{"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":"78 1","pages":"53"},"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\":\"78 1\",\"pages\":\"53\"},\"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}
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. …