The basic idea was that information isn’t a function of content, but the absence of ambiguity, which can be broken down to a single unit – a choice between two alternatives. Much like a coin toss which lacks information while in the air, but takes on a level of certainty when it lands, information arises when ambiguity disappears.
“Since our students are using technology to play, learn, and communicate while at home and at school, they should be learning how to use that technology responsibly. Full integration of digital citizenship (or DigCit) curriculum into every class and every content area—at every grade level—should be the goal to meet this need. Keep in mind that most teacher-prep programs do not incorporate digital citizenship alongside the other elements of teacher education. Here is how we trained all the teachers in our school—St. John’s Prep in Massachusetts—as well as the lessons we learned along the way and our recommendations for what might work in your school, too.”
“In my last EdSurge article, “Computer Science Goes Beyond Coding,” I wrote about the difference between coding and computer science, to help us understand what we mean by phrases like “Teach kids to code” and “Computer science for all.” In that article and in many other articles, there is another term that appears often: “Computational thinking.” Well, what is Computational Thinking (CT), and how does it differ from Coding and Computer Science—especially when it comes to classroom practice and instruction?”
“Bloom’s Taxonomy makes the education world go ’round. In one model is a framework that not only lays out for teachers the kinds of thinking that we, as humans, tend towards, but also provides a kind of hierarchy that etches out the possible progression of that thinking. If we can remember, we can begin to understand. Understanding allows us to apply what we know, which enables us to make judgments on the utility of that knowledge, and even our own mastery of it.”
Walter Ong characterizes the main differences between the languages of oral and literate cultures in these terms:[It] is possible to generalize somewhat about the psychodynamics of primary oral cultures, that is, of oral cultures untouched by writing. … Fully literate persons can only with great difficulty imagine what a primary oral culture is like, that is, a culture with no knowledge whatsoever of writing or even of the possibility of writing. Try to imagine a culture where no one has ever ‘looked up’ anything. In a primary oral culture, the expression ‘to look up something’ is an empty phrase: it would have no conceivable meaning.