Subject: Re: IFETS-DISCUSS Digest - 21 Feb 2000 to 22 Feb 2000
From: Jean-Jacques d'Aquin (jdaquin@jaguar1.usouthal.edu)
Date: Tue 22 Feb 2000 - 23:50:14 MET
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 16:50:14 -0600 (Central Standard Time) From: "Jean-Jacques d'Aquin" <jdaquin@jaguar1.usouthal.edu> Subject: Re: IFETS-DISCUSS Digest - 21 Feb 2000 to 22 Feb 2000
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, Samantha Hobbs wrote:
> Both Rowley and Gilbert reject the applicability of re-use to
> 'commercial-grade' courses since the expected standards of 'harmonisation
> and customisation of courses would not be feasible. Gilbert goes on to
> suggests that since anything that is designed for educational use is
> designed for specific learner groups and learning aims in mind successful
> use for learning outside that scenario will be purely accidental.
* Does anyone make a distinction between "education" and "training"
anymore? The whole field of Instructional Design sprang from
successful WWII efforts to "train" GIs. It then spread to other fields
such as "education. Repurposing LOs for "training" is a positive
no-brainer. IMHO, it is antithesis (except at the most basic LO levels
such as clip art and such) to what "education" is. I think Gilbert's
point is fundamental.
> 2. A second area of controversy is the COHERENT linking of LOs:
> Lian sees the development of coherence between LOs in a 'course' as being a
> 'core issue' and raises the question of what creates coherence as a research
> issue. Others propose that the educator is responsible for providing the
> necessary cohesion (type 2) between LOs when they combine them to form a
> 'course'
* The problem (in many cases) is that every "educator" sees him/herself as
an instructional designer, but very few know enough pedagogy to avoid the
"catch-22" of teaching/curriculum-cobbling in the same way they were
taught themselves. Foreign language departments are infamous for having
course design decisions made by specialists in literature who have never
studied (and sneer at) language pedagogy concerns.
> 3. A third issue is the role of INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN or PEDAGOGY and
> ADAPTATION in this process.
>
> Pincas raised the issue of starting point suggesting that many developers
> begin with the LOs and only look at the instructional design later
> preferring herself to work the other way round. Ip suggests a cyclical
> approach oscillating between the materials and the pedagogy in response to
> these concerns.
* Formative evaluation is basic and essential. Any instructional delivery
design that omits that cycle is flawed to the level of criminal neglect.
> Quinn suggests two approaches to combining LOs, 'adaptation' in which the
> system leads and 'adaptability' where students set their own parameters.
* OK as far as it goes. Are we going to let them also grade themselves?
If not, then someone other than the student has to set standards and
criteria and do the summative evaluation (unless the learning is
non-academic). Subject matter criticality cannot be ignored. A 95%
success rate is not acceptable for pilots or surgeons, etc. To what level
are we holding the teacher/instructors that mold our children's minds?
Our police force or elected official morality? Where does "training" and
"education" merge/separate? And what are the consequences?
Jean-Jacques d'Aquin
Department of Foreign Languages & Literatures
University of South Alabama, USA
---------------------------------------------------------
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 : Wed 23 Feb 2000 - 00:01:40 MET