Week 18 Activity a1: The challenge for educational institutions

The challenge for educational institutions

Weller (2009) ‘Using learning environments as a metaphor for educational change’, in On the Horizon

In this article Weller suggests that the use of Learning Management Systems (LMS) is an old fashioned way to use very new technology. The uptake of new technologies is organic and built on the perceptions of old techniques- thus LMS are built which represent standard formal red brick university structures. With the advent of Web 2.0 technologies this is a fundamental problem. Web 2.0 technologies mean the way information is generated is fundamentally different from these traditional approache, it has become more democratic, participatory and user driven (bottom up). One way of overcoming this is for universities to provide only the tools for participation, but allow students to control the outcomes. The Open University iniative Social Learn http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/sociallearn/ was used as an example of a new paragidm shift in pedogogy where the students are in control of their own learning outcomes and learn in an undirected way throuhg collobration with their peers. BUT how can students who learn in this way prove they have the knowlegde if they are applying for a job, etc?. And where is the accountability?

In this course H800 the use of meta-blogs and wikis has been one way in which information and learning has been sourced from the bottom up. However because this has been directed by the course content, even these tools are not really bottom-up iniatives. Students feel inclined to use the meta-blogs and the wikis because they are directed to do so. Perhaps a better example is the H800 cafe forums which are to a large extent self regulated by the students (unlike the tutor group forums which are regulated by the tutor.

But even this is not really bottom-up learning as the fundamental theme of H800 is that of participation. You must participate. This is the fundamental problem of Wellers article, the asumption that students want to participate and are confident to do so. I would argue this is not the case- some students would just prefer to read a book on their own. By making the assumption that it is preferable to participate it could lead to the situation where students have to participate...

Key quotes

'The conclusion from this analysis is that there is a conflict between the centralised learning management system (LMS) and the requirements of online pedagogy. The traditional LMS can be seen as embodying the wrong metaphor, that of the traditional classroom.'

'It has often been noted that when a new technology arrives we tend to use it in old ways (eg Twigg 2001), before we begin to understand what it really offers'

This true of Facebok for instance which started out just as a 'fun' website for university networking. Another example would also be twitter. These were grown from 'below' in the sense that the increase in each media's users, meant the media became more important. Only much later corporations would use this social media as a tool to promote their products. You can also see many instances in history where this has occurred; for instance the mplications of the printing press was not realised until the Guttenburg bible- some may say it has not been fully realised yet. Also some cultures do not see the potential of new technology. China invented gun powder but used it for only fireworks.  Weller also uses the example of the TV intially being considered the 'radio with pictures'. 'This is a sensible way to proceed, since the uptake of technology is rarely a revolution, and more of an evolutionary approach'.


Yet the process is not always so natural a process.

Heppell (2001) argues that “we continually make the error of subjugating technology to our present practice rather than allowing it to free us from the tyranny of past mistakes".

In elearning terms, current LMSs can be seen as the embodiment in code of the

physical structures of learning'."

So if the new technologies are used in an old fashioned way based on principles set in physicalk school environments this means the potential full spectrum  uses of this technology is not realised. These include:

Increase of curriculum. Traditional red-brick educational institutions have overheads to pay and are confined to a geographical location. Therefore, they have a bums on seats policy which means they cannot introduce niche subjects for fear of there unpopularity. Funnily enough the Open University, which has over 200,000 students does not introduce niche subjects!

Personalisation of in the choices of tools you use to learn. Still students follow age old techniques as universities seek enculturation of students into their higher education community,

Meeting changing demands: for instance an e-skills report for the European Union (COM 2007) suggests that conventional higher education is failing to meet the needs of the workforce

Availability of informal learning.

Week 11 activity 1 Debate technology and media in education

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).