These are a few links and notes from “Teaching 2.0: Engaging the Interactive Generation” by Chris Moersch at NECC 2009. I did not attend this full session, but got in on the end.
Links and resources from this session are available
– Handout of PowerPoint is available in PDF format
Dr Chris Moersch on HEAT walkthroughs
– identifying similarities and differences
– summarizing and note-taking
– reinforcing effort and providing recognition
– homework and practice
– nonlinguistic representations
– cooperative learning
– more…
Digital Age Learning Best Practices
– promoting shared expertise with networked collaboration
– bolstering inquiry through student questions
– making authentic connections
– more
Do we see HEAT taking place in the classroom?
Near the end of the session Chris showed the EduTopia video “Dollars and Sense: Kids Invest in Funds — and Their Own Future”
What continuous improvement plan are you using to promote digital age teaching?
may the LoTi be with you
Technorati Tags:
education, technology, loti, heat, higher, order, thinking
If you enjoyed this post and found it useful, subscribe to Wes’ free newsletter. Check out Wes’ video tutorial library, “Playing with Media.” Information about more ways to learn with Dr. Wesley Fryer are available on wesfryer.com/after.
On this day..
- Reflections on Carnegie Mellon Robotics Academy (Part 1) – 2022
- Periscope Reflections from ISTE 2015 on the Soledad O’Brien Keynote – 2015
- Maker Faire Kansas City 2014 Highlights – 2014
- Learning from Psy About Copyright and YouTube Takedowns – 2014
- Voices of #iste11 – Dr. Leigh Zeitz (Dr Z) on Digital Portfolios – 2011
- Steven Covey on Personal Leadership at #iste11 – 2011
- Unlocking Potential by Chris Lehmann #iste11 (notes & audio podcast) @chrislehmann – 2011
- Podstock 2010 will be here soon! – 2010
- Effective Leadership in an Era of Disruptive Innovation by Scott McLeod – 2009
- Best Practices for Encouraging Learning 24/7: Models that Work! – 2009
Comments
One response to “Teaching 2.0: Engaging the Interactive Generation by Chris Moersch”
I’m really interested in hearing more about what it means for students to be doing different things alongside one another, in groups or individually. Sorry for the longwinded reply, but I want to give some context for my question.
As a former Montessori classroom teacher my experience has been that choice is the engine of motivation: choice of what to do, when to do it, where in the classroom, who with, and how (along a spectrum–not necessarily absolute). Just like an adult at work, having a choice (could be a choice of two or three things only) gives ownership and buy-in, and a centered student is more likely to know what is important for them to work on at any time. Having students doing different things alongside each other doesn’t necessarily mean they are choosing their work (they could have been assigned different things in groups), and some may choose to do the same things at the same time. But allowing for students to choose their own work requires the classroom to be set up to allow the teacher to teach small groups or individuals while the rest work on their own choices at their own pace with minimal supervision. The Montessori system provides a structure that makes this easier: the multiage structure means older students can do much of the supervision and some of the teaching; it provides continuity of institutional memory with returning students; and means that teachers know their returning students better which produces greater trust than in a single-year classroom. And Dr Montessori’s famous manipulatives make most learning concrete (the fastest way to abstraction).
Now that I’m in a traditional situation, I’m interested in whether or how much real choice and differentiated activities can be allowed without the Montessori classroom structure. My gut feeling is that without the trust and collaboration that the multiage classroom provides, the kinds of problems I’ve been reading about with webcams will continue to happen with students who need to feel in control of what they are doing.
The “Goomoodleeikiog” technologies make the TEACHER’S life easier and create the possibility for students to collaborate out-of-school and more easily in the classroom. But the technology doesn’t require that collaboration. That has to come from the classroom structure, doesn’t it? It states that students will love working with technology and seems to assume that this cool factor will motivate them. Perhaps…but for how long will the novelty last without the real motivation that choice creates?
Thanks for any enlightenment you can throw my way.