-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
Meeting With Yong.page
62 lines (38 loc) · 2.76 KB
/
Meeting With Yong.page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
Here are the notes:
List and categorize everything
--Facts, procedures, skills, concepts, (strategies? --fits into concept category)
-- note, these are not hard and fast categories.
Sufficient scaffolding is important. We should be explicit when explaining things to students.
A possible philosophy in education: teaching is the process of bringing misconceptions to the surface.
Thus, response to student errors is important.
On the parse input vs. self-rating question, self-rating will a) be easier, and b) allow for more metacognitive learning.
Be able to change the granularity of the scaffolding over time--
i.e., at first we should show fully worked problems, etc., and scale back slowly to the "blank page"
prof. Jakes was talking about (which is what a student is faced with in testing situations).
Ability to flag or add a comment to a problem.
Before student starts a problem, have a textbox asking what concepts they should use. Then can self-rate.
--In addition, have an explanation of what keywords, etc. clued you in to the particular concepts/strategies
Prof. Yong also wants to be kept updated, and is happy to give feedback/advice at any stage of the project.
> Here are the notes:
>
> List and categorize everything
> --Facts, procedures, skills, concepts, (strategies? --fits into concept category)
> -- note, these are not hard and fast categories.
Already on our Tracker tasks. ("Knowledge components")
> Sufficient scaffolding is important. We should be explicit when explaining things to students.
Agrees with my research.
> A possible philosophy in education: teaching is the process of bringing misconceptions to the surface.
>
> Thus, response to student errors is important.
For thinking about it occasionally since the meeting, this seems like a powerful but still partial idea of education. E.g. a student wouldn't formulate misconceptions about algebra if never given the idea of using symbols to represent quantities.
> On the parse input vs. self-rating question, self-rating will a) be easier, and b) allow for more metacognitive learning.
I'm thinking this is where we should start. (And (c) is that we've already done it.)
> Be able to change the granularity of the scaffolding over time--
> i.e., at first we should show fully worked problems, etc., and scale back slowly to the "blank page"
> prof. Jakes was talking about (which is what a student is faced with in testing situations).
Yes
> Ability to flag or add a comment to a problem.
Yes; less critically
> Before student starts a problem, have a textbox asking what concepts they should use. Then can self-rate.
> --In addition, have an explanation of what keywords, etc. clued you in to the particular concepts/strategies
I think this should be not distinct from the other things we are doing.