Learning results from what the student does and thinks and only from what the student does and thinks. The teacher can advance learning only by influencing what the student does to learn.
Source: rcm.amazon.com
[Richard] Fenman was a truly great teacher. He prided himself on being able to devise ways to explain even the most profound ideas to beginning students. Once, I said to him, “Dick, explain to me, so that I can understand it, why spin one-half particles obey Fermi-Dirac statistics.” Sizing up his audience perfectly, Feynman said, “I’ll prepare a freshman lecture on it.” But he came back a few days later to say, “I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t reduce it to the freshman level. That means we don’t really understand it.
Source: amazon.com
The overselling of foolish ideas about technology should not be allowed to discredit the whole field of online education. We as faculty need to get beyond defensive contempt for this significant education innovation and look at specific designs with legitimate pedagogical objectives in mind.
The core of good thinking is the ability to solve problems. The essence of problem solving is the ability to learn in puzzling situations.
We are now all in favor of learning, just as we all aspire to be thin, but we have not changed what we cook and serve to students.
If we don’t agree to the use of technology, we will be considered out of date and may lose our credibility.
Such a simple premise. Why can’t we do this?
I'm a Ph.D. student studying Educational Computing and an instructional designer. I'm currently focusing on the gamification of education. Read the full bio
loading tweets…
