FAQ: GLOSSARY

[interteach]

No your just wrong.

[PsyGuy]

No, we disagree, mainly because your wrong.

[Heliotrope]

interteach wrote:
> I find a correlation between
> those who need to rely on technical jargon and lack of actual expertise.


I've seen this correlation as well, especially at some of the ISs at the start of my career.

If I remember correctly, @PsyGuy also doesn't like technical jargon either, as he stated in another thread where he said he didn't like leadership and ITs using too much IB terminology, and that knowing ATLs and IB learner profile traits doesn't say anything about an IT's expertise.

I guess we all disagree, some even with themselves.

[GrumblesMcGee]

Heliotrope wrote:
> I guess we all disagree, some even with themselves.

This is really what makes the PsyGuy phenomenon so perplexing. On one hand, I tip my hat to him not only for knowing his stuff in some areas (e.g., certification), but for taking the time to help people. It's worthy of recognition.

On the other, there's this trollish contradiction within him. It comes out when he stubbornly digs in on matters of where reasonable people can differ (often when he's outside of his wheelhouse, too). But that's still somewhat consistent with a "helpful" person, albeit one lacking people skills (a friend of mine would crassly characterize this as "on the spectrum").

The real contradiction is seen in the writing itself. For someone who clearly has a decent brain, teaching experience, and knows how to use a computer, there's scant attention to making his points accessible. You see it in the turgid grammar and spelling (perhaps not a choice, though he could make the choice to proofread a bit). And you see it in the obsession with jargon and abbreviations. Anyone who's spent a moment thinking about technical jargon knows it creates barriers to understanding--the opposite of jargon's intended purpose (clarity and economy of communication). There's no ticking clock when it comes to writing a post. There's no ink to buy or character limit to bump up against. There's the fraction of a second one saves writing "BOS" instead of "Boston" and the resulting extra time each reader spends trying to decode (plus the downside of some readers never accurately decoding and/or giving up).

I'm all for readability and convenience. I'll concede there are a good dozen or so acronyms that can/should be used freely here. And for specific posts, break out others by introducing them upon first use, e.g.: "This is particularly an issue for Overseas Trained Teachers (OTTs)..."

I almost expect PsyGuy to fire back with something like "accessibility is irrelevant, only data matters," or some other dodge that belies the fact that he's spending time (ostensibly) trying to help people while simultaneously making choices that undermines that assistance. But maybe that's just the enigma that he is.

Oh, and they're pretentious. At least the way he uses them--whether it's his intent or not.

[PsyGuy]

@Heliotrope

I still dont like leadership and ITs using too much IB terminology, and that knowing ATLs and IB learner profile traits doesn't say anything about an IT's expertise. Thees terminology with utility and then theres terminology that doesnt have utility.

@GrumblesMcGee

I find my position sufficient strong to withstand debate. If I was so disposed to creating barriers, why would I create a glossary and explain terms when asked.
Introducing them on first use is not very helpful, its a minority of readers that will go back to read previous posts on common topics. Searching for "Glossary" takes less than a minute.

OTT is an acronym used by the TCL/TRA, its their term, you can find it here:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/qualified-t ... status-qts
First use is under "Teachers trained or recognized in Scotland or Northern Ireland"

Accessibility is irrelevant, only data matters, as is whether theyre pretentious or not, reasonable people can differ, and we appear to disagree.

[Heliotrope]

PsyGuy wrote:
> I still dont like leadership and ITs using too much IB terminology

Makes sense, since you don't like:
- leadership
- IB

Maybe if they hand out a glossary with all the IB terms, it would be ok though?

[PsyGuy]

@Heliotrope

I like both leadership and IB. They actually have a laminated card on IB terminology.

[Heliotrope]

PsyGuy wrote:
> I like both leadership and IB.

Well, it hasn't shown until now. But glad to read that you do though.

[PsyGuy]

@Heliotrope

Ive often commented that I love the IBs Koolaid. Do you have a post to cite where I state I dont like leadership? Otherwise Im not responsible for your interpretation or impressions.

[Heliotrope]

No need to cite a specific post. I only post from experience, research, and reliable and trusted sources.

[PsyGuy]

@Heliotrope

I not responsible for your interpretations or impressions.

[Heliotrope]

No 'interpretations or impressions', but experience, research, and reliable and trusted sources. Only data matters.

[PsyGuy]

@Heliotrope

No, your the source of the data and yours is wrong.

[Heliotrope]

No, they're trusted and reliable.

[PsyGuy]

@Heliotrope

No, we disagree