I don't get what his results have to do with the Fibonacci sequence. Between his "control" and the design he was testing, he changed:
1. panel heights
2. panel angles
3. whether panels were stacked or not
I would guess that any of those three things matter way more than the position of the "leaves" following the Fibonacci sequence. He needed to compare his design to a similar tree-shape whose "leaves" were, say, uniformly or randomly spaced; not to what amounted to a patch of moss.
(Which brings to mind: solar panels which were shaped more like moss (i.e. rough) would probably perform even better. I'm pretty sure I remember MIT or some place building a prototype like that.)
Finally, he measured voltage but made claims about power, which is a huge no-no for solar PV. Solar PV panels have highly nonlinear voltage/current characteristics, which means that increased voltage does not correspond to increased power, especially in setups such as the tree where the solar panels are not uniformly illuminated.
Pretty sure you're missing the point. This kid is 13, and he went and did his own research and experimentation, and followed through with a patent and a very well-written letter to the American Museum of Natural History.
My kids are younger, but I would be happy if I could give them the sort of environment/encouragement to follow their curiosity even half as well as this kid.
Oh I get the point. I hope he reads my message because that's the kind of feedback he needs, not the deluge of "oh you're so smart for a kid!" comments he's probably getting.
(Disclaimer: I get paid to teach engineering to precocious youngsters part of the year. I'm quite familiar with the demographic.)
I hope you realize then that there is much more to teaching than telling a child - no matter how precocious - "pfft, that ain't so great."
Being an asshole is never excusable. While I understand your point about not over-praising, this actually is something that few of his peers are able to do. Proper praise for the boy would be to appreciate the effort, applaud his commitment to the problem and recognize that he may be able to make the solution "better".
Once you do that you can point out areas for improvement.
I hope you realize my initial comment wasn't addressed to the child in question, or I would have e-mailed it directly to him and worded it less strongly. Rather, I intended to discuss with the HN community the technical merits of the article. (If treating his article as the work of an adult isn't praise I don't know what is!)
On a side note, I feel mildly insulted that you feel the need to tell me how to do my job. If you're interested in the intricacies of the art of teaching self-directed youth (which mostly involves understanding the child in question, and saying the right thing at the right time) I'd be glad to discuss them with you.
If you're interested in the intricacies of the art of teaching self-directed youth (which mostly involves understanding the child in question, and saying the right thing at the right time) I'd be glad to discuss them with you.
I'd love to hear about that. That is my occupation as a teacher of supplementary math lessons, and that is my daily life as a homeschooling parent. I can always afford to learn more about doing what I do better.
I'll do my best to sum up what I do. I've never put this in words before.
My modus operandi involves building a mental model of what the student knows, doesn't know, and how they think about the problem in question. Usually I do this through targeted questioning, and watching faces for signs of confusion in a group session. e.g. let's say we're working on Newtonian physics. I might take a model car with occupants, roll it along a table, and ask what happens when the car hits something. From this I can judge whether the students understand momentum.
If their mental model is wrong, next you have to break it down. How to do this varies based on how committed they are to their model -- if you challenge their views in too dramatic a manner you can lose their trust and frustrate future lessons. For students whom are less committed to their incorrect model, it suffices to demonstrate a counterexample. Those who are more commited can require several weeks to shake their beliefs.
Actually teaching involves three parts: definitions, questioning, and experience. Definitions are KEY. You can build an entire lesson around a solid definition. For example: "speed is how far something travels every second" (or "in a certain amount of time" for the ones able to handle abstraction). Keep definitions few and far betweens and simple. Refer back to them often.
Next follow up with questioning: how can we measure speed? do we know how to measure the things in the definition? if something moved ten meters in five seconds, how many meters did it move every second? This has been covered elsewhere in depth. Don't overdo it though, some kids hate questioning. Just tell them facts.
Oh, be consistent. Use vocabulary consistently, don't throw around new terms, stick to one system of units, etc. Minimize distraction and confusion.
Experience is key to solidifying rules deduced from questioning. Roll that cart down the hill. Practice those factoring problems. Not everyone needs experience but most do. Experience can help break down incorrect mental models. As with definitions, minimize distraction. Experience one thing at a time until it is understood.
Finally, don't be afraid to go off on tangents. If a kid expresses interest in something, that means they will be focused and eager to learn it. You can teach almost anything to a student who wants to learn it. Motivation is everything.
I hope this helps. It's early in the morning and I'm writing this on my Kindle so it's probably rambly and missing things. I'll try to remedy that throughout the day.
As a 15 year old programmer myself, I would much rather have some constructive criticism than another "oh, you're so smart for your age" comment. I think this type of feedback would be infinitely more valuable for him.
His hypothesis had nothing to do with the angle of the leaves but rather with the Fibonacci sequence. For some reason he also decided to angle the leaves in his test, which I suspect were the true cause of the efficiency gain.
1. panel heights 2. panel angles 3. whether panels were stacked or not
I would guess that any of those three things matter way more than the position of the "leaves" following the Fibonacci sequence. He needed to compare his design to a similar tree-shape whose "leaves" were, say, uniformly or randomly spaced; not to what amounted to a patch of moss.
(Which brings to mind: solar panels which were shaped more like moss (i.e. rough) would probably perform even better. I'm pretty sure I remember MIT or some place building a prototype like that.)
Finally, he measured voltage but made claims about power, which is a huge no-no for solar PV. Solar PV panels have highly nonlinear voltage/current characteristics, which means that increased voltage does not correspond to increased power, especially in setups such as the tree where the solar panels are not uniformly illuminated.