Humans aren't off an assembly line. We have a collection of genes which enable capabilities, and further, those genes may be expressed or not.
Little Bobby may read via 12 genes, and Pete via 14 genes, with only 10 genes identical between them.
An example ; some humans cannot tell the difference between faces. Literally, some humans do not have the genetic framework to understand concepts conveyed in certain ways.
Why would teaching, learning, be different? And when we talk to people, listen to people regarding their learning experience (such as yours), it all seems subtly different. Unique.
That's because it is.
So teaching needs to be wrapped more, IMO, in the desire to convey info, but also, in the ability to realise that lessons are going to require individual nudging no matter what.
Thus, teaching methods should be less specific about "how to teach" and more about a framework to teach.
When applied to education, this manifests as a belief that the teacher is less important to education than the textbook. The people writing the educational policy framework might understand that it's not a one-size-fits-all, but they're not allowed to write one policy per child. The teachers in a classroom environment aren't given the autonomy to teach according to their own judgement, because (in the eyes of the administration) if their judgement could be trusted then they would be writing policy instead of teaching.
Ah but if everything can be written down, why can't the whole bureaucracy be replaced by a very small shell script?
You also seem to think that "these people make the policies because they are the best at making policies for X", but again, is that right? Have you never heard of an incompetent politician?
If not, I urge you to read my comment again.
The same is true of every other aspect of human capacity, intellectual abilities included.
We are not all equally capable.
Fairness comes from knowing this, knowing that each person is somewhat different, and working to enable the best outcomes for all.
To speak to this, imagine if a teacher explained an aspect of math to a student; multiplication perhaps. In this case, the student does not understand.
Would you feel it sensible for the teacher to explain again, without deviation, without changing the lesson, precisely as before, because it worked for others? And because we are all essentially the same?
Or would you consider that an inept, cruel teacher?
>Would you feel it sensible for the teacher to explain again, without deviation, without changing the lesson, precisely as before, because it worked for others? And because we are all essentially the same?
>Or would you consider that an inept, cruel teacher?
It depends. If there are 29 other students in the class that got it just fine and the one is struggling, then I would think that the teacher would have to make a judgment about how much time to spend on that one student. Or maybe that one student needs to be in a different class with more one-on-one for a particular subject.
I am all about new pedagogy research, but over the last few thousand years, we know a few things that do tend to work for most people.
What a valid statement, you're missing my point. In the scenario I listed above, the teacher is already re-explaining the lesson again, to that specific student.
So if you read my statements in that context, the difference is -- when already repeating the lesson individually, does the teacher say precisely the same thing, word for word, or does the teacher try to explain it in a new way?
Also not my own experience as an adult learner of Japanese (which has similar symbol-pair challenges for ソ ン , シ ツ , さ ち). And it's definitely not my own memory of learning to read as a child -- to this day I remember the frustration of deciding whether "read" should rhyme with "reed" or "red", but no particular challenges with [d b] since they're easy to recall from [D B]. The worst part of learning to read/write in American elementary schools was cursive, which to do this day I can't sight-read if there's too many i/u/v/w in a row.
In fact, the only time I remember hearing letters described as "three-dimensional" or "rotating in space" is from someone with dyslexia. Maybe the author should get themselves checked?