<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
OK, so along with watching DWTS and the election results, I read through <b>"The Camel has Two Humps."</b> If this isn't a spoof it is a travesty! I laughed and laughed! Having done a Master's Thesis and read my daughters PhD dissertation, I can see that this a a wonderfully funny parody of what a "scholarly" work would look like. It starts out like it is for real, but the casual language gradually slips in and the suspicions begin to mount. It is hard to believe that so many knowledgeable people believe it is genuine. Now, on the slim chance that this is for real... heaven help us, the authors, and their university!<div><br></div><div>Caryl<br><div><br></div><div><br><br>> Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 22:09:10 -0500<br>> From: yamaplos@gmail.com<br>> To: Zachary.Clifton@Colorado.EDU<br>> CC: iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org<br>> Subject: Re: [IAEP] 90% fluency Re: Granny Cloud<br>> <br>> VERY interesting, Zachary.<br>> <br>> "it turned out that an unusual teacher was the culprit", thus something <br>> that cannot be scaled...<br>> <br>> On really good teachers, and on how maybe that is not something <br>> transferable, <br>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/magazine/07Teachers-t.html?pagewanted=all<br>> <br>> "Lemov and Ball focus on different problems, yet in another way they are <br>> compatriots in the same vanguard, arguing that great teachers are not <br>> born but made. (The Obama administration has also signaled its hopes by <br>> doubling the budget for teacher training in the 2011 budget to $235 <br>> million.) A more typical education expert is Jonah Rockoff, an economist <br>> at Columbia University, who favors policies like rewarding teachers <br>> whose students perform well and removing those who don’t but looks <br>> skeptically upon teacher training. He has an understandable reason: <br>> While study after study shows that teachers who once boosted student <br>> test scores are very likely to do so in the future, no research he can <br>> think of has shown a teacher-training program to boost student <br>> achievement. "<br>> <br>> On 11/02/2010 09:05 PM, Zachary Charles Clifton wrote:<br>> > I believe that Alan has used examples like "90%" before that one can read to gain additional insight to his view. A quick search will provide some resources. Here is one I found:<br>> ><br>> > http://secretgeek.net/camel_kay.asp<br>> ><br>> > Hopefully that helps shed some light.<br>> ><br>> > Zachary C. Clifton<br>> ><br>> > On Nov 2, 2010, at 5:31 PM, Yamandu Ploskonka wrote:<br>> ><br>> > <br>> >> interesting... What about nature / nurture?<br>> >><br>> >> are we talking about 90% of those who actually "can", or 90% of all?<br>> >><br>> >> in any case, we hit very different individual learning slopes...<br>> >><br>> >> To follow up with the kind of example you use, today's Wall Street Journal has an article on how even highly educated people in Holland don't want to wear helmets when riding bikes. So, they are "fluent" in bicycle riding but somehow are not reasonable about it. The skill is there, but a concept on how your behavior hurts others (if you get injured, someone else has to share in paying for it) is clearly missing - ethics...<br>> >><br>> >> anyway, famously, fluent in /what/?<br>> >><br>> >> On 11/02/2010 06:21 PM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. wrote:<br>> >> <br>> >>> Yamandu Ploskonka wrote:<br>> >>><br>> >>> <br>> >>>> thank you, yep, you right.<br>> >>>><br>> >>>> On 11/02/2010 04:40 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote:<br>> >>>><br>> >>>> <br>> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Yamandu Ploskonka<yamaplos@gmail.com> wrote:<br>> >>>>><br>> >>>>><br>> >>>>> <br>> >>>>>> request to understand better what Alan meant by 90% fluency...<br>> >>>>>><br>> >>>>>><br>> >>>>>> <br>> >>>>> Fluency in 90% of the population, not "90% fluency".<br>> >>>>><br>> >>>>> You could want to ask what definition of 'fluency' is being used and<br>> >>>>> whether there is a reasonable test for that.<br>> >>>>><br>> >>>>> <br>> >>> Here is my own definition: you are fluent when mechanism doesn't fight<br>> >>> higher level goals for your attention.<br>> >>><br>> >>> When riding a bicycle, for example, if the only thing in your mind is<br>> >>> that you want to go to the end of this block and turn left then you are<br>> >>> a fluent rider. If, in addition to that, you are also worried about<br>> >>> whether to turn the handle bar left or right in order not to fall, or<br>> >>> perhaps lean over a bit instead and whether you might be pedalling too<br>> >>> slowly then you are not fluent.<br>> >>><br>> >>> The problem with a lack of fluency is obvious when, even though you are<br>> >>> pleased with yourself for not having fallen, you suddenly realize that<br>> >>> you have already passed the street where you wanted to turn left. In the<br>> >>> same way, people who are not a fluent readers will find themselves very<br>> >>> tired after two pages and have no idea of what the text said.<br>> >>><br>> >>> -- Jecel<br>> >>><br>> >>> _______________________________________________<br>> >>> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)<br>> >>> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org<br>> >>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep<br>> >>><br>> >>><br>> >>> <br>> >> _______________________________________________<br>> >> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)<br>> >> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org<br>> >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep<br>> >> <br>> ><br>> > <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)<br>> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org<br>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep<br></div></div> </body>
</html>