"Nothing I have seen published using OLS, MLA, or any other technique suggests to me that the predictive power of pupil SES is identical in all countries. It differs by subject matter of the dependent variable. It differs by level of educational institution - primary, secondary, higher. It differs within different ethnic groups. It differs by school availability. And it differs by school quality. No academic debate, or any new piece of computer software, can negate what is perfectly obvious to every minister of education in every developing country, including Zimbabwe - that even parents of low socioeconomic status want more education for their children and will sacrifice a great deal to keep their children in school. While we may argue over the relative importance of one effect versus another, such arguments are irrelevant in the world of policy, where the only relevant questions are how to raise the availability of school quality inputs and how to distribute them more fairly. No one seriously argue that they should not be raised because academic achievement is conditioned by the home." - Stephen P. Heyneman, Multilevel Methods for Analyzing School Effects in Developing Countries, November 1989, Comparative Education Review :O I think I'm starting to understand why I do what I do now...

Thinking out loud

I've been thinking about Hong Kong students excellent civic knowledge scores. Recently, I learnt, they are not only good in political knowledge, but also in the core topics of Math, Science and English. I'm impressed. Besides being excellent, they also have a very equitable education system, meaning these high fliers come from all social backgrounds, immigrant or not, rich or poor... There is little link between excellence and social background. How do they do it? Previously, I was thinking, perhaps the reason for their high civic knowledge scores could be because of the political and social situation of the country, the handover from British rule and a lot of talk in the media etc., but this thing I found about Hong Kong's education is so compelling. Could it be that their civic knowledge scores are simply an offshoot of the excellent education system? I.e., with a good system, good leaders, good teachers, you just simply produce all rounded good students? Who are good in this and that and including political knowledge. Could the answer be so simple? How can we find out the truth behind this? God please give me divine wisdom to seek the truth.

"The most important personal characteristic interviewers must have is a genuine interest in other people. They must be deeply aware that other peoples' stories are of worth in and of themselves as well and for the usefulness of what they offer to interviewer's research. With a temperament that finds interest in others, a persona has the foundation upon which to learn the techniques of interviewing and to practice its skills."

- Irving Seidman

Resistance to change and new ideas

I think it's only natural to resist, unless one has been trained to embrace. Resistance is a form of self-protection, a protection of beliefs, of values, of comfort. Only someone exposed to new ideas, open to change, humble to know what one thinks and is convicted of may not be the best, and has the practice of acceptance, can be excited about change.

What is our first response when we hear about new. ideas very different from what we are used to?

When the calculator was introduced into the syllabus, many responded with, "How can? Then, the kids will not be able to do mental sums! What if there isn't any calculator??"

When the electronic dictionary was introduced into the Chinese syllabus, many responded with, "What lucky kids, we never had this in our time, but... Shouldn't they learn how to write words by hard, instead of enlisting the help of an electronic device?"

When one is first exposed to open book exams... "What? Open book?"

Hmmmm... now that I read a paper....

"Assessment tasks should be conducted under normal working conditions, and presume student access to resources such as calculators, computers, texts and consultants."
(Ruthven, Kenneth. 1994. Better Judgment: Rethinking Assessment in Mathematics Education. Educational Studies in Mathematics 27:433-450. page 441)

It makes very much sense. :)

I still recall my University Profs trying to convince me of this. It's okay, you're graded, and it's okay to discuss, surf the net, check your textbook for the answers.

How can one know if a student is truly learning?

If I give out exercises for a child to do and she gets them all right, does that mean she has the depth of knowledge I planned to develop in her? Or could she have copied? How do I know?

If a child gets some wrong, do I know what he doesn't know? How can I help him develop the conceptual knowledge required to solve the question? Is a cross on his worksheet enough? Is teaching how to do the question one more time enough? Is asking his peer to teach him how to do enough? Is some written comments sufficient? What can I do to help him learn?

What kind of information or evidence do I need to collect to tell me whether a child is truly learning or not? How do I gather it? Through assessment, through dialogue.

What is the heart of formative assessment?

Maybe that's why there's this dissatisfaction.

I'm searching for meaning.

But... Even if there's no meaning I can see as yet, I don't want work to be a joyless affair.

I think, I do not consider research, because I have not find a worthier enough (to me) topic to pursue.

I think academia becomes very meaningless when one pursues it not so because of the burning passion to find the answer to a question, but as a job to produce papers.

Every time I find it's a paper-producing job and there's no real world good in a paper, I am turned off.

There's just this void without the meaning part.