Subject: [IFETS-DISCUSSION:4538] Hypothesis 9
From: Downes, Stephen (Stephen.Downes@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca)
Date: Thu 13 Mar 2003 - 23:55:40 MET
From: "Downes, Stephen" <Stephen.Downes@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> Subject: [IFETS-DISCUSSION:4538] Hypothesis 9 Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 17:55:40 -0500
Hiya,
I don't want to cause too much of a digression from the main points of this
discussion, but I have been asked to elaborate on my comments a bit. I won't
elaborate on all of them, for reasons of length, however this seems to me to
be a good starting point.
Hypothesis 9 states, "The overall aim of education, that is, the development
of the learner in the context of a predetermined curriculum or set of
learning objectives, does not change when eLearning is applied."
By way of explanation, we read: "In other words, the curriculum is still
king." And later: "If participation in a bulletin board is not relevant to
the curriculum, then its use as an assessment tool should be questioned."
There are two bits to hypothesis 9. Let me tease them out gently:
1. The overall aim of education is the development of the learner in the
context of a predetermined curriculum or set of learning objectives, and
2. E-learning does not change the overall aim of education
Now let me analyze the first part. It breaks down into an objective and two
contexts.
Objective: development of the learner
Context: predetermined curriculum, or, set of learning objectives
OK, now let's look at the objective. At first blush, though it sounds
reasonable, it's too vague. Running a mile a day would develop the learner
(or, at least, the learner's leg muscles), but we would not call that
education. When we talk about education, we usually mean something more
specific: cognitive development, for example, or moral development,
spiritual development, social development.
Rather than quibble about wording here (though a proper theory should
contain some precision on this point) let me use these observations to
establish that there is a wide range of objectives involved in learnings,
objectives usually (though not exclusively) related to capacities, involving
not only knowledge and skills, but also an understanding (say) of
appropriate behaviours and responses.
Having said that, let me look next at the contexts. To focus on the point
directly, we need to ask: are the contexts defined (the tools defined? I'm
not sure 'contexts' is the right word here) both necessary and sufficient
for each of the various objectives of education. I would argue that they are
not, which is why I comment that the definition is too narrow.
Consider, for example, one legitimate objective of an education: the
development of successful social skills. To establish out point, we look at
four questions:
i. Is a predetermined curriculum necessary for the development of successful
social skills? Clearly not. There is to my knowledge no predetermined
curriculum for recess or pub night, those parts of education where
schoolchildren and university students respectively develop their social
skills.
ii. Is a predetermined curriculum sufficient for the development of
successful social skills. In principle it is possible, I suppose, though
there would have to be some statement about the curriculum being applied. I
have seen curricula with this objective. But typically, even a predetermined
curriculum would advocate exercises and activities beyond the curriculum. At
some point, as when learning to fly an airplane, you have to leave the
instruction behind and fly the plane solo before you can say you have
learned to fly.
iii. Is a set of learning objectives necessary for the development of
successful social skills? In other words, could social skills develop in an
environment where no learning objectives are stated? Of course they could,
and thus learning objectives are not necessary, at least in this case.
iv. Is a set of learning objectives sufficient for the development of
successful social skills. Again, there would have to be something said about
the application of learning objectives (consider the bully saying, "I'll
teach you respect," and then administering a beating. A desirable learning
objective was stated, but the desired result was not obtained).
However we define the objectives of education, it seems clear that a
predefined curriculum and a set of learning objectives is neither necessary
nor sufficient for the attaining of those goals. The desired objective could
be met in a much less structured environment, an environment conducive to
such learning, but not designed with such learning in mind. And the desired
objective may fail to be met in environments specifically designed with such
learning in mind, but where for any of a large number of reasons the
learning does not occur.
OK, let's set all this to the side for a moment and look at the second part.
The second part consists of the assertion that e-learning does not change
the overall aim of education. This at first sounds true, because it could be
argued that whether or not e-learning is employed, the goal remains the
development of the learner. However, as argued above, this goal is too
vague. Indeed, from the discussion above, it should be clear that, if we
leave the goal expressed in such a vague manner, then the hypothesis
expresses a significant and startling thesis.
For, consider one of our candidates: the development of leg muscles. Were we
to allow that this is an objective of an education, then we would reach the
startling conclusion that a goal of e-learning is the development of leg
muscles. Now this could be true - I do not want to presume the opposite -
but I suspect that it is a point that would require a significant amount of
argumentation.
If we leave the definition vague we require a significant amount of
argumentation. But if we make the definition more precise, we see that the
statement is simply false.
Consider, for example, a fairly basic skill: communication. Now this is
something that, we would agree, that we desire a student to learn whether or
not the education is delivered online. But what constitutes communication,
what constitutes the sort of development we would like to foster, is very
different in the two environments. The basic act of writing online is
different from writing offline. Penmenship (which is what it was called when
I was a child, and on which we spent many days) is degraded as a necessary
attainment; typing, which was once taught only to those in the secretarial
stream, is now an essential skill.
You see, what is hidden in the statement that e-learning does not change the
goals of education is the assumption that the world for which a child is
being prepared in a traditional education is the same as the world for which
a child is being prepapred online. But it is not. One of the reasons why we
would even consider e-learning is that we are entering an e-world. Or, put
another way, the very fact of e-learning changes the rest of the world.
People educated online use instant messaging the way people edcated in an
analog environment use the telephone. But just as the two communications
tools are different, so are their uses, norms, behaviours, codes and
practices.
The points I have raised above are sufficient, I think, to establish the
comment that I made in my newsletter. At the very least, they explain the
reasoning I went through when I made the comment. But I would like to take
this all one step further by combining the two points. I'll do it in slogan
form first:
Learning online is a lot more like the learning we did during recess than it
is like the learning we did in the classroom.
What does that mean? Well, overall, what it means is a shift in the balance.
In a traditional education, most of the learning is obtained in the context
of a structured curriculum and learning objectives. The unstructured
learning was viewed mainly as filling the gaps, rounding out the rough
sports, and applying the in-class learning. But online, most of the learning
takes place in an unstructured environment, while learning using a sructured
curriculum and learning objectives is used to fill gaps, round out rough
sports, or to support practical learning.
The argument to support this point would probably fill a book. But I can
suggest at least what the framework of such an argument would look like:
- Much of traditional learning is based on control; control was required for
a variety of reasons but mainly because learning was standardized and
therefore noither interesting nor useful to the learner
- learning was standardized because it had to be; there was no efficient
means of delivering personalized, enquiry-based learning to the mass of
students in an industrial society
- but in the internet age, these limitations no longer apply; it is possible
to deliver personalized, enquiry-based learning.
- Therefore, standardization is not necessary
- Therefore, control is not necessary.
I know that's pretty sketchy, and probably not without its own contentious
point. But my belief is that this is where e-learning is taking us, and
therefore would argue that the goals of learning are very different in an
online environment than they are in a traditional classroom.
-- Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Stephen Downes ~ Senior Researcher ~ National Research Council Canada
Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada
http://www.downes.ca stephen@downes.ca
stephen.downes@nrc.ca http://www.iit.nrc.ca/e-learning.html
Subscribe to my free daily newsletter featuring news and articles
about online knowledge, learning, community
http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/website/subscribe.cgi
or read it at http://www.downes.ca/news/OLDaily.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
---------------------------------------------------------
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 : Fri 14 Mar 2003 - 04:39:59 MET