kids learning facts
- Started
- Last post
- 13 Responses
- _salisae_
Apparently a Web 2.0 author speculates that kids no longer need to learn facts (dates, names, places) and only need to understand the concept of a event in history. With sites like wikipedia and google storing this information for them, they can use their brain functions for more creative measures.
--------------------------------...
Tapscott who coined the phrase "net generation" says a better approach is to teach children to think creatively so that they can learn to understand and then apply the knowledge available freely online.
Tapscott said: "Teachers are no longer the fountain of knowledge -- the internet is. Kids should learn about history but they don't need to know all the dates.
http://www.brandrepublic.com/Glo…
--------------------------------...Do you feel this is a valid education direction for children?
- kona0
it might be safe to say tapscott does not have children
- canuck0
I wouldn't trust anything that you read on wikipedia.
- melq0
There is a discipline gained through learning facts and then applying that knowledge to a set of circumstances and comparing with the results. It's not just the situation in question, but the process of learning how to learn.
This is how you prepare a child for life. Not to mention the fact that you still need to be able to think when the power's out.
- the cables are cut and we become bumbling idiots. tom cruise's next sci-fi thriller!_salisae_
- canuck0
Kids are getting to fucking lazy. If tapscott had his way, kids wouldn't even have to learn math they could just use a calculator, and use their brains for more "creative" things.
- francoisfido0
"They can look that up and position it in history with a click on Google. Memorising facts and figures is a waste of time."
this is kind of wrong, you can't easily place things in a historical context unless you know the dates, even if it's only roughly.
- boobs0
We've got way too many people thinking creatively and not enough people just getting the job done.
- melq0
Worth a mention is the way the typical kid's brain works: in overdrive. This is why kids can so quickly acquire new skills: musical instruments, foreign languages, mathematics. That's how it works for them day in, day out -- learn new stuff.
Kids like to learn new things. They like to be entertained and captivated. "Go look it up" is not the answer kids are looking for.
There's the saying, "throw it on and see what sticks." I'm amazed at the volume of information that sticks.
- SigDesign0
History is important, so maybe not specific dates, but they need to know when things happened.
- _salisae_0
My immediate reaction to this is tri-fold. Firstly, I think it degrades the position a teacher holds. If their calls for children to memorize something are blown off then the respect for their authority will diminish rabidly – as well as rapidly.
Secondly, I don't have a mind for details as such. I'm much better at remembering story and am able to apply that to my creative work. So, I can see where Tapscott is coming from. Do we really need to memorize by rote? Or, does learning by rote keep our brain tuned for other thought capacities?
Thirdly, I am always open to change and evolution. I don't want to be a stick in some pile of old mud without a clue for what is developing among our masses. I did some volunteer work in the computer lab at a private school awhile ago and I watched kids sit down to a computer next to me and write incredible papers on very adult topics with the aid of the internet. I breached their privacy rules and actually read some of them. They didn't copy/paste their information .. they strung together confidant and meaningful sentences and took bold stances on the subjects. I was extremely impressed.
- Jaline0
Hmm...this was already in play when I was in high school and then university. Unless you are specifically talking about elementary school.
All of my courses were about memorizing certain things (which I did right before the exam), but you absolutely had to know how to apply the knowledge. You could bullshit your way through anything in this manner. Application is one of the most important things. You have to understand rather than memorize. For example, I never read the book that one of my final exams was on, but, because I understood and had an idea of the themes of the course and everything we had discussed in lectures, I made up the entire thing and, it made sense, so got a decent mark. Obviously this only applies for Arts-related programs.
Our professors rarely cared about their students remembering dates. Some of the most important ones had to be known, of course, but we just had to have an idea of what was going on, and be able to take that information and develop ideas based on that at any time.
- This makes sense for uni though, since you are more of an "equal" with your prof. Which I never believed in...Jaline
- Retaining the information is important, of course, (go to lectures!), but you have to figure out how it all fits.Jaline
- Yes, I was speaking more specifically to elementary-aged children.melq
- Thanks.
I'm guessing the whole thing is, based on the "kids" referenceJaline
- moural0
How can you understand concepts of an event without context (dates, places, etc...)?
Application of knowledge works great in subjects like language, math, and science, but not so much in history. History is not based in abstracts.
- _salisae_0
Thank you Bluejam, for the link. I listened to this tape series last year and I think you'd enjoy a listen.