Is E-learning Just Another Educational Fad?
Hi. Sorry that I missed class, but you may say that is where I belonged. Sore throat, coughing, nasal... you get the idea.
So what was said? I already posted remarks about Horizon 2010 and 21st Century Skills in the March 11, No Class entry. So, here I'll discuss the film Jap Zero and Thwarted Innovation. But true to form, not all at once.
NOTE: I did the wrong report for Lana. I'll put some thoughts about Kaiser here in a day or so (today is Sunday, March 21st).
March 22
Kaiser Report. What can I say? It’s a work of statistical beauty, and when reading it, one doesn’t even need to know much about multivariate analysis!
Since I chose the wrong article initially, I skimmed this one or read only parts of it, so I’ll just give a highlight reel. What I read did tell me a few things. First, in a big way, this report challenges one of the assumptions stated in Thwarted Innovation: “If we build it, they will come.” Kaiser’s data tells me that if it is built, they will come. The report definitely shows that as the number of media products to hit the market has increased, so has the number of teen hours consuming content delivered via that media. It appears that Say’s Law (economics) is at work here – supply creates its own demand (Keynes). If it is built they will come, especially when the first ones find the experience irresistible. Then, it’s like a fire. There’s nothing like word-of-mouth advertising.
So, if they have come, what do we do? Did Kaiser cite e-learning as a category? No, but this is very interesting: for the 1999 report, the survey included two questions about why time was spent in front of a computer or TV. Participants were asked if it was to be entertained, to kill time (who in their right mind, at least as one gets older, ever wants to “kill time” *), or learn something (see pp50-51). Curiously, for the 2004 and 2009 reports, those survey questions were dropped. In fact, the word learning is not present anywhere else in the report other than in the 1999 edition questions. Yes, there is lots of talk about grades and race/ethnicity, and the correlations make sense, but this report is tuned with white bias; consider the oversampling of African and Hispanic Americans. Remember X-Box boy from the video?
All data/information seen and considered, the most significant point for me in the report has to be the influence parents have on the way their children spend their time. Connectedness, rules for media use, parent readers likely producing child readers – a certain type of parenting has almost everything to do with how youth spend their time. The sad thing to think is that parents might be either be too tired or just not interested in spending quality development time with their children. Too tired because of work... something needs to change; not interested in your kid... that is just wrong.
* I once heard Dr. Charles Stanley, a Baptist minister, talk on the radio about the foolishness of killing time. We don’t get much of it, so why waste it.
March 20
I heard that Jap Zero wasn’t shown during the class, so I won’t elaborate about it, but since I have watched it I’ll just say it makes one think about how to best offer a film for learning, which I’ll add, is connected to learning objects in a big way.
Thwarted Innovation. Was that an academic work or a written infomercial applauding the success of a research methodology? Sometimes it was hard to tell. Take away the festoon of charts and the verbiage surrounding the innovative tracking tool, and the paper might be condensed to about 20 pages or so, minus the appendices. But having said that, I was pleased that these authors addressed the biases associated with predictions, in particular the way they explained Michael Moe’s wild speculation of what was going to happen. In the long-run, Moe may well be right, but he was obviously wrong for the short-term.
The heart of this paper, for me, was the focus on learning objects. I am partial to them in many respects, and I agree with the authors when they say that the future of e-learning rests with the implementation of such tools. The thing is, depending on the kind of learning object (LO) that is being created, there can be a fair amount of labour expended when making one, not to say a set of them to support a course. Making a PDF is easy, making a Flash animation... not so.
The report commented on the fact that there is a very good LO repository on the web called MERLOT. I have known about MERLOT for a while and I can say that there’s a lot there, but one has to go shopping to find something of value. MERLOT in itself is a good repository because it tags the objects and allows ratings and comments. But it is by links that LOs are accessed, and some links may contain ads or other distracting extraneous information; hence the shopping. Further, many of the LOs that I’ve looked at there are not geared toward K-12 students.
My survey of the LO literature within the last two years shows that there has been a fair amount done about repositories, principally about how to best make one. It’s amazing what can be written about such a simple concept. When it comes down to it, a repository is just an archive, and it doesn’t really do anything to further the use of LOs. That needs to be done by users, and creators. It is true that by definition, an e-learning object (LO) is just a re-usable computer (digital media) file. It might be an applet or an animation, a video or a podcast, or a PDF file or some kind of interactive website, but none-the-less, it’s just an electronic file. But if I make a file and you make a file, who is to say that the files are compatible for use in a course, or that they will equally meet the same student’s needs? This is the current problem with the volume of independent learning objects out there. Sure they are re-usable, but as the report points out, the interface of the objects may be very different, not to mention the content or presentation. The report suggested that what is needed if LOs are to take-off is a consistent system that people can gravitate around, a defacto standard like PowerPoint or Blackboard. To me, in general, this just goes to standards. But to define a standard interface for LOs when the number of creators potentially number in the 100’s of thousands, well, that just might require legislation! Whose is the best? Why? I have asked why the Manitoba government doesn’t create LOs for the on-line courses. The report answers that clearly: it’s about money. There may be institutional will, but support to develop means big budgets, and when there is no proof to show the effectiveness of a program, budgets can shrink fast.
The proof? Where is it? What data exists to show that the use of LOs really does make a difference in teaching and learning? Thwarted Innovation didn’t offer much. Yes the study did find that both faculty and administration said that e-learning is valuable, but it also said that there is little evidence LOs are in demand.
So where does e-learning stand? Will it be just another educational fad? I don’t think so. Though in the early days there may have been a lot of innovators to bring a bunch of very differentiated e-learning products to the market in the hope of a dot com boom, get rich very quick outcome, and though there was a speculation-not-realized failure, as it says in the report at the end, “ultimately, the lure of anywhere-anytime learning will prove irresistible – educationally as well as financially.” Being able to access education at one’s convenience is the catalyst that will keep the fire burning, hence providers need only supply good product. The marketing of on-line benefits will be handled by the communications and tech companies – consider cell phone ads showcasing text messaging. The e-learning engine may be slow to develop, but I am optimistic and think that the 21st century will see an educational revolution. And, I think e-learning will pay for itself, easily. What it may have a very hard time doing – maybe impossible – is replacing the quality of face-to-face learning. Consider this: when a student asks a question in class, say to have an explanation repeated, let the repeated explanation become a canned video. If e-learning, the student would replay the video if the concept wasn’t grasped the first time (another explanation, please). But, exactly the same explanation would be given. With whom does the student connect when the video explanation is heard? In a live setting, perhaps the student needs to connect with the teacher at a deeper level for the concept to be grasped, and maybe that’s the real need to make the concept stick. Possible? Perhaps, but with whom is someone connecting on-line in an e-mail if there has never been a face-to-face encounter or at least telephone conversation? Oh yeah, last tidbit... in the report, the statement was made, “no one had ever asked the students whether or not they actually liked e-learning.” I wonder how significant that is.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Friday, March 12, 2010
No Class 10: March 11, 2010
TED Time...
Everyone please notice that this post went up on Friday the 12th. That will likely be the most significant element of this week's post, the fact that I released my anal concern for getting my post up the same day as the class would have been. Considering that this weekend the clocks go forward, timing seems to fit.
My TED will be on the 25th. The plan is to discuss learning objects in the math classroom.
Will be back soon with comments about some articles.
The Articles: Horizon 2010 & 21st Century Skills
The day after Pi Day. 3.14, you know? In this section I'll say a few words about Lana's and Roland's articles.
NOTE: Old Mike has mentioned to me that it was Kaiser that Lana did, not Horizon. I'll post some Kaiser thoughts in the March 18th post, above Thwarted.
First: Horizon 2010. Question: will mobile computing become, as Jan Chipchase of Nokia says, one of the objects in our center of gravity (see Jan's TED). Our center of gravity is defined here to be the place/space where we keep our critical survival gear, what we really need daily and can't forget: keys, money, and... mobile phones! If the mobile phone has gravitated into the survival space, then it is a logical consequence to have rich media course being offered via smartphone, as is being done at Cyber University in Japan. I am not so sold on this yet. It is here, it's now, but doing a course by mobile phone? Why not? Interestingly, all the schools cited in the report are post-secondary. This here/now idea of phones connects to the rest of the technologies/ideas cited in the report because all the information delivered can come via a phone. Read a book, augment reality, analyze virtual data or do gesture computing... all at a mobile phone. I think that if we (teachers) want to keep up, we need to let the kids show us the technology. We just need to be smart enough to ask the the right questions. In many ways, I still live in the poetic world of timing the rotation of the hands at impact so that the struck golf ball will turn in the desired direction. I have yet to see someone use a mobile device to hit the perfect draw or fade. We are supposed to control the technology, and having said that, I'll mention the issue of making absolutely sure that the software which controls cyberspace is controlled. I can only imagine that once the little bots in the Sematic Web become so numerous that everyone can talk to everyone else regardless of platform, there could be one bot whose record gets mysteriously destroyed, but it remains out there doing its thing. That is dangerous. If something were to go wrong, it could impact many users and data, which brings me to the idea of non-authoritative sources creating information repositories. When Denis hosted the MMYA during our class, we talked about what is important in an encyclopedia. Authoritativeness was raised as an important element. If as it says in the Horizon Report that "the role of open content producers has evolved ... away from the idea of authoritative repositories of content and towards the broader notion of content being both free and ubiquitous," then in 100 years, what will be considered true? Who will be the reliable author of the truth if anyone can create it? I think of Homer Simpson here. What about the Guy Maddins of the world (see Ben's post for this week)? By-the-way, e-books are a good thing, but I think Kindles & the like will eventually be swallowed up by iPads and other integrated devices. The big issue for me with those technologies is the display. Getting a display to read as easily as paper is the challenge. The current ones aren't too bad, so there is hope.
Now Roland's: 21st Century Skills. Hmm. Better ramp-up that competitive spirit! That document read a little like a military campaign, perhaps the way the film Japanese Zero will come across. America's fixation on being the best and dominant society in the world is again made clear. Economic prosperity. Sure.
What is said right on p1 about education being the engine of the 21st century economy, is noteworthy. I would argue that has always been the case, though it seemed not 40 - 100 years ago because of the mass amount of manufacturing here (Canada & US). Also, on p10, there is a statement about skills that "will stand the test of time." Perfect! What are they? The document points us to p13 where it lists a lot of student outcomes, and in the list the word literacy appears six times. So, it appears that a needed competency is literacy. Not all literacies, though, stand the test of time. We know that some of the literacies needed for economic success today have changed. For exmaple, an assembly line job of repeatedly putting in one's 12 bolts for 8 hours during the day is not what it once was. Also, if you don't know how to turn on a PC (or Mac), economic opportunities may be limited. No, if America will be the kind of economic competitor it once was, the report shares an urgency that the student outcomes listed on p13 be met. Having said that, consider what is said on p7:
The 21st Century Skills document reminded me a little of Winner in the sense of business influence on education. We need it, honestly, as much as business needs the graduates of the schooling system. In light of that, what everyday people need to realize is that it is not a government's job to make sure business hires homegrown talent. Why would anyone who is in business pay a native Canadian kid who barely knows how to spell, $20 an hour when there is an immigrant from India with a master's degree who is willing to work for $12 per hour? The sadness here is that the Canadian kid figures that the $20 per hour is an entitlement. Consider that attitude a product of forward thinking no-fail policies of the last 20 years. And there's to the 21st Century!
By-the way, does anyone know when educational technology really began? Denis said 1658 (see his article The Year Educational Technology Began?). Comenius's first picture book, Denis's first educational technology, contained a defined canon of necessary knowledge. In mathematical terms (think linear algebra), we call that a basis (a minimized set). Each era, even generation, has its own vector space (think time). And the basis of the each era's space (time) are the literacies needed to be able to traverse the space. Literacies can and do change, so there is a different basis for every space. This implies that people need to be able to change, adapt. That seems to be the enduring attitude learners of every era need to have, because being able to recognize change and adapt to one's environment is the basis of success, economic or otherwise.
Everyone please notice that this post went up on Friday the 12th. That will likely be the most significant element of this week's post, the fact that I released my anal concern for getting my post up the same day as the class would have been. Considering that this weekend the clocks go forward, timing seems to fit.
My TED will be on the 25th. The plan is to discuss learning objects in the math classroom.
Will be back soon with comments about some articles.
The Articles: Horizon 2010 & 21st Century Skills
The day after Pi Day. 3.14, you know? In this section I'll say a few words about Lana's and Roland's articles.
NOTE: Old Mike has mentioned to me that it was Kaiser that Lana did, not Horizon. I'll post some Kaiser thoughts in the March 18th post, above Thwarted.
First: Horizon 2010. Question: will mobile computing become, as Jan Chipchase of Nokia says, one of the objects in our center of gravity (see Jan's TED). Our center of gravity is defined here to be the place/space where we keep our critical survival gear, what we really need daily and can't forget: keys, money, and... mobile phones! If the mobile phone has gravitated into the survival space, then it is a logical consequence to have rich media course being offered via smartphone, as is being done at Cyber University in Japan. I am not so sold on this yet. It is here, it's now, but doing a course by mobile phone? Why not? Interestingly, all the schools cited in the report are post-secondary. This here/now idea of phones connects to the rest of the technologies/ideas cited in the report because all the information delivered can come via a phone. Read a book, augment reality, analyze virtual data or do gesture computing... all at a mobile phone. I think that if we (teachers) want to keep up, we need to let the kids show us the technology. We just need to be smart enough to ask the the right questions. In many ways, I still live in the poetic world of timing the rotation of the hands at impact so that the struck golf ball will turn in the desired direction. I have yet to see someone use a mobile device to hit the perfect draw or fade. We are supposed to control the technology, and having said that, I'll mention the issue of making absolutely sure that the software which controls cyberspace is controlled. I can only imagine that once the little bots in the Sematic Web become so numerous that everyone can talk to everyone else regardless of platform, there could be one bot whose record gets mysteriously destroyed, but it remains out there doing its thing. That is dangerous. If something were to go wrong, it could impact many users and data, which brings me to the idea of non-authoritative sources creating information repositories. When Denis hosted the MMYA during our class, we talked about what is important in an encyclopedia. Authoritativeness was raised as an important element. If as it says in the Horizon Report that "the role of open content producers has evolved ... away from the idea of authoritative repositories of content and towards the broader notion of content being both free and ubiquitous," then in 100 years, what will be considered true? Who will be the reliable author of the truth if anyone can create it? I think of Homer Simpson here. What about the Guy Maddins of the world (see Ben's post for this week)? By-the-way, e-books are a good thing, but I think Kindles & the like will eventually be swallowed up by iPads and other integrated devices. The big issue for me with those technologies is the display. Getting a display to read as easily as paper is the challenge. The current ones aren't too bad, so there is hope.
Now Roland's: 21st Century Skills. Hmm. Better ramp-up that competitive spirit! That document read a little like a military campaign, perhaps the way the film Japanese Zero will come across. America's fixation on being the best and dominant society in the world is again made clear. Economic prosperity. Sure.
What is said right on p1 about education being the engine of the 21st century economy, is noteworthy. I would argue that has always been the case, though it seemed not 40 - 100 years ago because of the mass amount of manufacturing here (Canada & US). Also, on p10, there is a statement about skills that "will stand the test of time." Perfect! What are they? The document points us to p13 where it lists a lot of student outcomes, and in the list the word literacy appears six times. So, it appears that a needed competency is literacy. Not all literacies, though, stand the test of time. We know that some of the literacies needed for economic success today have changed. For exmaple, an assembly line job of repeatedly putting in one's 12 bolts for 8 hours during the day is not what it once was. Also, if you don't know how to turn on a PC (or Mac), economic opportunities may be limited. No, if America will be the kind of economic competitor it once was, the report shares an urgency that the student outcomes listed on p13 be met. Having said that, consider what is said on p7:
The best employers the world over will be looking for the most competent, most creative, and most innovative people on the face of the earth and will be willing to pay them top dollar for their services. This will be true not just for top professionals and managers, but up and down the length and breadth of the workforce.There's nothing new here; headhunters have been around for a long time, and so has the brain drain. How many Canadians have flocked south with their cheaply acquired skills during the last 25 years? The thing is, it is not only American companies who will pay the top dollar. So, if Americans ramp-up, then they potentially will become economic exports to foreign firms, just like the Canadians have been to the US (and elsewhere, I know). Also, with education and standards going on-line, the proverbial competitors will have access to all the goals the Americans set. Hence, everyone will have the potential to be as good or better than the Americans. Perhaps, in its own twisted way, the US has seen as an opportunity, through it's global education rating, to exercise its messianic mission on Earth, to emanicipate the whole of humanity through technology while playing underdog. Now isn't that a far-out thought! Hey, then they will have competed well, and won.
The 21st Century Skills document reminded me a little of Winner in the sense of business influence on education. We need it, honestly, as much as business needs the graduates of the schooling system. In light of that, what everyday people need to realize is that it is not a government's job to make sure business hires homegrown talent. Why would anyone who is in business pay a native Canadian kid who barely knows how to spell, $20 an hour when there is an immigrant from India with a master's degree who is willing to work for $12 per hour? The sadness here is that the Canadian kid figures that the $20 per hour is an entitlement. Consider that attitude a product of forward thinking no-fail policies of the last 20 years. And there's to the 21st Century!
By-the way, does anyone know when educational technology really began? Denis said 1658 (see his article The Year Educational Technology Began?). Comenius's first picture book, Denis's first educational technology, contained a defined canon of necessary knowledge. In mathematical terms (think linear algebra), we call that a basis (a minimized set). Each era, even generation, has its own vector space (think time). And the basis of the each era's space (time) are the literacies needed to be able to traverse the space. Literacies can and do change, so there is a different basis for every space. This implies that people need to be able to change, adapt. That seems to be the enduring attitude learners of every era need to have, because being able to recognize change and adapt to one's environment is the basis of success, economic or otherwise.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Class 9: March 4, 2010
The Maple Leaf Forever!!
Well, since I'm in the city for a two day in-service, I have the luxury of spending some time at "home." So after I got home, and when eating even more, I asked my mom if she knew that song from the Olympics that Michael Bublé sang. She proceeded to tell me it is an old song and then sang it, the Wolfe version. Uh huh. She then told me that my dad knows it too. Ya, mhmm. My mom and dad both said it was in the Manitoba Song Book and that they used to sing it in school (both my parents were teachers who began their careers in one room country schools... yes, back a few years). The point is, they know it. When I told my mom we talked about it in class tonight and said it was considered a second national anthem, she said "that's right." Yep. Where have I been? Argh! I guess I just read too many Richie Rich comics when I was a kid. You know, we actually had Gold & Silver #1 plus a bunch of others that were low numbers. Don't have them anymore though. I guess it's no wonder that I identified with the commodification of education... have always had $$ on the mind!
Ok. My post is up. Check back in a few days.
Hi, I'm back, evening of Mar 8. Lots can be discussed from this week, enough for about a 10 page essay. But, won't go there; will try to keep it modest, but won't promise full connectivity (more edubabble).
I'll start with Anderson's chapter. I found what he wrote to be full of connections to what I read in Kirschner, and more. Beginning with the term affordance, Anderson gives us some ideas about how the Web can be used to make distance/on-line education almost as good as face-to-face instruction. His play on constructivism is interesting; he says it's about hyperlinking related ideas together. Here I think of the Delicious website: everyone's memory conveniently archived in one spot. I actually read Anderson after Winner and I had to laugh when I read the top of p43, "Communication technologies are used to enhance interaction between all participants in the educational transaction." The emphasis is mine, but the word spin is what is laughable in light of Winner's paper. Winner, as we know, really slammed the commodification/corporatization of education, shall I say, transactional education. Anderson wrote with such nice intentions, but Winner was at war. Actually, I think Winner and Openheimer would get along well.
So, back to hyperlink constructivism: it’s engaging and gets kids asking questions, what I like. Just today I had my middle years students using the Canadian Encyclopedia and doing some searching and reading about the Olympics in Canada. I also had them open a second window tuned to an online dictionary so they could look up words they didn’t know in the Olympics text. It was more like hyper-application-jumping, but it was interactive and effective. This little bit of evidence supports Anderson’s on-line constructivism ideas. There are all kinds of interaction happening when we go online: student-student, student-content, student-teacher, teacher-content. However, it’s not a truly web-based environment because we have the face-to-face component. Also, I’m always there to guide. I give a lot of just-in-time assistance, something Kirschner’s article cited as beneficial.
Anderson again echoes what was said in Kirschner when he quotes Prensky asking “How do students learn what?” Anderson quotes Prensky as saying, four times, that we all learn through imitation and practice. Imitation: examples and explanations; practice: applying what is demonstrated in examples and explanations. On-line teaching-objects for this kind of learning can easily be created and are part of the proposed Semantic Web, which to me really is a rich set of learning-objects designed to afford learning maximization in the on-line environment. Getting back to Kirschner briefly, it is interesting that Anderson points out that the web affords learners the ability to interact with content in multiple formats, but ... that many students choose to have their learning sequenced, directed and evaluated with the assistance of a teacher. Guided instruction, anyone?
I’ll say one more thing about what is written by Anderson. He points to the world-wide collaboration potential that may result by using translation agents. Just imagine being able to discuss ideas with someone in France who is working in French while you work in English. Google translators?
Does the Berners-Lee Semantic Web and the possibilities it represents describe an assault on education the way Winner does? I don’t think so, for as I’ve already said, students want the input of teachers in their learning. There is so much in Winner’s work that reads like Heidegger’s danger, the darkness of education becoming a standing-reserve to the higher power of profit. But, Winner also says that students believe that what is important in their education are clear explanations, fair tests, caring professors and reasonable workloads. Computer integration was at the bottom of the list. That, however, was 1996, not 2010. What might be the outcome of the same survey today?
There is no doubt that the standards Schoffner outlines are related to Winner’s technoglobalism. Actually, those standards in Schoffner read more like job descriptions than educational standards. Some of them are, quite frankly, ugly. You will do this, you must do that. Buzz off! I know those kind of documents need to be deconstructed and then reassembled in a context, and usually I think we can interpret such standards in one page rather that twenty. But it’s not so much the number of standards, it's the demanding techno-language in which they are couched. It’s that corporatism at work, again. If there is one standard that Winner may espouse it’s this, “[develop] a set of well-tuned habits of inquiry and critical thinking that a person [can continue] cultivating throughout a lifetime.”
I could babble more here, but I’ve said enough. There’s more we’ve read and heard that can be connected to these recent articles, ideas from Plato, Heidegger, and Hlynka. The idea of figure/ground Denis discusses in his article Recognition of the Japanese Zero really says a lot about how priorities can be set and what can be made present and spun to ordinary people as important by the powers that be. Consider Heidegger’s presencing again. What is revealed to people as figure or ground is like that exemplar picture of the young and old woman. Which face do you see first? As educators, we need to keep in the figure (foreground) of our teaching those enduring learnings that can ultimately push into the ground (background) the desperate wants of capitalist reformers. Whether we do it on-line or face-to-face is moot.
Well, since I'm in the city for a two day in-service, I have the luxury of spending some time at "home." So after I got home, and when eating even more, I asked my mom if she knew that song from the Olympics that Michael Bublé sang. She proceeded to tell me it is an old song and then sang it, the Wolfe version. Uh huh. She then told me that my dad knows it too. Ya, mhmm. My mom and dad both said it was in the Manitoba Song Book and that they used to sing it in school (both my parents were teachers who began their careers in one room country schools... yes, back a few years). The point is, they know it. When I told my mom we talked about it in class tonight and said it was considered a second national anthem, she said "that's right." Yep. Where have I been? Argh! I guess I just read too many Richie Rich comics when I was a kid. You know, we actually had Gold & Silver #1 plus a bunch of others that were low numbers. Don't have them anymore though. I guess it's no wonder that I identified with the commodification of education... have always had $$ on the mind!
Ok. My post is up. Check back in a few days.
Hi, I'm back, evening of Mar 8. Lots can be discussed from this week, enough for about a 10 page essay. But, won't go there; will try to keep it modest, but won't promise full connectivity (more edubabble).
I'll start with Anderson's chapter. I found what he wrote to be full of connections to what I read in Kirschner, and more. Beginning with the term affordance, Anderson gives us some ideas about how the Web can be used to make distance/on-line education almost as good as face-to-face instruction. His play on constructivism is interesting; he says it's about hyperlinking related ideas together. Here I think of the Delicious website: everyone's memory conveniently archived in one spot. I actually read Anderson after Winner and I had to laugh when I read the top of p43, "Communication technologies are used to enhance interaction between all participants in the educational transaction." The emphasis is mine, but the word spin is what is laughable in light of Winner's paper. Winner, as we know, really slammed the commodification/corporatization of education, shall I say, transactional education. Anderson wrote with such nice intentions, but Winner was at war. Actually, I think Winner and Openheimer would get along well.
So, back to hyperlink constructivism: it’s engaging and gets kids asking questions, what I like. Just today I had my middle years students using the Canadian Encyclopedia and doing some searching and reading about the Olympics in Canada. I also had them open a second window tuned to an online dictionary so they could look up words they didn’t know in the Olympics text. It was more like hyper-application-jumping, but it was interactive and effective. This little bit of evidence supports Anderson’s on-line constructivism ideas. There are all kinds of interaction happening when we go online: student-student, student-content, student-teacher, teacher-content. However, it’s not a truly web-based environment because we have the face-to-face component. Also, I’m always there to guide. I give a lot of just-in-time assistance, something Kirschner’s article cited as beneficial.
Anderson again echoes what was said in Kirschner when he quotes Prensky asking “How do students learn what?” Anderson quotes Prensky as saying, four times, that we all learn through imitation and practice. Imitation: examples and explanations; practice: applying what is demonstrated in examples and explanations. On-line teaching-objects for this kind of learning can easily be created and are part of the proposed Semantic Web, which to me really is a rich set of learning-objects designed to afford learning maximization in the on-line environment. Getting back to Kirschner briefly, it is interesting that Anderson points out that the web affords learners the ability to interact with content in multiple formats, but ... that many students choose to have their learning sequenced, directed and evaluated with the assistance of a teacher. Guided instruction, anyone?
I’ll say one more thing about what is written by Anderson. He points to the world-wide collaboration potential that may result by using translation agents. Just imagine being able to discuss ideas with someone in France who is working in French while you work in English. Google translators?
Does the Berners-Lee Semantic Web and the possibilities it represents describe an assault on education the way Winner does? I don’t think so, for as I’ve already said, students want the input of teachers in their learning. There is so much in Winner’s work that reads like Heidegger’s danger, the darkness of education becoming a standing-reserve to the higher power of profit. But, Winner also says that students believe that what is important in their education are clear explanations, fair tests, caring professors and reasonable workloads. Computer integration was at the bottom of the list. That, however, was 1996, not 2010. What might be the outcome of the same survey today?
There is no doubt that the standards Schoffner outlines are related to Winner’s technoglobalism. Actually, those standards in Schoffner read more like job descriptions than educational standards. Some of them are, quite frankly, ugly. You will do this, you must do that. Buzz off! I know those kind of documents need to be deconstructed and then reassembled in a context, and usually I think we can interpret such standards in one page rather that twenty. But it’s not so much the number of standards, it's the demanding techno-language in which they are couched. It’s that corporatism at work, again. If there is one standard that Winner may espouse it’s this, “[develop] a set of well-tuned habits of inquiry and critical thinking that a person [can continue] cultivating throughout a lifetime.”
I could babble more here, but I’ve said enough. There’s more we’ve read and heard that can be connected to these recent articles, ideas from Plato, Heidegger, and Hlynka. The idea of figure/ground Denis discusses in his article Recognition of the Japanese Zero really says a lot about how priorities can be set and what can be made present and spun to ordinary people as important by the powers that be. Consider Heidegger’s presencing again. What is revealed to people as figure or ground is like that exemplar picture of the young and old woman. Which face do you see first? As educators, we need to keep in the figure (foreground) of our teaching those enduring learnings that can ultimately push into the ground (background) the desperate wants of capitalist reformers. Whether we do it on-line or face-to-face is moot.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Class 8: February 25, 2010
Intersecting Ideas
I guess it would be safe to say that I like Tradition (this post is up, on the night, even when we had been offered a blog week off).
In this post, I'll address the articles presented tonight and some of the discussion that precipitated out. Here's a link to my PowerPoint and scanned Kirschner et al. article (so that you can see my markings and notes on the paper). You'd notice that there is some marked in the paper that wasn't addressed. I presented the schema pertinent to overall learning: "Is there a best teaching/learning practice that is consistent with what psychology has demonstrated to be the way we learn and work best?" How does technology figure into that question? Is technology itself learned best in a constructivist environment? I'm a supporter of guided discovery and use it in my classroom.
More to follow...
March 2
Here’s the more to follow. I’ve taken my time to get this up. By-the-way, those who missed the BYTE Conference last Friday (Feb 26th) missed a pretty good show. Denis may have been pleased with the address given by the keynote speaker; he basically echoed a lot of what Denis has been professing since I began the ed tech program in 2007. As for the rest of it.... lots of tools.
Back to my intersecting ideas bit. I won't say anything about precipitating discussion as I had originally said I would, just comment on the papers.
The three papers, I thought, were quite related. Kirschner questioned methodology, teaching and learning and what works. What’s the best way? That’s individualistic, but in our paradigm of cattle-car education (l’enseignement en masse), we have to have a method that works best for the majority. It’s way too expensive to individualize everything, isn’t it? Perhaps. But, maybe we can individualize everything if we throw enough technology into the system. Computers to the rescue? Oppenheimer suggests not. He even quotes Steve Jobs as saying that technology won’t fix the American educational system. In Oppenheimer, it is also said that at least one big architectural firm still values “knowledge of the hands.” Further, it says that students really don’t need much computer training to be able to do a job or function as a university student – two weeks to two months. So what are we doing, really? The sizzle is a sizzlin, but is there any steak? The Clinton administration, so Oppenheimer suggests, embraced technology in education as if it were a Messianic medicine for an ailing American educational system. Now back to Steve Jobs. Is there an end to this? Well, let me bring Schoffner into the mix. She and her colleagues discussed standards to now be recognized to develop technological literacy, for which she supplies definition upon definition. The definition for technology literacy is interesting in that is frames technology as a tool: what it is, how it works, and how it can be used to serve us to achieve goals. And, ultimately, these goals are professional goals. Standards are set at the top, by professional societies, and trickle down to the kids.
Ok. So what's the point? There's so much said in those articles and I've discussed the top of the iceberg. The the articles suggested that there is a best way to teach and learn, but that does not necessarily mean computers/technologies are the be-all-end-all, and that there must be standards because of the demands of professional life. In a nutshell, is this not all about what is needed to survive? Isn’t that what these three papers have in common? And isn’t that the goal of basic education? Survival of course can mean individual or group, and in the case of the group, it might mean a country generating a better GDP/GNP.
I'll stop now; it is suposed to be a week off. Also, I want to read Jap Zero. I’ll leave asking this question: What’s the best way to arrange all the multi-coloured polyhedral bricks so that people can be happy? In other words, what's the best way to live? I think we need to teach people that all of us need to ask that question. What works for each of us? If constructivism works, then use/do it. If tech works, use it. If standards work, use them.
I guess it would be safe to say that I like Tradition (this post is up, on the night, even when we had been offered a blog week off).
In this post, I'll address the articles presented tonight and some of the discussion that precipitated out. Here's a link to my PowerPoint and scanned Kirschner et al. article (so that you can see my markings and notes on the paper). You'd notice that there is some marked in the paper that wasn't addressed. I presented the schema pertinent to overall learning: "Is there a best teaching/learning practice that is consistent with what psychology has demonstrated to be the way we learn and work best?" How does technology figure into that question? Is technology itself learned best in a constructivist environment? I'm a supporter of guided discovery and use it in my classroom.
More to follow...
March 2
Here’s the more to follow. I’ve taken my time to get this up. By-the-way, those who missed the BYTE Conference last Friday (Feb 26th) missed a pretty good show. Denis may have been pleased with the address given by the keynote speaker; he basically echoed a lot of what Denis has been professing since I began the ed tech program in 2007. As for the rest of it.... lots of tools.
Back to my intersecting ideas bit. I won't say anything about precipitating discussion as I had originally said I would, just comment on the papers.
The three papers, I thought, were quite related. Kirschner questioned methodology, teaching and learning and what works. What’s the best way? That’s individualistic, but in our paradigm of cattle-car education (l’enseignement en masse), we have to have a method that works best for the majority. It’s way too expensive to individualize everything, isn’t it? Perhaps. But, maybe we can individualize everything if we throw enough technology into the system. Computers to the rescue? Oppenheimer suggests not. He even quotes Steve Jobs as saying that technology won’t fix the American educational system. In Oppenheimer, it is also said that at least one big architectural firm still values “knowledge of the hands.” Further, it says that students really don’t need much computer training to be able to do a job or function as a university student – two weeks to two months. So what are we doing, really? The sizzle is a sizzlin, but is there any steak? The Clinton administration, so Oppenheimer suggests, embraced technology in education as if it were a Messianic medicine for an ailing American educational system. Now back to Steve Jobs. Is there an end to this? Well, let me bring Schoffner into the mix. She and her colleagues discussed standards to now be recognized to develop technological literacy, for which she supplies definition upon definition. The definition for technology literacy is interesting in that is frames technology as a tool: what it is, how it works, and how it can be used to serve us to achieve goals. And, ultimately, these goals are professional goals. Standards are set at the top, by professional societies, and trickle down to the kids.
Ok. So what's the point? There's so much said in those articles and I've discussed the top of the iceberg. The the articles suggested that there is a best way to teach and learn, but that does not necessarily mean computers/technologies are the be-all-end-all, and that there must be standards because of the demands of professional life. In a nutshell, is this not all about what is needed to survive? Isn’t that what these three papers have in common? And isn’t that the goal of basic education? Survival of course can mean individual or group, and in the case of the group, it might mean a country generating a better GDP/GNP.
I'll stop now; it is suposed to be a week off. Also, I want to read Jap Zero. I’ll leave asking this question: What’s the best way to arrange all the multi-coloured polyhedral bricks so that people can be happy? In other words, what's the best way to live? I think we need to teach people that all of us need to ask that question. What works for each of us? If constructivism works, then use/do it. If tech works, use it. If standards work, use them.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Class 7: February 18, 2010
Season's Greetings!
I'm a day eariler that I said I'd be. Oh well.
This week, I’ll begin with a piece of the quote Mike said gripped him:
"Assessment and filtering greatly impact the degree to which some technologies can be adopted in schools..."
We’ve been talking about how to assess and filter internet content since the beginning of the course. It’s something we need to teach, a new literacy. Interestingly, I found what I think is a good article in my travels since class time (since I am posting this on Sunday, I had some time to do some homework). It has to do with film literacy and was published in 1955. It can be seen at my resources site (I use the Google free space), titled The Necessity of Learning How to See a Film. It is quite connected to what we’ve been doing with film and literacy and has everything to do with assessing and filtering. The Peters (the one linked above about how to see a film) article also underscores a part of Mike’s second quote:
"... those who have the opportunity to learn technology skills are in a better position to obtain and make use of technology than those who do not."
O Literacy, Literacy! Wherefore art though Literacy? Survival, says Literacy, survival. We must be able to grant equal access to technology if everyone will have the opportunity to find success in the 21st century, unless we go back to horse and buggy. Wealth still influences the digital divide in education, by how much money school districts have to spend on technology.
Anyone know what time it is? Remember, there’s an app for that!! A little segue to my next point, the films! Tom Wujec made his point about the relativity of technology, and so did Sid Davis with his work of safety. “To everything (turn, turn, turn) there is a season (turn, turn, turn), a time to every purpose under heaven.” Do you know the song by the Byrds, the lyrics from Ecclesiates (music by Pete Seeger, 1959)? Not sure how the titleless, creditless YouTube shorts of today fit into what I’ve just said. Perhaps it's that titleless and creditless film is like graffiti. That fits with today’s season... an environmental mess all over, irresponsible corporate executives, unaccountable governments, cutbacks to education funding. Ya, I guess there's a fit. I think the Sid Davis film is more pertinent to the times than is apparent... we always need to be careful how we work and play. That message never goes out of season.
Last message. The BMW commercial. Denis asked, “What’s the message.” Ah... small ideas become big ones that can culminate in a saving power, the Hydrogen 7! Great idea. Too bad it's more expensive to run that car than an old gas guzzler. I am caught up with what Denis pointed to about the duration of the individual shots. How many frames of film? One to two second clips glued together. The commercial is a great short film that has great implications for the classroom. This is not to say we use existing commercials in the classroom, though we can. Here I’m getting at creating short films with goals in mind. How did Madden do his films, how did Sid Davis do his? The techniques of filmmaking could be applied to make excellent learning objects, objects that grab attention and deliver the message. Maybe I’ll have one ready for my 10 minute TED.
I'm a day eariler that I said I'd be. Oh well.
This week, I’ll begin with a piece of the quote Mike said gripped him:
"Assessment and filtering greatly impact the degree to which some technologies can be adopted in schools..."
We’ve been talking about how to assess and filter internet content since the beginning of the course. It’s something we need to teach, a new literacy. Interestingly, I found what I think is a good article in my travels since class time (since I am posting this on Sunday, I had some time to do some homework). It has to do with film literacy and was published in 1955. It can be seen at my resources site (I use the Google free space), titled The Necessity of Learning How to See a Film. It is quite connected to what we’ve been doing with film and literacy and has everything to do with assessing and filtering. The Peters (the one linked above about how to see a film) article also underscores a part of Mike’s second quote:
"... those who have the opportunity to learn technology skills are in a better position to obtain and make use of technology than those who do not."
O Literacy, Literacy! Wherefore art though Literacy? Survival, says Literacy, survival. We must be able to grant equal access to technology if everyone will have the opportunity to find success in the 21st century, unless we go back to horse and buggy. Wealth still influences the digital divide in education, by how much money school districts have to spend on technology.
Anyone know what time it is? Remember, there’s an app for that!! A little segue to my next point, the films! Tom Wujec made his point about the relativity of technology, and so did Sid Davis with his work of safety. “To everything (turn, turn, turn) there is a season (turn, turn, turn), a time to every purpose under heaven.” Do you know the song by the Byrds, the lyrics from Ecclesiates (music by Pete Seeger, 1959)? Not sure how the titleless, creditless YouTube shorts of today fit into what I’ve just said. Perhaps it's that titleless and creditless film is like graffiti. That fits with today’s season... an environmental mess all over, irresponsible corporate executives, unaccountable governments, cutbacks to education funding. Ya, I guess there's a fit. I think the Sid Davis film is more pertinent to the times than is apparent... we always need to be careful how we work and play. That message never goes out of season.
Last message. The BMW commercial. Denis asked, “What’s the message.” Ah... small ideas become big ones that can culminate in a saving power, the Hydrogen 7! Great idea. Too bad it's more expensive to run that car than an old gas guzzler. I am caught up with what Denis pointed to about the duration of the individual shots. How many frames of film? One to two second clips glued together. The commercial is a great short film that has great implications for the classroom. This is not to say we use existing commercials in the classroom, though we can. Here I’m getting at creating short films with goals in mind. How did Madden do his films, how did Sid Davis do his? The techniques of filmmaking could be applied to make excellent learning objects, objects that grab attention and deliver the message. Maybe I’ll have one ready for my 10 minute TED.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Class 6: February 11, 2010
The Strick Encyclopedia
First published in the month of Kygryo of the round-about 11597.238, The Strick Encyclopedia was the first comprehensive information source written in the language Hhiubep. Hhiubep was a language developed by the Monks of Creationium, inhabitants of a satellite colony of Old Earth during the round-about cycle 10000.100 - 12967.920. Every known copy of the encyclopedia was destroyed by the despised Muejiqs in the round-about 12844.331 because it contained references to what was considered true statements of the Muejiq oppresive regime. The Muejiqs had conquered all the people of Old Earth's inhabited life-sustaining soil plantations and implanted in them a technological device that allowed the Muejiqs to control the Old Earthlings. The regime of the Muejiqs continued until the energy source that powered their technology was exhausted.
Ok, I'll quit here. What have I said? Well, really, nothing. But, it could be true, sometime, somewhere.
Tonight's class really emphasized for me the relativeness of truth. When Denis said that he isn't fond of the term Digital Native, I listened carefully to his following remarks. When he said that the youth of today lack context and then related to us the 1972 Canada-Russia hockey series, Trudeaumania, mainframe computers that needed entire floors of office buildings but had much less power than one of today's laptops, and all the other things that I right now don't recall, it struck a chord. Of course today's youth can't relate to our context, our personal histories; they weren't around. In the same way, I see pictures of the homestead of my great-great-grandparents on Henderson Highway, but I can't really relate to their way of life; I have no living context for that.
In a similar way, we experienced during Denis's workshop a song written in Latin. How many in the room had a context for that one? And hence follows the question about literacy. What is it? To come to a satisfactory answer, I traced the etymology of the word literacy at the Online Etymology Dictionary (OED). Since literacy is derivative of literate, I found what I wanted there. To be literate apparently means to be "educated, learned; one who knows the letters" (OED). The word also goes back to the 15th century, when, print was invented by Gutenberg. Any coincidence there? Don't think so. To be "one who knows letters" implies an understanding of what one sees and the knowledge of sounds associated with such letters. ABCs anyone?
In the context related in the paragraph above, literacy is about actual letters of text that we read, but it has evolved into more that just the understanding of text. Being literate does mean being educated/learned, as the definition says, but not necessarily in the art of letters. There is music, there is art, there is film, there is math, there is culture... there is technology. In general, there are different languages, modes of expression, codes... different ways. And these ways speak to what we know, or perhaps better said, what we have come to know.
To me, becoming educated has as much to do with incidental experience, if not more, as does being trained to understand a way of knowing. Sit on a hot stove and burn thy butt and one will soon not forget it. How one comes to know, which implies remembrance of something experienced - learned - is also dependent on the individual frame of mind, or maybe better said, the frame of reference, one's orientation to the world. Can one be literate if one doesn't remember? I think one can only proclaim literacy if one has context, that is, a memory about something, which I'll say may or may not include a deep understanding (consider what Paul said in his Heidegger entry about kids not being tech experts). This suggests that there are degrees of literacy, which we know, from perhaps really knowing what one is doing or talking about (as in a mechanic or doctor) to recognizing a picture once before seen. In a nutshell, there are many variables that make up the literacy equation. It is a relative (relative as a noun, for a thing that has relativeness, like truth). I'm literate in hockey not only because I know the rules and something about who is playing in the NHL these days, but because I know how to skate (and I'll add not too badly) and have a reasonably good idea how to play the game.
When it comes to literacy with technology, based on what I have already said, the relative is context dependent (like everything else). How can I be literate with technology, to any degree, if I don't have access to it or do not practice using it? What I didn't say yet but which is significant is the critical thinking involved in literacy, the amount of time spent reading, playing or using tools. This is very pertinent to teachers. If teachers don't practice using technology, if they don't critically think about how the tools can be used in the classroom, how effective will their application of technology be? I'll leave that for you to answer.
All this talk is bringing me to knowledge construction and constructivism, but I won't go there this week. Let it suffice that I constructed the first paragraph, in the spirit of My Winnipeg, borrowing from Star Trek and "the old country."
First published in the month of Kygryo of the round-about 11597.238, The Strick Encyclopedia was the first comprehensive information source written in the language Hhiubep. Hhiubep was a language developed by the Monks of Creationium, inhabitants of a satellite colony of Old Earth during the round-about cycle 10000.100 - 12967.920. Every known copy of the encyclopedia was destroyed by the despised Muejiqs in the round-about 12844.331 because it contained references to what was considered true statements of the Muejiq oppresive regime. The Muejiqs had conquered all the people of Old Earth's inhabited life-sustaining soil plantations and implanted in them a technological device that allowed the Muejiqs to control the Old Earthlings. The regime of the Muejiqs continued until the energy source that powered their technology was exhausted.
Ok, I'll quit here. What have I said? Well, really, nothing. But, it could be true, sometime, somewhere.
Tonight's class really emphasized for me the relativeness of truth. When Denis said that he isn't fond of the term Digital Native, I listened carefully to his following remarks. When he said that the youth of today lack context and then related to us the 1972 Canada-Russia hockey series, Trudeaumania, mainframe computers that needed entire floors of office buildings but had much less power than one of today's laptops, and all the other things that I right now don't recall, it struck a chord. Of course today's youth can't relate to our context, our personal histories; they weren't around. In the same way, I see pictures of the homestead of my great-great-grandparents on Henderson Highway, but I can't really relate to their way of life; I have no living context for that.
In a similar way, we experienced during Denis's workshop a song written in Latin. How many in the room had a context for that one? And hence follows the question about literacy. What is it? To come to a satisfactory answer, I traced the etymology of the word literacy at the Online Etymology Dictionary (OED). Since literacy is derivative of literate, I found what I wanted there. To be literate apparently means to be "educated, learned; one who knows the letters" (OED). The word also goes back to the 15th century, when, print was invented by Gutenberg. Any coincidence there? Don't think so. To be "one who knows letters" implies an understanding of what one sees and the knowledge of sounds associated with such letters. ABCs anyone?
In the context related in the paragraph above, literacy is about actual letters of text that we read, but it has evolved into more that just the understanding of text. Being literate does mean being educated/learned, as the definition says, but not necessarily in the art of letters. There is music, there is art, there is film, there is math, there is culture... there is technology. In general, there are different languages, modes of expression, codes... different ways. And these ways speak to what we know, or perhaps better said, what we have come to know.
To me, becoming educated has as much to do with incidental experience, if not more, as does being trained to understand a way of knowing. Sit on a hot stove and burn thy butt and one will soon not forget it. How one comes to know, which implies remembrance of something experienced - learned - is also dependent on the individual frame of mind, or maybe better said, the frame of reference, one's orientation to the world. Can one be literate if one doesn't remember? I think one can only proclaim literacy if one has context, that is, a memory about something, which I'll say may or may not include a deep understanding (consider what Paul said in his Heidegger entry about kids not being tech experts). This suggests that there are degrees of literacy, which we know, from perhaps really knowing what one is doing or talking about (as in a mechanic or doctor) to recognizing a picture once before seen. In a nutshell, there are many variables that make up the literacy equation. It is a relative (relative as a noun, for a thing that has relativeness, like truth). I'm literate in hockey not only because I know the rules and something about who is playing in the NHL these days, but because I know how to skate (and I'll add not too badly) and have a reasonably good idea how to play the game.
When it comes to literacy with technology, based on what I have already said, the relative is context dependent (like everything else). How can I be literate with technology, to any degree, if I don't have access to it or do not practice using it? What I didn't say yet but which is significant is the critical thinking involved in literacy, the amount of time spent reading, playing or using tools. This is very pertinent to teachers. If teachers don't practice using technology, if they don't critically think about how the tools can be used in the classroom, how effective will their application of technology be? I'll leave that for you to answer.
All this talk is bringing me to knowledge construction and constructivism, but I won't go there this week. Let it suffice that I constructed the first paragraph, in the spirit of My Winnipeg, borrowing from Star Trek and "the old country."
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Class 5: February 4, 2010
Frames of Reference
During the class, I said a few things about the enframing section of The Question Concerning Technology and read from a paper by David Waddington. I didn't discuss what may be considered an important point or two in that section, so I'll share now what I might have also said.
The enframing is, I think and as I said in class, a frame of reference from which to view the world. It's ironic that Heidegger uses the discipline of physics to make his point because it is in physics that frames of reference abound. It really is interesting in the sense that modern physics is purely theoretical; that is, what is discovered is first put forward through hypothesis, and then from the realm of the unseen, the concealed, comes the proof. When was the last time you saw an atom, let alone a quark? I haven't either, but according to physicists, they are there. Nature has reported to physicists that it is so.
Heidegger said that "because the essence of technology lies in enframing, modern technology must employ exact physical science." His reference to Heisenberg's lecture may be the address Heisenberg gave when accepting the 1933 Nobel Prize for physics - have not been able to verify that yet. I looked at that address; didn't read beyond the first page. Anyway, Heidegger also says that even causality is not the same, that it too has become a "reporting challenged forth." Everything is now coldly calculated and has become ultra utilitarian, physical science supporting all. Not to worry though, the saving power exists.
Moving on, Theoretical Physics (modern physics) is essentially all mathematics. But, like Heidegger said, math existed before technology. Here is where fuzz appears, again. How can technology set-upon math? It doesn’t, unless we’re trying to prove that pi is rational, and then we need a program to run a computer to get to that next decimal place. A program... hmm, I want to talk about that.
Probably everyone in this course has written a computer program. Programming is all about modeling and ordering, an exercise similar to that of Theoretical Physics. Theoretical physicists make models based partially on what has come before, which, when traced back far enough, are built upon direct observation of nature. Those observations were modeled mathematically afterward, not the other way around. Newtonian Physics began with observation, not with math, yet, it did turn into a mathematical physics. No matter. Just imagine that you observe a phenomenon and realize you can model it with an equation. Now begin playing with equations supporting particular phenomena, in the same way Denis was playing with the text/words during class. Let the enframing begin? Play with enough things that you can see and maybe you’ll discover something you can’t. Enough... as I was saying, programming is about modeling and ordering. Not one detail can be missed when composing a program, not one condition overlooked. And while programmers today have sophisticated tools to help create the Windows’ of the world, those tools must meticulously be designed on paper (or in mind) and every possibility thought through before production of them can begin. Early computers would have first begun on paper and all the hardware’s AND, NAND, OR and NOR gates tested by tracing through manually, in the same way we add numbers without a calculator. The computer, actually all modern technology, is nothing short of miraculous. The technology - the techne - behind it is not the laws of physics or chemistry, it’s the reason and creativity that went into combining the scientific laws with pure logic. Programming, actually all engineering design, is a perfect act of enframing. But, it is all grounded in revealing, a process directed by Being (so Heidegger might say). The modern machine, in the generic sense of the word, is a work of art, just like the chalice. Given what I have just said, the essence of technology just might be pure reason, which can be said to be spirit. I read that in a book somewhere years ago, that spirit is pure reason. Hence, the essence of technology is nothing physical, and as Heidegger says, it is an illusion to think so. Spirit, by the way, can be argued to be the essence of Being. So, logical syllogism applied, Being is technology. Yes... so, if technology is Being revealed, then enframing must be a destining because Being does things on its own terms. Having said that, I still believe in free choice, as I said in my handout. But, wouldn't it be something if the choices we make, which we think are free, are actually predestined. That, is on the edge. One last observation regarding revealing, the light from the most distant stars is just starting to hit Earth now. The universe is revealing itself.
Now, if you are not too tired, here’s another idea. How do we challenge-forth learning? What technology – techne – do we use? Denis pointed out that his iPhone challenges him... well, I’ll say preoccupies him. But, he is interested in it... and he is learning. The technology is challenging-forth learning. Something I heard on the radio today struck me. I was listening to The Age of Persuasion on CBC radio one, 990. Host Terry O’Reilly talked about media theorist Neil Postman, saying that he said that when there was only printed materials, people thought in text, in print. They would have also thought in images, and music. Today, people also think in hyper-mode media: websites, TV, smartphone. Designing curricula for all the media of current thought sounds like a good idea.
During the class, I said a few things about the enframing section of The Question Concerning Technology and read from a paper by David Waddington. I didn't discuss what may be considered an important point or two in that section, so I'll share now what I might have also said.
The enframing is, I think and as I said in class, a frame of reference from which to view the world. It's ironic that Heidegger uses the discipline of physics to make his point because it is in physics that frames of reference abound. It really is interesting in the sense that modern physics is purely theoretical; that is, what is discovered is first put forward through hypothesis, and then from the realm of the unseen, the concealed, comes the proof. When was the last time you saw an atom, let alone a quark? I haven't either, but according to physicists, they are there. Nature has reported to physicists that it is so.
Heidegger said that "because the essence of technology lies in enframing, modern technology must employ exact physical science." His reference to Heisenberg's lecture may be the address Heisenberg gave when accepting the 1933 Nobel Prize for physics - have not been able to verify that yet. I looked at that address; didn't read beyond the first page. Anyway, Heidegger also says that even causality is not the same, that it too has become a "reporting challenged forth." Everything is now coldly calculated and has become ultra utilitarian, physical science supporting all. Not to worry though, the saving power exists.
Moving on, Theoretical Physics (modern physics) is essentially all mathematics. But, like Heidegger said, math existed before technology. Here is where fuzz appears, again. How can technology set-upon math? It doesn’t, unless we’re trying to prove that pi is rational, and then we need a program to run a computer to get to that next decimal place. A program... hmm, I want to talk about that.
Probably everyone in this course has written a computer program. Programming is all about modeling and ordering, an exercise similar to that of Theoretical Physics. Theoretical physicists make models based partially on what has come before, which, when traced back far enough, are built upon direct observation of nature. Those observations were modeled mathematically afterward, not the other way around. Newtonian Physics began with observation, not with math, yet, it did turn into a mathematical physics. No matter. Just imagine that you observe a phenomenon and realize you can model it with an equation. Now begin playing with equations supporting particular phenomena, in the same way Denis was playing with the text/words during class. Let the enframing begin? Play with enough things that you can see and maybe you’ll discover something you can’t. Enough... as I was saying, programming is about modeling and ordering. Not one detail can be missed when composing a program, not one condition overlooked. And while programmers today have sophisticated tools to help create the Windows’ of the world, those tools must meticulously be designed on paper (or in mind) and every possibility thought through before production of them can begin. Early computers would have first begun on paper and all the hardware’s AND, NAND, OR and NOR gates tested by tracing through manually, in the same way we add numbers without a calculator. The computer, actually all modern technology, is nothing short of miraculous. The technology - the techne - behind it is not the laws of physics or chemistry, it’s the reason and creativity that went into combining the scientific laws with pure logic. Programming, actually all engineering design, is a perfect act of enframing. But, it is all grounded in revealing, a process directed by Being (so Heidegger might say). The modern machine, in the generic sense of the word, is a work of art, just like the chalice. Given what I have just said, the essence of technology just might be pure reason, which can be said to be spirit. I read that in a book somewhere years ago, that spirit is pure reason. Hence, the essence of technology is nothing physical, and as Heidegger says, it is an illusion to think so. Spirit, by the way, can be argued to be the essence of Being. So, logical syllogism applied, Being is technology. Yes... so, if technology is Being revealed, then enframing must be a destining because Being does things on its own terms. Having said that, I still believe in free choice, as I said in my handout. But, wouldn't it be something if the choices we make, which we think are free, are actually predestined. That, is on the edge. One last observation regarding revealing, the light from the most distant stars is just starting to hit Earth now. The universe is revealing itself.
Now, if you are not too tired, here’s another idea. How do we challenge-forth learning? What technology – techne – do we use? Denis pointed out that his iPhone challenges him... well, I’ll say preoccupies him. But, he is interested in it... and he is learning. The technology is challenging-forth learning. Something I heard on the radio today struck me. I was listening to The Age of Persuasion on CBC radio one, 990. Host Terry O’Reilly talked about media theorist Neil Postman, saying that he said that when there was only printed materials, people thought in text, in print. They would have also thought in images, and music. Today, people also think in hyper-mode media: websites, TV, smartphone. Designing curricula for all the media of current thought sounds like a good idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)