"It is reasonable to suppose that the proliferation of information-processing machines is having, and will continue to have, as much of an effect on the circulation of learning as did advancements in human circulation (transportation systems) and later, in the circulation of sounds and visual images (the media). "The nature of knowledge cannot survive unchanged within this context of general transformation. It can fit into new channels, and become operational, only if learning is translated into quantities of information. We can predict that anything in the constituted body of knowledge that is not translatable in this way will be abandoned and that the direction of new research will be dictated by the possibility of its eventual results being translatable into computer language. .... "It is only in the context of the grand narratives of legitimation -- the life of the spirit and/or emancipation of humanity -- that the partial replacement of teachers by machines may seem inadequate or even intolerable. But it is probably that these narratives are no longer the principal driving force behind interest in acquiring knowledge. If the motivation be power, then this aspect of classical didactics ceases to be relevant. The question (overt or implied) now asked by the professionalist student, the State, or institutions of higher education is no longer 'Is it true?' but 'What use is it?' ... "But one thing that seems certain is that ... the process of delegitimation and the predominance of the performance criterion are sounding the knell of the age of the Professor: a professor is no more competent than memory bank networks in transmitting established knowledge, no more competent than interdisciplinary teams in imagining new moves or new games." Jean-Francois Lyotard. The Post-Modern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, (University of Minnesota Press, 1984/1979), pp. 4, 51, 53
Introduction: Designing Criticism and Criticizing Design
This week we'll be talking about two sets of issues, and trying to figure out if they can shed light on one another. On Tuesday, we'll discuss the Amy Shapiro paper, as well as a more recent paper by Elizabeth Davis, that together suggest that good design in educational software must take into account, and facilitate/reinforce, the thinking and cognitive skills/capacities of the students who come to the software. The paper by Bibby and Wood, which we'll discuss on Thursday, can be seen to support this suggestion in warning that the design of effective multimedia instructional programs needs to keep in mind the nature and constraints on human cognition. But alongside these papers, we'll discuss the CS92 essays which, for a variety of technologies and from a variety of perspectives, call into question some of the research papers' assumptions about the meaning of phrases like "who we are" and "how we learn".
Designing for Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS)
After discussing the basic conclusions of the Shapiro paper, each team will talk about whether/how they are trying to promote kinds of higher-order/critical/meta- thinking in the design of their programs. We'll discuss the Linda Davis' conclusions and speculate about why so-called "generic" prompts might work as well or better than "directed" prompts in inspiring "reflective" thinking (both in classroom and computer-mediated exercises).
Is it "Good" and is it "Natural"?
Having assigned the essays by John and Stella for Thursday, I want to discuss a few of the questions they raised (and didn't always answer!) in the context of the technologies that other students wrote about. Those technologies were: iTunes (Jason); the Palm Pilot (Cathy); iPods (Jenn); Cochlear Implants (Erika); automated voice services (Diana); neuronal prosthetics (Ian); the Hiphop (Carrie); and the television program Oobi (Erin). The questions I would like us to address are:
For Next Week: Read the Overbaugh article for Tuesday (know in advance there are numerous typos in the HTML), and compare his learning taxonomy with others on the "Task Analysis" page for Thursday.