成人抖阴

Help fund stories like this.

A November 2023 report debunking “” prompted an outcry of disbelief online and led to a closer look at the original paper, published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a peer-reviewed journal.

The March 2023 paper asserted:

We found students to be astonishingly similar in estimated learning rate鈥�. One may be tempted by everyday experience to suggest there is obvious wide variability in how fast different people learn鈥�. Such differences may be alternatively explained not as differences in learning rate but as differences in the number of quality learning opportunities individuals experience鈥�. Thus we can gain insight into whether student competence differences derive more from environmental opportunity differences or student-inherent learning-rate differences.

When I first read the above, I instantly thought of one of my own 鈥渆veryday experiences.鈥� When my sons were 8 and 12 years old, I won a private coding tutorial at my daughter鈥檚 preschool auction. I had intended it for my oldest son, a budding artist. I thought he might enjoy creating computer animations. At the last minute, I asked if my second grader could sit in.

The lesson lasted an hour. At the end, the instructor called me over and whispered, 鈥淵our older son understood everything I said. Your younger one really got 颈迟!鈥�

My impression, as a result, was that in this particular field, my younger child had greater aptitude and thus learned faster. (He went on to teach himself and began working professionally as a programmer in middle school.)

Yet, according to the study, having a 鈥渒nack for math鈥� or a 鈥済ift for language鈥� is a myth.

To prove this, the researchers employed a methodology that included teaching a cross-section of students a new skill via 鈥渆ducational technologies (which) provide favorable learning conditions 鈥� including intelligent tutoring systems, educational games and online courses.鈥�

Their conclusion was that learning is not a matter of faster cognition on the part of some students, but 鈥渄ifferences in the number of quality learning opportunities individuals experience.鈥�

This ran counter to my aforementioned 鈥渆veryday experience.鈥� My sons lived in the same household, suggesting few 鈥渆nvironmental opportunity differences,鈥� not to mention the same exposure to 鈥渜uality learning opportunities.鈥� Furthermore, if our household was indeed privileged to include an above-average number of 鈥渜uality learning opportunities鈥� that enabled my younger son to pick up coding at an accelerated rate, shouldn鈥檛 my first child 鈥� being four years older 鈥� have been exposed to a higher number of them and thus able to learn coding faster than his little brother? 

To answer such a question for any parent who has raised more than one child, the study鈥檚 authors clarify:

This debate comes down to whether learning rate per practice opportunity is relatively constant across individuals or whether it varies substantially鈥�. Bloom suggested that 鈥渕ost students become very similar with regard to 鈥� rate of learning 鈥� when provided with favorable learning conditions鈥�…. 

In other words:

Learners in more favorable conditions learn at a more rapid rate than those in less favorable conditions.

Perhaps, even though we thought we had raised our two sons in a very similar manner, our oldest 鈥� rather than benefiting from an extra four years of 鈥渜uality learning opportunities鈥� 鈥� had instead been the victim of our four years of amateur parenting. His younger brother, on the other hand, reaped the benefits not only of having more experienced parents, but also of being exposed to our interactions with the oldest, thus only appearing to be more advanced because, at age 8, he鈥檇 been adjacent to learning opportunities meant for a 12-year-old.

On the one hand, as someone who has spent decades insisting that all American children are capable of doing much more complex work than the system currently offers them, I am thrilled that this study agreed:

Our evidence suggests that given favorable learning conditions for deliberate practice and given the learner invests effort in sufficient learning opportunities, indeed, anyone can learn anything they want. This implication is good news for educational equity 鈥� as long as our educational systems can provide the needed favorable conditions and can motivate students to engage in them. 

On the other hand, as someone who has spent decades advocating to unshackle grade level from a child鈥檚 age and allow all students to learn at their own pace, I am terrified that the wrong lesson will be drawn from this study. That those who seek to shut down, or, at least, water down, gifted-and-talented classes and accelerated education will use it as proof that there is no such thing as a quick learner; ergo, there is no need for programs that meet their needs. 

When I mentioned my fears to my husband, a math and physics teacher and alum of such NYC 鈥済ifted鈥� schools as and Stuyvesant High, he reframed my concerns.

鈥淣o,鈥� he said. 鈥淭his is actually good news. This study proves that students come into a classroom with different levels of background knowledge.鈥�

And differences in 鈥渂ackground knowledge,鈥� as the study confirms, is precisely what produces the 鈥渄ifferences in learning rate.鈥�

鈥淏ackground knowledge is something that can be measured,鈥� my husband went on. 鈥淲hich means it can be used to place students in the appropriate learning level for them.鈥�

If this report is accurate and learning speed is determined purely by what a student already knew coming into a fresh task, then we can ditch labels like 鈥済ifted鈥� and 鈥渟low鈥� and focus solely on what any individual needs in order to learn. We can provide everyone with the 鈥渘eeded favorable conditions.鈥� We can ensure that all students, regardless of socioeconomic status, can learn the same material. Good news, indeed!
But will that be the lesson that those who make education policy draw? Or will they simply see the headline dismissing the concept of a 鈥渜uick learner鈥� and double down on the current 鈥渙ne size fits all鈥� schooling model? Will they continue teaching each student in exactly the same way, not taking into consideration 鈥渂ackground knowledge鈥�… or anything else? That would be bad news. For everybody.

Help fund stories like this.