<p>Its still **<strong><em>. Kids don’t need any </em></strong> psycho-neuro-complacency-vectored-blablabla method to learn. As someone who has been taught 7 years by the ‘traditional’ method and 5 years in the other, I can soundly say I learnt a lot more during the seven years.</p>
<p>In all the recent literature about differences between “boy learning” and “girl learning”, Tarhunt’s research is evident as well. This current method of teaching, which Hereshoping finds too “psychobabblish” (I once made a principal nearly burst when I used that term…LOL!) is still not effective for kids who are not ready or able to learn in the way the information is presented.</p>
<p>Are you British, Brew?</p>
<p>British system of schooling.</p>
<p>iloveagoodbrew, I’m thinking you’re not a “parent” although you post here in the Parent’s cafe fairly often. Here in the old folks zone we try to express our comments in a way that doesn’t require a lot of asterisks as much as possible. So please try to remember “When in Rome” when you post here, OK?</p>
<p>British System takes care of that then.</p>
<p>iloveagoodbrew:</p>
<p>One of the curses of being human is the constant tension between the neocortex and limbic/amygdala part of the brain (not to mention the basal ganglia in which such unmotivated behaviors as place preference are seated). The neocortex is rational enough, but it is often overriden by the amygdala which is the part of us that is seeking certainty. Certainty certainly has its uses. It is a survival mechanism, probably. Without it, our neocortex would vacillate and we would never be able to act. Hamlet probably had an overdeveloped neocortex.</p>
<p>The problem, of course, is that since human beings seek certainty, they will resist uncertainty and, MOST OF ALL, they will resist cognitions that differ from that certainty they thought they had. It leads to something called post-decisional behavior. Post-decisional behavior causes people to seek cognitions that reinforce preconceived opinion and ignore or discount those that disagree. Those in the throes of post-decisional behavior tend to become angry (angry enough to use profanity, for instance). It is why extremists in political parties scream invective at each other, and why Christians and Muslims and Sikhs and Hindus kill each other.</p>
<p>One can be educated, to some extent, out of post-decisional behavior. Working scientists tend to be very good at this, but even they have their problems with it (witness Einstein’s resistance to quantum theory). Socrates is probably the finest example of an educator who dealt with the harm caused by post-decisional behavior.</p>
<p>I presented some information about cognitive theory that angered you. The information I presented is like all science. It is subject to being disproved. The fact is, though, that the proof so overwhelmingly supports cognitive theory that the burden of proof lies on those who would denigrate it.</p>
<p>So, I am open to any proof you have or any refutation or mitigation of the research evidence that exists. I am not open, however, to mere uninformed opinion and willful ignorance. There is plenty of those things to be had in the human race, but they do not belong in rational discouse.</p>
<p>Surely, the British system of education did not teach you that shouting loudly and using profanity is a respectable means of promoting your argument?</p>
<p>Allmusic:</p>
<p>I can’t speak to the effectiveness of various educational techniques. It’s not my field. I can only speak to the theory.</p>
<p>I would find it hard to believe that any single technique works for all learners. I won’t say it couldn’t be so, but I think it’s a remote probability.</p>
<p>kluge:</p>
<p>If you want to find a survey book on motivational psychology, you will find most of what I wrote here as well as some information on some very fascinating and counterintuitive research.</p>
<p>I think you’re right that learning tends to happen best when one is thinking, and presenting ideas that conflict with preconceived notions is a wonderful way to cause learners of any age to become heavily engaged.</p>
<p>hereshoping:</p>
<p>By definition, all learning is psychological. There can be no delineation between “traditional” and “psychological.” The traditional is psychological. The only useful question is which psychological means of teaching works best.</p>
<p>Your son doesn’t like Socratic classrooms?</p>
<p>The Socratic method can also be called an interactive method. It need involve playing devil’s advocate and challenging preconceived ideas. But it involves getting students engaged in their own learning. For an example of how it is sometimes done at the college level, google Eric Mazur. He teaches physics at Harvard. He found that simply lecturing was not enough to ensure that students actually learned the materials, not did it help instructors know which part caused difficulty. The new report on the Sciences at Harvard advocates more hands-on learning in the sciences. along the lines he pioneered.
Oen reason for the popularity of LACs is not just the low faculty:student ratio; it is that the small size of classes allow for plenty of discussion. </p>
<p>Some lecturers can be absolutely mesmerizing, and others can put one to sleep. Some projects can be true eye-openers and others can be fluff. There is no single correct way of teaching that works in every circumstances with every student. And sometimes group dynamics differ wildly in different sections of the same class taught by the same TF.</p>
<p>marite:</p>
<p>Agreed on all points. Thanks.</p>