3 ms·

>> There's plenty of empirical research that suggests "low level" mastery is all you really need for creative "high level" stuff. Is there any chance you could

by aik 15y ago

>> There's plenty of empirical research that suggests "low level" mastery is all you really need for creative "high level" stuff. Is there any chance you could you please provide a citation for this? I'm very curious how that research was done and in what contexts. I'm of the belief that "low level" mastery can result in good creative outputs, but in a lot of cases it's a matter of luck as much as skill. The mastery in one area is supplemented by knowledge in other areas -- it's a sort of interdisciplinary approach to innovation that can have good outputs but I would think also come with a low level of guarantee of innovation and poorer repeatability (see young startup founders).

wisty 15y ago
Looking for empirical research on education is difficult. Educationalists have decided that discovery learning is better, and they don't need to actually test it. Direct Instruction (the evil old-fashioned neo-colonial alternative) does tend to "win" in empirical studies, so they try to avoid doing anything remotely rigorous. Then they say that the studies weren't very good, because they didn't really test the higher level stuff - after all, you can't really test creativity. Both approaches might have their place, but the education establishment would rather win the argument than be right. Typical arts wankers. Here's one article. http://www.binder-riha.com/PT_DI.pdf http://www.binder-riha.com/PT_DI.pdf It took me ages to find much interesting - a google scholar search on "education" gets about 1.5 times the results as "education longitudinal", but if "direct instruction" gets about 10 times as many articles as "direct instruction longitudinal". Really, educationalists only pay lip service to empiricism. When they actually start comparing methodologies, they just use Sophistry as a methodology.
- Turing_Machine 15y ago
  If you're really interested in this stuff, looking for some research that isn't 20 years old might be a good idea. Try this as a starting point: http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/hmelo_ep07.pdf http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/hmelo_ep07.pdf
  - wisty 15y ago
    I'm pretty sure "scaffolding" is just a euphemism for "guided instruction". But they don't want to say it. Teachers doing a 1 year graduate diploma don't have time to learn 20 years of euphemisms crusted onto euphemisms, just so the professor doesn't have to admit that the best methodology is "a little of everything", not the radical fads they were advocating in the 70s.
    - Turing_Machine 15y ago
      "Guided instruction" and "direct instruction" aren't the same thing at all. Guided instruction: "Have you thought about this? What would change if you did that?" Direct instruction: 2+2 = 4. 2+2 = 4. 2+2=4. 2+2=4. (repeat until the student exhibits the desired response to the stimulus). Direct instruction is indeed effective if what you're after is a set response to a given stimulus. Some would question, though, whether this is sufficient to produce an individual capable of autonomous thinking. Behaviorism is awesome if you want an animal to press a bar on cuee, less effective if what you're after is (e.g.) a person capable of evaluating the claims of politicians and making the most desirable choice (for that person) in the voting booth. Your paper hit pretty hard on the applicability of direct instructions for simple, algorithmic tasks (e.g., the number of arithmetic problems solved per minute), precisely the type of task where memorization and regurgitation is a valid strategy.
      - wisty 15y ago
        And I don't believe that the methods which are intended to produce people "capable of evaluating the claims of politicians and making the most desirable choice (for that person) in the voting booth" are really effective at that. You can't teach creativity. OK, maybe you can, but the approach of "throw the students in a group, and tell them to do something creative" is probably not exactly optimal. Do teachers give any kind of useful guided instruction on high-level skills? Or do they just grade the assignments based on presentation?

by aik 15y ago

wisty 15y ago

Looking for empirical research on education is difficult. Educationalists have decided that discovery learning is better, and they don't need to actually test it. Direct Instruction (the evil old-fashioned neo-colonial alternative) does tend to "win" in empirical studies, so they try to avoid doing anything remotely rigorous. Then they say that the studies weren't very good, because they didn't really test the higher level stuff - after all, you can't really test creativity. Both approaches might have their place, but the education establishment would rather win the argument than be right. Typical arts wankers. Here's one article. http://www.binder-riha.com/PT_DI.pdf http://www.binder-riha.com/PT_DI.pdf It took me ages to find much interesting - a google scholar search on "education" gets about 1.5 times the results as "education longitudinal", but if "direct instruction" gets about 10 times as many articles as "direct instruction longitudinal". Really, educationalists only pay lip service to empiricism. When they actually start comparing methodologies, they just use Sophistry as a methodology.

Turing_Machine 15y ago
If you're really interested in this stuff, looking for some research that isn't 20 years old might be a good idea. Try this as a starting point: http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/hmelo_ep07.pdf http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/hmelo_ep07.pdf
- wisty 15y ago
  I'm pretty sure "scaffolding" is just a euphemism for "guided instruction". But they don't want to say it. Teachers doing a 1 year graduate diploma don't have time to learn 20 years of euphemisms crusted onto euphemisms, just so the professor doesn't have to admit that the best methodology is "a little of everything", not the radical fads they were advocating in the 70s.
  - Turing_Machine 15y ago
    "Guided instruction" and "direct instruction" aren't the same thing at all. Guided instruction: "Have you thought about this? What would change if you did that?" Direct instruction: 2+2 = 4. 2+2 = 4. 2+2=4. 2+2=4. (repeat until the student exhibits the desired response to the stimulus). Direct instruction is indeed effective if what you're after is a set response to a given stimulus. Some would question, though, whether this is sufficient to produce an individual capable of autonomous thinking. Behaviorism is awesome if you want an animal to press a bar on cuee, less effective if what you're after is (e.g.) a person capable of evaluating the claims of politicians and making the most desirable choice (for that person) in the voting booth. Your paper hit pretty hard on the applicability of direct instructions for simple, algorithmic tasks (e.g., the number of arithmetic problems solved per minute), precisely the type of task where memorization and regurgitation is a valid strategy.
    - wisty 15y ago
      And I don't believe that the methods which are intended to produce people "capable of evaluating the claims of politicians and making the most desirable choice (for that person) in the voting booth" are really effective at that. You can't teach creativity. OK, maybe you can, but the approach of "throw the students in a group, and tell them to do something creative" is probably not exactly optimal. Do teachers give any kind of useful guided instruction on high-level skills? Or do they just grade the assignments based on presentation?