Group items tagged

What is investing?Any time you invest, you're devoting your own time, resources, or effort to achieve a greater goal. You can invest your weekends in a good cause, invest your intelligence in your job, or invest your time in a relationship. Just as you undertake each of these expecting good results, you invest your money in a stock, bond, or mutual fund because you think its value will appreciate over time.

Planning and setting goalsInvesting is like a long car trip: A lot of planning goes into it. Before you start, you've got to ask yourself: Where are you going? (What are your financial goals?) How long is the trip? (What is your investing "time horizon"?) What should you pack? (What type of investments will you make?) How much gas will you need? (How much money will you need to reach your goals? How much can you devote to a regular investing plan?) Will you need to stop along the way? (Do you have short-term financial needs?) How long do you plan on staying? (Will you need to live off the investment in later years?

Active and passive strategiesThe two main methods of investing in stocks are called active and passive management, and the difference between them has nothing to do with how much time you spend on the couch (or the exercise bike). Active investors (or their brokers or fund managers) pick their own stocks, bonds, and other investments. Passive investors let their holdings follow an index created by some third party.

The literature suggests factors such as extraversion, emotional stability and openness to experience are related to uses of social applications on the Internet

people who are more emotionally stable will use socialmedia less frequently, was also supported.

worrisome individuals tend to use socialmedia more frequently

I believe that using questions that allow my students to explore areas that are relevant to their unique situations will help them to be successful.

Retention and transfer of learned material are important—although too often merely implicit—goals of classes at the university level. Factors that enhance retention and transfer of learning are now key areas of research, and one frequently recommended method of enhancing these goals is to incorporate reflection into classroom practices (Saito & Miwa, 2007

Boyle, Duffy, and Dunleavy (2003) demonstrated that deep learners are characterized by being intrinsically motivated, able to relate new materials to previously learned information, and able to critically evaluate information; deep learning is also positively related to grade point average (GPA) and average exam scores

Finally, reflection has been linked

This taxonomy of learning behaviors can be thought of as “the goals of the learning process.” That is, after a learning episode, the learner should have acquired new skills, knowledge, and/or attitudes.

Analysis: Separates material or concepts into component parts so that its organizational structure may be understood. Distinguishes between facts and inferences. Examples: Troubleshoot a piece of equipment by using logical deduction. Recognize logical fallacies in reasoning. Gathers information from a department and selects the required tasks for training. Key Words: analyzes, breaks down, compares, contrasts, diagrams, deconstructs, differentiates, discriminates, distinguishes, identifies, illustrates, infers, outlines, relates, selects, separates. Synthesis: Builds a structure or pattern from diverse elements. Put parts together to form a whole, with emphasis on creating a new meaning or structure. Examples: Write a company operations or process manual. Design a machine to perform a specific task. Integrates training from several sources to solve a problem. Revises and process to improve the outcome. Key Words: categorizes, combines, compiles, composes, creates, devises, designs, explains, generates, modifies, organizes, plans, rearranges, reconstructs, relates, reorganizes, revises, rewrites, summarizes, tells, writes. Evaluation: Make judgments about the value of ideas or materials. Examples: Select the most effective solution. Hire the most qualified candidate. Explain and justify a new budget. Key Words: appraises, compares, concludes, contrasts, criticizes, critiques, defends, describes, discriminates, evaluates, explains, interprets, justifies, relates, summarizes, supports.

The focus of this paper is teaching presence, which has been defined as “the design, facilitation and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile outcomes” (Garrison et al., 2000).

Instructor teaching presence is hypothesized to be an indicator of online instructional quality.  Empirical research has supported this view with evidence indicating strong correlations between the quality of teaching presence and student satisfaction and learning (Bangert, 2008; Picciano, 2002; Shea, Pickett, & Pelz, 2003)

First, there is a need to revisit two of the original three teaching presence elements.

One online instructor (Alley 1996) has described this changing pedagogical consciousness as an �instructional epiphany�.� Alley tells of a personal transformation, stimulated by online instruction, marked by two "milestones". First, he had to totally redesign his course to fit and leverage the new learning environment. Second, he had to rethink what he calls his �basic approach�: �As long as I held on to the traditional �sage-on-stage� style of teaching, I would keep reinventing ways for students to be a passive audience� (1996:51).� Similar changes in pedagogical belief and practice have been reported by other faculty who have taught web-based courses (Brown 1998; Jaffee 1997; Cremer 1998) as well as researchers who have interviewed online instructors (Frank 2000).�� There are clearly some �structural constraints� built into the virtual classroom ecology that make it difficult to implement traditional modes of delivery and, in this sense, almost force instructors to entertain active learning strategies. As Frank (2000) discovered in her study of online instructors, "All of the participants saw online learning as empowering for students. The most valuable benefits were the facilitation of active learning, critical thinking, collaboration, confidence, and lifelong learning habits. A common theme was the way in which the teacher is forced to give up the control that one has in a face-to-face environment and re-examine the traditional role of content deliverer".� Just as the physical classroom architecture imposes constraints on, and opportunities for, particular pedagogical practices, so too does the virtual classroom. John Seely Brown (2000) has described the environment of the world-wide-web as a �learning ecology� that is a self-organized evolving collection of cross-pollinating overlapping communities of interest.� Asynchronous web-based courses that include a discussion forum possess many of the same ecological features. All members of the class can receive and broadcast information at any time. This critical communication feature distinguishes the virtual classroom from prior forms of instructional technology.�� While instructors can mediate and guide, they cannot entirely control the flow of communication. Thus, instructor and student roles and relations are less hierarchical and more overlapping and interactive. These greater opportunities for participation can contribute to a greater diversity of opinion and perspective. It is hard work to establish these social dynamics in a physical classroom constrained by a fixed space, a designated time block, and trained inhibitions. The virtual classroom, in contrast, has the potential to establish new patterns of instructor and student interaction and, accordingly, different teaching and learning roles and practices (Girod and Cavanaugh 2001; Becker and Ravitz 1999). ��������� In making comparisons between the physical and virtual classroom, it is important to emphasize a cautionary caveat. The pedagogical ecology, be it a physical classroom or a virtual interface, cannot entirely determine a particular pedagogical practice or learning outcome. The pedagogical ecology offers opportunities and constraints that will shape and influence classroom dynamics and learning outcomes, but much will also depend on the principles informing, and the actual design of, the teaching and learning process (see Chamberlin 2001). The various practices that are employed in both a physical and a virtual classroom indicate the range of possibilities. However, if we believe that, for the purpose of student learning, active student engagement and interaction is preferable to the passive reception of information, we should consider the degree to which this principle is advanced or facilitated by the expanding virtual learning ecology.�

Sociological theories and concepts have an important role to play in analyzing and interpreting these developments. A central sociological proposition is that structural environments influence the social perceptions, roles, and relations of human actors.� As increasing numbers of students and faculty find themselves operating in virtual learning environments, we might also expect to find some changing instructional dynamics. More specifically, there are a number of questions worth exploring. What are the relationships between the technical, the social, and the pedagogical infrastructures?� How has the introduction of new instructional technologies influenced established pedagogical practices? How does the shift from a physical classroom to a virtual learning environment shape and reconfigure the social roles and relations among faculty and students? What consequences will these technologies have for developing pedagogical practices?

have less to do with the proven effectiveness of the particular practice than the desire to appear legitimate or conform to normative expectations.�

I’ve included the student need for teaching presence in my discussion rubric but need to further create ways to be part of their learning.  This might be just sitting on the sidelines and observing until I feel the need to re-set the climate for learning if it’s off track.

There are several factors that affect learning transfer. These include whether students understand or simply memorize knowledge, the amount of time spent on learning the task, the amount of deliberate practice that is done beyond learning the task, the motivation of the student, how the problem is represented, the transfer conditions, and the metacognition of the solver (Dweck, 1989; Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Romer, 1993; Johnson et al., 2011; Palinscar & Brown, 1984; Singley & Anderson, 1989).

A student’s comprehension of a problem and his or her ultimate ability to transfer concepts learned previously to the current problem is inextricably linked to his or her ability to properly represent the problem.

ognitive research shows that the organization of learning and how new learning relates to what a student already knows are the strongest predictors of how well a student will transfer knowledge (National Research Council, 2000). Schunn and Silk (2011) articulated, however, that in science and engineering students often “lack relevant conceptual frameworks or have frameworks that are not developed enough to support new learning adequately” (p. 9). The absence of such frameworks makes it difficult for students to connect and apply other knowledge where relevant.

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

A teacher’s proficiency is manifested by the ability to look at the subject from a learner’s point of view, to foresee the critical junctions in learning, and to design teaching to meet learners’ information acquisition and collection processes (e.g., Zombylas, 2007).

van Manen (1991) claims that as teachers embrace all children, regardless of their characteristics they become real educators, and thus, educators’ pedagogical love becomes the precondition for pedagogical relations to grow (p

Individualistic features, position, nationality, gender, abilities, race, or language do not determine a human being’s value. Those differences based on skills, intelligence, or knowledge are insignificant compared with that basic human presence that is the same for all people: the right and need to be loved, accepted, and cared for as well as the right and need to grow and develop (Bradshaw, 1996; Lanara, 1981; Sprengel & Kelly, 1992).