Bob Leamnson (RLEAMNSON@umassd.edu)
Mon, 23 Nov 1998 08:29:07 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 08:29:07 -0500 (EST) From: Bob Leamnson <RLEAMNSON@umassd.edu> Subject: [ifets] Tomorrow
Tomorrow Never Comes
As someone posted earlier, the question of which is better, old or
new technology, might be a distraction from the more important
question of whether any technology ever lives up to its promises. The
printing press put the potential for education in the hands of anyone
who could afford a book or a newspaper. But the desire for
entertainment could also be satisfied by the same technology and it
now serves that purpose primarily.
No technology has ever caused learning. All technology comes
eventually to provide what the users demand of it. (Few things tell us
more about human nature than the open market.)
I would like to propose a personal and perhaps idiosyncratic
hypothesis on the role of technology in education. The more recent
technologies (internet, distance learning etc.) emphasize access, but in
modern times access has not been the limiting factor in learning. Even
before computers and the internet no one learned more than a tiny
fraction of all that they had access to. What technology provides (for
those inclined to use it) is ease and speed.
But access is only one aspect of the problem. Does technology
facilitate learning is a separable and equally important question. Here
the "old vs. new" question falls apart, because any technology can
facilitate learning if the students involved want to learn and know the
technology. Which prompts the question, "which technology, if any,
inspires students to learn?" (Not the same question as "which do they
find more attractive?")
My hypothesis can be put in the form of a question. "Do the newer
technologies work better at educating students, or at providing
information for those already educated?" The question came to mind
after watching my first year students using high technology and
comparing that to how fourth year students use it. These are, of
course, quite different cohorts. In the U.S. only about half the
students who start college or university persist to the fourth year. It is,
nonetheless, instructive to see how differently they use computers and
the internet. First year students tend to believe that whatever turns up
on the screen is good and useful. Whether it's plotting lab data or
looking for information on blood types, they generally accept anything
(often the first thing) that appears. Upperclassmen are far more
discriminating and go to the technology with a clear idea of what they
really need. They are not so much asking the technology to provide
information as using it to sort quickly through the dross until they find
what they knew in advance that they needed.
I propose this strongly dichotomous question, (does technology
work better at providing education, or at accommodating the
previously educated) because I think the same question has been asked
and answered for one old technology--reading. Cunningham and
Stanovich (American Educator, spring/summer, 1998) have clearly
demonstrated that reading in and of itself provides a positive feedback.
People who learn to read well do more of it and people who read more
learn more. This same question now needs to be posed and answered
vis-a-vis newer technologies.
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
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon 23 Nov 1998 - 14:59:34 MET