Implementation gone awry.
Audrey Watters nails the key issues surrounding computers in education (via Seymour Papert) and in 1:1 implementations. The personal computer.... needs to be personal.
or even call for more rigorous or competitive grading and testing.
The point may not have been to produce a better outcome for students at all but to make sure they don’t “get away with” something. If you do something bad, something bad must be done to you -- regardless of the effect.
“The over-filtering that occurs today affects not only what teachers can teach but also how they teach,”
“creates barriers to learning and acquiring digital literacy skills that are vital for college and career readiness, as well as for full participation in 21st-century society.”
“It’s not a magazine, we’re not just consumers, we’re creators, we’re users.”
most students have unfettered access to these forbidden sites through the phones in their pockets and backpacks, on their home computers and in many public libraries – often with no adult guidance
it has to be learned in context in a supportive environment,”
(a) obscene; (b) child pornography; or (c) harmful to minors.”
defining the three measures is up to each community, creating widely varied implementation from district to district
and their answer to any requests was usually no.
Their view was that if the filter is blocking it, there’s no reason for you to see it,”
Krull implemented a teacher login system that lets staff override some blocked sites. He’s working on a similar system for students that would grant varying degrees of access depending on grade level.
nearly three times as many teachers of low-income students than those with middle- and high-income students said this lack of access was a “major challenge” in their ability “to incorporate more digital tools into their teaching.”
eliminating filters isn’t the answer to debugging the problems with CIPA.
There’s not a right or wrong; it’s a lot about community values
“It’s not if you have a filter or not, it’s really about to what degree do you filter, how do you filter?”
freshman seminar course at Penn State that he calls “Failure 101.”
“the frequency and intensity of failures is an implicit principle of the course. Getting into a creative mind-set involves a lot of trial and error.”
“As soon as someone in the class starts breaking the sticks,” he says, “it changes everything.”
“Examine what in the culture is preventing you from creating something new or different. And what is it like to look like a fool because a lot of things won’t work out and you will look foolish? So how do you handle that?”
be willing to fail but that failure is a critical avenue to a successful end.
Because academics run from failure, Mr. Keywell says, universities are “way too often shapers of formulaic minds,” and encourage students to repeat and internalize fail-safe ideas.
When ideas from different fields collide, Dr. Cramond says, fresh ones are generated.
rephrasing problems as questions, learning not to instinctively shoot down a new idea (first find three positives), and categorizing problems as needing a solution that requires either action, planning or invention. A key objective is to get students to look around with fresh eyes and be curious. The inventive process, she says, starts with “How might you…”
“A lot of people can’t deal with things they don’t know and they panic
make creativity happen instead of waiting for it to bubble up. A muse doesn’t have to hit you.”