What does the future hold? (Some papers on "future studies")

(Last set of required readings from the first year seminar in the ETEC program at UH Manoa) 

Wyzard, C., Rice, K. & Snelson, C. (2011). The future in educational technology research. In T. Bastiaens & M. Ebner (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2011 (pp. 3240-3243). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org.eres.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/p/38320

What should the research priorities of educational technologists be in the next five years?  A group of 18 scholars in educational technology and related fields contributed to this knowledge base study in order to establish a sense of what is important to people who are working in this area.  The areas that are identified won't surprise anyone who hasn't been living under a rock.  It references ideas outlined in the 2010 National Technology Education Plan, that calls for examination of some vestiges of industrial education: for example, seat time requirements and age based classes.  Also, it mentions a need for deeper understanding how learning environments and learning outcomes are shaped by emerging technologies.  This is a great reference for us as we are thinking about our own research and checking in with broader sense of what is important and meaningful for us to be exploring.  

Facer, K. R., & Sandford, R. (2010). The next 25 years? Future scenarios and future directions for education and technology. Journal Of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 74-93.

This paper is a comprehensive look at a number of ways of looking at future studies in educational technology.  Of great interest are the principals that the authors outline: 1) challenge assumptions, 2) the future is not determined by technologies, 3) thinking about the future always involves values and politics, 4) education has a range of responsibilities that need to be reflected in any inquiry into or visions of its future.  Of all of these, the notion of challenging assumptions seems to be the most valuable, and perhaps the most challenging. In many instances, we are unsure what are the dominant assumptions that are driving outlook towards technology.  This framework will be helpful in the work that I am doing developing an online course for educators about social media.  This area is not future studies--it is very current—but if you had asked educators six years ago if this would be something that would be a valuable area of inquiry for teachers, you would have been hard pressed to find supporters.  

Later in the paper the authors explore scenarios (which our professor likened to horoscopes in that they are so vague that they could end up telling almost any story). 

The authors then offer a number of challenges, followed by recommendations.  They are all things that I would like to keep in the forefront of my mind, so I will list them here:

Challenges:

·             Should education continue to be organized around the unit of the individual learner?  

·             Should "the school" retain its dominant position in the assumptions about educational futures?

·             Should preparation for competition within a knowledge economy remain a primary goal for education?

Recommendations:

·             Work towards a design of a "curriculum for networked learning"

·             Work towards the creation of open, flexible and networked relationships across diverse educational institutions, both formal and informal

·             Work towards the development of a mentoring and networking workforce

Finally, the authors leave the readers with the encouragement to keep our minds open about what the future might hold.  It almost seems like an ironic end to a paper that is predictive and exploratory about "futures", but the message is a good one.  If we let ourselves, as a field, become too confident in our sense of what the future holds, we will miss the opportunity to be flexible and adaptive as it unfolds. We miss the chance to invent it, and not just respond to it.

Some more reading on Instructional Design

(More readings from the first year seminar in the ETEC program at UH Manoa) 

Tennyson, R. D. (2010). Historical Reflection on Learning Theories and Instructional Design. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(1), 1-16.

This article explores the history of the field of instructional technology from its roots in the 1960s through the date of publication.  The basis of instructional design was in behaviorism (Gagné , Ausubel and Brunner) and then shifted to cognitive learning theory in the 1970s. Then the concept of instructional theory evolved into instructional design. The article works through all of the sub-theories that contribute to our current understanding of instructional design (including Merrill's work on instructional transaction theory). It concludes with suggestions of future directions which (it is anticipated) will be more learner-centered and relationship orientated than previous thinking. 

Hastings, N. B., & Tracey, M. W. (2005). Does media affect learning: Where are we now? TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 49(2), 28-30.

This short article opens with the bit about the instructional medium not impacting learning anymore than the truck that delivers your food not impacting its nutrition (Clarke, 1983). Well, that is goofy-- even the metaphor is a rotten one! Kozma's criticism of this statement (1991, 1994) are justified and amplified throughout the rest of the article.  This article falls in the "no duh" category for me as it is essentially an effort to emphasize the fact that dated arguments about what different media can and can not do with respect to student motivation, learning outcomes, and satisfaction, need to be constantly re-examined as technology changes.  It is good to read this, however, lest we be tempted to apply outdated studies as justification to do or not do current work.   

Shoffner, M. B., Jones, M., & Harmon, S. W. (2000). Paradigms restrained: implications of new and emerging technologies for learning and cognition. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 6(1). doi:10.3998/3336451.0006.111

This article reads like a primer for instructional technologists (from 2000).  It walks the reader through the challenges of adoption, and change.  Then gives summaries of the shift in instructional design from from behaviorism to cognitivism to constructivism.  The section on the future of technologies mentions smart-drugs and artificial intelligence.  A reference to palm pilots made me squirm.  Note to self: do not attach any work that I care about to a particular technology, no matter how interesting it seems in the moment. 

Reeves, T. C. (2005). No significant differences revisited: A historical perspective on the research informing contemporary online learning. In G. Kearsley (Ed.), Online learning: Personal reflections on the transformation of education (299-308). Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Educational Technology Publications. [Read only pages 296-300]

Our favorite design researcher uses this article to espouse his signature point: that the lack of integrity of experimental design in education and the havoc those experimental conclusions can wreak on our understanding of how instruction can be improved. Reeves calls for closer relationships between research and practice through design based research.  One of the most powerful calls to action follows:

First, we must shift from a position that views learning theory as something that stands apart from and above instructional practice to one that recognizes that learning theory is collaboratively shaped by educational researchers and practitioners in context. Educational technology is a design field, and thus, our paramount goal of research should be solving teaching, learning, and performance problems, and deriving design principles that can inform future decisions. 

It is great to read this again after reading some work of Reeves and hearing him speak in the first semester this year.  It energizes me to think about the great opportunities for synergy between practice and research and I wonder what Reeves would say about design thinking and how that fits into this process of "collaborative shaping".  I'm really excited to be headed to a Stanford dCamp later this spring. 

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), 75-86. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1

This article strives to knock down the support for the types of learning environments listed in the title of the article.  Whenever an article like this one smacks up against my worldview, I start reading looking for ways to pick apart their argument.  But then I think about the importance of hearing other points of view and just relax and read.  The authors describe all of the research that finds a lack of evidence for improvement in student gains with any of these modes of instruction.  The authors cite some research done in medical schools that demonstrates a lack of gains through PBL curriculum—but the definition of "gains" is not clear.  This paper might feel so edgy because it seems to be heavily value laden.  It doesn't pretend to be unbiased; it feels critical, and condescending. (That seems very sensitive, but true.)

Readings on Change and Innovation

(More readings from the first year seminar in the ETEC program at UH Manoa) 

Straub, E. T. (2009). Understanding Technology Adoption: Theory and Future Directions for Informal Learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 625-649. doi:10.3102/0034654308325896

This paper discusses a number of adoption theories (Roger's theory of innovation and diffusion, Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) and Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)).  This article is extremely useful in that it summarizes all of these models and theories and also presents criticism of each of them.  But the one thing that I couldn't get out of my head as I was reading it was their definition of innovation. At the start of the article the author did a good job describing the terms that they would be using and the definition of innovations was based on something's newness, or its novelty.  At my workplace there us much talk about innovation and we have been using a working definition that also contains a strand of "re-imagination" of the familiar, the tried and true.  I wonder if we are doing that just to make the concept of innovation less intimidating, or if it can be more than just a novelty as so clearly described here. 

Wilson, B., Sherry, L., Dobrovolny, J., Batty, M., & Ryder, M. (2001). Adoption factors and processes. In H. H. Adelsberger, B. Collis, & J. M. Pawlowski (Eds.), Handbook on information technologies for education & training (pp. 293-307). New York: Springer-Verlag.

This article continues to look at adoption theories.  It provides some good summaries of the thinking of adoption theory including Roger's (1995) work looking at the users in the phases of adoption: innovators, early adopters,  early majority, late majority and laggards.  It looks like a bell curve with most of the people (about 70%) in the early and late majority part of the bell.  Also, there is an interesting summary of the early 90s initiative by Apple: the Apple Classrooms of the Future Project.  Through the lens of this project the authors look at the phases of innovation: entry phase, adoption phase, adaption phase, appropriation phase, and finally, invention phase.  The conclusion of this paper emphasizes the value of hearing dissenting viewpoints in adoption processes.  They note the challenges of these voices, particularly with technology adoption, as they often seem to be come from different world-views, not just different phases of a process.  But, the authors suggest (and I agree), carefully listening to these voices will help shape the outcomes in a way that will have more lasting impact and ensure that technology "remains in service of the community, and not the reverse."

Hall, G. E. (2010). Technology's Achilles heel: Achieving high-quality implementation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 231-253.

This article (published in an ISTE publication, which always feels very reader-friendly to me) discusses the steps needed to achieve implementation beyond the small scale that can be seen with innovators and early adopters.  The author describes an "implementation bridge" that spans the chasm between old instructional strategies and technologically enhanced ones.  The three levels to the bridge (which the author goes on to discuss in detail) are: Level of Use (LoU), Stages of Concern (SoC) and Innovation Configurations (IC).  

 

The important take away from this paper is that adoption and improved student outcomes is not an on/off dichotomy. In a complex school environment, in which there are many instructors and leaders at different places on the bridge, improved outcomes are likely, even if not everyone has gotten to the other side.  What it leaves me wondering about is the innovation configuration part—it is only addressed superficially here and seems like a really important element of the bridge (illustrated as the foundation here—is that on purpose?).  Also, as usual, I wonder if there could be some way to measure affective student outcomes of adoption that are not test-based.  Trying to measure the impact of technology on the broader mission of a school seems to feel like an insurmountable challenge. 

Nworie, J., & Haughton, N. (2008). Good intentions and unanticipated effects: The unintended consequences of the application of technology in teaching and learning environments. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 52(5), 52-58. doi: 10.1007/s11528-008-0197-y

This paper is the Debbie Downer to all of the change theory and talk of adoption models.  It explores all the ways in which technology in educational environments is not serving learning, and in many instances, having not just a null impact, but a negative one. The authors insist that their hope is not to just illuminate the downsides of technology integration (but they list everything a student can do on a computer to be off task), but to "draw attention to the need to constantly remember the effects of change in any system[…]"

Hogarth, K., & Dawson, D. (2008). Implementing e-learning in organisations: What e-learning research can learn from instructional technology (IT) and organisational studies (OS) innovation studies. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(1), 87-105.

This article explores some theories from disciplines outside of ETEC that can apply to research in e-learning (Classical Diffusion Theory, Configuration theory, Gallivan’s model for authority-based contingent adoption of innovations, and e-learning Unified Process.  For me, the most valuable part of this paper was the statement by the authors about the limitations when applying theory about technological innovation to e-learning.  They note that the type of outcomes that determine success might be different than in other technological systems.  They cite this as an area that needs more flushing out.   

Readings on Instructional Design

(More readings from the first year seminar in theETEC program at UH Manoa) 

Merrill, D. (2012). Chapter 5 Instructional Strategies. , Merrill, D. (2012). Chapter 6 Instructional Strategies for Problem Solving. Merrill, D. (2012). Chapter 7 Problem-Centered Instructional Strategy. First Principles of Instructional Design (pp. 1-39). (Unpublished Manuscript)

These three chapters of Dave's Merrill's forthcoming text on the first principles of instruction are summarized in the flow chart here.  His work is really interesting in that it seeks to break down instruction into all of its smallest parts and identify, name, typify and classify every element of what goes on in a course.  It reminds me of being in biology classes in which we went out into the woods and saw everything with a new lens as we realize that the things that we saw everyday and knew as familiar had names, and niches in the ecosystem—and just being in the woods without naming and observing them as individual organisms would never result in a deeper understanding of the place.  Similarly, Merrill hopes that instructional designers will understand all of the elements of the ecosystem of a classroom. In chapter 5, what used to seem like simple instructional events, are broken down into: presentation, demonstration and application and further explored.  There are also a number of real life modules and examples to which readers can apply their learning.

Chapter 6 focuses on problem solving strategies.  He outlines and demonstrates the importance of crafting and demonstrating relationships between conditions and consequence in order to facilitate students working independently to solve the problem.  As I was reading I was thinking about structuring Spanish language lessons through this framework.  It seems that many of the immersion, or direct instruction methods of language acquisition are based on this concept of problem solving.  Students are not so much told the answer, as presented with a problem, an utterance that they only partially understand.  Then they are challenged to look for patterns (conditions) and see how outcomes change (consequence).  Thinking of something as simple as describing the formal and informal pronouns used you could illustrate this all with videos, and accompanying text.  It illuminated the really good (I think) instruction on sites such as what I was playing with the other day on http://www.livemocha.com.

Chapter 7 describes problem centered instruction, which involves the presentation of increasingly complex problems.  The chapter also explains how this is different from traditional instructional strategy.  This chapter is a really great resource (a bit more usable than the first two, for me) as this is a hot topic both at the university level and particularly at the K-12 level.  Many teachers and leaders (including me!) talk about their aspirational goals of having their instruction be problem centered.  This chapter helps frame that desire into a more achievable reality.  Problem based, or problem centered learning is not just about letting students come up with things that interest them, but rather it is about supporting their growth through specific skills that will support their learning, and being transparent with the learner (showing) about how those skills will help them better solve problems. 

I enjoyed Dr. Merrill's talk to graduate students in ETEC last month-- he shared about his academic journey and also his quest for more clarity in the areas of instructional design.  It was interesting to hear about what a huge role his wife has played in motivating him to keep working and publishing (and it didn't just seem like he was saying that because she was sitting there.) I was only a little offended when I introduced myself to thank him for his time and stories, and after I shared that I was a high school teacher he asked if the talk had gone over my head.  I bit my tongue and assured him that it didn't.  People are funny.

Systems Theory, Ecology as a Metaphor and more! (readings for 2/27/12)

Oliver, M. (2011). Technological determinism in educational technology research: Some alternative ways of thinking about the relationship between learning and technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(5), 373-384. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00406.x

This paper offers criticism for how technology is studied in terms of its impact on education.  It begins by suggesting that both optimistic and pessimistic determinism are equally problematic—one point of view suggesting that technology is unfailingly good and the other that it has no impact or a negative impact.  The authors then present four theories that should be employed more regularly when studying technology in education: Activity theory, actor-network theory (ANT), social construction of technology (SCOT) theory, and our old friend, communities of practice theory. Presentation of these theories nudges us (emerging researchers) to frame or work in a meaningful context that will endure past the current technological fad and actually contribute to deeper understanding of how humans and technology interact.

Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807-840.

Given that I have a background in the biological sciences (haha! sort of!), I enjoyed this paper which pushed the metaphor of school as ecosystem to its limit.  Throughout the paper the authors compare the successful spread of an invasive species (zebra muscles, which has been the culprit of many a cut in my own feet on the shores of Lake Champlain) with the unsuccessful spread of computer use in schools.  The comparison of school as ecosystem is a good one—each is different, there are delicate balances that explain functioning, and often surprising reasons for their functioning.  The conclusion of this study suggests slow "evolutionary" change in schools as opposed to the radical "revolutionary" change.  They beat the heck out of the metaphor, but I can't blame them, it is a good one. 

Lemke, J. L., & Sabelli, N. H. (2008). Complex systems and educational change: Towards a new research agenda. Educational Philosophy & Theory, 40(1), 118-129. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00401.x

This paper encourages thinking of educational research (with the desired goal of educational reform) to take on a view of complex systems theory.  The paper hopes for a paradigm shift:

Most important perhaps is a change in the paradigms of our thinking about research on education. Away from input-output ‘black-box’ causal models to modeling the specific, local linkages that actually interconnect actors, practices, and events across multiple levels of organization. Away from single interventions and simplistic solutions to recognition of the need for coordinated changes throughout the system and to its ‘external’ relations to its constraining and enabling contexts and resources. And even perhaps away from the Enlightenment dream of universal laws, perfect predictability and rational control to a new recognition that all genuinely complex systems are individual, surprising, and not a little perverse. Just like us.

The article also makes me think, again, (among other things) about the relationships between research universities and K-12 schools.  It describes some organized educational reform projects and the time frame of the collaboration and subsequent impact is measured in decades, not years.  I wonder what a meaningful relationship between universities and a school (or consortium of schools) would look like? Could it support reform agendas?  Could independent schools serve as sandboxes for research that could have a meaningful impact on public schools?  These are big questions that this paper has reminded me to think about.

Some Readings on Cognitive Science (for 2/13/12)

Meltzoff, A. N., Kuhl, P. K., Movellan, J., & Sejnowski, T. J. (2009). Foundations for a new science of learning. Science, 325(5938), 284-288. doi:10.1126/science.1175626

This article discusses the connection between learning theory, psychology and machine learning.  The take away highlights (particularly for a language teacher) are about the importance of social interaction in learning.  It cites many studies that pertain to early childhood development, but there are interesting and important things that apply to all age groups.  For example, children who are simple exposed to sounds in a foreign language via TV or radio learn much less than children who interact with humans in the language.  Researchers are developing robots that can interact in more social ways, and reported findings of an interactive robot increasing learning when compared to tv.  (seems like that is what we are seeing with iOS apps for kids and language).  The authors talk about three traits of human learning: imitation, shared attention and empathy and social emotions.  It would be interesting to examine language course based on those three elements.  

Hoadley, C., & Van Haneghan, J. P. .(2012) The learning sciences: Where they came from and what it means for instructional designers. In. Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. [Note: online preprint]

This book chapter gives a brief historical background of learning theory from behaviorism to cognitivism and into more recently developed theories such as those in the realm of communities of practice and anchored instruction.  This is a really helpful resource to use when looking at theory as it applies to instructional design and learning science.  This sums up the sources that support the notion of deep, enduring and transferable and meaningful learning.

Winn, W. (2004). Cognitive perspectives in psychology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 79-112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. [From AECT, free access for members]

This chapter explored the current reality of cognitive science as it relates to learning.  Winn groups these new developments into four categories: systems theoretical frameworks, biological frameworks, approaches based on cognitive neuroscience, and neural networks.   Then there is an extensive historical background.  Woah.  Wondering about chunking, embeddeness, embodiment or adaption?  It is all there.

Also, the introduction provides a sharp criticism of constructivism as having the dangerous potential to value anything that is student produced as inherently of intellectual value.  It makes me think of crappy projects that my students turn in but fit into a decent grade based on the rubric—not sure I agree with the critique, but interesting to read. 

The final section "Cognitive Theory and Educational Technology" is hugely useful for understanding the basis of the field of educational technology and also why some things appear to be "stuck" or harder to make changes.  It describes the legacy of behaviorism in instructional design and the weakness that is born out of the need for specificity given the multitude of combinations and compounding variables in this line of work.  It is hard to generalize anything!  It is a good summary to use as a reference when thinking about methodologies as it points out many of the real-life complications in instructional design. 

Willingham, D. T. (2009). Why don't students like school? Because the mind is not designed for thinking. American Educator, 33(1), 4-13.

This magazine article is written for teachers and administrators.  It presents some learning about cognitive science from the perspective that thinking is hard, and people will avoid doing it.  This statement sets the stage for an explanation about what are the optimal conditions for encouraging, rewarding and fostering thinking in our students.  The author emphasizes an understanding of prior knowledge, the value of success and variety, as things to keep in mind when hoping to craft an environment in which students learn, and like it. 

 Willingham, D. T. (2009). Three problems in the marriage of neuroscience and education. Cortex, 45(4), 544-545. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2008.05.009

This article begins by emphasizing the differenced between natural sciences (biology, neuroscience, etc. . . ) and artificial sciences (economics, education etc. . . ).  As he describes, artificial sciences are driven by goals, whereas natural sciences seek to explain or describe a given phenomenon. Their ability to inform each other is limited. 

A summary of his thoughts:

Any marriage will be more successful when each partner has realistic expectations of the other. Educators should expect that neuroscience (1) will not be prescriptive; (2) will re- main silent on educational goals that are incompatible neuroscientific analysis (e.g., aesthetic training), and will omit levels of analysis beyond the individual, and; (3) neuroscience will prove helpful on targeted questions at a more- fine grained level of analysis such as how people read, learn, and attend, but these data will only be useful in the context of well-developed behavioral theory.

Riener, C., & Willingham, D. (2010). The myth of learning styles. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 42(5), 32-35. doi: 10.1080/00091383.2010.503139

This article describes the lack of evidence for the success of instructional design based on learning styles.  The authors do support the notion that people will have difference preferences for how they learn, but it goes on to say that there is no evidence to suggest that catering to these preferences improves learning.  The article also includes an interesting discussion about why this myth has persisted.  First, it feels good; it values all people and their different strengths—who could argue against that?  Also, it has been impacted by confirmation bias and is now considered common knowledge.  The bottom line is that knowing your students, and understanding their prior knowledge and interests can help them learn, but there is not scientific basis for learning styles and differentiation on their behalf as helping learning.  It feels funny to read this and feel a little defensive—I so want to support each student that I almost find myself wanting to suppress this article.  But then at the end they offer Mindset, by Carol Dweck as a reference, and I am back to wanting to pass it out.  We don't need to use fuzzy science to encourage supporting our students as individuals—there is plenty of real science to support and justify those desires. 

Some Readings on Learning and Communication (for Feb 6, 2012)

And the reading journal continues.  This week, focusing on learning theory and communications theory.

Martinez, S., & Prensky, M. (2011). Point / Counterpoint: Is the digital native a myth? Learning & Leading with Technology, 5191(November), 6-7.

This is a magazine (ISTE Newsletter) article presenting two sides of the digital native discussion.  On the one hand there is the concept that we have to consider the increased comfort that most school age students with technology, but, as the counterpoint argues, this reality cannot give educators the permission to sit back and throw their arms in the air saying: "well, I'll never catch up with my students."  Not sure where I fall on these two sides—I can see validity in elements of each argument.

Siemens, G. (2009, July 10). Tools and our brain. [Blog]. Elearnspace.

This short blog post frames the discussion of how technology impacts the physiology of our brains. " We have a reciprocal relationship with tools: we use them, they change us." Learning changes the brain, we know this now—it seems like maybe even since this was written two years ago, the paradigm in this understanding has shifted—but maybe that is just my own sense of this.

Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The “digital natives” debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775-786. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x

This paper seeks to chill people out about the debate about digital natives or net generation by framing the issues as proper research questions.  The authors describe the literature about these groups, and the debate over the need to radically shift education to meet the needs of these "new" students.  Then, they go on to encourage investigations that will further the discussion, for learning's sake:

 The time has come for a considered and disinterested examination of the assumptions underpinning claims about digital natives such that researchable issues can be identified and dispassionately investigated. This is not to say that young people are not engaged and interested in technology and that technology might not support effective learning. It is to call for considered and rigorous investigation that includes the perspectives of young people and their teachers, and genuinely seeks to understand the situation before proclaiming the need for widespread change.

This seems like a really important rallying cry, and could be applied to any area or current debate in the field of educational technology.  Don't make quick claims.  Have data to support change.  Don't be terrified. 

Bennett, S., & Maton, K. (2010). Beyond the “digital natives” debate: Towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 321-331. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00360.x

Same authors, fast-forward two years.  They categorize the lit review into the following sections: Research on access to technology, research on technology-based activities, key issues for educational researchers, conceptualizing the issues, and Advancing the debate over "digital-natives".  This is a more developed presentation of the same concept.  This is a much better and richer paper, than Bennett& Matton 2008, for learning about the discussions surrounding this area of inquiry.  Of interest to me in this article is the concept "networked individualism" as a framework for investigating this issue.  The more I read this article, the more I thought that is an area in which I have real interest.  

Longman, D., & Green, K. (2011). Digital enlightenment: The myth of the disappearing teacher. CELT: Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 4, 121-126.

This study explores the myth that the world of ubiquitous online resources decreases the need for teachers.  It nudges us toward teacher as curator model as opposed to teacher as holder of knowledge.  The research consists of interviews with university professors in the UK.  The most important conclusion seems to be: "the teacher’s role remains central to the fulfilling engagement of students in their learning." 

An interesting element of this discussion explores the complexity of how teachers interact with the tools that facilitate learning for students (course management systems, web services, etc. . . ) This element of the discussion is interesting as it nudges us to explore the assumptions that the teachers bring to the table and continue to ask the questions about the disappearing teacher in a way that isn't just based on allowing instruction to continue as it always has.  The teacher, as we once thought of it, might just disappear, as maybe it should.    But teachers, no, I don't think they will fade from utility, and this research supports that.

                                                                                         

Jones, A. D. (2009, October 9). Learning theories and e-learning. [Blog]. The weblog of (A) David Jones: Another voice in the blogosphere.

This blog post is a lit review from a developing dissertation.  It describes the four levels of learning theory: epistemology, descriptive theories, learning theories and instructional design theories.  The concluding paragraph ends with the following synthesis of his thinking:

Dede (2008) makes a similar point that no application of technology to learning and teaching is universally good. Instead the best approach is to analyze the nature of the curriculum, students, and teachers in order to select the appropriate tools, applications, media and environments (Dede 2008).

This supports the paradigm that instructional design, good teaching, effective administration of programs is deeply local and specific to the environment, culture and all-around unique complex interplay that occurs in every individual school.  This post emphasizes this and re-applies this concept to the notion of developing e-learning environments. 

Janzen, K. J., Perry, B., & Edwards, M. (2011). Aligning the quantum perspective of learning to instructional design : Exploring the seven definitive questions. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(7), 56-73.

This article describes the quantum perspective of learning ("Connection, entanglement, and constant communication configure the basis of the quantum perspective of learning.") by waking the reader through the seven definitive questions. 1. How does learning occur? 2. What factors influence learning? 3. What is the role of memory? 4.  How does the transfer of knowledge occur? 5. What types of learning are best explained? 6. What is the relevance to instructional design? 7. How should instruction be structured to facilitate learning?

Reading this article makes me think that, unknowingly, I have been drawn to the quantum perspective in my own course design this year.  The whole idea is a little too Heidegger, Being in Time (aka: hard to get my head around) but when the authors do give concrete examples they are line up with what I try to do in class:

These include encouraging goal setting (both in the short and long term), self-analysis through writing/sharing, providing possibilities to extend thinking through the use of well- placed questions, the provision of multiple alternatives, joint problem finding and problem solving, offering social and emotional support, encouraging risk-taking, assisting students to find their own voices, and finally, modeling “ways of being” (p. 210).

Robinson, R., Molenda, M., & Rezabek, L. (2007). Facilitating learning. In A. Januszewski, M. Molenda & P. Harris (Eds.), Educational technology: A definition with commentary (2nd ed., pp. 15-48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

This ACET book chapter explored the "facilitating learning" element of the definition of educational technology.  It is surprising how controversial that simple phrase can be when flushed out to its full extent.  The chapter has a useful table of the "APA's learner-centered psychological principles" from which to pull research topics.

This chapter is theoretical, but in the kind of meaningful way that it would be good to read a hundred times over.  I hope to return to it as I look more closely at learning theory and shape my thinking about both what I do as a teacher and instructional designer and what I want to do for my research. 

Dede, C. (2008). Theoretical perspectives influencing the use of information technology in teaching and learning. In J. Voogt & G. A. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 43-62). New York, NY: Springer.

How 'bout that? This chapter was the basis for much of what I found really compelling about the blog post by Jones (2009).  So I was happy to read the original thinking.    The chapter goes through behaviorist instructional technologies, cognitivist instructional technologies and then constructivist instructional technologies.  In short, this chapter warns against the fruitless quest for the "silver bullet" and encourages a perspective based on the following world view:

To progress, the field of instructional design must recognize that learning is a human activity quite diverse in its manifestations from person to person, and even from day to day. The emphasis can then shift to developing pedagogical media that provide many alternative ways of teaching, which learners select as they engage in their educational experiences.

I am a Dede fan. Now following him on Twitter (which is how I most commonly display my respect). 

Foulger, D. (2004). Models of the Communication Process. Communication.

In this paper (which is available on Foulger's website) we were asked to focus on the two models of communication. 

First: 

And then this:

 

The question seems to be, how can education shift from the former to the latter.  This reminds me of all of the flow charts and idea diagrams that we looked at in a meeting today talking about curriculum and lesson design.  These charts are really the basis for those conversations.  Where do we begin? From where should content be generated? What is the balance of consumption and creation? This figure 6 is really useful for thinking about instructional design.  I'm going to put it on my wall, since it seems like finding this fellow on twitter is not going to happen. 

Frameworks to support asking good questions

This is a homework assignment: Find one research study that uses a conceptual framework and be prepared to discuss it in class. 

Pempek, T. a., Yermolayeva, Y. a., & Calvert, S. L. (2009). College students’ social networking experiences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(3), 227-238. Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.12.010

The conceptual framework in this really interesting article is based in the work of Arnette (2000) which explores the socialization of adolescents (in Handbook of socialization: Theory and research) .  Conceptual frameworks can come from research, theory in the area and also from the individual researcher's world view.  This framework here suggests that socialization in adolescents as the move outside of the family unit (from 18-25 yo) is central to their sense of self and their place in the world.  This framework frames the logic and justification for this study. As we discussed in class, the framework also helps narrow the scope of the study and ensure that it is focused. 

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)

Readings on Theory in Educational Technology

(More readings from the first year seminar in the ETEC program at UH Manoa)   
 
Ocholla, Dennis N, LeRoux, J. (2011). Conceptions and Misconceptions of a theoretical framework in Library and Information Science Research. Prolissa Conference (Vol. 2011, pp. 1-11).

We were asked to read the first three pages of this as a refresher on the relationship of theory to research.  The authors review the concepts of deductive reasoning (explaining something through a conclusion, or theory) and inductive reasoning (seeking knowledge through observation with no conclusion in mind).  A new connection for me was that the authors pointed out that inductive reasoning is really the scientific method, restated—that helps clarify and now I won't forget.  They then say that good research does both of these things.  It seeks a framework to apply to a series of questions, and then goes about testing the validity of that framework. 

Also important to working with a framework is a good understanding and explicit treatment of the assumptions involved in its creation.  This paper includes (p.8-9) a table listing some (couple hundred?) of the theories associated with information sciences, which makes it a good resource for etec.

Robyn, S. (2004). Exploring the usefulness of a conceptual framework as a research tool: A researcher’s reflections. Issues In Educational Research, 14(2). 167-180. Retrieved from http://www.iier.org.au/iier14/smyth.html

 This paper serves as a primer for understanding what a conceptual framework is and how it can be a valuable tool for scaffolding a research question.  A conceptual framework is a "set of broad ideas and principles taken from relevant fields of enquiry and used to structure a subsequent presentation."  This concept nudges researchers to link their thinking and questions to previous inquiry in the area. The author uses the article to explain how conceptual framework informed a particular research project of hers in which she was part of a team looking at the issues of change related to instatement of a vocational education system in a particular school group of schools.   This is a great article that elucidates the value of conceptual framework when tackling complex questions about education.   It was also cool to see Sergiovani quoted as a reference for questions of change in schools.  (I love his book Moral Leadership.)

Richey, R., Klein, J. D., & Tracey, M. W. (2011). The instructional design knowledge base: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

Just read chapter 1 as the free sample on the kindle app on the ipad—might buy the rest one of these days but it is $31.  And you can rent books on the kindle now (is that new?).

This is the first chapter of a book that primarily targets researchers and advanced graduate students—the authors also say that they hope practitioners will be able to use this to "justify decisions the many decisions they make in the course of an ID project."  That seems like a silly thing to say and an unlikely hope, but oh well. Mostly, the first chapter looks at the base of ID theory.  They mention that theory stems from research, but it has a philosophical level to it too—there are value judgments in theory.  ID is a planning activity

Another good definition of theory from Hoover and Donovan (1995): "a set of related propositions that attempts to explain and sometimes predict a set of events." They then go on to list the functions of theory as described by Hoover and Donovan (1995):

Theory. . .

1.     provides patterns for interpretation of data

2.     links one study with another

3.     supplies frameworks with which concepts and variables acquire special significance

4.     allows us to interpret the larger meaning of our findings for ourselves and others.

Then they talk about Models: "a representation of realty presented with a degree of structure or order."  They go on to explain that models tend to be idealized or simplified views of reality. Conceptual models can often be confused with theories but they are generally more abstract and experience based.  I'm not sure I understand the difference—will work on that!

The theories discussed in depth in the rest of the book are: General Systems Theory, Communication Theory, Learning Theory, Early Instructional Theory, Media Theory, Conditions-Based Theory, Constructivist Design Theory and Performance Improvement Theory.

Issroff, K., & Scanlon, E. (2002). Educational technology : The influence of theory. The Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2002(July), 1-13.

This article is broken down into 8 sections including an intro and conclusion.  It begins with a history of the field of Educational Technology—good to read since that is now "my" field!  It goes on to examine the theories of Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED) and Human Computer Interaction (HCI).  They talk about how AIED theory is important for supporting good instruction and learning environments, not just the robot type stuff that comes (to my) mind when one says AI.  They then go on to discuss the expanding application of HCI from a realm of limited scientific scope to many real world applications.  HCI theory can be used to model different types of cognitive behaviors and improve research about instruction and learning.

An educational technologist has to take a multi-leveled approach to understanding complex learning situations. Thus there is a need to consider the context of the institution, the culture of the students, the location of the learning situation within the curriculum as well as the design of the technology and software.

Also, it talks about the rise of emphasis on constructivist perspectives of education and the practitioners' impact on research, based on their own experience.  They conclude that theories are an "important but neglected area of research in educational technology."

Maddux, C. D., & Johnson, D. L. (2009). Theories, Concepts, and Techniques: Too Much of a Number of Good Things? Computers in the Schools, 26(3), 165-168. doi:10.1080/07380560903129086

This piece is an editorial that points to the ongoing challenge to establish educational technology as a legitimate field of academic research. The authors point to three main problems: 1) Funding (I assume they are referring to funding at the university level to promote research; 2) Disorganization in the sub-culture of educational research as it pertains to teacher training and finally 3) The lack of higher education to effectively point to and promote good practice. 

This final element, the authors claim, is in part due to the field's reliance on fad as doctrine.  They note that there are a number of concepts and theories that are so widely accepted to be "good" that they go unquestioned and shape research on which they build.  I imagine the purpose of reading this is for us to do a good job examining the theories on which we hang our own research so as not to take anything for granted.  The authors seem to lament the mindless promotion of fads like "constructivism"—really?  Okay, if they say so.  

Spector, J. M. (2008). Theoretical foundations. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. V. Merrienboer & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology  (3rd ed., pp. 21-28). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associatesdoi:10.1053/j.semperi.2011.01.002

This chapter explored four areas of theory that can be applied to educational technology-- this figure describes the outline of the presentation:

In the conclusion of the chapter, after attention to the three foundation theories (psychology of learning, communications theory, HCI and instructional design and development), the author suggests that the most important elements of designing good research in educational technology are not expertise in any of these areas (in fact he admits, over and over again, that he does not have that) but rather a humility and openness to ask good questions. 

McDougall, A., & Jones, A. (2006). Theory and history, questions and methodology: current and future issues in research into ICT in education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 15(3), 353-360. doi:10.1080/14759390600923915

This article examines criticisms of the field of educational technology in terms of lack of connection to theory.  This is a response to critics (like Maddux and Johnson, 2009) suggesting that our issue is not over attention to theory, but lack of attention to theory.  They argue that research in this area should further our understanding of the theories around which our questions are framed. 

 

Bennett, S., & Oliver, M. (2011). Talking back to theory: the missed opportunities in learning technology research. Research in Learning Technology, 19(3), 179-189. doi:10.1080/21567069.2011.624997

Many questions that emerge in instructional technology are about lived practical matters—should our school implement the l:1 program? How do I best reach a classroom of diverse learners? Etc. . .— that is way, this article argues, there has not been enough attention to theory in this field.  Schools, governments and individual practitioners all want answers to our immediate questions. That is, in fact, why I came into this field.—I want answers too.  So I found the case studies of engagement with theory particularly interesting.  The article challenges researchers (like me!) to find a way to make empirical investigations "speak back to theory" by engaging relationships with theory in an ongoing and central way.  The authors also suggest the potential for the field of learning technology to connect with other fields, if this connection to theory is more carefully attended to. 

Becker, K. (2007). Conceptual framework for considering instructional design as a wicked problem. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 33(1), Article 4.

This article discuses instructional design (ID) as something that should be approached through a problem based learning model, identifying "wicked problems" and then designing to improve the realities.  The article reviews the literature surrounding the ID process and then goes into a description of "wicked problems".   The essence of a wicked problem is its messiness.  As we often hear in class, there is no silver bullet in education, because it is a messy endeavor, with limitless variables.  These unique individual situations are the wicked problems the Becker is looking for—so the rest of the article is an argument for having ID be specific to these scenarios.  It goes through a laundry list of what makes education messy and then encourages researchers to have at it.  One term that is new to me is a "stopping rule" which is essentially a pre-determined outcome or situation in which the study would stop.