NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/math/17497

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-30 | 2.9 KB

Xref: sparky sci.math:17497 comp.edu:2253 misc.education:5583
Newsgroups: sci.math,comp.edu,misc.education
Path: sparky!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!yktnews!admin!yktnews!prener
From: [e-mail] (Dan Prener)
Subject: Re: Education crisis (was RE: how much math...)
Sender: [e-mail] (NNTP News Poster)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of 30 Dec 1992 03:36:19 GMT
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 07:22:05 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: prener.watson.ibm.com
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Hawthorne, New York
Lines: 40

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Keith F. Lynch) writes:

   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Prener) writes:
   > Little kids learn much faster. ...
   > But the fact that little kids' learning capacity is so much greater
   > than that of older people ...

   Is there any evidence for this?  It goes against my experience.

The most commonly cited dramatic example is the ability to learn (natural)
languages.  It is relatively rare for people to acquire the fluency of a
native speaker after childhood.  Lest one think that is because we are not
capable of fluency in more than one language, I hasten to point out that
young children can become fluent in two, and occasionally more, languages
without much difficulty, when exposed to the languages in such a way that
there is little danger of mixing or confusing them.  The standard situation
is where each parent speaks with the child in a different language.

Of course, there are those who believe that young childrens' superiority
at learning language is so dramatic that there must be some other
mechanism at work beyond general learning ability, some switch that
shuts off the ability to learn languages after a certain age.

So, for another example, less often cited but more dramatic, consider how
much an infant learns in the first year or two of life.  Most of the
informal physics one knows, about the effects of gravity, light, sound,
heat, etc., is learned in that period.  In addition, the complex skills
of hand-eye coordination, upright locomotion, controlled voice production,
are learned then.  So are the philosophical distinctions between self and
other, and the social complexities of communication, even ignoring language.
And on, and on.

Think about the amount one learns as a child not measured in terms of the
number of equivalent academic courses, but in pure information-theoretic
terms: the number of bits of information.  Can you suggest another age
at which that bit rate is higher?


--
                                   Dan Prener ([e-mail])