Recently, I revisited two fascinating films, ‘Moneyball’ and ‘Trouble with the Curve,’ released just a year apart. Their contrasting views on the role of technology and human judgment in decision-making got me thinking about similar dynamics in educational technology.
‘Moneyball,’ with its emphasis on data-driven strategies, is a testament to how analytics can redefine traditional practices. In contrast, ‘Trouble with the Curve’ advocates for the irreplaceable value of human intuition and experience, reminding us that not everything can be quantified.
In the realm of education, this dichotomy is particularly relevant. As we integrate digital tools in classrooms, the question arises: How do we strike the right balance between technology and the human element? While technology can enhance efficiency and access to information, it cannot replace the nuanced understanding and personal touch that educators bring.
This leads to a broader reflection on the role of technology in our lives. Technology, undoubtedly, has revolutionized how we learn, communicate, and interact. However, it’s essential to remember that it’s a tool to augment our capabilities, not replace them. In education, this means leveraging technology to support and enhance teaching, not to overshadow the critical role of teachers.
As we continue to navigate this tech-driven era, it’s crucial to remember the value of human judgment and intuition. In the intersection of technology and education, let’s aim for a harmonious balance where tech supports and elevates the human experience, not diminishes it.
In the field of education, there’s a compelling need for solutions that not only address challenges but also simplify processes. Bill Gates encapsulated this concept brilliantly: “I choose a lazy person to do a hard job. Because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it.”
This quote isn’t a nod to laziness; it’s an ode to efficiency and simplicity. It’s particularly relevant in education, where complex problems often demand elegantly simple solutions.
Why is this significant? In education, our decisions and solutions have direct and tangible impacts on both teachers and students. Complexity in educational strategies, methods, or tools can often lead to confusion or reluctance, while simplicity fosters accessibility, engagement, and effective learning.
For instance, consider the introduction of new teaching methodologies or assessment techniques. Their success doesn’t hinge on their complexity but on how easily they can be integrated into the existing educational framework. They should feel like a natural extension of the teaching and learning process, not an overwhelming addition.
This philosophy is crucial when evaluating any new initiative in education, be it policy changes, curriculum redesign, or the introduction of supporting technologies. The ideal solutions (lazy solutions) are those that are user-friendly, efficient and easily adaptable, enhancing the educational experience without adding unnecessary layers of complexity.
Drawing from Gates’ wisdom, we’re reminded of the importance of seeking simplicity in our problem-solving approaches. In education, our aim should not just be to solve problems but to do so in a manner that simplifies and enriches the educational journey for all involved. That’s the essence of true educational innovation and effectiveness.
In the realm of organizational behavior, two humorous yet insightful principles stand out: The Dilbert Principle and The Peter Principle. Both offer unique takes on the dynamics of corporate hierarchies, but how do they differ?
The Peter Principle, coined by Dr. Laurence J. Peter in 1969, posits that “in a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence.” In simpler terms, people get promoted based on their current job performance until they reach a position where they’re no longer competent. The result? A corporate structure filled with employees who are out of their depth.
On the other hand, The Dilbert Principle, introduced by cartoonist Scott Adams, takes a slightly more cynical view. It suggests that companies tend to promote their least competent employees to management positions to limit the damage they can do. In the world of Dilbert, it’s not about rising to your level of incompetence; it’s about being strategically placed there.
While both principles paint a bleak picture of corporate promotions, they offer valuable insights. The Peter Principle warns organizations of the dangers of promoting solely based on current performance without considering the skills needed for the next role. The Dilbert Principle, meanwhile, serves as a satirical reminder that sometimes, management decisions can be baffling.
In conclusion, while both principles approach the topic with humor, they serve as cautionary tales. Organizations must be mindful of their promotion strategies to ensure that they’re placing the right people in the right roles for the right reasons.
While both principles shed light on organizational inefficiencies, they offer different perspectives on the dynamics of promotions. In essence, while Peter’s principle warns of the dangers of promoting based on past performance, Dilbert’s highlights the irony of corporate decision-making.
In the realm of personal and professional endeavors, there’s a delicate balance between doing, not doing, and overdoing. Many of us are familiar with the first two, but it’s the third that often trips us up. Overdoing can be just as detrimental as not doing at all, especially when it comes to self-promotion.
I recall an incident from my college days that perfectly encapsulates this. A group of enthusiastic students decided to create a video on the very topic of “do, don’t, overdo.” They had the right intentions, aiming to educate their peers on the importance of moderation. However, in their zeal, they overdid the production, adding flashy graphics, dramatic music, and an overly lengthy script. The message was lost amidst the razzmatazz.
A lot of people have intuited that in the future we will be forced to live indoors, it spawned generations of preppers.
The reason for it have all seemed to be along the lines of war, man made catastrophes. Some have pitched biological warfares. Now it seems the reason would be a pandemic. Not so exciting as a zombie apocalypse, but it certainly is dangerous enough to force us into our homes.
My out take from all of this hits closer to home, I am an educator and I have always believed that we should prepare our kids for the future. When all of this occurred, we could immediately see how people with (medical) skills are in high demand. Through the ages it has always been so. But more so now that its is people who can make things, who can create, defend, heal… These are the people that matters. So what should we do?
Skills, that is what we should do. Focus on creating a generation with hands on skills. Through our TVET programmes. We have to realise that knowing how to sing won’t get food on the table. We can’t all offer conveyancing services, but those who can build those buildings, who can automate said buildings, these are the people that will always be in demand.
Let us not say anymore that TVET is a last choice. It should be our first choice in creating a future ready generation.
Was invited to the English Co-Academic Activities Think Tank Meeting couple of week back. As a result I attended a day long meeting. Main agenda of our meeting today was to discuss the concept paper of Poetry Recitation and Scrabble competition. Specifically to include the secondary schools in the competition.
After going over the concept paper back and forth so many times we finally came out with the revised concept paper. Both competition had minor changes, most of it is to ease the running of the competition and also to clarify a few issues and to address feedback from our colleagues.
Hopefully the changes are beneficial for everyone and will make the competition more enjoyable and able to achieve its objectives and aims.
Links for the concept papers are below.
*the concept papers are not considered final nor official until it is from the moe or its website, it is just here to spread the news about the 2 new categories.
Dear KFC Malaysia, Burger King Malaysia, McDonald Malaysia, Kenny Rogers Malaysia, and all other chain restaurants.
What is your SOP when your cashier doesn’t have the exact change in the register? What should they do?
Because for as long as I can remember when dealing with unavailability/shortage of 5 cents. They chose to keep quiet and instead short change me.
When confronted, they either make a shocked face (too many times) then produce the 5 cents.. or even give me extra 10 sen because they truly don’t have the 5 cents in the register. when asked what is they problem. they say it’s no fault of their own, its the bank. The bank can’t provide 5 cents to them.
All i can suggest is, change your pricing structure if you just cant get the 5 cents. Because truly its sounds so stupid, you make a tonne of profit but cant give your customer 5 cents? discount your customer the 5 cents if you have to.
Reposted to FB and forwarded via contact forms of the relevant companies.
Finally after months of waiting the official format for PT3 is here. I can only comment on the English paper format. It is almost the same as the one leaked previously. Except with a few twist. For one thing, the sample for section B which is information transfer is easier for the student versus the leaked sample. As it follows what is usually is in the text book. Another thing I noticed is the inclusion of a small section for poems and novels. Many teachers have spoken about the exclusion of literature in the leaked version.
The number of essay have also came down. If looking at the leaked sample there is a total of 3 writing tasks (50 words, 100 words and 150-200 words essay). The official format only have a 50 words short response essay, and another 120-150 words essay in section D.
All I can say that is I’m quite happy with the format. Not many repetitive task as compared with the leaked version.
Happy Chinese New Year to everybody, celebrating or not. Me I’m just enjoying the extra long holiday. Malaysians are crazy about holiday. There are 100++ days that Malaysian do not work. So how are we going to achieve that developed country status if we love holidays that much. A question to ponder on I suppose :p
One thing that I hate about this type of holidays is the jams. Its long enough that ppl wants to go back to their village/parents’ home but short enough that they all do it during the same period of time. Plus all the kenduri make it all the worst. Jams are ok to me if its in big city with multiple routes to use, but jams in small roads just don’t work for me.
Combine that with idiot drivers? Road bully? Road Hog? Hell on road! So my advice to those idiots from KL or wherever plz don’t drive as if u are still back in KL, do have some manners. Leave ur nasty habits back at wherever you call ur home/place of work/whatever.
We have enough issues coping with the jam what with u lot coming back, don’t make us sumpah2 u some more.
On that note Happy Chinese New Year, be safe on the road!