(토요모임) [July, 2, 2016] Saturday meeting topic

[Scarlet]

Howdy ! 

It's me Scarlett !   

This week we have 3 topics. 

◈ Education : How to make a good teacher

◈ Well-being : The Muddled Science of Internet Gaming Disorder

◈ Work : Entrepreneurs - Are You Addicted To Work?

Hope you enjoy the topics. 

With luv 

Scarlett 

---

How to make a good teacher

What matters in schools is teachers. Fortunately, teaching can be taught

Jun 11th 2016 | From the print edition

FORGET smart uniforms and small classes. The secret to stellar grades and thriving students is teachers. One American study found that in a single year’s teaching the top 10% of teachers impart three times as much learning to their pupils as the worst 10% do. Another suggests that, if black pupils were taught by the best quarter of teachers, the gap between their achievement and that of white pupils would disappear. 

But efforts to ensure that every teacher can teach are hobbled by the tenacious myth that good teachers are born, not made. Classroom heroes like Robin Williams in “Dead Poets Society” or Michelle Pfeiffer in “Dangerous Minds” are endowed with exceptional, innate inspirational powers. Government policies, which often start from the same assumption, seek to raise teaching standards by attracting high-flying graduates to join the profession and prodding bad teachers to leave. Teachers’ unions, meanwhile, insist that if only their members were set free from central diktat, excellence would follow.

The premise that teaching ability is something you either have or don’t is mistaken. A new breed of teacher-trainers is founding a rigorous science of pedagogy. The aim is to make ordinary teachers great, just as sports coaches help athletes of all abilities to improve their personal best (see article). Done right, this will revolutionise schools and change lives.

Quis docebit ipsos doctores?

Education has a history of lurching from one miracle solution to the next. The best of them even do some good. Teach for America, and the dozens of organisations it has inspired in other countries, have brought ambitious, energetic new graduates into the profession. And dismissing teachers for bad performance has boosted results in Washington, DC, and elsewhere. But each approach has its limits. Teaching is a mass profession: it cannot grab all the top graduates, year after year. When poor teachers are fired, new ones are needed—and they will have been trained in the very same system that failed to make fine teachers out of their predecessors.

By contrast, the idea of improving the average teacher could revolutionise the entire profession. Around the world, few teachers are well enough prepared before being let loose on children. In poor countries many get little training of any kind. A recent report found 31 countries in which more than a quarter of primary-school teachers had not reached (minimal) national standards. In rich countries the problem is more subtle. Teachers qualify following a long, specialised course. This will often involve airy discussions of theory—on ecopedagogy, possibly, or conscientisation (don’t ask). Some of these courses, including masters degrees in education, have no effect on how well their graduates’ pupils end up being taught.

What teachers fail to learn in universities and teacher-training colleges they rarely pick up on the job. They become better teachers in their first few years as they get to grips with real pupils in real classrooms, but after that improvements tail off. This is largely because schools neglect their most important pupils: teachers themselves. Across the OECD club of mostly rich countries, two-fifths of teachers say they have never had a chance to learn by sitting in on another teacher’s lessons; nor have they been asked to give feedback on their peers. 

Those who can, learn

If this is to change, teachers need to learn how to impart knowledge and prepare young minds to receive and retain it. Good teachers set clear goals, enforce high standards of behaviour and manage their lesson time wisely. They use tried-and-tested instructional techniques to ensure that all the brains are working all of the time, for example asking questions in the classroom with “cold calling” rather than relying on the same eager pupils to put up their hands.

Instilling these techniques is easier said than done. With teaching as with other complex skills, the route to mastery is not abstruse theory but intense, guided practice grounded in subject-matter knowledge and pedagogical methods. Trainees should spend more time in the classroom. The places where pupils do best, for example Finland, Singapore and Shanghai, put novice teachers through a demanding apprenticeship. In America high-performing charter schools teach trainees in the classroom and bring them on with coaching and feedback.

Teacher-training institutions need to be more rigorous—rather as a century ago medical schools raised the calibre of doctors by introducing systematic curriculums and providing clinical experience. It is essential that teacher-training colleges start to collect and publish data on how their graduates perform in the classroom. Courses that produce teachers who go on to do little or nothing to improve their pupils’ learning should not receive subsidies or see their graduates become teachers. They would then have to improve to survive.

Big changes are needed in schools, too, to ensure that teachers improve throughout their careers. Instructors in the best ones hone their craft through observation and coaching. They accept critical feedback—which their unions should not resist, but welcome as only proper for people doing such an important job. The best head teachers hold novices’ hands by, say, giving them high-quality lesson plans and arranging for more experienced teachers to cover for them when they need time for further study and practice.

Money is less important than you might think. Teachers in top-of-the-class Finland, for example, earn about the OECD average. But ensuring that the best stay in the classroom will probably, in most places, mean paying more. People who thrive in front of pupils should not have to become managers to earn a pay rise. And more flexibility on salaries would make it easier to attract the best teachers to the worst schools.

Improving the quality of the average teacher would raise the profession’s prestige, setting up a virtuous cycle in which more talented graduates clamoured to join it. But the biggest gains will come from preparing new teachers better, and upgrading the ones already in classrooms. The lesson is clear; it now just needs to be taught. 

Article source : http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21700383-what-matters-schools-teachers-fortunately-teaching-can-be-taught-how-make-good?linkId=25861131

---

<Questions>

Q1. What is required to be a good teacher? 

Q2. Did you watch the movie “Dead Poets Society(1989)”? What was the most impressive scene to you ? 

Q3. Do you think that John Keating(Robin Williams) in “Dead Poets Society” was a good teacher? Why? or why not?

John Keating: Now we all have a great need for acceptance, but you must trust that your beliefs are unique, your own, even though others may think them odd or unpopular, even though the herd may go,

[imitating a goat]

John Keating: "that's baaaaad." Robert Frost said, "Two roads diverged in the wood and I, I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference."

Q4. From the movie above, Robin Williams was described as follows. "He was their inspiration. He made their lives extraordinary." If you have your kids, would you send him/ her to this teacher?

Q5. When looking back your school days, who was the most impressive teacher to you? Why? 

Q6. What is the most important qualities for your kids' teacher? 

---

The Muddled Science of Internet Gaming Disorder

 03/10/2016 10:57 am ET

Christopher J. Ferguson 

Associate Professor of Psychology, Stetson University

LITE PRODUCTIONS VIA GETTY IMAGES

Gradually, society seems to be adjusting to the idea that video games are here to stay and that they did not usher in the societal apocalypse as augured by some scholars, politicians and activists in the early 2000s. But we still have some residual issues seeping from the video game moral panic. One of these is the cluttered mess of a thing being called “Internet Gaming Disorder.”

Introduced as a potential category for further study (i.e. it’s not an official diagnosis yet) by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in 2013, Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD) corresponds to what people often call “video game addiction.” The premise of IGD is that, for some users, playing video games can become problematic to the point that they interfere with basic life functioning. Taken to its moral panic extreme, we see some clinicians and scholars claim that video games are as addictive as heroin. Such claims are patently absurd, but they thrive in a vacuum of good, sensible data and high-quality research.

The problem for IGD is that scholars who study it disagree on even basic things such as what to call it. Almost nobody called it Internet Gaming Disorder until the APA did... why “internet gaming”... is gaming offline ok, or obsessive internet use ok so long as games aren’t involved? But scholars don’t agree on what symptoms constitute IGD, how to measure it (there are literally dozens of very different surveys in existence to measure IGD), whether it’s a unique syndrome or symptomatic of other underlying problems such as depression or ADHD, how preval‎ent it is, or the degree to which our focus on this issue constitutes a real concern or is merely an offshoot of the larger video game panic. Unfortunately, although many studies have been done on IGD, many of them quite good, the overall picture is so contradictory the end result is, in technical terms, a hot mess.

Perhaps the biggest problem is that, early on, many scholars made a critical error in assuming that the symptoms for substance abuse disorders could just be ported over and used for IGD. Remove “heroin” from the symptom and stick in “video games.” This seems to have removed the necessity of doing actual, careful epidemiological research on real people with real problems. And once this choice was made, the field seems to have gone further and further down the rabbit hole. Dr. Daniel Kardefelt-Winther of Sweden’s Karolinska Institutet recently discussed the problems with this decision in a paper in the journal Addiction Research and Theory. The result is a set of diagnostic criteria that lack validity and clinical utility. 

Consider, for example the criteria involving using games to escape a negative mood. In a survey it might be put this way: “I use X in order to make myself feel better when I am depressed or anxious.” Sure, if X = heroin, this is a bad thing, right? However, we all use hobbies to improve our mood. So if X = golf, or crocheting or gardening, or, indeed, video games, it’s less clear this is a relevant symptom.

The criterion involving a loss of interest in other hobbies is similarly problematic. We all regularly exchange one hobby for another as we go through life. Again, if you stop crocheting in order to use methamphetamine, sure, very, very bad. To stop crocheting to play more video games? Less bad, maybe even good. Thinking about gaming when not gaming is another good example of a bad diagnostic criteria. Many people who are deeply into their hobbies... golf, SCUBA, extreme sports, etc., do exactly this. Why is it bad when it’s video games?

The problem with criteria such as these is obvious... they pathologize normal behavior, drive preval‎ence estimates spuriously high and render the disorder into something of limited clinical value. Despite this (or perhaps because spuriously high preval‎ence estimates attract a lot of attention), the field has been remarkably reluctant to let go of such dubious criteria and focus exclusively on important ones like, you know, not going to work or school because you’re gaming. Studies that focus on the degree to which games actually interfere with other life responsibilities suggest that IGD is relatively rare, perhaps 1-3% of gamers, but scholars and studies using the more dubious criteria often quote absurdly high figures in the 8-10% range. These get scary headlines but have little basis in good science.

Although it’s probably the case that a small number of gamers may see problems develop from their gaming behaviors, it’s not clear that this is something that arises uniquely from video games, or is the product of an underlying disorder. For instance, in a recent study I conducted with child psychiatrist Atilla Ceranoglu at Massachusetts General Hospital, we found that ADHD symptoms predicted later video game addition, but not vice versa. In other words, mental health problems tend to predate IGD. Some scholars might reasonably counter that, even if this is so, problematic gaming can make preexisting mental health symptoms worse. Fair enough, but that is the case for a lot of problem behaviors arising from mental health issues, and nothing unique to gaming. For instance many people with depression may experience fatigue, then stay in bed much longer than they intended too. Staying in bed for long hours, in turn, may make them feel even more depressed. But we wouldn’t say they have “Bed Addiction.”

There is, in fact, a complete lack of evidence to suggest there’s anything unique about video games warranting their own diagnostic category. It’s well known that many behaviors: sex, food, work, exercise, religion, etc., can become problematic when indulged in excess. Why video games and why now? I could see the rationale for a general “behavioral addiction” category, but in the absence of good evidence, it seems most probable the APA is indulging the moral panic over video games. Too bad they’re late to that party, though, as that panic appears finally to be waning.

Article source : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-j-ferguson/the-muddled-science-of-internet-gaming-disorder_b_9405478.html

---

<Questions>

Q1. Do you know the concept of internet gaming disorder? 

Q2. Do you prefer indoor activities and outdoor activities? What is your favorite activity? 

Q3. Do you enjoy playing game? How long do you play? 

Q4. Do you think you are addicted to playing games? 

Q5. Please compare the advantages and disadvantages of playing game. 

---

Entrepreneurs: Are You Addicted To Work?

JUN 27, 2016 @ 08:00 AM 

David K. Williams/ CONTRIBUTOR

These days we see stories about being addicted to everything. Some addictions, such as alcohol and drug use are deadly serious and business owners must address them with care. For example, in 2014 an estimated 2 million Americans were dependent on prescription opioids, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  “Every 19 minutes someone dies from accidental drug overdose,” according to Dr. Sanjay Gupta. “Most of the time it is from prescription drugs.”

But beyond these life- and career-threatening addictions lay the softer addictions. Shopping. Online gaming. Some require professional treatment, and others may simply be habits or tendencies that people refer to in joking as if they were a figure of speech, such as “I’m addicted to exercise.” Or “I’m addicted to chocolate, you know.”

However, many entrepreneurs have heard or have even stated, “You’re an entrepreneur? A senior executive? Then you’re probably addicted to work.”

Is an addiction to work really possible? And is it serious?

Not every habit or tendency is a negative thing.

A set of researchers from the University of Bergin in Norway recently set out to determine how many people are genuinely and perhaps even dangerously addicted to work. They developed a Bergen Work Addiction Scale and tested 12,135 Norwegian employees from 25 different industries. The scale reflects the seven core elements of addiction: Salience, mood modification, tolerance, withdrawal, conflict, relapse and problems.

In fact, for those who are interested, you can take the Bergen Work Addiction Scale yourself to identify whether you are non-addicted, mildly addicted or a full-on workaholic.

The Bergen Scale uses seven basic criteria to identify work addiction by scoring responses to the statements on the scale of (1) Never, (2) Rarely, (3) Sometimes, (4) Often, and (5) Always, as follows:

1. You think of how you can free up more time to work.
2. You spend much more time working than initially intended.
3. You work in order to reduce feelings of guilt, anxiety, helplessness and depression.
4. You have been told by others to cut down on work without listening to them.
5. You become stressed if you are prohibited from working.
6. You de-prioritize hobbies, leisure activities, and exercise because of your work.
7. You work so much that it has negatively influenced your health.

This test may be a useful measuring gauge to distinguish between enthusiasm for work and a negative addiction (particularly when smartphones and laptops make it all too easy to take work with you, wherever you go). The study suggests that if you respond with “often” or “always” to at least four of the seven items, you may be a bona fide workaholic. According to these criteria, of the 12,135 employees tested, 7.8% could be legitimately addicted to work.

Here’s another twist to the Norway study: researchers found a strong correlation between workaholism and ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). In their respondent base they found that 32.7% of workaholics also met the criteria for ADHD, compared with only 12.7% of non-workaholics.

As someone who is somewhat ADHD myself, the tendency makes perfect sense. Some entrepreneurs with ADHD tendencies may use work as a positive and constructive way to focus their excess energy. This is applicable to me and also to many of the high-performing entrepreneurs I have known. Richard Branson, for example, is a highly-accomplished entrepreneur who has acknowledged that his ability to be an inspiring and highly-energetic leader is actually enhanced by his struggles with ADHD. He has found a positive outlet for his creative energy, and I would wager that the same is true for a number of others as well.

Article source : http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkwilliams/2016/06/27/entrepreneurs-are-you-addicted-to-work/#6eb223d75ae4

---

<Questions>

Q1. What is your career? How about your specific job assignment? How do you like your job? 

Q2. How long do you stay in your work place? 

Q3. Please describe your general work procedure in sequential order. 

Q4. Do you think you are you addicted to work? 

Q5. What are you doing in your spare time? Do you have any hobby? 

Q6. When you are doing work do you have a priority to do it efficiently? 

Q7. Do you have a priority in your life? 

Q8. Check out with below seven basic criteria to identify work addiction by scoring responses to the statements on the scale of (1) Never, (2) Rarely, (3) Sometimes, (4) Often, and (5) Always, as follows:

1. You think of how you can free up more time to work.
2. You spend much more time working than initially intended.
3. You work in order to reduce feelings of guilt, anxiety, helplessness and depression.
4. You have been told by others to cut down on work without listening to them.
5. You become stressed if you are prohibited from working.
6. You de-prioritize hobbies, leisure activities, and exercise because of your work.
7. You work so much that it has negatively influenced your health.

Q9. If your spouse is workaholic, how would you react to it? 

Q10. Do you think you are living a balanced life? 

[Jina]

빠르네 ㅋㅋ 토요 토픽 벌써 올리공 ㅋㅋㅋㅋ

[Scarlet]

아직 작업중임. ㅋㅋㅋ