![[spacer]](/schemes/blue/line.gif){kind=small}
|
1. what did you find 1.1. interesting about the article? The idea that technology alone does not change learning is, as the paper notes, strongly supported by the experiences of the past 20+ years of technology in education. Giving teachers computers does not change education, without looking at education from an entirely different perspective. The (lack of) success of LOGO in traditional educational environments provides an example of the fallacy. I find the ideas that lifelong learning must be a part of work, and that multiple parties are needed to solve complex design problems, particularly interesting, since I have found those things to be true in all jobs I have held that I have found interesting. The paper stresses that motivation is an important part of moving people into design and (lifelong) learning roles, and I agree completely. Motivation for participation and learning deserves research, and I agree that often motivation can be a greater factor than cognitive issues in discouraging learning. 1.2. not interesting about the article? While I agree with most of the conjectures made in the paper, an element that is least clear to me is the forces that encourage this new technological outlook. Most statements seem to say "this (old method) is no longer valid, we have to move in (some new) direction." However, I think that many elements of society can still function in a reasonable way with the existing "gift-wrapped" approach to technology, but could be improved significantly by a different approach. So for me, it seems like going beyond "gift wrapping" does not have to happen, but it certainly ought to. 2. what do you consider the main message of the article? The main message of the article is that technologies have been traditionally used in a peripheral capacity in education, and in this capacity technology will not change traditional educational approaches. However, the paper stresses that lifelong learning and end-user design will become increasingly important, and that technology can truly change education in this context. 3. click on one of the words in blue and see what happens? I am taken to a glossary. 3.1. is this feature useful? Yes, since not all terms must be explained in the paper, but more information is available to interested readers. 3.2. in which other situations have you encountered this feature? Well, I have certainly encountered the hyperlink on many many webpages, referring to relevant information, and I have encountered glossaries in books, although the web-glossary is more convenient. 4. global learning theories and approaches 4.1. do you know any of the people mentioned in the diagrams: 4.1.1. Skinner No, I don't remember skinner, although I gather he is an advocate of more traditional education. 4.1.2. Piaget A developmental psychologist who postulated that children and adults think differently, among other things. 4.1.3. Papert A technologist who studied with Piaget (more below) 4.1.4. Illich don't know. 4.1.5. Vygotsky don't know. 4.1.6. Dewey decimal system? don't know more. 4.1.7. o.k. 4.2. select one of the six 4.2.1. in case you know something–write a paragraph what she/he has contributed to a deeper understanding of learning? Papert, studied with Piaget, came back to MIT and tried to create educational enviroments to give children a framework in which to learn, rather than just trying to transfer information to children. In his book, Perceptrons, Papert gives the example of a system of gears, as a framework in which he was able to understand lots of mathematics. Papert felt that the computer could be the ultimate "gears". 4.2.2. in case you do not know something, find out something about her/him – write a paragraph what she/he has contributed to a deeper understanding of learning? n/a 5. identify one website (and mention the URL) which you consider interesting and relevant for "learning." Write a one paragraph justification! I'm going to hedge a little bit on this question, and say that for my learning on the web, seldom does one website stand out above another. Whether I am using some person's website or cnn.com, if I find information that I believe answers my question or seems interesting, I regard that information in the same way. If forced to give an example, I would cite Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) as a website that contains a large body of knowledge, and can help people learn about an incredible variety of subjects. It is particularly interesting in that it is a community where knowlege is stored, verified, and accessed all by "unauthorized" users from all around the world. |
