Scriven@aol.com
Thu, 2 Sep 1999 15:41:16 EDT
From: Scriven@aol.com Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 15:41:16 EDT Subject: Re: IFETS-DISCUSS Digest - 1 Sep 1999 to 2 Sep 1999
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://grouper.ieee.org/ltsc/ifets/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a message dated 9/2/99 9:33:55 AM, Gary Morrison writes:
<< Technology (as hardware) has never [been] shown to affect learning.>>
I hear this a lot. It's absurd, and the fact that it's widely believed and
often said without challenge reflects the depth of the bias against
technology - and serious evaluation - in the education establishment.
Of course, technology (as hardware) affects learning profoundly. Or else none
of us would be reading this. Technology 'as hardware' forces its users to
learn how to use it, and since this happens to include the whole of word
processing, spreadsheets, databases, email, surfing, etc., that's a very
profound amount and quality of learning.
Perhaps what's meant here is that it doesn't affect _traditional_ learning.
That's not only prejudiced, but completely false, too, although not quite
absurd: it's only empirically false, not self-evidently false. What's true is
that _the usual applications of technology_ do not have a significant affect
on traditional learning. But that's just a sign that _the usual people_ doing
this don't bother to study the history of their own subject. Look back to
Fred Skinner teaching his courses at Harvard on his teaching machines for a
simple proof to the contrary; or look at people learning Cobol on PLATO, or
the Orange County community college pathbreakers.
Perhaps we should take this to mean that the usual efforts at CAI etc., don't
teach _signficantly better than_ traditional approaches. Slightly more
interesting claim, but still false since access and cost per student are
crucial dimensions of merit in evaluating a method of teaching.
It's too bad we don't bother to systematically improve education, instead of
getting into the fashion business. It's costly to students and the society,
to a degree which we may not be able to afford much longer.
Michael Scriven
Professor of Psychology
Claremont Graduate University
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.gmd.de/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@ieee.org
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.gmd.de/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu 02 Sep 1999 - 23:41:42 MEST