U.S. Department of Education Study Finds that Good Teaching can be Enhanced with New Technology

[Benjamin Stewart]

According to this report from the US Department of Education, blended and distance learning courses are more effective than face-to-face courses.

In Mexico, the small rural schools can take advantage of technology and open educational resources to complement what they're doing at little-to-no extra cost.

[Frank]

Benjamin .. great point about rural schools. The Internet is everywhere that TelMex lines are running. I know for sure that my blended learning class is more effective that just a f-2-f course ... and my students get to share ideas, collaborate, and reflect in a more connective, meaningful and enjoyable way that facilitates their learning. And since the out-of-class portion is asynchronous, they can participate when their varied schedules allow.

Also, as a teacher .. I have a greater opportunity to get to know my students better and learn from them, too. I get to grow as an educator. Being able to do this in a more limited and controlled classroom-only environment is more difficult, if not impossible.

"" The meta analysis showed that “blended” instruction – combining elements of online and face-to-face instruction – had a larger advantage relative to purely face to face instruction or instruction conducted wholly online. The analysis also showed that the instruction conducted wholly on line was more effective in improving student achievement than the purely face to face instruction. In addition, the report noted that the blended conditions often included additional learning time and instructional elements not received by students in control conditions."" -- from Dept of Education report

edfinalreport.pdf

[Leigh Thelmadatter]

Im not surprised that blended learning outperforms pure face-to-face but I am surprised that pure distance learning can outperform pure F2F

[Melissa]

Ah, Frank has made a great point without even knowing it. What makes you city slickers think TelMex lines are running to rural schools?

Half of the rural secundarias in Oaxaca do not have enough electricity to run the computer labs Chente sent them.

The real challenges for rural teachers are making sure their students eat more than once a day and that their parents recognize the value of education beyond six grade.

[Frank]

Woo hoo .. I'm a city slicker. Yeah getting technology out to places with no electricity will be a challenge. In Africa they did it by installing generators at the schools ... so that they would have their own power source. Would be nice if some companies could donate that sort of equipment to schools. Unfortunately these kids won't be as prepared for today's world when they leave school. We need to put our minds together to come up with some creative ways to address these issues rather than just letting things be as they are.

Melissa said:

Ah, Frank has made a great point without even knowing it. What makes you city slickers think TelMex lines are running to rural schools?
Half of the rural secundarias in Oaxaca do not have enough electricity to run the computer labs Chente sent them. The real challenges for rural teachers are making sure their students eat more than once a day and that their parents recognize the value of education beyond six grade.

[Melissa]

The first question is do they/will they want to be a part of "today's world" when they leave school? Parents have the right to decide for themselves what kind of education they want for their children. Many of the automous communities in Chiapas have thrown out the government schools. And have opted for education in their language and in their ways of life. While that's not the education I would choose for my children, is it really my place to decide for them?

[Leigh Thelmadatter]

Thats a question that comes up again and again. How much right does a parent have to determine a child's education and how much right does the government/society have? The government/society has an interest in having a populace that is educated to participate in the economy (at least be employable) and, in a decent democracy, to participate as a citizen. On the other hand, parents have certain rights about how they determine how their children grow up. In the U.S. I can think of two examples where these butted heads: the Amish community, which lost ... and the homeschoolers, who won.

The govement still has a hand in determining standards for private schools, so such are not completely private.

If parents have the complete right to determine their children's education, then there should be no compulsatory education. That such exists is due to the need for the government to interfere with parents who want their children only to work, and dont care so much for the long term reward that education brings. On the other hand, government has some serious problems as the arbiter of what schools should and should not teach, which is why the whole home-schooling thing evolved in the first place.

Education is not the only thing that causes friction between traditional indigenous values and being part of the nation of Mexico. There was a brouhaha about a woman who wanted to run for traditional council but was denied because tradition said that women could not hold office or even vote. This is strictly against the Mexican constitution, but defenders of this pointed to policies designed to respect indigenous rights.

Unfortunately, there is no compromise to be made in many cases... one side will win.

[Melissa]

Yes, I remember that case well Leigh!

It's my personal belief that the best education will equip the students to make a lifestyle choice for themselves. Unfortunately, in most of the Mexican public schools rural children will still recieve the message that their parents' lifestyle is "backwards", rather than a nuetral choice. One of the things that gets old about living in Oaxaca is the constant self-deprication you hear from people. It is changing, but swinging somewhat to the opposite extreme. The government and mestizo majority send media messages to the south that essentially say, modernize or parish, you are holding us back. Some groups in the south, EZLN and APPO are now saying, we don't want your brand of modernization. There is a growing sense of pride in indigenous languages, though there is still a serious lack of pride at the grass roots level.

In an ideal world each community would have access to all that is available in terms of technology and cultural methods and choose which they are comfortable embracing, and not be asked to buy into the national culture as a package deal.

[Leigh Thelmadatter]

Unfortunately, what you are advocating is a kind of "balkanization" which is not really feasible in the long run. While it is sad to see old cultures go, esp. when this happens by way of being run over by another one, the fact of the matter is that no culture remains static. Those who try to do so most strongly are the most poor, true in all parts of the world. One non-third world example is Bavaria and parts of the old East Germany. While not poor by world standards by any means, these areas are the least developed and they too get accused of holding Germany back because they do not want to integrate with the rest of the Germany nor Europe. Just ask a Bavarian what s/he thinks about beer that does not meet the "rheinheitsgebot" (purity law) of Bavaria.

I am not saying that regional and minority cultures should not exist, but to insist that nothing change and to have no outside influence at best condems a community to becoming nothing more than a living museum. That's basically what the Amish are. The Mennonites have fared better because they can make some concessions to modernity. The reason the Amish lost and the homeschoolers won is that the Amish wanted to restrict their children's choices in life to what they preordained. The homeschoolers, on the other hand, were not advocating lack of education in the sense of mathematics, science, etc. but rather to avoid secularist philosophy (in the case of Christian homeschoolers - a reason why religious schools exist as well) or to give their kids a BETTER education than they could get from the public schools.

The Amish and the indigenous communities have the same problem, if their kids get the same education as the rest of the country, a large number of them will decide NOT to keep with traditional ways, or at least want to modify them. This is why it seems to be an all-or-nothing battle... any accomodation to the rest of society is seen as a loss. But really, the only choices will be to do that or isolate out completely. Most indigenous communities have managed to do this fairly well for 500 years, but they have paid a price economically and culturally. They have been at the opposite extreme to the extent that many cannot change anything, even internally. Stagnation is always a society killer, as much as too much change. By the way, Thomas Sowell has done a good bit of writing on this topic and is brilliant, esp. "Race and Culture: A World View "

[Melissa]

But why does it have to be modernize or stay unchanged? Those are not the only choices, It's not an either / or question.
By the way Gustavo Esteva has done a good bit of writing on this topic and is brilliant, esp. "Grassroots Post-Modernism : Remaking the Soil of Cultures"

;)

[Frank]

Speaking as a taxpayer in the USA; I have stood in many a parent's face when they told me that I had no right to decide on the education of their children ... my response; give me back my tax money then if as a member of a contributory society I have no right to determine the education of the children's education that I am financing.

I am 50 years old; and I have never assimilated well the notion that parents alone are the sole deciders of what is an appropriate education for their children ... many parents simply aren't equipped for those kinds of decisions, even if they think they are. Children are human beings and their educational fate should not hinge on such a narrow perspective. Any parent that thinks otherwise is sort of naive in my opinion. When their child goes on welfare or into the penal system for lack of proper education .. then I not only have to pay for their initial possible misdirected education .. but I have to pay again for their welfare or incarceration. Saying that parents alone are the deciders (or government alone, or taxpayers alone) is myopic and doesn't take into consideration all the stakeholders, including the children.

I remember a specific case in a school district where I was participating on a special sex education task force. We discovered that some parents that were denying their children the opportunity to attend sex education classes were in fact sexually abusing them at home ... and they feared that information would give their children the power to expose their crimes and abuse.

I know that these are somewhat extreme examples ... but they clearly support that the answer isn't easy --- but that it should most definitely include more contributors beyond the parents. Preparing children with an appropriate education for the times should be a target, even if there are obstacles. As educators we have that responsibility, even if parents aren't prepared or don't want to.