Functional adventures in the deep end: The evolution of a pragmatic 48-month undergraduate curriculum ? 2010 Excerpt 2 of 10
C. Harold McManus, Ph.D.
What’s the problem?
In the twenty-first century, the definition of literacy is a fluid and dynamic concept. The knowledge and skills that individuals need to be literate in the class of 2024 may not have even been invented yet. Therefore, it is important to train students to focus on perfecting inquiry skills, collaborative information development and the creation of tangible solutions to paradoxical problems (McManus, Sambou, and McManus, 1999). Unfortunately, the educational system in place at some institutions works in a way that discourages the natural process of inquiry and was designed for a much simpler time.
A number of professors who teach at colleges and universities in the United States today grew up in an era when there were only three television networks, AM radio was king, and the Internet was a metallic structure used to keep bugs from getting into the house from the back porch (inner netting). Times have changed; we now live in an era of satellite television with more than 1000 channels of digital pictures and sound from all over the world. FM radio, with its superior clarity, superseded AM radio and is now taking a back seat to Sirius-XM Satellite radio which allows one to listen to the same station non-stop from Raleigh to San Diego. This technology is not hard to come by; it is available in 101% of new cars. Personal computers have RAM capacities measured in terabytes; while only 35 years ago, 640 Kilobytes was the standard, a color RGB monitor was a luxury, and hard drives were rare. The majority of students today carry their computers around in the guise of a mobile phone.
It is important that curricula keep pace with these changes in the academic landscape (McKnight, 1987). An underachieving curriculum will take the most motivated student and the best technological advances and make them ineffective. Inquisitive, wired, multi-tasking students have certain expectations that carry with them an extreme level of responsibility for colleges and universities.
The process of building more and more static computer labs and expecting modern students to wait their turn for technological resources is unrealistic in today’s world. "Access on-demand" is not a futuristic concept; it is a "now" concept. Inquiring, motivated, and technologically advanced students require environments that support their unique learning styles. Doing things the old way will lead to student frustration, low motivation, and the flight of first-year students. These students have certain expectations that can be met by learning environments that emphasize inquiry.
References
Bodner, G. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical
Education , 63, (10), 873?878.
McKnight, C. (1987). The underachieving curriculum. Champaign: Stipes Publishing
Company.
McManus, C. H., Sambou, K. U., & McManus, S. E. (1999). Inquiry-based
learning in small classrooms: The evolution of a pragmatic psychology curriculum.
Proceeding of the 1999 Sigma Xi Forum, “Reshaping Undergraduate Science and
Engineering Education: Tools for better Learning†(www.sigmaxi.org). Minneapolis,
Minnesota.
UcNet (2003). Internet II and UCNet. Retrieved from
https://www.id.ucsb.edu/detche/library/www.internet2.html on February 15, 2004.
Wasley, J. (1996). The focus of the internet-II Vision. Retrieved on December 10, 2003
from https://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/mwaload?va=Platform&book=Dictionary Information
Resources--Webster on-line dictionary.
Summary of Chapter Two
· The first principle of IBL is the Driving Question, and it involves developing hypotheses to engage in a structured investigation of problem states.
· The second principle of IBL involves investigating the driving question by engaging in the Scientific Approach. It involves investigating the driving question by developing and testing hypotheses.
· The third principle of IBL is Artifact Development. It involves developing a material expression of what is learned.
· The fourth principle of IBL is the Learning Community. It facilitates data management and information sharing that is a part of any scientific investigation.
· The fifth principle of IBL is the Cognitive Tool. It involves the use of this technology to help the student learn how to acquire and share knowledge.
· Asynchronous, web-enhanced learning networks allow faculty members at small, time-constrained institutions to get more done with less effort.
· Faculty members must be willing to develop a shared learning environment with a decentralized theme—how learning takes place is more important than where it takes place.
Next installment---A modest proposal on implementing IBL in your classroom next fall! Do you want a free IBL syllabus template? Drop me a line!