[Edu-sig] learn-ed disability is counter evidence

[portal]

Art,

The point of the research in learn-ed disability is counter evidence to what
I take as you point


<quote>
I personally
suspect true study would find that both factors are highly relevant. So that
the younger the audience, the greater needs be the internal (over which
there is little control) level of interest and determination.
</quote>

With respect, you are not being marginal here, (and should not claim to be
acting marginally), but absolutely claiming as a truth something for which
there is evidence that there is an illusion here.  What you want to do is
not what I want to do.  We should talk about the evidence.  Perhaps we can
see together why there is a difference in motivation.

Educational theory has ALWAYS had to deal with the professional educators'
limiting view of children's capability to learn.  Two cases:

case one: when the adults have something transparent and valuable.
case two: when no one not even the teachers can justify what is taught (such
as most high school mathematics).  (this is a complex issues here.)

I have taught over 60 freshman level mathematics classes in the university
and have some experience with what are clearly psychological problems that
are due to a social philosophy that justifies learn-ed disability in very
simple arithmetic tasks.  This is not natural.

If you were to get irrationally angry if someone asked you to add 1/3 and
3/4 then you likely have this learned cognitive disorder.


So I can ask for help on this point from teachers who have been frustrated
by the professional educator's authority that says most kids can not learn
because they are not interested.  This is on the face absurd and can not
stand up to real behavioral science.  (Would you agree?)  So the problem is
not about the kids but about the teachers?

Mathematics and computer science education is not providing access to the
concepts that ALL children are capable and interested in knowing.  (This is
the claim.) Further, the type of knowledge and how it is presented turns
kids off in what is an natural and reasonable rejection of non-sense.  (This
is the claim.)

And by the time children have experienced high school, they have a memetic
disorder... at least this is the hypotheses that we develop at:

http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/QuestionOfAccess/AQA.htm

In your words

<quote>
In the
college science curricula, and even there, for those students far enough
along to know that they are moving in the direction of a science related
career, or serious science related study.
<\quote>

the learn-ed disability is fully entrenched.  Only those who are approaching
science in a odd way have not catch this memetic virus (to use Blackmore and
Dawkins term "meme" or conceptual replicator).

(Again, this is the hypothesis and not a philosophical point.)

The purpose of Python is not to continue a programmer caste system but to
open access to knowledge of how a computer works to everyone.  (Yes?)