On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 00:22 -0500, Peter Kupfer OOo wrote: > > The point is not so much analysing the skills set to the last detail but > > deciding which skills are the most fundamentally important and ensuring > > they are consistently developed so that the learner can transfer to new > > situations. If you understand files and data transfer say between discs, > > USB keys etc, its unlikely that you would have a problem using a digital > > camera and getting the files to a computer for editing or printing. > > > > This is why teaching word processing is better than teaching Word or > > Writer or Wordperfect. > > I agree with you. > > Having said that, most people don't get that digital cameras, MP3 > players, and USB keys are all really the same thing.
So maybe we should be educating people from a young age to understand the underlying principles. Its why we teach physics and maths in schools rather than all the different branches of engineering. (Although specific examples can be used to illustrate the application of the principles no specific ones are that vital) > If I am training > teachers, I guess in the short term I would just be concerned with > training them with skills they need as /most/ of them probably don't > care about the big picture. (I say this from trying to explain this > things to my "elder" colleagues.) There are two different needs here. I can use a telephone without understanding how it works but there is still merit in understanding a microphone and speaker so I can understand how not only a telephone but any devices based on these principles works. Now if we want to educate people such that they have the skills to change as different devices change its far more efficient to teach them some fundamental principles. If its simply a lesson that uses a device such as a digital camera in say art, then as long as the people can use it competently to do the job, fine and with some people that might be the only practical option. In technology lessons the emphasis should be more on the basic transferrable principles. So for specialist teachers of IT we should be teaching fundamental principles, for users of IT it might be pragmatic to just get them to use stuff but any understanding of basic principles is likely to make them less dependent on expensive technical support. > If I was teaching kids or a computer class to people who signed up for a > computer class, I would agree with you. I think in the context of the > short and narrow it might be okay as part of the list. My quibble with the list is that its neither one thing nor the other. It doesn't differentiate and is the sort of superficial presentation of technology that encourages brain dead approaches to teaching. From the learners's point of view, particularly in schools, they need both the underlying principles and the opportunity to apply them in a range of contexts. In English lessons we teach sentence structure and the technicalities of the language so that pupils can use these in a range of contexts in other subjects. A geography teacher is not an English specialist but they will probably recognise good technically accurate writing when they see it even if they can't analyse it in the same detail as the English specialist. The same is true of maths and its application across the curriculum. I see no real reason why we should not expect the same quality in IT. Its more difficult because in general the teachers are less technologically literate than literate or numerate. All the more reason to aim to get them to improve rather than just dumb down to a cosy level. That is one reason why I put teachers guides to explain the criteria in the INGOTs and we will produce more exemplar tutorials etc. The INGOT model is designed to educate teachers as well as pupils. > I guess this raises a question. If you are doing staff development in a > school on technology. Should you try to teach universal skills or should > you teach just job specific skills. That depends on the circumstances. I would always try to at least give some idea about uderlying principles *while* teaching the job specific stuff. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. The constaint is expertise as much as time. > The later would be much quick and > therefore more economical & efficient, Quicker does not necessarily mean economic or efficient. Short term gains can be a false economy. A lot depends on the capability and potential of the student which is why we should match teaching to individual learning needs and potential whether its for kids or adults. On the face of it teaching is simple. Poor teaching is, anyone can do it ;-) Excellent teaching requires the teacher to make things that are inherently complex appear simple and straightforward to the learner. This is not at all easy. > but you lose a true > understanding. I would imagine the answer will change over time as the > audience in school teachers changes. When my generation (as a 25 year > old I don't know what my generation is called) is the older part of the > teachers, then maybe people will be less resistant to new technologies, > unless that is always going to be true That is not going to happen if the current generation of teachers pass on the same aversion to change and "need to know" attitudes to technology to their pupils. The principles of digital technologies have not changed since I started teaching more than 25 years ago. There is more bandwidth, cheaper storage and a wider range of applications which will continue to get wider. Trying to teach every one of these as isolated tools without grasping the nettle of understanding fundamental principles is just chasing rainbows. When in a hole stop digging, look up and find a better way. -- Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ZMSL --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
