This week might well mark the anniversaries of the Battle of Austerlitz, Monte Casino and the bombing of Pearl Harbour, but kids should not have to learn them according to Don Tapscott, author of the best-seller Wikinomics.
He argues that teaching methods being used on children were dreamt up in another age and education needs to move with the times reflecting new technologies, which make facts and figures available at the click of a mouse.
Tapscott who coined the phrase "net generation" says a better approach is to teach children to think creatively so that they can learn to understand and then apply the knowledge available freely online.
Tapscott said: "Teachers are no longer the fountain of knowledge -- the internet is. Kids should learn about history but they don't need to know all the dates.
"It is enough that they know about the Battle of Hastings, without having to memorise that it was in 1066.
They can look that up and position it in history with a click on Google. Memorising facts and figures is a waste of time."
He dismissed the traditional method as "anti-learning" and argues that teaching kids to learn new things is more important than ever in the information age: "Children are going to have to reinvent their knowledge base multiple times. So for them memorising facts and figures is a waste of time."
Tapscott is best known for his 1998 book 'Growing Up Digital', which he has followed up with his latest book 'Grown Up Digital'.
The book is a study of around 8,000 people in a dozen countries born between 1978 and 1994.
He is also the co-author of 'Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything'.
Comments
What about at the pub quiz!
It is not only at the pub quiz that we need to recall information. What happens when you are face to face in the office or at a presentation? You need to know what you are talking about and be able to explain the facts - you therefore need to have those facts to hand, not stored in a computer.
People automatically want to learn about what they are interested in. Information is best retained through the spoken word and face to face. Personally, I cannot see this changing.
It's true that ntelligence is not your ability to dredge up figures and facts about the past, but there is a general education issue at stake here in that children can't physically process ideas in the same way as adults and will need to learn the discipline of thinking about facts and rules in order to interpret the world around them as they grow up.
Nice idea, but not sure it wouold work
I love Wikipedia, but saying you needn't learn information like this because of Google and Wikipedia is like telling kids in the 80s who lived next door to the library not to bother either. I agree education has moved on from wrote learning in the way you still see in Japan as the ability to think is not the same as the ability to memorise, but I think it would be short sighted to say that because of these developments there's no place for facts and figures because you can simply look them up later.
The death of the pub quiz was my first thought when i read this today. Tapscott clearly has a bit of thinking to do.
I wish someone would invent a small handheld device that could do sums so I didn't have to add up...........
Appreciate the sentiments, but the discipline of learning could well be lost if taken to the extreme. Fundamentally, learning should be about training our brains as much as absorbing information; there's a balance!
He knows he's talking rubbish -- he just wants to sell his new book.
Mostly agree with last comment - openly provocative drivel. But like it or not more and more children are agreeing with Tapscott and writing wikireports and wikiessays. Which brings up the bigger point - who is teaching these kids to critique their sources?
CF - 02/12/2008
What is learning if it's not memorising facts? Surely everything you know is based on fact - it's what humans are programmed for. It'd be harder not to learn them...
Aside all the other good points made above, it's a little dangerous to imply that wikipedia and google are in fact reliable sources of accurate information. There's as much drivel as there is quality published online and we shouldn't be suggesting to children that everything they read on wikipedia or indeed any other website is cast iron truth.
surely you have to know kind of when the event happened to see it in context and know what else was happening in the world at the time. At least a vague understanding of the dates is needed.
I remembered when we all believed what was in the Sun paper, how times have changed
I believe that the education of children can be improved upon and be more innovative in their approach to learning. But to rely upon Google and Wikipedia as the 'holy grail' for information as Will Milling suggests, 'a little dangerous'. There needs to a be a resourceful and factual place where children can get information without the dangers of misconception or misplaced truth from an author. A teacher ensures that there is a barrier of the amount of knowledge that a child can be exposed to, Google and Wikipedia do not.
I doubt that he has been in a school - certainly not a school in the UK - for a long time. The whole point of the eternal Daily Mail campaign against education today is that it doesn't teach facts.
And I wholly agree that Wiki is utterly unreliable. It is so often factually wrong that it is worse than useless. I was reading about a Bob Dylan song last week using Wiki and found that it stated most authoritatively that it ended on a particular chord, when that is quite wrong.
It is a tiny point of detail - of no interest but to a musicologist - but symptomatic of the whole problem. It presents itself as authority and correctness but without the rigour of \(say) Britannica or a definitive specialist volume, it is utterly misleading.
To what extend children's education should leave out facts I'm not sure, but certainly there is a need to nurture their creativity. This was put beautifully in Sir Ken Robinson's talk at TED \("Do Schools Kill Creativity"): http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
Kids shouldn't have to learn about the "Battle of Austerlitz, Monte Casino and the bombing of Pearl Harbour." I never said anything of the sort. These are critical moments in history that everyone should understand.
Rather the issue here is that we have two choices about what our educational system looks like:
We drill kids with facts: Kings, battles, etc. so that they can regurgitate them on tests. \(the current model of education)
Or
Kids memorize fewer facts but acquire knowledge. They learn how to think, communicate, solve tough problems \(from math to society), put things in context, and work in groups. Learning excites them, and they want to learn lifelong.
I choose #2.
If you want to know my real POV and the research behind it please read Grown Up Digital.
Thanks
Don
Education is an ever evolving landscape which changes just as much as the latest kids trends. Google and Wikipedia should not be written off as a learning tool, but they must adapt with the times also to make their information and the way it is presented more relevant to current processes. The dates of battles throughout the middle ages and usesless trivia are just as important as one another; the personal skills developed through learning these facts will provide the basis for any childs future development.
CF - 05/12/2008
Did Don Tapscott himself just come on and comment? Brilliant!
"Or Kids memorize fewer facts but acquire knowledge"
Put that way, you can perhaps better understand the arguement. Although - if you need to know about the Battle of Hastings \(example above) - and learn why it happened \(ie what came before) and what it triggered \(what came after) - it's quite hard not to learn dates and facts. Although I appreciate that an emphasis on more critical and creative thinking may be a good thing, it seems hard to do without having the facts readily at your disposal.
I wish there was a book or something with a list of all the words and their definitions, so I didn't have to remember them all...
Comments
Paul Jackson - 02/12/2008
What about at the pub quiz!
John McGlone - 02/12/2008
It is not only at the pub quiz that we need to recall information. What happens when you are face to face in the office or at a presentation? You need to know what you are talking about and be able to explain the facts - you therefore need to have those facts to hand, not stored in a computer. People automatically want to learn about what they are interested in. Information is best retained through the spoken word and face to face. Personally, I cannot see this changing.
Sara Chapman - 02/12/2008
It's true that ntelligence is not your ability to dredge up figures and facts about the past, but there is a general education issue at stake here in that children can't physically process ideas in the same way as adults and will need to learn the discipline of thinking about facts and rules in order to interpret the world around them as they grow up. Nice idea, but not sure it wouold work
Jennifer Melmore - 02/12/2008
I love Wikipedia, but saying you needn't learn information like this because of Google and Wikipedia is like telling kids in the 80s who lived next door to the library not to bother either. I agree education has moved on from wrote learning in the way you still see in Japan as the ability to think is not the same as the ability to memorise, but I think it would be short sighted to say that because of these developments there's no place for facts and figures because you can simply look them up later.
Gordon Macmillan - 02/12/2008
The death of the pub quiz was my first thought when i read this today. Tapscott clearly has a bit of thinking to do.
anthony agarrat - 02/12/2008
I wish someone would invent a small handheld device that could do sums so I didn't have to add up...........
joe woollen - 02/12/2008
Appreciate the sentiments, but the discipline of learning could well be lost if taken to the extreme. Fundamentally, learning should be about training our brains as much as absorbing information; there's a balance!
Richard Waitt - 02/12/2008
He knows he's talking rubbish -- he just wants to sell his new book.
Dave Stoker - 02/12/2008
Mostly agree with last comment - openly provocative drivel. But like it or not more and more children are agreeing with Tapscott and writing wikireports and wikiessays. Which brings up the bigger point - who is teaching these kids to critique their sources?
CF - 02/12/2008
What is learning if it's not memorising facts? Surely everything you know is based on fact - it's what humans are programmed for. It'd be harder not to learn them...
Gordon Macmillan - 02/12/2008
@ anthony agarrat you're right would be genius like.
Will Milling - 02/12/2008
Aside all the other good points made above, it's a little dangerous to imply that wikipedia and google are in fact reliable sources of accurate information. There's as much drivel as there is quality published online and we shouldn't be suggesting to children that everything they read on wikipedia or indeed any other website is cast iron truth.
Nicola Lucas - 02/12/2008
surely you have to know kind of when the event happened to see it in context and know what else was happening in the world at the time. At least a vague understanding of the dates is needed.
joe woollen - 02/12/2008
I remembered when we all believed what was in the Sun paper, how times have changed
D Clark - 03/12/2008
I believe that the education of children can be improved upon and be more innovative in their approach to learning. But to rely upon Google and Wikipedia as the 'holy grail' for information as Will Milling suggests, 'a little dangerous'. There needs to a be a resourceful and factual place where children can get information without the dangers of misconception or misplaced truth from an author. A teacher ensures that there is a barrier of the amount of knowledge that a child can be exposed to, Google and Wikipedia do not.
Tony Attwood - 03/12/2008
I doubt that he has been in a school - certainly not a school in the UK - for a long time. The whole point of the eternal Daily Mail campaign against education today is that it doesn't teach facts. And I wholly agree that Wiki is utterly unreliable. It is so often factually wrong that it is worse than useless. I was reading about a Bob Dylan song last week using Wiki and found that it stated most authoritatively that it ended on a particular chord, when that is quite wrong. It is a tiny point of detail - of no interest but to a musicologist - but symptomatic of the whole problem. It presents itself as authority and correctness but without the rigour of \(say) Britannica or a definitive specialist volume, it is utterly misleading.
Ben Bland - 03/12/2008
To what extend children's education should leave out facts I'm not sure, but certainly there is a need to nurture their creativity. This was put beautifully in Sir Ken Robinson's talk at TED \("Do Schools Kill Creativity"): http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
Don Tapscott - 04/12/2008
Kids shouldn't have to learn about the "Battle of Austerlitz, Monte Casino and the bombing of Pearl Harbour." I never said anything of the sort. These are critical moments in history that everyone should understand. Rather the issue here is that we have two choices about what our educational system looks like: We drill kids with facts: Kings, battles, etc. so that they can regurgitate them on tests. \(the current model of education) Or Kids memorize fewer facts but acquire knowledge. They learn how to think, communicate, solve tough problems \(from math to society), put things in context, and work in groups. Learning excites them, and they want to learn lifelong. I choose #2. If you want to know my real POV and the research behind it please read Grown Up Digital. Thanks Don
Carl Martin - 04/12/2008
Education is an ever evolving landscape which changes just as much as the latest kids trends. Google and Wikipedia should not be written off as a learning tool, but they must adapt with the times also to make their information and the way it is presented more relevant to current processes. The dates of battles throughout the middle ages and usesless trivia are just as important as one another; the personal skills developed through learning these facts will provide the basis for any childs future development.
CF - 05/12/2008
Did Don Tapscott himself just come on and comment? Brilliant! "Or Kids memorize fewer facts but acquire knowledge" Put that way, you can perhaps better understand the arguement. Although - if you need to know about the Battle of Hastings \(example above) - and learn why it happened \(ie what came before) and what it triggered \(what came after) - it's quite hard not to learn dates and facts. Although I appreciate that an emphasis on more critical and creative thinking may be a good thing, it seems hard to do without having the facts readily at your disposal.
Mikhal Newby - 10/12/2008
I wish there was a book or something with a list of all the words and their definitions, so I didn't have to remember them all...