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.