|
|
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| 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 in two levels:
| |
| − | ** Integrating results from different studies
| |
| − | ** 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
| |
