Constantin Ohanian (Cohanian@vuepoint.com)
Thu, 19 Nov 1998 09:31:16 -0500
From: Constantin Ohanian <Cohanian@vuepoint.com> Subject: [ifets] RE: ifets-digest V1 #49 Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 09:31:16 -0500
We are dealing with people and not animals. People think.
-----Original Message-----
From: IFETS [mailto:ifets-info@gmd.de]
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 1998 3:45 PM
To: cohanian@vuepoint.com
Subject: ifets-digest V1 #49
ifets-digest Wednesday, November 18 1998 Volume 01 : Number 049
In this issue:
[ifets] "The Fundamentals of Learning"
[ifets] Re: Message on IFETS Discussion
[ifets] Re: Discussion: Old vs. New Technology in Education
[ifets] Fw: Discussion: Old vs. New Technology in Education
---------------------------------------------------------------------
See the end of the digest for information about ifets-digest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 08:55:20 +0100 (MET)
From: Arun-Kumar Tripathi <tripathi@amadeus.statistik.uni-dortmund.de>
Subject: [ifets] "The Fundamentals of Learning"
*Sorry for cross Postings*
Dear Everybody on IFETS-FORUM,
Good Morning,
I would like to invite all of you to indulged in this discussions, re.
Fundamental of Learning. What is actually the Fundamentals?
E(dward) L. Thorndike (1874-1949), the American psychologist whose major
work was "The Fundamentals of Learning" (1932). Thorndike's experiments
on the behavior of cats and dogs that he placed in a "puzzle box"
convinced him that learning is improved when it produces a satisfactory
result.
Historians F.G. Alexander and S.T. Selesnick explain that it was
Thorndike, not Pavlov, who first formulated the mechanical principle of
connectionism: "When the result of an action is rewarding, it gratifies
the need that initiated the action (for example, hunger); this reinforces
the learned behavior pattern. Animals and humans learn through trial and
error. When a successful need-satisfying behavior pattern is finally
found by chance it is repeated and thus reinforced. This was Thornkike's
'law of effect,' which later Pavlov independently discovered and called
'reinforcement.' The connection thus established between action and
motivation was conceived as being merely a mechanical connection, although
Thorndike did not speculate as much as Pavlov did about the possible
neurophysiological basis of such connections. Thorndike consistently
emphasized motivational factors -- for example, the interest inherent in
the tasks and the degree of attention paid to them.
"Thorndike substantiated his formulations with animal experiments,
mainly with cats, and demonstrated that learning curves showed the influence
of repetitions on the speed of learning. His observations about learning by
trial and error and the repetition of successful actions have remained the
basis of all later learning theories."
Cheers
Arun
Below is a short introduction about myself...
Name: ARUN KUMAR TRIPATHI,c/o Braun,Luetgenholthauser Strasse 99
44225,Dortmund,Germany EDUCATOR: WEB SITE REVIEW WRITER
My short bio at http://www.bfranklin.com/gld98/tripathi.htm and I am an
Volunteer cum List Manager on Global Learn Day II Project and Join GLD-II
Ship at http://www.bfranklin.com/gld98/contents.htm and I wrote an
article "Internet in Education"
at:http://www.gsh.org/wce/archives/tripathi.htm
E-mail: <tripathi@amadeus.statistik.uni-dortmund.de>
Research Scholar Internet Search Expert
Department of Statistics EDRESOURCE Listserv Moderator
University Of Dortmund Internet Information Investigator
- ---------------------------------------------------------
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
- ---------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 07:14:19 -0500
From: david wiles <rprtcard@aug.com>
Subject: [ifets] Re: Message on IFETS Discussion
At the suggestion, I am forwarding the following exchange concerning
cohorts that persist past the time of distance learning as an official
post-masters experience. The Albany group I refer to is discussed in
greater depth at
http://www.albany.edu/~dkw42/studcontrib.html
while you should ask Ms. Lamansky about the San Jose cohort of the Southern
California experience.
David Wiles
>From: "Kinshuk" <kinshuk@ieee.org>
>To: "david wiles" <rprtcard@aug.com>
>Subject: Re: Message on IFETS Discussion
>Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 11:31:38 +0100
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.0810.800
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.0810.800
>
>Dear Professor Wiles
>
>Thanks for copying the mail to me. I am not sure if you would prefer,
>but in my opinion, forum members would benefit with this email exchange.
>I suggest you forward this mail to ifets@gmd.de (giving URL to EAPS760
>course).
>
>Regards.
>
>Kinshuk.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: david wiles <rprtcard@aug.com>
>To: Connie Lamansky @ PCB x5612 <connie_lamansky@mentorg.com>
>Sent: 16 November 1998 14:38
>Subject: Re: Message on IFETS Discussion
>
>
>>Connie-
>>thanks for the nice note. It was forwarded to the five 760 students who
>>have stayed in net since fall l996. I believe your cohort was quite
>>exceptional in terms of persisting through graduate school and on
>>into/through the world of work. If any of you kept a journal of that
>>transition and what connecting meant as an on-going phenomenon it would
>>make quite a contribution to the literature.
>>Thank you again for the note.
>>David
>>
>>
>>At 09:28 AM 11/10/98 PST, you wrote:
>>>I have just read the summaries of your Eaps 760 distance experience and
>>>am thus encouraged to share a doctoral cohort email experience.
>>>>From 1993 to 1995 I was a member of a University of Southern California
>>>cohort that met at San Jose State University in the field of
>>>Educational Psychology and Technology. Most of us had MAs from
>>>San Jose State University in Instructional Technology. We were all
working
>>>full-time, either in a high tech industry or a technology capacity
>>>in the public schools. We completed a residency the summer of 1995.
>>>I spent three weeks on campus, and then flew for an additional six
>>>weeks for Friday evening and Saturday classes. Others spent the
>>>entire nine weeks on campus.
>>>
>>>The point of my tale is that we, as a cohort, used email to
>>>collaborate for the entire experience. Most of us were very
>>>familiar with the benefits of email, so there wasn't much of
>>>a learning curve. One member of the group works at Sun Microsystems
>>>and created an alias. He has not changed jobs, so I can still
>>>send mail to the entire group. Email was of particular
>>>importance as we moved from coursework to passing the quals and
>>>defending our proposal and dissertion. We had 23 students
>>>begin the program, 17 completed the coursework, and to date
>>>13 have completed the doctorate. I was number 13 and successfully
>>>defended the summer of 1997. Now that most of us have
>>>completed our studies, we use email to share items of
>>>professional interest (including job opportunities).
>>>
>>>Our sense of group came from the classroom experience. However,
>>>I believe our sense of intimacy came from email exchange. Email
>>>was certainly an important factor in jumping through the hoops
>>>required to get paperwork through the system of a university 500 miles
>>>away that assumes all students are on campus.
>>>
>>>Connie Lamansky
>>>
>>
>
- ---------------------------------------------------------
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
- ---------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 19:22:02 +0100
From: ATSJU@garthdee1.rgu.ac.uk
Subject: [ifets] Re: Discussion: Old vs. New Technology in Education
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
- ---------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 09:53:39 +0100
From: "IFETS" <ifets-info@gmd.de>
Subject: [ifets] Fw: Discussion: Old vs. New Technology in Education
Following message came in another listserv after the announcement of
upcoming discussion of IFETS forum.
- ----- Original Message -----
From: <cptjrb@ix.netcom.com>
To: <txdla@mcfeeley.cc.utexas.edu>
Sent: 17 November 1998 22:54
Subject: Re: Discussion: Old vs. New Technology in Education
> I haven't posted in awhile, but had to on the interesting
>mono/diologue which the mentioned forum speaks from.
> I think I'm one of those technocrats who seem to be drowning in
>information so even though this subject is one on whcih I've dwelt much
>thought, I'll probably have to refrain from the mentioned forum... Please
>develop this conversation though, with an emphasis on the historical
>learning curve... Briefly I would say that those who embrace the "tried
&
>true" methods should recognize the TOOL on which this forum exists. I
>stress tool for a reason. "New technologies" are not an end unto
themselves
>with human attributes and capacities to do authentic deep and significant
>philosophical cognitive functions. New technologies are tools to add to
>those already existing. May I simply suggest that we use them all for
>appropriate applications? The "current information and communication
>technology (ICT)" started really in the beginnign of the 20th century...
it
>picked up the pace in recent years and how strong the "new renaissance"
will
>be remains to be seen. Sorry if this brief thought boars you... just had
>to share my thoughts on this one for what its worth.
>
>Have fun in the Forum....
>
>JB
>
>CPT John Bohlin / Distance Learning Coordinator, Adjutant General's
>Department /
>
>-----------//////-----------
>
>>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?
>>
>---------////////------------
>
> (512)465-5001x5752 / DSN954 / fax406-6973 / cptjrb@ix.netcom.com
>
>
- ---------------------------------------------------------
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
- ---------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
End of ifets-digest V1 #49
**************************
End of ifets-digest.
To unsubscribe from ifets-digest, send a message to majordomo@gex.gmd.de
with following in message body (no subject needed):
unsubscribe ifets-digest
---------------------------------------------------------
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 Thu 19 Nov 1998 - 16:18:07 MET