Show newer

I’be been reading lots on learning theory and research in the last couple of weeks... books, articles, handbooks. Why am I not reading about “measurable outcomes?” I mean, as much as we hear about them, there must be theory and research supporting their importance. Right?

How much resistance to change is recognition that one is not prepared/ qualified for the new systems?

Stephen Jay Gould on Intelligence Tests (IQ), the Nature - Nurture Controversy 1995 t.co/MIgb0Hgi32 in case you need a dose of reason to temper your focus on tests.

Just because a fact is true, your interpretation of it may not be.

It seems time to read Jared Diamond’s Collapse again.

The most useful theories are not true or false, but modifiable.

"The passion [to comprehend] is rather common in children but gets lost later on." -Albert Einstein

Listen to the careful and deliberate speech of qualified scientists and compare it to the advocates for any “data-driven” endeavor and you will understand who is more credible.

If you have no experience with a phenomenon, it is impossible to know if it is a problem.

“If it is contrary to my beliefs, it cannot be true.” This can have disastrous results.

“lack of transparency, corruption of messaging, and magnification of these distortions” are characteristics of communication in digital age... yeah... so... literacy is changing.

Students can be motivated and engaged, but not interested. Interested are motivated, engaged, interested.

“If you don’t like change, you’ll like irrelevance even less.” I’m getting t-shirts and bumper stickers with this message.

Everyone is born a genius. Society de-geniuses them." -Buckminster Fuller

“Preparing students for traditional careers and pathways is a disservice not only to their future but also to the future is society....” can’t argue with that. So that means learning to learning, adaptability, and broad skills must dominate

I just heard a textbook publisher offering to buy back materials… like goggles for chemistry courses. Seriously? We don’t have safety officers saying “no” to this?

Ultimately, the quest to define science highlights its complexity. It involves more than just confirming evidence; it's about designing severe tests, showing progress, and being open to criticism.

If we can't find a clear criterion, perhaps decisions about which theories get funding or are taught should depend not just on being "scientific," but on being good theories.

The demarcation problem has not found an adequate solution. Is something like creationism simply "lousy science" rather than "unscientific"? The distinction remains difficult.

Show older
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.