Day One
Today's readings and lecture focused on the digital divide. All three reading noted that the digital divide was closing among American schools, at least numerically speaking. However, the manner in which the technology is being used shows that while there is increasingly greater digital equality, there biggest divide that needs to be crossed is digital equity. Ed Tech and Equity, by Allen & Soloman explain that it's not so much how many machines a school has, but how they're being used. The authors posit that instead of students using the technology to help foster higher order thinking skills machines are rather being used for remediation and basic skills. Furthermore, they argue that students from lower socio economic schools are using computers to do work vs. their more affluent counterparts that are learning how to make the computer work for them. While I agree that this is probably true, students from a lower SES tend to struggle more with basic skills. Should we be teaching students how to program or web design that cannot read and write at grade level?
Deconstructing the Digital Divide, also took on this topic but argued that the digital divide is not only about socio-economic status but there are many more divides than that. The authors argued that sex, class, geography, and wealth all play a factor in determining on which side students and families fall on the digital divide. They (like the previous article) also stated that the digital divide is not just about access to machines but how students are being taught to use them. As a teacher from a district with it's fair share of lower SES students I can fully relate to and see what they're saying. However, I see things a bit differently. Students and parents placing value in technology and it's potential for education is not different that students and parents that place value in reading and education all together. While there certainly is mind crushing poverty in this country, many students that I see that qualify as low SES students have nice clothes, shoes, etc. I believe that because many students' families do not value education in general that they will not see that value in spending money for internet access at home even though many companies offer programs for lower SES families. I believe that conquering the digital divide is a cultural problem as much as it is these other factors. Until the culture changes and more people value education nothing will change; public education simply has to play the hand it has been dealt. It's like Tomas Paine said, "What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly." After reading all of the posts on the discussion boards it looks like many of my classmates see a lot of the same thing.
This issue is again tackled in Equity is Not Just About Access, by Soloman. Once again Soloman points out that it's not about the number of machines but how they're being used. This is encouraging because I believe that this is a solvable problem. I agree with the author that teacher prep is the key as well as visionary administrative leadership. Once again, basic skills should take precedence. Regardless of a school's population, be it rich or poor, I believe it is difficult to teach students how to make computers work for you if they're lacking basic educational and social skills.
Day 2
Today's reading and lecture covered something I find to be most fascinating, the topic of the Global Village. On the face of it the term sounds ludicrous, however, the facts of the topic are quite interesting and happening all around us. The basic idea of the global village is that because of the massive influx of technology and what it allows people to do on a global scale that humanity is close to realizing a single unified community with common traits and purpose. While some parts of this I believe are very true, others are not there yet and may not ever be there.
Do We Really Need A Global Village, by Talbott was written in 1995. The date is important because it was just after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the liberalizing of China economically, the passage of NAFTA, and creating of the European Union. Also, the mid 90's mark the dawn of the information age. Much of what Talbott wrote was quite visionary while some of it was way off. In the article Talbott warns against the dangers of what might come about as a result of the global village. He sees the global village as a threat to native cultures (3) and that it could possibly lead the rise of the same dictatorships humanity was hoping to avoid (5). The big question about the global village is that what if winning is the worst possible outcome.
Let's first deal with where Talbott seems to be on the money. While there is much to celebrate in that the global village has a lot of promise in ending totalitarian regimes there is also a danger with it. The Arab Spring showed that people working together on a global scale can help topple despotic regimes. However, what happens once we're all connected? In China people rioted for democracy in 1989 only to be placated by western culture once China opened up socially and economically. Who cares about freedom of speech and religion when you can watch "Dancing with the Stars" in Hi-Def on your iPad! The same can be said for the west, recent scandals have shown the the US Government has been mining data on ordinary citizens for years and while many are upset there hasn't been anyone called to be held accountable, why is this, maybe it's because people have been put to sleep by YouTube and Jersey Shore.
In other areas Talbott was either off the mark or simply naive. The author argues that assimilation is wrong and that the global village can lead it leaves no place for native cultures. This is the way of the world, people, animals, and cultures that cannot adapt to their world die out. It is the circle of life. The Roman Empire collapsed, the Mayans disappeared, and nobody speaks Aramaic anymore; it's a new dawn, you can't avoid the morning because it's coming whether you want it to or not. Also, I don't believe Talbott could have foreseen the information sharing and grass roots power that would stem from the global village. Because of the technology that the global village relies on, my colleagues and I planned and edcamp without personally meeting any of the other planners. We used a combination of skype and google hangouts to works across a wide geographic region. However, Talbott would have needed a crystal ball to see those things.
Day 3
Distance Learning was the main topic for day three. In Distance Learning, by Natriello the author explains reasons for the growth of the distance learning phenomenon. The author states that people engaged in careers that call for education to advance don't have the time for traditional courses (3). This explain why I am working towards a degree online from Iowa State University while I am located in Pittsburgh, PA. Also in the paper the author lays out four reasons why this revolution in education is occurring. While I agree that the four the author mentioned are all important I would argue five and that of the four available capital is the most important. The fifth not mentioned by the author but included by me would be the advances in technology have allowed for the revolution to occur. I remember when video chatting was very rare, I couldn't believe that more people didn't do it, but with tools like Skype, Facetime, Oovoo, etc video chatting is very easy for most and makes distance learning much more feasible. Also, the most important point made by the author was the availability of capital. This has been done because of shifting resources. Papers like "Project RED" explain how schools can actually save money by adopting 21st century tools. I have personally witnessed this in my wife's school district. By reallocating resources that would have been used on workbooks, textbooks, copier paper, etc to purchasing technology that will do these jobs and more schools are able to buy the tools they need.
Distance education is going a bit further with the creating of MOOCS (massive online open course software). As the USA Today article I read explained, MOOCS are being offered by many top tier colleges. People can take the course online for free but receive little to no credit. Why would someone do such a thing? Many people simply enjoy learning or are trying to improve their knowledge in a certain area or master a specific skill. I myself have done this. I took an open course on google apps ed but opted not to take the test hence I am not google certified. However, I probably know more about GAE than anyone else in my district.
The video I watched about MOOCs explained that many people believe that they get better interaction with classmates and professors online than they ever got in a face/face class. While I don't believe this is always true (it depends on the class and teacher) I've certainly experienced this myself.
That being said, I don't see a use for MOOCs beyond what what already described. In k-12 education most students are focused on the grade, simply passing, or just the social aspect of school. As a result I'm fairly certain that MOOCs will continue to only operate in higher or adult ed.
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Week Three
Day One:
Paradigm Shifts in IT by, Koschman was today's reading. In this article the author explains that due to advancements in technology that IT has undergone several paradigm shifts in a short amount of time. Furthermore, he relates to the reader that as a result of these advancements in technology that there are numerous communities with competing ideologies with the newest being CSCL (Computer Supported Collaborative Learning). CSCL views technology as a mediation tool with collaborative methods of instruction. Lastly, the author stresses that shifts in IT happen due to shifts in theories of learning and instruction.
Much of this ties into what was read last week regarding evolving approaches to IT. As technology has changed so have approaches to ID. Newer methods of ID adapt to the technology and theories of learning while others stay grounded in traditional methods of technology and instruction.
The Paradigm Shifts video was also very informative and tied in to the Koschman article. As the video explained, paradigm shifts can sometimes be controversial as they tend to attack what may have been previously considered intractable positions. This video also talked about CSCL and how tech should be less relied upon as a means of instruction but should rather support and mediate instruction in a collaborative environment. Picture students working together in a Google Hangout to complete problem based learning activities.
A good example of this is BYOD and or 1:1 initiatives. In my own district now we are in the midst of a paradigm shift. Many teachers (including myself) have started to allow students to utilize their personal electronic devices which is prohibited by our school handbook. Previously Administration had never seen or understood that necessity and advantaged that BYOD could offer our school. However, after inviting them to view how the students use their own devices there has been a slight shift in attitudes regarding our very rigid policy. Though I pushed for BYOD previously I've started to come to the conclusion that most HS students are not mature enough to use their devices appropriately enough of the time to be worth while.
Day Two:
What is Moral Philosophy by Pojman started day two in which morality and ethics was the main theme. This passage seemed to discuss most of the history of morality and dealt with the major questions surrounding the topic such as conflicts between the law and morality. In so far as dealing with the topics of this course there were some parallels between the reading and class videos and other topics.
The question of most interest in the Moral Philosophy video was how should be best use ed tech? It discusses this issue from a moral standpoint. After viewing this video it made me think about a colleague of mine, "Don". Don has a list of credentials a mile long as it related to ed tech. However, I think sometimes he stresses the technology over the content. He wants to use the technology for the sake of using it and is not firstly concerned with how it will improve student learning. Don definitely uses a Rapid Prototyping approach in his instruction which many times frustrates the students and he loses them. I think Don's approach is almost a selfish one and for that reason it is immoral. Not immoral in the evil sense, but immoral because he is putting his own desires ahead of what is best for his students.
This topic was also dealt with in the video clip from The God's Must be Crazy. I won't recall the content of the video but the issues it dealt with. The Bushmen were introduced to a new piece of technology that was exceedingly useful and labor saving. However, there was only one and this tool (a coke bottle) could not be introduced. Was it moral to introduce this new tool to these people? This caused me to think of similar stories/scenarios. Was it moral for Prometheus to give fire to man? After all, man has learned to kill with it, however, it allowed society to advance and raise the standard of living above which would not have been possible before. That being said, man learned to reproduce fire. The people in the video are shown to be living in "Garden of Eden" type of existence. Is the coke bottle being introduced akin to taking the Quince from the tree and eating of it to gain the knowledge of good and evil?
Moral Guidance in Ed Tech by Nichols seemed to concur with some of the ideas presented by the God's Must be Crazy video. In the reading, the author explains that sometimes technology can be needlessly morally harmful. It would certainly seem as though this was the case with the Bushmen. Nichols explains that we must always consider the moral issues involved with introducing new technology but that by doing so the chances that the technology could be harmful are less.
Day Three:
Critical Theory by Yeaman, Koetting, and Nichols laid out several theories about the morality and it's application to educational technology. It deal with how ed tech can both help and further marginalize different "under-served" demographic groups. One specific point addressed was how in many situations the introduction of ed tech seems to be introduced from the perspective of the dominant culture. To me this situation seems unavoidable especially as nations like the United States become increasingly more Balkanized. It would seem that a paradox has been created in which we would like Ed Tech to ideally bridge and close gaps between groups but political correctness and multiculturalism (especially how it has been applied in Europe) only make those gaps wider. This does not seem like a problem that ed tech can solve, morally or socially.
Paradigm Shifts in IT by, Koschman was today's reading. In this article the author explains that due to advancements in technology that IT has undergone several paradigm shifts in a short amount of time. Furthermore, he relates to the reader that as a result of these advancements in technology that there are numerous communities with competing ideologies with the newest being CSCL (Computer Supported Collaborative Learning). CSCL views technology as a mediation tool with collaborative methods of instruction. Lastly, the author stresses that shifts in IT happen due to shifts in theories of learning and instruction.
Much of this ties into what was read last week regarding evolving approaches to IT. As technology has changed so have approaches to ID. Newer methods of ID adapt to the technology and theories of learning while others stay grounded in traditional methods of technology and instruction.
The Paradigm Shifts video was also very informative and tied in to the Koschman article. As the video explained, paradigm shifts can sometimes be controversial as they tend to attack what may have been previously considered intractable positions. This video also talked about CSCL and how tech should be less relied upon as a means of instruction but should rather support and mediate instruction in a collaborative environment. Picture students working together in a Google Hangout to complete problem based learning activities.
A good example of this is BYOD and or 1:1 initiatives. In my own district now we are in the midst of a paradigm shift. Many teachers (including myself) have started to allow students to utilize their personal electronic devices which is prohibited by our school handbook. Previously Administration had never seen or understood that necessity and advantaged that BYOD could offer our school. However, after inviting them to view how the students use their own devices there has been a slight shift in attitudes regarding our very rigid policy. Though I pushed for BYOD previously I've started to come to the conclusion that most HS students are not mature enough to use their devices appropriately enough of the time to be worth while.
Day Two:
What is Moral Philosophy by Pojman started day two in which morality and ethics was the main theme. This passage seemed to discuss most of the history of morality and dealt with the major questions surrounding the topic such as conflicts between the law and morality. In so far as dealing with the topics of this course there were some parallels between the reading and class videos and other topics.
The question of most interest in the Moral Philosophy video was how should be best use ed tech? It discusses this issue from a moral standpoint. After viewing this video it made me think about a colleague of mine, "Don". Don has a list of credentials a mile long as it related to ed tech. However, I think sometimes he stresses the technology over the content. He wants to use the technology for the sake of using it and is not firstly concerned with how it will improve student learning. Don definitely uses a Rapid Prototyping approach in his instruction which many times frustrates the students and he loses them. I think Don's approach is almost a selfish one and for that reason it is immoral. Not immoral in the evil sense, but immoral because he is putting his own desires ahead of what is best for his students.
This topic was also dealt with in the video clip from The God's Must be Crazy. I won't recall the content of the video but the issues it dealt with. The Bushmen were introduced to a new piece of technology that was exceedingly useful and labor saving. However, there was only one and this tool (a coke bottle) could not be introduced. Was it moral to introduce this new tool to these people? This caused me to think of similar stories/scenarios. Was it moral for Prometheus to give fire to man? After all, man has learned to kill with it, however, it allowed society to advance and raise the standard of living above which would not have been possible before. That being said, man learned to reproduce fire. The people in the video are shown to be living in "Garden of Eden" type of existence. Is the coke bottle being introduced akin to taking the Quince from the tree and eating of it to gain the knowledge of good and evil?
Moral Guidance in Ed Tech by Nichols seemed to concur with some of the ideas presented by the God's Must be Crazy video. In the reading, the author explains that sometimes technology can be needlessly morally harmful. It would certainly seem as though this was the case with the Bushmen. Nichols explains that we must always consider the moral issues involved with introducing new technology but that by doing so the chances that the technology could be harmful are less.
Day Three:
Critical Theory by Yeaman, Koetting, and Nichols laid out several theories about the morality and it's application to educational technology. It deal with how ed tech can both help and further marginalize different "under-served" demographic groups. One specific point addressed was how in many situations the introduction of ed tech seems to be introduced from the perspective of the dominant culture. To me this situation seems unavoidable especially as nations like the United States become increasingly more Balkanized. It would seem that a paradox has been created in which we would like Ed Tech to ideally bridge and close gaps between groups but political correctness and multiculturalism (especially how it has been applied in Europe) only make those gaps wider. This does not seem like a problem that ed tech can solve, morally or socially.
Sunday, June 23, 2013
Week 2 Readings
Day One
Today's readings focused on the background, basics, and limitations of Instructional Systems Design. The first article "What is ID?" centered on the core elements of traditional ID's and what they look like. Furthermore this article discussed the history of ID and how it came into being. According to this article traditional ID's are learner centered and goal oriented. They follow the behaviorist school of thought and are designed in a linear fashion. There is a beginning and and end divided up into various sections of information which the learner must demonstrate mastery to move forward to the next section. "What ID's Do" followed up on this article by explaining how ID's have been used historically. Beginning in the mid 20th century ID's were used by government, military, and corporate entities for training purposes. In my mind this seemed like the first flight simulator used by the USAF. I also likened it to a course I had to take in order to be certified to give the Keystone exam. Once I achieved each objective I had to take a final exam and was then a certified Keystone exam Instructor. "A Hard Look at ID's" looked at the flaws and limitations of ID's. The author explained the the flaws with ID's has more to do with the design process rather than the principals upon which they're based. According to the author typical usage of ISD's has centered more towards project management and as a result is not rigorous enough to meet the needs of the modern student.
Day Two
The next days readings looked at a Constructivist approach to ID. In the first article, by Willis, Constructivist ID Model, the author explains that though Constructivists to not outright reject objective standards, they do view those standards as more subjective. Furthermore, Willis call for a more balance approach to instruction. he believes that a good ID model blends both constructivism and objectivism. He asserts that it would be more beneficial to the leaner to use direct instruction to support a constructivist approach. The second article, Translating Constructivism to ID, deals with putting Constructivist ideas into reality through ID. As the author sees it, the fundamental problem is that "behaviorists can teach, well, without having students learn."
That statement struct a gigantic chord with me. That quote alone is the reason I stopped teaching for my districts online program. The program that we utilize is based on a behaviorist approach to learning. Students can easily get through the material at break-neck speed and not learn a thing! All they needs to do is complete various objectives, go on to the next level, and receive at least 70% effeciency on the summative assessment to receive their passing grade. A given student could pass 10th grade history and not learn a thing about it. I've watched it happen!
In order for students to truly learn according the author, Constructivist ID models should involve real world examples, multiple perspectives modeling, and problem solving. Furthermore, these problems should reflect authenticity and contain various scenarios for the learning path. I see none of this when I look at the ISD programs my district currently utilizes. This ID model seems more like gaming to me and this is something that the students can really get into as long as they're motivated to do so.
The last reading for this day was again by Willis, Maturing Constructivists ID Principals. In this article Willis explained that the R2D2 model was really the first ID model to really lay out constructivists instructional material. The most important passage in this read I believe was when he spoke about how Constructivists view general principals in education. This carried on with his early theme of not outright rejecting standards. Willis proposes that Constructivists done't see general principals of ID as immutable, but as guidelines to be explored. I looked at this as a Reese's cup analogy. The shape and construct of a Reese's cup will never change, but "there is no wrong way to eat a Reese's cup".
Day Three
I found these reading to be the most troubling. After reading Chaos Theory, by You, I had to look at a few other resources to try and understand what Chaos Theory is and how it applies to ID. From the best I could gather You was trying to say that "X" does not always equal "Y"; different "X's" can equal an infinite amount of "Ys". The best I could get of this when applied to learning is that we all learn in different ways and demonstrate understanding differently, furthermore, our demonstration of understanding can be shown in a variety of way. That's the best I could do with this article as I don't even have a rudimentary knowledge of physics; I then took two extra-strength tylenol and rested on the couch for a 1/2 hour.
The New R2D2, by ISU's own Willis and Wright explained what the new ID should look like based on Constructivist principals. According to the authors ID should be done as a team with each team working on a specific, but well defined task . Furthermore, good ID should be constantly evolving and adapting to the learner. While this does seem like an arduous process, but working as a team it becomes a bit more doable.
Today's readings focused on the background, basics, and limitations of Instructional Systems Design. The first article "What is ID?" centered on the core elements of traditional ID's and what they look like. Furthermore this article discussed the history of ID and how it came into being. According to this article traditional ID's are learner centered and goal oriented. They follow the behaviorist school of thought and are designed in a linear fashion. There is a beginning and and end divided up into various sections of information which the learner must demonstrate mastery to move forward to the next section. "What ID's Do" followed up on this article by explaining how ID's have been used historically. Beginning in the mid 20th century ID's were used by government, military, and corporate entities for training purposes. In my mind this seemed like the first flight simulator used by the USAF. I also likened it to a course I had to take in order to be certified to give the Keystone exam. Once I achieved each objective I had to take a final exam and was then a certified Keystone exam Instructor. "A Hard Look at ID's" looked at the flaws and limitations of ID's. The author explained the the flaws with ID's has more to do with the design process rather than the principals upon which they're based. According to the author typical usage of ISD's has centered more towards project management and as a result is not rigorous enough to meet the needs of the modern student.
Day Two
The next days readings looked at a Constructivist approach to ID. In the first article, by Willis, Constructivist ID Model, the author explains that though Constructivists to not outright reject objective standards, they do view those standards as more subjective. Furthermore, Willis call for a more balance approach to instruction. he believes that a good ID model blends both constructivism and objectivism. He asserts that it would be more beneficial to the leaner to use direct instruction to support a constructivist approach. The second article, Translating Constructivism to ID, deals with putting Constructivist ideas into reality through ID. As the author sees it, the fundamental problem is that "behaviorists can teach, well, without having students learn."
That statement struct a gigantic chord with me. That quote alone is the reason I stopped teaching for my districts online program. The program that we utilize is based on a behaviorist approach to learning. Students can easily get through the material at break-neck speed and not learn a thing! All they needs to do is complete various objectives, go on to the next level, and receive at least 70% effeciency on the summative assessment to receive their passing grade. A given student could pass 10th grade history and not learn a thing about it. I've watched it happen!
In order for students to truly learn according the author, Constructivist ID models should involve real world examples, multiple perspectives modeling, and problem solving. Furthermore, these problems should reflect authenticity and contain various scenarios for the learning path. I see none of this when I look at the ISD programs my district currently utilizes. This ID model seems more like gaming to me and this is something that the students can really get into as long as they're motivated to do so.
The last reading for this day was again by Willis, Maturing Constructivists ID Principals. In this article Willis explained that the R2D2 model was really the first ID model to really lay out constructivists instructional material. The most important passage in this read I believe was when he spoke about how Constructivists view general principals in education. This carried on with his early theme of not outright rejecting standards. Willis proposes that Constructivists done't see general principals of ID as immutable, but as guidelines to be explored. I looked at this as a Reese's cup analogy. The shape and construct of a Reese's cup will never change, but "there is no wrong way to eat a Reese's cup".
Day Three
I found these reading to be the most troubling. After reading Chaos Theory, by You, I had to look at a few other resources to try and understand what Chaos Theory is and how it applies to ID. From the best I could gather You was trying to say that "X" does not always equal "Y"; different "X's" can equal an infinite amount of "Ys". The best I could get of this when applied to learning is that we all learn in different ways and demonstrate understanding differently, furthermore, our demonstration of understanding can be shown in a variety of way. That's the best I could do with this article as I don't even have a rudimentary knowledge of physics; I then took two extra-strength tylenol and rested on the couch for a 1/2 hour.
The New R2D2, by ISU's own Willis and Wright explained what the new ID should look like based on Constructivist principals. According to the authors ID should be done as a team with each team working on a specific, but well defined task . Furthermore, good ID should be constantly evolving and adapting to the learner. While this does seem like an arduous process, but working as a team it becomes a bit more doable.
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Week 1 Readings
Day One:
These readings more than any seemed to be more in line with the week one lecture. The first two readings Philosophical Perspectives in Education Section II and II, summarized the four main educational philosophies that were presented in lecture but gave a bit more substance and background to what was presented. More concrete historical examples would have been a nice touch as I thought some of the practical application of these philosophies was bit lacking. Status and Change in the definition of Educational Technology outlines reasons for and implications of the new understood and accepted meaning of the term, Educational Technology. The new definition is much more broad and seems to fall more in line with an Essentialist school of educational philosophy by focusing on the teacher as NOT simply the one disseminating knowledge to the student, but one that facilitates learning by appropriately utilizing technological processes and resources.
Day Two:
General System Theory by Bertaalanffy, is about attempting to formulate a general theory about how and why people learn. In this paper, the author argues against the traditional theory espoused by Skinner in that a learner can be conditioned to learn and that man is not a robot or moron. Bertaalanffy believes that people are by nature looking for problems to solve and obstacles to overcome. I don't know if I agree with that totally, however, man is often in conflict with his environment which motivates him to be more industrious in trying to solve problems and overcome obstacles. Nevertheless, keeping in line with the theme this week Bertaalanffy's ideas seem to be more in line with an Essentialist or Progressive school of thought. Learning Theories Overview seemed to echo the aforementioned article in that the author explains that people learn best by doing and specifically doing what interests us. We learn through experience. The last reading for this day, Communication Theory, by Shannon was a mystery to me. I have no idea how it relates to anything I was reading about.
Day Three:
Today's articles were quite fascinating. Taylor in the Classroom, by Rees discussed how methods for increasing industrial output in a factory system when applied to education (as the author posits they have been) keep teachers from teachers and from students truly learning. He argues that Taylorism treats students like workers and that as a result we've seen a deficit in problem solving ability and practical application. While much of what the author says is true and what I believe to be at the heart of many of our educational problems today I think the author lacks context. This system worked well at the turn of the century because of the nature of the students. Much of what Rees and also Calahan (in the later article) derided about education had to be employed because for the first time in history the masses of an entire population were going to be education. Of these masses many were non-english speakers or illiterate. The industrial age provided a standard of living so high (even amongst the poorest) that even the industrial worker could now send his child to school rather than depend on their labor for subsistence. In Education and the Cult of Efficiency, Calahan expands on this and seems to imply the industrialization experienced in Europe and North America robbed people of how to learn through experience. While this is true, this education could only be attained because the nation generally had achieved a much higher standard of living. Both articles seem to attack the Essentialist Philosophy of education which I too believe to be dated, but was good for it's time, place, and population. Now that the US is no longer a nation that has mass industry as it's economic base it only makes sense that we need to change the manner in which our students are now instructed.
Day Four:
Confronting Challenges seemed to show modern education is and can be. Students were doing, modeling, and using technology to learn through their experiences. Students were problem solving and involved with topics that interested them. To me this is the ideal as well. However, to many administrators and politicians this learning is not easily measurable. They cannot say, "we spent "X" amount of dollars and our math scores went up "Y" amount of points. Here is the challenge. We want students to truly learn and to teach students how to solve problems and give them the tools to solve them on their own, but the outcome is not measurable in any objective way.
These readings more than any seemed to be more in line with the week one lecture. The first two readings Philosophical Perspectives in Education Section II and II, summarized the four main educational philosophies that were presented in lecture but gave a bit more substance and background to what was presented. More concrete historical examples would have been a nice touch as I thought some of the practical application of these philosophies was bit lacking. Status and Change in the definition of Educational Technology outlines reasons for and implications of the new understood and accepted meaning of the term, Educational Technology. The new definition is much more broad and seems to fall more in line with an Essentialist school of educational philosophy by focusing on the teacher as NOT simply the one disseminating knowledge to the student, but one that facilitates learning by appropriately utilizing technological processes and resources.
Day Two:
General System Theory by Bertaalanffy, is about attempting to formulate a general theory about how and why people learn. In this paper, the author argues against the traditional theory espoused by Skinner in that a learner can be conditioned to learn and that man is not a robot or moron. Bertaalanffy believes that people are by nature looking for problems to solve and obstacles to overcome. I don't know if I agree with that totally, however, man is often in conflict with his environment which motivates him to be more industrious in trying to solve problems and overcome obstacles. Nevertheless, keeping in line with the theme this week Bertaalanffy's ideas seem to be more in line with an Essentialist or Progressive school of thought. Learning Theories Overview seemed to echo the aforementioned article in that the author explains that people learn best by doing and specifically doing what interests us. We learn through experience. The last reading for this day, Communication Theory, by Shannon was a mystery to me. I have no idea how it relates to anything I was reading about.
Day Three:
Today's articles were quite fascinating. Taylor in the Classroom, by Rees discussed how methods for increasing industrial output in a factory system when applied to education (as the author posits they have been) keep teachers from teachers and from students truly learning. He argues that Taylorism treats students like workers and that as a result we've seen a deficit in problem solving ability and practical application. While much of what the author says is true and what I believe to be at the heart of many of our educational problems today I think the author lacks context. This system worked well at the turn of the century because of the nature of the students. Much of what Rees and also Calahan (in the later article) derided about education had to be employed because for the first time in history the masses of an entire population were going to be education. Of these masses many were non-english speakers or illiterate. The industrial age provided a standard of living so high (even amongst the poorest) that even the industrial worker could now send his child to school rather than depend on their labor for subsistence. In Education and the Cult of Efficiency, Calahan expands on this and seems to imply the industrialization experienced in Europe and North America robbed people of how to learn through experience. While this is true, this education could only be attained because the nation generally had achieved a much higher standard of living. Both articles seem to attack the Essentialist Philosophy of education which I too believe to be dated, but was good for it's time, place, and population. Now that the US is no longer a nation that has mass industry as it's economic base it only makes sense that we need to change the manner in which our students are now instructed.
Day Four:
Confronting Challenges seemed to show modern education is and can be. Students were doing, modeling, and using technology to learn through their experiences. Students were problem solving and involved with topics that interested them. To me this is the ideal as well. However, to many administrators and politicians this learning is not easily measurable. They cannot say, "we spent "X" amount of dollars and our math scores went up "Y" amount of points. Here is the challenge. We want students to truly learn and to teach students how to solve problems and give them the tools to solve them on their own, but the outcome is not measurable in any objective way.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)