学习之战:在数字大学中取得进展

M. Fifolt
{"title":"学习之战:在数字大学中取得进展","authors":"M. Fifolt","doi":"10.5860/choice.190855","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"THE WAR ON LEARNING: GAINING GROUND IN THE DIGITAL UNIVERSITY LOSH, E. 2014. CAMBRIDGE, MA: THE MIT PRESS. 302 PP.In The War on Learning, self-described digital rhetorician Elizabeth Losh contends that postsecondary institutions in the United States have willingly adopted commodity solutions to instructional technology (i.e., learning management systems) when they would be better served to have invested resources in new practices of digital literacy. In this highly academic and technically specific book, Losh states that online learning platforms, interfaces, and codes require \"knowledge of technical specifics as well as practical pedagogical application\" (p. 8) but err too often on the side of profit and bottom-line efficiencies that undervalue intellectual development and scholarly participation.Losh argues that \"instructional technology shapes interaction, mediates communication, participates in social relations, and amplifies the message of the instructor\" (p. 5). Technology, therefore, is far from a neutral transmitter of information. Rather, it reflects biases and hidden assumptions that both influence and are influenced by classroom instruction. Three critical theoretical frameworks guide the discussion: (a) object-oriented ontology; (b) media archaeology; and (c) feminist theory, as related to boundary objects, infrastructure, and situated interactions (p. 3).Losh identifies her intended audience as college and university presidents but acknowledges that they tend to focus on grand visions for institutions rather than granular details of instructional technology. However, consistent with the findings of Chopp, Frost, and Weiss (2014), she notes that college presidents \"have to make decisions on a daily basis about where resources are invested-and when, how, and why and for whom\" (p. 15). This challenge becomes more difficult as instructional technology increases rather than decreases costs.COMPETITION AND CONFLICT VS. COOPERATIONLosh proposes that in the current era of \"socially networked computing,\" academic and popular forms of instruction should converge to support a \"life-long culture of inquiry, collective intelligence, and distributed learning practices\" (p. 18). Instead, higher education has created an environment that emphasizes competition and conflict over cooperation (p. 26). By way of example, Losh describes a \"war on learning\" in which faculty members use technology to \"command and control\" while students use technology to \"game the system.\" She suggests that Stake- holders in higher education must find common ground with one another to realize the full potential of the digital technologies they use every day.In an especially powerful example of conflict, Losh discusses a series of YouTube videos in which students exhibit techniques for cheating on exams. Media outlets seized upon these \"cheating videos\" as an example of how students are using technology to undermine or \"game\" the educational system, yet Losh points out that beyond the ethical issues of cheating, the students in these videos demonstrate mastery of key concepts and proficiency with knowledge transfer. More to the point, she suggests that these \"cheating videos\" raise two critical questions for educators to consider:0 What's wrong with the education system that students can subvert conventional tests so easily?0 What's right with YouTube culture that encourages participation, creativity, institutional subversion, and satire? (p. 23)Losh suggests further that when instructors use meaningful learning activities and develop exams that require students to apply knowledge rather than simply memorize and restate course content, learning assessments can become \"virtually uncheatable\" (Lang 2013, p. 61).ADJUSTING TO THE NEW NORMALA number of academic reformers have proposed disabling Internet connections or prohibiting the use of electronic devices in order to create classrooms free from distraction. …","PeriodicalId":75260,"journal":{"name":"Tribal college and university research journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The War on Learning: Gaining Ground in the Digital University\",\"authors\":\"M. Fifolt\",\"doi\":\"10.5860/choice.190855\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"THE WAR ON LEARNING: GAINING GROUND IN THE DIGITAL UNIVERSITY LOSH, E. 2014. CAMBRIDGE, MA: THE MIT PRESS. 302 PP.In The War on Learning, self-described digital rhetorician Elizabeth Losh contends that postsecondary institutions in the United States have willingly adopted commodity solutions to instructional technology (i.e., learning management systems) when they would be better served to have invested resources in new practices of digital literacy. In this highly academic and technically specific book, Losh states that online learning platforms, interfaces, and codes require \\\"knowledge of technical specifics as well as practical pedagogical application\\\" (p. 8) but err too often on the side of profit and bottom-line efficiencies that undervalue intellectual development and scholarly participation.Losh argues that \\\"instructional technology shapes interaction, mediates communication, participates in social relations, and amplifies the message of the instructor\\\" (p. 5). Technology, therefore, is far from a neutral transmitter of information. Rather, it reflects biases and hidden assumptions that both influence and are influenced by classroom instruction. Three critical theoretical frameworks guide the discussion: (a) object-oriented ontology; (b) media archaeology; and (c) feminist theory, as related to boundary objects, infrastructure, and situated interactions (p. 3).Losh identifies her intended audience as college and university presidents but acknowledges that they tend to focus on grand visions for institutions rather than granular details of instructional technology. However, consistent with the findings of Chopp, Frost, and Weiss (2014), she notes that college presidents \\\"have to make decisions on a daily basis about where resources are invested-and when, how, and why and for whom\\\" (p. 15). This challenge becomes more difficult as instructional technology increases rather than decreases costs.COMPETITION AND CONFLICT VS. COOPERATIONLosh proposes that in the current era of \\\"socially networked computing,\\\" academic and popular forms of instruction should converge to support a \\\"life-long culture of inquiry, collective intelligence, and distributed learning practices\\\" (p. 18). Instead, higher education has created an environment that emphasizes competition and conflict over cooperation (p. 26). By way of example, Losh describes a \\\"war on learning\\\" in which faculty members use technology to \\\"command and control\\\" while students use technology to \\\"game the system.\\\" She suggests that Stake- holders in higher education must find common ground with one another to realize the full potential of the digital technologies they use every day.In an especially powerful example of conflict, Losh discusses a series of YouTube videos in which students exhibit techniques for cheating on exams. Media outlets seized upon these \\\"cheating videos\\\" as an example of how students are using technology to undermine or \\\"game\\\" the educational system, yet Losh points out that beyond the ethical issues of cheating, the students in these videos demonstrate mastery of key concepts and proficiency with knowledge transfer. More to the point, she suggests that these \\\"cheating videos\\\" raise two critical questions for educators to consider:0 What's wrong with the education system that students can subvert conventional tests so easily?0 What's right with YouTube culture that encourages participation, creativity, institutional subversion, and satire? (p. 23)Losh suggests further that when instructors use meaningful learning activities and develop exams that require students to apply knowledge rather than simply memorize and restate course content, learning assessments can become \\\"virtually uncheatable\\\" (Lang 2013, p. 61).ADJUSTING TO THE NEW NORMALA number of academic reformers have proposed disabling Internet connections or prohibiting the use of electronic devices in order to create classrooms free from distraction. …\",\"PeriodicalId\":75260,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Tribal college and university research journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Tribal college and university research journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.190855\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tribal college and university research journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.190855","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

学习之战:在数字化大学时代取得进展,2014年。马萨诸塞州剑桥:麻省理工学院出版社。302页:在《对学习的战争》一书中,自称为数字修辞学家的伊丽莎白·洛什认为,美国的高等教育机构愿意采用商品化的教学技术解决方案(即学习管理系统),而如果将资源投入到数字素养的新实践中,它们会得到更好的服务。在这本学术性和技术性很强的书中,Losh指出,在线学习平台、界面和代码需要“对技术细节的了解以及实际的教学应用”(第8页),但往往在利润和底线效率方面犯错误,低估了智力发展和学术参与。洛什认为,“教学技术塑造了互动,调解了交流,参与了社会关系,并放大了教师的信息”(第5页)。因此,技术远不是一个中立的信息传递者。相反,它反映了偏见和隐藏的假设,这些偏见和假设既影响课堂教学,也受课堂教学的影响。三个关键的理论框架指导讨论:(a)面向对象的本体;(b)媒介考古学;(c)女权主义理论,与边界对象、基础设施和情境互动有关(第3页)。洛什认为她的目标读者是学院和大学校长,但承认他们倾向于关注机构的宏伟愿景,而不是教学技术的细节。然而,与Chopp、Frost和Weiss(2014)的研究结果一致,她指出,大学校长“必须每天就资源投资的地点、时间、方式、原因和为谁投资做出决定”(第15页)。随着教学技术的发展而不是成本的降低,这一挑战变得更加困难。竞争与冲突VS.合作losh提出,在当前的“社会网络计算”时代,学术和流行的教学形式应该融合在一起,以支持“探究、集体智慧和分布式学习实践的终身文化”(第18页)。相反,高等教育创造了一个强调竞争和冲突而不是合作的环境(第26页)。举个例子,Losh描述了一场“对学习的战争”,在这场战争中,教职员工使用技术来“指挥和控制”,而学生则使用技术来“玩弄系统”。她建议,高等教育的利益相关者必须找到彼此的共同点,以实现他们每天使用的数字技术的全部潜力。在一个特别有力的冲突例子中,Losh讨论了一系列YouTube视频,其中学生展示了考试作弊的技巧。媒体抓住这些“作弊视频”作为学生如何利用技术破坏或“玩弄”教育系统的例子,然而洛什指出,除了作弊的道德问题外,这些视频中的学生还展示了对关键概念的掌握和知识转移的熟练程度。更重要的是,她认为这些“作弊视频”提出了教育工作者需要考虑的两个关键问题:教育系统出了什么问题,学生可以如此轻易地颠覆传统的考试?YouTube文化鼓励参与、创造力、制度颠覆和讽刺,它的正确之处是什么?(第23页)Losh进一步建议,当教师使用有意义的学习活动,并开发要求学生应用知识而不是简单地记忆和重述课程内容的考试时,学习评估可以变得“几乎不可欺骗”(Lang 2013,第61页)。适应新常态许多学术改革家建议禁用互联网连接或禁止使用电子设备,以创造一个不受干扰的教室。...
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The War on Learning: Gaining Ground in the Digital University
THE WAR ON LEARNING: GAINING GROUND IN THE DIGITAL UNIVERSITY LOSH, E. 2014. CAMBRIDGE, MA: THE MIT PRESS. 302 PP.In The War on Learning, self-described digital rhetorician Elizabeth Losh contends that postsecondary institutions in the United States have willingly adopted commodity solutions to instructional technology (i.e., learning management systems) when they would be better served to have invested resources in new practices of digital literacy. In this highly academic and technically specific book, Losh states that online learning platforms, interfaces, and codes require "knowledge of technical specifics as well as practical pedagogical application" (p. 8) but err too often on the side of profit and bottom-line efficiencies that undervalue intellectual development and scholarly participation.Losh argues that "instructional technology shapes interaction, mediates communication, participates in social relations, and amplifies the message of the instructor" (p. 5). Technology, therefore, is far from a neutral transmitter of information. Rather, it reflects biases and hidden assumptions that both influence and are influenced by classroom instruction. Three critical theoretical frameworks guide the discussion: (a) object-oriented ontology; (b) media archaeology; and (c) feminist theory, as related to boundary objects, infrastructure, and situated interactions (p. 3).Losh identifies her intended audience as college and university presidents but acknowledges that they tend to focus on grand visions for institutions rather than granular details of instructional technology. However, consistent with the findings of Chopp, Frost, and Weiss (2014), she notes that college presidents "have to make decisions on a daily basis about where resources are invested-and when, how, and why and for whom" (p. 15). This challenge becomes more difficult as instructional technology increases rather than decreases costs.COMPETITION AND CONFLICT VS. COOPERATIONLosh proposes that in the current era of "socially networked computing," academic and popular forms of instruction should converge to support a "life-long culture of inquiry, collective intelligence, and distributed learning practices" (p. 18). Instead, higher education has created an environment that emphasizes competition and conflict over cooperation (p. 26). By way of example, Losh describes a "war on learning" in which faculty members use technology to "command and control" while students use technology to "game the system." She suggests that Stake- holders in higher education must find common ground with one another to realize the full potential of the digital technologies they use every day.In an especially powerful example of conflict, Losh discusses a series of YouTube videos in which students exhibit techniques for cheating on exams. Media outlets seized upon these "cheating videos" as an example of how students are using technology to undermine or "game" the educational system, yet Losh points out that beyond the ethical issues of cheating, the students in these videos demonstrate mastery of key concepts and proficiency with knowledge transfer. More to the point, she suggests that these "cheating videos" raise two critical questions for educators to consider:0 What's wrong with the education system that students can subvert conventional tests so easily?0 What's right with YouTube culture that encourages participation, creativity, institutional subversion, and satire? (p. 23)Losh suggests further that when instructors use meaningful learning activities and develop exams that require students to apply knowledge rather than simply memorize and restate course content, learning assessments can become "virtually uncheatable" (Lang 2013, p. 61).ADJUSTING TO THE NEW NORMALA number of academic reformers have proposed disabling Internet connections or prohibiting the use of electronic devices in order to create classrooms free from distraction. …
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信