The problem with both studies cited is that they are focused on keeping the same learning goals and studying the effects of technology on learning those things. However, technology like AI enables us to do completely new things that weren't possible before, and in the new world those new things should be the learning goals. Conversations about using AI to change HOW we educate miss the big picture. The real conversation should be about how AI changes WHAT we educate.
The Monastery analogy is similar to the Walled Garden that Andrew Cantarutti discusses in the context of schools. Check it his interview here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtisLHNLXOw
This is really beautiful: "Learning is more like growing a garden than it is like manufacturing a widget. It requires time, patience, regular tending, and occasional pruning. It’s about learning how to build consistency, to keep going and keep improving, and to attend to the conditions that will enable you to grow."
As we evolve toward a pattern language for learning and growing in healthy schools, the Ursula Franklin approach, the (monastic) Amish approach and the Christopher Alexander approach will be able to merge into a set of practices you are calling rule of life. Something about ecology will inform this rule of life, with the emphasis on “life.” I’m looking forward to the rest of your series of posts, as always, and by late July I should have a framework like this set up for crowdsourcing the patterns’ authorship among teachers who also embrace such a rule of life. —Paul Erb
"The core challenge of education is fundamentally motivational. It’s about helping students to cultivate the curiosity and grit they need to repeatedly engage with new information and to build the skills required to understand and flexibly use that information in a variety of context"
Related to moocs, I think that the problem they were trying to solve--similar to the problem that llms are trying to solve--has nothing to do with education but, to your point has significant downstream impacts to education (whether we want it to or not).
I appreciate the distinction of control versus work technologies... It has been interesting to work in the field of academic integrity edtech providing proof of authorship (control). This places many technologies of control so close to the work that we can impact, enhance, augment, and support it (it = writing).
I wonder outloud (here and in almost every waking moment) whether there's a worthy bridge of these technologies (work and control), or a possible realignment of control to the individual rather than the organization.
The problem with both studies cited is that they are focused on keeping the same learning goals and studying the effects of technology on learning those things. However, technology like AI enables us to do completely new things that weren't possible before, and in the new world those new things should be the learning goals. Conversations about using AI to change HOW we educate miss the big picture. The real conversation should be about how AI changes WHAT we educate.
The Monastery analogy is similar to the Walled Garden that Andrew Cantarutti discusses in the context of schools. Check it his interview here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtisLHNLXOw
This is really beautiful: "Learning is more like growing a garden than it is like manufacturing a widget. It requires time, patience, regular tending, and occasional pruning. It’s about learning how to build consistency, to keep going and keep improving, and to attend to the conditions that will enable you to grow."
As we evolve toward a pattern language for learning and growing in healthy schools, the Ursula Franklin approach, the (monastic) Amish approach and the Christopher Alexander approach will be able to merge into a set of practices you are calling rule of life. Something about ecology will inform this rule of life, with the emphasis on “life.” I’m looking forward to the rest of your series of posts, as always, and by late July I should have a framework like this set up for crowdsourcing the patterns’ authorship among teachers who also embrace such a rule of life. —Paul Erb
"The core challenge of education is fundamentally motivational. It’s about helping students to cultivate the curiosity and grit they need to repeatedly engage with new information and to build the skills required to understand and flexibly use that information in a variety of context"
Related to moocs, I think that the problem they were trying to solve--similar to the problem that llms are trying to solve--has nothing to do with education but, to your point has significant downstream impacts to education (whether we want it to or not).
I appreciate the distinction of control versus work technologies... It has been interesting to work in the field of academic integrity edtech providing proof of authorship (control). This places many technologies of control so close to the work that we can impact, enhance, augment, and support it (it = writing).
I wonder outloud (here and in almost every waking moment) whether there's a worthy bridge of these technologies (work and control), or a possible realignment of control to the individual rather than the organization.