Jonassen, et. al cited Papert’s use of the term “constructivism” to “describe the process of knowledge construction” as an inspiration for the rest of their work (Jonassen, Carr & Yueh, 1998). However, they neglected to include the exact citation for this reference, leaving one to suppose it was taken from Papert’s “Mindstorms” book, considered a seminal work in this field. However, I had the impression from a more recent book by Papert (last week’s reading), that he was not a huge proponent of constructivism, since this newer book states that “The metaphor of learning by constructing one’s own knowledge has great rhetorical power against the image of knowledge transmitted through a pipeline from teacher to student. But it is only a metaphor, and….other images are just as useful for understanding learning, and are more useful as sources of practical mathetic guidance….Indeed, the description “connectionism” fits my story better than “constructivism” (Papert, 1993, p. 104).
While constructivist theory sounds exciting, I find myself wondering how anyone could really use the multiplication tables if they constantly had to stop and construct them, rather than simply having them imbedded in their long-term memories through memorization so that they could automatically use this information in constructing new ideas. It seems that a combination of traditional approaches and constructivist opportunities would yield the best overall results in learning and so I set out to find what educators who were critical of constructivism had to say.
One recent article criticizing this approach was co-written by Richard Clark, a major player in the media vs. methods debate. These researchers suggest that inquiry-based instruction by novice learners is “doomed to failure” because of the huge strain on limited working memory capacity which would prevent the formation of vital connections within long-term memory (i.e. learning). They cite much research suggesting that constructivism can be counterproductive, especially with novice learners, who appear to need considerable guidance from teachers (with scaffolding, etc.) to keep from getting overwhelmed or to prevent the formation of misperceptions (Kirschner, Sweller & Clark, 2006).
Papert himself seems to leave room for compromise with this quote “to say that intellectual structures are built by the learner, rather than being taught by a teacher, does not mean that they are built from nothing” (Papert, 1980. p. 19). The best education may be a balance between both methods so that students broaden their knowledge base and get excited by its immediate applications as they construct solutions to problems that are meaningful to them.
[References]
Jonassen, D.H., Carr, C. and Yueh, H. (1998). Computers as Mindtools for Engaging Learners in Critical Thinking, TechTrends, 43, 2 (pp. 24-32).
Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J. & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential and Inquiry-Based Teaching, Educational Psychologist, 41, 2. (pp. 75-86).
Papert, S.A. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Papert, S. (1993). A Word for Learning. The Children’s Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer, (pp. 82-105). New York, NY: Basic Books.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Reflections on "A Word for Learning"
This chapter from Seymour Papert’s book “The Children’s Machine,” seems a fitting adjunct to the classroom discussion with Dr. Michael George of the Centennial School. Papert builds a strong case against the traditional [American] school, stating at one point that “School impedes learning” (Papert, 1993, p.87), at least for those who, for various reasons, find learning more difficult than the “typical” child. Dr. George shared stories of academic successes at his school, achieved primarily by recognizing a child’s individual needs and using positive reinforcement to help them develop ways to learn that matched these unique needs.
I was reminded of Thomas Edison, who was kicked out of school three months after starting at the age of eight. His schoolmaster found Edison “stupid” and “intractable” although there is evidence that he actually had Attention Deficit Disorder, a condition unknown during his time. Luckily, his mother was able to teach him at home, introducing a broad spectrum of knowledge while allowing free reign for his natural inclinations to test everything and take them apart. He went on to be famous for his intelligence and astonishing scientific discoveries even though he had been a failure at traditional school (Rutgers, n.d.).
Similarly, this chapter includes a tale about a “learning disabled” boy who needed to physically count things in order to succeed in math, but was forbidden to do so by an aide bent on having him solve the problems “the right way” so that he could belong to “the culture of School,” (Papert, 1993, p. 91). Papert finds this culture fragmented and disjointed and devoid of instruction on the process of learning itself. He feels that schools often assume that children know how to “handle” facts, ideas and values. This does work for some students, but leaves far too many others behind.
Papert goes on to describe how he overcame a “learning deficit” by making connections with other material that he already understood and that interested him. He builds a case for the inclusion of what he calls “mathetics” or how to learn, think or problem-solve in the traditional school setting. He mentions some key elements of this “new” subject including “dividing and conquering” the material and making connections with previously learned materials (often called mnemonics). I agree that we need to teach students how to successfully learn course material but, I think it would be best if integrated into all areas of the curriculum with specific learning ideas presented as the material warrants. This way, a child receives a learning tool when it is most needed. It is interesting to note that almost every college has information about mnemonics readily available – why not introduce this powerful tool to students much earlier in their academic careers?
[References]
Papert, S. (1993). A Word for Learning. The Children’s Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer, (pp. 82-105). New York, NY: Basic Books.
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Thomas A. Edison Papers (n.d.) retrieved on October 22, 2006 at http://edison.rutgers.edu/
I was reminded of Thomas Edison, who was kicked out of school three months after starting at the age of eight. His schoolmaster found Edison “stupid” and “intractable” although there is evidence that he actually had Attention Deficit Disorder, a condition unknown during his time. Luckily, his mother was able to teach him at home, introducing a broad spectrum of knowledge while allowing free reign for his natural inclinations to test everything and take them apart. He went on to be famous for his intelligence and astonishing scientific discoveries even though he had been a failure at traditional school (Rutgers, n.d.).
Similarly, this chapter includes a tale about a “learning disabled” boy who needed to physically count things in order to succeed in math, but was forbidden to do so by an aide bent on having him solve the problems “the right way” so that he could belong to “the culture of School,” (Papert, 1993, p. 91). Papert finds this culture fragmented and disjointed and devoid of instruction on the process of learning itself. He feels that schools often assume that children know how to “handle” facts, ideas and values. This does work for some students, but leaves far too many others behind.
Papert goes on to describe how he overcame a “learning deficit” by making connections with other material that he already understood and that interested him. He builds a case for the inclusion of what he calls “mathetics” or how to learn, think or problem-solve in the traditional school setting. He mentions some key elements of this “new” subject including “dividing and conquering” the material and making connections with previously learned materials (often called mnemonics). I agree that we need to teach students how to successfully learn course material but, I think it would be best if integrated into all areas of the curriculum with specific learning ideas presented as the material warrants. This way, a child receives a learning tool when it is most needed. It is interesting to note that almost every college has information about mnemonics readily available – why not introduce this powerful tool to students much earlier in their academic careers?
[References]
Papert, S. (1993). A Word for Learning. The Children’s Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer, (pp. 82-105). New York, NY: Basic Books.
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Thomas A. Edison Papers (n.d.) retrieved on October 22, 2006 at http://edison.rutgers.edu/
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Will Reflection Be Lost with Technology?
Literacy allowed the storage of our ever-expanding, collective knowledge over time, a hallmark of civilization. Yet, literacy also changed our way of thinking so that it was more linear and logical than it had been before we developed any written language. In fact, the authors state that “historically literacy has had the greatest impact on the way people think” (Tarlow & Spangler, 2001, p 23) and they go on to discuss how computers also have the potential to greatly impact how we think. They note that a “multi-dimensional” quality has already developed in our thinking and they attribute this change to the relentless speed with which information is available to us today. They suggest that we monitor our collective thinking and control our futures by focusing on exactly what is being learned by today's "high-tech kids" and how additional changes in technology are affecting their thinking and learning for better or for worse (p. 24).
In related research, Clariana & Koul observed that most computer-based instruction (CBI) stimulated verbatim learning, a by-product of lower-order thinking. However, when they used multiple-try feedback (MTF), the participating students were forced to consider why their first answers were wrong and this difference stimulated more "meaningful learning" and higher-order thinking (Clariana & Koul, 2005, p 240).
Technology's effects on thinking and learning is further complicated by Howard Gardner’s “multiple intelligences theory” which states that people can be grouped into eight distinct groups based on their specific type of intelligence (audio, physical, social etc.). Learning is best accomplished by using an instructional tool geared closely to a specific area(s) of strength for that particular learner (Snowman & Biehler, 2006). It would follow then that any one instructional tool can help only some of the learners, while possibly hindering others from truly understanding the material.
Tarlow & Spangler worry that technology may be responsible for the noted unwillingness of some children to reflect on material or learn in more traditional ways. They fear that these negative changes “may be hastening the deterioration of our civilization” (Tarlow & Spangler, 2001, p. 27). This article is a much-needed cry for caution; I feel it's crucial for us to slow down and consider how we are being changed by our technological “advances.” We need to determine if the specific effects of various technology on thinking and learning are ultimately helpful or harmful to our civilizations and then decide how best to compensate for any harmful effects. This is especially important before we race to place even more computers into our schools and further accelerate the pace of change.
[References]
Clariana R.B. & Koul, R. (2005). Multiple-Try Feedback and Higher-Order Learning Outcomes, International Journal of Instructional Media. 32(3), 239-245
Snowman, J. & Biehler, R. (2006). Psychology Applied to Teaching. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Tarlow, M. & Spangler, K.L. (2001) Now More Than Ever: Will High-Tech Kids Still Think Deeply? Educational Digest, 67(3), 23-27.
In related research, Clariana & Koul observed that most computer-based instruction (CBI) stimulated verbatim learning, a by-product of lower-order thinking. However, when they used multiple-try feedback (MTF), the participating students were forced to consider why their first answers were wrong and this difference stimulated more "meaningful learning" and higher-order thinking (Clariana & Koul, 2005, p 240).
Technology's effects on thinking and learning is further complicated by Howard Gardner’s “multiple intelligences theory” which states that people can be grouped into eight distinct groups based on their specific type of intelligence (audio, physical, social etc.). Learning is best accomplished by using an instructional tool geared closely to a specific area(s) of strength for that particular learner (Snowman & Biehler, 2006). It would follow then that any one instructional tool can help only some of the learners, while possibly hindering others from truly understanding the material.
Tarlow & Spangler worry that technology may be responsible for the noted unwillingness of some children to reflect on material or learn in more traditional ways. They fear that these negative changes “may be hastening the deterioration of our civilization” (Tarlow & Spangler, 2001, p. 27). This article is a much-needed cry for caution; I feel it's crucial for us to slow down and consider how we are being changed by our technological “advances.” We need to determine if the specific effects of various technology on thinking and learning are ultimately helpful or harmful to our civilizations and then decide how best to compensate for any harmful effects. This is especially important before we race to place even more computers into our schools and further accelerate the pace of change.
[References]
Clariana R.B. & Koul, R. (2005). Multiple-Try Feedback and Higher-Order Learning Outcomes, International Journal of Instructional Media. 32(3), 239-245
Snowman, J. & Biehler, R. (2006). Psychology Applied to Teaching. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Tarlow, M. & Spangler, K.L. (2001) Now More Than Ever: Will High-Tech Kids Still Think Deeply? Educational Digest, 67(3), 23-27.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
A Call for Culturally Sensitive Assessment
Thomas Reeves believes that “sensitivity to cultural diversity and pluralism is a “meta-value” that should influence virtually every aspect of human activity” (Reeves, 1997, p. 27). He builds a compelling argument for the consideration of cultural influences when evaluating learning and stresses the need for creating “emancipatory evaluation” that could be a “force for liberation and equity” in our society (Reeves, 1997, p. 30). Overall the article is a thought-provoking overview of the complexity of developing evaluations that are fair to all yet still yield information worth knowing. I was left with the impression that these may be diametrically opposed goals and so I set out to find something that could help educators, such as myself, create unbiased evaluation of student learning and achievement.
I discovered an excellent workbook (Wall, & Walz, 2003) with an especially good chapter, entitled “A Test User’s Guide to Serving a Multicultural Community” authored by David Lundberg and Wyatt Kirk. In this piece, they advocate the use of multiple assessments including essay questions, performance assessments and interviews in addition to the development of standardized testing that is more specific to minority cultures as a way to create assessments that “serve the test taker” (Wall & Walz, 2003, p. 124). They also highlight research that low test performance is often influenced more by low socioeconomic status than by race, ethnicity or cultural factors alone (Wall & Walz, 2003, p. 121). Unfortunately, society tends to continue to focus on the more visible factors (like race) when striving to correct “problems” in the educational system.
I was curious about the U.S. Government’s stand on culturally sensitive assessment given the heightened importance of standardized testing as a measure of teaching effectiveness in the “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.” It was alarming to discover that many “model programs” identified by the U.S. Department of Education have, in fact, resulted in greater inequities in educational opportunities for minority populations (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2003). The government’s emphasis on “race-neutral” alternatives has created programs with catchy titles that have failed miserably at addressing the complex factors underlying low academic performance and achievement by minorities both at the K-12 and post-secondary levels of education.
As developing educators, I think we need to remember “Our first step is to recognize each individual as a person of great value and undeveloped, unknown talents. No single test or battery of tests of similar format can ever explain a person. No test can level the field or compensate for all the diversity present in a single school, much less in our society. And no evaluation instrument can replace the importance of one human being interacting with another” (Wall & Walz, 2003, p. 123). It is imperative for all of us to help develop inclusive programs, that stand up to rigorous research, if we are to reach the goal of the forefathers of this country of creating a land where each individual has a truly equal chance of reaching his or her own potential as a human being.
[References]
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. 2003. The U.S. Department of Education’s Race-Neutral Alternatives in Postsecondary Education; Innovative Aproaches to Diversity – Are They Viable Substitutes for Affirmative Action? Washinton, DC: U.S. Government Press.
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. 2003. Race-Neutral Alternatives in Postsecondary Education: Innovative Approaches to Diversity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Press.
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. 2004. Achieving Diversity: Race-Neutral Alternatives in American Education, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Press.
Reeves, T. (1997). An evaluator looks at cultural diversity. Educational Technology, 37(2), 27-31.
Wall, J.E. & Walz, G.R. (2003). Measuring Up: Assessment Issue for Teachers, Counselors and Administrators. Greensboro, NC; ERIC Counseling & Student Services.
I discovered an excellent workbook (Wall, & Walz, 2003) with an especially good chapter, entitled “A Test User’s Guide to Serving a Multicultural Community” authored by David Lundberg and Wyatt Kirk. In this piece, they advocate the use of multiple assessments including essay questions, performance assessments and interviews in addition to the development of standardized testing that is more specific to minority cultures as a way to create assessments that “serve the test taker” (Wall & Walz, 2003, p. 124). They also highlight research that low test performance is often influenced more by low socioeconomic status than by race, ethnicity or cultural factors alone (Wall & Walz, 2003, p. 121). Unfortunately, society tends to continue to focus on the more visible factors (like race) when striving to correct “problems” in the educational system.
I was curious about the U.S. Government’s stand on culturally sensitive assessment given the heightened importance of standardized testing as a measure of teaching effectiveness in the “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.” It was alarming to discover that many “model programs” identified by the U.S. Department of Education have, in fact, resulted in greater inequities in educational opportunities for minority populations (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2003). The government’s emphasis on “race-neutral” alternatives has created programs with catchy titles that have failed miserably at addressing the complex factors underlying low academic performance and achievement by minorities both at the K-12 and post-secondary levels of education.
As developing educators, I think we need to remember “Our first step is to recognize each individual as a person of great value and undeveloped, unknown talents. No single test or battery of tests of similar format can ever explain a person. No test can level the field or compensate for all the diversity present in a single school, much less in our society. And no evaluation instrument can replace the importance of one human being interacting with another” (Wall & Walz, 2003, p. 123). It is imperative for all of us to help develop inclusive programs, that stand up to rigorous research, if we are to reach the goal of the forefathers of this country of creating a land where each individual has a truly equal chance of reaching his or her own potential as a human being.
[References]
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. 2003. The U.S. Department of Education’s Race-Neutral Alternatives in Postsecondary Education; Innovative Aproaches to Diversity – Are They Viable Substitutes for Affirmative Action? Washinton, DC: U.S. Government Press.
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. 2003. Race-Neutral Alternatives in Postsecondary Education: Innovative Approaches to Diversity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Press.
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. 2004. Achieving Diversity: Race-Neutral Alternatives in American Education, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Press.
Reeves, T. (1997). An evaluator looks at cultural diversity. Educational Technology, 37(2), 27-31.
Wall, J.E. & Walz, G.R. (2003). Measuring Up: Assessment Issue for Teachers, Counselors and Administrators. Greensboro, NC; ERIC Counseling & Student Services.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Reflections on the Wiki Project
One of our greatest challenges in completing the group Wiki project was communication. We had started using our wiki as a “chat room” but it quickly dwindled down to only two people. These two members, obviously needed a lot of reassurance that the project was being completed with plenty of time for review and revision of each other’s work, but even they eventually resorted to e-mail for greater candor. Since I really wanted this to be a true group project, I constantly asked for feedback but received very little in return, although people were posting their work in the files on the site. When the format of the wiki changed suddenly, I just assumed that someone else had changed it without telling anyone and I tried to find out why. It took me over a day to realize that I had probably changed it accidentally myself when I was revisiting the Wiki start-up page over the weekend.
We also differed in work styles. I expected this group process to take longer than solo work and therefore felt that we needed a work plan that would help keep us on task and also clarify the project for Bolu, who had missed the class session in which we set up the wiki in the first place. Tom was very anxious about the presentation itself and so created a PowerPoint presentation early on while other group members posted their work much closer to the time it was due.
A third challenge arose from my obsession with finding a way to use the wiki to create our presentation. Had we watched the tutorials on Tuesday, as we almost did, we could have saved ourselves a lot of frustration. By the time I went back to them to learn about WikiWords and linking pages, there was so much already on our site that we needed to create another wiki to present. Still, I would not suggest telling the students about WikiWords. Instead I would urge them to use all of the tools available to them and let them have the thrill of figuring this out. I was so surprised that we were the only ones to “discover” WikiWords, that I felt compelled to teach everyone else about them, which I hope was not too out of line.
It appeared, given what the other groups presented, that we made too big a deal of this whole thing. I was disappointed that our group did not collaborate more and sometimes this assignment felt like payback for all of the group projects that I have assigned to others over the years and especially last year in Contemporary Biology. However, it was good to get to know Tom more, since I really knew little more than his name and department before this project. Also, even though we obviously didn’t rehearse, I felt very good about our presentation in the end and satisfied with my level of participation.
We also differed in work styles. I expected this group process to take longer than solo work and therefore felt that we needed a work plan that would help keep us on task and also clarify the project for Bolu, who had missed the class session in which we set up the wiki in the first place. Tom was very anxious about the presentation itself and so created a PowerPoint presentation early on while other group members posted their work much closer to the time it was due.
A third challenge arose from my obsession with finding a way to use the wiki to create our presentation. Had we watched the tutorials on Tuesday, as we almost did, we could have saved ourselves a lot of frustration. By the time I went back to them to learn about WikiWords and linking pages, there was so much already on our site that we needed to create another wiki to present. Still, I would not suggest telling the students about WikiWords. Instead I would urge them to use all of the tools available to them and let them have the thrill of figuring this out. I was so surprised that we were the only ones to “discover” WikiWords, that I felt compelled to teach everyone else about them, which I hope was not too out of line.
It appeared, given what the other groups presented, that we made too big a deal of this whole thing. I was disappointed that our group did not collaborate more and sometimes this assignment felt like payback for all of the group projects that I have assigned to others over the years and especially last year in Contemporary Biology. However, it was good to get to know Tom more, since I really knew little more than his name and department before this project. Also, even though we obviously didn’t rehearse, I felt very good about our presentation in the end and satisfied with my level of participation.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Reflections on the Media vs. Methods Debate
There is nothing like a good debate to help clarify an issue and generate much-needed discussions about what kind of research must be done to truly settle an issue. Debates are often integral to hurdling specific challenges and furthering advances within a particular field. Knowing this, I was immediately drawn into these readings, even though I was unfamiliar with the “players” and fairly new to the field of educational technology itself.
At first I was struck by the timing of the articles. Both of the assigned readings were from the same journal published in 1994, yet the original statement that “studies clearly suggest that media do not influence learning under any conditions” was published by Dr. Richard Clark in 1983. Why had eleven years passed before the debate actually started? Why had 1994 been the year that Dr. Robert Kozma decided that Clark’s statements needed “reframing?” More importantly; why had no one else effectively questioned Clark’s first assertions during those same eleven years? I also wondered what had happened in the twelve years since these articles were published and today.
The second thing that struck me was that the debate, as laid out in the details of the articles, was not nearly as polarized as the titles of the articles would have one believe. Both men acknowledged areas of common ground and it seemed as if there was a very real chance of compromise and possibly even collaboration between the two which led to the next important question; have educational technologists been able to resolve this issue and if so, how? Based on the results of the values clarification exercise in our last class, it would appear that the teaching methods vs. media used debate is still unsettled.
I started researching subsequent writings and found the answers to some of my questions in an article published last fall which clearly outlines the vast differences between the technological media of 1983 and those available in 1994 (Hastings and Tracey, 2005) which the authors propose prompted Kozma to challenge Clark’s original assertions then. Hastings and Tracey also state that in order to test the validity of Clark’s original views or Kozma’s assertions in today’s world, one must focus attention on “the one medium whose attributes have changed dramatically since 1983: the computer.” (Hastings and Tracey, 2005). While I agree with this view, I also think that Clark’s call to take into account the complexity of educational research is also valid. Indeed the need to identify and attempt to control all of the possible variables when conducting educational research is, in my opinion, the single most enduring message of this entire debate.
[References]
Clark, R.E. (1994) Media Will Never Influence Learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, v42, n2, 21-29.
Hastings, N.B. & Tracey, M.W. (2005) TechTrends. 49, 2, 28-30
Kozma, R.B. (1994). Will Media Influence Learning? Reframing the Debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 2, 7-19.
At first I was struck by the timing of the articles. Both of the assigned readings were from the same journal published in 1994, yet the original statement that “studies clearly suggest that media do not influence learning under any conditions” was published by Dr. Richard Clark in 1983. Why had eleven years passed before the debate actually started? Why had 1994 been the year that Dr. Robert Kozma decided that Clark’s statements needed “reframing?” More importantly; why had no one else effectively questioned Clark’s first assertions during those same eleven years? I also wondered what had happened in the twelve years since these articles were published and today.
The second thing that struck me was that the debate, as laid out in the details of the articles, was not nearly as polarized as the titles of the articles would have one believe. Both men acknowledged areas of common ground and it seemed as if there was a very real chance of compromise and possibly even collaboration between the two which led to the next important question; have educational technologists been able to resolve this issue and if so, how? Based on the results of the values clarification exercise in our last class, it would appear that the teaching methods vs. media used debate is still unsettled.
I started researching subsequent writings and found the answers to some of my questions in an article published last fall which clearly outlines the vast differences between the technological media of 1983 and those available in 1994 (Hastings and Tracey, 2005) which the authors propose prompted Kozma to challenge Clark’s original assertions then. Hastings and Tracey also state that in order to test the validity of Clark’s original views or Kozma’s assertions in today’s world, one must focus attention on “the one medium whose attributes have changed dramatically since 1983: the computer.” (Hastings and Tracey, 2005). While I agree with this view, I also think that Clark’s call to take into account the complexity of educational research is also valid. Indeed the need to identify and attempt to control all of the possible variables when conducting educational research is, in my opinion, the single most enduring message of this entire debate.
[References]
Clark, R.E. (1994) Media Will Never Influence Learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, v42, n2, 21-29.
Hastings, N.B. & Tracey, M.W. (2005) TechTrends. 49, 2, 28-30
Kozma, R.B. (1994). Will Media Influence Learning? Reframing the Debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 2, 7-19.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Reflections on Introductory Lecture and Readings
Educational Technology is the process of applying what we know about learning to the educational setting. Like any technology, it is practical in that it is used to solve a real problem. For educational technology, the problem is how best to utilize technological advances (such as audiovisual aids, computers, etc.) to enhance student learning and help students achieve a “meaningful understanding” (AECT, 2004) of the concepts at hand
In addition, like any other technology, educational technology is very dynamic because the field of student learning is constantly advancing and the “best practices” in the field are constantly changing. With the constant shifting in what is considered the latest technology, it is not very surprising that the general public views "educational technology" as synonymous with the latest technology (i.e. use of computers or the internet).
While the presentation in class and the first paper seemed to dwell on the failures of various technologies, I thought it was very telling that the Army training videos of WWII were considered such a success (Resiser, 2001). Obviously many factors such as student motivation, acceptance of the format (by teachers and by learners), instructional content, etc. influence the effectiveness of technology at least as much as the specific type of technology used. The challenge then seems to be to identify which of these factors are most important in a particular situation so that the media can be tailored to the need(s)at hand.
In completing the readings, and especially the third one (AECT, 2004), I was reminded of a media evaluation model that I found very useful in my work with social norms programming as an effective means of health education/health promotion. This model, developed by Michael Haines of Southern Illinois University is called “Media PIE.” It states that to be most effective, health education media {technology} needs to be positive (P) rather than negative, inclusive (I) so that the intended target audience can relate to it and empowering (E) so that the intended audience is encouraged to act on their own behalf (Haines, 1997). I am sure that we will meet many other models to help us develop appropriate and effective educational interventions as we move through this course and our respective programs.
The main message, I think, is that the learning process is so complex and so dynamic that it requires many different tools. Technology may not be the best tool in all cases, but as the field of educational technology and learning theories themselves advance, there will always be a role for technological resources in teaching and learning.
[References]
AECT (2004 Draft). The Definition of educational technology: An analysis and explanation of the concept
Reiser, R.A. (2001). A History of Instructional Design and Technology: Part 1: A history of instructional media. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49, 53-65.
Haines, M.P. (1997). Wellness Management, the newsletter of the National Wellness Association, 13, #3, 1-4.
In addition, like any other technology, educational technology is very dynamic because the field of student learning is constantly advancing and the “best practices” in the field are constantly changing. With the constant shifting in what is considered the latest technology, it is not very surprising that the general public views "educational technology" as synonymous with the latest technology (i.e. use of computers or the internet).
While the presentation in class and the first paper seemed to dwell on the failures of various technologies, I thought it was very telling that the Army training videos of WWII were considered such a success (Resiser, 2001). Obviously many factors such as student motivation, acceptance of the format (by teachers and by learners), instructional content, etc. influence the effectiveness of technology at least as much as the specific type of technology used. The challenge then seems to be to identify which of these factors are most important in a particular situation so that the media can be tailored to the need(s)at hand.
In completing the readings, and especially the third one (AECT, 2004), I was reminded of a media evaluation model that I found very useful in my work with social norms programming as an effective means of health education/health promotion. This model, developed by Michael Haines of Southern Illinois University is called “Media PIE.” It states that to be most effective, health education media {technology} needs to be positive (P) rather than negative, inclusive (I) so that the intended target audience can relate to it and empowering (E) so that the intended audience is encouraged to act on their own behalf (Haines, 1997). I am sure that we will meet many other models to help us develop appropriate and effective educational interventions as we move through this course and our respective programs.
The main message, I think, is that the learning process is so complex and so dynamic that it requires many different tools. Technology may not be the best tool in all cases, but as the field of educational technology and learning theories themselves advance, there will always be a role for technological resources in teaching and learning.
[References]
AECT (2004 Draft). The Definition of educational technology: An analysis and explanation of the concept
Reiser, R.A. (2001). A History of Instructional Design and Technology: Part 1: A history of instructional media. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49, 53-65.
Haines, M.P. (1997). Wellness Management, the newsletter of the National Wellness Association, 13, #3, 1-4.
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Cindy's LST 401 Blog
I am looking forward to learning a lot in this class and to sharing this experience with everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
