I think I am finally understanding the relationship between Clark and Kozma. So to whoever has to grade my last two minor arguments, if you are reading this, I have to apologize for how much they suck. When I read the prompt about Clark and Kozma, I assumed there had to be a disagreement between the two and went looking for it. I had trouble finding it, but I was traveling and had limited time and all of that and decided to ignore my gut feeling. So, now I understand that Clark was not as much anti-media as he was pro-method and wanted to focus more on how concepts are taught with different tools rather than the tools themselves they are taught with. Kozma was adding a clarification to expand on Clark’s ideas by saying that there was an unnecessary division between method and media in Clark’s article.

I also thought that I heard we were only supposed to use the provided articles for sources. Not sure where I heard that, but I tried to stick with that and found that it is impossible to prove points without the ability to go to as many sources as needed. In a way, it is a relief to find out that we can use other sources because this will make it easier for me to support a position. It will be more work overall, but that work will produce better arguments in the end.

So now I am looking at a new way to frame my discussion about online learning, ed tech, etc. We can’t make people learn faster or better, but we can improve the affordances surrounding learning to improve the overall experience. I typically think that way already, but now need to watch the way I write and talk about these concepts to make sure I don’t give the impression that I think there are ways to make people learn better.

Ultimately, that would also re-frame the Bonner article in my mind to not be a way to use cognitive theory to improve learning, but a way to allow for different affordances that different learners might need. I’m not sure what that will exactly mean for the “learner as a dirty slate” vs the “learner as a clean slate” part of Bonner’s examination, but I still lean towards the dirty slate side as of right now.

So, without class this week there was not a huge revelation of any kind based on class discussion. I was left with my own ponderings and the rabbit trails that they led me down. This week I have been mainly pondering the Kozma/Clark articles. I still find it odd that Clark would just suggest to stop researching a particular topic. Maybe he thought that they were at the peak of new media. Or maybe this article was a product of the times and people were anti-research to some degree. We certainly see that from time to time in public attitudes. As much as the field changes, I just don’t see how we can stop researching any angle. I think time has proven that many did not heed that suggestion, and I think our field is richer in knowledge because of that. Sure, there is plenty of bad research out there, and much that ended up supporting Clark’s views – but many did turn up some angles and figures that have helped the field in general.

or maybe I am being too much of an optimist.

I have also been pondering the ethical-political connections that Bernstien was exploring, of how to lead a good life and be a good citizen. I have to wonder how Bernstein and others would approach these concepts in the age of Facebook. Everyone seems to have widely differing views of what “good citizens” should do. Those that live a good life could be seen as mass consumers that create their good life on the backs of the less fortunate, thus meaning they are not good citizens. These are probably issues that Bernstein will explore in future chapters. But I wonder if it will all come down to the unstoppable force meeting the immovable object. Ethics and politics just sometimes seem to be so rooted in diametrically opposed directions that I don’t know how they can be balanced at times. Maybe Bernstein will unpack those issues further on in the book. Or maybe he will just come out and say that anyone reading the book is too stupid to understand any of it. Although, that would seem to be more true of most people reading Habermas for the first time.

So Habermas still remains difficult to understand, but I think that will improve after time and digging deeper. Bernstien is definitely becoming clearer to me, especially after we discussed the Ed Tech trend articles in class. Many times the point was made that our ability to process information has not changed much despite all of the upgrades in technology. A nicer screen on an Apple product does not make us learn more. Although, I doubt that was the goal to begin with – they probably had artists in mind. But if the theory and concepts behind learning and educational phycology are not really changing that much (despite what the digital native narrative tries to tell us), where will we be if the Marc Prenskys of the world get their way? Scary thought.

I have always looked at a solid foundation in theory and research as a good idea, but never something that I had to constantly develop. I thought I had learned the basics and knew enough to get by. Habermas and Bernstein both showed me that there are entirely new levels that I have not even scratched yet. I probably assumed that these levels existed, but that I knew enough to wing it when going there. Now I know that it is time to dig in and make that exploration a regular part of my academic life for the remainder of my career. I would say the rest of my life, but the way the economy is going the end of our life will be the only time my generation gets to retire.

Much of what I learned was about critique. I have always feared critique to some degree because it seems to me that so many people try to be mean and condescending with their critique. I see that true critique is not about the personal attacks and arguments that you see all too often. It’s not about right and wrong, true or false, but supported or unsupported.