511

DLG 4 Response – The Sociology and Anthropology of Ed. Tech.

I chose to respond to the video above as posted in the resource section for DLG Group 4’s project this week on the Sociology and Anthropology of Ed. Tech.

1. Did you agree or disagree with the video.

I agree with what the video is saying because they are mainly stating facts.

2. What do you think the video says about how technology has changed (or hasn’t changed) our culture?

I think the video is saying that technology has a dramatic impact on our culture.  It is redefining how we access information.  Regular citizens are becoming more influential in providing information through blogs, tweets, and other social media.  We have immediate access to vast amounts of information through mobile devices.  We rely on these more heavily for communication making it more efficient than the past.  Our culture’s traditions and behaviours are being shaped by technology.

I thought the fact about the huge amount of spam we receive in emails was interesting.  We have always received junk mail but now it’s in electronic form.  I hope all paper forms of junk mail will soon be eliminated to save trees.  The video also shows that people are turning more to online newspapers which will also benefit the environment.  Recently on the news, I saw that netflix has come to Canada.  It’s a site that replaces television, offering shows and movies for a low monthly fee.  This will surely put video stores out of business but again, create less waste for the environment.  However, if everyone is turning to computers for information and entertainment, I hope that we, as a society, learn to recycle or dispose of electronic waste in a responsible way.

3. What are some of the sociological impacts that this video asserts?

Essentially, the video shows us how rapidly we are integrating technology into our daily lives.  This affects all of us whether or not we use technology  as individuals because it’s changing the course of how the world works around us. It is affecting how people interact in business, entertainment, education, health care, politics etc.  Technology will always rapidly increase but it is how we use technology that will define the sociological impacts in our society.

As an educator, I was happy to see the part in the video which stated that in 2020 mobile devices will be the largest internet connection tool.  If all students already have access to the internet on phones, ipads etc., this will take the burden off schools to fund hardware for classes.  This technology will become a part of the regular school supply list.  I look forward to seeing how teachers will use this resource in classrooms.

Here is an animoto video I created using images from Creative Commons that illustrate some possibilities for technology in the future that will impact our society.

Create your own video slideshow at animoto.com.

What is multicultural educational technology?

Multicultural educational technology would be the sub-field of educational technology that studies the reciprocal effects between technology and the heritage, traditions, language, region, beliefs and behaviours of groups of people.

“Although anthropologists have long appreciated variability among societies, there does not seem to be any fundamental divide between studies of technology in traditional versus industrial societies. Moreover, the same bodies of theory and method seem applicable to both.” Schiffer (2004, pp. 2-4) Traditionally anthropology studied civilizations other than our own. However, the field has since opened up to include western culture as well. I am going to focus on multicultural educational technology as it relates to minorities in the occidental world.

“Technology pervades and is embedded in all human activities. “ Schiffer (2004, pp. 2-4) Technology is not just computer related. Books, lab instruments, or systems of organization are all technologies. Books, for example, are often lacking in cultural sensitivity, often portraying the viewpoint of the majority.

“Anthropologists first showed that technologies are culturally constructed and socially constituted.” Schiffer (2004, pp. 2-4) Educators choose technologies to meet their needs from delivering content to supporting our students and ultimately passing on values and knowledge about our society. It’s natural for educators to use technology as it relates to their heritage, traditions, language or region even if their values do not always align with those of their students. This means choosing websites, hardware, software etc. that they are comfortable with to support teaching and learning. Not only technology is influenced by administrator, educators and governments values, but the whole public school system does not adequately support minority culture group’s needs.

Frequently there are a large amount of minorities that live in lower socio-economic areas who’s schools or parent groups can’t afford to fund different technologies. Sometimes these students come from families who don’t value technology themselves so their children don’t learn to appreciate it. Kerr cites Becker’s studies (1983) which seemed to show not only that children in poor schools (schools where a majority of the children were from low socio-economic-status family backgrounds) had fewer computers available to them but also that the activities they were typically assigned by teachers featured rote memorization via use of simple drill-and-practise program, whereas children in schools with a wealthier student base were offered opportunities to learn programming and to work with more flexible software. Could it be that a majority of parents with a lower socio-economic background lack parenting skills which results in a class with high behaviour needs? It is much harder to teach a high needs group of students in an open, flexible way.

“The issue for the longer term may well be how educational technology interacts with the fundamental problem of providing not merely access, but also a lasting a valuable education, something many minority children are clearly not receiving at present.” (Kerr, 2004) It seems that many minority groups will suffer when they enter the workforce due to the lack of technology experience in schools because of low funding, differences in values with educators, and lack of family support.

Becker, H. (1983). School uses of microcomputers: Reports from a national survey. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for the Social Organization of Schools.

Kerr, S. T. (2004). Toward a sociology of educational technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 113-142). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schiffer, M. B. (Ed.). (2001). Anthropological perspectives on technology. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.

What are the legal issues of digital property?

What are the legal issues of digital property?

Needless to say, it is very complicated. I think the main problem is that the legal system is very black and white. It is hard to apply regular laws that protect rights to an online world where it seems very grey. John Barlow (1996) who wrote, “A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace” suggests that our regular laws should not apply to cyberspace. I like his idea of an online self-governing community where we all live by the golden rule. Unfortunately, this is unrealistic.

There is a Digital Consumer Bill of Rights  that acts much like the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the United States Bill of Rights or the Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens in People’s Republic of China etc. Since every country has their own interpretation of a bill of rights, it’s difficult to apply one across every nation.

The Copyright Act of Canada protects original content by artists, writers and actors. Once a works is produced, it is automatically protected for the life of the producer and 50 years after death. Facts and ideas cannot be copyrighted. Fair dealing in Canada notes exceptions for when copying is allowed like in education, research or journalism.

Lawrence Lessig is one of the founding members of Creative Commons which is an organization that allows artists, writers, photographers, musicians etc. to share their work with others according to the restrictions that they choose to apply. This is a free service that allows the general public to easily reproduce, remix, rip, and burn work that is not their own.  Organizations like Creative Commons give people a way to maintain responsible citizenship online by legally using other’s creations to produce something new.

A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cysS2nFOc08

Copyright Act of Canada. Retrieved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_Canada

IEEE Standards Association. Retrieved from: http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1817/

Physiology

Creative Commons

After reading Philip’s (2005) article, I agree with Lawrence Lessig that the current copyright laws are too strict and limit creativity.  I think they need to change to accommodate the accessibility and incredible amount of information or works that the internet provides.  I think a lot of brillant ideas and beautiful works are produced using other people’s concepts.  However, creators still have a right to protect their work if they choose. I think of my husband, who has had pictures of his artwork stolen off the ‘net, reproduced and sold without permission.  I prefer that his artwork be protected the instant it is produced rather than having to pay a lawyer to obtain a copyright as it was before 1989.

It seems like Lessig has found a happy medium for protecting artists yet allowing their works to inspire other productions.  Lessig is one of the founding members of Creative Commons which is an organization that allows artists, writers, photographers, musicians etc. to share their work with others according to the restrictions that they choose to apply. This is a free service that allows the general public to easily reproduce, remix, rip, and burn work that is not their own. Here’s a link to a comprehensive video which explains more.

Organizations like Creative Commons give people a way to maintain responsible citizenship online by legally using other’s creations to produce something new .  I think we are far from Liang’s ideal world where law would permit a free for all in terms of accessing other’s content without permission even though it seems common to do.  It is a shame to restrict the infinite possibilities that could be imagined because of universal copyright laws applied to everything the instant it is produced.

http://creativecommons.ca/

Philip (2005). What is a technological author? The pirate function and intellectual property. Postcolonial Studies, 8(2), 199-218.

Increasing Student Achievement with Mac

“Since the MacBook program began in 2003, the college-going rate in the Greene County School District has increased from 26 percent to 90 percent.”

Watch the video!

I know it’s a bit of an advertisement.  I wonder how other variables like teaching methods affected  their study.  Of course they’re biased because they’re selling mac products but I believe the college-going rate did go up.  I think part of the reason it worked is because people are “willed” towards technology.   This is technological determinism as described by Carl Mitcham (1994) (Petrina and Feng, 2008).  Too bad they only mentioned using the Mac applications that come with it.  There’s so much more!

Our school district bought one computer for EVERY grade seven student a couple of years back.  They cancelled the program because it was too expensive to maintain the computers which were damaged and lost by the students.  I wonder if they did a cohort study before deciding to buy all of those computers?  The total cost was probably the same as giving just as many teachers a smartboard.   Boo hoo!  Where is my smartboard?

Petrina, S. & Feng, F. (2008). Primer for defining and theorizing technology in education, pt. 1. Vancouver, BC: Tech no-Printing Press

Increasing Student Achievement with Mac. Retrieved from http://www.apple.com/education/stories/greene-county/#video-greene-county

Welcome!

Welcome to my e-portfolio for ETEC 511 Foundations of Educational Technology in the Masters of Educational Technology Program (MET) at the University of British Colombia (UBC).

I started the program a week ago and am just hanging on as I am immersed into the world of educational technology.  Because I am on maternity leave from my grade 2/3 French Immersion position in Kelowna B.C. this fall, I thought I’d take three courses to lighten my course load for when I return to work in January.  Three courses in the MET program is a full time job!  However, I am very motivated to learn and am highly interested in the subject matter so I enjoy it.

This is my first online course and I love discussing pertinent issues with people from all over the world.  We all come from various professional backgrounds, cultures and experiences so I read many interesting perspectives and ideas that will only improve me as a teacher and person.

I look forward to learning many applications that I can use in my primary class and beyond in ETEC 511.

Instructional Design

What is instructional design? I like this definition by the Association for Education Communications and Technology: (Seels and Richey, 1994)

The theory and practice of design, development, utilization, management and evaluation of processes and resources for learning.

Instructional design is a field that began in the 1950s and 1960s when the military needed to train mass amounts of people to use a variety of equipments.  It was based on the behaviourist theory of B.F. Skinner that learning occurred due to positive feedback for correct performance and correction for incorrect performance.  Later, another behaviourist, R. Gagné added to the model by saying that prior knowledge and motivation also contribute to learning.  He created his own model consisting of nine events that illustrate how external events influence internal events which produces learning.

The Addie model is traditionally, the most popular model used in instructional design which stands for Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation.  However, it is a linear model which means that teaching and learning happens in one direction.

John Bransford, a cognitive pyschologist, helped reshape instructional design in the late 1970s.  He agreed that learning is built on prior knowledge (constructivism).  However, he changed the way instructional designers built their models due to his emphasis on group learning and contextual practise.  These models are more flexible and recipricol than the previous ADDIE model.

What are the problems with instructional design? There are many models to choose from which some see as a pro but I see as a con because it can be confusing to decide which one to use.  Also, the models seem to try to fit a square peg into a round hole.  I mean that they don’t consider individual differences, ways of learning and experiences.  They are too structured and don’t allow for a teacher to stray from the path.  Often some of the best learning in a class happens spontaneously.

What does an instructional designer do?  (Tucker, 2007)

• Work with Subject Matter Experts to identify what students need to learn
• Develop objectives and ensure content matches those objectives
• Revise and rewrite content to shape it for learning needs
• Structure content and activities for student learning
• Create media to support learning (e.g., visual aids for face-to-face, various multimedia for e-learning and online)
• Develop assessments (note that this does not only mean tests)
• Adapt instructional materials created for one format to another format (usually this is adapting materials from face-to-face to e-learning)

Tucker C. http://christytucker.wordpress.com/

Hill, J. R., Bichelmeyer, B. A., Boling, E., Gibbon, A. A., Grabowski, B. L., Osguthope, R. T., et al. (2004). Perspectives on significant issues facing instructional design and technology In M. Orey, M. A. Fitzgerald & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook 2004 (Vol. 29, pp. 23-43): Libraries Unlimited.

Seels, B. B. & Richey, R. C. (1994). Instructional technology: The definition and domains of the field. Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

Wikipedia (2010).  Instructional Design. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructional_design

Prestera G. (2002). Retrieved from http://www.effectperformance.com/sites/prestera/html/M4/L3%20-%20Change/M4L3P2.htm

Kozma vs. Clark

Kozma (1994) believes that using media in the class increases learning.  Clark (1994) believes media are “mere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries causes changes in our nutrition.”

I’m not sure who I agree with.  I think it’s important to use technology even if it doesn’t improve learning because:

1. Students will need to have basic technological skills for when they enter the workforce.
2. Students like using it. Clark cites Salomon (1984) who implies that the students believe their learning will improve through using tech so that’s why they learn. Whether it is due to their beliefs or the technology, they are still learning.
3. Technology varies instruction expanding the list of tools teachers can use to teach.

I agree that instructional practise is more important than the technology itself when teaching content.

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.

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

History of ET Definitions

1828 – first definition of “technology”

Late 1800s – used the term audio-visual education

– developed visual resources for education

1920s – intro of movies/radio to education

– first research on effects of media/technologies on young people

1923 – founding year for the Department of Visual Instruction in the National Education Association

1933 – Sidney Pressey was first to use term educational technology

1930s – agencies formed to regulate media industries in education

1950s – AV morphed into technology education and educational technology

Late 1950s – term instructional technology replaces audiovisual communications and education

1963 – AECT defined audiovisual communications

1970s – early days of internet

1970 – definition for instructional technology to include physical science and behavioural science

– Presidential Commission on Instructional Tech made two definitions for instructional tech

1971- Hooper looked at philosophical side of ed tech

1972 – ed tech became field and not just a theory

1977 – The Definition of Ed Tech (AECT, 1977) was a 169 page book with the definition alone being 16 pages

1978 – Davies looked at processes as well as products of teaching and learning

– Hartley examined application of learning theories to instruction

Late 1970s and 1980s – educational tech courses called computer science

Mid-1990s – computer science courses renamed to information technology

1990s – WWW created

– definition for learning technology in England

1993 – Association for learning tech established in England

1994 – Carl Mitcham identifies 4 parts of technology (artifact or object, activity or process, knowledge, volition or will)

1994 – simplified the definition of ed tech

1995 – Howard Rheingold published, “The Virtual Community”

1996 – The Canadian Office of Learning Technologies (OLT) was created

– US National Science Foundation began a Collaborative Research on Learning Technologies program

1998 – The Canadian OLT defined learning technologies

2002 – UBC Office of Learning Technology started

2004 – Uden said learning tech = application of technology for the enhancement of teaching, learning and assessment

2004 – computer courses in BC renamed from IT to ICT

2007 – The Association for Learning Technology (ALT) redefined learning technology

– Andrews R. and Haythornthwaite C. published “The SAGE handbook of E-Learning Research”

Now – the term “new media” is replacing information technology

References

Hawkridge, D. (1981). The Telesis of educational technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 12, 4-18. Library Portal Access.

Januszewski, A. (2001). Educational technology: The development of a concept. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

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

Petrina, S. & Feng, F. (2007) New Media Primer: Cultural and New Media Studies. Vancouver, BC: Tech no-Printing Press.

Petrina, S. & Feng, F. (2008). Primer for defining and theorizing technology in education, pt. 1. Vancouver, BC: Tech no-Printing Press.