What do you think?
Rate this book
Why Don't Students Like School? A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions About How the Mind Works and What It Means for the Classroom
Kids are naturally curious, but when it comes to school it seems like their minds are turned off. Why is it that they can remember the smallest details from their favorite television programs, yet miss the most obvious questions on their history test?
Cognitive scientist Dan Willingham has focused his acclaimed research on the biological and cognitive basis of learning and has a deep understanding of the daily challenges faced by classroom teachers. This book will help teachers improve their practice by explaining how they and their students think and learn—revealing the importance of story, emotion, memory, context, and routine in building knowledge and creating lasting learning experiences.
In this breakthrough book, Willingham has distilled his knowledge of cognitive science into a set of nine principles that are easy to understand and have clear applications for the classroom. Some examples of his surprising findings are:
—"Learning styles" don't exist. The processes by which different children think and learn are more similar than different.
—Intelligence is malleable. Intelligence contributes to school performance and children do differ, but intelligence can be increased through sustained hard work.
—You cannot develop "thinking skills" in the absence of facts. We encourage students to think critically, not just memorize facts. However, thinking skills depend on factual knowledge for their operation.
Why Don't Students Like School is a basic primer for every teacher who wants to know how their brains and their students' brains work and how that knowledge can help them hone their teaching skills.
Cognitive scientist Dan Willingham has focused his acclaimed research on the biological and cognitive basis of learning and has a deep understanding of the daily challenges faced by classroom teachers. This book will help teachers improve their practice by explaining how they and their students think and learn—revealing the importance of story, emotion, memory, context, and routine in building knowledge and creating lasting learning experiences.
In this breakthrough book, Willingham has distilled his knowledge of cognitive science into a set of nine principles that are easy to understand and have clear applications for the classroom. Some examples of his surprising findings are:
—"Learning styles" don't exist. The processes by which different children think and learn are more similar than different.
—Intelligence is malleable. Intelligence contributes to school performance and children do differ, but intelligence can be increased through sustained hard work.
—You cannot develop "thinking skills" in the absence of facts. We encourage students to think critically, not just memorize facts. However, thinking skills depend on factual knowledge for their operation.
Why Don't Students Like School is a basic primer for every teacher who wants to know how their brains and their students' brains work and how that knowledge can help them hone their teaching skills.
Audiobook
First published March 16, 2009
760 people are currently reading
13801 people want to read
About the author
Daniel T. Willingham
15 books229 followersDaniel Willingham earned his B.A. from Duke University in 1983 and his Ph.D. in Cognitive Psychology from Harvard University in 1990. He is currently Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia, where he has taught since 1992. Until about 2000, his research focused solely on the brain basis of learning and memory. Today, all of his research concerns the application of cognitive psychology to K-12 education. He writes the “Ask the Cognitive Scientist” column for American Educator magazine, and is an Associate Editor of Mind, Brain, and Education. He is also the author of Why Don't Students Like School? (Jossey-Bass) and When Can You Trust the Experts? (Jossey-Bass). His writing on education has been translated into ten languages.
from http://www.danielwillingham.com/about...
from http://www.danielwillingham.com/about...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 610 reviews
February 28, 2011
The titular question might appear an opening to a rant against our educational system. Rest assured that Daniel Willingham is hardly scribbling out some angry screed. He’s thoughtful, and avoids polemic.
In fact, I hope I’m not oversimplifying when I say his basic answer is that students don’t like school because it’s hard.
If that sounds awfully facile, be aware that Willingham goes on to a knottier problem: What can we do about it?
What Willingham is really writing about is not student anathema, but how our brains work, especially in the areas of understanding and memory, and how that connects to teaching students. A harder concept to translate into a catchy title.
School is hard because ‘we are not naturally good thinkers.’ That doesn’t mean we don’t have amazing brains. Evolution has equipped us to take in what’s around us and react accordingly. In typically down-to-earth and insightful language, Willingham uses a striking contrast to clear up the paradox:
‘Tasks that you take for granted—for example, walking on a rocky shore where the footing is uncertain—are much more difficult than playing top-level chess. No computer can do it.’
Humans do, however, have more difficulty when consciously processing available information to solve problems or create new ideas—thinking. ‘The mind is not designed for thinking,’ Willingham writes. Thinking takes time. Thinking requires work. Thinking means not being sure.
So our brains default to not thinking when possible, even when we are performing complex actions—like walking on a rocky shore. Once we know how to chop an onion, drive a car, or read a book, we no longer waste time or effort considering how we are doing those things, or question whether we are doing them correctly.
Willingham repeatedly returns to a major stumbling block on the road to true reasoning and reflection—working memory. This is a short and easy-to-read book with lots of great practical advice for teachers, but its most valuable contribution to my own thinking was really helping me better understand what working memory is, and how its limitations affect learning and cognition.
In a way, working memory is consciousness itself. It is what you are thinking about now. Working memory allows you to blend what’s coming in through your senses with what you already know so that you can answer questions and put together thoughts.
Willingham cites current research that pretty definitively concludes working memory is limited—very limited—and more or less fixed—there is little evidence that you can improve it.
What you can do is cheat it. If the ‘lack of space in working memory is a fundamental bottleneck of human cognition,’ the trick is to enfold richer content into the limited number of items that small space can hold.
There are two ways to do this. One is to increase factual knowledge. That’s extremely counter-intuitive—learn more to learn more. Here’s how John Medina put it in his ‘Brain Rules’: ‘It’s like saying that if you carry two heavy backpacks on a hike instead of one, you will accomplish your journey more quickly….’
But it’s true. Willingham uses the same kind of model as Medina, dividing his work into nine ‘cognitive principles.’ One is, ‘Factual knowledge precedes skill.’ Another is, ‘We understand new things in the context of things we already know.’
When a student can easily access factual knowledge from long-term memory, he can ‘chunk’ information. He has a clear idea of context. The items that he’s manipulating in working memory are broader and deeper. As I’m reading a discussion of eukaryotic cells and life regulation in Antonio Damasio’s ‘Self Comes to Mind,’ I’m extremely grateful I just reviewed cell structure with a seventh grade kid with whom I’m working.
Walking on Willingham’s rocky shore is a demonstration of the other way to get around the working memory logjam. Performing automatically means a student doesn’t have to use working memory to think about that performance.
An example Willingham uses is practicing times tables as a young man. When he transferred to a new school, his math teacher insisted that Willingham would do better if he memorized the multiplication facts. Coming from a school that placed more emphasis on conceptual understanding than rote memorization, Willingham at first resented the requirement. He soon realized how much automaticity helped.
It’s another counterintuitive principle, its paradoxical nature beautifully summed up by a marvelous quote from the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead: “It is a profoundly erroneous truism…that we should cultivate the habit of thinking of what we are doing. The precise opposite is the case. Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them.’
Unfortunately, automaticity only comes effortlessly with tasks such as breathing. Willingham’s cognitive principle here is, ‘Proficiency requires practice.’ So teachers have to think hard about what their students most need to practice. They should also consider that spacing practice—rather than cramming—is more effective.
It’s clear that Willingham regards working memory as a universal. Indeed, he cites studies connecting working memory to intelligence. This viewpoint is quite different from the outlook of Howard Gardner, and Multiple Intelligence theory. Willingham is somewhat abashed to find himself in this counterpoint position.
Nevertheless, despite feeling ‘like a bit of a Grinch’ in stating it, another one if his cognitive principles is, ‘Children are more alike than different in terms of learning.’ He makes a critical qualification, however—that he is not making a claim ‘that all children are alike, nor that teachers should treat children as interchangeable.’
But more important than tailoring content to individuals is teachers really getting to a deep understanding of that content. Activating previous knowledge and making sure that knowledge is there will help advance proficiency and comprehensive mastery.
So will thinking ‘of to-be-learned material as answers.’ Begin with a thorough examination of the questions.
No matter where children’s interests lie, no matter what their talents or ‘intelligences,’ I do believe that well-rounded general knowledge should be a goal of education (as does Gardner). It makes sense to me that we can also generalize about the ways students might acquire such knowledge.
Gardner’s skepticism about ‘horizontal faculties,’ like working memory, might result in teachers using valuable time evaluating different learning styles that would better be spent in effectively presenting content to groups with at least some homogeneity.
Educators, parents and students looking for some good tips on how to do that will find ‘Why Don’t Students Like School?’ a most worth while resource.
Highly recommended.
In fact, I hope I’m not oversimplifying when I say his basic answer is that students don’t like school because it’s hard.
If that sounds awfully facile, be aware that Willingham goes on to a knottier problem: What can we do about it?
What Willingham is really writing about is not student anathema, but how our brains work, especially in the areas of understanding and memory, and how that connects to teaching students. A harder concept to translate into a catchy title.
School is hard because ‘we are not naturally good thinkers.’ That doesn’t mean we don’t have amazing brains. Evolution has equipped us to take in what’s around us and react accordingly. In typically down-to-earth and insightful language, Willingham uses a striking contrast to clear up the paradox:
‘Tasks that you take for granted—for example, walking on a rocky shore where the footing is uncertain—are much more difficult than playing top-level chess. No computer can do it.’
Humans do, however, have more difficulty when consciously processing available information to solve problems or create new ideas—thinking. ‘The mind is not designed for thinking,’ Willingham writes. Thinking takes time. Thinking requires work. Thinking means not being sure.
So our brains default to not thinking when possible, even when we are performing complex actions—like walking on a rocky shore. Once we know how to chop an onion, drive a car, or read a book, we no longer waste time or effort considering how we are doing those things, or question whether we are doing them correctly.
Willingham repeatedly returns to a major stumbling block on the road to true reasoning and reflection—working memory. This is a short and easy-to-read book with lots of great practical advice for teachers, but its most valuable contribution to my own thinking was really helping me better understand what working memory is, and how its limitations affect learning and cognition.
In a way, working memory is consciousness itself. It is what you are thinking about now. Working memory allows you to blend what’s coming in through your senses with what you already know so that you can answer questions and put together thoughts.
Willingham cites current research that pretty definitively concludes working memory is limited—very limited—and more or less fixed—there is little evidence that you can improve it.
What you can do is cheat it. If the ‘lack of space in working memory is a fundamental bottleneck of human cognition,’ the trick is to enfold richer content into the limited number of items that small space can hold.
There are two ways to do this. One is to increase factual knowledge. That’s extremely counter-intuitive—learn more to learn more. Here’s how John Medina put it in his ‘Brain Rules’: ‘It’s like saying that if you carry two heavy backpacks on a hike instead of one, you will accomplish your journey more quickly….’
But it’s true. Willingham uses the same kind of model as Medina, dividing his work into nine ‘cognitive principles.’ One is, ‘Factual knowledge precedes skill.’ Another is, ‘We understand new things in the context of things we already know.’
When a student can easily access factual knowledge from long-term memory, he can ‘chunk’ information. He has a clear idea of context. The items that he’s manipulating in working memory are broader and deeper. As I’m reading a discussion of eukaryotic cells and life regulation in Antonio Damasio’s ‘Self Comes to Mind,’ I’m extremely grateful I just reviewed cell structure with a seventh grade kid with whom I’m working.
Walking on Willingham’s rocky shore is a demonstration of the other way to get around the working memory logjam. Performing automatically means a student doesn’t have to use working memory to think about that performance.
An example Willingham uses is practicing times tables as a young man. When he transferred to a new school, his math teacher insisted that Willingham would do better if he memorized the multiplication facts. Coming from a school that placed more emphasis on conceptual understanding than rote memorization, Willingham at first resented the requirement. He soon realized how much automaticity helped.
It’s another counterintuitive principle, its paradoxical nature beautifully summed up by a marvelous quote from the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead: “It is a profoundly erroneous truism…that we should cultivate the habit of thinking of what we are doing. The precise opposite is the case. Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them.’
Unfortunately, automaticity only comes effortlessly with tasks such as breathing. Willingham’s cognitive principle here is, ‘Proficiency requires practice.’ So teachers have to think hard about what their students most need to practice. They should also consider that spacing practice—rather than cramming—is more effective.
It’s clear that Willingham regards working memory as a universal. Indeed, he cites studies connecting working memory to intelligence. This viewpoint is quite different from the outlook of Howard Gardner, and Multiple Intelligence theory. Willingham is somewhat abashed to find himself in this counterpoint position.
Nevertheless, despite feeling ‘like a bit of a Grinch’ in stating it, another one if his cognitive principles is, ‘Children are more alike than different in terms of learning.’ He makes a critical qualification, however—that he is not making a claim ‘that all children are alike, nor that teachers should treat children as interchangeable.’
But more important than tailoring content to individuals is teachers really getting to a deep understanding of that content. Activating previous knowledge and making sure that knowledge is there will help advance proficiency and comprehensive mastery.
So will thinking ‘of to-be-learned material as answers.’ Begin with a thorough examination of the questions.
No matter where children’s interests lie, no matter what their talents or ‘intelligences,’ I do believe that well-rounded general knowledge should be a goal of education (as does Gardner). It makes sense to me that we can also generalize about the ways students might acquire such knowledge.
Gardner’s skepticism about ‘horizontal faculties,’ like working memory, might result in teachers using valuable time evaluating different learning styles that would better be spent in effectively presenting content to groups with at least some homogeneity.
Educators, parents and students looking for some good tips on how to do that will find ‘Why Don’t Students Like School?’ a most worth while resource.
Highly recommended.
April 24, 2009
This book reminded me a bit of Outliers; the author actually cites some of the same studies, and makes some similar points. Here, the primary audience is clearly K-12 teachers. The author takes the body of current cognitive science research, and applies it to the classroom, in a very quick, easy-to-read format.
Here were some of the ideas that I found the most interesting:
-People actually really enjoy solving problems, as long as those problems aren't too easy or too hard for them. Otherwise, it's a horribly boring or frustrating experience. (Seems like an obvious point, but not one that schools have taken advantage of yet. Right now, there's pretty much a one-size-fits-all mentality going on, so that a particular lesson might hit the sweet spot for a few lucky kids, but most will find themselves either bored or frustrated most of the time.)
-You've got to have some background knowledge to make sense of new knowledge. We understand and remember new things, because we relate them to what we already know and understand. So when one child arrives at school with an extensive background knowledge that's been developed through years of trips to the zoo, museums, grandparents' houses, cooking with mom and dad in the kitchen, reading books, daily conversations with adults about all kinds of things, etc.- they've got a huge advantage over a child who's had fewer interactions and experiences. This difference becomes more pronounced over time, rather than less pronounced - you gain new knowledge more quickly, and now your advantage is even greater for understanding the next new fact; the rich get richer, and it's continually harder for the poorer kids to catch up. (I'm using rich and poor metaphorically, to mean those with more and less background knowledge - but sadly, these do actually correlate with socio-economic status). The divide is exacerbated further in about 4th grade, when the emphasis on decoding skills (sounding out words) has been replaced with an emphasis on comprehension.
-In the same chapter: "Trying to teach students skills such as analysis or synthesis in the absence of factual knowledge is impossible. Research from cognitive science has shown that the sorts of skills that teachers want for students - such as the ability to analyze and to think critically - require extensive factual knowledge.... Factual knowledge must precede skill."
THANK YOU! I have been trying to verbalize this idea for a couple years now, and Willingham did it very nicely. I have been so frustrated with the WASL-prep exercises my children have been doing in school - which emphasize these types of cognitive skills, with no real care for the actual content of the lesson. The students are given brief written clips, and asked to answer a series of questions about the text. The fact that they don't really understand the topic is of no interest to the teacher - because the point of the lesson isn't really to understand the solar system or global warming or indigenous societies or whatever - it's to learn to draw inferences. Well, HELLO - a second-grader doesn't care about the abstract concept of drawing inferences - she wants to know what the *%$# the passage is talking about. If we could tackle actual issues, answer the kids' genuine questions, have a discussion about the topic in question - then in the process, they'll learn about drawing inferences. But when the school treats all content as an unimportant means to an end (learning abstract and generalizable cognitive skills), they fail at an otherwise laudable goal. And they make school really boring in the process.
-In the last couple decades, theories about different learning styles and multiple intelligences have gained a lot of traction among educators. According to Willingham, the research doesn't bear it out. Sure, some people are more talented at music, other at movement, and so forth. But it doesn't follow that kids will be helped by having various subjects taught to them through these particular channels. The fact that one child is a better auditory learner means he or she will do better at remembering how something sounded (e.g. which voice was deeper?), while a visual learner will do better at remembering how something looked. But usually, in school, we want kids to think about what something means - for example, the meaning of a vocabulary word. Presenting the vocabulary list through auditory or visual channels seems to make no difference - because the meaning of the word (and the way the brain processes that info) is distinct from the sight or sound of the word. Thus, he says, lesson content, not student differences, should drive the decision about how to teach.
-Intelligence is a function of both genetics and environment. Intelligence is malleable - it isn't fixed. For example, he refers to twin studies which showed that children who were removed from a deprived home and adopted by a more affluent family showed an increase in intelligence. So while genetics are clearly a factor, we can take steps to increase the intelligence of our students. One specific tip: if you want to praise your child or student for a job well-done, you should praise their effort rather than their smarts. Multiple studies have reinforced this idea. When we tell kids, "Great job! You're really smart!", they ultimately perform worse than kids who are told, "Great job! You must have worked really hard!"
I thought the book lost a little steam by the end. In the last chapter, he claims to explain what cognitive research has to say about the minds of teachers themselves. Apparently, the answer is: try harder to be a better teacher, try videotaping yourself teaching, and talk to your teaching buddies about teaching, but nicely, so as not to hurt anyone's feelings. I guess the advice is all right, but the link to actual research seemed more tenuous in this section.
My favorite quote from the book:
"I am willing to bet you have heard someone say, "Every student is intelligent in some way"... I think teachers say this in an effort to communicate an egalitarian attitude to students: everyone is good at something... This sort of statement rubs me the wrong way because it implies that intelligence brings value. Every child is unique and valuable, whether or not they are intelligent or have much in the way of mental ability. I admit that being the father of a severely mentally retarded child probably makes me sensitive on this issue. My daughter is not intelligent in any sense of the word, but she is a joyful child who brings a lot of happiness to a lot of people."
Here were some of the ideas that I found the most interesting:
-People actually really enjoy solving problems, as long as those problems aren't too easy or too hard for them. Otherwise, it's a horribly boring or frustrating experience. (Seems like an obvious point, but not one that schools have taken advantage of yet. Right now, there's pretty much a one-size-fits-all mentality going on, so that a particular lesson might hit the sweet spot for a few lucky kids, but most will find themselves either bored or frustrated most of the time.)
-You've got to have some background knowledge to make sense of new knowledge. We understand and remember new things, because we relate them to what we already know and understand. So when one child arrives at school with an extensive background knowledge that's been developed through years of trips to the zoo, museums, grandparents' houses, cooking with mom and dad in the kitchen, reading books, daily conversations with adults about all kinds of things, etc.- they've got a huge advantage over a child who's had fewer interactions and experiences. This difference becomes more pronounced over time, rather than less pronounced - you gain new knowledge more quickly, and now your advantage is even greater for understanding the next new fact; the rich get richer, and it's continually harder for the poorer kids to catch up. (I'm using rich and poor metaphorically, to mean those with more and less background knowledge - but sadly, these do actually correlate with socio-economic status). The divide is exacerbated further in about 4th grade, when the emphasis on decoding skills (sounding out words) has been replaced with an emphasis on comprehension.
-In the same chapter: "Trying to teach students skills such as analysis or synthesis in the absence of factual knowledge is impossible. Research from cognitive science has shown that the sorts of skills that teachers want for students - such as the ability to analyze and to think critically - require extensive factual knowledge.... Factual knowledge must precede skill."
THANK YOU! I have been trying to verbalize this idea for a couple years now, and Willingham did it very nicely. I have been so frustrated with the WASL-prep exercises my children have been doing in school - which emphasize these types of cognitive skills, with no real care for the actual content of the lesson. The students are given brief written clips, and asked to answer a series of questions about the text. The fact that they don't really understand the topic is of no interest to the teacher - because the point of the lesson isn't really to understand the solar system or global warming or indigenous societies or whatever - it's to learn to draw inferences. Well, HELLO - a second-grader doesn't care about the abstract concept of drawing inferences - she wants to know what the *%$# the passage is talking about. If we could tackle actual issues, answer the kids' genuine questions, have a discussion about the topic in question - then in the process, they'll learn about drawing inferences. But when the school treats all content as an unimportant means to an end (learning abstract and generalizable cognitive skills), they fail at an otherwise laudable goal. And they make school really boring in the process.
-In the last couple decades, theories about different learning styles and multiple intelligences have gained a lot of traction among educators. According to Willingham, the research doesn't bear it out. Sure, some people are more talented at music, other at movement, and so forth. But it doesn't follow that kids will be helped by having various subjects taught to them through these particular channels. The fact that one child is a better auditory learner means he or she will do better at remembering how something sounded (e.g. which voice was deeper?), while a visual learner will do better at remembering how something looked. But usually, in school, we want kids to think about what something means - for example, the meaning of a vocabulary word. Presenting the vocabulary list through auditory or visual channels seems to make no difference - because the meaning of the word (and the way the brain processes that info) is distinct from the sight or sound of the word. Thus, he says, lesson content, not student differences, should drive the decision about how to teach.
-Intelligence is a function of both genetics and environment. Intelligence is malleable - it isn't fixed. For example, he refers to twin studies which showed that children who were removed from a deprived home and adopted by a more affluent family showed an increase in intelligence. So while genetics are clearly a factor, we can take steps to increase the intelligence of our students. One specific tip: if you want to praise your child or student for a job well-done, you should praise their effort rather than their smarts. Multiple studies have reinforced this idea. When we tell kids, "Great job! You're really smart!", they ultimately perform worse than kids who are told, "Great job! You must have worked really hard!"
I thought the book lost a little steam by the end. In the last chapter, he claims to explain what cognitive research has to say about the minds of teachers themselves. Apparently, the answer is: try harder to be a better teacher, try videotaping yourself teaching, and talk to your teaching buddies about teaching, but nicely, so as not to hurt anyone's feelings. I guess the advice is all right, but the link to actual research seemed more tenuous in this section.
My favorite quote from the book:
"I am willing to bet you have heard someone say, "Every student is intelligent in some way"... I think teachers say this in an effort to communicate an egalitarian attitude to students: everyone is good at something... This sort of statement rubs me the wrong way because it implies that intelligence brings value. Every child is unique and valuable, whether or not they are intelligent or have much in the way of mental ability. I admit that being the father of a severely mentally retarded child probably makes me sensitive on this issue. My daughter is not intelligent in any sense of the word, but she is a joyful child who brings a lot of happiness to a lot of people."
May 1, 2022
If you’re a teacher, read this. If you’re a parent of kids in school age, read this. And if you nurture any interest about improving your cognitive skills, read this also.
After having read “Outliers: The Story of Success” (2008), “Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else” (2008) and “The Talent Code: Genius Isn’t Born. It’s Grown. Here’s How.” (2009), “Why Don't Students Like School?” (2009) was the missing key. Most of the books on talent and experts are too centred upon experience, experts achievement throughout hard training and learning by doing. Daniel T. Willingham demonstrates how this is also relevant for the cognitive skills, and how it’s built in school.
The central argument of this book is simple, and I’ve been defending this in the past about the development of creativity, but as you’ll read here, this is the basis for every cognitive ability:
“You cannot develop 'thinking skills' in the absence of facts. We encourage students to think critically, not just memorize facts. However thinking skills depend on factual knowledge for their operation.”
This is a 5 stars book, that every teacher should read, and any interested parent also. I’m just sad about the title chosen, which will put this book away for many, and is not being able to translate all the brilliant knowledge inside.
For an in-depth review check this excellent summary by Tim Taylor: http://web.archive.org/web/2019081122...
After having read “Outliers: The Story of Success” (2008), “Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else” (2008) and “The Talent Code: Genius Isn’t Born. It’s Grown. Here’s How.” (2009), “Why Don't Students Like School?” (2009) was the missing key. Most of the books on talent and experts are too centred upon experience, experts achievement throughout hard training and learning by doing. Daniel T. Willingham demonstrates how this is also relevant for the cognitive skills, and how it’s built in school.
The central argument of this book is simple, and I’ve been defending this in the past about the development of creativity, but as you’ll read here, this is the basis for every cognitive ability:
“You cannot develop 'thinking skills' in the absence of facts. We encourage students to think critically, not just memorize facts. However thinking skills depend on factual knowledge for their operation.”
This is a 5 stars book, that every teacher should read, and any interested parent also. I’m just sad about the title chosen, which will put this book away for many, and is not being able to translate all the brilliant knowledge inside.
For an in-depth review check this excellent summary by Tim Taylor: http://web.archive.org/web/2019081122...
May 9, 2013
The first part of the title is a bit misleading. The author doesn't really answer the question of why students don't like school. It should've been "why do some students struggle with learning?"
One of the key arguments made by Willingham is that students can improve through meaningful practice. The idea is that rote practice (i.e. meaningless practice) does not lead to improvement, such as driving or teaching, since there is no incentive to improve after an adequate level of expertise is reached. On the other hand, meaningful practice leads to higher level of achievement, thus the concept of "malleable intelligence".
This part is completely unconvincing for me. Firstly, he cites the study that shows those who practice piano for a greater number of hours show higher achievement (concert pianists vs. music teachers). The argument against this kind of study is self-selection -- musical talent is identified very early on one's career. Those who "have it," are inclined to practice more in order to compete at a high level, whereas the less talented (sorry, music teachers), choose not to devote as much of their time on practice.
This parallels Malcom Gladwell's "Outliers," which argues that people attain true expertise by practicing something for 10,000 hours. This concept has been thoroughly debunked. Think of minor league baseball players who toil for years without making it to the big leagues, they practice just as much, if not more than their more talented counterparts. There are also many athletes who simply do not practice very much, such as Bo Jackson. I also take issue with using Asian/Asian-American students as a shining example of "malleable intelligence." Many high-achieving Asian students struggle once they reach the college level, which require a deeper level of analytical thinking that go beyond rote memorization. Many immigrant students have no choice but to use rote memorization before they reach English fluency, yet they are able to do well, at least on standardized testing.
Another major argument that Willingham makes is that multiple-intelligence, a widely accepted concept, might not hold up to scientific scrutiny. In my own experience (both undergraduate and graduate school, multiple-intelligence is seen in the same light as the law of gravity, so I was glad to finally see a counter argument. Every lesson plan had to have different components of the 7 intelligences, which is highly impractical to say the least.
In the very last chapter, Willingham offers some "practical" advice for teachers, including video-taping oneself and asking other teachers for peer review, ideas have been around for decades. In the end however, I think resources should be allocated more on how students learn, rather than how teachers teach. Recent studies have focused on more students' emotional intelligence (EQ) and other intangible qualities, such as "grit". Teaching students how to cope with setbacks and conflicts should yield better results than finding "star" teachers.
*Full disclosure, I have a B.A. in Education (1996) and an M.A. in Curriculum & Instructions (2011).
One of the key arguments made by Willingham is that students can improve through meaningful practice. The idea is that rote practice (i.e. meaningless practice) does not lead to improvement, such as driving or teaching, since there is no incentive to improve after an adequate level of expertise is reached. On the other hand, meaningful practice leads to higher level of achievement, thus the concept of "malleable intelligence".
This part is completely unconvincing for me. Firstly, he cites the study that shows those who practice piano for a greater number of hours show higher achievement (concert pianists vs. music teachers). The argument against this kind of study is self-selection -- musical talent is identified very early on one's career. Those who "have it," are inclined to practice more in order to compete at a high level, whereas the less talented (sorry, music teachers), choose not to devote as much of their time on practice.
This parallels Malcom Gladwell's "Outliers," which argues that people attain true expertise by practicing something for 10,000 hours. This concept has been thoroughly debunked. Think of minor league baseball players who toil for years without making it to the big leagues, they practice just as much, if not more than their more talented counterparts. There are also many athletes who simply do not practice very much, such as Bo Jackson. I also take issue with using Asian/Asian-American students as a shining example of "malleable intelligence." Many high-achieving Asian students struggle once they reach the college level, which require a deeper level of analytical thinking that go beyond rote memorization. Many immigrant students have no choice but to use rote memorization before they reach English fluency, yet they are able to do well, at least on standardized testing.
Another major argument that Willingham makes is that multiple-intelligence, a widely accepted concept, might not hold up to scientific scrutiny. In my own experience (both undergraduate and graduate school, multiple-intelligence is seen in the same light as the law of gravity, so I was glad to finally see a counter argument. Every lesson plan had to have different components of the 7 intelligences, which is highly impractical to say the least.
In the very last chapter, Willingham offers some "practical" advice for teachers, including video-taping oneself and asking other teachers for peer review, ideas have been around for decades. In the end however, I think resources should be allocated more on how students learn, rather than how teachers teach. Recent studies have focused on more students' emotional intelligence (EQ) and other intangible qualities, such as "grit". Teaching students how to cope with setbacks and conflicts should yield better results than finding "star" teachers.
*Full disclosure, I have a B.A. in Education (1996) and an M.A. in Curriculum & Instructions (2011).
April 17, 2017
Achei que fosse um livro sobre alunos, na verdade é um livro para professores. Uma ótima leitura de qualquer forma. O livro todo é muito mais prático, útil e cientificamente embasado do que a licenciatura (pelo menos da minha época).
Daniel T. Willingham compila a pesquisa em cognição para uso em sala de aula. Como separar conteúdo, como direcionar a linguagem, o que cobrar, como cobrar, etc. A pesquisa fica bem de fundo, embasando as dicas, de maneira que é um livro bem mais voltado para professores do que sobre cognição em si.
Serviu como um ótimo contra-ponto para a educação por competências que tinha lido até agora. Boa parte dos livros sobre futuro, como o The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies, discutem muito mais como precisamos aprender a acessar informação e não decorar conteúdo sem sentido. Mas Willingham dá um bom argumento sobre como precisamos de um mínimo de conceitos, mesmo que decorados, sobre os quais ancoramos princípios.
Ele ainda discute muito bem porque erramos quando tentamos fazer os alunos pensarem como especialistas (cientistas, historiadores, etc.) sem pensar no passo-a-passo, quando esse tipo de competência leva até uma década para ser desenvolvida. Recomendo a qualquer um que dê ou queira dar aulas. As dicas finais de como melhorar a própria aula são melhores do que qualquer material que vi na licenciatura.
Daniel T. Willingham compila a pesquisa em cognição para uso em sala de aula. Como separar conteúdo, como direcionar a linguagem, o que cobrar, como cobrar, etc. A pesquisa fica bem de fundo, embasando as dicas, de maneira que é um livro bem mais voltado para professores do que sobre cognição em si.
Serviu como um ótimo contra-ponto para a educação por competências que tinha lido até agora. Boa parte dos livros sobre futuro, como o The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies, discutem muito mais como precisamos aprender a acessar informação e não decorar conteúdo sem sentido. Mas Willingham dá um bom argumento sobre como precisamos de um mínimo de conceitos, mesmo que decorados, sobre os quais ancoramos princípios.
Ele ainda discute muito bem porque erramos quando tentamos fazer os alunos pensarem como especialistas (cientistas, historiadores, etc.) sem pensar no passo-a-passo, quando esse tipo de competência leva até uma década para ser desenvolvida. Recomendo a qualquer um que dê ou queira dar aulas. As dicas finais de como melhorar a própria aula são melhores do que qualquer material que vi na licenciatura.
August 25, 2011
Drumroll of irony, please: I bought this book because it was the required textbook for one of my education courses, Educational Psychology, and this is the first time I’ve opened it. Those of you who know me as a student will understand that this is uncharacteristic behaviour and might even suspect I’ve been replaced by a school-hating doppelgänger. In fact, Educational Psychology was one of very few courses that I disliked during my time at university, and it was entirely due to the professor’s teaching style. The material itself interested me, as this review will show, and I completely understand that the subject matter is useful for me as a new teacher. Unfortunately, the professor insisted on using PowerPoint for her lessons despite clearly not knowing it they worked (to the point where we would shout out how to navigate among slides). I managed to get out of reading this book because she didn’t actually test us on the book itself; she merely “followed” certain chapters with her own notes, and there was only one midterm test; the rest of our marks came from assignments. I’m not proud of my performance in that course, nor am I proud to talk about my inattentiveness—but it happened, and I suppose it’s ironic it happened when the book is called Why Don’t Students Like School?
I loved school as a child and still love school. (This is probably a good thing, since if my career aspirations come true, I will be spending the rest of my working life in school, albeit on a salary.) School—and by this I mean “learning”—was, for me, the point of my childhood. Oh, I had plenty of fun with friends and got into my fair share of shenanigans. But I loved learning, lessons, and homework. So I’m at somewhat of a disadvantage, as a teacher, when it comes to diagnosing problems of disinterest, since I have so seldom experienced it myself. Fortunately, Daniel T. Willingham has come to my rescue with a book that concisely explores this issue and has recommendations and advice for how to help students learn.
I love the length of this book, which is rather short for a non-fiction science book (don’t let the thickness fool you, however, because the print is small). Why Don’t Students Like School is just the right length for Willingham to cover each of his nine “cognitive principles” and explain them without going into too much depth with the science behind the principles. A longer, more detailled book would doubtless have been more daunting, and I think Willingham has found the right balance among length, depth, and barrier to entry. You don’t need to have studied cognitive psychology by any means to read this book; however, despite its length, this is not a popular science book. Willingham’s style is a blend of the academic and the science writer, mixing facts, figures, and tables with intriguing analogies. Finally, every chapter ends with two bibliographies: “less technical” and “more technical”. Attention to details like that are what differentiate books that are merely interesting from books that are interesting and useful. Why Don’t Students Like School? goes on to emphasis this distinction in a variety of ways.
Perhaps the most surprising thing about reading this book is that it taught me how many pre-conceptions and biases I have already developed regarding pedagogy. Willingham challenges many tenets of teaching that I have absorbed, either through society at large or explicitly through my education coursework. For example, his seventh cognitive principle is “Children are more alike than they are different”, which leads into a discussion of the very common notion that different children “learn differently”, i.e., some people are “visual learners” and some people are “tactile learners”. Who hasn't heard this? I bet that most people, even those who aren’t teachers, have been exposed to this idea, whether or not they subscribe to it on any significant philosophical level.
Willingham tackles this theory in depth, describing the hell out of it so that we have a firm idea of what it is, then going on to say:
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold on a moment, Willingham—are you telling me that received wisdom from “society” is wrong? That it doesn’t accurately reflect how students actually learn, and instead perpetuates outdated psychological fads? That seems rather far-fetched, but I suppose if you have evidence….
In addition to its twin bibliographies, every chapter concludes with an “Implications for the Classroom” section where Willingham lists explicit ideas and tips that teachers can apply to their own lessons. In the conclusion to this chapter, he advises teachers to “think in terms of content, not in terms of students”. So some content is better seen than heard and vice versa—students differ, but not as much as content differs. It would be silly to teach a music class by only reading sheet music. Willingham also opines that, “There is value in every child, even if he or she is not ‘smart in some way’”, referring critically to the idea that “Every student is intelligent in some way”. I’m not sure I agree with Willingham on this point, but I won’t get into it because intelligence is such a vast and difficult concept.
I recall, dimly, that we discussed the multiple intelligences/learning styles theory in my Educational Psychology class, but you can see how much information I retain when a professor’s teaching style doesn’t work for me. This is an important point that Willingham emphasizes throughout Why Don’t Students Like School?: students’ learning styles and attitudes and abilities are important, but they are not as important as they teacher’s style. I was more than unusually fortunate in my draw of teachers as a child, but even the poor teachers provided me with something that I, as an avid and eager student, could nurture into knowledge. Other students are not so lucky. If I had to choose a favourite part of this book, it would be the very end. Willingham includes in an endnote to the conclusion a quotation from Reynolds Price:
What an excellent sentiment. It refocuses the responsibility where it should rest: not with students who are inattentive, disadvantaged, or otherwise not achieving their “potential” (whatever that means), but with the teachers. Because, you know, this is kind of our job; this is what we do. If we resign ourselves only to reaching those students who embrace school, then we are doing a very poor job indeed.
With his sixth cognitive principle, Willingham makes a point that I think I’ve previously realized but have never really expressed as a single statement: “Cognition early in training is fundamentally different from cognition late in training.” In other words, students in a field don’t just know less than experts in that field—they actually think differently about that knowledge, owing to the way their brains structure and organize information. As one becomes more familiar with a subject—more practised—one’s brain becomes more adept at organizing information about that subject and applying different techniques to study a situation. Experts have a larger “mental toolbox”, as Willingham puts it. The lesson for teachers here is not to expect one’s students to think about problems as an expert would, and thus they won’t necessarily learn by doing the same sort of activities that experts do.
“Practice makes perfect” might sound trite these days, but Willingham makes a strong case for it. I haven’t read Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell, which has popularized the idea that, on average, one needs to put in about 10,000 hours of practice in order to become an expert at something. Willingham echoes this idea, particularly when discussing the difference between novices and experts, and backs it up with some nice cognitive studies. He even takes it further and specifically refers to teachers. The last chapter of the book is dedicated to how teachers can improve, and this is a good quotation from the chapter on expertise:
I didn’t realize how much I needed this reassurance, but that’s what it is for me. This is the year I will engage in “student teaching”, the period in which I shadow a teacher in a high school and even teach the class directly—and I’m terrified. What if I screw up? What if I step across the threshold of the classroom and they sense that I’m somehow not really teacher material? And I know, deep down in the most rational cockles of my heart, that this is not going to happen, and that I will be a good teacher—but that does nothing to calm my nerves! Still, Willingham’s reassurance goes a long way to reinforcing the idea that we have “permission to suck”. Although most often applied to students of the creative process, it’s applicable to life in general: I am going to suck, at times, as a novice teacher. I am going to make mistakes, and I will certainly improve—when I look back at myself ten years from now, I will laugh at those first few feeble lesson plans. Because practising almost automatically results in improvement, assuming you make the effort. I can see this in my own reviews here on Goodreads, which have improved gradually but noticeably since I began writing them. My process, in general, has not changed—I’ve just had more practice.
I’ll finish by touching on Willingham’s second cognitive principle: “factual knowledge must precede skill”. He opens the chapter by mentioning stereotypes of teaches who are obsessed with drilling facts into their students’ heads, including Mr. Gradgrind of Hard Times, a book that I read in first-year English and quite enjoyed. This was the chapter I approached with the most scepticism and perhaps even hostility, for although I have yet to read The Shallows , I disagree with Nicholas Carr’s proposition that Google is making us stupid. He makes an important point, but my objections have always been based on this nebulous, perhaps not well-defined premise that “critical thinking” is more important than knowing when William the Conqueror invaded England (1066). Well, Willingham attacks this defence and gets in a critical hit: in order to solve problems, first we have to know what we’re talking about. I don’t think he’s taking as hard a line as Carr, because he exhorts teachers to consider carefully what background knowledge is necessary for students to succeed at a particular task. And, come to think of it, I was already expressing a similar idea when I told my math professors why I want to teach high school: in my experience as a tutor, many university math students aren’t struggling with the higher-level concepts themselves but with the more basic operations (fractions, oh the fractions) that they should have mastered in high school. One needs a certain level of background knowledge and skill to succeed.
Of course, that is why I read so voraciously, and why I read books like this. Why Don’t Students Like School? reaffirmed a lot of what I think, challenged a great deal too, and in general has probably helped get my mind back in gear for the start of school next week. Unlike many books to which I award five stars, I am not going to gush and recommend this to everyone. If you have an interest in pedagogy or cognitive psychology, check it out. For new and aspiring teachers like myself, I will say this is required reading. With Why Don’t Students Like School?, Willingham neither patronizes nor panders to teachers but instead provides an excellent, helpful volume based on studies in cognitive psychology. It’s not anecdotal hokum; it’s not prescriptive pedagogical bullshit. It’s science, bitches. It works.
I loved school as a child and still love school. (This is probably a good thing, since if my career aspirations come true, I will be spending the rest of my working life in school, albeit on a salary.) School—and by this I mean “learning”—was, for me, the point of my childhood. Oh, I had plenty of fun with friends and got into my fair share of shenanigans. But I loved learning, lessons, and homework. So I’m at somewhat of a disadvantage, as a teacher, when it comes to diagnosing problems of disinterest, since I have so seldom experienced it myself. Fortunately, Daniel T. Willingham has come to my rescue with a book that concisely explores this issue and has recommendations and advice for how to help students learn.
I love the length of this book, which is rather short for a non-fiction science book (don’t let the thickness fool you, however, because the print is small). Why Don’t Students Like School is just the right length for Willingham to cover each of his nine “cognitive principles” and explain them without going into too much depth with the science behind the principles. A longer, more detailled book would doubtless have been more daunting, and I think Willingham has found the right balance among length, depth, and barrier to entry. You don’t need to have studied cognitive psychology by any means to read this book; however, despite its length, this is not a popular science book. Willingham’s style is a blend of the academic and the science writer, mixing facts, figures, and tables with intriguing analogies. Finally, every chapter ends with two bibliographies: “less technical” and “more technical”. Attention to details like that are what differentiate books that are merely interesting from books that are interesting and useful. Why Don’t Students Like School? goes on to emphasis this distinction in a variety of ways.
Perhaps the most surprising thing about reading this book is that it taught me how many pre-conceptions and biases I have already developed regarding pedagogy. Willingham challenges many tenets of teaching that I have absorbed, either through society at large or explicitly through my education coursework. For example, his seventh cognitive principle is “Children are more alike than they are different”, which leads into a discussion of the very common notion that different children “learn differently”, i.e., some people are “visual learners” and some people are “tactile learners”. Who hasn't heard this? I bet that most people, even those who aren’t teachers, have been exposed to this idea, whether or not they subscribe to it on any significant philosophical level.
Willingham tackles this theory in depth, describing the hell out of it so that we have a firm idea of what it is, then going on to say:
I’ve gone into a lot of detail about the visual-auditory-kinesthetic theory because it is so widely believed, even though psychologists know that the theory is not right. What I have said about this theory goes for all of the other cognitive styles theories as well. The best you can say about any of them is that the evidence is mixed.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold on a moment, Willingham—are you telling me that received wisdom from “society” is wrong? That it doesn’t accurately reflect how students actually learn, and instead perpetuates outdated psychological fads? That seems rather far-fetched, but I suppose if you have evidence….
In addition to its twin bibliographies, every chapter concludes with an “Implications for the Classroom” section where Willingham lists explicit ideas and tips that teachers can apply to their own lessons. In the conclusion to this chapter, he advises teachers to “think in terms of content, not in terms of students”. So some content is better seen than heard and vice versa—students differ, but not as much as content differs. It would be silly to teach a music class by only reading sheet music. Willingham also opines that, “There is value in every child, even if he or she is not ‘smart in some way’”, referring critically to the idea that “Every student is intelligent in some way”. I’m not sure I agree with Willingham on this point, but I won’t get into it because intelligence is such a vast and difficult concept.
I recall, dimly, that we discussed the multiple intelligences/learning styles theory in my Educational Psychology class, but you can see how much information I retain when a professor’s teaching style doesn’t work for me. This is an important point that Willingham emphasizes throughout Why Don’t Students Like School?: students’ learning styles and attitudes and abilities are important, but they are not as important as they teacher’s style. I was more than unusually fortunate in my draw of teachers as a child, but even the poor teachers provided me with something that I, as an avid and eager student, could nurture into knowledge. Other students are not so lucky. If I had to choose a favourite part of this book, it would be the very end. Willingham includes in an endnote to the conclusion a quotation from Reynolds Price:
If your method reaches only the attentive student, then you must either invent new methods or call yourself a failure.
What an excellent sentiment. It refocuses the responsibility where it should rest: not with students who are inattentive, disadvantaged, or otherwise not achieving their “potential” (whatever that means), but with the teachers. Because, you know, this is kind of our job; this is what we do. If we resign ourselves only to reaching those students who embrace school, then we are doing a very poor job indeed.
With his sixth cognitive principle, Willingham makes a point that I think I’ve previously realized but have never really expressed as a single statement: “Cognition early in training is fundamentally different from cognition late in training.” In other words, students in a field don’t just know less than experts in that field—they actually think differently about that knowledge, owing to the way their brains structure and organize information. As one becomes more familiar with a subject—more practised—one’s brain becomes more adept at organizing information about that subject and applying different techniques to study a situation. Experts have a larger “mental toolbox”, as Willingham puts it. The lesson for teachers here is not to expect one’s students to think about problems as an expert would, and thus they won’t necessarily learn by doing the same sort of activities that experts do.
“Practice makes perfect” might sound trite these days, but Willingham makes a strong case for it. I haven’t read Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell, which has popularized the idea that, on average, one needs to put in about 10,000 hours of practice in order to become an expert at something. Willingham echoes this idea, particularly when discussing the difference between novices and experts, and backs it up with some nice cognitive studies. He even takes it further and specifically refers to teachers. The last chapter of the book is dedicated to how teachers can improve, and this is a good quotation from the chapter on expertise:
This generalization—that experts have abstract knowledge of problem types but novices do not—seems to be true of teachers too. When confronted with a classroom management problem, novice teachers typically jump right into trying to solve the problem, but experts first seek to define the problem, gathering more information if necessary. Thus expert teachers have knowledge of different types of classroom management problems.
I didn’t realize how much I needed this reassurance, but that’s what it is for me. This is the year I will engage in “student teaching”, the period in which I shadow a teacher in a high school and even teach the class directly—and I’m terrified. What if I screw up? What if I step across the threshold of the classroom and they sense that I’m somehow not really teacher material? And I know, deep down in the most rational cockles of my heart, that this is not going to happen, and that I will be a good teacher—but that does nothing to calm my nerves! Still, Willingham’s reassurance goes a long way to reinforcing the idea that we have “permission to suck”. Although most often applied to students of the creative process, it’s applicable to life in general: I am going to suck, at times, as a novice teacher. I am going to make mistakes, and I will certainly improve—when I look back at myself ten years from now, I will laugh at those first few feeble lesson plans. Because practising almost automatically results in improvement, assuming you make the effort. I can see this in my own reviews here on Goodreads, which have improved gradually but noticeably since I began writing them. My process, in general, has not changed—I’ve just had more practice.
I’ll finish by touching on Willingham’s second cognitive principle: “factual knowledge must precede skill”. He opens the chapter by mentioning stereotypes of teaches who are obsessed with drilling facts into their students’ heads, including Mr. Gradgrind of Hard Times, a book that I read in first-year English and quite enjoyed. This was the chapter I approached with the most scepticism and perhaps even hostility, for although I have yet to read The Shallows , I disagree with Nicholas Carr’s proposition that Google is making us stupid. He makes an important point, but my objections have always been based on this nebulous, perhaps not well-defined premise that “critical thinking” is more important than knowing when William the Conqueror invaded England (1066). Well, Willingham attacks this defence and gets in a critical hit: in order to solve problems, first we have to know what we’re talking about. I don’t think he’s taking as hard a line as Carr, because he exhorts teachers to consider carefully what background knowledge is necessary for students to succeed at a particular task. And, come to think of it, I was already expressing a similar idea when I told my math professors why I want to teach high school: in my experience as a tutor, many university math students aren’t struggling with the higher-level concepts themselves but with the more basic operations (fractions, oh the fractions) that they should have mastered in high school. One needs a certain level of background knowledge and skill to succeed.
Of course, that is why I read so voraciously, and why I read books like this. Why Don’t Students Like School? reaffirmed a lot of what I think, challenged a great deal too, and in general has probably helped get my mind back in gear for the start of school next week. Unlike many books to which I award five stars, I am not going to gush and recommend this to everyone. If you have an interest in pedagogy or cognitive psychology, check it out. For new and aspiring teachers like myself, I will say this is required reading. With Why Don’t Students Like School?, Willingham neither patronizes nor panders to teachers but instead provides an excellent, helpful volume based on studies in cognitive psychology. It’s not anecdotal hokum; it’s not prescriptive pedagogical bullshit. It’s science, bitches. It works.
May 1, 2015
Meh--
Granted, this book has some insights—the importance of background knowledge in reading comprehension and creative thinking, the qualitative difference in thinking between novices and experts, and structuring your lesson plan like a story to keep the attention of the students—but it unfortunately suffers from, well, failing to grab the attention of the reader. As one Audible reviewer said, "The story was so dull that he lost my attention!" It's true, he advocates asking questions and NOT answering it right away, but then in this book he answers them right away before presenting basic information for the reader to understand the questions and to get sufficiently curious about it.
Other sections are not really useful, really. He busts the myth of learning styles/preferences in one, but to me that's old news (but then I don't want to be unfair to the author—after all I just read more recently published books on learning) He doesn't even cover spaced repetition (which is both scientifically established and executable, and therefore fits his criteria for including it in the book as one of the "principles" of cognitive psychology useful for education). He does cover the importance of feedback in learning (a la deliberate practice) and does point out something I've always suspected, that students, as novices, are incapable of creating new knowledge (which actually is commonsense if you think about it. Do you expect any novice to contribute to any field, academic or not? Maybe there are exceptions, but even Mozart, that paragon of genius imitated Hayden and others when he "composed" symphonies when he was 7, thus producing mediocre work).
The section on memory was slightly more useful, actually: students remember what they think about. If you want them to memorize the meaning of a word, you should have them think of the meaning and not structure your lesson around some fun-sounding activity that doesn't help them do that (something I might have done in the past).
The "classroom implication" section at the end of each chapter—where he talks about how you can deploy the "principle"—is rather repetitive and obvious and doesn't offer any new insight you couldn't have gleaned from the previous discussion of the principle, so I found myself feeling weary of it every time I heard the phrase. I have the suspicion that the material covered by this book was forcibly stretched to fill up a book...
Another small complaint that's unrelated to the content: there's also no PDF file for this audiobook, though it keeps mentioning it again and again and again.
All in all, a bunch of scientifically established facts that could be somewhat useful but are tortured to stretch a book's length.
If you're interested in the cognitive scientist's approach to education, I recommend the much superior and insightful Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning.
Granted, this book has some insights—the importance of background knowledge in reading comprehension and creative thinking, the qualitative difference in thinking between novices and experts, and structuring your lesson plan like a story to keep the attention of the students—but it unfortunately suffers from, well, failing to grab the attention of the reader. As one Audible reviewer said, "The story was so dull that he lost my attention!" It's true, he advocates asking questions and NOT answering it right away, but then in this book he answers them right away before presenting basic information for the reader to understand the questions and to get sufficiently curious about it.
Other sections are not really useful, really. He busts the myth of learning styles/preferences in one, but to me that's old news (but then I don't want to be unfair to the author—after all I just read more recently published books on learning) He doesn't even cover spaced repetition (which is both scientifically established and executable, and therefore fits his criteria for including it in the book as one of the "principles" of cognitive psychology useful for education). He does cover the importance of feedback in learning (a la deliberate practice) and does point out something I've always suspected, that students, as novices, are incapable of creating new knowledge (which actually is commonsense if you think about it. Do you expect any novice to contribute to any field, academic or not? Maybe there are exceptions, but even Mozart, that paragon of genius imitated Hayden and others when he "composed" symphonies when he was 7, thus producing mediocre work).
The section on memory was slightly more useful, actually: students remember what they think about. If you want them to memorize the meaning of a word, you should have them think of the meaning and not structure your lesson around some fun-sounding activity that doesn't help them do that (something I might have done in the past).
The "classroom implication" section at the end of each chapter—where he talks about how you can deploy the "principle"—is rather repetitive and obvious and doesn't offer any new insight you couldn't have gleaned from the previous discussion of the principle, so I found myself feeling weary of it every time I heard the phrase. I have the suspicion that the material covered by this book was forcibly stretched to fill up a book...
Another small complaint that's unrelated to the content: there's also no PDF file for this audiobook, though it keeps mentioning it again and again and again.
All in all, a bunch of scientifically established facts that could be somewhat useful but are tortured to stretch a book's length.
If you're interested in the cognitive scientist's approach to education, I recommend the much superior and insightful Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning.
May 21, 2010
It's good. His premise is that students learn when they think about the meaning of what they're supposed to learn. Lessons should be structured around that. Repetition and drills have a purpose, one means of transferring short to long-term memory. There's far more evidence for malleable intelligence (you can do better if you work at it) than there is for multimodal learning styles (aural, visual, kinaesthetic, etc.).
September 22, 2011
1. People are naturally curious, but we are not naturally good thinkers; unless the cognitive conditions are right, we will avoid thinking.
2. Factual knowledge must precede skill.
3. Memory is the residue of thought.
4. We understand new things in the context of things we already know, and most of what we know is concrete.
5. It is virtually impossible to become proficient at a mental task without extended practice.
6. Cognition early in training is fundamentally different from cognition late in training.
7. Children are more alike than different in terms of how they think and learn.
8. Children do differ in intelligence, but intelligence can be changed through sustained hard work.
9. Teaching, like any complex cognitive skill, must be practiced to be improved.
I have heard that good writers mentally visualize a reader while writing. Willingham seems, to his credit, to have visualized an overworked but dedicated teacher, grabbing a few minutes' reading after putting the kids to bed. So, he sets off the main point of each chapter (see above) in a separate paragraph, usually preceded by a statement like “The cognitive principle that guides this chapter is:”, so it's absolutely clear what he's driving at.
It's good that someone is still dedicated and idealistic enough to write a book like this, because in the field of education the hogwash piles up so fast that you need wings just to keep above it. However, it's sad that the teachers of educational psychology who need this book the most will probably never read it, because they have too much wrapped up in orthodoxies like “multiple intelligences”, for example, and will not it accept it being challenged.
2. Factual knowledge must precede skill.
3. Memory is the residue of thought.
4. We understand new things in the context of things we already know, and most of what we know is concrete.
5. It is virtually impossible to become proficient at a mental task without extended practice.
6. Cognition early in training is fundamentally different from cognition late in training.
7. Children are more alike than different in terms of how they think and learn.
8. Children do differ in intelligence, but intelligence can be changed through sustained hard work.
9. Teaching, like any complex cognitive skill, must be practiced to be improved.
I have heard that good writers mentally visualize a reader while writing. Willingham seems, to his credit, to have visualized an overworked but dedicated teacher, grabbing a few minutes' reading after putting the kids to bed. So, he sets off the main point of each chapter (see above) in a separate paragraph, usually preceded by a statement like “The cognitive principle that guides this chapter is:”, so it's absolutely clear what he's driving at.
It's good that someone is still dedicated and idealistic enough to write a book like this, because in the field of education the hogwash piles up so fast that you need wings just to keep above it. However, it's sad that the teachers of educational psychology who need this book the most will probably never read it, because they have too much wrapped up in orthodoxies like “multiple intelligences”, for example, and will not it accept it being challenged.
June 13, 2017
كتاب ملهم يستفيد منه المدرس بدرجة كبيرة.
فكرة المؤلف هي أنه طبق تسع مبادئ من على النفس المعرفي في تطوير عملية التدريس و أعطى أخر مبدأ للمدرس.
طريقة المؤلف و أختياره لهذه المبادئ كان جميل جداً حيث وضعها على شكل تسلسلي فالمبدأ الأول ينفع في فهم المبدأ الثاني.
في نهاية الكتاب يلخص الكاتب المبادئ التسع في جدول مبسط.
كتاب جيد جداً و رغم أني مهندس ميداني أرى أن هذه المبادئ يمكن ان تطبق كذلك في تخصصي و كيف اتعامل مع فريقي لإنهاء الأعمال بشكل جيد و عرفت كيف يمكنني أن أضع فريقي مستمتع بالعمل و لو كان صعب.
النصيحة التي رأيتها مهمة جداً بأن لا أصف أي أنحاز بأنه ذكاء بل بأنه إنجاز خاص بصاحبه بسبب الفعل الجيد و الدقة في العمل .
فكرة المؤلف هي أنه طبق تسع مبادئ من على النفس المعرفي في تطوير عملية التدريس و أعطى أخر مبدأ للمدرس.
طريقة المؤلف و أختياره لهذه المبادئ كان جميل جداً حيث وضعها على شكل تسلسلي فالمبدأ الأول ينفع في فهم المبدأ الثاني.
في نهاية الكتاب يلخص الكاتب المبادئ التسع في جدول مبسط.
كتاب جيد جداً و رغم أني مهندس ميداني أرى أن هذه المبادئ يمكن ان تطبق كذلك في تخصصي و كيف اتعامل مع فريقي لإنهاء الأعمال بشكل جيد و عرفت كيف يمكنني أن أضع فريقي مستمتع بالعمل و لو كان صعب.
النصيحة التي رأيتها مهمة جداً بأن لا أصف أي أنحاز بأنه ذكاء بل بأنه إنجاز خاص بصاحبه بسبب الفعل الجيد و الدقة في العمل .
December 15, 2018
An excellent start but just seemed to get tied up in itself about two thirds of the way in and I found my attention dropping away (interestingly enough this is discussed in the conclusion).
It’s good, but rather too dry.
Arid. Dustbowl.
It’s good, but rather too dry.
Arid. Dustbowl.
Read
September 15, 2019کتاب فوق العاده ای بودش
این کتاب را پروفسور
andrew ng
توصیه کردند بخونید .
این کتاب را پروفسور
andrew ng
توصیه کردند بخونید .
Read
January 30, 2024لما قد نجد طالبًا متفوقًا قادرًا على الاستيعاب الجيّد لما تم شرحه، متفاعلًا مشاركًا ما فهمه وذاكره، بينما زميله في نفس الصف عكسه تمامًا؟ ما يحتمل أن يكون وراء ذلك. كيف يمكن تدارك الأمر والتعامل معه بمهارة؟ هذا مما تضمنه الكتاب ذو الموضوع الهام لمن يهتم بفهم ومساعدة النفس وبالتربية عامةً، وللمُعلِّمين والمُعلِّمات خاصةً.
July 22, 2023
So much interesting information in here, much of it going against what’s popular now in educational circles (Eight Great Smarts, etc). In fact, I think it was after I listened to one of Mr. Willingham’s interviews that I returned my Eight Great Smarts audiobook without even starting it. It was freeing. Lol.
The author’s points on working memory, general knowledge, and factual knowledge were very affirming. Read widely, even if a book or publication doesn’t necessarily seem relevant to your life, and you’ll learn more easily. Therefore, read to your children from a wide variety of books and expose them to a wide variety of life experiences, all for the purpose of building general and factual knowledge.
He states that drill, while far from glamorous, is important for children to become fluent in a skill, because the mind learns new things more easily when other things are second nature. I think we all know this, but every once in awhile we become enamored with the idea that maybe we don’t HAVE to, and that can be a huge set back (at least from what I’ve experienced).
Overall, this gave me some things to chew on and some new encouragement and inspiration for the upcoming school year.
The author’s points on working memory, general knowledge, and factual knowledge were very affirming. Read widely, even if a book or publication doesn’t necessarily seem relevant to your life, and you’ll learn more easily. Therefore, read to your children from a wide variety of books and expose them to a wide variety of life experiences, all for the purpose of building general and factual knowledge.
He states that drill, while far from glamorous, is important for children to become fluent in a skill, because the mind learns new things more easily when other things are second nature. I think we all know this, but every once in awhile we become enamored with the idea that maybe we don’t HAVE to, and that can be a huge set back (at least from what I’ve experienced).
Overall, this gave me some things to chew on and some new encouragement and inspiration for the upcoming school year.
April 30, 2017
لماذا لا يحب التلاميذ المدرسة؟
دانيال تي ويلينجهام
..............................
يتناول هذا الكتاب موضوعات متنوعة بغرض الوصول إلي هدفين مباشرين، وفي الوقت نفسه ليسا بسيطين بالمرة، وهما: أن تعرف كيف تعمل عقول تلاميذك، وكيف تستخدم هذه المعرفة لتكون معلما أفضل.
يتساءل المؤلف أسئلة تتعلق بالعمل التعليمي، مثل: لماذا يصعب جعل المدرسة ممتعة للتلاميذ؟ ثم يحاول في رحلته عبر صفحات الكتاب أن يجيب عن هذا السؤال.
تقوم الفكرة التي يستند إليها المؤلف للإجابة عن هذا السؤال، وكذلك للإجابة علي موضوع الكتاب (لماذا لا يجب التلاميذ المدرسة؟) علي طريقة عمل العقل البشري، ومدي سعة الذاكرة العاملة. فالكاتب يري أن التفكير عملية صعبة وهي ليست عملية سهلة ولا محببة للإنسان _ علي عكس الشائع _ كما أن التفكير صعب، وليس هو العملية الوحيدة التي يقوم بها العقل البشري. ولأن المدرسة تشحذ الذهب باستمرار، بمعني أنها تجعل الذهن في حالة توتر دائم؛ لذلك فالمدرسة غير محبوبة.
التحديات التي تقدمها المدرسة علي ثلاث مستويات، إما أن تكون صعبة جدا، وهذه منفرة جدا للعقل، وإما أن تكون سهلة جدا، وهذه مملة جدا، وإما أن تكون في مستوي متوسط بين السهولة والصعوبة، وتعتبر تحديات يمكن حلها، هنا حل هذه المشكلات أو التحديات يسبب السعادة لأنه يساعد علي إفراز مادة الدوبامين.
يري الكاتب أننا نستمتع بالمجهود الذهني إذا كان ناجحا؛ فيروق لنا حل المشكلات، لكن لا يروق لنا تناول مشكلات غير قابلة للحل. ويري أننا فضوليون بالفطرة، لكننا لسنا مفكرين أكفاء بالفطرة؛ فإذا لم تتوافر الظروف المعرفية المواتية، فسوف نتحاشى التفكير.
يري الكاتب أن المخ يقوم بالعديد من الوظائف، والتفكير ليس أفضل وظيفة يقوم بها. كما يري أن التفكير بطيء ويتطلب بذل مجهود كبير وغير مؤكد، مقارنة بقدرتنا علي الإبصار والحركة. وهذه هي بعض أسباب كون السفر منهكا جدا؛ فكافة الأحداث الصغيرة التي يمكن أن تفعلها بنحو تلقائي وأنت في بلدك، تحتاج إلي الانتباه الكامل.
إنك عندما تحل مشكلة، قد يكافئ مخك نفسه بإفراز جرعة صغيرة من الدوبامين، وهي مادة كيميائية تفرز في المخ بنحو طبيعي، وهي مهمة لجهاز السعادة في المخ. وكذلك فعندما تقوم المدرسة بتقديم مهام للتلاميذ لحلها، وهذه المهام تقدم تحدي قابل للحل، فإن العقل يفرز نفس المادة، أي يشعر التلميذ بالسعادة، وعلي العكس إذا كانت المهام مستحيلة الحل أو سهلة جدا ولا تقدم تحديا حقيقيا للعقل، فإن التلميذ يصاب بالملل.
إذا أسرف المعلم في تقديم المهام للتلاميذ، بما يزحم الذاكرة العاملة، فإن المهمة تصبح صعبة، وينفر منها التلاميذ. فللذاكرة العاملة لها حيز محدود؛ ومن ثم يصبح التفكير صعبا بنحو متزايد حين تزدحم الذاكرة العاملة.
إن المشكلة في جهازنا المعرفي هي المدى الذي نستطيع عنده أن نتدبر العديد من الأفكار في عقولنا في الوقت نفسه.
كتاب مليء بالتفاصيل التي تعتبر نصائح مميزة للمعلمين، الكثير منها تقليدي جدا ونعرف أغلبه أو كله، والكتاب محشو بالكثير من السرد والاستطرادات التي تسببت في الابتعاد عن الفكرة الرئيسية من الكتاب في الكثير من المواضع. لكن الكتاب في عمومه مهم وممتاز.
دانيال تي ويلينجهام
..............................
يتناول هذا الكتاب موضوعات متنوعة بغرض الوصول إلي هدفين مباشرين، وفي الوقت نفسه ليسا بسيطين بالمرة، وهما: أن تعرف كيف تعمل عقول تلاميذك، وكيف تستخدم هذه المعرفة لتكون معلما أفضل.
يتساءل المؤلف أسئلة تتعلق بالعمل التعليمي، مثل: لماذا يصعب جعل المدرسة ممتعة للتلاميذ؟ ثم يحاول في رحلته عبر صفحات الكتاب أن يجيب عن هذا السؤال.
تقوم الفكرة التي يستند إليها المؤلف للإجابة عن هذا السؤال، وكذلك للإجابة علي موضوع الكتاب (لماذا لا يجب التلاميذ المدرسة؟) علي طريقة عمل العقل البشري، ومدي سعة الذاكرة العاملة. فالكاتب يري أن التفكير عملية صعبة وهي ليست عملية سهلة ولا محببة للإنسان _ علي عكس الشائع _ كما أن التفكير صعب، وليس هو العملية الوحيدة التي يقوم بها العقل البشري. ولأن المدرسة تشحذ الذهب باستمرار، بمعني أنها تجعل الذهن في حالة توتر دائم؛ لذلك فالمدرسة غير محبوبة.
التحديات التي تقدمها المدرسة علي ثلاث مستويات، إما أن تكون صعبة جدا، وهذه منفرة جدا للعقل، وإما أن تكون سهلة جدا، وهذه مملة جدا، وإما أن تكون في مستوي متوسط بين السهولة والصعوبة، وتعتبر تحديات يمكن حلها، هنا حل هذه المشكلات أو التحديات يسبب السعادة لأنه يساعد علي إفراز مادة الدوبامين.
يري الكاتب أننا نستمتع بالمجهود الذهني إذا كان ناجحا؛ فيروق لنا حل المشكلات، لكن لا يروق لنا تناول مشكلات غير قابلة للحل. ويري أننا فضوليون بالفطرة، لكننا لسنا مفكرين أكفاء بالفطرة؛ فإذا لم تتوافر الظروف المعرفية المواتية، فسوف نتحاشى التفكير.
يري الكاتب أن المخ يقوم بالعديد من الوظائف، والتفكير ليس أفضل وظيفة يقوم بها. كما يري أن التفكير بطيء ويتطلب بذل مجهود كبير وغير مؤكد، مقارنة بقدرتنا علي الإبصار والحركة. وهذه هي بعض أسباب كون السفر منهكا جدا؛ فكافة الأحداث الصغيرة التي يمكن أن تفعلها بنحو تلقائي وأنت في بلدك، تحتاج إلي الانتباه الكامل.
إنك عندما تحل مشكلة، قد يكافئ مخك نفسه بإفراز جرعة صغيرة من الدوبامين، وهي مادة كيميائية تفرز في المخ بنحو طبيعي، وهي مهمة لجهاز السعادة في المخ. وكذلك فعندما تقوم المدرسة بتقديم مهام للتلاميذ لحلها، وهذه المهام تقدم تحدي قابل للحل، فإن العقل يفرز نفس المادة، أي يشعر التلميذ بالسعادة، وعلي العكس إذا كانت المهام مستحيلة الحل أو سهلة جدا ولا تقدم تحديا حقيقيا للعقل، فإن التلميذ يصاب بالملل.
إذا أسرف المعلم في تقديم المهام للتلاميذ، بما يزحم الذاكرة العاملة، فإن المهمة تصبح صعبة، وينفر منها التلاميذ. فللذاكرة العاملة لها حيز محدود؛ ومن ثم يصبح التفكير صعبا بنحو متزايد حين تزدحم الذاكرة العاملة.
إن المشكلة في جهازنا المعرفي هي المدى الذي نستطيع عنده أن نتدبر العديد من الأفكار في عقولنا في الوقت نفسه.
كتاب مليء بالتفاصيل التي تعتبر نصائح مميزة للمعلمين، الكثير منها تقليدي جدا ونعرف أغلبه أو كله، والكتاب محشو بالكثير من السرد والاستطرادات التي تسببت في الابتعاد عن الفكرة الرئيسية من الكتاب في الكثير من المواضع. لكن الكتاب في عمومه مهم وممتاز.
September 30, 2011
I absolutely loved this book. I think it should be a must read in teacher-training programs all over the country. For decades, people have expected teachers to have a background in child development to help them understand how to meet students where they are. As of yet, there is not as much of an emphasis on understanding cognitive science. However, cognitive science is way ahead of what teachers tend to know in terms of how people learn, and applying those experiments in the classroom can only serve to better teaching and education. The book is set up so that each chapter poses a new question he hears a lot from teachers (my favorite was "how come they can remember every word from a show they watched last night, but not a single thing they learned in math ten minutes ago?"), and then attempts to answer each question. His responses are straightforward and backed up with a huge body of research and, ultimately, common sense. I especially appreciated his recommendation for how teachers can become better teachers. Since learning is an active process and must be done through painstaking focus, most teachers stop learning how to be better teachers after three to five years. He recommends that teachers continue looking at each other's (and their own) teaching much in the same way clinical psychologists continue to study themselves with clients for 10 or more years.
Again, anybody who is currently a teacher or planning to become a teacher MUST read this book.
Again, anybody who is currently a teacher or planning to become a teacher MUST read this book.
June 20, 2023
کتاب بسیار بسیار دلچسب و آموزندهای بود. هر فصل سوال جالبی رو مطرح میکرد و از نظر من پاسخ درخور و شایستهای میداد. این کتاب رو بهطور ویژه به معلمان پیشنهاد میکنم.
عنوان فارسی کتاب: چرا دانشآموزان مدرسه را دوست ندارند؟
به تازگی توسط نشر ترجمان چاپ شده.
عنوان فارسی کتاب: چرا دانشآموزان مدرسه را دوست ندارند؟
به تازگی توسط نشر ترجمان چاپ شده.
November 18, 2020
I don't love the title of this book, but it's not a misnomer. The main title suggests this is a radical anti-schooling book, but it is quite the opposite: its intent is to help educators engage and teach their students effectively based on cognitive science research.
I love the format of this book. I cannot overstate this. It's extremely well organized, rigorously cited, and even has any cited books and journal articles at the end of each chapter under the headings "Less Technical" and "More Technical." (Ahhhh! This author gets me.) All this and it is not too long and highly readable.
(While the subtitle of the book makes this clear, when I picked this book up I somehow missed that this book is addressing educators in classrooms. I am a parent, so I'm not the intended audience, but if a parent is engaged in their child's education (I'm currently homeschooling, so I am *extremely* engaged right now...) and/or interested in cognitive science, then this will still be a worthwhile read.)
Highly recommended! One of the best books I've read on education.
I love the format of this book. I cannot overstate this. It's extremely well organized, rigorously cited, and even has any cited books and journal articles at the end of each chapter under the headings "Less Technical" and "More Technical." (Ahhhh! This author gets me.) All this and it is not too long and highly readable.
(While the subtitle of the book makes this clear, when I picked this book up I somehow missed that this book is addressing educators in classrooms. I am a parent, so I'm not the intended audience, but if a parent is engaged in their child's education (I'm currently homeschooling, so I am *extremely* engaged right now...) and/or interested in cognitive science, then this will still be a worthwhile read.)
Highly recommended! One of the best books I've read on education.
January 10, 2013
The title of this book is a bit of a mislead -- it's the title of the first of nine chapters, each dealing with a different lesson that cognitive science can offer to teachers. The criteria for each lesson's inclusion in the book is that the principle should be "fundamental to the mind's operation" -- they don't change with circumstances, age or socio-economic status; other criteria are that applying the principle has a significant impact, there is a large amount of research to back it up, and it should suggest novel teaching techniques.
The organization of this book is extremely satisfying. Each chapter presents the problem, then the research, and finally a summary and a section called "Indications for the Classroom" which presents specific ideas and techniques.
At the end of the book is a table summarizing all nine principles along with their most important classroom implication. This table is particularly helpful because the titles of the chapters are misleading: "How Can I Teach Students the Skills They Need When Standardized Tests Require Only Facts?" is actually about the usefulness of factual knowledge. "What's The Secret to Getting Students to Think Like Real Scientists, Mathmaticians and Historians?" is actually about the differences between how novices and experts think. If I owned this book and needed to refer to it, I would put the page numbers for each chapter beside the corresponding row on the summary table and forget the table of contents altogether.
That chapter on the differences between novices and experts is the only one which I really had issue with in terms of content. The author says that novice learners don't think about their subject the same way as experts because they lack the experts' practice and depth of knowledge, and further that there's little benefit in trying to get learners to think like a "real scientist" or a "real historian". His argument boils down to: there's no point in trying to get students to think like experts because they'd be really bad at it.
It seems to me that, specifically with respect to science, the author is conflating "thinking like an experienced, working scientist" with "learning the scientific method", and throwing out the latter because the former is untenable. School "science" classes involve getting students to do demonstrations and memorize facts, not make predictions, design experiments and interpret results. Obviously a student is not going to be able to do rigorous, productive 21st-century science -- that takes years of study and practice. But learning how to do everyday science -- how to apply the principles of the scientific method -- is not, if you'll excuse the expression, rocket science. You can "do science" without "being" a scientist.
The more I think about it the more I think the organizing concept of this particular chapter is a strawman created so the author could fit in some important points about novice versus expert thinking. (Developmental editor fail!) Suggesting that having students do experiments, compose music or interpret historical source materials won't advance their understanding of a subject is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Appreciating, from experience, how knowledge and art is created certainly contributes to understanding that knowledge and art.
Apart from that one quibble I think the interpretation and presentation of the research is spot on and very well presented.
The organization of this book is extremely satisfying. Each chapter presents the problem, then the research, and finally a summary and a section called "Indications for the Classroom" which presents specific ideas and techniques.
At the end of the book is a table summarizing all nine principles along with their most important classroom implication. This table is particularly helpful because the titles of the chapters are misleading: "How Can I Teach Students the Skills They Need When Standardized Tests Require Only Facts?" is actually about the usefulness of factual knowledge. "What's The Secret to Getting Students to Think Like Real Scientists, Mathmaticians and Historians?" is actually about the differences between how novices and experts think. If I owned this book and needed to refer to it, I would put the page numbers for each chapter beside the corresponding row on the summary table and forget the table of contents altogether.
That chapter on the differences between novices and experts is the only one which I really had issue with in terms of content. The author says that novice learners don't think about their subject the same way as experts because they lack the experts' practice and depth of knowledge, and further that there's little benefit in trying to get learners to think like a "real scientist" or a "real historian". His argument boils down to: there's no point in trying to get students to think like experts because they'd be really bad at it.
It seems to me that, specifically with respect to science, the author is conflating "thinking like an experienced, working scientist" with "learning the scientific method", and throwing out the latter because the former is untenable. School "science" classes involve getting students to do demonstrations and memorize facts, not make predictions, design experiments and interpret results. Obviously a student is not going to be able to do rigorous, productive 21st-century science -- that takes years of study and practice. But learning how to do everyday science -- how to apply the principles of the scientific method -- is not, if you'll excuse the expression, rocket science. You can "do science" without "being" a scientist.
The more I think about it the more I think the organizing concept of this particular chapter is a strawman created so the author could fit in some important points about novice versus expert thinking. (Developmental editor fail!) Suggesting that having students do experiments, compose music or interpret historical source materials won't advance their understanding of a subject is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Appreciating, from experience, how knowledge and art is created certainly contributes to understanding that knowledge and art.
Apart from that one quibble I think the interpretation and presentation of the research is spot on and very well presented.
January 4, 2015
Not just for teachers or students, this book is a near perfect explanation of the contemporary consensus on learning, one that will change how you read, write, and think.
Daniel Willingham, a cognitive scientist and K-12 expert at the University of Virginia, uses nine questions to illuminate why it is difficult for people to learn new things, and what can be done about it. In the process of answering those questions, he dispels a lot mythology that has arisen around learning.
One myth is that students in school don't need to learn "facts" or information, but merely how to "think critically." Willingham shows that there are few generalizable skills about critical thinking across all disciplines. To understand a topic, one needs to have the sort of "deep knowledge" in long-term memory that allows you to interpret the facts at hand critically. That could be procedural type knowledge (like how to divide fractions) or mere facts (like who was the first President). With these facts, it becomes easier to "think critically" by using them to identify subtexts and connecting causes. This kind of deep knowledge is also important because the main bottleneck to critical thinking is one's "working memory," or the six or seven things one can keep at the forefront of one's thought at the same time. This too is little subject to general training, but in any one subject, more long term memory allows you to "chunk" pieces of information together and therefore keep more things in your mind at once, which makes them easier to compare and contrast.
This may sound like Willingham is a mere advocate for rote memorization, and though he does defend knowing some basic facts that require mere memory, he knows that rote is a bad way to learn. As he says, memory is the residue of thought. Whatever gets a person thinking more about a subject makes them more likely to remember it, and thinking more about a subject, especially across different situations, allows one to identify where else that subject information could apply. Willingham attributes the ability to generalize ideas across a number of related fields the very essence of "expert" thought, and he shows that this demands practice and constant thinking (and therefore increasing memory about the subject) to acquire.
This book could be seen as somewhat traditionalist. A defense of memorizing, subject-matter knowledge, and practicing in education instead of airy ideas about "critical thinking" and "whole learning." It is somewhat traditional in that sense, though backed up by real citations and science. Yet Willingham also explains how to make this all interesting. Students (and others who want to learn) do like increasing their aptitude in an area, so it is important to show progress, and how work leads to progress, and important to give students the ability to solve problems that are not too hard or too easy, so they can enjoy the thrill of discovery while focusing on the problem at hand. He also advocates shaping lessons as narratives, with a conflict and a resolution, which takes advantage of our natural bias for stories for thinking about a topic.
This book changed and, hopefully, clarified the way I think about learning. I won't read another book without thinking about it.
February 19, 2025
A wonderful combination of cognitive science bits and ideas for practical application in the classroom. Inspiring without being overly overwhelmingly so. I especially loved what Willingham had to say on what it means to think, and how to help students to think. I'm afraid I'm still a little too green to employ his methods very effectively, but his model of educating the mind is compelling. I think it could make a difference in my classroom after some more pondering and practicing.
January 10, 2024
A must read for teachers, parents and anyone looking to improve their cognitive thinking & skills. Although, the book was hard to get through and eventually I had to abandon the book but it was still a informative nd somewhat enjoyable read.
August 31, 2024
Paar prima inzichten maar helaas geen miracle drug. Ik luister liever naar influencers die mij wijsmaken dat er een one size fits all panacee is; gat in de markt?
June 10, 2018
If you’re a teacher, read this. If you’re a parent of kids in school age, read this. And if you nurture any interest about improving your cognitive skills, read this also.
Nelson Zagalo
(13 de junho 2014)
Daniel T. Willingham , professor, psicólogo e cientista cognitivo apresenta ao longo do livro algumas reflexões sobre a estrutura da mente, como nos apropriamos e retemos a informação, desmistifica a crença das inteligências múltiplas, fornece sugestões para melhoria da aprendizagem, entre outras.
“As pessoas são naturalmente curiosas, mas não são naturalmente boas pensadoras. A menos que as condições cognitivas sejam favoráveis, pensar será evitado.”
Neste capítulo o autor refere que sempre que concluímos uma tarefa e esta é bem-sucedida o nosso cérebro segrega uma pequena dose de Dopamina, uma substância natural significativa para as funções do prazer do cérebro. Referem os cientistas que esta substância é importante nas duas funções de aprendizagem e prazer. Mas qual o grau de dificuldade a implementar na tarefa? Esta é a pergunta difícil de responder, porque não tem uma resposta óbvia. Se apresentar ao aluno uma tarefa demasiado fácil, ele resolve-a de forma automática sem esforço mental, não retirando assim qualquer prazer na sua execução, porque é demasiado trivial. Se a tarefa tiver um grau de dificuldade demasiado elevado, que o aluno não consiga compreender, sente-se frustrado e abandona a tarefa.
Para qualquer individuo realizar qualquer tarefa, tem de ter conhecimento prévio.
“O conhecimento factual deve preceder as habilidades”
Queremos que os nossos alunos pensem e não apenas memorizem, mas para pensarem é preciso que muita informação exista na memória de longo prazo. Os alunos que estudam na véspera do teste guardam a informação na memória de trabalho e despejam-na no dia seguinte, contudo uma semana depois já não se lembram do que estudaram, os alunos que estudam regularmente solidificam o conhecimento. Neste capítulo o autor apresenta algumas estratégias (mnemónicas) que ajudam a organizar a informação e a armazena-la na memória de longo prazo, libertando assim mais espaço para guardar mais informações.
“A memória é o resíduo do pensamento”
Prática, muita prática, na automatização da leitura e no raciocínio lógico-abstrato. Estas duas funções são o alimento do pensamento.
“As crianças são mais semelhantes do que diferentes em termos de como pensam e aprendem”
Neste capítulo, tendo sido o mais interessante para mim, como professora, desmistifica aquilo que sempre acreditei sobre as inteligências múltiplas, que o professor deve organizar as tarefas dando ênfase as várias inteligências dos alunos. Esta teoria apesar de ser amplamente divulgado no meio científico e pedagógico, os psicólogos não conseguiram ainda provar a sua veracidade. Temos aprendizes visuais, auditivos e cinestésicos, aprendem melhor de acordo com um estilo, mas não deve ser a única forma de eles aprenderem.
A propósito de estilos, conto um episódio que me ocorreu no ano letivo 2015-2016. Tive um aluno surdo. Organizei os materiais dos conteúdos a lecionar totalmente visuais: imagens, vídeos-tutoriais e textos. Para a restante turma, exponha a parte teórica em apresentações eletrónicas e explicava os conteúdos oralmente. Passado poucas semanas, vários alunos perguntaram-me se podiam utilizar os materiais do aluno surdo, disseram-me que eu não precisava de explicar os conteúdos porque aprendiam melhor visualmente: observando as imagens e os vídeos e lendo as informações escritas detalhadamente. A verdade é que funcionou, na sala de aula, eu apenas tirava dúvidas quando surgiam. A partir dessa data abandonei as apresentações eletrónicas.
As 5 estrelas são para o conteúdo do livro, para o seu autor Daniel T. Willingham, pelo trabalho desenvolvido no campo da educação, menos uma pela tradução que se apresenta com algumas (muitas) falhas.
Nelson Zagalo
(13 de junho 2014)
Daniel T. Willingham , professor, psicólogo e cientista cognitivo apresenta ao longo do livro algumas reflexões sobre a estrutura da mente, como nos apropriamos e retemos a informação, desmistifica a crença das inteligências múltiplas, fornece sugestões para melhoria da aprendizagem, entre outras.
“As pessoas são naturalmente curiosas, mas não são naturalmente boas pensadoras. A menos que as condições cognitivas sejam favoráveis, pensar será evitado.”
Neste capítulo o autor refere que sempre que concluímos uma tarefa e esta é bem-sucedida o nosso cérebro segrega uma pequena dose de Dopamina, uma substância natural significativa para as funções do prazer do cérebro. Referem os cientistas que esta substância é importante nas duas funções de aprendizagem e prazer. Mas qual o grau de dificuldade a implementar na tarefa? Esta é a pergunta difícil de responder, porque não tem uma resposta óbvia. Se apresentar ao aluno uma tarefa demasiado fácil, ele resolve-a de forma automática sem esforço mental, não retirando assim qualquer prazer na sua execução, porque é demasiado trivial. Se a tarefa tiver um grau de dificuldade demasiado elevado, que o aluno não consiga compreender, sente-se frustrado e abandona a tarefa.
Para qualquer individuo realizar qualquer tarefa, tem de ter conhecimento prévio.
“O conhecimento factual deve preceder as habilidades”
Queremos que os nossos alunos pensem e não apenas memorizem, mas para pensarem é preciso que muita informação exista na memória de longo prazo. Os alunos que estudam na véspera do teste guardam a informação na memória de trabalho e despejam-na no dia seguinte, contudo uma semana depois já não se lembram do que estudaram, os alunos que estudam regularmente solidificam o conhecimento. Neste capítulo o autor apresenta algumas estratégias (mnemónicas) que ajudam a organizar a informação e a armazena-la na memória de longo prazo, libertando assim mais espaço para guardar mais informações.
“A memória é o resíduo do pensamento”
Prática, muita prática, na automatização da leitura e no raciocínio lógico-abstrato. Estas duas funções são o alimento do pensamento.
“As crianças são mais semelhantes do que diferentes em termos de como pensam e aprendem”
Neste capítulo, tendo sido o mais interessante para mim, como professora, desmistifica aquilo que sempre acreditei sobre as inteligências múltiplas, que o professor deve organizar as tarefas dando ênfase as várias inteligências dos alunos. Esta teoria apesar de ser amplamente divulgado no meio científico e pedagógico, os psicólogos não conseguiram ainda provar a sua veracidade. Temos aprendizes visuais, auditivos e cinestésicos, aprendem melhor de acordo com um estilo, mas não deve ser a única forma de eles aprenderem.
A propósito de estilos, conto um episódio que me ocorreu no ano letivo 2015-2016. Tive um aluno surdo. Organizei os materiais dos conteúdos a lecionar totalmente visuais: imagens, vídeos-tutoriais e textos. Para a restante turma, exponha a parte teórica em apresentações eletrónicas e explicava os conteúdos oralmente. Passado poucas semanas, vários alunos perguntaram-me se podiam utilizar os materiais do aluno surdo, disseram-me que eu não precisava de explicar os conteúdos porque aprendiam melhor visualmente: observando as imagens e os vídeos e lendo as informações escritas detalhadamente. A verdade é que funcionou, na sala de aula, eu apenas tirava dúvidas quando surgiam. A partir dessa data abandonei as apresentações eletrónicas.
As 5 estrelas são para o conteúdo do livro, para o seu autor Daniel T. Willingham, pelo trabalho desenvolvido no campo da educação, menos uma pela tradução que se apresenta com algumas (muitas) falhas.
February 2, 2010
Eight principles of cognition, along with their implications for education, are discussed:
1. The brain is not designed for thinking--we are not naturally good at it.
2. Rote memorization of facts IS necessary before deeper skill/thinking can occur.
3. We remember what we think about the most.
4. We understand new things by relating them to our prior knowledge.
5. To be proficient, we must practice, not just experience a task.
6. Novices and experts do not think in the same way.
7. Children are more alike than different in terms of learning. (Auditory, kinesthetic, visual learning styles/multiple intelligence theory argued here.)
8. Intelligence is malleable. Effort, not ability, is key.
Having completed my master's in education with an emphasis on brain-based learning, I was intrigued to find several viewpoints in this book that refuted the bulk of my coursework. Specifically interesting was the research disproving multiple intelligences and learning modalities (thereby downplaying the need for differentiation, the latest teaching craze.) I also found chapter 3's analysis of the relationship between memory and thought to be very interesting. It made me question the whole idea of anticipatory sets in a lesson's introduction.
I can't say that I necessarily agree with everything that the author proposes. However, I do believe this book should be a must-read for teachers who are bombarded by professional development/teacher education coursework, if only to get a fresh perspective on some of the latest philosophies in "pop education." While some of the principles were familiar and common sense, others were quite mind opening.
Full of easy-to-read theory, with some ideas for classroom implication, but not many specific how-to's. Unlike other educational books, I'm not bursting with new ideas to bring back to my classroom, but it has certainly influenced my perspective on learning and teaching.
1. The brain is not designed for thinking--we are not naturally good at it.
2. Rote memorization of facts IS necessary before deeper skill/thinking can occur.
3. We remember what we think about the most.
4. We understand new things by relating them to our prior knowledge.
5. To be proficient, we must practice, not just experience a task.
6. Novices and experts do not think in the same way.
7. Children are more alike than different in terms of learning. (Auditory, kinesthetic, visual learning styles/multiple intelligence theory argued here.)
8. Intelligence is malleable. Effort, not ability, is key.
Having completed my master's in education with an emphasis on brain-based learning, I was intrigued to find several viewpoints in this book that refuted the bulk of my coursework. Specifically interesting was the research disproving multiple intelligences and learning modalities (thereby downplaying the need for differentiation, the latest teaching craze.) I also found chapter 3's analysis of the relationship between memory and thought to be very interesting. It made me question the whole idea of anticipatory sets in a lesson's introduction.
I can't say that I necessarily agree with everything that the author proposes. However, I do believe this book should be a must-read for teachers who are bombarded by professional development/teacher education coursework, if only to get a fresh perspective on some of the latest philosophies in "pop education." While some of the principles were familiar and common sense, others were quite mind opening.
Full of easy-to-read theory, with some ideas for classroom implication, but not many specific how-to's. Unlike other educational books, I'm not bursting with new ideas to bring back to my classroom, but it has certainly influenced my perspective on learning and teaching.
November 16, 2009
This is a must-read, and one to pass on to administrators, decision-makers, etc. Willingham establishes that prior knowledge is essential to the learning & critical thinking processes taught in school today, so I saw a lot of evidence backing up early childhood literacy programs here. If kids aren't exposed to lots of information early on, then they can hardly be expected to manipulate information when they're busy soaking it all in for the first time.
And this is in large part creating that 4th grade slump we see in readers. "By the time 4th grade rolls around, most students are good decoders, so reading tests start to emphasize comprehension. As described here, comprehension depends on background knowledge, and that's where kids from privileged homes have an edge. They come to school with a bigger vocabulary and more knowledge about the world than underprivileged kids. And because knowing things makes it easier to learn new things, the gap between privileged and underprivileged kids widens." (p. 28)
And, of course, you've gotta get kids reading:
"Books expose children to more facts and to a broader vocabularly than virtually any other activity, and persuasive data indicate that people who read for pleasure enjoy cognitive benefits throughout their lifetime." Now that's preaching to the (library) choir, but hopefully others will see the importance of connecting kids with fun, interesting books that can capture their imagination and expand their worlds.
And this is in large part creating that 4th grade slump we see in readers. "By the time 4th grade rolls around, most students are good decoders, so reading tests start to emphasize comprehension. As described here, comprehension depends on background knowledge, and that's where kids from privileged homes have an edge. They come to school with a bigger vocabulary and more knowledge about the world than underprivileged kids. And because knowing things makes it easier to learn new things, the gap between privileged and underprivileged kids widens." (p. 28)
And, of course, you've gotta get kids reading:
"Books expose children to more facts and to a broader vocabularly than virtually any other activity, and persuasive data indicate that people who read for pleasure enjoy cognitive benefits throughout their lifetime." Now that's preaching to the (library) choir, but hopefully others will see the importance of connecting kids with fun, interesting books that can capture their imagination and expand their worlds.
December 18, 2017
I disagree with some things that he proposed on this book, for example when he writes that in teaching teacher should focus on the content delivery not to the students themselves. This dichotomy can be dangerous, as both are also important. However, this disagreement is minor, as there are a lot of points that he delivers are so mind-opening. As a practicing teacher, i have done some of his suggestions, but mostly intuitively. And this book makes me think the reason behind them. Also the minus point is there are so much repetitions happen (i know it might be necessary), but it gets quite boring sometimes. Some stuff also the things that I already knew, as it is quite basic stuffs in pedagogy. But overall, very recommended for all of the teachers out there (especially for the one who never learn about pedagogy science like me).
Read
March 11, 2023While I admit that during the second half of this book I wondered several times whether it was really answering the title question, I firmly assert that it should be a required read for educators. Willingham is not only a good writer but also a meticulous and serious scientist who approaches education’s hard problems rationally and calmly. I very much appreciate his willingness to qualify statements precisely: there is so much hyperbole and quasi-religious devotion in edu-punditry these days that it was especially refreshing to see him draw his lines with great care.
September 25, 2009
The font is annoyingly small and the writing a bit redundant, but some information may be of interest. As Willingham finishes with a sum-it-up chapter, you might check it out of the library, start there, then back track to the corresponding chapter of interest.
Most memorable for me? The importance of background knowledge over skills, and the science proving "learning styles" a sham. So much for all those fun tests identifying what type of learner we all are.
Most memorable for me? The importance of background knowledge over skills, and the science proving "learning styles" a sham. So much for all those fun tests identifying what type of learner we all are.
May 14, 2012
What agitated me about this book was that all the author did was introduce ideas and then never explain or develop them into anything substantial. He offers no accessible solutions to any of the problems he identifies and instead goes on tangents, such as one that compares Dick Cheney and Joey from Friends. While I understood the analogy, it was not a novel concept. Overall, the book did not offer any valuable insight into education or pedagogy.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 610 reviews