One way to look at this is ask what needs to be true for this to be useful and effective.
You can imagine a highly motivated group of relative experts might find it useful. Perhaps as a way to study for math competitions. Some will find trial and error solutions that provide insight and some will find an elegant solution that everyone then takes an interest in.
Outside of that it is hard not to imagine the centrifuge you describe.
So perhaps the proponents believe someone can magic any group of students into such a motivated class or failure to do so is a separate problem they are not addressing here.
OK, so is this something else that you're denigrating without having seen it in action? Because that would be kinda intellectually dishonest. You know that, right? If you want to tear it apart after you've done due diligence, then by all means, have at it, but to write about it without trying to appreciate what it's trying to do or what it can do is acting in bad faith. You can't tell what the purpose of the task is by reading the task, so you assume there is no purpose and so you conclude that it's pointless. You are reduced to imagining what teaching this looks like in practice, and instead of going to check it out, you assume it must be a lot of trial and error. But you don't know. But you write about it anyway.
The last time I wrote in your comments was one of the times that you ripped into Building Thinking Classrooms. I remember asking you if you'd actually seen it in action, and suggested that you go take a look before you explain why it can't possibly work. I think I said something about seeing it done well or properly, and then you started talking about the One True Scotsman thing again, when I was simply trying to make the point that there are a lot of people out there who replicate the form of BTC without the function, and you should just watch out for that.
So I'm going to say the same thing again. If you're looking for a low floor/high ceiling task done well, or even adequately, it's probably going to be in a BTC classroom. You should go find one where the teacher knows what she's doing, and try to understand how the lesson unfolds. You may never be convinced that it's a good way to teach math, but at least you will actually know of what you speak.
No problem. Big of you to acknowledge the assist; most people would not be willing to admit that they hadn't done their homework. Let me know if you need anything else.
Isobel are you suggesting no one could form an accurate open on this or BTC without observing and then trying a successful implementation? And also it is up to everyone to find the successful implementation themselves?
That does have the problem Greg suggested- someone can always ignore this effort if it doesn’t provide the right answer by saying you just didn’t pick the right case to emulate or didn’t implement it correctly.
There is a logical problem with low floor high ceiling that Greg is focused on.
Sure it provides differentiation but it can lead to more differentiated outcomes as only some students will reach the high ceiling.
No one has to try it to see this problem is implicit in what is being asked for.
The onus is on the proponents to explain how to overcome this.
Not providing that makes your argument worse by its obvious omission. Your doubling down on ignoring the no true Scotsman concern and ignoring the obvious way low floor high ceiling methods could make a situation worse.
Your long comment just provides Greg with more ammunition to say his critics won’t address the argument he makes.
No, I'm just saying that someone who writes a blog that rests on their academic credentials for their credibility (as Greg does) should do their homework, and should not be guessing (as clearly he is doing when he uses the term "imagine") what something is or means. Whether or not you agree with low-floor/high-ceiling tasks specific to BTC or more generally, you should know something about it when discussing it.
I am not ignoring the One True Scotsman concern. I am suggesting that it cuts both ways. Just as it is easy to dismiss anything based on the idea that it is not being done as intended, it is easy to dismiss that point as being the One True Scotsman Fallacy. One is no more disingenuous than the other.
So to be clear, he is not actually making a valid argument if he does not even know the basics of what he is talking about. I just would like someone to have done some basic research before opining on something. I don't think that's an unreasonable demand.
No I’m afraid yours is the bizarre take here. When someone proposes a solution to a problem it is normal, sensible and helpful to raise any potential issues and expect the proponents of the solution to answer them.
Imagining how something can go wrong before spending more time on it is not a bad thing.
If you think there is data available that answers the concern raised it would be helpful, and take you less time,to copy a link here.
That you don’t just supports Greg’s case that the other side of the argument has really bad arguments.
One way to look at this is ask what needs to be true for this to be useful and effective.
You can imagine a highly motivated group of relative experts might find it useful. Perhaps as a way to study for math competitions. Some will find trial and error solutions that provide insight and some will find an elegant solution that everyone then takes an interest in.
Outside of that it is hard not to imagine the centrifuge you describe.
So perhaps the proponents believe someone can magic any group of students into such a motivated class or failure to do so is a separate problem they are not addressing here.
OK, so is this something else that you're denigrating without having seen it in action? Because that would be kinda intellectually dishonest. You know that, right? If you want to tear it apart after you've done due diligence, then by all means, have at it, but to write about it without trying to appreciate what it's trying to do or what it can do is acting in bad faith. You can't tell what the purpose of the task is by reading the task, so you assume there is no purpose and so you conclude that it's pointless. You are reduced to imagining what teaching this looks like in practice, and instead of going to check it out, you assume it must be a lot of trial and error. But you don't know. But you write about it anyway.
The last time I wrote in your comments was one of the times that you ripped into Building Thinking Classrooms. I remember asking you if you'd actually seen it in action, and suggested that you go take a look before you explain why it can't possibly work. I think I said something about seeing it done well or properly, and then you started talking about the One True Scotsman thing again, when I was simply trying to make the point that there are a lot of people out there who replicate the form of BTC without the function, and you should just watch out for that.
So I'm going to say the same thing again. If you're looking for a low floor/high ceiling task done well, or even adequately, it's probably going to be in a BTC classroom. You should go find one where the teacher knows what she's doing, and try to understand how the lesson unfolds. You may never be convinced that it's a good way to teach math, but at least you will actually know of what you speak.
I hadn’t appreciated that this was a feature of BTC but now you mention it, it makes sense. Thanks for the new angle.
No problem. Big of you to acknowledge the assist; most people would not be willing to admit that they hadn't done their homework. Let me know if you need anything else.
Isobel are you suggesting no one could form an accurate open on this or BTC without observing and then trying a successful implementation? And also it is up to everyone to find the successful implementation themselves?
That does have the problem Greg suggested- someone can always ignore this effort if it doesn’t provide the right answer by saying you just didn’t pick the right case to emulate or didn’t implement it correctly.
There is a logical problem with low floor high ceiling that Greg is focused on.
Sure it provides differentiation but it can lead to more differentiated outcomes as only some students will reach the high ceiling.
No one has to try it to see this problem is implicit in what is being asked for.
The onus is on the proponents to explain how to overcome this.
Not providing that makes your argument worse by its obvious omission. Your doubling down on ignoring the no true Scotsman concern and ignoring the obvious way low floor high ceiling methods could make a situation worse.
Your long comment just provides Greg with more ammunition to say his critics won’t address the argument he makes.
No, I'm just saying that someone who writes a blog that rests on their academic credentials for their credibility (as Greg does) should do their homework, and should not be guessing (as clearly he is doing when he uses the term "imagine") what something is or means. Whether or not you agree with low-floor/high-ceiling tasks specific to BTC or more generally, you should know something about it when discussing it.
I am not ignoring the One True Scotsman concern. I am suggesting that it cuts both ways. Just as it is easy to dismiss anything based on the idea that it is not being done as intended, it is easy to dismiss that point as being the One True Scotsman Fallacy. One is no more disingenuous than the other.
So to be clear, he is not actually making a valid argument if he does not even know the basics of what he is talking about. I just would like someone to have done some basic research before opining on something. I don't think that's an unreasonable demand.
No I’m afraid yours is the bizarre take here. When someone proposes a solution to a problem it is normal, sensible and helpful to raise any potential issues and expect the proponents of the solution to answer them.
Imagining how something can go wrong before spending more time on it is not a bad thing.
If you think there is data available that answers the concern raised it would be helpful, and take you less time,to copy a link here.
That you don’t just supports Greg’s case that the other side of the argument has really bad arguments.