Bullying Stats

Nearly one in five New York City high school students reported being bullied at some point in 2011, according to a new report from the city health department.

A few trends from the report:
— Bullying in the city is more common among students in ninth  grade than students in 11^th and 12^th grade.
— Gay students reported being bullied 29 percent of the time, more often than the 17 percent rate for students who identified as heterosexual.
— There was no statistically significant difference in the rates of bullying across ethnic groups.
— There was also no statistically significant difference in the overall rates of bulling between girls and boys, but girls where slightly more likely than boys to report having been cyber-bullied (13 percent as opposed to 9 percent).
Students who reported having been bullied were also more likely to report other behaviors that are linked with poor health outcomes. This included smoking, drug use, self-harm such as cutting and missing school because they felt unsafe. Additionally, 16 percent of bullied students had carried a weapon to school in the last 30 days, compared to 7 percent of their peers.

EdTech VC $

Venture capital investment in education technology for the preK-12 market hit  $452 million this year, up 6 percent from 2012, according to a new analysis by the NewSchools Venture Fund.

Among the hottest areas for investment: Big data, computer science and language acquisition.
Jennifer Carolan, managing director of the NewSchools Seed Fund, notes in the analysis that while “data-driven instruction” has been a mantra in K-12 for years, “the technology tools to extract, analyze and make use of that data have been crude and technically unsophisticated.” She finds promise in the big investment this year in data analysis tools: Venture money for the sector totaled $34 million in 2013, up from just $5 million last year.

Carolan also notices a surge in interest in tools that teach students computer science, including coding. That sector was almost invisible last year, but brought in $23 million in investment this year. “We see this trend continuing as more schools integrate computer science into the school curriculum and states recognize computer science as a credit-bearing course,” she wrote.

In other notable developments, tutoring and test prep companies snagged $29 million in capital. Gaming platforms attracted $40 million. Language learning software beat them both out, attracting a whopping $90 million in investment.


Many of the investments were in “seed rounds” for start-up companies.

OCR Data Release

From: POLITICO Pro Whiteboard [mailto:politicoemail@politicopro.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2013 2:12 PM
To: Nadeau, Gregory
Subject: Education Department data reveal disparities among students of different races

12/26/13 2:12 PM EST

New estimates from the Education Department paint a picture of vastly different educational experiences among children of different racial groups, using data collected about the 2009-2010 school year.

The Education Department's Office for Civil Rights gathered information about dozens of data points from roughly 7,000 school districts through its Civil Rights Data Collection. Combined, the districts represent about 85 percent of public school students in the country.

Using those figures, it estimated, for example that while black students represent about 17 percent of students in the country, they make up a little less than 9 percent of students enrolled in a calculus class during the 2009-10 school year. Hispanic students represent about 22 percent of the student population captured in the data set. But only 10 percent of students enrolled in calculus were Hispanic. In Algebra 2 enrollment, students aligned more closely with their representation in the public school system: about 16 percent of students enrolled in Algebra 2 were black, while 60 percent of students enrolled in the advanced math course were white. (About 55 percent of the 48 million public school students nationwide were white that school year, the national estimates show.)

But only about 10 percent of students identified as gifted and talented were black while 65 percent of students with that label were white.

And while third grade retention has grabbed headlines, the data show choke points in retention elsewhere. For example, states retained more than 116,000 kindergartners, but only about 50,000 third graders — and about 40 percent of the third graders retained were black. Of retained kindergartners, however, about 42 percent were white.

The delicate freshman year proved to be a hurdle for students too: Nearly 279,000 ninth graders were retained, more than in sixth, seventh and eighth grades, combined. About a third each of those freshman retained were black, Hispanic and white.

Also, 33 percent of students suspended out of school more than once were white, and 44 percent of students suspended out of school more than once were black, the estimates find.

However the figures, which the Education Department has said can only be analyzed with great caution, don't provide the total population of kindergartners or third graders.

The Education Department is currently analyzing data collected from the 2011-12 school year, which will include data from every district in the country, rather than a sample.


— Nirvi Shah

Ed Markey's Data Privacy Act

Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey, who has expressed deep concern about student privacy, today plans to introduce legislation aimed at protecting children and teens in what he calls the “new Internet ecosystem.”

The Do Not Track Kids legislation would update the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act by requiring websites to offer an “eraser button” whenever technologically feasible so that parents and kids can delete embarrassing or inappropriate posts. The bill also includes a “Digital Marketing Bill of Rights” that limits the information companies can collect about children from their online activity and social media posts. And it would prohibit targeted online marketing to children 15 and younger, unless the child or parent consents to receive the advertising.

The bill does not specifically apply to software or websites used in schools; the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, or FERPA, governs those interactions.

But Markey has expressed interest in closely monitoring FERPA as well.

Last month, he sent a letter to Education Secretary Arne Duncan requesting more information about changes the department made to FERPA, the primary student privacy law, in 2008 and 2011. The changes eased the way for schools to share more data with third parties, including private, for-profit companies. He also asked whether the department has evaluated the type of information that is routinely shared with third-party vendors. And he asked Duncan whether he believes parents should be allowed to opt out of databases and keep their children’s data private.

MIT's Report on Future of MT Education





 

Download full report here.

 

Google and edX

By Jon Haber, DegreeofFreedom on September 16, 2013

 

Google has made forays into the educational s space over the years, notably by packaging many of their free services such as Google Apps and Calendar in ways that make them accessible (and free) for students and teachers (many of whom have already entered the Google universe via services such as gMail and Google+).

This is in addition to the spontaneous use by educators of Google products such as Google+ Hangouts (offering free video conferencing) which you’ll find integrated into a number of MOOC classes. And Google is already a player (albeit a small one) in the online education space with their Coursebuilder product.

But Coursebuilder’s catalog today consists of just a few dozen classes, most of them fairly specialized (i.e., narrow). And the fact that Coursebuilder has never come up in any of the MOOC conversations I’ve had over the last year is an indication that even an organization as huge and omnipresent as Google isn’t automatically granted dominance in any market it chooses to enter.

Which is what makes the coming together of Google and edX so interesting. For in addition to bringing a robust and open set of teaching technologies to the partnership, edX is also bringing along it’s pedigree as an offspring of two of the world’s most respected universities: Harvard and MIT. Which means that courses launched on MOOC.org are likely to seem more legitimately “MOOC-y” than courses delivered via other platforms.

This halo effect will likely come into play as content starts making its way onto the new platform. For one needs to keep in mind that there already exist platforms that allow anyone to create their own online courses, charge what they like for them (including nothing), and distribute them worldwide. Udemy is a prime example of such a service which today delivers many times the number of courses you’ll find on all of the all of the Big Three MOOC providers combined.

But the bulk of Udemy courses are in areas such as how-to training on technical, business or lifestyle subjects. And the few dozen courses they have that could be construed as paralleling what you’d get at a traditional university (mostly in the humanities and social sciences) can best be described as sketchy when compared to more robust offerings you’d get in a Coursea, Udacity or edX course.

For instance, a Udemy art history survey course I took consisted entirely of dozens of video lectures that seemed like repurposed content from other sources. And another course I just completed on Greek Religion was well taught by an enthusiastic professor, but never provided anything beyond the professor talking into his computer’s webcam.

Apparently other tools such as discussion boards and assessment are available via the Udemy platform, but are used inconsistently, making the product seem primarily like a video delivery system. And small enrollments (except for a few“blockbuster” courses such as ones that teach Microsoft Excel) demonstrate why most people need convincing that such a “come-one-come-all” service should be considers as playing the same game as are Stanford or MIT when they release their massive open classes to the world.

Now it’s not entirely clear who MOOC.org is going to draw with regard to content creation and whether those who take advantage of the platform will think of it as anything other than one more channel for the delivery of homemade content with little regard to polish or academic rigor. But the set of tools provided by edX’s software, and that platform’s open nature (which means programmers will be able to extend the service, as do WordPress add-in developers) means MOOC.org will at least have the potential to do more than offer cooking tips or lessons on how to set up your aquarium.

In a review of that art history course linked above, I talked about how academia –like journalism – is a field where the number of people qualified to participate far surpasses the number of well-paid positions (which, in the case of higher ed, means tenure-track teaching jobs). Which is why you can find such solid educational and academic work on the web, just like you can find quality citizen journalism that offers far more what you’d get in one of the dying daily newspapers or weekly news magazines.

But the Internet’s low barrier to entry also means anyone who feels like it can declare themselves a professor, just as any nut with a grudge can publish whatever crap they like and call it journalism. So even if MOOC.org elevates the capability of what people can use to teach online, content (in this case, creative educational content that makes use of the full facilities of edX) will continue to be king, or at least determine if MOOCs really can make it without Ivy League professors continuing to be the face of learning.

http://degreeoffreedom.org/mooc-org/

The jobs of the future

According to the Manufacturing Institute, 56 percent of manufacturing executives think the STEM workforce shortage will increase over the next three to five years, which could result in a shortage of as many as 700,000 unfilled skilled jobs by 2020.

Allyson Knox, director of education policy and programs at Microsoft, pointed to the recently released National Assessment for Educational Progress results, which found that only 36 percent of eighth graders are proficient or advanced in math. And there isn’t enough computer science education in schools, she said.

“Of the more than 42,000 high schools in the U.S., only 3,249 were certified to teach the Advanced Placement computer science course in 2013. That’s fewer than 10 percent,” she said during testimony.

Hackschooling Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h11u3vtcpaY

Data is Power short video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77UPUxB2b7o

National State Legislative Group acting Student Data Privacy

 http://bit.ly/1biiNbR

The education task force of the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, is pushing a bill, modeled after a new Oklahoma law, that would:

1) ban districts from reporting certain sensitive information (such as student medical and criminal records) to the state
2) Requires states to appoint a chief privacy officer and let parents know exactly what information is being collected about their kids.
3) Give parents the right to review their children’s files, but doesn’t let them opt out of databases

Student Data Accessibility, Transparency, and Accountability Act

Summary

The Student Data Accessibility, Transparency, and Accountability Act would require the [State Board of Education/State Department of Education] to make publicly available an inventory and index of all data elements with definitions of individual student data fields currently in the statewide longitudinal data system. The [State Board of Education/State Department of Education] would be required to create a data security plan, ensuring compliance with federal and state data privacy laws and policies. Certain contracts would be required to include privacy and security provisions. A Chief Privacy Officer will be created within the State Department of Education whose primary mission includes ensuring department-wide compliance with all privacy laws and regulations. This bill adds new annual security and privacy reporting requirements to the Governor and Legislature.

Model Policy

Section 1. Title.

This section shall be known and may be cited as the “Student Data Accessibility, Transparency, and Accountability Act.”

Section 2. Definitions.

(A) In this Act:

(1) “Board” means the State Board of Education;

(2) “Department” means the State Department of Education;

(3) “Data system” means the State Department of Education statewide longitudinal data system;

(4) “Aggregate data” means data collected and/or reported at the group, cohort, or institutional level;

(5) “Redacted data” means a student dataset in which parent and student identifying information has been removed;

(6) “State-assigned student identifier ” means the unique student identifier assigned by the state to each student that shall not be or include the Social Security number of a student in whole or in part; and

(7) “Student data” means data collected and/or reported at the individual student level included in a student’s educational record.

(8) “Provisional student data” means new student data proposed for inclusion in the state student data system.

Section 3. Data Inventory – Responsibilities.

(A) The [State Board of Education/State Department of Education] shall:

(1) Create, publish, and make publicly available a data inventory and dictionary or index of data elements with definitions of individual student data fields in the student data system to include, but not be limited to:

(a) any individual student data required to be reported by state and federal education mandates;

(b) any individual student data which has been proposed for inclusion in the student data system with a statement regarding the purpose or reason for the proposed collection; and

(c) any individual student data that the State Department of Education collects or maintains with no current identified purpose;

(2) Develop, publish, and make publicly available policies and procedures to comply with all relevant state and federal privacy laws and policies, including but not limited to the Federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and other relevant privacy laws and policies, including but not limited to:

(a) access to student and redacted data in the statewide longitudinal data system shall be restricted to:

(1) the authorized staff of the State Department of Education and the contractors working on behalf of the Department who require such access to perform their assigned duties as required by law and/or defined by interagency data-sharing agreements;

(2) district administrators, teachers and school personnel who require such access to perform their assigned duties;

(3) students and their parents; and

(4) the authorized staff of other state agencies in the State of [State] as required by law and/or defined by interagency data-sharing agreements;

(b) the State Department of Education shall use only aggregate data in public reports or in response to record requests in accordance with paragraph 3 of this subsection;

(c) unless otherwise prohibited by law, the State Department of Education shall develop criteria for the approval of research and data requests from state and local agencies, the State Legislature, researchers working on behalf of the Department, and the public. Unless otherwise approved by the [State Board of Education/State Department of Education], student data maintained by the State Department of Education shall remain redacted; and

(d) notification to students and parents regarding student privacy rights under federal and state law;

(3) Unless otherwise provided by law or approved by the [State Board of Education/State Department of Education] shall not transfer student or redacted data deemed confidential under division (1) of subparagraph (c) of paragraph 2 of subsection A of this section to any federal, state or local agency or other organization, with the following exceptions:

(a) a student transfers out of state or a school/district seeks help with locating an out-of-state transfer;

(b) a student leaves the state to attend an out-of-state institution of higher education or training program;

(c) a student registers for or takes a national or multistate assessment;

(d) a student voluntarily participates in a program for which such a data transfer is a condition/requirement of participation;

(e) the Department enters into a contract that governs databases, assessments, special education or instructional supports with an out-of-state contractor for the purposes of state level reporting;

(f) a student is classified as “migrant” for federal reporting purposes; or

(g) a federal agency is performing a compliance review;

(4) Develop a detailed data security plan that includes:

(a) guidelines for authorizing access to the student data system and to individual student data including guidelines for authentication of authorized access;

(b) privacy compliance standards;

(c) privacy and security audits;

(d) breach planning, notification and procedures;

(e) data retention and disposition policies; and

(f) data security policies including electronic, physical, and administrative safeguards, such as data encryption and training of employees;

(5) Ensure routine and ongoing compliance by the State Department of Education with FERPA, other relevant privacy laws and policies, and the privacy and security policies and procedures developed under the authority of this act, including the performance of compliance audits;

(6) Ensure that any contracts that govern databases, assessments or instructional supports that include student or redacted data and are outsourced to private vendors include express provisions that safeguard privacy and security and include penalties for noncompliance; and

(7) Notify the Governor and the Legislature annually of the following:

(a) new student data proposed for inclusion in the state student data system:

(1) any new student data collection proposed by the [State Board of Education/State Department of Education] becomes a provisional requirement to allow districts and their local data system vendors the opportunity to meet the new requirement; and

(2) the [State Board of Education/Department of Education] must announce any new provisional student data collection to the general public for a review and comment period of at least 60 days;

(b) changes to existing data collections required for any reason, including changes to federal reporting requirements made by the U.S. Department of Education;

(c) an explanation of any exceptions granted by the [State Board of Education/State Department of Education] in the past year regarding the release or out-of-state transfer of student or redacted data; and

(d) the results of any and all privacy compliance and security audits completed in the past year. Notifications regarding privacy compliance and security audits shall not include any information that would itself pose a security threat to the state or local student information systems or to the secure transmission of data between state and local systems by exposing vulnerabilities.

(B) Districts shall not report to the state the following individual student data:

(1) juvenile delinquency records;

(2) criminal records;

(3) medical and health records; and

(4) student biometric information.

(C) Schools shall not collect the following individual student data:

(1) political affiliation; and

(2) religion.

Section 4. Chief Policy Officer

(A) The Superintendent shall appoint a Chief Privacy Officer, who shall report directly to the Superintendent, to assume primary responsibility for privacy policy, including:

1. assuring that the use of technologies sustain, and do not erode, privacy protections

relating to the use, collection, and disclosure of student data;

2. assuring that student data contained in the Department of Education student data

system is handled in full compliance with the Student Data Accessibility, Transparency, and Accountability Act, FERPA, and other state and federal privacy laws;

3. evaluating legislative and regulatory proposals involving collection, use, and

disclosure of student data by the Department of Education;

4. conducting a privacy impact assessment on proposed rules of the Department in

general and proposed rules of the Department on the privacy of student data, including the type of personal information collected and the number of students affected;

5. coordinating with the Office of the General Counsel, other legal entities, and

organization officers to ensure that programs, policies, and procedures involving civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy considerations are addressed in an integrated and comprehensive manner;

6. preparing a report to the Legislature on an annual basis on activities of the

Department that affect privacy, including complaints of privacy violations, internal controls, and other manners;

(7) establishing department-wide policies necessary for implementing Fair Information Practice Principles to enhance privacy protections;

(8) working with the Chief Information Officer, General Counsel, and other officials in engaging with stakeholders about the quality, usefulness, openness, and privacy of data;

(9) establishing and operating a Department-wide Privacy Incident Response Program to ensure that incidents are properly reported, investigated and mitigated, as appropriate;

(10) establishing and operating a process for parents to file complaints of privacy violations;

(11) establishing and operating a process to collect and respond to complaints of privacy violations and provides redress, as appropriate; and

(12) Provides training, education and outreach to build a culture of privacy across the Department and transparency to the public;

(B) The Chief Privacy Officer has the authority to investigate under certain conditions and may:

1. have access to all records, reports, audits, reviews, documents, papers,

recommendations, and other materials available to the Department that relate to programs and operations with respect to the responsibilities of the Chief Privacy Officer under this section; and

2. make such investigations and reports relating to the administration of the

programs and operations of the Department as are necessary or desirable;

(C) The Chief Privacy Officer shall report to, and be under the general supervision of, the Superintendent.

Section 5. Parental request for information.

(A) Parents have the right to inspect and review their child’s education record maintained by the school.

(B) Parents have the right to request student data specific to their child’s educational record.

(C) School districts must provide parents or guardians with an electronic copy of their child’s educational record upon request.

(D) The State Department of Education shall develop policies for school districts that:

(1) annually notify parents of their right to request student information;

(2) ensure security when providing student data to parents;

(3) ensure student data is provided only to the authorized individuals;

(4) detail the timeframe within which record requests must be provided; and

(5) ensure that school districts have a plan to allow parents to view online, download, and transmit data specific to their child’s educational record.

Section 6. Rules.

(A) The [State Board of Education/State Department of Education] may adopt rules necessary to implement the provisions of the Student Data Accessibility, Transparency, and Accountability Act.

(B) Upon the effective date of this act, any existing collection of student data by the State Department of Education shall not be considered a new student data collection in accordance with subparagraph (a) of Paragraph (7) of Subsection (A) of Section (2).

Section 7. {Severability clause.}

Section 8. {Repealer clause.}

Section 9. Effective Date. This act shall become effective July 1, [20XX].

Approved by the ALEC Legislative Board of Directors September 29, 2013.

48% of MOOC real students complete

MOOC Attrition Rates -- Running the Numbers

Jon Haber   

Posted: 11/25/2013 9:27 am

The prosecution against MOOCs usually starts by highlighting the huge attrition rates for massive open courses, often claimed to run as high as 90-95 percent. Who in their right mind would trust their kid's education to a program that can't even hold onto one out of ten students? Case closed.
Or is it?

In order to answer that question, we need take a look at the calculation used to determine these alleged drop-out percentages. It's actually not all that complex since it starts by taking the number of people who hit the enroll button on a site such as Coursera or edX and sticking it into the denominator of a fraction. After that, it's just a matter of placing the number of students who earned a certificate of completion into the numerator and, voila, you end up with your completion rate!
The completion rate is actually the opposite of attrition, but for purposes of this discussion we'll use it to see what happens to the percentage of course finishers if we start looking more closely at the numbers used in our fraction (particularly the one below the line).

Basing our denominator on enrollments assumes that everyone who hits the enroll button on a MOOC web page should be considered the equivalent of a college student who signs up to take a course at their university. But is that an appropriate assumption? After all, many schools that allow shop around periods understandably choose not to include shoppers who don't end up taking the course in their final drop-out calculations. Similarly, schools that permit auditing treat auditors differently than standard enrollees when calculating things like course completion rates and averages grades.

Given that there is no punishment for clicking on that Enroll button on a MOOC site, even if you never had any intention of taking the class to completion, it's appropriate to ask whether "enrolling" in a MOOC is equivalent to enrolling in a traditional college course, shopping around, browsing through a college catalog or simply filling out an online form that allows you to get something for nothing.

Jeffrey Pomerantz from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill offered a Coursera MOOC entitled Metadata: Organizing and Discovering Information in 2013 and recently summarized findings derived from analyzing course data here. And one of his more interesting analyses involved seeing what would happen if you used different methods for defining who actually signed up for a class with the intention to complete it (vs. audit it or just check it out).

Using the number Coursera sent him of "Total Registered Students" (i.e., the number of people who hit the Enroll button) as a denominator does indeed give you a completion percentage of 5 percent. And if you instead use Total Active Students (the number of students who logged onto the site at least once after registering) that completion rate climbs to 10 percent (still within the range MOOC critics use when they complain about attrition).

But if you use the number of students who watched at least one video as your denominator, completion percentages climb to 15 percent. And if you make the assumption that only students who complete at least one assignment (even a short quiz at the end of lesson 1) should be considered serious enrollees, his completion rate skyrockets to 48 percent.

This last figure jibes with one of edX President Anant Agarwal's key talking points when confronted with questions regarding MOOC attrition rates in which he claims pass rates climb above 40 percent when you assume that only students who actually finish an assignment are demonstrating a desire to take the course to completion. And if you take into account that many of the students who might enroll in a course but not do any assignments might be auditing the class by watching some or all of the lecture videos, then you begin to get a better picture of what people are actually doing when they take part in a MOOC (other than dropping out).

Keep in mind that this better informed picture is a two-edged sword for MOOC boosters. On the one hand, it gives them strong evidence to counter critics who like to hammer on drop-out rates to "prove" MOOCs are educationally worthless. At the same time, it's hard to continue using huge front-end MOOC enrollments to impress the media, public and investors and then turn around and minimize the significance of that number when it comes time to calculate more meaningful completion statistics.

And while it's certainly true that four figure graduation rates are less sexy than the six figure enrollment numbers thrown around during the period of MOOC over exuberance, we need to keep in mind one more thing the numbers are telling us, best summarized in the last word which I give to Professor Pomerantz:

Before my MOOC launched, I did a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation of how many students I've ever had in the classroom, since I started teaching in grad school. And the number I came up with was, approximately 1400. The number of students who completed my MOOC is approximately equal to the number of students I've had in the classroom in my entire career. The number of students who were active in the MOOC (Total Active Students) turned out to be approximately an order of magnitude more than the number of students I've had in the classroom in my entire career. Contemplate that.

Follow Jonathan Haber on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@DegreeofFree

Only 4% of MOOC participants complete the course

A new University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education study finds the completion rate for massive open online courses, otherwise known as MOOCs, is very low — averaging at just four percent across all courses.

The study, conducted by Penn GSE’s Alliance for Higher Education and Democracy, analyzed one million Coursera users and their activity throughout 16 courses offered by the university from June 2012 to June 2013. Researchers will present the findings today during the MOOC Research Initiative Conference in Arlington, Texas.

Participation drops off after one to two weeks of participation in a course, the study finds. Course completion rates ranged from 2 percent to 14 percent depending on the course and the measurement of completion. Completion rates were also slightly higher for courses that came with fewer work assignments, but the length of the course and whether the course offered live chatting technology didn’t prove statistically significant. Across the 16 courses, half of registered participants watched at least one lecture in their course, the study found.

Ed Tech and Learning

\

Apps and Web Tools for Multiple Intelligences

Posted on November 25, 2013

Verbal/Linguistic

• FaceJack
• Google Docs
• Twitter
• Whiteboard HD
• Intro to Letters
• Dragon Dictation
• Evernote Peek
• Cliff Notes
• Puppet Pals
• Voki
• Readability
• Goodreader
• Book Creator
• Outline Pro

Logical/Mathematical

• Desmos
• Logic Puzzles HD
• Luminosity
• Jumpstart
• Number Line
• Touch Physics HD
• World of Goo HD
• iMathematics
• Mathemagics
• Ezy Trigonometry
• MathChallenge
• Google Spreadsheet
• Wolfram Alpha

Visual

• Moofy
• Bubbl.us
• Stumbleupon
• iMovie
• Brushes

Musical

• Virtuoso Piano 3
• Pandora
• Spotify
• Singing Fingers
• Wolfram Music Theory
• Beatwave
• Garage Band
• Ladida
• Steinway Etude

Kinesthetic

• Let’s Create! Pottery HD
• Singing Fingers HD
• Doodlebuddy
• Frog Dissection
• Poll Everywhere
• Clineometer
• Tourwrist

Intrapersonal

• Paper 53
• Blosy
• WordPress
• Evernote
• Remember the Milk
• Mindnode
• Google Play Books
• Brainpop
• Prezi
• Moleskin

Interpersonal

• Facebook
• Skype
• What Goes Together
• Shared Paper
• Edmodo
• Blogger

Naturalistic

• Science 360
• Project Noah
• LittleThings
• Star Walk
• Cell and Cell Structure
• YouTube
• Leafsnap
• iBird
• Rat Dissection

Share this:

• Reddit
• Tumblr
• Twitter10
• Facebook1
• Google
• Digg
• Pinterest
• Print
• LinkedIn1
• Email
• Print & PDF