Відео

The study is linked in the article here: www.edutopia.org/article/can-robot-help-autistic-children-connect/

The tool is called "NAEM Tracker." NAEM is an acronym: N is for Novice, A is for Apprentice, E is for Expert, and M is for Mentor. You can learn more here: www.edutopia.org/video/60-second-strategy-naem-tracker

@@edutopia that I have seen in the vedio regarding it's abbreviation..But in vedio pronunciation is there NAME...

@@khwahishsharada5555 The /ae/ vowel blend makes the AY sound in the same way that the silent /e/ at the end of the word does, so both are pronounced "name."

@@CriticalSkills1 😊

You can find more information linked on our website: www.edutopia.org/video/5-keys-successful-social-and-emotional-learning/

The 3 music tracks in this video are all from a library called De Wolfe Music. Please let us know if you'd like the track names.

You can find a curated collection of publications investigating the benefits of PBL here: www.lucasedresearch.org/research/

@@edutopia Thank you! I see that there is true emphasis upon rigor, student involvement, and deep learning. All good things. What I don't see is a true representation of high school classroom learning (that's where I live and operate). Save for the two AP Courses (kudos to you!), I don't see anything about AP Calculus, AP Lit, AP Precalculus, or any other regular high school courses. Is there a reason for this?

Okay . . . . I see that you're not responding. Either: 1) You're very busy, which is quite possible. 2) You don't have any other evidence of PBL being effectively used in grades 9 - 12. If reason 2 is the truth, then that leads me back to a modified version of my original assertion: PBL is ineffective in grades 9 - 12, without direct instruction. Do you have evidence, besides two carefully-selected AP Courses, which demonstrates that this is not true?

​ There are a lot of words here that are doing a lot of work. "PBL and "direct instruction" are terms which can encompass a broad set of classroom practices, implemented with vastly different degrees of skill in wildly different contexts. Also, "ineffective" is a moving target. I assume you're talking about student learning outcomes. As measured by test scores (which are more likely to measure student affluence than actual content knowledge)? Or by class-level assessment data (which can be equally fraught)? In my experience, the best way to know what a student knows- to measure student learning outcomes- is to ask them to implement that knowledge in a complex context, watch what they do, and ask questions about the decisions they've made. PBL is designed to do that. I think we'd probably agree that no single pedagogical approach works in all cases and that the wise educator makes decisions based on data and their own reflections, drawing on a wide variety of instructional strategies. White room research proving the effectiveness of a single classroom practice- any classroom practice- will never be conclusive because there are too many variables to control for. The best we can hope for is multiple studies showing different results in different contexts so we can tease apart the findings and make the best choices for our students. That being said, you might find these interesting: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10411581/#:~:text=The%20results%20of%20the%20study,thinking%20skills%2C%20especially%20academic%20achievement. ies.ed.gov/ncee/rel/Products/Region/pacific/Ask-A-REL/100256 kappanonline.org/research-project-based-learning-de-vivo/

​@@CriticalSkills1 I disagree that no one pedagogical method is going to be the main means to improve student outcomes. Moreover, the tone of Dr. Darling's brief discourse in this video is to infer that direct instruction occurs in "moments when needed," but the bulk of the learning is carried by PBL. However, if you look at the research presented, a question arises: How much direct instruction was involved in the use of PBL? Particularly, how much was used in the research that used two AP courses? That question is not addressed by the research presented, and that is precisely the question I am asking. What possible purpose could there be in not addressing the amount of direct instruction used when PBL is being used in the classroom? The purpose is quite obvious: Enhance and enlarge the importance of PBL, while minimizing the importance of direct instruction. My challenge to Edutopia is the following: repeat the AP Course research, removing all direct instruction. Then, let's see now those results compare to traditional classes. Question. If I were to look at the links you have placed here in the responses, would I see a clear measure of how much direct instruction is involved? Would that issue be addressed? Would it be fairly concluded that, without direct instruction, PBL and research-based learning are hampered? I doubt it. Rather, your articles/reports/research will present a glowing report on PBL or research-based learning, while minimizing the necessary and essential role that direct instruction plays.

I believe the erasing is a way to steal someone's box. If you solve a problem someone else did, you can steal their box.

That's correct-erasing names is a way to steal a box after you've solved the problem associated with it. There are additional details for how to play the game here: www.edutopia.org/video/high-school-math-review-high-energy-game

You can read all our videos and articles about this school here: www.edutopia.org/school/symonds-elementary-school. There are many practices outlined in these resources, including more morning meeting activities/strategies.

The activity is called Group Juggle. You can read more about it in this article: www.edutopia.org/practice/morning-meetings-creating-safe-space-learning