Resnick Article

Resnick Article-

In 1965, Gordon Moore, co-founder of Intel predicted that every 18 months (one evolution cycle) that the power of personal computers will double. In many ways he was right in his predictions. Interestingly enough for many subsequent years, even with the advancements of the computers, prices have traditionally stayed the same. We are at a point in our current technological development that evolutions no longer make practical differences in our PC use/power and are not fiscally worth upgrade every cycle. So finally we have seen a drop in price and will continue to see drops in price each evolutionally cycle (Cates, 2002).

At the beginning of article Revolutionizing Learning in the Digital Age in many ways you find Resnick explaining the effects of the statements above. Declining cost of computation is helping to make digital technology accessible to nearly everyone. This is a wonderful lead in for the author because he is able to plausibly pose the negative to this transformation and underline a societal downfall when it comes to technology and education. In his opinion we have made it possible to have technology but have failed to fundamentally rethink our approaches to learning, education and our ideas of how new technology can support them (A.K.A “The Learning Revolution”). In my opinion Resnick is speaking about the revolutionary change from computers use for productivity to computers being use a palate for thought and creation. I believe this idea of change is characterized well in Jonassesn work and definition of the phrase “Mindtools”. In further relation it is the movement away from the behaviorist theory of education to the constructivist approach (teacher centered vs. learner centered).

I fully support this change and I agree with the authors underlining point and his examples. Rethinking is needed and I liked his ideas related to new focus on making computers for children and not the continued reliance on using computers created for adults (although some of his examples may have seemed a bit to sci-fi to me). I was in agreence with his ideas related to the change in learning environment structure (ex: cross-curricular thematic units). He also does a nice job of explaining how computers can help the higher order thinking processes specifically synthesis (creating, designing). In this article and in previous articles I have read related to general idea of a “learning revolution”, I just wish the authors would take a bit more time to explain the lower levels of learning and how this revolution and new computer use will positively effect the basic knowledge and understanding of concepts even the most essentialist in nature.

I guess if I had to express my concern plainly in relevance to the article it would be this.
As demonstrated in the article’s Mike Lee, through the outlet of computers has grown immensity in his creativity and presentation of his artwork but I just wonder if Mike can balance his checkbook?

References:

Cates, W.M., (2002) Adoption of technologies: Edt471: Planning for implementing technology
in school settings. Retrieved October 10, 2006, from http://www.bb.lehigh.edu

Jonassen, D.H., Carr, C., & Yueh. (1998, March). Computers as mindtools for engaging
learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43(2), 24-32.


Moore, G., (1965). Moore’s law. Retrieved on November 20,2006, from http://www.intel.com
/technology/mooreslaw/index.htm

Resnick, M. (2001). Revolutionizing learning in the digital age. Publications from the forum for
the future of higher education. Boulder, CO: Educause.

Testing, Testing 123

Critical Issue: Rethinking Assessment and Its Role in Supporting Educational Reform
Have we made our bed BUT must we lie in it?

I think it is so funny that this article was written in 1995. I spent quite a bit of time looking at this article thinking it was current (2003-5) and how it supports change related to the modern educational structure created by NCLB. Now upon reading its copy write information I find it predates NCLB, what a mind blower. It is amazing how well this information meshes with today’s problems in schools related to assessment and boy if they thought change should happen back then they must really think change should happen now. I guess we went the opposite way of their vision and became a country more essentialist and more reliant on high-stakes assessment. Although I feel that much of the ideas expressed in the article are in direct response to use of tests like the California Achievement test and the Stanford Achievement test the overall debate is still relevant. In a way it may be even more relevant today then in the 1990’s. I see and understand the relation but I can help but feel some divide/discourse because education, technology, and society all have changed so greatly over the last 10 years.

Is technology the answer?
I don’t know, but I feel that with the use of technology we may have the chance to create learning environments that get the best of both worlds. An optimal learning environment that will help us assess students, teach basics but is rooted in a constructivism.



References:

Bond, L. A. (1995). Critical issue: Rethinking assessment and its role in supporting educational reform. Retrieved, November 11, 2006, from http://www.ncrel.org

Cates, W. M. & Columba, L., (2002). Educational philosophies: Edt 471: Planning for
implementing technology in school settings. Retrieved September 26, 2006, from
http://lehigh.edu

Bloom: Learning for Mastery

I am a fan of Bloom and have found his taxonomy to be very helpful in devising education that reaches a range of cognitive domains. In my previous study of bloom, I never realized how much behaviorist theory was involved in his ideas. I enjoyed this article because it took me away from the Bloom that is force fed to every education student across the US. I must say that the introduction of the article left me with more questions than answers and I got a bit confused with what he describes as the 1/3 idea within the educational system. I think he is making reference to what now is the outdated evaluative practice of the bell curve. Even with the confusion, I found the underlining ideas related to mastery of learning very interesting and well worth evaluation and personal reflection. It is amazing that even though this article was written in the 1960’s, its content is still so pertinent to modern education. Bloom is quite a visionary and makes reference to concepts like continual learning, tracking, audio visual methods and what I think is the idea that will later be coined by Howard Gardner as multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983).

In modern education we are still looking for a means to educate all students, and since the establishment of NCLB we have become more conscious of the fact that students are different and they learn differently. Bloom recognizes this idea of differences and explains that we must take the differences into account so that we can create learning environments which will allow for mastery for all students. In this article, he considers one approach to learning for mastery and describes a five-step approach: 1) aptitude for particular kinds of learning; 2) quality of instruction; 3) ability to understand instruction; 4) perseverance; and 5) time allowed for learning. Although I will not go into each of these, I will say that the cumulative effect is that educators need to develop better means of evaluation in order to assess learners’ mastery, needs and preferences in order to create strategies, methods and materials that will foster success. This is no easy thing and Bloom recognizes it as a major change for learners, teachers and administrators. The modern relevancy again comes into play, and we must consider if the methods, strategies and materials associated with further inclusion of technologies could help the fulfillment and process of change to creating environments which take advantage of the five steps.

Could instructional methods and evaluative tools incorporated with technologies be the vehicle to mastery learning?



References:

Bloom, B.S. (1968, May). Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment, 1(2), 1-12.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York:
Basic Books.