Team: Triangle 5
Patricia Lobosco, Dan Wood, Catherine Hernandez,
Lanette Woodard, Saul Marcus
April 28, 2002

Article Discussion:  
“Interview with Andrew Lippman”
Syllabus Magazine, Feb 2002
http://www.syllabus.com/syllabusmagazine/article.asp?id=6073

Article Summary:

Andrew Lippman is the founding associate director of the Media Lab at MIT, http://www.media.mit.edu/about/retro.html.  In this interview Lippman “explore[s] how technology will transform our notions of teaching and learning.”

Syllabus conducted a short interview that touched on Lippman’s views of the following topics: 
Impact of mobile technology on education
Student-centered education and constructivism
Accuracy of archival and Internet information
Scalability of distance learning
Media Lab developed technologies
Rate of technological change in our society

Discussion Summary:

Our group discussed many aspects of this interview.  We were particularly interested in how mobile devices might be used in education, how Internet resources can be authenticated and evaluated, how distance education can be applied on a large scale and how student centered learning and Constructivist theory can be effectively applied to classroom learning.  In some cases we found Lippman’s predictions to be impractical and other notions to be innovative and promising.

Impact of mobile technology on education:

Patricia pointed out that mobile devices could shift the control of learning from teacher to student, but was not certain that it would.  Generally, our group felt that mobile devices might not assist in accelerating a successful shift to student centered learning.  In this group’s assessment, mobile devices are currently useful as tools for production and research.  The most significant piece of current technology we identified as actively in use in classrooms today is the Internet itself.

Mobile devices may have a role in the future of education, but at this point; many devices are distracting and non-productive for students.  We were not able share Lippman’s vision of PDAs and cell phones being used constructively and effectively in a classroom environment in the near future.

A particularly controversial comment of Lippman’s for this group was the idea that communal answers to tests would become the norm in the future.  He proposed that students would use cell phones like “lifeline” calls are used on game shows, resulting in a consensus response to test questions.  We were unable to discern whether this would be approved or prohibited behavior.  If Lippman is referring to approved behavior, we were not able to conceive of the circumstances.  Dan put it clearly: “I really don't understand Lippman's statement about the communal answers to a test. How would that happen?”

Student-centered education and constructivism:

We were also interested in ideas which arose around Lippman’s assertion that there is or will be a shift in who controls the learning in the classroom, as a result of the inclusion of mobile devices.  This shift to student centered learning was tied closely to the concept of how students are motivated in the classroom.  

Self directed learning must be guided.  True Constructivist, student centered learning is not easily introduced into today’s classroom environments.  Guidance and direction are needed, especially for young students.  Lanette asserted: “As an adult, I am ready to control my learning, decide what I would like to know, what I would like to know more about, and seek out that knowledge. I do not think there are too many (if any) elementary or middle school students who are ready to make that statement. I feel like it is our job as educators to teach them what they ‘need’ to know.”  There was consensus in our group that guidance was essential for learning.  Catherine suggested that students do well when “they are in "control". That does not have to mean that [they be left] with no guidance. "Exposure" to specific materials is essential... However, [she] would assert that the more…educators guide and facilitate and expose students, within a framework that has goals and expectations and evaluations, the more we will see students sticking with the program and getting what they ‘need’.”

Finding a middle ground for the best way to allow student directed, Constructivist learning was difficult for us.  We were challenged to balance our beliefs in these theories with a desire and requirement to see that students succeed within parameters of our charter to teach.  We noted two reasons to explain why we could not abandon ourselves completely to a student centered model: 
1)	While some students might be motivated to learn, our collective experience shows that many may not see the merits of learning and so will not be sufficiently motivated to learn independently.  
2)	Unless there is guidance, some information/knowledge might not be covered by the independent student.
If exposure is not sufficiently broad and basic skills not sufficiently mastered, then students will not be successful in college or the workforce.

Accuracy of archival and Internet information:

Lippman expressed little concern about the evolution of the information on the Internet.  He mentioned that our institutions do not “overturn” themselves as quickly as technology would allow.  Lippman seemed content that the growth and integrity of information on the Internet is reasonably self-regulating.  Our group had a different opinion in that we felt more discriminating evaluation of information found on the Internet needs to be applied.  We felt that there is not a good way to determine the reliability or accuracy of information on the Internet.  As Saul put it: “People need to get used to questioning what they read on the Internet.”  Lanette pointed out that we are currently evaluating the resources we use, whether or not they are found on the Internet.  Our group agrees with her assertion that we will likely continuing evaluating resources “the same way we do now.”

Scalability of distance learning:

Lippman commented that distance learning “doesn’t scale because it can’t include the experience” and that he could never “wholeheartedly fall in love with” distance education since it can never duplicate the chemistry of being in an actual place, learning.  Lippman further commented that he felt that traditional university education does not scale either.  In essence, mass application of learning is not effective in Lippman’s view.  

Our group felt differently.  Generally, we felt that university education, whether local or at a distance, does a good job of addressing the needs of students. Some of our group felt that Lippman saw the trouble as a lack of “real world” experience, while others interpreted the issue as being a lack of opportunity for group or collaborative work.  We felt that, in our experience, that distance learning is effective.  We felt that we are good examples of being able to work cooperatively and are having successful academic outcomes while learning at a distance.

Lippman does have a point, there certainly can be magic in those learning moments, both for students and for educators!  Clearly, teachers and schools are not going to be “replaced” by technology.

Media Lab developed technologies:

The Media Lab was described by Lippman as being involved with two principle types of work:  Investigations that are specifically developed and tested for use in learning environments and theoretical work which explores the possibilities of using innovative technology in educational ways, with no specific learning goals in mind. 

The unexpected results of investigating technology just to see where it will lead is very rewarding.  The knowledge and innovation that can result from these explorations are what will propel us into the next phase of technological integration into education.

Rate of technological change in our society:

Lippman theorizes that the rate of change in a society is the age at which people gain access to the dominant technology.  In our society, people are getting access to the computer, the dominant technology at the age of 2 to 4 years. This means that the rate of change is every 4 years, being conservative.  Lippman sees this rapid rate of change as having two consequences:

First, that the rate of change is out pacing the turnover rate of teachers which results in a rapidly changing workplace where teachers are challenged not just to teach but also to “keep up with the learners.”  While this prospect can cause concern in some educators that they will be “replaced by technology”, our group felt that teachers have a long-term role in our education system.  Teachers are mentors and facilitators of learning.  And, how can we over look that magic of “being there.”

The second consequence is that although the rate of change is very rapid in the United States, it is much slower in other parts of the world.  “When the industrial revolution began, the farmers didn’t get new jobs, their kids did.”  There is a real need to assist other nations in becoming versed in dominant technologies.  Patricia felt that Lippman’s suggestion to form a “Bit Corps” was an interesting one.

Conclusion:

With all of the technology available to us in the 21st century, we can see that there are many creative ways to apply technology which have not yet been tried.  The MIT Media Lab is pushing the bounds and exploring what technology can do to improve teaching and learning.  Lippman’s views remind us that there are many innovations and applications of technology coming on the horizon.  In our discussion, we noted that as technology emerges and evolves education, we will need to be ready to change some of our educational models and definitions about learning.  We must flexible enough to embrace change and explore new ways to integrate technology into education.  We must also use caution and common sense while we keep in mind that our purpose as educators is to enlighten and train the next generations.  We must strike a careful balance between innovation and tradition, but always with our eyes fixed on the goal: producing successful, educated citizens.