I've only read the introductory quote so far, but it hit me so hard I have to comment straight away.
I was thinking about this very thing this morning as I was driving to my favourite cafe.
I'm a scientist. A Physicist to be precise (although these days, that's not even precise😀)
Evidence is always complicated and often appears to be self-contradictory at first.
I remember watching the instruments inside the containment building, Australia's only nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights at 2am. I was trying to count the number of neutrons that were polarised by the instrument I had made.
There was so much noise in the results that the test had to be repeated over and over before a trend could be inferred.
It always reminds me of the quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes: “For the simplicity on this side of complexity, I wouldn't give you a fig. But for the simplicity on the other side of complexity, for that I would give you anything I have.”
Think of Einstein's most famous equation, E = mc2. That is simplicity the far side of complexity.
It came from an intense struggle to understand the data, which initially didn't make sense to anyone.
On the other hand, I would argue that the so-called 'Science of Learning' is simplicity without complexity.
Firstly, it is just NOT science. But I'll leave that for the moment.
Children will learn to read when they have a compelling reason to read.
I'll stop there as this is only a comment. But I would love to write more about it at some point.
Thank you Chris! Your work as a physicist sounds super interesting (I'll have to hear more from you about it at some stage).
The whole issue of reading I find interesting, sometimes it seems the main reason we have the current pedagogy pushes in teaching reading is so they can do school more efficiently. Peter Gray did an interesting post on this topic, exploring why natural approaches don't work in a school environment, work a look!
Let me know once you've written a little more about it all.
I've only read the introductory quote so far, but it hit me so hard I have to comment straight away.
I was thinking about this very thing this morning as I was driving to my favourite cafe.
I'm a scientist. A Physicist to be precise (although these days, that's not even precise😀)
Evidence is always complicated and often appears to be self-contradictory at first.
I remember watching the instruments inside the containment building, Australia's only nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights at 2am. I was trying to count the number of neutrons that were polarised by the instrument I had made.
There was so much noise in the results that the test had to be repeated over and over before a trend could be inferred.
It always reminds me of the quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes: “For the simplicity on this side of complexity, I wouldn't give you a fig. But for the simplicity on the other side of complexity, for that I would give you anything I have.”
Think of Einstein's most famous equation, E = mc2. That is simplicity the far side of complexity.
It came from an intense struggle to understand the data, which initially didn't make sense to anyone.
On the other hand, I would argue that the so-called 'Science of Learning' is simplicity without complexity.
Firstly, it is just NOT science. But I'll leave that for the moment.
Children will learn to read when they have a compelling reason to read.
I'll stop there as this is only a comment. But I would love to write more about it at some point.
Thank you Chris! Your work as a physicist sounds super interesting (I'll have to hear more from you about it at some stage).
The whole issue of reading I find interesting, sometimes it seems the main reason we have the current pedagogy pushes in teaching reading is so they can do school more efficiently. Peter Gray did an interesting post on this topic, exploring why natural approaches don't work in a school environment, work a look!
Let me know once you've written a little more about it all.