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 20th 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)
