Category: DE Theory

“It has widely been observed that increases in national output have been large compared with the increases of land, man-hours, and physical reproducible capital” (Schultz, 1961, p. 1). Schultz (1961) attributes human capital as the input that fills the gap in understanding where the additional output comes from.

Total Factor Productivity (TFP) is another explanation for this gap. Human capital is one part of TFP. Technology and social capital complete the TFP mix. “Most output growth can be accounted for by input growth, but that the variation in output levels and growth rates is mostly accounted for by variation in [Total Factor Productivity] TFP levels and growth rates” (Taylor, Tamura, & Mulholland, 2013, p. 320). “Economic performance across regions differs not only in traditional factor endowments (labour and physical capital), but also mainly in technological, human and social capital” (Dettori, Marrocu, & Paci, 2012, p. 1411). Dettori, et al. (2012) characterize technological, human and social capital as components of Total Factor Productivity.

REFERENCES

Dettori, B., Marrocu, E., & Paci, R. (2012). Total factor productivity, intangible assets and spatial dependence in the European regions. Regional Studies, 46(10), 1401-1416. doi:10.1080/00343404.2010.529288

Schultz, T. W. (1961). Investment in human capital. The American Economic Review, 51(1), 1-17.

Turner, C., Tamura, R., & Mulholland, S. (2013). How important are human capital, physical capital and total factor productivity for determining state economic growth in the United States, 1840-2000?. Journal of Economic Growth, 18(4), 319-371. doi:10.1007/s10887-013-9090-4

At the core, capital has two components. The first component: “to enhance the productivity of other factors of production” (Capital, 2015). The second component: “the reward following from this enhancement” (Capital, 2015).

In this article, Schultz explores how human beings can be considered as a form of capital. Human beings enhance productivity as “the knowledge and skill are in great part combined with other human investment, predominantly account for the productive superiority of the technically advanced countries” (Schultz, 1961, p. 3). The return: “the resulting increase in earnings” (Schultz, 1961, p. 8).

“Economists have long known that people are an important part of the wealth of nations” (Schultz, 1961, p. 2). I agree. The challenge for me consists of a way to meaningfully measure the productivity.

When I received my undergraduate degree in Computer Science in 1982, I could measure the reward portion of the equation in the form of my higher paycheck. However, quantifying my actual productivity has been a struggle throughout my career. How meaningful were my achievements in terms of my organization’s productivity? My employer, at times, stressed the accuracy and quality of my work as more important than filling a “quota.” At times the opposite situation existed. In my experience, enhancing productivity can appear subjective, a metric at the whim of my supervisor or the larger organization. Unfortunately, once subjectivity walks into the front door, it seems to me that measurement walks out the back.

REFERENCES

Schultz, T. W. (1961). Investment in human capital. The American Economic Review, 51(1), 1-17.

Capital. (2015). In A dictionary of business and management. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordreference.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/view/10.1093/acref/9780199234899.001.0001/acref-9780199234899-e-934?rskey=fm2mwc&result=1

Lev Vygotsky
Courtesy of The Vygotsky Project (http://webpages.charter.net/schmolze1/vygotsky/)

Reading Anderson’s (2009) article about Social Networking got me interested in digging deeper into his sources.

DIALECTICAL–MATERIALIST THEORY OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT

I’ve seen Vygotsky before and have been curious about his theory.  So I started to search in the UMUC library for Vygotsky’s Mind in Society.  While UMUC library has this only as a physical book, I was able to find a number of interesting facts from the abstract.  The first is that he was a Russian psychologist and the second is the name of his theory: dialectical–materialist theory of cognitive development (Vygotsky, 1978).

So I went back to searching again.  Liu and Matthews (2005) confirmed other facts I found in the abstract: that Vygotsky sees an individual’s cognitive development as being formed by the social arena in which they live and that individuals collaboratively shape their world.

Then I switched gears and searched for dictionary definitions in an attempt to confirm what “dialectical–materialist theory of cognitive development” means.  Dialectical-materialist is “the Marxist theory (adopted as the official philosophy of the Soviet communists) that political and historical events result from the conflict of social forces and are interpretable as a series of contradictions and their solutions. The conflict is seen as caused by material needs” (https://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dialectical-materialism).   A theory is “a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something” (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/theory?q=theory).  Cognition is “the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses” (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/cognition?q=cognition).

Vygotsky’s explanation could be said to be about mental process of acquiring knowledge through resolving the conflict of material needs in one’s social context.

REFERENCES

Anderson, T. (2009) Social Networking in Education. A draft paper to STRIDE handbook for The Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU). Retrieved: April 27, 2009, from http://terrya.edublogs.org/2009/04/28/social-networking-chapter/

Liu, C., & Matthews, R. (2005). Vygotsky’s philosophy: Constructivism and its criticisms examined. International Education Journal, 6(3), 386-399.  Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ854992.pdf

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

(Moore, & Kearsley, 2012)

A little known movie fact is that the original Wizard of Oz had a jitterbug scene in it.  The powers that be cut the scene because they didn’t want to date the movie.  Years later, movie goers should be grateful that they get to experience the timeless wonder of Judy Garland’s performance of Over the Rainbow without any reminders of dances long out of date.

Moore & Kearsley’s (2012) definition of the five generations of distance education (DE) include Open Universities (OUs) as its own generation.  This appears out of place as the other four generations are solidly about the technologies that provided mechanisms of education.  A case could be made that Open Universities were enabled by the technologies of broadcast radio and television as home study was enabled by the technologies of cheaply created and easily distributed correspondence.

Let’s discuss two generations using technology, mechanism, pedagogy followed with examples.  The first generation of Correspondence used printed instructions sent via the postal system to provide distance education following mainly objectivist theory (Jonassen, Davidson, Collins, Campbell, & Bannan Haag, 1995; Moore & Kearsley, 2012).  Examples from the correspondence generation include correspondence study, home study and independent study courses (Moore & Kearsley, 2012).  The second generation of Broadcast Radio and Television used audio and audiovisual programming sent via radio waves and/or TV frequencies to provide distance education following mainly constructivist theory (Jonassen, Davidson, Collins, Campbell, & Bannan Haag, 1995; Moore & Kearsley, 2012).  Examples from the Broadcast Radio and Television generation include Schools of the Air, Corporation of Public Broadcasting, Instructional Television Fixed Services, Cable Television Telecourses, and Open Universities.

There is possibility that Moore & Kearsley’s (2012) definition of the five generations of distance education may become as outdated as the jitterbug by setting OUs apart in their own generation.  While today OUs are flourishing mega-universities who knows what tomorrow may bring?  In an era of downsizing, mergers, economic instability, doing everything, including providing education, for less money will continue to be a priority for governments around the world.  Many OUs are funded by their governments.  If funding is cut, it could spell difficult times ahead OUs – perhaps some OUs will have to close their doors.

By no means am I trying to trivialize the impact the OUs have made on DE.  I feel that setting OUs apart as a separate generation as Moore and Kearsley have done may not be the most appropriate and long term decision when describing the history of DE.

REFERENCES

Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Bannan Haag, B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7-26. Available from http://www.box.com/s/i9y1f17cii6zmb0pi4qd

Moore, M.G., & Kearsley, G. (2012). The historical context. In Distance education: A systems view of online learning (3rd ed., pp. 23-44). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth CengageLearning.