Synthesis of Ideas about Educational Technology
"What do I know and what don't I know
about educational technology?"
This response was written in the middle of
my fifth semester in the doctoral program, which is the
time of comprehensive examinations. A perfect time to reflect
I what I don't know! My Knowledge Base and Portfolio are
a synthesis of much of the knowledge I have gained, that
is, what I know about educational technology. I have written
a brief summary of what I believe
I know at the end of this page. There are, naturally, questions
that remain unanswered.
Online learning: Who is learning?
I hold serious concern for the efficacy of
online learning. I have not read significant results of
any study that indicates online learning is truely effective
for achieving educational objectives. While some learners
benefit from self-guided instruction, I know that is not
the case for all learners. Online learning requires a lot
of self-regulation and motivation, abilities many learners
need help in developing. In a few online courses I have
seen, it seems the designers had difficulty in determining
how to assess higher order thinking skills. Is online learning
confined to the lower levels of Bloom's taxonomy?
Why are corporations, companies, colleges
and universities investing such large amounts of money and
resources into a technological learning system that has
not proven significant achievement of educational objectives?
Perhaps, there is hope for a breakthrough in design and
development that will raise the standard for online learning
environments. Pragmatically, it may be that investments
are made for fear of falling technologically behind the
competition.
See also, my concept map about the domains
of distance
education.
Application of educational technology research:
Are we having an impact?
It is generally accepted that impact from
the work within our field is limited in every arena, corporate,
higher education, K-12, government. I think I know why,
but haven't yet read any similar thoughts. It is my developing
understanding that educational technology is primarily a
field oriented towards behavior outcomes. We want learners
to construct new knowledge and learn, so we seek ways to
faciliate that outcome. Our efforts at research using human
subjects is to find the commonalities of people for learning.
At the end of day, we must agree that every person is unique
and subject to change! People develop as they mature and
learn new skills, knowledge and ability. Educational technologists
are constantly trying to hit moving, elusive targets with
instructional treatments. If I said anything that is true,
why is our field being criticized for having a limited impact?
Are we anymore limited in impact that psychology or psycotherapy
or even, dare I say, business management?
Leadership: Which direction?
I have addressed leadership
in educational technology in my Portfolio. I advocate
gains for leadership in higher education, but I do not know
which direction the field would like to make gains. Research?
Government? K-12? I believe from a systemic view, that a
change in leadership within our field must start in higher
education. Colleges and universities provide dual proving
grounds for applications of educational technologies: academics
and administration. Faculty and students are people who
use and can benefit from educational technology innovations.
Start with improving faculty skills in using educational
technology and students will model their behavior. Students
graduate to positions in society where they teach and train
others, often modeling the behavior of their former college
instructors. If I have said anything that is true, why is
there such slow progress in faculty development programs?
Should faculty in instructional technology programs take
the lead for the charge? If not, why not? If so, how?
Educational technology leadership in higher
education is the topic of one presentation
and paper
in my Portfolio. In summary, I advocate the establishment
of higher level administrative positions for educational
technology in colleges and universities where no such position
exists. Within those universities and colleges who, "get
it," I suggest that educational technology practitioners
leap into those positions. As it is now, most positions
of this kind at a senior level are occupied by people who
do not have the specific instructional systems discipline
preparation. While they may be skilled and competent administrators,
doing an excellent job, and advocating the tenets of the
field, I would like to see increasing numbers of my colleagues
assume these leadership roles. I wonder where the interests
of my colleagues in AECT placed.
Systemic change: Can small innovations
lead to systemic change?
Arguments are circulating that systemic
change cannot start small, otherwise it isn't systemic.
Given that every system is subsumed by another suprasystem,
I argue that this viewpoint is trapped in purely theoretical
realm. No practical application of systems theory can be
applied to educational systems
so long as the change agent keeps moving up the system levels,
searching for a starting point for their innovation.
What good is that? Change should start at the highest level
possible for the change agent (agency), given the environmental
conditions, availability of resources, and motivation
of adopters. This is based on Rogers
ideas for diffusion and adoption of innovation. Every innovation
must be adopted by individuals, one person at a moment in
time. I believe the same holds true for systemic change...one
system at a time until the suprasystem has chosen adoption.
Not easy, but at least it starts the process moving.
Written above are highlights of a few questions
I have regarding what I don't know about educational technology.
My Portfolio contains what I do know...and all that is still
not enough. I am amazed and humbled as I research questions
and discover vast areas of domain
knowledge I had not seen (or even considered!) before.
Ahh, such is the realm of education... ;-).
I perceive educational technology as a viable
approach to answering society's questions about improving
learning outcomes, efficiently and effectively. It is systematic,
so process and procedure helps ensure consistent application
of principles and theories. It is systemic, so educational
technology is not limited to solving problems at a single
level, which may not address indemic problems. Applications
of educational technology exist in every major education
arena, higher education, government, K-12, and corporate,
because practitioners are skilled in a broad area of disciplines
or interests. Educational technology can meet the student
in their seat with innovative, intersting design principles
for instructional materials. It supports the instructor
with development of materials and eductional evironments
that enrich the learning experience for the learner.
Educational technology is my chosen professional
endeavor after many years of working (vitae)
in and around academia. I know that I believe in the integrity
and professional efficacy of the field.
For more information about my beliefs,
see my ISD Position
Paper and Educational
Philosophy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
