Dr. Mike Kelleher wrote, in a small part:
... my concerns are based on a growing consensus (or orthodoxy) that
> simply making learning opportunities available through the use of new
> technologies, this solves the problems of participation, engagement and
>personal development. Until we have some evidence that this is the case I
>would prefer to ask a different type of question than Kevin's. In my
>opinion, what is needed is a systematic study of the residual effect of
>learning through ICTs on both individuals and their organisations. It is
>this residual effect that makes the difference and perhaps all
>universities, colleges and any others of us who are responible for
>facilitating learning should address that issue as uppermost and perhaps
>the technology related issues will fall into place.
Mike's thoughts are good ones if we were living 10-20 years ago. They are
retrospective and will fail while showing that the conservative, lagging
indicator, academic world will continue to fall behind.
1) ICT and related technologies are advancing at such a rapid pace and the
knowledge gained is leading to design changes on the fly that any
traditional study will be only a data point on a curve of change that will
obsolete the information before it gets into print-or maybe even on the
web
2) the screenagers, who are following close on the heels of the cyber
immigrants( that's most of us over 21) are qualitatively different in
their perceptions and use of these technologies. In fact it is the young
which are being used to train us ancient ones because they think and grasp
these ideas differently. Thus testing on a model which is obsolete (older
folks) will not prpare us todeal with those who are coming into this arena
3) The technologies being used in the Academy are commercially available,
for the most part, and are being used in the private sector who is
prepared to try and throw away and try again as knowledge and new
information appears. The Academy is buying what is used and proven in the
private sector and thus is studying models which are already being up
dated. The Academy is not prpared for this type of rapid change and
obsolescence in the teaching portion of the Academy. Research in an area
of specialization is current- but research in knowledge transfer is behind
because the reward system does not support it. Asking for studies is a
delyaing tactic. holding workshops and seminars with the lag time in the
publish/perish industry is a way of heel dragging.
4) Even management in the private sector is responding if one looks at
such books as the 500 year delta and Blur. There are now techniques for
learning which can cut seat time by 30% or more. In other words, what is
now offered in 16 week chunks in the Academy can be done in less time when
competency based evaluations are taken into consideration. Thus, learning
modes and methodologies are changing and studies which are based on
conventional academic wisdom are of limited value.
thoughts?
tom abeles
--tom abeles <tabeles@tmn.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>