Science for 23 October 2009 prints an editorial entitled Europe Rethinks Education by Pierre Léna discussing the importance of strengthening science education. Among the topics discussed is the Rocard Report on Science Education and efforts now underway to respond to it.
For societies to understand the consequences of vital issues such as climate change, education—especially science education—will play a critical role. Improving the quality of science education in primary and secondary schools is a challenge faced by nearly all countries. Europe has finally recongnized for a trans-European effort to rejuvenate the scientific education of all students, promising efforts are now under way.
This week in Spotlight on Digital Media and Learning renowned media scholar James Gee talks with Heather Chaplin, author of Smartbomb, about how games influence learning.
Q: I know you always say you’re not advocating the use of games for learning in particular, but rather that games offer a model for effective learning. Why are games such an important model for us to be looking at? Why are they a good model for understanding learning?
A: First of all, it’s a good model because games are about problem solving, and they’re not about just learning facts. You learn the facts as tools to solve the problems. And we know if you teach people just facts, you have no guarantee they can solve problems, but if you teach them to solve problems, we do know they have to learn the facts to solve the problem. That’s all games are: sets of problems in an interesting environment.
The second thing is games give situated meaning. That is, they tie words to images, actions, dialog, experience, not just other words. We know from research on the brain that humans learn better when words are associated with images and actions and experiences and not just definitions or other words.
More…
From Russell Gersten at Education Week:
“Like a steady drip from a leaky faucet, the experimental studies being released this school year by the federal Institute of Education Sciences are mostly producing the same results: ‘No effects,’ ‘No effects,’ ‘No effects.’ ” So began Education Week ’s description this past spring of findings reported in rigorous, more scientific evaluations from the 7-year-old research agency. ( “‘No Effects’ Studies Raising Eyebrows,” April 1, 2009.)
The reports evaluated the impact of a wide array of federally supported programs and practices, in areas such as professional development, after-school programs, mentoring of new teachers, and Title I instruction. Often—though not always—the results were “no effects.”
More…
