I still think there's a lot of hype in e-learning and a tendency to overstate the deficiencies of the pre e-learning world. It's not intrinsic in the classroom model that there is one-way knowledge transfer that is regurgitated by mindless drones (a process I call "commodification" here); saying that it's not intrinsic isn't to say that it doesn't happen, it does, but it might be profitable to look at why.
There are of course lots of education scenarios; let's say for a start, school, work, civic, social. Take school, to start. People have to be there. Schools can't teach everything - there are separate questions of whether they should try - so inevitably some subjects for some students are simply obstacles to graduation. Those students want commoditised "knowledge" that they can regurgitate, and if you accept student-centred learning it's difficult to dismiss that idea out of hand. An e-learning environment will not, of itself, obviate this desire to minimise commitment. We might say, yes, but e-learning means we can offer everything, so no student will have to study anything they don't want. Maybe; but that would be choice, not e-learning that was the crucial differentiator.
When I studied law my interest was in legal history, jurisprudence and criminal law; what I might have called the intersection of the institution of the law with the personal. That meant there were roughly 15 other subjects in which I felt I only needed a pass. Believe me when I say I was a big fan of the 100% exam which allowed you to quarantine the time required for a subject into 2 weeks cramming.
I think most of the lecturers felt that most of the students had that attitude - certainly the contempt with which they dispensed their weekly nuggets (I did go to some lectures) was in notable contrast to the enthusiasm with which my enthusiasm for Crim Law was met. The lecturers merely reflected the attitudes of the students - well that's the charitable view, anyway. Again, e-learning isn't going to change that, particularly. But the point is that commoditised knowledge wasn't a by-product of the system, it was produced by the students.
I alluded to the exam system above - assessment clearly plays a part in the commodification process. Assessment is difficult and time-consuming. It lends itself to commodification. E-learning isn't going to change that; even Wesch can pause in his cheerleading to note that e-learning is no panacea for assessment.
Secondary teachers perhaps make more attempts to avoid reflecting the cynicism of their students (for as long as they can, anyway). My secondary teachers were determined that we would learn how to think, not that that we would only learn stuff. They wanted us to learn stuff so we had something to think about, something to think with, and to avoid wasting time thinking about stuff already thunk. That a whole bunch of us chose (and continue to choose) to manipulate that into techniques for scoring high marks in HSC isn't an indictment on the way they taught us.
If you look at the other sectors - civic/social/work - you might say that motivation is less of an issue; more often than not consumers of education in those sectors elect it. That means when looking at e-learning in those sectors we need to distinguish between the effects of motivation & the effect of platform.
Enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment