VERY interesting, Zachary.
"it turned out that an unusual teacher was the culprit", thus something
that cannot be scaled...
On really good teachers, and on how maybe that is not something
transferable,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/magazine/07Teachers-t.html?pagewanted=all
"Lemov and Ball focus on different problems, yet in another way they are
compatriots in the same vanguard, arguing that great teachers are not
born but made. (The Obama administration has also signaled its hopes by
doubling the budget for teacher training in the 2011 budget to $235
million.) A more typical education expert is Jonah Rockoff, an economist
at Columbia University, who favors policies like rewarding teachers
whose students perform well and removing those who don’t but looks
skeptically upon teacher training. He has an understandable reason:
While study after study shows that teachers who once boosted student
test scores are very likely to do so in the future, no research he can
think of has shown a teacher-training program to boost student
achievement. "
On 11/02/2010 09:05 PM, Zachary Charles Clifton wrote:
I believe that Alan has used examples like "90%" before that one can read to
gain additional insight to his view. A quick search will provide some resources. Here is
one I found:
http://secretgeek.net/camel_kay.asp
Hopefully that helps shed some light.
Zachary C. Clifton
On Nov 2, 2010, at 5:31 PM, Yamandu Ploskonka wrote:
interesting... What about nature / nurture?
are we talking about 90% of those who actually "can", or 90% of all?
in any case, we hit very different individual learning slopes...
To follow up with the kind of example you use, today's Wall Street Journal has an article
on how even highly educated people in Holland don't want to wear helmets when riding
bikes. So, they are "fluent" in bicycle riding but somehow are not reasonable
about it. The skill is there, but a concept on how your behavior hurts others (if you
get injured, someone else has to share in paying for it) is clearly missing - ethics...
anyway, famously, fluent in /what/?
On 11/02/2010 06:21 PM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. wrote:
Yamandu Ploskonka wrote:
thank you, yep, you right.
On 11/02/2010 04:40 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote:
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Yamandu Ploskonka<[email protected]> wrote:
request to understand better what Alan meant by 90% fluency...
Fluency in 90% of the population, not "90% fluency".
You could want to ask what definition of 'fluency' is being used and
whether there is a reasonable test for that.
Here is my own definition: you are fluent when mechanism doesn't fight
higher level goals for your attention.
When riding a bicycle, for example, if the only thing in your mind is
that you want to go to the end of this block and turn left then you are
a fluent rider. If, in addition to that, you are also worried about
whether to turn the handle bar left or right in order not to fall, or
perhaps lean over a bit instead and whether you might be pedalling too
slowly then you are not fluent.
The problem with a lack of fluency is obvious when, even though you are
pleased with yourself for not having fallen, you suddenly realize that
you have already passed the street where you wanted to turn left. In the
same way, people who are not a fluent readers will find themselves very
tired after two pages and have no idea of what the text said.
-- Jecel
_______________________________________________
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
[email protected]
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
_______________________________________________
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
[email protected]
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
_______________________________________________
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
[email protected]
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
