Do not think about, write about or deal with human behavior without determining the effects of incentives.
Hans Selye, famous for studying stress, made a point on how to distinguish a scientist from a politician, using a hypothetical party conversation. When asked what he does, the first graduate student answers, “I’m studying ion transport across semi-permeable membranes.”. The second: “I’m looking for a cure for cancer.” Noble statements do not noble achievements make.
Siegfried Engelmann and Doug Carmine have written a book, Could John Stuart Mill Save Our Schools?. Some excerpts follow. What strikes me is the minute consideration of the logical-empirical distinction. Standard textbooks are in such stark contrast they appear to have been conceived on another planet from a universe far, far away. There is no logical or empirical analysis anywhere evident. Even a little empirical from testing on a few students would help. The book is not yet published, but Chapter 6 is at zigsite.com.
“In broad terms, the first and primary analysis is logical. Questions of clarity are approached first from a logical perspective, then an empirical perspective. Is the presentation clear in terms of what we show and the discriminations we teach? In practice, the answer is never definitively yes, but rather, apparently, yes. The empirical analysis renders the final decision on clarity.”
“The logical analysis is often influenced by knowledge of empirical relationships. For instance, we have learned from extensive applications that nothing may be assumed to be taught to at-risk children unless it appears on at least three consecutive lessons. For programs that teach English to non-English speakers, at least four consecutive lessons are needed before something may be assumed to be taught. When we apply this formula to the first draft of the material, we presume that when the program is field-tested, our estimates will be confirmed. However, we remain perfectly aware that in some cases the practice estimates are wrong. They may vary in either direction—providing too much practice, or providing too little. More frequently the error is in the direction of too little practice.”
Standard public education doesn’t care about results for two reasons. The first is that education is not designed to teach things but to provide an extended IQ test, so the number of presentations is irrelevant. The second is that presentation of the material is sufficient to pretend learning has occurred. This being the case, neither the logical order nor the results matter.
So in answer to the title, Could John Stuart Mill Save Our Schools?, the answer is yes, but he won’t because there is no necessity for using anything effective.
Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies
