OECD says Irish students not equipped to think outside the box

Galwayhurl

Teacher2020 wrote: »

To be fair, I think the curriculum has nothing to do with it.
We all went through the system - it's probably better now than it was when I went through it.
I don't know what is causing it but I think it stems back to play experiences not being what they should be for children. Many don't get the opportunities for imaginative, unsupervised play that we would have had when we were younger. We headed off for the day to the nearby forest or empty field. We entertained ourselves, we made up games and built huts and forts. We came home when we were hungry. We had to solve problems we encountered by ourselves. Most children don't get those experiences now and I think we underestimate the damage it does to children to have zero independence.

Close the thread. This nails it.

Children are not given an opportunity to be bored anymore. Either a tablet is stuck in front of them or their parents have them attending piano, soccer, GAA and other classes/activities morning noon and night.

Children need to be allowed to be bored so that they're forced outside to access their creative brain and problem solving skills. Also to develop their social skills by interacting with others.

Hellrazer

joe40 wrote: »

Yeah I agree.

KPMG for example offer apprenticships in a range of areas.

I think this is the sort of thing which should happen more often. It would even help with the very high cost of third level for many families.

https://www.kpmgcareers.co.uk/apprentice

But they aren't really "apprenticeships" - theres no apprenticeship in "software engineering"

Its a scam to get in people that they think will rise to the top so to speak.

Its like the motor trade that Ive worked in for 26 years now - I see garages advertising apprenticeships in " junior sales" or " spare parts trainee" with the promise of an apprenticeship in the aforementioned roles.

These don't exist - they are wishy washy made up positions to get cheap labour in on the promise of starting off on **** money and working for 5 years in the hope of earning the average industrial wage.

It does my head in seeing these positions advertised and it makes a mockery of the actual government funded apprentice programs.

joe40

Hellrazer wrote: »

But they aren't really "apprenticeships" - theres no apprenticeship in "software engineering"

Its a scam to get in people that they think will rise to the top so to speak.

Its like the motor trade that Ive worked in for 26 years now - I see garages advertising apprenticeships in " junior sales" or " spare parts trainee" with the promise of an apprenticeship in the aforementioned roles.

These don't exist - they are wishy washy made up positions to get cheap labour in on the promise of starting off on **** money and working for 5 years in the hope of earning the average industrial wage.

It does my head in seeing these positions advertised and it makes a mockery of the actual government funded apprentice programs.

https://www.qub.ac.uk/News/Allnews/2017/QueensandPwCbringnewtechnologydegreetoNorthernIreland.html


No, I think these apprenticeship are a good alternative to the traditional college degree. They give an academic degree with work experience and a lot less cost.
The one I linked to above looks interesting it is PWC in calloborstion with Queens university in Belfast.

They're called higher level apprenticeships.

I also think traditional apprenticeship should be given much higher status. Tradespeople are an essential part of a skilled workforce.

Pythagorean

I taught Maths and Physics both here and in the US, and I always endeavoured to try to get the students to reason out what the topic was about, rather than simply giving them a list of things they had to know. This approach worked with the better students, but most of the average ones did not want this at all. They simply wanted spoon feeding exam material. On one occasion the class were behaving badly, so I tried to treat them as adults, to take responsibility for their own behaviour. One student copped on, and shouted at the rest "He's trying to treat you as adults, grow up you dummies!" They quietened down pronto !!

amacca

DeadHand wrote: »

The problem is even more fundamental than not being capable of critical thought (something that should be fostered mostly at third level anyway, emphasis on “should”), kids are getting to third level with feeble literacy skills.

Many aren’t equipped with the basics on arrival, I’ve heard this from several lecturers.

You would wonder what they are doing at secondary level.

Well for one thing you are not allowed discipline in any meaningful way and if a certain cohort are inclined they can pretty much do what they want with zero fear of any real consequences

There's another cohort that don't want to really do anything or engage with anything that requires actual thought because its "too hard"

Try foster critical thinking skills in an environment like that....the only place some of them will put in any effort to solve a problem or a puzzle is in a video game and even then if its too hard you'll have a smashed up controller in the corner of the room

Then the students themselves expect it and think the teacher that spoonfeeds them and they get the grade is the best so the pressure is on to facilitate them because everyone is right now except the teacher.
I remember a long time ago asking a student to try to figure out something relatively straightforward (think it was regarding the Doppler effect) and he was quite literally aghast that I would ask him to use his brain/challenge him ....his words uttered in horror were "you can't do that" ...this was after explaining it in detail and just asking him to apply the knowledge....

The main reason they are not as good at problem solving is because they are Molly coddled to within an inch of their lives now and not given the kind of character building kicks in the arse that fosters independent thought more often.

FromADistance

Galwayhurl wrote: »

Close the thread. This nails it.

Children are not given an opportunity to be bored anymore. Either a tablet is stuck in front of them or their parents have them attending piano, soccer, GAA and other classes/activities morning noon and night.

Children need to be allowed to be bored so that they're forced outside to access their creative brain and problem solving skills. Also to develop their social skills by interacting with others.

All very good in the middle of the country (where I grew up anyhow) but would I let my own child out unsupervised in the city nowadays? No way. Sad but unfortunately true. In my experience there's too many young scrotes wandering the streets, with no respect for anyone or anything and seriously lacking any strong instilled home values.

Andrewf20

When i was younger (1980/90s), you would be involved in working on cars, on household electrics, basic carpentry and other bits of DIY.

This stuff gives kids a great baseline for thinking for themselves. They did it because their parents did it too and taught them the skills as half the country was too poor to pay a professional.

These days with legalisation, you have to get an expert in to do anything, therefore skills are lost in parents and the kids don't pick up these skills either. People are too rich also. Instead of fixing the washing machine you just replace it.

When was the last time you saw a parent showing a kid how to change a wheel on a car, fix a puncture on a bike, checking the oil on a dipstick, wiring a plug etc.

I think this is part of the problem.

Invidious

Andrewf20 wrote: »

When i was younger (1980/90s), you would be involved in working on cars, on household electrics, basic carpentry and other bits of DIY.

To add to this, if you were interested in computing back in the 1980s, you probably had something like a BBC Micro, Amstrad, ZX Spectrum, Commodore 64, etc. These systems encouraged getting under the hood and tinkering, an experience a young person today is unlikely ever to experience with an Xbox or iPhone. A friend who teaches computer science is consistently shocked by how little today's entering students understand about how computers work, versus his own peers when he was a beginning CS student in the early 90s. He puts a lot of their struggles down to reduced facility with maths (honours maths was much harder in those days) as well as lack of familiarity with what lies between the glossy commodified surface of devices.

Hellrazer

Invidious wrote: »

To add to this, if you were interested in computing back in the 1980s, you probably had something like a BBC Micro, Amstrad, ZX Spectrum, Commodore 64, etc. These systems encouraged getting under the hood and tinkering, an experience a young person today is unlikely ever to experience with an Xbox or iPhone.

Jesus - I feel really old now. My first computer was a ZX81 that came in Kit form that I had to solder together - I was 11 and I learned a lot from that kit ie programming basic from lines of code in magazines just to get a dot moving on a screen.

If the wifi goes down in my house you`d swear it was a global apocalypse...with not one of my 4 able to even restart a router.

Andrewf20

Invidious wrote: »

To add to this, if you were interested in computing back in the 1980s, you probably had something like a BBC Micro, Amstrad, ZX Spectrum, Commodore 64, etc. These systems encouraged getting under the hood and tinkering, an experience a young person today is unlikely ever to experience with an Xbox or iPhone. A friend who teaches computer science is consistently shocked by how little today's entering students understand about how computers work, versus his own peers when he was a beginning CS student in the early 90s. He puts a lot of their struggles down to reduced facility with maths (honours maths was much harder in those days) as well as lack of familiarity with what lies between the glossy commodified surface of devices.

Yes, I know of people that were that way inclined back then, getting stuck in. I see it in work too. People who are involved in things (DIY in cars, electrics, plumbing at home etc) are much more rounded individuals.

I have a brother who removed the timing belt and camshaft from a Mrk 4 Cortina in the mid 1980s at 15 which I thought was very brave & inspiring. Of course cars were way more simple back then but its a job with big risks if not done right. He had another engine stripped & rebuilt at 21.

What's interesting to note, is how few tools different families have these days. A hammer and some screwdrivers if you are lucky.

Teens were more bored back then also, so DIY could fill that hole nicely.

kippy

As someone said above what does "thinking outside the box" actually mean? What standard is this OECD guy hoping to achieve?
When I hear this kind of talk, I make the assumption, correctly or incorrectly, that he is speaking primarily in relation to tech. Not everyone is going to go into tech, nor can they, for very apparant reasons.
Maybe he is not talking about that though, maybe he is talking about lack of "inventors" - in fairness not everyone is going to be an inventor....

I think they guy is being overly harsh and obtuse being completely honest - trying to grab a few headlines, maybe trying to push a few multinationals off Ireland.....maybe some vested interests at play?

How does on measure "thinking outside the box"? What is "the box"?
Maybe I cant think outside the box to understand it.

NSAman

kippy wrote: »

As someone said above what does "thinking outside the box" actually mean? What standard is this OECD guy hoping to achieve?
When I hear this kind of talk, I make the assumption, correctly or incorrectly, that he is speaking primarily in relation to tech. Not everyone is going to go into tech, nor can they, for very apparant reasons.
Maybe he is not talking about that though, maybe he is talking about lack of "inventors" - in fairness not everyone is going to be an inventor....

I think they guy is being overly harsh and obtuse being completely honest - trying to grab a few headlines, maybe trying to push a few multinationals off Ireland.....maybe some vested interests at play?

How does on measure "thinking outside the box"? What is "the box"?
Maybe I cant think outside the box to understand it.

It’s critical thinking. Not just doing a job but thinking for yourself how to solve a problem that exists.

Unfortunately, much of the self reliance and self thought that us oldies HAD to do when growing up, fixing things, working with others, even chatting with people and developing interpersonal skills, are dwindling.

I see it in interviews with people. Throw a strange question in to the mix and the learned answers can’t cope.

That’s not to say that younger people are useless, far from it. It requires nurturing and mentoring. Some get it, some do not.

The J Stands for Jay

Notmything wrote: »

Saw it first hand as a mature student in college, students straight out of school not able to critique or challenge lessons.

Lecturers would end up having to give them a step by step guide to writing an essay as the student was not able to comprehend what the essay was asking.

I was doing a professional qualification as a mature student, and the lecturers would often start going on about how "this isn't like university, your lecturer doesn't set your paper and can't give you hints about what's coming up in the exams". WTF? Is the standard that low on universities now? How can the lecturers have any involvement in setting the assessments?

osarusan

McGaggs wrote: »

WTF? Is the standard that low on universities now? How can the lecturers have any involvement in setting the assessments?

I don't understand your point...who else is going to do it? Who else can accurately assess student application of the content of any particular module, if not the lecturer? By and large, it has always been the lecturers, not just a recent thing.


Exams are checked by an external examiner for validity before the exam takes place though, and a sample of corrected exams are checked also to look at consistency across grading.

The J Stands for Jay

osarusan wrote: »

I don't understand your point...who else is going to do it? Who else can accurately assess student application of the content of any particular module, if not the lecturer? By and large, it has always been the lecturers, not just a recent thing.


Exams are checked by an external examiner for validity before the exam takes place though, and a sample of corrected exams are checked also to look at consistency across grading.

I've only experienced separate exam and teaching departments, with no information on the paper going to the teaching staff.

osarusan

McGaggs wrote: »

I've only experienced separate exam and teaching departments, with no information on the paper going to the teaching staff.

Was this an Irish university? Which dept/school?



It sounds strange that a university would have one department doing the teaching without any knowledge of that the exam would consist of, or vice-versa - an exam dept setting an exam without knowing what the lecturer will cover.


For professional qualifications I understand, but not in universities, to the best of my knowledge.

Jimbob1977

How can you think outside the box when you are tucked away in your safe space?

It's a dangerous world out there. Full of conflicting opinions and what-not

Stovepipe

my limited experience of being involved with college students in an engineering environment is that there is still fantastic creativity,a willingness to look outside the box and first class craftsmanship,especially with modern things like Arduino/ raspberry pi/electronics/computing and that ilk. Older mechanical skills such as lathework and milling, not so much. In fact, I found that eastern european students tended to have quite a lot of the basic mech skills before getting to college whereas Western and some Asian students were much better at electronics. Not always but often enough that it was regarded as normal. When it came to graduates, in my sphere, which is aviation in an airline, they varied from grossly underskilled to excellent. Quite a few quit working in an actual airline and went to leasing companies instead.

Cilldara_2000

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Read this earlier, but the thing that jumped out most for me was:




Only 15% can distinguish fact from opinion?! That's an extremely worrying statistic and highlights both why social media narratives have the influence they do, and why it's so dangerous and divisive.

We're breeding a nation of drones that will rely on their Twitter feeds to tell them what to think about something.

Per the OECD themselves, this is "not significantly different from the OECD average". I wouldn't be overly concerned about teenagers having their heads up their arses, it has always been thus.