[Air-l] Technology Transforming Education

[Charles Balch Ph.D.]

Please excuse this if your receive it as repost - I got bumped for length
and am resending.
Charlie
---

Thanks for adding to and clarifying my thoughts Steve. More rambling ahead.

Your point "First: this assumes that good learning results from 'design.'"
is spot on. But I'll see you a good point and raise you one. What is "good
learning?"  I find the definition of good learning slippery depending on my
mood and what model I'm following. I suspect we've all studied the classics
from behaviorism to constructivism and other interesting isms. 

Many of the isms have outcomes that might be categorized using Bloom's
taxonomy. Knowledge is easiest to measure and thus probably easiest to
create ID for (OK - I'm being careful here. Of course knowledge is easiest
to test.)

I see where you are going but I don't agree that "all design can do is
change the role of the instructor." My take is that learning is contextual
in that it depends on the needs of the learner and type of content. If the
instructional goal is to "just" impart some facts, such as basic math, I
think that free programs such as those provided by http://funbrain.com
compliment if not improve upon traditional instruction of facts. (The
effectiveness of funbrain may be because it pops up Maslow's hierarchy as
well). 

Unless we just use the DSM, I see sociology as towards the evaluation area
of Bloom's taxonomy and thus the "correct" answers are increasingly
arbitrary and harder to measure. This border state where many mutually
exclusive answers and methods are "correct" is where life gets interesting.
Modern ID provides the possibility for the sociology instructor to be much
more effective. But what is effective? The instructor's goal might be to
convince or the facilitator/moderator might want to create an environment
where the role of teacher is both blurred and enhanced. 

I'm excited about the ID possibilities of creating a mutual exchange among
learners. You sort of hinted at apprenticeships and internships and I
believe this method of instruction is making a comeback as traditional
academia fails to prepare learners in ways that employers are willing to pay
a premium for. 

The web is already providing extensive areas outside of traditional academic
channels. I'm not saying that Wiki's and listservs are superior to
traditional education but I think we as educators need to aware of the
strengths and weaknesses of all the tools at our disposal.

This is a fun and evolving time. What we create will always be available.
What is used will depend on its perceived utility.

I can't let the "technological Socrates" thought go by. Publishing is not
everything. It could well be that Socrates was illiterate. He certainly
never published. Neither did some other great teachers like Jesus, Mohammed,
and Buddha.

Charles Balch 

-----Original Message-----
From: air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org
[mailto:air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Steve Eskow
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 1:21 PM

Here are some thoughts, Charles, stimulated by your interesting post.

<<I think we are getting very close to instructional design that removes the
need for faculty. For many learners and some content, good instructional
designers are already creating content that outweighs the value added of the
instructor. Yes, such content costs a lot more than each delivery of "chalk
and talk" but, once created, the physical cost of delivery is marginal. Such
marginal cost would be an administrators dream unless they thought things
all the way through.>>

First: this assumes that good learning results from "design."

Most of what we learn we learn through undesigned experience and practice:
we learn to be students, athletes, parents, Republicans, Democrats, cooks,
adults, household repairers. . .without designed instruction. For this
reason there is body of educational practice that proposes a shift away from
immersion in the environment called "classroom" and an expansion of
"experiential learning": having students immersed in the "real world," and
connecting the experiences they have there to the disciplines.

Second, we have had brilliantly designed learning materials for centuries. I
have a sociology textbook in front of me that is "designed" to move a
student from sociological ignorance to expertise. It begins at the beginning
and moves the student to the complexities of sociology in easy--and
well-designed--stages. If design were enough, we wouldn't need sociology
instructors now.

And: there is a television series on sociology that accompanies the
textbook: brilliantly scripted, acted, filmed: designed. And yet we have
instructors.

Or: are you thinking of the notion that the computer can add dialog to the
design--become a tutor, ask the student the questions an instructor might
ask, and obviate the need for a live instructor by being a kind of
technological Socrates?


Clearly your logic is right: if "design" can eventually do all that an
instructor can do, the instructor is superfluous.

Perhaps, however,  all "design" can do is change the role of the instructor.

Steve Eskow