Subject: [IFETS-DISCUSSION:640] Summary #2: Tech Interface Discussion
From: Art Recesso (amrecess@valdosta.edu)
Date: Mon 06 Nov 2000 - 16:45:35 MET
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 10:45:35 -0500 From: Art Recesso <amrecess@valdosta.edu> Subject: [IFETS-DISCUSSION:640] Summary #2: Tech Interface Discussion
IFETS Community: The current discussion has been extended and will take
place through the end of the week. A final summation will be provided
next Monday. --Art
Summary #2
We began to focus the discussion on instructional strategies last week.
The result is two models for using highly interactive learning
environments in schools. 1) the teacher has the skills and knowledge of
content, instructional strategies, and technology (to deliver or
'immerse' the student in the highly interactive learning evironment, and
2) a collaborative or 'team' approach, whereas, the teacher calls on
experts in content, instructional design, and technology to assist with
the deveopment of the learning evnironments.
Is there any one model more prevalent in the research than the other
right now? Does the discussion and presentation of immersive worlds
demonstrate that model one does exist? How does the 'collaborative'
approach change school structures? How does 'teacher as designer'
impact teacher preparation programs?
(summary on the topics)
TEACHER AS DESIGNER
ken kahn
We all accept that a teacher or student should not only master reading
but
also writing. Why can't we also accept that a teacher or student should
not
only master how to use software but also how to create it? (Again by
analogy
we aren't expecting the writing by students and teachers to be Pulitzer
or
Nobel Prize quality and so by creating software I don't imply that it
should
have the same production values or scope as shrink wrapped software.)
Barry Kort
One of the more exciting features of computer-assisted learning is the
ability to create novel immersive learning environments, such as games
or simulation models, where the learner is able to practice their skills
interactively within the system.
So an important skill for the innovative educator to learn is how to
make use of such constructivist learning tools. Building and using
models is a powerful way to gain mastery of a subject and to foster
creativity, innovation, and diagnostic reasoning skills.
See for example, my own memoirs on this theme in "Bring a Candle,
Not a Sparkler," at http://www.musenet.org/WCE
ken kahn
While some programming languages
and programming environments get very complicated there are several that
have worked well with non-professionals and kids. They include
Logo (http://el.www.media.mit.edu/groups/logo-foundation/)
Boxer (www.soe.berkeley.edu/~boxer/)
ToonTalk (www.toontalk.com)
Stagecast Creator (www.stagecast.com)
and maybe even Microsoft's Visual Basic.
To master one of these systems is a big effort. But I believe it is
worth
it. A nice new book arguing for this is Andrea diSessa's "Changing Minds
-
Computers, Learning, and Literacy"
(http://mitpress.mit.edu/book-home.tcl?isbn=0262041804)
ken kahn
While we don't expect every teacher to write their own textbooks (though
an
interesting question is whether we should expect them to be capable of
writing a textbook), I do think it is reasonable to expect that every
teacher be not just a consumer of written materials but also a producer.
Maybe all they are writing are notes or assignments but we take it as
given
that the teacher should be able to produce written materials. I do think
we'd have a better educational system if every teacher was capable of
producing software and multimedia materials. I expect that very rarely
would
they produce something as ambitious as commercially available published
material, but there are lots of smaller efforts that make sense. While
learning to be a producer of software and multimedia is hard, it is
probably
easier than learning to write. How many years of effort does it take to
learn to write?
Muhammad Betz
I disagree that about the separation of roles as Corrie has suggested.
That
motif reminds me of the often-tried "team teaching" approach. The
rationale
for team teaching involves subject matter experts from different
disciplines
combining their efforts in thematic curriculum units. The team teaching
approach has been tried for several decades. What happens? The
logistics of
requiring different people to work together soon overcome the good
intentions of integrated projects.
The onus still, in the main, rests with the individual, in my opinion.
Chen
(1999) describes a continuum of technology expertise that individual
practitioners matriculate, as it were, on the road to extended
competence.
Individuals must take the matter of developing competence, a
time-consuming
ordeal, upon themselves. There can be mentoring by leaders in the field
of
educational technology, but lay teachers/instructors' competence with
technology is the main criterion for progress. Only infrequently will
time
and money allow the tripartite approach to university or public school
instruction.
TEACHER AS COLLABORATOR
Corrie Bergeron
The notion I propose is more akin to the project team approach used by
nearly all successful multimedia production companies. One does not
expect a writer to also be a graphic artist, or a sound engineer to be
an
instructional designer. Likewise, when building a house, one does not
expect the bricklayer to also install the plumbing. You use a mix of
professional skills to get the results you want. Project management
techniques take care of the collaborative logistics.A couple of things
have to happen. One, basic computer skills (and I do NOT mean
programming in BASIC!) have to become as common among teachers (and
administrators) as they are among the students. For that to happen,
teachers need to see the benefit of learning these skills - and
packaging
the technology with the message, "this will make you radically change
the
way you teach" does not make the sale any easier. And we either incent
today's teachers to learn or else wait a generation for today's students
to move to the front of the classroom.
Two, the still-embryonic standards work of IMS, IEEE1484 and ADL/SCORM
needs to go forward, so that reusable content objects can be
meaningfully
described, cataloged, accessed, and used. www.learnativity.org is a
good
jumping-off point for learning more about these vital initiatives.
Corrie Bergeron
Designing and developing high-quality educational interactive multimedia
> programs is, frankly, rather hard to do, and harder still to do well.
I
> think it is unrealistic to expect, as does Ken Kahn, that every
teacher
> should be a multimedia producer. We don't expect teachers to write
their
> own textbooks, do we? Go out in the bush with a camera and make their
own
> nature films for biology class? Record their own language-learning
> tapes? No. Rather, we expect them to be able to *select* resources
that
> meet the needs of their students. They don't need to be able to write
a
> textbook, just to know a good one when they see it. I think much of
the
> effort currently going into teaching classroom teachers how to add
> streaming audio to PowerPoint slides on the Web would be better spent
> helping them find and use the megabytes of existing material. The
ISTE
> standards focus on selecting and using technology and media. That's
the
> correct approach, IMO.
Corrie Bergeron
I am delighted that the use of technology is receiving such a strong
focus
from teacher-training standards bodies. However, I still question the
extent to which it is appropriate to expect a classroom teacher to also
be
a technologist. Certainly many new teachers will have a foundation of
basic skills - cut and paste with a mouse will be more familiar for them
than using scissors and Elmer's. These young teachers will likely find
making a web page no more difficult than making a paper bulletin
board. As Muhammed expects, they will far surpass the ISTE
recommendations. But there are tens of thousands of teachers who are
barely comfortable surfing the Web. Currently I work at an online
graduate
school in much the same role as Deirdre. Some of the faculty I work
with
make exceptionally good use of the online delivery environment. Others
need coaching in how to cut and paste.
My perspective is shaded (or perhaps jaded) by my years of experience as
a
software designer and developer. I got in on the ground floor in this
industry, and I've been privileged to work with some of the folks who
dug
the basement. My first tutorial was written in SuperPilot on the Apple
II. (I was writing FORTRAN on punch cards before that, but those were
engineering data-processing programs.) After getting my M.Ed. in the
late
1980s, I produced training videodisks for IBM that used DOS graphics to
simulate the OS/2 graphical interface. Later, I spent five years at
PLATO
building semi-intelligent multimedia simulations in Windows. I've seen
excellent courseware, and I've seen real dogs. There is a difference,
and
it does not depend on the tools used.
The work being done by Wayne (and thousands of others) will one day
enable
teachers to easily locate learning objects (metadata tagging), and
ensure
that they plug-and-play in the local delivery environment
(interoperability standards). But that day is still in the future. Not
that excellent online content is lacking - far from it! The challenge
is
in FINDING what you're looking for, and once you find it, knowing how to
use it effectively in your own context.
The drive to create a "simple technology tool" for teachers makes the
assumption that teachers are also technologists. In many cases that is
true - some instructional technology (i.e. overhead projector,
chalkboard)
are relatively transparent - that is, it's clear and obvious how to use
them, although using them well takes effort and creativity. However, we
can
all cite examples of teachers who do not use even those simple tools
very
well. Digital media technology is not transparent. Just watch a
first-time
computer user struggling with a "file save" task, never mind the
cognitive
gymnastics that must be used to sort out the relationship between modem,
hard drive, ISP, website, content, browser, and plugin.
Corrie Bergeron
We must discriminate between content expertise, designing and developing
the
content for presentation, and facilitating the learning experience. In
times past the teacher had to play all three roles (and in much of the
world
still does). Today we can separate those roles. A content expert need
only
be a source of information - preferably, one who is patient with the
novice's questions posed by the developer. The designer/developer must
understand the learning process and have the capability to bridge the
gap
between the novice and expert by using media production tools. The
classroom facilitator need not be an expert in the subject matter, nor
know
how to manipulate pixels. What is absolutely required is a passion for
seeing the light dawn behind the students' eyes.
IMMERSIVE
John Maxwell To this really should be added Guido van Rossum's Computer
Programming for
Everybody (CP4E) project, based on the ("full") Python language. CP4E is
a
little up in the air currently, due to Python changing hands, but is
worth
watching for new developments:
http://www.python.org/doc/essays/cp4e.html
http://www.python.org/cp4e/
Barney Dalgarno
We at Charles Sturt University are in the process of developing a
Virtual
Chemistry Lab. The lab will be a 3D model of our main chemistry lab, and
will allow distance education students to become familiar with the lab
before they begin the residential schools, where they do their practical
experiments.http://farrer.csu.edu.au/chemistry
Hannes Kaufmann Our virtual reality system allows up to 4 (only hardware
limited) users
to simultanously work on the same or different applications.
For details please have a look at the webpage of my project at
http://www.cg.tuwien.ac.at/research/vr/studierstube/construct3d/
Barry Kort (reacting to >questions)
> What would the format of the CAL look like?
Nowadays, it tends to be a multimedia animation which presents a
synthetic or model world in which the learner is an active,
participating agent.
> What tools should teachers be learning to use?
Besides the software itself, which provides the immersive learning
environment, there are usually other resources on the Internet which
enable others using the same system to share and discuss their
experiences and to exchange scenarios with others.
>How do we know they are using appropriate learning strategies with
> the content and technology?
Most simulation involve goals that cannot be reached except by
progressive mastery of the subject. So one index is the rate
at which students successfully reach the goals that advance them
through the learning journey. Another way we know they are doing
well is if they are 1) obviously enjoying the use of the sotware
and 2) discussing among themselves their insights and solutions
to the challenges presented by the system.
> What about non-immersive learning environments...could they be used
> effectively too?
Probably. There is the problem of boredom with traditional "drill and
kill" type systems which are little more than computer-mediated homework
problems. The advantage of the immersive systems is that they create
a natural "drama" that participants find intriguing and enthralling.
---------------------------------------------------------
List address to send message to everyone:
ifets-discussion@catfish.valdosta.edu
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
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 : Mon 06 Nov 2000 - 18:00:20 MET