Hi,
Both are very interesting and each has some good points. And both fall way short of the reality of what could and should be changed if we really want a good, modern, educational system.
Just two examples:
1. Grades
I like the idea of making grades the accumulation of points rather than the loss. I actually had a PE course (swimming) at GaTech that was graded that way. There were a bunch of accomplishments, each at different levels. For example, tread water with a 50 pound weight tied to your feet was an accomplishment. You could do it at the 20, 30, 40, or 50 minute level. You could try it multiple times, and got achievement points for your best effort. The minimum passing score was the total of the minimum achievement points in each accomplishment. You could pass even if you failed to get any points for some accomplishments if you got more than the minimum on others. A 4.0 was hitting the max on all.
As much as I like that, I still think grades are wrong. In the words of Yoda, "Try not. Do or do not, there is no try." Grades are a measure of the success of a try. "Well, you jumped 90% of the abyss. You're dead, but your effort earns you a B". Break topics into small chunks, and only allow progression when there is progress. Ideally, every day should be a chunk, and every day should be succeed or repeat. But it has to be by topic and it has to be in short chunks.
Get rid of grades. Establish a feedback loop where performance determines progression and a certain amount of progression opens the door to further advancement.
2 Spiral versus linear teaching
It is much easier to partition a subject linearly. Ancient history, Greek history, Roman history, medieval, renaissance, etc. etc. You simply write the pieces in a language and manner suitable for the age at which you plan to teach them. And, of course, you keep all the unsupported legends and nonsense that has been propagated to children in the past.
In the spiral approach, you teach the whole subject on each loop of the spiral. Early loops are simplified and presented at the appropriate level for the students. Later loops add depth, understanding, detail. So, for instance, in an early loop, that Charlemagne was crowned emperor of the Holy Roman Empire by Leo III on Christmas 800 is covered. The flow of events to and from this point is the structure supporting the event. On a second turn of the spiral, maybe a few years later in the curriculum, the motivations of the pope and the reasons why Charlemagne wasn't happy about it could be introduced. And, eventually, the point that (as Eugen Weber points out) it wasn't holy, or Roman, or even an empire can be presented.
The liner approach leaves people with childish notions. They are often better off forgetting what was taught on the premise that ignorance is preferable to misinformation. The spiral approach has the advantage of keeping the previous knowledge and building on it. Thus, in literature, one can spiral from "hero", to "main character", to "protagonist" -- each a concept containing the previous concepts but at a more intricate level.
Yes, there is so much that can be done to improve education. Much of it is free. Much of it is being used in what our society seems to consider more important than an educated population -- good sports teams and figures. While an English teacher is expected to grade a paper and go on, a coach makes his charges repeat something till they get it right. A math teacher returns the graded homework, and the students go on whether they got it right or not. A golf instructor will never let you quit until you get a good shot -- he forces you to leave with the memory of how to do it right.
But that's OK. As long as our schools are decent breeding grounds for professional athletes, who can ask for more.
--Pete
(05-06-2011, 12:31 PM)ShadowHM Wrote: He shared the video linked to below with me. It offers some interesting ideas on how to improve the way we deliver education.
(05-06-2011, 03:03 PM)kandrathe Wrote: I'll share this one I stumbled across last week --
Both are very interesting and each has some good points. And both fall way short of the reality of what could and should be changed if we really want a good, modern, educational system.
Just two examples:
1. Grades
I like the idea of making grades the accumulation of points rather than the loss. I actually had a PE course (swimming) at GaTech that was graded that way. There were a bunch of accomplishments, each at different levels. For example, tread water with a 50 pound weight tied to your feet was an accomplishment. You could do it at the 20, 30, 40, or 50 minute level. You could try it multiple times, and got achievement points for your best effort. The minimum passing score was the total of the minimum achievement points in each accomplishment. You could pass even if you failed to get any points for some accomplishments if you got more than the minimum on others. A 4.0 was hitting the max on all.
As much as I like that, I still think grades are wrong. In the words of Yoda, "Try not. Do or do not, there is no try." Grades are a measure of the success of a try. "Well, you jumped 90% of the abyss. You're dead, but your effort earns you a B". Break topics into small chunks, and only allow progression when there is progress. Ideally, every day should be a chunk, and every day should be succeed or repeat. But it has to be by topic and it has to be in short chunks.
Get rid of grades. Establish a feedback loop where performance determines progression and a certain amount of progression opens the door to further advancement.
2 Spiral versus linear teaching
It is much easier to partition a subject linearly. Ancient history, Greek history, Roman history, medieval, renaissance, etc. etc. You simply write the pieces in a language and manner suitable for the age at which you plan to teach them. And, of course, you keep all the unsupported legends and nonsense that has been propagated to children in the past.
In the spiral approach, you teach the whole subject on each loop of the spiral. Early loops are simplified and presented at the appropriate level for the students. Later loops add depth, understanding, detail. So, for instance, in an early loop, that Charlemagne was crowned emperor of the Holy Roman Empire by Leo III on Christmas 800 is covered. The flow of events to and from this point is the structure supporting the event. On a second turn of the spiral, maybe a few years later in the curriculum, the motivations of the pope and the reasons why Charlemagne wasn't happy about it could be introduced. And, eventually, the point that (as Eugen Weber points out) it wasn't holy, or Roman, or even an empire can be presented.
The liner approach leaves people with childish notions. They are often better off forgetting what was taught on the premise that ignorance is preferable to misinformation. The spiral approach has the advantage of keeping the previous knowledge and building on it. Thus, in literature, one can spiral from "hero", to "main character", to "protagonist" -- each a concept containing the previous concepts but at a more intricate level.
Yes, there is so much that can be done to improve education. Much of it is free. Much of it is being used in what our society seems to consider more important than an educated population -- good sports teams and figures. While an English teacher is expected to grade a paper and go on, a coach makes his charges repeat something till they get it right. A math teacher returns the graded homework, and the students go on whether they got it right or not. A golf instructor will never let you quit until you get a good shot -- he forces you to leave with the memory of how to do it right.
But that's OK. As long as our schools are decent breeding grounds for professional athletes, who can ask for more.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?