Interestingly, they said there is more flexibility with the lower ages. But as the ages increase, it becomes more and more regimented and testing-based in Ontario.

And as to the ease of accessibility of information as we go forward, that is probably quite true. But I would again argue that the ease of use is meaningless if people do not even have an intellectual starting point, a way to understand the question in order to search for the answer. I’d like to think, putting on my rose colored glasses for a moment, that the facts are being taught in a way that helps kids develop analytical thinking – what is the question and how do they know how to find the right answer?

There’s going to be an increasing generation gap on this count, I am sure. I am very tech savvy and a heavy web/email user. But when my 9 year old nephew asked me a question about sharks while we were watching a video, I went to a book to find the answer. I am not sure he would have thought to go to a book, or known how to look for the answer on the web.

Technology will be of no use if the kids do not have the ability to form the questions in the right way. For example, will a kid looking for information about which bears are largest be able to distinguish real bears from stuffed bears from gay bears? Trivial facts are not so trivial when they aid in making distinctions in the search for answers.

But having access information doesn’t make one wise. Being able to understand it, manipulate it, and put it into context does.

My wife made the same opinion about using those bits of trivia as a stepping stone to encourage further learning about a given topic — and as a gateway to future interests, and possibly a profession.

I think that’s fine if that’s how its being used; I suspect, however, that many biologists and meteorologists didn’t get their start at learning facts in a classroom — but other experiences outside of it.

Cheers
t

I wonder.. do we really want to have a world where dependence on computers is so complete? What do those kids do who are so dependent on tech that they cannot find information any other way? And what happens to their learning when that access is not there?

The issue of what constitutes trivia vs “useful” information is really rather large and relative to where people live, but the underlying issue, IMHO, is how are we wiring kids to learn? Is it rote, or is it in a way that lends itself to kids continuing to learn as they grow older? Some of it may be about capturing interest… maybe one of those kids learning about the largest bears will grow up to be a biologist, learning about cloud types might inspire a future meteorologist, etc.

Just because we find some facts trivial as adults does not make them trivial to ALL adults.