The end result of the facilitated math experience is that the student will have had his mastery needs met because he was able to fix a miscalculation, he was able to share his fix and feel safe about making mistakes and learning from them. This student is more likely to embed the concept into his mathematical schema.

FACT: Students do not need marks to be motivated. Most of the best work I have ever seen came from students who were not worried about evaluative handcuffs.

I am going to take Jen’s advice seriously when she says about edupunk “Don’t dissect the metaphor“. Edupunk, if nothing more, has got many people talking, exploring their beliefs around education, and in some cases, reminiscing of day’s long past. The educational community is much too diverse, as it should be, for anyone to cling on to one single metaphor for meaning.

"Filters aren't addressing the bigger issues anyway," he said. "Cyber bullying, educating children on how to protect themselves and their privacy are the first problems I'd fix.

All these tools are technological with only the potential to be pedagogical… but they aren’t designed with pedagogy in mind.

Am I the only one who feels like a 30 hour day would still be too short? Are there others out there who wonder what kind of commitment it will take for a teacher to be technologically savvy enough to meaningfully engage students with all these new tools? Are we focusing too much on the tools and not enough on pedagogy? Will educational structures change fast enough to provide our students with a relevant education? … and for that matter… What would an ideal education look like today?

In my comment above I mentioned ‘pedagogical merit’ and to be honest, I have been on a bit of a focus in that direction recently. What I really mean by that is finding the right tools and structures for the right job in order to meaningfully enhance learning and engage learners.