You are in what field? (Readings for 1/23/12)

Today's readings help us work towards an understanding the definition of the field of educational technology, instructional design, instructional technology, (whatever you want to call it).

Tomei, L. A. (2005). The pillars of instructional technology. In D. Carbonara (Ed.), Technology literacy applications in learning environments. (pp. 1-13). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.

This chapter discusses the five foundations of educational technology: Philosophy, psychology, sociology, history and leadership.  The author seeks to frame all investigations in the field around these general areas of inquiry.  The chapter then goes on to introduce the K-A-RPE (knowledge, application and research, practice and evaluation) model.  This model describes the stages of doctoral candidacy in the field.  Sounds like we are working on the K part of this progression.  

Reiser, R. A.(2012) What field did you say you were in? In. Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed., pp 1-5). Boston, MA: Pearson. ([Note: chapter 1 only, Kindle sample freely available for download]

This chapter discusses the definition of the field Instructional Design and Technology (IDT).  This term seems to be one that the authors of the book have coined after a significant amount of shared experience in the field of educational technology. They go through the history of the field, from the early days of just "media", and the 1977 definition of the AECT, which included a reference to the complex processes, and human interactions of the field, to a more holistic sense of the field in 1994.  This 1994 definition called upon the similar five domains (design, development, utilization, management and evaluation) but also include the notion of the field as being both an area of practice and also a realm of research and theory development.   AECT came up with yet another definition in 2008:

Educational Technology is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning, and improving performance my creating, using and managing appropriate technological processes and resources.

The authors further elaborates with their own definition:

The field of instructional design and technology (also known as instructional technology) encompasses the analysis of learning and performance problems, and the design, development, implementation, evaluation and management of instructional and non –instructional processes and resources intended to improve learning and performance in a variety of settings, particularly educational institutions and the workplace.

I can get behind that super long sentence, but I prefer the simplicity of the AECT definition. 

Definition and Terminology Committee of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (2007). Definition. In A. Januszewski, M. Molenda & P. Harris (Eds.), Educational technology: A definition with commentary (2nd ed., pp. 1-14). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

This chapter takes the most recent AECT definition of the field (as cited above) and spends the rest of the chapter defining each of the terms used in the definition. The most interesting to me was the commentary about "ethical practice".  I hadn't really reflected much prior to reading this on the ethical nature of this work.  While ethical considerations have been central to my practice as an educator, it hadn't occurred to me that a professional organization would have to explicitly state their consideration of ethical behavior as an essential element of success. 

Lowenthal, P., & Wilson, B. (2010). Labels DO matter! A critique of AECT's redefinition of the field. TechTrends, 54(1), 38-46. doi: 10.1007/s11528-009-0362-y

Effective and self explanatory title.  The authors use this article as a platform to get cranky about the changes of the 2008 AECT definition of the field.  The most compelling part of this article is teasing apart the different perceptions of Educational Technology, (thought to have a more k-12 feel, according to the authors) and Instructional Technology and Instructional Design.  The authors note that the terms are used interchangeably by some, and have severe differences in the eyes of others (for example: "I would never hire someone with a degree in ed tech."-- yikes!).  The authors provide a discussion of marketing, language associations, and then look at some data about job titles and skills desired in higher ed employment searches and also names of degrees programs and departments.  Ultimately, they argue for more emphasis on the design element of instructional technology and design, saying: "we believe […] that there is a design component in nearly every aspect of instructional technology." I find that argument compelling, but I didn't have any idea there was so much to get pissed about in the definition.

Kanuka, H. (2008). Understanding e-learning technologies-in-practice through philosophies-in-practice. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed., pp. 91-118). Edmonton, AB, Canada: Athabasca University Press.

This is a really useful chapter for instructional designers of online learning (I think I am adopting this term, see Lowentthal & Wilson, 2010).  It encourages an understanding of one's philosophy of technology (uses determinism, social determinism, and technological determinism) and then urges us to continue on by exploring and identifying with philosophies of teaching (liberal/perennial, progressive, behaviorist, humanist, radical, and/or analytical.)  In some instances, teachers could flow between philosophies, given the specific goal of the lesson or unit, but it creates a good awareness of what you see as essential and things to avoid.  This is a great guiding document for the initial phases of course design.  The conclusion of this chapter re-emphasizes that "knowing your teaching and technologies in practice [helps you] avoid mindless activism."

Domine, V. (2009). A social history of media, technology and schooling. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 1(1), 42-52. 

The format of this article is a fictionalized interview with a fourth generation teacher.  "Grace" describes to the reader the history of schooling in the US first through her great grandmother's eyes (teaching in the turn of the 20^th century) with books and prayer, then her grandmother's experience (around the second world war) with some state produced films, radio and punchboard "teaching machines".   Then she describes her mother's experience with educational television in the classroom.  Grace goes on to describe her own experience in the classroom (beginning in the early 90s).  The narrative shows how little things have changed over the past 100 years.  I found the commentary on media consumption and evaluation to be interesting.  Reflecting on filtering internet content in schools, she asks:

How will they learn to make good choices and be responsible citizens if that is not part of the school curriculum? Wasn’t that a fundamental purpose of public schooling a few centuries ago when my great grandmother was teaching piety, pluralism and patriotism using McGuffey’s Readers? It’s no longer enough just to teach critical viewing skills like my grandmother and mother did. Students also need to learn to be critical users of these technologies.

It's interesting to wonder if we have actually made no progress since the 1800s with respect to fostering the values of pluralism and critical thinking.  Grace concludes by identifying her sense of what is important for a teacher (perhaps a timeless desire): "my goal is to help build and maintain social networks of knowledge."  

(photo from: http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/BUSINESS/03/16/write.book.career/t1larg.jpg)