An interesting take on the nature vs. nurture debate as it relates to "giftedness." It adds support to the rationale for personalizing learning so that all students can reach their potential.
Engagement must be deliberately designed to improve student learning. This article talks specifically about technology, but I would challenge people to apply to any effort to "engage" learners.
Report from the Aspen Institute about policy changes and general philosophy changes needed in order to achieve student-centered learning, and the importance of technology to make this work.
"Project MASH is a social learning experience that challenges teachers and students to DESIGN stuff, MAKE stuff, and PLAY stuff, to ACT and WRITE, CREATE and EXPLORE. PROJECT MASH bridges the divide between learning in and out of school, from making and tinkering in the classroom to citizen science in the backyard, from design thinking challenges to contests in creative expression."
Sponsored by Pearson Foundation
Michael B. Horn debunks a critique of personalized learning. The critique basically equates "multiple intelligences" or "learning styles" with personalized learning, which is a straw-man argument.
“There is no credible evidence that learning styles exist.” (p. 33)
“Students differ in their abilities, interests, and background knowledge, but not in their learning styles. Students may have preferences about how to learn, but no evidence suggests that catering to those preferences will lead to better learning.”
A radical change for a major university- a degree program where you get credit for what you already know, and can work at your own pace. They even claim it's personalized.