My thoughts are many. Below you can read, consider, and comment (if you like) on a select collection of my modular thoughts.
Module 1: The Definition of Educational Technology
The term educational technology has been defined numerous times since the early 1960’s. Those who have attempted to define it seem to agree that educational technology emphasizes a process, a theory, a field, and a profession. Educational technology is larger in scope than the traditional view of technology as a machine based field.
Some of the criticism discussed by Januszewski (2001) is that the definition of the field is confused further by including both the hardware and the process orientation of instructional technology as well as considering the culture of those affected by the technology into the definition of Educational technology. As you widen the scope, it is argued that you further confuse the study of the theory and practices of educational technology.
Considering that numerous researchers have defined the field in their own way, altered the definition, or proposed a new iteration of the term, why don’t we just put an end to the debate and embrace educational technology for everything it is? Celebrate that educational technology spans all facets of learning, and economy. If we did stop the debates (so to speak) would we ill-legitimize the field, or as Petrina and Feng (2009) may say, would educational technology lose its currency?
References
Januszewski, A. (2001). Educational technology: The development of a concept. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Petrina, S. & Feng, F. (2008). Primer for defining and theorizing technology in education, pt. 1. Vancouver, BC: Tech no-Printing Press.
Module 2: The Philosophy of Educational Technology
To say so much and yet so little
I found The Question Concerning Technology by Martin Heidegger to be broad and repetitive. Early in the paper Heideggger accused the definition of technology of being obscure, and I felt that his paper didn’t clear up much; it actually left me wondering, so what?
This is what I think Heidegger was trying to suggest: We should define technology not by the machine that it produces, but by the product that is a result of its use. Concern ourselves with the outcome that technology aids in producing in an effort not to “remain obscure and groundless” (p.3). To do so, Heidegger (2007) argues that we must first consider to what degree the technology is responsible for the product.
Do you have an opinion as to what degree of responsibility is acceptable? I am unsure but will hazard a guess and say at least 50 percent of the product must be a result of the use of the technology to be considered technological.
Reference
Heidegger, M. (1953/1977). The question concerning technology. In M. Heidegger, The question concerning technology and other essays (trans. W. Lovitt) (pp. 3-35). New York: Harper & Row. Retrieved from http://simondon.ocular-witness.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/question_concerning_technology.pdf
Module 3: The Design Of Educational Technology
The question that Kozma (1994) concludes his article with: “In what ways can we use the capabilities of media to influence learning for particular students, tasks, and situations?” (p.18) can be a catalyst to embrace all of our thoughts and the debate on the issue of implementing educational technology to advance learning.
The question we should be asking is not: What technology is best? The better question to ask is: What is the relationship between the technology and the instructional method, and how do we exploit that relationship?
Kozma suggests that digital natives may embrace the technology and apply the technological tools to their learning faster than digital novices. The students who have grown up with technology, and who are used to multitasking, splitting their focus, and working with various media at one time, may instinctively respond better than students from a different culture, a culture not as reliant on technology. Clark (1994) argues that media itself offers no benefits to learning. It must be noted that both Clark and Kozma made these arguments in the early 1990s, when the technological revolution was just beginning. Is it possible that there are students in the developed world who are ‘digital novices’ today? I don’t agree, and I think the digital native generation began with the introduction of the Internet, and with generation Y.
As teachers who want to influence education through the use of technology, we must consider how we motivate our students, how we link our instruction to the world outside of school, and how we build our student’s confidence, retention of the material, and facilitate their learning. We don’t need to worry about what technology to use, but rather how we will use the technology.
References
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.
Module 4: The Ethics & Jurisprudence of Educational Technology
Can you make me a copy Miss?
Did anyone else feel like they were reading a satire as they read Kavita Philip’s article, “What is a technological author? The pirate function and intellectual property”?
I will choose to concentrate this post on Philips (2005) assertion that “a particular kind of ripping off happens on the margins of the industrialized world, among the ‘less developed’ members of the WTO, at the apparent edges of the reach of western liberal democratic law” (p.207). I lived and taught in a suburb of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia for three years (2008 – 2011). During this time I taught grade 12 communications technology. I averaged 90 students a semester, their ages ranged from 17 to 21. Forty percent of my students were Malaysian; the other 60% came from Indonesia, Bangladesh, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Korea, Japan, China, and India. I wouldn’t argue that these countries are not as developed as Canada, but my students would be considered wealthy, even by Western standards. They drove to school in BMW’s, they wore designer clothes, and they paid Canadian tuition for their Canadian degree. I wouldn’t call them uncivilised, would you?
My point is that digital piracy is not limited to the ‘margins of the industrialized world’. It is a result of technological innovation. How can you be innovative, progressive, and captivate an audience (as Microsoft and Apple do) and not expect people to try to copy your success?
I don’t support copyright infringement. In fact, I devoted a unit of study on copyright protection and sat on an anti-plagiarism board when I worked in Malaysia. I do however laugh at the notion that the problem is a result of an undemocratic (same same but different) society. 😉
Reference
Philip, K. (2005). What is a technological author? The pirate function and intellectual property. Postcolonial Studies, 8(2), 199-218.
Module 5: The Anthropology & Sociology of Educational Technology
Does technology bring about unique cultures. Is there a specific culture for educational technology. If so what defines it (i.e. customs, beliefs, practices, etc.)? If not, why?
I always used to think that an individual’s culture comes from wherever in the world that individual is from. Culture, I thought, is a collection of customs, taught by your ancestors, and reinforced by society. I taught secondary students in Malaysia for a number of years. Before I arrived in Malaysia I braced myself for a culture shock. A shock I never received.
Does technology bring about unique cultures?
A closer look at Malaysia:
- Malaysia has one of the world’s slowest internet connections (I thought this was relevant considering we are discussing culture and technology)
- Is a developing nation (because there is a great disparity of wealth and virtually no middle class – you are either wealthy or poor)
- Is racially mixed: Malay about 50%, Chinese 25%, Indigenous 10%, Indian 10%, and non-Malaysians
- Is religiously mixed: Islam, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Sikhism
- Has multiple national languages: Malay, Cantonese, Hokkien, Mandarin Chinese, English, Tamil, and Indigenous.
- Is not a true democratic country. The same people have been in charge for over 50 years, and Malay’s have more privileges under the law than any non-Malay. Even if we are comparing two individuals who were born and raised in Malaysia.
Considering this list you would expect that a Canadian Computer teacher would be faced with a considerable culture shock when teaching computers in a Malaysian school, to students from South East Asia. As I said above there was no shock. My computer lab had 30 brand new computers, each equipped with the Adobe Creative Suite CS5 (the newest at the time), I had a smart board, and a state of the art sound system in the lab.
My students paid tuition, they were rich by South East Asian standards, but more appropriately middle class by Canadian standards.
Every student had a cell phone (some two), and could text in shorthand English, even if they spoke poor English, they sent SMS messages to each other in an abbreviated English.
Does technology bring about a unique culture?
I really don’t know. I think it might, but I think that technology is globally accessible and as such, culture is more dependent on society, on economy, and on politics. Even people in the smallest villages, and who live in isolated islands, have computers, cell phones, and a slow internet connection.
I wasn’t shocked by the culture when I arrived in Malaysia, I was surprisingly shocked by the culture when I returned to Canada.
Module 6: The History of Educational Technology
“In your opinion, have these vast changes significantly improved the education of today? If so, has it come at an expense?”
I think that the educational system in the Twenty-First Century better reflects the needs of a post millennial society. That is not the say that the computer has significantly improved education, but that education has adapted to the changing needs of business and economy.
If we didn’t teach our children how to research effectively, and how to present their ideas creatively, we wouldn’t be investing in our future. We live in a global world and to ignore that the economies of our world are driven by technology would be disservice, and in my opinion, plain old ignorance.
You know what they say: “ignorance is bliss”, but I ask you is it smart?
David Roy shared this video on Google+ today and I thought that it was far too appropriate not to share with everyone. 🙂 Tara
Reference
MARTEduEMEA (2011, Oct 3). The History of Technology in Education [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UFwWWsz_X9s
Module 7: The Politics & Political Economy of Educational Technology
Although education can provide the competencies and skills to improve people’s lives, how can it be a priority in the third world countries where basic necessities such as clean drinking water and waste disposal takes priority. Or does education provide the platform through which these countries can emerge and participate in the global market?
Always a controversial topic!
The readings this week made me consider something that I haven’t considered before. We all believe that education empowers people, gives them a voice and choice. The unfortunate reality however, is that third world countries have such imminent problems, such as poverty, economic hardship, corruption, revolution, and the quality of life, to concern themselves with that conducting research to prove that educational technology will help them is not a priority. In other words, we speculate that technology can help the problem, but without proof and a plan that includes cultural concerns, we may never know for sure how educational technology can be best used. We can’t spread our Western ideals and expect others to follow. We wouldn’t take kindly to such a invasion here in the West, and neither will the third world.
The third world needs proof that educational technology will help them, they need to devise a plan that places technology into mainstream and makes it accessible, but frankly they need to stop the fighting first. I imagine this is what they are most concerned about, or perhaps it should be?
Like I said, always a controversial topic 😉 Tara
Module Readings
Haraway, D. (1985). A manifesto for cyborgs. Socialist Review, 15(2), 65-107.
Kahn, R. & Kellener, D. (2007). Paulo Freire and Ivan Illich: Technology, politics and the reconstruction of education. Policy Futures in Education, 5(4). Retrieved from http://richardkahn.org/writings/tep/freireillich.pdf
Module 8: The Psychology & Phenomenology of Educational Technology
Many ideas stood out for me from Turkle’s article, allow me to discuss two in this thread:
Turkle writes, ““a metaphor first suggested to me by a 13-year-old girl who said, ‘When you program a computer there is a little piece of your mind, and now it’s a little piece of the computer’s mind. And now you can see it.’” (p.21). As a programming student myself, this metaphor spoke to me personally. I have spent many long sleepless nights trying to sort out the code, and never once considered that upon my success a piece of me, my thoughts, would be transposed onto the screen. I suppose I thought: “if only I can get this to work, I will be able to teach it tomorrow!” Looking back, I don’t think my motivation was strong enough.
This leads me to my second quote: Turkle writes, “the people who make the most of their lives on the screen are those who are capable of approaching it in a spirit of self-reflection. What does my behavior in cyberspace tell me about what I want, who I am, what I may not be getting in the rest of my life?” (p.22) I have read the discussion threads from within our class and self reflection seems to be a common theme. Everyone of us who has been through teachers college knows how to reflect (haha) but I suspect that some of us may not have considered teaching our students to reflect upon their technology use, and to look within themselves to find their intrinsic motivation.
Reference
Turkle, S. (2004). Whither psychoanalysis in computer culture. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 21(1), 16-30.
Module 9: The Economics of Educational Technology
You can follow this link to a webpage created by myself, and two classmates on The Economics of Educational Technology.
Module 10: The The Ecology of Educational Technology
How do you learn about new technologies (foreign species)? How do you learn how to use new technologies? What role does professional development with technology play in your school?
I have read the discussion (in its entirety) and notice a theme popping up. Most of us learn about new technology from our own initiative. That is, we look it up, join an online group, watch a video, and ask questions. We are not like most teachers in that we are all enrolled in a Master of Educational Technology. I think we agree that we are motivated to learn about new educational technologies, and supplement this with knowledge about how to use the technology to improve our teaching.
We also seem to agree that some teachers just don’t want to bother learning something new. As was discussed in the forum, this could be because we can’t easily measure the effects of technology on teaching and learning. There are too many factors in play. We could try to argue that the technology improved the learning, when in fact it is not the technology alone but the way it is used, taught, and to whom it is taught that all affect achievement.
Considering that technology changes so rapidly, PD can’t seem to stay caught up. I think the reason most of us teach ourselves is because it isn’t economical to have someone else teach us. If you want to use technology effectively you have to commit to the lifelong learning that is required to achieve this goal. It helps if you, like me, are rewarded simply by understanding a new technology, and inspired by its potential use.
Module 11: The Spirituality of Educational Technology
Considering what you’ve learned about society’s increasing search for meaning, is more technology the answer to developing mindfulness or are these technologies just another example of the commercialization of spirituality that move us further away from an authentic spiritual experience?
This is a really complicated issue for me.
One one end, I support technological innovation. I can’t imagine the world without my GPS, my computer, MP3s, PVRs, etc. On the other hand, my personal (face to face) relationships with neighbours, strangers, and people from my community are not that meaningful, and perhaps they should be. Or maybe they don’t have to be?
Is there a right answer?
Is this technology’s fault?
Do you think that the digital age has permanently changed our definition of an authentic spiritual experience?
Perhaps I should explain my own spirituality. I have always believed that people are good, and I have faith in humanity. It’s pretty much that simple. I have never longed for anything, and even though I live in BC, my parents are in Ontario, my best friends are in Ontario, and some are in Malaysia, I feel connected. I would have to credit technology for this. I think it has made our world a lot more accessible. Our relationships have changed. I might argue that it has been for the best.