Libraries at War; and, More on Socrates

This past week we had no class; it was “Winter Break” (Michigan’s version of “Spring Break,” just with more seasonally appropriate language. The week before that, we spent the majority of our class time discussing and demonstrating the kinds of questioning techniques that help to build a foundation for a successful Book Club or Socratic Seminar. Before we had that discussion, we looked at some “librarians in the news” pieces, and got a demonstration of how to use the service Poll Everywhere (http://www.polleverywhere.com).

One of the “librarians in the news” pieces was about Mick Jacobsen’s post at http://www.tametheweb.com on the “war” librarians are “fighting.” The responses to this post were interesting, for me. A lot more folks than I expected regarded the choice to use the word “war” as a bit overly violent. This was reaction was interesting to me, because I’m often a person to look at word choices like that when they come up in different discussions, but I didn’t think twice about Jacobsen’s word choice here. In fact, I thought his use of the word “war” was important in this context. Often, I feel like talk of “being at war” gets used in situations where it is inappropriate, only for the purpose of firing people up – an attempt to get people’s blood lust flowing. However, in the context of libraries “fighting” for their users, I think this use can be seen as necessary. Often, I feel like people who work in the public service sector often get either (a) overwhelmed or (b) complacent and forget that they are sometimes the only ones fighting the good fight. In libraries, if this means thinking of ourselves “at war” with forces that oppose our users’ needs and rights, then that might be what it takes. I think the most important thing, in this case (as in any war), is remembering who we’re fighting for.

As I said before, we also discussed/demonstrated the effective use of the Socratic Seminar model. While my group and I are not pursuing this method for our Book Club assignment, I’m still very interested in this model and how it could be effectively used in academic library settings. I think as library work becomes more and more strongly focused on instruction and teaching our users skills they need to navigate their information environments, models like the Socratic Seminar will become increasingly important.

One point that was brought up in the class discussion was the “role of the leader” in a Socratic Seminar. The leader’s job is to serve only as a guide for the participants. The leader should not offer any personal thoughts or opinions about a piece, but only help to steer the participants towards a richer understanding of the piece, and, hopefully, something greater than the piece. This got me thinking about Socrates (as presented in Plato’s writings) again. There has long been a debate in the philosophy community surround Plato’s portrayal of Socrates: is his “ignorance” and refusal to state his own view point merely an ironic tactic on the part of Socrates, or is this a genuine openness to viewpoints that brings Socrates to this state of ignorance? When I studied Plato’s works, I found myself often siding with the commentators who think that Socrates is truly ignorant and open, and not merely being ironic. Many of Plato’s earlier dialogues finding Socrates and his interlocutor ending their discussion still in a state of ignorance (the aporetic dialogues) – this is an example of a discussion that, while it didn’t technically “lead” anywhere, still brought the participants to a state of increased understanding. Maybe they still had no idea what the “answer” might be, but they were much better at figuring out the questions.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Socrates reads a book

This week’s readings focused on two different styles of engaging students, fellow professionals, and library users with a text: the book club and the Socratic seminar. I haven’t been a member of a book club for many years (though I did organize a book club in high school), so I’m glad to see that not only are book clubs apparently very popular with library users, but that the professionals organizing these events are taking more and more advantage of the technological tools available to them to facilitate and enhance the proceedings. As for the Socratic seminar, I enjoy the idea behind it, but I think I will have to see a Socratic seminar in action before I can be convinced (though one of our readings, “Socratic seminars: engaging students in intellectual discourse,” by Lynda Tredway, did cite a number of enticing figures on the effectiveness of these seminars). I do find the application of “Socratic” to these seminars to be a little confusing, as it seems that, at least in the examples from our readings, the only Socratic method used is in the initial “questioning.” Again, though, I think I need to see one of these seminars in action before I can truly understand what’s going on.

As Tredway puts it, the seminar’s technique is derived from the Socratic dialogue, which seeks to find ultimate truth through the systematic questioning of another (1995). I find this ancient method to be important for education for a number of reasons. First, Socrates famously (through a number of the writers who represented him – remember that we have no idea what Socrates thought himself) said that “all [he knew] was that [he knew] nothing.” This is where all education needs to start from, I think. We’ve talked a lot in class about tapping into prior knowledge, but I don’t think that conflicts with this Socratic principle. Socrates’s statement was not one of actual ignorance, but of an attitude he took toward knowledge – there is always more to learn, and ultimate truth can only be pursued by an open mind.

Another important thing to think about when we are considering Socratic technique actually comes from Socrates’ most famous student, Plato. In his Seventh Letter, Plato talks about how true knowledge and wisdom cannot come simply from reading any of his writings, but must be gained through dialogue an interaction with a teacher. I think the importance of real intellectual discourse and dialogue has been lost, and it is good to see that some educators have been attempting to bring it back. I know a number of people, who, while very intelligent and well-educated, still cannot have an intellectual dialogue with someone – and their knowledge, I’m sure, suffers from this.

I would be interested to see/talk about with someone how exactly a Socratic seminar could be implemented in a library setting. The case for its potential for classroom settings has been made in our readings, but I’m wondering if, like the book club, anyone has attempted to implement such a program in a library setting. I find it hard to see how it would fit in to an academic library (though it would be quite helpful), but can see it working well in a public library with the right mix of librarian facilitators and interested users.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Educational Games & Structure

A large portion of class this past week was spent revisiting the topic of ‘gaming and learning’ that we were introduced to (but then didn’t really discuss) two weeks ago in watching the TED talk from Jane McGonigal on “How Gaming Can Save the World.” It was very interesting and lively discussion from the class. Our class has a number of gamers, but the majority described themselves as non-gamers (though, in reality, I think it’s pretty rare for people to not play games – maybe some of us play different games, and some of us take them more seriously, but when it comes down to it, I think humans are gamers). Our class also has a number of former (and current?) teachers, which always bring an interesting and practical bent to our discussions of teaching methods.

One point that I brought up near the end of the discussion, which I want to expand on a bit here, is the overly structured nature of many “educational” games (or “edutainment” games). In her talk, McGonigal spends a lot of time on the popularity of World of Warcraft (WoW). I think that games like WoW (e.g. The Sims, the Grand Theft Auto series) derive a lot of their popularity from their relatively unstructured nature. This lack of structure has been hard to get to – while I’m no scholar of gaming history, I do know that many early games, such as Pac-man, were so structured that expert players could simply memorize a pattern of joystick moves that would get them through each level. Then came Ms. Pac-man, which added an element of stochasticness to the game play – players could no longer simply memorize joystick movements in order to win. This more challenging form of game play is probably at least somewhat responsible for Ms. Pac-man’s enduring popularity.

When it comes to educational games, though, structure has always been there heavy-handedly limiting players options. Thinking back to games like Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing and Lemonade Stand, I remember enjoying these games because they were on a computer (and because I just really like games). However, simply being on a computer is not enough for a game to be popular nowadays, but many educational game designers seem to think so. Someone in class spoke of using a video game where you got to “be a banker” in a class they were teaching. To me, this sounds thoroughly unexciting. I don’t want to be a banker, and I’ve never wanted to be a banker. Now, if a game gave me choices as to what “career” I could pursue in the game, I think I would be a bit more interested and engaged with whatever the game was teaching me. Telling students they have to be a banker (or run a lemonade stand, or munch on numbers) seems no better than telling students they “have to” memorize multiplication tables. It’s hard to make connections and find points of transfer when you’re not interested in what you’re doing in the first place.

Finally, I have a bit of a suggestion of my own. I’ve long thought that we need to be teaching more computer programming skills to students – you get the benefits of learning a language, learning about logic, and learning about organizational issues, among other things (you also actually learn about how computer programs work, instead of just learning how to use them, which I think is invaluable for students growing up in a digital world). A great way to teach computer programming skills is through teaching students to make their own games. Now, designing the next WoW is going to be a bit above the skill level of novice programmers, but, at the same time, wouldn’t it be great to see what students themselves would create when we ask them to make a game to teach their fellow students?

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Transferring Connections

So, in my last post I talked about how I was making some connections on the “assessment” front between many of the things I’ve done in the past (assessing and/or studying others) and what I’m picking up from the lessons of SI 643 (assessing/studying myself and my practice). Now, its clear that assessing others is still an irreplaceable part of our professional practice; if we don’t know how to assess others, how can we know if our lessons are really making any difference? Well, as folks have been finding for many years now (but the folks behind standardized tests still don’t seem to pick), we can’t just assess whether or not people memorize facts in their learning. These memories will not only be extremely contextualized (and thereby stuck in that context), but they will probably fade fairly quickly and won’t be able to stick in the learner’s long-term memory. The readings for this week discussed one thing we do need to assess to get a good picture of what kind of learning has taken place: transfer.

Now, much like my previous post, this issue of transfer connects very well to previous learning I’ve done (look at all that connection building!). Last semester, I took SI 688 – Fundamentals of Human Behavior. In that course, we discussed human behavior and cognition and how they related to user interface and experience design. This issue of transfer also came up in that class – users all have different levels of experience and different cultures and practices they bring to your interface, and therefore they will all interpret and learn your software in different ways based on these different backgrounds. At the same time, the mission for many user experience designers sounds a lot like how Wiggins and McTighe (2008) describe the “mission of high school”: “to help learners become thoughtful about, and productive with, content.” Designers don’t necessarily just want to make a great widget – they want to make a widget that users can connect to, can learn from, and can be more productive with – they want a widget that users will integrate fully into their lives.

Obviously, we want the same for our learners. We want them to become better, more productive, and more thoughtful people through our instruction – and we want that learning to become fully integrated into their lives. We never want to be the person who taught the stuff that was forgotten right after the semester ended. I think this integration into the learner’s life is a good place to stop and think for a bit: designers want to make a product that can be integrated into many facets of a person’s life, even if it starts out by solving a niche need. This pursuit of a useful widget is helped by the fact that humans are just tool-loving creatures – as is pointed out in How People Learn, there is a pretty large emphasis on using tools to solve problems in the real world. There is also, for many people, a tendency to use tools in unique ways (after all, again, we are tool lovers). So if I make a well-designed product that solves niche need but leaves itself open to connect other areas of a user’s life, it is going to get used in those other ways.

When teaching science or math, or even English, there have been a number of methods (some of which are discussed in How People Learn) proposed for how to integrate “real life” and the curriculum teachers are required to teach students. I have seen, however, little on this front when it comes to library learning and information literacy, which are, arguably, far more important to the future success of learners. Too often it seems clear that students are only learning library techniques to be able to pass their class (or even just write a paper sometimes). It is important that these students learn how the library and its resources (whether school, public, academic, or whatever else) can connect to their lives. With so much information at everyone’s fingertips all the time nowadays, it seems that information literacy skills are almost as important as traditional literacy skills – but where is the connection to real life being made? This connection seems obvious, but I still am not hearing about it as much as I should…this will be my thought and my query over the next week.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

The Challenge of Asking for Assessment

This past week in class, we started out by watching a video of Jane McGonigal giving a TED Talk on how gamers can save the world. Connecting to our previous class discussions, this was quite interesting because it highlighted the problem of transfer that we have discussed in other areas. How do we not only get learners to realize that what they’re learning has value outside of the current learning situation, but to actually be able to apply what they’ve learned in other, different situations? This is particularly interesting with gamers, in part, because they are incredibly good at something (gaming) and many think they are incredibly bad at another thing (the real world). How we can get them to transfer their amazing skills from the game world into the real world is an important, and so far unanswered, question for our time.

However, Kristin’s goal in showing us this video was not simply to get us to think about gaming and transfer of knowledge, but to actually, as an audience to the “talk,” start thinking about how we assess the teaching of others, as well as our own instruction interactions. We completed a short survey about the TED Talk, and then broke into groups to do a bit of a card-sorting exercise with some of the questions from the survey. As a group, we moved the questions around into different categories, and found ourselves discussing the different areas of the presentation that certain types of questions seemed to focus on, from the presenter herself, to the room we were in, to the topics in the presentation that may affect our personal and/or professional lives. We then proceeded to talk a bit more about assessment, including the types of questions important in conducting summative assessments (as surveys), and the different strategies available for conducting formative assessments on the fly.

I found all of this quite interesting to think about, even though I’ve had a pretty solid background so far in survey/interview design and administration. I’ve worked in psychology labs, taken several UX research courses here at SI, and even did some assessment activities in my grocery-store life. However, the common thread in almost all of these interactions has been that the subject being assessed was always external to me. The assessment situations we discussed in class have much more to do with turning the lens on me and my practice.

In my other experiences with assessment, I thought a lot about how to avoid introducing undue bias into my instruments. This wasn’t so hard, when, for instance, I was helping to design a survey for a psychology experiment to be given to children and their mothers. First of all, the subjects were all unknown to me; second, the outcomes were also relatively unknown to me. When it comes to designing an instrument to evaluate myself, however, the tables have turned. I know myself better than I know anyone, and, on top of it, the “outcome” of any assessment always seems known to me (whether I think I did well or poorly, I still think I know). This relationship between instructor, evaluator, and curriculum designer complicates the survey writing process in a special way, I think.

Don’t get me wrong: I don’t think it’s impossible (or even too difficult) to create robust, unbiased assessment instruments to be used on oneself. However, I do think that it requires not only a bit more insight into the survey writing process, but also, possibly, a bit more pilot testing of the instrument in order to root out any unintended and unnoticed bias. With a bit more care (and sometimes assistance), I think writing surveys to assess one’s own performance can actually provide insight into performance style and skills that will also go beyond simply reading what other people think of your performance.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Information Literacy :: Learning from Each Other

Last week in class we watched several of our class’s completed screencasts and discussed them, then we discussed the (way to huge to fit into a couple hours) topic of information literacy.

I really enjoyed seeing the other folks’ screencasts. Watching other people’s creations not only helps you to learn techniques for your own work, but, I think, also helps beginners to see that “they’re not alone.” If I compare my first screencast to professionally made ‘casts on YouTube, I’m going to feel like I did a horrible job – but those people making those ‘casts have experience that I don’t have. Looking at the screencasts of other people making them for the first time, however, creates a sense of camaraderie, as well as a sense that I’m on the right track. It was a valuable exercise.

We spent the rest of the class, in various formations (small group discussion, large group discussion, lecture) discussing the myriad topics that fall under the heading of “information literacy.” There are so many various concepts subsumed under this heading, such as digital literacy, metaliteracy, transliteracy, information fluency, etc. etc., that it can be quite overwhelming to get a sense of where we are in this world. Unfortunately, I won’t be around next fall to take Kristin’s class on information literacy, so I’m going to have to make due, for now, with that 2 hours we had in class.

I think one of the biggest things I took from this discussion is, again, the need for collaboration among institutions. I hear this word, collaboration, so much that I’m starting to get sick of it, but it’s not going anywhere soon so I’m just going to have to deal with it. The problem with collaboration and information literacy seems to be, to me, that we all talk about how we need to collaborate more, but then we go and all have our own definitions for what “information literacy” really is, or we go and make up our own words (see all the words in the middle of the paragraph above). The problem isn’t having all these words and definitions, of course, but not realizing that, at the heart of it we’re all talking about the same thing. We can, of course, discuss the differences between our individual ideas of information literacy, but we also need to find and expand our common ground. The only place we’re going to get with all of the disagreements is a world where we don’t have proper standards for teaching information literacy, and therefore we don’t have proper standards for testing for it, and our educational program here will be left in the 20th century.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Learning Environments: Is the Digital World the Place Where the Humanities Finally Come Together?

This week’s readings were a chapter from How People Learn on instructional environments and an article by D. Royce Sadler on formative assessment and instructional design (1989). These readings both discussed the importance of designing both curricula and environments to provide the important scaffolding for students to learn, especially the learning that takes place at a metacognitive level, such as learning to evaluate one’s own work.

One idea from these readings that I found particularly compelling was the idea of creating communities of collaboration and feedback for development. This type of environment seems fairly common in some of the arts, as well as in the sciences. For instance, in the world of computer science, there is the large, open community of the internet to provide for evaluative opportunities. If I want to learn to write code, I can find any number of websites not only with educational materials, but with code available to download and analyze and learn from. I can see very easily what constitutes good code and bad code.

However, as Sadler (1989) points out, this type of interaction does not exist so much in the humanities, where scholars often work alone. There are materials that can be read, but their evaluation is, at best, “fuzzy” (Sadler, 1989), and these types of evaluative learning experiences would be best served by having a more interactive community surrounding the products of our practice.

I think this is an important consideration for the movement forward of the “digital humanities.” As the presence of humanities scholars in the digital world increases, and as the products of humanities research are increasingly born digital, I think it is imperative that we create an environment and a community that is ripe for collaboration and interaction. This is going to be one of the trickiest areas to negotiate, going forward, because of the long-standing culture of the solitary scholar in the humanities. However, as was pointed out in the chapter from How People Learn, it is important to make sure that we are creating a sense of connectedness and commitment among our instructional communities. Although we do need to be sensitive to previous cultural norms, we also need to make sure we are helping to create a new broader community.

This more connected community, will, in turn, help new students of the humanities to recognize more connections between their learning, their research, and the world around them. More importantly, though, a greater community can help students learn the standards and norms that we hope they will model and, someday, transcend.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

My First Screencast

This is my first screencast, on how to get started using the website Vimeo.

I hope you enjoy, and possibly learn something!

How to Get Started Using Vimeo from Ryan Clement on Vimeo.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Living Outside the Networks; or, Life in the Ether

This week, we got to find our own readings. We were tasked with finding readings from scholarly journals which both related to our future careers and the topic of “information literacy” (or transliteracy, or information fluency, or any of the number of names for these somewhat nebulous but popular instructional and learning concepts). I found one reading that related to both school libraries, and the transition of learners from these school libraries into the world of academic libraries (Jaeger, 2011); one reading that discussed a new instructional paradigm of “connectivism” and its connection to transliteracy (and metaliteracy) and libraries (Dunaway, 2011); and a reading that discussed transliteracy in the context of the digital humanities and “new media” (Thomas, 2008).

Surprisingly, the most relevant ideas I picked up from these readings were not from the two people (Jaeger and Dunaway) writing from library and information science perspectives, but from Sue Thomas, who is a professor of New Media at De Montfort University. Thomas was also one of the founders of the group Production and Research in Transliteracy (http://www.transliteracy.com). In her article, Thomas discusses the idea that, if we map the “patterns of our lifeworlds” as the intellectual networks we form and move about, we will find that there are certain structural holes in these networks. In other words, we are not necessarily at the center of one completely fleshed out and self-sustaining network. We may be connected to a number of networks that are only connected to each other via individual nodes (i.e. our colleague who might not be in the middle of one of our networks, but serves a connecting point between two or more of our networks). Beyond this, Thomas cites Tobey Moores as discussing the idea that not only do we have these singular nodes that connect our networks, but we often have (or are) entities that exist outside of the network altogether. This “increasing number of individuals…not tied to any single network…[who] float freely in the space between them” sounds a lot like librarians to me (Thomas, 2008). For instance, take the following characterization of the state of the “transliterate world” and compare to how you feel about the world of libraries right now: “It is transient (of course). It is uncertain, confusing, overwhelming, and frustrating. One often feels like an amateur, and always slightly out of control”(Thomas, 2008). However, despite this description, THIS is the place where those who exist “outside of the networks” feel most comfortable, just as we feel most comfortable.

In class this past week, Kristin discussed with us the idea that, in the past, library science was a very “left-brained” science, full of order and silence, but that now it has become a most certainly “right-brained” science, full of questions, experimentation, and uncertainty. I think this above characterization suits this perfectly. I also think that it serves as a good lead-in to my problems with the article I read by Paige Jaeger.

I did find many things to like about Jaeger’s article: the focus on making sure students know that research is “goal-directed,” and not just random clicking around; the fact that marketing and outreach proved to be a big part of getting learner and patron buy-in for information literacy; and the idea that instructional librarians need to consider the different contexts in which students approach media. However, when comparing this idea of “transliteracy” with the ideas presented in Thomas’s article, I am left with a question – are we just, at times, attempting to make students literate in the ways we want them to be literate? For example, Jaeger seems averse to the idea of teaching students how to evaluate and cite videos, citing the slogan she used in her library, “Print is important” – sure, print is important, but why is important, and who is it important for? As Thomas (2008) discusses, there are many cultures where print doesn’t matter, who seem to now be making a leap from “pre-literate” to “multi-media” cultures. If we can provide methods for communication of knowledge that completely skip over print, is that okay? If not, why not?

My other issue with Paige, and the traditional library approach to information literacy in general, comes from the way we teach students to evaluate sources. Paige (2008) gives an example of holding up the New York Times and the Weekly World News and asking students which one their teachers would rather have them use for a research paper. Of course, all of the students know that the NYT is the place to go. As Paige says, “The New York Times might get them to college when the Weekly World News will only engage them in the task”(2008). This, right here, seems quite problematic to me – what are we trying to do? Do we want to “get them to college” or do we really just want to engage them? Which is more important? I hate when students come to the reference desk where I work and express shock and fear when I tell them to use Wikipedia a jumping-off point for their research. “But my professor said no Wikipedia!” Why are we trying to make students afraid of resources? Sure, you can’t have students basing whole papers on Wikipedia, but you also wouldn’t have them basing whole papers on Encyclopedia Britannica. And, as cited in Dunaway (2011), Head and Eisenberg (2010) found that “Wikipedia plays an important role when students are formulating and defining a topic. But when students are in deep research mode [conducting] scholarly research, it is library databases, such as JSTOR and PsycINFO, for instance, that students use more frequently than Wikipedia.”

Students want quality resources – they want to know the truth. The Internet has exposed them to so many contradictory ideas, and they want help sorting through these ideas. It seems clear to me, though, that the way forward in this quest for teaching information literacy is not, as Jaeger suggests, a restrictive over-valuation of our hallowed print sources and databases, but an integrative approach. As Dunaway (2011) suggests, it is important to teach students the similarities and connections between all of the myriad resources they have available, not just teaching them what is wrong or off-limits in that world of resources. As librarians, we have just recently moved beyond the image of “shushers” – let’s not get a new reputation for being restrictive in a different realm.

References

Dunaway, M.K. (2011). “Connectivism: learning thoery and pedagogical practice for networked information landscapes.” Reference Services Review. Vol. 39, No. 4. 675-85.

Jaeger, P. (2011). “Transliteracy: new library lingo and what it means for instruction.” Library Media Connection. Vol. 30, No. 2. 44-7.

Thomas, S. (2008). “Transliteracy and new media.” Transdisciplinary Digital Art, Sound, Vision, and the New Screen. Vol. 7. 101-9.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Teaching with Screencasts; or, the Problem with Communication

This past week in class, we talked some more about what separates “experts” from “novices,” and then we got into our first “technique” we will be learning and practicing in class this semester: the screencast. The screencast, typically, is a video production in which a teacher records his/her screen, along with vocal instructions (and perhaps other additions – such as highlighting parts of the screen, using interstitial titles for clarification/organization, etc…) in order to teach a certain skill. Due to the nature of the screencast (i.e. it’s a recording of a screen), this technique is most typically used to teach software and web application skills.

I have had a number of teachers who recorded their lectures along with the screens of their machines in order to create a sort of “lecture-length” screencast. I have found this technique helpful for picking up certain techniques in my more tech-heavy classes, as I am allowed to just pay attention during the actual class, because I can go back and figure out the specific techniques later on, without having to have taken notes on every cursor move and mouse click. I have also used screencasts in order to answer specific questions I’ve had about particular pieces of software. For instance, if I am trying to learn how to edit a vocal track in GarageBand, I could simply go to Google or YouTube and look for “GarageBand Vocal Editing Tutorial” or “GarageBand Vocal Editing Screencast.” In these instances, I have found screencasts to be easy to follow and usually more helpful than trying to follow written instructions to solve my technical learning questions.

However, I have found one major issue I have withs screencasts as an instructional method: the lack of ability to communicate in real-time. Now, to be sure, this issue can be mitigated, in certain respects, by the technology used to deliver the screencast. YouTube comments can be made, questions can be asked, and the screencast creator (or other users) can offer answers. Apps could be developed to allow the screencast creator to get a text message or an email with a learner’s question, to facilitate quicker feedback. Nothing, however, will change the fact that screencasts can’t entirely replace face-to-face learning. In class we talked about the possibility that we need to “just go where the students go.” I think this is important – we do need to be where students are, and it is clear that many of our models of learning and instruction, which were developed long before the Internet and the digital revolution, need to be rethought in light of these new developments. However, I think it is also extremely important that we at least attempt to maintain that face-to-face, student-to-teacher connection in some way. Whether we need to make sure we leave space for the more traditional methods in our repertoire of techniques, or whether we simply need to help develop the technology that will allow us to bring the more traditional into the 21st century, it seems clear to me that nothing can replace a teacher reacting to a student’s puzzled look, or a student being able to ask for clarification IMMEDIATELY upon having a question.

In general, I tend to prefer new ideas to old ideas. One thing I seem to be learning, though, is that I think of instruction in much the same way I think of baking. New technologies and techniques are great, but they can only enhance, and not replace, the traditional.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment