Subject: [IFETS-DISCUSSION:4135] Re: IFETS-DISCUSSION digest 483
From: Dr. M. Goswamy (mgoswamy@vsnl.com)
Date: Thu 07 Nov 2002 - 06:25:46 MET
From: "Dr. M. Goswamy" <mgoswamy@vsnl.com> Subject: [IFETS-DISCUSSION:4135] Re: IFETS-DISCUSSION digest 483 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 10:55:46 +0530
I agree with the observation of Ken Mandefrot that it may be
>educative to check
>school reform literature that has minimized educational research and simply
>focused on importing management research to schools.
in fact one of the greatest shortcoming of so called 'reforms',
'developments' and 'new tools' introduced in education based on 'secondary
' educational research using observations and conclusions regarding learning
and implanted in the school (or for that matter higher education) setting
have failed to bring about the desired results and sooner or later have
lost the acceptance it gained initially as a 'novel' or as a 'timely' idea.
Just because some thing works well in another setting may not necessarily
mean it will lead to similar results in all 'learning' environments. What is
more alarming is that such 'implanted' ideas lead to a rapid emergence of a
group of expert educationists (mostly former practitioners of the filed in
which the idea originally worked ) who will make all efforts to sell the new
concept / idea or tool without bothering to study the related educational
aspects of serious concern which actually would have direct impact on the
idea being accepted by the ultimate users (be it the learner or the
educator).
In this regard the observation made by Cameron Nichol , when he says:
> At the end of the day resources are only going to be worthwhile if
teachers and
>students want to use them. Both these groups unfortunately contain
"people", and as we >know "people" are by and large a fairly idiosyncratic
bunch.
is not only pertinent but also worth considering for further discussion. It
may be too early to agree with Uma Narasimhamurthy's sweeping conclusion
that
> this would be an added advantage in the sphere and not
> limit the possibilities.
> Especially in devloping and under developed nations,
> POLTS would be a welcome tool. There are thousands of
> children in deprived societies or smaller communities
> in islands on the globe, for whom this would be an eye
> opener to better education.
It may enlightening to explore the real reasons for a segment of the society
being educationally "deprived" as in most cases the solution may not lie in
developing a readymade 'learning' tool using the latest technology as using
such methods and devices also requires a minimum level of preparedness in
terms of utilising the technology effectively and efficiently. So many
experiments in providing computer literacy and promoting use of computers in
class room teaching have simply failed because either the "deprived" and the
"smaller" community were not prepared (in all sense of the word) enough to
assimilate such developments or the implanted technological solutions did
not fit the requirements of the learners from these communities. Solving
the problems of "thousands of children in deprived societies or smaller
communities in islands on the globe" requires that our considerations should
be focussed on more about "a new learner having the first encounter with
learning technologies so far
affordable" than merely being elated about the soundness and usability of "a
new technology". The remarks of Ken Mandefrot carries more significance in
the context of such deprived learners and communities:
>It is not new software or newer, faster machines but issue in educational
>technology is to bring forward issues related to participants in learning
>valuing others concern. to make computing easy, possible and achievable we
>need to focus on how a software can frustrate or encourage a teachers to
>take the first move
Educators ( teachers) and learners are neither the educated business man nor
the persons with limited but focused (one time) training like sales people
in a large departmental store for whom it is either a matter of using
technology to do just an activity more mechanically with lesser chances
human error or a matter of mechanically carry out a repetitive task to earn
the wages. The success of a teaching-learning process depends on much more
complicated factors than merely ensuring that the pedagogy and the tasks are
serialised and put into a software to execute them in a specific order. In
fact more educationally deprived a community is more complex would be the
solution which is evident from the usage and profile of the utilisation of
teaching soft wares and tools and its demand in developed and developing
countries or even among the various segments within a developing country.
Having a more advanced tool at one's disposal in no way guarantees that it
will be more suitable for more deprived or backward segment of the target
group. Theoretically (or may be in business) it may sound true but in
practice it is other way round. More user-centred the tool is more would be
its acceptability and if the user is from 'deprived' community having a
more advanced tool does not fit his requirements. So what needs to be
considered is the inbuilt 'flexibility' and adaptability to suit the
learners requirements and also the capability and needs of the educators who
is going to be responsible for its use for which no 'single' solution may
suffice.
Prof. (Dr.) M. Goswamy
Director (Research)
AIU
New Delhi (India)
---------------------------------------------------------
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 07 Nov 2002 - 10:13:57 MET