[Scuddie]

My US military history class, writing class, band class, and programing class all beg to differ with that statement.

But you pretty much got it dead on for Math and Chemistry. And I wouldn't be surprised if it varied from class to class, or even from teacher to teacher.

The entirety of my primary and secondary classes were this way.  It wasn't until I got to college when I finally started learning instead of hearing others telling me what is what because the book says it is.

How so?

When students don't think about what they're seeing and hearing, they're not learning.  Many say it is the lack of funding that is causing this deficit.  But fact of the matter is that the foundations of any basic subject (certain parts of science and modern history excluded) don't change often enough to need books that are newer than even 20 years old.  Many say it is because of a lower income.  This is rubbish.  Money doesn't affect how the brain dissects information.  Many say the students don't care.  No ****?  Listening for hours a day with no inquisitive aspect to the learning process equates to a dull and repetitive task, rather than an interesting and dynamic experience.

By confronting a student with one of two greatly important questions (why? how?), it ensures that the student understands the material.  Also, when a teacher uses the two most important parts of education, they can essentially teach why and how something works by showing why and how it doesn't work.  Also, while the who, what, where, and when are primarily taught, they are only as relevant as the why and how allow them to be.  Outside the why and how, they are nothing more than knowledge.

There is a significant difference between knowledge and understanding.

[Mars]

For the most part, all of my high school classes, from two different high schools, had plenty of thinking involved . . . possibly excluding math.

[Polpolion]

My US military history class, writing class, band class, and programing class all beg to differ with that statement.

But you pretty much got it dead on for Math and Chemistry. And I wouldn't be surprised if it varied from class to class, or even from teacher to teacher.

The entirety of my primary and secondary classes were this way.  It wasn't until I got to college when I finally started learning instead of hearing others telling me what is what because the book says it is.

That makes sense. I don't have books for any of those classes but Math and Chemistry.

[Kosh]

When students don't think about what they're seeing and hearing, they're not learning.  *snip*

Perhaps, and yet many of the best scientists and engineers in the world were educated this way. Even the captured Nazi scientists we brought over were educated in this fashion, and they took us to the moon.

There is a significant difference between knowledge and understanding.

Yes, but there is also a significant difference between making education interesting and making it useless. If kids are spending so much time with their "learning activities", that means less time to actually teach the subject thoroughly.

Many say the students don't care.  No ****?  Listening for hours a day with no inquisitive aspect to the learning process equates to a dull and repetitive task, rather than an interesting and dynamic experience.

Then again aren't most jobs like this? Just saying "well it isn't fun enough" really does a disservice to our children because it encourages laziness.

EDIT: And I also want to point out that lately a surprisingly large amount of american innovation is actually coming from the engineers and scientists we have been importing from places that do have an unfun edumacation system.