Reddit reviews Why Don't Students Like School?: A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions About How the Mind Works and What It Means for the Classroom
We found 15 Reddit comments about Why Don't Students Like School?: A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions About How the Mind Works and What It Means for the Classroom. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Jossey-Bass
Everything you're saying is old hat and naive. Edtech has been rehashed by everybody and their mother to death. The weak point is getting teachers on board, most of whom aren't the brightest among their college graduates. (On a side note, it doesn't take that much to get a 4-year degree, these days.) After that, it's getting the administrators, school district, parents, and community on board. And because education is intensely local, ie at the school district level, this has to happen everywhere. But this isn't going to happen, because education is about signaling, not achievement. Ironically, we still somehow manage to churn out 10 PhDs for every university professorship.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEmuEWjHr5c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE1DuBesGYM
http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/09/04/acc-entry-does-the-education-system-adequately-serve-advanced-students/
https://www.amazon.com/dp/047059196X
http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/kirschner_Sweller_Clark.pdf
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0691174652
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Follow_Through_(project)
https://researched.org.uk/challenging-the-education-is-broken-and-silicon-valley-narratives/
As a place to start I'd recommend two books that are educational psychology aimed at teachers: Visible Learning and the Science of How We Learn and Why Don't Students Like School. John Hattie (co-author of the former) is known to play fast and loose with science but his ed psych co-author seems to have reeled him in and provided a solid overview of the relevant literature. Daniel Willingham (author of the latter) is an educational psychologist who for years wrote a column in an educational publication for teachers answering common questions. His book is basically an updated compilation of those articles.
Watching one or two of Robert Bjork's lectures is a deeper introduction to the practical science of memory for teaching (including but not limited to everyone's favorite: spacing repetitions and free recall testing rather than reviewing).
As a further bridge between ed psych and education proper I'd recommend Theory of Instruction by Engelmann and Carnine, which is a compilation of most of their empirical work about, and the theoretical underpinnings of, Direct Instruction. The works of Robert Marzano have some scientific problems (nowhere near the level of John Hattie) but also do a good job bridging the gap between ed psych research, education research, and providing comprehensive and concrete recommendations for teachers in the areas of classroom management, curriculum, instructional delivery, and assessment design (which basically covers everything teachers do aside from administrative paperwork and attending meetings).
A good book that brings this up is "why don't students like school?" By Danile T. Willingham. If I could make teachers read a book this would probably be up in the top 3
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Dont-Students-Like-School/dp/047059196X
Edit: Not sure why I was downvoted... but OK. Uhm, if curious, the chapter where this topic is discussed is chapter 7: how should I adjust my teaching to different types of learners.
Edit to the edit: and now it's in an upswing. Never mind my previous comment. Never change, reddit
Good luck my friend. My first year teaching was in an urban school in NYC as well! I was working for a charter school that was extremely strict. I was told in advance to check out Doug Lemov's Teach Like a Champion and Daniel T. Willingham's Why Don't Students Like School.
I highly recommend both of them. Though they're great reads, but in terms of classroom management - I had to sort of make the mistakes on my own. It's sort of hard to explain, but reading about these topics in a book didn't quite give me a thorough enough understanding. I'm happy to chat more about my experiences if you'd like.
Yes, I am most definitely down with that.
I'm also not sure how books would be discussed either. I usually have a hard time critiquing neuropsychology-type books since I am not really qualified to determine whether the results are based on sound methodology.
Perhaps if it was like a seminar, where we all pick a book to read, and start an open thread where people can post opinions and questions and we can all try to answer them or post relevant hard science (or other) related articles.
I'm not sure about the logistics, but maybe post an announcement for the book, then give people 2 weeks or whatever to read it, then start another thread for discussion? (Or, even better...write the current book-club selection in the side-bar)...and put a common title on all discussion threads so they are easily searchable.
Here are my suggestions for books (suggested mostly because I own them already):
How We Decide - Jonah Lehrer
The Talent Code - Daniel Coyle
Outliers - Malcolm Gladwell (not really neuropsych, but has some neuropsychy ideas)
Why Don't Students Like School - Daniel Willingham (you convinced me to buy this book a couple weeks ago, and I'd love to discuss it more. I might write a review over at the subreddit I moderate [/shameless plug]).
EDIT: Maybe you could cross-post it as a "course" at the University of Reddit for more exposure? "Introduction to Popular Psychology" or something...
Psychologist Dan Willingham's Why Don't Students Like School: A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions About How the Mind Works and What It Means for the Classroom delves deeply into these questions, especially as they pertain to teaching and learning.
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Dont-Students-Like-School/dp/047059196X
I'm a big fan of Willingham. His book Why don't students like school is a good read for an intro to the cog psych of education (but not specifically maths)
If you're looking for anything on classroom management, although it touches on much more than that: Doug Lemov's Teach Like a Champion is good.
Also, I've heard good things about Daniel Willingham's Why Don't Students Like School, but I haven't read it myself. Good reviews though.
It's not necessarily a bad thing either. There's a lot of proof that rote memorization helps cognitive skills. This book (https://www.amazon.com/Why-Dont-Students-Like-School/dp/047059196X) talks about the science behind this as well as other things, but really made me think differently about rote memorization and realize it has serious value. I'm not saying STAY there in Blooms all through schooling -- I value the top levels of Blooms for sure. But there's some reason to believe Elementary schooling should have a ton of rote learning, and even higher levels should perhaps have some.
I believe in balance, of course, but most Americans way undervalue rote memorization and foundational skills nowadays (I know I did for years until I read that book and then pursued reading more research).
In my opinion, teaching is a profession that requires an understanding of Cognitive Science and Educational Theory before you step into a classroom. That being said, Teacher Education is often terrible so you aren't far behind.
I highly recommend that you read:
It made my day to see this as the top comment. I cringe to see those inventory lists and their ilk used in training, knowing that the science behind them is - has to be - so incredibly thin. Good psych studies are meticulously focused and controlled and are not easily generalized to the vast and varied domain of interactions called "learning."
Daniel Willingham's book Why Don't Students Like School has a chapter on this as well. I'd like to recommend that book based on your plans - it has been popular in education recently, and is readable, scholarly, and useful. It will give you a nice overview on a number of topics in educational psychology.
I agree with everything that you've written. There are some decent studies out there, but they are really hard to find. ERIC is flooded with research that has been bought and paid for by proponents of various systems.
There are a couple of books that I'd like to recommend, if you haven't read them: Teach Like a Champion and Why Don't Students Like School. In fact, I generally like everything by Daniel Willingham.
1
2
3
4
5
6
These are all good books to start with ^^
>The stats become the goal. That is not HOW LEARNING WORKS.
That's how we confirm that the curriculum is working. It's not about predicting outcomes, it's about verifying outcomes.
>There are children who grow physically so fast that for one school year they learn almost nothing.
You can't grow physically and learn at the same time? Obviously you can do both. Your brain isn't entirely focused on just growing your limbs. You can improve your thinking while physically growing at the same time.
We just need to get our students to spend time thinking about the curriculum. Read the book "Why Don't Students Like School,". Students will spend time thinking about stories and we can turn history into a story about the most interesting things that have happened on our planet.
> This particular departmental person likes to micromanage (or appear to be doing so)
This is basically the exact opposite of how good teaching happens. You can't micro-manage it because everyone teaches differently. You have to let people be themselves in the classroom or they won't be at all - except for being insincere and unmotivating. Students (at all levels) learn more from teachers who are passionate about what and how they're doing things. Taking that away is a great way to ensure that your students hate the class and become disinterested.
>It seems (we've only had one meeting thus far) to be a "share experiences" type of meeting
This is actually useful. Many of my best learning experiences in terms of growing as a teacher have come from sharing what I'm doing with colleagues and reflecting on it. If managed correctly, it can be a hugely beneficial process. If managed incorrectly (as it sounds like here) it can become a great process for saying "No, you didn't do it the way I told you. You're wrong. Do it again my way."
>I mean, the only thing that really qualifies me to teach these kids is that I know some shit, I've read some shit, and I was enthusiastic enough to get her support for it.
I mean, that's basically what qualifies most of us to teach most of the time. Even the "traditional" teachers are in this boat - it's all theory until you step inside a classroom and try to make the pieces fit together in a way that works for you. No worries. You'll get it down eventually. Good teaching is really hard to do. Anyone who tells you otherwise isn't a good teacher.
>mostly because our numbers are a bit sad. I think the department had more Greek 101s this semester than Latin 101s.
This sounds like the department needs to look at who is in charge of teaching the Latin sections (both prof. and TAs) and how that's happening. This is an absurd statistic that I've never heard of anywhere before and must in some way reflect how the course is being managed on an admin. level.
>It's a bit patronizing, really. Especially at the university level. These are full grown adults. But we still need to use stickers and read "The Night Before Christmas" to them in Latin in order for them to stay with it? I think not.
The sad thing is that these attempts to "make it relevant" ARE patronizing and DO drive students away. No one wants to be treated like a child (as an adult). I bet that's part of the enrollment issue.
>every TA gets a 2 day training session before they're considered "ready" to teach. Two days.
This is absurd. Anyone who think that's enough time to train someone to teach is out of their skull. I spend more time training my volunteers to teach in a leadership program I help manage. There's no way that should be an acceptable program for a University.
>TA quality can be really abysmal. If you have a person droning on, reading off a PowerPoint for 50 minutes four days a week, you will have complaints regardless of the topic. And hence, shit TAs lead to massive over-corrected oversight. That's just what I surmise through deduction, however.
This is so true. And the sad thing is that many of those TAs go on to be professors that teach that way. As a policy I used to skip classes like that in Uni. because I could accomplish twice as much in half the time at home and still get the "A". That anyone could "teach" that way and call it anything close to "effective" is a farce.
A friendly suggestion to you: here are the four most useful texts I've encountered in terms of teaching. I know that not all of them are written for the university level, but they all provide unique insight into parts of the process. If you can get your hands on them, I really suggest you spend some time reading them. Not because I think you're one of those shit TAs, but because it really seems like you don't want to be one and I doubt that your Uni. is going to offer much support in the way of helping you not do that.
Bonus Teach the Latin, I Pray You by Paul Distler. Distler offers an alternative to the current Latin L2 pedagogy we use. I'm not 100% on board with D.'s methods, but in terms of how we go about things currently vs. what you'll find in Shrum & Glisan, he's WAY closer.