Would Chinese-style education work on British kids?
bbc.com
bbc.com
The good news: by my second year of teaching, kids from the first year were telling their friends how a flipped classroom takes work away from studying notes and puts them into your classroom time. My students were more confident when they practiced concepts in class then assessed their own knowledge with a low-pressure quiz at the end of class. My second year I had students (and their parents) fighting to be in my chemistry classroom instead of a 30-year veteran's traditional classroom with 55 minutes of lecture.
Based on what we know about learning and cognition -- and with the way that the internet and mobile technology is de-emphasizing the need for memorized fact and emphasizing asking questions and performing creative problem solving -- I don't know why we're looking towards rote learning models to educate a 21st century workforce.
I hazard to guess that the British students prefer copying things from a chalkboard because it's a novelty and requires considerably less effort than doing exercises. If they did it on a regular basis they'd quickly get bored.
Science classes in higher-income schools often follow this method too -- present a problem/question, introduce some bit of science knowledge, then investigate with a lab -- but low-income schools lack the resources to do lots of labs and as a result it's a lot of copying vocab/notes and doing problem sets that tend to be vocabulary-heavy.
It had a decent amount of q/a and discussion, but it's rather hard to escape lectures in history. They didn't bother me though, since I had great history teachers that knew their stuff and made the lectures themselves interesting through anecdotes and personal experience. History was always my favorite subject, even though I obtained a degree in computer science.
Pro Tip: Do not try the above in English class; many teachers will use subjectively graded assignments to punish you for sleeping through their lectures.
I actually moved the assessment/quiz to the beginning of the class as a "review", followed by 5 minutes of questions. This allowed students to gauge how they were doing cold "out of the gate". Often the students would realize that they were having a problem and we would expand this section before we moved on. In a survey that I made of the students, this was actually the most popular part of the class (which surprised me initially).
Next, I did 5 minutes of "lecture". Keeping it to 5 minutes was almost impossible, but I got better over time. Then I did "circling". This is a technique where you make grammar constructions more visible through questioning. For example, "John is a brown dog", "Who is a brown dog?", "What is John?", "What colour is John?", "What kind of animal is John?", "Is John a goldfish?". I do a random walk through the students and make sure that everyone understands the day's concept. (For some reason I can't find a good link with a description of circling. It is originally a technique from TPRS if anyone is interested to search for themselves).
Finally, there is group practice. Essentially I made the students solve logic puzzles in English (I disguised them as "games", but it boils down to this). They were allowed to use any resource they wanted to in order to answer the questions (including asking me, asking their friends, looking up things in dictionaries, etc). I did not enforce an "English only" policy because these were very low level students who had self esteem issues, but I had a sheet with everybody's name on it and every time I heard someone use English to ask/answer a question I would give them bonus marks. This was essentially their "classroom participation" mark.
Another successful idea for the group work at the beginning of the year was to have a series of difficult questions. The students then had to write down the name of somebody in the class who knew the answer to the question (The game was called "find someone who knows"). The idea was to integrate the higher level students and make them a valuable resource for the lower level students. Generally speaking, the high level students usually want to impress, so they do things like answer all the questions put to them in English. This worked surprisingly well (though probably partly due to peculiarities with Japanese social systems).
I only got to touch the surface of this before my contract ran out. I decided to go back to being a programmer rather than pursue a career of teaching, but it was an eye opening experience. I couldn't believe the difference it made to stop concentrating on presenting material and start concentrating on my students. So instead of explaining things, I simply watched them try to figure it out for themselves, giving them advice from time to time.
I don't know about your students but when I was in school copying things down was exactly how I engaged with the material. The act of transcription was how I remembered it -- I wouldn't even review the notes again later.
Perhaps this article should be more explicit in that it involves comparison between CHinese practices and those of a subset of British schools. I went to a british-style boys school, a rugby school. It was nothing like the one in this article. We did plenty of memorization. We paid attention and worked hard for many hours beyond what is expected of the kids in this article. By grade 12 I had actually read all the major Shakespeares, read them well enough to have opinions and write papers. (First year university was a total walk in comparison.) The brits need not go to china for inspiration.
The oxbridge (as in "the bridge of the ox", a very logical outcome from "the ford of the ox" and "the bridge of the cam") are more of commercial enterprises than teaching institutions, and the preference for them are first and foremost the result of commercial advertising. The business model in here is to attract a great mass of pupils, be very selective about it (in order to have high-profile prospects), be very expensive (because the networking happening there must worth the hassle), then selling the achievements of these high-potenial strictly-preselected material to others as the results of its own merit. The research, the eccentric curriculum, or any other quirk that sets these institutions apart from others are just secondary. That is the naked truth.
The USA education system does allow their top kids fly freely(which is really a small percentage), however the demanding on the average kids are too little, many kids gave up or drop out and could not find a decent job thereafter. No-child-left-behind can only do so much. There is nearly no grit/hard-working attitude in middle/high schools here at USA comparing to China.
Note 1: Not all Chinese students going overseas are top kids these days anymore, in fact most of them are having a rich dad meanwhile they can not stand up the fierce competition in Chinese schools. Note 2: The Chinese education system(in that sense, the India's) produced lot of "good-enough" engineers eager to fill up the H1B quota annually, those USA kids with the same IQ ended up not being a STEM engineer most likely, which is considered too nerdy or more, too hard for them. -- No pain, no gain.
The USA education system does allow their top kids fly freely(which is really a small percentage)
and I would like to ask, where does that happen? What place in the United States allows the top kids to fly freely? I ask, because I interact online most regularly with parents who have children identified as gifted children through regional Talent Search programs or specialized summer mathematics programs or the Davidson Institute for Talent Development.[1] I only very rarely hear of "top kids" (by any reasonable definition of top kids) whose parents report that the USA education system allows their children to fly freely. I just looked at your Hacker News user profile to see if you identify what country you are from. It is unusual enough here in the United States to say "USA education system" rather than "U.S. education system" or "United States education system" that I wonder whether you have ever experienced the education system here in the United States during your own education. On my part, I get the distinct impression that the United States education system underperforms for all learners in its care,[2] although not as badly as, say, Mexico's or India's.
[1] http://www.davidsongifted.org/
[2] http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2011/international-results-...
My local community college implies that sophmores and above (including home schoolers) can take any 1000 level or above class free (although the highschool gets veto power).
http://www.cnm.edu/depts/outreach/dual-credit/dual-credit-th...
In high school I did training for the international mathematics Olympiads (which was too much work but otherwise a great program) and that was all the extra input I really needed. In university I did an ordinary math program, and my parents really didn't understand that the math department is more than capable of challenging high iq students.
I feel that the system let me "fligh freely" because I always had access to challenging material if I wanted it (I also did debating). However my parents weren't satisfied because they wanted to be provided with a clear path from my youthful intelligence to future success.
And you said the US system underperforms for all learner in its care.. Well you might have been right technically, in the way that exercising 30 minutes a day is not as good as say a bodybuilder's workout routine.
Personal experience here-> The High School I went to in China has this following schedule- Weekday 6am wake up, 7am early self study/english pronunciation practice, 8~5 classes, 5~7 break time, 730~10 homework/ask teachers stuff, 1030 go to bed. Saturday Morning to noon, none stop exams to evaluate our progress. Go home in the afternoon. Sunday Return school before 7pm
Although this is my personal experience, almost all the competitive high schools in china follows similar schedule.
In comparison the US system grant much more freedom, I moved there at 10th grade and I must say it is much more liberating in choosing what I wanted to do. I do not think many schools in China let you pick the courses you want to study, or have as many (or any) college level courses. And for once starting your own club/participating in athletic activities is no longer "waste of time" and is recognized by college administration.
I am only comparing High schools because that's the only system I have expediences of on both sides.
Less frequent milestone check-ups could give the top talent enough space to develop at their own pace "freely", mostly sponsored by their parents though(so really, not the public education system), I think that's what happens in US.
No place that has the perfect system to produce a strong engineering population while set the top kids free, but at a quantity level, China/India system will produce more IT workers and engineers(normalized), which is key to the future.
Yes, there's a reason that the High Expectations Asian Father is a meme[1]. Even at home outside of school, the strict attitude of always being mindful of schooling was also made famous by the Tiger Mom author.[2]
When kids have 2 parents apply pressure like that, an inept high school football coach with a degree in General Studies could teach physics to Asian students and it wouldn't matter.
[1]http://highexpectationsasianfather.tumblr.com/
[2]http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Hymn-Tiger-Mother-Chua/dp/01431...
Might some children prefer it over less regimented styles of education? I find it easy to believe that some would, because in the Chinese style, it's clear what they're supposed to be doing at any given moment, and clear what their goal is (to achieve high scores). But does this actually help anyone? The problem as I see it is that they are practicing in an unambiguous situation when life itself is inherently ambiguous.
Maybe they're really just discovering the benefits of a bit of hard work and discipline.
Edit: I've also never really understood why British state schools let kids out at 2-3pm. Why not just keep them til 6pm when their parents get off work? It saves the parents huge trouble over childcare, whilst also having a demonstrably better effect on their education.
Then discuss philosophy of 'I hear, I forget; I see, I remember; I do, I understand' etc.
1 They cherry pick students. 2 The teachers in these specialised schools only teach one subject for only 3 hours day.
Edit: I had trouble telling that each section was written by a different author.
The point in the article that students have to be acculturated to what their school expects is very well taken. Students at a school-within-a-school for highly gifted students (a situation that exists in my local school district) have to be especially brought on board a school culture that differs from everyday school culture. And so it is for any school that introduces a change in curriculum, and for any school enrolling students who used to live elsewhere and attend other schools (a VERY common situation in the United States, and a situation I experienced while growing up).
Several comments here talk about "copying" or "regimentation," but the fine article points out that the Chinese teacher wanted to inductively lead students through a proof of the Pythagorean theorem--something I have done for much younger students here in the United States--while the British students insisted on just being told applications of the theorem without having to think about how the theorem is proved. A Minnesota Public Radio report just yesterday, based on a recent Aspen Ideas Festival discussion, "Is Math Important?"[1] includes statements that I think are factually incorrect about comparisons between education in the United States and education in China, but I have to agree with Professor Jo Boaler's statement that a mathematics lesson in secondary school in China is anything but memorization--it is all about students discovering mathematical ideas by pursuing a few hard problems each day with group discussion. There is a whole book about what Americans don't know about how elementary mathematics is taught in China[2] that is a good read for any participant here on Hacker News.
To answer the question posed by the article title, "Not without a lot of careful preparation, but it could possibly be an improvement for some students in some British schools."
[1] http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/08/03/mpr_news_presents
[2] http://www.amazon.com/Knowing-Teaching-Elementary-Mathematic...
The American schools I've seen did have such staff, but they called them guidance counselors or something like that.
So. I judge that my education's implementation was neither "Chinese" nor "American (British-ish?)" (I quote these words, because I don't know that they are adequately representative). However, I think that the conceptual precepts were much closer to the "Chinese" approach. Education and learning were expected. For instance, it would have been completely inappropriate and unacceptable for me to:
- complain about clothing (I did not have clothing requirements - if I had gone to a school with a uniform, so long as the clothing was functionally adequate for the weather, it would not have been acceptable to moan about fashion).
- complain about having no say in my education. In time, I got the chance to co-design my curriculum on the elective level, but not taking Math (as an example) would have been unacceptable and not up for discussion.
- Not doing assigned work. I was expected to complete the day's assignments. Interestingly, my school day finished at around 2pm (started at 8), with the rest of the day for assignments and my own time. The goal was understanding, not memorization (beyond the obvious facts that need remembering).
- complain about dullness. There was no conception that entertainment (i.e., fun) was part of the purpose of education. It was - in a hazy and unforced way - my duty and obligation to learn. Learning was the entire orientation; if it was dull, it was dull: sucking it up and moving on was the way to go.
A portion of how I was taught was entirely along the lines that the maths teacher (Mr. Zou) delineated:
> . When I first introduced Pythagoras's theorem, I decided to let the students find the proposition, prove and apply the theorem. That process is an important feature of maths teaching in China.
> But a lot of students said they found it unnecessary to prove Pythagoras's theorem - knowing how to apply it was enough.
Understanding the essence of the problem was a key component of the situation. Simply turning the math (or grammar, or history) crank and having an answer falling out was not considered to be a "good" way of going, and to perform at that level was to be only adequate. It was not the expected level - the expectation was to understand the material enough to build the equation. Learning in depth was normative, not unusual. This is very important to understand. I was not pulled out of school because I was gifted and talented. I was placed into homeschooling because my parents judged that the public schools of the area were inadequate to deliver an adequate education, which includes understanding the causes of the knowledge.
This expectation of in-depth understanding was then fed into the process of curriculum selection and analysis as I shifted into "high school" grades. As I prepared for college, my parents and I cooperated in building my coursework and knowledge base. In this I believe we sharply diverged from the "Chinese" model, as I was given broad freedom to learn on my own outside of the non-elective areas.
Fundamentally, education in my youth years was part of the appropriate process of growing up and becoming a fully formed adult. Not having a deep education was simply out of the question.
I think - given my experience - that the "Chinese" have a much better handle on how to educate. Let's dissect this -
> I'm used to speaking my mind in class, being bold, giving ideas, often working in groups to advance my skills and improve my knowledge.
The basic question here is - are the student's ideas worth hearing ? If the student's ideas were that good, perhaps they shouldn't be in the class. I recall very distinctly group work/group grading in college. I did not go to that class to be graded by my classmates - they were equally ignorant as I was! I wanted to learn from someone who knew what they were doing! But this also presupposes that the teacher also knows the subject adequately. Learning doesn't have to be unpleasant, but it's better to learn unpleasantly than to remain blissfully ignorant.
So I find it a bit odd that you then say "I think - given my experience - that the "Chinese" have a much better handle on how to educate."
Going through point by point:
- complain about clothing
Discipline. Chinese.
- In time, I got the chance to co-design my curriculum on the elective level
Education. Western.
- Interestingly, my school day finished at around 2pm (started at 8)
Education. Western.
- The goal was understanding, not memorization
Education. Western.
- complain about dullness.
Discipline. Chinese.
> The basic question here is - are the student's ideas worth hearing ?
Actually, that is rather besides the point. Being able to discuss ideas, go out on a limb, work well in groups, etc are important skills. Providing feedback to the teacher is critical in a group setting. Even incorrect ideas put forward by a student can get the other students to really think about the topic.
The learning was the primary orientation in my education too, but apart from mental discipline training happening with "sucking up and moving on", I wonder - wouldn't have been best if the process have been more tailored to my capabilities as a child? It's like optimizing for the underlying platform, making it less wasteful (on energy consumed on concentration).
What I can attest to strongly is this: my k-12 teaching was far closer to college and the work world than anything I've ever read about from US public schools.