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.