Software evaluations hyperstudio

index

6513 response

Reaction Papers

Reaction Paper I

Reaction Paper: Technology’sPromises and Dangers in a

Psychological and Educational Context (Gavriel Saloman)

Inthe article, Saloman suggests that advances in technology have caused usto rethink the way we conceptualize the meanings of such concepts as knowledgeacquisition and utilization, understanding, and knowledge. It is not thatthe current meanings no longer apply. Saloman has expanded their meaningto incorporate aspects of technology that we had not considered before.

Forexample, Saloman suggests that the term knowledge has been used in thepast to refer to information that a person possessed. It was a passivenoun signifying the information that one had acquired. In light of newtechnology, the term had been enlarged to include the active meaning ofacquiring information (getting the information instead of having alreadyacquired it).

I thought this was a good distinction because as technologyenables us to become more global-minded, we should also consider knowledgethat is being “shared” between individuals as opposed to knowledge beingthought of as something internal. The term knowledge has to include socialaspects of learning.

Salomanalso discussed the haphazard way in which technology has been used in education.This actually explains a lot about the reason technology implementationin schools has been so uneffective. However, it is not all the school’sfault. As psychological theories have changed over the years, so has ourthinking about how children learn and what are the best way to enhancelearning. With the emergence of cognitive theories the way we conceptualizeunderstanding and knowledge changed and the nature of that change has hada strong impact on the ways schools have attempted to implement technologyin the classroom. This could also explain why schools have been inconsistentand technology implementation has varied from school to school. It couldbe because of the psychological theories of learning that the schools andteachers adhere to.Some theories may be more conducive to incorporatingtechnology into current teacher curriculums than others. Perhaps, if wecould identify the theories that seem most effective in incorporating technology,we could encourage school systems to adapt changes in their present curriculumsin favor of programs that utilize technology.

ReactionPaper III

Running to Catch a Moving Train: Schools and Information Technology

Themain focus of the article was the inability of most public schools to effectivelyutilize the wealth of technological resources available to them. This dilemmahas several layers of problems that will have to be addressed and resolvedbefore students will be able to benefit from there sources. However,this is a good example of how change works. Changeis gradual. It is a slow process. Whereas½technological advances have grown rapidly, changes in the school systemare slow to catch up.

Thearticle addressed whether all this technology is really necessary for studentsto know how to use in the first place. Beckersuggested that the effects of computer software on improving student performanceon skills tests was relatively weak. However,it must be noted that many jobs are being replaced with jobs that willrequire some degree of computer skill in the future. Therefore,learning computer skills is not an option if children are to keep up intomorrow’s society. The articlesuggested more negative points and hinderances to children relying on theschool system to learn computer technology than it did any positive effectsor benefits. It left me wonderingif there was a better way.

Oneof the first issues to be addressed was cost. Itis beyond most school system’s budgets to keep up to date computers, software,cables, and internet access to adequately expose large numbers of studentsto information technology. Computersthat are available are limited in their usage. Students are mostly involvedin word processing and learning the keyboard. Themore advanced activities(i.e. using the internet to do research) are virtuallyuntouched. There was alsothe issue of technological support. Teachersare ill equipped to solve technical problems that arise when the computeris not working properly or they cannot get a program to run. Without technologicalsupport (which the schools cannot adequately afford), the computers cannotbe effectively used. Schoolswould also incur the cost of training for their teachers to improve computerskills and training in software programs.

Anotherproblem I had not considered before involves time. Thepresent structure of classroom instruction leaves little time to squeezein computer time for students. Again,most of the computer classes that are available are used to teach basiccomputer skills (which are necessary). But,the instruction does not advance beyond that.

Ifthe time issue were resolved, schools would still need to address the lackof teacher education in how to incorporate computer technology in theirclass curriculum. One of the suggestions in the article was to developcomputer activities that children could engage in as a group. I liked thisidea. However, the articlepointed out that most of the computers that are in the schools are notin the individual classrooms. Therefore,they are not easily accessible to teachers. Is there a better way for childrento learn to use the computer and learn some of the computer technologythey will need to know in the future?

Ithought about the possibility of developing before or after school computercourses for children at their schools. But,would it be feasible to change the bus schedule? Iam aware that many college and university campuses and vo-techs host computercamps for children in the summer. Thismay be a good way to expose more children to computer technology. Thereis a cost issue. As it isstructured, the camps are usually four to six weeks long and parents payfor the program. It wouldbe beneficial to the children if states could six provide incentives forcampuses to develop more computer programs for them. Theprograms would not be money-makers per se, but more along the line of communityservice. Parents would becharged a nominal fee if any. Collegeshave the computer and technology support available to them. They also haveeasy access to graduate students to teach the courses. However,I can foresee problems with this. Themore the computers are used, the higher the maintenance costs will be tothe colleges. Also, transportationwill have to be arranged for children who could not afford to attend otherwise. Inaddition, from one summer to the next children would lose a lot of whatthey had learned if they do not use it during the school year.

Reaction Paper IV

Review of articles beginning with Delivery Trucksor Groceries? More Food for Thought on Whether Media (Will, May, Can’t)Influence Learning

Clarkwas adamant when he stated in his original article and the rebuttal thatdifferent media attributes accomplished the same learning goals. This impliedthat there was no unique cognitive effect that could be attributed to anysingle media attribute. Therefore, there could be nothing in the mediaattribute that promotes learning. Clarkbelieves that differences in learning goals should be attributed solelyto the medium being used (and not how it was delivered). Clark attemptedto bring his point home by using a medical analogy. Heargued that medication can be administered as a pill, a liquid, or a needleinjection. It didn’t matterhow the person received the medicine. Ifit worked, it would help them. Howthe medicine is delivered is irrelevant to the fact that if it can be deliveredat all the patient would get better. To talk about media and mediums toClark was like mixing apples and oranges. Hisargument is that we should consider learning mediums as being instrumentalto meeting learning objectives. However, the issue of the effectivenessof mediums is confounded by including talk about the effects of media inthe same breath.

Idisagree with him. Media providedifferent modes of delivery. Therefore, the differences in the mode ofdelivery should result in different outcomes. To use Clark’s analogy, weare not talking about one medication (let’s use aspirin). Weare talking about the difference between aspirin, advil, Tylenol, and motrin. Whichworks better to relieve a headache, or a toothache, or a bruised knee? Aspirinmight upset someone’s stomach whereas another person may be allergic tothe ingredients in advil. I believe that variety promotes preference. Ialso disagree that different media attributes accomplish basically thesame thing. Individuals havedifferent learning styles. This should be taken into account when consideringappropriate media. I agreewith Kozma. He suggests thatdifferent media have unique attributes that contribute towards enhancingthe cognitive processes involved in learning. Therefore,a student may have difficulty visualizing something presented in a textbookor on television. However,that same student may be able to grasp a concept presented in an interactiveway in a computer simulation. Thisreminds me of the article we reviewed last week, which discussed how businessesand corporations are using the computer to problem solve. They are ableto change one variable and observe the changes that occur throughout thesystem. This enables them to project what changes they want to make andhow it will affect present and future operations. They gain an understandingof the interactive nature of the systems they are dealing with becausethey can see what the expected outcomes would be if they made the decisions.The author made a point of saying that what took months of planning anddeveloping can be done in a matter of days with computers. This is anotherconsideration in favor of Kozma’s argument.

Oneof the examples Kozma used related to students in a physics class learningabout force and motion. He suggested that the students had a better graspof how force behaves by watching its affects and trajectory movement ofobjects as part of an interactive computer simulation

program. Learning by understanding the consequencesof their actions helped students mentally process the laws of force andmotion at a deeper level than they would have been able to otherwise. Clarkmay argue that the students would have learned the concepts anyway. Onequestion would be how long would it have taken them to do that? Ido not argue that computers are the answer for every kind of learning situation.However, in some situations, the benefits of computer programs may outweighother media choices that exist.

Ialso noted that Clark’s reply still relied on very old information. Hereiterated his old statements with the same old information. Itwas as if the advent of computer technology and computer programs had donelittle if anything to change his mind in regard to the potential benefitsof this new media (with its software and programs) over other media. Kozma’sinformation was more current to the time in which he was writing. His articlealso suggested trends for the future growth and potential for differentmedia in instructional design.