers (R.I.E.) This approach emphasizes the infant's natural ability to develop. Similar to Montessori but geared for infants from both to two years.
As a college physics professor, I often tell my intro physics students that ordinary mechanics is hard not because they know too little, but because they all already know too much. From early childhood experience to playing organized sports (whether a child is good in the sports or not), they have unarticulated proto-theories of motion, properties of matter, and forces. The real difficulty in intro physics is not the calculus or the algebra, but the need to refine these very good proto-theories into rigorous generalizations that still work in less familiar contexts. Not that my peroration does much good actually...oh, well.
2
What parent would let their kid, unsupervised, near any interesting implement these days? To be "interesting" is assumed to mean inherently dangerous and since supervision requires time, better to let them learn about the world by swishing their iphone. If Thomas Edison was being reared today, he'd grow up to be a sales manager at Kohls.
44
You might wish to view this short documentary:
http://playfreemovie.com/about/
They DO have playgrounds like this, just not in litigious America where everyone sues everyone else.
I did it, in a modified way and so do SOME parents, but not upper class white suburban parents in most areas -- they are helicopter parents, terrified of everything ("my kid can't play outside -- even at age 12! -- because they might be KIDNAPPED!").
I certainly grew up that way. My parents clearly had no fears, and every kid in my neighborhood (working class Midwest) played outside every minute we could, until it was so dark we could not see our hands in front of our faces.
http://playfreemovie.com/about/
They DO have playgrounds like this, just not in litigious America where everyone sues everyone else.
I did it, in a modified way and so do SOME parents, but not upper class white suburban parents in most areas -- they are helicopter parents, terrified of everything ("my kid can't play outside -- even at age 12! -- because they might be KIDNAPPED!").
I certainly grew up that way. My parents clearly had no fears, and every kid in my neighborhood (working class Midwest) played outside every minute we could, until it was so dark we could not see our hands in front of our faces.
Great research but don't over generalize on your premise that parents and "policy makers" are obsessed with pushing teaching because its the info age. Policy makers can and should push learning for children with less learning opportunity, socio-economic limitations, systemic underinvestment in addressing diversity and class advantage / disadvantage - all resulting highlighting a wide (or widening) achievement gap.
Excellent brain science... but questionable presumption.
Excellent brain science... but questionable presumption.
1
And send them to a Montasori school.
7
It's MONTESSORI and it is a century-old, PROVEN method of letting children learn in a natural, hands-on way.
Unfortunately, true Montessori Method schools are private and VERY expensive, making them out of reach for most American families -- and sadly, for nearly all poor children.
The all-powerful teacher unions have steadfastly refused to incorporate Montessori Method learning into their curriculum -- preferring educational "fads" like whole language -- or self-esteem classes.
Unfortunately, true Montessori Method schools are private and VERY expensive, making them out of reach for most American families -- and sadly, for nearly all poor children.
The all-powerful teacher unions have steadfastly refused to incorporate Montessori Method learning into their curriculum -- preferring educational "fads" like whole language -- or self-esteem classes.
I must not be as smart as a baby.
I could not understand most of the article.
I could not understand most of the article.
"There is a deep irony here."
No kidding but your irony is misplaced - the irony is the sister headline in the Grey Lady today: "On the English Language Arts test, 37.9 percent of the state’s third- through eighth-grade students scored as proficient, up from 31 percent the year before," YAY! Slightly over a third are proficient!
Innovation occurs after you master the basics - you don't get to innovate materials until you learn calculus, chemistry and physics. You don't get to innovate software until you learn predicate logic.
This magical thinking that there is no foundation for innovation and innovative thinking is simply silly and promulgated by those who never mastered the hard stuff - math, physics, chemistry, logic.
No kidding but your irony is misplaced - the irony is the sister headline in the Grey Lady today: "On the English Language Arts test, 37.9 percent of the state’s third- through eighth-grade students scored as proficient, up from 31 percent the year before," YAY! Slightly over a third are proficient!
Innovation occurs after you master the basics - you don't get to innovate materials until you learn calculus, chemistry and physics. You don't get to innovate software until you learn predicate logic.
This magical thinking that there is no foundation for innovation and innovative thinking is simply silly and promulgated by those who never mastered the hard stuff - math, physics, chemistry, logic.
2
Wow, for what it's worth, the article is talking about *babies* and *toddlers* and PRESCHOOLS; and the takeaway is that it is often better to let them explore their environment, toys, etc. *before* you jump in and show them how everything works. It is directed at "parents and policy makers"--parents as a child's first "teachers" and policy makers who are pushing structured academics (measured by testing) down into *preschools* where those policies do more harm than good.
1
The fact that explicit teaching stifles creativity and that unstructured experience enhances exploration is consistent with common experience, and confirms that "teaching to the test" is harmful to students education and intellectual skills.
Similarly filling days with scheduled activities and eliminating unstructured activities destroys the spontaneity and sense of independence which makes for intellectual achievement and scientific curiosity.
The unfortunate changes in public education and credentialing likely explain some of the decreasing productivity of this country and the lack of intellectual curiosity.
Similarly filling days with scheduled activities and eliminating unstructured activities destroys the spontaneity and sense of independence which makes for intellectual achievement and scientific curiosity.
The unfortunate changes in public education and credentialing likely explain some of the decreasing productivity of this country and the lack of intellectual curiosity.
30
When one of my cousins was five or six, he asked his mother whether electricity came from water. The image of a hydroelectric dam flashed across her mind and, to simplify matters, she said yes.
"Well," he went on, "I planted two Christmas tree bulbs in the yard, and how come when it rained they didn't light up?"
A future experimental scientist learning something about the slipperiness of language? Not quite, although he did become a test pilot.
"Well," he went on, "I planted two Christmas tree bulbs in the yard, and how come when it rained they didn't light up?"
A future experimental scientist learning something about the slipperiness of language? Not quite, although he did become a test pilot.
12
That was the beginning of a great discussion. Hope it happened.
Love this. Thank you, Alison. Sharing everywhere!
I think I agree with you. But I look at it the opposite way. When your experimenter said, "I wonder how this toy works," and twisted the handles as an example, she WAS teaching. And when your grandson watches you cook, you ARE teaching. Teaching certainly doesn't have to take place in classrooms with certified teachers, but it can.
If your point is that we focus too much on academic learning in preschool, maybe so. But if kids come into kindergarten these days not knowing their letters, they are already behind, so maybe that die is cast.
The problematic difference is not between parents who buy education apps for their toddler, and the ones who don't. The tragic divide is between children whose parents spend time talking to, reading to, and introducing the world to their kids, and those children born to parents who won't or can't. The second group will enter school with two strikes against them, and many never catch up.
If your point is that we focus too much on academic learning in preschool, maybe so. But if kids come into kindergarten these days not knowing their letters, they are already behind, so maybe that die is cast.
The problematic difference is not between parents who buy education apps for their toddler, and the ones who don't. The tragic divide is between children whose parents spend time talking to, reading to, and introducing the world to their kids, and those children born to parents who won't or can't. The second group will enter school with two strikes against them, and many never catch up.
84
The whole point of kindergarten is to TEACH YOU letters & numbers. If they are not doing that for kids, they are failing in their mission.
It seems like they want to turn kindergarten into first grade, and then offload the responsibilities of kindergarten to pre-school. Shame! The whole name KINDER GARDEN derives from the idea that is a time to learn by playing and exploring and interacting. If you turn it in to "book learning", you are doing 5 year olds a disservice.
Also: if we KNOW a certain segment of our children are not learning letters and numbers and concepts FROM THEIR PARENTS....then we KNOW they must learn it in SCHOOL. And we do know it, but somehow public union teachers are too lazy to change their boring lesson plans.
There are millions of parents today who are unmarried, poor, illiterate, on welfare -- some are doing drugs or drinking or partying instead of genuinely raising their kids -- if your parent cannot read, how can they read TO YOU? This is reality and teachers in poor neighborhoods need to get with the program and stop imposing upper middle class values on everyone else.
Maybe we can start by not allowing teenagers to drop out of school! or to graduate without knowing how to read and do math! and stop justifying and enabling them to have illegitimate babies on welfare.
It seems like they want to turn kindergarten into first grade, and then offload the responsibilities of kindergarten to pre-school. Shame! The whole name KINDER GARDEN derives from the idea that is a time to learn by playing and exploring and interacting. If you turn it in to "book learning", you are doing 5 year olds a disservice.
Also: if we KNOW a certain segment of our children are not learning letters and numbers and concepts FROM THEIR PARENTS....then we KNOW they must learn it in SCHOOL. And we do know it, but somehow public union teachers are too lazy to change their boring lesson plans.
There are millions of parents today who are unmarried, poor, illiterate, on welfare -- some are doing drugs or drinking or partying instead of genuinely raising their kids -- if your parent cannot read, how can they read TO YOU? This is reality and teachers in poor neighborhoods need to get with the program and stop imposing upper middle class values on everyone else.
Maybe we can start by not allowing teenagers to drop out of school! or to graduate without knowing how to read and do math! and stop justifying and enabling them to have illegitimate babies on welfare.
"We don’t have to make children learn, we just have to let them learn."
Exactly. Young children live to imitate what the adults caring for them do. Cleaning, cooking, folding laundry, gardening, etc. Electronics can't teach these interactive, social skills. Kids can learn to use a computer at any age. Social skills not so much.
Exactly. Young children live to imitate what the adults caring for them do. Cleaning, cooking, folding laundry, gardening, etc. Electronics can't teach these interactive, social skills. Kids can learn to use a computer at any age. Social skills not so much.
53
I did not really learn how to use a personal computer until I was in my early 30s. I had exposure at work to the work stations and mainframe computers there, but it was totally different -- no graphical interface, you had to ask the IT department to "run" programs for you -- and I did not get my first Macintosh until 1990. (They were really expensive, for one thing.)
It did not stop me from becoming an fairly expert user, and eventually a consultant and teacher to others.
BTW: I was born the same year as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Apparently they did OK and didn't grow up with computers.
Computers are overrated as learning tools. What children NEED is active play -- not organized sports -- but PLAY -- being out of doors in nature -- exploring -- building stuff -- using their hands and brains -- art supplies, so they can create stuff -- tools and toolboxes and an adult who will teach them how to use those tools -- and unsupervised time to spend by themselves, doing stuff or just daydreaming. And books -- lots of books -- by which I mean "real books".
You learn a lot by helping your parents garden, or fix cars or cook, or clean. You do not learn anything by playing Minecraft or Farmville or Candy Crush.
It did not stop me from becoming an fairly expert user, and eventually a consultant and teacher to others.
BTW: I was born the same year as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Apparently they did OK and didn't grow up with computers.
Computers are overrated as learning tools. What children NEED is active play -- not organized sports -- but PLAY -- being out of doors in nature -- exploring -- building stuff -- using their hands and brains -- art supplies, so they can create stuff -- tools and toolboxes and an adult who will teach them how to use those tools -- and unsupervised time to spend by themselves, doing stuff or just daydreaming. And books -- lots of books -- by which I mean "real books".
You learn a lot by helping your parents garden, or fix cars or cook, or clean. You do not learn anything by playing Minecraft or Farmville or Candy Crush.
As anyone with more than one child can attest to - there is tremendous variation among children with how they learn best. From "traditional learners " to more Waldorf inspired children it would be a dream if our public school system had the capacity to tailor teaching techniques to the child rather than the one size fits all approach that the common core demands the minute a child begins kindergarten.
29
My children both attended a Waldorf school. Both will tell anyone it was the best experience ever. They were happy and not stressed out. Both are now productive adults with jobs they love!
1
These arguments seem to be stealth ones, clothed in sophistry to support the conflicted notion that kids don’t need planned effort at educating them on the part of a center-right parent population but benefit nevertheless from publically-funded pre-school education provided by far-left educators. I’ve tried to weave a rational path between these arguments and I’m ... having problems.
Forty-five centuries ago kids didn’t need specialized education that couldn’t be provided by fathers to learn how to roll immense blocks of limestone and granite to Karnak and Giza to build monuments as slaves. Similarly, they didn’t need specialized education provided by others to help and learn from their fathers to bring down a deer in late Bronze-age Britain; or a boy two hundred years ago to learn from his father how to prune an apple orchard in upstate New York.
But kids can’t rely on native human learning-capacity to build an ability to compete in a complex global economy into which, somehow, they must fit. They may not require fathers and mothers to teach physics or foreign languages, but they need them to teach that society isn’t going to provide a guaranteed income without work (unless you live in Denmark or Finland, and are willing to rely on Americans and Brits to provide your innovation). And they need specialized education as soon as they can get it to allow them to build the skills that ALLOW them to compete in that complex global economy.
Today ain’t 2,500 BCE.
Forty-five centuries ago kids didn’t need specialized education that couldn’t be provided by fathers to learn how to roll immense blocks of limestone and granite to Karnak and Giza to build monuments as slaves. Similarly, they didn’t need specialized education provided by others to help and learn from their fathers to bring down a deer in late Bronze-age Britain; or a boy two hundred years ago to learn from his father how to prune an apple orchard in upstate New York.
But kids can’t rely on native human learning-capacity to build an ability to compete in a complex global economy into which, somehow, they must fit. They may not require fathers and mothers to teach physics or foreign languages, but they need them to teach that society isn’t going to provide a guaranteed income without work (unless you live in Denmark or Finland, and are willing to rely on Americans and Brits to provide your innovation). And they need specialized education as soon as they can get it to allow them to build the skills that ALLOW them to compete in that complex global economy.
Today ain’t 2,500 BCE.
3
You missed the point - which was well stated by the way. VERY YOUNG children need more exploring time, more free play time... VERY YOUNG. This article, in no way, implies that older children shouldn't be learning physics!
4
I don't know the author's other works -- perhaps you do -- but I didn't get that out of your comment. I AGREE in general with your comment -- I just didn't read that HERE.
I actually thought the author was saying that "top down" learning, from a teacher to a student -- is less effective than hands-on exploration and curiosity. Nothing totally deadens curiosity and experimentation like a stratified, controlled school environment that is lead by a public union flunky.
I also thought it argued for keeping children home LONGER -- not pre-school! -- because that is where this kind of genuine curious learning goes on. NOT in the classroom!
In Finland, they start school at age SEVEN! Second grade. There is no kindergarten or even first grade. And they achieve results that make us look like we are in rural Bulgaria. And school runs until age 19 -- and Finnish teachers are paid 35% less than American public union flunky teachers.
I think it is worth looking at all kinds of models, in order to develop one that works for American kids. Unfortunately today, the only model is the lefty liberal defense of a corrupt public unions.
I actually thought the author was saying that "top down" learning, from a teacher to a student -- is less effective than hands-on exploration and curiosity. Nothing totally deadens curiosity and experimentation like a stratified, controlled school environment that is lead by a public union flunky.
I also thought it argued for keeping children home LONGER -- not pre-school! -- because that is where this kind of genuine curious learning goes on. NOT in the classroom!
In Finland, they start school at age SEVEN! Second grade. There is no kindergarten or even first grade. And they achieve results that make us look like we are in rural Bulgaria. And school runs until age 19 -- and Finnish teachers are paid 35% less than American public union flunky teachers.
I think it is worth looking at all kinds of models, in order to develop one that works for American kids. Unfortunately today, the only model is the lefty liberal defense of a corrupt public unions.
This is really quite fascinating and it aligns very closely with my memories of my own childhood lo those many years ago.
My father gave me a few tools, mainly a screwdriver and I took apart anything that possibly could be taken apart.
I am so very grateful to my father!
My father gave me a few tools, mainly a screwdriver and I took apart anything that possibly could be taken apart.
I am so very grateful to my father!
76
He sounds like a great dad!
I am dismayed (as an old fogie) at how many children today are raised by well-meaning but electronics-addicted parents to be solely involved with computers, smartphones, tablets, video games and TV.
They will give their kids a building/exploring game like Minecraft, but they won't give the same kids a toolbox with a hammer, screwdriver or wrench. Children today are surprisingly disengaged with the real world -- many don't even play out of doors anymore.
I am dismayed (as an old fogie) at how many children today are raised by well-meaning but electronics-addicted parents to be solely involved with computers, smartphones, tablets, video games and TV.
They will give their kids a building/exploring game like Minecraft, but they won't give the same kids a toolbox with a hammer, screwdriver or wrench. Children today are surprisingly disengaged with the real world -- many don't even play out of doors anymore.
1
But could you put in back together? As a 3 year old i played gas station with my grandfather's car using sand from my nearby sandbox for gas. I learned not to put sand in the gas tank but not really why.
boy, can I relate to that!
Your concrete operators are incapable of abstract thought until puberty, so pushing algebra on a fourth grader is actually a race for the bottom. Asian children are better at math because of their language structure. We say 20, they say 10 plus 10, or 10 times 2. In other words, an asian child is listening and repeating their math tables - for their whole life. Our education system? Sends math tables home for the parents to teach...with no instruction of how to teach. Crazy. It gets even worse. If you knew what I knew, you would pull your children out of school. I stopped at middle school. This is a formidable time in your child's social development, which they learn from observation. Your child spending a day surrounded by a sea of spontaneous untrained minds and a few stressed out under prepared teachers? Find an unschooling program - let them go to community college. Let them sleep until noon, stay up 90 minutes later than you and send them to community college. In fact, get rid of secondary school all together. Community college works. Classes from noon to night. Time for jobs, time for volunteering, time with you - at work. Yes, bring your child to work, especially if they are boys. Want to know why boys are failing? Where are the men?