Lectures, videos, and textbooks are forms of passive learning. A student will listen or read the information without receiving feedback or being forced to engage with the material. It has its place in education but as the article states it is less effective. There is even evidence that passive learning provides an "illusion of learning." That is a student believes they understand material when in fact they do not.
Active learning is learning by doing. There have been numerous studies demonstrating that active learning is superior. It can be as simple as asking students questions about the content they are learning. Active learning is one of the reasons why expert tutors are the best form of education (See 2 Sigma Problem). By being forced to answer questions a student will be better able to retain and recall it.
Lectures and other passive learning methodologies have their place, but they should be short and supplemental.
Transportation has been a leading contributor of greenhouse gas (GHG) for some time. In California transportation contributes 36% of GHG emissions while electricity accounts for 20%. That is why it is vital to get electricity to 0 GHG emissions because it the easier problem to solve. The only way to do that effectively is through a combination of solar, wind and nuclear.
It should be noted that the waste was from nuclear weapons production not nuclear power. It is disingenuous to compare them because they are not the same.
That is a bullshit number. Every place nuclear power has been shutdown it has been replaced by fossil fuels or wood. That is what would happen if you shut down Diablo valley.
It is not foolish, it is practical. Given the realities of climate change we need more new nuclear power plants not less. You are against even R&D into 4th generation reactors.
Turns out Diablo Canyon is too expensive to save. You get much more clean wind and solar for the same cost.
That is not factually true. Diablo produces 41 times Ivanpah. Ivanpah costed 2.2 billion. In order to replace Diablo with solar power with storage it would be 41*$2.2 =90.2. That is $90.2 billion dollars. Solar power plants have a low capacity factor. Meaning there are times of the year where they are producing no electricity. So it still would not work. We should build solar plants, but only to replace coal and gas plants.
Burning wood is not a clean solution. I like wind and solar, but they are intermittent meaning they work only part of the time. No sun--no electricity, no wind--no electricity. Hydro only works at certain locations and most of those are already utilized.
Shutting down nuclear power plants will result in an increase of carbon.
It is time for you to start reading the facts about atomic energy. http://www.savediablocanyon.org/the-facts/
He rarely posts anything positive about solar and wind. He almost exclusively posts anti-nuclear propaganda. That is why I think he works fossil fuel industry. The entire anti-nuclear movement was created by the fossil fuel industry.
I am not against any new infrastructure project leading to 100% clean energy. The reality is that we cannot get to 100% without nuclear. We would have to double our nations grid to get to 50%, and from there it just gets harder.
I noticed you did not answer my question about burning wood to produce electricity being a positive for the environment.
I did not say wood was a fossil fuel. It is definitely not a clean energy source, nor is it sustainable.
So do you think burning wood and fossil fuels is a positive for the environment? Vermont was once the cleanest state in the nation. 80% of the electricity produced there was clean electricity. Now they are burning wood and fossil fuels.
Slashdot Mirror
Lectures, videos, and textbooks are forms of passive learning. A student will listen or read the information without receiving feedback or being forced to engage with the material. It has its place in education but as the article states it is less effective. There is even evidence that passive learning provides an "illusion of learning." That is a student believes they understand material when in fact they do not.
Active learning is learning by doing. There have been numerous studies demonstrating that active learning is superior. It can be as simple as asking students questions about the content they are learning. Active learning is one of the reasons why expert tutors are the best form of education (See 2 Sigma Problem). By being forced to answer questions a student will be better able to retain and recall it.
Lectures and other passive learning methodologies have their place, but they should be short and supplemental.
Transportation has been a leading contributor of greenhouse gas (GHG) for some time. In California transportation contributes 36% of GHG emissions while electricity accounts for 20%. That is why it is vital to get electricity to 0 GHG emissions because it the easier problem to solve. The only way to do that effectively is through a combination of solar, wind and nuclear.
It should be noted that the waste was from nuclear weapons production not nuclear power. It is disingenuous to compare them because they are not the same.
That is a bullshit number. Every place nuclear power has been shutdown it has been replaced by fossil fuels or wood. That is what would happen if you shut down Diablo valley. It is not foolish, it is practical. Given the realities of climate change we need more new nuclear power plants not less. You are against even R&D into 4th generation reactors.
Turns out Diablo Canyon is too expensive to save. You get much more clean wind and solar for the same cost.
That is not factually true. Diablo produces 41 times Ivanpah. Ivanpah costed 2.2 billion. In order to replace Diablo with solar power with storage it would be 41*$2.2 =90.2. That is $90.2 billion dollars. Solar power plants have a low capacity factor. Meaning there are times of the year where they are producing no electricity. So it still would not work. We should build solar plants, but only to replace coal and gas plants.
Burning wood is not a clean solution. I like wind and solar, but they are intermittent meaning they work only part of the time. No sun--no electricity, no wind--no electricity. Hydro only works at certain locations and most of those are already utilized. Shutting down nuclear power plants will result in an increase of carbon. It is time for you to start reading the facts about atomic energy. http://www.savediablocanyon.org/the-facts/
He rarely posts anything positive about solar and wind. He almost exclusively posts anti-nuclear propaganda. That is why I think he works fossil fuel industry. The entire anti-nuclear movement was created by the fossil fuel industry.
I am not against any new infrastructure project leading to 100% clean energy. The reality is that we cannot get to 100% without nuclear. We would have to double our nations grid to get to 50%, and from there it just gets harder. I noticed you did not answer my question about burning wood to produce electricity being a positive for the environment.
Wood is not a fossil fuel.
I did not say wood was a fossil fuel. It is definitely not a clean energy source, nor is it sustainable. So do you think burning wood and fossil fuels is a positive for the environment? Vermont was once the cleanest state in the nation. 80% of the electricity produced there was clean electricity. Now they are burning wood and fossil fuels.