Tag Archives: Education

Four Things

I’ve heard that learning English isn’t easy, but I don’t really remember my own experience of doing so. Learning the difference between these four indefinite pronouns is just one of the many things to know, and seems to be a common grade school poster to hang up in the classroom.

  • Anything
  • Something
  • Everything
  • Nothing

Some use these four words together in a clever sentence or epigram, but today I’ve got nothing except this sad little diagram. I hope it is of some use to someone.

I also see this is done with anybody, somebody, everybody, and nobody, and there are some cute little stories out there too! Plus here’s another diagram.

Further Reading:

https://www.google.com/search?q=something+everything+anything+nothing&tbm=isch

https://www.google.com/search?q=somebody+everybody+anybody+nobody&tbm=isch

https://equivalentexchange.blog/2012/05/21/the-square-of-opposition/

[*11.140]

<>

Education is Not a Product

A recent meme popular in education:

  • Education is not a product.
  • Students are not customers.
  • Professors are not tools.
  • The University is not a factory.

I’m not sure who originally came up with this interesting saying.

Examining the anti-analogy, you have “customers buy products made in a factory with tools”. Perhaps a better fourfold would be to change this to “workers use tools to make products in a factory”, so you could say “Students are not workers.” But then you lose the capitalistic “consumer culture” geist.

Or you could say the Professors are (not) factory workers and the Students are (not) the raw material. As a homework assignment, write an essay or develop a mathematical theory comparing this anti-analogy fourfold (or a close derivative thereof) to Aristotle’s Four Causes. Please show your work.

Further Reading:

Note the similarity with some of the elements of the following (which also reminds me for the Four Causes):

https://equivalentexchange.blog/2015/03/11/j-y-girards-transcendental-syntax-v2/

[*11.18]

<>

The Rigor-Relevance Framework

The Rigor-Relevance Framework is a fourfold developed by the International Center for Leadership in Education (www.leadered.com). It is an instrument to aid in planning and evaluation for teachers and their students. It is composed of

  • Acquisition: Low rigor and low relevance
  • Application: Low rigor and high relevance
  • Assimilation: High rigor and low relevance
  • Adaptation: High rigor and high relevance

Rigor (from low to high) is said to be based on the six levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Thinking (knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation; or revised as remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, create).

Relevance (from low to high) is said to be based on Daggett’s Application Model (knowledge in one discipline, apply in discipline, apply across disciplines, apply to real-world predictable situations, apply to real-world predictable situations).

There seems to be quite a bit of information associated with this center so I’ll need to look at it some more!

Further Reading:

http://leadered.com/our-philosophy/rigor-relevance-framework.php

https://www.kaganonline.com/free_articles/dr_spencer_kagan/367/Kagan-Connections-The-Rigor-Relevance-Framework

https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/

Compare to other learning cycles (I thought I had more than one…)

https://equivalentexchange.blog/2011/06/11/kolbs-learning-cycle/

Also I’d like to compare this with Whitehead’s Criteria of Metaphysical Theories

https://equivalentexchange.blog/2010/05/21/whiteheadferre-criteria-for-metaphysical-theories/

[*11.30]

<>

 

 

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. We often hear that these areas of education and expertise are critical for the development of our modern society. To attract students to these fields, banners and logos are full of bright colors and crisp graphics. In comparison, above is my rather dull diagram. Not very enticing, is it?

Some are now adding Arts to the four, giving STEAM. I think the Arts are important of course, but fives don’t go with my oeuvre.

In addition, I give you a diagram with Chinese substituted for English (科學 技術 工程 數學).

Further Reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science,_technology,_engineering,_and_mathematics

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=uQMhW4zXG8Wc5gK13ImoBw&q=science+technology+engineering+mathematics&oq=science+technology+engineering+mathematics

[*10.110]

<>