St8ED.

You’ve decided you want to read why I liked the Future of Learning Institutions articles. Ok…well, here you go!

1. Most texts use historical context to demonstrate that technological changes generally benefit humanity; therefore, we should accept them. Davidson and Goldberg use the historical context in a rather unique way. They assert that Education as an institution had changed very little since the middle ages (they even include a joke about Ichabod Crane; now that’s funny). They claim that there is a long overdue need for meaningful change anyways, and the new technological revolution provides a welcome opportunity. This reasoning makes sense and is pretty much accurate.
2. The authors criticize our current culture of one-size-fits-all education and absurd accountability standards. Stephen Downes claims that “the idea that there is anything – anything – we want all six billion people to learn smacks of colonialism at best and fascism at worst.” I think this is an important point that is not given enough attention. To me, the solution to the problem is fairly simple: transfer the power to make curricular decisions from the legislature to educators.
3. In the past decade, many researchers and academics have focused their attention on the digital divide, the idea that access to technology will widen the gap between the haves and have-nots. To confuse the issue, these researchers and academics can’t agree on the impact access will have, who has and does not have access, or whether the digitial divide actually exists. Davidson & Goldberg take a strong (and ever more unpopular) stand on the digital divide issue claiming its existence and warning of further disadvantaging those without access. It stands to reason that if our culture places increased emphasis on technology, then those without will suffer.
4. Generally, I have mixed feelings about the 10 pillars of institutional pedagogy. Specifically, I think the authors are spot on in their discussion of lifelong learning. People no longer spend entire lifetimes in one career; workers must now learn a variety of skills and acquire various types of knowledge over the course of a lifetime as they shift from one career or company to another. This may be an area where higher ed can profit. Institutions are already recognizing the value of adult learners, but perhaps in partnering with local businesses, universities can develop a curriculum unique to particular industries that students can complete relatively quickly. Perhaps there is a need for a wider variety of degrees and certifications, many of which can be completed in far shorter time frames.
5. I think it is clear that learning institutions impede innovative learning efforts. In their book Tinkering Toward Utopia, Tyack and Cuban provide a salient argument for why institutions act this way: they are faced with a cycle of “…hyperbolic claims about how a new invention would transform education; then research showing that the technology was generally no more effective than traditional instruction and sometimes less…” (p. 121). Perhaps the internet is fundamentally changing the way students learn. But just because a technology has a place in a person’s social life does not necessarily mean it should have a place in education. Institutions are proceeding with caution because decades of experience have reinforced Tyack & Cuban’s argument. Perhaps our current situation is different. Only time and more research will tell.

Go back to the original post

Go to the dislike post.

This post outlines the 5 reasons I disliked the work by Davidson and Goldberg. These specific points of contention come exclusively from the short article “Future of Learning Institutions in a Digital Age.” Well, here they are:

1. The work is, at times, offensive. I’m certain they didn’t mean it to come across that way, but some comments are just over the top. For instance, in discussing the benefits of collaborative authorship, they point out the difficulty they experienced in making their ideas “accessible to anyone who wished to comment” (p. 17). Further, they use rhetoric that diminishes the intelligence of those who disagree. They cite James Boyle who claims that people are “cognitively biased” toward openness, as if there is some faulty wiring that causes people to resist the movement. And that if we really rethink things, we will overcome that bias and be able to see the light I was so offended by this idea that I could barely continue with the reading, and I mostly agree with the authors.
2. Several claims in the article were unsubstantiated. For instance, “Joshua Aronson and Claude M. Steele have established quite conclusively that collaborative learning is beneficial across class and culture, race and religion” (p. 38). Personally, I am wary of anything that is billed as conclusive, especially when research on collaborative learning is still fairly new (at least in the context of the internet). Further, plenty of studies have illustrated that pairing gifted students with average or struggling students improves performance for the struggling or average student, but can actually impede performance of the gifted student. I’m a big fan of collaboration, but when an article makes sweeping generalizations and declares a pedagogy as conclusively beneficial, it immediately begins to lose credibility in my view.
3. The article intertwines networked learning and open-source. The authors declare that networked learning is less valuable if all resources on the internet are not free and open. I think these two things can be mutually exclusive. I am extremely interested in how networks can be used to facilitate learning, but I don’t think limitations on copyright will affect the ways networks function in learning environments. If a student is creating a mashup, does it really matter if they can use P Diddy? Further, are we really sure mashups belong in instructional settings? Sure, they’re cool, but are they educational? I don’t think we can answer that question yet; more research is needed.
4. OK. The challenges of these ideas only take up 3/4 of a page. And it’s really only one challenge: breaking down institutional structures. Really? One challenge that is not a a challenge at all, but is really a barrier to full implementation of the ideas outlined in this paper. How about the challenge that we may be wrong? Or that very little empirical research has been done? Or that large portions of the population resist technological innovation? I could go on. The idea that the only thing standing in the way of progress is the institution is naive and simplistic.
5. My final dislike has to do with overall tone. I’ve already mentioned the condescending tone of some of the statements, but generally, the work is extreme. When we work on position papers in my writing class, I always caution my students about writing polarized position papers. I always encourage them to write for the opposition and to consider the alternate perspectives. There was no attempt to relate to those who disagree, and as a result I was turned off. I think if any meaningful change is going to happen, we need voices that can speak to the dissenters, recognize that their points are valid and valuable, and attempt to develop concrete solutions that meet the needs and address the fears of all involved. Subverting the process by making those in disagreement appear to be inflexible and uninformed is not the way to affect change.

Go to the original post.

Go to the like post.