this conversation in several variances is being considered currently elsewhere on the net, particularly around the issue of virtual worlds
Steve's example is right on target. academics hold the center stage because they control the grades/certification which provide for student advancement. That is the one unique product that universities, in click or brick space have to offer. And it is the one reason in the dominant US model that get's student attention for the sage on the stage What business has found out, as have many others, is that social networks (those articles that Steve cites as examples) allow knowledge to be gained in entirely different and collaborative fashion, a fashion that academics might call cheating or disrespectful of the sage. While, Mark is right, that these technologies will find a place in The Academy, they are, almost more importantly, a mirror for the educational system which passively makes the point that Steve so eloquently made. The brick space structure with the sage is a vestigial manifestation of the good old days, going back to pre-print where knowledge was transmitted by those who had the information stored in their heads or had access to the very few collections of knowledge such as the libraries of Alexandria. Even pre-internet, social networking provided ways for gaining critical information. What ICT's show us is that we now have many more and much more to access, perhaps more than a single sage on the stage can offer, except where it has been packaged for delivery in nice 3-credit experiences and vetted by a mid-term and a final for adding a certificate leading towards a collection for cashing in for a sheep skin. It is not important that universities adopt the technologies as much as that they realize that, all factors considered, a brick space campus in its current embodiment is probably untenable- note the increasing cost in human lives (adjucnts) and rising tuition. thoughts tom tom abeles > Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:29:59 -0700 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: digitaldivide@digitaldivide.net > Subject: Re: [DDN] PhD research on OLPC > > Mark, > Your point out that the computer and the new communication technologies are > important to "knowledge workers" in the new socioeconomy, while the older > technologies of radio and television and film were not, and of course you > are right. Your conclusion--that this difference will result in the new > technologies finding their way into the schools--does not seem to speak to > the point of the building-centered -teacher-centered school as itself an > organized technology that accommodates some new technologies and pedagogies > and resists others. > > To fashion an outlandish example, consider the assembly line as an > organizing technology. If the suggestion is made to add a cell phone or > computer to each station because the new "knowledge economy" us built around > cell phones and computers, the counter is that the issue is not the needs of > the larger society but the rhythms and routines of the assembly line, and > whether cell phones and computers can somehow be adapted to the moving belt. > > Online universities seem to be doing very well: since there are no > brick-and-mortar instructional technologies to contend with the new > information technologies that problem is dissolved. "Blended" or "hybrid" > approaches that combine traditional classroom and lecture hall instruction > with online instruction seem to run into the conflict of technologies issue. > I have a small collection of experiences with blended learning culled from > The Chronicle of Higher Education and elsewhere that illustrate the clash. > In one, a professor puts all of his lectures and readings online--and the > students stop coming to class, and the professor has to require attendance. > In several others, faculty hospitable to the computer ban computers from > their classrooms because students are texting to friends or playing video > games rather than attending to what is going on in the live classroom. > > If there is indeed a conflict between the computer and the 600-square foot > classroom with a desk, blackboard, 30 tablet arm chairs, and a live teacher > at a lectern , it may be that the needs of society for knowledge workers > won't make for reconciliation. > > Steve Eskow > > > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Mark Warschauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Without comment on the rest of the Steve's interesting thoughts, I > > would like to briefly comment on this point: > > > > >We might begin by trying to understand why radio, television, film--all > > the > > >earlier technologies that promised to reform education--have failed to > > make > > >a difference in what goes on in those "brick spaces" that Tom talks > > about... > > >Steve Eskow > > > > A major argument made by historian of education Larry Cuban is that, > > since radio, television, and film did not transform schools, > > information & communications technologies (ICTs) will not do so > > either. > > > > Though I agree with the underlying idea that no technology in and of > > itself, will automatically transform institutions (and, indeed, > > critiquing naive assumptions about the deterministic role of > > technology has been one major focus of my work), I think the > > comparison between radio, television, and film, on the one hand, and > > ICTs, on the other, is problematic. Radio, television, and film > > have never been critical day-to-day tools of knowledge workers in the > > U.S., certainly not in the way that ICTs are. Almost anybody who is > > producing knowledge, whether in academic, business, entertainment > > fields, or otherwise, uses computers and the Internet constantly to > > do so, in ways that such knowledge workers seldom used radio, > > television, and film previously. The role of ICTs in education is > > thus much more natural and compelling than that of radio, television, > > and film. I would suggest that attempts to generalize a "ceiling > > effect" for the long-term role of ICTs in schools based on prior > > educational technology research on the diffusion of radio, > > television, and film are flawed. > > Mark > > -- > > Mark Warschauer > > Professor of Education and Informatics > > University of California, Irvine > > Berkeley Place 2001 (for mail); Berkeley Place 3000 (for visitors) > > Irvine, CA 92697-5500 > > tel: (949) 824-2526, fax: (949) 824-2965 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw > > _______________________________________________ > > DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list > > DIGITALDIVIDE@digitaldivide.net > > http://digitaldivide.net/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide > > To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] the word UNSUBSCRIBE in > > the body of the message. > > > _______________________________________________ > DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list > DIGITALDIVIDE@digitaldivide.net > http://digitaldivide.net/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide > To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE > in the body of the message. _________________________________________________________________ See how Windows connects the people, information, and fun that are part of your life. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093175mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@digitaldivide.net http://digitaldivide.net/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
