I run a program for high schoolers to emphasize this skill. However, the entire K-University pipeline is designed around credentialism. Ie. do whatever you need to, cram/cheat/regurgitate, to get the rubber stamp. It's really hard to communicate the importance of self-directed education/learning how to learn when the vast majority of students' formal educational experiences tell them otherwise. Very frustrating but perhaps things are changing ...

▲

voxl 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

School has two competing goals and this will never change:

1. Have the kids learn new things 2. Have the kids reach a desired level of competency

Learning happens where you are at, not where the teacher wants you to be. Every student is at a different place in understanding. It's impossible without 1-on-1 instruction to really maximize learning.

Competency is only determined via testing. Learning doesn't require testing at all, you can just speak to a student to get a good idea if they're making some progress, any progress. Competency? That basically demands a test, because it has a particular bar in mind.

Now students know they need to pass the bar, somehow, but the anxiety of that is going to cause issues with them just trying to learn. This is unfixable though, because the outside pressures demand students have some level of competency otherwise teachers are viewed as failures.

	▲	fzwang 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I agree. Imo, #2 is becoming more of an emphasis over time. Teacher don't have much time/energy to pursue #1. Eventually, most of them stop caring and rely on testing metrics because that's what the admins want. It's amazing what kids can learn if they just spent a little bit of time with a 1-on-1 instructor/advisor. The anxiety you mentioned can be crippling and something I deal with regularly. Even some of the "gifted" kids (perhaps due to the expectations) have trouble avoiding the trap of overindexing on productivity/competency metrics. They're not even self aware of it, just accepts it as normal. For most kids I have to go through the exercise of separating these two concerns, the learning part and the signaling part, early so they can put things in perspective.

▲

calf 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

There's also the validity of learning methods, despite what studies may claim, there's no scientific "grand theory of meta-learning", and if ideas are misapplied/misused there's a risk of falling into scientism, which would be just as harmful as economically driven credentialism. At worst it is just the austerity version of education—learn it yourself because we can't afford the school resources to teach/coach/nurture subjects.

	▲	ivan_ah 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		There is no grand theory perhaps, but educational research is not totally useless, people have accumulated a lot of insights over the years and some of these "intuitions" are also backed by studies. Here are some book-length reviews of currently known things about learning/teaching that I found to have a very high signal-to-noise ratio: https://www.routledge.com/How-Learning-Happens-Seminal-Works... https://www.routledge.com/How-Teaching-Happens-Seminal-Works...