Want to have a conversation...

Chris, I'm intrigued by this article as well. I can't help but think there are similarities in the brain's activity when modern day humans are engaged in a repetitive crafting activity such as knitting or crocheting. I think there's an interesting distinction between the areas of the brain required when acquiring the skills for the task and the areas that are then running in the background once the basics have been mastered.  I'm wondering if our brains' abilities to master than revert to auto-pilot - thus allowing more neural space for creativity - has grown over these many many thousands of years. If we could be transported back to work with a fellow novice 1.7 million years ago, would our speed of learning by immensely different than it is now? 

Denise Ford said:

 I'm wondering if our brains' abilities to master than revert to auto-pilot - thus allowing more neural space for creativity - has grown over these many many thousands of years. If we could be transported back to work with a fellow novice 1.7 million years ago, would our speed of learning by immensely different than it is now? 

I have no formal training in this but I suspect the answer is no.

I haven't found any information that suggests we learn faster than we did 20,000 years ago.   There's even some evidence we're in a cognitive decline since agriculture began.

(Chris took a break here and thought more)

I mean, some things we must learn faster like how to read but I suspect most of that is boosted by technology and the access to information.   I think the speed of learning is influenced more by technology than biology.  Does that make sense?   This is a difficult thought process for me and I am still working through it.

(Chris thinks a little more)

Your point Denise, brings me back to something I have wondered about for at least 10 years in the classroom.   Are we asking kids to learn too much?  If you look back to the curriculum of 100,50, even 20 years ago  we asked kids to learn much less or at least different things, but I think less.  I graduated 8th grade knowing about the electoral college, how to divide decimals and how to (mostly) use a comma.   The kids I teach leave 8th grade knowing how to build websites, Geometry and how to evaluate modern sources, in theory .

I wonder if we are forging TO MANY pathways.   If our ability to master things is inhibited by our exposure to so many ideas.  I also wonder if that is affecting how children act in schools.  If all this neuro energy is put into these academic advancement is it slowing down the ability to socially and emotionally advance?

And to double back to Donnette's response, how much does "teaching" or at least working  closely with someone to show you skills  effect all this?Do those pathways develop "organically" when we learn from another?

I am really just thinking out loud....

Denise Ford said:

 I'm wondering if our brains' abilities to master than revert to auto-pilot - thus allowing more neural space for creativity - has grown over these many many thousands of years. If we could be transported back to work with a fellow novice 1.7 million years ago, would our speed of learning by immensely different than it is now? 

I have no formal training in this but I suspect the answer is no.

I haven't found any information that suggests we learn faster than we did 20,000 years ago.   There's even some evidence we're in a cognitive decline since agriculture began.

(Chris took a break here and thought more)

I mean, some things we must learn faster like how to read but I suspect most of that is boosted by technology and the access to information.   I think the speed of learning is influenced more by technology than biology.  Does that make sense?   This is a difficult thought process for me and I am still working through it.

(Chris thinks a little more)

Your point Denise, brings me back to something I have wondered about for at least 10 years in the classroom.   Are we asking kids to learn too much?  If you look back to the curriculum of 100,50, even 20 years ago  we asked kids to learn much less or at least different things, but I think less.  I graduated 8th grade knowing about the electoral college, how to divide decimals and how to (mostly) use a comma.   The kids I teach leave 8th grade knowing how to build websites, Geometry and how to evaluate modern sources, in theory .

I wonder if we are forging TO MANY pathways.   If our ability to master things is inhibited by our exposure to so many ideas.  I also wonder if that is affecting how children act in schools.  If all this neuro energy is put into these academic advancement is it slowing down the ability to socially and emotionally advance?

And to double back to Donnette's response, how much does "teaching" or at least working  closely with someone to show you skills  effect all this?Do those pathways develop "organically" when we learn from another?

I am really just thinking out loud....

Your point about asking our students to learn too much is intriguing.  It seems that the content continues to grow. Obviously, there's more to learn today than there was yesterday. How much is enough for an adolescent.  

It gives greater credence to the concept of helping our students learn how to learn. Once we can equip them with the agency to feed their curiosity and to believe that most problems can be solved given the right resources;bthey can learn anything on their own.  

There must be a different brain process involved in mastery as opposed to acquiring a collection of information.  Is this the cause of the cognitive decline.  

I'm just thinking aloud here as well. But I'm definitely . . . thinking.