The blog entry title initially was:
Constructivism: Lecture versus project-based learning
Actually, the article is about both lecture and group work finding a niche in the complex process of teaching and learning.
Excellent points, ideas and discussion in and under a recently published article:
“Professors do not engage students enough, if at all, when trying to innovate the classroom. It’s shocking how out of touch they can be, just because they didn’t take the time to hear their students’ perspectives.”
The article and the excellent comments underneath the article do not address the possibility of cultural differences. E.g., when article cites the German research, it fails to acknowledge that the US culture is pronouncedly individualistic, whereas other societies are more collective. For more information pls consider:
Ernst, C. T. (2004). Richard E. Nisbett. The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently … and Why. Personnel Psychology, (2), 504.
Nisbett, R. E. (2009). Intelligence and how to get it : why schools and cultures count / Richard E. Nisbett. New York : W.W. Norton & Co., c2009.
The article generalizes, since another omission is the subject-oriented character of the learning process: there are subjects, where lecture might be more prevalent and there are some where project learning, peer instruction and project-based learning might be more applicable.
Venmo, owned by eBay’s PayPal unit, already channels as much volume in total dollar value of transactions as Starbucks’ successful mobile payment app, according to BI Intelligence’s estimates.
Venmo allows users to easily send money back-and-forth to one another for expenses like rent, restaurant and bar checks, and event tickets. Venmo is free to use and appears to be gaining the most traction with U.S. smartphone users in their late teens and twenties. It’s very popular on college campuses.
Mauricio Vasquez, Ph.D.Assistant Professor in MISTop Contributor
Higher Education institutions use course evaluations for a variety of purposes. They factor in retention analysis for adjuncts, tenure approval or rejection for full-time professors, even in salary bonuses and raises. But, are the results of course evaluations an objective measure of high quality scholarship in the classroom?
We’re at a curious point in the hype cycle of educational innovation, where the hottest concept of the past year–Massive Open Online Courses, or MOOCs–is simultaneously being discovered by the mainstream media, even as the education-focused press is declaring them dead. “More Proof MOOCs are Hot,” and “MOOCs Embraced By Top Universities,” said the Wall Street Journal and USA Today last week upon the announcement that Coursera had received a $43 million round of funding to expand its offerings;
“Beyond MOOC Hype” was the nearly simultaneous headline in Inside Higher Ed.
Can MOOCs really be growing and dying at the same time?
The best way to resolve these contradictory signals is probably to accept that the MOOC, itself still an evolving innovation, is little more than a rhetorical catchall for a set of anxieties around teaching, learning, funding and connecting higher education to the digital world. This is a moment of cultural transition. Access to higher education is strained. The prices just keep rising. Questions about relevance are growing. The idea of millions of students from around the world learning from the worlds’ most famous professors at very small marginal cost, using the latest in artificial intelligence and high-bandwidth communications, is a captivating one that has drawn tens of millions in venture capital. Yet, partnerships between MOOC platforms and public institutions like SUNY and the University of California to create self-paced blended courses and multiple paths to degrees look like a sensible next step for the MOOC, but they are far from that revolutionary future. Separate ideas like blended learning and plain old online delivery seem to be blurring with and overtaking the MOOC–even Blackboard is using the term.
The time seems to be ripe for a reconsideration of the “Massive” impact of “Online” and “Open” learning. TheReclaim Open Learning initiative is a growing community of teachers, researchers and learners in higher education dedicated to this reconsideration. Supporters include the MIT Media Lab and the MacArthur Foundation-supported Digital Media and Learning Research Hub. I am honored to be associated with the project as a documentarian and beater of the drum.
Entries are currently open for our Innovation Contest, offering a $2000 incentive to either teachers or students who have projects to transform higher education in a direction that is connected and creative, is open as in open content and open as in open access, that is participatory, that takes advantage of some of the forms and practices that the MOOC also does but is not beholden to the narrow mainstream MOOC format (referring instead to some of the earlier iterations of student-created, distributed MOOCscreated by Dave Cormier, George Siemens, Stephen Downes and others.)
Current entries include a platform to facilitate peer to peer language learning, a Skype-based open-access seminar with guests from around the world, and a student-created course in educational technology. Go hereto add your entry! Deadline is August 2. Our judges include Cathy Davidson (HASTAC), Joi Ito (MIT), and Paul Kim (Stanford).
Reclaim Open Learning earlier sponsored a hackathon at the MIT Media Lab. This fall, September 27 and 28, our judges and contest winners will join us at a series of conversations and demo days to Reclaim Open Learning at the University of California, Irvine. If you’re interested in continuing the conversation, join us there or check us out online.
The House is passing 3 bills:
The House passed the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act, which mandates strategic guidance for federal cybersecurity research and development. To establish that guidance, the bill calls for input from public and private stakeholders, and strengthens security automation standards and checklists for federal systems.
How this will impact education and academia? What input can SCSU contribute with?…
FISMA – Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Information_Security_Management_Act_of_2002
CISPA- Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Intelligence_Sharing_and_Protection_Act
Previous 1 … 10 11 12