Karen Allnutt (allnutt@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu)
Mon, 30 Nov 1998 16:07:57 -0600
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 16:07:57 -0600 From: Karen Allnutt <allnutt@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> Subject: [ifets] Second Summary of Chris O'Hagan's conference topic
First an apology, the USA celebrated Thanksgiving on Thursday, which
resulted in a four day holiday weekend. So I have been tardy in my
summarizing.
Mike Collett's response to Chris is "the future actually shapes both the
future and the present" and that "The key is a balance".
Mike then responds to Bob Leamnson with "the medium is the message" - and
believe that some technologies change society.....A danger is
that the formal systems do not keep pace and that we end up with a
dissaffected generation.......Do not forget that today is yesterday's
tomorrow."
Bernard Harris of New Zealand delurks to add "Today's
teachers have largely been educated and teacher-trained prior to the
proliferation of the personal computer. There needs to be continuous,
appropriate teacher training which links
technological capability with modern learning theory and practises its
blending in new forms of curriculum development and classroom management.
Yes, as Chris O'Hagan says the social organisation may be an inhibiting
factor."
Richard Jones jumps in with some quick thoughts " Firstly,
comparing digital technologies to things like television are to me like
comparing apples and oranges. ...We should certainly use
instructional television to the best of its capabilities, but we don't
need to understand it to the maximum before we can use computers and the
Internet to help kids learn."
Chris O'Hagan rejoins the discussion with "It was never my intention to
polarise between old and new
technologies ( I did not give it that title!), and I think Mike
Collett puts his finger on it when he says ' The key is balance.'
...Is the balance too far towards new technology so that
the majority of teachers are not cutting their teeth on simpler
technologies first? Is there a natural tendency for those promoting
technology to focus too strongly on the few to the exclusion of the
many? Does the increasing rate of change exacerbate that?
I think it would be good if some of these last contributors, or
others, could relate these views more closely to 'action' in our
educational institutions. What does 'theory into practice' have to
tell us? In lieu of a social and political revolution which will make
technology somehow 'liberating' rather than 'repressive', what do we
do now for our students?"
Ken Kahn notes that "Before there were books, it was very hard for someone
to learn without a
teacher. The only means was to observe and perhaps to experiment. Now
someone who wants to learn a subject has much more than books. There is
video, the web, and software. Technology is what enables self-learning. And
despite many deficiencies in many educational videos and software titles and
the anarchy of the web, I think the new technology represents real progress
in enabling people to learn. I found a very good vision of how future
technology could aid self learning
in The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson (you can read several reviews of the
book at
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0553573314/qid=912015466/sr=1-3/002-3
586257-7125424)."
Dave Havill contributes the following observations " I am not entirely
optimistic about benign outcomes of educational technology....For example,
some studies have shown that diagrams and pictures in American textbooks
are poorly designed and often unrelated or unhelpful in learning the
concepts or skills being taught......
Does the glowing tube evoke some deeply seated expectation of easy
entertainment, or otherwise inhibit what has been considered constructive
intellectual activity."
Martin Owen adds the following "it is probably the simple message that
modalities do matter. ....Therefore to talk of old and new learning
technologies avoids addressing the social activity in which we situate our
learning. ....It is much easier in modern technologies to incorporate
layers of management and control that were ever capable in older
formulations. Is this a good thing?
Paradoxically by allowing learners more "autonomy" in choosing the source
and timing of their (formal) learning, the technology itself often imposes
much greater intrinsic control thereby undermining the real scope for
individuality in their learning."
Bob Leamnson responds to those who have commented upon his input "This
listserv is becoming my favorite forum. I love having my
philosophical pronouncements picked up, deconstructed and
thrown back at me.
Several people seem taken aback by my statement that
technologies are never the cause of learning. I made that
statement, and stand behind it, because it uses words precisely.
Learning will almost always be associated with, or follow upon,
the use of some technology (words, pictures, etc.). But to mistake
correlation with causality is a serious error. Philosophy even has a
name for this kind of error--"post hoc ergo propter hoc," (it
followed *this* therefore it was caused by *this*). Because some technology
is used to facilitate learning does not mean that it caused it.
So where, then, is the cause of leaning? I'm convinced that the
cause of learning resides within the learner. I came to this
conclusion because no explanation of learning (Thorndike, Pavlov
and Skinner included) made any sense to me until I read Changeux
(Neuronal Man). His biological basis of learning showed me that
learning is not something that is done *to* anyone, it's something
we do to ourselves. The learner is the cause of learning--all else is
facilitation and inspiration. Whoever wants to learn will make
optimal use of whatever technology is available.
Both Chris O'Hagan and George Free seem to be suggesting
that the limiting element in formal classroom learning might be the
teacher. I think I would agree if I read them correctly. Learning is
hard work and as Gilbert Highet said, young people don't like hard
work. Good teaching will inspire the young to learn. In my
opinion it makes no difference at all what technology they use."
Peter Kandlbinder offers the following "I see much of this discussion
revolves around the qualitative choices we
make in deciding which technology we as teachers will use. ....I think we
need to be wary of any
proscriptive notion that students need newer technologies because it will
make them learn/collaborate."
Mike Collet's reply to Bob Leamnson (severely annotated by the summarizer),
" I can see that learning can take place whatever the
technology. To suggest that the quality of that learning is never affected
is nonsense.....creative tools support participative learning."
David Wiles suggests visiting the following "For the five strongest
illustrations see
http://www.albany.edu/~dkw42/studcontrib.html
You might also be interested in Step Six sublink discussion of the web as
organization which comes at some of your general points about tomorrow-ing
http://www.albany.edu/~dkw42/eaps760.html ."
Arun-Kumar Tripathi believes the following will add flames to the
discussion "Technology makes learning a
private and personal experience, and seems to motivate learners."
S.J.E. Hobbs responds to Arun with "If information is made available in ANY
form (and I agree entirely that
new technologies offer us many very useful and appropriate ways of doing
this) it is like a book in that it IS that 'personal and private'
experience. What makes an excellent learning experience in any medium or
mix of media is the integration of information with interaction with
peers, practitioners, teachers, tutors......Even those absolute believers
in technological supremacy are seeing the
need to integrate 'coaches', 'friends', 'learning assistants' into
materials to simulate this contact and dialogue. Lots of fun and lots of
research money to be had here in Intelligent Educational Systems design.
The only problem from my point of view is that this is something that
PEOPLE do better and do naturally. Even a supply (replacement) teacher'
gives better help to a student in a class they have never met before
than the best Intelligent on-line Tutors for all their powerful models.
George Free rejoins the discussion with " Its my impression that the social
organization of schools,
colleges and universities reinforces-- and practically dictates --an
instructionalist approach to the use of technology, that is, technology is
used to deliver predetermined curriculum (subject matter) that the student
can only view or consume more or less passively.....The other major
obstacle, as I see it, is that --in the
universities especially -- there is little support given to the
development of innovative teaching methods. On the whole, teaching is
devalued in the universities, and precedence is given to research.
Generally, faculty are not rewarded for their teaching, but mainly for
their research/publications. Teaching is often viewed as a distraction or
burden -- we talk about the 'teaching load,' e.g., -- rather than a focal
point of faculty activity.
In addition, I think it is also a problem that courses are
largely developed and taught on an individual basis. Using technology
requires greater large scale organization and planning. It requires a
cooperative effort on the part of faculty and staff, who would work
together to create coordinated programs and student learning experiences.
(The experience of the Open University in this matter seems to be
especially instructive here.)
...thoughts?"
(The summarizer's opinion only, George this is fuel for the fire!)
P. A Gantt's position "ask your students what they think?"
SOCCJON1 responds to Bob with "Learners constantly need help reassurance
etc. In their
use of technology people left to their own devices often
fail to use the technology at all, even an old technology
such as a library. When learners do use the technology
without help they often have a partial view of the
capacity and possible uses of the system......Much of what educators do and
what
students learn is in order to fulfill the requirements of
assessment and accreditation. Learning in this sense is
doing what is required by others. There is no simple way
a learner can know what is required of them. It is often
the 'timely intervention' of the educator that interprets
the rules of assessment into the individual setting of
the student-learner...... I have
also argued that technology is 'contingent', that is it
is cobbled together by the learner and educator in the
context of its use."
Chris O'Hagan rejoins the conversation with "I am glad contributors are
resisting the temptation to include the
message in their reply.
We have a couple of new strands (or developments of previous days
strands.
One is whether the learning 'acts' in the learner are independent of
the medium the learner is using. .... My own view is that the key feature
is the
interaction inside the learner's mind, rather than any external
interaction. ..... Do computers
encourage surface learning, learning which is not properly integrated
into the learner's version of the world? Are computers best for
training and simulation, not proper education, whatever that is ;-)
Two, is whether you need teachers at all - ie they can be replaced by
machines. But a lot of 'teaching' is about teaching people *how* to
learn. Total distance learning works best with people who already
have some skills as learners. It is still a very open question
whether distance methods can be used to this degree with younger
learners.
Just because computers can *stimulate* amd we can see this
stimulation in the learner, does this mean that deep learning is
taking place? I wonder.
I'm not sure how these relate to our original theme, but what the
hell, maybe someone can turn all this back to illuminate the original
question....."
Martin Owen responses to Bob Leamnson with "There is chemical difference
between knowing and unknowing
in a human brain....There is clear evidence that that knowing in the world
has a clutural
historic ontology".
and to Chris O'Hagan with "If being technologically determinist implies
that we live in a world shaped
by our use of language and tool, I am a determinist. If being
technologically deerminist means that when the subject acts on an object,
the subject itself is also transformed, then I am a technologically
determinst.
Does this reach the classroom? . does it change our institutions?...
... our motto is "When
we create new tools we create new conversation"
and to Richard is "Understanding only comes through
action. "
and finally to Peter "collaborative learning is great... its just getting
the other people to do it is the problem."
ATSJU responds to Bob Leamnson with "I am sure most people would agree with
him that technology cannot
cause,but only facilitate learning.
Learning, in any context - personal, organisational or machine learning
- is dependent on feedback.
It is a feedback loop.
Technology provides the loop.
Someone else has to provide the feedback."
Chris Eliot replies to SJE Hobbs with " I don't think that an "expert teacher"
can automatically teach in any medium.....Humans are capable of being great
teachers but
they are also capable of being lousy teachers."
Scott Overmyer basically agrees with ATSJU.
James Carr notes "Currently I see multimedia
applications as enhancing the traditional learning process but
definitely not replacing it in university settings."
Bob Leamnson concludes his comments for the week with "Some of my postings
seem to be leaving the impression that I'm
a Luddite.... I am something of a reductionist and prefer to hold everything
constant (at least pretend it is) while studying one aspect of a
problem. Could we agree that learning is brain change on the part
of the learner, no matter the environment providing the input?
With that as a given, each environmental factor's contribution can
be considered.
........
No one would deny that input and access are remarkably
increased by more recent technology. How else could we be
debating these issues? But learning needs to be considered
separately. Sensory input alone is not very efficient. A learned
interest, a spell-binding teacher, a passioned debate with
colleagues, a captivating book, or a website can provide gating
signals that make learning faster and more permanent. All teaching
activities and technologies should, I suggest, be considered and
evaluated in this light."
PA Gantt's concluding retort "Computers are only a tool.
A doggone good one but a tool nonetheless."
Chris Eliot responds to Bob Leamnson "Why do people describe the
limitations of technology without
acknowledging that humans have the same limitations?
When it is written that "technology cannot XXX" I read an implication
that "humans can XXX". Am I wrong to think that this is implied?"
Bill Braun's response to Bob Leamnson "I would argue that reductionistic
thinking is a strong contributing factor
to misunderstandings about teaching and learning. By misunderstanding in
this case I mean how any one of us sees things versus how any other of us
sees things - a difference of opinion."
and to Chris Eliot "Neither the teacher nor the technology causes learning.
If that were the
case, all students exposed to the same teacher/technology at the same time
in the same place would learn the same thing. Learning is the learner's
response to stimuli and better explains (although not completely) why
learning varies even though everyone (in the learning population) received
the same teacher/technology stimuli."
Chris's response to Bill Braun "I am not surprised that students respond
differently to "the same
instruction.....Hence, I don't think it is meaningful to say that any two
people
receive "the same stimulus" and hence it is not surprising that people
learn different things from the same instruction."
Chris O'Hagan's response to Barbara Ross "
Computer-aided learning, however supposedly interactive, easily slips
into bucket mode I think - reducing students to what has been called
an 'entropic state of mindlessness'. Maybe the model of
the computer as replacing the teacher is still incoherent - it cannot
yet provide what the teacher provides. Is it simply a method of
providing a wide range of resources which the active mind can
interrogate - only with the danger of hyperspace having very few
models for structuring knowledge.......disorder.....increasing
entropy......mindlessness :-)"
SJE Hobbs response to Chris O'Hagan " I do NOT suggest that the
teacher/guide/puzzle setter
knows the all answer or has the best/model answer.....exams are currently a
way of defining a subject and/or a
profession .... if you pass an exam, you are considered a member of the
group of people who can call themselves.......Concern has been expressed
that if we were to
take this 'discovery' approach, letting students flow though information
THEY find intersting, we'll lose control of what they learn and
therefore qualifications would be meaningless. This need not be the
case. It is quite possible to define for a student the questions they
NEED to answer (ie the basic subject knowledge ... in the above example,
where did the slaves come from? where did they work? include explanation
of reference to x and y social theory.....) but allow them to find
other information to fit their OWN puzzle too...... If we
take this kind of approach, we will be using the best of the 'new' and
'old' resources and giving students cognitive tools to manipulate them."
Once again sorry for the summary delay. I hope I didn't distort anyone's
messages by annotating them. I also apologize to those who would prefer
paraphrasing rathering than quotations. I guess I'm one of those people
who feels that we all are our own best spokesperson.
Karen Allnutt
---------------------------------------------------------
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 30 Nov 1998 - 23:26:58 MET