Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (60057)	9/26/2002 8:12:04 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Yes, different. Checking for understanding is an element of effective instruction that teachers are expected to exibit. You (teacher) may walk around the room and observe students behavior (note taking, looking at the book etc.) You can ask content questions, look to see who has their heads facing you during lecture etc. etc. etc. Some students are experts at faking. Head nods (while day dreaming) may be a ploy to keep from being called on (that was one of my favorites as a student). You don't actually know for sure what they understand you can only gather evidence that they are likely processing information. However, this is not what I meant by educational objectives. What I meant was the student learning objectives that start out "The Student Will Be Able To ....." You would never say "The Student Will understand the meaning of the First Amendment. You might say, the Student will Be able to recite the first amendment, or the Student will Be able to compare and contrast some particular opinions about the first amendment. These are specific, observable, behavioral and measurable. Where as stating that the student will understand is not.