[ifets] Bob Leamson's comments

About this list	Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

ATSJU@garthdee1.rgu.ac.uk
Fri, 20 Nov 1998 9:43:41 GMT

Next message: Chris O'Hagan: "Re: [ifets] old vs. new technology"
Previous message: Arshad Ahmad: "[ifets] old vs. new technology"

From: ATSJU@garthdee1.rgu.ac.uk Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 9:43:41 GMT Subject: [ifets] Bob Leamson's comments

It is so nice when someone from a different perspective gives you some
co-ordinates from their mental map! (Bob Leamson's contribution to
IFETS). The thumbnail sketches of ideas and the actual names of authors
and books are very helpful.

Are there any other books/papers on the theme that people have found
particularly telling? For UK contributors who have difficulty obtaining
American texts it is one of the few ways of following the trends over
there!

One of the UK books I found very helpful as a framework for / overview
of the effective use of technology in teaching and learning was by Diana
Laurillard, of the Open University. The Title is 'Rethinking University
Teaching' and is I think by Routledge.

Jenny Ure
Robert Gordon University
Aberdeen
Scotland

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 22:16:21 +0100 (MET)
From: owner-ifets-digest@gex.gmd.de (ifets-digest)
To: ifets-digest@gex.gmd.de
Subject: ifets-digest V1 #51
Reply-to: ifets-info@gmd.de

ifets-digest Thursday, November 19 1998 Volume 01 : Number
051

In this issue:

[ifets] technology
[ifets] RE: ifets-digest V1 #49

---------------------------------------------------------------------
See the end of the digest for information about ifets-digest.

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:33:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Bob Leamnson <RLEAMNSON@umassd.edu>
Subject: [ifets] technology

    Like Ruth Crawley I'm a recent subscriber. I have also, for some
time, been interested in teaching technology in all its guises, and
more from a philosophical point of view than theoretical. I was
encouraged to hear that concerned people (Martin Owen) are still
reading Vygotsky.
    I have been equally impressed by the observations and research of
more recent scholars and commentators. Walter J. Ong (Orality and
Literacy) studied the work of Vygotsky and Luria (and others) and
made a strong case for technology making striking cultural changes,
some of which were/are completely unpredictable. He notes that the
writing/reading technology changed the way people spoke and
eventually they way they thought. Oral cultures seem not to put
much stock in syllogistic reasoning and are much more concerned
with the concrete here and now--the specific and not the abstract. So
that particularly technology (literacy) made a huge change in the way
we live. Neil Postman (Technopoly) suggests (along these same
lines) that technology is ecological and not additive. It does not just
add something to what's there, it changes everything.
     Gilbert Highet (The Art of Teaching) wrote in a way that appeals
to a lot of particularly dedicated teachers because he emphasized the
extraordinarily personal nature of teaching. Richard Elmore
(Harvard), when he spoke of the "core of education" was also
pointing to this "on the spot" interaction of teacher and student.
    I consider it a truism that the ultimate educational/cultural effect
of
new technologies is quite unknown. It is easy to predict what we
think it will be. It was predicted in 1939 (I think) that TV would
raise the cultural level of all nations that took it to their hearts. I
suspect the prediction that highly electronic technology will improve
thought processes is equally untested.
     I hope concerned parties continue to, or start to, see technology
as a tool (as suggested in these postings). Tools can sometime
determine not just how a thing is done, but what gets done. (To
someone who has just discovered the hammer, everything looks like
a nail.)
Bob

- ---------------------------------------------------------
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: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 09:31:16 -0500
From: Constantin Ohanian <Cohanian@vuepoint.com>
Subject: [ifets] RE: ifets-digest V1 #49

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?
>

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

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
>
>

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

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

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

End of ifets-digest V1 #51
**************************

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

Next message: Chris O'Hagan: "Re: [ifets] old vs. new technology"
Previous message: Arshad Ahmad: "[ifets] old vs. new technology"

About this list	Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri 20 Nov 1998 - 11:30:08 MET