October 2, 2008 at 15:35My education experience
UP: Gregory gave a very interesting reference, it seems to be a solution to the problem . Actually, you can immediately read it.
Being busy in educating people (university and trainings, continuing education courses), I see that education in the traditional sense provides very little useful (in fact, I do not discover America).
I am interested in the reasons for this state of things:
1 (most important). At school and university students are given answers to those questions that they did not ask. (I was bored and uninterested in philosophy classes to listen to the claims of the 80-year-old Marxist that the meaning of life is to develop a dialectical understanding of the term. But then I was wondering how to optimize both the time and the memory algorithm for combining photographs of Prokudin -Gorsky. But sadly, they didn’t say a word to us about optimization.) If you take seriously this huge amount of information, then the time for something guaranteed to be useful will be much less, and as a result the person will to know a little from everywhere, but on the whole, nothing responsible could be entrusted to him.
2. Since students are told so many different things, learning takes a very long time. 11 years at school + 5 years at the university. At the same time, few can even remember any simple school formulas from physics, mathematics or chemistry (or the rules of the Russian language) if his area of professional interest is not connected with these issues. I believe that spending a gigantic amount of time acquiring knowledge that will never come in handy is, at least, stupid.
3. Since the information taught to people is unlikely to be needed, it becomes possible to teach it poorly. This is more relevant, in my opinion, to universities, not schools. There are no generally accepted assessment criteria for teachers. This leads to the fact that "who is, he reads," and students do not respect such teachers with the ensuing consequences.
4. The standard set of financial problems, indifference, bureaucracy, undercover struggle.
At the same time, the presence of positive aspects cannot be denied:
1. Due to the large amount of information, a person can independently decide what he likes and where to move on. At least, it is commonly believed. For example, we decided to make a programmer out of a person whose soul does not lie in programming. It will turn out to be a middle programmer. These are also very necessary. But if we give him a choice, he will become a brilliant poet, for example. And maybe he won’t. (My personal example showed that the decision of the parents at the time of entering the university was the best. But this is a matter of upbringing.)
In order for a person to be able to consciously decide which way to move on, he must be sufficiently mature and independent. Sometimes it happens.
2. Erudition, or versatile education. Erudite people are those who know the answer to any question. Of course, this is a huge advantage. But, unfortunately, only a few units achieve erudition.
In general, I am convinced that education now reaches only one, minimal, goal: it gives a person the opportunity to choose what to learn, and then learn for himself.
I would be interested to know if there is such a form of education that is devoid of the above disadvantages. Of course, the best way to transfer experienceinformation is from the apprentice master. It is assumed that the master has very few students.
I try to follow a similar method of transferring experience - I conduct a so-called "circle" in Java. The circle does not have a schedule, students come individually, receive assignments, literature, and leave. Then they come again, show what they have done, I correct and give the next task. Thus, the best of them in 1-2 months can implement things that are interesting to themselves in Java. Of course, with my help.
What is good about it:
1. Only very well-motivated people can work offline. All who simply have an abstract desire do not come.
2. Motivation helps me to absorb the material well on my own and adequately relates to the huge number of my corrections. (I want to note that motivation here is a thousand times more important than ability, because it ensures performance).
3. People have the opportunity to develop at the speed at which they are capable.
What is wrong with this (except that it takes time):
1. We have to repeat the same mistakes to everyone. (Well, at least someone would come up with some original mistake!) It takes a lot of time. (I’m thinking about writing something like a memo or a tutorial, but I’m not ready for it yet. Yes, and students are rarely able to perceive such things.)
2. I don’t know yet what’s wrong with that.
Here is such an experience.
If someone has read up to here and can share such an experience, you are welcome. If someone has constructive criticism or suggestions, I also ask you for mercy.
PS: PPNH.
UP: transferred to "Education 2.0"
UP: The positive aspects of the university include: transfer of professional information between students and brain development.
Being busy in educating people (university and trainings, continuing education courses), I see that education in the traditional sense provides very little useful (in fact, I do not discover America).
I am interested in the reasons for this state of things:
1 (most important). At school and university students are given answers to those questions that they did not ask. (I was bored and uninterested in philosophy classes to listen to the claims of the 80-year-old Marxist that the meaning of life is to develop a dialectical understanding of the term. But then I was wondering how to optimize both the time and the memory algorithm for combining photographs of Prokudin -Gorsky. But sadly, they didn’t say a word to us about optimization.) If you take seriously this huge amount of information, then the time for something guaranteed to be useful will be much less, and as a result the person will to know a little from everywhere, but on the whole, nothing responsible could be entrusted to him.
2. Since students are told so many different things, learning takes a very long time. 11 years at school + 5 years at the university. At the same time, few can even remember any simple school formulas from physics, mathematics or chemistry (or the rules of the Russian language) if his area of professional interest is not connected with these issues. I believe that spending a gigantic amount of time acquiring knowledge that will never come in handy is, at least, stupid.
3. Since the information taught to people is unlikely to be needed, it becomes possible to teach it poorly. This is more relevant, in my opinion, to universities, not schools. There are no generally accepted assessment criteria for teachers. This leads to the fact that "who is, he reads," and students do not respect such teachers with the ensuing consequences.
4. The standard set of financial problems, indifference, bureaucracy, undercover struggle.
At the same time, the presence of positive aspects cannot be denied:
1. Due to the large amount of information, a person can independently decide what he likes and where to move on. At least, it is commonly believed. For example, we decided to make a programmer out of a person whose soul does not lie in programming. It will turn out to be a middle programmer. These are also very necessary. But if we give him a choice, he will become a brilliant poet, for example. And maybe he won’t. (My personal example showed that the decision of the parents at the time of entering the university was the best. But this is a matter of upbringing.)
In order for a person to be able to consciously decide which way to move on, he must be sufficiently mature and independent. Sometimes it happens.
2. Erudition, or versatile education. Erudite people are those who know the answer to any question. Of course, this is a huge advantage. But, unfortunately, only a few units achieve erudition.
In general, I am convinced that education now reaches only one, minimal, goal: it gives a person the opportunity to choose what to learn, and then learn for himself.
I would be interested to know if there is such a form of education that is devoid of the above disadvantages. Of course, the best way to transfer experience
I try to follow a similar method of transferring experience - I conduct a so-called "circle" in Java. The circle does not have a schedule, students come individually, receive assignments, literature, and leave. Then they come again, show what they have done, I correct and give the next task. Thus, the best of them in 1-2 months can implement things that are interesting to themselves in Java. Of course, with my help.
What is good about it:
1. Only very well-motivated people can work offline. All who simply have an abstract desire do not come.
2. Motivation helps me to absorb the material well on my own and adequately relates to the huge number of my corrections. (I want to note that motivation here is a thousand times more important than ability, because it ensures performance).
3. People have the opportunity to develop at the speed at which they are capable.
What is wrong with this (except that it takes time):
1. We have to repeat the same mistakes to everyone. (Well, at least someone would come up with some original mistake!) It takes a lot of time. (I’m thinking about writing something like a memo or a tutorial, but I’m not ready for it yet. Yes, and students are rarely able to perceive such things.)
2. I don’t know yet what’s wrong with that.
Here is such an experience.
If someone has read up to here and can share such an experience, you are welcome. If someone has constructive criticism or suggestions, I also ask you for mercy.
PS: PPNH.
UP: transferred to "Education 2.0"
UP: The positive aspects of the university include: transfer of professional information between students and brain development.