This article unintentionally points to the danger of 'evidence-based' strategies. Different evidence points different ways. So, near the start we read, "immersive, experiential, relevant learning was impactful for kids, but it’s way too expensive to be accessible to all." Ok. But the actually proposals are based on "10 skills that research links to long-term success... if these are learning experiences we know matter, what’s preventing schools from providing them today?" These are two very different things. The research on what skills were needed in the past may be totally irrelevant to future needs, and anyhow doesn't speak to immersive and experiental learning at all. The evidence underdetermines the need.
Today: Total: [Direct link] [Share]
