Pedagogical knowledge content is defined in quite narrow terms that exclude what you're banging on about: an assessment of a teacher’s ability to recognize and diagnose students’ misunderstandings of the lessons
This is starting to get into some interesting stuff. Why would kids say that "everything outside is bullshit, and not worth shit"? It looks an awful lot like a form of self-protection to me: if the outside world is pretty much inaccessible to you, then it is damaging to you to be reminded too often that it's also better. It ruins your mental health. So I'd say that in addition to a safe environment, we need to actually deal with the root cause issue of helping kids access a better world -- above-and-beyond providing them with educational opportunities.
While the range of styles of successful managers is very wild, it's still true that most people will succeed best as managers if they stick within quite a narrow range of performance: - giving and receiving actionable feedback - setting clear directions for teams - tracking performance carefully etc
1) and 2) yes, but hardly a marker of a good teacher, merely a very very minimum bar.
3) is not quite right, as the other poster said -- discipline is more complex than "tough is good".
There's a whole series of other competencies that are important. They include: - oral and written communication skills that work well for children - ability to give feedback - problem-solving (structuring, synthesis, etc)...dozens more
Ah. You've unfortunately stepped over the line into twattery.
The first time around you were witty: you asked a question that showcased critical thinking.
The second time around, however, you simply demonstrated that you weren't really interested in what I thought ("if I simply took your word for it") but wanted to wave your willy. Your prerogative, but utterly pointless.
The deadpan answer, btw, is that I view critical thinking as a skill required for problem-solving, along with eg structuring, synthesising, hypothesis-testing etc
I disagree. Learning problem-solving is important, of course, but we each only have a limited amount of time on this planet, and I don't think it ought to be expended learning specific knowledge that we will not make good use of in later lfe. People used to make the same arguments as you have to push the value of learning Latin--some still do. But there is so *much* to learn, that I'd far rather my children were learning things of more direct use, such as Spanish, while still learning the underlying principles that help them learn how to learn / problem solve
Critical thinking is a combination of innate ability and learned skills. I work for a big consultancy. I was always pretty good at solving problems, but there's no doubt that the specific technique I've learned, plus intense feedback I've had, have made me a much stronger problem-solver.
You have the solution arse-over-tit: the challenge is to recruit and retain a large cohort of very teachers. Pay peanuts and treat people like shit, get unmotivated monkeys
Look, Gaddafi was a complex and strange man, and there can be no doubt that he did some things for his own people and others that other, more straightforwardly venal Arab dictators, did not do. But: an entire nation was scared to criticise him for 42 years; he killed thousands of his own people in the most vicious and terrible ways; and he punished entire cities and regions whose support he thought he did not have fully. Net net, he was a vile and terrible dictator.
I disagree. The aim is that you can speak as simply as you would to a friend, not more simply. I'd ask a friend "can you make me a cup of tea, please, Bob?". Not "Bob, tea"
Bob would probably reply "ordinary?" and I'd say "actually, earl grey"
Siri should aim to do this too. And there'd be no reason Siri couldnt learn my default preference (milk, half a sugar), just as my friends might.
I think you're assuming computers can't operate on a guess-and-confirm basis, which is a needless crippling.
OMG you're right and I'd never noticed. But don't worry, the scales have fallen from my eyes and I now realise that Apple hasn't in fact made enormous amounts of money by (among other things) taking complex systems and hiding that from the user and making it feel simple to them. Nope, they've done it all through marketing and the RDF.
I don't think you're thinking about this in a particularly Apple or Siri way. Why not have Siri simply ask "Did you mean the alarm clock or the alarm system?" By the way, I think the example's a bit contrived -- domestic alarm systems aren't timer-controlled, they're controlled by trigger events ("I'm leaving the house"; "I'm going to bed"). I also don't think the problem's as tough as you make it out to be -- if I asked my wife to do the same thing, or she me, on a regular basis, we'd start talking about "the house alarm" and "the alarm clock". So long as Siri can learn our personal naming conventions, this doesn't feel like an enormous issue. How many namespace conflicts are there really likely to be, after all? Context will resolve most issues (eg there's not many temperatures that humans find comfy in both F and C. You'd need some quite fancy aircon/heating to even make this confusion a possibility! Most domestic systems will give you a range of say 16 to 25C only)
I know. It's a really hard problem to crack. But cracking such hard problems and making the result feel simple (even though the process is anything but) is what Apple is all about.
I know you meant that as a joke, but honestly, wow! It's really not that far fetched to imagine that the mechanics of that could be made to work. Say the command, walk in to the kitchen a couple of minutes later, tea waiting for you on the side. And of course, you'd want to do the same with all the kitchen appliance: "preheat the oven to 220, please" "put a wash on at 40degrees, no tumble" "record X factor tonight" "put the alarm on" etc
That's right. Apple completely misread what users really valued with their first iPhone offers. They twatted around with multitouch and a responsive OS and Safari and iPod functionality, when what they should have done straight away was put in place notifications and cut-and-paste and multitasking. It was for exactly this reason that the iPhone sold so poorly. I mean, who even remembers the iPhone now?
Thankfully, though, they've wised up a bit and appointed narcc as their Chief Twattery Officer to advise them on how to make complete twats of themselves by focusing on the features of least value to their customers. Now that they're taking his wise words on board, perhaps they can start the slow haul back to profitability.
Wow, you're totally missing the point. There are millions of consumers around the world with plenty of disposable income who like to cook! For many of them, using an iPad in the kitchen is quite a big deal and forms a significant part of their use case. It may not be how *you* use it, but it's certainly how they use it. (And me, too)
But you claimed that RP was *unaccented*. That's clearly not true. RP is an English accent. It's also more Southern than Northern in flavour (baath, not bath), as well as being entirely artificial. This notion of "neutral" English is just anti-scientific; it doesn't reflect lived reality.
Whose dictionary? American, Australian, British? etc. There's no such thing as "spoken English without localized inflections". There's no single "correct" pronunciation of "bath", for example. This notion of a "standard" pronunciation is a centraliser's wank-fantasy, to be honest.
I agree people are having trouble understanding relativity. Especially in light of the news about neutrinos. But I'm not sure it's actually the word you were looking for here...
Anyhoo: your scenarios describe what happens to *market share*. I was talking about what actually matters to Apple, which is *volumes*. Of course, you're right that over time, the products commoditise (although note that the BCG matrix suggests that this leads to increasing cash being thrown off for a long while, as scale economies improve further -- as has been the case with the iPod, which remains highly cash-generative despite slowly declining volumes). You're also right that the only method to maintain consistent profitability is to create new markets, and that Apple's (indeed any company's) ability to do this over the long-term is questionable. But you've gotta admit, they've had an outstanding track record to date, and this will clearly be *the* major strategic focus for the company, so they'll have been throwing their resource at it for years by now. And in between creating entirely new markets, they can get quite far with product differentiation within a category, again as they did with the iPod, and as they've also done with the laptop.
This is English, nobber, not Spanish or Italian. The mapping of vocalisations to spellings is incredibly unreliable, and pupils relying on how a teacher pronounces a word to decipher its spelling are going to come a cropper the first time they meet the letters "g" or "e".
Slashdot Mirror
Your points may or may not be right, but they seem like a non-sequitur -- they don't follow from what I was talking about.
Specifically re tests: nothing in this world is free of negative consequences. Not using tests has some pretty bad consequences too.
Pedagogical knowledge content is defined in quite narrow terms that exclude what you're banging on about: an assessment of a teacher’s ability to recognize and diagnose students’ misunderstandings of the lessons
This is starting to get into some interesting stuff. Why would kids say that "everything outside is bullshit, and not worth shit"? It looks an awful lot like a form of self-protection to me: if the outside world is pretty much inaccessible to you, then it is damaging to you to be reminded too often that it's also better. It ruins your mental health. So I'd say that in addition to a safe environment, we need to actually deal with the root cause issue of helping kids access a better world -- above-and-beyond providing them with educational opportunities.
Hum.
While the range of styles of successful managers is very wild, it's still true that most people will succeed best as managers if they stick within quite a narrow range of performance:
- giving and receiving actionable feedback
- setting clear directions for teams
- tracking performance carefully
etc
I think you're overplaying the variety point
Sorry but this is not good enough.
1) and 2) yes, but hardly a marker of a good teacher, merely a very very minimum bar.
3) is not quite right, as the other poster said -- discipline is more complex than "tough is good".
There's a whole series of other competencies that are important. They include: ...dozens more
- oral and written communication skills that work well for children
- ability to give feedback
- problem-solving (structuring, synthesis, etc)
Ah. You've unfortunately stepped over the line into twattery.
The first time around you were witty: you asked a question that showcased critical thinking.
The second time around, however, you simply demonstrated that you weren't really interested in what I thought ("if I simply took your word for it") but wanted to wave your willy. Your prerogative, but utterly pointless.
The deadpan answer, btw, is that I view critical thinking as a skill required for problem-solving, along with eg structuring, synthesising, hypothesis-testing etc
You don't need me to figure that out, right?
I like the wit!
I disagree. Learning problem-solving is important, of course, but we each only have a limited amount of time on this planet, and I don't think it ought to be expended learning specific knowledge that we will not make good use of in later lfe. People used to make the same arguments as you have to push the value of learning Latin--some still do. But there is so *much* to learn, that I'd far rather my children were learning things of more direct use, such as Spanish, while still learning the underlying principles that help them learn how to learn / problem solve
Critical thinking is a combination of innate ability and learned skills. I work for a big consultancy. I was always pretty good at solving problems, but there's no doubt that the specific technique I've learned, plus intense feedback I've had, have made me a much stronger problem-solver.
You have the solution arse-over-tit: the challenge is to recruit and retain a large cohort of very teachers. Pay peanuts and treat people like shit, get unmotivated monkeys
Look, Gaddafi was a complex and strange man, and there can be no doubt that he did some things for his own people and others that other, more straightforwardly venal Arab dictators, did not do. But: an entire nation was scared to criticise him for 42 years; he killed thousands of his own people in the most vicious and terrible ways; and he punished entire cities and regions whose support he thought he did not have fully. Net net, he was a vile and terrible dictator.
I'm laughing at you rather than with you, but I'm laughing yes
I disagree. The aim is that you can speak as simply as you would to a friend, not more simply. I'd ask a friend "can you make me a cup of tea, please, Bob?". Not "Bob, tea"
Bob would probably reply "ordinary?" and I'd say "actually, earl grey"
Siri should aim to do this too. And there'd be no reason Siri couldnt learn my default preference (milk, half a sugar), just as my friends might.
I think you're assuming computers can't operate on a guess-and-confirm basis, which is a needless crippling.
OMG you're right and I'd never noticed. But don't worry, the scales have fallen from my eyes and I now realise that Apple hasn't in fact made enormous amounts of money by (among other things) taking complex systems and hiding that from the user and making it feel simple to them. Nope, they've done it all through marketing and the RDF.
Fuckwit.
I don't think you're thinking about this in a particularly Apple or Siri way. Why not have Siri simply ask "Did you mean the alarm clock or the alarm system?" By the way, I think the example's a bit contrived -- domestic alarm systems aren't timer-controlled, they're controlled by trigger events ("I'm leaving the house"; "I'm going to bed"). I also don't think the problem's as tough as you make it out to be -- if I asked my wife to do the same thing, or she me, on a regular basis, we'd start talking about "the house alarm" and "the alarm clock". So long as Siri can learn our personal naming conventions, this doesn't feel like an enormous issue. How many namespace conflicts are there really likely to be, after all? Context will resolve most issues (eg there's not many temperatures that humans find comfy in both F and C. You'd need some quite fancy aircon/heating to even make this confusion a possibility! Most domestic systems will give you a range of say 16 to 25C only)
I know. It's a really hard problem to crack. But cracking such hard problems and making the result feel simple (even though the process is anything but) is what Apple is all about.
I know you meant that as a joke, but honestly, wow! It's really not that far fetched to imagine that the mechanics of that could be made to work. Say the command, walk in to the kitchen a couple of minutes later, tea waiting for you on the side. And of course, you'd want to do the same with all the kitchen appliance:
"preheat the oven to 220, please"
"put a wash on at 40degrees, no tumble"
"record X factor tonight"
"put the alarm on"
etc
That's right. Apple completely misread what users really valued with their first iPhone offers. They twatted around with multitouch and a responsive OS and Safari and iPod functionality, when what they should have done straight away was put in place notifications and cut-and-paste and multitasking. It was for exactly this reason that the iPhone sold so poorly. I mean, who even remembers the iPhone now?
Thankfully, though, they've wised up a bit and appointed narcc as their Chief Twattery Officer to advise them on how to make complete twats of themselves by focusing on the features of least value to their customers. Now that they're taking his wise words on board, perhaps they can start the slow haul back to profitability.
Nobber.
Wow, you're totally missing the point. There are millions of consumers around the world with plenty of disposable income who like to cook! For many of them, using an iPad in the kitchen is quite a big deal and forms a significant part of their use case. It may not be how *you* use it, but it's certainly how they use it. (And me, too)
But you claimed that RP was *unaccented*. That's clearly not true. RP is an English accent. It's also more Southern than Northern in flavour (baath, not bath), as well as being entirely artificial. This notion of "neutral" English is just anti-scientific; it doesn't reflect lived reality.
Whose dictionary? American, Australian, British? etc. There's no such thing as "spoken English without localized inflections". There's no single "correct" pronunciation of "bath", for example. This notion of a "standard" pronunciation is a centraliser's wank-fantasy, to be honest.
I agree people are having trouble understanding relativity. Especially in light of the news about neutrinos. But I'm not sure it's actually the word you were looking for here...
Anyhoo: your scenarios describe what happens to *market share*. I was talking about what actually matters to Apple, which is *volumes*. Of course, you're right that over time, the products commoditise (although note that the BCG matrix suggests that this leads to increasing cash being thrown off for a long while, as scale economies improve further -- as has been the case with the iPod, which remains highly cash-generative despite slowly declining volumes). You're also right that the only method to maintain consistent profitability is to create new markets, and that Apple's (indeed any company's) ability to do this over the long-term is questionable. But you've gotta admit, they've had an outstanding track record to date, and this will clearly be *the* major strategic focus for the company, so they'll have been throwing their resource at it for years by now. And in between creating entirely new markets, they can get quite far with product differentiation within a category, again as they did with the iPod, and as they've also done with the laptop.
This is English, nobber, not Spanish or Italian. The mapping of vocalisations to spellings is incredibly unreliable, and pupils relying on how a teacher pronounces a word to decipher its spelling are going to come a cropper the first time they meet the letters "g" or "e".
WTF has concision or prolixity got to do with accent or place of origin?