2 ms·

> I think you've fundamentally misunderstood the concept. It's worse than that: I've not even tried to understand it. > The main idea is that you don't move o

> I think you've fundamentally misunderstood the concept. It's worse than that: I've not even tried to understand it. > The main idea is that you don't move on to a later skill until you've shown high proficiency in the skills that it depends upon. Okay. That idea is foolish and regressive. The human mind learns on multiple levels simultaneously. A single "lesson" can evoke or participate in many "learnings" over the course of a pupil's life. You can teach a skill and the skills that depend on it at the same time, if you know what you're doing. Arguing the details of how Bloom is a crank is uninteresting to me. I would sooner study the "evidence" of the free energy generator crackpots, as I would be slightly less certain that I wasn't wasting my time. You don't know what you're doing. Doing it harder and faster with computers is not a good idea. I pity your student and you as well. > Plugging my ears and going "la la la" about the evidence and just doing what I want is not how I will make anything better. If you want to discuss how the weird shit you're doing to these kids will or will not prepare them for the world where computers talk and think better than they can, I'd love to do that. If you want to passively condescend to me because I won't taste your particular flavor of pseudo-scientific kool-aid I've got better things to do with my time.

mlyle 3y ago
> It's worse than that: I've not even tried to understand it. Thanks for admitting bad faith before going straight into ad-hom!
- carapace 3y ago
  I feel like my whole point has whooshed over your head. You're clearly intelligent and sincere, which is why I bothered trying to reach you, so it's disappointing that this turned out to be a waste of time, even though I feel it was worth the attempt. As I said, I believe education is pretty much the most important human activity, so even though I have no children of my own. I feel it behooves me to do what little I can for the children of the rest of humanity. I am discussing this in good faith, and I am not trying to insult you. However, I do sincerely believe that you are deeply confused about the nature of education, and I'd very much like to help you clear that up, especially since you teach kids. But I can't help you until you give up this crazy idea that "research" has provided "evidence" that your Mister Bloom's weird ideas about education (et. al.) are, uh, not poppycock. (I mean, I did say, right off "...by what metrics? Anyway, who cares?" I feel I've been very clear this whole time that I'm not interested in Bloom's work because to me he's obviously a crank. You keep trying to defend him when I'm not even willing to engage. Your "evidence" means nothing to me because I don't believe it's actually scientific. IF you wanted to convince me to take it seriously you would first have to convince me that it has any meaning at all. And you're not going to be able to do that until you can show me that you understand the nature of my objection, which you haven't done yet.)
  - mlyle 3y ago
    I really think there's something wrong here with you understanding any of my meaning. I've not been talking about Bloom except for pointing out his initial observation about the difference in outcomes with different instructional methods. The rest of the time has been defending simple ideas like "we can empirically study education." If you're taking me explaining the concept of mastery as a defense of Bloom, then we've really gone awry. It's not really a Bloom idea (though I guess he had a little influence on modern understanding of the idea). But you keep bringing him up in every other comment and ascribe my comments as a defense of him. The really wack thing is, Bloom's observations would really support your point (he measured that tutorial instruction was more effective than classroom instruction which is a portion of the point you're seemingly trying to make). You clearly have really big feelings about education-- that I think are influencing you and preventing you from engaging meaningfully with anything I say. Either that, or lack of reading comprehension has gotten in your way. In any case, it's hard for me to see the point in further conversation. It's too bad, too. The classroom that I teach in is not at all like the classrooms I grew up in and did not enjoy. Perhaps I have some meaning I could share, but you dismissed me at message 1 and haven't tried to understand me at all; instead you're painting me with the same brush as your negative experiences of the past.

mlyle 3y ago

> It's worse than that: I've not even tried to understand it. Thanks for admitting bad faith before going straight into ad-hom!

carapace 3y ago
I feel like my whole point has whooshed over your head. You're clearly intelligent and sincere, which is why I bothered trying to reach you, so it's disappointing that this turned out to be a waste of time, even though I feel it was worth the attempt. As I said, I believe education is pretty much the most important human activity, so even though I have no children of my own. I feel it behooves me to do what little I can for the children of the rest of humanity. I am discussing this in good faith, and I am not trying to insult you. However, I do sincerely believe that you are deeply confused about the nature of education, and I'd very much like to help you clear that up, especially since you teach kids. But I can't help you until you give up this crazy idea that "research" has provided "evidence" that your Mister Bloom's weird ideas about education (et. al.) are, uh, not poppycock. (I mean, I did say, right off "...by what metrics? Anyway, who cares?" I feel I've been very clear this whole time that I'm not interested in Bloom's work because to me he's obviously a crank. You keep trying to defend him when I'm not even willing to engage. Your "evidence" means nothing to me because I don't believe it's actually scientific. IF you wanted to convince me to take it seriously you would first have to convince me that it has any meaning at all. And you're not going to be able to do that until you can show me that you understand the nature of my objection, which you haven't done yet.)
- mlyle 3y ago
  I really think there's something wrong here with you understanding any of my meaning. I've not been talking about Bloom except for pointing out his initial observation about the difference in outcomes with different instructional methods. The rest of the time has been defending simple ideas like "we can empirically study education." If you're taking me explaining the concept of mastery as a defense of Bloom, then we've really gone awry. It's not really a Bloom idea (though I guess he had a little influence on modern understanding of the idea). But you keep bringing him up in every other comment and ascribe my comments as a defense of him. The really wack thing is, Bloom's observations would really support your point (he measured that tutorial instruction was more effective than classroom instruction which is a portion of the point you're seemingly trying to make). You clearly have really big feelings about education-- that I think are influencing you and preventing you from engaging meaningfully with anything I say. Either that, or lack of reading comprehension has gotten in your way. In any case, it's hard for me to see the point in further conversation. It's too bad, too. The classroom that I teach in is not at all like the classrooms I grew up in and did not enjoy. Perhaps I have some meaning I could share, but you dismissed me at message 1 and haven't tried to understand me at all; instead you're painting me with the same brush as your negative experiences of the past.