I conveyed a

I conveyed a "local" quick Puenteduras taxonomy of technology use (and learning). It has ältats part of my work in recent years. I guess the summary publishing a book should publishing a book serve as a reminder; an explanation - and that I expected to learn something; draw out implications publishing a book and change my practice. (The link above goes to Puenteduras own summary, not to the "local" version, which I discuss publishing a book below. Figure to the right is taken from Puenteduras materials.) One thus has at the local level now summarized and exemplified the taxonomy and the discussions around it on workplace. Was this really the best (only) example of "Redefining" (Redefinition) could shake up? That in high school exchange and jointly write poems with foreign students? Firstly, it is not very difficult to find yourself (or find) a lot better examples publishing a book of practices that could be placed on the highest level. Secondly, this is not an example of what is meant by this level (barely publishing a book even on the second highest). A simple security question: "Can you do this without publishing a book (new) technology?" If the answer is "yes" you find yourself, by definition, not at the highest level. Letters Switch with students from another country? Well, how about a pen and paper and regular mail? Not exactly revolutionary ... At best, then given examples of how "old" didactic approach can be carried out smoothly (as above), which almost seems to fit on the second (possibly publishing a book third) level. But then comes the next question: How important is this particular approach, from a didactic point of view, compared to everything else? Is it really worth investing in expensive technology publishing a book for a comparatively insignificant simplification? But most often it is a question rather than on the use of technology publishing a book as an end in itself. Even when it gets harder, rather than easier, publishing a book to realize any didactic idea insists it with new technology, publishing a book for the sake of it. The Latest Inspiration Day was an orgy of such examples. What is most frightening is that those who give these examples are totally blind to the absurdity of detours with new technology to achieve things that clearly do not involve publishing a book any essentially new. The taxonomy is not stupid in itself. But used improperly, without publishing a book understanding, and "backwards". Moreover, it is noteworthy that constantly told that "there is research on this," when the phrase only seems to refer to someone (with an academic publishing a book title) has developed (invented) a taxonomy at all. There is no art. And Puenteduras taxonomy contains, in itself, nothing new or revolutionary. The research they would like to see is the one that confirms the following statement: Puenteduras research publishing a book suggests that it is only when teachers are at levels where they begin to modify or redefine their approach as one can demonstrate a substantial development in the learning publishing a book of the students. publishing a book (Is not it amazing that even in this formulation succeed publishing a book put the responsibility solely on the teachers, although the taxonomy publishing a book explicitly about technology use - and, in a figurative sense, if learners; whether forms and tools for learning. A fundamental Freudian incorrect wording! ) Why is not payable discussion of such research, ie from Puenteduras and others, actual results? And why is it not on the exact example that actually has proven to märbart successful and relevant; how and why? Something tells me that there is so much to show off. It is not surprising that this happens here, as "backwards"-implementation means that we have been in a situation where we feel forced to find things in the real world that matches the theory. Not very scientific. Not very pragmatic either. But, as I said, the taxonomy is not stupid publishing a book in itself. At best, it encourages us to think about how we can expand our didactic tool box - possibly with technology that may not have been available before. If we really begins in the end, we will not have all these contrived and forced practitioners. And is it that we ourselves realize that we would benefit from any technological gadget to realize our didactical idea - well, then we say to. Save your money until then!
Coin Toss and Hypothesis Testing Problem Solving with progression Combinatorics and Kaizen Do you like to win and hate to lose? Chess of computers marathon match Correlation and causality castle, chance, probability Entrepreneurs Sex, violence and horror The programmed grounds Implications
The Smart Handicap commons dilemma - which of thought experiments crafts Future day - lightly censored Stereotypes and prejudices Bayesian probability as easy as possible Philosophy of life organization? Why Smart People Are not Necessarily Stupid For the relative objectivism defense Why learn to program? Tower of Babel - a human pyramid? Guilty conscience American democracy in a nutshell Lord of the Giants publishing a book and glass take