On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Haim <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
<< SNIP >>
> Specifically, I have asserted that there are no technical issues, whether in math education or gifted education or remedial education or, really, in any education field or practice. Everybody knows what to do and how to do it. In fact, that is the basis of "Haim's Challenge". >
I've never really understood "Haim's Challenge" is there has been plenty of debate about pedagogical as well as andragogical techniques.
This whole thing about distance education and using a combination of screens, keyboard, and site visits, is pretty much new ground. The Internet is in its infancy.
Or when you teach in a classroom and every student has a workstation and free license to browse the Internet as the teacher is talking: that raises its own pedagogical issues.
Twenty years ago, I was envisioning that by now Hewlett-Packard would have entire classrooms where the teacher could
(a) put any student's screen on the big screen in front (b) share one screen with all student screens (c) lock down student keyboards and mouse temporarily (d) allow students to share with other students in teams
and so on. This never materialized. We're seen a lot more activity around "clickers" than I expected.
There's no agreement on basic content either? Should Euclid's Algorithm for the GCD be included in K-12?
I say "of course, no question about it".
But it's not there, in most curricula. But then most curricula suck to the high evens.
No mention of "tetravolumes" in the whole of K-12? That's not a school, that's a day care center (for the teachers).
> You may recall that the issue comes up from time to time, why is there no technical discussion on pedagogy, math pedagogy or any other. Plainly, it is because there is nothing to discuss. Well, if there are no technical problems, what is driving the failure in education? > > All together now: It's the politics, stupid. > > Haim > No representation without taxation.