In reading the first chapter of the New Culture of Learning by Thomas and Brown I kept getting hung up on the phrase new. The examples that they cited as being “new” are, to my mind, not really new at all. Part of that stems from the overuse of words like innovation and new. I don’t think there is as much innovation or things that are innovative, there is however much which is adaptation.
Is there any difference basically between a vacuum tube, transistor or an integrated circuit? The basic design principles are the same so was it “innovative” or adaptive. Did Herman Hollerith innovate the punch card that would allow his machine to calculate the 1890 census and laying the foundation for what would become IBM? No he adapted something that had been used in textiles for almost a century. A more appropriate statement would be we have a lot of creative adaptation with scope
Just kidding, not the movie and mouth wash. But it’s really the the expanded opportunity and ease with which to take the adapted idea in more directions. So not necessarily new.
The second chapter however did resonate with me. When I think of Mechanistic I think about the destination not the journey and agreed with the authors observation that “standardization is a reasonable way to do this, and testing is a reasonable way to measure the results.” However, being someone who got more that a few “C” in my life time I’m sure I learned more that some of the students who were much better test takers. That’s why generally I prefer to produce a product to illustrate knowledge not regurgitate them in an exam setting. An emerging cultural learning environment using engagement and embracing change is (OK I’ll say it) a “new” idea to me when considering education.
The article on Connectivism by Siemens was interesting. One of the questions related to learning theory “How can we continue to stay current in a rapidly evolving information ecology.” was of particular interest to me because I think about how people adjust to these changes. As an example I think about Mircosoft Office 2007. The complete change in layout, terminology and functionality was so different that many people that I know panicked. Some colleagues even contemplate retiring if it was time for them to upgrade to a new laptop since the new machine would have the new Office.
I was more annoyed than anything else since I knew how to quickly assist other with issues they may have had in any previous version of Office. I still have problems with the ribbon and what functionality is where. That made me think about Half-life.
Great game but not that one, Half-life from the beginning of the article. “The ‘half-life of knowledge’ is the time span from when knowledge is gained to when it becomes obsolete.” That can be a frightening prospect when you have been groomed in the mechanistic educational paradigm. So given the change in focus and the need to always be learning will there be a generation that is left out in the cold if they can’t change to this connectivism flow of learning?