Group items tagged

Students appear to be benefiting from online learning programs. While evidence about the effectiveness of K-12 online learning programs is limited, there is reason to believe that students can learn effectively online. In 2009, the U.S. Department of Education published a meta-analysis of evidence-based studies of K-12 and postsecondary online learning programs.[3] The study reported that "students who took all or part of their class online performed better, on average, than those taking the same course through traditional face-to-face instruction."[4] In addition, online learning has the potential to improve productivity and lower the cost of education, reducing the burden on taxpayers

Whether students have access to online learning options will largely be determined by policymakers' willingness to reform education funding to facilitate greater parental choice. This factor largely explains why the Florida Virtual School enrolls 154,000 students while the Maryland Virtual School enrolls only 710 students. If policymakers want to open the possibilities of online learning to all students, they must reform school funding mechanisms to allow the money to follow the students to their providers of choice.

Federal policymakers should consider using online or virtual learning to improve effectiveness and efficiency of these programs. For example, the Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA) currently educates approximately 85,000 children of military personnel[22] and is developing plans to create an online virtual high school for the 2010-2011 school year.[23] A virtual school for the children of military personnel would likely expand their educational opportunities and minimize disruptions caused by transferring to new schools when their parents are transferred to new assignments.

The first step would be to identify the undesired behavior you wish to change. The next steps are the trickiest and depends on many factors. This include developing a conscious and deliberate plan which includes 1) the ultimate goal, benchmarks (smaller more obtainable goals to reach the ultimate goal), 2) the steps to the first benchmark, 3) the rewards to reinforce desired reactions which approach the steps to the first benchmark, and 4) the criteria to use to mark progress. It may be helpful to work with a partner (someone else with the same phobia or undesired behavior) as a support person or a mentor (someone who has done it or has some counseling background). This is a very difficult strategy to accomplish alone. Reinforce the positive steps away from the undesired behavior and steps toward the desired behavior with the selected rewards. Monitor your progress. Change the size of the steps, the rewards, or the benchmarks if any do not seem to be working. You may hit plateaus or periods of backslides. Accept them as a temporary setback and identify potentials of self-sabotage, negative self-talks, or situations which should be avoided for the time being. Make a conscious decision to continue with your plan (or modification of it). This may be a life-long "work in progress" if you are trying to change a deep-rooted fear or a behavior which feeds an addiction. Again, this is very difficult to do alone. You may need to work with a partner, mentor, or counselor.

QUESTION: When we talk about manufacturing of consent, whose consent is being manufactured? CHOMSKY: To start with, there are two different groups, we can get into more detail, but at the first level of approximation, there's two targets for propaganda. One is what's sometimes called the political class. There's maybe twenty percent of the population which is relatively educated, more or less articulate, plays some kind of role in decision-making. They're supposed to sort of participate in social life -- either as managers, or cultural managers like teachers and writers and so on. They're supposed to vote, they're supposed to play some role in the way economic and political and cultural life goes on. Now their consent is crucial. So that's one group that has to be deeply indoctrinated. Then there's maybe eighty percent of the population whose main function is to follow orders and not think, and not to pay attention to anything -- and they're the ones who usually pay the costs.

In the [asynchronous discussions] it is easier to find some more facts, maybe have a look in a book and do more thorough postings.In fact, according to Kock’s estimate,18 an exchange of 600 words requires about 6 minutes for complex group tasks in face-to-face settings, while exchanging the same number of words over e-mail would take approximately one hour.

Almost every sentence in the asynchronous discussions of the smaller group, and a vast majority of sentences in the larger group, were classified as content-related. This is a remarkable result—imagine if learners on campus spent more than 90 percent of their time discussing issues related to course content. These results can also be interpreted as troublesome, however. If e-learners seldom meet face-to-face and teachers mainly rely on asynchronous e-learning, students might feel isolated and not part of learning communities, which is essential for collaboration and learning.15

The paradigm shift rate (i.e., the overall rate of technical progress) is currently doubling (approximately) every decade; that is, paradigm shift times are halving every decade (and the rate of acceleration is itself growing exponentially). So, the technological progress in the twenty-first century will be equivalent to what would require (in the linear view) on the order of 200 centuries. In contrast, the twentieth century saw only about 25 years of progress (again at today’s rate of progress) since we have been speeding up to current rates. So the twenty-first century will see almost a thousand times greater technological change than its predecessor.

An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense “intuitive linear” view. So we won’t experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century — it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today’s rate). The “returns,” such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. There’s even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity — technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history. The implications include the merger of biological and nonbiological intelligence, immortal software-based humans, and ultra-high levels of intelligence that expand outward in the universe at the speed of light.

1 minute of audio feedback was generating an equivalent of approximately 100 words.