Subject: The Second Summary of C & I & the Internet
From: Muhammad Betz (mbetz@sosu.edu)
Date: Fri 21 Jan 2000 - 23:17:14 MET
From: "Muhammad Betz" <mbetz@sosu.edu> Subject: The Second Summary of C & I & the Internet Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 11:17:14 +1300
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear IFETS,
1. The following is the Second Summary of contributions to the
discussion on, "Curriculum, Instruction & the Internet." The discussion is
related to a paper of the same title at,
http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
<http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html> .
1-18-00
Ania Lian. Linguistics Educator. Australia. Ania offers first a
critique of Harris' Virtual Architecture. She quotes Harris who states the
premise teachers must create Internet experiences for their particular
students in guise of instructional designers, not direction-followers. Ania
asks, "Do we really know our students and hence can we really act on the
belief of knowing them and as a result take the responsibility of
functioning as Harris wishes...?"
Harris: "Choose educational activities that give students maximal
return for the amount of time and effort that all of us must expend to
ensure success."
Ania: "The efficiency argument always seems dangerous...." In
general, Ania is concerned that Harris is forcing teachers using the
Internet into the role of clairvoyants. Teachers, using the Virtual
Architecture context, would have to make all the major decisions on how the
Internet is to be used and Ania asks, "...don't we end up doing what we
think is good but what at the same time is a one-sided conclusion?"
Richard Caldine. Educator. Australia. Richard works with the
concepts of constructivism and instructivism. He sees a tension between
flexibility and constructivism and states, "...as a subject increases in
flexibility it seems that the degree of its constructiveness can be
constrained." This is a problem particularly in the case of social
construction. The result of this difficulty is a problem related to the
formation of learning cohort groups.
Naude' van der Merwe. IT Professional. South Africa. Naude states
the following advantages for Internet: cost of delivery is cheaper, Internet
never sleeps, production costs are equitable. Disadvantages are: it is a
complex maze, layout and navigation times hurt good content, programming and
maintenance costs are high. He proposes as solutions to the disadvantages:
educational institutions need to join forces.
Naude critiques the notion of teachers using the Internet: teachers
are very busy, teachers lack expertise and time to build curriculum or build
test banks. Internet does allow disadvantaged communities to gain parity,
small business aspects are improved though big business aspects diminish.
He urges the use of Adobe Acrobat to make texts and exam banks widely
available on-line.
Brent Muirhead, Ph.D. USA. As veteran American high school teacher,
Brent observes that it takes time for teachers to feel comfortable using the
Internet in their classes, and that textbook publishers have really tried to
make their books "Internet friendly" by using Web sites to supplement their
curriculum materials. As an Internet consultant for Prentice-Hall's
American history textbook, I found that publishers are developing more Web
based instructional activities. He feels that today's teachers are limited
in the amount of time that they can devote to creating new Internet related
instructional materials, and that more school districts will need to
consider paying teachers to develop curriculum resources that effectively
integrate the Internet into their subject areas.
1-19-00
Tom Abeles. USA. Tom asserts that the solution to Richard's
problem is focus on the management of the project as opposed to the movement
of the students (cohort). Learning should proceed so that learners can
proceed at an individual pace. Only in academia does the Fordist model of
mass production continue in which cohorts are moved form workstation to
workstation. This problem does not relate to constructivism but to flexible
learning.
Tom discourages cohorts as deskilling of the individual. He states that
technology can assist here by allowing students to find their own community
and support. "The problem lies, not in the flexibility options of the
conflict between constructivism and flexibility but in the calcification of
the current academic model."
Jim Ewing. University Educator. Scotland. Jim comments on Manny's point
related to education and training. He sees training as referring to the
knowledge, understanding and skills which are the essential substance
related to HOW to do a job, whereas education is more directed as the
knowledge, skills and understanding relating to WHY that is the way to do
the job. He cites as example the shift in terminology in the UK from the
'official label' of teacher training institutions to teacher education
institutions.
Related to instruction (Jim would have preferred 'learning') involving the
Internet, the concept of 'classroom' is restrictive, because, so much
learning in higher education is now less the result of direct instruction in
the classroom and more from teacher mediation beyond the classroom -
advising, initiating, providing, monitoring, supporting, explaining,
facilitating, overseeing, discussing, co-ordinating, organising and most
importantly, inspiring.
He mentions 6 bases for Constructivism: learning is personal growth;
learning is through collaboration with others; conceptual learning is
through active involvement; the learner should have personal autonomy and
control over learning; learning is context based; and learning outcome is a
perspective and an understanding.
In relation to the constructivist approach to Internet linked learning
environments in higher education, he is presently working on a 'model' which
is formulated around 5 principles of ICT (or more specifically internet
based) learning: opportunities should be available for peer interaction and
collaboration; significant learner autonomy in accessing and using learning
material; computer based learning that personalizes and not depersonalizes a
learning experience; learning outcomes predisposed to the electronic
environment (and the Internet in particular); and there is a central and
developing role for network literacy skills. Further, he identifies key
network literacy skills: accessing resources, and creating personal learning
resources and meaningful communication skills (synchronous and asynchronous
exchange, two way communication etc.).
The challenges within this model are:
* compromise between learner autonomy and shared learning
* personalizing learning
* the key aspects of teacher mediation
Early indications favor a careful structuring of course related tasks
(testing not so much knowledge and skills as an understanding and ability to
apply knowledge and skills to a 'new scenario') and of a high level of tutor
feedback. This latter is very demanding on tutor time but appears to be
highly prized by students.
Catherine Burke, Ph.D., Educator, UK. Cathy expressed her interest in
Andrew's contribution, which talked about the incompatibility of the ICT and
school culture. She goes on to reference R. McClintock, who suggests that
ours is an era in which few have come to terms with the full challenge of
technology. She suggests that a culture that has evolved around the book
for the past 500 years cannot fail to disappoint the implementers of ICT.
She quotes McClintock, "A tool (in this case the book) is not just invented
and used; it may determine the shape of the school. Its use involves a
number of problems that must be resolved. The inter relatedness of
technologies creates complex problems that effect how schooling is designed
or evolves."
Cathy continues that the networked computer has caused her to reflect on her
role as facilitator or tutor in introducing networked learning in
undergraduate courses. To her, while technology has changed knowledge
production, nothing much else has changed, with the culture of minds and
classrooms still centered around books. Book courses create boundaries to
collaboration and cooperative exchange and similar boundaries are
transferred to network computer courses. She relates a recent experience of
introducing web content to an undergraduate course and having to face the
recidivism of students who required the traditional support to function.
The reasons, she originally posited, were a lack of confidence for student
and instructor with technology. Later, she surmised the reason for the
failure of the course to actualize the potential of collaboration and
cooperative exchange was due to the trenchancy of the traditional,
book-oriented culture.
Andrew Wallace. Senior Lecturer. Australia. Andrew W. suggests that
flexible delivery offers the potential to support constructivist learning,
because the choice available to the students is enhanced i.e. the student
determines the ways and speed by which they work through the course
materials. The learner not only controls the pace of learning, but in a very
real sense, also imposes metacognitive principles upon the resultant
learning, supporting constructivist learning.
Flexible learning environments may or may not promote the interchange of
ideas between the students which promotes the construction of new levels of
understanding. Further, the materials may contain approaches which one might
suggest are rather limiting. Flexible delivery is thus no more or less
constructivist in nature than other potential means by which teaching and
learning are supported. It all depends upon the nature of the tasks, and the
way that these tasks are approached and undertaken by students.
1-20-00
Bob Leamnson. Professor/Biology. USA. Bob states that the terms,
'educational curriculum and web curriculum" come burdened with emotional
freight. He uses the adage, "To a person intent on driving a nail,
everything looks like a hammer." From that vantage point, he critiques
Bill's call for non-linear learning, which Bill opposed to linear learning.
Bob feels that Bill has vilified linear learning and explains that although
brain physiology, as explained by Bill, includes the concept of multiple
connections of neurons; it does not negate the concept of linear learning.
Bob accuses Andrew Seaton of likewise driving a nail, which, in his case is
constructivism. Bob notes that the constructivist view has two salient
bases. The first basis (of constructivism) emphasizes that something
(anything) is learned, while the traditional view emphasizes that something
specific is learned. The second basis is that learners build their own
knowledge, which is basically a play on words. He says, "It's something of
a step to go from "building one's own knowledge" to the belief that such
knowledge is therefore essentially private, unique, and incommensurable with
anyone else's knowledge. For constructivist the notion that an individual's
knowledge should relate to some objective reality is out of vogue, but for
others, content remains important.
Bob then refers to the question: should technology facilitate and enhance
what we are now doing, or should we make a radical change and do whatever
the technology makes possible? He warns against too much optimism related
to the prospects of radical change and refers to Cuban's premise of a
trenchant classroom culture resistant to change. He refers to H.L Mencken's
prescription to 'hang the professors and burn the buildings' as the only way
to enact change in education. Bob closes by advocating that technology
should be used to improve what teachers have long known to be the elements
of good teaching.
Brent Muirhead. Ph.D. USA. Brent addresses the concept of self-directed
learning and the Internet curriculum. He identifies the real problem is
having students who vary greatly in their ability to direct their own
learning experiences. Having personally completing five graduate degree
programs, he concludes that traditional and non-traditional schools struggle
to provide curricula that meet diverse needs of a variety of students. He
says that the instructional setting also must stimulate teachers.
Brent's solution is that teachers experiment with lesson materials. He
posits the best assignments as those which stretch students intellectually
but which do not overwhelm them. Specifically, he calls for on-line lecture
transcripts be supplemented by specific questions and class discussion
forums, and he calls for increased funding for teachers who want more
professional training in Internet education.
1-21-00
Andrew Seaton. Educator. Australia. Andrew S. comments that Bob is
driving his own nail, the educational status quo. He corrects Bob's view
that he is driving constructivism to assert that his nail is
ethical/political issue of respect for young people. Constructivism is his
hammer. Andrew adds that he is not a technological determinist and quotes
Allan Kay, "Problems schools cannot solve without computers, they cannot
solve with them."
Andrew disagrees with Bob's premise that constructivism merely requires that
something be learned and states that constructivism suggests that what is
most important is WHO decides WHAT is learned and that both students and
teachers conclude that the learning is relevant and meaningful. He calls
for negotiations between students and teacher to determine what will be
learned. In addition, Andrew explains that the Cognition and Technology
Group is now charting Bob's uncharted waters of constructivist curriculum
theory, and we put ourselves at peril by not acknowledging the that
constructivism fosters respect for the individual in the guise of choice,
relevance and context in learning.
Andrew states that Bob while asserting Cuban's premises of a
change-resistant school culture indicts teachers who have'...worked out the
methods that are best suited to achieve their goals.' Andrew asks, "Whose
goals currently determine what a student experiences? Not the student's!"
He closes by saying that the nail of human history is driving the nail of
restructuring hierarchical and bureaucratic institutions and respect for all
individuals.
Muhammad Betz, Ph.D.
Associate Professor in Educational Instruction & Leadership
Southeastern Oklahoma State University
(580)924-0121 x2326
fax:(580)920-7508
mbetz@sosu.edu
www.sosu.edu/ebs/eil/betz
---------------------------------------------------------
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 - 23:46:44 MET