ETEC 511: ePortfolio

The DLG8 posted the question: do human-technology relations within online environments benefit performance in education?

It may be easy (an interesting) to look at trends in grades on standardized exams over time with technological developments in education. But, is this a valid measure of performance in education? Our tendancy to focus on student grades may in fact be a part of a “hermenutic circle” where the question of grades itself which we find so important, is heavily influenced by our own western culture and history. Are grades on standardized tests a good measure of student performance?

One of the main criticisms of education identified by Dall’Alba and Barnacle is that the western epistemological approach tends to separate content from context. Standardized exams, as they exist today, perpetuate this decontextualizing of learning and performance. Students are rewarded for doing well in an artificial performance environment – the big exam. Grades are the hard evidence of education that distinguish students from each other and guide decisions on what students should do with their lives. But how valid are examinations given that students are measured in ways much different than the performance required of them in life and work contexts.

Dall’Alba and Barnacle (2005) suggest that student evaluation should involve the “integration of knowing, acting, and being in the form of embodied knowledge.” I’m not sure there is a good way to measure this kind of learning. I suppose the closest we have come to this might be performance-based assessment, but even that seems to be marginalized as an assessment practice in educational institutions.

The assessment question aside, I can’t help but think that human-technology relation within the online environment benefit the learning process in many cases. The online environment is saturated with information and opinion. I believe the process of discussing and debating web content contributes positively to learning. But as learning begins to take place in more uncontrolled yet authentic online environments, educators may have to rethink their approach to performance measurement.

Reference

Dall’Alba, G. & Barnacle, R. (2005). Embodied knowing in online environments. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 37(5), 719-744

Image by zeligfilm courtesy Flickr

Information Technology departments are typically highly valued at any organization. The way people work in an office environment, for example, is dependent on a seamless flow of technologies and the IT departments have a monopoly on this area as the other departments simply trust IT specialists to make everything work. These departments can also function in a silo where purchasing decisions do not take into account the daily needs and functions of the users. Whether it has been intentional or not, I agree with Mohan when he describes how IT specialists have insinuated “themselves into influential organizational positions and then deploy infrastructures that necessitates continual upkeep and upgrades by individuals in the occupational groups…” (2005, p. 82).

This really made me think about investments in technology in the school and college systems. Are computer labs with Microsoft software a worthwhile investment when so many students already have either a laptops or mobile device (that they are probably not allowed to use in the class)? How about the use of Clickers in colleges and universities? Is hardware that can only perform only one function – polling really needed in classrooms. The cost of these devices are passed onto the students when again, most are holding a mobile devices that could be used for the same function and much, much more (see polleverywhere.com). Could it be that heavy technology solutions with constant upgrades, servers, and sophisticated architecture are pushed on schools to ensure the need of a large IT department?

I work in in an IT department now, and from my seat I think IT specialists need to become better acquainted with the classroom. Rather than deploying sophisticated technology systems in a school to stay relevant they should be closely involved with teaching to support simple and low/no cost applications for learning. The money saved can then be directed towards the employment of more teachers and staff.

Reference

Monahan, T. (2005). Technological cultures. In Globalization, technological change and public education (pp. 73-92). New York: Routledge.

Image by Universidad de Navarra courtesy Flickr

The debate over how or if media affects the way we learn has been a long standing topic of discussion as Clark unfolds 70 years of research that supports his belief. To address the debate first, I will say, as naive as it sounds, things are just different now with the affordances of the web. Koizma hints at this back in 1994 when he speaks of
how the future digital media “presents the prospect of interactive video integrated with access to large multimedia data bases distributed among people in offices, classrooms, and living rooms around the world.” The YouTube founders must have been listening because that is exactly what happened and the significance of the volume and access to information available free to students has changed this discussion. I’m not sure how Clark would position the importance of instructional methods over media for mature learners in an age where they can immediately access a network of experts, up to the second content, and public discussion on everything – without the existence of instructional methods or even an instructor!

Having said this, I am not sure it really matters if media affects learning or not for the reason that we now live in a culture with media embedded everywhere. Media channels our flow of entertainment, politics, commerce, and social movements. It is not something educators can stop from entering the doors of their school (although I think some try!); students simply expect to learn with it. Kozma’s final remarks really resonated with me when he asserts that we need to move from “Do media influence learning?” to “In what ways can we use the capabilities of media to influence learning…” (1994).

Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19

Photo by Music4Mix courtesy Flickr

Edaward Tuff is very tough on PowerPoint in his article The cognitive style of PowerPoint: Pitching out corrupts within. As much as PowerPoint has helped teachers organize their lessons, there have been negative side effects for learning that Tuff identifies. He notes that PowerPoint is “presenter-oriented” rather than “audience-oriented”. I also believe that the structure of PowerPont engenders the transmission style of teaching. I suppose the same case could be made for SmartBoards. I really do like SmartBoards and think they can bring a lesson to life but the content is teacher controlled and is designed for allow a one way transmission of information from an authoritative figure.

I begin to disagree with Tuff however when he details the limitations of PowerPoint to present data and statistics in comparisons to a paper handout or technical report. Tuff demonstrates clearly the a technical report or book is able to hold far more data and therefore more accurate information than PowerPoint. While this is certainly true, I think PowerPoints are designed to be used than entirely different way than a report. A technical report is aimed at telling the whole story by itself. PowerPoints are intended to be explained or accompanied by a human expert. The slides usually point people in the right direction, but the details come form the presenter or links on the slides. My take away from this part is that PowerPoints should be used as handout or distributed alone as they are limited in detailing the complete picture (as with what happened with the Columbia space shuttle!).

Image by vissago courtesy Flickr

As the concept of educational technology grew out of “audio-visual communications”, it is interesting to note how “process” increased in importance over time. I feel “process” is still a part of educational technology that is often ignored. Often, educational technology departments become over burdened with the management of hardware, such as computer labs, Smartboards, clickers, etc. In order for these departments to stay relevant with the actual learning of students they should consider carefully what Scallan writes about educational theory. There are theories that focus on the systematic deign of learning and teaching materials and ones that “help to understand the culture and context of different learning situations and their impact on learning” (2002). I feel that educational technologists should use these latter theories to help guide their purpose within an institution to keep the focus on the learner experience.

Loh points out that any Google search of the term “elearning” will demonstrate the vagueness of the term. The term can be interpreted in many ways but increasingly, eLearning is a concept with traction in corporate training and has spawned an industry of eLearning authoring tools and software. When I hear the term I personally envision the template-structured, perhaps voiced, slides commonly produced by programs such as Adobe Captivate. Loh believes that the definitions within educational technology such as instructional design, online learning, computer enhanced, technology enhanced learning imply that learning is something separate from technology. I think this true because the definitions focus on the method content is delivered rather that learning experience. I personally hope that definitions and theory of ed tech move further towards the student experience as this idea may help instructional designers and technologists in creating quality educational experiences.

Image by crabchick courtesy Flickr

Loh, C. S. (2007). A suitable textbook for the classroom. Review of the SAGE handbook of e-learning research. Educational Researcher, 36(9), 573-578. Library Portal Access

Scanlon, I. (2002). Educational technology: The influence of theory. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 6, 1-19.