Subject: [IFETS-DISCUSSION:4581] RE: [deanz-discuss] Re: IFETS-DISCUSSION digest 524
From: Mark Nichols (M.Nichols@ucol.ac.nz)
Date: Sun 16 Mar 2003 - 23:18:41 MET
From: "Mark Nichols" <M.Nichols@ucol.ac.nz> Subject: [IFETS-DISCUSSION:4581] RE: [deanz-discuss] Re: IFETS-DISCUSSION digest 524 Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:18:41 +1200
Hi Stephen,
I am grateful once again for your lucid response. I see that we will need to
differ on the relationship of regulation to education.
I would like to pick up on one particular argument. You state that "online
learning deinstitutionalizes learning, and that therefore those elements of
learning which emerge as a consequence of institutionalized learning are
stripped away in an online learning as non-essential elements of learning."
I think that libraries do the same thing, and have done so for generations.
They, too, deinstitutionalise learning yet there is still a need for
structured courses offered through institutions. I propose that the answer
to why this is the case would help settle the debate we are (fruitfully, I
believe) engaged in.
The thought struck me as I considered point five of your message. Your
"overtly educational resources" are just that - educational resources,
online equivalents of material that can be placed in any library.
Incidentally, I did use your fallacy resource when I was lecturing in
business communications - it is indeed a very well-written and useful
resource. The fundamental difference between it and a book is that your
resource was on the Web and not in our campus library. Whether or not it has
learning objectives or assessments is not really an issue as few textbooks
do! I would argue that your site IS educational even though it doesn't have
learning objectives or a curriculum. But is it eLearning, or an eResource?
OLDaily (again, a very useful resource which I have only just become aware
of and have bookmarked because of its usefulness) would seem to be in the
same category. People use these sites for the same reason that they read
books outside of institutions - they are useful, thought-provoking and, yes,
educational. But this does not sound the death-knoll for the curriculum and
neither should it.
I think the real issue is that of non-institutionalized vs institutionalized
learning, yet they are not mutually exclusive nor are they opposites. The
former still educates, however only the latter will formally recognize
education. As I work in and passionately believe in the import of the latter
realm it is the target of my efforts in research and, as testified to above,
debate!
I look forward to your further posts and thank you one again for spurring my
thinking,
Mark.
---------------------------------------------------------
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 : Mon 17 Mar 2003 - 02:11:29 MET