CTLT and Friends

they took a middle path, opening up an opportunity for ANYONE who actively comments on Huffington Post to become a blogger — but with one caveat…they have to EARN it. Or put another way — they are leveraging the power of the network, while still creating boundaries to channel value.

Since launching in May 2005, we’ve received more than 2.7 million comments, posted by over 115,000 commenters.

Our decision will be based on how many fans a commenter has, how often their comment is selected as a Favorite, and our moderators’ preferences. Every comment now has an “I’m A Fan Of” link and a “Favorite” link, so start voting for the comments and commenters you like best.

Virtually all learning difficulties that children face are caused by adults' inability to set up reasonable environments for them. The biggest barrier to improving education for children, with or without computers, is the completely impoverished imaginations of most adults.

the point of school is to teach all those things that are inventions and that are hard to learn because we're not explicitly wired for them. Like reading and writing.Virtually all learning difficulties that children face are caused by adults' inability to set up reasonable environments for them. The biggest barrier to improving education for children, with or without computers, is the completely impoverished imaginations of most adults.

We are trying to make a very cheap, reliable source of energy that won’t need a lot of maintenance

Which measure(s) of intercoder reliability should researchers use? [TOP] There are literally dozens of different measures, or indices, of intercoder reliability. Popping (1988) identified 39 different "agreement indices" for coding nominal categories, which excludes several techniques for interval and ratio level data. But only a handful of techniques are widely used. In communication the most widely used indices are: Percent agreement Holsti's method Scott's pi (p) Cohen's kappa (k) Krippendorff's alpha (a)

5. Which measure(s) of intercoder reliability should researchers use? [TOP] There are literally dozens of different measures, or indices, of intercoder reliability. Popping (1988) identified 39 different "agreement indices" for coding nominal categories, which excludes several techniques for interval and ratio level data. But only a handful of techniques are widely used. In communication the most widely used indices are: Percent agreement Holsti's method Scott's pi (p) Cohen's kappa (k) Krippendorff's alpha (a) Just some of the indices proposed, and in some cases widely used, in other fields are Perreault and Leigh's (1989) Ir measure; Tinsley and Weiss's (1975) T index; Bennett, Alpert, and Goldstein's (1954) S index; Lin's (1989) concordance coefficient; Hughes and Garrett’s (1990) approach based on Generalizability Theory, and Rust and Cooil's (1994) approach based on "Proportional Reduction in Loss" (PRL). It would be nice if there were one universally accepted index of intercoder reliability. But despite all the effort that scholars, methodologists and statisticians have devoted to developing and testing indices, there is no consensus on a single, "best" one. While there are several recommendations for Cohen's kappa (e.g., Dewey (1983) argued that despite its drawbacks, kappa should still be "the measure of choice") and this index appears to be commonly used in research that involves the coding of behavior (Bakeman, 2000), others (notably Krippendorff, 1978, 1987) have argued that its characteristics make it inappropriate as a measure of intercoder agreement.

5. Which measure(s) of intercoder reliability should researchers use? [TOP] There are literally dozens of different measures, or indices, of intercoder reliability. Popping (1988) identified 39 different "agreement indices" for coding nominal categories, which excludes several techniques for interval and ratio level data. But only a handful of techniques are widely used. In communication the most widely used indices are: Percent agreement Holsti's method Scott's pi (p) Cohen's kappa (k) Krippendorff's alpha (a) Just some of the indices proposed, and in some cases widely used, in other fields are Perreault and Leigh's (1989) Ir measure; Tinsley and Weiss's (1975) T index; Bennett, Alpert, and Goldstein's (1954) S index; Lin's (1989) concordance coefficient; Hughes and Garrett’s (1990) approach based on Generalizability Theory, and Rust and Cooil's (1994) approach based on "Proportional Reduction in Loss" (PRL). It would be nice if there were one universally accepted index of intercoder reliability. But despite all the effort that scholars, methodologists and statisticians have devoted to developing and testing indices, there is no consensus on a single, "best" one. While there are several recommendations for Cohen's kappa (e.g., Dewey (1983) argued that despite its drawbacks, kappa should still be "the measure of choice") and this index appears to be commonly used in research that involves the coding of behavior (Bakeman, 2000), others (notably Krippendorff, 1978, 1987) have argued that its characteristics make it inappropriate as a measure of intercoder agreement.

Howard GardnerHobbs Professor of Cognition and Education, Project Zero, Harvard Graduate School of Education

As shown in table 1, we will be cognizant throughout of who the learners are, where they learn, how they learn, what are the principal curricula, and how competences are purveyed via the media of the time. The grid itself contains generalizations about the past and present, and speculation about the future, thus providing a broad portrait of changes over time. While we do not discuss each entry in the grid, we hope that it aids in thinking about learning in formal and informal settings.

Uniform schooling reflects both fairness and efficiency. It appears fair to treat all children in the same way; and it is also efficient, given classes of 20, 30, or even 60 charges in one room, sometimes arrayed by age, sometimes decidedly heterogeneous in composition.

A rapidly growing number of people are creating their own personal learning environments with tools freely available to them, without the benefit of a CMS. As Christensen would say, they have hired different technologies to do the job of a CMS for them. But the technologies they’re hiring are more flexible, accessible and learner-centered than today’s CMSs. This is not to say that CMSs are about to disappear. Students enrolled in institutions of higher learning will certainly continue to participate in CMS-delivered course sites, but since these do not generally persist over time, the really valuable learning technologies will increasily be in the cloud.

Both administration and pedagogy are necessary in schools. They are also completely different in what infrastructure they require. This (in my opinion) has been the great failing of VLEs – they all try to squeeze the round pedagogy peg into the square administration hole. It hasn’t worked very well. Trying to coax collaboration in what is effectively an administrative environment, without the porous walls that social media thrives on, hasn’t worked. The ‘walled garden’ of the VLE is just not as fertile as the juicy jungle outside, and not enough seeds blow in on the wind.