IFETS-DISCUSSION Digest - 29 Apr 2003 to 30 Apr 2003 (#2003-5)

About this list	Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

Subject: IFETS-DISCUSSION Digest - 29 Apr 2003 to 30 Apr 2003 (#2003-5)
From: Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@COMPUTER.ORG)
Date: Wed 30 Apr 2003 - 08:00:00 MEST

Next message: Automatic digest processor: "IFETS-DISCUSSION Digest - 30 Apr 2003 to 1 May 2003 (#2003-6)"
Previous message: Automatic digest processor: "IFETS-DISCUSSION Digest - 28 Apr 2003 to 29 Apr 2003 (#2003-4)"

Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 02:00:00 -0400 From: Automatic digest processor <LISTSERV@COMPUTER.ORG> Subject: IFETS-DISCUSSION Digest - 29 Apr 2003 to 30 Apr 2003 (#2003-5)

There are 6 messages totalling 480 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. IFETS-DISCUSSION Digest - 27 Apr 2003 to 28 Apr 2003 (#2003-3)
  2. Wisconsin State Standard
  3. From Educational technology to learning science (2)
  4. IFETS-DISCUSSION Digest - 28 Apr 2003 - Learning Science
  5. IFETS-DISCUSSION Digest - 28 Apr 2003 to 29 Apr 2003 (#2003-4)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 08:21:58 +0900
From: Lawrie Hunter <lawrie@TOPAZ.OCN.NE.JP>
Subject: Re: IFETS-DISCUSSION Digest - 27 Apr 2003 to 28 Apr 2003 (#2003-3)

Re Prof. Zhang's question, of whether or not educational technology is an
independent discipline:

It has been observed that formal education systems are not keeping up with
the new kinds of thinking that emerge as technology explodes. In a recent
Wired magazine article, James Paul Gee asks

> How did videogames become such successful models of effective learning? Game
> coders aren't trained as cognitive scientists. It's a simple case of
> free-market economics: If a title doesn't teach players how to play it well,
> it won't sell well.
Source: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.05/view.html?pg=1

If Learning Science is to be a true integration of wisdom resources, there's
a need for the incorporation of more than just existing academic/educational
'disciplines.' Technology is blossoming much faster than unified bodies of
theory can characterize it. Some kinds of learning are happening without
educational input.

In my interviews for the journal Document Design (http://let.kub.nl/docdes/)
I am finding that designers like Matt Jones (http://www.blackbeltjones.com),
who designed BBC's news site (http://www.bbc.co.uk/), are developing new
thought about document design (a.k.a. information architecture, a.k.a. user
experience design...) much faster than theory can adjust. Leading web design
(usability) practitioners are eclectic, experiential learners of their
craft; they do not covet their work; they are collegial (read blog); they do
not look for a solid place to sit. Can we say the same for leading
educators?

The integration of fields impacting on learning and technology, then,
requires a reconception of the nature of theory and its relation to
practice. Those who ignore the (emerging) future are condemned to repeat the
past.

Lawrie Hunter
<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>
Critical thinking / Engineering English / CALL
Kochi University of Technology

New: http://www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter/
Office: lawrie_hunter@kochi-tech.ac.jp
Personal: lawrie@topaz.ocn.ne.jp

Mailing address:
Kochi University of Technology
Miyanokuchi 185, Tosayamada-cho
Kochi-Ken, Japan 782-8502

Tel/fax 0887-53-1342 International 81+887-53-1342
Office tel 0887-57-2102 International 81+887-57-2102

> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 15:18:56 +0800
> From: ZHANG Jianwei <zhangjw@TSINGHUA.EDU.CN>
> Subject: From Educational technology to learning science

> I'm a researcher from Tsinghua University Beijing. In the years, education
> technologists in China are facing with the challenges from other research
> fields such as instruction and curriculum and educational psychology,
> insisting that education technologists are not doing educational technology
> research but are working in other fields (instructional theory and design,
> learning theory). Under this circumstance, I'm re-thinking the problem of
> educational technology as a discipline. Is educational technology a
> independent discipline? Or should it be?
>
> Maybe it is the right time for us to integrate the related fields into a new
> discipline: Learning Science. If you agree with this idea, would you please
> tell me your thoughts about the domain and scope of learning science: its
> definition, framework, basic concepts and principles, and methodologies and
> so on. I'd like to know your insights into this problem.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Jianwei

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 08:16:14 -0500
From: Keith Schroeder <kschroed@MARINETTE.K12.WI.US>
Subject: Wisconsin State Standard

--=_A2FD3F21.A1C0A4C3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Wisconsin State Standard B.8.11 says: Summarize major issues associated =
with the history, culture, tribal sovereignty, and current status of the =
American Indian tribes and bands in Wisconsin=20
=20
This is a standard that is not being met anywhere in our curriculum in our =
district. The social studies teacher and I want to collaborate and design =
a unit that would help meet this standard. Does anyone have any ideas on =
how to approach this?
=20
Thanks for any input.
=20
Keith
=20

Keith Schroeder
Information and Technology Specialist
School District of Marinette
1011 Water Street
Marinette, WI 54143
715-735-1512 (voicemail)
1-603-453-8446 (efax)
kschroed@marinette.k12.wi.us
=20
"Good, Better, Best. . .=20
Never let it rest. . .
Til' your good is better and your better is best."

--=_A2FD3F21.A1C0A4C3
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Description: HTML

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">

Wisconsin State Standard B.8.11 says: Summarize = major=20 issues associated with the history, culture, tribal sovereignty, and = current=20 status of the American Indian tribes and bands in Wisconsin

This is a standard that is not being met anywhere in = our=20 curriculum in our district. The social studies teacher and I want = to=20 collaborate and design a unit that would help meet this standard. = Does=20 anyone have any ideas on how to approach this?

Thanks for any input.

Keith

Keith Schroeder
Information and Technology Specialist
School= =20 District of Marinette
1011 Water Street
Marinette, WI =20 54143
715-735-1512 (voicemail)
1-603-453-8446 (efax)
kschroed@marinette.k12.wi.us

"Good, Better, Best. . .
Never let it rest. . .
Til' your good = is=20 better and your better is best."

--------------------------------------------------------- List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discussion@computer.org 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 --------------------------------------------------------- --=_A2FD3F21.A1C0A4C3-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:26:52 -0400 From: Christopher Eliot Subject: From Educational technology to learning science Jianwei writes about concerns that educational technology is seen as involving work that "belongs" in other fields. I think that clearly this is (or should be) a highly interdisciplinary activity. In all cases, educational technology involves two fields: the educational domain and the technology itself. The technology embodies work in computer science and often incorporates media, using photography, drawing, graphics, music, animation or motion picture techniques. Teaching of any kind requires knowledge of the subject and how to teach it. Knowing how to teach implicitly requires knowing, in some way, how students learn and also how experts reason. Yes, I think that people doing research on educational technology are also doing research in other fields. That's the whole point of it. If this is an argument that we should stop thinking about psychology or about learning or about curriculum design then my response is to say that is ridiculous: someone needs to build educational technology. If a specialist in educational theory thinks he or she can build complex educational software then go to it. In practice, any development effort will be the work of an individual or team. Budget and organizational constraints prevent any team from including specialists in every possibly relevant discipline. Realistically, a development effort will be composed of some group of people with some distribution of skills. They must make the most of the skills they have, fill in the gaps in their knowledge as best as possible, and try to produce results. --------------------------------------------------------- List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discussion@computer.org 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 --------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:50:45 -0400 From: "Dobbins, Jim" Subject: Re: IFETS-DISCUSSION Digest - 28 Apr 2003 - Learning Science Jianwei, My thoughts on this may differ from others on this list. I see the focus of teachers in the education process being on student learning. That means we must pay special attention to how people learn, motivations for learning and how we can focus on intrinsic motivations even when grades are a necessary part of the system, and what the various good ways are that student learning can be assessed by the teacher before a formal graded assessment is conducted. =20 Technology, for me, is just a tool in the toolbox of teachers. It is not a crutch upon which one should become absolutely dependent, and without which one cannot teach. Technology should be used to enhance the learning and learning objectives when it makes sense to use it for this purpose, not be used as an end in itself. I like you idea of Learning Science, since learning is the focus, and the science implies a discipline that brings to bear many things in an ordered and purposeful way to accomplish the learning, including among them the use of technology. " the domain and scope of learning science: its definition, framework, basic concepts and principles, and methodologies and so on. I'd like to know your insights into this problem." The domain of Learning Science would be all educational processes at all levels of education. The scope would be the application to every field of learning, whether learning a trade or learning in a university. It would include learning about human learning. Basic concepts: Learning theory; how people learn; how to stimulate intrinsic motivation for learning; how to construct natural, critical learning environments; effective learning assessments; how student knowledge is constructed; creating a positive and sustained change in the way a student thinks, acts and feels about a given subject; teacher self-efficacy and its role in excellent teaching. Principles: We teach an individual student, not a group of students. The student we teach may happen to be in the same place at the same time as other students we teach. Each student has a way of learning, and a rate of learning, and that rate of learning may change during the class. Students construct knowledge; knowledge is not "poured into" the head of the student by the teacher as if the student mind is an empty vessel. The teacher's task is to provide the right kind of scaffolding so that the constructed knowledge is well designed and ordered and can stand alone when the scaffolding is removed (the class is over), and does not collapse. Students deserve respect. The teacher should always assume the student is fully capable of learning and not make early judgments about the student's ability. Sometimes, it takes an epiphany experience in order for the student to crystallize all that has gone before and then accelerate the learning process. The teacher has to help create these AH! HA! experiences, and recognize them when they occur, and then look for the changes in the learning taking place within that student.=20 Teachers should use all tools which enhance the learning process, including technology, but should not use technology as a substitute for good teaching. Do not do as the movie industry has done in substituting technology for good acting. Every student comes into a class with a mental model of what he or she believes is the truth about the subject. Until a teacher can understand what that mental model is, the teacher cannot determine if the mental model is correct. If the student mental model is not correct, the teacher has to find a way to not only bring the student to change (reconstruct) the mental model, but change it to one that is correct. To be able to do this, the student has to care enough about the subject to want to make the change. Methodologies: Methodologies vary too widely to describe here, and differ depending on whether you are teaching adults or children (although some teachers may disagree after watching some adults in class). We have an on-going faculty development project in Teaching Excellence I am leading at our school to help elevate the level of teaching excellence based on the 17 years of research conducted by the Searle Center for Teaching Excellence at Northwestern University. Jim Dobbins James H. Dobbins, Ph.D. Technical and Engineering Department Building 208, Room 5 Defense Acquisition University 9820 Belvoir Road, Suite G-3 Ft. Belvoir, VA 22720 703-805-5416 Fax: 703-805-5082 jim.dobbins@dau.mil http://www.dau.mil Topics of the day: 1. From Educational technology to learning science --------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 20:38:00 +1200 From: ZHANG Jianwei Subject: From Educational technology to learning science Dear colleagues, I'm a researcher from Tsinghua University Beijing. In the years, education technologists in China are facing with the challenges from other research fields such as instruction and curriculum and educational psychology, insisting that education technologists are not doing educational technology research but are working in other fields (instructional theory and design, learning theory). Under this circumstance, I'm re-thinking the problem of educational technology as a discipline. Is educational technology a independent discipline? Or should it be? Maybe it is the right time for us to integrate the related fields into a new discipline: Learning Science. If you agree with this idea, would you please tell me your thoughts about the domain and scope of learning science: its definition, framework, basic concepts and principles, and methodologies and so on. I'd like to know your insights into this problem. Best wishes, Jianwei ----------------------------------------------- Jianwei ZHANG, Ph.D Co-director of Educational Technology Institute, Tsinghua University Beijing 100084 China Tel: 86 10 61782405 Fax: 86 10 62782388 Email: zhangjw@tsinghua.edu.cn Homepage: http://qiyuan.tsinghua.edu.cn/edutech/zhangjw/homepage.htm ----------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discussion@computer.org 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 --------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 08:59:58 -0500 From: David Hatfield Subject: Re: From Educational technology to learning science Jianwei -=20 I too am a researcher, both as a ph.d student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and as assistant director at the Academic Advanced Distributed Learning Co-Lab. My academic work is in Educational Psychology in a program called both Cognitive Science and Learning Science. And while there are undoubtedly more experienced respondents on this list, I thought I'd at least point you to a couple of resources on Learning Sciences I am familiar with. The International Society of the Learning Sciences [ http://www.isls.org/ ] has references to the _Journal of the Learning Sciences_ and a couple of related conferences. This would at least be a good place to begin to drill down into more on the subject. Hope this helps, David Hatfield Assistant Director Academic ADL Co-Lab Madison, WI Email: david@academiccolab.org --------------------------------------------------------- List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discussion@computer.org 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 --------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 01:57:38 +1200 From: Lora Kaisler Subject: Re: IFETS-DISCUSSION Digest - 28 Apr 2003 to 29 Apr 2003 (#2003-4) I whole heartedly agree. There are two educational fields of study. There is the art of teaching and the science of learning. I much prefer to study the science of learning. -- Lora K. Kaisler, M.S., M.A. Coordinator of Online Learning Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy 1500 West Sullivan Road Aurora, IL 60506-1000 Phone: 630-907-5970 Fax: 630-907-5918 Email: lkaisler@imsa.edu http://wizard.imsa.edu/ "He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever." --Chinese Proverb. --------------------------------------------------------- List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discussion@computer.org 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 --------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of IFETS-DISCUSSION Digest - 29 Apr 2003 to 30 Apr 2003 (#2003-5) *********************************************************************

Next message: Automatic digest processor: "IFETS-DISCUSSION Digest - 30 Apr 2003 to 1 May 2003 (#2003-6)"
Previous message: Automatic digest processor: "IFETS-DISCUSSION Digest - 28 Apr 2003 to 29 Apr 2003 (#2003-4)"

About this list	Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Wed 30 Apr 2003 - 08:30:17 MEST