Subject: Curr, Instr, & Internet - Response to Bob Leamnson
From: Andrew Seaton (aseaton@tpgi.com.au)
Date: Fri 21 Jan 2000 - 08:10:53 MET
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 18:10:53 +1100 From: Andrew Seaton <aseaton@tpgi.com.au> Subject: Curr, Instr, & Internet - Response to Bob Leamnson
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was interested to read Bob Leamnson's passionate driving of his own nail,
the educational status quo. I'm sure many teachers feel the same as Bob. A
few points.
I'm afraid you are mistaken, Bob, about the nail I'm driving. My nail is the
ethical/political issue of respect for young people. It's not
constructivism. Constructivism is one of the things that (legitimately)
'looks like a hammer'. And I certainly do not support the idea that we
should 'do whatever technology makes possible'. I am not a technological
determinist, 'a position that attributes power to the machines rather than
to cultural values [reducing] cultural constitution of meaning and action to
automatic adjustment to technological command' (Hill 1988). And in relation
to educational technology, I like the statement attributed to Allan Kay of
Apple Computers: "Problems schools cannot solve without computers, they
cannot solve with them".
Bob says that constructivism suggests that 'it's more important "that"
something is learned, than "what" is learned'. I disagree. Constructivism
puts very much as a priority the issue of what is learned. I would say,
rather, that constructivism suggests that what is most important is WHO
decides WHAT is learned - that it is more important that the learner thinks
what is learned is relevant and meaningful, than that the teacher or some
other curriculum policy authority thinks it is so. I don't see
student-centred education as letting the kids do whatever they want, without
guidelines or negotiation, but the tasks they undertake as education must be
perceived by them as purposeful. Bob asks, what will students think about,
investigate and communicate? The answer is, let's ask them, and negotiate
the 'what' to enable an acceptable level of autonomy, relevance,
purposefulness and engagement from the student's point of view, while also
satisfying society's legitimate expectation that the education process will
assist the young person to function effectively within society.
As Bob says, if constructivism is soundly based, it leads us into
unchartered waters. Some, including Xiaodong and The Cognition and
Technology Group at Vanderbilt University, whose principles of a
constructivist learning community I quoted in a previous post, have begun
the most important task of charting those waters. We ignore at our peril the
implications of what we know about how people learn. And the great
contribution of the broad idea of constructivism is to teach us the
practical as well as the ethical necessity of respect for the individual
person, to remind us of the importance of each individual's existing set of
values, perceptions, knowledge, beliefs, purposes and feelings as the basis
upon which they will build (construct) new ones. It reminds us in the
business of school age education in particular, of the importance of choice,
relevance and context in learning. It does, indeed, require us to question
the nature and relevance of traditional formulations of school curriculum.
Like relationships, the most crucial factor determining the character of
cultures is the way in which power operates in them. While intending to
refute Cuban's assertion that it is the social, cultural context of teaching
that is resistant to change, Bob really confirms it when he acknowledges
that teachers have '...worked out the methods that are best suited to
achieve their goals'. Whether they do so individually, conspiratorially or
in some other way is a moot and, in this context, irrelevant point. Whose
goals currently determine what a student experiences? Not the student's!
Schools are still environments with rigid structures of power and authority,
and it is this aspect of school culture in particular that explains why
'schools change reforms much more than reforms change schools', and more
specifically why educational technologies which empower students find
resistance in school cultures.
While many of the 'elements of good teaching' will be preserved, it is the
very momentum of human history that is driving this nail, leading us to
bring about deeply significant changes in how we treat and educate the
young. Education is not immune to the social megatrend toward the
restructuring of hierarchical and bureaucratic institutions, and the social
justice/equity trend of increasing respect for, and empowering of,
individuals and minority groups. Issues of power and control are recognised
as central to current changes in society, and to unlocking the creative and
productive capacities of individuals and organisations. As I said at the
outset, it is ultimately an ethical/political issue, and as a quote of
unknown origin puts it, 'Humanity's real progress has always been more a
matter of conscience than of inventiveness'.
Cheers,
Andrew
------------
Andrew Seaton
Education Advisor - Effective Learning & Teaching / Learning Technology
Education Queensland
http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/aseaton/educ.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 : Fri 21 Jan 2000 - 11:03:04 MET