ETEC 511 e-portfolio

Discussion Questions:

1. How does where you are today (your immediate culture) affect your own philosophy of education? Do you feel that Heidegger in “The Question Concerning Technology” is including YOU when he writes “We” ? Feel free to describe your immediate culture (physical location, position in your career) as well as your personal culture (historical, social) and briefly state your own philosophy of ET.

I think it is basically the whole nature vs. nurture idea. Our thoughts and beliefs are created not only from innate created biology but where we live, what we experience, how we deal with our unique situations. I think that where I am, how I lived my life, and where I’ve been has all helped shaped my own philosophy of education. I think this also includes who I’ve met. I think some of my greatest educational moments is meeting those people who really light a fire under you. My teacher mentors within the school where I first started working, my department head, who is close to retirement but remains as passionate about his subject as they day he started teaching. The fact that he still wants to be there for students both in the classroom and out has made a huge impact on me. This program has created a new fire and passion in my teaching. I want to use what I learn here and find that even though I am still a novice, I feel confident because there are others in the program to help support me.

I like how Heidegger uses “we” in his writing. I think it creates a sense of community, almost forcing you into agreement with him. His inclusion is a brilliant tactic. However, I do not think he is including me. I would like to think he is posing the “we” as a generality.

My culture – hmm hard to describe being Canadian and all…I was born in Winnipeg, Manitoba and moved all around Canada before the age of 10 when we settled in South Surrey, BC. My parents are from Toronto and that fact remains due to their dire love for the Maple Leafs. We are Irish heritage and really all that means to me is that I burn and freckle in the summertime. Our family is planning a pilgrimage to Ireland next summer; I hope to realize some long lost culture. However, I think it is the kindness of my parents, and the Canadian philosophy of life has shaped who I am.

My own personal philosophy of ET: Technology is an important part of today’s world and should be reflected in the classroom. I think technology should not be used because it’s “really cool looking” but because it fosters student learning. I believe ET should be about finding the best technologies, learning how to use them effectively in a manner that promotes constructivist ideals and active student learning. I also think that ET, like education in general, is a lifelong process that needs to be constantly updated and maintained.

2. Rephrase Heidegger’s last line in “The Question Concerning Technology” in your own words. FOR QUESTIONING IS THE PIETY OF THOUGHT.

My rephrase would be “questioning creates answers” I find the more I question the closer I get to answers or even other realizations or connections.

3. Social Media – Is it slipping from our control? But not human control, because it is run by a [human] corporation. Public as a default rather than Private as default is one issue many of us grapple with. How do you manage your use of social media? OR, Does using social media feel like a loss or gain of freedom/independence to you? Why? Please use a concrete example, providing the type of social media (multiple as necessary) you use.

I would like to think that technology does not control me. Just like in ET, it is not the technology that is the problem; it is how the person uses it. Thus, if social media is getting out of control it is our own fault. If you put information about yourself on the internet, expect your privacy to be effected. I think it is personal preference, but there is some social pressure to put ourselves onto these sites. I know that a few of my friends pressured our one friend to join Facebook because we found it easier to talk, and create meeting possibilities. I am not sure she even wanted to join, but did because we finally wore her down. Perhaps we should have thought about the reasons why she didn’t want to join in the first place.

I use Facebook, and I have strict privacy settings. I am not sure it is a loss or gain of freedom/independence. I like that fact that I can get updates on friends, but do they know I am thinking of them? Seems a little impersonal. I would like to think that I gain no new freedom from it, I am putting my thoughts on a webpage essentially. Does anyone care when I update my status to “having an awesome day”? Is it just a way to put into words our own personal feelings? I use Facebook to create group messages so I can get together with friends. I still enjoy talking and seeing them!

4. What are we limiting if we fall into Heidegger’s “enframing trap”? Put another way, what do we as educators need to consider when introducing new technology, given our own “uncreative” thinking tendencies?

I think we need to consider the SECTIONS model by Bates & Poole (2003) to assess the quality of the technology. As educators we need to collaborate. Collaboration leads to new ideas and more creativity! I know that my experience with the DLG proves that the creativity of the group enhances a presentation, a lesson, and how we incorporate technology into the classroom.
S “Students: what is known about the students – or potential students – and the appropriateness of the technology for this particular group or range of students?
E Ease of use and reliability: how easy is it for both teachers and students to use? How reliable and well tested is the technology?
C Costs: what is the cost structure of each technology? What is the unit cost per learner?
T Teaching and learning: what kinds of learning are needed? What instructional approaches will best meet these needs? What are the best technologies for supporting this teaching and learning?
I Interactivity: what kind of interaction does this technology enable?
O Organizational issues: what are the organizational requirements and the barriers to be removed before this technology can be used successfully? What changes in organization need to be made?
N Novelty: how new is this technology?
S Speed: how quickly can courses be mounted with this technology? How quickly can materials be changed?”
(A.W. Bates and G. Poole, 2003, pp. 79 – 80)

5. Compare Ellul’s view that freedom and technology are not compatible (Part 3), with Heidegger who attempts to ‘free” us from our relationship to technology in ‘The Question Concerning Technology’ (first para). Where do you stand? What’s your philosophy?

I like Heidegger’s attempt to “free” us. The way that I interpreted it would be that when we question and understand our use of technology, we are better able to use it in our own creative way. Freedom is an impactful word in Heidegger’s work. When we say we are “freeing” ourselves to me it sounds as if it is something we need to escape from. It is a strong word to use. I think that this freedom is brought about through understanding and something that has already been mentioned within our course – It is not about using technology, it is about understanding how its uses can be manipulated to better our surroundings. Like in ET, we are learning to use the more effective technologies to further develop meaningful learning in our students.

As I was reading the two works by Kozma and Clark, I still could not shake the feeling that something feels wrong. It feels wrong to think that learning is not influenced by media. It makes you think about why it is implemented into the classroom if it has no effect.
Kozma makes a really good point in the re-framing of our investigation of technology and learning. – Kozma states “if we move from ‘do media influence learning?’ to ‘in what ways can we use the capabilities of media to influence learning for particular students, tasks, and situations’ we will both advance the development of our field”

This to me rings true – the idea of reformatting what we are investigating may yield different and more effective results.

Your mention of the “usual uses” is also a great point – the cost and reality is that going to a place or showing a video are drastically different. It would be impossible to physically go explore whereas a video can show them without leaving the classroom. It is hard to argue the effectiveness of it.
It is something that the Kozma reading reinforces – the use of media in that given situation.

I thought I would compare Hawkridge’s Figure 3 Educational technology map with the one created in our Primer. There are many similarities with some aspects having more emphasis in one over the other. As suspected, the Primer has included more current ideas within educational technology. The widespread use of the internet has created other categories of learning such as online learning and computation.

I find it striking that Hawkridge’s map has a great focus on the theories. For example major philosophical and psychological theories are embedded within. There is cognitive, systems, sociology, philosophy, social psychology etc. Whereas theories was present, but not a major focus in the Primer version. The Primer version had the environment as significant, but Hawkridge has a whole category for it.
Yet some aspects remain significant in both maps. Information processing has emphasis in each map indicating the importance of learning and the ways we acquire learning.

MODULE 4
The Anthropology & Sociology of Educational Technology
________________________________________

Our Website: module4.wordpress.com/

Our Team: Rachel Fales, Lindsey Martin, Dan Ceraldi, Everton Walker and Carmen Mihu

Contents:

(i) Schedule of Activities
(ii) List of Readings
(iii) Key Terms
(iv) Overviews
(v) Discussion Questions
(iv) Vista Live Forum Participation
________________________________________
ACTIVITY SCHEDULE
September 30, 2010 Do the readings for Module 4
Familiarize yourselves with our website
October 1, 2010 Choose one question out of the 5 and answer in Vista
October 2, 2010 Choose one other posting by your peers and reply to it in Vista
October 3, 2010 Watch the Digital Story and join us for discussion in Vista chat @ 7:00 pm Vancouver time. (check last entry in handout)
October 4, 2010 Comment in our blog on our overall presentation of Module 4
READINGS
1. Monahan, T. (2005). Technological cultures. In Globalization, technological change and public education (pp. 73-92). New York: Routledge.

2. 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.

3. Petrina, S. (2007). What is culture? Vancouver, BC: Tech no-Printing Press.
________________________________________

KEY TERMS
Anthropology
1: the science of human beings; especially :
the study of human beings and their ancestors
through time and space and in relation to
physical character, environmental and social
relations, and culture

2: theology dealing with the origin, nature,
and destiny of human beings”.
(Merriam-Webster, 2010).
Sociology
1: the science of society, social institutions, and social relationships; specifically : the systematic study of the development, structure, interaction, and collective behavior of organized groups of human beings
2: the scientific analysis of a social institution as a functioning whole and as it relates to the rest of society”. (Merriam-Webster, 2010).
What exactly is an IT Specialist?
The IT Specialist essentially is a knowledge worker. Within the realm of education it entails many levels of technology proficiency. Please click on the link below which takes you to the ISTE (International Society in Technology Education) website. Note the different levels and skills required of the IT specialist.
http://www.iste.org/content/navigationmenu/nets/fortechnologyfacilitatorsandleaders/technology_facilitation_standards.htm#Tech
The Sociology of Educational Technology
Below is a concept map regarding the key terms and useful information for the sociology of educational technology. Please click on the image to see the larger format.
________________________________________

OVERVIEW OF READINGS
What is culture?
This article seeks to explore the dynamics of culture through simple and complex definitions and explanations based on how it is viewed in cultural studies and by anthropologists; complex and simple as can be seen in numbers one and two respectively.
1. the act of developing the intellectual and moral
faculties especially by education; enlightenment
and excellence of taste acquired by intellectual
and aesthetic training.
2. the customary beliefs, social forms, and material
3. traits of a racial, religious, or social group.

It presents a deeper understanding of the term and on several occasions deviates from the average person’s understanding of the term. However, with clear explanations, the keywords of the term are maintained; namely: social forms, customary beliefs, material traits from racial and religious groups. In addition, the way educators usually view and interpret culture is outlined; for example, multi-culturalism, the way different cultures around the world celebrate, tolerate, interact with and treat diversity and difference. Also, the components of culture in any given society are identified and documented in understandable bits based on cultural anthropologists, Beals, Hoijer and Beals (1977). They view the components as follows:
• a group or society consisting of a set of members
• an environment or context where the members carry on characteristic activities
• a material culture consisting of the equipment and artefacts used by the members
• a cultural tradition that represents the historically accumulated decisions of the members
• the human activities, rituals, and behaviours emerging out of complex interactions among the members, the environment, the material culture and the cultural tradition

Tech Cultures
In this chapter, Monahan discusses the
technological cultures, in particular, those
of the emerging occupational groups in
L.A. Unified (Los Angeles Unified School District).
Monahan discusses each group’s roles and their place
within the school district. For example, Instructional
Technology Application Facilitators (ITAFs) at the
local district level, responsibilities range from
“communication, translation and negotiation between
school site technology coordinators and
central-level district administrators” (2005, p. 77).
The detailed explanation explains how the formal structure of L.A. Unified functions. Despite the varying roles, specific job expectations and differing value systems, all seem to be working towards a similar goal of: “the integration of information technology into vital organization functions” (Monahan, 2005 p. 91). Furthermore, through the institution of such technological positions within a school district, a shift from traditional power relations between administrators and teachers has occurred. “Power” is less controlled by information hoarding, due to web access. Monahan, however, explains that technology may have neutralized “power”, but has created more job security and resource control for the technologists within the district (2005).
There may be a finite infrastructure within the school district, but it has sometimes reverted to informal networks. These informal networks, such as converting shops into computer labs, have helped support the systems of technology within the district. Overall, the technological cultures of L.A. Unified School District may be complex yet informal, all work towards the integration of information technology and destabilization of traditional power relations between administrators and teachers, while occasionally reverting to informal networks.
Sociology of ET
How should we move towards creating a Sociology
of Educational Technology? Kerr’s goal is explicit.
After pointing out the significant absence of meaningful
research in this field, Kerr attempts to fill this academic
void. He clearly outlines four specific aims:
i ) to determine what ought to be the contents of a
sociology of educational technology
ii) to review the pertinent articles in this field
iii) to investigate and draw from wider related areas
of influence on the stated goal and
iv) to set the course for future research and development of the topic.
In terms of the ‘contents’, Kerr recognizes the need to satisfy the specific needs of two distinct audiences – educators (and their connected stakeholders) and sociologists. For sociologists, Kerr focuses on an investigation of collaborative learning environments, on explaining social roles and on the ‘organic ness’ of organizations. For educators, he examines the nature of interpersonal relationships between the various stakeholders, and two aspects of social reform- i) systemic social imbalances and disadvantages inside and outside of traditional education and ii) an attempt to promote progressive changes in education’s ‘bureaucratic’ structure. Kerr also rightly points out inherent ideological nature of education technology when seen as a distinct social movement. In doing so, he rightly points out the common resistance of ‘technocrats’ to admit that their science is value laden.
In addition, Kerr involves all concerned parties by examining schools as organizations
Then widens the conversation by discussing the social characteristics of non-traditional (informal) learning environments (i.e museums, and the Internet).Kerr also briefly illuminates the necessary difference, benefits and underutilization, of using sociological research methods (surveys, and participant observation) versus traditional educational ones.
Throughout the article, Kerr repeatedly weaves questions concerning the role, relevance and impact of educational technology on each topic of discussion. For example, Kerr highlights woman, minorities, and economic class as traditionally disadvantaged’ groups and discusses the extensive research in gender, and minorities, in regards to their ‘unique’ relationship to education technology . At the same time, he identifies the lack of research in the relationship of economic class and the use and impact of technology.
Kerr concludes by highlighting the ‘real’ impact of educational technology on the society of education. For Kerr , it’s the ability of educational technology to change the ‘way things are done in school ‘– from social interactions, to teachers decisions, to creating positive social change and to promoting and encouraging an individual’s social responsibility to invoke change – for a ‘better world’.
________________________________________

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
Please choose 1 of the following 5 questions and post the answer to Vista, under the corresponding question. Also, please reply to one other post on any of these questions:
1. According to Monahan, “many high schools and most middle schools cannot fund” and do not have specific technology positions in place (2005, p. 76). Is this the case where you work? Or are ‘tech-enthusiasts’ willing to take on the extra responsibilities without the extra pay?
2. Kerr concludes that educational technology primary impact on schools is on its sociology (on social reactions and the look and feel of classrooms) rather than on instructional learning and transference of skills. Do you agree or disagree? Why?
3. “Culture can also be defined as a circuit of power, ideologies, and values in which diverse images and sounds are produced and circulated, identities are constructed, inhabited, and discarded, agency is manifested in both individualized and social forms, and discourses are created, which make culture itself the object of inquiry and critical analyses.” Given the introduction of technology in education, how would you say identities are constructed, inhabited, and discarded?
4. Is the digital divide something we still need to be aware of? Is there a new international digital divide? In our increasing technical world, are there any solutions for those who have limited or no access to technology?
5. In your teaching environment, how does culture impact your practice, selection of teaching and learning materials and relationship with students? What should be put in place to create the perfect classroom environment for multicultural groups?
________________________________________

VISTA LIVE FORUM PARTICIPATION
NOTE: For the live forum, you will all be participating in your Module group in one of the chat rooms available in Vista. There are 5 rooms in total and 6 groups. Below is a guide outlining what groups will be participating in which room.
Vista chat groups – Chat time will be Sunday, October 3rd at 7pm Vancouver time. If you are unable to make it to the chat due to scheduling issues we will post the chat transcripts on Vista so you can catch up.
The following groups will report to “The Foundations” chat in Vista:
(monitor – Lindsey Martin)

DLG 3
Leslie Dawes
Christie Robertson
Jennifer Stieda
Janet Galbraith
Gurneet Anan d

DLG 5
Darren Hutchings
Shari Virjee
Kenneth Buis
Jaki Braidwood

The following groups will report to “The Excavation” chat in Vista:
(monitor – Rachel Fales)

DLG 6
Yurim Debby Kim
Tamara Wong
Diana Wilkes
Lucy How
Julie Simonsen
DLG 7
Paul Quinlan
Alison Baillie
Timothy Oborn
Keely Switzer

The following groups will report to “The Infrastructure” chat in Vista:
(monitor – Dan Ceraldi)

DLG 8
Perdeep Samra
Debra-Ann Davidson
Kyo Yoon
Barbara Mair Rowberry

DLG 9
Joseph Turco
Devinder Deol
David Horn
Benjamin Cooperman

The following groups will report to “The house of cards” chat in Vista:
(monitor – Carmen Mihu)

DLG 10
Kenton Hemsing
Keisha Edwards-Hamilton
Kerry-Ann Henry
Carmen Cheung

DLG 11
Denise Flick
Shierley Chelliah
Thu Pham
Conroy Hall
Jonathon Brady-Patry

Here is how it should happen:

Meeting Sunday Oct, 3 2010 @ 7pm Vancouver time.
Will post what really happened after!!

The following groups will report to “The Foundations” chat in Vista:
(monitor – Lindsey Martin)

DLG 3
Leslie Dawes
Christie Robertson
Jennifer Stieda
Janet Galbraith
Gurneet Anan d

DLG 5
Darren Hutchings
Shari Virjee
Kenneth Buis
Jaki Braidwoo d

The following groups will report to “The Excavation” chat in Vista:
(monitor – Carmen Mihu)

DLG 6
Yurim Debby Kim
Tamara Wong
Diana Wilkes
Lucy How
Julie Simonse n

DLG 7
Paul Quinlan
Alison Baillie
Timothy Oborn
Keely Switzer

The following groups will report to “The Infrastructure” chat in Vista:
(monitor – Dan Ceraldi)

DLG 8
Perdeep Samra
Debra-Ann Davidson
Kyo Yoon
Barbara Mair Rowberry

DLG 9
Joseph Turco
Devinder Deol
David Horn
Benjamin Cooperman

The following groups will report to “The house of cards” chat in Vista:
(monitor – Rachel Fales)

DLG 10
Kenton Hemsing
Keisha Edwards-Hamilton
Kerry-Ann Henry
Carmen Cheung

The following groups will report to “The Skyscraper” chat in Vista:
(monitor – Everton Walker)

DLG 11
Denise Flick
Shierley Chelliah
Thu Pham
Conroy Hall
Jonathon Brady-Patry

Cyberpunk
By Lindsey Martin

Cyberpunk is a genre with science fictions root that was created in the 1980’s. The term was coined by Bruce Bethke in his 1983 short story, Cyberpunk. The word Cyberpunk is derived from the word “cybernetics”, which is a study of communication and control in the organic and machine, and the world “punk”, which refers to the rebellious counterculture of the 1970’s.

Cyberpunk is a response to our use of technology and very much ingrained in postmodern ideals. It began as a literary genre, but has since broken out into film, music, fashion, anime, and architecture. Those who identify themselves as cyberpunk idolize the vigilante characters from the literature.

The most influential pieces of literature of the cyberpunk movement include William Gibson’s 1984 novel, Neuromancer, The 1982 film, Blade Runner, and most recently, the 1999 film, The Matrix. All three of these cyberpunk icons have similarities that qualify them as being part of the genre.

The typical Cyberpunk plot is set in the not so distant future, where society is dystopic, industrial, bleak and regulated. It is a setting where government is corrupt, usually run by multinational corporations. Technology has become highly integrated into all aspects of society. Technology is not only incorporated into daily life, but also within the human body. Many cyberpunk tales incorporate the world of smart drugs, nanotechnology, and the integration of human and machine. The world in which the characters reside is not entirely real. There is a blur between reality and virtual reality to the point where characters are blended in a computer matrix and hallucinations. The typical cyberpunk protagonist is often portrayed as someone just on the outside of society, a malcontent or misfit. Often the cyberpunk protagonist is a hacker or someone proficient in the use of technology. The protagonist is often noted as a non-conformist who has already accepted the life that technology has brought them into. The character is often described as “going along for the ride”. A true cyberpunk main character acts as a heroic vigilante, who attempts to manipulate the technological system in order to “just get by” (as shown in the character Neo in the 1999 film The Matrix). What is most fascinating about the cyberpunk movement is the fact that it refers to the not so distant future and thus it is too late to fix the issues. It can then be interpreted that cyberpunk literature provides us with no real cautionary tales. has malfunctioned in ways never anticipated by its creators.

There are critics who state that Cyberpunk was a 1980’s movement that fizzled out with the end of the decade. There are others who suggest cyberpunk remains at the forefront of 21st century minds. They argue that the genre remains relevant due to the fact that the predictions and theories of 1980’s cyberpunk are becoming a reality.

Further Reading:

Jones, S. (2003). Encylopedia of New Media: An Essential Reference to Communication and Technology. New York, New York: The Moschovitis Group.

This is the photostory for our DLG 4. I created it from the images our group generated from the keywords in our module readings. I then created it on Photostory 3. I think it turned out well!

The question:
o What happens to e-learning, educational technology, learning technologies, and new media if and when we can no longer rely on their foundations or when foundations shift?

I wanted to address this fundamental question within the foundations section of our course. I think this is an interesting question to look at. As we saw with the definitions of educational technology, when our thinking or philosophical thinking is changed we must re-define what we have previously stated. The definitions of educational technology shifted with the move from behavioural to cognitive thinking etc. Perhaps we must look at it within the structure of learning in general. When we learn new material we must decide if it is reasonable and then commit it to our knowledge-base. Sometimes this changes how we view a previously learned topic. As with e (with a small e) learning, educational technology, learning technologies, and new media, new information will come up, new philosophies etc. what is important is that we evaluate the changes and embrace. If we cannot rely on foundations, perhaps we rely on new ones. Change (for the most part) only occurs in learning if we are willing to allow it.
I also really like this statement:
“This course is designed from a basis that educational media and learning technologies are not merely tools; educational premises are neither fully durable nor pliable; and actors or agents of education are not merely humans”
I think it reflect the dynamics of educational technology as a field.

I have been having so much fun tooning ET!

Here is one I made just for fun!!