- Apr 2024
-
theconversation.com theconversation.com
-
And the evidence is coming back with unexpected results. A series of randomised controlled trials, including one looking at how to improve literacy through evidence, have suggested that schools that use methods based on research are not performing better than schools that do not.
This, too, is very logical. It is due to the nature of systems.
When one component, or even a lot, get "upgraded" this does not result in the overall results being improved. A system works best when all components work together to one or multiple goals in seemless harmony, creating emergence.
Therefore, if a component is out of place, even if it is better than its predecessor, it won't yield the correct results.
So for the methods to have a large, positive, impact, the entire system needs to be transformed.
This is why I don't want to upgrade a component of education at a time, but completely transform it once my theory of optimal education is complete. Like a phoenix, from the ashes we will rise. Burn it all down, and build it up again with an OODA loop at the core... The system needs to be in constant change, for without change, evolution cannot happen.
Observation Orientation Decision Action
This loop needs to be at the center of every system for "systems without the inherent capacity to change are doomed to die" -- Colonel John Boyd.
Of course, the system will need to be designed with utmost care and based on countless amounts of research, reviewed by a multitude of world-class experts in numeral areas.
-
But my research and that of others shows that incorporating strategies that have evidence backing them into teaching doesn’t always yield the results we want.
True, learning is complicated, so is the learner. In what ways does it not yield the results? Did the theory get applied correctly? Please give more detail.
-
Most schools have implemented reading programmes with significant amounts of evidence behind them. But, despite this, reading abilities have not changed much in the UK for decades.
How many is "most"? Did they apply the evidence correctly?
-
- Jan 2024
-
www.dailydot.com www.dailydot.com
-
From a branding perspective, it’s a bizarre and self-sabotaging move. Twitter is an established, internationally recognizable name. It’s cited in untold numbers of books, broadcasts, TV shows and news articles. Every internet-literate person knows what a tweet is. Needless to say, it will be hard to persuade regular people to refer to X as “X” instead of good ol’ Twitter. Plus, a single letter is difficult to google. These are just some of the many, many reasons why Twitter/X users are dunking on Musk’s new rebrand.
-