Learn to Problem Solve, Play and Have Fun – Not Code

Hi, I am so glad to share this article, as always Andrzei go on researching and producing new point of view.

Hope you like it

Julia

BY · MAY 24, 2016
I used to feel that it was an excellent idea. The world is app driven now. It seems that every day some new entrepreneur has created a million dollar app. But the truth is, these are fringe examples that get lots of noise. Most people are not doing this. Most coders live a life of tapping away day and night on their keyboard, earning a living. That’s what I did – I was a code monkey for years, and it paid the bills, it didn’t define my life.

Coding is a logical process. You have to analyze a problem and then solve it in a series of logical steps that eventually build up to a solution. Much like a game. At its core, programming is puzzle solving and this to me is the real key. Not the language, but the way in which it makes your mind work. I have spoken about by approach to problem-solving and IF THIS THEN THAT thinking before.

The same processes are there in most games. You have to take a logical step by step approach to solving the problem that is presented to you. Be it how do I kill the bad guy to how do I build the castle I want in Minecraft.

So I would rather my kids get good at playing games and solving problems with logical analysis. Then, if they want to learn to code or feel it would be of use to them, their minds are already prepared!

Let kids learn through play and fun!

Reading Time: 2 minutes (ish)I keep seeing articles stating why everyone should learn to code. The same message is aimed at adults and children, pointing to a new type of digital literacy needed to survive in the new world.I myself have known how to do code in one form or another since my dad showed me BASIC at about 5 years old. In later life, my career relied on me knowing how to code as a web developer. I have built many tools and found being able to code of great benefit to me. It has certainly been a skill that I have made use of a great deal in the last 30 years or so. But does that mean my 9 years old should learn, or even my 4-year-old?

Nuevo estudio integral proporciona bases para el futuro de la educación superior digital

Nuevo estudio integral proporciona bases para el futuro de la educación superior digital.

Building Online Learning Communities w/ Rena Palloff: engage student

Building Online Learning Communities w/ Rena Palloff: engage student.

10 problemas típicos en tutoría eLearning: estrategias para solucionarlo

A continuación, os presento una serie de estrategias que facilitarán la resolución de algunas situaciones, que con frecuencia, se encuentra un tutor en el desarrollo de un curso de eLearning.
Pero antes de pasar al tema en cuestión, os presento una infografía con las 7 C’s del tutor eLearning,

Espero que os sea de provecho,

Un cordial saludo

Julia Echeverría

infografia_las_7_c_del_tutor_de_elearning

Posted by in Blog, eLearning, ojulearning, Recursos didácticos

1. Una persona manifiesta que no entiende nada

En este caso, se debe pedir a la persona que especifique su duda para concretar cuáles son las causas y poder ofrecer una respuesta de calidad.

Debemos descartar que la base del problema de desconocimiento del alumno se deba a que no sepa moverse por la plataforma. Interactúa con el alumno para conocer las lagunas cognitivas de manera concreta.

2. Existe muy poca participación en el foro

Debemos analizar el motivo, los más comunes son que las líneas de debate abiertas no sean adecuadas, por ser demasiado ambiguas; si esta es la causa, redefiniremos el  debate concretándolo en preguntas que puedan suscitar el interés del grupo, acorde a su nivel de aprendizaje.

Otro motivo común es la timidez del grupo a participar abiertamente frente a los demás; en este caso, enviaremos un mensaje grupal invitando a todas las personas a compartir sus dudas y comentarios, fomentando la reflexión de los contenidos y las críticas constructivas al mismo, propiciando una mayor participación.

O quizás plantearnos ¿lo estamos haciendo bien? La forma de dinamizar es de respuesta tardía, quizás deberíamos cerrar nuestra intervención con otra pregunta para reincentivar el debate y reorientar la participación.

3. Una persona realiza una pregunta y la respuesta está en los contenidos

Le mostraremos que la respuesta se explica en el material del curso, indicándole la página exacta y el texto que se refleja comentándolo.

Aprovecha las herramientas que te ofrece la plataforma para difundir el esfuerzo, los foros o grupos de alumnos pueden ser un buen lugar para gestionar este tipo de dudas para que también beneficie al conjunto del alumnado y no tengan miedo a preguntar y solventar dudas.

4. El alumnado propone al equipo tutorial que haga un resumen del material del curso

Debemos sugerir que realicen ellos mismos un resumen del material, repartiendo la elaboración entre las distintas personas que componen el grupo. Actuando asícontribuiremos a que el alumnado se responsabilice de su aprendizaje y comparta con el resto de compañeros el trabajo realizado y los diferentes puntos de vista e interpretaciones.

5. Todas las consultas se reciben en el correo del equipo tutorial

Si los mensajes recibidos conciernen directamente al contenido del curso, debemos recordarles las ventajas de enviar las dudas al foro indicando que la gran mayoría de dudas son comunes y se pueden compartir soluciones.

Asimismo, le indicaremos que este mensaje puede resultar de interés para el resto del grupo por lo que (con su permiso) publicaremos la duda en el foro del Módulo.

6. Algunas personas no participan en las herramientas de comunicación

Enviaremos un mensaje que incite a la participación haciendo una alusión directa o indirecta, ya que en muchas ocasiones hay personas que desean participar y sólo necesitan un poco de empuje por parte del equipo tutorial.

Los grupos de foros son altamente adictivos pero hay que saber dar con la tecla, promueve mensajes transgresores si hiciera falta, una vez participen 3 usuarios lograrás que se añadan más personas al debate.

7. Consulta que queda fuera de los contenidos del curso

Podremos contestar siempre que tengamos la respuesta. En caso negativo, debemosproporcionar las fuentes de consulta, para que la persona disponga de medios para resolverla y solicitar ayuda a los otros compañeros.

8. Malentendido en el foro

Tendremos que esperar un tiempo prudencial para ver si el problema se resuelve espontáneamente entre los participantes. Si no sucede así, mediaremos en el conflicto  aclarando la situación y los malentendidos, solicitando a las personas implicadas que expliquen lo sucedido y cómo cada persona ha interpretado la situación para comenzar a aclararla.

Si hubiese algún indicio de falta de respecto en el foro, debemos detectarlo lo antes posible, eliminando el mensaje si fuera preciso e indicando por correo personal a la persona responsable su error. Disculparemos este acto en el foro, invitando a los participantes revisar y cumplir las Normas de Cortesía (Nettiquete).

9. Una persona plantea en el foro una situación real que le ha sucedido en relación a los contenidos del curso, del cuál solicita una posible solución

Podemos solicitar al resto de alumnado que intenten resolver el caso, con aportaciones propias. Para cada mensaje aportado (solución emitida) debemos ofrecer nuestro punto de vista como expertos/as en la materia. En último caso y como mensaje final de esta línea de debate, valoraremos aquellas soluciones que más se acerquen a la realidad y las recopilaremos a modo de resumen, agradeciendo la participación de todos.

10. Una persona comunica que tiene problemas técnicos para visualizar el Aula Virtual

Debemos obtener la máxima información sobre el problema por si podemos solucionarlo. En caso negativo, comunicaremos la incidencia a la coordinación del curso, informando a la persona afectada de tales gestiones.

Gamification on teaching: How to use Game Dynamics in Learning

Posted on

There’s a family story that i once threw a Monopoly board across the room rather than accept defeat. I’m not sure i remember it quite that way, but i do know that the battered box is relegated to the cupboard these days and holidays are more tranquil for it. The current game of choice is Scrabble, played, for preference, in the pub, on a Sunday afternoon, with friends. Or xBox, challenges on long evenings, defeating hordes of aliens and saving the world before the pizza arrives. You’re welcome.

elearningbrothers.com

image from elearningbrother.com

Games capture and hold our attention in ways that have guaranteed organisations will take an interest. This engagement is the ultimate goal of learning and if it can be achieved through subterfuge, so be it. The pervasive rise of so called ‘gamification‘ (20 points, or more if you can hit the Double Word score. although not permitted by the official Scrabble dictionary) reflects this quest.

But for every game i play, dozens lie unwanted and unused under the sofa or relegated to the dusty shelves of charity shops. Why? Because they lack a certain something: they fail to deliver the promised smiles and laughs shown on the faded box. They fail to entertain.

Entertainment is, of course, one thing, but effectiveness is quite another. In the organisational world, we may want to entertain, but underneath it, we want to encourage learning, to effect change.

To do so requires an understanding, not of the entertainment provided by games, but rather of the underlying mechanics that power them. If we want to use game dynamics with any effect, to be effective, we need to move beyond simply copying the outward trappings of games, the scoreboards and badges, and we must explore the behaviours that they utilise and trigger, then understand how that can feed into the journey of learning.

We must use this knowledge in our learning design, to ensure that the games we deploy are in fact developing the right skills and not just developing gaming skills. And we must ensure that we have multiple dimensions of reward to ensure we cater for all aspects of the community, not just the gamers.

I want to explore some key aspects of game application and then reflect on how they can best be applied in organisational work.

gaiaonline.com

image from gaiaonline.com

Let’s start by thinking about ‘Competition‘. It’s often the first type of game mechanic that’s applied to organisational learning. League tables, scoreboards, winners and losers. But how does it relate to reality? Are we making it competitive because it aids learning, or are we making it competitive because it’s built into our toolbox of eLearning tools and it’s all we know how to do?

In life, what competitive advantage does competition give us?

Most of what we explore in the Social Age is about community and collaboration: one could argue that communities form as a response to competition, that they are, in fact, the polar opposite to the brutality of competition.

Community allows for us to build shared value and shared purpose and to divide labour and specialise accordingly. Instead of me having to master every aspect of a production process (say, making bread), i am able to perfect my own part of that process through specialisation (say, inventing containerised shipping of bulk ingredients that makes the loaf two percent cheaper). I am no longer a generalist: i’m a highly tuned specialist, but in a community of diverse specialists, the community wins.

So when we use competitive elements in games, when we use scoreboards and trophies, are we rewarding individual self interest at the cost of collaboration? We may engage, i may want to come top of the scoreboard, but is that truly in the interest of the community for me to do so?

It’s no trivial matter: i suspect that scoring and ranking are amongst the top most applied gamification techniques, but may in fact to be driving precisely the wrong behaviours. We may be training people to exhibit the very behaviours that least benefit the community.
game

image from slideshare.net

By contrast, ‘Cooperation‘ can generate a different dynamic. Cooperation is an agile skill, but it’s highly contextual: the cooperative behaviours that allow us to solve one problem may be at odds with the ones needed for the next. Agility indicates that we form alliances in response to context, and in the Social Age a key factor in the viability of those alliances is our reputation.

What this means is that the alliances we form in a game context may not be those that we need in the real world: it may be the skills of ‘alliance building’ which are relevant, not the actual alliances themselves. If this is true, then we may want to avoid team formation, or at least be aware that success is not measured in the cohesion of a team (which may originate in existing relationships) so much as the significant behaviours exhibited in team formation.

Hope you enjoy this article like I do it.

Julia Echeverria Moran

There’s also something to consider about reciprocity: cooperation within a game is likely to rely on internal reciprocity: doing something for me within the context of the game (e.g. Swapping one of my Stations for one of your Blue properties in Monopoly). We both have something to gain. In the Social Age, particularly in the context of Social Leadership, we talk about operating with no expectation of reciprocity in the moment: it’s sharing based on humility and the health of the community in the expectation that the value we build into community will deliver it’s own results in time. So even something as apparently simple as encouraging cooperation may not deliver as clear cut learning results as we could expect.

The true learning may be about the foundations of cooperation, not just rewarding successful cooperation: the two things may be different.

I really like games approaches where the cooperative approach is based on successful diagnosis of the challenge, not just on pure team formation. This can manifest in ‘Quest‘ type games, where the nature of the quest can inform the decisions we take on team formation. This mirrors the agile ecosystem of the real world, where we need to form communities around specific challenges, recognising that those communities may be temporary.

Reward‘ itself is an important aspect of game dynamics: are we rewarding meaningfully? Consider the ways that people can experience reward. There’s reward based around resource: win and you get something, for preference, something rare, treasured or pleasurable. Then there’s status: win and you are recognised for your sporting, intellectual or aesthetic prowess! Reward can be immediate or deferred: you can walk away with the prize, or the prize can vest over time (perhaps through increased status within a community).

We should recognise thought there is not necessarily a linear relationship between effort and reward: there are contexts where explicit reward may not be desired or beneficial. People may not want to stand out, especially if competitive behaviours is seen as anti collaborative, which may be true for empathic or cultural reasons. Just because we like games doesn’t mean we should assume it’s universal.

Different types of reward structure can propagate different types of behaviour: an abstract reward may permit exploratory or more risky behaviours than a straight cash prize, which may carry more immediate value. If all that is at stake is a position on a leaderboard, we may be willing to exhibit different behaviours than if cold hard money is involved.

In any event: view reward as a factor that impacts every aspect of playing the game, not just the prize-giving at the end.

Understanding the context and permission for ‘Risk‘ is vital, especially when we deconstruct the different types of risk at play.

There may be risk around something physical, like safety or the loads placed on a building. There may be reputational risk, where failing will damage confidence. There may be offset risk: win the game here but carry a stigma elsewhere. We shouldn’t view risk as something to be avoided at all costs or mitigated. Sometime a healthy amount of risk can pay benefits: it moves us out of our expected zone of behaviour and response and allows us to experiment with new behaviours (rehearsal) and consequence. Of course, it only does this if we have both permission and space to practice. Get it wrong and we are rehearsing on the job, which is ok, as long as that has been planned for!

Risk modifies behaviour. Try walking along the white line that runs down a road (check for cars first… that’s one type of risk!). Now put a plank the width of that line two feet off the ground and walk along it. Most of us are more careful. Just a little. Put it ten feet up and i’m very careful indeed: a hundred feet up and nothing would persuade me to walk it, at least not without a safety harness.

Attitude to risk is proportional to ability to offset it (and possibly to understand it).

We can use risk within learning games to modify behaviours or to steer scenarios in particular directions, but if we are clever about the design, we may want to include a necessity to confront and take risk on, because it’s a great modifier of behaviour. Just remember, how real the risk is impacts on the responses we choose. If we wear the safety harness, we may throw ourselves off, just to see what it feels like.

Some of the better applications of games in learning are around formation, rehearsal and implementation of ‘Strategy‘. This can happen in two ways: implicitly or explicitly.

Let’s say you work in a burger bar and the training consists of a game to practice making the burger. The point of it is to help you coordinate all the elements: where you put the pan, where you break the eggs, how long you cook them for. You are building a strategy (as well as manual skills and rehearsed behaviours) for success. We can modify the game by ‘forcing‘ it to give you a bad egg, to see how you react, but whatever we do, the context is explicit: you’re learning to make a burger.

In implicit strategy, the actual application may be shielded. For example: you have to go on a quest in a magical kingdom to find some treasure, but to find the treasure, you need to cross a lake, force open a door and climb a cliff. To succeed, you need to assemble a team, which will include negotiating a split of the treasure. The skills you are rehearsing may be applicable in the real world, but you are rehearsing them in the abstract, in a present space. We are not rehearsing strategy in an applied sense, but nonetheless we are executing strategy to achieve a goal, which may carry parallels in the real world and, indeed, allow you to rehearse behaviours that can carry across into the real world.

Playing with implicit and explicit modes of learning design can provide benefits: it may let us focus on the skills in the abstract from application and engineer modes of rehearsal that are unconstrained by the ‘real world‘. On the flip side, if we rehearse in the abstract, we may need to explicitly make the links back to the real world. Simply succeeding in the abstract scenario is not enough: if we don’t make it clear how it impacts in the real world, we are failing.

I’ve been playing Star Wars Commander on the iPad: when i get distracted for a few days, my Base gets raided and i lose resources. Sometimes a lot of resources. This potential for ‘Loss‘ is not accidental: it’s engineered into the engagement tools of the game, intended to annoy me, intended to get me back in to play some more (and build more resources).Mobile games are leading the way in Engagement strategies, because they have a clear financial gain from getting me to reengage and play more.

This notion of loss is one that we can benefit from understanding: how we can apply it, how it can be used to learn. Within role-play or simulation games, we can actively manipulate scenarios to include aspects of loss to both force people to confront change but also to generate an engagement to rebuild.

I mentioned the Star Wars game: ‘Building‘ is a key part of the experience. You build a base and apply both functional and aesthetic decisions when doing so. Endless hours of tinkering with your base/farm/railway/space station. This ‘housekeeping‘ function of games is often ignored in organisational applications. People like to curate a space, like to design, like to build. There is mileage in understanding how and why and creating spaces for people to do this. It’s engagement.

Games like Sim City or indeed Star Wars Commander are open ended: they have no final act, because the interactions are about building and fending off adversity. Even if you managed to build the perfect city, a tornado may strike and put you back into disaster management mode (a good application of ‘loss‘ to generate engagement. But the loss must be limited: when attacked in Star Wars, you don’t lose all your wealth, but rather a percentage of it, so if you are attacked multiple times, the amount they take decreased each time: a set percentage, but a diminishing return, always leaving you with something to start from. How much loss we can bear without disengaging is a fascinating concept and highly relevant to learning.

Sometimes we talk about ‘disturbance‘: too little and we will not change. Too much and we will disengage as it’s too much effort to rebuild. It’s a balance, it’s about choreography. Continual monitoring rather than just heading for a league table.

We talked a little about ‘Adversity‘ already, considering how an uphill struggle can generate it’s own type of momentum. In serious games, we have a permission to take this to extremes: we can use adversity to test resilience, diagnostic skills, problem solving and agility. But it has to be in purpose of an objective. In a game like HALO, you face increasing levels of adversity whilst completing a broadly linear path of exploration and conquest. Indeed, complete the third game in the trilogy and you end up facing an endless stream of ever harder adversaries until you fail: there is no victory possible, but for that reason, i found it of limited appeal. There needs to be at least an astronomically distant prospect of success if we want people to strive.

The acquisition and marshalling of ‘Resources‘ sits within many games, especially ‘god’ type games, where you are building and deploying things. I particularly like some of the multi dimensional aspects of resourcing and reward used by some of the latest mobile games, which have clear applications for Social Age learning. For example, in the Star Wars game, you can collect gold coins, alloy and crystals. Some buildings are bought for money, some require alloy, and crystals, well, they are catalysts. They make things happen faster. You can use crystals to complete a building faster (buildings go up in ‘real‘ time, often taking a week or more to complete).

Now, you can harvest money and alloy, but crystals you buy for real life cash. So you can speed the game up with real money, or you can play for free, but more slowly.

Similarly, even playing for free you can adopt different approaches: you can be acquisitive, battling others to conquer and steal their resources, or you can be nurturing, never going to war, but fine tuning your base. This would be slower, but perfectly feasible. You can also choose to cooperate, sending your troops to help others, interesting with no reciprocal mechanism: a very Social Age trait. There’s definitely mileage in exploring resources in organisational games: maybe looking at how we can set up real trading of virtual game resources to link the abstract back to reality?

Finally, let’s consider the benefits of ‘Recklessness‘. If we consider how we can apply games, we shouldn’t rule out unconstrained destruction: letting people fully destruct test the limits of an environment. It’s not behaviour we want to condone, but maybe it’s all part of exploration: prototyping behaviours and exploring consequence in a safe space. It is, after all, what we do as children, so i guess it helped us learn somewhere along the line…

These are just some of a wide range of dynamics in game design: my purpose was to provoke exploration and reflection, for myself and others, into the nuance we can bring to game design, into gamification. The ways we can move beyond avatars and scoreboards to more meaningful mechanisms and applied game dynamics that are focussed not on just experience, but more on application and excellence. Games to help us learn.

Educación en este siglo 7: porqué se dice que el Elearning ha fracasado (en algunos casos)?

Estimados lectores, hace un par de días se me ha pedido mi opinión sobre el “fracaso del Elearning”, asunto que me ha llamado mucho la atención porque soy la menos indicada para hablar de “fracaso” de esta metodología de enseñanza, aun así me gustaría realizar alguna reflexión sobre el tema.
Existen dos maneras de hacer las cosas: mal o bien. Esta metodología de enseñanza fracasa cuando se dan algunas de las siguientes causas entre muchas otras.

Primero, si se está pensando que el Elearning sirve para ahorrar costes en formación, sobre todo en las empresas, se equivocan de lleno, es verdad que ahorra costes pero sobre todo lo que hace es eliminar fronteras y problemas de desplazamiento lo cual también hace que el usuario ahorre. Pero no se puede de ninguna manera plantear utilizar esta metodología de enseñanza desde el punto de vista del ahorro.

Otro punto que lleva al fracaso de esta metodología es que por intentar hacer que los costes bajen en un porcentaje bestial, es que los productores de cursos “enlatados”, con el fin de ganar más dinero por la cantidad de cursos que pueden vender, en vez de apostar por la calidad:

  • Han decidido que un mismo contenido sirve para todos,
  • Siguen utilizando las misma interfaces aburridas,
  • Siguen utilizando largos textos aburridos con los cuales los estudiantes se quedarán dormidos tanto en la clase presencial como virtual.
  • No utilizar los servicios de expertos en la materia de cada curso a impartir.
  • Que los profesionales que contratan no son lo suficientemente creativos o no les dejan ser lo, (este punto no lo se) por lo cual, solamente se permiten hacer aquello que han aprendido en su momento y no siguen con la propia formación contínua o PLE (personal learning enviromental), entorno personal de aprendizaje. Se sigue dando en este sentido, al igual que en la enseñanza presencial, por parte de los profesores o expertos en el tema, el inmovilismo didáctico “me quedo con lo que aprendí y eso enseñaré toda mi vida”.

El Elearning, tiene muchos puntos buenos y el primero es aquel que nos ayuda a acercar la educación más allá de las fronteras geográficas, pero no quiere decir que ésta deba ser la metodología por excelencia, el Blearning me parece más productivo en el caso que las persona puedan realizar una educación presencial, al menos para aquellos a los cuales este tipo de enseñanza, ya sea por desconocimiento, ya sea por desconfianza, ya sea creer que no serán capaces de estar a la altura, por miedo a lo desconocido, etc, prefieren, si pueden, la enseñanza presencial.

En temas enseñanza las hay de todo y para todos los gustos y bolsillos, esto no quiere decir, de ninguna manera, que este tipo de metodología sea peor que la presencial porque su coste es menor en cuanto a lo que puede llegar a costar un establecimiento o traer a todo el personal de una empresa a un lugar determinado para asistir a cursos de formación contínua o para el curso que sea.
El Elearning, tiene muchos y variados puntos a su favor que no voy a mencionar porque es por todos sabido.

Lo que sí voy a recalcar una vez mas, son los siguientes puntos pilares de este tipo de enseñanza aprendizaje.

  • Ningún curso puede ser igual a otro, porque el perfil de los usuarios cambia y mucho de unos a otros, aunque la materia a aprender sea la misma.
  • Cada curso se debe realizar a medida de las necesidades de los clientes o participantes.
  • La metodología a utilizar debería ser la constructivista, es decir, aprender haciendo y esto con todos los avances tecnológicos y las aplicaciones que salen cada día al mercado se pueden realizar cursos realmente interesantes y atractivos.
  • Por otra parte está el tema del conocimiento abierto, es decir, de todo aquello que se comparte en la red de manera gratuita para ser reutilizado, manipulado, en diversos grados, según el tipo de licencia, pero existe y se debe utilizar, así mismo, todo lo que hagamos debemos hacerlo bajo este tipo de licencia, de esta manera creamos el aprendizaje entre pares o peer to peer.
  • Existen diversas plataformas de enseñanza que son libres, tanto las de aprendizaje como para hacer blogs, vídeos, música, etc. solamente hay que saber buscar la que mejor se adapte a nuestros objetivos de aprendizaje.

Por último, aunque no he agotado todo el tema, me gustaría acotar un tema muy importante que me gustaría debatir en un cierto modo y que estoy planteando en los medios sociales y es, que utilizando o no material didáctico libre, donde realmente se realiza la verdadera labor de profesor / tutor, es precisamente en las tutorías a través de los foros de debate de cada unidad didáctica, tema, o actividad, es ahí donde resolvemos las dudas, guiamos a los estudiantes hacia una comprensión de los conceptos expuestos, ha impulsar, motivar, las ganas de aprender, a fomentar el trabajo y el aprendizaje en equipo y por supuesto a través de todo ello, nosotros los profesores también aprendemos de nuestros alumnos.

Y para terminar, deseo declarar que un profesor o tutor que no siga aprendiendo día a día, no se le puede llamar con ese término, porque como todo cambia de un día para otro, debemos estar en continua formación y es absolutamente necesario buscar la creatividad, investigar y no dormirnos en los laureles, que lo que enseñamos hoy, seguramente mañana no será lo mismo, los cursos están vivos. La figura del “maestro” que nos enseñaba a leer y a escribir y que año tras año enseña la misma materia y de la misma forma, ya no deberían existir, como dice mi profesor y tutor, Mr, Peter Johnson, “los dinosaurios ya no existen, murieron hace millones de años”. Lo mismo debería suceder con el sistema educativo global, realizar un cambio radical en sus metodologías de aprendizaje / enseñanza. Seguiremos con este tema en próximos post.

Un saludo cordial

Julia Echeverría