|
Other discussion points. |
| post a comment | return to elixir overview page |
First, let me introduce myself. I have two identities. One is as a computer education teacher in a K-6 public school in western Massachusetts; the other is as a Visiting Scientist at the Center for Educational Computing Initiatives at MIT (presently working with Roz Picard in the Media Lab).
I would like to offer some random thoughts about technology and education if I may.
In general:
1. Students need to use technology as an extension of themselves.
2. Students need information literacy. How to be selective; how to assess quality, importance, and understand information ownership.
3. Students need to be more human. - form and hold together group relations, have successful collaboration, and understand group dynamics problems.
4. Students need to learn how to learn.
5. Students need to learn how to help each other, to take social responsibility.
These goals are not impacted as much by technology as they are by how the technology is used/applied by people/educators.
An interesting Meta-theme of our time, which is true but not as obvious as it should be, is that:
** eTechnology is not the end result that schools want, the real end result IS curriculum. **
The situation is that the software developers are vicariously/unintentionally making significant impacts on education policy and pedagogy through the software applications they develop. The changes that are engendered by the software applications should be changes that are driven by professional educators who are consciously try to do just that. For a pretty good metaphor of what's happening see: http://www.infotoday.com/MMSchools/nov99/reilly.htm
The most challenging educational innovation in the last 200 years is integrating computing technologies into the curriculum. But this is, unfortunately a task that is, apparently, to be accomplished on the backs of teachers, and in some cases, the students.
Really itís just the same age-old issues (content and process literacy, problem-solving diversity)to solve but with new standards there is a demand for brave new tools (e.g., MIT Media Lab professor Roz Picard's Affective Tutor or Carnagie Mellon's David Mostow's Interactive Reading Mentor, which start with qualitative models, not abstract quantitative models.)--depth is the key to success here.
I would like to suggest a number of controversial hypotheses that can serve to enrich the discussion at the CSCL meeting (and the participants at the meeting may be able to provide evidence in support of one or the other conclusion):
hypothesis-1:
1. position 1: computational environments lead to an increase in interpersonal interaction
2. position 2: computational environments produce a generation of isolated nerds
hypothesis-2:
1. position 1: computers can contribute to overcome the division between different cultures /disciplines (as articulated by C.P. Snow in his book "The Two Cultures")
2. position 2: computers will increase the separation between different cultures/ disciplines
hypothesis-3:
1. position 1: computers increase the quality of education (but to do so, we have to move beyond "gift wrapping" approaches)
2. position 2: computers reduce the cost of education (p.s.: we should always keep in mind: "if you think education is expensive, try ignorance!")
hypothesis-4:
1. position 1: the main focus of computers in education is/should be to learn about technology
2. position 2: the main focus of computers in education is/should be to learn with technology
hypothesis-5:
1. position 1: what is fun and what is educational is at odds with each other
2. position 2: engaging activities and passion are core elements of a learning society
hypothesis-6:>
1. position 1: education should be focused on "Bildung", e.g.: liberal arts, cultural literacy, learn Latin, emphasize "basic skills"
2. position 2: education should be focused on "Ausbildung", e.g.: learn the technologies of the future; this will guarantee you a high paying job in the information society
meta-hypothesis:
these are wrong dichotomies; they convey that we are confronted with binary choices whereas we should see the issues more as a continuum and the opposite approaches can often complement each other in meaningful ways