The shift in prioritization from hard work to perceived smarts reflects a shift from teaching the student new skills to preserving the students' self-image and self-esteem. Self-esteem is important, which is why teachers should carefully choose their language and avoid stigmatizing faliure. (Many students get more than enough criticism for their failures at home.) However, the central priority is to teach the student new skills such as math and literature. So, even if the teacher will appear to be sugarcoating everything, at least the skills are being taught and the students are being encouraged to learn them.

I believe the old way - hard work - is more democratic and less élitist. (Élitism associated with academic and intellectual achievement is one reason why US culture is mostly anti-intellectual; most Americans are proud of America's yeoman and pioneer roots.) The new way appears to promote the idea that students succeed at school because of innate smarts, when in fact constant practice is what allows a student to succeed. Even a peabrain can know rocket science if he/she practices the necessary skills on a daily basis.

So is, "Strike the iron while it's hot."

Over the past 30 years and beginning largely with the abolition of corporal punishment for students, there has been a shift in focus from the intellectual to the social. Perhaps it's a reaction to the Eurocentric curriculum that was standard is almost all US school districts up until 20 years ago. The non-European demographic was apparently feeling culturally and socially disenfranchised, as indicated by lower academic scores, so public education in the US began to shift towards a "multicultural" curriculum, so as to reduce the disparity between the students of European heritage and those not of European heritage. Under special consideration are African Americans, Native Americans, Americans of Latin American descent, and Americans of Asian descent.

African Americans and Americans of Latin American descent come from cultures where there is oral transmission of knowledge, rather than written transmission of knowledge. Hence, the idea of reading books on a regular basis may appear foreign to them, unless the student in question is already from a family where book reading is practiced often. Otherwise, verbal explanations of abstract concepts using concrete examples may be more effective than learning from books. Also, the academic intellectual traditions characteristic of European and Asian cultures are different from those of the aforementioned. Most African American families and Hispanic (Latin American) families are from regions where agriculture was the principal economic activity. Those who work in agriculture do not always have time to learn skills that would seem more befitting an urbanite. Also, in the middle of harvest season it's easier to verbally explain concepts than to open up a book.

Of course, that's not to say that agrarian peoples are intellectually underdeveloped. For instance, the style of agriculture employed by Mayan peoples (yes, Mayans exist even today) in Mexico and Central America mimics the regenerative cycles of tropical rainforest ecosystems. (Similar agricultural methods are employed in other tropical countries as well.) Using it requires knowledge of a vast range of plants and environmental phenomena, which is transmitted orally from generation to generation.

I believe that a multicultural curriculum can succeed, but IMO it is better for a student to develop a solid grounding in one particular culture before going on to another one. From what I've learned, though, the current focus of US public education is more social than academic, hence the focus on students' self-esteem.

I get a headache talking about the current state of US public education. It has changed a lot from when I was a child.

If you have the time, read this article and you will see how US public education has become social in its focus over the past 30 years. Even though it covers only math education, other subjects have been affected as well.

http://www.wgquirk.com/TruthK12.html

To avoid digressing further, I'll make a connection between the above mentioned and its relationship to Go. Go is of course an East Asian game, but it is one game that develops to a high degree the intellectual abilities of those who play it on a regular basis. As well, even those who do not know how to read a book can, with some prior explanation, learn how to read a board position. Go is a game that is fun and educational at the same time (but most Puritans would openly challenge me on this one ). Go can serve as an educational tool to help students do better in school and even in life as well. Which would make it compatible with a socially focused public school curriculum; Go can instill a humane view of the world, which is vital for any multicultural society.

Perhaps we should start a new thread based on the information in the last paragraph.

I am not sure. And I guess the teacher would also not know at the moment - faced with lack of any serious diagnosis of learning disability.

What prompts my question is some serious interest here. Observing asian-style Go teachers at work, and seeing sometimes Go students who just don't get it for prolonged periods of time (sometimes never) - I have not observed much other behavior from the teacher than (a) keep assigning the same kind of task over and over (i.e. persisting in a method which clearly does not work for this perticular student), and/or (b) giving up on the student at some point. Now - my remarks are driven more by observation than experience, and the observation was always that of unpaid, almost casual lesson. But it makes me curious how a situation of a "stubborn" student is handled under the easter teaching paradigm.

The article you gave was going where I thought it would answer the question, and then the situation got resolved before it came so far. I understand what this example was to illustrate and the reason for resolving it the way it was... but I think it is interesting (and important) to go this one step further.

For example - insei students who fail to make a pro within a certain time, do they get specialized and personalized training, maybe more individual teacher attention, or are they being given up on, eventually expelled to make room for the next batch? If they get some individual training, what form does it take? More of the same, or seeing how the usual method fails with this particular student, the teacher would try different approaches? In other way - how flexible the eastern approach is?

I honestly have no clue, but to fully understand (and evaluate) eastern teaching methods, I think this is not a trivial issue to investigate.

PS>
Personally, when thinking of the differences between eastern and western methods of teaching Go, it is my impression that, where results are concerned, western approach emphasizes raising as many as possible although not necessarily to the top (so a lot of potential might go unused and to waste), while eastern approach concentrates on raising to the top the few that can make it, and giving up on the rest. But this is Go teaching, and my personal feeling only, might or might not have anything to do with the teaching at schools or general teaching methods.

All in all, very interesting, I think.
I wonder if anybody here has more experience with that and could help answer such questions.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Perhaps the regular derision in classrooms of yesteryear was to inspire temperance and diligence in the student - as well as encourage respect for the instructor's authority. Of course, it is now proven that occasional praise and respectful dialogue contribute positively to academic performance. As you say, though, there appears to have been an overcorrection. Much of this is related to the dilemma of classroom discipline.

AFAIK, the idea behind classroom discipline is to create an environment in which the student can learn new skills without distraction. Of course, however, this is often easier said than done for many instructors, short of either lavishly rewarding good behavior and eager learning or just taking a cane to the offenders' buttocks. East Asians appear to have the right idea in this regard; by giving the instructor a wide scope of authority, he/she is able to enforce classroom discipline in a manner conducive to formal learning, with mostly favorable results.

In the US, most parents nowadays side with the student (their children) and largely antagonize the instructor. Not very encouraging for the instructor. Although I believe the parent must always side with the child in a show of support during a difficult situation, the views of the instructor are just as valid and can yield information on the kind of classroom environment in which the child is learning. The idea is for the child to recognize that the instructor makes the learning environment possible and as such he/she should behave towards the instructor in a manner that is considered respectful. In return, the instructor should facilitate a learning environment in which students can learn the subject matter without undue distraction.

Which reminds me, there is also the phenomenon of students vying for individual attention in a classroom setting. (I used to be one of those.) I wonder if these students do not get enough attention from their parents at home. I've seen too many instances in which the child would like to say something to his/her parents, only to have the parents ignore him/her outright. Not conducive to respectful behavior, is it?

Up until a few years ago, in the US and in other countries the parents almost always sided with the instructor unconditionally. It is still like this in many countries, but in the US there has been a trend toward reducing the culpability of the child, but this seems to be practiced out of context IMO, since the teachers are often seen to be at fault and in many instances the instructors can be exonerated. I would dare to say that it is the parents who are at fault if a child is performing poorly at school. Mom and Dad are any child's first instructors and, if the parents themselves do not demonstrate any real interest in academic education, why would the child be expected to perform well in school, if not for any reason other than to give them excuse to brag about themselves and stoke their plus-sized egos? Unless the child learned somewhere else that academic achievement is a good thing, it's likely that he/she will follow Mom & Dad's lead.

It's probably perceived this way in many American households. The parents themselves usually do not have any real interest in academic education, at least because it is considered to be an impractical waste of time. Also, someone who's spent a lot of time reading books is often perceived to be out of touch with the reality of the common citizen. Under this assumption one can say that it is more respectful - and therefore more conducive to social harmony - to allow a person to persist in their ignorance, than to alert them to the same and exhort them to come out of it.

There is a book by Richard Hofstadter, published in 1964 and titled Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. It is considered to be the definitive work on the subject, as it deals with the history of US anti-intellectualism. One thing I've discovered when reading about the book is that intellectual achievement has been perceived by most Americans as a form of privilege, not unlike great wealth or political influence. Hence there is the tendency to deride intellectuals as cold and distant, much the way that the rich would distance themselves from the poor. As well, whereas overreliance on the intellect will likely lead to moral decadence, strong personal character, plainspokenness, and a heart with a clear moral compass will help one to stay the course of righteous conduct; those with an overly curious mind would lack the temperance needed to deal with important issues in a practical manner. In fact, one can say that practicality is an American virtue, probably even more so than hard work.

Go is probably not very popularized in the West due to its reputation as an intellectual pursuit. That is, it something that the practical citizen cannot learn in just a few easy lessons. Even in East Asia the game has suffered a negative reputation more than once. During the Tang Dynasty in China Go was recast as an artistic pursuit worthy of an intellectual's time and attention, whereas up until then it was regarded mainly as a way for the upper classes to idle away their time. IMO this change was necessary if Go was to continue being played widely in China.

I found that out in this article, which, unfortunately for English speakers, is in Spanish.

http://lasindias.com/como-el-weiqi-conquisto-china

Go's reputation as an intellectual pursuit might be what is holding back its popularization in Western countries. Although... if a German auto mechanic or beer brewer were to pursue perfection in his craft the way East Asian pros pursue perfection in the game, would that make him an intellectual in the Western - or at least US - sense of the word?

The example I think of is of a Master Distiller in a Whiskey Distillery. This is a person who would be very respected for their knowledge and skill in their field and (from interactions I've seen) been treated as another expert by for example academics (this doesn't mean mightn't consider them an idiot outside of their field, and this is something that holds true for pretty much everything). I don't think anyone would call them intellectuals, but intellectuals aren't the only group respected for their knowledge, ability or skill so I don't see it as an issue.

Chess has the same problem as go does. People have a misconception about someone needing to be very intelligent (read: book smart) to even enjoy the game as an adult, never mind compete in tournaments. They are games for other people, that kid in class who was always ahead of the rest and so on and in my experience most of the people we get in the door at the club fit this stereotype but the strongest player we have would run right against it.

I don't have much experience the Pro Go teachers, but I have had a fair amount of experience with Chinese and other American teachers, mentors, supervisors. I get the impression that the historical approach dominates in China, to the extent that the reason something is the way it is, the first principles, were forgotten, and there is a much higher threshold for synthesizing something new or novel, and much more emphasis on memorizing and adapting ideas that are passed down.

More than before, but I certainly wouldn't claim most. What I've read on the topic suggests there's currently a class divide. Rich, management level parents have a tendency to view teachers as educational collaborators (or employees even), leading to increased participation (e.g., attending parent-teacher conferences), but also a sense that it's their prerogative to overrule the teacher. Working class parents who grew up with the teacher as an authority figure and now have a boss as an authority figure in their life are more likely to view the teacher as in charge. They're less likely to show up to a meeting (viewing themselves as unfit or at least not responsible for the child's education anymore), but are also more likely to defer to the teacher's authority. Talking to teachers, the most common angry parent story seems to be a parent coming in outraged over a grade or discipline, followed by the teacher explaining the child's behavior, and the parent's anger being redirected at the child who'd told a wildly different tale. But of course this is now moving anecdotal...



Traditionally it has been a privilege. Class, gender, race and geographic location were by far more important considerations in how far you went in school then hard work or innate intelligence for most of U.S. history. We've also got a rich history of deriding every group: Northerners, Southerners, Nerds, Jocks, Catholics, Protestants, Those uninterested in sex, Those too interested in sex...



It's an interesting question, I think a lot of it comes down to behavior. If the master brewer only talks about brewing and shirks social engagements to study his craft, he'll tend to be viewed as an intellectual even if the term isn't applied. On the flip side, a socially active engineer who avoids the topic of his work to discuss beer, friends, sports, the weather, etc. isn't likely to be viewed as an intellectual in my experience.

In North America a master distiller would probably be considered more "cool" than those who fit the classic egghead image. Even though a master distiller or brewer will usually lack the time for a friendly chat.

Or perhaps it's the following distinction that applies. An engineer or mathematician does not produce anything that is readily converted into money or can be consumed by the average layman, whereas the product of the master distiller or brewer is often available for the taking at any liquor outlet.

I now begin to wonder if Go, upon being popularized in North America and Europe, would soon be subject to the same commercialization seen in association football, American football, basketball, baseball, and other sports. In an age where "short and sweet" is at the top of every consumer's mind, Go may be something of a tough sell outside the academic/East Asian sphere.

It's likely that such a notion is being dispelled as we speak. There is a film titled Brooklyn Castle, which is about a group of juvenile chess players in a New York City public school. Far from being uncool nerds, they are considered the cool kids. Below is a link to a New York Times article from April 2012.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/nyregion/at-brooklyns-is-318-the-cool-kids-are-the-chess-champs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

A wholesale application of the historical approach may not be entirely effective when teaching novices not of East Asian descent. One of the strengths of Western culture is that new ideas are readily considered and often adopted. I believe that this characteristic also exists in East Asian cultures, but historical continuity is given very high priority, often to the point of parochialism.

In China's case, Go is considered a sport, just as are association football, boxing, weightlifting, basketball, volleyball, etc. Since the advent of pro sports in China, there has been a strong political impetus therein, namely the drive to show that China is just as strong at sports as other countries. In the case of Go, it is probably more of a prestige issue; as the country in which Go originated, it is only fair that China strives to be No. 1 at it. As we speak, China is not very far from that spot.

I remember that Yang Yilun 8p wrote his The Fundamental Principles of Go as a guide to Go opening strategy and tactics easy to understand for Western students of the game. I found this book to be very helpful, but reading it by itself did not make me a better Go player. After playing and practicing, I gained background experience to make sense of what is explained in the book.

If I were a Go instructor, I would give some nuggets of information, either in the form of a short lecture or story, then let the student play, play, play as he/she experiments with it. There is no right or wrong answer. Rather, the idea is to let the student discover new lines of play and observe how they integrate with other plays on the board. It is important that the student gains experience to assist in understanding new concepts and skills.

There has often been talk about promoting the yeongusaeng system of training Go players in Western countries. While such a system of training does have its advantages, one should keep in mind that it is of Korean origin and it would require some changes should it be adapted for use in the West. As well, the yeongusaeng system is good for separating the determined students from the lazy ones, but I believe it is more important at the moment to expand the talent pool in Western countries. Korea, Japan, and China have large talent pools for their professional leagues, so sifting out the less diligent students makes sense for them.

I was looking last night at a PDF of the Kumon Method Math curriculum as used in Kumon schools, which can be found here:
http://www.kumon.com/miscellaneous/kumon_math_levels.pdf

I noticed how it was all structured. The first 5 lessons center on just teaching the child to count up to 100. From the 5th lesson on, the child learns addition and subtraction, beginning with numbers up to 10. Through an incremental approach, the child develops a solid command of the fundamentals, allowing for learning and mastery of more advanced concepts and skills.

I wonder if a similar form of curriculum could be established for those students in Western countries seeking formal instruction in the game.

I think it is funny that a child spends more than eight hours at school but the teachers somehow think the parents are responsible for the students education, yet little Johnny counselor's son seems to get a great education with that extra AP credit that no one else can get because they don't offer the class any more and a spot on every athletics team. Not to mention they pass over all the straight A students when hiring teachers. I say antagonize away, 90% of education is just training people to live in a caste.

When one has a lot of money and social influence, it is easy to look scornfully upon those who earn less - including schoolteachers. When a man feels like he has it all and deserves it on account of his efforts, the impulse to overrule everyone is often too strong to resist. (Many of the rich management types often seen today in North America were middle class at one time.)

This reminds me of the Go player who wins a lot and gets a swelled head.

A certain feeling of impotence pervades the working classes in almost every society on earth. Thus, there is the tendency to delegate different jobs to different people. When one has to spend 8 to 12 hours daily at work just to keep a roof over one's head and food on the table, that feeling of impotence sets in after a while.

It's a social image thing. (I've seen children's school grades posted on Facebook.) The parent cannot brag to his/her peers if the child performs poorly at school and, unfortunately, the need to massage the ego is a common problem in modern society, whether East or West. One proof of this is that many parents will not hold themselves responsible in any way for their children's academic or other education.

Such a wide range of insults is the price one must pay for living in a country with freedom of speech.

The US is still a country in which class, gender, and race determine academic achievement, albeit in smaller measure than before. This is not to say that White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) people always score higher academically or earn more money than other groups living in the US. (These days East Asians are the ones associated with high academic achievement.) Rather, the historical legacy of a society in which WASPs were at the top still affects US society today, even as US society becomes increasingly multicultural.

Reduced popularity among friends is a price to pay for success, I guess.

I've encountered Go players who do not seem to behave as seasoned Go players would.

Links are often made between Go and Zen Buddhism. In the Spring 1999 issue of Tricycle magazine there appeared the following article by William Cobb. I read it for the first time last month and it caused me to have an epiphany.
http://www.tricycle.com/feature/the-game-go

I don't think dispelled is the correct word there. It'll take a lot more than one film to change deep rooted views. Unfortunately.

I don't know about the "cool" thing really. My social circle is pretty full with academics, people doing PhDs or who could have if they had wanted to. It's not a typical slice of Irish society.

Looks that way. Maybe only I.S. 318 in New York City and a few other schools in the US have victorious chess teams. Just about everyone loves to be associated with the victorious.

I think that, at least in the US, the establishment of a professional ranking system for Go players is a step in the right direction. However, let's keep in mind that, in medieval and early modern Japan, government patronage was one reason why Go was developed to a high standard there.

It's probably all about the exposure. Outside of I.S. 318, not many people would want to associate with the chess team, even if they won tournament after tournament. At least in the US, lots of people would love to talk to or LeBron James or Kevin Durant - star athletes of the (US) National Basketball Association, through which these and other basket players get plenty of airtime.

Looks that way. Maybe only I.S. 318 in New York City and a few other schools in the US have victorious chess teams. Just about everyone loves to be associated with the victorious.

I think that, at least in the US, the establishment of a professional ranking system for Go players is a step in the right direction. However, let's keep in mind that, in medieval and early modern Japan, government patronage was one reason why Go was developed to a high standard there.

It's probably all about the exposure. Outside of I.S. 318, not many people would want to associate with the chess team, even if they won tournament after tournament. At least in the US, lots of people would love to talk to or LeBron James or Kevin Durant - star athletes of the (US) National Basketball Association, through which these and other basket players get plenty of airtime.

Quick response: I meant the idea that if you're smart, you'll be able to do it, otherwise not, and effort is not so important. It's prioritization relative to effort, not prioritization relative to other life goals.

I am also not so sure that there is a connection to self-esteem. The cult of innate smartness does nothing for the self-esteem of those who are "not smart". Frankly, it doesn't even do anything for the self-esteem of the "smart kids", since they eventually will hit a wall, and will have to confront the fact that not everything comes easily to them. At that point, they'll either give up and feel bad about themselves or struggle through it.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

I also do not think you can say that schools are necessarily less academic today in the US than they were in the past. This may just be characteristic of the schools I know about that serve middle class families, but anecdotally, schools are giving much more book work and homework to young children (kindergarten to third grade).

_________________
Occupy Babel!

You got a point there. For starters, kids spending more time at school means more time for the parents to do things that do not involve their children.

About giving much more bookwork and homework to children in US schools, though... I wonder where this trend came from. (Maybe from East Asian countries known for high academic scores?) Giving more bookwork and homework alone may not help to raise overall academic scores substantially. A culture friendly to high academic achievement would have to be fostered as well; for most Americans school was more pleasant because of the social opportunities, not the academic ones.

Kids should be allowed to be kids (!) and school-related work should be both introduced incrementally and integrated with the rest of the kids' lives. After all, we do want our children to learn the skills needed to function autonomously once they reach adulthood. Those of us in the "North" should see how the cultures of the "South" integrate life in school and life outside school. I often get the impression that children's lives in Western countries are overly compartmentalized.

Though I speak mainly from hearsay, I find the Kumon Method to be a curriculum conducive to helping schoolchildren to do better in school. However, it is repetitive, so not every child may enjoy it. Montessori education seems to fit better into the Western pedagogical tradition.

We've the same thing with Gaelic Football, Hurling, Soccer and Rugby. They're more accessible sports in one way but more importantly they're easier sports to watch because since birth we've all been exposed to extensive commentary on games of them. I've often watched a foreign visitor watching hurling and being a bit confused by it. The rules are pretty simple but the speed the game is played at makes it difficult to appreciate strategic nuance if you're not used to it and somethings that look very hard to the new observer are actually rather routine but displays of fine skill might be missed by them. With go or chess you have an even greater barrier, they're not field games.

The issue, in my opinion, is that the parents, as primary guardians, are at always partially responsible (or even fully) for what their children do.

This includes giving support to the school and the teachers rather than, as somebody said, siding with the kid each time a conflict arises - and conflicts always arise. For teachers and schools to function properly, such support is essential. The problem is that many parents think exactly as you seem to: my kid spends 8 hours per day in school so I don't need to get involved, and when I do, its the teacher's or the school's fault. Little Timmy is such an angel, after all...

As a matter of fact, the role of the parent in their kid's education is HUGE! And it starts very early, even before the kid is ready for any school. Part of it is, for example, teaching the kid proper respect for teachers and elders in general, something very sorely missing in some western societies.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

In my opinion this goes even beyond being exposed to the rules and understanding the strategies.

For example: I have played Go for most of my life, and I consider myself a decent player - at least in the context of western society, better then most as a matter of fact. Yet I still often get bored watching live transmissions of pro games. The amount of cOT hatting during each live transmission on KGS seems to show I am not the only one. Why? One of the reasons is that I simply don't understand so many moves, and the ones I think I do understand I often find during subsequent play that my understanding was faulty. Another reason is the pace. It is very hard to be a spectator. Even for me - I have to think really hard to appreciate a game of Go at a really high level.

Same goes for chess - which might explain why chess, even though much more deeply rooted in wester culture than Go, is still only a fringe activity and not a spectator sport.

In contrast, while I don't like or understand american football, I can have fun watching a game. Same goes for hurling, for example. Or poker. To me, the difference is a certain level of perceptive drama and fast pace. If you're into this kind of things, you can enjoy this even without fully understanding and appreciating what is really going on.

To appreciate Go/chess, or to even find it interesting - you need not only to have a good understanding of the game, but you also need to think really hard. And thinking hard is too much like work for the generation and culture raised on Kardashians, Desperate Housewifves, and an occasional Lohan episode.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!