Comments on: You Can’t Make Me Drink the Kool-Aid: Part Two http://toolsblog.umwblogs.org/2008/03/07/you-cant-make-me-drink-the-kool-aid-part-two/ Behind the scenes of your favorite web tools, plus a little more. Thu, 04 Dec 2008 06:24:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Chris L http://toolsblog.umwblogs.org/2008/03/07/you-cant-make-me-drink-the-kool-aid-part-two/#comment-240 Chris L Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:37:02 +0000 http://toolsblog.umwblogs.org/2008/03/07/you-cant-make-me-drink-the-kool-aid-part-two/#comment-240 I agree with much about what you have to say, but there is a fundamental assumption in there that technology needs to be specially justified as opposed to the "normal" way of teaching. So, if an instructor wants to use a blog, then they need to follow your path of reasoning to justify that use. The problem is that much of the normal way of teaching is itself suspect... shouldn't it be held up to the same scrutiny? Just because something has been done for a long time doesn't make it right... in fact it might make it even more wrong. So, are you willing to question the "traditional" methods the way you want anyone thinking about new methods to question theirs? If/when you are a teacher, will you scrutinize the model of the lecture, the reading assignment, notetaking, paper writing, exams and investigate constructivist, constructionist, connectivist and other pedagogies? I wonder what they mythical good way that you expect instructors to test their solutions against is? I'm not arguing strongly about justification, only that you seem to have a lot of misplaced faith that the traditional methods you are measuring against have a strong history of being the best... or even of working well. They don't. Some significant part of teaching involves intuition and experimentation-- if that's been acceptable before, it has to remain acceptable to some degree now. I agree with much about what you have to say, but there is a fundamental assumption in there that technology needs to be specially justified as opposed to the “normal” way of teaching. So, if an instructor wants to use a blog, then they need to follow your path of reasoning to justify that use.

The problem is that much of the normal way of teaching is itself suspect… shouldn’t it be held up to the same scrutiny? Just because something has been done for a long time doesn’t make it right… in fact it might make it even more wrong. So, are you willing to question the “traditional” methods the way you want anyone thinking about new methods to question theirs? If/when you are a teacher, will you scrutinize the model of the lecture, the reading assignment, notetaking, paper writing, exams and investigate constructivist, constructionist, connectivist and other pedagogies?

I wonder what they mythical good way that you expect instructors to test their solutions against is?

I’m not arguing strongly about justification, only that you seem to have a lot of misplaced faith that the traditional methods you are measuring against have a strong history of being the best… or even of working well. They don’t. Some significant part of teaching involves intuition and experimentation– if that’s been acceptable before, it has to remain acceptable to some degree now.

]]> By: jmcclurken http://toolsblog.umwblogs.org/2008/03/07/you-cant-make-me-drink-the-kool-aid-part-two/#comment-224 jmcclurken Sat, 08 Mar 2008 01:45:33 +0000 http://toolsblog.umwblogs.org/2008/03/07/you-cant-make-me-drink-the-kool-aid-part-two/#comment-224 I don't have another long response in me after the last comment, but l wanted to note that I agree, more or less, with the notions that: 1) (Newer) Technology should not just be used in a class because it's there; there should be a reason for doing so. 2) The process of students learning the technology/tool should be carefully considered, though I'd argue there are times when there is real value in letting students play and struggle on their own. 3) Transparency of purpose and reasoning is key, especially when you are asking students to go beyond their comfort zones. [However, transparency of purpose may mean me saying, "I'm not going to tell you what to do here. I believe that figuring out how best to use this tool to present your ideas is a valuable skill.] I appreciate the time and effort you've spent thinking about this subject. Thanks. I don’t have another long response in me after the last comment, but l wanted to note that I agree, more or less, with the notions that:
1) (Newer) Technology should not just be used in a class because it’s there; there should be a reason for doing so.

2) The process of students learning the technology/tool should be carefully considered, though I’d argue there are times when there is real value in letting students play and struggle on their own.

3) Transparency of purpose and reasoning is key, especially when you are asking students to go beyond their comfort zones. [However, transparency of purpose may mean me saying, "I'm not going to tell you what to do here. I believe that figuring out how best to use this tool to present your ideas is a valuable skill.]

I appreciate the time and effort you’ve spent thinking about this subject. Thanks.

]]>