Difference between revisions of "Edutech"
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
I like the common core. Compared to the MA Frameworks the Math standards are a little bit better and the ELA standards are way better. "Using the Common Core State Standards as a compass to guide" is what we as teachers have always used standards for. I see the quest to produce "all of the lessons and practice" as problematic. | I like the common core. Compared to the MA Frameworks the Math standards are a little bit better and the ELA standards are way better. "Using the Common Core State Standards as a compass to guide" is what we as teachers have always used standards for. I see the quest to produce "all of the lessons and practice" as problematic. | ||
To me it is the 'problematic', the automatic software produced practice problems, that is the problem. Let me digress. When I had had enough of terrible administrations and stopped teaching I thought that maybe I'd find some innovation in the edutech sector. I identified companies that I thought were innovative and got jobs doing things very similar to Education Acumen's opportunities in algorithm production and standards based curriculum development. I did it for math, science, history and humanities, targeting a particular standard like 6.ns.2.a and producing content | To me it is the 'problematic', the automatic software produced practice problems, that is the problem. Let me digress. When I had had enough of terrible administrations and stopped teaching I thought that maybe I'd find some innovation in the edutech sector. I identified companies that I thought were innovative and got jobs doing things very similar to Education Acumen's opportunities in algorithm production and standards based curriculum development. I did it for math, science, history and humanities, targeting a particular standard like 6.ns.2.a and producing content that the 'engine' could swallow and spit back out to the kids relentlessly data-mined in endless variation. | ||
I started to wonder what was so innovative about this approach? | I started to wonder what was so innovative about this approach? Is this really what "young students need and want". At least they don't have to carry around that huge algebra book, 800 pages of mini algorithms like 'move two decimal places this' and 'cross multiply that'. I had to agree with my uncooperative students; this was nonsense. We fracture the subject into these discreet competencies then drill and kill, while carefully posting the days standards in front of the room and the kids 'perform' and we check off their competencies. Then we wonder why the kids suck at the midterms and the SAT's. Why can't they solve problems, think, reason or argue 0(well)? Why are US kids so far behind so many other kids? | ||
Is it Taiwan's algebra book that is like 40 pages? As an exercise I boiled down Algebra1 to 4, 8-1/2 x 11" sheets of paper. I contend that those for pages address the standards and everything else is unnecessary and even destructive. | |||
===[[e2020]]=== | ===[[e2020]]=== | ||
Revision as of 15:14, 3 February 2015
education acumen
http://www.educationacumen.com/a-different-way-to-multiply/
I like the common core. Compared to the MA Frameworks the Math standards are a little bit better and the ELA standards are way better. "Using the Common Core State Standards as a compass to guide" is what we as teachers have always used standards for. I see the quest to produce "all of the lessons and practice" as problematic.
To me it is the 'problematic', the automatic software produced practice problems, that is the problem. Let me digress. When I had had enough of terrible administrations and stopped teaching I thought that maybe I'd find some innovation in the edutech sector. I identified companies that I thought were innovative and got jobs doing things very similar to Education Acumen's opportunities in algorithm production and standards based curriculum development. I did it for math, science, history and humanities, targeting a particular standard like 6.ns.2.a and producing content that the 'engine' could swallow and spit back out to the kids relentlessly data-mined in endless variation.
I started to wonder what was so innovative about this approach? Is this really what "young students need and want". At least they don't have to carry around that huge algebra book, 800 pages of mini algorithms like 'move two decimal places this' and 'cross multiply that'. I had to agree with my uncooperative students; this was nonsense. We fracture the subject into these discreet competencies then drill and kill, while carefully posting the days standards in front of the room and the kids 'perform' and we check off their competencies. Then we wonder why the kids suck at the midterms and the SAT's. Why can't they solve problems, think, reason or argue 0(well)? Why are US kids so far behind so many other kids?
Is it Taiwan's algebra book that is like 40 pages? As an exercise I boiled down Algebra1 to 4, 8-1/2 x 11" sheets of paper. I contend that those for pages address the standards and everything else is unnecessary and even destructive.
e2020
OER Open Educational Resources
Courses:
- http://www.oercommons.org/courses/humanities-2-us-antebellum-america-to-the-great-migration/view
- http://www.oercommons.org/courses/humanities-4-world-1500-present/view
- http://www.oercommons.org/courses/humanities-3-us-reconstruction-to-present/view
screencasting with ipad
links to people doing interesting thing in educational technology
LMS's
- canvas (open source)
- agilix
- angel
- blackboard
- D2L
- e-college
- moodle
- sakai (open source)
- time cruiser
- webCT
