Comments on: TESS Article 2 - Classrooms with limits http://edubuzz.org/blogs/donsblog/2007/09/08/tess-article-2-mastery-vs-belonging/ "We learn from our experience.....if we reflect upon our experience" John Dewey Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:12:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Don Ledingham http://edubuzz.org/blogs/donsblog/2007/09/08/tess-article-2-mastery-vs-belonging/#comment-8690 Don Ledingham Sun, 09 Sep 2007 15:10:33 +0000 http://edubuzz.org/blogs/donsblog/2007/09/08/tess-article-2-mastery-vs-belonging/#comment-8690 David I've made some changes to the article. David

I’ve made some changes to the article.

]]> By: Don http://edubuzz.org/blogs/donsblog/2007/09/08/tess-article-2-mastery-vs-belonging/#comment-8689 Don Sat, 08 Sep 2007 12:46:20 +0000 http://edubuzz.org/blogs/donsblog/2007/09/08/tess-article-2-mastery-vs-belonging/#comment-8689 Thank David. I agree about the bullet point list but they don't like these in articles. I was trying to drive at the fact that there is no correlation between setting and improvement in overall attainment. I'll give this more thought. Thank David. I agree about the bullet point list but they don’t like these in articles. I was trying to drive at the fact that there is no correlation between setting and improvement in overall attainment. I’ll give this more thought.

]]> By: David Gilmour http://edubuzz.org/blogs/donsblog/2007/09/08/tess-article-2-mastery-vs-belonging/#comment-8688 David Gilmour Sat, 08 Sep 2007 11:21:39 +0000 http://edubuzz.org/blogs/donsblog/2007/09/08/tess-article-2-mastery-vs-belonging/#comment-8688 The list of setting benefits might be better set out as a bulleted list, but that's just presentation. <blockquote>Please note that none of the above directly relate to any correlation between “ability” setting and attainment.</blockquote> Perhaps this could be clearer? I'm having to go over that to try to decide what you mean. For example, are you saying: "The trouble is that, where a correlation between ability setting and attainment is observed, it's never attributable to any of these factors"? Or do you mean that examination of these individual factors has shown none can be shown to lead to improved attainment? The list of setting benefits might be better set out as a bulleted list, but that’s just presentation.

Please note that none of the above directly relate to any correlation between “ability” setting and attainment.

Perhaps this could be clearer? I’m having to go over that to try to decide what you mean. For example, are you saying: “The trouble is that, where a correlation between ability setting and attainment is observed, it’s never attributable to any of these factors”? Or do you mean that examination of these individual factors has shown none can be shown to lead to improved attainment?

]]>