"LJ" and investigations math
Moderator: Marduk
-
TheAnswerIs42
- Posts: 962
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:13 pm
- Location: Pleasant Grove, Utah
"LJ" and investigations math
I will spare everyone else from my ramblings, but I taught math in Alpine School District and did undergraduate research on investigational teaching techniques when I was studying at BYU. So I could go off for a long time on the topic of investigations as used in ASD. LJ, whoever you are: message me, please. I LOVE talking about this topic to whoever will listen.
-
Fredjikrang
- Never Coming Back?
- Posts: 2031
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:59 am
- Location: Provo, UT
- Contact:
-
TheAnswerIs42
- Posts: 962
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:13 pm
- Location: Pleasant Grove, Utah
-
TheAnswerIs42
- Posts: 962
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:13 pm
- Location: Pleasant Grove, Utah
Okay, so here goes the second try . . .
Let me start at the beginning. Years ago, researchers wanted to figure out why American students are testing years and years behind Japanese students in math by the time they reach High School. So they did a massive study where they videotaped hours and hours of math classes all across America, Japan and Germany, and then compared the teaching styles. From here, I think the logic is faulty. I think that Japanese students test better than ours because their culture values education. Parents push their kids to excel, and teachers are respected, not to mention teachers work together more than they ever will here. But the researchers figured that if we could figure out what they were doing and copy it, then we could do a little better over here. This was the birth of “investigations†math.
What they saw was that in Japan is that most math classes begin with a hard problem that the students had never seen before. They work on the problem alone, then in small groups or a teacher-led discussion of what they should try to do. By the end, a lesson has been taught on how to work that type of problem, but in the meantime the students have seen how that problem really works and why.
In America, the process should be familiar to you. The teacher presents a problem and the way to solve it, then has the class try it a few times. Then they talk about the different versions of that problem that may occur, throw in a word problem or two, and assign homework.
Here is the fact: when the students know how to learn the investigational way, and the teachers know what they are doing, the Japanese style of math leads to better retention and better understanding on new problems. The retention is because the students know intricately how it works, since they (in essence), invented the steps themselves. They “own the knowledgeâ€, as one of my professors put it. The reason it helps on math that the students have never seen before is that Japanese students are not afraid of new and different things, whereas the average American student has only been programmed to replicate methods shown in class, and not to experiment with their own ideas. When presented with something new, they tend to freeze when the Japanese students start to brainstorm. Lots and lots of research proved this to be true.
So on to Alpine School District. Like every school district in the country, they are constantly under pressure from parents to “fix†the math and science departments, since our students are scoring lower than any other first world country on tests (true story). Somehow it is always the teacher’s fault, and everyone ignores the fact that our students are mostly lazy bums and the parents blame others instead of push their kids to do better, but I digress into a rant. So the district saw this new method, and decided to try it. They figured that the old, set-in-their-ways teachers would never switch if they were merely given the option to (which is absolutely true), and decided that things would work out okay if they just forced them to switch anyway (which they found to be false).
It is a good method, after all. Notice the clause I had though. “When the students know how to learn that way, and the teachers know what they are doingâ€, THEN it works. The research that I did in college showed all of this just as much as the studies I read. Our group worked with Janet Walter in the Math Ed department (and I just narrowed myself down to a handful of people, but who cares). She was teaching a math course to Elementary School teachers in the investigational method. So these are not “math†people, but your average elementary school teacher that hasn’t done anything harder than a 5th grade level in years.
I don’t know how strange this investigational method sounds to you, but when done right, it is totally different and foreign. But Janet was a master at it. The students, on the other hand, had no idea what was going on. For a year of weekly classes, we videotaped them as they just stuttered through this. They did the bare minimum work, and never looked into why or how things worked unless they had to. We cringed from the back of the room as they convinced themselves methods were “the right answer†that had nothing to do with the basic laws of math. But just when we thought all hope was lost, after about one year, they suddenly got it and took off. They were learning all kinds of unexpected things with each problem, because they could see how it related to everything else they learned. They were coming to class excited about something they had thought about at home. And they were really and truly learning. It was amazing!
So the learning curve was about a year for adults when the teacher was well versed on what they were doing. And ASD just dropped all of their teachers into the deep end of the pool, whether they liked this method or not. The teachers were frustrated and actually scared. I don’t think anyone could have predicted how badly it got interpreted though. For example, there are some things, like the times table, that just have to be done by memorization. The Japanese students sit there and memorize it just like we do. But I talked to students whose teachers would shut their doors and tell them not to say anything so they wouldn’t get in trouble, but they needed to work on the times tables the old way. <Frustrated sigh>. Honestly, I worked with the mathematics department in the district office, and I know they didn’t mean THAT to come across.
LJ asked what the current policy is, and unfortunately I stopped teaching long enough ago that I am not sure exactly. I think it is up to each teacher or school to determine how they want to teach. I tutor a few kids in the district, and I still see investigations booklets, though not as often. For me personally, High School wasn’t affected. We always taught out of “normal†textbooks. After seeing how investigational methods could help me, I did my own personal blend. Some days I just gave them the method straight, some days I made them brainstorm together what we should do (if I thought the content for the day would come naturally from something else we learned), and a few times each year I had them break into groups and work on the problem on their own. I saw that as the best way to do things. Some topics just needed to drop out of the sky and onto their papers, but sometimes I think they gained a better perspective by seeing the inner workings first.
Here is the mind-boggling part though. Through all the complaints from parents, and outrage from the general public, the test scores across the district did not drop. In fact, over the course of the “investigations†period, they even went up a bit. Individually, there are people who learn better with one method or the other, and so a lot of people ran to the charter schools and their Saxon math (which is the opposite pendulum swing from Investigations). But as a group, across the entire district, the scores didn’t show any damage whatsoever.
Okay, I think I covered everything I wrote the first time. This was very long, but remember: you asked for it. Rather, NerdGirl and Fred did, and now everyone else got stuck with it. Does anyone else have questions I didn’t answer here?
Let me start at the beginning. Years ago, researchers wanted to figure out why American students are testing years and years behind Japanese students in math by the time they reach High School. So they did a massive study where they videotaped hours and hours of math classes all across America, Japan and Germany, and then compared the teaching styles. From here, I think the logic is faulty. I think that Japanese students test better than ours because their culture values education. Parents push their kids to excel, and teachers are respected, not to mention teachers work together more than they ever will here. But the researchers figured that if we could figure out what they were doing and copy it, then we could do a little better over here. This was the birth of “investigations†math.
What they saw was that in Japan is that most math classes begin with a hard problem that the students had never seen before. They work on the problem alone, then in small groups or a teacher-led discussion of what they should try to do. By the end, a lesson has been taught on how to work that type of problem, but in the meantime the students have seen how that problem really works and why.
In America, the process should be familiar to you. The teacher presents a problem and the way to solve it, then has the class try it a few times. Then they talk about the different versions of that problem that may occur, throw in a word problem or two, and assign homework.
Here is the fact: when the students know how to learn the investigational way, and the teachers know what they are doing, the Japanese style of math leads to better retention and better understanding on new problems. The retention is because the students know intricately how it works, since they (in essence), invented the steps themselves. They “own the knowledgeâ€, as one of my professors put it. The reason it helps on math that the students have never seen before is that Japanese students are not afraid of new and different things, whereas the average American student has only been programmed to replicate methods shown in class, and not to experiment with their own ideas. When presented with something new, they tend to freeze when the Japanese students start to brainstorm. Lots and lots of research proved this to be true.
So on to Alpine School District. Like every school district in the country, they are constantly under pressure from parents to “fix†the math and science departments, since our students are scoring lower than any other first world country on tests (true story). Somehow it is always the teacher’s fault, and everyone ignores the fact that our students are mostly lazy bums and the parents blame others instead of push their kids to do better, but I digress into a rant. So the district saw this new method, and decided to try it. They figured that the old, set-in-their-ways teachers would never switch if they were merely given the option to (which is absolutely true), and decided that things would work out okay if they just forced them to switch anyway (which they found to be false).
It is a good method, after all. Notice the clause I had though. “When the students know how to learn that way, and the teachers know what they are doingâ€, THEN it works. The research that I did in college showed all of this just as much as the studies I read. Our group worked with Janet Walter in the Math Ed department (and I just narrowed myself down to a handful of people, but who cares). She was teaching a math course to Elementary School teachers in the investigational method. So these are not “math†people, but your average elementary school teacher that hasn’t done anything harder than a 5th grade level in years.
I don’t know how strange this investigational method sounds to you, but when done right, it is totally different and foreign. But Janet was a master at it. The students, on the other hand, had no idea what was going on. For a year of weekly classes, we videotaped them as they just stuttered through this. They did the bare minimum work, and never looked into why or how things worked unless they had to. We cringed from the back of the room as they convinced themselves methods were “the right answer†that had nothing to do with the basic laws of math. But just when we thought all hope was lost, after about one year, they suddenly got it and took off. They were learning all kinds of unexpected things with each problem, because they could see how it related to everything else they learned. They were coming to class excited about something they had thought about at home. And they were really and truly learning. It was amazing!
So the learning curve was about a year for adults when the teacher was well versed on what they were doing. And ASD just dropped all of their teachers into the deep end of the pool, whether they liked this method or not. The teachers were frustrated and actually scared. I don’t think anyone could have predicted how badly it got interpreted though. For example, there are some things, like the times table, that just have to be done by memorization. The Japanese students sit there and memorize it just like we do. But I talked to students whose teachers would shut their doors and tell them not to say anything so they wouldn’t get in trouble, but they needed to work on the times tables the old way. <Frustrated sigh>. Honestly, I worked with the mathematics department in the district office, and I know they didn’t mean THAT to come across.
LJ asked what the current policy is, and unfortunately I stopped teaching long enough ago that I am not sure exactly. I think it is up to each teacher or school to determine how they want to teach. I tutor a few kids in the district, and I still see investigations booklets, though not as often. For me personally, High School wasn’t affected. We always taught out of “normal†textbooks. After seeing how investigational methods could help me, I did my own personal blend. Some days I just gave them the method straight, some days I made them brainstorm together what we should do (if I thought the content for the day would come naturally from something else we learned), and a few times each year I had them break into groups and work on the problem on their own. I saw that as the best way to do things. Some topics just needed to drop out of the sky and onto their papers, but sometimes I think they gained a better perspective by seeing the inner workings first.
Here is the mind-boggling part though. Through all the complaints from parents, and outrage from the general public, the test scores across the district did not drop. In fact, over the course of the “investigations†period, they even went up a bit. Individually, there are people who learn better with one method or the other, and so a lot of people ran to the charter schools and their Saxon math (which is the opposite pendulum swing from Investigations). But as a group, across the entire district, the scores didn’t show any damage whatsoever.
Okay, I think I covered everything I wrote the first time. This was very long, but remember: you asked for it. Rather, NerdGirl and Fred did, and now everyone else got stuck with it. Does anyone else have questions I didn’t answer here?
-
A Mom, but not yours
- Posts: 287
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:54 am
- Location: Idaho
- Contact:
My favorite math class ever was when I took calculus at BYU. It was taught by a Chinese graduate student, and he followed the method you've described above. He even added the scary element of having a student come up to the board and try and solve a problem in front of everyone, and we would help give suggestions of what we thought should be done, so we sort of worked through it together. I found this method so much more helpful to me when it came time to solve questions on a test. Of course, this is at a much higher level of education, and we'd all had a solid background in basic mathematics, but I can see how it would have been very helpful to start thinking of math in this way at an earlier age.
-
vorpal blade
- Posts: 1750
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:08 pm
- Location: New Jersey
This was very interesting to me, TheAnswerIs42. I agree with you that a lot of the difference between how well American students perform in math and science has to do with the respect the teachers and the subjects have in foreign cultures. Often the best math and science students in America are children of Japanese or Chinese parents. For these students it isn’t the way the subject is taught in our schools, it is the cultural value system of the parents that seems to make the difference.
I believe a lot of our problems in the schools come from the perception that “tough†subjects like math and science are “nerdy.†They expect it to be boring. They also look to careers as athletes, entertainers, and even politicians and businessmen as being more financially rewarding. They don’t see a reason to try to understand the “hard†sciences. Plus, as you imply, the students are rewarded for being lazy.
I’ve always thought that the investigational way, or what I had been calling the discovery way, was a lot more interesting and helpful to me in remembering and understanding how to solve problems. But I can see some problems when the students are not properly motivated. It can be slow and frustrating. And perhaps it doesn’t meet the needs of some of the students. I say this as a person who began school in the early fifties, and I’ve raised seven children through the public schools. I majored in math and had completed a master’s degree in math before switching career fields. I’ve seen a lot of different ways to teach math.
What surprises me in what you say is that some other nations actually use the investigational way to teach math. I had always been told that the reason students in other countries do so well in standardized math tests was because they emphasized memorization, whereas we emphasize individual problem solving. That and, of course, differences in cultural values. In the former soviet block nations the students have an advantage in solving stock math problems because they are trained to recognize a wide variety of problems and know the standard way to solve them. But generally speaking they don’t really understand why their techniques work.
I’ve been told that a primary reason American universities are much preferred to foreign universities in the math and science departments is that in order to really excel in a field you have to go beyond rote memorization. And where we do really well, at least at the college level, is challenging students to think independently and creatively. Of course, having money to hire the best brains, and equip labs with the latest technology, doesn’t hurt either.
Most of my children found math classes in grades 1-12 to be extremely boring. With a few exceptions the teachers didn’t really like or understand math. They taught the mechanics of math, because that’s all they knew. To relieve the boredom some of my children read math books in their spare time, invented puzzles and games, and generally were far ahead of the teachers. Some of them competed in MathCounts, and learned much more out of class than in class. One of my sons had this slogan, “You learn something every day, as long as you’re not in school.â€
Anyway, sorry for my rambling observations. Your comments did stimulate my thinking.
I believe a lot of our problems in the schools come from the perception that “tough†subjects like math and science are “nerdy.†They expect it to be boring. They also look to careers as athletes, entertainers, and even politicians and businessmen as being more financially rewarding. They don’t see a reason to try to understand the “hard†sciences. Plus, as you imply, the students are rewarded for being lazy.
I’ve always thought that the investigational way, or what I had been calling the discovery way, was a lot more interesting and helpful to me in remembering and understanding how to solve problems. But I can see some problems when the students are not properly motivated. It can be slow and frustrating. And perhaps it doesn’t meet the needs of some of the students. I say this as a person who began school in the early fifties, and I’ve raised seven children through the public schools. I majored in math and had completed a master’s degree in math before switching career fields. I’ve seen a lot of different ways to teach math.
What surprises me in what you say is that some other nations actually use the investigational way to teach math. I had always been told that the reason students in other countries do so well in standardized math tests was because they emphasized memorization, whereas we emphasize individual problem solving. That and, of course, differences in cultural values. In the former soviet block nations the students have an advantage in solving stock math problems because they are trained to recognize a wide variety of problems and know the standard way to solve them. But generally speaking they don’t really understand why their techniques work.
I’ve been told that a primary reason American universities are much preferred to foreign universities in the math and science departments is that in order to really excel in a field you have to go beyond rote memorization. And where we do really well, at least at the college level, is challenging students to think independently and creatively. Of course, having money to hire the best brains, and equip labs with the latest technology, doesn’t hurt either.
Most of my children found math classes in grades 1-12 to be extremely boring. With a few exceptions the teachers didn’t really like or understand math. They taught the mechanics of math, because that’s all they knew. To relieve the boredom some of my children read math books in their spare time, invented puzzles and games, and generally were far ahead of the teachers. Some of them competed in MathCounts, and learned much more out of class than in class. One of my sons had this slogan, “You learn something every day, as long as you’re not in school.â€
Anyway, sorry for my rambling observations. Your comments did stimulate my thinking.
-
crmeatball
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 10:58 am
You stated your opinion as to why Japanese students score better is the greater value they place on education drives them to do better. I would agree, but only in part. The greater value is not placed on education , it is placed on knowledge. The schooling is secondary. Here in the US, we see this emphasis on education or knowledge as an emphasis on schooling. But this is not correct. The Japanese students score better because they find learning rewarding. The system we use in the United States rewards grades not education. This is because parents and students see the report card as the final reward, when really, they are simply a measurement of how well the student is learning.
An example from my college career demonstrated this well. Both my undergraduate and graduate degrees are in Electrical Engineering and Math. While studying as an undergraduate student, I took a class on Signals and Systems. Anyone who has taken such a class understands that Laplace, Fourier, Markov and other were pretty smart cookies. The professor was relentless in his teaching. He expected us to learn from three sources - lectures (written by himself, not based on the text), reading from the text and homework based on both the lectures and the text. Needless to say, it was brutal. Shortly before a Mid-term, during a lecture a student asked if they needed to know this material for the test. When the professor responded that we needed to know the material from the homework, lectures and text, the student complained it was unreasonable to expect us to learn so much material and remember it for the exam. The student continued by complaining how he had been a straight A student to this point and if the class was reasonable, that pattern of A's should continue. This sort of complaining had been incessant throughout the semester, and I think the professor finally had enough. He responded to the student that he "should not allow his grades to get in the way of his education." The professor continued lecturing us on this point for the rest of the hour, pointing out that it was more important we learn the material than if we get and A.
This experience taught me if we really want to improve our educational system, we need to instill in the parents and students that the grade is not the goal, that the knowledge which comes is the goal. If the knowledge is gained, the grades will follow. I think the investigations approach (I don't like calling a teaching method a type of math) works toward this goal, but it is the students (and parents) looking to do as little as possible to succeed which causes it difficulty. But ultimately, in my opinion, the actual teaching style plays a secondary role toward the success in learning. My opinion is that motivation plays a larger role and if we shift the motivation away from a "do a little as possible" approach toward a motivation for learning, test scores will dramatically improve.
An example from my college career demonstrated this well. Both my undergraduate and graduate degrees are in Electrical Engineering and Math. While studying as an undergraduate student, I took a class on Signals and Systems. Anyone who has taken such a class understands that Laplace, Fourier, Markov and other were pretty smart cookies. The professor was relentless in his teaching. He expected us to learn from three sources - lectures (written by himself, not based on the text), reading from the text and homework based on both the lectures and the text. Needless to say, it was brutal. Shortly before a Mid-term, during a lecture a student asked if they needed to know this material for the test. When the professor responded that we needed to know the material from the homework, lectures and text, the student complained it was unreasonable to expect us to learn so much material and remember it for the exam. The student continued by complaining how he had been a straight A student to this point and if the class was reasonable, that pattern of A's should continue. This sort of complaining had been incessant throughout the semester, and I think the professor finally had enough. He responded to the student that he "should not allow his grades to get in the way of his education." The professor continued lecturing us on this point for the rest of the hour, pointing out that it was more important we learn the material than if we get and A.
This experience taught me if we really want to improve our educational system, we need to instill in the parents and students that the grade is not the goal, that the knowledge which comes is the goal. If the knowledge is gained, the grades will follow. I think the investigations approach (I don't like calling a teaching method a type of math) works toward this goal, but it is the students (and parents) looking to do as little as possible to succeed which causes it difficulty. But ultimately, in my opinion, the actual teaching style plays a secondary role toward the success in learning. My opinion is that motivation plays a larger role and if we shift the motivation away from a "do a little as possible" approach toward a motivation for learning, test scores will dramatically improve.
I found it interesting that here at BYU a student is placed on Academic Probation if his GPA drops below a 2.0. As I understand it, a 2.0 is a C average, which should be, well, average. Supposedly half the students in a given sample should be below a 2.0. Alas, with grade inflation as it is, this is sadly not the case.
He who knows others is clever;
He who knows himself has discernment.
He who overcomes others has force;
He who overcomes himself is strong. 33:1-4
He who knows himself has discernment.
He who overcomes others has force;
He who overcomes himself is strong. 33:1-4
-
vorpal blade
- Posts: 1750
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:08 pm
- Location: New Jersey
I have two questions.
1. No offense to the Japanese, but if the Japanese educational system is so good, why is it that, compared to most other countries, Japanese students can't seem to learn to speak English well, despite four or more years of study?
2. How do you instill in Americans that knowledge of math is the goal, when our society does not reward that knowledge?
1. No offense to the Japanese, but if the Japanese educational system is so good, why is it that, compared to most other countries, Japanese students can't seem to learn to speak English well, despite four or more years of study?
2. How do you instill in Americans that knowledge of math is the goal, when our society does not reward that knowledge?
-
vorpal blade
- Posts: 1750
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:08 pm
- Location: New Jersey
This is interesting in the light of an editorial I just read in Laser Focus World, October 2008. The editor was reviewing a new book called Real Education, Four Simple Truths For Bringing America's Schools Back to Reality by Charles Murray. The four "simple truths" are:Tao wrote:I found it interesting that here at BYU a student is placed on Academic Probation if his GPA drops below a 2.0. As I understand it, a 2.0 is a C average, which should be, well, average. Supposedly half the students in a given sample should be below a 2.0. Alas, with grade inflation as it is, this is sadly not the case.
1. "Too many people are going to college"
2. "Ability Varies"
3. "Half of the Children Are Below Average"
4. "America's Future Depends On How We Educate the Academically Gifted."
because english and japanese are DRASTICALLY different. it's a new alphabet, a new set of sounds that are placed in different places in the mouth, strange idiosincracies. my friend who speaks both said japanese people feel the same way about americans learning japanese because we just can't seem to get it down. and really, four years of a language is not enough time if you're never immersed in it. i've studied french since i was 13 and i don't speak or read it anywhere near fluently. how well someone speaks a language has a lot to do with the accent and mouth placement of their primary language.vorpal blade wrote:I have two questions.
1. No offense to the Japanese, but if the Japanese educational system is so good, why is it that, compared to most other countries, Japanese students can't seem to learn to speak English well, despite four or more years of study?
2. How do you instill in Americans that knowledge of math is the goal, when our society does not reward that knowledge?
and our society doesn't really reward ANY knowledge. anything remotely seen as "above average intelligence" is treated like something bad. especially where i'm from. if you read you're a "nerd" or a "dork." i think it's sad that intelligence is viewed as some sort of detriment to person.
beautiful, dirty, rich
I have three questions to help clarify this question:vorpal blade wrote:No offense to the Japanese, but if the Japanese educational system is so good, why is it that, compared to most other countries, Japanese students can't seem to learn to speak English well, despite four or more years of study?
1. What do you mean, specifically, by "speak English well"? Are you talking about accent, grammar, idioms, pragmatics?
2. What is your (quantitative) evidence that Japanese students don't speak English well?
3. What "other countries" are you comparing the Japanese to? (Canada?
)-
vorpal blade
- Posts: 1750
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:08 pm
- Location: New Jersey
Good points, Imogen.
Good questions, Katya. Perhaps someone else on the message board will be able to research those questions for us.
I just thought it was interesting, in the light of the comments made here, that I've heard that the way English is taught in Japan demonstrates a failure of the Japanese education system. I've heard that they learn English through rote memorization, and the purpose for learning English is just so they can gain entrance into a good Japanese university. Evidently they don't really want a knowledge of the English language for the sake of gaining knowledge. What they want to know has already been translated for them. Speaking of the majority, of course. Have you heard other viewpoints? Perhaps math and English are taught differently.
In my opinion what is needed is to instil in the parents and the students a love of mathematics. For those that will never fall in love with math, well, maybe you need to make it a game, a puzzle, or a challenge. Or maybe you just have to teach them to memorize what they have to know and leave it at that.
Good questions, Katya. Perhaps someone else on the message board will be able to research those questions for us.
I just thought it was interesting, in the light of the comments made here, that I've heard that the way English is taught in Japan demonstrates a failure of the Japanese education system. I've heard that they learn English through rote memorization, and the purpose for learning English is just so they can gain entrance into a good Japanese university. Evidently they don't really want a knowledge of the English language for the sake of gaining knowledge. What they want to know has already been translated for them. Speaking of the majority, of course. Have you heard other viewpoints? Perhaps math and English are taught differently.
In my opinion what is needed is to instil in the parents and the students a love of mathematics. For those that will never fall in love with math, well, maybe you need to make it a game, a puzzle, or a challenge. Or maybe you just have to teach them to memorize what they have to know and leave it at that.
Interesting. Can you point me towards a source on that?vorpal blade wrote:I just thought it was interesting, in the light of the comments made here, that I've heard that the way English is taught in Japan demonstrates a failure of the Japanese education system. I've heard that they learn English through rote memorization, and the purpose for learning English is just so they can gain entrance into a good Japanese university. Evidently they don't really want a knowledge of the English language for the sake of gaining knowledge. What they want to know has already been translated for them. Speaking of the majority, of course.
vorpal,
i think a major difference between japan and say india is that japan has established science and technology in japanese. scientific papers, tech documentation, etc is written in japanese, thus there isn't a pressing need for english. indians need english in order to work in the high tech industries there.
my anecdotal experience at intel was that chinese people actually have a much more difficult time learning english than indians. go figure.
but i can't really say i approve of the japanese educational system. college is not about learning, its about getting a big name on your diploma so you can get into a good company. few professors publish on a regular basis, and the whole system is generally just a formality. their primary and secondary education is much more rigorous than ours however. one aspect i do agree with is that students are split off at the end of middle school. some go on the university track, other go on to the technical school track. makes sense to me.
i think a major difference between japan and say india is that japan has established science and technology in japanese. scientific papers, tech documentation, etc is written in japanese, thus there isn't a pressing need for english. indians need english in order to work in the high tech industries there.
my anecdotal experience at intel was that chinese people actually have a much more difficult time learning english than indians. go figure.
but i can't really say i approve of the japanese educational system. college is not about learning, its about getting a big name on your diploma so you can get into a good company. few professors publish on a regular basis, and the whole system is generally just a formality. their primary and secondary education is much more rigorous than ours however. one aspect i do agree with is that students are split off at the end of middle school. some go on the university track, other go on to the technical school track. makes sense to me.
-
vorpal blade
- Posts: 1750
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:08 pm
- Location: New Jersey
Okay. It will take a while. I'll get back to you. This week I'll be attending graduation at BYU.Katya wrote:Interesting. Can you point me towards a source on that?vorpal blade wrote:I just thought it was interesting, in the light of the comments made here, that I've heard that the way English is taught in Japan demonstrates a failure of the Japanese education system. I've heard that they learn English through rote memorization, and the purpose for learning English is just so they can gain entrance into a good Japanese university. Evidently they don't really want a knowledge of the English language for the sake of gaining knowledge. What they want to know has already been translated for them. Speaking of the majority, of course.