Revolutionizing learning in the Digital Age

Education, information and computers are synonymous. A separation of one from the other will not be a wise thing to do. Focusing on one or two and leaving out the other can be interference in a marriage ultimately causing a lasting damage. Revolutionizing learning in the digital age requires digital equity. The product of this will be individuals that are not just consumers of information but are also producers. In an ecosystem, the rule requires a symbiotic relationship. If we all want to consume what someone produced and find no need in giving back in anyway, eventually the symbiotic relationship will be broken and the habitat is destroyed. Learning is a two way communication link. Ability to think, collaborate, social learning and the constructivist approach are fundamental building blocks in our revolutionizing of learning in this digital age.

We have to move past the idea of looking at computers as just an information machine. We have to see it as a tool for constructing knowledge, like finger paint, it should be used to design and create things (Resnick, 1998). Our homework in my TBTE 406 class is no doubt perfect examples of knowledge creation and creativity. It enables individuals to apply and create something of significance and ultimately equip us for a career in teaching and learning effectively. We are able to use computers as a material for making a variety of things from videos to instructional materials. We are been thought not just how to use computer technology but how to construct something significant with computer, thereby fluency with computers.

The digital divide in our society and many others is bound to come to an end with the cost of computers on a decline, and then there will be no more excuses as to why someone is dormant and unable to create knowledge. Jobs in the horizon are continuously looking for 21st century skills in potential candidates. Are you going to be ready, fully equipped for every good work, competent and ashamed of nothing? Now is the time to work on shortening the access gap and also shrink the fluency gap that is currently inherent in digital divide (Resnick, 1998). Computers have proven very useful in transforming somewhat theoretical and not easily understood ideas to concepts mastery and understanding.

We will generate wealth, enhance health, and maintain peace locally and worldwide if we improve education (Resnick, 2001). The mastery of digital technology and its application builds self confidence and creativity. For every passing day and night, a lot will be learned by applying self and developing one’s own philosophy and ideas about teaching and learning. In helping kids to learn, we do well to redesign computers targeted to them rather than continuously increasing computer’s speed. This will ensure their personal interactivity with technology, will encourage lifelong learning and learning anywhere at anytime. Learning from group projects involving differing age groups is an excellent way to social learn. The benefits are enormous and very rewarding as they learn from one another. We need to breakdown the walls of classrooms in support of lifelong learning. The creativity embedded in our childhood should be explored, nourished, refined, and developed so that it grows throughout life. New approaches to education and learning, and new technology will help to achieve these goals (Resnick, 2001).

References:
Resnick, M. et al. (1998). The Computer Clubhouse: Technological Fluency in the Inner City” in High Technology and Low-Income Communities, Mitchell (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1998, pp. 266–286); Retrieved November 13, 2006 from: http://web.media.mit.edu/mres/papers/Clubhouse/Clubhouse.htm

Resnick, M. (2001). Revolutionizing learning in the digital age. Retrieved November 13, 2006 from: http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffpiu014.pdf

Rethinking Assessment and Its Role in Supporting Educational Reform.

According to Bond (1995), “content standards - knowledge, skills, and behaviors required of students to achieve at high levels are been developed at the national and state levels in such areas as mathematics, science, geography, and history.” This is in response to the awareness that our society is changing from industrial age to information age. It is no longer sufficient to have basic reading and arithmetic skills, but the ability to access, analyze, interpret, and use information for making decisions are becoming basic requirements for success in today’s labor market. Educators, policy makers and parents are united in calling for a closer match between the skills students learn in school and the skills they will need upon leaving school (Bond, 1995). On a personal note, my interest in classroom activity that cannot be translated to authentic and or real life situations has no value and is considered a waste of my valuable time. It is nothing but pouring of water in a basket.

Teachers need to change teaching and learning geared toward passing standardized tests only. Instructions should be focused on promoting and encouraging “engaged learning” that prepare students for 21st century skills. Passive learning and all support for it should be thrown out the window. Teachers need administrators and policy makers’ support in their effort to root out shortsighted and outmoded learning theory. Challenging human intellectual abilities will ensure they can construct personal cognitive maps interconnecting facts and concepts. Then we can expect real learning to take place and not one skill at a time spoon-feeding (Bond, 1995). Educational reform is knocking at the door and the message is for us to rethink assessment and standards and make the necessary changes in teaching and learning based on authenticated research with clear goals in mind.

According to Roeber (1995), “the real goal of reporting assessment results to students, parents, schools and the public is to help children learn.” This will ultimately give us insight on what direction educational reform should be directed if any. Creating a common ground between alternative and traditional assessment will make sure of the important goal of selecting assessments that match both outcomes to be assessed and the purpose of the assessment (Bond, 1995). I agree with Michele’s blog, “multiple solutions place difficulties on grading and evaluating students against each other.” I think forging a “partnership” between traditional and alternative assessment will work out good for all involved. However, time is needed for any change to occur. Adopting a change before buy-in from staff and not allowing them needed time will be detrimental (Bond, 1995). It may result in resistance from staff and the change may be ineffective. Assessments to determine what students know and what they can do should be identified with purpose since one assessment cannot serve both purposes. If assessment is to be used in any purpose then it should be valid. Drawing conclusion on student X superior ability over student Y needs authentication. A change is good but not easily embraced. However, a careful examination of reason(s) for the change can make the transition easy and acceptable.

[References]
Roeber, E. (1995). Critical issue: reporting assessment results. North central regional educational laboratory. Retrieved 13 November, 2006 from: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/assment/as600.htm

Bond, L. (1995). Critical Issue: rethinking assessment and its role in supporting educational reform. North central regional educational laboratory. Retrieved 13 November, 2006 from: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/assment/as700.htm

Reflection on Bloom's Article

Learning for mastery should be paramount in a teacher - student relationship. Teachers should seek alternative ways to help students who have difficulty in some subjects. A teacher worth his onions would alleviate a feeling of defeat and passivity in all of the students in his “care.” Varied instructional materials and procedures are needed, which may translate to extra work but the best teachers are not in the profession for financial gains but for their passion for molding the “greater tomorrow” – the kids.

According to Bloom (1968), “modern society requires continual learning throughout life. If the schools do not promote adequate learning and reassurance of progress, the student must come to reject learning – both in the school and later life.” How can we allow this to happen to all these leaders of tomorrow? This killing of “embryo” has destructive effects on our society and the results are not palatable. How can we explain the massacre of Columbine High school in April 1999? Some causes and effects could be traced to feelings of defeat and passivity. When students have difficulty with subjects, they should not become an outcast or a subject of mockery. There should be system in place to help students to learn and master the act of learning. The feeling is so rewarding and motivating. According to Bloom (1968), “the clearest evidence of affective change is the interest the student develops for the subject he has mastered. He begins to “like” the subject and to desire more of it.”

Exploration of new information become something fun, but poor performance may become a turn off. We can conclude that mastery leads to motivation for further learning. It is time to discard the broken cistern or what good is it to serve? I reject any teacher that begins a new term expecting only a third of his students to adequately learn what he has to teach, expects about a third to fail or just get by, and expect another third to learn a good deal of what he has to teach but not enough to be regarded as “good students.” According to Bloom (1968), “this set of expectations, which fixes the academic goals of teachers and students, is the most wasteful and destructive aspect of the present educational system. It reduces the aspirations of both the teachers and students; it reduces motivation for learning in students; and it systematically destroys the ego and self-concept of a sizeable group of students who are legally required to attend school for 10 to 12 years under conditions which are frustrating and humiliating year after year.”

Unsupported staff training is bound to have negative repercussion on the staff’s strength and ability to breed students with life long learning goals in their mind. According to Bloom (1968), “most students, perhaps over 90 percent, can master what teachers have to teach them, and it is the task of instruction to find the means which will enable students to master the subject under construction.” Inability to forge this partnership is nothing but a broken cistern. It alienate youths from both school and society. For how long are we going to tolerate this happening?

References:
Bloom, B. S., Stability and change in human characteristics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1964.
Bloom, B.S. (1968). Leaning for mastery: Instruction and Curriculum, 1(2), 1-12.

Reflection on Mindtools Article

Jonassen, D., et al (1998) stated that – “technologies should not support learning by attempting to instruct the learners, but rather should be used as knowledge construction tools that students learn with, not from. In this way, learners function as designers, and computers function as Mindtools for interpreting and organizing their personal knowledge.” Have we seen a super computer without operating system software? Is it possible to carry a title of an engineer without the ability to imagine, be creative, and inventive? A seasoned engineer has some if not all of these characteristics. Think about the bridges, airplanes, roads, and greenhouse etcetera; they were inventions in the mind of the inventors made available to us today employing engineering, resources, and tools. The engineer conveys his ideas effectively using tools; thereby making an airplane a reality.

Instructional Technologists have the responsibilities of using computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. According to Jonassen (1998), “mindtools scaffold different forms of reasoning about content. That is, they require students to think about what they know in different, meaningful ways.” All the beautiful architectural works of Rome, Athens - Greece are representations of human creative minds. The ideas sprung from critical thinking and great minds. It goes to show that we all have some gifts that can be transformed using technology. To implement a technology, someone also has to critically think and apply information in ways that bring results. All of these are knowledge construction ultimately resulting in constructing things. Computers have a place in our life; it is not that of replacing human thinking ability. Rather, it is that of intellectual partnership. Humans have can enhance computer capabilities, and computer can enhance thinking and learning resulting in a great partnership. As specialists, we do not want to be controlled by the tool, neither should computers control learning. Jonassen, D., et al (1998) concluded that “computers should be used as tools that help learners to build knowledge.” They also stated that “that there is the possibility of qualitatively upgrading the performance of the joint system of learner plus technology.” We can conclude that a “symbiotic” interaction between learners and mindtools should be the goal of an instructional technologist.

A successful “marriage” of these will empower the technologist. Computers effectively support meaningful learning and knowledge construction; it should be a cognitive amplification tool for reflecting on what students know and what they are learning. Rather than using the power of computer technologies to disseminate information, they should be used in all subject domains as tools for engaging learners in reflective, critical thinking about the ideas they are studying (Jonassen, D., et al 1998). The process will make obsolete, the traditional methods of computer-based instruction now available. Learning is an active, constructive, and social process by which the learner strategically manages available cognitive, physical, and social resources to create new knowledge by interacting with information already stored in memory (Shuell, 1988). I agree with Papert when he said “when learners function as designers of objects, they learn more about those objects than they would from studying about them.”

References:
Carr, C., Jonassen, D., H., & Yueh, H., (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. Techtrends, 43(2), 24-32.
Papert, S., (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer (pp. 82-103).
Clark, R. E. (1994a). Media and method. The media influence debate: Read the fine print, but don't lose sight of the big picture. Educational Technology, Research & Development, 42(2), 7-10.

Reflection on Papert's Article

Be all you can be! The sky is the limit! I believe I can fly, I believe I can touch the sky. These are no exaggerations. Seymour Papert’s article on “The Children’s Machine” (Rethinking school in the age of the computer), is a masterpiece. According to Papert (1993), “my learning had hit a critical level, in the sense of critical- mass phenomenon of a nuclear reaction or the explosion of a population when conditions favor both birth rate and survival. The simple moral is that learning explodes when you stay with it”. Papert demonstrated we can be all we want to be. We have to be able to recognize that time when conditions favor both birth rate and survival. If we do, then we may be able to conclude as Papert, “the deeper I got into my “affair” with flowers, the more connections were made; and more connections meant I was drawn in all the more strongly, that the new connections supported one another more effectively, and that they were more and more likely to be long lasting”.

Have you ever generated a fatal error message when you try learning something new? You are no doubt familiar with that same error message with a computer system. Sometime you get the blue screen or memory dump error. Did you panic, restart your computer or called for technical support? Our creator (so perfect) ensured we have none of the memory error. Human brains have no limit to the amount of information it can process and or store throughout lifetime. Why limit yourself or “short-change” yourself in life’s endeavors? Why conclude you can never be good in mathematics when you have not even tried?

Why reinvent the wheel? In Papert’s article, is good example of why. We all seem to continue to wholly embrace preparation of individuals to become teachers. To this area there seem to be no more want in pedagogy, learning theories, and all the likes. Papert (1993), stated that “everyone understands that the method of importance in education are those of teaching – these courses supply what is thought to be needed to become a skilled teacher. But what about methods of learning? What courses are offered for those who want to become skilled learners?” What an injustice to all the generations past and present.

We spent so much money and time developing courses for teachers to become skilled but neglect the students? It sounds to me like we started building the house from the roof down to foundation instead of vice-versa. It took thirty seven years before Peck learned how to fix things (Papert, 1993). It is not too late to undo all the injustice to the present and future generations. I have a dream! Let us meticulously facilitate developing courses on how to become a skilled learner. Result will bring untold success to our society. If there’s no student, then there will be no need for the teachers. In this sense, educational reform, Papert style will indeed require a revolution- a revolution in thinking (Murphy, M., 1996).

References:
Papert, S., (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer (pp. 82-103).
Murphy, M., (1996). The children’s machine: rethinking school in the age of the computer by Seymour Papert, 1993 Basic Books, New York. Retrieved 22 October, 2006 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cdli.ca/~elmurphy/emurphy/papert.html

Tarlow & Spangler article

Information highway, gigahertz, megabytes, zoom, clock cycle are a few of the prevalent words on our mouth today as we navigate through the 21st century. To think or not to think, devote time or not to devote time are some common questions that we have to answer. Our forefathers did a great job telling a detailed event from memory; they had amazing memories for land forms or for stories and songs. The problem with that is when they die, details are lost or we totally have no knowledge of events they never told to us simply because it was never written down but passed from generation to generation by mouth. Now the terabytes and gigabytes are here. With modern technology, we add rapid, easy access to that information. We can do things with computer that are beyond imagining (Tarlow & Spangler, 2001). They observed we have access, theoretically, to all knowledge through our literacy. Are we prepared to give up all that proved to be our backbone? Now more than ever, we are asking the question – “will high-tech kids still think deeply?

Technology came and it is taking over our life in ways that we least expected. It will be very beneficial if we stop to take a stock and reflect on whether technology is actually influencing our life in the way we really want it to or has it become a cancer in our life. We cannot discard the building blocks that literacy gave us many years before technology arrived. No doubt these blocks have proven the cornerstone for many generations. Is it time to reject the cornerstones simply for technology? As observed by Tarlow & Spangler (2001), we must learn what we can from children. But we must also redouble our efforts to be sure that they still get the benefits of our oral and literate traditions through plenty of physical activity, singing, making things with the hands, listening to and reading literature, drawing pictures with crayons and paints, sending and receiving letters and pretending.

According to Tarlow & Spangler (2001) we do well to examine literacy, technology, and thinking also consider whether the changes that have naturally occurred because of our available technologies are the direction in which we would want our society to drift. Unlike in the military, we do not want to just obey the last command. Let us employ our thinking to make value judgments, to examine where our technologies have taken us and where they might take us in the future – and whether this is a direction that is good for us. Through literacy we are able to connect and construct meaning. Working hard at a goal and perseverance pays us dividends and benefit others. We should start to utilize our thinking and coordinate that expansion of our thinking modes with ever changing technology. Let us all deep think and make technology a machine - that makes work easier. Our kids are not to become robots coded with programs without which they are no good.

References:
Tarlow, M. & Spangler, K.L. (2001). Now more than ever: Will high-tech kids still think deeply? The Education Digest, 67(3), 23-27.

http://www.fno.org/mar97/deep.html

Reeves Article

Liberation and equity is what all should strive for no matter what background, orientation, experience we sprout from. Cultural sensitivity is not just a matter of identifying and eliminating cultural bias. The culturally sensitive instructional designer and evaluator must be proactive in seeking opportunities to increase the cultural relevance of instructional materials and to build upon cultural diversity and pluralism. The ultimate goal should not be designing culturally neutral instructional materials, but creating learning environments that are enriched by the unique values that are inherent in different cultures (Reeves, 1997). While the evaluation enterprise continues to expand, it remains a controversial field, replete with paradigm wars, competing (if not conflicting) models, and serious ethical dilemmas (Alkin & Ellett, 1990; Scriven, 1993; Shadish, et al. 1991). According to Reeves (1997), cultural diversity has been given little attention due to the fact that most of the evaluation authority has been white males steeped in western philosophy, psychology and research methodology and himself been no exception.

There is nothing wrong in shaping one’s evaluation perspective based on experience but to be an accomplished evaluator, individuals have to address multicultural diversity. According to Reeves (1997), the rationale for including cultural diversity as a critical factor in evaluating instructional programs and products goes to the heart of the challenge of making evaluation a legitimate, ethical process. He also stated that attention to issues involved in cultural and ethnic diversity are not “nice to have” criteria, but essential elements in the evaluation of education and training. Yes, it will be wrong for me to willingly give my prescribed medication to a friend simply because he expresses similar symptoms. A well learned and accomplished American professor with little or no knowledge of the Yorubas or Ibos native in Nigeria will not be the best choice in designing their learning programs and evaluation materials, despite his accomplishments with different age groups and audience in United States. In employing this professor however, it will be beneficial to involve other professionals in the field who are of the tribes and culture.

Delegating diversity and other cultural issues either to the “future issues” category or labeling them as site-specific traits is unacceptable. Insensitivity to some religious believes, race and gender may prove fatal and a wrong ethic. It is also of import for instructional designers not to think they can be an island in a quest to detect cultural insensitivities. While there may be many checklists or rating scales to help in evaluating instructional products, collaboration of representatives of each target culture proves very valuable in identifying less obvious sources of cultural bias. Much is expected from whom much is given. Evaluators and developers have the responsibility to reveal the “hidden” messages of instructional programs and products through rigorous formative evaluation strategies such as observations, interviews, and reviews involving members of the relevant minorities or prospective international users (Reeves, 1997). Let all instructional design and evaluation communities strive to contribute a quota in establishing evaluation as a force of liberation and equity.

References:
Reeves, T. (1997, March-April). An evaluator looks at cultural diversity. Educational Technology, pp 27-30.
Poole, J. A. (2005). Journey toward multiculturalism. English Journal, (94)3, 67-70.