<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Self-Paced, Point &amp; Click: The Jewish Problem with Programmed Instruction</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tapbb.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/point-click-the-jewish-problem-with-programmed-instruction/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tapbb.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/point-click-the-jewish-problem-with-programmed-instruction/</link>
	<description>The Torah Aura Productions Bulletin Board</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:29:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Brad Lakritz</title>
		<link>http://tapbb.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/point-click-the-jewish-problem-with-programmed-instruction/#comment-529</link>
		<dc:creator>Brad Lakritz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:15:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tapbb.wordpress.com/?p=321#comment-529</guid>
		<description>Joel,

I will agree that teachers must be part of the regular instructional program no matter what the situation (yes, even when computers are involved). In fact, all the more important when computers are involved in order to keep learners on task. Also, teachers should be involved both in the production of technology related learning tools (especially in in designing project based learning curricula) and in the instructional training on how to use them.

I also think it&#039;s too simple to just say that computer based learning focuses on three lower level learning skills and that other methods of learning are the only ones that focus on the three higher level learning skills. I think it all depends on how you implement the technology.

Brad</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Joel,</p>
<p>I will agree that teachers must be part of the regular instructional program no matter what the situation (yes, even when computers are involved). In fact, all the more important when computers are involved in order to keep learners on task. Also, teachers should be involved both in the production of technology related learning tools (especially in in designing project based learning curricula) and in the instructional training on how to use them.</p>
<p>I also think it&#8217;s too simple to just say that computer based learning focuses on three lower level learning skills and that other methods of learning are the only ones that focus on the three higher level learning skills. I think it all depends on how you implement the technology.</p>
<p>Brad</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Josh Barkin</title>
		<link>http://tapbb.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/point-click-the-jewish-problem-with-programmed-instruction/#comment-527</link>
		<dc:creator>Josh Barkin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 18:46:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tapbb.wordpress.com/?p=321#comment-527</guid>
		<description>Lisa -

Thanks for your response to the TAPBB article. Because of your thoughtfulness and because you are well-published in your support for programmed instruction in Jewish education (http://www.behrmanhouse.com/fortheed/itc/independent_learner.shtml), I wanted to respond personally.

1. It was not our intent to &quot;discredit&quot; another publisher&#039;s material. Rather, it was our goal to explain what makes our materials different. I think a lot of educators assume that Hebrew/Prayer materials aren&#039;t that different from each other, and that it&#039;s really &quot;six of one, half-dozen of another.&quot; We disagree, and because we want to differentiate ourselves in the market, we feel the need to articulate why we oppose the current trend towards programmed instruction.

2. I guess you&#039;re right. If you have teachers who are &quot;dynamic&quot;, and your school features a &quot;community of learners and a community of celebrants of Jewish life,&quot; then you can use programmed materials as a foundation, and then ask teachers to add a depth of understanding and meaning. But lets be clear: the materials are not designed to empower the teacher to develop this sort of meeting.

We&#039;re suggesting that educators have a choice between (a) materials that require the teacher to create real meaning by him or her self; or (b) materials that are designed to empower the teacher to create real meaning. Shouldn&#039;t schools choose the materials that enable depth and meaning?

Furthermore, publishers of these programmed materials advertise them as being easier for undertrained and unskilled teachers. They say things like &quot;No special teacher training required,&quot; and that their materials are designed for teachers with &quot;different abilities and capabilities.&quot; If the whole point is that the materials are designed for less-capable teachers, how can you argue that they can only be successful if they&#039;re used by really good teachers?

This is the fundamental problem with programmed instruction. It claims to be easier to use and easier to teach. But in reality, it is much much harder. That&#039;s because programmed instruction only touches on the shallowest levels of learning, and requires the teacher to develop depth and meaning (synthesis, analysis, the affective process of internalization) with only these shallow programmed materials as a foundation.

Given the limited time we have with students, it is really important that we teach them how to be members of prayer communities, rather then working individually and alone to develop the basic skills needed for their bar or bat mitzvah, a single day of self-aggrandizement.

We produce materials that are entirely designed -- from the ground up -- to enable teachers and students to engage in learning that is deep, meaningful, and goes way beyond facts, skills, and feelings. Our goal as a publisher of Jewish educational materials is to make success in Jewish education an achievable reality. We believe that &quot;success&quot; means students developing into enabled and empowered Jewish adults (not just students who can pronounce some Hebrew for b&#039;nai mitzvah), and we ardently believe that programmed instruction cannot be a core technique for accomplishing this goal.

Thanks for your thoughtful response, and for the opportunity to further articulate our educational vision.

Kol tuv,

- josh

----------
Joshua Mason-Barkin, MAJE/MAJCS
Director of School Services
Torah Aura Productions
4423 Fruitland Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90058
(800) BE-TORAH x122
josh@torahaura.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lisa -</p>
<p>Thanks for your response to the TAPBB article. Because of your thoughtfulness and because you are well-published in your support for programmed instruction in Jewish education (<a href="http://www.behrmanhouse.com/fortheed/itc/independent_learner.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://www.behrmanhouse.com/fortheed/itc/independent_learner.shtml</a>), I wanted to respond personally.</p>
<p>1. It was not our intent to &#8220;discredit&#8221; another publisher&#8217;s material. Rather, it was our goal to explain what makes our materials different. I think a lot of educators assume that Hebrew/Prayer materials aren&#8217;t that different from each other, and that it&#8217;s really &#8220;six of one, half-dozen of another.&#8221; We disagree, and because we want to differentiate ourselves in the market, we feel the need to articulate why we oppose the current trend towards programmed instruction.</p>
<p>2. I guess you&#8217;re right. If you have teachers who are &#8220;dynamic&#8221;, and your school features a &#8220;community of learners and a community of celebrants of Jewish life,&#8221; then you can use programmed materials as a foundation, and then ask teachers to add a depth of understanding and meaning. But lets be clear: the materials are not designed to empower the teacher to develop this sort of meeting.</p>
<p>We&#8217;re suggesting that educators have a choice between (a) materials that require the teacher to create real meaning by him or her self; or (b) materials that are designed to empower the teacher to create real meaning. Shouldn&#8217;t schools choose the materials that enable depth and meaning?</p>
<p>Furthermore, publishers of these programmed materials advertise them as being easier for undertrained and unskilled teachers. They say things like &#8220;No special teacher training required,&#8221; and that their materials are designed for teachers with &#8220;different abilities and capabilities.&#8221; If the whole point is that the materials are designed for less-capable teachers, how can you argue that they can only be successful if they&#8217;re used by really good teachers?</p>
<p>This is the fundamental problem with programmed instruction. It claims to be easier to use and easier to teach. But in reality, it is much much harder. That&#8217;s because programmed instruction only touches on the shallowest levels of learning, and requires the teacher to develop depth and meaning (synthesis, analysis, the affective process of internalization) with only these shallow programmed materials as a foundation.</p>
<p>Given the limited time we have with students, it is really important that we teach them how to be members of prayer communities, rather then working individually and alone to develop the basic skills needed for their bar or bat mitzvah, a single day of self-aggrandizement.</p>
<p>We produce materials that are entirely designed &#8212; from the ground up &#8212; to enable teachers and students to engage in learning that is deep, meaningful, and goes way beyond facts, skills, and feelings. Our goal as a publisher of Jewish educational materials is to make success in Jewish education an achievable reality. We believe that &#8220;success&#8221; means students developing into enabled and empowered Jewish adults (not just students who can pronounce some Hebrew for b&#8217;nai mitzvah), and we ardently believe that programmed instruction cannot be a core technique for accomplishing this goal.</p>
<p>Thanks for your thoughtful response, and for the opportunity to further articulate our educational vision.</p>
<p>Kol tuv,</p>
<p>- josh</p>
<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;-<br />
Joshua Mason-Barkin, MAJE/MAJCS<br />
Director of School Services<br />
Torah Aura Productions<br />
4423 Fruitland Ave.<br />
Los Angeles, CA 90058<br />
(800) BE-TORAH x122<br />
<a href="mailto:josh@torahaura.com">josh@torahaura.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lisa Goldstein</title>
		<link>http://tapbb.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/point-click-the-jewish-problem-with-programmed-instruction/#comment-526</link>
		<dc:creator>Lisa Goldstein</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:39:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tapbb.wordpress.com/?p=321#comment-526</guid>
		<description>I have a very mixed reaction to this article.  On the one hand, I agree with all of your points about the values and objectives of Jewish education.  On the other hand, it feels very much like an attempt to discredit the materials of another Jewish textbook publisher.  Your assumption seems to be that these materials are intended to be used by themselves and not in the context of a bigger picture.  I don&#039;t believe that is the intention of the publisher.  When used as one of a number of teaching tools - INCLUDING an engaging, dynamic teacher, a community of learners and a community of celebrants of Jewish life, and especially given the limited time we have with our precious students, these materials absolutely have a place in today&#039;s classroom.  Even more so in the home, where students are actually motivated to continue their learning even when their parents don&#039;t have the ability to help them.  Supplemented with small group or whole group instruction and with regular community experiences that include opportunities to learn and talk about the concepts and values that are such an important part of Jewish education, I believe these programmed materials have value.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have a very mixed reaction to this article.  On the one hand, I agree with all of your points about the values and objectives of Jewish education.  On the other hand, it feels very much like an attempt to discredit the materials of another Jewish textbook publisher.  Your assumption seems to be that these materials are intended to be used by themselves and not in the context of a bigger picture.  I don&#8217;t believe that is the intention of the publisher.  When used as one of a number of teaching tools &#8211; INCLUDING an engaging, dynamic teacher, a community of learners and a community of celebrants of Jewish life, and especially given the limited time we have with our precious students, these materials absolutely have a place in today&#8217;s classroom.  Even more so in the home, where students are actually motivated to continue their learning even when their parents don&#8217;t have the ability to help them.  Supplemented with small group or whole group instruction and with regular community experiences that include opportunities to learn and talk about the concepts and values that are such an important part of Jewish education, I believe these programmed materials have value.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
