Group items tagged

I haven't really looked under the bonnet of this yet, but it seems interesting in terms of market positioning alone (though note: aimed at school level/context).

Just published. I really liked this section: "Rather than data-driven-decision making, it seems to me we need a culture of decision-driven data collection-the data are collected only after a clear theory of how they are to be used has been developed, to be certain that they will be usable. The argument I am making here is that for instructional guidance, teachers simply do not need or find useful (and certainly do not want to wait, or to pay, for) the precision that the educational measurement community is used to providing. All this may seem like a counsel of despair, so perhaps it is appropriate to conclude these reflections by saying that I am actually very positive about the role that assessment can have in improving schooling. First, as Haertel points out, often the unit of action is the instructional group rather than the individual student. For this reason, Caroline Wylie and I have been exploring the use of single items that can be embedded in instructional episodes (Wiliam, 2011; Wylie & Wiliam, 2006, 2007). The response of one student to one item is not particularly meaningful, but the response of a class of 30 students to a single item does give the teacher useful information about whether to move on, or to review an instructional episode."

Upbeat piece in the Economist about the imminent impact of "adaptive technology" on school eduction in the US (and then on the world).

Article based on an interview with one of the authors of a new study about the importance of teachers' understanding student misconceptions. [The full paper is available here if you have access to the journal http://aer.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/03/06/0002831213477680.full.pdf+html] Excerpt from the paper:"An intriguing finding of this study is that teachers who know their stu- dents' most common misconceptions are more effective than teachers who do not. This particular component of PCK may allow teachers to construct experiences, demonstrations, experiments, or discussions that make students commit to and then test their own ideas. A teacher knowing only the scientific ''truth'' appears to have limited effectiveness. It is better if a teacher also has a model of how students tend to learn a particular concept, particularly if there is a common belief that may make acceptance of the scientific view or model difficult. This finding, too, has practical implications. In PD programs, an emphasis on increasing teachers' SMK without sufficient attention to the preconceived mental models of middle school students (as well as those of the teachers) may be ineffective in ultimately improving their students' physical science knowledge."

MOOCs can make up for much of the damage resulting from putting 21st Century students through a 19th Century school system. And we can do it on a global scale.......

"I am obliged to say something about calculators and computers. You would protest if I did not. I could refuse because I can prove I am incompetent. I know almost nothing about calculators and computers. It is a lack of knowledge that prevents me from tackling any minor problem of calculators and computers in mathematics education. It does not prevent me from indicating what in my view is a major problem. "Technology influences education. The ballpoint, Xerox, and the overhead projector have fundamentally changed instruction. But this is as it were unintentionally educational technology. Programmed instruction, teaching machines, language laboratories, which were intentional educational technology, founded on big theory, did not fare as well, to say the least of it. "Calculators are being used at school, and they will be used even more in the future. Computer science is taught and will be taught even more. How to do it - these are minor questions. Computer assisted instruction has still a long way to go even in the few cases where it looks feasible. " What I seek is neither calculators and computers as educational technology nor as technological education but as a powerful tool to arouse and increase mathematical understanding."

Designed for use in the US (mapped against the Common Core State Standards, which groups things into six concept areas: Number and Quantity, Algebra, Functions, Modeling, Geometry, and Statistics and Probability), and designed to cover the equivalent of a year-long, traditional school curriculum. Worth poking about in. Comments from IOE and OCR particularly welcome.

An (obviously) unusually able Sophia Pink summarises her experience skipping 10th grade to learn online instead. She's gone back to school for 11th grade......

Several angles of interest on this, from our own perspective (as prospective uses of data) and that of our prospective learners

Excerpt from concluding section: "Finally, the math picture presents an important cautionary note to math teachers: if I feel stupid, I am highly unlikely to like your course (and math is the least-liked course in the survey). This pattern in math as to why the subject is least favorite is double the overall pattern for all courses. Math is the only subject, therefore, in which feeling stupid is the number one reason to dislike the subject."

50 minute presentation on use of Scratch to teach some maths concepts 10-year-old and 16-year-old kids. Interestingly even the 16-year-olds thought the cat made it look like "kids stuff". There's a recording of the full presentation at https://sas.elluminate.com/site/external/recording/playback/link/table/dropin?sid=2008350&suid=D.9FA226957D30A14AB25F33DEBBF5D3 (note worth using the Blackboard recording rather than the video, even though it's more of a faff, as the former includes a shot of the speaker where he demonstrates things physically, whereas the latter just shows the presentation)

"The key is all about the depth of understanding of the subject that they receive - it is not about 'doing maths' but much more about 'thinking mathematically'.