Difference between revisions of "Cl2-18"
(Removing all content from page) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | '''Ido''' | ||
| + | 1. What are 1-3 best examples of PSLC accomplishments? How have these been “transformative” (NSF buzzword) for the learning sciences or education? | ||
| + | |||
| + | # Technological infrastructure for course implementation and evaluation | ||
| + | # Framework for comparison and meta-analysis of studies | ||
| + | # Surviving 4 years of NSF big-brotherhood without anyone loosing their minds permanently | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | 2. What are 1-3 best of PSLC accomplishments that results, at least in part, because of having a center (these could be the same as #1)? For each, why was this accomplishment less likely to have happened without the center (i.e., why couldn’t a regular grant have resulted in the same outcome)? | ||
| + | |||
| + | # Individual technological projects are islands of afordability - it is the center that bridges between them to create an infrastructure. | ||
| + | # It is through the on-going discussion and the breadth of projects that the framework was created. The framework emerged from this combination of top-down and bottom up processes, and was possible due to having more researchers than the critical math. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | 3. Building off what we have accomplished, what are 1-3 ideas for where PSLC research should go in the future and how would these ideas be “transformative” for learning science or education? | ||
| + | |||
| + | 1. More meta-analysis should be conducted on existing results using the existing framework. This meta-analysis should be done by integrating results from different studies and looking at learning phenomenas across existing data-sets | ||
| + | * This analysis should be informative in two ways: | ||
| + | ** Generating better science | ||
| + | ** Generating better instructional principles. | ||
| + | * Integration is the keyword here. Just like it required a center to turn the technological islands of affordability (e.g., CTAT) into a complete infrastructure, the next task of the center should be to bridge between the local islands of knowledge and principles to a more complete picture, or sheet. | ||
| + | * From a collection of 0-D local principles to a sheet of 2-D knowledge. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 2. We talk about new Pittsburgh but take relatively few risks. A center can allow itself to be more innovative, compared with individuals. I would vote for a Google-type of center rather than a Microsoft one. I would push harder on ill-defined domains, novel technologies, beyond cognition (emotion, motivation), methodologies (fMRI, etnography). | ||
| + | |||
| + | 3. stronger connections with educational practice | ||
| + | * More teacher involvement | ||
| + | * Doing more teaching in the PPS | ||
| + | * Doing much more outreach in inner-city Pittsburgh | ||
Revision as of 18:30, 18 February 2008
Ido
1. What are 1-3 best examples of PSLC accomplishments? How have these been “transformative” (NSF buzzword) for the learning sciences or education?
- Technological infrastructure for course implementation and evaluation
- Framework for comparison and meta-analysis of studies
- Surviving 4 years of NSF big-brotherhood without anyone loosing their minds permanently
2. What are 1-3 best of PSLC accomplishments that results, at least in part, because of having a center (these could be the same as #1)? For each, why was this accomplishment less likely to have happened without the center (i.e., why couldn’t a regular grant have resulted in the same outcome)?
- Individual technological projects are islands of afordability - it is the center that bridges between them to create an infrastructure.
- It is through the on-going discussion and the breadth of projects that the framework was created. The framework emerged from this combination of top-down and bottom up processes, and was possible due to having more researchers than the critical math.
3. Building off what we have accomplished, what are 1-3 ideas for where PSLC research should go in the future and how would these ideas be “transformative” for learning science or education?
1. More meta-analysis should be conducted on existing results using the existing framework. This meta-analysis should be done by integrating results from different studies and looking at learning phenomenas across existing data-sets
- This analysis should be informative in two ways:
- Generating better science
- Generating better instructional principles.
- Integration is the keyword here. Just like it required a center to turn the technological islands of affordability (e.g., CTAT) into a complete infrastructure, the next task of the center should be to bridge between the local islands of knowledge and principles to a more complete picture, or sheet.
- From a collection of 0-D local principles to a sheet of 2-D knowledge.
2. We talk about new Pittsburgh but take relatively few risks. A center can allow itself to be more innovative, compared with individuals. I would vote for a Google-type of center rather than a Microsoft one. I would push harder on ill-defined domains, novel technologies, beyond cognition (emotion, motivation), methodologies (fMRI, etnography).
3. stronger connections with educational practice
- More teacher involvement
- Doing more teaching in the PPS
- Doing much more outreach in inner-city Pittsburgh
