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.