do we remind them of the risks
I think that students and younger generations that are learning the ways of technology know that what they do online comes with risks, and they might even know what some are. However, I think they don't know all of them. They might not totally understand them and how they work, which makes them less worried about them. All they know is that there are potential risks.
Other personality traits, such as agreeableness (being kind and empathetic toward others), openness to new ideas (being imaginative and curious) or emotional stability (not being anxious or easily upset), did not appear to matter much in determining whether people were thrivers or divers. Instead, the traits related to work-study habits seemed to be the most predictive. The researchers emphasize that these are only correlations. Although they controlled for some aspects of students’ backgrounds, such as the education levels of their parents, it’s possible that other factors are responsible as well
Group: One main difference between a thriver and a diver is the study skills and habits they had in high school. Thrivers try to focus more on understanding the concept, creating good study habits and organization skills. Divers mostly focus on passing, memorizing only the necessary information the day before the test. Divers probably never developed good study habits or organization skills in high school, so once they reached college, they struggled with understanding the material and dedicating time to study. The more people study and the more prepared they are, the more eager they are to learn new concepts faster. It’s all about wanting to succeed in school. A positive attitude helps students learn more, as well. There are, of course, many things that are accounted for when assessing and predicting success. People are all different and are motivated differently. There are things that happen that can change the person and their goals. Other than study habits, it depends on the person’s ambitions and how bad they want to be educationally successful. How ambitious they are depends on many factors such as mindset, their background/ where they come from, grit, their goals, and many more.
99 Student Success Tips: http://www.trade-schools.net/articles/student-success-tips.asp
t also if someone looks like they are thinking, and haven’t yet spoken, I’ll call on them to see if they have something to say)
I think this is important for the teacher/ professor to do. Some students take longer to think about what they want to say and when they are finally ready to say it, the subject has moved on. This happens when the more vocal students of the class take over the conversation, not on purpose but by habit.
It is not biography. Biography is about one person. Social history has got to be about more than one person. Moreover, the persons it's about have got to have been unheard of and be of no political importance.
It sounds like Harrison thinks that Social History is about all the components that makes up a significant period of time or group. It doesn't focus only on notable individuals, but all that went into it. He thinks Social history is underrated and seems like menial work to other historians.
To know is to do, and good teachers require their students to engage with the material, to use their minds, to develop new modes of thought and neuronal pathways.
I think that learning by doing is the best way to learn, in general. When we see and get to interact with what we're learning about, we are more likely to understand it.
Develop assessments that measure student progress and attainment of standards or outcomes.
I don't think there's really a way to assess a student's understanding of a subject. There's a difference between memorizing facts and actual understanding of information. For example, I received an A in my AP Bio class but don't remember anything about Biology. I think the best way to assess understanding is having the student use his/ her knowledge in real-life situations. I saw small attempts at doing this at my high school. They started to implement "common core" which tries to engage students in critical thinking in all subjects.
We can now begin to see that the reason for why Du Bois was marginalized, and why his influence has been obscured, is not just his skin color. It is also that he was intellectual insurrectionary – intellectually heterodox – challenging the hegemony of scientific racism upon which white sociology had been mounted at the time.
Du Bois probably didn't gain much recognition on the work he did for Sociology because of his involvement in the Civil Rights movement. Go had said that he had dangerous ideas, which, at the time, he did. He was very involved in different groups that protested against the discrimination that was happening at the time. This is what he was more known for. Higher officials probably didn't want give more attention to Du Bois than he already had gained, so they didn't credit him for his work in Sociology.