Subject: [IFETS-DISCUSSION:1025] Re: Late contribution by "Marshal Anderson"
From: ben hyde (b.hyde@linst.ac.uk)
Date: Mon 05 Feb 2001 - 14:55:48 MET
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 13:55:48 +0000 From: ben hyde <b.hyde@linst.ac.uk> Subject: [IFETS-DISCUSSION:1025] Re: Late contribution by "Marshal Anderson"
Hello All
Just wanted to confer with Marshall about the need to use the technology in support of the learning rather than
vice versa (as so often seems to be the case). When even the largest and the most experienced deliverers of
distance education (the Open University), who are also using one of the best selling and probably robust
electronic learning systems (FirstClass) report such problems it makes you wonder whether the benefits outweigh
the negatives in this situation.
Some of the simplest and therefore most effective uses of new technology (e.g. discussion lists such as this),
have not really improved in terms of their capabilities, ease-of-use or effectiveness for learning. In some
ways they have got worse, often due to increased complexity and extra features which even if only initially,
can cause a greater burden on the users (both teachers and students).
If the technology would only stand still for a moment maybe educators and learners alike would have a chance to
get to grips with this new way of learning/communicating. People should stop trying to use the latest and most
advance technology and identify what is reliable and is easy to use.
(With 'The Social Life of Information' in mind) Another important issue which relates to this, is the use of
appropriate technologies for the particular context. Maybe Marshal's students need a simpler system to begin
with? I have heard that the OU is adopting a policy of conformity for all its courses, so everyone has to use
the same system and procedures. Does this take account of, or provide an outlet for, the different
personalities and the important social aspects of learning relationships? What will the impact of this type of
homogenised system/environment have on learning I wonder? Why shouldn't a particular course, teacher or student
group for that matter, identify what they regard as being appropriate for them (maybe from a choice of
different compatible systems with different capabilities and corresponding complexities)?
--- ben hyde> "Marshal Anderson" wrote: > > I was interested in a lot that went on from the 'What Technology Next' > theme. Personally nothing would please me more than restricting development > to making what we have work reliably, rather than constantly introducing new > product. I've just started a new batch of students on the Open University's > 'You, Your Computer and the Net' course - a course with one face to face > meeting, the rest is 10 months on-line using First Class. The amount of time > I spend either dealing with or referring on technical problems is absurd - > what I want is for it all to work AT ALL.
> To get slightly political (?), I feel that it is in the interest of too many > players to keep pushing new, but unreliable and expensive, systems on > everyone; we're so busy playing catch-up that we consistently fail to ask > fundamental questions about the effectiveness of what we produce - even if > we do manage to get serious evaluation done, it becomes mostly meaningless > in the face of new techniques and technologies. We also fail to question the > received wisdom that education /needs/ to keep up with these advances. In so > many cases computer based/mediated learning is driven by the technology not > pedagogy and the gee-whiz factor wins out. I teach supply (substitute) in > schools in Derbyshire (UK) and several schools are spending serious money on > video conferencing facilities - thus far none have been able to explain to > me /who/ they will video conferences with, about /what/ and how that will > enhance the education of 9 year-olds. > > Several contributions mentioned the possibilities for > creative/experiential/collaborative learning via ICT. I'm really passionate > about this, but it seems that the world generally is currently stuck in a > behavioralist/only teach what's testable rut. While the demand is generally > towards this approach, we will find it hard to develop the truly exciting > possibilities ICT offers as no one really want's the ATM. > > This is a very quick reply - I know that some of the above is very blunt and > a rather superficial posting, but it's often how it feels to be in involved > in educational ICT. > > Marshal Anderson
--
IT Research and Development Unit THE LONDON INSTITUTE 65 Davies Street London W1K 5DA
phone: 020 7514 8107 fax: 020 7514 8050 email: b.hyde@linst.ac.uk web: http://www.itrdu.linst.ac.uk
-- --------------------------------------------------------- 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 : Tue 06 Feb 2001 - 07:41:27 MET