This is Downes's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Downes's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Downes
Recent Activity
I think it's funny that your image is a beer advertisement.
Toggle Commented Dec 13, 2013 on Find time for courage at The Ed Techie
The problem is, when you pick 1776 out of all those alternative (and better) dates, you fix the end of monarchy and rise of capitalism as a uniquely American event, which it definitely is not.
1 reply
> Muscle power was important then but it was fire that separated us - no? Yes - but it was muscle that created wealth, not fire. Anyone could have fire. Fire could not be amassed or hoarded. Thus, the people who were wealthy were the people who had the most muscle - the most animals, the most slaves, the most soldiers.
1 reply
> I picked 1776 very deliberately - this was when the first nation in the world was set up NOT TO HAVE a KING/Emperor - a ruler whose roots were in the land. No, that's not true. Both the Greek and Roman republics had non-monarch forms of government. San Marino overthrew its dependence on the Roman monarchy in 320 and has been independent ever since. Poland establish "the noble republic" in 1572, which lasted until the partition of 1795. Switzerland established its independence from the Holy Roman Empire in 1648 and has had a republican form of government (very much based on capital) ever since. Oliver Cromwell overthrew the British monarchy in 1649; the monarchy was not restored until 1660. Other significant events establishing wealth by capital that are probably more significant than the American revolution include: - Magna Carta, 1215 - first corporate charter, the Stora Kopparberg mining community, Sweden, 1347. - 1600, the British government grants the first corporate charter, to the British East India company, and a 15 year monopoly in trade - Statute of Anne, 1710, granting copyrights
1 reply
Finally, we are still well-entrenched in a system of capital wealth. Without capital, you are not merely poor, you are impoverished and destitute, unable to support yourself. That the best term that can be used to describe the new form of wealth is simply a derivative form of 'capital' wealth is an indicator of that. 'Social capital' is simply a type of capital, and falls well within the capitalist paradigm. Now, as to what will really follow capital wealth, I think that's a very interesting question. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd speculate that it could be 'energy wealth' or 'information wealth'. Or maybe we'll enter a post-wealth society (this, to me, is more likely).
1 reply
Also, I would characterize the pre-3000BC era as 'muscle wealth'. And while 'land wealth' begins to occur with the beginning of the Old Kingdom in Egypt, yes, around 3150 BC, and China, from 2850, 'land wealth' doesn't really come into play until systems of land ownership were created with republican forms of giovernment in Greece and Rome around 500 BC.
1 reply
The beginning of capital wealth occurs well before 1776. The year 1500 is probably a better starting point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism
1 reply
> Learning styles are silly... That's the big text version, but if you push him on it (as I did a while back) the position is not that learning styles don't exist, but that other factors are more significant predictors of learning outcomes. Which is probably true. The 'silly' aspect comes from some political undertone to the whole discussion that I don't quite get but which seems to be terribly important to conservative commentators.
1 reply
I like what you've done with this, but some of the statements require clarity and caution. > Assumption 1: Setting authentic problems leads to students constructing their own solutions. This is a lot like the small classes example. Simply posing a student with an authentic problem leaves them no more capable of solving it after than before. The idea is that the posing of the problem is framed, that it occurs within a context of active enquiry, and that the student is not left solely to his or her own devices to solve the problem. In many cases (most, even) these conditions are not met. The problem is not in the posing of an authentic problem. The problem is in the mismanaged posing of the problem. The proper contrast is the posting of an authentic problem versus the posing of an inauthentic problem. Kirshner-Sweller-Clark contrast it with the posing of worked examples (conveniently not listed in the table). But even this is not an appropriate comparison. Try comparing between: watching someone else solev the problem, and watching someione solve a problem, then trying one for yourself, and finally, watching and solving artificial poblms as compared to watching and solving authentic problems. It becomes obvious that linear effect sizes analysis is inappropriate here. Doesn't it? > Assumption 2: Knowledge is best acquired through experiences based on procedures of the discipline. In order to make this case, you need to get your account of the 'procedures of the discipline' right. K-S-C depict the 'procedures' of science as a version of the Deductive-Nominological (D-N) model. This model was superseded in the 1950s. Science is practiced more as I describe here - http://www.downes.ca/post/47588 - and not as described by K-S-C at all. Now, the procedures of the discipline, of science, at least, do work - we know this because scientists do learn. Indeed, if they did not learn, there would be no science. The question is whether this is the best way to learn. This will depend a lot on what you take learning to be. *If* you depict (as these studies do) learning to be simply the retention of the facts of the discipline, then it's a lot easier to just tell students these facts, and run through some memory exercises (repeated exposure, repetition, etc). But it's pretty clear that learning the facts isn't learning science. http://www.downes.ca/post/47600 You need to know more - you need to, as Kuhn would say, see the world from the point of view of the scientist. Use the same words. Consider the same set of relevant alternatives. Etc. To, in a nutshell, *think* like a scientist. > And I liked how the text explains that these assumptions are not supported by the data. “...each new set of advocates for these approaches seem either unaware of uninterested in previous evidence that unguided approaches have not been validated.” P243 Hattie affirms that claims of engagement and enjoyment are not evidence of student learning. All that “I know this works because “my students’ enjoy” or “the class is so engaged”, when we do [discovery learning, problem based learning or inquiry learning]” that I hear when working in schools. This is a classic instance of circular reasoning. The claim is that there is no evidence. But there is no evidence only because the evidence offered is - a priori - dismissed as evidence. Again - we can't uncritically accept their account of what constitutes 'evidence'. The metastudies allow only certain sorts of behaviour to count as evidence. Other forms of behaviour - like, for example, evidence of successful socialization - are not counted as evidence. When you allow someone to determine what counts as evidence, you have basically already granted the supremacy of their theoretical stance. The conclusions they have that follow from that theory will follow as a matter of course. Inquiry and problem based learning are not evidence based practice because the evidence that they work is lacking. What would your parents say if you presented the study to them this way: "We know how to teach them very effectively - they will learn everything you want them to learn, but they will be psycho." You can't grant them the field - you can't grant them the claim that 'learning' is the 'acquisition of facts' or any analogue of that. Because it's not.
1 reply
I read your blog. Every post.
Toggle Commented Dec 12, 2008 on Dear Santa ... at Write Technology
1 reply
When will people learn? Nothing is a panacea. Nobody recommends anything as a panacea. Complaining that something is not a panacea is like complaining that a person is not God - it's a pointless complaint.
1 reply