Gestalt psychologists consider learners that know the "whole" (or the highest level of Bloom's taxonomy) in terms of the parts that make it up. Winn (2004) states that " Technology has advanced to the point where we can construct complete environments within which students can learn." Technology can provide the tools necessary to create both interactive and immersive learning environments that are consistent with Gestalt psychological theories; however, I no longer believe that this can be accomplished in the K-12 environment (and many college courses) just by a classroom teacher, even those that are very savvy. Teachers need support to develop and utilize these tools in the classroom. This includes professional development and hands on training, and this seems to be lacking in schools today.
For instance, the visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learning channels discussed in Gestalt psychology can easily be practiced using numerous tools readily available today. Flickr, Google Images, and other similar tools provide a picture for just about every concept, and most if not all teachers can easily incorporate this into the classroom. Providing a more immersive environment, such as with Second Life and Flash can take these graphics to another dimension or level of understanding where the imagination (and cost) and lack of support in the classrooms are many of the total factors that stand in the way. Anyone who has taken these courses or utilized these technologies can attest to the vast amount of knowledge it requires to develop using these tools.
So technology does make this capable, but not practical in all instances. It requires, amongst other things, support, development, training, and buy-in from those in the classroom.
Winn, W. (2004). Cognitive perspectives in psychology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Cognitivism
Cognitive Psychologists may have become somewhat dissatisfied due to what Winn (2004) says is a great deal of the research and practice of educational technology continues to operate within the traditional framework." This research has lead to new discoveries in the field. One of these discoveries Winn (2004) cites is evidence in biological research that suggests that the central nervous system is closed and cognitive activity in the mind is prompted by the environmental actions. Because cognitive psychologists believe that "there is both a physical and phenomenological separation between the mental and physical world,", this research is challenging assumptions in their theory. This is but one way to answer the question of the dissatisfaction. In other words, many are now believing that how we think, learn, and act has much to do with our environmental interactions and experiences that we encounter, which is much different from beliefs that cognition in the brain occurs separately from environment.
I think technology has somewhat enhanced dissatisfaction with these theories in a number of ways. One way is likely the visual information that is readily available through technology. Students that are engaging regularly in media on the Internet, phone, or elsewhere lends weight to learners becoming jaded. Technology itself has made some of the newer research findings possible, so in that regard, another way that the increased use of technology has enhanced dissatisfaction with these theories is that the very nature of technology makes new discoveries possible, thus making older theories in need of updating. One final way that some have found dissatisfaction is because cognitive theories seemed to call for provisions of ways that learners should be provided in order to enhance their processing of that information. Now that so much information is readily available through the Internet and World Wide Web, it seems that learners really need to use the information that suits them best. As Winn (2004 stated, scholars have made persuasive arguments that the value of the knowledge we build lies not in its closeness to any ideal or correct understanding of the external world, but to how it suits our own individual needs and guides our own individual actions.
In my practice, I think cognitive processing theories are still very relevant and a key consideration in how I design materials for use with instructors and students where I work. While I tend to ignore kinesthetic practices on a regular basis, I do make sure that I present or provide opportunities for hands on practice of what I teach as well as a pictoral model of the information I'm trying to convey. I use images, clip art, videos, and record my voice (or others) that are readily available on the web today. I allow learners to choose which way they would like to receive information before I send it their way. I also provide training materials both as visual/auditory in a video and as a step by step document. This allows our instructors or students to choose a path that will suit their own learning style and ways they process information best.
Winn, W. (2004). Cognitive perspectives in psychology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology
I think technology has somewhat enhanced dissatisfaction with these theories in a number of ways. One way is likely the visual information that is readily available through technology. Students that are engaging regularly in media on the Internet, phone, or elsewhere lends weight to learners becoming jaded. Technology itself has made some of the newer research findings possible, so in that regard, another way that the increased use of technology has enhanced dissatisfaction with these theories is that the very nature of technology makes new discoveries possible, thus making older theories in need of updating. One final way that some have found dissatisfaction is because cognitive theories seemed to call for provisions of ways that learners should be provided in order to enhance their processing of that information. Now that so much information is readily available through the Internet and World Wide Web, it seems that learners really need to use the information that suits them best. As Winn (2004 stated, scholars have made persuasive arguments that the value of the knowledge we build lies not in its closeness to any ideal or correct understanding of the external world, but to how it suits our own individual needs and guides our own individual actions.
In my practice, I think cognitive processing theories are still very relevant and a key consideration in how I design materials for use with instructors and students where I work. While I tend to ignore kinesthetic practices on a regular basis, I do make sure that I present or provide opportunities for hands on practice of what I teach as well as a pictoral model of the information I'm trying to convey. I use images, clip art, videos, and record my voice (or others) that are readily available on the web today. I allow learners to choose which way they would like to receive information before I send it their way. I also provide training materials both as visual/auditory in a video and as a step by step document. This allows our instructors or students to choose a path that will suit their own learning style and ways they process information best.
Winn, W. (2004). Cognitive perspectives in psychology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology
Monday, September 27, 2010
Course Design
The research on this subject is somewhat inconclusive; however, in the context of a community college, where many students (especially in our area) have little prior knowledge of online learning, a linear and consistent design amongst their courses might allow more focus on the content rather than the structure. Hsu, Lin, Ching, and Dwyer (2009) state that more research is needed to examine various types of website organizations/structures regarding the effects of assigned and preferred web navigation modes on different levels of learning outcomes." The problem with their study seemed to stem from the low number of participants and now allowing them to generalize their findings.
Hsu (2006) states that "when selecting a website for educational uses, content is the most important aspect to be considered as it is what students will eventually learn." This holds true in a classroom as well, but behaviors are more easily seen in this environment than online. The argument we are making here is that if online is designed with general population considerations, then behaviors that are often not seen in an online environment might include less frustration with the simple and consistent navigation.
If delving more into navigation and what I mean by "simple", I mean a linear approach when specific learning tasks are being provided. Hsu (2006) state that previous research has shown that "nonlinearity also poses the potential for disorientation, which can negatively impact one’s educational experience. Hence, navigation aids can serve as an important element in website interface design. Effective navigation aids can allow learners to locate the needed information efficiently while still having control of their own learning."
Apparently, there is a difference between major navigation and the navigation within a given unit or module of instruction. Hsu (2006) states that "instructors and educational website designers may want to use nonlinear navigation as the major mode for intended websites and linear navigation when a fixed linear learning sequence is deemed necessary regarding the content being delivered." I would argue that a consistent path to the linear learning sequence is what we are aiming at. In an online class, this might look like a student going to the same area to see their Module or Unit, then once opening it up, they get a straight forward path from start to finish of that Module or Unit (a link from that path to their readings, videos or multimedia, study aides, assessments, and participation tools (discusions, class blogs, etcetera).
So, in summary, in an online environment, in my opinion, a consistent linear design for each unit or module is supported by research. When comparing this to a classroom, I think it is comparing apples to oranges; however, I might argue that this consistency helps students concentrate on content as can be seen in some face to face settings.
I might suggest you take the advice provided by the previous post....I can say that they sound like good suggestions and I base this on some experience. I completed student teaching for one year in a fourth grade class. At this age group, I can say that consistency between me and the classroom teacher was vital. Any deviation from that caused chaos, and this was in the same classroom. This took a lot of work to collaborate and provide consistency among our teaching styles; however, I would presume anything you could do to provide an environment similar to their classroom (even if with minor hints) could likely prove to effect the behavior of your students. Anything is worth trying...even if once!
Hsu, Y. -C, Lin, H., Ching, Y. -H., & Dwyer. F. (2009). The effects of assigned and preferred educational website navigation modes on undergraduate students' learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 271-284.
Hsu, Y. -C. (2006). Better educational website interface design: The implications from gender-specific preferences in graduate students. British Journal of Educational Technology 37(2), 233-242..
Hsu (2006) states that "when selecting a website for educational uses, content is the most important aspect to be considered as it is what students will eventually learn." This holds true in a classroom as well, but behaviors are more easily seen in this environment than online. The argument we are making here is that if online is designed with general population considerations, then behaviors that are often not seen in an online environment might include less frustration with the simple and consistent navigation.
If delving more into navigation and what I mean by "simple", I mean a linear approach when specific learning tasks are being provided. Hsu (2006) state that previous research has shown that "nonlinearity also poses the potential for disorientation, which can negatively impact one’s educational experience. Hence, navigation aids can serve as an important element in website interface design. Effective navigation aids can allow learners to locate the needed information efficiently while still having control of their own learning."
Apparently, there is a difference between major navigation and the navigation within a given unit or module of instruction. Hsu (2006) states that "instructors and educational website designers may want to use nonlinear navigation as the major mode for intended websites and linear navigation when a fixed linear learning sequence is deemed necessary regarding the content being delivered." I would argue that a consistent path to the linear learning sequence is what we are aiming at. In an online class, this might look like a student going to the same area to see their Module or Unit, then once opening it up, they get a straight forward path from start to finish of that Module or Unit (a link from that path to their readings, videos or multimedia, study aides, assessments, and participation tools (discusions, class blogs, etcetera).
So, in summary, in an online environment, in my opinion, a consistent linear design for each unit or module is supported by research. When comparing this to a classroom, I think it is comparing apples to oranges; however, I might argue that this consistency helps students concentrate on content as can be seen in some face to face settings.
I might suggest you take the advice provided by the previous post....I can say that they sound like good suggestions and I base this on some experience. I completed student teaching for one year in a fourth grade class. At this age group, I can say that consistency between me and the classroom teacher was vital. Any deviation from that caused chaos, and this was in the same classroom. This took a lot of work to collaborate and provide consistency among our teaching styles; however, I would presume anything you could do to provide an environment similar to their classroom (even if with minor hints) could likely prove to effect the behavior of your students. Anything is worth trying...even if once!
Hsu, Y. -C, Lin, H., Ching, Y. -H., & Dwyer. F. (2009). The effects of assigned and preferred educational website navigation modes on undergraduate students' learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 271-284.
Hsu, Y. -C. (2006). Better educational website interface design: The implications from gender-specific preferences in graduate students. British Journal of Educational Technology 37(2), 233-242..
Friday, September 17, 2010
Behaviorism
Pritchard (2009) states that "the adage of practice makes perfect seems to hold good for behaviorists." I remember being in face to face classes all the way into college where we did the same thing each day. We had a lecture or watched a movie, then we did a worksheet to practice (sometimes to critically think) about what we just heard or saw. While I achieved well in school, I always realized that I would have these short exercises, then perhaps in a week or so a review of all the short exercises, then I could move on. This made school somewhat mindless...at least to some degree as I knew what to expect (what Pritchard says is the practice makes perfect manner of learning). In many ways, after seeing an example or two (ie, in math) I would be ready to start my work, but was often hindered by the classroom teacher attempting to maintain control and have all students on the same page and paying attention to her before we could start on our work. Interestingly, according to Burton, J. K., Moore, D. M., & Magliaro, S. G. (1996), "Generalization is the act of responding in the same way to similar stimuli, specically, to those stimuli not present at time of training." So my responses to classes were conditioned behavior based on years of the same. I personally feel this is a definate advantage in online courses where I can start engaging in content (or practice perhaps) when I'm ready without having to wait for the instructor to finish the lecture and this is but one way my behavior has changed in an online course.
I have also adjusted my own behavior in that I no longer wait for the last minute to do assignments and I must be clearly more organized. One other change noted in online is the fact that I can also have time to review materials over and over again (which, personally, I need) and on my own time when I'm mentally prepared to learn. This ability in an online course has not only given me a different perspective on learning, but has also shifted the onus on me to critically think and engage personally with the content more regularly as I do not have an instructor to ask. In other words, there is noone conditioning a response in my learning and the mental processes are all on me (something not necessarily accounted for in behavioral learning theory). While it may not be an efficient way to acquite knowledge in some disciplines, for the social sciences and a broad field such as educational technology, I think this approach works rather well.
While the view is that constructivist thought and cognitive psychological theories are more prevalent in today's education, especially in an online course (ie, practice worksheets and completing problems after having watched a video lecture) many behaviorists theories are still practiced and seen in today's education. While it seems that there are flaws in these theories of learning because it does not account for the mental processes involved, I do not necessarily believe that behavioral learning methodologies are passive in nature. As Burton, J. K., Moore, D. M., & Magliaro, S. G. (1996) learners that are engaged in knowledge are, in fact, being active. In fact, B.F. Skinner, one of the champions of this psychological theory even stated that a learner, does not passively absorb knowledge from the world around him but must play an active role." Behaviorists also believe that learners learn by doing and engaging with content (page 11), so I'm unsure why these theories have received this type of negative reputation.
While behavioral theory does seemingly include mental processes as noted in Burton, J. K., Moore, D. M., & Magliaro, S. G. (1996) citing Skinner state that "operants include both private (thoughts) and public (behavior) activities," in reflecting upon my own educational experiences, one thing that stands out is how little we did critical thinking activities. The focus seemed to be on observable behaviors (did I get the correct answer to mostly factual questions). Also, the ones we did do, I do not remember them being difficult or nearly unmanageable until I got into high school where we were expected to analyze or, at times, synthesize information (with lots of scaffolding and second chances). Since I went to school when the behavioral practices were in practice and I only now feel that I can synthesize information, I might conclude that the focus on scientific observations so central to these theories might fall somewhat short of the target of education. So design wise in a course, something that could be done in an online course might be to consider the age of the student and also the type of learning activities that they do and scaffold those learners with materials that might help them be both successful and critically think about the content. Also, making sure to provide regular reminders to stay on task might be beneficial as this is typically a regular part of face to face instruction. These considerations in design might bridge the gap between typical face to face activities and those that are online.
References
Burton, J. K., Moore, D. M., & Magliaro, S. G. (1996). Behaviorism and instructional technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 46-73). New York: Macmillan.
Pritchard, A. (2005). Ways of learning: Learning theories and learning styles in the classroom. Independence, KY: David Fulton Publishers.
I have also adjusted my own behavior in that I no longer wait for the last minute to do assignments and I must be clearly more organized. One other change noted in online is the fact that I can also have time to review materials over and over again (which, personally, I need) and on my own time when I'm mentally prepared to learn. This ability in an online course has not only given me a different perspective on learning, but has also shifted the onus on me to critically think and engage personally with the content more regularly as I do not have an instructor to ask. In other words, there is noone conditioning a response in my learning and the mental processes are all on me (something not necessarily accounted for in behavioral learning theory). While it may not be an efficient way to acquite knowledge in some disciplines, for the social sciences and a broad field such as educational technology, I think this approach works rather well.
While the view is that constructivist thought and cognitive psychological theories are more prevalent in today's education, especially in an online course (ie, practice worksheets and completing problems after having watched a video lecture) many behaviorists theories are still practiced and seen in today's education. While it seems that there are flaws in these theories of learning because it does not account for the mental processes involved, I do not necessarily believe that behavioral learning methodologies are passive in nature. As Burton, J. K., Moore, D. M., & Magliaro, S. G. (1996) learners that are engaged in knowledge are, in fact, being active. In fact, B.F. Skinner, one of the champions of this psychological theory even stated that a learner, does not passively absorb knowledge from the world around him but must play an active role." Behaviorists also believe that learners learn by doing and engaging with content (page 11), so I'm unsure why these theories have received this type of negative reputation.
While behavioral theory does seemingly include mental processes as noted in Burton, J. K., Moore, D. M., & Magliaro, S. G. (1996) citing Skinner state that "operants include both private (thoughts) and public (behavior) activities," in reflecting upon my own educational experiences, one thing that stands out is how little we did critical thinking activities. The focus seemed to be on observable behaviors (did I get the correct answer to mostly factual questions). Also, the ones we did do, I do not remember them being difficult or nearly unmanageable until I got into high school where we were expected to analyze or, at times, synthesize information (with lots of scaffolding and second chances). Since I went to school when the behavioral practices were in practice and I only now feel that I can synthesize information, I might conclude that the focus on scientific observations so central to these theories might fall somewhat short of the target of education. So design wise in a course, something that could be done in an online course might be to consider the age of the student and also the type of learning activities that they do and scaffold those learners with materials that might help them be both successful and critically think about the content. Also, making sure to provide regular reminders to stay on task might be beneficial as this is typically a regular part of face to face instruction. These considerations in design might bridge the gap between typical face to face activities and those that are online.
References
Burton, J. K., Moore, D. M., & Magliaro, S. G. (1996). Behaviorism and instructional technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 46-73). New York: Macmillan.
Pritchard, A. (2005). Ways of learning: Learning theories and learning styles in the classroom. Independence, KY: David Fulton Publishers.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Summary and Reflection of Module 1
This week, we did a number of tasks including attempting to define educational technology by looking at an article related to the societal views (both inside and outside of the field) of educational technology as well as a historical look at various phases of educational technology. By the end of this course, I hope to have a clearer picture of what I believe to be a good approach (ie, how I will approach the field in the future from a theoretical perspective).
What I did this week to get there was to summarize all of the viewpoints in our class and come up with a solid definition of educational technology. Knowing what my own job title encompasses would be important to me as an educational technologist, so the following definition is my best effort at coming up with a "what" it is that I do.
Educational technology is a constantly evolving field, that involves the practical application of innovative tools or knowledge and is concerned with the design, management, and evaluative theories and processes that provides a mechanism for the creation of effective learning opportunities, enhancement of student learning and education, creation of lifelong learners, instillation of creativity, innovation, and critical thinking skills, ground in current and past research in an effort to provide for greater human learning potential.
I did not come up with this definition alone. It was defined using key points from other posts inside our class and references to the two articles we read this week. I made notes on these articles in my previous post.
I find it interesting to see the variations used in classrooms today from the three Phases of evolution from the historical perspective. I'm questioning whether this is truly a historical perspective, because many teachers still use print production aspects in their classrooms today.
What I did this week to get there was to summarize all of the viewpoints in our class and come up with a solid definition of educational technology. Knowing what my own job title encompasses would be important to me as an educational technologist, so the following definition is my best effort at coming up with a "what" it is that I do.
Educational technology is a constantly evolving field, that involves the practical application of innovative tools or knowledge and is concerned with the design, management, and evaluative theories and processes that provides a mechanism for the creation of effective learning opportunities, enhancement of student learning and education, creation of lifelong learners, instillation of creativity, innovation, and critical thinking skills, ground in current and past research in an effort to provide for greater human learning potential.
I did not come up with this definition alone. It was defined using key points from other posts inside our class and references to the two articles we read this week. I made notes on these articles in my previous post.
I find it interesting to see the variations used in classrooms today from the three Phases of evolution from the historical perspective. I'm questioning whether this is truly a historical perspective, because many teachers still use print production aspects in their classrooms today.
Change Agents in Educational Technology
Luppicini's (2005) stated that educational technologists are change agents. Someone mentioned earlier that this might be a theory all in itself, but being in my position for the past three years as an "Educational Technology Specialist" at our college, I can say that this definition is worth merit, at least in my perception. I tend to introduce even our technology savvy instructors to new tools (many times they end up using) that act as change agents to how they instruct their students. Also, in implementing new systems at our college, they always bring about changes in the way that we do business as a college (ie, the way we engage and instruct our students). So a lot of what I do tends to bring about change. In fact, when Luppicini (2005) was describing other possibilities with the definition of educational technologists and how they "act as learning consultant, an educational materials producer, a manager of learning resources," I thought he was listing my job duties and responsibilities.
Luppicini, R. (2005). A systems definition of educational technology in society. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (3), 103-109. Retrieved September 8, 2010 from http://www.ifets.info/journals/8_3/10.pdf
Luppicini, R. (2005). A systems definition of educational technology in society. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (3), 103-109. Retrieved September 8, 2010 from http://www.ifets.info/journals/8_3/10.pdf
Definition of Educational Technology
The following definition was written in conjunction with our class. Here is my attempt:
Educational technology is a constantly evolving field, that involves the practical application of innovative tools or knowledge and is concerned with the design, management, and evaluative theories and processes that provides a mechanism for the creation of effective learning opportunities, enhancement of student learning and education, creation of lifelong learners, instillation of creativity, innovation, and critical thinking skills, ground in current and past research in an effort to provide for greater human learning potential.
Educational technology is a constantly evolving field, that involves the practical application of innovative tools or knowledge and is concerned with the design, management, and evaluative theories and processes that provides a mechanism for the creation of effective learning opportunities, enhancement of student learning and education, creation of lifelong learners, instillation of creativity, innovation, and critical thinking skills, ground in current and past research in an effort to provide for greater human learning potential.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Notes on Module 1 - Historical Overview
This week, we took a look at the historical overview of the field of educational technology. In addition, we looked at a societal view (a systems view) of educational technology as well as some of the critical issues in the field.
Historical Overview
Looking back and thinking Forward Video (some bullets of the last 100 years in edtech)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v-kdwEli22Dv8
1900 - Early School Houses with Blackboards.
1910 - Episcope (early projectors and early film projectors)
1920 - Reel films
1922 -Thomas Edison says film will replace textbooks
1923 - Visual Instruction movement, educational films, slides, and motion pictures to improve instruction
1927 - Who wants to hear actors talk?
1930 - radio lectures
1933 - 52% schools using silent films, trecord players, radio
1940 - military training using technology (457 training films and 55000 film projectors), record players. Five computers IBM
1950 - audio visual buildings, televisions in classrooms
1960 - more televisions, language labs, microscopes
1970 - calculators, overhead projectors, early video games
1980 - computers in schools, typewriters, walkmans, vcrs, early apple computers and windows, powerpoint, cds, hypercards
1990 - windows, Internet, MOSAIC for Windows, DVD,
2000 - LMS, Smartboards, projectors, Moodle, MIT open courseware, Facebook, Open Yale Courses, You Tube, cell phones, Web 2.0
Computer-based technology and learning: Evolving uses and expectations: Revised Edition, Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laborator. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service Number: ED4566816)
This article provides an in depth report of three phases in technology use and expectations including Print Automation, Expansion of Learning Opportunities, and Data-Driven Virtual Learning. It addresses two questions of how to best use technology in K-12: What evidence is there that computer-based technology in each phase has a positive effect on learning, and what significance do the findings in each phase have for educators as they are making technology-related decisions that have an impact on student learning?
Print Automation
During print automation phase of technology, largely computer based instruction consisted of drill and practice to teach segmented content or skills. Educators during this time, however, relied mostly on educational practices dominated by behavioral learning principles (practice, drill, correct mistakes, start over), so the computer software at the time tended to reflect these practices. Some critics (Berryman and Streibal) both believed in placing the control of learning on the teacher rather than the learner, and early software applications placed the responsibility on the learner and replaced the teacher with the computer software. Some early teachers "formed antitechnology attitudes as a result. The findings of meta-analyses during this phase support the notion that learners achievement increases in nearly all cases involving the uses of educational technology (computer-based instruction, computer assisted instruction, etcetera). Moreover, the evidence supports the idea that students that achieve less or that have "little prior content knowledge" are going to get more out of technology supported, closed-ended learning activities than are other students.
Expansion of Learning Opportunities
This phase happened moreso during the 1990s when reformed teachers learned that student centered learning enhances meaning and augments students interest in the learning content. Many teachers used computers during this phase. During this phase, information was provided in interactive formats including graphics, word processors, and use of the Internet and World Wide Web. Some evidence during this phase demonstrated that computers should be used less for drill and practice and more for open ended thinking ctools. In addition, students required skills in organizing information in order to synthesize it and make use of it to solve problems. Teacher productivity increased and the role of the teacher shifted during this phase to more of a stimulator of debate and discussion around topics as opposed to the teller of all facts (that was left to the computer).
During this phase, learning was facilitated using the technology and did a good job of doing so. A range of applications met learners needs (in a timely manner as well). Several studies and meta-analyses were conducted that concluded that using educational technology as a learning tool made a difference in student achievement on standardized tests. One that stood out to me was the West Virginia Study that systematically implemented a basic skills computer curriculum where student achievement scores increased significantly during the study. The points that stood out in my mind were that teachers were provided to RELEVANT and sufficient technology software, hardware, and training. Another point that stood out to me during this phase was the research that supported the ability to do open ended educational and experential learning (where the teacher does not know an answer (or may not) and the students discover an answer (or lack there of) during a technology-based instructional lesson. This definately shifts the "dynamics of the instructional process" significantly from behavioral approaches seen during phase 1.
Data-Driven Virtual Learning
The Internet, intranets, and multimedia availability along with policy and decision making was predominant in this phase where a shift has occurred between teachers and learners. It is also characterized by an increase in technology (both the amount and the connections inside of these). Like phase II and phase I, this phase is full of research that concludes that increases in technology supports both "facilitates and encourages student achievement." Multiple studies related to access to technology impacting student achievement are noted in this phase including studies in New Zealand and New York State school districts. Technology acts as a change agent and a catalyst to change.
Notably, the change in this phase is in content area including a need for information literacy to be part of standards. Word processing, telecommunications, and other complext multimedia authorizing tools require students to "apply knowledge of media grammar, current social literary convention" in order to create and learn. Basically, electronic technology is a necessary part of the learning process as information acquisition is a central part of making sense of a discipline, content, or even a particular skill. The significance for educators during this phase has revealed that educational institutions and students, in order to improve student achievement need to break down barriers that prevent access to technology. Educators need access to updated systems and professional development that involves integrating the technology in appropriate ways into their curriculum. Lastly, computers need to be viewed as learning environments with the ability to support student learning.
The conclusions in this report provides linkages between "teacher's professional development in appropriate uses of technology and increased student achievement is very strong." The article does a good job of walking through the historical aspects of how educational technology has been used while providing valuable research implications and how those impact decision making in schools. Notably in the third phase, it gets more specific on how technology research has revealed significant increases in student performance and achievement in specific disciplines including English/Language arts and mathematics. In all, while technology cannot solve all educational problems, t he research has shown how it can make learning more interactive, enhance the learning process in terms of engagement, individualize curriculm, store data for decision making, and help to improve accountability of the use of educational technology. Success really is seen when the purpose and learning goals are first established, professional development is provided (adequately and in proper context), accountability is established from the beginning (as many failures are more noted on the human side than the technology side), and adequate access is provided to both students and teachers.
Societal Overview
Luppicini, R. (2005) A systems definition of educational technology in societ. Educational Technology & Societ, 8(3), 103-109. Retrieved September 8, 2010 from http://www.ifeits.info/journals/8_3/10.pdf
This article attempts to "render visible a systems definition of Educational Technology in Society" by looking at outside influences to the field, inside influences within the field, and articulating a definition of the term Educational Technology. The focus of this reflection will attempt to define educational technology from a social scientists perspective. It differs from other scientific approaches to defining "it" because it considers the human influences rather than just observations. Also, it takes a view from the outside (which really complicates things in that it focuses in on mental processes and products, those which are adaptive, systematic, material making/transforming, and having an emphases on other influences (intellectual, environmental and social), as well as serving human purposes) and from the inside. This outside view was characterized more by the term technology than educational technology; other than the mental processes involved in learning with technology. The view from the inside describes the basic 'struggles" that have been involved in coming up with a definition to make the field have credibility. In all, the article suggests that a systems definition of educational technology encompasses all of the aspects needed to define the field including the tools, goals, techniques, and methods and how they are involved with developing resources and guiding changes in educational systems and practice in an effort to facilitate learning and contribute to change in society.
Critical Issues in Educational Technology
The North Central Regional Educational Laboratory provides a bullet of critical issues in educational technology to include a number of key items that are important considerations when in the field. These include the following:
1. A catalyst for teaching and learning in the classroom.
2. Enhancing positive educational change
3. Enhancing system change and academic success (assistive technologies to support special needs)
4. Using technology to support english learners
5. Providing professional development for effective technology use
6. Using technology to improve student achievement.
7. Developing technology plans
8. Ensuring equitable use of education technology
9. Promoting technology use in schools
In skimming many of these articles, I learned that there are many issues within the field which can assist me in the future. I bookmarked this website on Delicious for the future.
Historical Overview
Looking back and thinking Forward Video (some bullets of the last 100 years in edtech)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v-kdwEli22Dv8
1900 - Early School Houses with Blackboards.
1910 - Episcope (early projectors and early film projectors)
1920 - Reel films
1922 -Thomas Edison says film will replace textbooks
1923 - Visual Instruction movement, educational films, slides, and motion pictures to improve instruction
1927 - Who wants to hear actors talk?
1930 - radio lectures
1933 - 52% schools using silent films, trecord players, radio
1940 - military training using technology (457 training films and 55000 film projectors), record players. Five computers IBM
1950 - audio visual buildings, televisions in classrooms
1960 - more televisions, language labs, microscopes
1970 - calculators, overhead projectors, early video games
1980 - computers in schools, typewriters, walkmans, vcrs, early apple computers and windows, powerpoint, cds, hypercards
1990 - windows, Internet, MOSAIC for Windows, DVD,
2000 - LMS, Smartboards, projectors, Moodle, MIT open courseware, Facebook, Open Yale Courses, You Tube, cell phones, Web 2.0
Computer-based technology and learning: Evolving uses and expectations: Revised Edition, Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laborator. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service Number: ED4566816)
This article provides an in depth report of three phases in technology use and expectations including Print Automation, Expansion of Learning Opportunities, and Data-Driven Virtual Learning. It addresses two questions of how to best use technology in K-12: What evidence is there that computer-based technology in each phase has a positive effect on learning, and what significance do the findings in each phase have for educators as they are making technology-related decisions that have an impact on student learning?
Print Automation
During print automation phase of technology, largely computer based instruction consisted of drill and practice to teach segmented content or skills. Educators during this time, however, relied mostly on educational practices dominated by behavioral learning principles (practice, drill, correct mistakes, start over), so the computer software at the time tended to reflect these practices. Some critics (Berryman and Streibal) both believed in placing the control of learning on the teacher rather than the learner, and early software applications placed the responsibility on the learner and replaced the teacher with the computer software. Some early teachers "formed antitechnology attitudes as a result. The findings of meta-analyses during this phase support the notion that learners achievement increases in nearly all cases involving the uses of educational technology (computer-based instruction, computer assisted instruction, etcetera). Moreover, the evidence supports the idea that students that achieve less or that have "little prior content knowledge" are going to get more out of technology supported, closed-ended learning activities than are other students.
Expansion of Learning Opportunities
This phase happened moreso during the 1990s when reformed teachers learned that student centered learning enhances meaning and augments students interest in the learning content. Many teachers used computers during this phase. During this phase, information was provided in interactive formats including graphics, word processors, and use of the Internet and World Wide Web. Some evidence during this phase demonstrated that computers should be used less for drill and practice and more for open ended thinking ctools. In addition, students required skills in organizing information in order to synthesize it and make use of it to solve problems. Teacher productivity increased and the role of the teacher shifted during this phase to more of a stimulator of debate and discussion around topics as opposed to the teller of all facts (that was left to the computer).
During this phase, learning was facilitated using the technology and did a good job of doing so. A range of applications met learners needs (in a timely manner as well). Several studies and meta-analyses were conducted that concluded that using educational technology as a learning tool made a difference in student achievement on standardized tests. One that stood out to me was the West Virginia Study that systematically implemented a basic skills computer curriculum where student achievement scores increased significantly during the study. The points that stood out in my mind were that teachers were provided to RELEVANT and sufficient technology software, hardware, and training. Another point that stood out to me during this phase was the research that supported the ability to do open ended educational and experential learning (where the teacher does not know an answer (or may not) and the students discover an answer (or lack there of) during a technology-based instructional lesson. This definately shifts the "dynamics of the instructional process" significantly from behavioral approaches seen during phase 1.
Data-Driven Virtual Learning
The Internet, intranets, and multimedia availability along with policy and decision making was predominant in this phase where a shift has occurred between teachers and learners. It is also characterized by an increase in technology (both the amount and the connections inside of these). Like phase II and phase I, this phase is full of research that concludes that increases in technology supports both "facilitates and encourages student achievement." Multiple studies related to access to technology impacting student achievement are noted in this phase including studies in New Zealand and New York State school districts. Technology acts as a change agent and a catalyst to change.
Notably, the change in this phase is in content area including a need for information literacy to be part of standards. Word processing, telecommunications, and other complext multimedia authorizing tools require students to "apply knowledge of media grammar, current social literary convention" in order to create and learn. Basically, electronic technology is a necessary part of the learning process as information acquisition is a central part of making sense of a discipline, content, or even a particular skill. The significance for educators during this phase has revealed that educational institutions and students, in order to improve student achievement need to break down barriers that prevent access to technology. Educators need access to updated systems and professional development that involves integrating the technology in appropriate ways into their curriculum. Lastly, computers need to be viewed as learning environments with the ability to support student learning.
The conclusions in this report provides linkages between "teacher's professional development in appropriate uses of technology and increased student achievement is very strong." The article does a good job of walking through the historical aspects of how educational technology has been used while providing valuable research implications and how those impact decision making in schools. Notably in the third phase, it gets more specific on how technology research has revealed significant increases in student performance and achievement in specific disciplines including English/Language arts and mathematics. In all, while technology cannot solve all educational problems, t he research has shown how it can make learning more interactive, enhance the learning process in terms of engagement, individualize curriculm, store data for decision making, and help to improve accountability of the use of educational technology. Success really is seen when the purpose and learning goals are first established, professional development is provided (adequately and in proper context), accountability is established from the beginning (as many failures are more noted on the human side than the technology side), and adequate access is provided to both students and teachers.
Societal Overview
Luppicini, R. (2005) A systems definition of educational technology in societ. Educational Technology & Societ, 8(3), 103-109. Retrieved September 8, 2010 from http://www.ifeits.info/journals/8_3/10.pdf
This article attempts to "render visible a systems definition of Educational Technology in Society" by looking at outside influences to the field, inside influences within the field, and articulating a definition of the term Educational Technology. The focus of this reflection will attempt to define educational technology from a social scientists perspective. It differs from other scientific approaches to defining "it" because it considers the human influences rather than just observations. Also, it takes a view from the outside (which really complicates things in that it focuses in on mental processes and products, those which are adaptive, systematic, material making/transforming, and having an emphases on other influences (intellectual, environmental and social), as well as serving human purposes) and from the inside. This outside view was characterized more by the term technology than educational technology; other than the mental processes involved in learning with technology. The view from the inside describes the basic 'struggles" that have been involved in coming up with a definition to make the field have credibility. In all, the article suggests that a systems definition of educational technology encompasses all of the aspects needed to define the field including the tools, goals, techniques, and methods and how they are involved with developing resources and guiding changes in educational systems and practice in an effort to facilitate learning and contribute to change in society.
Critical Issues in Educational Technology
The North Central Regional Educational Laboratory provides a bullet of critical issues in educational technology to include a number of key items that are important considerations when in the field. These include the following:
1. A catalyst for teaching and learning in the classroom.
2. Enhancing positive educational change
3. Enhancing system change and academic success (assistive technologies to support special needs)
4. Using technology to support english learners
5. Providing professional development for effective technology use
6. Using technology to improve student achievement.
7. Developing technology plans
8. Ensuring equitable use of education technology
9. Promoting technology use in schools
In skimming many of these articles, I learned that there are many issues within the field which can assist me in the future. I bookmarked this website on Delicious for the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)