[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 05/11/11 01:04, Julian Hall wrote:
On 04/11/2011 12:19, tom wrote:If I understand you right, you're basically talking about a Wikipedia for teachers? A shared resource where, for example, all GCSE History teachers can come together and say 'OK week one we will teach X, and Y is how we will do it'. The only problem with that approach I can see - and in theory it's an excellent idea - is that pretty much every teacher has a different style of teaching, and you could get into a vicious circle of some changing bits that don't suit their style, others changing different bits, yet more changing others, then the original author putting it back as it was, and so it goes on. I think perhaps if it was limited to Heads of Department or perhaps counties to keep the membership of each Wiki small enough to avoid the problem it could work well, then possibly each county submit their results to a national Wiki. That way you could get a range of different choices to suit every teaching style, yet still be a combined effort giving a degree of uniformity across the board.On 04/11/11 09:53, Jack Oley wrote:You make some good points, Anthony. I was also somewhat disturbed to read about the head saying that "perhaps" iPads will "replace pens and paper". This is a learning establishment we're talking about here, isn't it?! IT should enhance aspects of traditional learning (and vice versa), not be a sweeping, gratuitous replacement. It seems that some people think that IT is some sort of panacea or holy grail. Jack. Teacher and ITophile.IT CAN be a panacea and a holy grail. I would personally say that it will, in the long term, replace a huge amount of the current teaching experience. Currently it is being used by the deluded/dishonest* and/or greedy to try and foist proprietary wares on people to generate revenue streams. As a teacher make your lessons HTML and sharealike them so other teachers and students can use them, share them and improve them. If we can get teachers to share lessons rather than every teacher spending their lives preparing the (nearly) identical lessons that every other teacher is preparing then perhaps teachers can get around to teaching. If we continue to make it easy for companies to introduce these toxic methods into schools we'll keep going backwards.> Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 08:36:38 +0000 > From: anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To: list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [LUG] Penzance School spends £300,000 on an iPad for every pupil> > Hi, > > This was in the Cornishman yesterday: >> http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Cornwall-school-gives-pupil-teacher-iPad/story-13743002-detail/story.html> >Tom te tom te tomIf the system worked as intended, they would only need to update it when the syllabus changed. It would also have the advantage that the quality of material and structure would not vary with the experience of the individual, so that the content of a newly qualified, or conversely about to retired and jaded teacher, would be no different in content to one who was in mid career and enthusiastic. Also, on that point, you would get input from all levels of age and expertise to give the courses a more rounded feel.Julian
A wikipedia but more atomic and layered and structured.1)The lowest level is simple facts - self contained stuff - a physical law, a declination of a verb in a language: small paragraphs. These are pretty much static and unique 2)The next level is nearer, if you like, a lesson which collects these paragraphs with some further explanation. These doclets ( (page sized) hyperlink to the lower facts. These can be created by individual teachers from other lessons as part of their... 3)The next level is the 'course' level - collections of the above lessons with further info to create a course again hyperlinking to lessons (sort of head of department/school level) 4) curriculum level - linking to points required from 1) but naturally creating subsets/templates of 2 and 3 - government level
5) search engines/management tools and wikis for sharingThat way you shouldn’t get the cycling you get with a wiki - more branching/forking and evolving - fitness could be worked out from shares or 'likes' something. I have a feeling thirty year old software management tools like diff fit quite well here.
Simple javascript can be used for drilling down documents. As someone mentioned earlier in this thread - isnt this what HTML was designed for?
Tom te tom te tom -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq