Week 4

The Author believes that inherent defects in cognitive style of PowerPoint can result in serious distortion in presentation. The first criticism the author advocated is that PPT is only presenter-oriented, and not content-oriented, not audience-oriented. Put in another way, PPT can only provide one-way transmission of information. Although I believe author has made a successful argument with regard to content deficiency, I don’t buy the claim PPT is that the one to blame on for lack of interaction between presenter and audience. Rather, I think it is more to do with the information presenter presents. Because PPT is only a media to convey the information, and what can contribute to good discussion is the information itself - Does it have the value to discuss?-thus, it is completely possible for the incurring of intensive interaction between presenter and audience, only if the topic is interesting enough.

The second criticism the author had toward PPT is its low resolution. In compare with paper, Information contained in each slide is considerably limited. Although it makes present seem to be easier for presenter, but with cost of sacrificing its content that incompletely/misleading information is provided due to over-generalization. Thus, the author urged people to use paper which provides larger volume for information instead of PPT. I agree with author on the point that PPT is inherently limited in terms of providing sufficient information. Nonetheless, PPT can still present information in a way that paper cannot, namely video or audio materials. So that I would suggest that instead of complete denial of either method, presenter can integrate both paper and PPT in presentation to fit the needs of types of information.

The third criticism the author argued against use of PPT which I completely agree with is its bullet outlines in which presenter is arbitrarily forced to use the linear construction to explain all types of information. As a result, the completeness of some concepts which are in need of spatial analysis can be undermined during the process. As the author suggested, oftentimes people are just too comfortable with the convenience of PowerPoint so that they are reluctant to explore new ways to address the defects of PPT. Only if presenter comes to realize the limitations of using PPT, can presentation becomes more meaningful and engaging.

Week3 Response

What are the main points the author makes about the myth behind “no significance difference.”

The main points the author were trying to clarify is that depends on what perspective people have on learning- is it mere an outcome or a growing process in which people explore and seek out answers for questions surrounding us through variety of learning activities so as to come up with the solutions?- they justify the significance of technology differently. For the most part of consensus on the notion of “no significance difference”, they view learning as a static status in which learning is as simply as a passive process of accumulation. Moreover, they try to blame on technology for not being able to provide fundamental changes in learning outcomes while them reluctant to change the old pedagogy. In short, if people tend to overlook what learning is and the process it involved, the assertion of “no significance difference” made by technology is thus unjustifiable.

What is meaningful learning from your perspective? Give some examples and non-examples from your overarching statement.

To me, meaningful learning is process learner are engaged in, in which they are actively looking for answer to explain our surroundings through variety of learning activities such as conducting experiments, collecting date, reading, negotiating with peers and teachers, and argument. For example, if a person tries to learn how to swim, he/she has to go to the pool to learn the movements- from the basic such as how to paddle, how to hold breath, and how to position his/her hands to the more advanced ones such as how to change breath in interval, how to function his/her hands simultaneously in order to proceed without sinking, and how to enhance the speed by making their each movements more efficient- Eventually he/she will acquire the ability of swim with repetitive practice as well as reflection on his/her movements. On the other hand, if a person read as much books of teaching how to swim yet has never gone to the pool to apply his/her knowledge. It should not be called as meaningful learning.

How do you see the role of technology in your view of meaningful learning?

With the ability of overcoming the limit of physical conditions such as time and space, technology provides us many platforms and opportunities with which students choose the one that serves their interests of learning best- communication purpose, analyzing date, simulation, visual/audio scaffolds to facilitate cognitive process, presentation, information sharing, and so forth. Furthermore, the unceasingly evolving technology changes our perspective of our world and motivates us to explore more as-of-yet unknown questions. In short, teachers should believe in the power of technology and what significant role it is playing in meaningful learning as it grants us access to abundant resources and the possibilities beyond our imagination. 

week1 response

What situations could viewing "learning as a product" be appropriate?

According to Smith, M. K. (1999), only if learning results in permanent change in behavior which can be seen or observed, then the claim “learning as a product” would be legit. For instance, a child plays with a knife and cuts himself. The impression that “knife is dangerous” might be permanently imprinted in his mind so that he would avoid such “behaviour” in the future as a result. Moreover, the changes viewed as outcomes of learning do not necessarily defined only by behaviour. To me, imparted knowledge such as facts and truths, to which Smith (1999) referred, could be branded as “product” as well. For example, if we learned that earth is rotating permanently regardless the fact that we are not able to actually feel its movement. Even if we have apprised of this truth without being informed the mechanism behind this phenomenon, our notion about earth would still be changed, despite this change might be not as obvious as that in behaviour.

Why do some people describe learning as a process? 

People opt to believe learning as a process instead of product simply because g is it result of experience by which we change the way we perceive surroundings and grasping knowledge over time. Furthermore, this notion is more concerned with the whole picture of learning in which changes in behaviour might be seen as manifestation of learning process.

Which orientation to learning to identify with the most? 

As to me, the view of cognitivist seems more identified with the most, even though I found myself have caught in other three orientations as well to different extents. Because not as behaviorist that it does not consider individual needs that might affect the outcomes of learning, nor Humanist which sounds too ideal to be true, cognitivist, to me, seems more consistent with the purposes of higher educational institutions that, in addition to acquisition of knowledge in general, we are trained how to be logical thinkers, how to analyze in systematic manners, and how to effectively utilize the resource/experiences to solve new problems.