ETEC 511: Foundations of Educational Technology (core course)
AssignmentsModule 1: The Definition of Educational Technology: Etymological and Semantic FoundationsYou have chosen the field of educational technology for professional pursuits. But what is e-learning, educational technology, learning technologies, ICT, or new media? What is instructional design? Curriculum design? What are the various main and sub foundations of these disciplines? How can the stability and instability of these foundations be represented? What do you have to know or in what areas do you need to be engaged and literate?
How do we define ET, ID, e-L, ICT or NM? What keywords are most relevant to literacies and practices? Technology is more than just a tool... Last week at my son’s school “Parent Night”, I asked his 2/3rd grade teacher how she will be using technology in her classroom. Her response included typing practice for the 3rd graders, laptops for word processing and accessing the internet, and the use of ipad’s with no examples. This led me to think about how might the term Educational Technology (ET) be defined differently by different people, depending on their experiences with it. One can also consider the SAMR Model and Bloom’s Taxonomy. Educators who design tasks that have a significant impact on student outcomes also design tasks that target a higher-order cognitive skill level. The use of the SAMR model guages how technology is used in the classroom and this could in turn reflect on a teacher’s comfort level and use of technology. This is what separates technology being “just a tool” with technology transforming the way one learns. The term ET is an evolving term. Rocci Luppicini (2005) discuss how ET is linked to the maturation of the audio-visual movement in education and instructional training programs beginning in the First World War and that defining ET over the last four decades has been difficult to do. How does one define such an evolving term? When looking at 21st Century teaching and learning, the idea of personalized learning is at the forefront of education. I believe that if educators want to personalize learning for their students, I agree with Hlynka and Jacobsen (2009) that it is important to understand the educational component in the definition of what ET really is. There needs to be a strong focus on facilitating learning and improving performance via technological processes and resources, versus products or tools. ET focuses on the learning affordances provided by the technology. Although there have been many definitions of ET over the years, Januszewski and Molenda’s new AECT definition of educational technology (Hlynka, D. & Jacobsen, M., 2009) is the one that resonates the most with me: Educational technology is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources. This definition aligns closely with the skills, literacies and fluencies needed in 21st Century teaching and learning. It suggests that technology is used to facilitate learning, and an emphasis should be placed more on process and a way of thinking, sharing and connecting. References: Luppicini, R. (2005). A systems definition of educational technology in society. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (3), 103-109. Hlynka, D. & Jacobsen, M. (2009). What is educational technology, anyway? A commentary on the new AECT definition of the field. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 35(2), http://cjlt.csj.ualberta.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/527/260. Module 3: The History & Philosophy of Educational Technology: Historical and Philosophical FoundationsCan’t we just ignore history and get on with the educational media and technology show? To what degree ought we pay attention to history? Who cares about old media— the future is in new media, isn’t it?
Has educational media and technology paid off over time? Has teaching labour been historically displaced by educational media and technology? What exactly is educational technology as far as history is concerned? "The future of the illusion [of the lecture]," says Friesen, "in other words, is bright." Paradoxically, is not the future of the lecture itself dim? What is the philosophy of technology? What is the philosophy of educational technology? What are the key insights of Heidegger's QCT? What does the history of educational media and technology tell us about educational media and technology? Why does it matter? What are Vygotsky's insights into mediation? What key components of cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) are articulated by Vygotsky in these brief chapters? From chalkboard to SMARTboard Ignore history? How can we ignore history just because new media is where it's at? Albeit, technology is an integral part of society and education today is radically different than decades ago, history has played and continues to play a vital role in where education systems around the world are today (some in better places than others). I view the evolution of technology as stepping stones - building on what once was cutting edge technology to what educational technology is today. Gaps are filled with every building block and learning from the past helps to build a stronger foundation for the future. There have been a plethora of technologies brought to the forefront of education over time, some technologies have been transformative while others, uh..well, not so useful. However, all have contributed to further improvements to Instructional Design models and technologies used in education today. Today’s society uses technology to access, communicate, create, share and collaborate, much different from the days when it was all about how one presented their information. There was a time when “aesthetically, teachers using PowerPoint slides may be unwittingly educating a questionable cognitive style, shifting their students’ gaze away from nuanced human gesture and facial expression toward a hypnotic corporate gloss, and thereby altering classroom atmosphere and tone, even as they efficiently deliver the “content” of their talk” (Adams, C., 2008, pp. 283). This time in history when PowerPoint took over classrooms was much similar to the overhead projector days when the teacher slowly uncovered her words simply transferring knowledge. The only difference is the aesthetic appeal. Today, it is more about knowledge-building; teachers and students being co-constructors of knowledge. This is what today’s technology allows us to do, and in essence, the evolution of technology over time has transformed the way we teach and learn in significant ways. My last thought remains at a point where although students have access to such amazing tools, I believe the teacher remains the most instrumental part of the equation. In Syndey Pressey’s (1961) video about the Automation of Education, he made the comment that resonates with me: “A teaching machine may assist but it can never replace a living teacher..it is still just another tool and the effectiveness of a tool depends on the skill in which it is used”. So you tell me, are we at a point where technology controls the educator? Or does the educator control the technology? References: Adams, C. (2008). The poetics of PowerPoint. Explorations in Media Ecology, 7(4), 283–289. Library Portal Access. Paul, R. (Executive Producer) & Petrina, S. (2002, October 11). The Magic Box: Technology in education (Sound Recording). Washington, D.C.: National Public Radio, Sound Prints. RE: Self Reflection: Once a bored student now a teacher
Thanks for sharing some of your experiences through school X. I think we all can relate to the traditional stand and deliver model and the endless notetaking from the chalkboard. I like how you outline methods that work for you, also the way content is delivered in your class today based on what didn't work for you in the past and what/who inspired you. Isn't it interesting that the idea of personalized learning has taken shape of many forms, varying slightly, but has actually been around for centuries? Why has it has taken all this time for educators to actually start personalizing instruction when different theories have always suggested that the idea of constructivism provides opportunities for independent thinking, allows students to take responsibility for their own learning, make connections to the real world, and fosters metacognition. For the first time after reading your post, I actually feel a little deprived of an education that could have had so many possibiliities as a child. I wish my schooling years included questions and a search for my answers, rather than being told what is. Despite having these wonderful theories and understanding how children learn differently, why is it so hard for so many educators to move forward? Or why has it taken until now for educators to begin to personalize learning? I asked this question in my last post: Are we at a point where technology controls the educator? Or does the educator control the technology? Does the technology make it easier to personalize learning? Sydney Pressey felt this back in 1920 and stated "that this mechanical device could lift from her [the teacher's] shoulders as much as possible of this burden and make her free for those inspirational and thought-stimulating activities which are, presumably, the real function of the teacher" (p. 374). I am beginning to think more and more that it is the technology controlling the educator... Pressey, S.L. (1926). A simple apparatus which gives tests and scores - and teaches. School and Society, 23(586), 373-376. Module 5: The Politics & Sociology of Educational Technology: Cultural and Social FoundationsBourdieu rarely wrote explicitly about media and technology. On Television, based on talks given a handful of years before he passed, provides a rare cogent analysis. In Bourdieu's analysis, this becomes a sociology of journalism. He concludes the first talk:
Television is a universe where you get the impression that social actors-even when they seem to be important, free, and independent, and even sometimes possessed of an extraordinary aura (just take a look at the television magazines)--are the puppets of a necessity that we must understand, of a structure that we must unearth and bring to light. (p. 38) How true is this? How true of the web as well? What is this necessity? Is being a puppet of necessity all that bad? I really enjoyed reading Bourdieu’s article On Television this week. What stood out for me is the idea that television actually does not provide the “freedom” it portrays and that there are “puppets” both behind and in front of the scenes to ultimately, at whatever expense, get the highest television ratings which in turn means more money. An interview that has drawn attention to the media this week is Bill Maher’s interview with Ben Affleck: When you consider Bourdieu’s metaphor about “eyeglasses” being “the invisible structures that organize perception and determine what we see and don’t see”, it is obvious that Maher wants to attract his viewers; therefore, catering to provide his people with what they want to hear.
"Because they're so afraid of being boring," writes Bourdieu, “[producers] opt for confrontations”. In this case, Maher is the puppet bringing controversy to a religion which has been greatly misunderstood over time because of the media. Shortly after this interview aired, CNN interviewed Reza Aslan, an Iranian-American writer and scholar of religions: It’s interesting to see how the CNN journalists quickly sided with Bill Maher, and how this truly compliments Bourdeau’s comment around what makes television political. Bourdeau writes, “editorial staff spend a good deal of time talking about other newspapers, particularly about “what they did and we didn’t do”. Rather than constantly “looking for what they’re looking for,” they should be looking for what isn’t there, but then again, that information would probably not offer the “cultural fast food” that it does to its consumers. At the end of the day, “television which claims to record reality creates it instead”. The Reza Aslan interview has had 257,606 shares on Facebook and 77,929 likes on Facebook. As I read through some of the viewer comments, a couple stood out for me:
Michael Herrera Wow. To be honest, I am embarrassed to say that I have shared similar views that these CNN hosts expressed but Reza Aslan made several good points and actually open my mind about how we are influence by mass media. Everyone should share this video. Media in television plays an important role, and for some it’s their only source of information, in feeding its viewers the knowledge and information which they perceive as the “truth”. This viewer appears to be completely complacent with the information he gets from CNN. It’s no wonder we see so many ignorant people unaware of what really is. David Sepulveda Sometimes it's difficult to tell CNN from Fox News. Reza makes some valid points, that will not surmount the years of conditioning and sloppy language by our media and political figures. The true battle lies in the hearts and minds of people, who are fed a constant diet of bigotry that passes for truth. This last comment really captures the notion of “fast food”. We’ve all been there... midnight, at the fast food drive-thru window, as it’s the only place that’s open. What have most of us been conditioned to order? Not the salad, which if you seek out is on the menu, but instead, like the majority of people it’s the burger and fries that’s ordered. References: Bourdieu, P. (1996). On television (trans. P. P. Ferguson) (pp. 10-38). New York: The New Press. Comments taken from: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152410206006167&set=vb.26595441166&&theater Module 7: The Ecology & Nature of Educational Technology: Ecological FoundationsWhat are the limits to growth of educational technology? As explored in previous modules, educational technology is not neutral, nor is it somehow a happy medium between 'part of the problem' and 'part of the solution.' There are environmental implications of ET that tend to be marginalized or outside the normal scope of discussion.
Are there limits to the growth of ET within education? In other words, is the carying capacity of education fragile in ways that can only be explored ecologically? Zhao and Frank seem to suggest this. What is Zhao and Frank's argument? Is technology an invasive species? Zhao and Frank (2003) question why technology is not as easily embraced in schools and use the metaphor of our ecosystem to compare the natural habitat to our educational habitat. They also suggest that teachers, being keystone species, have control over technology uses and implementation, and the outcome of whether technology is integrated and how it is integrated is dependent on this. As this article was written in 2003, bulky computers, limited space, teachers' unwillingness to take students to the lab, and lack of access to computers at home should no longer be factors that limit the use of technology in schools. So if this was the excuse back then, what's the excuse for teacher resistance now? Zhao & Frank (2003) do mention that teachers' attitudes toward, and expertise with, technology are key factors for the lack of use of technology. I completely concur with this statement, but also question to what extent is this resistance associated with leadership? Leadership obviously plays a key role in a school/system, and change only begins with the right vision. Zhao & Frank state: "Although societal institutions and federal and state policies are remote from individual classrooms, they undoubtedly penetrate teachers' immediate contexts to affect technology use" (Zhao & Frank, 2003, pp.816). Speaking today as a parent in the US, how does a system break away from traditional transfer of knowledge and standardized testing? I had a converstation with another parent in Denver about money being raised by the parent council and how it will be used to purchase computers for a lab in order to meet the requirements for standardized testing. I couldn't help but think "How is this system ever going to change in this country?" It's no wonder it's hard to find schools supporting student-centered, project-based learning where I live. This approach is "incompatible with the need to prepare students for standardized tests" (Zhao & Frank, 2003, pp.216). I also mentioned in a previous post that the way technology is being used here is not the way it should be used. My son's class uses computers to learn typing, his homework is a math program called "Reflex Math", and the ipads are used for "free choice" when a student is done their work(sheets). If the vision of eduation in the United States still captures the need for standardized testing scores to rank schools of their value and level of education, I see how it can be extremely difficult for teachers to shift their mindset from "teaching to the test" to 21st century teaching and learning. I know if I was writing this post as a teacher in Calgary and as a parent of children in Calgary, my thoughts may have come out differently. The Calgary Board of Education's (CBE) 3-year plan includes a commitment to personalized learning through the instructional core (teacher, student and content). The CBE implemented an innovative resource to personalize learning called IRIS. It is a place where teachers and students can "roadmap" learning opportunities and set learning goals. Educators can set up individual online learner profiles with their students and integrate multiple forms of information to meet students' individual learning objectives (www.cbe.ab.ca). This kind of leadership is what makes change happen. Setting up teachers and students for success and providing the right supports to ensure this vision is carried out is exactly what needs to happen. Zhao, Y. & Frank, K. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807-840. |
Module 2: The Design of Educational Technology: Curriculum and Instructional FoundationsWhat are the key concepts of case-based learning or case-based instruction?
Does it matter that we cannot prove what the effects of educational technologies are? Do we collectively agree that they are good? How are administrators to know what the cost implications for any technology or what the returns will be? Effectiveness? What are the purposes and nature of instructional design? What are the problems and/or limitations implicit in existing Instructional System Design (ISD) models? What are the underlying assumptions of the dominant metaphors and social processes? What do instructional designers really do? Can we collectively agree that ET’s are good? First off, who are we? We are all different people with different experiences, ideas, philosophies, living in different places and using technology differently. I don’t think that this can be a collective agreement. We see this in educational settings everyday. What we can do is take steps in ensuring these sorts of discussions take place and that we are constantly evaluating the use of ET’s in our practice. How are we to know the cost implications for any technology and success rates? We don’t. I think success rate depends on the learner and how one learns. Instructional System Design (ISD) models provide a roadmap to guide designers and instructors through analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation to the goal. Designers should not assume “one size fits all”, and need to take into consideration who the learners are, what they need to know, what conditions will affect and facilitate their learning, and how will what they learn be assessed? (Freeman, Robert E., 1994). Instructional Design is meant to enhance learning experiences and environments and so when I think about Khan Academy, I think Mr. Khan is a brilliant man. What an innovative idea to deliver content through video to millions of people around the world. How could this be problematic? The videos are quick and easy to follow, users are motivated, it represents the idea of “just in time” learning, it’s personalized and it is a great resource to supplement students’ learning. As more and more students access online sites like Khan Academy, it becomes increasingly important for them to understand the concept of Digital Citizenship. Clemens (2011) argues that Mr. Khan’s “as you can imagine” line assumes that students know what he is talking about but really may not have all the facts, foundation or premise to understand what he is talking about. If students understand the concept of Digital Citizenship then one may begin a Khan Academy lesson and come out with more questions and the skills to search further. Today's learners thrive on active participation in digital and media literacy, and their engagement in sites like Khan Academy stimulates intellectual curiosity on many levels. I am sure it would be easy to provide evidence of student engagement in these sites; however, it is unfortunate that it is so difficult to provide more than just evidence of student engagement to prove the effects or effectiveness of ET’s. References: Clemens, D. (2011). The dangerous Mr. Khan. NAS Article, http://www.nas.org/articles/The_Dangerous_Mr_Khan. Freeman, R. E. (1994). Instructional design: Capturing the classroom for distance learning. Association of Christian Continuing Education Schools and Seminaries. Module 4: The Ethics & Jurisprudence of Educational Technology: Ethical and Legal FoundationsWhat are the implications of Kavita Philips’ “What is a Technological Author?” for rights-- human rights, intellectual property rights, consumer rights, economic rights, digital technology user rights, etc.?
What are the implications of the freedom of expression for educational technology? or freedom of the press for ET? Who or what is/are the media or the press? What are the legal issues of digital property? For ETers? For students? For teachers? What is at stake with Blackboard's "Alcorn" patent? What are the implications of MOOCs for education? What advantages does the commercial marketplace offer to educational technologists and instructional designers? What are the disadvantages? What do private tutoring companies offer ET that public schools do not? What are the implications for the expansion of private educational technology, such as that which Sylvan incorporates into their practices? What are the political and economic arguments for open source in education? What are the legal implications? Why have educators been slow to respond to open source? What are the interrelationships between open source and open access? XPRIZE for Global Learning Last week, the XPRIZE organization announced its latest competition: a $15 million Global Learning XPRIZE - "a five-year competition challenging teams to develop open source and scalable software that will enable children in developing countries to teach themselves basic reading, writing and arithmetic" (http://www.xprize.org/press-release/gordon-brown-endorses-15-million-global-learning-xprize-united-nations-education-forum). After reading this article, it reminded me of the One Laptop Per Child Project (OLPC) where the mission statement was "To create educational opportunities for the world's poorest children by providing each child with a rugged, low-cost, low-power, connected laptop with content and software designed for collaborative, joyful, self-empowered learning" (http://laptop.org/en/vision/index.shtml). It is amazing how people think that technology is the "solution" to the problem of education in the developing world. Granted, having a vision where students can connect with the rest of the world and access information in a way that may better their lives does sound inspiring. Massive Online Open Courses for education (MOOCs) is a recent trend in distance learning and in my opinion, does have many benefits such as enhancing accessibility, lifelong learning, and increases student engagement. There are also many challenges to MOOCs, especially when trying to design a "one size fits all model" assuming it will benefit learners from all over the world. So what are some of the implications of MOOCs? 1. Language barrier - still remains to be the biggest issue as in most parts of the developing world, English is not the primary language, even though it could be the official language. 2. Qualification - These courses are a platform for tremendous knowledge-building, but most of them do not actually qualify as being "recognized" courses for employment or for credible institutions. 3. Community Priorities - MOOCs are designed with a specific topic or focus in mind and unless the course reflects community priorities, then how will it strengthen capacity? 4. Cultural Divide - What is the context of the course being offered? Translations are taken literally and often have no familiar cultural context. Rivard's article takes into consideration concerns from many scholars about the cultural barriers in the open educational resources (OER) community. Despite this, the goal continues to be "democratizing education" using technology by many. Claudia, in her response, put it quite nicely when she said, "planning/developing/distributing online courses locally would help developing nations to build infrastructure, skills, and capacity, and thus help them to experience broader and longer-term economic benefits, importing MOOCs from the US forestalls such development and further cements the Western-world in its dominant position." Thinking about what is educationally significant about how these sites are designed and how they support learners (worldwide) is what is not happening with the majority of MOOCs today, and that is the beginning to all the implications that follow. References: Rivard, R. (2013, April 25). The world is not flat. Inside Higher Ed, http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/04/25/moocs-may-eye-world-market-does-world-want-them. Wattersm A, (2014, September 23). Gordan Brown Endorses $15 Million Global Learning XPRIZE at United Nations Education Forum. Retrieved September 29, 2014, from http://www.xprize.org/press-release/gordon-brown-endorses-15-million-global-learning-xprize-united-nations-education-forum http://one.laptop.org/ Module 6: The Psychology & Phenomenology of Educational Technology?
OMRON our automation story - Harmony between people and technology - DailyMirror
Phew! Omron's ping-pong robot won't unseat humanity -PCWorld Meet the ping pong playing robot that is looking for a factory job -TLounge Can This Ping Pong Playing Robot Replace Humans In Factories? Techno Crazed Don't these headlines seem like they belong in a movie? This three-legged robot making headlines this month is 2.7 metres tall, weighs 600 pounds, and was created by Omron, a Japanese firm. Unlike other robots which "compete with humans," this one is a "more flexible robot that can adapt like humans." This robot was designed to adapt to the "dynamic and changing environments," and "move and assemble all kinds of components, regardless of shape or size" (http://www.technocrazed.com/omrons-new-robot-to-entertain-humans-with-ping-pong-game). Next goals for Omron is to humanize the maching as much as possible, such as reproducing exact facial expressions. Are we almost at a point where we will no longer be able to distinguish them apart from humans? Today's technology is messing with our minds. We are interacting with the world through a different lens and we are forming relationships with technology which is changing how we interact with each other. I have mixed emotions about this. On one hand, having a ping-pong challenger who will strengthen my own ping-pong playing skills is amazing. Why not? Isn't that personalized learning for me? I would have the perfect opponent working at my own level. On the other hand, would I be getting critiqued on my technique, posture, stance? Would I get the humour and wittiness from my mechanical opponent that I would get from a human? Would I feel the anger or sense of defeat when my robotic opponent wins that I would get from a human? Or would I take it as just a "practice" game? Maybe it's there but it's not real. Maybe others can come to terms with machines "presenting themselves as emotional" (Turkle, 2004), but I don't think I ever will. I feel as humans we need those personal connections and true emotions with each other and we don't get that from machines. This is what defines who we are and what separates us from machines. I wonder if my kids will feel differently that I do? They were born in this digital age and this is what they know. Sadly, I do agree with Turke (2004) when she says that today's children are learning to have expectations of emotional attachment to computers, not in the way we have expectations of emotional attachment to our cars and stereos, but in the way we have expectations about our emotional attachments to people. I see how my 4 year old daughter takes care of her baby doll, "Jessie." Jessie moves when she lifts her, talks to her, and says "mum mum" when she feeds her. She does have an attachment to Jessie an has brought her on every family vacation we have been on since she got her at the age of 1. How is this attachment different from an attachment I had to a stuffed animal when I was 4 years old? Well, when I was 4, I imagined my stuffy being "real" and pretended it talked to me, whereas my daughter doesn't have to pretend. The difference lies in the interaction. I wonder if my daughter is limited in using her imagination as Jessie "only has finite states of mind?" Because I was left to my imagination, my stuffy, in my mind, had many states of mind. Is this what's left for us? If Siri can answer almost any quesion I ask, it's only a matter of time before "Jessie" becomes as real as my imagination. References: Turkle, S. (2004). Whither psychoanalysis in computer culture. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 21(1), 16-30 Module 8: The Spirituality of Educational Technology: Spiritual FoundationsOur premise is that spirituality and technology are co-emergent-- mutually interdependent. We do not have one without the other. This is not merely semantics. Can we have spirituality without technology? Can we have technology without spirituality? Is the ideal form of spirituality that without technology?
Or is this the moment when we redefine technology as theology and theology as technology, and thereby recognize their historic and metaphysical inseparability? Secularism no longer seems tenable… Response to another post: I definitely struggled with this module/readings too. Your thoughts on our world of detached cultures creating fragmented parts of ourselves that cause us to no longer be whole is sticking with me. Davis (1993), eludes to the idea that we have evolved in the way we access and share knowledge, and that scientific and spiritual beliefs are intertwined. Feng and Petrina (2010) suggest that "spirituality and technology are co-emergent and mutually-interdependent." Search for knowledge was never easy, in fact, there is an old african proverb that goes “When an old man dies, a library burns to the ground." Today, technology enables us to access and share information like never before and those who want to search for more knowledge to become more enlightened and educated can do so. Many religions believe that spiritual progress is attained through study. It is with this knowledge where one becomes connected with the world and everyday activities can then become intentional spiritual practices. When one is better educated he is able to better understand God’s creation. I know this is a sensitive topic as spirituality is very personal, but this is one interpretation I think of when I think about technology and spirituality being co-emergent. References: Davis, E. (1993). Techgnosis: Magic, memory, and the angels of information. South Atlantic Quarterly, 92(4), 585-616. Feng, F. & Petrina (2010). The flesh is willing but the spirit is weak. Unpublished manuscript. (This is a draft introduction to our upcoming book). |