Another dot in the blogosphere?

Posts Tagged ‘youtube


Video source

One thought that crossed my mind as I watched this video was how much science undergirds and enables the art. The same could be said about pedagogy.

I define pedagogy as the science and art of teaching. The science refers to the theoretical principles, experimentation, and research of what might be quantified about teaching. The art is the practice getting better with critical and reflective practice. Do one without the other, or favour one over the other, and we are unlikely to teach effectively.

I appreciate the efforts of the Greens and one of their YouTube shows, Mental Floss. The latest episode was about schooling in the USA.


Video source

Part of the video was a segment on whether students tested better if they hand-wrote notes or if they typed them.

The research they cited revealed that students who hand-wrote notes did better on a test. I recall this research making its way around the Twitterverse and the blogosphere, so it was not news.

However, you should not take the results at face value.

First there is the question of what medium the test was taken on, and if it was paper whether that favoured writers over typers. There was also no mention of the quality and design of the questions to determine if they favoured one strategy over another.

Next is the issue of pitting one medium over another without considering learner preferences and strategies. Consider what might happen if you forced a typer to write or a writer to type.

The video also highlighted how writers might process what they hear more deeply and summarise by note-taking, while typers might resort to recording or transcribing. What was not clear was whether there were typers who summarised and writers who just recorded.

 

Writers Typers
Recorders   X
Summarisers X  

 
In the 2×2 matrix of note-taking method and note medium, only two options were mentioned in the video. How is this rigorous?

If you think about it, the matrix is far more complicated. There are more contributing and influencing factors on note-writing and test-taking. Over simplifying provides easy answers. Easy answers are not nuanced and not always right. Take note of that!

I enjoyed the National Geographic documentary special on Singapore as a possible model for future cities.


Video source

However, I watched with critical eyes and ears, particularly when “models” of education were highlighted around the half-hour mark of the documentary.

The overly broad claims made by the scriptwriters covered up fallacies and bias. For example, take the claims made after the segment on kindergarten children using “coding” blocks to learn.

The narrator claimed that approaches like these were “arming future generations of Singaporeans with the skills necessary for computer programming and literacy without exposing them to too much screen time”.

Neither a visitor to our shores nor a born-and-bred local should take this statement at face value. One fallacy is that kids exposed to such experiences will learn them meaningfully. Just ask a child what they remember from class a year ago. Heck, ask them what they learnt yesterday.

That claim was ludicrous when immediately followed up with: “This dynamic new approach to education is of critical importance for parents, helping to prepare their children for the workplaces of the future.”

Now I am not claiming that repeated and purposeful integration of lessons on computational thinking are not effective. I am pointing out that a) such lessons are not necessarily the norm, and b) there are far too many things that contribute to — and get in the way of — a child’s development.

A good start in early childhood education is important, but it is a stretch to claim that something a child experienced that early has a direct impact on future work.

A child’s education is long-term and multi-faceted while the future is murky. At best something learnt now might prepare a student for the next stage of schooling.

Revisit the last part of the quote: “…without exposing them to too much screen time”. The inherent bias is that screen time is bad.

But consider how students will need that screen time to experience and learn more deeply. Heck, I learnt of the documentary thanks to screen time on Twitter and then relied on screen time to watch it on YouTube.

It is what you do with screen time that matters. I wish people who have reach — like the groups that National Geographic partnered with — would stop harping on old and uncritical messages that avoid nuance. There is no point selling a city of the future if the messaging is from an irrelevant past.

Tomorrow's educational progress cannot be determined by yesterday's successful performance.


Video source

In the video, John Green shared the general rules on using the prepositions on, in, and at.

This was useful to me partly because I was just asked that question last week during my research writing consultation. Now I have an answer for the next session.

The video was also useful in a broader sense. With just about every rule comes exceptions, and grammar is no exception.

I would challenge anyone attempting to standardise “pedagogy” or “learning” in schooling and education. When implemented, they will find exceptions to the model answer, ideal formula, or prescribed standard.

So are standards or definitions pointless then? No, they are baselines from which variations sprout. We just need to be critical enough to recognise what is valuable or erroneous, helpful or harmful, and relevant or not, depending on the context.


Video source

I wonder how many schools might start their academic years by showing the video above, generating discussion among teachers, and setting goals.

The movie has an agenda about being too liberal with alternative mathematics and facts. However, that does not mean that it is the only point of view.

After all, different people on different sides of any argument can suffer from the same affliction — being overly dogmatic.


Video source

In the first part of this SciShow video, Hank Green outlined a study that examined the link between social media use and ADHD symptoms.

Bottomline: No study is perfect and this one suffered from a reliance on self-reported data, reporting symptoms without prior baseline diagnoses, and correlational outcomes.

The last point was key. Green pointed out that the study could not prove that social media caused ADHD symptoms any more than the tendency of users with ADHD checking social media frequently. In his own words:

Using this study to say that smartphones and social media cause ADHD would be like looking at ER data and concluding that firefighters cause burn injuries.


Video source

I enjoy Matt Pat’s video essays because he puts a lot of work into them. The fact that they are easy to digest belies the complexity of their content.

In this latest instalment, he used the recent (and frankly overdone) examples of Yanni/Laurel and Brainstorm/Green Needle to illustrate how subjective our perceptions can be.

At the very least, we should take away these concepts: Our senses are easy to fool and what we perceive is not the same across the board. These are fundamental concepts in rigorous teacher education programmes. And yet we try to school students with singular approaches or adhere blindly to standards.


http://edublogawards.com/files/2012/11/finalistlifetime-1lds82x.png
http://edublogawards.com/2010awards/best-elearning-corporate-education-edublog-2010/

Click to see all the nominees!

QR code


Get a mobile QR code app to figure out what this means!

My tweets

Archives

Usage policy

%d bloggers like this: