= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Manfred comments on Outside the Laboratory - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (336)
Thanks for your response Manfred.
So it's a "9 point" positive to say something that reiterates a commonly perceived problem and offers no solution and also makes a factual error, but to direct someone to a place that actually addresses their problem is a -1. Cool, I'm getting a feel for the website now, cheers.
Let's try this. It's actually pretty easy to test for deeper learning. For example multiple choice questions have previously been considered as examples of shallow learning, or if you prefer shallow testing, and in the past that was accurate and indeed in some still existing multiple choice questions there isn't a path towards deep learning. However consider this question.
The 11 letters in the word PROBABILITY are written on 11 pieces of paper, and a piece of paper chosen at random from a bag. Which of the following statements are true? a)The probability of selecting a "B" is less than the probability of selecting an "I". b)There is a greater chance of obtaining a consonant than of obtaining a vowel. c)A vowel is less likely than a consonant. d)If you repeated the experiment a very large number of times, approximately 63% of the results would be consonants. Make your selection, note that you may select more than zero answers.
Now since "advertising" for CDU might be deemed as somewhat negative, am I permitted to share the details of a book one could read to understand how deep learning for mathematics can be taught to middle school students? Or would that be advertising also?
Elementary & Middle School Mathematics : Teaching Developmentally by John A. Van De Walle, Karen S. Karp and Jennifer M. Bay-Williams, published by Pearson International.
Telling someone to read a book is still probably expecting too much of them. An online article is pretty much the limit, and it's even better if you can tell the other person what you want them to learn in your own words. Referencing a book is good, though.
Cheers Manfred, Hopefully I've given a glimpse of how one can apply and test for deep learning... and if I a "lowly" first year undergrad in education can do it, seems it's probably not that hard. [smirk]
I'm getting a few mixed signals from the site, and that's to be expected. Some want high detail, others want little. Some will downgrade me for restating something that's been said, others don't seem to be downgraded for saying something that's common knowledge. I'll get the hang of it. I'm well aware that joining an internet site/forum/community involves some amount of fitting in, some amount of taking hits cause you're the new guy or just aren't getting it, and some amount of adjusting to the norms, indeed some good old fashion relationship building too.
I was hoping this might be a place where solutions are discussed more than problems are complained about. Perhaps that's true and I just haven't discovered it yet, don't know.
I remain open minded and am working my way through the sequences, they're good reading.
Disconfirmation bias - love that concept and discovered it on lesswrong, hadn't found that one in the Social Psych or Education Psych textbook yet. Even if I get too peeved off and leave to never return, LW will be remembered fondly for that one concept alone.