As I read through this section, I am thinking that traditional Math classes follow this sequence: lecture (tell) including examples (show), practice exercises (do), and application problems (more do). However, these lead to classes that are neither very engaging nor as effective for deep learning as they might be. I know there are other components to Learning Design, yet to be explored, but clearly, these First Principles are not enough.

Here, the assessment also matches the instruction. Because the desired end result is for the learner to be able to use Excel to solve problems, it makes sense to instruct using problems.

In Behaviourism, teachers would have students perform on a pre-test before presenting new material. Cognitivists would help students use tools such as mind maps and organizers to link prior knowledge to new knowledge. How would Constructivists set the stage for learner success?

Learning begets learning. We tap into humans' natural desire to learn by helping them learn more effectively.

I feel this is different from helping students be "successful." Sometimes, teachers think that since students want to be successful, a good strategy is to lower the standard. But, students can tell when they have grown and learned, and that is what gives them the sense of achievement, rather than some externally created standard.

This is important for us to remember when we assign inquiries, especially based on information students can find on the Internet. All of those skills around critical evaluation of digital information and use of strategies to organize and make sense of it must be taught and/or scaffolded.

"Reflect and connect," as in the BC Curriculum, Math curricular competencies.

This idea reminds me of the problems we want to create in the "Building Thinking Classrooms" framework. Story is such a powerful way to engage participants to feel invested in a problem and motivated to solve it.

Is there any other studies that can prove this?

This is definitely a nuromyth that I have heard before. I feel as if in highschool I had teachers who would express that they can alter their teaching style dependant on the student, to help them learn better. I had always just assumed that what they were saying was correct, so I am shocked to see that it is not.

I find this statistic/survey to be really interesting. I have always been under the impression that MOOCs and other methods of learning (online or face-to-face) would have to include some form of application of the skill(s) learned. In my opinion this. is one of the key elements of learning and helping students to gain the most from their learning. It was surprising to read this, especially the final sentence about only 13 of the 76 have appropriate levels of application of the skill(s) they teach. Why would this not always be a standard principle that needs to be included always?