寄托天下 寄托天下
楼主: cjlu

[资料分享] ☆☆四星级☆☆Economist Debate阅读写作分析----Technology in education [复制链接]

Rank: 9Rank: 9Rank: 9

声望
430
寄托币
4498
注册时间
2008-1-16
精华
5
帖子
71

荣誉版主 AW小组活动奖 IBT Smart Scorpio天蝎座 GRE守护之星

发表于 2009-5-21 18:48:23 |显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 cjlu 于 2009-5-21 18:50 编辑

Featured guest


Mr Don Knezek


    Maybe it does depend on how you choose to assess quality of education.


    I must start by expressing relief to see such a strong consensus that continuing the introduction of new technologies and media can add to the quality of education. I am equally pleased to find so much agreement about the importance of conditions and context as we evaluate strategies for improving and transforming education.


    That's an excellent starting point. But, I have to balance that with my concern that there is some tendency to discount increased availability of quality education as an important consideration in this debate. When learners have access to better education through the introduction of new technologies and media than they would have otherwise, that moves the needle toward added quality for most education. When more learners have that access when new technologies and media are introduced, that moves the needle, too. So, germane to my decision to oppose the proposition are the arguments and the evidence presented thus far that the introduction of new technologies and media continue to increase both availability of education and quality educational options for millions of learners around the world.


    I'm also concerned with the metrics by which we judge the quality of education in this century. Here's what I think matters: (1) relevance of educational outcomes to empowering the learner to thrive in a digital, global, and media-rich information society (see www.iste.org/NETS-S-2007), (2) existence of an environment that enables learning strategies and learning experiences that are deeply engaging and provide options for educational pursuit, and, finally, (3) a system that enables and rewards variety in demonstration of educational gains through learner productivity and innovation.


If one's metrics are different or one has faith in the ability of an individual to know a single best way to educate the diversity of learners most of us face, then I can understand support of the proposition. If one believes, for instance, that success in printed and verbal expression and discourse is the ultimate quality metric for education—even while elections are won and nations are judged and Nobel prizes are earned through democratized technologies and media-rich expression—then support of the proposition may be a reasonable position.


    I recently visited the remote, rural school district where I experienced my childhood education. I saw elementary age students doing far more significant research online than I ever did in my twelve years in that system. Working with co-learners from around the world they were producing compelling and relevant learning artifacts on issues they cared about. And, they displayed a refreshing sense of empowerment. More students are learning that way because of the introduction of new technologies and media, and that looks like adding quality to me.


Furthermore, even in an education focused on text and verbal skills we know students write more, accept and use feedback to revise more often, and score higher on writing and reading assessments when they participate in a significant, well implemented writing program supported by technology.


    I've enjoyed this rich and interesting discussion.


   用事实说的确有变化,但是态度比较模糊。嗯……这篇不知道怎么评论,就不评论了^^

新世界!

使用道具 举报

Rank: 9Rank: 9Rank: 9

声望
430
寄托币
4498
注册时间
2008-1-16
精华
5
帖子
71

荣誉版主 AW小组活动奖 IBT Smart Scorpio天蝎座 GRE守护之星

发表于 2009-5-21 18:52:14 |显示全部楼层

The moderator's closing remarks

Oct 23rd 2007 | Mr Robert Cottrell

    The rising margin of votes (at least as I write, early on Monday morning) against the motion suggests, however, that the difference is either not perceived, or not accepted, by the majority of our voters. And perhaps rightly so.

    "The sign of a truly educated man is to be deeply moved by statistics", says commenter PAULO LIMA, attributing this view to Bernard Shaw.

    On that basis, in his opening remarks and rebuttal, Dr Robert Kozma was by far the most educated of all of us, grounding his arguments in a wide reading of the academic literature. In his closing remarks he has shifted register. He speaks the powerful language of anecdote and first-hand observation. In effect, Dr Kozma has answered Sir John Daniel's complaint that "Finding a statistically significant difference (sometimes) in the performance of a small learning task does not address the wider question of the quality of education", even as Sir John was in the process of making it.

    Sir John, to, has raised his voice a degree or two. He directs it partly in my own direction, on the question of quality versus quantity. He points out correctly that a good production process raises quantity and quality alike, whether it be in a car factory or at the Open University. He also provides a splendidly pithy summary of the main strand of his argument, saying: "[E]ducating people to use technology is not what the motion is about. It refers to using technology to educate people, which is different."

    The rising margin of votes (at least as I write, early on Monday morning) against the motion suggests, however, that the difference is either not perceived, or not accepted, by the majority of our voters. And perhaps rightly so. If we take the view that computer skills, broadly defined, have established themselves as a core competence on a par with reading, writing and arithmetic. If so, it is not going to make a deal of difference whether people are learning to log-on, or logging-on to learn.

    I confess to worrying that Sir John's conclusion, "You can only disagree with that proposition if your ambitions for technology in education are shamefully limited", is going to leave our technophobes, if any, wondering where to place their vote. I do not count myself among them. But, as some commenters have noted, I have sought, for the sake of argument, to keep the possibility of a fundamental scepticism alive. And, I judge, I have failed.

I worry, too—you will have me pegged by now as a worrier—about one last aspect of this debate, which has struck me all the more forcefully as our hundreds of splendidly argued comments have accumulated. Barely one in a hundred of those comments has even mentioned the word "parents". It seems that the people often considered most vital the success of education have little or no place in our debate. It could be, of course, that their presence is assumed in every line, but that is not my sense.

    One possibility is that the absence of parents from our collective commentary reflects a hope, an expectation, that technology will perfect the process of education, to the point at which the parental role will become irrelevant in the best possible way. Education will become a highly sophisticated production line that delivers a good working product, whatever the provenance of the raw materials. That is a noble aspiration, but also, to me, a somewhat scary one. To emphasise: I am not saying that any of us consciously wishes to make such an argument, merely that he accumulations of our arguments calls out for this explanation, or another one.

    As we move towards the final tally, let me record my pleasure at, and gratitude for, the opportunity to join you in this debate. From the traffic figures, it is clear that many returning visitors have yet to cast their vote. Early voters have done much to shape expectations, later voters may yet decide the outcome. By the standards of debate we are a finely balanced room, a fact in which our speakers can both take pride. Their final speeches have given us much new information to digest; let us see if that does as much to change the division of our opinion.

    Finally, to address procedural notes raised in the course of the debate: it is clear that we must enable the linking or the tagging of comments, if not the threading of them; that we should give commenters more scope for formatting and re-editing their text; and that we should highlight those comments raising vital points.

Thank you to those who voted early; I hope nobody has voted often; I encourage everyone who has not yet voted to do so now.

Robert Cottrell Deputy Editor, Economist.com, The Economist Newspaper

Skip to...

·
Moderator


·
Pro

Con
新世界!

使用道具 举报

Rank: 9Rank: 9Rank: 9

声望
430
寄托币
4498
注册时间
2008-1-16
精华
5
帖子
71

荣誉版主 AW小组活动奖 IBT Smart Scorpio天蝎座 GRE守护之星

发表于 2009-5-21 18:53:25 |显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 cjlu 于 2009-5-21 18:56 编辑

The proposer's closing remarks


Oct 23rd 2007 | Sir John Daniel


    Too often technology is simply used to pretty up teaching yet, as many contributors have noted, technology may increase the reach of a poor teacher but it will not improve the quality of their teaching.


    Suppose that instead of the current motion I had had to propose that 'this house believes that the continuing introduction of new technologies and new systems adds little to the quality of most transport(ation)'. That would have been a hill to climb! That proposition goes against my personal experience.


    An efficient bus takes me to work in Vancouver and will soon be augmented by a light rail system that will take me to either my office or the airport in ten minutes. My car is reliable, comfortable, energy efficient and rarely needs servicing. I fly a hundred times a year but have never had an incident and rarely a significant delay or cancellation (I admit I don't often fly in the US!). When I go to France next month Eurostar will whisk me from downtown Paris to central London in just over two hours.


    To propose a similar motion on transport I would have to come at it sideways by complaining about the climatic impact of carbon emissions and greenhouse gases and the social effects of congestion on the roads and in the skies. Meanwhile, people in emerging nations would still be desperate to get their first car, convinced that it will improve their quality of life.


    Were I proposing such a motion I would be surprised if my opponent countered it by detailing studies of the relative merits of travelling from New York to Washington by horse and buggy, rather than by car; by comparing Eurostar to the old boat train; or by analysing the advantage of making the passage to India by sea instead of by air.以上都在谈论科技带给交通方面的进步。虽然说得不错,可是有点多~


    If you have to argue the case for technology by making the micro comparisons beloved of Robert Kozma you have lost the case. In other areas of life technologies make quantum changes. You can no longer compare apples and apples. Finding a statistically significant difference (sometimes) in the performance of a small learning task does not address the wider question of the quality of education.


    At the risk of being pedantic let me return to the motion and deconstruct it in the light of comments from the floor, which are impressive in both quantity and quality. I start with our dear Moderator, clearly a traditionalist at heart, who worries that too much quantity in education will reduce quality. Let me nail that one right away.


    Throughout history the expansion of education has been held back by the insidious assumption that quality and exclusivity are inextricably linked: you cannot have quality education without excluding most people from it. This assumption is, of course, the basis of the perceived quality of our prestigious institutions: Oxford, Harvard and the Indian Institutes of Technology. Their quality is based on a selective admissions policy of 'good little piggies in make good bacon out(什么意思?)'. Quality is defined by those you exclude.


    This insidious link between quality and exclusivity has been blown apart by technology in other areas of life. A good modern production line produces thousands of cars, each one of which is of higher quality than any vehicle that a group of enthusiasts could build by hand in a garage.


    Technology can do the same for education, which is why I quoted the example of the open universities, noting that the UK Open University ranks above Oxford in aggregate ratings of teaching quality. Thanks to technology these open institutions achieve greater quantity as well as better and more consistent quality.


    What do we mean by quality of education? Quality means fitness for purpose (some would add 'at minimum cost to society'). So, is the introduction of technology making education more fit for purpose? We have to answer this question at the macroscopic level, not by examining the learning of some picayune item. Political discourse in most countries suggests that most education is not fit for purpose, whether it be President Bush saying that 'average is not good enough for American children' or ministers in developing countries lamenting their failure to achieve universal primary education.


    The most frequent theme in the comments from the floor is the dichotomy between education for technology and technology for education. Many contributors remind us that in today's world it is important that people be taught how to use information and communications technologies. I absolutely agree. But educating people to use technology is not what the motion is about. It refers to using technology to educate people, which is different.


I take an analogy from the contributor who talked about training people to use microscopes. That is a useful skill, but it doesn't help you to learn history. Acquiring ICT skills is helpful in many areas of life but it does not seem to have improved the quality of most education.


    Another common theme was the absolute importance of students and their motivation. I fully agree and argue that technology has underperformed because it is usually applied to help the teacher teach rather than to help the learner learn. The successful examples of technology that I have cited involve the creation of learning systems that create a rich environment around the learner. Too often technology is simply used to pretty up teaching yet, as many contributors have noted, technology may increase the reach of a poor teacher but it will not improve the quality of their teaching.这一段谈到科技的应用只是帮助了不怎么会讲课的老师,并没有在实质上提高教学的质量。


    The Moderator commented that the debate has converged on the middle ground. This is because many of you, like me, think that technology can do better even if it has disappointed so far.


But this is decision time. I ask you to look the motion squarely in the eye, to set aside wishful thinking, to fight the subliminal influence of the Intel logo grinning at you on the side, and to acknowledge that the continuing introduction of new technologies and new media has added little to the quality of most education. You can only disagree with that proposition if your ambitions for technology in education are shamefully limited.


Skip to...

新世界!

使用道具 举报

Rank: 9Rank: 9Rank: 9

声望
430
寄托币
4498
注册时间
2008-1-16
精华
5
帖子
71

荣誉版主 AW小组活动奖 IBT Smart Scorpio天蝎座 GRE守护之星

发表于 2009-5-21 18:57:07 |显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 cjlu 于 2009-5-21 18:59 编辑

The opposition's closing remarks


Oct 23rd 2007 | Dr Robert Kozma


    Okay, let me be emphatic; I'll set nuance aside. Technology IS making a positive difference in education, as it is in the rest of our lives. This calls for a vote against the proposition. Let me explain why there should be no debate about this. First, without new technologies there literally would be no debate here. I posted my opening statement in San Francisco. I was in Amsterdam when I submitted my rebuttal. I'm now in Jerusalem. I will be in Amman when I read your final comments and your votes are tallied. Sir John is in Vancouver. You are in China, England, Peru, Canada, and all over the world. In preparation of my arguments, I could do free-text searches of hundreds of documents and articles on my hard drive and millions more on the Internet. Technology is changing for the good the ways we communicate and our access information.


    Likewise, new technologies—computers, the Internet, digital media—are benefiting education. In fact, it is difficult to identify any other factor over the last hundred years that is affecting as much change in education as is happening now with technology. Let me give a variety of examples.


    I asked a secondary teacher in Uganda if he would rather keep his new computer laboratory or have more books for his school library. Contrary to Sir John's assertion, he was emphatic about his choice, "When you get books, they are immediately out of date and each is on only one topic. But with a computer connected to the Internet, I have access to the latest information on millions of topics." His students, standing on an earthen floor and in uniform but for bare feet, said, "We are doing a collaborative project with students in Canada and South Africa. Before this project, they did not know we existed. Now we are citizens of the world."


    Emphatic, too, were farmers in rural Kenyan village, where I did volunteer work, when they asked me to help them build a community learning center connected to the Internet, "We need information on improved seeds and fertilizers, on new farm practices, and on market prices." For them, the need for information was the difference between having barely enough to eat and having enough left over to put a metal roof on their house and to pay tuition for their children's schooling. They knew that if they walked to the agricultural agent's office 10 kilometers away, he was likely to be elsewhere and probably did not have access to the latest information anyway. They were convinced that new technology would give them access to the information they needed.


    Similarly in rural Chile, most children attend one-room schools; their teachers are isolated from others in their profession and from the Ministry of Education. With technology, these teachers can communicate with colleagues around the country and they can access a portal with the latest curriculum materials. In each of these cases, networked computers provided students, teachers, and communities with access to others and to needed information that were not otherwise available for lack of local expertise, distance, impassable roads, and lack of transportation.


    Teachers all over the world are using technology to change their teaching. Like the primary school teachers in rural Catalonia whose students created a website on the history of their local villages by taking digital photos of churches and local monuments and audio recordings of songs and stories told by their grandparents. And teachers in a secondary school in Norway whose students collaborated with students in the US to follow two women (one Norwegian and one American) as they traversed Antarctica on cross country skis. The students communicated with the women and with weather and research stations in Antarctica to learn about the continent. And teachers at an all-girls secondary school in the Philippines where teams of students developed their understanding of biology concepts and their critical thinking skills by using a microcomputer-based lab kit and probeware to collect and analyze data as they solved a hypothetical murder case. Students and teachers all around the world are conducting ThinkQuests and WebQuests, attending virtual courses, and collaborating with scientists on the GLOBE and Jason Projects.None of this would be possible withoutnew technologies.


    Many of you have pointed out that educational systems are notoriously slow to change. But change is not just happening with a few innovative teachers. Ministries of Education in Chile and Singapore, Finland and Jordan, Korea and Costa Rica are redesigning their education systems around the opportunities that new technologies provide. Ministries in these countries and many others are affecting changes in curriculum, pedagogy, and school structure with the certitude that new skills related to and enabled by technology will prepare their students for the 21st century ahead. Millions of teachers in these countries and others have been trained in the use of technology for collaborative student projects. These teachers are not just teaching students to use the latest technology—many of you have stated that students already know this—rather their students are taking advantage of the technology to apply school subjects to solve difficult real-world problems, to work in distributed teams on complex tasks, to think critically, and to create new knowledge, new products, and new cultural artifacts. These students are using technology to learn the skills needed for a knowledge economy and an information society.


    I urge you to vote against the proposition that the continued introduction of new technology adds little to the quality of education. Although change is currently slower and less dramatic than any of us would want, does it mean these countries and teachers should abandon their efforts? Change is happening now but technology will make even greater contributions in the future. A "con" vote from you will affirm the efforts of these countries and the millions of teachers around the world who are moving forward with technology to make changes in education and to prepare their students for the challenges of the century ahead.


   在这个closing remark中作者不仅举出了大量的例子,更加上了充足的说理。全篇的主要观点是科技进步无可置疑的带来了巨大的提高,即使这种提高没有想象中那么巨大,可是它的确是在缓慢而确实地发展着。为此,作者举出了很多地区和国家的例子,其间还点缀着一些自己的感悟或是某些具体的事例。却是相当有说服力~经验丰富的话,写科技类Issue的时候还是多举实例我想更能说服别人。

新世界!

使用道具 举报

Rank: 9Rank: 9Rank: 9

声望
430
寄托币
4498
注册时间
2008-1-16
精华
5
帖子
71

荣誉版主 AW小组活动奖 IBT Smart Scorpio天蝎座 GRE守护之星

发表于 2009-5-21 19:11:59 |显示全部楼层

Winner announcement


Mr Robert Cottrell


    Votes for the first Economist debate have been counted and the motion has been decided.

    This house REJECTS the proposition that "The continuing introduction of new technologies and new media adds little to the quality of most education".

    An excellent debate. We have supplied our own evidence for the value of new technology in education. Without new technology this debate would never have happened. But we have also shown the value of the traditional academic skills of logic, rhetoric, and courtesy. All of these were much in evidence, and gave our debate its quality.

    On the substance of the question: Sir John Daniel and his supporters argued splendidly for the limitations of technology, and its frequent disappointments in practice. But they were handicapped from the start by a willingness to agree that technology could and should be doing much more to improve education, if only it were to be integrated imaginatively enough into the curriculum and if institutions and teaching methods were reformed radically enough to make best use of it. This undertow of possibility communicated itself to undecided voters, and produced an outcome which I suspect even the losers might regard as fair, amounting as it does to a very heavily qualified vote of confidence in technology.

    Let me thank again our speakers, who did a superb job of provoking and guiding us; and our featured guests, whose interventions kept the discussion fresh. I reiterate my admiration for Dr Kozma's closing statement, in which, it seemed to me, he engaged himself much more personally in the argument and was correspondingly more persuasive. It was at that point that his clear margin of victory started to emerge.

    Most of all let me thank our commenters, whose collective wisdom and experience has proved a formidable resource.


This officially brings the first Economist debate to a close and I look forward to welcoming you to our next debate on Dec 10th.


新世界!

使用道具 举报

RE: ☆☆四星级☆☆Economist Debate阅读写作分析----Technology in education [修改]
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

问答
Offer
投票
面经
最新
精华
转发
转发该帖子
☆☆四星级☆☆Economist Debate阅读写作分析----Technology in education
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-949081-1-1.html
复制链接
发送
关闭

站长推荐

【线上答疑】香港城市大学 法学院硕士课程
下午15:00直播答疑会,感兴趣的小伙伴拿好小板凳前排占座啦!

查看 »

报offer 祈福 爆照
回顶部