A colleague has just circulated links to a package on Learning to Teach Inclusively, which includes a video on "setting ground rules".
Social Work - Classrom session - Setting inclusive ground rules from Learning to Teach Inclusively on Vimeo.
You might like to watch it and think about (OK--"reflect on") your impressions before clicking to get past the break below.
16 February 2012
11 February 2012
Items to share (11 February)
- Thoughts on excavating an anthill. (Thanks to Andrew Sullivan.)
- I can't claim to have fully explored this site of free educational tools for cognitive neuroscience, but even casual perusal reveals brilliant material.
- The wisdom of crowds strikes again--quite unexpectedly--with a new font.
- Very US-centred, but nonetheless a fascinating exploration of "industrial bread"--from chemistry to process management to politics and culture.
- Now we've actually had some snow, anyone for yak-skiing? (Thanks to Dr Grumpy)
- Excellent extended further critique by Jim Hamlyn of the Susan Cain articles on introversion, linked to earlier.
- Indulge me! I've actually read Julian Jaynes' magnum opus (and foolishly lent it to someone about 20 years ago and never got it back). This is a good review of a great and original (if indeed totally wrong-headed) idea, which is so much less likely to see the light of day today, with the imprimatur of a respected publisher. The freedom of the air-headed blogosphere, where anyone can say anything, has diluted the potency of such serious fancies to nil. The absence of any bar to publication has undermined the value of it...
- I've been longing to know this for years!
07 February 2012
On the limitations of e-learning
Even if you are not concerned with maths education, this post by Dan Meyer on What Silicon Valley Gets Wrong About Math Education Again And Again is well worth reading, because e-learning does change the content of most (if not all) subjects. I made the point (rather more vaguely and broadly) in this paper, which is now over ten years old. For all the increased sophistication of the technology, the arguments still stand.
03 February 2012
Items to share (4 February)
- What's Wrong With the Teenage Mind? (Thanks to the Browser for these two links)
- The Rise of the New Groupthink: more from Susan Cain (and see Jim Hamlyn's comment on the 28 January post--thanks Jim.)
- Stuart Kauffman takes on the entire Western philosophical tradition! On The Inadequacy Of The Empiricist Tradition In Western Philosophy
- By implication, Geoff Pullum would like to see political speeches run through Turnitin.
- Top five regrets of the dying: according to a palliative care nurse.
- Happy Groundhog Day (2 February) and here.
- Equality and Diversity Training: Cambridge University's Own Goal according to Mary Beard. Hear, hear! Interesting to think, though, how long it took Mary to write this excellent piece, compared with how long it took to tick the electronic boxes. I'm pretty confident of which was more valuable.
- All Hail the Stand-Up Meeting! And if Borgen is to be believed, they are the norm in Denmark.
- Brainstorming debate (and forget all the PC stuff about epilepsy--that community has no problem with the term): Against and For.
01 February 2012
On Franklin's Gambit
Thanks to Jim Hamlyn's intriguing review, I have just finished reading John Kay's Obliquity. I'm not quite as enthusiastic about it as Jim is--it's easy to read, but also repetitious and wordy, almost padded. Nevertheless, it is the book I have been looking for, for some time, because it addresses an issue--namely tackling problems and challenges indirectly--which has interested me for some time, and to which there has not really been an accessible introduction I can point other people to, and say, "It's all there!" There's been a series of books, largely by economists (as Kay is), perhaps most notably by Nassim Nicholas Taleb (2008), which touch on similar areas, but without the clarity of focus Kay brings to bear.
Kay starts thus:
Today I was approached over the net by an overseas researcher seeking the views of academics on the various competing taxonomies of education objectives, helpfully accompanied by a handout summarising the models he was investigating. Some were familiar, and there were two I had never heard heard of; most were horrendously complicated. They were just unmanageable, and I couldn't imagine anyone actually using them. I thought, "these are not designed to be used. Despite appearances, the only person (if anyone) who got anything out of these was the person who designed them." That is not to say that the exercise of designing them was not useful, as a way of clarifying the designers' thoughts--it's just not directly communicable to other people.
I'm an unregenerate builder of conceptual models; my Doceo site is full of more or less half-baked ones, which people do occasionally tell me are useful, but I do try to keep them simple, with a focused and limited range of convenience.
...but even then, I suspect that most of even those are employed in the service of Franklin's Gambit--just seeking a legitimation for what someone was going to do anyway.
Which rather puts most educational theory in its place.
So now I've got to work out how to respond to 29 Likert-scale questions on learning taxonomies...
Kay starts thus:
For over ten years, I built and ran an economic consultancy business, and much of our revenue was derived from selling models to large corporate clients. One day, I asked myself a question: if these models were helpful, why did we not build similar models for our own decision making? The answer, I realised, was that our customers didn't really use these models for their decision making either. They used them internally or externally to justify decisions that they had already made.In my early days teaching, when we actually had long summer breaks, I moonlighted for a small management consultancy. I was so naive, that I reported back to the boss after a few days on an early assignment, that I didn't know what to recommend to him (the boss) to advise the client. He laughed and said, "You don't understand! The client has always already decided what to do. He employs us to give him good reasons for doing it, so your job is to go back there tomorrow and find out what he has already decided."
They were playing what I now call Franklin's Gambit, after the American polymath Benjamin Franklin. He wrote: 'so convenient a thing is it to be a reasonable creature since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do.'
Today I was approached over the net by an overseas researcher seeking the views of academics on the various competing taxonomies of education objectives, helpfully accompanied by a handout summarising the models he was investigating. Some were familiar, and there were two I had never heard heard of; most were horrendously complicated. They were just unmanageable, and I couldn't imagine anyone actually using them. I thought, "these are not designed to be used. Despite appearances, the only person (if anyone) who got anything out of these was the person who designed them." That is not to say that the exercise of designing them was not useful, as a way of clarifying the designers' thoughts--it's just not directly communicable to other people.
I'm an unregenerate builder of conceptual models; my Doceo site is full of more or less half-baked ones, which people do occasionally tell me are useful, but I do try to keep them simple, with a focused and limited range of convenience.
...but even then, I suspect that most of even those are employed in the service of Franklin's Gambit--just seeking a legitimation for what someone was going to do anyway.
Which rather puts most educational theory in its place.
So now I've got to work out how to respond to 29 Likert-scale questions on learning taxonomies...
28 January 2012
On "Borgen"
I've just emerged from watching another two hours of Borgen on BBC4. It's possibly even better than the West Wing, principally because as a few critics have pointed out, Danish politics are more intimate and personal than the vast US stage.
Danish politics? After the Killing and of course Hamlet a while ago, that seam must be exhausted, surely? Far from it, but I am interested in just what compels me to commit two hours on a Saturday night to watching a pair of episodes (incidentally, one episode at a time is a feast; please don't force-feed us). And it is a compulsion. I did have a couple of other things to do this evening, but I didn't do them. I did not even open this infernal machine while it was on.
Partly that was because it demanded my full attention because it is subtitled (although there are occasional disorientating moments of perfect unaccented English). I could not let my visual attention wander and rely on background hearing to make sense of what was going on, so for example, checking email while watching is not an option. Similarly, but more surprisingly, muting the sound and relying on the sub-titles just does not work for some reason. The content is in the subtitles, but the paralanguage is on the soundtrack and the main visuals.---That is the takeaway point from a teaching perspective, but;--
It has lots of other things going for it... It's rather late to pick up many of the themes by now, but 80% of each episode stands on its own.
Just a pity if you missed the reason why Kasper is such a lying s**t. That didn't need subtitles, and I've never seen anything like it, but it was brilliantly both discreetly graphic and could not have offended any naive viewer. It does relate to this recent post.
Danish politics? After the Killing and of course Hamlet a while ago, that seam must be exhausted, surely? Far from it, but I am interested in just what compels me to commit two hours on a Saturday night to watching a pair of episodes (incidentally, one episode at a time is a feast; please don't force-feed us). And it is a compulsion. I did have a couple of other things to do this evening, but I didn't do them. I did not even open this infernal machine while it was on.
Partly that was because it demanded my full attention because it is subtitled (although there are occasional disorientating moments of perfect unaccented English). I could not let my visual attention wander and rely on background hearing to make sense of what was going on, so for example, checking email while watching is not an option. Similarly, but more surprisingly, muting the sound and relying on the sub-titles just does not work for some reason. The content is in the subtitles, but the paralanguage is on the soundtrack and the main visuals.---That is the takeaway point from a teaching perspective, but;--
It has lots of other things going for it... It's rather late to pick up many of the themes by now, but 80% of each episode stands on its own.
Just a pity if you missed the reason why Kasper is such a lying s**t. That didn't need subtitles, and I've never seen anything like it, but it was brilliantly both discreetly graphic and could not have offended any naive viewer. It does relate to this recent post.
Items to Share (28 January)
The Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips
"On the Mechanics of Choice"; good summary article on the psychology of decision-making
A perceptive but sceptical discussion of Apple's further forays into the education market, raising again whether technology and education are on divergent paths.
Is this a game-changer? MIT Mints a Valuable New Form of Academic Currency.
Vindicated! The Power of Introverts: A Manifesto for Quiet Brilliance (review article)
Cambridge Nights: Late Night TV-Style Show Takes Deep Look at Scientific Thinking
It's been a slow week, but this is daftly delightful and even uplifting--even if you are not a Doctor Who fan! (15 mins)
...and forfeiting all intellectual gravitas, watch this on the Canadian space programme. (1:30)
"On the Mechanics of Choice"; good summary article on the psychology of decision-making
A perceptive but sceptical discussion of Apple's further forays into the education market, raising again whether technology and education are on divergent paths.
Is this a game-changer? MIT Mints a Valuable New Form of Academic Currency.
Vindicated! The Power of Introverts: A Manifesto for Quiet Brilliance (review article)
Cambridge Nights: Late Night TV-Style Show Takes Deep Look at Scientific Thinking
It's been a slow week, but this is daftly delightful and even uplifting--even if you are not a Doctor Who fan! (15 mins)
...and forfeiting all intellectual gravitas, watch this on the Canadian space programme. (1:30)
26 January 2012
On abuse undetected for years
The story is here. A teacher at a primary school in Somerset was convicted today of 36 counts of the sexual abuse of children during his 15 years of employment at the school, many of them taking place during classes, and despite concern having been expressed by colleagues on thirty occasions. The head teacher has been dismissed.
How could that happen? All too easily. I wrote in a similar area here. In view of some of the comments I received on that post (now deleted, of course) I want to be clear that I am not making excuses for anyone and still less condoning child abuse.
Several times in my career I have come close to having to report abuse, of elderly people and people with learning disabilities and mental health issues as well as children. I'm relieved to say that I have never had to make the call because someone else more closely involved has beaten me to it. Once I decided not to make the call, and it appears that I made the right judgment, although...
I have also been on the fringes of many cases, talking to social workers and others about their experiences. And in a different capacity as a teacher trainer, I have sat in on many many "safeguarding" training sessions.
I do know the ropes, both in policy and principle, and in practice.
Cut to the chase... the reporting system is misconceived. It's a top-down idealised model. Whoever you are, if you have suspicions of abuse, report to your supervisor.
That is the worst possible scenario...
The matter needs to be taken out of their hands.
However fallible our social workers are (and of course by the nature of their task they get no publicity for their unsung achievements, just their disasters) they've been there before. They are pretty good at sorting through malicious referrals, deluded suspicions, reasonable concerns, serious cases, and emergencies. Referrals do not faze them. They can do proportionate responses, discreet investigations, re-assurance of reluctant victims and families
Good grief! I've got a positive proposal!
So the safeguarding/reporting procedures need to be changed. Regardless of what you are taught: If you suspect abuse,
Many years ago I taught on a continuing professional development course on pastoral care for teachers. During the coffee break, one of them took me aside and sought advice about one of her pupils, who (she believed) was being abused at home. I explained the formal procedure, but she stopped me,"I know all that, but, if I pass this on, she'll end up in care--and I've seen what happens to children in care--her chances in life will be blighted. And if I don't, she'll continue to be abused, and learn that there is no point telling anyone because nothing happens..."
It's always a difficult call.
How could that happen? All too easily. I wrote in a similar area here. In view of some of the comments I received on that post (now deleted, of course) I want to be clear that I am not making excuses for anyone and still less condoning child abuse.
Several times in my career I have come close to having to report abuse, of elderly people and people with learning disabilities and mental health issues as well as children. I'm relieved to say that I have never had to make the call because someone else more closely involved has beaten me to it. Once I decided not to make the call, and it appears that I made the right judgment, although...
I have also been on the fringes of many cases, talking to social workers and others about their experiences. And in a different capacity as a teacher trainer, I have sat in on many many "safeguarding" training sessions.
I do know the ropes, both in policy and principle, and in practice.
Cut to the chase... the reporting system is misconceived. It's a top-down idealised model. Whoever you are, if you have suspicions of abuse, report to your supervisor.
That is the worst possible scenario...
- Your supervisor is your boss. An abuse report is the last thing she wants to hear--so unless you have a group of supporters (who may well evaporate at the least sign of opposition), you are not going to approach. It is not a good career move.
- Because the boss may refer it up the line to her boss, but despite the formal procedures, boss1 is in the same position to boss2 as you are to boss1. Follow?
- Regardless of the number of stages before external action is taken, the default action at each stage is of course denial: "It's probably all a misunderstanding/mistake/personal issue/ will sort itself out..."
- And the longer that goes on, the worse will be the consequences if there is an inquiry, so cognitive dissonance sets in...
The matter needs to be taken out of their hands.
However fallible our social workers are (and of course by the nature of their task they get no publicity for their unsung achievements, just their disasters) they've been there before. They are pretty good at sorting through malicious referrals, deluded suspicions, reasonable concerns, serious cases, and emergencies. Referrals do not faze them. They can do proportionate responses, discreet investigations, re-assurance of reluctant victims and families
Good grief! I've got a positive proposal!
So the safeguarding/reporting procedures need to be changed. Regardless of what you are taught: If you suspect abuse,
- first report it to the NSPCC (the organisation is far from perfect, but it is accessible and ubiquitous and not in hock to any local interests), and
- then to your boss.
Many years ago I taught on a continuing professional development course on pastoral care for teachers. During the coffee break, one of them took me aside and sought advice about one of her pupils, who (she believed) was being abused at home. I explained the formal procedure, but she stopped me,"I know all that, but, if I pass this on, she'll end up in care--and I've seen what happens to children in care--her chances in life will be blighted. And if I don't, she'll continue to be abused, and learn that there is no point telling anyone because nothing happens..."
It's always a difficult call.
21 January 2012
On the journal scam (ctd.)
Following on from this earlier post; there is a protest here from someone much closer to the situation than me.
[Up-date 26.02.12] More.
[Up-date 26.02.12] More.
Items to share (21 January)
- ...and here on normal and formal language. I'm an ironic formalist; I know the "rules" and sometimes decide to break them (as does Pullum). It's not the same as not knowing the (sensible) ones.
- Lecture by Nassim Nicholas Taleb on impact of failures within systems; one of the few people who seems to see systems as they are, rather than as we would like to believe them to be.
- Be careful; there are 191 answers to this year's Edge question, and will take a l-o-n-g time to get through them.
- We know crows are bright, but who would have thought they went in for snowboarding? Thanks to Ben Goldacre for the link
- Need to write an article in a hurry? Send for Pootwattle.
"Maslow had a nobler humanity in mind than the one our cult of the self produces in barbaric multitudes. [...] The prospect of a race of moral giants has issued in a breed of selfish twerps, with a sizeable proportion of genuine degenerates. How the highest democratic longing — to realize the best in one’s nature — has been debased into a pervasive complacency, even a widespread monstrosity, is more than an interesting question in intellectual history; it is a grave and ongoing public catastrophe."
- V S Ramachandran's quick tour of some of the most intriguing case studies revealing the powerful, adaptive potential of the human brain.
19 January 2012
On disclosure
Yet again I have been asked about my presence (or rather lack of it) on Facebook and Twitter, and Google+ and LinkedIn and... I'm not going to go in to all the details about what such sites expect one to disclose about oneself; it's all old hat. That isn't my problem.
My problem is about imposing on other people. I did sign up for Facebook some time ago, and obviously clicked some buttons without reading the small print, as 99% of users presumably do. It then proceeded to "invite" all my gmail contact to be my "friends" --I've been on the receiving end of this too many times to mention, and so I know how much of an imposition it is, not to mention the implied snub in refusing to "friend" someone. (The usual verb in the real world is "befriend"--that does have its dark side, too, but its paradigmatic relationship is rather richer than this impoverished online version.) I then spent over an hour crafting, pasting and editing dozens of apologies to them. Actually, it did bring some people to mind whom I had neglected, but that did not make up for my unintended imposition.
LinkedIn I can understand. It's about networking and business and work. I just don't respond because I'm semi-retired. I'm interested in doing things for people who are sufficiently interested in me to seek me out--which ain't difficult because there is a contact link at the bottom of all my web-pages. I'm no longer in the business of promoting myself, but I can see it makes sense.
But there is a degree of arrogance in other social networking sites, an assumption that other people will be interested in me and the minutiae of my life, to the extent that I can push it at them. It fits with and feeds off the inanities of "celebrity culture". To a certain extent writing a blog buys into the same idea, of course, so I'm already guilty, but I'm not going to compound the offence.
I suspect--although I can't see how to test this--that there is an inverse correlation between the interestingness (horrible clumsy word, but I can't find precise synonyms) of a person and their compulsion to project themselves to a diffuse cloud of acquaintance on the net. Up-dating a defined community of family, friends and colleagues is a different matter, of course. Even so, I'd rather be selective and incremental--it's about interaction and conversation rather than broadcasting.
No, Google+ circles are not the answer, although a tiny crawl in the right direction.
I've bored you long enough. Should I send this?
My problem is about imposing on other people. I did sign up for Facebook some time ago, and obviously clicked some buttons without reading the small print, as 99% of users presumably do. It then proceeded to "invite" all my gmail contact to be my "friends" --I've been on the receiving end of this too many times to mention, and so I know how much of an imposition it is, not to mention the implied snub in refusing to "friend" someone. (The usual verb in the real world is "befriend"--that does have its dark side, too, but its paradigmatic relationship is rather richer than this impoverished online version.) I then spent over an hour crafting, pasting and editing dozens of apologies to them. Actually, it did bring some people to mind whom I had neglected, but that did not make up for my unintended imposition.
LinkedIn I can understand. It's about networking and business and work. I just don't respond because I'm semi-retired. I'm interested in doing things for people who are sufficiently interested in me to seek me out--which ain't difficult because there is a contact link at the bottom of all my web-pages. I'm no longer in the business of promoting myself, but I can see it makes sense.
But there is a degree of arrogance in other social networking sites, an assumption that other people will be interested in me and the minutiae of my life, to the extent that I can push it at them. It fits with and feeds off the inanities of "celebrity culture". To a certain extent writing a blog buys into the same idea, of course, so I'm already guilty, but I'm not going to compound the offence.
I suspect--although I can't see how to test this--that there is an inverse correlation between the interestingness (horrible clumsy word, but I can't find precise synonyms) of a person and their compulsion to project themselves to a diffuse cloud of acquaintance on the net. Up-dating a defined community of family, friends and colleagues is a different matter, of course. Even so, I'd rather be selective and incremental--it's about interaction and conversation rather than broadcasting.
No, Google+ circles are not the answer, although a tiny crawl in the right direction.
I've bored you long enough. Should I send this?
16 January 2012
On journals (and Pozzo and Lucky...)
I wrote recently about the arrogance of the publishers of academic journals. I have to declare that I have now heard from the real human editor of the journal in question, who took the trouble to write personally to apologise for the form letters from the publishers, and who is probably as put upon as the rest of us...
And today I came across this piece, which speaks for itself.
But it reminds me of one of the most bizarre incidents of my academic career.
It was a warm summer afternoon in the mid-'90s. My colleague and I were sitting on folding chairs on the grass outside our building near the campus entrance discussing something or other.
A man in an unseasonable heavy black overcoat came by, followed by his associate/assistant/servant/slave who was pulling a very large trolley case. Initially black overcoat asked for directions to Reception, but he had no clear idea of whom he wanted to see or details of any appointment, and being rather cravenly polite and not having a door to shut in his face, we allowed him to state his proposition/pitch.
(If you are familiar with Waiting for Godot, Pozzo and Lucky are the best parallels.)
Briefly, he wanted us to sign up PhD students from the Arabian Gulf area. He was not particularly interested in our areas of expertise or research, although when I referred to social sciences, he suggested that a Deputy Chief of Police in one of the Emirates would be an ideal candidate for me to "supervise". He was a little disappointed that we had no expertise on campus in chemical engineering--to his ?credit, my father's and brother's background in that field was not sufficient for him to point students my way...
The deal was that his clients would sign up for a part-time overseas doctoral programme with us. We would not have to do anything except process the proposal and the assessment. All the supervision could be arranged locally. For the viva (defense) the supervisor and external examiner (and companions) would be flown out to the Gulf and accommodated at 5* level, and would then be keynote speakers at a major conference to celebrate the award (for which a suitable fee would be arranged payable to the individuals rather than the institutions) extended to a two-week vacation, courtesy of /not clear/you don't need to know/.
The trolley-case was full of theses, and glossy commemorative volumes of the "conferences" including pictures and profiles of UK supervisors and mentors. (I never bothered to check up on them.)
And bound volumes of journals, with respectable titles such as those listed in the link above. All of them, Mr Overcoat was keen to stress, have ISSN numbers (as if that guaranteed academic respectability. I don't know if Viz comic has got one, but it could have). He could guarantee acceptance of papers in such journals, and even recommend us for the editorial boards or even editorships...
We accepted his business card, but explained that the registration process was a little more complex than that, and after an hour or so, he took the hint.
...and asked for directions to Cambridge...
And today I came across this piece, which speaks for itself.
But it reminds me of one of the most bizarre incidents of my academic career.
It was a warm summer afternoon in the mid-'90s. My colleague and I were sitting on folding chairs on the grass outside our building near the campus entrance discussing something or other.
A man in an unseasonable heavy black overcoat came by, followed by his associate/assistant/servant/slave who was pulling a very large trolley case. Initially black overcoat asked for directions to Reception, but he had no clear idea of whom he wanted to see or details of any appointment, and being rather cravenly polite and not having a door to shut in his face, we allowed him to state his proposition/pitch.
(If you are familiar with Waiting for Godot, Pozzo and Lucky are the best parallels.)
Briefly, he wanted us to sign up PhD students from the Arabian Gulf area. He was not particularly interested in our areas of expertise or research, although when I referred to social sciences, he suggested that a Deputy Chief of Police in one of the Emirates would be an ideal candidate for me to "supervise". He was a little disappointed that we had no expertise on campus in chemical engineering--to his ?credit, my father's and brother's background in that field was not sufficient for him to point students my way...
The deal was that his clients would sign up for a part-time overseas doctoral programme with us. We would not have to do anything except process the proposal and the assessment. All the supervision could be arranged locally. For the viva (defense) the supervisor and external examiner (and companions) would be flown out to the Gulf and accommodated at 5* level, and would then be keynote speakers at a major conference to celebrate the award (for which a suitable fee would be arranged payable to the individuals rather than the institutions) extended to a two-week vacation, courtesy of /not clear/you don't need to know/.
The trolley-case was full of theses, and glossy commemorative volumes of the "conferences" including pictures and profiles of UK supervisors and mentors. (I never bothered to check up on them.)
And bound volumes of journals, with respectable titles such as those listed in the link above. All of them, Mr Overcoat was keen to stress, have ISSN numbers (as if that guaranteed academic respectability. I don't know if Viz comic has got one, but it could have). He could guarantee acceptance of papers in such journals, and even recommend us for the editorial boards or even editorships...
We accepted his business card, but explained that the registration process was a little more complex than that, and after an hour or so, he took the hint.
...and asked for directions to Cambridge...
14 January 2012
Items to share (14 January)
Rather a fallow week this week.
- Delightful animation--you can't do this with a Kindle!
- What's the difference between a "neat" idea and a "brilliant" one? Or a "weird" one and a "terrible" one? Explore here.
- I'm currently working further on rubbishing the notion of reflection. According to research pointed to in my piece on that, "grit" is a more reliable indicator for success as a teacher than any capacity for reflection; here is a TED talk on grit.
- Late addition; if you despair about young people and their education, watch this. OK--these young women are exceptional, by definition, but the comment stream is also interesting.
08 January 2012
Items to share (7 January)
- A murmuration of starlings (thanks to Andrew Sullivan for the link)
- Here are Stuart Kauffman's new year thoughts, always worth reading, and actually quoting Gordon Brown with approval (in a tiny way).
1) Not only do you not know what will happen, you don't even know what can happen [...]. Then reason, dream of our Enlightenment, is an insufficient guide to living your life. We need reason, emotion, intuition, sensation, knowledge of our culture and our evolved humanity. 2) Because you do not know what can happen you cannot make normal probability statements about what you cannot know: [...]. (So management from the top as if you knew and could optimize is often deeply wrong). 3) Radical emergence occurs all the time, Turing machine to the Web to Google, Facebook and the Arab Spring.
- Lord Sacks (the Chief Rabbi) argues cogently on the Limits of Secularism.
- If you want to know how people go about thinking through courses from the bottom up, using experience, theories, coincidences, epiphanies... then read this piece by Paul Maharg on designing a graduate diploma in law. There's at least a term's work in it!
- Francis Fukuyama on the virtues of analogue media.
- At the nominating session for the American Dialect Society 2011 Word of the Year, Geoff Pullum made "a strong case for his favorite word of the year, assholocracy." (Thanks to Language Log)
- An excellent debate on the "flipped classroom" model--the article is just the stimulus, the quality is in the comments (for once!)
- ...and the Royal Institution Christmas lectures, on the brain, by Bruce Hood, are now on line.
04 January 2012
On phasing out feedback.
Thanks once again to Bruno Setola for putting me on to this very interesting take on feedback (and I can recommend his site for some interesting further work on TCs).
This is an invited lecture (the whole video is 88 minutes) from Royce Sadler of the Griffith Institute for Higher Education, Griffith University, Brisbane, given for the WriteNow Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching, and organised by Liverpool Hope University in May 2010.
At first sight Sadler directly contradicts Hattie's major finding from his meta-analysis--which is in itself interesting enough to make him worth listening to. But there is more to his approach than that, bearing in mind that he is talking about the assessment of complex learning among university students, rather than for example the development of simpler skills among children.
The abstract is here. I am not going to cover the entire lecture, but to give pointers to some of the most interesting parts of the argument below the video:
(The video starts with introductory remarks by Lin Norton and Bart McGettrick. The numbers are the time index from the very start of the video. Numbers in [square brackets] refer to my notes at the end.)
[1] It's not only students. This is a little-mentioned feature of involving less-experienced colleagues, such as postgrads (and here), practice supervisors and mentors in the assessment process. They may be highly- experienced as practitioners, but not as assessors. A course on which I work matches each student with a work-place based mentor, who receives some training and undertakes some direct assessment of teaching, among other duties. But many mentors only work with one student, and often have fallow years with none at all. They will undertake just four formal observations with each student over two years--and those may well be the only occasions they use the observation protocol. The tutors do dozens or scores of observations every year, and develop a common approach to making judgements, but we can never be sure that mentors have had a chance to internalise those standards. No--you can't address the issue with more reams of spurious "guidance"...
[3] He is of course helping them to develop their own frame of reference, and capacity to notice factors germane to the quality of the piece. But I wonder how he learned this bit? I was asked a few years ago to contribute to a staff development event on "Assessment on Taught Master's Courses", a joint enterprise between two universities. I devised an exercise which was almost identical to Sadler's except that the participants were themselves experienced tutors and assessors at Master's level--and it ground to an embarrassing halt when they all claimed they could not judge how good the samples were without the rubrics and criteria to guide them. I felt very remiss for not having provided them, and--even worse--unprofessional, because I know what I am looking for, and the qualities and trade-offs to notice. I suspect now that they felt them same but could not admit it in front of their peers. I feel a little vindicated that Sadler adopts the same approach.
There is something similar underpinning this piece by Gary Klein--in quite a different context!
This is an invited lecture (the whole video is 88 minutes) from Royce Sadler of the Griffith Institute for Higher Education, Griffith University, Brisbane, given for the WriteNow Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching, and organised by Liverpool Hope University in May 2010.
At first sight Sadler directly contradicts Hattie's major finding from his meta-analysis--which is in itself interesting enough to make him worth listening to. But there is more to his approach than that, bearing in mind that he is talking about the assessment of complex learning among university students, rather than for example the development of simpler skills among children.
The abstract is here. I am not going to cover the entire lecture, but to give pointers to some of the most interesting parts of the argument below the video:
(The video starts with introductory remarks by Lin Norton and Bart McGettrick. The numbers are the time index from the very start of the video. Numbers in [square brackets] refer to my notes at the end.)
- 25:45 Sadler argues that feedback is over-rated, and outlines the basic argument.
- 35:00 Writing feedback on students' assessment tasks is both demanding and time-consuming for the marker, so we are entitled to ask about the return on investment of this activity. Many students don't even pick up their work after marking, still less read the comments, still less learn from them...
- 37:30 The basic problem is that giving feedback is about telling students what the problems are and how they might improve; we no longer think that the "transmission" model is a good way of teaching content, so why should we think it's a good way of conveying feedback?
- 44:00 Students are rarely familiar enough with the process of marking/grading work to have any idea what actually constitutes quality--a good piece of work--so often what we tell them means nothing to them and they don't know what to do with it. [1]
- 52:00 Accomplished practitioners in all disciplines no longer rely on other people giving them feedback based only on externally determined criteria. They know for themselves;
- When and how to adjust their provisional plans, as they are going along.
- What issues they can ignore; what doesn't matter (and of course what does).
- They notice inconsistencies in their own work, and take steps to correct them as they are going along. [2]
- 58:00 But students do not yet have those skills. So the challenge is how to inculcate them. We have them, based on hours and years of practice in assessing students' work, but that does not mean that we can communicate them.
- 71:30 Sadler describes one approach to developing students' skills in self-monitoring and -assessment in tutorial:
- He gives out a sample piece of submitted work. He asks the students;
- Does it address the task as set?
- Is it any good? (He refuses to set out the criteria for them. [3])
- Why do you say that?
- What advice would you give about how to make it better?
[1] It's not only students. This is a little-mentioned feature of involving less-experienced colleagues, such as postgrads (and here), practice supervisors and mentors in the assessment process. They may be highly- experienced as practitioners, but not as assessors. A course on which I work matches each student with a work-place based mentor, who receives some training and undertakes some direct assessment of teaching, among other duties. But many mentors only work with one student, and often have fallow years with none at all. They will undertake just four formal observations with each student over two years--and those may well be the only occasions they use the observation protocol. The tutors do dozens or scores of observations every year, and develop a common approach to making judgements, but we can never be sure that mentors have had a chance to internalise those standards. No--you can't address the issue with more reams of spurious "guidance"...
[3] He is of course helping them to develop their own frame of reference, and capacity to notice factors germane to the quality of the piece. But I wonder how he learned this bit? I was asked a few years ago to contribute to a staff development event on "Assessment on Taught Master's Courses", a joint enterprise between two universities. I devised an exercise which was almost identical to Sadler's except that the participants were themselves experienced tutors and assessors at Master's level--and it ground to an embarrassing halt when they all claimed they could not judge how good the samples were without the rubrics and criteria to guide them. I felt very remiss for not having provided them, and--even worse--unprofessional, because I know what I am looking for, and the qualities and trade-offs to notice. I suspect now that they felt them same but could not admit it in front of their peers. I feel a little vindicated that Sadler adopts the same approach.
There is something similar underpinning this piece by Gary Klein--in quite a different context!
01 January 2012
On celebrating ignorance
The perpetual cry of all but the semi-mythical intrinsically-motivated student is, "What do we have to learn this for?" Although I do recognise that it is a legitimate question and do try to answer it, on the whole I don't empathise with it.
(And I don't count, "Because it will be in the exam!" as a legitimate response. On the other hand, I'm sometimes hard put to, to think of anything else in the case of some silly syllabi)
I've built what there is of my distinctive career on encountering and exploring resistance to learning, so why am I extolling not learning?
Because there are some areas in which learning really is just loss. There is no ultimate upside.
A good friend once gave me a small cushion embroidered, "Life is too short to drink bad wine". Perhaps. But only if you know that it is "bad". And as this study shows, despite all the hype and bull, nowadays "it's all a matter of taste" is much more significant than so-called authoritative judgements (as reflected in pricing).
Several years ago, I argued slightly differently: why should I learn more about wine, when all that would achieve would be to make me dissatisfied with what I could afford, and spoil my enjoyment? Now it appears that my dissatisfaction would itself be a con!
I have no doubt that there are some people who can tell the difference which warrants pricing some wines higher than others. But is that the same as claiming that some wine is "better" than another? I do remember about twenty or so years ago when it was possible to buy really execrable wines--a judgement which would be shared by almost everyone. But, like the spurious research on IQ differences between various demographic groups, closer investigation apparently shows that nowadays intra-group variability is greater than that between groups; and that comes down to acknowledging that personal taste is what matters.
So--all I might achieve by studying wine-tasting (given that I have no business interest) is to acquire some spurious basis for deprecating some wine which I would previously have greatly enjoyed. In favour of spending a lot more on other stuff of very dubiously demonstrable superior quality? Seems quite pointless.
Happy New Year, and feel free to enjoy cheap wine!
(in moderation, and qualified by all the weasel words of pusillanimous bureaucracy...)
And here is argument/evidence that the emperor's clothing effect may extend to musical instruments, too...
(And I don't count, "Because it will be in the exam!" as a legitimate response. On the other hand, I'm sometimes hard put to, to think of anything else in the case of some silly syllabi)
I've built what there is of my distinctive career on encountering and exploring resistance to learning, so why am I extolling not learning?
Because there are some areas in which learning really is just loss. There is no ultimate upside.
A good friend once gave me a small cushion embroidered, "Life is too short to drink bad wine". Perhaps. But only if you know that it is "bad". And as this study shows, despite all the hype and bull, nowadays "it's all a matter of taste" is much more significant than so-called authoritative judgements (as reflected in pricing).
Several years ago, I argued slightly differently: why should I learn more about wine, when all that would achieve would be to make me dissatisfied with what I could afford, and spoil my enjoyment? Now it appears that my dissatisfaction would itself be a con!
I have no doubt that there are some people who can tell the difference which warrants pricing some wines higher than others. But is that the same as claiming that some wine is "better" than another? I do remember about twenty or so years ago when it was possible to buy really execrable wines--a judgement which would be shared by almost everyone. But, like the spurious research on IQ differences between various demographic groups, closer investigation apparently shows that nowadays intra-group variability is greater than that between groups; and that comes down to acknowledging that personal taste is what matters.
So--all I might achieve by studying wine-tasting (given that I have no business interest) is to acquire some spurious basis for deprecating some wine which I would previously have greatly enjoyed. In favour of spending a lot more on other stuff of very dubiously demonstrable superior quality? Seems quite pointless.
Happy New Year, and feel free to enjoy cheap wine!
(in moderation, and qualified by all the weasel words of pusillanimous bureaucracy...)
And here is argument/evidence that the emperor's clothing effect may extend to musical instruments, too...
31 December 2011
Items to share (31 December)
- Tyler Cowen on stories (transcript of TEDx talk) Kind of interesting talk on the limitations of story construction as a way of thinking, but offered with apparently little grounding in the substantial literature apart from Booker, 2005* (which is odd given Cowen's reputation as a voracious reader), so just an introduction. You can watch the video here, but it is out of sync so it is almost unwatchable.
- On the less-than-obvious connection between photographs and the real world.
- Frozen Planet's brinicle sequence explained Incredible dedication and effort and stunning results; but was it actually worth it? Discuss. (Some of these links are courtesy of Ed Yong's excellent Not Exactly Rocket Science blog. Many thanks!)
- The psychologists' vow. For good measure, external examiners also take a vow to express concern over the quality of referencing...
- And the inexplicable German New Year tradition of Dinner for One:
* Booker C (2005) The Seven Basic Plots: why we tell stories London; Continuum
29 December 2011
On having a hinterland
This may be a rather confused post: it is prompted by the season and its religious expression, without being particularly religious in content. It is also full of sweeping generalisations: I've left them like that because to qualify them would make the argument, such as it is, even less coherent than it is already.
On Christmas Eve I went as usual to Midnight Communion at a local (fairly high) Anglican church. I gave up on our actual parish church some time ago, because of its minimalist evangelical one-dimensional logocentrism--there is a point to this, I'm not merely being rude!
The church I attended had sung responses, and anthems from the choir as well as hymns, and rich vestments, and candles and even incense. It offered a multi-layered experience, at whatever level one wanted to take it--artistic, cultural, social or even "spiritual". (I'm not going to refer to "worship"--it is too pre-emptive a term in this context).
Two initial points: First, the evangelical church, with a faith centred on propositional assent to a creed, would not like such a multi-layered experience, to which different participants brought different backgrounds and commitments and from which they also took different things. Such a church prefers to sing in unison, or parallel. Ambiguity is not highly valued.*
It is highly unlikely that the congregation at the church I attended shared an articulated belief system in the same way as their more evangelical brethren*. The multiple layers of meaning are more flexible and tolerant than those which rely so heavily on an intellectual assent to the propositions of a creed.
That, however, poses the question what layers which participants at the service I attended had access to. And of course what significance they would have attributed to what they were witnessing; some might readily see the sumptuous vestments as offensive to the ideal of poverty propagated by Jesus, while for others those vestments may represent an offering of the very best materials and craft skills--anything less would be unworthy of their high purpose. For some, familiar with the ecclesiastical calendar, the colours of those vestments and of the altar-cloths, will be redolent with meaning--but probably completely arbitrary to most of us.
There were quite a few younger people present, and I wondered what they were making of the music, the chant, the solemnity, the symbolism, the arcane and archaic language (e.g. "...a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction,") --and even I had to admit that I didn't really understand a word of the sermon. But they come from a completely different world, or rather worlds.
So much of our ability to understand and feel at home in a culture rests on taken-for-granted understandings and allusions and "common sense" which needs no explanation. But it does need commonality, and I'm beginning to wonder whether that common foundation of shared experience and understanding is being eroded by the speed of change and the personalisation of technology.
(Incidentally, see the latest up-date of "The Visions of Students Today" 2011 remix and the latest versions of Beloit College's "Mindset List")
In all the celebrations of the 400th anniversary of the publication of the Authorised Version of the Bible (although everyone now refers to it as the "King James version"), there have been many comments about how much we owe to it for common phrases, and characters. See, for example, here.
More broadly, of course, the emphasis in education is firmly on utility and measurable outcomes and "impact"; in relation to higher education there is a defensive debate in which the arts and humanities are increasingly being called upon (or their advocates feel that they are increasingly being called upon) to justify their existence, see for example Matthew Reisz here, Roger Lister here, and--with particular reference to the religious tradition--Eduardo de la Fuente here.
Things have moved on since I started teaching. In the late 'sixties I was appointed to teach "Liberal Studies" in a technical college. The very existence of the subject and its requirement as a part of technical and vocational courses testified to the assumption that cultural, social and even political issues could not be neglected in a modern educational system. As Bailey and Unwin (2008) document, the tide of humanism ebbed in the '70s, and the idea that it was possible for all young people to be liberally educated was eventually abandoned. Certainly I personally gave up on it and moved into more vocational areas--the heirs of Liberal Studies in technical education now are termed "functional skills", which in itself shows how things have changed. But perhaps the mistake was to believe that the desired appreciation of culture and history and society had to come through individuals. As Mary Beard put it just a few days ago at rather a higher level (my emphasis):
But back to the beginning. These are in part my own banal reflections, but in the religious context they are both stimulated and extended by this exemplary piece, beside which I hesitate to place my fatuous musings:
The Book of Books: What Literature Owes the Bible, by Marilynne Robinson. Of which Bryan Appleyard says:
I covered some of the same points from a different starting point in this earlier post.
* As I write this, I am reminded of precisely this issue emerging from my research for my dissertation in the sociology of religion (Dependence and the Practice of Religion unpublished M.Litt thesis, University of Lancaster 1974) and some of the research which contributed to it (Walker A G and Atherton J S (1971) "An Easter Pentecostal Convention; the successful management of a 'time of blessing'" Sociological Review vol 19 No 3 pp. 367-387)
And here is a different take from a similar starting point, which illuminatesa similar theme... On Going to Church on Christmas Morning December 27, 2011, by Michael Ruse
Reference:
Bailey B and Unwin L (2008) "Fostering ‘habits of reflection, independent study and free inquiry’: an analysis of the short-lived phenomenon of General/Liberal Studies in English vocational education and training" Journal of Vocational Education and Training Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 61–74
On Christmas Eve I went as usual to Midnight Communion at a local (fairly high) Anglican church. I gave up on our actual parish church some time ago, because of its minimalist evangelical one-dimensional logocentrism--there is a point to this, I'm not merely being rude!
The church I attended had sung responses, and anthems from the choir as well as hymns, and rich vestments, and candles and even incense. It offered a multi-layered experience, at whatever level one wanted to take it--artistic, cultural, social or even "spiritual". (I'm not going to refer to "worship"--it is too pre-emptive a term in this context).
Two initial points: First, the evangelical church, with a faith centred on propositional assent to a creed, would not like such a multi-layered experience, to which different participants brought different backgrounds and commitments and from which they also took different things. Such a church prefers to sing in unison, or parallel. Ambiguity is not highly valued.*
It is highly unlikely that the congregation at the church I attended shared an articulated belief system in the same way as their more evangelical brethren*. The multiple layers of meaning are more flexible and tolerant than those which rely so heavily on an intellectual assent to the propositions of a creed.
That, however, poses the question what layers which participants at the service I attended had access to. And of course what significance they would have attributed to what they were witnessing; some might readily see the sumptuous vestments as offensive to the ideal of poverty propagated by Jesus, while for others those vestments may represent an offering of the very best materials and craft skills--anything less would be unworthy of their high purpose. For some, familiar with the ecclesiastical calendar, the colours of those vestments and of the altar-cloths, will be redolent with meaning--but probably completely arbitrary to most of us.
There were quite a few younger people present, and I wondered what they were making of the music, the chant, the solemnity, the symbolism, the arcane and archaic language (e.g. "...a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction,") --and even I had to admit that I didn't really understand a word of the sermon. But they come from a completely different world, or rather worlds.
So much of our ability to understand and feel at home in a culture rests on taken-for-granted understandings and allusions and "common sense" which needs no explanation. But it does need commonality, and I'm beginning to wonder whether that common foundation of shared experience and understanding is being eroded by the speed of change and the personalisation of technology.
(Incidentally, see the latest up-date of "The Visions of Students Today" 2011 remix and the latest versions of Beloit College's "Mindset List")
In all the celebrations of the 400th anniversary of the publication of the Authorised Version of the Bible (although everyone now refers to it as the "King James version"), there have been many comments about how much we owe to it for common phrases, and characters. See, for example, here.
...the King James Bible version swept round the globe in school assemblies, far flung churches, remotely stationed battalions ...it was the Book of the community of English speaking peoples. [...]How many people now have access to that range of reference and connotation, as the emphasis turns to functionality and clarity and simplicity, even in biblical language?
New words - we use them still: "scapegoat", "let there be light", "the powers that be", "my brother's keeper", "filthy lucre", "fight the good fight", "sick unto death", "flowing with milk and honey", "the apple of his eye", "a man after his own heart", "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak", "signs of the times", "ye of little faith", "eat drink and be merry", "broken hearted", "clear eyed". And hundreds more: "fishermen", "landlady", "sea-shore", "stumbling block", "taskmaster", "two-edged", "viper", "zealous" and even "Jehovah" and "Passover" come into English through Tyndale. "Beautiful", a word which has meant only human beauty, was greatly widened by Tyndale, as were many others. [From here]
More broadly, of course, the emphasis in education is firmly on utility and measurable outcomes and "impact"; in relation to higher education there is a defensive debate in which the arts and humanities are increasingly being called upon (or their advocates feel that they are increasingly being called upon) to justify their existence, see for example Matthew Reisz here, Roger Lister here, and--with particular reference to the religious tradition--Eduardo de la Fuente here.
Things have moved on since I started teaching. In the late 'sixties I was appointed to teach "Liberal Studies" in a technical college. The very existence of the subject and its requirement as a part of technical and vocational courses testified to the assumption that cultural, social and even political issues could not be neglected in a modern educational system. As Bailey and Unwin (2008) document, the tide of humanism ebbed in the '70s, and the idea that it was possible for all young people to be liberally educated was eventually abandoned. Certainly I personally gave up on it and moved into more vocational areas--the heirs of Liberal Studies in technical education now are termed "functional skills", which in itself shows how things have changed. But perhaps the mistake was to believe that the desired appreciation of culture and history and society had to come through individuals. As Mary Beard put it just a few days ago at rather a higher level (my emphasis):
The important cultural point is that some people should have read Virgil and Dante. To put it another way, the overall strength of the classics is not to be measured by exactly how many young people know Latin and Greek from high school or university. It is better measured by asking how many believe that there should be people in the world who do know Latin and Greek, how many people think that there is an expertise in that worth taking seriously—and ultimately paying for. [Mary Beard, here]The cumulative heritage of sensibility (wow! How's that for pomposity?) resides in the community rather than individuals...
But back to the beginning. These are in part my own banal reflections, but in the religious context they are both stimulated and extended by this exemplary piece, beside which I hesitate to place my fatuous musings:
The Book of Books: What Literature Owes the Bible, by Marilynne Robinson. Of which Bryan Appleyard says:
"Hot damn, I thought, I must blog on this. But then I read it again and, well, what more is there to be said? So just read it and weep with gratitude for Marilynne, the New York Times, for the Bible, for all the wonders of the religious imagination and with pity for those poor militant atheists."Quite...
I covered some of the same points from a different starting point in this earlier post.
* As I write this, I am reminded of precisely this issue emerging from my research for my dissertation in the sociology of religion (Dependence and the Practice of Religion unpublished M.Litt thesis, University of Lancaster 1974) and some of the research which contributed to it (Walker A G and Atherton J S (1971) "An Easter Pentecostal Convention; the successful management of a 'time of blessing'" Sociological Review vol 19 No 3 pp. 367-387)
And here is a different take from a similar starting point, which illuminatesa similar theme... On Going to Church on Christmas Morning December 27, 2011, by Michael Ruse
Reference:
Bailey B and Unwin L (2008) "Fostering ‘habits of reflection, independent study and free inquiry’: an analysis of the short-lived phenomenon of General/Liberal Studies in English vocational education and training" Journal of Vocational Education and Training Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 61–74
24 December 2011
Items to share (24 December)
- Santa's Christmas Eve Workload, Calculated and of course you can track him.
- The Claus Hypothesis: from Piled Higher and Deeper
- And of course it's (20-28 December this year) Hanukkah, to be celebrated in Santa Monica according to Tom Lehrer (83). (Thanks to Dr Grumpy for the seasonal reminder.)
- Miracles and the Historians. It's Christmas, so this post is apposite (although I don't find it entirely satisfactory) but I've shared it as much because of who it is by; Peter Berger. Yes, that Peter Berger, now 82, author of Invitation to Sociology (1963), a slim volume that probably introduced more people to sociology than any other text, and co-author with Thomas Luckmann of The Social Construction of Reality (1966) --one of the most influential works of sociological theory ever. His blog is invariably worth reading.
- There's hope for us yet! Why a Democracy Needs Uninformed People
- The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science: How our brains fool us on climate, creationism, and the vaccine-autism link. Basically a revisitation of cognitive dissonance theory, related to present topics, but worth reading.
- The Future of History: Can Liberal Democracy Survive the Decline of the Middle Class? Francis Fukuyama's sweeping analysis (available until 12.2.12).
- Just the information you need to make the season complete: How to Cite Recorded Music in APA Style (+ Playlist) !
- Extraordinary, beautiful time-lapse video of Montreal, Quebec City, Toronto, Manhattan, Chicago --and wilderness
17 December 2011
Items to share (17 December)
- How to Write a Literature Review for a Dissertation: good practical guidance from Leo Casey
- Walking through doorways causes forgetting. The paper does not mention going upstairs, but the model they propose would work for that as well. There's a friendlier version from Scientific American here.
- A salutary reflection on how poor research leads to misconceptions in psychology. A comprehensive hatchet-job on a paper supposedly on embodied cognition, but addressing important questions about how research is communicated. A good paper to read for developing a critical perspective on research and its reporting.
- Here's another one trying to get a paper published, replicating a now-famous study (Bem, 2011) on predicting the future, but contesting the findings.
- And of course I can't let the week pass without a mention of Christopher Hitchens; there's a compendium of appreciations and memoirs here. And here is his brother's sensitive piece (and I never thought I'd use that word in the context of Peter Hitchens).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
