Imported from Diigo

Maybe basic skill sets for schooling should not be thought of as the 3 R's (reading, writing, and 'rithmetic), but rather beyond the memorization of facts and procedures, the efficient working of working memory and long term memory, the strategic use of brain resources for dynamic problem solving and multi-tasking, and the organization of ideas and perceptions for all types of output: verbal as well as non-verbal.

<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_30">Kirshner</span> argues, very clearly, that non-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_31">instructivist</span> methods result in no better learning than direct instruction, and sometimes in *less* learning, because of the 'cognitive overhead' required in self-directed methodologies.<br><br><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_32">Kirshner's</span> argument on this point is not based on experimental data, but rather, on his theory of cognition. Specifically, he argues that short-term memory has a limited capacity, and that if some of this capacity is not available for new facts (because it is taken up 'selecting scientific principles') then the transfer of information to the student is reduced.<br><br>I respond to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_33">this</span> argument by showing how <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_34">Kirshner's</span> theory is false. We do not 'retrieve theories' into short term memory and then 'select' from them. That is not how thinking works; that is not ow scientific thinking works. And therefore, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_35">Kirshner's</span> argument, on these grounds, against student-directed learning, fails.

The best mechanism for demonstrating knowledge is not likely the production of a certain set of facts on demand. Expertise in a discipline on the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_54">part</span> of a student is something that is typically *recognized*, not measured, by people who are already experts in the field.

Few Internet users say they Google themselves regularly -- about three-quarters of self-searchers say they have done so only once or twice. And most who have done so consider what they find accurate. Only 4 percent of Internet users said embarrassing or inaccurate information online resulted in a bad experience.

People earning over $100,000 a year are almost twice as likely to apologize after an argument or mistake as those earning $25,000 or less, the survey found.

They were also asked whether they would apologize in three situations: when they felt they were entirely to blame for a problem; when they thought they were only partly at fault; and when they believed they were blameless.

In all three cases, "a person's willingness to apologize was an almost perfect predictor of their place on the income ladder," the study says.