Hello John,This says much about my own position really. What I would like to see is more research and less blogging about education 2.0; a little more objectivity and less rhetoric. Is it too much to ask...? Why do we not see citations from established education literature, such as Moore's excellent editorial in the American Journal of Distance Education 21(4)? Where is the genuine interaction with critics? Is the recent article in ALT-J 15(3) by Barnes & Tynan all there is to offer?
Sorry, but I see little here beyond rhetoric and generalisation, the sort of commentary that edubloggers really need to move beyond if they are to make a mainstream difference. I mean, "the very nature of what it means to be literate, to be educated, is shifting around them" - what did it used to mean? How has it really changed? How do new technologies "change what it means to be educated"? Is this an endorsement of connectivism, a theory that is yet to prove itself as a viable basis for framed education? Is connectivism suddenly a deterministic theory rather than a descriptive one? Also, is a Web 2.0-based education going to solve all educational woes? Are we even expecting too much of a system where success is more a matter of the student's own social context than they way in which they are 'educated'? There's simply too much assumption underlying what you have posted here that lies beneath the surface. Are you assuming a 'teacher-tells-all' incumbent system? How accurate is this?
Again, sorry. I've read this sort of post too many times before, and each time I am frustrated at the way in which the honest and valuable efforts of teachers in today's classrooms are perceived as being inadequate, incomplete or a waste of time because they are not perfect for all and do not embrace Web 2.0! Also, all too frequently, the benefits of our own 'Web 1.0' education are largely overlooked.
I'm looking for deeper commentary, research-based, self-critical, perhaps based on appreciative inquiry. Is there any edublogger who does this?
Sorry to vent in your comments!
Best regards,
Mark.
[Sigh]. I'm probably still tired from digging a hangi pit and transferring hot stones.
8 comments:
I too would love to see the research... but even more than that, I'd love the time to DO some of the research. My problem is that I have a department to run plus a full timetable to teach so I'm afraid that time to do solid empirical evidence gathering and analysis is beyond me.
What I AM happy to say is that since starting to use the tools, many of my pupils are much more engaged and enthused about their learning... and that is transferring over to their 'traditional' 1.0 learning... but this is just anecdotal I know.
If you're ever in my area, I'd be glad to show you some of the work the pupils have been doing and let you chat to some of the ones it's made a big difference to!
Finally, I'm looking forward to reading your blog in the future... and trying to catch up on some of your previous thoughts!
Cheers!
Hi Mark,
While I share many of your concerns, I think you're being a bit harsh on John (though, in fairness, I have expressed ideas similar to John's in my own writing).
I absolutely agree that we need to move beyond rhetoric and hype in order to embrace the larger community. We need a research-basis for making the kinds of statements we now make largely based on experience/observation. To this end, some positives are occurring. The edublogger community is increasingly enriched by researchers like Graine Conole, Terry Anderson, Jon Dron, Martin Weller, etc. What we really need is diversity of interest and focus - ranging from theorists to speculators, to researchers (and, begrudgingly I'll admit, even a bit of hype). Consider existing prominent views of learning. At one point, they were hyped as well. As research gathered, speculators moved in to extrapolate the findings. In some cases, after brief periods of success, the theories faded. In others, the theories "stuck" and were confirmed by educational practice/research, resulting in greater understanding in how we learn. My main point: we're at a frustrating stage where we are letting go of some views of learning and are grasping for other views...even though we don't yet have a firm footing.
Two areas that I think we need to consider:
1. Educational research is a mess. If you have a certain perspective, you can find research data that supports it. Unlike more "scientific" fields, educational research will always have a degree of sloppiness...at least until neuroscience matures as a field :).
2. Development of ideas requires many hands at the wheel. I've stated previously that we need to be aware of the stage at which we are functioning with regard to interaction with ideas. I've suggested three simple stages: 1. exploration, 2. experimentation, 3. implementation. I'm inclined to suggest that we cannot measure domains against each other. Each has criteria of success. When we are exploring ideas - brainstorming, creative thinking - we can't really apply research methodology. Once we are at the experimentation stage, we become more rigorous. We are seeking clear answers and direction. As such, we lose some of the creative force present during the exploration stage. Implementation is different from exploration and experimentation. Practicality is the driving force here.
With regard to John's post, I saw his ideas as being of an exploratory nature. I think you are seeking ideas at the experimentation level. Both are important. As long as they are not used to evaluate each other. Do we need more research? Absolutely. But I think the researchers enter the stage after exploration. And before extensive large scale implementation.
I share your frustrations. I dislike web 2.0 hype. I despair of "let's change it all" thinking (though I've contributed to that mindset myself). Education is a system. We can't change one part without a ripple of effects impacting areas we should likely seek to retain.
Hello Neil, George - thanks for the responses. I am aware of the anecdotal successes of Web 2.0, and, contrary to how my post might be interpreted, I believe in the educational potential of Web 2.0 technologies. My objection is the sort of sweeping position that characterises much of the discourse.
I draw a distinction between Web 2.0-based and Web 2.0-enhanced education. The former proposes a paradigm shift. The latter focuses on application within the current educational paradigm. Both are extremely different, and what gets my goat (baaa...) is those who assume the former without really understanding the latter.
George, elements of educational research may well be a mess. But there are also some shining examples of coherency. I have just finished Mezirow's "Fostering critical reflection in adulthood" (see http://chredits.blogspot.com/); Mezirow is but one example of educational authority, and his work does not require any sort of technology at all for its success. Indeed, applying technology may well remove the much-needed authenticity from the exercise. Further, we have the wonderful principles from Roger Saljo and Ference Marton on 'deep' and 'surface' learning; Ramsden's conceptual change; Biggs's SOLO taxonomy... there are many lighthouses for those seeking safe passage through the rocky educational literature, much of it uncharted. It is these ideas that I would like to see incorporated into edubloggers' work.
I am glad that work is being done. My own work (hopefully soon to be released in a book chapter) critiques the Web 2.0-based perspective and offers some suggestions on how Web 2.0-enhanced education might be made effective.
George, I think we have enough hype, enough exploration, enough soap-boxing, enough speculation. It is time now to engage in some serious work, beyond the 200-300 word limit of blogs and into the peer-reviewed and rigorous discourse that journals require (and I don't care if they're open or closed journals!)
Hi Mark (at least, I assume I'm speaking to Mark in the form of nichtus),
We agree in most areas - especially with regard to research. I find when I talk to researchers, I like to push the value of read/write web and exploration. And when I hear the hype machine of edubloggers cranking out statements, I like to appeal to the need for research. I'm conflicted :). Actually, it is important to recognize the discussion as holistic. And technology will not fully wash away the deep imprint of previous advancements in technologies for teaching/learning. After all, the spoken word still serves us very well in many instances, even though we have written language at our disposal.
You site a few examples, that while they may have originated with "serious academics" do not always pass the test of rigorous research. I find Biggs taxonomy very useful for explaining the different structural understandings evident at different levels. Or the discussion of deep and surface learning - with at least partial roots in Blooms (and subsequent notions) of higher order thinking skills. We accept them not for their research...but rather their originating authority and our personal experiences with the concepts. I hear Blooom's frequently referenced in educational literature, and yet, when I ask about "where's the research basis", I have yet to find an educators who can provide this (outside of Bloom's original report about the three taxonomies). Does this mean Blooms is not useful? Not necessarily. While I'm personally not a fan of Blooms, I've seen many educators use his taxonomies (as with Fink's, Wiggin's and others) very effectively as a framework (or lighthouse to use your analogy) for teaching and learning. We are more tolerant of research flaws in areas where we have direct/anecdotal experience than with concept we have not yet explored in depth.
Finally - yeah, I agree. We do have enough hype. We need to start getting deeper, more thoughtful, and more critical. I am certainly not trying to discourage the critical thoughts you are putting forward. As stated, they resonate with my own.
For what it's worth, we are running an online conference on the theme of research: http://scope.lidc.sfu.ca/course/view.php?id=56
Take care
George
Thanks George. I've hauled some ideas in for the Canadian research call already: http://terrya.edublogs.org/2008/03/15/pan-canadian-research-agenda/.
Best,
Mark.
hi mark,
I liked your swimming against the tide comment. I agree with you that John's post lacked a firm foundation about the nature of learning.
My thoughts are that we need to look at this (web2.0 or learning2.0) historically as well, both the short history of computers and the longer history of modernity.
computers: There has already been a "computers in education revolution", namely, logo and Papert's constructionism, which has been and (almost) gone. I have a mental picture here of a time line from the 70s with glitter here and there along the path but with web2.0 advocates only being aware of the glitter in the present, seeming having almost zero awareness of recent history.
modernity: Enlightenment ideas have been with us for at least 300 years (and much longer if we include the Greeks) and in a sense they form the basis to the current curriculum. This is a longer discussion but needs to be had as well. How do we evaluate what ought to be taught in schools? I would suggest that the non universals is a good place to start.
Bill,
Can you explain why you feel you have a firmer grasp on the nature of learning than I do? I'm keen to learn from a master.
If it helps you work out your own thinking, I am perfectly willing to admit that I agree with your judgement on my grasp of the nature of learning - I most definitely do not have a "firm foundation about the nature of learning" - but then I also know, from my 30 years in the 'trade', that very few would ever be so bold as to claim to have worked it all out.
I am keen to learn from someone who knows it all. Please enlighten me.
my latest comment in discussion with john has moved back to his blog , comment 18
Post a Comment