Are the possibilities of ICTs being realised in our organisation?
Access to more/better sources of information: Yes, the suite of products available to delegates has been reduced, condensed into a suite that best fits purpose, not just a huge list to choose from.
Greater flexibility in how/where/when one learns: Yes, specifically when and where an organisation is 24/7 there is a need for protected learning time - they can use e-learning at anytime of day or night, not being dependant on the availability of a trainer/course, or a classroom.
More collaborative learning- Yes/No. e-learning loosely promotes learning on your own but there are also situations where team events are held, each working individually on the e-learning but in a room with others where discussion is encouraged. This has the effect of a common knowledge and anecdotal experience can be shared - situating and contextualising the training.
New/better ways of learning using Web2.0 - No.
Better/More tutoring - Yes, the team sessions are often facilitated by a subject expert, sometimes without the presence of a trainer. This increases that experts facilitation/leadership skills.
Better assessment methods- Yes, a move we have implemented is to have students assessed before being trained therefore leading to more learner-specific training needs.
Open and distance learning the main beneficiary?
Probably, yes, there are other beneficiaries of new ICTs in education. we have interactive whiteboards and such but without ICT the e-learning simply wouldn't exist.
Dis-benefits
I'm not sure that Greenfield offers much in the way of evidence, it seems to contain a lot of conjecture: "It is hard to see how...", yes it is hard to see how but what evidence do you have?
To then suggest that it may cause cancer or autism, without any hard facts is frankly a bit foolhardy and merely sets her up to be shot down. The flip-side of this is that if there were any grounds in what she has said, it has been dismissed as something tantamount to scaremongery and it may struggle to hold any solid argument in the future.
If I believed that something may cause cancer or autism, I would certainly refer my thoughts to organisations like Cancer Research UK and the Institute of Child Health to hear their educated views before making such statements public.
Thursday, 24 November 2011
I think that everybody would agree that there are examples of both very good and very bad e-learning.
I think the bigger danger is bad, not very bad - very bad is easy to spot, bad is a little more stealthy and therefore more damaging.
Analysing age and gender patterns in online usage over time
There is obviously a general trend of increase in all age groups.
What evidence is there that the digital divide in the UK is narrowing between:
Ofcom research shows that just over one fifth (22%) of adult internet users aged 16+ and almost half (49%) of children aged 8-17 who use the internet have set up their own profile on a social networking site. For adults, the likelihood of setting up a profile is highest among 16-24 year olds (54%) and decreases with age. (Ofcom report, 2008)
A lot of the conclusions above are very much governed by the way that statistics are looked at. Disraeli's saying that "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." is a phrase that I certainly hold true.
One thought that I had was that someone in the 16-19 range in 2001/2 would more than likely be part of the 20-29 range by 2007/8 and so on with those surveyed who are near the top of their age range in 2001/2. This means that there is a migration from one age group to another through the life of the study. I think that this potentially means that, taking 70+ as an example, the increase we see from 3% (2001/2) to 12% (2007/8) may be largely catered for by this migration - meaning that there are only a nominal number of new 70+ users during the period.
What evidence is there that the digital divide in the UK is narrowing between:
a. young and old?
There are significant increases of around 30% in the two youngest ranges, this is mirrored in the 60-69 range but not so in the over 70's, with only an increase of 9%. Looked at another way you could say that for 70+ going from 3 to 12 percent is a 4 fold increase(?)
As far as the divide goes there is still significant different from the youngest ranges compared to the older ranges, both increasing but still a wide divide, even a slight widening in favour of the young.
There are significant increases of around 30% in the two youngest ranges, this is mirrored in the 60-69 range but not so in the over 70's, with only an increase of 9%. Looked at another way you could say that for 70+ going from 3 to 12 percent is a 4 fold increase(?)
As far as the divide goes there is still significant different from the youngest ranges compared to the older ranges, both increasing but still a wide divide, even a slight widening in favour of the young.
b. men and women?
There is a general trend for men to be higher users than women until you look at women in the 16-19 range in more recent years, I would suggest that the rise of social-networks and mobile phones are the main leaders for this increase with young girls being ever more active in the use of these media.
There is a general trend for men to be higher users than women until you look at women in the 16-19 range in more recent years, I would suggest that the rise of social-networks and mobile phones are the main leaders for this increase with young girls being ever more active in the use of these media.
A lot of the conclusions above are very much governed by the way that statistics are looked at. Disraeli's saying that "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." is a phrase that I certainly hold true.
One thought that I had was that someone in the 16-19 range in 2001/2 would more than likely be part of the 20-29 range by 2007/8 and so on with those surveyed who are near the top of their age range in 2001/2. This means that there is a migration from one age group to another through the life of the study. I think that this potentially means that, taking 70+ as an example, the increase we see from 3% (2001/2) to 12% (2007/8) may be largely catered for by this migration - meaning that there are only a nominal number of new 70+ users during the period.
Reading the closing speeches
http://www.economist.com/debate/overview/121
A few phrases that I liked from Daniels:
A few comments from Kozma:
The moderator attempted to be the voice of reason between the two 'extreme' views given, adding some agreement here, and some descent there. He asked questions about some comments to make you think about the impact of what the two speakers were saying.
A few phrases that I liked from Daniels:
- technology has underperformed because it is usually applied to help the teacher teach rather than to help the learner learn
- technology may increase the reach of a poor teacher but it will not improve the quality of their teaching
· Daniels accused the moderator of being a traditionalist and this borne out by his fear of parents being left out of the educational loop.
I felt that he was bordering on ranting and offensive - almost desperate by the end - desperate for us to see the error of our thinking that he might be wrong in making the motion.A few comments from Kozma:
- Before this project, they did not know we existed. Now we are citizens of the world
- With technology, these teachers can communicate with colleagues around the country and they can access a portal with the latest curriculum materials
- Ministries of Education in Chile and Singapore, Finland and Jordan, Korea and Costa Rica are redesigning their education systems around the opportunities that new technologies provide. - I think Daniels would welcome this but again stress that it is done to solve a solution not just for the sake of adding technology
The moderator attempted to be the voice of reason between the two 'extreme' views given, adding some agreement here, and some descent there. He asked questions about some comments to make you think about the impact of what the two speakers were saying.
Reading other comments
http://www.economist.com/debate/overview/121
I liked Darling-Hammond's comments... because she agreed with me. :o)
I'm not sure that Bushweller makes it clear what he thinks about the motion - there is no mention of the debate at all. He merely adds weight to what both Daniels and Kozma said; that technology must be used in the best way to suit the particular needs of education.
Bushweller does say that 'In the late 1990s and early 2000s, educational technology experts in America were largely focused on innovation. Fueled by investments by the U.S. government and private groups, educational technology experts were exploring and developing the use of a wide array of products for use in schools.' I can say that this also happened in the private business sector from my experience in a new education dot com company with clients like Hewlett-Packard. They threw money at e-learning projects as if they were the 'silver bullet'.
Knezek again agreed with me, so I like him too :o)
I think the later speakers do have the advantage of knowing what both the proposer and opposers' arguments are before making an informed decisions based partly on what they have heard. They are able to cherry pick the remarks that support their own view.
I have not changed my view, indeed I think that all three of these speakers supports my vote in some way.
I liked Darling-Hammond's comments... because she agreed with me. :o)
I'm not sure that Bushweller makes it clear what he thinks about the motion - there is no mention of the debate at all. He merely adds weight to what both Daniels and Kozma said; that technology must be used in the best way to suit the particular needs of education.
Bushweller does say that 'In the late 1990s and early 2000s, educational technology experts in America were largely focused on innovation. Fueled by investments by the U.S. government and private groups, educational technology experts were exploring and developing the use of a wide array of products for use in schools.' I can say that this also happened in the private business sector from my experience in a new education dot com company with clients like Hewlett-Packard. They threw money at e-learning projects as if they were the 'silver bullet'.
Knezek again agreed with me, so I like him too :o)
I think the later speakers do have the advantage of knowing what both the proposer and opposers' arguments are before making an informed decisions based partly on what they have heard. They are able to cherry pick the remarks that support their own view.
I have not changed my view, indeed I think that all three of these speakers supports my vote in some way.
Reading the rebuttals
http://www.economist.com/debate/overview/121
The style of the two rebuttals is quite interesting, Daniels seems to pick holes in Kozma's arguments (as does the moderator). Daniels gives an example of a 'nuanced' article from the Economist that he then attempts to discredit it's conclusions, then stating that this is similar to Kozma's argument - therefore equally discrediting that.
Kozma in turn seems to take a defensive stance giving empirical evidence to support his arguments, as he did in his opening statements.
Has my vote changed? I think the key word in the motion is most - ...adds little to the quality of most education.
If we are looking at the word most as meaning a quantitative return from new technologies then I am sticking with my against the motion vote. Globally I feel technologies have added quality to education.
The style of the two rebuttals is quite interesting, Daniels seems to pick holes in Kozma's arguments (as does the moderator). Daniels gives an example of a 'nuanced' article from the Economist that he then attempts to discredit it's conclusions, then stating that this is similar to Kozma's argument - therefore equally discrediting that.
Kozma in turn seems to take a defensive stance giving empirical evidence to support his arguments, as he did in his opening statements.
Has my vote changed? I think the key word in the motion is most - ...adds little to the quality of most education.
If we are looking at the word most as meaning a quantitative return from new technologies then I am sticking with my against the motion vote. Globally I feel technologies have added quality to education.
Debates on e-learning - My vote
So to my vote on This house believes that the continuing introduction of new technologies and new media adds little to the quality of most education.
I think I would agree with Daniels and say so far technology has not been well used or used to it's potential but equally I like Kozma's more optimistic view that new technologies are being used now to achieve improved results. I think that we are still not using technology to it's most beneficial outcomes but that the fear of using it has reduced in recent years and also the knowledge of how to. Modern educators are from the generation where they have been bought up with computers and appreciate what they can do and where best to use them.
Daniels stated that technology has been just an add-on, he's right but I think that new technology and the resulting new education is ever evolving in how to put those add-ons to best use, and ignoring the 'fancy tools' which have no benefit.
My vote: Against.
I think I would agree with Daniels and say so far technology has not been well used or used to it's potential but equally I like Kozma's more optimistic view that new technologies are being used now to achieve improved results. I think that we are still not using technology to it's most beneficial outcomes but that the fear of using it has reduced in recent years and also the knowledge of how to. Modern educators are from the generation where they have been bought up with computers and appreciate what they can do and where best to use them.
Daniels stated that technology has been just an add-on, he's right but I think that new technology and the resulting new education is ever evolving in how to put those add-ons to best use, and ignoring the 'fancy tools' which have no benefit.
My vote: Against.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)