There are many good videos here, of TED conference talks... talking about big, big ideas.
>> Jeff Han is a research scientist for New York University's Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences. Here, he demonstrates—for the first time publicly—his intuitive, "interface-free," touch-driven computer screen, which can be manipulated intuitively with the fingertips, and responds to varying levels of pressure. (Recorded February 2006 in Monterey, CA. Duration: 09:32)
>> Hans Rosling is professor of international health at Sweden's world-renowned Karolinska Institute, and founder of Gapminder, a non-profit that brings vital global data to life. With the drama and urgency of a sportscaster, he debunks a few myths about the "developing" world. (Recorded February, 2006 in Monterey, CA.)
That Robinson fellar was funny! It's all too true that the arts get the shaft, and with No Child Left Behind, the shaft is getting bigger. Up here in Seattle we have not felt the effects of this legislation as much, but I have heard that 2007 should see increased allotment of funds to the humanities and sciences.
Currently I am in a class at the Evergreen State College called How People Learn. It covers the neurobiology and developmental psychology of how we as elevated monkeys absorb information and commit that information to memory. Then we look at how teaching has evolved and juxtapose that understanding to the way teaching occurs in the classroom. Creativity in general comes up a lot because it is essentially the basis of the constructivist approach to education, i.e. the student is given the environment and opportunity to create or construct educational pathways for themselves. Instead to telling first graders that 20-13=7, the children are given a problem and, individually or collectively, a pathways and an answer is determined. Of course the concept is much broader than this, but the basic idea is that children are able to see how they are apart of education. This fosters a more mature form of metacognition, where the student is able to assess their learning methodologies not against a dictated method, but against a number of possibilities that they have first-hand contact with. So, while such education takes more time at first and is ostensibly less efficient, studies have shown [support to follow] that over the course of a typical K-12 education, greater efficiency is achieved by using the constructivist method rather than the traditional. Also significant is the emotional differences in the learners themselves. Children under constructivist education are used to solving problems themselves and understand the role of the teacher as more of a guide or supporter. Thinking back to my own K-12 education, I think that much of my frustration came from not being able to understand what the teacher was demonstrating, so I scrambled to simply replicate their methods without absorbing the process involved. That is an extremely common experience. However, the traditional system does work for some. These are the students that tap into the processes involved (or they have been to earth too many times...). For me, I had a few other things on my mind.
While some instruction is always needed, the instruction becomes more like a tool for the child. The teacher provides the tools necessary for the pupil to follow the constructivist approach and then they step back.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum