Certain conditions are critical for the establishment and success of a learning organisation and there are parallels here to the practices of effective pedagogy in an inquiry based learning environment. If our goal is to have every member of an organisation contribute to the learning that occurs then we must establish a culture that allows this to occur. Feelings of safety, acceptance of diversity and risk taking must become parts of the culture. In our classes we establish the conditions where our students feel safe sharing their ideas even when they do not conform with the majority. We establish a belief that there are often multiple correct answers and in doing so foster creativity. The same conditions are required in our learning organisations. Nurturing a learning organisation is a little like nurturing a garden and Tim Brown echoes this sentiment ""It's about nurturing the conditions in which creativity is most likely to happen, That's really about culture, environment, rituals—the sorts of things that give people permission to explore, that encourage open-mindedness, collaboration, experimentation, and risk taking."
By championing the importance of understanding, teachers can inadvertently set their students up for failure as those students blunder in illusions of competence. As one (failing) engineering student recently told me: “I just don’t see how I could have done so poorly. I understood it when you taught it in class.” My student may have thought he’d understood it at the time, and perhaps he did, but he’d never practiced using the concept to truly internalize it. He had not developed any kind of procedural fluency or ability to apply what he thought he understood.
Time after time, professors in mathematics and the sciences have told me that building well-ingrained chunks of expertise through practice and repetition was absolutely vital to their success. Understanding doesn’t build fluency; instead, fluency builds understanding. In fact, I believe that true understanding of a complex subject comes only from fluency.
CATME | Smarter Teamwork Tools - 0 views
- Assigning students to teams:
- Self and peer evaluations and rating team processes:
CATME Peer Evaluation
- Training students to rate teamwork:
CATME Rater Calibration
- Training students to work in teams:
CATME Teamwork Training
- Making meetings more effective:
CATME Meeting Support
- Assigning students to teams:
- Gather information from students and provide feedback to students.
- Understand their student teams’ processes, team-members’ contributions, and students’ perspectives on their team experience.
- Be aware of problems that are occurring on their students’ teams
- Hold students accountable for contributing to their teams.
- Use best practices when managing student team experiences.
shared by hrchristenson on 19 Sep 16 - No Cached
shared by Nigel Coutts on 04 Sep 16 - No Cached
mrsmolloy liked it
shared by wattsal on 15 Aug 16 - No Cached
shared by Nigel Coutts on 17 Jul 16 - No Cached
shared by Nigel Coutts on 12 Jul 16 - No Cached
shared by Maureen Greenbaum on 05 Jul 16 - No Cached
“A generation of children has grown up with continuous connectivity to the internet. A few years ago, nobody had a piece of plastic to which they could ask questions and have it answer back. The Greeks spoke of the oracle of Delphi. We’ve created it. People don’t talk to a machine. They talk to a huge collective of people, a kind of hive. Our generation [Mitra is 64] doesn’t see that. We just see a lot of interlinked web pages
“Within five years, you will not be able to tell if somebody is consulting the internet or not. The internet will be inside our heads anywhere and at any time. What then will be the value of knowing things? We shall have acquired a new sense. Knowing will have become collective.”
if you imagine me and my phone as a single entity, yes. Very soon, asking somebody to read without their phone will be like telling them to read without their glasses.”
- ...4 more annotations...
Twenty children are asked a “big question” such as “Why do we learn history?”, “Is the universe infinite?”, “Should children ever go to prison?” or “How do bees make honey?” They are then left to find the answers using five computers. The ratio of four children to one computer is deliberate: Mitra insists that the children must collaborate. “There should be chaos, noise, discussion and running about,” he says.
. Year 4 children (aged eight to nine) were given questions from GCSE physics and biology papers. After using their Sole computers for 45 minutes, their average test scores on three sets of questions were 25%, 26% and 13%. Three months later – the school having taught nothing on these subjects in the interim – they were tested again, individually and without warning. The scores rose to 57%, 80% and 16% respectively, suggesting the children continued researching the questions in their own time.
he says the main benefit of his methods is that children’s self-confidence increases so that they challenge adult perceptions.
the propositions that children can benefit from collaborative learning and that banning internet use from exams will get trickier, to the point where it may prove futile. It’s worth remembering that new technologies nearly always deliver less than we expect at first and far more than we expect later on, often in unexpected ways.
shared by Nigel Coutts on 19 Jun 16 - No Cached
shared by Nigel Coutts on 12 Jun 16 - No Cached
shared by Nigel Coutts on 05 Jun 16 - No Cached
shared by Nigel Coutts on 29 May 16 - No Cached