Bill Genereux on 2009-09-19
This is the essence of a great teacher- one who recognizes her or his strengths and uses them every day in the classroom.
Penny Taeuber's personal annotations on this page
Taeu0006 bookmarked
on 2008-10-28
-
predictor of the future is the past,
-
Why has technology not revolutionized teaching,
This link has been bookmarked by 43 people . It was first bookmarked on 23 Oct 2008, by Robert Gray.
-
-
-
-
The wisest course may not be to find “best practices” with the expectation that they will apply across the board, but rather to expect that teachers will select pedagogical practices based on their own strengths and the material they teach, and to support them in that choice
-
-
Donna DeGennaroQuestion: Will Web 2.0 be an integral part of K-12 education? If we assume that the best predictor of the future is the past, then the answer is “no.” Web 2.0 is new, but the structure and assumptions underlying its use and benefits, as outlined by Steve Hargadon in this forum, are not new. At the heart of Hargadon’s vision — and Michael Wesch’s — is the collaborative student project, and this idea has been prominent in American education since 1919 ...
-
-
dvantages for Web 2.0 learning: engagement, authenticity, participation, openness, collaboration, creativity, personal expression, discussion, asynchronous contribution, and critical thinking.
-
advantages for Web 2.0 learning: engagement, authenticity, participation, openness, collaboration, creativity, personal expression, discussion, asynchronous contribution, and critical thinking.
- 23 more annotations...
-
-
Nancy BlairQuestion: Will Web 2.0 be an integral part of K-12 education? If we assume that the best predictor of the future is the past, then the answer is "no." Web 2.0 is new, but the structure and assumptions underlying its use and benefits, as outlined by Steve Hargadon in this forum, are not new. At the heart of Hargadon's vision - and Michael Wesch's - is the collaborative student project, and this idea has been prominent in American education since 1919 ...
-
Bob RowanThis article suggests that the ideas facilated by "web 2.0" technologies are not new, but are not likely to bring about dramatic change. The author does not argue against the value of this technology, but rather points out barriers that could make its use in the classroom impractical
-
Matthew DanielAuthor argues why teachers like Wesch and Hargadon are too optimistic about Web 2.0 revolutionizing education. His main argument revolves around Web 2.0's collaborative nature which is no different than project based teaching that has been around for years and shown marginal effectiveness. He notes that success relies upon teacher training and effective implementation of technology. This seems rather intuitive. Although in reality it is sad to note that, yes, many teachers will implement poor uses of technology and yield little success; but this is true for all teaching methods and should not scare us away from utilizing new and diverse tools and methods of teaching.
-
Most or all of these advantages accrue not from Web 2.0 in particular, but from its collaborative nature, and from the fact that students have a significant voice in selecting and shaping the project.
-
As Hargadon notes, the advantages are “significantly enhanced, if not dependent on, devoted adults helping to mentor and guide students
- 2 more annotations...
-
-
-
Probably because project-based teaching is really hard to do well. As
Hargadon notes, the advantages are “significantly enhanced, if not dependent on,
devoted adults helping to mentor and guide students.”
-
-
-
Direct instruction methods are easier to align with content standards, and they are easier to manage in the classroom. Much of the teacher’s work is in the preparation, when mistakes and dead-ends are invisible to students. There are fewer in-the-moment decisions to make during class. That’s not to say that the method is superior, but there is little doubt that these methods are easier for teachers to execute, a point made by Dewey and by many observers since. When direct instruction goes wrong, it’s usually not because it is light in content but because the lesson has become an exercise in the memorization of trivia. One might say that you could hardly blames students for inattention to a lesson that is so far removed from their interests and passions, an attitude I detect in Wesch’s contribution.
-
If that’s true, then the question is really whether Web
2.0 makes the student project more likely to succeed than project-based
learning did before Web 2.0 . - 2 more annotations...
-
-
-
recent large-scale studies sponsored by the National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development show that classroom time is occupied primarily by
teacher talk. -
But why don’t teachers use some sort of projects?
- 6 more annotations...
-
-
Jay FoglemanWeb 2.0 will not significantly change education because instruction is generally teacher-centered. Do you anticipate this to be the case in your classroom?
-
Yet, recent large-scale studies sponsored by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development show that classroom time is occupied primarily by teacher talk.
-
Probably because project-based teaching is really hard to do well
- 10 more annotations...
-
-
-
If we assume that the best predictor of the future is the past, then the answer is “no.” Web 2.0 is new, but the structure and assumptions underlying its use and benefits, as outlined by Steve Hargadon in this forum, are not new.
-
It’s worth remembering that traditional chalk-and-talk methods and project-based methods can work well. Properties inherent in methods are less important than whether or not the method is well executed.
If that’s true, then the question is really whether Web 2.0 makes the student project more likely to succeed than project-based learning did before Web 2.0 .
- 1 more annotations...
-
-
-
ial, either because they are not aligned to content standards or because the teacher has softened the content demands to
-
-
-
Memorable projects (or learning that *sticks*): is hands-on, allows learners to create something that lasts, has elements of personal choice, allows learners to collaborate with peers and others, is uninterrupted, involves audience, taps creativity, is active, is self-paced, solves real-life or useful problems.
-
In my mind, these new tools are not a fad. They allow us to change the way we do business. They open our classrooms and make the impossible possible.
Even our most ardent *chalk and talk* teachers are discovering that, if merely for purposes of convenience and easy publishing, web-based applications make the management of learning and teaching easier. The file cabinet, as well as artifacts and models of student efforts, can now be easily stored, disseminated, and shared, if the instructor so chooses.
- 1 more annotations...
-
-
glen gatinMuch of the teacher’s work is in the preparation, when mistakes and dead-ends are invisible to students.
Watching competent problem solvers ( the teacher) solve a problem is critical for learning. Watching someone present a worked out solution doesn't not reveal the critical thinking skills and gives students a mistaken impression of teacher omniscience.-
Much of the teacher’s work is in the preparation, when mistakes and dead-ends are invisible to students.
-
Much of the teacher’s work is in the preparation, when mistakes and dead-ends are invisible to students.
- 4 more annotations...
-
-
-
From the teacher’s perspective, there is great unpredictability in what they must know and be able to do to effectively guide such a project, exactly because the project is, in part, student-directed.
-
From the teacher’s perspective, there is great unpredictability in what they must know and be able to do to effectively guide such a project, exactly because the project is, in part, student-directed.
-
-
-
predictor of the future is the past,
-
Why has technology not revolutionized teaching,
-
-
-
Most or all of these advantages accrue not from Web 2.0 in particular, but from its collaborative nature, and from the fact that students have a significant voice in selecting and shaping the project.
-
-
John LarkinDaniel Willingham responds to Steve Hargadon's argument that Web 2.0 will be a significant part of the future of education. Daniel contests Steve's position.
-
Tania ShekoProfessor of psychology at the University of Virginia and author of Why Don’t Students Like School: A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions About How the Mind Works and What It Means for the Classroom. He writes the “Ask the Cognitive Scientist” column for American Educator magazine.
-
Kate SimQuestion: Will Web 2.0 be an integral part of K-12 education? If we assume that the best predictor of the future is the past, then the answer is “no.” Web 2.0 is new, but the structure and assumptions underlying its use and benefits, as outlined by Steve
-
Martin LindnerAt the heart of Hargadon’s vision—and Michael Wesch’s—is the collaborative student project, and this idea has been prominent in American education since 1919, when William Kilpatrick published his classic essay, “The Project Method.” Kilpatrick and his fo
Public Stiky Notes
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.