I agree that the goal of encouraging students not to give up is an admirable on, but this minimum 50% method is a hamfisted way of going about it.
Rather than give the students a free boost, why not give the students the opportunity to earn a boost. The best method I've seen was used by a college professor who offered what he called a "resurrection final". Basically, if you performed poorly on section A of the course, than that section of the final would be scored to allow you to earn back the points you missed before. You got a benefit for good performance early in the semester by having a cushion going into the final, but were never in a position that you were down and out.
Doc Brown's stuff doesn't run on gigawatts, it runs in jiggawatts.
I'm not sure what those are, but that's clearly what he said.
I think it has something to do with dancing at a riot.
But the pronunciation (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gigawatt) is actually more like jigga- than a hard g sound. Doc Brown was right. Most of us are wrong.
exactly, its like a d6 die... if i have to identify one (and only one) picture i'll have a 1d6 chance of getting it right
but when you have to roll this for 200 cities, also chosen by a 1d6 roll, you have two dies being rolled 200 times, and you want to know how many times both dies have the same value
I guess if you want to, you can formulate the problem that way. The solution is of course that the two d6 rolls will have the same value 1/6 of the time.
The point is that you are asking how frequently the two dice have the same value, not how often they both have a particular value (say 3).
Re:until you throw other colors in the mix
on
The Red Team Wins
·
· Score: 1
Nonsense and poppycock. Here's why. Assume you have a Red and Blue team. Now assume that the players are all males. Because the players are male you have one huge elephant in the room which cancels out your "color-win" theories. - A large percentage of males are color deficient or color blind. Now let's make this even more confusing for the color clinds: introduce two more teams; a green and a light brown. Now you have thoroughly confused the color blind males. Let's make it even more possible to disprove your color hypotheses by controlling the teams so that all the players on all teams have at least some variation of color blindness.
(sarcasm)Now while were at it, lets take away team colors. Obviously, now that we have no team colors, so colors have no impact and the speculation is poppycock.(sarcasm)
TFA never even uses the word theory, this is just speculation. In other words, the researcher is just throwing out a suggestion for a direction of further study. You can't just call "Nonsense and poppycock" because you can come up with some controlled situation different from reality in which a similar winning tendency may not even occur. A good scientist seeing this study may disagree with the interpretation, but would actually collect some data that counters this interpretation before calling poppycock based on a hypothetical situation different from the conditions under which the data was taken.
Peer review is an incestuous process that works for a while but eventually engenders ridiculously hideous monsters. Examples are time travel, cats that are both dead and alive when nobody is looking, parallel universes, dimensions that curled up into little balls so tiny as to be unobservable
And this statement is a perfect example of why peer review is necessary. You point out "ridiculously hideous monsters" without really understanding what they mean. Because quantum mechanics is my specialty, I'll speak to the "cats that are both dead and alive when nobody is looking." I don't think that anyone really believes the cat is both dead and alive. Schrodinger's cat was proposed as a paradoxical situation to express problems with a particular interpretation of Quantum mechanics. In other words, Scientists themselves were trying to clarify a difficulty with their own theories. Peer review helps to filter the noise of folks making ridiculous statements caused by misinterprations.
Educational methods that revolve around memorization, be it in games or anything else, are usually very ineffecient. Teaching facts is along the lines of giving a man a fish instead of teaching him how to do so. Once you learn that fact, it does little to nothing to your overall education in other areas. You know, I think education is moving too far in this direction. I agree that education based purely around fact memorization is seriously lacking, but the more I practice and think about teaching, I think this aversion to learning facts is unfounded. Facts give us something to build our thinking around. It's very hard to think critically without a foundation of solid facts. It's very hard to be creative if you have to continually distract yourself to look up basic facts.
Consider examining a simple number sequence for patterns. Without knowing basic arithmetic tables, how would you recognize patterns? Likewise, would a discussion of the political climate of say the middle east, or say china have much value if you have no knowledge of basic history or demographics?
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that the goal of encouraging students not to give up is an admirable on, but this minimum 50% method is a hamfisted way of going about it.
Rather than give the students a free boost, why not give the students the opportunity to earn a boost. The best method I've seen was used by a college professor who offered what he called a "resurrection final". Basically, if you performed poorly on section A of the course, than that section of the final would be scored to allow you to earn back the points you missed before. You got a benefit for good performance early in the semester by having a cushion going into the final, but were never in a position that you were down and out.
But the pronunciation (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gigawatt) is actually more like jigga- than a hard g sound. Doc Brown was right. Most of us are wrong.
I guess if you want to, you can formulate the problem that way. The solution is of course that the two d6 rolls will have the same value 1/6 of the time.
The point is that you are asking how frequently the two dice have the same value, not how often they both have a particular value (say 3).
(sarcasm)Now while were at it, lets take away team colors. Obviously, now that we have no team colors, so colors have no impact and the speculation is poppycock.(sarcasm)
TFA never even uses the word theory, this is just speculation. In other words, the researcher is just throwing out a suggestion for a direction of further study. You can't just call "Nonsense and poppycock" because you can come up with some controlled situation different from reality in which a similar winning tendency may not even occur. A good scientist seeing this study may disagree with the interpretation, but would actually collect some data that counters this interpretation before calling poppycock based on a hypothetical situation different from the conditions under which the data was taken.
And this statement is a perfect example of why peer review is necessary. You point out "ridiculously hideous monsters" without really understanding what they mean. Because quantum mechanics is my specialty, I'll speak to the "cats that are both dead and alive when nobody is looking." I don't think that anyone really believes the cat is both dead and alive. Schrodinger's cat was proposed as a paradoxical situation to express problems with a particular interpretation of Quantum mechanics. In other words, Scientists themselves were trying to clarify a difficulty with their own theories. Peer review helps to filter the noise of folks making ridiculous statements caused by misinterprations.