Having access to digital distractions is just half of why students get bored. The other problem is that the material taught in K-12 schools feels irrelevant, because it is.
As an example, OP brings up art analysis. Done properly, it is a rewarding endeavour. But the kind of art analysis you find being taught by dispassionate high school teachers are of the "The Curtains Were Fucking Blue" variety. And so, students come away thinking that's what all art analysis is: irrelevant.
Students need real-world, meaningful context for what they're learning.
Not contrived word problems or symbolism-searching.
Students need real-world, meaningful context for what they're learning. Not contrived word problems....
This unfortunate meme is spreading like foot fungus in our schools, because there is some truth to it: you DO need SOME experience applying your skills in real-world contexts for your brain to decide they are worth keeping.
Unfortunately, this is misunderstood to mean that you don't learn things that aren't learned in realistic contexts. This is false and reflects a misunderstanding of the nature and value of math.
Math is the study of abstractions. When you learn that adding two apples to three apples gives you five apples and adding two bunnies to three bunnies gives you five bunnies, you soon discover that you can think of all such problems abstractly: adding a number to a number. When you then study how to add pure numbers, you are gaining experience with an infinite number of concrete, real-world problems simultaneously.
The point is not to give you experience with specific, realistic problems that you might encounter later, but to give you enough experience with different, concrete instances of an abstract concept that you begin to see the underlying similarity of all such problems. You don't need the instances to be "realistic", you need them to be recognizable enough that they lead you to an understanding of the abstraction. If problems are too realistic, people are tempted to solve them on the basis of domain experience and possibly miss the abstraction they represent.
You also need enough practice working directly with the abstraction (e.g., adding numbers that don't represent anything specific: pure numbers) that the result is fluency in recognizing a problem at an abstract level and easily solving it with your skills in manipulating the abstractions.
I think applying these abstract skills to some realistic problems is a great thing to do. But the fashionable notion among "progressive educators" that the study of "contrived problems" and "meaningless symbol manipulation" is to be avoided is a sad example of the blind leading the blind, robbing students of the true power of math: the ability to think in mathematical abstractions instead of being limited to the real-world contexts they've directly experienced.
I suppose I fall into the category of a 21st century student, although I finished my CS degree in the early 'noughts.
I think the thesis of the article is generally accurate, that students are capable, but less inclined, to pay attention to things not deemed worthy of the effort. However, I think the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff of stimulus is also an important lesson.
I look back to most of my courses fondly, but there were definitely periods where the professor was rehashing previously covered material, or pushing their own research agendas well beyond the course curriculum. As a student with limited hours (and in my case limited again with several part-time jobs), does it make sense to pay perfect attention to the lectures at hand, or maybe put the finishing touches on that assignment for another class?
That said, coming back to the author's example of art history, that was one of the most rewarding classes I took in university. Albeit a 3-hour examination of one work seems excessive, there's a lot to gain from the appreciation of fine works outside of algorithms and data structures.
The replacement is already being piloted in schools: mindfulness meditation. It encourages the same kinds of depth and discovery, in a more general-purpose fashion.
After all, if you aren't patient enough to do nothing at all, how are you going to be patient enough to study challenging material?
Seeing how the educational system that we have now was nonexistent 100 years ago that routinely offers information one can find online now, I feel like the author is referring to something that was more valuable and more applicable to a point in history than the current state of affairs (at least in the way our society values/rewards formal education with assumed employability and/or a necessary prerequisite for any further study for many things) .
Though on some level I can appreciate the need for patience when undergoing a process with a well defined end-point worth the wait that is understood by the person doing the waiting, I am failing to see how the current state of affairs in the education system deliver this to the students as they apparently have in the past (which I doubt seeing they ways things are now).
I would even doubt career academics would attribute their success to their patience (or being told that they should be patient) before their own curiosity.
>Seeing how the educational system that we have now was nonexistent 100 years ago
I'm not sure what you mean with "nonexisting". Attended by fewer people? If so, yes.
Still, a century ago (and quite a lot more for that matter), there were excellent universities and great curriculums, of the kind that put a lot of modern university curriculums to shame. Is fields such as literature, history, sociology and such there is no comparison even, compared to the watered down modern equivalents. But also in hard sciences. Our knowledge might has progresses, but university courses have more often than not declined, to adapt to "market needs" (something with is also widely admitted by professors).
>that routinely offers information one can find online now
It's not about information, it's about knowing how to evaluate information.
Information without the skills to evaluate it is just white noise.
To put it in another way, a 20 year old with full access to the Internet, is not (as a sum of his and the internets information) smarter and wont be more productive than Einstein or Bertrand Russell.
>I feel like the author is referring to something that was more valuable and more applicable to a point in history than the current state of affairs
Nope. The availability of huge amounts of information online even makes it much more important a skill -- for if you can show the necessary patience, then you have much more information at your disposal to evaluate and take advantage off.
Just the information without the patience = the typical internet user's attention span and non-productivity.
>I would even doubt career academics would attribute their success to their patience (or being told that they should be patient) before their own curiosity.
Most of them (of what I've read in biographies and interviews) attribute their success to hard work and study, which sure sounds like "patience" to me.
[+] [-] ncasenmare|13 years ago|reply
As an example, OP brings up art analysis. Done properly, it is a rewarding endeavour. But the kind of art analysis you find being taught by dispassionate high school teachers are of the "The Curtains Were Fucking Blue" variety. And so, students come away thinking that's what all art analysis is: irrelevant.
Students need real-world, meaningful context for what they're learning.
Not contrived word problems or symbolism-searching.
[+] [-] SiVal|13 years ago|reply
This unfortunate meme is spreading like foot fungus in our schools, because there is some truth to it: you DO need SOME experience applying your skills in real-world contexts for your brain to decide they are worth keeping.
Unfortunately, this is misunderstood to mean that you don't learn things that aren't learned in realistic contexts. This is false and reflects a misunderstanding of the nature and value of math.
Math is the study of abstractions. When you learn that adding two apples to three apples gives you five apples and adding two bunnies to three bunnies gives you five bunnies, you soon discover that you can think of all such problems abstractly: adding a number to a number. When you then study how to add pure numbers, you are gaining experience with an infinite number of concrete, real-world problems simultaneously.
The point is not to give you experience with specific, realistic problems that you might encounter later, but to give you enough experience with different, concrete instances of an abstract concept that you begin to see the underlying similarity of all such problems. You don't need the instances to be "realistic", you need them to be recognizable enough that they lead you to an understanding of the abstraction. If problems are too realistic, people are tempted to solve them on the basis of domain experience and possibly miss the abstraction they represent.
You also need enough practice working directly with the abstraction (e.g., adding numbers that don't represent anything specific: pure numbers) that the result is fluency in recognizing a problem at an abstract level and easily solving it with your skills in manipulating the abstractions.
I think applying these abstract skills to some realistic problems is a great thing to do. But the fashionable notion among "progressive educators" that the study of "contrived problems" and "meaningless symbol manipulation" is to be avoided is a sad example of the blind leading the blind, robbing students of the true power of math: the ability to think in mathematical abstractions instead of being limited to the real-world contexts they've directly experienced.
[+] [-] tokenadult|13 years ago|reply
What are some examples of real-world, meaningful context, in a field of study that interests you?
[+] [-] j-m-o|13 years ago|reply
I think the thesis of the article is generally accurate, that students are capable, but less inclined, to pay attention to things not deemed worthy of the effort. However, I think the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff of stimulus is also an important lesson.
I look back to most of my courses fondly, but there were definitely periods where the professor was rehashing previously covered material, or pushing their own research agendas well beyond the course curriculum. As a student with limited hours (and in my case limited again with several part-time jobs), does it make sense to pay perfect attention to the lectures at hand, or maybe put the finishing touches on that assignment for another class?
That said, coming back to the author's example of art history, that was one of the most rewarding classes I took in university. Albeit a 3-hour examination of one work seems excessive, there's a lot to gain from the appreciation of fine works outside of algorithms and data structures.
[+] [-] chipsy|13 years ago|reply
After all, if you aren't patient enough to do nothing at all, how are you going to be patient enough to study challenging material?
[+] [-] nsxwolf|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pistacchioso|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jwatte|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gdsimoes|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NoodleIncident|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tokenadult|13 years ago|reply
Isn't the time limit for editing a Hacker News comment approximately two hours long? Go for it.
[+] [-] cinquemb|13 years ago|reply
Though on some level I can appreciate the need for patience when undergoing a process with a well defined end-point worth the wait that is understood by the person doing the waiting, I am failing to see how the current state of affairs in the education system deliver this to the students as they apparently have in the past (which I doubt seeing they ways things are now).
I would even doubt career academics would attribute their success to their patience (or being told that they should be patient) before their own curiosity.
[+] [-] coldtea|13 years ago|reply
I'm not sure what you mean with "nonexisting". Attended by fewer people? If so, yes.
Still, a century ago (and quite a lot more for that matter), there were excellent universities and great curriculums, of the kind that put a lot of modern university curriculums to shame. Is fields such as literature, history, sociology and such there is no comparison even, compared to the watered down modern equivalents. But also in hard sciences. Our knowledge might has progresses, but university courses have more often than not declined, to adapt to "market needs" (something with is also widely admitted by professors).
>that routinely offers information one can find online now
It's not about information, it's about knowing how to evaluate information.
Information without the skills to evaluate it is just white noise.
To put it in another way, a 20 year old with full access to the Internet, is not (as a sum of his and the internets information) smarter and wont be more productive than Einstein or Bertrand Russell.
>I feel like the author is referring to something that was more valuable and more applicable to a point in history than the current state of affairs
Nope. The availability of huge amounts of information online even makes it much more important a skill -- for if you can show the necessary patience, then you have much more information at your disposal to evaluate and take advantage off.
Just the information without the patience = the typical internet user's attention span and non-productivity.
>I would even doubt career academics would attribute their success to their patience (or being told that they should be patient) before their own curiosity.
Most of them (of what I've read in biographies and interviews) attribute their success to hard work and study, which sure sounds like "patience" to me.
Curiosity without patience = Reddit.