Group items tagged

IQ was a popular measurement but it did not capture the type of thinking that generated novel solutions to urgent predicaments. First, creativity is not equivalent to intelligence. Second, divergent thinking is central to the concept of creativity. Third, we can develop tests to measure divergent thinking skills. What is the relationship between creativity and intelligence? How do we measure creativity? And what, exactly, is creativity? undergrads were better at solving insight-based problems when they tested during their least optimal time participants who played a difficult working memory game known as the n-BACK task scored higher on tests of a fundamental cognitive ability known as fluid intelligence: the capacity to solve new problems, to make insights and see connections independent of previous knowledge. Cognitive flexibility, the ability to switch between thinking about two concepts or consider multiple perspectives simultaneously

Join me! http://dlmooc.deeper-learning.org/

"We want a team to think about action research as a collaborative endeavor, where principals and teachers work together to improve something over time. It's not just about gathering data, it's about working hard to improve something. Maybe you see a need to improve writing in the building, and you're going to figure out whether there's a way to take a techno-constructivist approach to strengthening students' writing skills. Maybe you feel the culture of your school is very mired in antiquated approaches to teaching and learning, and you want to build a new culture of innovation and collaboration, so you're going to develop your project around that goal."

"where principals and teachers work together to improve something over time" HA! Techno-constructivist? Could this term be applicable to the age of chalkboard and chalk innovation? I just don't think research resultant data is going to lead the way to anything but more "initiatives". As learning facilitators, we are drowning in them and the learner targets are confused beyond measure. Maybe, the answer is as simple as priority setting AND the genuine wherewithal to put those priorities in place. If I were an instructional leader, rather than a innovative pariah or low tech Luddite, I might say that my campus community is going to tackle a learning fundamental, close reading. I form a committee, we plan activities, we go...in isolated boxes of 41 minutes x 7, while filing out reams of busy work paper & electronic documentation, while building character, fostering the whole child, honoring the best spitters of knowledge with assembly recognition and the rounds and rounds of testing - not a measure of learning, but a measure of the course and scope delivery of bloated curricula....all on a schedule determined and unchangeable by the number of buses owned and operated...that developed project is actually doomed to ineffectiveness not because of its inherent flaws, but because that leader is both structurally and functionally prevented from making it a reality. Study and Commission and White Paper away, the results are predetermined! The really sadness here is that we KNOW how to pull this off - High Tech High and New Tech Network Schools and others I can't think of that have freed themselves from structural inertia...but we wring our hands and continue to fashion work-around initiatives....that we know in advance simply will not work.

"Evaluate websites with variations and extensions of skills you use to evaluate print materials."

How do we measure the efficacy of change? What are the benchmarks to prove that we are on the right track? Bascially, a change in the education process boils down to funding and to get funding you have to prove(through control groups) that the concept or innovation is better than the current method of teaching.