zlacker

[parent] [thread] 3 comments
1. ndrisc+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-09-09 22:34:37
Amateurs regularly outperform professionals in schooling (they seem to perform somewhere between "at least as good" to "decently better" on average), and studies in the 80s found that 1:1 tutoring with mastery learning is wildly more effective than normal classes (with the average tutored student performing at the 98th percentile of control students).
replies(1): >>jjk166+r76
2. jjk166+r76[view] [source] 2025-09-11 17:06:02
>>ndrisc+(OP)
Would you mind providing a link to one of these studies?
replies(2): >>somena+tp7 >>ndrisc+d18
◧◩
3. somena+tp7[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-09-12 05:08:15
>>jjk166+r76
Again, I think if you simply searched for studies on these things - you'd find a million results. Here [1] is one with volunteer tutors improving student performance on the order of about 0.3 standard deviations relative to their peers.

I don't entirely understand the fetishism of expertise among a certain segment of society. Don't you realize that most of all teachers and other educational institutions are staffed by those who would be considered nominally experts? And this has even been taken to the next level by widespread adherence to a national curriculum (common core), again composed by even greater ostensible experts. And all of this has been complimented by the 5th highest spending per student in the world. And the result? Educational outcomes are falling off a cliff.

Obviously this isn't to say that anti-expertise is the answer, but rather that motivated people of reasonable intelligence and objectivity, regardless of expertise, are a [measurably] excellent source of value in just about everything. And, by contrast, expertise itself does not guarantee good results nor effective performance, especially in the context of other issues that might otherwise impair performance like large class sizes, minimal motivation, poor work environment, etc.

[1] - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291335232_The_Effec...

◧◩
4. ndrisc+d18[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-09-12 11:49:54
>>jjk166+r76
https://web.mit.edu/5.95/readings/bloom-two-sigma.pdf
[go to top]