IFETS-DISCUSSION Digest - 30 Apr 2003 to 1 May 2003 (#2003-6)

About this list	Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

Subject: IFETS-DISCUSSION Digest - 30 Apr 2003 to 1 May 2003 (#2003-6)
From: Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@COMPUTER.ORG)
Date: Thu 01 May 2003 - 08:00:00 MEST

Next message: Automatic digest processor: "IFETS-DISCUSSION Digest - 1 May 2003 to 2 May 2003 (#2003-7)"
Previous message: Automatic digest processor: "IFETS-DISCUSSION Digest - 29 Apr 2003 to 30 Apr 2003 (#2003-5)"

Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 02:00:00 -0400 From: Automatic digest processor <LISTSERV@COMPUTER.ORG> Subject: IFETS-DISCUSSION Digest - 30 Apr 2003 to 1 May 2003 (#2003-6)

There are 5 messages totalling 556 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. Educational Technology & Society, April 2003 issue
  2. ZHANG Jianwei <zhangjw@TSINGHUA.EDU.CN>
  3. From Educational technology to learning science
  4. IFETS-DISCUSSION Digest - 29 Apr 2003 to 30 Apr 2003 (#2003-5)
  5. Book suggestions needed

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

Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 19:39:15 +1200
From: Kinshuk <kinshuk@INSPIRE.NET.NZ>
Subject: Educational Technology & Society, April 2003 issue

Dear colleagues

The April issue (Vol. 6, Number 2) of Educational Technology & Society,
(ISSN 1436-4522) peer-reviewed online journal, is now available in HTML
and PDF format.

It is freely accessible at:
HTML version: http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/6-2/index.html
PDF version: http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/6-2/ets-6-2.pdf

The content list of the April issue is enclosed below.

Regards.

Kinshuk
-------

Educational Technology & Society (ISSN 1436-4522)
(Peer-reviewed journal of IFETS and IEEE Learning Technology Task Force)

Contents Volume 6 Issue 2 April 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Formal discussion summaries

Online Resource Page: Using Technology to Enhance the Teaching and Learning Process
Moderator and Summarizer: Brent Muirhead

* Full length articles

Towards a Pattern Language for Learning Management Systems
Paris Avgeriou, Andreas Papasalouros, Symeon Retalis and Manolis Skordalakis

Uncovering the Provisos behind Flexible Learning
Der-Thanq Chen

An Evaluation Instrument for Hypermedia Courseware
Georgiadou Elissavet and Anastasios A. Economides

Students' attitudes toward the use of the Internet for learning: A study at a university
in Malaysia
Kian-Sam Hong, Abang Ahmad Ridzuan and Ming-Koon Kuek

Technology Acceptance and Social Networking in Distance Learning
Jae-Shin Lee, Hichang Cho, Geri Gay, Barry Davidson and Anthony Ingraffea

WebCT and Online Assessment: The best thing since SOAP?
Den Pain and Judy Le Heron


* Book reviews

Facilitating Online Learning: Effective Strategies for Moderators
Reviewer: Donnie Kirk

Education and Artificial Intelligence or Foundations of Modern Didactics of University
Education (in Russian)
Reviewer: Alexei Tretiakov

-----
End

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

Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:56:43 -0400
From: Peter Brusilovsky <peterb@MAIL.SIS.PITT.EDU>
Subject: ZHANG Jianwei <zhangjw@TSINGHUA.EDU.CN>

Using the term learning science may get you into trouble. Here it is
associated with a very specific approach spearheaded by Roger Schank.
So, while the term is good, it is already busy and have questionable
meaning.

Peter Brusilovsky <peterb@mail.sis.pitt.edu> Department of Information Science and Telecommunications School of Information Sciences University of Pittsburgh 135 North Bellefield Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15260

Phone: 412 624 9404 Fax: 412 624 2788 WWW: http://www2.sis.pitt.edu/~peterb

Visit the Web page of: User Modeling'2003 conference http://www2.sis.pitt.edu/~um2003/

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

Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:57:30 EDT From: MWEISBURGH@AOL.COM Subject: Re: From Educational technology to learning science

--part1_ba.3d662917.2be008fa_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Personally, I think it is an arbitrary distinction whether to call Learning Technology its own discipline or whether it is part of something greater called Learning Science.

There are similarities, but there are also important distinctions between Learning Technology and other Learning disciplines.

In terms of the similarities, the most important is that learning is learning. A person learns or he doesn't. Learning science studies learning processes and different types of interventions, under what circumstances they work, and what refinements make them work better.

The differences stem from two directions. First is the technology itself. In order to do anything with technology, you have to overcome a lot of barriers. Can you make the intervention function at all, can you provide access for a group of people, will they know how to use it, will the people who fashion the learning intervention be able to adapt their content to the technology. All of these (and others) need to be taken care of in addition to the ability to fashion a learning experience. When you write a textbook, you generally do not need to consider if everyone will have access to paper or if someone knows how to turn pages. Yet the analogues to turning a page (navigation) or access to paper (having the environment to be able to run your software) are real issues in technology.

The second difference centers on new capabilities. There are many areas where technology just modifies the experience of some type of intervention that is possible using other media or face to face instruction. Perhaps technology removes some friction or waste. Instead of having to go to the library every time you want to look something up, you can do it from wherever you happen to be working. Instead of distributing articles to your class you can post URL's onto a class web site. I'd certainly consider accepting the argument that these areas might not warrant learning technology being its own discipline, but "merely" an extension of learning in general.

On the other hand, technology makes possible new experiences and interventions. In the example about posting the articles, what happens when not just the instructor posts articles, but the students post articles as well? This is more than an extension, it's a redirection. What about electronic simulations or virtual worlds? These provide somewhat greater justification for some segregation of Learning Technology.

In addition to the differences between Learning Technology and other types of learning, there is a third element which might push this into its own field: volume. I'd suspect that the amount of effort being expended to advance Learning Technology is at least as great as the amount of effort being expended to advance non-technology learning. While they are definitely related, so are Engineering and Physics. But at some point, there was too much to information for it all to be agglomerated.

So I see three arguments about calling Learning Technology its own discipline: 1) technology makes it a lot more complicated, 2) technology makes possible brand new types of activities and interventions, and 3) there is so much work being done in this area that it needs to be separated.

Personally, I'm a joiner rather than a separator. Given a choice, I'd rather have one name or class than two. The benefit is that you grow people who are more familiar with a wider base of information before they specialize. But I suspect we are getting to a point, even if we have not already reached it, where Learning Technology should be separated from Learning.

In a message dated 4/29/2003 2:01:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LISTSERV@COMPUTER.ORG writes:

> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 20:38:00 +1200 > From: ZHANG Jianwei <zhangjw@TSINGHUA.EDU.CN> > 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 > ----------------------------------------------- >

Mitchell Weisburgh

http://www.pilotonlinelearning.com mitch.weisburgh@collegepilot.com 914 833-0273 voice

--part1_ba.3d662917.2be008fa_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Personally, I think it is= an arbitrary distinction whether to call Learning Technology its own discip= line or whether it is part of something greater called Learning Science.

There are similarities, but there are also important distinctions between Le= arning Technology and other Learning disciplines.

In terms of the similarities, the most important is that learning is learnin= g. A person learns or he doesn't. Learning science studies learning processe= s and different types of interventions, under what circumstances they work,=20= and what refinements make them work better.

The differences stem from two directions. First is the technology itself. In= order to do anything with technology, you have to overcome a lot of barrier= s. Can you make the intervention function at all, can you provide access for= a group of people, will they know how to use it, will the people who fashio= n the learning intervention be able to adapt their content to the technology= . All of these (and others) need to be taken care of in addition to the abil= ity to fashion a learning experience. When you write a textbook, you general= ly do not need to consider if everyone will have access to paper or if someo= ne knows how to turn pages. Yet the analogues to turning a page (navigation)= or access to paper (having the environment to be able to run your software)= are real issues in technology.

The second difference centers on new capabilities. There are many areas wher= e technology just modifies the experience of some type of intervention that=20= is possible using other media or face to face instruction. Perhaps technolog= y removes some friction or waste. Instead of having to go to the library eve= ry time you want to look something up, you can do it from wherever you happe= n to be working. Instead of distributing articles to your class you can post= URL's onto a class web site. I'd certainly consider accepting the argument=20= that these areas might not warrant learning technology being its own discipl= ine, but "merely" an extension of learning in general.

On the other hand, technology makes possible new experiences and interventio= ns. In the example about posting the articles, what happens when not just th= e instructor posts articles, but the students post articles as well? This is= more than an extension, it's a redirection. What about electronic simulatio= ns or virtual worlds? These provide somewhat greater justification for some=20= segregation of Learning Technology.

In addition to the differences between Learning Technology and other types o= f learning, there is a third element which might push this into its own fiel= d: volume. I'd suspect that the amount of effort being expended to advance L= earning Technology is at least as great as the amount of effort being expend= ed to advance non-technology learning. While they are definitely related, so= are Engineering and Physics. But at some point, there was too much to infor= mation for it all to be agglomerated.

So I see three arguments about calling Learning Technology its own disciplin= e: 1) technology makes it a lot more complicated, 2) technology makes possib= le brand new types of activities and interventions, and 3) there is so much=20= work being done in this area that it needs to be separated.

Personally, I'm a joiner rather than a separator. Given a choice, I'd rather= have one name or class than two. The benefit is that you grow people who ar= e more familiar with a wider base of information before they specialize. But= I suspect we are getting to a point, even if we have not already reached it= , where Learning Technology should be separated from Learning.

In a message dated 4/29/2003 2:01:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LISTSERV@COMP= UTER.ORG writes:

Date: Mon, 28= Apr 2003 20:38:00 +1200
From: ZHANG Jianwei <zhangjw@TSINGHUA.EDU.CN>
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 resea= rch
fields such as instruction and curriculum and educational psychology, insist= ing
that education technologists are not doing educational technology research b= ut
are working in other fields (instructional theory and design, learning theor= y).
Under this circumstance, I'm re-thinking the problem of educational technolo= gy
as a discipline. Is educational technology a independent discipline? Or shou= ld
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=20= tell
me your thoughts about the domain and scope of learning science: its definit= ion,
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
-----------------------------------------------

Mitchell Weisburgh

http://www.pilotonlinelearning.com
mitch.weisburgh@collegepilot.com
914 833-0273 voice --------------------------------------------------------- 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 --------------------------------------------------------- --part1_ba.3d662917.2be008fa_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 06:04:09 EDT From: Midiwife@AOL.COM Subject: Re: IFETS-DISCUSSION Digest - 29 Apr 2003 to 30 Apr 2003 (#2003-5) The role of computer technology in music education. I teach music technology to adults. Previously I worked with young adults seen to be academically underachieving given that their GCSE results (age 16) were generally rather poor. Nevertheless they spent 2 years studying popular music. My argument was to provide a learning environment that would permit real interaction and engagement with the medium of popular music for those students who generally had had no access to instrumental tuition. Therefore I argued successfully to build a suite of computer based music workstations. It seems to me that many who now make commercial music using software have had little formal music training. However this has not hindered their ability to produce quality music which often sells. As Lawrie Hunter observes, the ability of a piece of software to teach the user seems to be the key to its commercial success. With music sequecing software (we used Cubase VST) the drive is to produce one's own ideas (or even just to fiddle) and the interface is highly intuitive and modelled on the transport controls of a tape recorder and the workspace of a multitrack studio - neither concepts are rocket science. The visual feedback of seeing notes one has played whilst monitoring them aurally goes a long way to promoting an understanding of pitch, velocity and duration - something traditionally more esoteric (recorded or played music is heard and is gone). Also, the depiction of notes is graphic and block built. Conventional western notation uses eletist symbols that have to be learned independently whereas commercial music sequencing packages assume no prior knowledge of the written language of music. We found that our students were driven to play their ideas ever more competently using music keyboards given that they could then modify or edit their playing. They also shared their work to a great extent as they asked others to collaborate on their pieces, for others' ideas, not because of inability. They had a strong understanding of what it was they wanted from their collaborators. Cubase and other music sequencing programs were designed as tools to make music not as educational technologies. However, their educational potential is immense. They are like computer games with no set rules nor any 'winning' position. Perhaps more akin to exploratory games such as Sim City or similar. In fact, the very term 'playing' used in the music context seems pertinent. I should add that the music produced by these students bore no resemblance to the 'monkeys and typewriters' theory. These students produced highly polished, melodic and rhythmic work with strong harmonic content and subtle voicing. Moreover it was culturally relevant and gained them respect from their peers and tutors. Their personal confidence was enhanced and many have since progressed to Higher Education. Today's secondary school music classrooms, in England at least, seem bereft of computer technology. Perhaps this reflects the diminished role music has had in our National Curriculum. Perhaps it reflects an attitude that computer music production is 'dumbing down' music practice. More than likely it may be a reflection of the lack of technology training for our music teachers. Whatever, a rare chance to engage a wide variety of young people is being missed. Karina Townsend The City Literary Institute London WC2B 5LJ 020 7430 0546 k.townsend@citylit.ac.uk --------------------------------------------------------- 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 09:51:37 -0400 From: "Tommy B. McDonell" Subject: Book suggestions needed This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0110_01C30EFE.179AD150 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear All,=20 I will be teaching a course called Technology and Its Impact as part of = a content-based freshman writing class this fall. I wondered if any of = you might have book or article suggestions for my students to either buy = or as part of a course pack. I am very willing to compile the list of = books/articles sent by anyone to later post on this list.=20 Thanks so much. Normally I only lurk here.=20 Tommy Tommy B. McDonell Adjunct Instructor,=20 Marymount Manhattan College Doctoral Candidate in TESOL-NYU tommy.mcdonell@nyu.edu 212-414-8513 home before 10PM 212-414-1293 fax --------------------------------------------------------- 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 --------------------------------------------------------- ------=_NextPart_000_0110_01C30EFE.179AD150 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear All,

I will be teaching a course called = Technology and=20 Its Impact as part of a content-based freshman writing class this fall. = I=20 wondered if any of you might have book or article suggestions for my = students to=20 either buy or as part of a course pack. I am very willing to compile the = list of=20 books/articles sent by anyone to later post on this list.

Thanks so much. Normally I only lurk = here.=20

Tommy

Tommy B. McDonell
Adjunct = Instructor,=20
Marymount Manhattan College
Doctoral Candidate in TESOL-NYU
tommy.mcdonell@nyu.edu
212-= 414-8513=20 home before 10PM
212-414-1293 fax

--------------------------------------------------------- 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 --------------------------------------------------------- ------=_NextPart_000_0110_01C30EFE.179AD150-- ------------------------------ End of IFETS-DISCUSSION Digest - 30 Apr 2003 to 1 May 2003 (#2003-6) ********************************************************************

Next message: Automatic digest processor: "IFETS-DISCUSSION Digest - 1 May 2003 to 2 May 2003 (#2003-7)"
Previous message: Automatic digest processor: "IFETS-DISCUSSION Digest - 29 Apr 2003 to 30 Apr 2003 (#2003-5)"

About this list	Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Thu 01 May 2003 - 08:27:04 MEST