Bloggers.JDFisherOnTextbookFragmentationLogPage (r1.1 vs. r1.8)
Diffs

 <<O>>  Difference Topic JDFisherOnTextbookFragmentationLogPage (r1.8 - 02 Aug 2005 - CatherineJohnson)

META TOPICPARENT JDFisherOnTextbookFragmentation
Click here to find the comments for this topic
Line: 36 to 36




Added:
>
>

PowerPoint makes you dumb

(although, in the case of dimensional analysis, I am going to be relying on PowerPoint to make me smart)

 <<O>>  Difference Topic JDFisherOnTextbookFragmentationLogPage (r1.7 - 31 Jul 2005 - CatherineJohnson)

META TOPICPARENT JDFisherOnTextbookFragmentation
Click here to find the comments for this topic
Line: 78 to 78

I agree, and I certainly don't want to be seen to be blaming PowerPoint for 7 deaths.

Changed:
<
<
I'll also add that the 'PowerPoint makes you stupid' heading is a joke! (That's the heading used by the blog I mentioned.) I don't remotely feel that bulleted points make people stupid, and as a matter of fact I do feel that bulleted points frequently make people much more clear.
>
>
I'll also add that the 'PowerPoint makes you stupid' heading is a joke! (That's the heading used by the blog I mentioned.) I don't remotely feel that bulleted points make people stupid, and as a matter of fact I do feel that bulleted points frequently make people much more clear.

It would be extremely difficult to make sense on the web without them.






 <<O>>  Difference Topic JDFisherOnTextbookFragmentationLogPage (r1.6 - 31 Jul 2005 - CatherineJohnson)

META TOPICPARENT JDFisherOnTextbookFragmentation
Click here to find the comments for this topic
Line: 69 to 69




Added:
>
>

update 2

I'm pulling J.D.'s comment up front:

Mr. Tufte butters his bread by analyzing, among other things, the contexts under which information is presented. He is likely correct in his critique of Powerpoint as a tool for information sharing.

For anyone, even the TIMES, to suggest or insinuate that this technology was responsible for seven deaths is, I think, irresponsible.

I agree, and I certainly don't want to be seen to be blaming PowerPoint for 7 deaths.

I'll also add that the 'PowerPoint makes you stupid' heading is a joke! (That's the heading used by the blog I mentioned.) I don't remotely feel that bulleted points make people stupid, and as a matter of fact I do feel that bulleted points frequently make people much more clear.



screenplays are structure, fyi

Back when I first started out, I thought writing was good sentences if you were writing nonfiction, and good dialogue if you were writing fiction.

 <<O>>  Difference Topic JDFisherOnTextbookFragmentationLogPage (r1.5 - 31 Jul 2005 - CatherineJohnson)

META TOPICPARENT JDFisherOnTextbookFragmentation
Click here to find the comments for this topic

 <<O>>  Difference Topic JDFisherOnTextbookFragmentationLogPage (r1.4 - 31 Jul 2005 - CatherineJohnson)

META TOPICPARENT JDFisherOnTextbookFragmentation
Click here to find the comments for this topic
Line: 65 to 65

This year, Edward Tufte -- the famous theorist of information presentation -- made precisely that argument in a blistering screed called The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint. In his slim 28-page pamphlet, Tufte claimed that Microsoft's ubiquitous software forces people to mutilate data beyond comprehension. For example, the low resolution of a PowerPoint slide means that it usually contains only about 40 words, or barely eight seconds of reading. PowerPoint also encourages users to rely on bulleted lists, a ''faux analytical'' technique, Tufte wrote, that dodges the speaker's responsibility to tie his information together. And perhaps worst of all is how PowerPoint renders charts. Charts in newspapers like The Wall Street Journal contain up to 120 elements on average, allowing readers to compare large groupings of data. But, as Tufte found, PowerPoint users typically produce charts with only 12 elements. Ultimately, Tufte concluded, PowerPoint is infused with ''an attitude of commercialism that turns everything into a sales pitch.''
Changed:
<
<
(btw, these problems also inhere in writing for the web....
>
>
(btw, these are the same problems we face writing for the web....





 <<O>>  Difference Topic JDFisherOnTextbookFragmentationLogPage (r1.3 - 31 Jul 2005 - CatherineJohnson)

META TOPICPARENT JDFisherOnTextbookFragmentation
Click here to find the comments for this topic
Line: 30 to 30

writing is organizing

People tell you writing is rewriting, which is true, but the main reason for all the rewriting is that what writing really is, is organizing. Ed had this insight today when I read him a line from a terrific critique of constructivism by two cognitive scientists, and it was a Brand New Thought for both of us. More on this later.
Changed:
<
<
In the meantime, I can tell you that I've had a visceral understanding of just how dangerous unprioritized content is ever since I listened to Temple's stories about what happens to animals in a meatpacking plant once the employees have lost sight of the difference between the big stuff and the small stuff. More on that later, too.
>
>
In the meantime, I can tell you that I've had a visceral understanding of just how dangerous unprioritized content is ever since I listened to Temple's stories about what happens to animals in a meatpacking plant once the employees have lost sight of the difference between the big stuff and the small stuff.

More on that later, too.




PowerPoint makes you dumb

Line: 44 to 47

Getting back to children and math, a severely fragmented textbook is going to be at a bare minimum a catastrophic obstacle to learning.

Of that, I'm sure.

Added:
>
>



update

I've just tracked down Edwart Tufte's long essay, The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint.

And a blog called The Talent Show has a lengthy excerpt from the TIMES article on PowerPoint's role in the Columbia disaster that's worth quoting in full here, too:

In August, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board at NASA released Volume 1 of its report on why the space shuttle crashed. As expected, the ship's foam insulation was the main cause of the disaster. But the board also fingered another unusual culprit: PowerPoint, Microsoft's well-known ''slideware'' program.

Added:
>
>
NASA, the board argued, had become too reliant on presenting complex information via PowerPoint, instead of by means of traditional ink-and-paper technical reports. When NASA engineers assessed possible wing damage during the mission, they presented the findings in a confusing PowerPoint slide -- so crammed with nested bullet points and irregular short forms that it was nearly impossible to untangle. ''It is easy to understand how a senior manager might read this PowerPoint slide and not realize that it addresses a life-threatening situation,'' the board sternly noted.

PowerPoint is the world's most popular tool for presenting information. There are 400 million copies in circulation, and almost no corporate decision takes place without it. But what if PowerPoint is actually making us stupider?

This year, Edward Tufte -- the famous theorist of information presentation -- made precisely that argument in a blistering screed called The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint. In his slim 28-page pamphlet, Tufte claimed that Microsoft's ubiquitous software forces people to mutilate data beyond comprehension. For example, the low resolution of a PowerPoint slide means that it usually contains only about 40 words, or barely eight seconds of reading. PowerPoint also encourages users to rely on bulleted lists, a ''faux analytical'' technique, Tufte wrote, that dodges the speaker's responsibility to tie his information together. And perhaps worst of all is how PowerPoint renders charts. Charts in newspapers like The Wall Street Journal contain up to 120 elements on average, allowing readers to compare large groupings of data. But, as Tufte found, PowerPoint users typically produce charts with only 12 elements. Ultimately, Tufte concluded, PowerPoint is infused with ''an attitude of commercialism that turns everything into a sales pitch.''

(btw, these problems also inhere in writing for the web....



screenplays are structure, fyi

Changed:
<
<
Back when I first started writing I thought writing was good sentences if you were writing nonfiction, and good dialogue if you were writing fiction.
>
>
Back when I first started out, I thought writing was good sentences if you were writing nonfiction, and good dialogue if you were writing fiction.

Wrong.

Line: 63 to 87

In The Screenwriter's Workbook, Syd Field seconds Goldman. "Structure is the most important element in the screenplay. It is the force that holds everything together; it is the skeleton, the spine, the foundation."
Changed:
<
<
People look at Saxon Math and think it's prosaic or too sliced-and-diced into bite-sized pieces.
>
>
People look at Saxon Math and think it's prosaic, obvious, behaviorist.

But what's brilliant about Saxon is mostly invisible.


 <<O>>  Difference Topic JDFisherOnTextbookFragmentationLogPage (r1.2 - 31 Jul 2005 - CatherineJohnson)

META TOPICPARENT JDFisherOnTextbookFragmentation
Click here to find the comments for this topic

Changed:
<
<
J.D. Fisher of MathandText left a comment today that reminded me I'd wanted to point people to his posts on textbook fragmentation, which is a HUGE, documented factor in bad math ed here in the U.S.
>
>
J.D. Fisher of MathandText left a comment today that reminded me I'd wanted to point people to his post on textbook fragmentation, which is a HUGE, documented factor in bad math ed here in the U.S.


One reason publishers maintain a great deal of fragmentation in elementary basal mathematics texts, for instance, is that such a structure allows adoption committees and other, similar decision-making bodies, to quickly judge, with great confidence, that a text has indeed covered all of the requisite state standards.
Line: 29 to 30

writing is organizing

People tell you writing is rewriting, which is true, but the main reason for all the rewriting is that what writing really is, is organizing. Ed had this insight today when I read him a line from a terrific critique of constructivism by two cognitive scientists, and it was a Brand New Thought for both of us. More on this later.
Changed:
<
<
In the meantime, I can tell you that I've had a gut-level understanding of just how dangerous unprioritized content is ever since I listened to Temple's stories about what happens to animals in a meatpacking plant when the employees have lost sight of the difference between the big stuff and the small stuff. More on that later, too.
>
>
In the meantime, I can tell you that I've had a visceral understanding of just how dangerous unprioritized content is ever since I listened to Temple's stories about what happens to animals in a meatpacking plant once the employees have lost sight of the difference between the big stuff and the small stuff. More on that later, too.



PowerPoint makes you dumb

Line: 44 to 45

Of that, I'm sure.

Added:
>
>

screenplays are structure, fyi

Back when I first started writing I thought writing was good sentences if you were writing nonfiction, and good dialogue if you were writing fiction.

Wrong.

SCREENPLAYS ARE STRUCTURE," shouts William Goldman in Adventures in the Screen Trade. "The essential opening labor a screenwriter must execute is, of course, deciding what the proper structure should be for the particular screenplay you are writing."

This, he believes, is "the single most important lesson to be learned about writing for films... Yes, nifty dialog helps one hell of a lot; sure, it's nice if you can bring your characters to life. But you can have terrific characters spouting just swell talk to each other, and if the structure is unsound, forget it."

Real Craft

He's right.

And, on the same page, here's Syd Field:

In The Screenwriter's Workbook, Syd Field seconds Goldman. "Structure is the most important element in the screenplay. It is the force that holds everything together; it is the skeleton, the spine, the foundation."

People look at Saxon Math and think it's prosaic or too sliced-and-diced into bite-sized pieces.


Added:
>
>
But what's brilliant about Saxon is mostly invisible.

Added:
>
>
It's the structure.


 <<O>>  Difference Topic JDFisherOnTextbookFragmentationLogPage (r1.1 - 31 Jul 2005 - CatherineJohnson)
Line: 1 to 1
Added:
>
>
META TOPICPARENT JDFisherOnTextbookFragmentation
Click here to find the comments for this topic

J.D. Fisher of MathandText left a comment today that reminded me I'd wanted to point people to his posts on textbook fragmentation, which is a HUGE, documented factor in bad math ed here in the U.S.

One reason publishers maintain a great deal of fragmentation in elementary basal mathematics texts, for instance, is that such a structure allows adoption committees and other, similar decision-making bodies, to quickly judge, with great confidence, that a text has indeed covered all of the requisite state standards.

But this structure also has the effect of 'un-prioritizing' content. Simple ideas and less relevant topics are given the same priority and the same space as more robust, more relevant topics.



And check out his excerpt of a 2005 math textbook's TOC:

1 Place Value Through Hundred Thousands
2 Place Value and Exponents
3 Place Value Through Hundred Billions
4 Compare, Order, and Round Whole Numbers
5 Place Value Through Thousandths
6 Problem-Solving Strategy: Find a Pattern
7 Compare, Order, and Round Decimals

The blue lessons (with the possible exception of Lesson 2) represent the exact same concept applied to larger and larger--and then much smaller--numbers. The red lessons are also closely related, but are separated by two somewhat unrelated lessons.



writing is organizing

People tell you writing is rewriting, which is true, but the main reason for all the rewriting is that what writing really is, is organizing. Ed had this insight today when I read him a line from a terrific critique of constructivism by two cognitive scientists, and it was a Brand New Thought for both of us. More on this later.

In the meantime, I can tell you that I've had a gut-level understanding of just how dangerous unprioritized content is ever since I listened to Temple's stories about what happens to animals in a meatpacking plant when the employees have lost sight of the difference between the big stuff and the small stuff. More on that later, too.

PowerPoint makes you dumb

(although, in the case of dimensional analysis, I am going to be relying on PowerPoint to make me smart)

I have zero time at this moment (or possibly ever) to read Edward Tufte's discussion of Boeing's PowerPoint presentation on the space shuttle Columbia, but I'm hoping maybe J.D. will take a look and fill us in. As I understand it, Tufte argues that PowerPoint's built-in bulleting structure equalized or even 'unprioritized' the 'possible tile damage.' That's my impression.

Whether or not I've got the jist, I can easily imagine a poorly structured, unprioritizing report resulting in catastophic failure. Easily.

Getting back to children and math, a severely fragmented textbook is going to be at a bare minimum a catastrophic obstacle to learning.

Of that, I'm sure.

-- CatherineJohnson - 31 Jul 2005

Back to: Main Page.


Topic: JDFisherOnTextbookFragmentationLogPage . { View | Diffs | r1.8 | > | r1.7 | > | r1.6 | More }

Revision r1.1 - 31 Jul 2005 - 01:15 - CatherineJohnson
Revision r1.8 - 02 Aug 2005 - 16:08 - CatherineJohnson