Can extrinsic rewards induce intrinsic motivation for virtuous behaviour? I did an experiment to find out, which you can read about in my first peer-reviewed article: https://t.co/GyU8tT5fS3
@adamboxer1 Your vertical units aren’t consistent if you’re assuming that the top left child’s “need” for a toilet pass is qualitatively different from the top right’s. In particular, you’re assuming the former *actually* needs the toilet and the latter doesn’t. A bad graph!
@Gibbecon Prior knowledge could be captured by pre-year attainment. Maybe a group score for shared classes, weighted according to how often you taught the class? Not sure!
Each teacher gets a “progress” score for each of their classes (pre- vs post-year attainment), before averaging across all of their classes for an overall score. These scores could be compared nationally, and salary increases could be weighted accordingly. Thoughts?!
Each teacher gets a “progress” score for each of their classes (pre- vs post-year attainment), before averaging across all of their classes for an overall score. These scores could be compared nationally, and salary increases could be weighted accordingly. Thoughts?!
@Kaetror@dylanwiliam@DavidDidau@Jordan_C_Adams Whether kids are different would be reflected by their pre-year attainment. Progress could be measured against that baseline, before averaging across classes. This score could be compared against national figures, and salary increases could be weighted accordingly. In theory!
@dylanwiliam@DavidDidau@Jordan_C_Adams This could be operationalised via a Progress 8 style approach, applied to each teacher for each class, averaging scores across classes to generate an overall progress score for each teacher. I’m not saying we should do it, though!
@dylanwiliam@DavidDidau@Jordan_C_Adams Wouldn’t some “build” *better* than others, though? Some may even undermine prior foundations. Teachers could, in principle, be arranged along this continuum, from least effective (underminers) to most effective (builders).
@tombennett71@Mr_Raichura And yet some of the brightest (most competent) students seem to have the worst mental health issues! Moreover, some of the lowest attaining often seem very content. I think this post risks oversimplifying a very complex phenomenon (well-being).
Critical thinking involves evaluating whether arguments are *sound*. An argument is sound if (1) its premises are true and (2) it is valid (conclusion follows from premises). 1 requires subject-specific knowledge. 2 doesn’t. Thus, critical thinking is not wholly subject-specific.
I think the aim of education should be to encourage children to seek out experiences and then communicate those experiences in ways that inform and enrich the perennial debate over what it means to lead a good human life.
@C_Hendrick Critical thinking involves (1) identifying arguments, (2) assessing whether they’re valid (i.e. that the premises entail the conclusion), and (3) investigating whether they’re premises are true. 1 and 2 can be taught in abstract; only 3 involves domain-specific knowledge.