Comment on you're doing ReSeArCh rong!!

kazerniel@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

• BanMe@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  It’s funny how as adults we become interested in elements of stuff we were taught and found boring before. But I’m not sure how you’d teach science without “shoving it down people’s throats” because most teenagers simply don’t give a shit about any of it, so pretty much anything you teach will be shoving it down someone’s throat. The better solution would be explaining why electron structure is important foundational stuff. About 98% of the time, in HS, they didn’t explain why we needed to know it, how it would be contextualized in later life - it was simply “learn this so you can pass next week’s test.” And for me, knowing why is crucial to me caring enough to learn.

  source
• Bytemeister@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  I hated chemistry in school, because it was teaching us irrelevant shit like the electron structure of atoms.

  It’s only unimportant because you don’t care. Reading random facts on Wikipedia isn’t learning, it’s just reading. You can read the Wikipedia page on juggling, (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juggling) but I wouldn’t expect you to understand (much less, perform) a 3 ball cascade, reverse cascade and waterfall after just reading the page. Those are very basic juggling patterns and fundamentals to more advanced patterns, such as juggler’s tennis, mills mess, boston mess etc… and that’s the difference between learning, and reading.

  Not ripping on going on a Wikipedia dive here, it’s one of my favorite things to do, but recognize that it’s not the same as learning

  source

  • kazerniel@lemmy.world ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    I feel like you’re nitpicking. For physical activities personal experience is obviously best, but for most topics, reading about them is the same as learning about them. Except for PE and art, nothing I learnt in school was through direct experience. Also how is anyone supposed to learn about stuff that cannot be experienced personally, like history or space?

    source

    • Bytemeister@lemmy.world ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Reading can be part of learning, but just reading Wikipedia is not. If you want to learn something, you need to invest the time in it to understand not just the words, but the context of that information, you need to be able to apply what you have read, and make use of it, even if that use is purely academic.

      For instance, you can read about the American civil war on Wikipedia, but a history teacher would not say that you learned the history of the American civil war. You would need to read multiple books on the situation before the war, during the war, and after the war, along with exploring the relevant technologies available at the time. You’d also want to look into primary sources like the diaries of some of the major leadership on both sides of the conflict, and review maps of battle sites and troop movements with time and dates, maybe even go visit some of the major battle sites, and at that point, you could say you’ve learned the history of the American civil war.

      Same thing for space. You can read the Wikipedia article on space, but you can’t claim that you learned about space from that. You’d need to look at other sources, rely on previous education you’ve had in school, maybe make some observations of space on your own, watch interviews of astronauts and astronomers, and then you can start to say that you’re learning about space.

      Learning takes an investment from you. Simply reading the material is not learning, you need to interact with it.

      source
• sakuraba@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  I used to think like this until I found out you can explain a lot of chemical interactions by just knowing how the electron structure of atoms lead to those reactions. Helpful when you try to wonder if anything could be toxic.

  source