Robert Hansen posted Posted: Mar 13, 2014 8:03 AM (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9410957) - GSC's remarks interspersed: > > On Mar 12, 2014, at 8:48 PM, GS Chandy > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > In any case, how do any of your above arguments > >square up with your 'educational philosophy' that > >"Children must be PUSHED (or GOADED) to learn math!" > >(and coubtless everything else)?? > > (RH): Encouraging and pushing children to *realize* > their > full potential is conventional educational theory. (A - > Robert Hansen's latest version) > The idea that has been mooted is very different, as I'm sure you know but will not acknowledge. I repeat it here, to try to prevent further misinformation from you:
An 'Educational Philosophy' opposed to Robert Hansen's 'A' shown above:
B: "Children should be ENCOURAGED to learn (math; everything else). If effectively ENCOURAGED, they stand a good chance to learn how to PUSH themselves and even to GOAD themselves to overcome the many barriers and difficulties that all learners encounter".
It's quite remarkable that - more than 75 years after Piaget, Montessori and others researched into "how learning happens in humans, in particular, children" - the 'conventional educational system' as well as RH have not yet cottoned on to the difference between 'A' and 'B'.
It is even more remarkable that almost every mother intuitively knows that 'B' is the right way to train and teach her child. Our conventional education systems have failed to learn how to apply to their practice this wisdom that's intuitively known and used by every mother.
It is not difficult formally to demonstrate the differences between the outcomes of 'A' and 'B', but it is extremely difficult (perhaps impossible) to do this convincingly in 'pure prose', to which we're unfortunately limited at most forums, including Math-teach. To demonstrate *convincingly*, we'd need to apply the silver dyad 'prose+structural graphics' (p+sg) to the issue and also explain a bit about 'systems' - but alas RH and his cohorts and consorts have hermetically sealed their minds against the ingress of new knowledge, unfamiliar ideas - and are determined to remain that way. > > I never said they must be pushed, ... > No? I seem to recall differently, but let that pass. > > ... but some students > need pushing, plain and simple. It?s that or let them > realize later in life, after it is too late that they > should have done their schoolwork. I have to go with > the real world on this, not something I dreamed up. > The idea we're trying to get across (to the 'conventional educational system' including RH) is that the PUSHING becomes truly *effective* when it comes from 'within the learner', so to speak. Also that *effective* ENCOURAGEMENT would VERY significantly reduce the quantum of PUSHING that many teachers and parents feel is required to get their students to learn. This mainly occurs because the teachers and parents are themselves somewhat impervious to the need for real 'learning' - and almost entirely impervious to the need for 'unlearning'.
PUSH from outside is not a good idea, for human beings. We most of us know that it is not a good idea to try out on donkeys: the 'backlash', so to speak, is immediate. Well, for human beings, PUSHING is a much worse idea, I claim. The 'outcomes' of this 'PUSHING educational philosophy' for the field of math become clear to us only many years later, when the great majority of our students graduate school loathing and/or fearing math. This strange phenomenon should have taught us something - but, as noted, our 'conventional educational system' is impervious to learning as are apparently RH and his cohorts and consorts. In our conventional systems, there is is a very small amount of real learning that occurs, and practically no 'unlearning' of incorrect ideas: the people who least learn and 'unlearn' are, alas, the 'experts'.
(I often enclose some words/phrases between stars [*---*], to indicate that the 'system meaning' of the word/phrase significantly extends the definitions found in conventional dictionaries. To explain these extensions in 'pure prose' would be tiresome and fruitless).
GSC ("Still Shoveling! Not PUSHING!! Not GOADING!!!")