What exactly IS education?

[Sam H]

I ask this question because I have been teaching physics for decades, and I have yet to find a suitable "theory" for my discipline. I teach in the traditional way: lecture, homework, and exams consisting of show-your-work problems.

I have heard people from other disciplines talk about things like reading across curriculum, inquiry-based learning, civic engagement, just-in-time teaching, modeling, and a host of other ideas that I can't remember. I have always asked myself - partly due to the pressure from the administration, which invariably consists of faculty from humanities and social sciences and seeks uniformity across all disciplines - if it is possible to incorporate these ideas in technical disciplines like physics, chemistry, and engineering, and have failed to find an answer that I can use in my own teaching. Maybe science teaching is completely different from, say humanities, and science teachers ought to ignore research findings by their non-science colleagues.

I have also wondered if South Koreans, Chinese, and Indian educators - whose students have completely taken over the (hard) science departments in all major universities in the US - debate over education "theories" as we do. How do these students get to be so good in math and (hard) sciences? Is it in their genes? Is it in their culture and upbringing? And why do we seem to be stuck despite so many committees that are periodically formed and academic units that have popped up on many campuses to advance our students' science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) capabilities?

 

[Mark6]

On possible answer is that in China, India and South Korea 10-13 year olds who excel at math and science are admired and envied by other 10-13 year olds, instead of derided as "geeks". In order to become good at STEM subjects you have to start very early, and American teen and pre-teen culture makes math and science "uncool". A lot of children who could have gotten good at them give up because it makes their life harder.

 

[Puppycow]

I have also wondered if South Koreans, Chinese, and Indian educators - whose students have completely taken over the (hard) science departments in all major universities in the US - debate over education "theories" as we do. How do these students get to be so good in math and (hard) sciences? Is it in their genes? Is it in their culture and upbringing? And why do we seem to be stuck despite so many committees that are periodically formed and academic units that have popped up on many campuses to advance our students' science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) capabilities?

I think it's mostly down to their parents pushing them to excel in science and math. So you could call it a cultural thing. American parents in general seem to be more laissez faire about education (do you remember the "Tiger Mom" thing a couple years ago?). So I guess you could call it a mostly cultural thing. Genes might have something to do with it too, but I won't go there.

 

[chainlink]

The best way to spark interest in any technical subject is to demonstrate plenty of real-world examples. Otherwise learning can become a rather dry routine of memorizing quantities of facts and formulas that would seem to have no bearing on everyday life.

American teen and pre-teen culture makes math and science "uncool".

I think the reality is that teen culture is basically determined by whatever Hollywood dishes out at them. The real tragedy is that Hollywood is much more adept at influencing children and teens than parents and teachers, since Hollywood's influence is generally a strongly negative one.

 

[angrysoba]

These are all good questions and to be honest I have no idea what the answers are.

I sometimes suspect that the education in education business is a bit of a racket.

As an example, you can turn up to a lecture on education in which you are lectured that the most effective methods of teaching are in anything but lecturing. Sometimes the educators miss the irony in this.

 

[fuelair]

I ask this question because I have been teaching physics for decades, and I have yet to find a suitable "theory" for my discipline. I teach in the traditional way: lecture, homework, and exams consisting of show-your-work problems.

I have heard people from other disciplines talk about things like reading across curriculum, inquiry-based learning, civic engagement, just-in-time teaching, modeling, and a host of other ideas that I can't remember. I have always asked myself - partly due to the pressure from the administration, which invariably consists of faculty from humanities and social sciences and seeks uniformity across all disciplines - if it is possible to incorporate these ideas in technical disciplines like physics, chemistry, and engineering, and have failed to find an answer that I can use in my own teaching. Maybe science teaching is completely different from, say humanities, and science teachers ought to ignore research findings by their non-science colleagues.

I have also wondered if South Koreans, Chinese, and Indian educators - whose students have completely taken over the (hard) science departments in all major universities in the US - debate over education "theories" as we do. How do these students get to be so good in math and (hard) sciences? Is it in their genes? Is it in their culture and upbringing? And why do we seem to be stuck despite so many committees that are periodically formed and academic units that have popped up on many campuses to advance our students' science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) capabilities?

You ignore those things you noted at your peril if you are teaching in US public schools (Has the name Marzano popped up where you are? - If it has you will get a hearty laugh of sad recognition if you go into a teacher only science dept. (or other)meeting and say "Be careful, don't step in the Marzano!!" It has NEVER failed to get that laugh here in Florida!!!). Except that civic engagement thing - it is not used here (at least not in Orange County and Florida is way standardized now on this fecal matter). I have a sneaking suspicion it involves teaching how your subject matter and activities applicable to same uphold the local government/public, but am much open to dispute on that.

 

[fuelair]

These are all good questions and to be honest I have no idea what the answers are.

I sometimes suspect that the education in education business is a bit of a racket.

As an example, you can turn up to a lecture on education in which you are lectured that the most effective methods of teaching are in anything but lecturing. Sometimes the educators miss the irony in this.

Not those of us forced to listen to it or it's equivalents.

 

[psionl0]

Things like reading across curriculum, inquiry-based learning, civic engagement, just-in-time teaching, modeling, and "a host of other ideas" are just airy-fairy nonsense invented by bureaucrats who don't have to personally test these ideas in a classroom (they can just blame the failure of these ideas on the teacher instead). Even if they have some applicability in some subjects, they don't take into the account the discipline required in the maths and sciences.

However, there are lots of good teaching models that have applicability in the maths and sciences. The "concept attainment" and "discovery" models are two that come to mind. As a teacher of a physics subject, you must have access to a lot of physical models and laboratory experiments that can help your students gain a greater appreciation of the idea being taught.

 

[Sam H]

The best way to spark interest in any technical subject is to demonstrate plenty of real-world examples. Otherwise learning can become a rather dry routine of memorizing quantities of facts and formulas that would seem to have no bearing on everyday life.

Another idea that was floating around in the 1990's was "hads-on teaching" - I believe it is still there, although I don't hear the phrase as much I used to. I could understand the benefits of that in elementary school, but I couldn't incorporate it in my "electromagnetic theory" course, where I HAD to teach my students Maxwell's equations.

I guess now the question becomes "Should we avoid all abstract theoretical ideas?" I don't think the South Korean, Chinese, and Indian educators do that. And I have a strong suspicion that they don't adhere to "hands-on" techniques in their high schools and colleges.

 

[angrysoba]

Another idea that was floating around in the 1990's was "hads-on teaching" - I believe it is still there, although I don't hear the phrase as much I used to. I could understand the benefits of that in elementary school, but I couldn't incorporate it in my "electromagnetic theory" course, where I HAD to teach my students Maxwell's equations.

I guess now the question becomes "Should we avoid all abstract theoretical ideas?" I don't think the South Korean, Chinese, and Indian educators do that. And I have a strong suspicion that they don't adhere to "hands-on" techniques in their high schools and colleges.

I have to wonder if it is really a question of pedagogy or culture.

It seems to me that a lot of hands-on teaching and introducing of gimmicks and realia is to do with the fact that some children in some cultures become easily bored if they are not entertained.

Korean, Chinese and Indian students have more "extrinsic" motivation in the sense that good education results lead to successful employment and high salaries. In Japan this used to be the case, but less so now as nearly all Japanese have comfortable lifestyles. I expect that Korea will follow Japan, and only much later China.

 

[truethat]

Wow, I'm actually surprised to see such cynicism regarding the pedagogical theory because I love the theory even though it can't necessarily be practiced in real life due to the conflicts that arise when you limit the flexibility of the teacher based on the performance of the students and tie school funding to test performance.

A good way to think of the importance of such things is to consider the difference between learning a requirement in the classroom and learning something you are passionate about.

I'll paste a few snippets here to explain what I mean from papers I've worked on for classes, but a basic way of understanding it is to understand that the true goal of education is not to get students to memorize information long enough for them to pass a test, but to develop a life long meta-cognitive awareness. Meta-cognition is thinking about how you think. Knowing your strengths and weaknesses as a learner. Understanding your areas of interests and your passions. Knowing what bores you and where you come alive. Being aware of your emotional intelligence. IOW once a student understands themselves as a learner, they will be a learner for life and can learn anything.

When you evaluate your students on their ability to perform well on tests you fail to consider the reality that many of those students will memorize what they need to pass and then forget it. They have no passion for learning in and of itself. It is reduced to explicit instruction only.

All students have the capability of learning. The goal should be one that is focused on teaching students how to learn rather than what to learn. When you teach a student how to learn they can learn anything. One of the approaches that can be used to develop this ability is Strategy Instruction. Dr. Stephen Luke examines this style of education in his article “The Importance of Strategy Instruction.” A good source to use.

Part of education is getting students to become aware of the way ideas and strategies can be generalized across different disciplines. By relating learning to “real life,” we can avail to students the ability to become invested in their own learning as they understand that learning is not limited to the classroom. When students see concepts and ideas they are learning in school show up in their real life, it shifts their paradigm of understanding. They begin to see education as an explanation of life rather than something limited to the classroom. Educators should engage schema in order to create meaningful lessons. Use of KWL charts and journal entries can give teachers important feedback and help them to find ways to incorporate things that are going on in a child’s life to help boost their interaction in learning. For example, if a student is a sports fan, teachers can use sports statistics to get students more interested and involved. Cultural backgrounds can also be important in helping students explore the contributions from around the world as they relate to math concepts. The goal is to help students generalize concepts and skills and apply these to their everyday life. This is especially important for students who are being taught transitional life skills.




There are more explanations of these types of strategies but the goal is to get the students to relate it to their real lives which will then, if all educators use the same approach, will create a cross discipline approach.




Consider working with adults in Math. As a Math educator I am sometimes surprised to see so many people express their belief that they are, “not good at Math.” When I tutor adults I will attempt to have them realize the ways in their real life when they use Math on a regular basis. Many mothers I have met who feel they are not good at math are skilled at quickly tallying store purchases with discounts and evaluating their budget to decide what they can buy. When I point this out to these women, they concede that they do have some Math skills, but still view Math as an elusive discipline. This speaks to the way that learning can have a long term impact in a person’s view of themselves as a life-long student. It is important for educators to be mindful of the importance of creating meaningful connections between what the student is learning and how it relates to their real life. Educators should strive to build these connections in their lessons to help give students a metacognitive awareness of their abilities as a student.

One of the reasons that Math seems so difficult to so many people is because of the strategies that are generally used in Math instruction. Many educators and parents rely on memorization and flash cards as a way of helping students do well on Math tests. And while this might be helpful in gaining immediate improvement on test scores, over time it undermines the comprehension of Math.

In Paul Freire’s theory of “The Banking Concept of Education” Freire challenges the use of memorization in learning. Freire points out that by treating students like “receptacles to be filled with information” their critical thinking skills are “oppressed” He points out the importance of a symbiotic and reciprocal relationship in learning and how the active engagement with teachers allows the student to gain a much stronger understanding by pushing them towards a deeper more meaningful experience.


Both Freire, Luke and more well known theorists like Vygotsky and Piaget and Bloom, work towards what is more commonly understood to be

Constructivist approach.

So here's a wiki article if you want more information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(learning_theory)

 

[truethat]

Here is a link about a metacognitive approach to physics instruction.

http://www.phy.ilstu.edu/pte/311content/supporting.htm


Frankly I can't imagine a topic that is more suited to this type of instruction than physics. Because Physics is so mesmerizing in examining the mysteries of the universe and life I can't imagine not having a robust class and finding ways to underscore and embrace those feelings of awe than any student would have in their classroom.

And it's funny, I was just thinking today that I really wish I had taken a Physics class in college. I spoke to a Chemistry professor who told me once that science is taught all backwards in school because they teach it in alphabetical order, Biology, Chemistry and Physics.

Also I was just tonight watching a video by Lawrence Krauss. He's working on a program to make Physics more accessible to the average person. When I watched the video I understood everything he was saying. I realized I had backed away from it because it seems so much more convoluted than it really is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jY5BjGADv4#t=334


More information specific to Cross Discipline.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0807/0807.3534.pdf

 

[angrysoba]

truethat,

Just to let you know, that video of Krauss explaining physics is of a lecture of him explaining physics, right?

So how does that challenge the Savings and Loan Theory of Learning in favour of the Vygotskyan theory of Physics Teaching?

Besides, Vygotsky's theory of the Zone of Proximal Development was really aimed more towards child development. Its applications to other kinds of learning are really more to do with how people at different stages of development can assist each other, from what I remember of Mind in Society.

I am not knocking all kinds of educational theory, but rather pointing out that in some cases, the problem may not actually be one of pedagogy but rather cultural. And also, that as bad as some may find lecture style teaching or chalk-and-talk, there may be styles of teaching that are even worse that are adopted on the basis of not particularly convincing evidence.

 

[truethat]

No, see I almost addressed your comment but I didn't want to go on and on. Your comment misses a very important point.

That lecture or my own lectures are one time events that go on for a crowd of interested students for a few hours. Lectures are absolutely NOT an effective way to teach most students, primarily because most lecturers are boring.

I'm proud to point out something I realized about my own lectures. I lecture every week for 5 hours straight and I have to push the students out of my classroom.

One simple tiny strategy that I use in the classroom is to never use auditorium style seating but to seat people in groups at tables the same way you do in a child's preschool classroom.

The difference between my five hour lecture and a special event lecture is that it is a one time thing that is usually out of the norm of your regular schedule. But lecturing students every day or every other day is completely boring.

If you think back to your high school science classes and you were not passionate about science, you will most likely remember your lab experiments and the group project that the teacher always gave about finding a way to drop an egg and not have it break, or some activity related to using a certain number of popsicle sticks to build a bridge etc.

Those are hands on active learning activities that are done in real life. In the long term people do not realize that science relates to their real lives until the teacher gives them an opportunity to actually use physics in real life.

But physics is so so so easily acclimated to real life because physics is the explanation of real life.
http://www.stmary.ws/highschool/physics/home/links/physics_in_everyday_life.htm

You will use lectures at times. The point in saying that lecturing is wrong is not to say that you should never lecture but to point out that until the students themselves actively engage in learning they will not learn.



If you ask what a teacher's job is, most people will say "to teach" but this is not true. A teacher's job is to facilitate learning. The action that is happening in the classroom is that the student is learning, not that the teacher is teaching.

Far too many teachers get wrapped up in their own lesson plans and protocols etc that they focus on "teaching" rather than facilitating learning. They worry about their presentations and their lectures. That is what they mean when they say lecturing is not effective.

A simple way to think of it is to think of the difference between a teacher and a swim coach. A swim coach’s job is basically to observe the swimmer. Picture a swim coach walking along the edge of the pool watching the swimmer as he goes down the lane. Then as the swimmer gets out of the pool the coach gives him immediate and specific feedback. “You held your breath instead of breathing, you are lifting your head out of the water, your arm is too far away from your body, you forgot to kick consistently,” etc. In this way the swim coach acts as a guide to the swimmer. The swim coach is the observer, evaluator and giver of feedback. But the action is happening in the pool, not in the teaching.

 

[angrysoba]

No, see I almost addressed your comment but I didn't want to go on and on. Your comment misses a very important point.

That lecture or my own lectures are one time events that go on for a crowd of interested students for a few hours. Lectures are absolutely NOT an effective way to teach most students, primarily because most lecturers are boring.

I'm proud to point out something I realized about my own lectures. I lecture every week for 5 hours straight and I have to push the students out of my classroom.

One simple tiny strategy that I use in the classroom is to never use auditorium style seating but to seat people in groups at tables the same way you do in a child's preschool classroom.

The difference between my five hour lecture and a special event lecture is that it is a one time thing that is usually out of the norm of your regular schedule. But lecturing students every day or every other day is completely boring.

Then why on Earth did you post a video of a lecture by Krauss if you disapprove of the lecture style? What does this demonstrate?

Similarly, how come you can give five hour (!) lectures and still have to physically eject students from the room at the end of it, yet then go on to say that lectures are so boring?

It sounds like you are arguing against your position or else you are elevating yourself and Krauss to another class of teacher that others simply cannot measure up to. A case of don't do as I do, do as I say?

If you think back to your high school science classes and you were not passionate about science, you will most likely remember your lab experiments and the group project that the teacher always gave about finding a way to drop an egg and not have it break, or some activity related to using a certain number of popsicle sticks to build a bridge etc.

Those are hands on active learning activities that are done in real life. In the long term people do not realize that science relates to their real lives until the teacher gives them an opportunity to actually use physics in real life.

But physics is so so so easily acclimated to real life because physics is the explanation of real life.
http://www.stmary.ws/highschool/physics/home/links/physics_in_everyday_life.htm

You will use lectures at times. The point in saying that lecturing is wrong is not to say that you should never lecture but to point out that until the students themselves actively engage in learning they will not learn.



If you ask what a teacher's job is, most people will say "to teach" but this is not true. A teacher's job is to facilitate learning. The action that is happening in the classroom is that the student is learning, not that the teacher is teaching.

Far too many teachers get wrapped up in their own lesson plans and protocols etc that they focus on "teaching" rather than facilitating learning. They worry about their presentations and their lectures. That is what they mean when they say lecturing is not effective.

A simple way to think of it is to think of the difference between a teacher and a swim coach. A swim coach’s job is basically to observe the swimmer. Picture a swim coach walking along the edge of the pool watching the swimmer as he goes down the lane. Then as the swimmer gets out of the pool the coach gives him immediate and specific feedback. “You held your breath instead of breathing, you are lifting your head out of the water, your arm is too far away from your body, you forgot to kick consistently,” etc. In this way the swim coach acts as a guide to the swimmer. The swim coach is the observer, evaluator and giver of feedback. But the action is happening in the pool, not in the teaching.

All this theory sounds fine and dandy but the OP brings up some disconcerting evidence which is that Korean, Chinese and Indian students seem to learn better the way they do it if university STEM course admissions is any metric to judge by.

How does this brute fact fit with your theory?

 

[lenny]

As an example, you can turn up to a lecture on education in which you are lectured that the most effective methods of teaching are in anything but lecturing. Sometimes the educators miss the irony in this.

An excellent example, thx

I have attended several 'one day' courses aiming to improve my teaching skills, only to meet with "well, these ideas don't really apply to maths and science subjects" when I ask matter of fact "how would you do this in my subjects" questions.

 

[lenny]

...snip...
I have been teaching physics for decades, and I have yet to find a suitable "theory" for my discipline. I teach in the traditional way: lecture, homework, and exams consisting of show-your-work problems.
...snipp...
I have always asked myself - partly due to the pressure from the administration, which invariably consists of faculty from humanities and social sciences and seeks uniformity across all disciplines - if it is possible to incorporate these ideas in technical disciplines like physics, chemistry, and engineering, and have failed to find an answer that I can use in my own teaching. Maybe science teaching is completely different from, say humanities, and science teachers ought to ignore research findings by their non-science colleagues.

In my experience there are two very different kinds of teaching in maths/physics (as there are in playing an instrument). One is learning the basic technical skills of the day, the second is learning to "think" (create/select which research problems to pursue, and how to pursue them).

Chalk and talk is hard to beat in learning technical skills. (Although new techno can help the lecturer lecture better!). The real work there is up to the student: practice.

Learning about research is rather different, I expect there are more creative options there. I remain supportive of the apprenticeship approach, but better ways of communicating this side of maths/science in "lecture courses" would wonderful.

I am not knocking all kinds of educational theory, but rather pointing out that in some cases, the problem may not actually be one of pedagogy but rather cultural. And also, that as bad as some may find lecture style teaching or chalk-and-talk, there may be styles of teaching that are even worse that are adopted on the basis of not particularly convincing evidence.

Agreed. Happily this is easier to demonstrate in maths/stats courses where the use of tools is being taught and success/skill can easily be quantified. (That is: where "even worse" can be identified as such.)

 

[truethat]

Once again. You seem to be missing the point for the sake of some angry disgruntled resentment angrysoba.

Do I elevate myself and Krauss above the average teacher. Absolutely.

A. I have learned to make sure the classes are really engaging and interesting. I give myself some credit there.

BUT

B. Mostly it has to do with the interest of the students. My students are not forced to come to my classes. I'm assuming in Krauss's lecture they were not as well.

You have to consider how a lecture works when you would be dealing with a "captured audience" rather than a "captive audience."

Until a student can make what they are learning relevant to their real lives, they feel forced into the class. If the class is a "requirement for graduation" that's not the same thing as a student who is passionate about a subject and loves to learn about it. I said this in my very first post, so I'm assuming that you are just stubbornly refusing to reconsider the perspective.

Lenny. the problem with theoretical strategies is, as I said in my first post, undermined if the focus on the school is on performance rather than engaging the learner to be self directed.

I can't imagine why you would say these strategies don't apply to real life. In one of my classes I use an instructor who teaches Math and I also have to constantly cut him short because the teachers are dying to learn more, but time constrains require me to move on.


Math and Sciences will require explanation of course, but the goal of an educator is to take a complicated topic and make it easier to understand for the students. Far far too often teachers cannot do this. So instead they ask the students to read tons of material and test for memorization skills and recall rather than application, analysis, synthesis and self evaluation.

If you look at Bloom's Taxonomy you can see the difference. Knowledge and Comprehension is where "teach to test" teachers will focus their energies.

They pat themselves on the back for doing a "good job" because the students perform well on the test. But, especially in the case of Math, students basically memorize what they need to know, in order to pass the test. Then a year later they can't remember any of it.

This may look good on a record of the school and teacher's performance. But says very little about the student actually mastering the discipline.

 

[truethat]

In my experience there are two very different kinds of teaching in maths/physics (as there are in playing an instrument). One is learning the basic technical skills of the day, the second is learning to "think" (create/select which research problems to pursue, and how to pursue them).

Chalk and talk is hard to beat in learning technical skills. (Although new techno can help the lecturer lecture better!). The real work there is up to the student: practice.

Learning about research is rather different, I expect there are more creative options there. I remain supportive of the apprenticeship approach, but better ways of communicating this side of maths/science in "lecture courses" would wonderful.



Agreed. Happily this is easier to demonstrate in maths/stats courses where the use of tools is being taught and success/skill can easily be quantified. (That is: where "even worse" can be identified as such.)

Exactly.


I try to explain it in this very simple way: Long so I'll use spoiler tags

Bloom’s Taxonomy is Like Riding a Bike:

Think about riding a bike. Do you know how to ride a bike? Think about how old you were when you learned how to ride a bike. Most people were younger when they learned. It has been said that once you learn how to ride a bike, you never forget. Why is this? This is because you go through all Bloom’s stages of learning when you learn to ride a bike.

The first stage is Knowledge. Do you know what a bike is? Most kids will see friends riding their bikes and want to learn to do it as well. You know what a bike is. You have that knowledge.

The second stage is Comprehension. Do you understand how you are supposed to ride a bike? Do you understand how a bike works? You probably watched your friends riding and understood the basic mechanics of it. You sit on the bike, you balance, and you pedal with your feet.

Great! But how did you learn to ride the bike? Even if someone showed you--tried to walk you along while you practiced--the only way you learn how to ride a bike is by getting on the bike and doing it.

This is Application! You get on the bike. This is “hands on, active learning.” This is the first stage of higher learning. This is the first stage of critical thinking. This is the most important stage for young students. Students are always encouraged to learn in an active manner. You mastered the first part of riding a bike.

Then what did you do? Most people started playing around on the bike. Maybe you rode standing up, you let go of the handle bars, or you rode the bike in circles. This is Analysis! You are taking the idea apart and playing around with it.

Next perhaps you decided to pedal really fast as you went down a hill. Zoom! But then what happened? In most cases the bike chain pops off. Then you lost control of the bike. Now what do you do? Well you try to solve the problem. Perhaps you put your sneaker down to drag to a stop, perhaps you turned the handle bars to steer the bike to a safe stop, or perhaps you just crashed somewhere that was safer than the street. This is problem solving, this is Synthesis.

Finally you got up and you dusted yourself off and you thought about what just happened. You assessed the situation and realized that you should never pedal really fast when you are going down a hill. And you never forgot it! This is Evaluation. You have gone through all of the stages. Congratulations!

This is the way teachers are expected to educate students in the Constructivist Approach. Students are encouraged to engage in all the learning stages. As students move through the different stages they become learners for life. The goal is to foster a life-long appreciation and love of learning. The most significant of these stages is Application. It is important for students to always be taught in an active way rather than a passive way.

 

[truethat]

Then why on Earth did you post a video of a lecture by Krauss if you disapprove of the lecture style? What does this demonstrate?

Similarly, how come you can give five hour (!) lectures and still have to physically eject students from the room at the end of it, yet then go on to say that lectures are so boring?

It sounds like you are arguing against your position or else you are elevating yourself and Krauss to another class of teacher that others simply cannot measure up to. A case of don't do as I do, do as I say?





All this theory sounds fine and dandy but the OP brings up some disconcerting evidence which is that Korean, Chinese and Indian students seem to learn better the way they do it if university STEM course admissions is any metric to judge by.

How does this brute fact fit with your theory?

What's interesting about this is that for years I taught SAT Verbal and Writing classes in an Asian school here in Brooklyn. The students in the class always scored in the 650-700s in Math but bombed the verbal and writing, pulling 400s etc.

Cultural expectation and "real life relevance' has a lot to do with why this is so. Most Asian students that I have encountered are not interested in Humanities types courses because in their families the focus is on business and economics. So this theory fits right into what I'm saying.

When is the last time you have met an Asian (Indian, Chinese, Korean, Pakistani etc) student who was a Humanities major?

The reason they perform lower in these areas is that it is hard to make it relevant to their real life.

Generally with American students, you get a bunch of Liberal Arts or Media type majors who are not interested in the Maths or the Sciences but are only taking the classes to fulfill a core requirement.

But when a student is interested in these subjects they do better. It's common sense really.