educação... aprendizagem organizacional e estrutras colaborativas

"Much of the dysfunction in schools is a result of the historical isolation of classrooms and schools as compartmentalized hierarchies. This establishes teaching as individualistic rather than as a collegial enterprise. Many problems identified specifically with ineffective teaching practices are attributed to teacher isolation. Isolated classroom cells are symbolic of teachers working out of sight and hearing of one another and solving problems on their own. This professional isolation operates as a bulwark against school improvement and can be a useful priority for many schools and district leaders.

Learning is a social enterprise and people learn best in groups. Collaborative structures help to decrease teacher isolation, codify and share successful teaching practices, increase staff morale, and open the door to experimentation and increased collective efficacy. Collaborative environments are also likely to attract talented staff who thrive on interactions with like-minded talented individuals. High levels of collaboration are likely to exist when the leadership marks it as a priority, when common time and physical space are set aside for collaboration, and when teaching and learning are seen as a team responsibility, rather than an individual responsibility.

Collaborative structures imply the provision of both time and space for teachers to interact. Time is perhaps the most precious resource, and time to meet and talk is an essential resource for schools. Collaboration is time-consuming and staff need to be provided with adequate time to interact. The movement from ‘me’ or ‘I’ to ‘us’ or ‘we’ requires frequent teacher interactions which can be achieved through common planning time, team-teaching, and coaching and mentoring.

Physical structures also need to support collaborative learning. Classrooms, staff workspaces, and furniture all either reinforce or detract from collaboration. Schools should be designed more like advertising agencies than prisons. The provision of comfortable sofas and water fountains can do a great deal to support collaboration.

The most important outcome of teacher collaboration may be that teachers learn how to improve their teaching practice. When teachers collaborate, they share experiences and knowledge that can promote learning for instructional improvement. A team focus on learning helps teachers to discover causal connections between teaching and student learning and encourages collective questioning of ineffective teaching routines. High levels of teacher collaboration are also likely to improve teaching and learning, student behavior, and student achievement on high-stakes tests.

Teachers who work collaboratively think and behave on the basis of an understanding of teaching as a shared responsibility. The scrutiny of peers is welcomed. Collaborative structures enable teachers to learn from the experience and expertise of their peers. However, just because teachers work together does not mean that the outcomes will be positive, as there needs to be an appropriate knowledge base from at least one teacher for it to be worthwhile.

Merely placing staff into teams will not necessarily lead to improved learning. There is the problem of contrived collegiality, where the collaboration is promoted as a means of achieving executive purposes, rather than the goals of the teachers. Communication and interdependence are methods of overcoming the balkanization of the silo-like subject-based teams in high schools. Developing cross-disciplinary curriculum structures is another possible method of overcoming the problem of balkanization.

Organizations learn collectively in groups and collaborative structures enable people to work together in teams to accomplish collective purposes."

For more, see:

• Why You Should Create a Collaborative Classroom This Year
• Defining (and Driving) Collaboration
• Collaboration: Key to Successful Teams and Projects

via getting smart...

curioso... é educação, mas mais parece campanha eleitoral...?

no público...

terminada [ou não] a escolaridade obrigatória... currículo específico individual...?

Currículos à medida para alunos em dificuldade

13.07.2015 13h11

Isabel Paulo
 
Ministério da Educação preconiza programas de treino vocacional e currículos à medida para alunos com necessidades educativas especiais a partir dos 15 anos

"Ministério da Educação emitiu domingo uma portaria relativa aos alunos com Currículo Específico Individual (CEI), destinada aos alunos de 15 anos ou mais que revelem défice de aprendizagem e necessidades educativas especiais três anos antes de atingirem a idade limite da escolaridade obrigatória.

A medida visa assegurar a transição para a vida pós-escolar, devendo os estabelecimentos de ensino incluir "programas específicos de transição e treino vocacional" que prepare os alunos para serem membros "independentes e ativos das respetivas comunidades".

Em comunicado divulgado domingo à noite, o ministério de Nuno Crato refere que passará a competir à escola definir as cargas curriculares adaptadas às especificidades de cada um dos alunos com dificuldade em acompanhar os programas letivos, bem como articular com parceiros locais apoios e atividades para que os alunos desenvolvam as suas capacidades.

A três meses das eleições legislativas, o Ministério da Educação adota a máxima leninista “a cada um segundo as suas necessidades, a cada um segundo as suas capacidades”, um fato curricular feito à medida dos alunos com insucesso escolar que poderá englobar experiências laborais em "instituições da comunidade, empresas, serviços públicos ou outras organizações a identificar pela escola que podem ter o apoio de Centros de Recursos para a Inclusão".

De acordo com a nova portaria, o plano individual do aluno será elaborado em colaboração com os encarregados de educação e representantes das organizações da comunidade implicadas na vida e percurso dos estudantes em causa, cabendo às escolas definir os tempos de cada uma das componentes de matriz curricular.

A tutela adianta ainda que será implementado progressivamente um programa de formação para os docentes "com perfil adequado ao trabalho a desenvolver"."

no expresso em linha...

a legislação está aqui:

legislação [educação]... currículo específico individual, estágios internacionais e verbas dos municípios... via boletim do cirep...!

 

coisas da (des)educação (?)... a indústria das explicações...!

no observador...

"Permitam-me o atrevimento de não comentar as sondagens ou a entrevista de Passos Coelho, e optar antes por discutir algo menos óbvio mas mais importante. Começa hoje o período de exames. Até quinta-feira, realizam-se as provas finais para os alunos dos 4.º e 6.º anos. E, a partir de agora, os alunos do secundário entram na reta final do seu plano de estudos e podem inscrever-se nos exames que definirão o seu acesso ao ensino superior. Não quero entrar no infindável debate sobre se devemos ou não ter exames, nem cair nos habituais exercícios de antecipação de resultados para elogiar ou crucificar ministros. O meu ponto de partida é outro: a indústria das explicações.

Os exames estão à porta e como se preparam os alunos? A maioria adere às explicações. E os restantes, geralmente por falta de dinheiro, tentam aguentar-se sem recorrer a elas, jogando com o que têm – em alguns casos, o apoio dos pais, noutros apenas e só a escola. Ora, durante anos, habituámo-nos a esta dependência massificada em explicações pagas. Afinal, as notas contam, o miúdo precisa de as melhorar e o dinheiro gasto em educação é visto como um investimento pelos pais, sempre dispostos a fazer das tripas coração. Mas, da perspectiva do sistema educativo, esta dependência tornada hábito não deve ser vista com normalidade: se recorre a explicações quem precisa de aprender o que na escola não lhe conseguiram ensinar, então algo na escola está a falhar. E a resposta a esse falhanço não pode sair do bolso dos pais.

Não dá para aceitar que a escola seja insuficiente para aprender o que está no currículo. Pode até custar a admitir, mas o problema existe e tem de ser escrutinado, nem que seja pelas consequências que impõe. Num sistema obsessivo com as notas dos alunos, como é o nosso, este falhanço das escolas denuncia o desfasamento entre o trabalho dos professores, o desenho dos currículos e a elaboração dos exames. E, mais grave, exibe um sistema pouco disponível (por falta de tempo, recursos ou vontade) para apoiar alunos que, manifestando dificuldades, vão ficando para trás. Estes, porque a escola falha com eles, fazem das explicações a sua bóia salva-vidas.

Ora, essa solução não soluciona, e é simples de explicar porquê: nem toda a gente pode pagar explicações. Se algo funciona mal na escola pública que todos frequentam, a resolução dessa insuficiência não pode vir acompanhada de uma propina de 60 a 200 euros, na medida em que isso excluirá uma parte dos alunos. A resposta tem de vir de dentro, tem de surgir da própria escola. E enquanto isso só acontecer em alguns casos pontuais, os mais frágeis e indefesos ficarão mesmo para trás. De uma forma ou de outra, esta situação tem de ser enfrentada.

De facto, impressiona muito a indiferença colectiva perante esta insuficiência crónica: os alunos não deveriam precisar de explicações fora da escola e muito menos deveriam os seus pais pagar por elas. Não é pedir nada de especial. O mínimo a exigir às escolas e ao sistema educativo é que façam o seu trabalho.

Vou ser sincero: o sistema que alimenta esta indústria das explicações dura há tantos anos que é legítimo duvidar se há quem o queira mesmo enfrentar. Do que vejo, julgo que essa vontade não existe. Na verdade, os professores dispensam a responsabilização pelos resultados dos seus alunos, as escolas não querem prestar contas aos pais, o ministério prefere que os encargos dos apoios ao estudo recaiam sobre as famílias em vez de sobre o orçamento de estado e, quando o assunto é educação, as famílias já fazem contas à vida na expectativa do todo o tipo de necessidades suplementares. Não devia ser assim, mas é.

Obviamente, não tenho uma solução mágica para acabar com esta injusta dependência dos nossos alunos, até porque não acredito que o problema se resolva só com mais dinheiro nas escolas ou através de uma qualquer medida isolada. Mas seja qual for a solução, ela também dependerá da forma como olhamos para o sistema educativo. E, nesse sentido, deixo uma sugestão que, pelo menos, mal não fará: que se seja tão exigente com as escolas, professores e directores como com o ministro, a quem tão rapidamente se aponta o dedo por tudo o que corre mal na educação. Sim, tanto ele como os seus antecessores terão as suas responsabilidades. Mas, no dia-a-dia, também as têm os professores que desistem dos seus alunos e preferem chumbar a ensinar, as escolas que manipulam resultados escolares em função dos seus interesses, ou ainda os directores que “escondem” os maus alunos (para que estes não puxem a escola para baixo nos rankings). É que, no final, tudo se resume a uma questão de expectativas: se esperarmos sempre pouco da nossa escola pública, ela nunca nos dará o melhor que pode."

aqui.

e, já agora, para ajudar à festa... só mesmo isto...?

no público...

coisas da educação... exames nacionais, mitos e realidades (?)... 4

no dn...

coisas da educação... exames nacionais, mitos e realidades (?)... 3

no dn...

coisas da educação... exames nacionais, mitos e realidades (?)... 2

no dn...

coisas da educação... exames nacionais, mitos e realidades (?)... 1

no dn...

como é que os professores podem ser mais criativos...?

no education week...

"What makes great teachers? A number of factors, but some are harder to pinpoint than others.

A new study from Michigan State University attempts to define one aspect of great teaching by focusing on how some educators use creativity to inform instruction.

"[T]he importance of creativity and the need to develop critical and creative thinkers in the 21st century cannot be denied, and with that comes a requisite need for research on successful creative teaching practices," write authors and professors of educational psychology Danah Henriksen and Punya Mishra.

The study offers another practical purpose, too: "There is a strong body of thinking in educational research that essentially equates effective teaching with creative teaching."

While the term "creativity" carries a certain vagueness to it, the study—using educator interviews and historical research definitions—defines creative teaching as an approach emphasizing novelty (especially from the student perspective), task appropriateness, and usefulness. As one educator told the researchers, "It's got to be effective for learning, otherwise it's just entertainment." The educators interviewed also emphasized creativity as a mindset, rather than a one-time approach to a lesson.

Creative Practices

The research uses sampling from 90-minute interviews with eight recent National Teacher of the Year finalists. Among the responses that the teachers gave in their discussions:

• Creativity is learned, not innate. "You have to be able to move from the concrete to the abstract, and back again, to synthesize."
• Teachers can draw on their own interests to introduce creativity into the classroom: "What I do is basically, I just go through life and always—I'm always on the lookout for, 'How can I apply that to teaching?'"
• It's not the teacher that necessarily needs to be creative. Instead, teachers can "let loose the reins" and allow students to be thoughtful: "As a 32-year-old, my brain has been taught to think a specific way with different things. Their eight- or 10-year-old brains are a lot more open."
• Take risks, but plan through them; risk-taking shouldn't be haphazard. And "forgive yourself when things don't go as you might have hoped."
• Lessons should carry real-world value. One science teacher, for example, described creating a town hall environment in his classroom, where some students represented different interests in the energy community, and other students acted as the politicians trying to put together an energy plan.
• Use cross-curricular approaches. One math teacher draws on business and psychology to help students understand the math behind sale pricing. "The students get really engaged in advertising and how advertisers try to target them as young adults.""

[o resto] aqui.

a curiosidade matou o gato (?)... reflexões educativas para o fim de dia...!

tecnologias [educação]... photomath [à atenção dos professores de matemática, mas não só]... no pplware...!

com as respectivas ligações e vídeos... aqui.

coisas da educação [pedagogia]... ensino diferenciado [prós e contras]... não funciona...!

"Let's review the educational cure-alls of past decades: back to basics, the open classroom, whole language, constructivism, and E.D. Hirsch's excruciatingly detailed accounts of what every 1st or 3rd grader should know, to name a few. It seems America's teachers and students are guinea pigs in the perennial quest for universal excellence. Sadly, though, the elusive panacea that will solve all of education's woes has remained, well, elusive.

But wait! The solution has arrived, and it's been around long enough to prove its worth. What is this magical elixir? Differentiation!

Starting with the gifted-education community in the late 1960s, differentiation didn't get its mojo going until regular educators jumped onto the bandwagon in the 1980s. By my count, the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (now known simply as ASCD) has released more than 600 publications on differentiation, and countless publishers have followed suit with manuals and software that will turn every classroom into a differentiated one.

There's only one problem: Differentiation is a failure, a farce, and the ultimate educational joke played on countless educators and students.

"By having dismantled many of the provisions we used to offer kids on the edges of learning, ... we have sacrificed the learning of virtually every student."

In theory, differentiation sounds great, as it takes several important factors of student learning into account:

• It seeks to determine what students already know and what they still need to learn.

• It allows students to demonstrate what they know through multiple methods.

• It encourages students and teachers to add depth and complexity to the learning/teaching process.

Sounds wonderful, doesn't it? The problem is this: Although fine in theory, differentiation in practice is harder to implement in a heterogeneous classroom than it is to juggle with one arm tied behind your back.

Case in point: In a winter 2011 Education Next article, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute's Michael Petrilli wrote about a University of Virginia study of differentiated instruction: "Teachers were provided with extensive professional development and ongoing coaching. Three years later the researchers wanted to know if the program had an impact on student learning. But they were stumped. 'We couldn't answer the question ... because no one was actually differentiating,' " the researcher, Holly Hertberg-Davis, told Petrilli.

And, Ms. Hertberg-Davis herself wrote in a 2009 article in Gifted Child Quarterly: "It does not seem that we are yet at a place where differentiation within the regular classroom is a particularly effective method of challenging our most able learners."

Too, Mike Schmoker, in a 2010 Commentary for Education Week titled "When Pedagogic Fads Trump Priorities," relates that his experiences of observing educators trying to differentiate caused him to draw this conclusion: "In every case, differentiated instruction seemed to complicate teachers' work, requiring them to procure and assemble multiple sets of materials, … and it dumbed down instruction."

As additional evidence of the ineffectiveness of differentiation, in a 2008 report by the Fordham Institute, 83 percent of teachers nationwide stated that differentiation was "somewhat" or "very" difficult to implement.

It seems that, when it comes to differentiation, teachers are either not doing it at all, or beating themselves up for not doing it as well as they're supposed to be doing it. Either way, the verdict is clear: Differentiation is a promise unfulfilled, a boondoggle of massive proportions.

The biggest reason differentiation doesn't work, and never will, is the way students are deployed in most of our nation's classrooms. Toss together several students who struggle to learn, along with a smattering of gifted kids, while adding a few English-language learners and a bunch of academically average students and expect a single teacher to differentiate for each of them. That is a recipe for academic disaster if ever I saw one. Such an admixture of students with varying abilities in one classroom causes even the most experienced and conscientious teachers to flinch, as they know the task of reaching each child is an impossible one.

It seems to me that the only educators who assert that differentiation is doable are those who have never tried to implement it themselves: university professors, curriculum coordinators, and school principals. It's the in-the-trenches educators who know the stark reality: Differentiation is a cheap way out for school districts to pay lip service to those who demand that each child be educated to his or her fullest potential.

Do we expect an oncologist to be able to treat glaucoma? Do we expect a criminal prosecutor to be able to decipher patent law? Do we expect a concert pianist to be able to play the clarinet equally well? No, no, no. However, when the education of our nation's young people is at stake, we toss together into one classroom every possible learning strength and disability and expect a single teacher to be able to work academic miracles with every kid … as long as said teacher is willing to differentiate, of course.

The sad truth is this: By having dismantled many of the provisions we used to offer to kids on the edges of learning (classes for gifted kids, classes for kids who struggle to learn, and classes for those whose behaviors are disruptive to the learning process of others), we have sacrificed the learning of virtually every student. In the same Fordham Institute report cited earlier, 71 percent of teachers reported that they would like to see our nation rely more heavily on homogeneous grouping of advanced students, while a resounding 77 percent of teachers said that, when advanced students are paired with lower-achieving students for group assignments, it's the smart kids who do the bulk of the work.

A second reason that differentiation has been a failure is that we're not exactly sure what it is we are differentiating: Is it the curriculum or the instructional methods used to deliver it? Or both? The terms "differentiated instruction" and "differentiated curriculum" are used interchangeably, yet they are not synonyms. Teachers want and need clear guidance on what it is they are supposed to do to reach differentiated Nirvana, yet the messages they receive from the "experts" are far from consistent. No wonder confusion reigns and teachers feel defeated in trying to implement the grand goals of differentiation.
Differentiation might have a chance to work if we are willing, as a nation, to return to the days when students of similar abilities were placed in classes with other students whose learning needs paralleled their own. Until that time, differentiation will continue to be what it has become: a losing proposition for both students and teachers, and yet one more panacea that did not pan out."

 

 

no education week...

coisas da educação [pedagogia]... ensino diferenciado [prós e contras]... funciona...!

"It will not surprise educators who know my work to learn that my experiences and beliefs regarding academic diversity in classrooms differ from those of James R. Delisle, who recently made the case in an Education Week Commentary that differentiated instruction can't work in today's classrooms.

Based on a conviction that conversation around differing vantage points is beneficial, I'd like to respond.

—Chris Whetzel for Education Week

I'll begin with the idea that teachers don't differentiate instruction. In fact, they do. I work with teachers regularly—in the United States and around the world—whose teaching consistently reflects the principles and practices of differentiation. It's how they do business. They don't, as Mr. Delisle writes, "beat themselves up for not doing it as well as they are supposed to be doing it," but they do understand that the pursuit of expertise in teaching is a career-long endeavor. They aren't sprinters expecting quick success, so much as marathoners in the race for the long haul.

Then there's the assertion that the only people who think differentiation is doable are those who have never tried to implement it.

Speaking first for myself, I taught for 20 years in differentiated middle school classrooms, greatly enriched by working with a group of colleagues who did the same. Like many other teachers, then and now, we invented instructional approaches we hoped would benefit our diverse learners, keeping those practices that worked and jettisoning or modifying those that didn't.

In my second life at the University of Virginia, I continue to differentiate in my classes. I also work often with school-based academic coaches and principals who share with colleagues the practices of differentiation they used successfully in their own classrooms. And there are many specialists—in special education, English-language learning, reading, gifted education—who continue to differentiate in particular settings, even as they share what they know while working alongside teachers in general education classrooms.

Mr. Delisle's fundamental argument, however, doesn't seem to be so much that differentiation can't work under any circumstances, but rather that perhaps it could if we'd just group students by ability. While I know of no aspect of education on which all studies are in total agreement, this one comes close.

For many reasons, students in lower-track classes don't achieve as well as they do in heterogeneous settings. Those classes tend to be taught by newer or less engaged teachers. The quality of curriculum and instruction is less robust than in most heterogeneous settings. The intellectual climate in tracked classes is further damped by students who know they are siloed because adults consider them to be less able than many of their peers—and they respond accordingly.

Common sense and experience tell the story, as well. As the wise Bart Simpson told his teacher in one episode of "The Simpsons": "You think I'm not smart so you're gonna put me in a remedial class and slow down what I do. At the same time, the other kids will keep moving ahead, and you think someday I'll catch up?" Follow a remedial class throughout several school days, and it becomes very difficult to assert that students in all tracks have any degree of equitable access to excellent educational opportunity.

One outcome of tracking that should be of particular concern in the current school year—the first in which "minority" students became the majority in U.S. schools—is the reality that low-track classes continue to be disproportionately composed of students of color and/or low-income students, while high-track classes remain disproportionately white and/or Asian and middle class.

Educator Martin Haberman spoke of low-track classes as supporting a "pedagogy of poverty," a label he used to reflect two realities. First, most students in the low-track classes are from low-income backgrounds. Second, the quality of learning in those classes seems a guarantee that the students in them will remain poor.

"I absolutely understand that differentiating instruction well is not easy. But then, I've never felt that teaching should be easy."

Later, Helene Hodges, a former official of the education association ASCD, wrote about "a pedagogy of plenty," describing the nature of rich learning experiences in high-track classes, where more privileged students are the norm. Detailing the kind of intellectually rich environment typical of those classes, she concluded that they were not only heavily populated by students whose lives were marked by "plenty," but that continual engagement with the kind of learning opportunities in those classes predicted a continuing life of plenty for students in them.

Recent work in neuroscience and psychology reveals two findings that should be central in educational planning. First, virtually all brains are malleable. When we teach as though students are smart, they become smarter. Second, a related but separate body of research indicates that teachers who believe firmly in the untapped capacity of each learner, and thus set out to demonstrate to students that by working hard and working smart they can achieve impressive goals, get far better results than teachers who believe some students are smart, others are not, and little can be done to change that. It's difficult to grow brains and help students develop growth mindsets in remedial contexts.

That undermines a chief point of Mr. Delisle's argument that bright learners can't fare well in heterogeneous classrooms. Studies have shown, after all, that advanced learners achieve more in homogeneous settings. I am a firm believer that schools owe every student what the noted researcher John Hattie calls "plus-one learning" in his book Visible Learning for Teachers. With plus-one learning, teachers are obliged to ensure that each learner—including those who are most advanced—moves forward consistently from his or her starting point.

I have no more patience with classes where advanced learners stagnate than I do with classes that shortchange kids who struggle with school. Here are a couple of points worth considering, however. The studies most cited in terms of benefits of homogeneous instruction for bright learners examined two conditions: heterogeneous classrooms in which little or nothing was done to provide plus-one learning for advanced learners, and homogeneous classrooms in which teachers regularly planned for plus-one learning.

In the two decades since those studies, I've observed and studied schools in which the entire faculty focused on providing a third condition: differentiation in mixed-ability classrooms where regular planning for a full spectrum of learners—including advanced learners—was a given.

Teachers in those schools typically "teach up," planning first for advanced learners, then scaffolding instruction to enable less advanced students to access those rich learning experiences. Further, they extend the initial learning opportunities when they are not sufficiently challenging for highly advanced learners. In those schools, achievement for the full spectrum of learners—including advanced learners—rose markedly when compared to peer schools where this approach was not pervasive.

For the record, I've never felt differentiation was a panacea. I have never advocated what I'd call "Noah's Ark" classrooms assigned two of every kind of learner in the school. I absolutely understand that differentiating instruction well is not easy. But then, I've never felt that teaching should be easy.
I work with a growth mindset about teachers, as about students. I believe that with intelligent, sustained support, most teachers can learn—step by step and over time—the attitudes and skills necessary to provide plus-one learning in the context of classrooms that are both academically rich and academically diverse. "


Carol Ann Tomlinson is the William Clay Parrish Jr. professor and chair of educational leadership, foundations, and policy at the University of Virginia's Curry School of Education, in Charlottesville. She is also the author of numerous books on differentiated instruction, including The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners, 2nd Edition (ASCD, 2014) and Assessment and Student Success in a Differentiated Classroom (ASCD, 2013). She leads the Differentiated Instruction Cadre for ASCD Professional Learning Services.


Vol. 34, Issue 19, Pages 26,32

no education week...

coisas da educação [áreas científicas]... da gestão educacional, lá pelas terras de sua mejestade...!

no the guardian...

"There are far greater threats to practical work in science. The desperate underfunding of science in state schools is leading to ever-increasing class sizes. Schools are finding it ever more difficult to offer salaries which will attract people with qualifications in science into the teaching profession. It would really help science teachers if our senior scientists would concentrate their efforts on addressing these real threats rather than trying to reinstate a completely discredited system of practical assessment.
Keith Strachan
Lancaster

• Paul Nurse writes with the authority of his position as president of the Royal Society on the necessity of providing young people with the skills of practical understanding of science. From the perspective of the primary school there is a widespread recognition that opportunities need to be provided where children can learn not just science but how to become scientists. Lab_13, a space where children run their own experiments, is a model of how this can work.
Rick HallNottingham"

aqui.

coisas da educação... reflexões para o fim de dia...!

no observador...

"Educar e ensinar não é fácil, mas é possível potenciar o potencial de cada criança. E como é que isso se faz? É a resposta a esta pergunta que motivou Salman Khan a fazer um vídeo para as primas mais novas tirarem melhores notas na escola. A ferramenta interativa prendeu a curiosidade das meninas, que podiam rever o vídeo à medida da sua compreensão. Não tinham a pressão de ter de apreender tudo naquele segundo — como um professor que debita matéria sem travão.

O caso aconteceu em 2004 e os resultados inspiraram o analista financeiro a fundar a Khan Academy em 2006. Agora tem mais de 2000 vídeos no Youtube e é apontado como um dos “melhores professores” da atualidade. A academia online de educação é de acesso grátis. Tem 15 milhões de utilizadores registados, dos quais 500 mil são professores. E não falta trabalho: diariamente, o site dispõe de muitos problemas matemáticos para resolver, vídeos sobre ciência, economia, finanças, artes e humanidades. Desde “o que são as células” até “o que é a inflação”, está tudo explicado na academia de Khan.

O protagonismo que a academia adquiriu fez com que Salman se tornasse um verdadeiro conselheiro no que respeita à educação. Salman Khan diz que é preciso virar as salas de aula ao contrário e sugere que, em vez de os alunos passarem muito tempo a fazer trabalhos de casa, em casa, devem fazê-lo na escola — é lá que os problemas devem ser trabalhados e isso permite que ganhem o seu próprio ritmo junto dos outros.

O objetivo do professor não deve ser “despachar trabalho para os alunos”, mas sim pensar na melhor forma para desenvolver as capacidades de todos os elementos do grupo. Primeiro, Khan lança uma ideia que deve estar clara em todas as escolas: as pessoas não aprendem todas ao mesmo ritmo. Como tal, a melhor atitude não é travar a evolução dos melhores alunos, mas sim trabalhar mais com os que estão a ficar para trás.

Para Khan, “não faz sentido que um aluno que já tenha entendido tudo daquela matéria tenha de ouvir tudo outra vez como o aluno que está completamente perdido”, contou à Forbes. Antes de passar à próxima matéria, a anterior tem de ficar bem apreendida — não podem ficar lacunas na aprendizagem. As ferramentas de trabalho devem ir além do quadro e do giz: os vídeos e as infografias são meios interativos a ser usados pelos pais e professores.

A motivação é mais uma das chaves para o sucesso. Um professor deve ver o desenvolvimento do aluno como uma compensação pessoal — e deve ser essa a sua motivação. Para Salman Khan, há um conselho que todos os professores deviam anotar na sua agenda. “Os alunos aprendem melhor quando as escolas respeitam a sua curiosidade natural e inteligência e, sobretudo, quando lhes dão a chance de conseguirem um entendimento intuitivo”."

aqui.

e um vídeo do artigo:

 

coisas da (des)educação (?)... no futuro hão-de lamentar...?

no i 'online'... aqui.

coisas da educação [reformas e equívocos]... reflexões para o fim de dia...!

a ler... aqui.

coisas da educação... reflexões para o fim de dia...!

"Did you know that the often-used term “personalized instruction” is not the same thing as the often-used term “personalized learning?” Or that the renewed push for online learning and computerized instruction is based on some of the same arguments employed more than 30 years ago? Or that there is not a great deal of evidence that “personalized instruction” broadly improves student achievement?

All of this is part of a new policy brief by Noel Enyedy, associate professor in UCLA’s Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, and published by the National Center for Education Policy at the University of Colorado Boulder. It is titled “New Interest, Old Rhetoric, Limited Results, And the Need for a New Direction for Computer-Mediated Learning.” Here’s the executive summary:

Executive Summary
There has been a renewed interest in and enthusiasm for online learning and computerized instruction. One gets a sense of déjà vu when reading today’s educational blogs and policy documents, which are recycling the same arguments for computerized instruction that appeared in the 1980s. But in the more than 30 years since the personal computer and computer-assisted instruction entered K-12 education, not much has changed. Computers are now commonplace in the classroom, but teaching practices often look similar, as do learning outcomes. This raises two questions: What has changed to get people excited about online learning? And is this revival of enthusiasm warranted?
It seems that the pace of technological advancement, combined with the clear success stories of how technology has improved productivity in other sectors, is leading policymakers and educators alike to take another look at computers in the classroom, and even at computers instead of  classrooms. In particular, advances in computational power, memory storage, and artificial intelligence are breathing new life into the promise that instruction can be tailored to the needs of each individual student, much like a one-on-one tutor. The term most often used by advocates for this approach is “Personalized Instruction.”
However, despite the advances in both hardware and software, recent studies show little evidence for the effectiveness of this form of Personalized Instruction. This is due in large part to the incredible diversity of systems that are lumped together under the label of Personalized Instruction. Combining such disparate systems into one group has made it nearly impossible to make reasonable claims one way or the other. To further cloud the issue, there are several ways that these systems can be implemented in the classroom. We are just beginning to experiment with and evaluate different implementation models—and the data show that implementation models matter. How a system is integrated into classroom routines and structures strongly mediates the outcomes for students. In light of recent findings, it may be that we need to turn to new ways of conceptualizing the role of technology in the classroom—conceptualizations that do not assume the computer will provide direct instruction to students, but instead will serve to create new opportunities for both learning and teaching.
Therefore, it is recommended that:

• Education policymakers should continue to invest in technology but should be wary of advocacy promoting computerized instruction to an extent that oversteps the current research. Policymakers should pursue an incremental path with technology.

• Policymakers and researchers should clearly distinguish among key systemic features of technologies in use. “Personalized Instruction” is too broad and vague an umbrella term to allow for meaningful evaluation or to guide policy.

• Researchers should design studies focused on the K-12 context, because much available evidence to date has been extrapolated from studies done at the undergraduate and professional levels, where developmental and motivational factors differ.

• Setting aside the controversy surrounding national academic standards, where academic standards are in place, educators adopting instruction via technology should insist that developers provide software aligned with the standards. In one implementation study where standards were adopted, 66% of the teachers reported the lack of the system’s alignment with standards as a barrier to effective implementation. Adopters might also consider seeking software that reflects national assessment systems being developed (such as the Smarter Balanced Assessments), so that instructional systems parallel accountability systems and can possibly alleviate some of the onerous and time-consuming aspects of testing to the high standards set by the Common Core and Next Generation Science Standards.

• Policymakers should encourage more partnerships among developers, educational researchers and teachers. Such partnerships have great potential to produce systematic and rigorous evidence of what works and what doesn’t, including studies that take into account the various combinations of technical features, pedagogical approaches and implementation models. We cannot trust market forces alone to sort out which systems are effective.

• Administrators must ensure that investments in technological infrastructure and software licensing are accompanied by substantive professional development for teachers in order to provide them with skills that have not historically been in the teacher’s toolbox. Particularly important will be providing teachers with practice using technological data on student performance to guide instructional decisions for individual students.

• All stakeholders should refrain from assuming that Personalized Instruction is the only model for computers in the classroom and be open to investigating new models integrating technology into the learning process.

The brief also notes:

It is critical to note that “Personalized Instruction” is not the same as “personalized learning,” even though promoters and vendors of technological systems often use the terms interchangeably. Personalized instruction focuses on tailoring the pace, order, location, and content of a lesson uniquely for each student—as when a software program introduces a quiz at some point during instruction and then, based on the student’s score, either presents the student with new material or with a review of material not yet mastered. It is a rebranding of the idea of individualized instruction first promoted in the 1970s, before the widespread availability of personal computers.
Personalized learning, on the other hand, places the emphasis on the process of learning as opposed to attending exclusively to the delivery of content. Personalized learning refers to the ways teachers or learning environments can vary the resources, activities, and teaching techniques to effectively engage as many students as possible—as when, for example, students with a stronger intuitive understanding of the topic are assigned to small groups and given a challenging task to independently extend their understanding while the teacher concurrently works directly with a small group of students who have less prior knowledge of the topic. This interpretation of “personal” does not imply that each student receives a unique educational experience, but instead that students are provided with multiple entry points and multiple trajectories through a lesson.
Many of the current discussions of Personalized Learning are beginning to come to grips with the diversity of ways that learning can be personal, but still tend to conflate Personalized Instruction with Personalized Learning."

You can see the entire paper here.

aqui.

coisas da (des)educação... mais ironias do sistema...?

no público...