Teetering on the fence

I found the readings for this week pretty interesting. For someone new to the field of education, I am glad to see there clearly are oppositional theorists firmly entrenched in their respective ideologies. As far as I know, differing ideas lead to collaboration which leads to progress (in a perfect world). Unfortunately, clashing opinions in the real world often lead to stoicism, ignorance, and agoraphobia. But I'll leave that alone for now.

To add to our discussion, I found this article by Norm Friesn, an Instructional Technology professor at Athabasca University, in Alberta, Canada. Friesn offers three strong objections to current trends in the design and implementation of learning objects.

His first objection sites the lack of a clear definition for what constitutes a learning object. With so many vague, esoteric definitions for learning objects, legitimate research into their efficacy is virtually impossible, Friesn asserts.

The two other objections cite organizations like the IEEE Learning Technologies Standards Committee and ADL for taking a militaristic approach to standardization and homogeneity. According to Friesn, learning objectives vary with context. Who knew?

In pondering all of these readings as a whole, the only consistency lies in the focus on sound pedagogy and Dewey and all that. It seems to me that cheap digital technology is here. It's in education. It's in socialization. Pretty soon it will be in your refrigerator, your car, and behind your ear (or in your wrist, if you prefer). There's no use fighting it.

-Peace, Love, Gap...I mean...er...oh, whatever