1. I continue to be critical of the web centered character of the
report. One part of this discomfort concerns my disgreement with the
view that the web is as important as others believe it is. But I would
find it easy enough to go along with a report that dealt only with the
web and its possibilities. More troubling is the use of the web as an
example of precisely those technologies and systems we have chosen to
exclude.
2. Because the Web is slow and awkward in dealing with moving images and
large still images (the sections detailing this in our report are
excellent) and can only create links to moving video, rather than the
two way links that are really needed to articulate that domain for
education, we sidestep the potential of these media, and mostly talk
about networked hypertext.
3. Many of the problems I have had with the report, and in thinking
about how to contribute best to the committee could be summarized in the
following way: We need better ways of talking and thinking about what
media -- or media of communication -- are. The ways we try to do this
now recreate medium/content and author/reader and technology/humanities
distinctions that need rethinking for the age of mixed print and digital
communciation. MIT is the very best place in the world to think about
these things because intellectually boundaries are less rigid than
elsewhere and we have expertise in all the relevant areas. We have done
some thinking about the underlying issues, but not enough, and this
thinking should continue at the Institute. Can we add a one-line
recommendation encouraging the administration to continue looking at the
issues? (The monitoring of trends suggested in the long range
recommendations doesn't quite fill the bill).
Section on Educational uses of the Web:
Though the report focuses on the Web, I thought that this section
downplayed its importance as "just a medium of communication." Do we
believe this medium has the potential to bring fundamental changes to
education? If so, will such changes be a result of doing old things
quicker and better? Or will they be new things that the new medium makes
possible. This is also an example of why it's problematic to take the
Web as preempting example. Writing is a medium of communication that
has proved fundamental and lasting to education (!). We could argue
about broadcast television. We could argue about the potential of the
Web, especially given its current limitations. When it overcomes those
limitations it might not be called the Web anymore. So it is better, in
assessing whether a new medium of communication has the potential to
make real change possible, to define the medium in a broad way that
acknowledges the current multiplicity of its forms and the possibility
of future modifications. What is fundamental here? Computer
networking, interactivity (we need to define it), various forms of
hypertext linking, the ability to handle several media. The ability of
computer assisted sytems to simulate, search, navigate and reconfigure
educational domains, and to do so at a distance. (The Web is way ahead
in regard to distance. Navigation and reconfiguration can be improved,
and stand alone systems may always be ahead).
Distance learning: We take too definite a position on this in this
section and, again, what we say sounds negative rather than cautious. I
think we should be cautious, and should create some "distance" between
our own position and that of the most enthusiastic celebrators of DL.
But the long distance collaborations Bill Mitchell has talked about are
wonderful examples of how we should be redefining distance learning
rather merely rejecting current puffery. The section on distance
learning in the recommendations part of the report is more balanced.
How the Web will evolve: Immensely interesting. Are we sure about the
role of cable companies?
Recommendations section:
Most are quite good and others may not be easy to change now.
I agree, generally, with Tony Patera's revisions to the curricular
development sections.
Spelling: Change supercede to supersede throughout.