User talk:JohnHCrossland

Welcome!

Hello, JohnHCrossland, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! --John (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

COI
Hello JohnHCrossland. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.--John (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

conflict of interest
The Let's Think group has grown out of the original research into cognitive acceleration at Kings, London. The Let's Think Managing Director and some directors continue their historical links to Kings. I own a company called John Crossland Consultancy Ltd and although I not financially attached to the Let's Think non-profit making company I pay an annual subscription for preferential access to their meetings and website. On behalf of the original editor Sarah Seleznyov I have been asked, without being paid, to update the wiki page so that she can concentrate on being a mum and holding down a full time job for London Borough to Islington. Currently, cognitive acceleration is well known across the World as an educational intervention strategy for thinking skills, particularly in science and maths. The theoretical background to cognitive acceleration is undergoing a substantial audit and review so it is pertinent to continue to update this page to inform those interested, of the outcomes of this process.JohnC (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Whether you are a paid employee or not you are too involved to edit this page without turning it into a marketing tool for a company. It is not neutral in tone, for that it needs independent references. 86.181.194.176 (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I have begun that process see the latest edit. I hope this is the right direction. 86.137.103.131 (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This article should not be about Let's think, it should be about the processs. 86.181.194.176 (talk) 10:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

But the process is changing it's name to Let' Think, mainly because teachers confuse it with the term accelerated learning which is a pedagogical approach and nothing to do with a foundation in social psychology JohnC (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No the process is being sold as Let's think. Teachers are not quite so naive as you seem to be implying. 86.147.45.83 (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Teachers are not naive but they are very busy. If I ever ask teachers about cognitive acceleration someone in the group mentions accelerated learning. So it is important the wiki page makes clear this distinction and it is the only reason Michael Shayer and Philip Adey agreed to a change of name. If you think the edits are selling rather than informing then could you give me an example of selling rather than informing so I can gain a greater insight into your concerns? JohnC (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not the job of an encyclopedia to distinguish between two products. Your own opinion and research into what teachers mistake for CA (WP:OR) is irrelevant. You are confusing the method of improving thinking skills (as researched at Kings College) with materials marketed for that purpose. It is entirely possible that another company could market a product with the same aims. After all much of the lesson plan is familiar to many teachers already. As I said, you are too involved. I didn't log in while away from home but the IPs beginning 86. were all me.J3Mrs (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. The CA approach is being updated to include the current views of neoPiagetians, Mercer's exploratory talk, post-vygotsky and supporting evidence from neuroscience. This web entry needs to describe the updates to the theoretical background and the implications for pedagogy which are nearly 30 years old. Also there is a discussion involving both Shayer and Adey about the appropriateness of the original name of the process given the confusion with Accelerated Learning originating from Cramlington High school (wiki page). I am sure you have read this page several times so it is disappointing that the messages you received were only about the surface features of lesson structure i.e. "the lesson plan is familiar to many teachers already." and not the deeper features which are responsible for the accelerated pace of learning and eventual improved performance. This seems to be several very good reasons why the current information needs a substantial revision. JohnC (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)