tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post958831414481335272..comments2024-03-26T14:44:37.985-04:00Comments on D-Ed Reckoning: Tracy Hasn't Gotten a Straight Answer YetKDeRosahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-51045269723441512202009-10-12T14:59:28.872-04:002009-10-12T14:59:28.872-04:00Malcolm, Stephen has left the building so allow me...Malcolm, Stephen has left the building so allow me to play the poor-man's Stephen Downes:<br /><br />Malcolm, my characterization of your understanding of content knowledge is inconsistent with the points you raise in your comments. How could you hold such contradictory views? Clearly, you do not wish to argue with me according to my mischaracterization of your views. I bid you good day, sir.<br /><br />(Not sufficiently obtuse, I know, but that's the best I can do.)KDeRosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-79578703986104178532009-10-12T11:44:25.532-04:002009-10-12T11:44:25.532-04:00Wittgenstein: "Whereof one cannot speak, ther...Wittgenstein: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."<br /><br />Maybe we can hum. Or express ourselves through dance. That baby can cry from hunger. Is that "asking for a biscuit"? Of course, the adult has to distinguish the hunger cry from the pain cry and the loneliness cry, and so does the infant. Is that "content knowledge"? <br /><br />Sorry if this derails the discussion, but it seems to me a lot depends on what you are trying to do with an answer to the central question: "What is the role of content knowledge in Reading instruction?"<br /><br />We can think without words. I expect deaf-mute nurses could teach chess to infants reared in isolation from language, using only figurine algebraic notation and physical chess sets, or chess sets alone. These nurses could then present a chess position and "ask" (with facial expressions) of people so instructed for 15 years: "White to play and move. What would you do?" <br /><br />Whether the children's answers make sense (i.e., whether the children had learned to play chess, i.e., whether their chess teachers had done their jobs) would depend on whether the moves they suggest would be, in fact, good moves. <br /><br />In Math and chess, the syntax <i>is</i> the content knowledge. The game is symbolic manipulation only. Let => mean "implies". Let <=> mean "if and only if". Let "~" mean "or". Let - mean "not". "a=>b"<=>"-a~b"<=>"-(a&-b)". The content knowledge is pretty basic: when do people use the word "not", "and", "or". <br /><br />It seems to me that Steven Downes wants to use as his measure of Reading teacher effectiveness a test of students' knowledge of syntax alone. Even here, some content knowledge matters. Students must discriminate between nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, etc. <br />Read the following text and answer the questions. You have 15 minutes. Make sure you completely darken the bubble wiht your #2 pencil. <br />Text..<br />"Twas brillig and the slithey toves did gyre and gimbal in the wabe". <br /><br />Question. What did gyre?<br /><br />You assumed that "toves" is a noun, did you not? Maybe "toves" is an adjective and "slithey" is the noun, as in "pie a la mode" or "hamburger de lux".<br /><br />You know what? In a free market for education services, I would not care what Steven thinks. To each his own, I always say. Let him teach his own kids. When they grow up, they can shine engineers' shoes. "What works?" is an empirical question which only an experiment (a comptititve market in education services) can answer. <br /><br />Perhaps the point of State-monopoly school systems is to compel working stiffs to pay attention to Professors of Education.Malcolm Kirkpatrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01294436437292859972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-19943550323089140192009-10-12T04:45:18.454-04:002009-10-12T04:45:18.454-04:00Ah, now I've posted, it occurrs to me how Down...Ah, now I've posted, it occurrs to me how Downes was misreading my statement. <br /><br />When I said "I mean (a) and part of your (b)" Downes is reading this as content knowledge has to be both (a) and part of (b). But I was meaning this as content knowledge is made up of both propositional knowledge and "experiental, or the result of some experience, or some neural state". So if someone knows something they can put in a proposition, that's part of their content knowledge, and if someone has some experiental knowledge that for whatever reason they can't put in a proposition", that's also part of their content knowledge. (And as a practical matter, anyone participating in this conversation has both.)<br /><br />So, Downes, to ask again:<br />"Is there any evidence that could convince you that content knowledge, in the sense of either propositional knowledge or experiental knowledge, or the result of some experience, or some neural state, might be necessary for reading and critical thinking?Tracy Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08999246551652981965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-75098715450243053762009-10-12T04:37:21.893-04:002009-10-12T04:37:21.893-04:00'knowledge' is "(a) propositional in ...<i>'knowledge' is "(a) propositional in form - and specifically, expressible as a sentence or set of sentences?" and she replied very clearly that yes, that's what she meant.</i><br /><br />Downes, to quote myself, again<br />"By "content knowledge" I mean (a) and part of your (b). The part of your (b) I want is the one you labelled "experiental, or the result of some experience, or some neural state".<br /><br />Claiming that I only answered (a) and ignoring that I clearly speified "part of (b)" is lying by omission.Tracy Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08999246551652981965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-16819527412461362282009-10-11T17:33:35.851-04:002009-10-11T17:33:35.851-04:00Are you asking about biscuit the fluff thing eaten...Are you asking about biscuit the fluff thing eaten with gravey in the South or the British version of biscuit, which is really a cookie? Define your terms, Define your terms.Stacy in NJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-92113270460027153222009-10-10T22:41:06.203-04:002009-10-10T22:41:06.203-04:00So, if I write knowledge includes rules and proced...So, if I write knowledge includes rules and procedures, you're saying I must mean that every piece of knowledge must include both a rule and a procedure, not that piece of knowledge one is a rule, knowledge 2 is a procedure and knowledge 3 includes both. I couldn't possibly mean that in ordinary usage?KDeRosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-52808756795630817522009-10-10T22:26:17.043-04:002009-10-10T22:26:17.043-04:00Yes Ken, when somebody writes "and" then...Yes Ken, when somebody writes "and" then normally mean "or".<br /><br />Any more gems of wisdom before I'm done here?Stephen Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06140591903467372209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-56385259061916508302009-10-10T22:24:39.585-04:002009-10-10T22:24:39.585-04:00We shall soon see what Tracy really meant.
But, w...We shall soon see what Tracy really meant.<br /><br />But, when someone writes "A and B" in normal usage it typically means A, B, or both" at any one time. You shouldn't have just assumed she meant "both" always.<br /><br />Regardless of the "misunderstanding" nothing is preventing you now from addressing the question as I clarified.KDeRosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-16220671676514279922009-10-10T22:13:07.439-04:002009-10-10T22:13:07.439-04:00Bull.
I said here (and in the comments):
"...Bull. <br /><br />I said here (and in the comments):<br /><br />"evidence which would prove that there is some fact without which a knowledge of some language is impossible."<br /><br />I also took the time to explain what I meant, and to describe the logical form of the sort of answer needed.<br /><br />As for this bit of nonsense - "I read this as meaning an "awareness of the concept of biscuit," rather than an awareness of the word biscuit.'" - I took the time to ask and establish whether she believed 'knowledge' is "(a) propositional in form - and specifically, expressible as a sentence or set of sentences?" and she replied very clearly that yes, that's what she meant.<br /><br />Sorry, there is not shred of truth to this post. Not one.Stephen Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06140591903467372209noreply@blogger.com