

How we learn - b-man
http://squeakland.immuexa.com/resources/articles/article.jsp?id=1010

======
skmurphy
Very thought provoking and somewhat heart breaking. Two key paragraphs and
devastating conclusion:

 _When we talk about learning, we really mean two quite different things, the
process of discovery and of mastering what one discovers. All children are
naturally driven to create an accurate picture of the world and, with the help
of adults to use that picture to make predictions, formulate explanations,
imagine alternatives and design plans. Call it "guided discovery."_

 _In guided discovery - figuring out how the world works or unraveling the
structure of making tortillas - children learn to solve new problems. But what
is expected in school, at least in part, involves a very different process:
call it "routinized learning." Something already learned is made to be second
nature, so as to perform a skill effortlessly and quickly._

 _Schools don't teach the way children learn._

~~~
ricaurte
I whole-heartedly agree with the last phrase - "Schools don't teach the way
children learn." It's amazing how much more learning happens outside of the
classroom than in it, especially when you look at how much time you had to
spend in the classroom to begin with. Hopefully some educators will take the
practical advice in the article, and if the education leaders don't heed it,
they might be watching some of this research.

With people exploring different ways to improve education, there are some
interesting tidbits in an article published in Science last week that talked
about how scientists are creating a new foundation for education by
understanding learning's three principles, "learning is computational, social,
and supported by brain circuits linking perception and action that connect
people to one another."

One of the things they found - "Apparently babies need other people to learn.
They take in more information by looking at another person face to face than
by looking at that person on a big plasma TV screen."

The Press Release on ScienceDaily.com:
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090716141134.ht...](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090716141134.htm)

~~~
Alex3917
The Science Daily article is extremely inaccurate. Not only are the studies
they describe not new, they don't even summarize them correctly.

~~~
ricaurte
Care to elaborate? They didn't cite a bunch of studies in Science Daily (but
I'd assume in the article published in Science they would), and the article is
taken directly from the University of Washington's press release.

<http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=50883>

~~~
Alex3917
First, research about the 'video deficit' isn't new, this science has been
around for at least ten years, probably much longer.

Second, while there is evidence that eye contact is necessary for children
under one to recognize phonemes, and that eye contact has an effect on
extroversion and other elements of temperament, there is (AFAIK) no evidence
that it has any affect on children's ability to acquire academic skills of the
sort taught in school.

~~~
ThomPete
I believe that in language there is evidence that children that learn by
having their teachers do sign-language as they speak teach them languages
faster.

Furthermore academic skills is not really what the article seem to be after.

~~~
Alex3917
I was responding to the "schools don't teach the way students learn" quote.
That implies this research has vast implications for school-age children, but
there is no evidence to suggest this and really no reason at all to even
casually believe it's true.

