After reading everyone's posts and comments about the article, here are my thoughts so far, bringing in some of the things I have learned from another course called Foundations in Education Technology (on a second thought, should it have been called Educational Foundations in Technology???):
Charlene mentioned earlier about having sort of a revolutionized learning environment if technology were to shape our learning. Roger Schank (an engineer researching in the field of artificial intelligence) wrote in his book in 1995 that we have to start changing the way school is run: instead of pouring a wide variety of knowledge into children's head, we have to let them decide what to learn. What motivates them to learn is the acutal need of using the knowledge. For example, if I don't need to use geometry to solve my everyday problem, then why bother learning it? It will just be another concept that I need to memorize in order to pass some math test. On the other hand, I will be much more motivated to learn the topic (and much easier for me to remember) if I am designing something and I need to know about geometry.
What Schank suggested means that as teachers we need to cater the individual needs of our students. This is really impossible to do time-wise. Therefore, we can use technology to help us. Schank and his team at the Institute of Learning Sciences (yes, a different ILS) developed a set of goal-based learning software that specializes in different topics (such as business consulting and examining art pieces to determine their authenticity), and students learn by being put into similuated cases where a problem must be solved in some way.
I believe that Schank's use of technology really takes into account the educational aspect of it, rather than simply producing a miracle tool that aims to sell for money. In this ideal learning environment, students are engaged because they can choose to learn what they like. Rather than learning for the sake of passing a test, they learn for their own sake because they need the knowledge to be successful.
Just my $0.02, although it can open up to quite a debate....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Hey Simon,
Your statement / paraphrase "instead of pouring a wide variety of knowledge into children's head, we have to let them decide what to learn. What motivates them to learn is the acutal need of using the knowledge" is an important one, and
I believe it is one that is going to affect change in future curriculum.
However, if we do let students decide what to learn how can we be sure that all students are learning whats required to go to university? Perhaps by letting students choose their own curriculum but ensuring the necessary skills for future growth are in place is the answer. Does it really matter that students from different schools learn the same thing? I dont think so. As long as the skills are put in place the methods to teach those skills can vary a great deal.
Also, I entirely agree that practical application of what students learn is extremely important to motivation.
I think the question of building our curriculum boils down to who should decide what should be on our curriculum. Should educators, parents, government, or students decide? I wonder who designed our curriculum, but I believe a great part of it was designed by our government. If only students were to pick their own curriculum, then how to ensure they would learn the fundamental courses/knowledge, (i.e. English, and Mathematics, etc.) My understanding is that a great deal of our curriculum design is to be done by a variety of people including educators, parents, and students.
To Ian,
I agreed that practical application is a very important motivation to students. However, I do not agree that we should just teach the skills that they need to do good in university or life, rather we should teach the knowledge behind it. From my interpretation, this is something that came out from Franklin’s article, that we should value knowledge rather than skills. Our students need to learn/know what the big picture is rather than to know how to perform a certain skill.
Here are my 2 cents on the article, I agreed with de Castell, Bryson, and Jenson a lot that our industry is trying to get big money out of our education system. From my personal experiences, I have professor that uses the textbook due to the fact that it comes with a great deal of “programmed instruction package,” (para. 20) such as PowerPoint presentation, and exam multiple choice questions. I think it is for the following reasons:
1. Reduces the workload for the professor when it comes to lecture and exam preparations.
2. “Seems” to provide resources for students to use in the online environment, as mentioned in the article, that it provides a drill and practice to students (para. 11).
But, what our professors don’t know is that we can read the textbook to get the same information from the PowerPoint and it is a waste of time to listen to them repeating the materials. Also, the drill and practice questions are usually multiple choice questions, which mean if we get it wrong when we do it online then we can memorize the answer and still do well on the exam.
Furthermore, I agreed that implementing technology is more than just throwing us the material/resources. We need to provide a setting for teachers to learn how to work with technology. It is important that we allocate time for such training in order to integrate technology into our classroom. Then, we can consider “[to] invent, discover and devise their uses, even as we in so doing discover new purposes, new practices, new knowledge, new forms and conceptions of education” (para. 48). It is similar to how mathematics curriculum had chopped off Euclidean geometry because not a lot of math teachers understand it and a lot of time is required for both the students and teachers to learn. (I believe, now the government/curriculum design community considered Euclidean geometry to be a waste of time to teach in schools. However, Euclidean geometry is actually very fundamental knowledge of mathematics and it is one of the origins of mathematics.)
Hi Simon ,
I mostly agree with Schank, but I don't think he worries much about 'time',he worries about 'money'. He thinks it's too expensive to implant human centered individual learning. So, there is a machine centered cheaper version of education which can be very efficient and effective. I like his motivation theory and individual attention, except his machine(technology)centered idea - I like humans :)
To Ian's comment
Although, not all university prerequisites are not necessarily important, nor necessary, I understand that the lack of assessment tool was one of Schank's weakness. How can we evaluate each student's learning?
That's the challenging part.
To Brenda's comment
I wonder what's the purpose of university education. Was it to produce a doctor or nurse who has the skill to save people, a carpenter to build a house. I believe we can produce doctors and carpenters without university education. They can learn from experienced professionals. I believe universities
started to pass on 'Knowledge' to the next generation. However, modern university is passing on 'skills' rather than 'knowledge'.I think there should be balance between Knowledge and skill.
I agree with Brenda's view that more variety of people should be involved in deciding curriculum. We need a more balanced education program.
Hi Paul,
Yes assesment and evaluation is always a tricky thing to do especially to do well. I would offer that, depending upon grade, the students themselves create the rubrics that they will be assesed upon. With guidance from the teacher such assesment; although not perfect, would be most useful and beneficial to the all the students.
So assesment with or by technology, or asssesment of the good use of technology can be weighed and measured accordingly in a manner created by the student and facilitated by the teacher.
Brenda, yes I agree skills need to be broad in base but focused on student needs; however, not at the expense of stiffiling creative thought or experimentation. Knowledge of how things / skills come to be is important. This in turn will help develop critical thinking and independent thought later in life.
Balance above all is required if we are to survive.
Cheers, Ian
To Paul,
My question to you, do you think that doctors or nurses only have skills with no knowledge?
I believe there are schools like BCIT that could deal with skills training. I believe university is more for knowledge rather than skills training. Moreover, university should teach critical/ logical thinking to students through the use of knowledge.
To Paul and Ian,
I agree with you that we need a balance.
Post a Comment