למידה, אינטרנט ... ומה שביניהם

המהפכה הסמויה מהעין: מעולם של בתי ספר לעולם של למידה

טכנולוגיות ה-schooling הם טכנולוגיות הבאות לשרת בראש ובראשונה את בית הספר, ואת האופן שבו הוא מתנהל. ככאלה הם מחזקות ומנסות לסייע למבנה הקיים של בית הספר.

אינה מבנה בית הספר או הצרכים של המערכת, אלא תהליך הלמידה עצמו

User or student: constructing the subject in Edtech incubator

the relations between them (מי שהם עכשיו "משתמשים") and the system are described in terms of services, consumerism, usability and efficiency (עמ' 2)

whether the educational process itself can be understood – and should be understood – in economic terms, that is, as a situation in which the learner has certain needs and where it is the business of the educator to meet these needs. (עמ' 58)

a major reason for engaging in education is precisely to find out what it is that one actually needs – a process in which educational professionals play a crucial role because a major part of their expertise lies precisely there. (עמ' 59)

Engagement can be understood in the light of MindCet’s directors’ explanations: if ‘we are talking about users and market’ our main goals become ‘catch the learner’s attention,’ make him stay and give him the user experience. This is a very different kind of student, no longer one in need of guidance and education from a system based on pedagogical methods and principles, but as one that the product is built for – his or her need, desire and choice – for his engagement as a user. (עמ' 9)

An argument for the isolated classroom

Empowering students to learn does not necessarily mean active engagement with the trends of the day.

Whether it’s one-on-one tutorials at university, or monks studying in cloisters, or Virginia Woolf’s own room, there has always been a necessity to isolate oneself somewhat in order to think. I would like the classroom to be a place where one can think.

imagines that in 10 years, job applicants will tout their Udacity degrees. In 50 years, he says, there will be only 10 institutions in the world delivering higher education and Udacity has a shot at being one of them.

In 15 Years From Now Half of US Universities May Be in Bankruptcy.

אריגה לכל עת ... ואתר

Researchers Create Matrix-Like Instant Learning Through Brain Stimulation

What if becoming an expert pilot were as simple as putting on a cap?

Much as the sci-fi film "The Matrix" depicted a device capable of enhancing skill acquisition, researchers at HRL Laboratories, LLC, have discovered that low-current electrical brain stimulation can modulate the learning of complex real-world skills.

Take the red pill: Researchers develop ‘Matrix’-style brain stimulator that instantly teaches skill

What’s the lure of “instant learning” and in particular “instant learning” via a technological manipulation of the brain? This is certainly connected to the push for “efficiency” in education and education technology. But again, why would we want learning to be fast and cheap? What does that say about how we imagine and more importantly how we value the process of learning?

My prediction is that we are going to ingest information—we’re going to swallow a pill and know English and swallow a pill and know Shakespeare…. It will go through the bloodstream and it will know when it’s in the brain and, in the right places, it deposits the information.

Cease conceiving of education as mere preparation for later life, and make it the full meaning of the present life.

Some five months into the experiment, McBride's fears have been alleviated. Her students are less fidgety and more focused, she said. They listen more attentively, follow directions and try to solve problems on their own instead of coming to the teacher to fix everything. There are fewer discipline issues.

"We're seeing really good results," she noted.

Murray says kids with regular recess behave better, are physically healthier, and exhibit stronger social and emotional development. Still, academic policymakers have been taking it out of the school day.

”They want more academic time, they want more time to do the core subjects," Murray says. "Under the attitude that more is better, they have pretty much carved away anything that got in the way of those minutes for teaching."

Seriously, can you imagine if a teacher said “my students looked at pictures of Verona through the View-Master and now they have a better understanding of Romeo and Juliet”? We’d scoff, wouldn’t we? Yet that’s precisely the crap I’m hearing about Google Cardboard.

In an era when recess for many students has become limited or non-existent despite the known benefits of physical activity, this is a big deal, and something parents had sought.

In any case, recess coaching is a vastly better solution than eliminating recess in favor of more academics. Not only does recess aid personal development, but studies have found that children who are most physically fit tend to score highest on tests of reading, math and science.

Seattle teachers had said they were not only fighting for pay raises but to make the system better for students. It sounds like they did.

ארגון ה-OECD מפרסם תוצאות ממחקר כלל עולמי חדש, שמגלה כי סביבה טכנולוגית אינה משפרת את הישגי התלמידים. מהדו"ח עולה כי מדינות שבהן היה שימוש גבוה במחשבים, לא הגיעו להישגים גבוהים במבחנים בינלאומיים.

Computers 'do not improve' pupil results, says OECD

the findings of the report should not be used as an "excuse" not to use technology, but as a spur to finding a more effective approach.

It is endemic in society now, at home young people will be using technology, there's no way that we should take technology out of schools, schools should be leading not following.

We're training them to use technology which hasn't yet been invented. So how can you possibly divorce technology from industry or from teaching and learning?

עוד מראים הממצאים כי במדינות שהשקיעו במידה הגבוהה ביותר בטכנולוגיה – ספרד, נורבגיה ודנמרק, לא חל שיפור משמעותי בהישגי התלמידים בקריאה, מתמטיקה או מדעים, בהשוואה למדינות אחרות.

באוסטרליה, ניו זילנד ושבדיה, שם השימוש באינטרנט הוא השכיח ביותר בבתי הספר, נמצאה הידרדרות משמעותית ביכולת הקריאה של התלמידים.

מנגד, במדינות בהן התלמידים מגיעים להישגים הלימודיים הגבוהים ביותר במבחני PISA, כמו שנגחאי שבסין, ישנה תדירות שימוש נמוכה מאוד במחשבים.

These findings, based on an analysis of PISA data, tell us that, despite the pervasiveness of information and communication technologies (ICT) in our daily lives, these technologies have not yet been as widely adopted in formal education. But where they are used in the classroom, their impact on student performance is mixed, at best. In fact, PISA results show no appreciable improvements in student achievement in reading, mathematics or science in the countries that had invested heavily in ICT for education. (ע' 15)

PISA data show that, in countries where mathematics lessons focus on formulating, and solving, real-world problems – whether in engineering, biology, finance or any problem that arises in everyday life and work – students reported that their teachers use computers to a greater extent in instruction. (ע' 16)

But while PISA results suggest that limited use of computers at school may be better than not using computers at all, using them more intensively than the current OECD average tends to be associated with significantly poorer student performance. ICT is linked to better student performance only in certain contexts, such as when computer software and Internet connections help to increase study time and practice.

Emerging technology today departs from my previous vision of improving the human condition. Through AI/Machine Learning, we are constantly hearing that technology is becoming more human and becoming more capable of judgements that we once thought were our domain. In education though, the opposite is happening: educational technology is not becoming more human; it is making the human a technology.

Both Udacity and Knewton require the human, the learner, to become a technology, to become a component within their well-architected software system. Sit and click. Sit and click. So much of learning involves decision making, developing meta-cognitive skills, exploring, finding passion, taking peripheral paths. Automation treats the person as an object to which things are done. There is no reason to think, no reason to go through the valuable confusion process of learning, no need to be a human. Simply consume. Simply consume. Click and be knowledgeable.

I no longer want to be affiliated with the tool-fetish of edtech. It’s time to say adios to technosolutionism that recreates people as agents within a programmed infrastructure.

I used to feel bad that I wasn’t “keeping up” and trading in some of my old tools for new ones – no longer. I’m not interested in tools that are meant to mainly make sure that teachers and administrators are micro managing their tracking of standards. I’m interested in helping kids to learn.

The research revealed that while users initially believed the mobile devices would improve their ability to perform well with homework and tests and ultimately get better grades, the opposite was reported at the end of the study.

users felt smartphones were actually detrimental to their ability to learn

... our research clearly demonstrates that simply providing access to a smartphone, without specific directed learning activities, may actually be detrimental to the overall learning process.

have important implications for the use of technology in education

I can’t measure learning, only the symbolic artifacts of learning.

When I look to society, I see an awful lot of people behaving as if they’ve learned nothing from history. So instead I hope that they learned what they needed, whether or not I was able to assess it.

But I like content!

Why do we diss content in favor of connections? I like connections, I learn from them, but only when I bring something to the table. What do I bring? What do my students bring? Understanding of, or questions about, content. Content is what we’ve read, seen, heard.

But what is the role of the facilitator/teacher/professor where we are using learning subjectives, where learning isn’t measured and where content is actually other people?

It is unlikely that students suddenly without a teacher would fight among themselves for control, however. Instead, they would likely seek another leader. I’ve seen this happen repeatedly, in committee meetings, classrooms, and local government. Many people do not want to inquire – they want to be told what to learn, what to think. When we open up the curriculum, they are lost and frustrated without enough guidance.

We have not built an education system that encourages people to be engaged. The system is not designed to do it. It’s designed to get people to a ‘standard of knowing.’ Knowing a thing, in the sense of being able to repeat it back or demonstrate it, has no direct relationship to ‘engagement’.

Too bad we can’t demonstrate, statistically, that people who are passionate about learning are better workers. It’s a shame that we don’t have good data linking being excited about learning, being a high-performer in your job, and being a happy, fulfilled and economically well-off person. If we had that, we could largely resolve the tension between improving learning and improving education.

It’s a tragedy that we don’t have proof of that link.

Oh, wait.

If you buy Gallup’s chain of argument and evidence this, in turn, suggests that being a hippy-dippy earthy-crunchy touchy-feely constructivy-connectivy commie pinko guide on the side will produce more productive workers and a more robust economy (not to mention healthier, happier human beings who get sick less and therefore keep healthcare costs lower) than being a hard-bitten Taylorite-Skinnerite practical this-is-the-real-world-kid type career coach. It turns out that pursuing your dreams is a more economically productive strategy, for you and your country, than pursuing your career. It turns out that learning a passion to learn is more important for your practical success than learning any particular facts or skills.

The core problem with our education system isn't the technology or even the companies. It’s how we deform teaching and learning in the name of accountability in education. Corporate interests amplify this problem greatly because they sell to it, thus reinforcing it. But they are not where the problem begins. It begins when we say, “Yes, of course we want the students to love to learn, but we need to cover the material.”

I am not sure if you have seen it before or not but this is absolutely among the best works I have seen on Bloom's Taxonomy.

Should we still be organising learning experiences as a gradient of 'terminal learning objectives' in an age where learning is changing, and where personal technologies and social media are increasingly significant? Learning is changing, because the boundaries between discrete learning activities are blurring. Assessment methods are changing too. Bloom's Cognitive taxonomy represents a very rigid method of control over learning behaviour, and offered structure for teachers in the last century. But just how desirable is it in today's classrooms? Exactly how much control do teachers need to exert over students' learning today? What about freedom to learn, and what about individual creativity? Where do they fit into the grand scheme of 21st Century learning? If you subscribe to the belief that students are blank slates (tabulas rasa) on which knowledge can be inscribed by experts, then Bloom's taxonomy is for you. If on the other hand, you believe that all learners have the ability to be creative, critical and independent, then you will start looking elsewhere for guidance on how to provide engaging learning experiences.

The distinctions in Bloom’s taxonomy make no practical difference in diagnosing and treating learning and performance gaps. Everything above the “knowledge” level is usually treated as “higher order thinking” anyway, effectively reducing the taxonomy to two levels.

I am sure you have [run] across this statement in blog posts, presentations promoting visual communication styles; it [is] often cited as a “fact” (yep, I am using those kind of quotes):

Research at 3M Corporation concluded that we process visuals 60000 times faster than text.

Some educational myths just can’t be killed. Case in point: the learning pyramid.

If you’re involved with student learning, you are probably familiar with the Learning Pyramid. This diagram breaks down different modes of learning and argues that more active modalities are better for long-term learning: we remember 10% of what we read, 20% of what we hear, 30% of what we see, and so on, all the way up to 90% of what we do.

Dale did not value one mode over another, but argued for a wide variety of modes depending on context (Molenda, 2004, p. 161).

The complexity of teaching and learning becomes increasingly apparent as the physiological, cognitive, social, and emotional aspects of learning become known. The percentages related to the cone of learning were a simplistic attempt to explain very complex phenomenon. The reality is that the most effective designs for learning adapt to include a variety of media, combinations of modalities, levels of interactivity, learner characteristics, and pedagogy based on a complex set of circumstances.

we have concluded that in order to elevate elearning to the height of its promise, we need to begin with a personal commitment to a new set of standards.

If I were writing a manifesto it would be more about making my profession unnecessary, so that people wouldn't need specially designed materials in order to learn, but rather, could forge learning out of raw materials for themselves.

But in business, our goals are not learning, our goals are improving performance. And courses, particularly the “event” model for courses, are one of the worst ways to go about achieving learning for performance!

I strongly believe that describing digital as a tool diminishes its profound impact on the world we live in. Digital has transformed society, government, culture, business, media and more. Barely an aspect of our lives has not been touched in some way.

Therefore, when I write about forming a digital strategy, I am not referring to a strategy for using a tool. I am talking about forming a strategy to adapt to the fundamental changes that digital has brought upon society.

Too many educators still discuss “digital” as a nice-to-have add-on, grafted onto what we’re already doing (as in “digital” learning, for example), rather than adapting the tools to fundamentally change what we do. (הקישור מוביל למאמרון אחר של סטאמר שמאד כדאי לקרוא.)

I sometimes worry [that] it’s very easy for computers to give feedback these days. It’s seen as this great thing. Students are filling out answers to problem sets and exams. Right away it shows them if they’re right or wrong and they can get feedback right away, which can influence what they do next. Getting feedback is great. I’m all for feedback.

My concern, it’s only easy to give feedback on certain types of knowledge and certain types of activity. I think there’s a real risk, that we as a society, are going to end up giving too much privilege to the types of knowledge and the types of activity that are most easily evaluated and assessed computationally.

Yes, we should take advantage of the data. But there are other ways of trying to get information as well. For example, if we want to understand how and what children learn, sitting down and talking to one of the students can also be very useful.

And it highlights too, I think, the huge gulf between those like Gates who have a vision of computers as simply efficient content delivery and assessment systems and those like Seymour who have a vision of computers as powerful discovery and learning machines. The former does things to children; the latter empowers them to do things -- to do things in the world, not just within a pre-defined curriculum.