MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W302125167

Primer on Success: Character and Knowledge Make the Difference

2013· article· en· W302125167 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueEducation next · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésArgument (complex analysis)DisadvantagedPsychologyPovertySociologySocial psychologyLawPolitical science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Children Succeed: Grit, Curiosity, and Hidden Power of By Paul Tough Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2012, $27; 256 pages. As reviewed by E. D. Hirsch Jr. Paul Tough follows his excellent book about Geoffrey Canada and Harlem Children's Zone with one on improving school achievement and life chances of disadvantaged children. The title is Children Succeed, and chapter heads continue how-to motif of title: 1. to Fail (and Not To). 2. to Build Character. 3. to Think. 4. to Succeed. 5. A Better Path. If book really delivered on these headings, Tough would deserve immense success. I hope book does sell well, though perhaps not too well. Its ultimate message is that non-cognitive abilities and traits are more important to success than mere academic achievement, and that message, while containing important truths, is overstated. [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] Tough gathers scientific results and personal observations from a number of estimable sources among researchers and practitioners, all supporting idea that what really determines success is character and perseverance rather than raw intelligence and book learning. At same time, he shows that what truly handicaps a child is horrible early upbringing and neglect. The term of art for permanent psychic damage done is ACE: Adverse Childhood Experiences. This, by now well-attested finding is best argument for intrusion of outsiders into homes of neglectful or cruel caregivers, and it is best explanation for observation that poverty accompanies lower achievement all over world. This poverty argument (it's not Tough's) is also oversimplified, since, as PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) reports show, some parts of world diminish poverty-achievement correlation far more than U.S., through better schooling. What connects ACE segment of book (How to Fail) with more positive themes is common non-cognitive feature. How to Build Character takes off from successful KIPP schools and their emphasis on good manners and perseverance. The chapter goes on to show that a certain kind of test requiring no academic knowledge, only a willingness to persist in a boring task, is, other things equal, highly predictive of later success. How to Think focuses on middle-school chess players from a low-income school manage consistently to beat advantaged students and even highschool chess teams. Focus and practice are keys. In other words, perseverance and hard work are how to think. And How to Succeed? Also perseverance and hard work. No one would or should dispute importance of diligence and perseverance. Classic texts on education such as Plato's Republic and Locke's Some Thoughts Concerning Education emphasize that character development and virtue are far more important educational goals than mere acquisition of knowledge. At same time, those writers are quite explicit in setting forth breadth of knowledge children need to acquire. If Tough had updated that both/and tradition with latest reports from field, he would have no argument from me. But he takes view that an emphasis on knowledge acquisition, which he calls the cognitive hypothesis, has been tried and it has failed. Here is what he has to say in his introduction: In past decade, and especially in past few years, a disparate congregation of economists, educators, psychologists and neuroscientists have begun to produce evidence that call into question many of assumptions behind cognitive hypothesis. What matters most in a child's development, they say, is not much information we can stuff into her brain in first few years. What matters instead is whether we are able to help her develop a very different set of qualities, a list that includes persistence, self-control, curiosity, conscientiousness, grit, and self-confidence. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,583
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,039
Tête enseignante GPT0,342
Écart entre enseignants0,303 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle