<p>Post #16 illustrates why, and how, a single-focus approach to education can have limitations. Overall, more success has been shown (i.e., more carryover to higher levels of education) when at least 2 approaches are combined -- such as project-based (which I do like!) + traditional knowledge-based, or inquiry-based + traditional. (Etc.) </p>
<p>One of my problems with Gates, as well meaning as I'm sure he is, is that he shows a surface-approach to many supposedly national & internat'l problems & crises. It's great that he seems to have a social conscience, but part of any conscientious response is to get deeply educated about the problems you wish to "attack," solve, apply funds to, etc. The same lack of depth & "quick-fix" attitude he seems to bring to education, is what I see him bringing to world poverty & world health problems, too. Other benefactors have made it their business to become a specialist (fully informed) in a particular area of need, so that their efforts hold more promise of success, so that the funds have more likely an effective beneift. I wish he would take the time to do that, too -- or to partner intelligently with respected experts in the various fields of interest. (People who've shown success in their own various niches.)</p>
<p>Post #16 illustrates why, and how, a single-focus approach to education can have limitations. Overall, more success has been shown (i.e., more carryover to higher levels of education) when at least 2 approaches are combined -- such as project-based (which I do like!) + traditional knowledge-based, or inquiry-based + traditional. (Etc.) </p>
<p>One of my problems with Gates, as well meaning as I'm sure he is, is that he shows a surface-approach to many supposedly national & internat'l problems & crises. It's great that he seems to have a social conscience, but part of any conscientious response is to get deeply educated about the problems you wish to "attack," solve, apply funds to, etc. The same lack of depth & "quick-fix" attitude he seems to bring to education, is what I see him bringing to world poverty & world health problems, too. Other benefactors have made it their business to become a specialist (fully informed) in a particular area of need, so that their efforts hold more promise of success, so that the funds have more likely an effective beneift. I wish he would take the time to do that, too -- or to partner intelligently with respected experts in the various fields of interest. (People who've shown success in their own various niches.)</p>
<p>I'm glad you posted and I think you get to the heart of the issue, as does Epiphany and Marite. At what point do students have sufficient basic knowledge that they can move into more complicated tasks like critical reasoning and creative alternatives? Too little basic knowledge and it's like trying to build a house without bricks, wood, or concrete. On the other hand, filling minds with memorized facts is useless without reason or context - it's like having a warehouse full of bricks, wood and concrete but no design that pulls it all together into something meaningful.</p>
<p>My view is that we have erred by creating educational systems that assume students have more basic knowledge than they really do. Students use the internet to find facts in an instant just as my generation used a calculator to perform basic math calculations. The assumption in my generation was "Why waste students' time learning basic math computations when calculators can do it faster and more reliably?" All true, but it turned out that being able to mentally perform basic math computations is crucial to developing good analytical skills, logic, and plain old common sense. </p>
<p>It takes time to acquire a good grasp of basic knowledge and we may be shortchanging our kids by leapfrogging that aspect of their education.</p>
<p>From personal experience, the only way to really have successful students is for them to want to be successful. Learning at the high school level all about repetition and drilling, not fancy gimmicks. </p>
<p>In my experience, having laptops and technology is often an impediment to learning because they provide increased sources of distraction.</p>
<p>The best of luck to these students, but I doubt this program will achieve very much.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Learning at the high school level all about repetition and drilling, not fancy gimmicks.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>repetition and drilling, repetition and drilling, repetition and drilling, repetition and drilling. Now, I'm sooo glad my S avoided high school math altogether!</p>
<p>This is mostly just a PR stunt for Philadelphia (home to the nation's worst schools) and Microsoft. There are many other districts that have school programs just like it, or better.</p>
<p>With project-based learning, note-taking is very important! Instead of writing what one has heard a teacher say, one writes down what one has learned from doing. It's a bit like conducting experiments.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"It's not about memorizing certain algebraic equations and then regurgitating them in a test," Grover said. "It's about thinking how math might be used to solve a quality-of-water problem or how it might be used to determine whether or not we are safe in Philadelphia from the avian flu."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ah, but... you need to know those algebraic equations to be able to do any of the real-world problems. Try doing exponential growth without knowing A=A0<em>e^(r</em>t). Before you can do these real-world problems, you need to know the underlying subject. </p>
<p>And if you think "well, they know all they need to know, it's time to focus on more real-world stuff", then you deprive them of the oppertunity to do higher-level problems. Now let's say they want to model the spread of the avian flu, and how fast it will spread, which will use calculus. How can you possibly hope to do that problem without knowing basic derivatives?</p>
<p>It's called learning as you go along and as you need it. You use the problem as a hook to learn the basic stuff. You don't plunge headlong into trying to solve the problem by brute force or trial and error. As you try to solve the problem, you discover that you need to know something; you then go ahead and learn that something.</p>
<p>I think Grover did not imply that the learning should bypass understanding the underlying numerics and treating the mechanics as a black box, but rather knowing the context when a particular equation is applicable.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think Grover did not imply that the learning should bypass understanding the underlying numerics and treating the mechanics as a black box, but rather knowing the context when a particular equation is applicable.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Precisely. And the context is what was woefully lacking in S1's science learning.</p>
<p>A beautiful waste of tax dollars…… This school will be crap just like the rest in a few years… You can’t let just anyone into a new school and expect it to remain in good condition, especially when that “anyone” is the miscreant children of Philadelphia. They are trying to put a band-aid on a broken arm.</p>
<p>Project-based learning has clear benefits. It keeps students interested in the subject because they see real-world applications. It teaches sequentially so skills and knowledge are layered with each school year. It works great in theory and especially with motivated students. Maybe the Philadelphia high school and others like it will illustrate that it works with and can motivate most students. I'm interested in anything that helps students learn.</p>
<p>When I have a repairman at our house (rarely, because I'm one of those types who think I can fix it myself), I watch how s/he does the repairs and I ask questions so I will understand. Afterwards, I always feel like I can make the same repairs the next time - but I usually can't because there's more to learning than real world applications. </p>
<p>For most people, learning requires a foundation in repetitious tasks as ShiboigBoing and JDHutchin discuss. You have to be able to do the basic functions "in your sleep" and that ability comes from what most consider mindless or boring repetition. Even learning a foreign language, where real-world immersion can be a good way to learn, requires basic memorization, classroom instruction, and old-fashioned hard work to learn correctly.</p>
<p>kk19131, you can debate whether or not they are a good use of tax dollars (personally, I would think that infrastructure or police services would be a better use of tax money for Philadelphia, which has no bike lanes, horrible mass transit, and hundreds upon hundreds of murders per year, including many random ones of students and tourists like the UPenn student killed last week in North Philly), but new facilities do make a big difference in the quality of education. My point, however, was that Philadelphia is doing nothing new here. It's just copying what many other districts all over the country have already done. This is just a PR stunt for them.</p>
<p>It's probably a case of chicken and egg. Which one should come first? If you memorize formulas without ever knowing in what context they should be applied, you will be like S1 would, after not doing well on a test, said he knew the formula, but did not realize it was the one that he should have applied to solve the problem on the test. If you do not extrapolate from a very concrete project or do not use the opportunity to memorize, you will lose the knowledge you gained and you will not know how to apply what you learned in a slightly different context. </p>
<p>I see problem-based learning (which is how voke ed works) as being a hook that get kids, especially concrete learners, interested. But at a higher level, it can work, too. S did a special project in biotech (special because he and a friend were very advanced for that class). They were ambitious in designing the project, and consequently had to learn lots of biology and chemistry along the way.</p>
<p>It may be a chicken and egg issue that varies from student to student. However, compulsory public education has to focus on teaching the greatest number of people in the broadest strokes possible. It's easier to design a one-size-fits-all memorization system than to offer a projects-driven education. We also have to consider the abilities of the teachers. It's easier (at least it used to be, but maybe not in light of today's education schools) to hire teachers that can teach basic skills than to find teachers with the Socratic spark that a projects-driven education requires.</p>