question 3

Question 3
Does on line learning have a place in schools? I think that it entirely depends on the philosophy behind the school.
In many schools where computers are a normal part of the environment on line learning may well have a place as so much information is so easily available on line. As the connectivists say learning is no longer a matter of ‘know-how’ or ‘know-what’ but rather a matter of ‘know-where’ as information and knowledge is changing so fast that one cannot possibly keep up with all the developments and know everything, one must more importantly know where one can find relevant information and as with Bloom’s Taxonomy, learn how to critically analyse and evaluate what one learns on line.
However with this interest in the quantity of information now available to any one, the quality of the information seems to have become less important. Unless you already have considerably knowledge on a subject and can therefore judge the information critically, I think that the information overload could actually be quite dangerous and overwhelming to the indiscriminate student. For one thing without a lot of guidance, one cannot possibly tell whether or not one has read the important thing and one can therefore doubt one’s own understanding. This is an experience I have had on this course, I have never been quite sure what I should have read and when using a search engine, I am quite sure that it is not necessarily the most informative links that come up first.

From a human point of view, I am not sure that on line learning is the answer. Certainly in Steiner Schools computers in general are not used much, particularly in the lower years. Bruner spoke of the different stages necessary in learning as being enactive, iconic and symbolic and though he claimed that anyone can learn anything at any age, I can’t imagine how a computer can be an example which a child would be able to follow in the enactive stage of learning. I would far rather a teacher who has carefully learnt a story or poem and teaches these with their own energy than sitting a child in front of a video clip or listening to a tape.
The same can be said of language learning. Of course one could use i-pods or CDs a lot in learning but I am sure that the physical presence of a teacher and the nuances of his or her voice and character must be more beneficial than pre-recorded sound. After school most of what we learnt is forgotten or never used but what we remember is the social interactions we had with fellow students and teachers. There are not many people who don’t have stories to tell about their teachers and what we learn mostly from them is from their example of how they are a human being, with their care for students, passion for their subject and morals, not much is learnt about the subject.
Another consideration when contemplating the place of on line learning is the extent to which students are actually engaging in what they are learning. If their engagement is more concerned with clicking the correct buttons than the content of what they are learning then clearly does not lend weight to the argument for on line learning, is this active learning? Vygotsky speaks of the need for students and teachers to be active in the process of learning for learning to take place and I am not sure that the teacher can be very active once the webquest is being done, for example.
In this course we have done little on line learning. The experience we had when looking at the webquests was far from inspiring. It confirmed my belief that much of what is done on line runs the risk of being superficial. With out ever having seen a webquest I was asked to critically judge four without even actually following the webquest on its journey. How could I possibly do this? By definition my judgements could only be superficial, and I wonder where that leaves Higher Order thinking?