Prior to enrolment in the MET
program, my definition of ET would have centered around the gadgets of
technology; computers, Smart-boards, video streaming and the like. Since, the learning theories of Dick and Carey
along with Reigeluth and others have illuminated my definition, and have forced
me to consider research, and indeed theory.
The readings on the history of the definition of ET produced much
anxiety, mostly because of the language involved. I found that I do not possess enough
back-ground language to easily follow the discourse.
In her post, Nicola states, “I
think the concepts of technology and education transcend the language used to
define them”. Thank you. Since ET is a complex idea, any definition
requires complex language, subject to interpretation and refinement, much like
technology and education themselves.
My definition of ET still includes
stuff, and being a guy I like the “toys of our trade”. I know consider what
affordances our toys offer, rather than just a means to an end. And I will never look at a silver chalice in
the same way again.