ATSJU@garthdee1.rgu.ac.uk
Tue, 17 Nov 1998 19:22:02 +0100
From: ATSJU@garthdee1.rgu.ac.uk Subject: [ifets] Re: Discussion: Old vs. New Technology in Education Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 19:22:02 +0100
In reply to Rashev's question about the need to use old technology well
before starting on new technology -
One of the benefits of the huge choice of media and technologies now
available makes providers aware that
-they have to make choices
-they have to justify the cost or added value of these choices
-they therefore need basis for choice
It is only now that there has been a real discussion of frameworks for
teaching and learning that can optimise outcomes - particularly through
the provision of feedback and support.
Admittedly, student centred learning has been used as a euphemism for
learning without a teacher,and concentrated too much on the presentaton
of content rather than supportinve learning environments
Hopefully the networking potential of new technologies can be seen as a
means of linking students with each other or with their tutors to
provide the kind of feedback and support that is even lacking in face to
face learning in current contexts.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rossen Rashev <rashev@gmd.de>
Subject: Discussion: Old vs. New Technology in Education
>
>New formal discussion is starting on 23 November in IFETS forum on the topic:
>
>"The 'next generation', like tomorrow, never comes"
>
>(Shouldn't we be learning how to make tried and tested 'old' technologies work
>for us and our students, in reliable and pedagogically effective ways, instead
>of being seduced by the blandishments of the technocrats?)
>
>Moderator: Chris O'Hagan
>Dean of Learning Development, University of Derby, United Kingdom
>
>Summariser: Karen Allnutt
>Instructional/training software developer, University of Iowa, USA
>
>With each successive generation of new educational technologies the dawn of a
>revolution in teaching and learning is heralded. There have been many such dawns
>in the last 30 years, during which the desktop computer and the Internet have
>been developed; but there have been similar dawns throughout the century - film,
>radio, records, broadcast television, audiotape, videotape, programmed learning
>machines etc. Each time enthusiasts have announced the transformation or even the
>end of the school/college/university. In fact, the impact on the bulk of teaching
>and learning has been minimal. Developments in paper/printing technologies have
>had far more influence, with the consequence that face-to-face discussion and
>paper resources still dominate public education. Audio-visual media have been
>treated more as an icing-on-the-cake than as something at the very heart of
>learning - and likewise their long-suffering support services (though the new
>media, particularly video, have fared somewhat better in the development of
>corporate training programmes).
>
>Is the current information and communication technology (ICT) revolution
>different from earlier audio-visual `revolutions'? Possibly. Probably. But its
>success in public education may be compromised (yet again) by a failure to learn
>from past mistakes. As usual we have the problems of compatibility, standards
>changes, reliability, portability, flexibility, costs of access, obsolescence,
>inappropriate use etc. These are probably not insoluble. More deeply entrenched
>we have next-generationitis (hang on in, the solution is just round the corner)
>which impedes proper investment and embedding; we have failure to empower
>teachers (with those who provide and support technologies manoeuvring to retain
>their control, often only interested in working at the next technological
>frontier) which impedes autonomous use and wide diffusion; we have teaching
>staff who cannot use an overhead projector effectively, never mind use text-based
>cmc or combine text and images in a computer package (and who have never even
>learned to design reliable multiple choice tests on paper, for example) - which
>discredits change through poor quality and failed effort.
>
>I exaggerate for effect - but not much. There is, of course, excellent practice
>around on a continuum from the use of paper-based technologies through to today's
>frontiers on the Internet. There has always been excellent practice, but it has
>tended to remain, stubbornly, in limited pockets of expertise - often widely
>acknowledged, but still pockets nonetheless.
>
>My question is, will we ever make ICT work for us ubiquitously in education - not
>just for interpersonal communication and data transfer, but in core teaching and
>learning - if we fail to make `old' technologies work ubiquitously first? In other
>words, is in-depth pedagogical experience using old technologies (text, graphics,
>audio, film, video etc) a precondition for effective use of today's ICT? After all,
>multimedia is itself a mixture of all these old technologies, combining familiar
>methods with an unfamiliar rigour. And what implications for strategy, for
>investment, for staff development, for implementation, emerge from the different
>ways this question is answered?
>
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.gmd.de/
Email address for sending message to everyone on the list ifets@gmd.de
Forum's contact person ifets-info@gmd.de
Join/Leave Digest or Normal List http://ifets.gmd.de/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue 17 Nov 1998 - 20:37:13 MET