The Oxford Union E-learning Debate
I was a guest at the E-learning Debate at the Oxford Union last night which debated the motion, This house believes that the e-learning of today is essential for the important skills of tomorrow. There was a packed audience from across the industry and I fully expected the motion to be supported, since my own pre-debate view was that the motion itself betrayed the current politically dominant, crudely utilitarian view of education. Especially since the lead speaker for the motion was Diana Luarillard whose techno-zealotry is well documented. At a previous event I have even heard Diana press the case for abandoning formal exams because we are testing children on irrelevant “skills” they don’t care about…like essay writing. Much better to give them a play station and let them design something “cool!”
It was therefore quite a surprise to hear the articulate opposition, especially from Marc Rosenberg, whose rhetorical skills were extremely strong and I suspect really did swing the debate live in the hall. The Noes won hands down. Dr Rosenberg fundamentally rejected the vacuous promises made for e-learning and pointed out that the very same promises have been made about new technology all the time…and always without result. What was most impressive was his stance that no one was really suggested e-learning wasn’t useful, what he was interested in was a dramatic and fundamental rejection of the way it has been done to date: the tedious online courses; the deception of pretending something is learning when it is really merely training; the obsessive interest in the technology and not the content, but above all he called for e-learning to be done in a way that accepted the reality of human communications, schooling and work practices. Anyone who’s a regular reader will realise it was a fairly obvious choice for me to join the hordes of others queuing for the Noes exit!
The only contribution I made to the debate was to object to the proposition side’s assertion that e-learning was “safe” by pointing out that it is precisely through the combination of e-learning (Serious Games) and operant conditioning that we’ve produced the most effective infantrymen ever invented…and that many of them subsequently return home to find they have to be treated for trauma and depression using exactly the same e-learning applications used to train them! I wonder how many ex-soldiers suffering after effects would accept that the e-learning they received was safe?
Joe Nutt
4 Comments
Reader Comments (4)
With the growth of the modern corporation, the perceived purpose of education shifted to more openly philistine lines. These had been latent since the Great Exhibition of 1851, when professional educators seized upon Germany's technological advances to justify state 'investment' in education.
Yet the link between more education and economic growth is very weak: the Swiss enjoy one of the world's highest standards of living, despite sending fewer students to university than any other advanced nation. The United States is still by far the world's wealthiest nation, yet American schools are generally appalling. The link between education and earnings is no longer as strong as we think: our statistics are based on historical data--most of the workforce grew up when degrees were still the mark of a relatively small elite.
It's refreshing to see the results of the Oxford Union debate--a welcome antidote to the daily postings I get from the e-school news imploring me to invest in the latest technology.
A word of caution about infantry training--my son is a rifleman and a veteran of Afghanistan. He doesn't talk about his experiences to his friends for the simple reason that civilian life is so divorced from the realities of a soldier's life that they just can't connect. But he does talk to me, because I was also trained in basic infantry tactics. Although there is now a lot more sophisticated equipment available, training and tactics have hardly changed at all. Back in the 1980s we had a small amount of virtual training, just as they do now. Now it's a bit more sophisticated, but that's it. Most training is grindingly physical; soldiering is mostly about endurance.
What has changed is that the average recruit has grown up in a cocoon. Mentally, my son survived Afghanistan without a scar: he was among the last generation of boys to spend more time roaming the hills and woods than in front of a VDU. His childhood reading was more attuned to Zane Grey than Roald Dahl. He learned how to skin and dress a rabbit long before he learned how to shave. But a trained robot, he ain't.
The British Army owes its reputation to a self-perpetuating elite of immensely able NCOs, and to the requirement that commissioned officers train as privates before they go to Sandhurst. Unlike our educational system, the military devolves decision-making to the lowest possible level. As an NCO instructor, I had vastly more freedom than I ever did teaching in a comprehensive. Brigadiers and colonels had to ask for permission to enter my classroom--and never once did they tell me how I should teach.
I hadn't made the connection you made between kids with no outdoors experience at all, having to cope with the physical reality of being a soldier, and the few who grew up with a fundamental understanding of the natural world. I spent most of my youth skinning rabbits, digging up foxes or gutting fish so I know exactly what you mean.
The research I quoted in my original paper came from here: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/52256?verify=0
Mind you what should one expect when Prensky's digital natives are old to go...native?
But on reflection, I realised that I only know two people who come close to his description of a digital native. At one time or another, I've employed quite a few of my son's friends, and I know several of them very well. One is almost like another son. But the only sense in which they resemble Prensky's digital native is in their addictions to video games and music. Other than the two afore-mentioned exceptions, none of them use the net for anything other than social purposes--if that. In terms of their learning--well, they're just the same as kids always were. If you hit their ZPD with a well-crafted sequential lesson, they have no problem. Not a trace of parallel processing. Indeed, as a special needs teacher, I avoid ambiguity like the plague: if it's possible to misconstrue your message, you had best believe that someone will.
It's also very indicative of the typical techno-zealot profile: middle aged man obsessed with gadgets, who still wants the kids to think he's "cool." I've never understood why that kind of teacher never realises the kids just revile them.