Eurika! I Know y kids dont lern nuffink at skool.
Discussion
I did A Level maths at college. Unfortunately, only for two weeks though. You see, I was so far out of my depth that I threw in the towel and changed subjects because I had a better chance of finding the Holy Grail in my attic than passing the exams.
And I now know why.
And I don't think it was because I was a thicko.
It was more because none of it was in any context. Yes, you can repeat plane equation until blue in the face. It won't have any meaning until you find a use for it. Which at the time, I didn't.
I went on to work as a software programmer. I now have to figure out a lot of maths problems. I will do some research and what I learn has a familiar ring to it...then I remember going through this before and it going straight over my head! But when I have to actually use something, it makes more sense.
So why isn't this applied to the national curriculum?
Why not have an English lesson where you learn how to break sentences down into their component parts, then a maths lesson where you learn Pythagoras to get the distance between two points, then an IT lesson where you learn to write a text adventure game in VB that sews it all together!
This might be a bad example, but the idea is that you learn something, and then you work on something that actually uses it and puts it into real-world practice.
Chances are, (unless you work for the council!) that you will spend your life working on real-world problems, using the crap you learnt at school. Why not put this into practice earlier?
Discuss!
And I now know why.
And I don't think it was because I was a thicko.
It was more because none of it was in any context. Yes, you can repeat plane equation until blue in the face. It won't have any meaning until you find a use for it. Which at the time, I didn't.
I went on to work as a software programmer. I now have to figure out a lot of maths problems. I will do some research and what I learn has a familiar ring to it...then I remember going through this before and it going straight over my head! But when I have to actually use something, it makes more sense.
So why isn't this applied to the national curriculum?
Why not have an English lesson where you learn how to break sentences down into their component parts, then a maths lesson where you learn Pythagoras to get the distance between two points, then an IT lesson where you learn to write a text adventure game in VB that sews it all together!
This might be a bad example, but the idea is that you learn something, and then you work on something that actually uses it and puts it into real-world practice.
Chances are, (unless you work for the council!) that you will spend your life working on real-world problems, using the crap you learnt at school. Why not put this into practice earlier?
Discuss!
Edited by gamefreaks on Tuesday 9th December 17:35
totally agree, schools seem intent on teaching uesless information, if they could teach theory coupled with a practical use in real life, I think the education system would have a lot more value 
As it is, most folk leave school and forget what they have just spent 10years + learning because it is of no use outside a classroom.
As it is, most folk leave school and forget what they have just spent 10years + learning because it is of no use outside a classroom.
You realise this is yesterdays news story about changes to the national curriculum. Not to just teach "pure" subjects but to teach them together with a context. E.g. design and build a toy plane which will involve Maths, Art etc.
And I agree. This is why I got a C (barely) in Maths and a A in Physics. Physics had something to put the Maths around. Without that "thing" it's just a bunch of numbers generating a number.
And I agree. This is why I got a C (barely) in Maths and a A in Physics. Physics had something to put the Maths around. Without that "thing" it's just a bunch of numbers generating a number.
Munter said:
Without that "thing" it's just a bunch of numbers generating a number.
I always thought that the point of an education was to enable you to apply pre-learned "stuff" to a problem upon encountering it. I fail to see how wasting time by using 1 application of a "thing" is going to help those kids choose the same "thing" to solve a problem that is demonstrably different.I fear that kids would end up thinking that Pythagoras was purely used to build paper planes if we went down this route. After a while, the government would remover the Pythagoras (as it's too hard for poor Chantal) and just concentrate on the paper plane making!
Where are all the mathe-magicians when you need them?
gamefreaks said:
So why isn't this applied to the national curriculum?
At school there were A-levels in Pure Maths and Applied Maths. I wasn't that clever but the bright ones did both. gamefreaks said:
Why not have an English lesson where you learn how to break sentences down into their component parts,
When my father was at school (1930s) they did exactly that - IIRC it was called Box Grammar.I also remember learning geometry for O-level where you calculated areas and volumes of things - certainly useful for me later on.
Martial Arts Man said:
Munter said:
Without that "thing" it's just a bunch of numbers generating a number.
I always thought that the point of an education was to enable you to apply pre-learned "stuff" to a problem upon encountering it. I fail to see how wasting time by using 1 application of a "thing" is going to help those kids choose the same "thing" to solve a problem that is demonstrably different.I fear that kids would end up thinking that Pythagoras was purely used to build paper planes if we went down this route. After a while, the government would remover the Pythagoras (as it's too hard for poor Chantal) and just concentrate on the paper plane making!
Where are all the mathe-magicians when you need them?
Some schools do this.
My Mrs co-ordinates the "integrated curriculum" in her school. It not only puts subjects in context but teaches kids to be independant learners; meaning they don't need to be spoon fed and become self driven. Topic based learning that focuses on a common theme - this can be linked easily to topical local and national issues that some kids would never be aware of. The kids work in teams learning to get on with difficult team members (just like we do in real life), some work is also peer assessed; kids really understand what the expectations of their work is.
Biggest problem with these initiative is poor/ lazy teachers who aren't capable of developing and delivering the concept, or who just don't want to be involved. (. Which isn't a dig at teachers, you see it in all industry)
My Mrs co-ordinates the "integrated curriculum" in her school. It not only puts subjects in context but teaches kids to be independant learners; meaning they don't need to be spoon fed and become self driven. Topic based learning that focuses on a common theme - this can be linked easily to topical local and national issues that some kids would never be aware of. The kids work in teams learning to get on with difficult team members (just like we do in real life), some work is also peer assessed; kids really understand what the expectations of their work is.
Biggest problem with these initiative is poor/ lazy teachers who aren't capable of developing and delivering the concept, or who just don't want to be involved. (. Which isn't a dig at teachers, you see it in all industry)
Martial Arts Man said:
I always thought that the point of an education was to enable you to apply pre-learned "stuff" to a problem upon encountering it. I fail to see how wasting time by using 1 application of a "thing" is going to help those kids choose the same "thing" to solve a problem that is demonstrably different.
But the problem is that the pre-learned stuff is long forgotten. It might be 10 years between cramming for an exam and then having to use something in the real-world.The other thing is that you can have all of the theory in the world, but if you don't have the ability to take a concept off the blackboard and apply it on a real world problem then its all for nothing.
Thank yougamefreaks said:
Martial Arts Man said:
I always thought that the point of an education was to enable you to apply pre-learned "stuff" to a problem upon encountering it. I fail to see how wasting time by using 1 application of a "thing" is going to help those kids choose the same "thing" to solve a problem that is demonstrably different.
But the problem is that the pre-learned stuff is long forgotten. It might be 10 years between cramming for an exam and then having to use something in the real-world.The other thing is that you can have all of the theory in the world, but if you don't have the ability to take a concept off the blackboard and apply it on a real world problem then its all for nothing.
Thing is, how much time would have to be dedicated to provide application practice alongside theoretical study? I should think many multiples of current teaching time would be needed to achieve a similar standard, in terms of difficulty, to where we are currently at with theory alone.
The kids that don't actually need to play with bricks in order to understand calculating area, for instance, would find themselves bored in school. They would also leave school with half the knowledge provided by the current education system.
Please forgive me if this is not what you are actually saying.
I think the issue I am raising really is that all kids cannot be treated equally when it comes to education. Some need one thing, some need another. It is our duty as a society to nurture talent in any field that it is apparent. With regards to costing; there is no excuse regarding cost that is palatable in this day and age for failing our young. To fail with education is to fail the future.
We should know better!
When the bitter memories of the credit crunch are long consigned to the history books, it will be our educational failings that marked the beginning of the end for Britain. (IMHO)
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff