Debates come in many shapes. In formal terms, for example in Parliament or a university student union, a debate is where there is a proposition such as ‘This house believes that the earth is flat’. Speakers argue for and against the proposition and then it is put to the vote.
We begin by introducing you to just such a type of debate that was carried out on the web in 2007, courtesy of The Economist magazine (2007). The proposition was ‘The continuing introduction of new technologies and new media adds little to the quality of most education.’ Sir John Daniel ‘spoke’ in favour of the proposition and Dr Robert Kozma ‘spoke’ against.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM
Proposition
‘The continuing introduction of new technologies and new media adds little to the quality of most education.’
http://www.economist.com/debate/overview/121
Activity 1a; Jotting down some thoughts
My view -No, new technologies do add quality
In some respects it does add to the quality of education. New technologies offer better opportunities for research. In my school days I found it very difficult to find information about certain subject areas based on the limited resources in my library. Now, with the internet, the world is my oyster! It also means I can communicate with other learners, can learn new language freely via language exchange, etc.
However it does make it easier to cheat so innovative ways need to be introduced to combat this. Also I fear that technologies can be used to much and we could lose the 'inspiration teacher' behind a cheaper electronically based interactions.
Yet I feel if we as a society are using more technology in our day to day lives, then it would be a nonsensical to not include this technologies in our education systems. This would only create a divide between the skills people needed and the skills they were taught. (eg it would be like teaching people the empirical measuring system when society has gone metric).
Activity 1b. Reading the opening remarks
View after opening salvo
http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/120
The proposer
(Sir John Daniel ) believes that technology adds nothing to education. It is used out of context within traditional teaching methods and should just be considered an expensive add-on. It also dos not fulfil its function of 'higher volume and lower cost'. Quality actually goes down because educators rarely know how to use the technology and students prefer to use the technology for other purposes. He is looking at this at the micro level of the teacher in the classroom.
The opposer (Dr Robert Kozma) thinks technology can make a contribution to learning if coordinated with the training of teachers and curriculum modified to utilize its unique capabilities.
There seems to be two approaches to this argument. The proposer is more theoretical in his approach, the opposer is using hard facts and statistics. While both arguments are also looking a the potential of the technology, Dr Kozma's viewpoint is stronger on the basis of the meta analysis he alludes too. Both debaters also play devils advocate, outlining the counter view of their arguments before debunking them,
After the opening statements, I have not changed my mind about the usefulness of technology in education. The skills we learn from the technology are relevant (and therefore useful) in the information society we live in. They may not be as efficient as they could be, due to there practical usefulness, they do add quality
(situated learning).
Activity 1c. Reading the rebuttals.
The discourse of this debate is conversational rather than confrontational. It is far more polite than political debates on TV.
Again, Sir Daniel (proposer) is using anecdotal evidence from his own experiences and theoretical arguments and the abstract nature of learning since the invention of the printing press. It seems he has not done any homework at all! The only evidence he sites is from a recent edition of the Economist which doesn't even back up his argument.
Dr Kozma's uses examples of how technology
is improving education. He a maths website
http://math.sri.com/ to how exactly how technology can provide a enhanced learning environment in which maths can be used in 'real' (but stimulated) situations. The second website he uses is
http://www.knowledgeforum.com/ which involves an online collaborative learning model which the student mostly initiate. As well as these examples of how technology is used, Dr Kozma also has statistical proof of there value in the results of test scores.
If anything I more strongly believe more in the value of technology. I point I never considered but should go back to is how
technology can be used used to create situated learning through simulation.
The moderator also make an important point about the quality versus quantity of education. China and India need to use technology to increase the amount of students, as do third world countries with Millennium goal objectives; yet, he argues this does not mean the
quality of education has increased. I would disagree with this, increased quantities also increases quality of education as now resources (and experiences, etc) can be shared over the worldwide web, thus creating a corpus of active participants from multiple cultures.
Activity 1d. Reading other comments
Interesting points:
It is not surprising to me that some of the failures of technology have occurred when schools have tried to substitute it for teaching — rather than using it as a tool for what students want to do.
As we move into the 21st century, the nature of learning has to change to promote critical thinking and problem solving and to encourage applications of knowledge to new situations. Scientists at the University of California at Berkeley have estimated that in the four years from 1999 to 2002, the amount of new information produced approximately equaled the amount produced in the entire history of the world up to that time (Varian & Lyman, 2003).
Professor Linda Darling-Hammond
http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/167
The lesson for the United States and other countries—from that report and more recent developments—is to eventually find a balance between innovation and accountability. That should be everyone's destination, because that is the point at which educational technology is likely to have its greatest impact.
Mr Kevin Bushweller
http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/168
the introduction of new technologies and media continue to increase both availability of education and quality educational options for millions of learners around the world.
Mr Don Knezek
http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/169
My view:
I found the above statements interesting because they added to the debate, rather than just reiterated facts already told. They also added a different slant to the discussion, for instance the view about the shift from innovation to
accountability was a good point and helped to underline the purpose of technology. I have experienced this myself and often get bogged down with technology- I sometimes think that I adopt a new piece of technology because I am 'keeping up with the Jone'es'. If this is transposed to a wider educational context then I could see why technology does not add to the quality of education. The money for the innovation could have been spent better on different resources.
The later speakers do have an advantage in that they do not have to create there view from scratch. They can tail-gate the arguments of the main speaker and add there views. In a sense a lot of the leg work has been done for them.
My view is still the same.
Activity A1e; Reading the closing speeches
The moderator is providing a commentary and summary of the debate thus far. He is impartial but gives his considered opinion on the arguments. He also acts as a bit of an 'agent provocateur' stirring up the issues! The moderator is the Jeremy Paxman of the proceedings. He also makes some very good points about the debate. For instance:
'If we take the view that computer skills, broadly defined, have established themselves as a core competence on a par with reading, writing and arithmetic. If so, it is not going to make a deal of difference whether people are learning to log-on, or logging-on to learn.'
http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/122
In terms of the debate itself Sir Daniel (proposer) attacks Dr Kozma's use of statistics as providing only a narrow view on technologies merits, compared to the wider macro issue of a broad quality of education. (ie he is attacking Dr Kozma's examples). Yet he does not allude to this wider paradigm other than a discussion on the meaning of the word 'quality' and sites the Open University as an example of technology has increased the quality of education (again debunking his own arguement!). However, his view do show that the parameters you set for the debate is just as important as the debate itself. This is something the moderator keep aluding too (in vain I feel):
Dr Kozma' uses the geographical positions of the debaters to show how technology (the internet specifically) is increasing educational quality. He also includes numerous examples from his volunteering experiences of how the internet has increased educational opportunities. Here is talking of education outside of the formal setting. I find this changes the original thrust of his arguement, but is still more persuasive all the same. I prefer Dr Kozma's view because he is taking a wider view of what education is, and he is not confining it to the classroom-
informal education is also mentioned
In the closing statements there seems to be a direct appeal to the audience of the debate. This is especially the case in Dr Kozma's case as he uses emotive examples from third world cultures. This is the first time I have come across a debate set up like this- where you are filtered only portions of the debate piece-by-piece. I did find it interesting although it was in my opinion very one sided (the proposer was no match for the opposer in my view). I would have preferred if this had been a recorded video debate as we could have seen if the emotions and charisma of the debaters changed the outcome.
A1f Discussion in Group forum,
I really enjoyed this debate. On that basis alone it was useful for increasing my knowledge
at least. The electronic format meant that anyone could join and give considered opinion. (although I did miss the charisma of the public speaker and would be interested in the results of a face to face debate).
I felt the debate was one-sided with only the opposer bringing our pertinent arguments. Very surprised with the result.
They both had very similar views on most issues on what the technology in education
could be, but I whereas Dr Kozma (opposer) did include valid present day statistics and anecdotal evidence, Sir Daniel (proposer) just seemed a technophobe and was disappointed more that technology had not reached some perceived potential without describing what that potential could be.
It was interesting though what Sir Daniel said in his closing statement about the parameters of the debate being eschewed. I felt the moderator did not really set a tight enough framework for debate (but I suppose establishing this framework is another debate in its own right).
