Sorry for the delay… and thank you for explaining Giesecke’s thoughts more detailed. I should get his book next on my to-read list.

As already mentioned on Twitter, the day after I had posted my comment, a colleague of mine sent me a link to the opinion piece „Testing the pencil“ by Tim Holt. There he states: ‚Technology is a tool. Just like a pencil. Just like an overhead projector. Just like a chalkboard, just like a ballpoint pen. I have never ever heard someone ask the question: „I wonder if overhead projectors make a difference in student achievement?“ „I wonder if using a whiteboard is better than using a chalkboard?“‚

The computer is just a tool though a very powerful and complex one in which many other things can be replicated. But one should not just use the computer and the technology within it to replicate other media, but to enhance them. That’s where the kick comes in for me with the computer.

Regarding to your two points you mentioned – in fact as I read him right the Role as an Assessor is deeply embedded inside the teaching activities. But it points out the diffrence between acting pedagogically and acting as a teacher, which means to do also something additionally. Also Giesecke mentions a lot of diffrent other fields of activity such as acting medicinically, acting administrative, acting politically, acting economically. I think going intooo deep would overemhasize the posts readability. But the second point, i think, is interesting, because going into his meaning of reflecting his action, which he is valueing very high (Remember: ACTING and REFLECTING , he places on the same level of importance, he embeds the learning teacher very well. Thats because he argues reflecting is in two dimensions: The reflecting action (directly) and „Reflecting in the way, which goes side by side with the individual history of education of the educational professional. Thats an awesome argument, to anchor the teaching an learning20 inside.

Finally – I brought my concerns related to the f2f and the institutional pedagogical institution inside a consulting discussion and got two thoughts as a result. The first message was: It’s something to care and to deal with. So it could be a question of knwoledge, why he argues in this way. But it could be also a question of developement. Knowing this book was written first 1987 – there are so many things happened afterwards. ICT changed completely – or got into mass. It is good to see the argues, he is using against the use of the mass media as non pedagogical fields – to get another view. There he is complaining the missing feedback – the missing backchannels. Thinking so, it underlines the use of the C inside the ICT, isn’t it? Lets see where my fingers will bring me during writing in beginning of may!

Again: Thanx to inspire me in getting deeper in my thought!

Thanks for drawing my attention to Giesecke. As I do not know his writing, I cannot try to dissect it and give you any insight on how I view what he says. From the things that you have written down, I fear that I miss two aspects: the learning of the teacher and also his / her role of assessor which cannot be neglected. Why did he leave that out? Any idea or did I misread your post?

It seems to me that the teacher and the students are viewed on polar positions, and not as social beings who share an interest, form a community, and learn from each other.

It is interesting indeed that online learning in whichever form does not play a role for him. Sometimes I get tired of the distinction between f2f learning, blended learning, and e-learning only on grounds of the technology that is used. Why not just say „learning“? The electronic tools are just that: tools. They should not be the defining factor for learning situations, but be included with all the other educational tools that are around, unless of course they are the focus. Nobody talks about „blackboard learning“ or „flipchart learning“ (I am a bit overdoing it here 😉 ), but they are all the tools available to us in learning situations. Why fuzz about the computer so much in that it is set apart as something very extraordinary. I thought by now it comes natural to include it in learning situations. That does not mean that it has to be present all the time, but that it is used for finding information, connecting with people, expanding knowledge. It should be used when it is beneficial, and other tools should be used when they yield better results. Leaving online learning aspects out of the current discussion and just talking about f2f encounters seems rather limiting to me and not taking a big chunk of learning situations in account.

What ideas did you have up your sleeve? 😉