Presentations
From Kaput Center Wiki
Contents |
[edit] Notes
[edit] Responses to "Design" Group
SH: Assessment more sophisticated? As opposed to being more complex
Alan: process of assessment more complex; Corey: assessment becomes less mysterious Luis: not a fit between shared cognition and assessment of individual
SH: I like the idea of co-construction.
Links to Participation group on Division of Space (intimacy) from groups to 1-1 which impacts, affect, and drives frustration yielding meta-affect
JM: Use of socio-metrics - how is the social structure set-up and how can you plug-in/implement new forms/modes of assessment; roles exist that transcend the groups
SH: The implementation of change (for the classroom of the future - 50 years time) will have to come from the people of the classroom (organic) as it re-structures the social setup and beliefs of the classroom vs instructed by policy-makers or some governance strcuture (???)
JS: Use of extra-curricular group work (via podcasts)
Jere: what does it mean to train a teacher in 50 years? (In the 'Design' group scenario)
Teacher is more like a movie producer with something to contribute, i.e. an area of mastery
Alan: major focus on content as well
Gerry: affective role of teacher -> this is important; teacher cannot be just facilitator -> relationship between students and teacher cannot be ignored
[edit] Responses to "Participation" Group
[edit] Responses to "Learning Trajectories" Group
Response to Blending of approaches to a Trajectory -
Jere: Learning trajectory precedes standards and outcomes rather than derive from them
SH: Pathways of trajectories. Monotonic? Multi-dimensional. Space curves
Jere: Is it a corridor?
Multiple perspectives -
Could be piecewise discontinuous: curriculum vs time
Could also be continuous: assessment vs time
Re 
- "Progress Variables" are similar to "Assessment of benchmarks" - from actual student behaviors
- CB: Define flows, directions, & connections
We discussed the reasons for a focus on learning trajectories as across grades and over time. A question which needs to be clarified: What are the relationships among: standards, assessments, curriculum and instruction in relation to learning trajectories.
We discussed whether there are multiple learning trajectories, better or worse learning trajectories and on what grounds one would decide.
We also discussed the relationship between the learning trajectory and the empirical data-- are they one thing or is the learning trajectory a hypothetical learning trajectory to be checked against empirical results. Are they the results of synthesis? What gives them their authority?
Is it more like Jere's description of a corridor in which multiple trajectories fit (see her article in Handbook for the Learning Sciences)> In there, the emphasis across possible trajectories is on landmarks and obstacles? Is it more like piecewise trajectories as we drew above. Are there discontinuities? Productive and less productive directions? What would be the nature of the constaints and how are the seen or realized by students?
The group did agree on the value of stressing movement from informal to formal as informal permits us to focus on naive learners, repects what they bring to the enterprise and we agreed on wanting movement towards the formal or authorized by experts. That said, we discussed how formal would have to be constructed into an agreed upon outcome, towards modeling, math as a tool, useful and compressed and focused on structure.
Then we talked about the movement between informal and formal and the need to describe the transitional process. In this we discussed the semiotic system of representation and how it evolves over time. We further discussed what happens when these trajectories are embedded in dynamic technologies where there should be a deep blending of math and technology.
