• undefined@lemmy.hogru.ch
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Maybe not a direct answer to your question but I’d try to keep it the lowest number of subjects at any given time with deeper learning in them.

    In school I was genuinely interested in learning, but every instructor seemed to hand you a mountain of homework each day and acted like their subject was the most important. I spent most my time scrambling to get it all done and in the end only learned what little I could to simply pass.

    I remember this especially with math, I loved math but if I took the time to study better and actually learn the concepts, I wouldn’t have had the time to finish my other homework.

    • MirthfulAlembic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      I’m not sure if there needs to be fewer subjects, but I feel like there should be much more focus on why what students are learning matters. Passing a standardized test is not a goal kids care about. This invariably has to be at the expense of rote information since there is only so much time, though I think that is a worthwhile trade.

      Nobody cares about the exact year that Mehmet II conquered Constantinople. But the impact of that on world history is both interesting and significant. I only had one history teacher before college who told students he didn’t care about exact years; if you could give the general period that was sufficient.