Subject: [IFETS-DISCUSSION:1036] personalization and web-baesd instruction
From: Michael Cenkner (michael-cenkner@home.com)
Date: Thu 08 Feb 2001 - 04:35:25 MET
From: "Michael Cenkner" <michael-cenkner@home.com> Subject: [IFETS-DISCUSSION:1036] personalization and web-baesd instruction Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:35:25 +1300
Ben Hyde's comments are well taken and his sentiments are only too common.
Myself I was dead set against technology in general until I read
Buckminster Fuller. The inventor of the geodesic dome had many ideas
about life in general on planet Earth. He pointed out that technology as
such is good and natural for our primates (e.g., ape puts stick in hole
and catches ants to eat). What's not so good is the fact that capitalism
has become the controlling factor in technology. Now we are getting
political... anyway, one could imagine a simply beneficial use of
(digital) instructional technology.
Of what might that consist? In the area of accommodating individual
learning styles, aren't there some learners who prefer a
criterion-referenced approach? There's an ideological question here,
namely that "some things are correct and some are incorrect." Many
interpret such notions as remnants of the evil patriarchy. However,
much, I dare say, most learning on Earth is of set bodies of knowledge
with "right" and "wrong" answers. That's why educational institutions
exist. The most liberal of programs still has an agenda. And as we know,
learners also have agendas. I wonder whether the rush to make things
open-ended and student-centered in some ways is a poor (if not
irresponsible) use of resources. Some research on the use of discussion
(BBS) technology seems to be bearing this out...
In my own experience, I found learning French impossible through the
communicative approach. It wasn't until I came into a system where
grammar, conjugations and memorizing was emphasized that I started to
make progress in the language. Of course learners need authentic
situations as well, but not without a comprehensive structure in place.
My point then is that alongside our questioning of instructional
technology as we are experiencing it, we need also to strive for
excellence in our basic instructional designs. Very few university
syllabuses are the result of a rigorous instructional design process
(e.g., a la Kemp, Morris and Ross or other established model).
Universities haven't operated this way. However, much post-secondary
learning concerns itself with becoming familiar with established
concepts in the given field, and learners are there to acquire this
knowledge. At the same time, we want to foster creative and/or critical
thinking. But given normative evaluation systems, learners are rewarded
for the first objective, not the second.
Technology can individualize instruction by providing
criterion-referenced activities and tracking student progress in these,
allowing students to acquire basic knowledge at their own pace and
without competition. Then (or in tandem), instructors can facilitate
higher levels of thinking and integration with these same students.
As long as universities are based on competitive models, much effort
will be wasted by all in surviving, not thriving. One cause of waste is
the fact that different institutions each develop their own (more or
less similar) course in competition with each other, instead of getting
down to details that would provide genuine individualization in the
instructional design (a 2nd-year physics course for blind students, ESL
for Arab-speaking children, etc.).
Hope I'm not too late with this, cheers.
Michael Cenkner
---------------------------------------------------------
List address to send message to everyone:
ifets-discussion@catfish.valdosta.edu
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
Forum website: http://ifets.ieee.org/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@massey.ac.nz
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.ieee.org/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Thu 08 Feb 2001 - 05:06:12 MET