Dec 022009
 

From a scholarly article I’m reading (emphasis mine):

“The software was subsequently enhanced to include an open data architecture that allows users and curriculum designers to create their own data libraries.”

My question: Why is software being designed BEFORE curriculum? Why is the assumption that curriculum designers will design around the software? Am I the only one who feels that there is something wrong with this?

The article:

Edelson, D.C., Gordin, D.N., & Pea, R.D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3&4), 391-450.

Like this? You might also enjoy these:

 2 December, 2009  Posted by at 6:09 pm Instructional Pedagogy Tagged with: , , ,  No Responses »
Nov 282009
 

Screen shot 2009-11-28 at 1.10.16 PM

I snipped this image from a PDF of a scholarly article I’m reading about a new tool (at the time) that was designed for inquiry-based learning in science classrooms. The actual article and the actual tool are not important, but the challenge listed here is. I should note that this challenge (or some form of it) was mentioned at least 4 times throughout the article.

Although the article is more than 10 years old, it highlights so many things that I think are wrong with the current state of tech in education.

What do you think?

Continue reading »

Like this? You might also enjoy these:

 28 November, 2009  Posted by at 2:26 am change, Instructional Pedagogy Tagged with: , , , , , ,  No Responses »
Nov 132009
 

How would learning look if we applied this principle to everything that had to be learned, anything that was “good for you,” but that wasn’t fun? Is it possible to apply “the fun theory” to all learning? Can we be creative enough designers to do this?

Like this? You might also enjoy these: