If you worked with secondary school children you wouldn't make that statement. Blended learning does not work, they need to discuss things with their peers, surely that's what adults do as well when working and they have a problem? That doesn't work with remote learning unless the group is very small, around 5 or less. I'm speaking from experience here.Looking past the pandemic, it is probably a good idea to have the latter part of secondary education delivered using a blended approach as the education system should reflect the world of work. The priority needs to be getting early-years education back to full-time face to face.
Most children will be fine. Most is not all.
I fully understand that. But when we are making decisions about acceptable risk we need to be fully cognisant as to what the risk actually is. Some deaths are inevitable, possibly even acceptable, but pretending that those loses don't exist doesn't inform the debate. Statements likeMost children will not get hit by a car on their journey to school, but some will. There are risks with everything we do. There is a line and it is close to being crossed.
aren't helpful, in the same way that we wouldn't say "School children will not be hit by cars on their journey to school" when considering road safety measures.School children will not become ill and even if they spread it amongst adults, they will soon be protected.
I actually am a trainer by profession (yes, I know there's a difference between pedagogical and adult learning!) and pretty much all the training that I do is delivered remotely. It definitely doesn't work for early years learning but, if well structured with remote learning in mind from the start, it definitely can and does work for adult learning, and for the latter stages of schooling.Blended learning does not work, they need to discuss things with their peers, surely that's what adults do as well when working and they have a problem? That doesn't work with remote learning unless the group is very small, around 5 or less. I'm speaking from experience here.
It's almost as if I dreamt the fact there was a vaccine which will protect the vulnerable. School children will not become ill and even if they spread it amongst adults, they will soon be protected. The evidence suggests the vaccines protect against severe illness, even if not 100% effective in preventing infection. Covid has a 99% survival rate... Politicians have lost all sense of reality!
If you worked with secondary school children you wouldn't make that statement. Blended learning does not work, they need to discuss things with their peers, surely that's what adults do as well when working and they have a problem? That doesn't work with remote learning unless the group is very small, around 5 or less. I'm speaking from experience here.
Most children will be fine with most being so close to 100% it may as well be 100%. Currently more are suffering from wellbeing issues than anything the virus will throw at them. Ok, one or two may get seriously ill but we can't keep this charade up just in case.
Yes, it's often called homework and pupils usually already do as much of it as is useful, and often quite a lot more. Dumping more of the education system onto the technique that kind-of-maybe-sort-of-works-if-you-lie-about-the-results isn't a plan. Not even to save 30 children in the whole of America (not all of whom had even had Covid).I actually am a trainer by profession (yes, I know there's a difference between pedagogical and adult learning!) and pretty much all the training that I do is delivered remotely. It definitely doesn't work for early years learning but, if well structured with remote learning in mind from the start, it definitely can and does work for adult learning, and for the latter stages of schooling.
Agreed.If you worked with secondary school children you wouldn't make that statement.
Online learning is great for some students but can be a real struggle for others. It widens the divide. It's also not great for teachers who may have to spend a lot more time trying to help a student who is stuck.Blended learning does not work, they need to discuss things with their peers, surely that's what adults do as well when working and they have a problem? That doesn't work with remote learning unless the group is very small, around 5 or less. I'm speaking from experience here.
Most children will be fine with most being so close to 100% it may as well be 100%. Currently more are suffering from wellbeing issues than anything the virus will throw at them. Ok, one or two may get seriously ill but we can't keep this charade up just in case.
It's almost as if I dreamt the fact there was a vaccine which will protect the vulnerable. School children will not become ill and even if they spread it amongst adults, they will soon be protected. The evidence suggests the vaccines protect against severe illness, even if not 100% effective in preventing infection. Covid has a 99% survival rate... Politicians have lost all sense of reality!
Oh for crying out loud, this is just going on too long!
I deliver training for people as part of my work and can categorically say that though remote learning can be made to work, it is not optimal and delivers less benefits than face-to-face training.I actually am a trainer by profession (yes, I know there's a difference between pedagogical and adult learning!) and pretty much all the training that I do is delivered remotely. It definitely doesn't work for early years learning but, if well structured with remote learning in mind from the start, it definitely can and does work for adult learning, and for the latter stages of schooling.
That's a commonly-held belief but it is based on people trying to deliver training remotely as if it was face to face. I spent seven years delivering training face to face, and that last four delivering it primarily remotely. I have to design my material differently and change my style of delivery but I get results that are just as good now as I did in the past.I deliver training for people as part of my work and can categorically say that though remote learning can be made to work, it is not optimal and delivers less benefits than face-to-face training.
Jeez. Do you realise how arrogant you sound?That's a commonly-held belief but it is based on people trying to deliver training remotely as if it was face to face. I spent seven years delivering training face to face, and that last four delivering it primarily remotely. I have to design my material differently and change my style of delivery but I get results that are just as good now as I did in the past.
If you enter the instructional design phase with remote delivery in mind you can achieve the same results as you can with face to face delivery.
Any time I've attempted remote learning, I've failed dismally with it. It just doesn't work for me at all.As someone who has recieved online training this past year, it is nothing like face-to-face in person training. Some people just thrive better off human contact and being in the same room. I am one of those.
Granted, there are some who do really well with online training, but overall it is not better.
I'd be willing to bet money on loads of restrictions magically vanishing in the week before the election.
Will be funny if they do, considering the current push to get people signing up for a postal voteI'd be willing to bet money on loads of restrictions magically vanishing in the week before the election.
Schooling isn't just about cramming in information into kids.That's a commonly-held belief but it is based on people trying to deliver training remotely as if it was face to face. I spent seven years delivering training face to face, and that last four delivering it primarily remotely. I have to design my material differently and change my style of delivery but I get results that are just as good now as I did in the past.
If you enter the instructional design phase with remote delivery in mind you can achieve the same results as you can with face to face delivery.
A public panel has urged the Scottish government to pursue a Covid elimination strategy.
The body of 19 people was set up by Holyrood's Covid-19 Committee to provide the public's view on the government's approach to coronavirus restrictions and strategy.
It has called for a plan that would try to gradually reduce the number of cases to zero.
My fear is she might, only to exclaim she can’t due to England to support her election/independence campaignThey won’t go Zero COVID - not possible but she’ll definitely blame Boris for it not being an available strategy for her.
I wouldn't put it past her to at least try, good excuse to keep the "border" closed. She can probably also claim that effectively banning international travel for Scotland is a good way to reduce carbon emissions (even if it would be hugely damaging for tourism in particular). In addition it might be used to try to bolster the case for independence. I.E. if we were to be independent we could eliminate Covid, but it's not possible as part of the union.They won’t go Zero COVID - not possible but she’ll definitely blame Boris for it not being an available strategy for her.
They won’t go Zero COVID - not possible but she’ll definitely blame Boris for it not being an available strategy for her.
Ah yes, just a shame that if Scotland was an independent country and a member of the EU we probably wouldn't have that "heroic" vaccination rollout she has been battering on about the past week or so.I think this can be filed under the "..if Scotland was an independent country we could...." heading in advance of the elections in May.
Oh how ironic. Lets lock people up in prison for 10 years for lying about their trip to Portugal where they can be part of a covid outbreak at the same time.Talking of Scotland, I hope Nicola Sturgeon doesn't use the sharp increase in cases in East Ayrshire in the past few days (up 94.4% to 310.6 per 100k, the highest in Scotland and the third highest in the UK) as an excuse to prolong the lockdown. It seems to be connected to an outbreak in Kilmarnock Prison.
Encouraging evidence that Scotland’s vaccination programme is already starting to cut deaths should prompt an earlier end to lockdown, one of Nicola Sturgeon’s advisers has said.
The Daily Telegraph is reporting comments from Mark Woolhouse, professor of infectious disease epidemiology at the University of Edinburgh, saying that numbers from the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines are “looking really good”.
Prof Woolhouse, who sits on the Scottish Government’s Covid-19 advisory group, told a House of Commons select committee: “If you’re driven by the data and not by dates, right now, you should be looking at earlier unlocking.”
He is quoted as saying the “whole sequence” that Ms Sturgeon was planning to use to ease restrictions could be accelerated because of the “very positive” data.
Prof Woolhouse also told MPs that children under 16 could return to classrooms in the “reasonably near future” without triggering a large increase in the “R” rate.
He also warned the “value of a lockdown goes down with time”, with half the public health benefit of a six-month lockdown being felt in the first fortnight.
Speaking to Good Morning Scotland today, national clinical director Jason Leitch said the Scottish Government had “deliberately” avoided giving specific dates for ending lockdown.
He said: “I thought Mark’s evidence was good, the only challenge there is earlier than what? We haven’t actually given dates and we’ve done that deliberately because we just aren’t sure about vaccine progress and vaccine remission reduction.
“If that goes well, if care home data is re-produced in the next few weeks, then yes, we will be able to advise that unlocking can happen at this gradual rate.
“Remember though, that when you unlock something, you don’t know what it’s done for three weeks.
“You can’t tell, it’s impossible. That’s why this first phase of schools needs to happen and then we wait three weeks and see what happens next.”
Nail meet hammer. Sturgeon is lining up another "this is why Scotland needs independence" policy through covid. It is politically motivated, nothing to do with science (which happens to agree that elimination is almost impossible).I wouldn't put it past her to at least try, good excuse to keep the "border" closed. She can probably also claim that effectively banning international travel for Scotland is a good way to reduce carbon emissions (even if it would be hugely damaging for tourism in particular). In addition it might be used to try to bolster the case for independence. I.E. if we were to be independent we could eliminate Covid, but it's not possible as part of the union.
That assumes we haven't called in the Italians to re-build the wall...No exaggeration that if the North of England is open in April and Scotland isn’t because of Zero COVID, I’ll likely make frequent day trips across the border.
Nobody really supports lockdowns any more so she may be doing herself some damage except for when it comes to her most ardent supporters.
Jason Leitch said "but we haven't given any dates", following it immediately with an outline plan of doing nothing for several weeks, and then stretching everything out in 3 week blocks until the country is fully bankrupted. I'm not sure he fully understands that even when he tells us almost nothing, the almost nothing he does tell us can still be irretrievably and catastrophically badAh yes, just a shame that if Scotland was an independent country and a member of the EU we probably wouldn't have that "heroic" vaccination rollout she has been battering on about the past week or so.
Oh how ironic. Lets lock people up in prison for 10 years for lying about their trip to Portugal where they can be part of a covid outbreak at the same time.
In other more positive news, a story from my local rag today:
Government Covid adviser says Scotland's vaccine data good enough to warrant quicker lockdown exit
Encouraging evidence that Scotland's vaccination programme is already starting to cut deaths should prompt an earlier end to lockdown, one of Nicolawww.thecourier.co.uk
But Jason Leitch, Scotland's national clinical director didn't like that: