As new materialism views bodies, objects, and environments in the flux of intra-action (Toohey, 2018; Charteris, Smardon & Nelson, 2017), I would aim to demonstrate this to educational technologists through a physical demonstration with the room configuration. For example, I would disrupt the participant’s expectations of workshop configuration by starting the class with all chairs lined up against the wall and avoiding the question of where to sit. As participants enter the class, slowly the chairs, tables, and bodies will assemble in intra-action, adjusting and adapting as more bodies and objects are added to the mix. At the start of the workshop, I would explain the room configuration was intended as a demonstration of new materialism, a theory that positions all objects, bodies, social phenomena, and ideas in physical form (Toohey, 2018; Charteris, Smardon & Nelson, 2017). In presenting this idea, I would facilitate a discussion on the experiences of the experiment, focusing on the physical manifestations of different perspectives, social rules, power relations. Similarly, I would turn the discussion to the difference between interaction and intra-action, outlining that interaction treats objects and bodies that interact as discrete with individual characteristics, while intra-action views objects, bodies, ideas in relation to each other (Toohey, 2018). To illustrate this concept even more, I would return to the experiment, explaining how the configuration of people and objects in the workshop space were influenced by each other.

New materialism also disrupts notions of agency and instead positions agency as “the mutual constitution of entangled agencies” (as cited in Toohey, 2018). To demonstrate this to educational technologists, I would return to the physical experiment and explain how their choices of where to sit and how to configure their chairs were intertwined with each other’s choices. Extending the idea of agency, I would emphasize how the configuration of people and objects in the workshop can influence the types of activities and social engagements that take place in the workshop (Charteris, Smardon & Nelson, 2017). Drawing on previous workshop experiences, I would ask participants to consider how their choices, reactions, and perceptions would have differed had they encountered a typical workshop configuration.

Finally, I would turn the discussion to how new materialism can broaden our perspective of education and technology design and best practices. As Hill (2018) illustrates in the comparison of reflective versus diffractive practice, reflective practice seeks to interpret, whereas diffractive practice reads objects and bodies through one another to “Illuminate how difference emerges” (as cited in Hill, 2018).  A new materialist perspective can bring focus to difference and how it impacts and excludes beings, objects, and possibilities in our educational technology design (Hill, 2018).

References:

Charterisa, J., Smardona, D. & Nelson, E. (2017). Innovative learning environments and new materialism: A conjunctural analysis of pedagogic spaces. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(8), 808–821.

Hill, C. (2018). More-than-reflective practice: Becoming a diffractive practitioner. Teacher Learning and Professional Development, 2(1), 1-17.

Toohey, K. (2018) New materialism and language learning. In Learning English at School (2^nd edition). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

For this project, I decided to examine Absorb LMS. While it is not a free or open-sourced learning management system option, I have seen it used in many private sector organizations and some not-for-profit.

Please take a look at the below presentation. To increase the size of the presentation, select the two arrow icon in the lower right-hand corner.

Absorb LMS by Amanda Klassen

The article I propose as an essential addition to the course is “Supporting Self-Determined Indigenous Innovations: Rethinking the Digital Divide in Canada” by Winter & Boudreau (2018). In this article, Winter & Boudreau critique traditional western notions of the digital divide, arguing that most policies and opinions “focus far too heavily on what technology can do for Indigenous peoples – not what Indigenous peoples have and can do with technology” (2018, p.40). The colonial imaginary, which is still very much alive today, positions indigenous peoples and communities as reliant on the progress of other nations and communities. However, innovation and technology are and have always been part of indigenous systems of knowledge and culture.

To illustrate indigenous innovation, Winter & Boudreau present several case studies: Digital Storytelling, Virtual Landscapes, and Makerspaces. Each of the case studies demonstrates the diverse ways indigenous people and communities are utilizing digital technologies and media to articulate and redefine identity and indigenous representation in media, sustain cultural knowledge and practices, and rewrite indigenous history away from the colonial gaze. Instead of using technologies in typical ways, Winter & Boudreau argue that indigenous people and communities not only recreate technology uses to fit indigenous ways and knowledge but are also helping shape technology (2018).  For example, virtual technologies are being utilized to create real and imagined virtual indigenous spaces representative of indigenous knowledge systems (Winter & Boudreau, 2018). Similarly, digital and virtual spaces are interwoven with indigenous traditions and practices through storytelling and eldership. Video games as a medium, with its use of story, design, and sound, provides a rich platform that compliments oral traditions of storytelling and creates a pathway to cultural preservation and revitalization (Winter & Boudreau, 2018). Through Makerspaces, technology and mentorship with elders meet, as youth learn to make traditional goods and jewellery with new technologies, such as 3D printing (Winter & Boudreau, 2018).

Winter & Boudreau (2018) conclude by rejecting need-based and solution-oriented programs to solve the digital divide, as such solutions reaffirm colonial myths of technology and innovation. Instead, they argue that indigenous innovations often “lie at the intersection of art and innovation, promoting a STEAM (science, technology, engineering, art, and math)” (Winter & Boudreau, 2018, p. 45). Indigenous cultural knowledge has always been evolving through “a living embodied practice” (as cited in Winter & Boudreau, 2018, pg. 45). As this article challenges traditional western views of technology, innovation, and indigeneity in Canada, I recommend it as an addition to the course.

References

Winter, J., & Boudreau, J. (2018). Supporting self-determined indigenous innovations: Rethinking the digital divide in Canada. Technology Innovation Management Review, 8(2), 38-48.

In my teaching context, blockchain is a technology that is starting to remediate technologies and business practices. At its core, blockchain is a technology that permanently records verifiable transactional information in an encrypted decentralized network that cannot be manipulated by third parties (Turkanovic et al., 2018). As the information is contained in a decentralized network, it makes unauthorized access or ‘hacking’ almost impossible. In my organization, we have recently started using Org Book, a blockchain project led by the Government of BC that provides users with a searchable general ledger of verified BC business information. Prior to Org Book, verifying BC business information required opening accounts, filling out forms, and visiting brick and mortar offices. Org book has streamlined how we obtain business information and our ability to discern a business’s legitimacy and compliance with the Province of BC.

Org Book and other blockchain technologies are remediating local records and databases used to store business and personal information. Prior to Org Book, one often needed to request information from several different government and affiliate offices to obtain the same information, as the information was stored on a local database specific to individual offices. As Bolter and Grusin (2000) argue, remediation has economic, cultural, and social aspects. The reduction in sources and interactions inherent in blockchain’s general ledger reduces administrative time and costs, which increases Org Book’s economic viability as remediation for local databases. As government and educational institutions are often targets for hackers, the decentralized network reduces costs, social risks, and cultural fear associated with fraud and identity theft, solidifying blockchain’s economic, social and cultural place in the remediation of local databases and record keeping. Turkanovic et al. (2018) note a similar dynamic in educational record-keeping and credential verification in the blockchain pilot EduCTX.

While blockchain offers increased security and access to information, it is not without risks. Loss of information due to lost keys or passwords is a drawback, as evidenced by the recent $190 million cryptocurrency lost due to lost password (Cuthbertson, 2019). On one extreme, fear of fraud and identity theft have led to the unalterable decentralized network of blockchain for protection, while on the other extreme, the unalterable decentralized network may lead to losing access to information with no recourse. The changing dynamic of blockchain is reminiscent of McLuhan’s tetrad, as the technology for record-keeping seems to flip to its opposite when under pressure. However, it is the social and economic pressures that flip record-keeping technology aligning with Bolter and Grusin’s (2000) remediation.

References:

Bolter, J.& Grusin, R. (2000). Networks of remediation. In Remediation: Understanding New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cuthbertson, A. (2019, February 5). Millions of dollars of cryptocurrency lost after man dies with only password. Independent. Retrieved from https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/bitcoin-exchange-quadrigacx-password-cryptocurrency-scam-a8763676.html.

Turkanovic, M., Holbl, M., Kosic, K., Hericko, M., & Kamisalic, A. (2018). Eductx: a blockchain-based higher education credit platform. IEEE Access, 6, 5112-5127.

Jean Jacques Rousseau was a radical educational theorist for his time. In the 18^th century Europe, if you were lucky enough to receive an education, as de Castell & Luke (1983) point out, the focus was on religion and the Bible (p. 373). Recitation and repetition were central to pedagogy, while comprehension was not emphasized (de Castell & Luke, 1983). Rousseau deviated from popular educational thinking by introducing the idea of student-centred pedagogy (van Kleeck & Schuele, 2010). To Rousseau, education should focus on the unique development and interests of each child to promote and protect their natural goodness (Betram, C, 2018). The goal of education was to cultivate freethinking citizens who would pursue their interests. While only controversial to a modern-day reader, Rousseau’s theory argued for a different type of education for women, one that focused on domestic servitude (Lewis, 2019).

Below is a paradigm chart outlining the main features of Rousseau’s educational theory. To develop this chart, I used de Castell & Luke (1983) as a model. While many of the elements are similar, some were removed, as they were not relevant to Rousseau’s theory. For example, the “curriculum” section was removed, as the curriculum would be highly subjective and dependent on the child, development stage, and interests. In lieu of some of these elements, I added one for “place of learning”, as Rousseau’s position on the place of education is a unique feature for the 18^th century. Finally, the elements are separated by gender, as Rousseau’s theory also made distinctions based on gender (Lewis, 2019).

Click the arrow icon to see chart in full screen.

https://www.canva.com/design/DADnRLGGpAE/view

As Rousseau’s educational theory is student-centred and subjective, so too are the educational tools and technologies. Games, exercising the senses, and informal learning experiences are tools and technologies that Rousseau introduces (van Kleeck & Schuele, 2010), replacing the Bible, repetition, and recitation.

While Rousseau’s ideas were controversial, his impact on educational theory can still be felt today through student-centred philosophy, gamification, and age/interest appropriate activities.

References:

Betram, C. (2018). Jean Jacques Rousseau. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rousseau/.

de Castell, S., & Luke, A. (1983). Defining literacy in North American schools: Socio historical conditions and consequences. In in de Castell, Luke and Egan (Eds) Literacy, Society, and Schooling. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Lewis, J. (2019, July 14). Rousseau’s take on women and education. ThoughtCo. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/rousseau-on-women-and-education-3528799.

van Kleeck, A., & Schuele, C. (2010). Historical perspectives on literacy in early childhood. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 19, 341-355.

Encyclopedias by Amanda Klassen

To increase size of presentation above, click the double arrow icon in lower right-hand corner.

In this presentation, the encyclopedia is examined using the Mcluhan tetrad to situate it within its historical and technological context.  The history is unpacked further by outlining its history from antiquity to present day and how the technology, access, authorship, and validation has changed along with this history. Finally, rounding off the presentation, I end with a short curated list of resources for further information on the history of encyclopedias.

While the history of encyclopedias was a new topic to me, I cannot say I found it surprising as it is similar to other text-based technologies. One of the things that fascinates me is how its history oscillates between stringent content validation and less authoritative reviews. For example, some of the criticisms of Wikipedia are similar to the pre-Enlightenment era encyclopedia. The pre-Enlightenment era encyclopedia was criticized for its religious authority leanings in much the same way as Wikipedia is criticized as non-academic and unverified content. It will be interesting to see the next iteration of the encyclopedic technology and how it treats sourcing of content–my guess is a more sophisticated system of validating information via Artificial Intelligence.

The wordcloud is a visual depiction of the contents of this post.

Media ecology is an interdisciplinary line of inquiry that emphasizes the influence media, communications, technology and environments have on each other and how they impact the structure, organization, and place of social, economic, and political activities. By viewing media as environments, media ecology seeks to encompass the history, present state, and future of technology, media, and communications to uncover less obvious aspects of human activity (Strate & Lum, 2000). Critical to this line of thinking is the analysis of how the affordances and biases of media and technology shape the environments in which we construct our understanding of the world (Lum, 2000). While environments are the containers where media and technology live and evolve, media ecology stretches the idea of environment into media. As de Castell, Droumeva, & Jenson state “If media ecology is the study of media as environments, then media ecology may also legitimately extend to the study of environments as media” (2014, p. 76).

An educational media ecology applies the idea of media as environments and environments as media to the context of education. As de Castell, Droumeva, & Jenson illustrate with the idea of “building as interface”, the environment can be both a noun and a verb (2014). As a noun, the environment is a thing, a building or structure, but as a verb, it is transformed into a medium (de Castell, Droumeva, & Jenson, 2014). While this notion may seem particularly abstract, the dual existences of media and environments help dissect the pedagogical selections we make as educators. As we make selections, we are not only shaping educational environments, but we are also shaping the medium of education. Each of our selections biases and affords different ways of knowing, being, and communicating. Examining our selections from an educational media ecology perspective allows us to uncover elements and biases of media, technology, and environments that we have taken for granted and impact ways of knowing, being, and communicating in educational spaces.  As technologies, media, and environments evolve, they do not do so in isolation. Rather, an educational media ecology perspective asks us to analyze how these elements interact and transform each other. Instead of learning theories that focus on how learning happens, educational media ecology draws attention to the ways media and environments afford, enable, or distract ways of knowing, being, and communicating in educational spaces.

References

de Castell, S., Droumeva, M. & Jenson, J. (2014). Building as interface: Sustainable educational ecologies.  MedienPädagogik, 24, 75-91.

Gray, P. (2008, August 20). A brief history of education. Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/freedom-learn/200808/brief-history-education.

Strate, L. & Lum, C. (2000) Lewis Mumford and the ecology of technics. New Jersey Journal of Communication, 8(1), 56-78.