Group items tagged

"1. The teacher is choosing the technology. It's not always possible, but when you can, let the students choose, and see what happens. Not all of them will be able to. Some need help; so let other students help them. 2. The teacher is choosing the function. This doesn't mean you can't choose the function, but if you students can't control the technology the use nor its function, this can be problematic: the learning is passive from the beginning. 3. The teacher is determining the process. To an extent you have to, but don't overdo it. 4. The technology is distracting. If the technology is more magical than the project, product, collaboration, process, or content itself, try to muffle the bells and whistles. Or use them to your advantage. 5. The technology isn't necessary. You wouldn't use a ruler to teach expository writing, nor would you use a Wendell Berry essay to teach about the Water Cycle. No need for a Khan Academy account and a fully-personalized and potentially self-directed proficiency chart of mathematical concepts just to show a 3 minute video on the number line. 6. The process is too complex. Keep it simple. Fewer moving parts = greater precision. And less to go wrong. 7. Students have access to too much. What materials, models, peer groups, or related content do students actually need? See #6. 8. The teacher is the judge, jury, and executioner. Get out of the way. You're (probably) less interesting than the content, experts, and communities (if you're doing it right). 9. They artificially limiting the scale. Technology connects everything to everything. Use this to the advantage of the students! 10. They're not limiting the scale. However, giving students the keys to the universe with no framework, plan, boundaries or even vague goals is equally problematic. 11. Students access is limited to too little. The opposite of too board a scale is too little-akin to taking students to the ocean to fish but squaring of

"It seems only fitting to explore the role of questions in education by asking questions about the process of doing so. I propose that we start with the customary way of framing this topic and then proceed to questions that are deeper and potentially more subversive of traditional schooling. 1. WHICH QUESTIONS? To begin, let's consider what we might ask our students. The least interesting questions are those with straightforward factual answers. That's why a number of writers have encouraged the use of questions described variously as "true" (Wolf, 1987), "essential" (Simon, 2002), "generative" (Perkins, 1992; Perrone, 1998), "guiding" (Traver, 1998), or "fertile" (Harpaz & Lefstein, 2000). What the best of these share is that they're open-ended. Sometimes, in fact, no definitive right answer can be found at all. And even when there is one - or at least when there is reason to prefer some responses to others - the answer isn't obvious and can't be summarized in a sentence. Why is it so hard to find a cure for cancer? Do numbers ever end? Why do people lie? Why did we invade Vietnam? Grappling with meaty questions like these (which were among those generated by a class in Plainview, NY) is a real project . . . literally. A question-based approach to teaching tends to shade into learning that is problem- (Delisle, 1997) and project-based (Kilpatrick, 1918; Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Wolk, 1998). Intellectual proficiency is strengthened as students figure out how to do justice to a rich question. As they investigate and come to understand important ideas more fully, new questions arise along with better ways of asking them, and the learning spirals upwards. Guiding students through this process is not a technique that can be stapled onto our existing pedagogy, nor is it something that teachers can be trained to master during an in-service day. What's required is a continual focus on creating a classroom that is about thinking rather

"Las acciones de Johnson & Johnson (J&J) se han hundido en Wall Street un 10%. Se trata de su peor sesión en más de una década. La razón es la información divulgada por Reuters sobre que la compañía conocía que sus polvos de talco estaban contaminados por amianto. En juego quedan las posibles demandas para solicitar indemnizaciones, que se prevén multimillonarias."

Crítica muy acertada, a mi parecer, del documental.

"... Una escuela permeable, que mediante relaciones osmóticas con su contexto socio-cultural enriquece sus fines y provoca desarrollo local en el contexto que se radica. ..."