I like to think that I’m pretty good at taking things in the best way possible. I’m happy to have been told by one person in a private message, “good on ya for having a thick skin”, and I’m trying to live up to that, but I have never had the pleasure of dealing so extensively with people who are just like me in regards to this quality I’m vaguely gesturing towards right now.
I mean, I knew intellectually that the people on less wrong are unusually awesome in that way like you, but it had still never really been my personal experience before, so my emotional belief was much weaker, and I was starting to feel like, “Oh, maybe everyone really is offended that I had the gall to show them such a terrible mess and ask for feedback. Maybe I should have kept trying to work it over by myself until it was perfect rather than just making an attempt...”
Oh, and if you found my later comments to have more useful detail, am I doing a good job continuing that improvement with this (first half and second half) or is that a step in the wrong direction?
You seem to be moving in the right direction: In the comments you linked, you are laying out some jargon of the DI and explaining what it means in simpler words. If at all possible, you might also supply examples taken from actual teaching; for example, when you say
Or it could be that the learner is missing at least one logically necessary concept underlying the task, in which case the stim-loc tells you what to probe for, and the resp-loc tells you how.
it would be helpful if you could descend from the abstraction for a moment and say “For example, one time I was trying to teach trig using DI; the student was not getting why the double-angle formulas work, so the stim-loc told me I should look for a faulty understanding of [something], and I checked that by [something else]...” Failing real anecdotes, a fictional one (clearly marked, of course!) using a real DI locus schema could also be helpful. But at any rate you’re now explaining what sort of techniques are involved and what the ‘detailed curriculum’ is to consist of, and my desire for anecdotes is more about how to present it rather than what to say.
Sorry I promised I’d type that section out yesterday, but didn’t. Honestly, I’ve been juggling so many things I’d need to kage bunshin myself with my computer to handle them all.
(Yes that’s right, I just made a “Nartuto” reference. :P
Can you imagine what a “Naruto” equivalent of HPMOR would be like?
...I can’t. Other than “awesome”.)
Anyway, rather than typing out the section, I found a scanner and signed up at photobucket.
Here’s the page. The section I was referring to starts at Prescriptive Applications of Programs [“programs” meaning the task analysis], and ends at the Summary.
Okay, I’ll type out the section on “Prescriptive Applications of [Task Analysis]” from page 143 of Theory of Instruction and the accompanying figures tomorrow (been working on less than four hours a night of sleep for the past three days, so I’ma keep this short right now).
The concrete example there is based off:
We suspect that the students do not understand the explanation … “When the water-laden air rises over the mountains, it cools and can no longer hold all the water. The result is rain.”
And the two examples of probed items are both correlated-features concepts.
But yeah, if you could possibly find the time to check the online catalogs of any university libraries near you to see if they have the book… because if you could easily get your hands on a copy, it wouldn’t be too hard to just try skimming the section and chapter summaries.
I’ll also ask in the DI community for advice on good examples of places in programs that teach cognitive routines, and ask if they can give me the reference to the experimental evidence on the 1-20 vs 1-99 thing, and so on.
I… thank you =]
I like to think that I’m pretty good at taking things in the best way possible. I’m happy to have been told by one person in a private message, “good on ya for having a thick skin”, and I’m trying to live up to that, but I have never had the pleasure of dealing so extensively with people who are just like me in regards to this quality I’m vaguely gesturing towards right now.
I mean, I knew intellectually that the people on less wrong are unusually awesome in that way like you, but it had still never really been my personal experience before, so my emotional belief was much weaker, and I was starting to feel like, “Oh, maybe everyone really is offended that I had the gall to show them such a terrible mess and ask for feedback. Maybe I should have kept trying to work it over by myself until it was perfect rather than just making an attempt...”
Oh, and if you found my later comments to have more useful detail, am I doing a good job continuing that improvement with this (first half and second half) or is that a step in the wrong direction?
You seem to be moving in the right direction: In the comments you linked, you are laying out some jargon of the DI and explaining what it means in simpler words. If at all possible, you might also supply examples taken from actual teaching; for example, when you say
it would be helpful if you could descend from the abstraction for a moment and say “For example, one time I was trying to teach trig using DI; the student was not getting why the double-angle formulas work, so the stim-loc told me I should look for a faulty understanding of [something], and I checked that by [something else]...” Failing real anecdotes, a fictional one (clearly marked, of course!) using a real DI locus schema could also be helpful. But at any rate you’re now explaining what sort of techniques are involved and what the ‘detailed curriculum’ is to consist of, and my desire for anecdotes is more about how to present it rather than what to say.
Sorry I promised I’d type that section out yesterday, but didn’t. Honestly, I’ve been juggling so many things I’d need to kage bunshin myself with my computer to handle them all.
(Yes that’s right, I just made a “Nartuto” reference. :P
Can you imagine what a “Naruto” equivalent of HPMOR would be like?
...I can’t. Other than “awesome”.)
Anyway, rather than typing out the section, I found a scanner and signed up at photobucket.
Here’s the page. The section I was referring to starts at Prescriptive Applications of Programs [“programs” meaning the task analysis], and ends at the Summary.
Okay, I’ll type out the section on “Prescriptive Applications of [Task Analysis]” from page 143 of Theory of Instruction and the accompanying figures tomorrow (been working on less than four hours a night of sleep for the past three days, so I’ma keep this short right now).
The concrete example there is based off:
And the two examples of probed items are both correlated-features concepts.
But yeah, if you could possibly find the time to check the online catalogs of any university libraries near you to see if they have the book… because if you could easily get your hands on a copy, it wouldn’t be too hard to just try skimming the section and chapter summaries.
I’ll also ask in the DI community for advice on good examples of places in programs that teach cognitive routines, and ask if they can give me the reference to the experimental evidence on the 1-20 vs 1-99 thing, and so on.