I was literally thinking of how I would teach each person they are their own key to their own lock...that no one else can open but them. We all have our ways of learning, to a person. What works for one may not work for you. It is our multiple kinds of intelligences as a group that make us strong, for what one misses or cannot perceive another can. So our uniqueness is essential in this process, or we will all end up on the same side of the boat for the same reasons, and the boat will tip, so to speak. Intelligence is as unique as each persons fingerprint and needs to remain so for the success of the group. There is a reason we all are a bit, or a lot, different, a really good reason.
do you have any observations on the idea of competitiveness vs cooperation between students? even with their project autonomy, for instance, were they able to influence each other in beneficial ways? that could not have been achieved in a one on one setting such as we often have now in telelearning- tyvm j
One can only accomplish a limited amount in a semester. I did not make them compete (it is intimidating for some) or cooperate ("team work" eliminates personal responsibility); my goal was to make my students realize that that they were responsible for themselves (and I didn't challenge them beyond the logistics I made them practice for weeks; "don't break a new stem of reed"). I preferred to ask my students to use their own words instead of acquiring a terminology. After all, they have to DO stuff, not talk about it.
Everybody was more than welcome to contribute; kind of the way I am running this site, inviting free speech, which is working, because the site is so small. Some students did come up with amazing things.
I don't believe in group think, so people can learn from each other, which is good, but "influencing" others, I don't know... Still, everything was public, and it didn't matter who students learned from, but I assume, it was mostly from themselves.
One-on-one is extremely efficient, but teaching two students can be just as good. When it comes to a whole class, one can only do the doable and forget the "outcome" BS.
I was literally thinking of how I would teach each person they are their own key to their own lock...that no one else can open but them. We all have our ways of learning, to a person. What works for one may not work for you. It is our multiple kinds of intelligences as a group that make us strong, for what one misses or cannot perceive another can. So our uniqueness is essential in this process, or we will all end up on the same side of the boat for the same reasons, and the boat will tip, so to speak. Intelligence is as unique as each persons fingerprint and needs to remain so for the success of the group. There is a reason we all are a bit, or a lot, different, a really good reason.
All my students chose their own projects.
do you have any observations on the idea of competitiveness vs cooperation between students? even with their project autonomy, for instance, were they able to influence each other in beneficial ways? that could not have been achieved in a one on one setting such as we often have now in telelearning- tyvm j
One can only accomplish a limited amount in a semester. I did not make them compete (it is intimidating for some) or cooperate ("team work" eliminates personal responsibility); my goal was to make my students realize that that they were responsible for themselves (and I didn't challenge them beyond the logistics I made them practice for weeks; "don't break a new stem of reed"). I preferred to ask my students to use their own words instead of acquiring a terminology. After all, they have to DO stuff, not talk about it.
Everybody was more than welcome to contribute; kind of the way I am running this site, inviting free speech, which is working, because the site is so small. Some students did come up with amazing things.
I don't believe in group think, so people can learn from each other, which is good, but "influencing" others, I don't know... Still, everything was public, and it didn't matter who students learned from, but I assume, it was mostly from themselves.
One-on-one is extremely efficient, but teaching two students can be just as good. When it comes to a whole class, one can only do the doable and forget the "outcome" BS.