Group items tagged

Please feel free to join in this dialogue, which is an attempt to shape national policy.

This is a very interesting project, especially in light of our conversation about ways that physiological and psychological markers can inform learning systems (adaptive learning, responsive software, etc.)

Also as a follow-up to our conversation on Monday. Although more women are in STEM careers, there is still a lag in those considered "hard sciences." Most people look at mathematics as the core difference, these authors look at creativity. "For instance, three factors that are widely accepted as being positively correlated with creativity are playfulness, curiosity, and willingness to take risks. Studies have found that boys and men are generally more playful than girls and women, and are more curious and more willing to take risks, which could help explain why men are more creatively productive than women in general, and in particular, in the hard sciences."

A very good meditation on how technology is changing who we are -- not all for the better.

Following increasing amount of disruptive technologies in Higher Ed, and announcement of MIT/Harvard EdX platform, author claims to check in with students. Does not really live up to the title (as he does not write enough about conversations with students), but it is a question that does need to be asked. Here is part one of "Did Anyone Ask the Students?" http://chronicle.com/blogs/next/2012/05/01/did-anyone-ask-the-students-part-i/

An interesting post on games in education that links to many examples for learning to code and mentions some other online educational environments that use gamification.

Hi Stephanie - This article also seems to highlight the extrinsic rewards of points and badges -- calling it "gamification." And given our last conversation in class, I wonder if all the points and badges will kill the intrinsic desire to play the games. Interestingly, there was a comment with a link to another article http://www.hideandseek.net/2010/10/06/cant-play-wont-play/ where the writer notes that some games just use "pointification," and that the best games are the ones that have rich cognitive, emotional and social aspects, with choice and skill... but not dependent on points/badges. In light of our "motivation" conversations, it will be interesting to watch how gaming in the classroom plays out if they are largely point/badges driven.

Tying in with our conversation about flow, this article mentions a way to physically induce flow through "transcranial direct current stimulation".

I have to say..I am a bit weirded out by this article. The days of Johnny Mnemonic are not far behind.

Two ways to read about Wharton professor Jonah Berger's take on how game mechanics can be engineered to promote social currency. Do you agree with Berger's perspective? Here's the link to the academic paper: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1836457

I've been doing a ton of reading on visitor engagement and learning in museums for work, and I think this framework is a nice lens for beginning to think about the how, the what, and the why. It's a little shallow, but a good initial conversation starter. "Most people believe that digital media can benefit their organisations, but when it comes to using these tools, even the biggest, tech savy museums and galleries can struggle to know where to start. The Digital Engagement Framework was developed by Jasper Visser and myself as a simple to use roadmap to help the sector to approach digital media in a more strategic manner."

This looks like a rich conference resonating with conversations similar to those we've had in 545 lately.

Check out this edtech start-up: I spoke to the founder today, and their philosophy sounds like it's right out of T-545. It's all about promoting intrinsic motivation for positive classroom behaviors and increasing kids' engagement through technology and immediate feedback.

David Rose featured this in a 560 lecture and I spoke a little about how I use it at homeschool. I don't use the negative behavior options and D. Rose said Skinner did not think negative reinforcement was useful. I use it as a way of facilitating conversation around positive actions that promote a pleasant social environment.

Seth Godin is giving away a book online, encouraging it to be spread among teachers and getting hundreds of thousands of readers. He usually writes about marketing and the spread of ideas, but he takes on education in this series of blog-post-provocative-conversation-starting writing. He states, "School was invented to create a constant stream of compliant factory workers to the growing businesses of the 1900s. It continues to do an excellent job at achieving this goal, but it's not a goal we need to achieve any longer."

Greenlight for Girls uses various 2.0 tools to engage girls in informal learning to promote girls toward STEM careers. They compliment online work with on the ground, face-to-face conferences so that the online conversation has correlation with face-to-face experiences and interactions, making the online engagement more visceral.

This article is a bit snarky but it raises some worthwhile cautions around the buzz of tech in education, particularly Apple.

It is amazing to me that Apple and technology can take center stage in the education conversation without a word of professional development, best practices, learning outcomes... As I have stated before, I/we are an Apple family... but I am worried about the prospect that Apple's role in the textbook industry will eliminate other platforms and in-turn will limit access to many.

This article emphasizes that the appeal of technology is not enough to motivate children to learn. Stresses that self-efficacy and the ability to set reasonable and attainable goals on their own is essential to fully engage students.

Perhaps this is also the answer to make sure technology doesn't turn into a distraction instead of a learning tool? I think many kids would benefit from learning strategies for using technology efficiently/avoiding distractions.

Thanks for this article! It captures some of the self-efficacy conversations that have been helpful in designing my project. I think as the role of the teacher evolves, we will rely on students having choices for modes of learning and and as the article states, "we [will] rely more on children's independent initiative and motivation."

This conversation and the reporting her have more depth.