Talk:Learning by teaching

The external links are broken. Could someone please fix them? Thank you. --Dr. Nellie Deutsch 05:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll translate the German part of the text very soon (today).--Jeanpol 06:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course my English is a pity, but I'm improving it every day!;-))) Who corrected my English-mistakes in the LbT-Text? Anyway: thank your very much!--Jeanpol 05:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

--Jeanpol 04:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC) OK: I found the point "Cleanup - The article's sections aren't very well organized"

--Jeanpol 04:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think the more ("relevant," of course,) information you give in an encyclopedia, the better ?

80.178.221.34 02:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to write articles for Wikipedia, you have to respect the basic-rules: 1. don't insert links in titles, don't insert extern-links inside texts, and so on. Furthermore the links you inserted are technical not optimal (you have to insert intern-links using [[ ]] and not the extern-link [http:// ]) 2. "The more information...the better" is not appropriate for an encyclopedia-article; you have to consider how important (relevant) the informations are for the topic (in this case Learning by teaching). In Sudbury Schools the focus lies not on Learning by teaching but on mixing different ages. Learning by teaching is a side effect. I think, if you want to contribute seriousely, you have to refocuse your contribution on Learning by teaching in the context of Sudbury. The best way is to train a little bit with other articles and than rewrite your contribution to Learning by teaching, so nobody can think you just want to advertise.--Jeanpol 05:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried to precise your references. Please say where we can find the quoted sentences.--Jeanpol 09:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jean-pol,

" 'We go to school to learn.' That's the intellectual goal. It comes before all the others. So much so, that 'getting an education' has come to mean 'learning' -- a bit narrow, to be sure, but it gets the priorities clear.

Then why don't people learn more in schools today? Why all the complaints? Why the seemingly limitless expenditures just to tread water, let alone to progress?

The answer is embarrassingly simple. Schools today are institutions in which 'learning' is taken to mean 'being taught.' You want people to learn? Teach them! You want them to learn more? Teach them more! And more! Work them harder. Drill them longer.

But learning is a process you do, not a process that is done to you! That is true of everyone. It's basic."

[a fragment of, "Back to Basics"]

In Sudbury Schools the focus lies on getting an education. Learning is one of the goals of education: the intellectual goal.

There are many ways of learning, but as said before, "learning is a process you do, not a process that is done to you! That is true of everyone. It's basic."

So you can learn from books, or from a computer program, or from experience, or from somebody that guides you and explains you, or from being an apprentice, or from learning by teaching, or by watching someone else, or on your own,...for example.

In Sudbury Schools the focus lies on getting an education, not on mixing different ages. Age mixing in Sudbury Schools is just one of the important components of the school's environment that supports and enhances learning.

I invite you "to see" what is The Sudbury Valley School.

By the way, the vast majority of us wants other people to get acquainted with what we do and/or with what we believe in, and many of us wish to be accepted for what we do and/or for what we believe in. If that is advertising -- so be it.

Cheers, 80.178.221.34 10:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I agree. Please modify the sentences regarding the focus of the Sudbury Schools in the article. I tried to adapt your text to the topic of the article Learning by teaching. You may improve it, if you want. Of course we all are advertising. But it has to be on the topic and I think, now your contribution about Sudbury schools is adapted to the topic of the article. Greetings.--Jeanpol 11:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The way I understand it, learning by teaching primarily benefits the student-instructor, who has to acquire sufficient knowledge of the target subject in order to address the concerns of his/her peers. Is this the professional view of LdL? — Nahum Reduta [talk|contribs] 10:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it ist not. The other students are more involved in the learning-process, because they know that the student-instructors are not absolutely firm on the topic they are teaching. So the attention is high. If something is not clear, they have to interupt the instructor-students and demand to explain better. So Learning by teaching is not a lecture by the instructor-students but permanent interactions between all the participants.--Jeanpol (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

An unknown vandal (84.152.24.95) elected to remove a small but valid addition that relates the established work of Russian psychologist and researcher, Lev Vygotsky, to Learning by Teaching. His work THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE established the profound and direct connection between language, oral language, speeh in particular, and cognition. Thus Vygotsky laid the basis for the connection of learning (cognition) by teaching (speech). I am therefore, putting the text back. Frankatca (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I am confused how Learning by teaching is related to the Monitorial System, it would be helpful if that was mentioned in the article. Jooojay (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much.--Jeanpol (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Copy from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard

This article has not crossed my radar until now. I would like some opinions on this. The company seems notable but the main poster is the creator and main subject itself. I have tagged the article with COI and warned the user. The editor, Dr. Jean-Pol Martin, has also written an autobiography (Jean-Pol Martin) and has used two accounts User:Jeanpol and User:Jeanpol~enwiki. The accounts and the articles have been in WP for a long time, therefore I did not nominate for deletion, but came here instead to get some eyes and opinions on the issue, as it is outside of the subjects I normally work on. This seems to me a clear conflict of interest, socking, and advertising. Can some experienced eyes take a look and decide what to do/take it from here? -- Alexf^(talk) 10:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Alexf I am the editor. My addition was just in order to complete the bibliography with the newest article published on this topic. It is not an advertising. The same discussion about the COI-conflict was going on at the beginning in Germany and in France. But the Wikipediaadmins in Germany and in France confirm that this topic is notable and that it is legitim that I write about this, because I write neutral and obejctive. By the way: I can't understand why you mean, that I am "socking". I allways edit with my real name! If you look at the History, you will see that I didn't create the article "Learning by teaching". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Learning_by_teaching&offset=&limit=500&action=history I know Wikipedia very well (the German one) and the rules of this project. The English-article was translated from the German one. And a lot of people worked on it. Please don't destroy knowledge. Perhaps you can read the article I wanted to link with the page: https://jeanpol.wordpress.com/2018/04/17/learning-by-teaching-conzeptualization-as-a-source-of-happiness/ Here you can read the discussion about my biography in the Talk-Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jean-Pol_Martin Jeanpol (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC) Perhaps helpfull: https://www.google.de/search?ei=pGmnWsy7CcOB6QTn-oLwBA&q=%22jean-pol+martin%22+%2B+%22Learning+by+teaching%22&oq=%22jean-pol+martin%22+%2B+%22Learning+by+teaching%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30k1l2.3236.28261.0.30014.29.28.1.0.0.0.230.3878.0j15j8.23.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..5.23.3727...35i39k1j0i22i10i30k1j0i8i13i30k1.0.QRegg52xqO8 Jeanpol (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear Alexf, my English is very poor, but I try to explain my situation: at the begining of the 80s I developed a teaching method called "Lernen durch Lehren" in Germany. Step by step, as a scholar, I founded the theoretical basis of it and could spread within 30 years the method in Germany, so today the method is wide mentioned in the spezific education-books and articles. As Wikipedia emerged, a lot of people tryed to write an article about "Lernen durch Lehren" but soon I had to cooperate. Of course it war very difficult for me because of COI. The admins intervened again and again (some wanted to delete it) but they find out, that my contributions were objective and not advertising. A colleague from me translated the German article in English and I edited in English too, but diverse people corrected the language and completed the contents or transform them. The name from "Lernen durch Lehren" in English ist "Learning by teaching". Two days ago, I tried to link the newest article from me, because it is crucial: "Learning by teaching: conceptualization as a source of happiness". So your attention was fixed. This new article is necessary in order to maitain the Wikipedia-artical up-to-date. It is not advertising. In fact, I don't need advertising. Please inform you about the topic "Learning by teaching", you will see, that the article is objective. They are facts. I have looked at your User-page and I see, that you are very experimented. So I hope you will able to check, if the topics are notable or not. Many people are consulting "Learning by teaching". We all want to construct relevant knowledge in Wikipedia and you are able to proof if an article is relevant or not. --Jeanpol (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not saying the company, method, or article is not notable, or factual. I was questioning your serious conflict of interest. As the subject of the article is not in my area of expertise I asked for some review, that is all. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

OK. But how to find people able to review this article?--Jeanpol (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• I nominated the "learning" page for deletion and have speedy-tagged the article about the person, and have left JeanPol a message about managing COI on one of their talk pages. Somebody has shown up on the AfD talk page (!), complete with their twitter handle, to try to keep the page; apparently User:Jeanpol has made the tragic error of asking people off-WP to save the page, which will result in the usual backlash from the community. So many problems with social media lately. Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog "made the tragic error"? Who is able to discuss on this topic and on the COI here? Are you able to get some scholars willing to help in this situation? Of course a lot of people know "Learning by teaching" and are able to discuss on that subject! I want to do erverything public! Jeanpol (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog I'm absolutly willing to cooperate. But there is no sens to delete pages containing huge science-knowledge just because COI. I don't need Wikipedia to be famouse. But Wikipedia needs scholar in order to generate valuable knowledge. If there is no article in Wikipedia about "Learning by teaching", there are a lot of articles about this topic outside from Wikipedia. It makes no sense to Wikipedia if this encyclopedie deletes his own knowledge, I think.Jeanpol (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I usually tell my students to look here for background information on LbT and was deeply surprised to learn about the plan to delete this entry. LbT is an established teaching approach and it is also part of many official teaching curriculae in many countries. Of course the people who created this entry support this approach and someone who wants to add critical comments may be welcome to do so. But deleting it as it is regarded as a kind of "advertisement" is rather weird. I hope the administrators do make up their minds about this. Zirkelklaus (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I have added my publications in international peer-reviewed journals to illustrate that an international/English academic reception does exist. Sinatra (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

In light of the fact that I expect the AfD to close as keep, I have attempted a major revision of the page. The goal is to make this a first step towards a page which broadly considers the topic and gives appropriate weight to Martin's contributions to the method and theory. I have also made a list of sources, both those that I removed from the page as well as some English language secondary sources. A major issue that remains in this revision is a combination of primary source usage, made tricky that the same journal articles can be both primary and secondary sources and there continues to be some elements of OR, given Martin's extensive creation of the page. In my draft I attempted to identify the elements of OR with citation needed tags. I expect that for many of these tags there is sourcing already present in the article that would support them - however I have not yet begun diving too deeply into the sources (and will be limited in my efforts to engage with the German sources). It is my intention in a "fast" time frame to implement my changes barring any immediate outcry and then to work collaboratively through the normal process to further bring this page into alignment with Wikipedia's best practices. It would be my hope that we could, fairly quickly given the presence of experts (if one of them being conflicted) and good sourcing, transform this into a legitimate good article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

1. 1984: Bayerisches Fernsehen: Aus Forschung und Lehre

2. 1992: Bayerisches Fernsehen: Aus Forschung und Lehre

3. 2002: DER SPIEGEL: Guten morgen liebe Zahlen

4. 2004: Reinhard Kahl: Treibhäuser der Zukunft. Wie in Deutschland Schulen gelingen., 3-DVD-Set mit Booklet, ISBN 3-407-85830-2.

5. 2007: Goethe Institut: Learning by Teaching: The Goal is Independence.

6. 2008: ZEIT-online: Schüler als Lehrer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanpol (talk • contribs) 12:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

7. 2009: GEO WISSEN: Nr. 44 - 11/09 - Die ideale Schule Jeanpol (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

8. 2017: UNESCO (French): Apprentissage Personnalisé. Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'éducation, la science et la culture (UNESCO). Bureau international d'éducation. Outils de Formation pour le Développement du Curriculum. Genève. Juin 2017. 39-42.

9. 2017: ISB. LehrplanPLUS - Ergänzende Informationen Grundschule

10.2017: ISB. Ergänzende Informationen zum LehrplanPLUS. Gymnasium. Latein.

11. 2018: Olaf-Axel Burow & Stefan Bornemann. Das große Handbuch Unterricht & Erziehung in der Schule. Carl Link 2018. (I have an article - primary source - in this "Manual of Educational Sciences"). Jeanpol (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

In light of the AfD's closure as keep, I have attempted a major revision of the page. The goal is to make this a first step towards a page which broadly considers the topic and gives appropriate weight to Martin's contributions to the method and theory. I have also made a list of sources, both those that I removed from the page as well as some English language secondary sources I have found through some casual surfing. A major issue that remains in this revision is a combination of primary source usage, made tricky that the same journal articles can be both primary and secondary sources and there continues to be some elements of OR, given Martin's extensive creation of the page. In my draft I attempted to identify the elements of OR with citation needed tags. I expect that for many of these tags there is sourcing already present in the article that would support them - however I have not yet begun diving too deeply into the sources (and will be limited in my efforts to engage with the German sources). It is my intention in a "fast" time frame to implement my changes barring any immediate outcry and then to work collaboratively through the normal process to further bring this page into alignment with Wikipedia's best practices. It would be my hope that we could, fairly quickly given the presence of experts (if one of them being conflicted) and good sourcing, transform this into a legitimate good article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks that was fine. I have further revised this to be driven by independent, secondary sources. There is boatload more English literature on this, linked below, but the article is now high level and encyclopedic. Not a how-to guide per WP:NOTHOWTO and not an extension of the LDL website. (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

eric search. Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I was able to get a few of these through interlibrary loan and will be adding a bit more content from English language sources over the week.. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)