Subject: toward a complete environment: First summary
From: Ania Lian (ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au)
Date: Tue 04 Apr 2000 - 11:07:10 MEST
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 19:07:10 +1000 (EST) From: Ania Lian <ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au> Subject: toward a complete environment: First summary
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First summary:
The discussion began with the question about the ways in which technology
can be turned into an educational tool.
Tom Abeles (31 March), along the concerns put forth by Ania Lian, presents
the question about technology and education as one which needs to be posed
along the tension between the demand for creativity and the demand for
fact-based competency. Tom Abeles thus suggests that differences in
approaches to the question of technology will reflect themselves in
different attitudes toward education and pedagogy. He writes: "We see this
struggle in the virtual education system as we see various learning
environments being constructed from bits and bytes. The architecture is
not value neutral "
In view of Tom Abeles arguments, it would appear therefore that approaches
which see the demand for fact-based competency as void of questions will
also see as equally unproblematic notions like creativity and conditions
thought to facilitate creativity. It would only follow that the place and
the function of technology in education will be seen as problematic only
if problems are detected at the level of pedagogy and not technology. In
short, the use of technology in education is not a function of the
technology itself but rather it is a function of its integration into a
pedagogic environment.
Tom Abeles reinforces his points in his next post (3 April) where he
writes: "technology is an extension of humans in all senses of the word".
For Tom, to review technology in education is about reviewing the ways in
which we facilitate integration, rather than separation, between the
knowledge domains that Academia seems to have set up. He writes: "It is
time that the engineering schools again required their students to take
courses in the humanities and social sciences within the liberal studies
programs and not just receive a cursory exposure within the walls of the
engineering schools." The question of 'How we do this?' seems to be still
open.
Different view is presented by Muhammad Betz (31 March). For Muhammad,
creativity is a function of technology, no matter how limiting it may be.
He writes: "technology is value neutral that it (i.e., technology) offers
a sense of openness that is both absent in non-technological, educational
settings" and "The curriculum pertaining to this type of learning and
these types of projects is not predetermined by the limits of technology
based information"
It may seem from the above sentences that, provided we use technology,
(would this include the times when technology meant print materials
only?), no matter how limiting it may be, we achieve curricula which offer
learners a sense of openness. Or?
He writes: "Technology is blind to their various persuasions and a force
for their [i.e. learners'] liberation". Question is: is it technology that
liberates us or the ways in which we appropriate it?
Along the same lines we can propose the following: It is true that we can
think about the technology of printing as blind. It may therefore also be
true that *all* books (as products of that technology) are educational.
Question is: how can the ways in which students work with these books make
it for them possible to manipulate information creatively and in a
critically informed manner? That is to say, how can working with books
allow students to evaluate what matters, how and when? Would accessing the
technology of print per se guarantee such a knowledge?
It seems that if students fail to manipulate information creatively and in
a critically informed manner, it may well not be the fault of all the
books that have ever been written. What I tried to suggest in my
pre-discussion paper is that at fault here may be the ways in which
pedagogy made posible the accessing of information and its manipulation in
terms of what is and is not relevant. In other words, to use Muhammad's
own terms, sophisticated technology (e.g. multimedia, random access, etc.)
may well open up possibilities for learners that more primitive technology
(like print alone) cannot. However, technology will neither create nor
solve educational or other (e.g. social) problems. Social/educational
problems are problems of people and not of machines. It is therefore not
up to the machines to resolve them too. In short: a learning problem
cannot be resolved by a machine but by a smart way which gives this
problem a status of relevance and allows learners to resolve it in terms
that make sense to them.
Muhammad Betz, later on (3 April) returns to his point re: technology and
its capacity to open up curricula. He locates in technology the power to
give learners the opportunity to synthesise creatively their motivations
and knowledge "into works of art". Furthermore, he point out the political
context in which education takes place: He writes: "Most educators
function in an at least partially political environment, and Ania's model
ignores this fact." It would be interesting to reflect further on the
question of politics, curricula and technology. Who are the partners that
shape the political scene of education and how is it ensured that
everyone's voice is given the appropriate place in this context? In other
words, how can education both ensure that it does not eliminate the
diversity of voices while, at the same time, it can protect all players
from being subjected to a monopoly of a single voice? Does or can
technology play a role in the solution to this question?
Bobbie Turniansky (2 April) raises a different kind of a problem. For
Bobbie, it is the title of the discussion that worries her. She writes: "
However, the title of the present discussion caught my attention because
it negates my approach to education. Personally, I don't want an
educational system that focuses on "knowledge transfer" regardless of the
technology used. There is a place for "knowledge transfer" but it's
definitely not something I'd want to see as a focus. I'd rather look at
"knowledge creation", "knowledge discovery". While Bobbie tries to draw a
distinction between, what seems, two different approaches to teaching, it
would be interesting for Bobbie to follow up her distinctions and
illustrate the cases (and the reason for which) she believes that "There
is a place for "knowledge transfer"", while at the same time, she has a
problem with that notion and tries to oppose it to "knowledge creation".
In short, on which grounds does Bobbie think that the former is possible
but the latter is desirable?
Smith, Donald S. (3 April) contributes another dimension to the dilemma of
'Why technology?' and 'Why in this way?'. He remarks on the sense
simplicity with which the task of education is being approached and the
neat way in which computers seem to disguise (and reinforce therefore)
this sense of simplicity. They do so by lending to simple assumptions
support (Symbolic Capital) in the form of:
(a) neatly designed (but badly thought through) resources, or/and
(b) objectivity which now seems to derive from the Machine as opposed to
individual opinion.
He writes: " Tasks are discretely identified, curriculum supports the
tasks and criterion testing confirms quality. The student then is a widget
at the end of the assembly line whose quality can be easily measured." "So
we have dangers on two fronts with the growth of technology in education.
First it turns education into a profit enterprise and second it utilizes
technologies that are, oh so easily, adapted to the quantification of the
learning process."
The solution to the problem Donald Smith locates in the belief in a
genuine competition and its positive outcomes. He writes: "However, this
is balanced by the opportunities for innovation that competition brings
and the potential that computers may someday duplicate or even improve on
the cognitive type learning that happens when good teachers interact with
students." Question is: can we trust a belief in a genuine competition if,
as former discussions on IFETS pointed out, Academia is not a world where
truth truly prevails? Furthermore, can our learners wait? And therefore
and most of all, as Donald writes: "How can we assure that technology will
serve the wider interests of learners as opposed to simply implanting
processes and "facts" in their heads?"
Crispin Weston (3 April) raises the question of the meaning of creativity
and asks: "Are all creations equally valuable?" Indeed, it would seem
desirable to know the *set of the references against which decisions are
made regarding what is valuable and what is not*! What is valuable in a
case made for the Earth revolving around the Sun? Was it valuable to make
such a case at the time when people were killed for this very creative way
of looking at the shape of our solar system? Was it valuable for Einstein
to come up with his theory? Is his theory seen as valuable against the
context of the "old world" with its needs and history? Or is it seen
valuable in the context of the "new world", with its aspirations to travel
and discover more than the "old world" could and did? It seems that
Einstein is valued not for *what he says* so much as for *what his theory
allows us to do*. Therefore, it seems that if we were to look for the
reference basis which gives value to our creativity, we must first allow
ourselves the possibility to reflect upon and establish its power in terms
of what it enables us to do. The value of our creations therefore will
depend on the ways in which we can show or appreciate their power. Some
things will be easier to demonstrate, other not. Equally, not everyone
always believed Einstein nor is Einstein the end of physics. We move on as
our needs and schemes of appreciation change.
Elyssebeth Leigh (3 April) returns our attention to the problem of value
and technology. She summarises her concerns writing: " I am concerned that
the conversation is not seduced by the idea that what we are using to
communicate is in some way 'value free'.
So far in our discussions more has been said about the technology and
education divide and least about the factors for which technology has been
praised and pushed in education. For example, little has been said about
communication, exploration and creativity in terms of the conditions that
make these possible. Maybe these could be the things that we could focus
closer on for the next few days of our exchanges?
Ania Lian
ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mlal2
please, keep checking my IFETS-site:
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mlal2/lists/ifets/ifets.htm
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.ieee.org/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@massey.ac.nz
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.ieee.org/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Tue 04 Apr 2000 - 11:54:39 MEST