What I find amazing, though, is that time has seemed to stood still. I remember using ActiveWorlds about 20 years ago en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Wo…
Had students who built the school (or that might have been the Far Cry map editor or another game). #iLRN
I think this poses an important question for edtech (apart from many others, which I hope will come by as well)... how come not so much progress has been made? #iLRN
And to be honest, although I’m enjoying my campus visit, this visit should really be possible on a mobile device as well. Any plans for that? #iLRN
I've been kicking this football in #iLRN - sorry I eventually inadvertently kicked it into the water.
This is the exhibition hall.
Here I have run into a hidden wall. #iLRN#iLRN2020
I tried to get at the top of the skyscraper but I don't think it can be done. What if you went to the sports fields and could run a Fifa version? #iLRN#iRLN2020
I have never had an issue with procedural knowledge. I am fed up, though, with the misleading analogies with early phonics. Procedural and conceptual knowledge go hand-in-hand at all ages.
Now some folk will say that that will still be the case if you 'push back' content to later education phases, there is a risk that every phase will say 'the next one will have to do it'. This is why we always must keep both procedural and conceptual knowledge firmly in focus.
TBH I was also surprised by the 'pleasure' link. Glad to see it, but recently I've not seen it mentioned much in what I would call 'science of learning' views. They tend to one-sidedly highlight the achievement-to-motivation direction, when it's bidirectional.
I never read Nuthall's The Hidden Lives of Learners before today, after so many mentions of it over the years. I must say that personally I was a bit underwhelmed. I'm sure his career is impressive...and maybe I should have mainly seen it is a convincing narrative...
But if the book argued to be evidence-based I thought the claims were quite hard to check, and the book itself rather low on research detail. Let's just say I expected more.
Just put in a few direct article and page references for key claims; how hard is that? Now I have to do quite some work to find claims like 'three times confronted with knowledge' and the '80% from others 80% wrong '. Maybe someone can give the exact studies?
We've known it because unfortunately this is not really a 'new study' (maybe a few small changes) but yet another re-analysis of PISA 2012. All countries were already included by Caro et al. (2015) researchgate.net/publication/28… - also PISA 2015 sliced and diced to death.
So, we are talking about the same source and there's much to say about the scales (the casual way in which the paper equates scales reminds me of papers that declare inquiry, PBL, student-orientation all the same, when they're not).
It might be the case that it appeared in this quite unremarkable journal because it basically already had been done. One thing I would check is the within-country variance.
There have been quite a few people who did not seem up-to-date with decades of literature around online and blendec learning, but feel expert because of online learning during the pandemic.
And it’s not that it isn’t worthwhile to keep on studying the determinants of effective learning, it’s just that my sense is that there is a lot of reinventing the wheel. Take some of the OU stuff from ages ago with quizzes and more open answers….
…multiple choice quizzing with a bit of spacing imo then is rather underwhelming. Sure, sometimes things just take a ‘crisis’ (the pandemic in this case) to make a step change, but can Injust ask to read up on the history of online learning?
When on edutwitter some people don't want to talk about terminology, it isn't always because they have a good eye for 'obfuscation' and 'relevance', but because they need a 'persuasive definition' for their semantic sophistry.
Take the recent inquiry/explicit convos. For inquiry you need to be able to bunch all criticism together, so you can use it all interchangeably, and paint a field that uniformly fails.
With explicit instruction, direct instruction, Direct Instruction, Explicit Direct Instruction, despite wildly different with different evidence bases (many positive), you can then just talk about it as a coherent, clear, field...
Reading the Ofsted maths review a bit more. I really think the categorisation of knowledge is very limited with declarative, procedural and conditional knowledge. The latter is not used a lot afaik but is metacognitive and strategic in nature (but metacognition not mentioned).
With Rittle-Johnson et al’s (and others) work on procedural and conceptual knowledge, I especially find the omission or rephrasing of ‘conceptual’ notable. The word ‘conceptual’ appears in sevral places….
… in relation to ‘fluency’.
… in the table under ‘declarative’ as ‘relationships between facts’ (conceptual understanding)
… ‘develop further understanding through applying procedures’
… in a table under ‘procedural’
…