It honestly shocks me given the number of people who have these exact same experiences that we cant do a better job of recognizing and supporting people.
I think its only a recent idea that people learn in different ways. Making a single curriculum is hard enough, making bespoke ones for each person tailored to their strengths and weaknesses requires far more resources than most educational systems have.
It’s not about changing the curriculum, while it would be awesome it’s not always possible. Instead I would have found someone identifying kids with ADHD and just explaining that they know I was doing 110%, but my brain just doesn’t let me learn in the same way sometimes. A focus on “it’s the system, NOT a your fault (try harder) issue”.
So your path would make the student feel better, but just that part wouldn’t help the student learn any better/more. You and I are solving for two different problems.
From a social-emotional perspective it might help a lot of kids at least understand that someone recognizes they are working hard, and maybe doesn’t discourage them from wanting to learn. I personally think I would have benefited more from someone saying “we know you are trying just as much, if not more than your peers, but unfortunately the system doesn’t fit the way you need to learn all the time”, instead of “Tim is a smart kid, he just isn’t working to his full potential”.
Would leave less kids with the shame of not doing as well as their peers, while they’re exerting more effort than they are. I would often just not do stuff, because then I knew I didn’t try and fail.
I’m not saying your proposal wouldn’t be beneficial, but it costs money (which is hard to come by in education anyway) and doesn’t increase learning outcomes. What educational item gets cut to pay for the whole staff of people that “identifying kids with ADHD”?
This is the harsh reality that there are lots of good ideas, but only so much resources to implement any.
I really hope this can be improved with AI. A teacher can teach in ways that are effective for most students, but not all. But an LLM can scale up more than a teacher. Hopefully educators can somehow leverage that tech as a tool to multiply their own effectiveness.
Suppose that, instead of giving a lecture to 170 people as I did at the conference, I were to meet with each of them individually. Suppose I took one person off into a little room and there we had an interactive conversation instead of an expository lecture.
…then my partner would be involved. The juices would be flowing faster, his mind would be going a mile a minute, and he’d learn a lot more, wouldn’t he? From my point of view, I’d be getting my point across a lot more effectively, wouldn’t I? But the problem was, there were 170 people in that lecture room, and only one of me, and if I used the interactive method, I’d still be conversing with individuals. The expository method is so much more efficient.
And that is the nature of the problem. The interactive conversation is effective, but the expository lecture is efficient…every communicator has been forced to sacrifice effectiveness for efficiency – until now. Because now we have a technology that changes all that. With the computer, I can take my ideas and express them in the form of algorithms, and then I can code those algorithms in a program, and put that program on a floppy disk, and then we can mass produce that disk. We can make millions of copies of that disk and spread it all over the world so that millions of people can play my game. They can interact with my ideas. Because they are interacting, I achieve effectiveness. Because we are mass producing the disks, I achieve efficiency. This is the revolutionary significance of the computer. It allows us to have both effectiveness and efficiency.
It’s been many years since I’ve been in a classroom, but I feel like we could and should have a highly advanced system for individualizing education in a way that works with most learning styles.
It’s been many years since I’ve been in a classroom, but I feel like we could and should have a highly advanced system for individualizing education in a way that works with most learning styles.
I agree with your intent, but my point is underscored by the second to last sentence in your quoted text:
" I can code those algorithms in a program, and put that program on a floppy disk, and then we can mass produce that disk. We can make millions of copies of that disk and spread it all over the world so that millions of people can play my game. "
That person isn’t going to do that for free. They’ll likely expect payment (a reasonable ask) for the initial production, but also the ongoing support/update of the curriculum. All of those costs would be in addition to the resources spent on the lecture for the other student.
I think its only a recent idea that people learn in different ways. Making a single curriculum is hard enough, making bespoke ones for each person tailored to their strengths and weaknesses requires far more resources than most educational systems have.
It’s not about changing the curriculum, while it would be awesome it’s not always possible. Instead I would have found someone identifying kids with ADHD and just explaining that they know I was doing 110%, but my brain just doesn’t let me learn in the same way sometimes. A focus on “it’s the system, NOT a your fault (try harder) issue”.
So your path would make the student feel better, but just that part wouldn’t help the student learn any better/more. You and I are solving for two different problems.
From a social-emotional perspective it might help a lot of kids at least understand that someone recognizes they are working hard, and maybe doesn’t discourage them from wanting to learn. I personally think I would have benefited more from someone saying “we know you are trying just as much, if not more than your peers, but unfortunately the system doesn’t fit the way you need to learn all the time”, instead of “Tim is a smart kid, he just isn’t working to his full potential”.
Would leave less kids with the shame of not doing as well as their peers, while they’re exerting more effort than they are. I would often just not do stuff, because then I knew I didn’t try and fail.
Edit - mobile typing kills me
I’m not saying your proposal wouldn’t be beneficial, but it costs money (which is hard to come by in education anyway) and doesn’t increase learning outcomes. What educational item gets cut to pay for the whole staff of people that “identifying kids with ADHD”?
This is the harsh reality that there are lots of good ideas, but only so much resources to implement any.
Hey, I’ll pay for it if there’s a way. I wouldn’t mind a 5-10% extra tax if it means our education gets much better for the younger versions of us.
I really hope this can be improved with AI. A teacher can teach in ways that are effective for most students, but not all. But an LLM can scale up more than a teacher. Hopefully educators can somehow leverage that tech as a tool to multiply their own effectiveness.
I feel like The Dragon Speech is relevent here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBrj4S24074
Overall it’s a fantastic speech that is well worth a watch, but I found the relevent parts here: https://www.erasmatazz.com/library/the-journal-of-computer/jcgd-volume-6/i-had-a-dream.html
It’s been many years since I’ve been in a classroom, but I feel like we could and should have a highly advanced system for individualizing education in a way that works with most learning styles.
I agree with your intent, but my point is underscored by the second to last sentence in your quoted text:
" I can code those algorithms in a program, and put that program on a floppy disk, and then we can mass produce that disk. We can make millions of copies of that disk and spread it all over the world so that millions of people can play my game. "
That person isn’t going to do that for free. They’ll likely expect payment (a reasonable ask) for the initial production, but also the ongoing support/update of the curriculum. All of those costs would be in addition to the resources spent on the lecture for the other student.