Mar 24 2007
Banning the Pencil….
I recently came across this glib but interesting article by Doug Johnson. His article looks at the idea that all technologies when they are first introduced into the world of education are often thought of as dangerous and often educators seek to ban them. The idea that at one time a pencil was both dangerous, could be used to write rude words, might be pinched, could break, might be used for off task doodling, and might lead to some students having better pencils than others…all ring true as reasons such technologies as laptops, cellphones, social networks, even Google itself are being banned or filtered by schools.
Some of the arguments link with the wonderfully written ‘From Gutenburg to Gates to Google and Beyond…’ in which Ian Jukes alludes to the radical changes that might happen in education with the new services and technologies that are now all around us. And maybe if schools and educators do not take up these ideas that education will be come so backward and sterile that it will become almost inconsequential. Interesting I am sure many out there will still stand by the ‘chalk and talk’ model of learning, that is how I was taught so that is how they will be taught.
“There is in no putting it back because people thrive on the kinds of services these technologies provide. Synercation shifts the power to the learner, allowing learners to make connections freely and be in control of their learning. Be clear that it is not replacing, but redefining instructional delivery. Ready or not, it will lead to a digital Renaissance in educational services.”
Jukes suggests that synercation changes the way that everyone including how school children learn and that the idea that a teacher/ tutor dictates and makes each student follow one path to a supposed level of knowledge is almost absurd:-” allows the learner to use all of their intelligences to learn information in a different sequence or a different manner than the instructor. As a result, the learner is not constrained by the assumptions or training of the instructor. What’s more, learners are able to make links to alternative learning experiences and alternative learning contexts. They can learn at their own rate and wherever they feel most comfortable, whether that happens to be at home, at school, or somewhere else.” This is interesting but a difficult challenge for any teacher, as I have found out. It also puts much more responsibility on students, and how many students can accept that responsibility.
My AS Level ICT students are, they use my resources posted on Moodle and a weblog as only a variety of sources to guide their research work. BUT here comes a further point the way that a course or project is marked is often very set in concrete. For example in an AS Level e-portfolio, to get the marks for Online Services research you must mention the 6 items written in the specification when these 6 items are only some and arguably only a certain viewpoint of opinions of Online Services. If the students were to mention Web 2.0 it would not be considered correct and not get marks….so maybe not only do we as educators have to change but also the nature of examinations and exam boards might also have to?
Anyway I wonder if at the moment the argument is being lost – ‘Ex Abusu Non Arguitur in Usum’?
Recent Comments