Thursday, April 30, 2015

Blog # 4: Responding to Changes

Professional Goals

The world has changed.  It once was some 25,000 statute miles in circumference; now it is about ninety minutes from Cape Canaveral to Cape Canaveral.  As a senior in high school, and as a cadet in the Civil Air Patrol, I was afforded the opportunity to spend a week at the now defunct Richards-Gebaur Air Force Base, a part of the Air Defense Command.  Among other activities, we cadets were able to tour the base's computer room--one room, as large as three or more basketball courts, vacuum tube-driven hardware, loud and cold environment.  Later, data punch cards became the standard means of remembering information--ROM.  Each card had this caveat:  "Do not fold, spindle, or mutilate."

Later, in the early 1980s, after separating from the Navy, I purchased a Radio Shack "Tandy Color Computer 128".  Think of that:  One hundred twenty-eight kilobytes of RAM!  No hard drive (what was that?), and programs were on either audio cassettes or little plug-in modules.

In Basic Training, Spring of 1975,  I watched a 16mm film featuring the 1969 flight line fire aboard the USS Forrestal, a paradigm-shifting event in the Navy; recently, I found it online, downloaded it, and can now watch it using Windows Media Player.

We learned the old-fashioned way, back then.  We earned it.  Well, those of us who actually tried.  We listened to lecture, we read, we dissected frogs and tortoises and earthworms.  We did lab experiments in physics and chemistry.  And we had to remember what we had learned.  We had no choice.  Tests were not open book, and neither was life.  We did not have access to an internet, or a world wide web--or, for that matter, even a well-stocked library.

Not so today.  Not so, the 21st Century.  The teaching model, as explained in this Prezi YouTube video uploaded by mathipedia, has changed.  For the better, or for the worse--the jury is still out, but I do have my opinion.  Some of the assertions made therein, I agree with; others, I do not.  I am forced, based on empirical evidence, to agree with the assertion that teachers are no longer the sole source of information in the classroom.  However, I am a little queasy about calling teachers filters of information.  What I disagree with, however, is the notion about apparently starting with the upper levels of Bloom's taxonomy first:  Creating, evaluating, analyzing; meanwhile, we are neglecting the fundamentals:  Remembering, understanding, and applying.  

My concern is perhaps better explained by the car repair analogy.  One cannot be expected to understand the more complex fuel management systems or ignition management systems of a newer  car unless one has a basic, fundamental understanding of the four-stroke cycle engine's combustion process.

Well.  Enough of that, before I get in trouble, and find myself fired before being hired.  As Bob Dylan so eloquently said so many millennia ago, "The times, they are a changin'."  And respond I must.  In the "old days," teachers had to concern themselves with only content knowledge (CK) and, to a lesser degree, pedagogical knowledge (PK).  (See Shulman, here.)  Now, however, as the Prezi above states, there is more:  There is technical knowledge (TK) which must be gained by the teacher also. 

Reading the literature about them, I get the sense that, based on my education--both in my baccalaureate majors and also in my graduate training--that I employed TPCK during my student teaching semester.  I just didn't call it that. Blending the three together has been the mission of the people at TPACK Academy.  There they have striven to help educators find that "sweet spot" where PK, CK, and TK all intersect--TPCK.  Ideally, that intersection will be broad-based; but they must now intersect.

Leading up to the next bit of discussion, we need to watch the two following videos one concerning the demise of the traditional, or legacy college education, and then a video which is a hypothetical account of the demise of traditional, or legacy news media.  Now let us analyze something which the voice-over narrator says in the second video:  "For too many, EPIC is merely a collection of trivia much of it untrue, all of it narrow, shallow, and sensational.  But EPIC was what we wanted.  It is what we chose, and its commercial success preempted any discussions of media and democracy, or journalistic ethics."
Both videos paint incredible pictures of the future, but both imply that there is a fine line between a progressive society, and a dystopian society.  Technological shifts often outrun society.

Free Online Instructional Videos for K-12

"KHAAANNNN!"  Also sprach Kirk, in Star Trek II:  The Wrath of Khan.  But that was then, this is now, and it is a whole different Khan:  Sal Khan, former hedge fund analyst, who began by helping, via YouTube, his niece.  Since then, over 41 million students have clicked on his website, taking in lessons in all the STEM subjects.  He intends to carry his online "academy" into history, according to this 60 Minutes video, produced in March, 2012.  His video lessons are being incorporated into the curriculum in the Los Altos school district near San Francisco and, at least per the video, has garnered nothing but praise from faculty and students alike.  indeed, as Google's Eric Schmidt noted, "...Innovation never comes from the established institutions; it's always a graduate student or some crazy person or somebody with a great vision...."  

Coupled with such resources as Educanon, which can be used to make the videos even more interactive, teachers can engage students even more thoroughly. 

Kahn appears to want to include such subjects as history in his repertoire; as a social studies teacher, I am cautiously skeptical.  I would have to carefully vet his lessons before placing my (rather insignificant) seal of approval upon them.

Free Online University Classes and MOOCs

What is a MOOC?  Based on this video from Educause, I interpret it as a new twist on the old "continuing education" credit classes.  Some key words used in the video included "connectivity" and "analytics."

Are you interested in a better understanding of our founding document, the United States Constitution and its 27 Amendments?  Hillsdale College has offered, and will again, I am sure, this free course, known as Constitution 101.

Plans for Free Online Degrees

Dr. Daphne Koller, Stanford, gave a TED talk in 2012 concerning online education--specifically free classes.  In it she revealed that at least by the time of her lecture, college tuition had increased by 556%!  One might be tempted to ask the universal question, "why", but methinks it is quite self-evident:  Government interference.  When the federal government decided to interpose itself into the free marked of education in the form of taking over the student loan system, a new bubble was formed, just like the savings & loan, dot.com, housing, and healthcare financing bubbles were formed.  But that is a discussion for another time.  
The problem with "free" degrees is, they are free.  Although the principle of TANSTAAFL plays in--"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch."  And the notion that everybody getting an online education will make 98% of them "above average" is just a bit more than misleading.  There is no "Lake Woebegone".  

That said, education is vital.  But as one correspondent cautioned in the replies, too many potential employers still demand not a certificate, but a diploma--be it associate's, baccalaureate, or master's degree.  And Dr. Koller, et. al. must make that leap.  That is a daunting challenge, fraught with many hidden dangers, such as security of the data--be it academic, or personal user data, cultural and language barriers, grading biases (not every answer is binary), and other  factors.  It may yet be done.  and it may yet be successful.  But we must ask at what cost.  Professors still have wives and children to feed; they have student loans of their own to discharge.  There is the infrastructure, the technical personnel to maintain it; there are a plethora of other overhead costs which must be absorbed by someone:  And it is not fair to the legacy students at a university such as Dr. Koller's Stanford.  This is analogous to a transportation infrastructure issue which is rearing its head.  Highways are built and maintained by being financed with revenues from road use taxes.  These taxes are collected at the gasoline and Diesel fuel pumps.  But with the latest hybrids and electric vehicles, not to mention the more efficient typical cars, tax revenues are not keeping pace with the wear and tear on our transportation infrastructure.  
"Free online degrees" cannot ever be entirely free.

New Writers and Sources of Textbooks

It was the Autumn and Winter of 1975/76.  Common Core had not been invented.  Or had it? Writing one's own textbook?  Pshaw.  Permit me to introduce to you the US Naval Nuclear Power School, then located at the Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, CA.  Each student wrote his own textbook based on the curriculum that did not deviate one iota from that prescribed by NAVEDTRA.  This applied to such courses as General Chemistry, Heat Transfer/Fluid Flow, Nuclear Physics, and others.  Only in the second semester's course work were we subjected to pre-published texts.  And those were classified documents, unlike the self-written ones, so they were permitted only in the classroom or the barracks.  I still have those hand-written textbooks.

But this is a new phenomenon, and it may be the salvation, at least in part, of legacy universities, where textbooks require their own student loans.  One source of "open-source" textbooks, OpenStax, is free; however the Rice University non-profit organization requests students submit their homework via WebAssign, which charges up to $25.00/semester--still a far cry from the cost of some textbooks. Whereas OpenStax is donor-funded, Flat World Knowledge is not; they charge for their textbooks.  

Teach Thought, a "progressive learning brand dedicated to supporting educators in evolving learning for a 21st century audience," has proffered the idea that  textbooks be modified by teachers as they see fit; Toss in a different textbook's paragraph, cut/copy/paste.  The secret (and the danger, in my opinion) is the concept of "open-source educational resources," or OERs, which have no copyright restrictions.  This means anyone may change the document and publish it.  However, the danger is, that digital textbook turns into a sort of Wikipedia, with no accountability for accuracy.  Teachers emphasize multiple times each school year the importance of realizing Wikipedia is not to be treated as a reliable source, primarily because of this reason--it is open source.  Should any teacher use an "open source" textbook?

Resources

  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTIBDR4Dn2g#t=81
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Shulman
  3. http://epic2020.org/
  4. http://idorosen.com/mirrors/robinsloan.com/epic/
  5. http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/khan-academy-the-future-of-education-50121400/
  6. https://www.educanon.com/aboutus
  7. http://www.educause.edu/library/massive-open-online-course-mooc
  8. http://hillsdale.edu/
  9. http://lp.hillsdale.edu/constitution-101-signup-tv/?utm_source=general&utm_medium=drtv&utm_content=website&utm_campaign=con101
  10. http://www.ted.com/talks/daphne_koller_what_we_re_learning_from_online_education#t-33798
  11. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/12/04/openstax-announces-first-ipad-version-its-free-online-textbooks
  12. http://www.teachthought.com/technology/5-sources-of-open-source-textbooks/

No comments:

Post a Comment