Introduction to the Course
The live class included an overview of the course and course modules. According to the course description, students will explore “the historical, theoretical, and philosophical foundations of instructional technology” as well as conduct “an examination of the literature and status of the field” (Orellana, 2021). In the live session, Dr. Orellana reviewed the shift in the definition of instructional technology to educational technology in 2008. One of the main changes in the definition was the addition of “ethical practice” and the purpose of educational technology to “improve performance” (Orellana, 2021). The textbooks and handbooks in the course provide a history of instructional technology and a development of debates in the field. Dr. Orellana thoroughly introduced the assignments, modules, online discussions, and the final presentation structure in the live session (Orellana, 2021). This course is going to be very interesting. I am looking forward to having a clearer understanding of the landscape of instructional technology and educational technology. I only have two questions:
Orellana, A. (2021). IDT 8008: Principles of instructional technology introduction to the class [PowerPoint slides]. Nova Southeastern University: https://nsu.instructure.com/courses/2478665/pages/watch-and-submit-summary-and-reflections-class-sessions-1-and-2-week-1?module_item_id=42823625
0 Comments
D3: Theoretical Framework (Week 4)
Psychology of learning For Spector (2008), the psychology of learning is an important foundation because communication is deeply embedded in the learning process (p. 23). Spector (2008) credits Dewey with applying his concepts of abstract thought and concrete thought to instructional planning (p. 23). Communications Theory Spector (2008) then recognizes the importance of communication theory in educational technology. According to Spector (2008), nearly all learning involves language and therefore includes communication (p. 24). Communications theory is necessary for researchers to understand how educational technology can either enhance or impede communication. Human-computer interaction When reviewing human-computer interaction framework, Spector (2008) highlighted the importance of activity theory or the “framework for studying humans and [the] use of artifacts” (p. 25). Spector (2008) focused on activity theory as a means to understand “purposeful social interactions” and how humans “work with others to achieve a particular goal” (p. 25). Instructional design and development Finally, Spector (2008) focused the fourth section on the theoretical framework of Reigeluth (p. 25). Regarding instructional design and development, the biggest distinction is between prescriptive research (researchers use educational technology to get a desired outcome) and descriptive research (learners have already reached a desired outcome under specific conditions) (Spector, 2019, p. 25-26). How do these foundations conform to (or not) your expectations/understanding of our field? Psychology of learning Since one of the main topics in educational technology is student learning, it makes sense that learning would be a part of the theoretical foundations of educational technology. However, I am new to the idea of the psychology of learning. Intuitively, since learning happens in the mind, there must be some connection to psychology. It is also clear that researchers and educators must understand the way students learn and the psychological processes involved in learning in order to assign an educational technology to enhance learning. Communications Theory My understanding is that media is the message - sound, sentence, image - and instructional technology is the vehicle that carries the message from the instructor to the student (traditionally). With the myriad of instructional technology now available, it makes sense for communications theory to be a major part of educational technology. One question I have is how communications theory takes into account students who communicate non-traditionally such as students who have disabling conditions and those who have learning challenges (such as dyslexia and dysgraphia). Human-Computer Interaction It will be interesting to read more about human-computer interaction. One question I have is how Spector (2008) defines a computer. One could argue that a computer is a laptop or desktop. However, others could argue that a computer has a chip and is connected to a network (intranet or internet). Using the former definition, VR headsets, smartphones, and tablets would not be considered computers. Yet, using the second definition these would be computers. In any case, I can see how the human-computer interaction would be important for user-experience programmers to think about. The question of when to give humans control and when to give machines control must be an important element of programming for various age groups. Instructional Design and Development Like Spector (2008), I believe that Reigeluth’s framework is valid and provides a useful foundation for instructional design and development. However, there is room for research to see if outcomes exist beyond prescriptive and descriptive. Which of these foundations is/are already familiar territory for you? I am honestly not very familiar with any of these frameworks. I do have experience with instructional design and development from supporting my school with curriculum design. However, I do not have the theoretical or empirical research to support any one method over another. With this in mind, I am eager to read on and learn more. Reference Spector, J.M. (2008). Theoretical foundations. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. V. Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technologies (3rd ed., pp. 3-20). Routledge. https://members.aect.org/edtech/edition3/ER5849x_C002.fm.pdf D2: Tentative Beginnings (Week 3)
The Molenda (2008) chapter was a historical overview of educational technology. In the chapter, Molenda (2008) used paradigmatic shifts or a “shift in identity” to show the evolution of educational technology over time (p. 4). The most interesting parts of the chapter were the sections on cognitivism and constructivism. According to Molenda (2008) cognitivism means how “learners use their memory and thought process to generate strategies as well as store and manipulate mental representations and ideas” (p. 14). Following Molenda (2008), complicated mental processes occur when students learn ,and these processes can be understood using behavioral psychology (p. 14). The section was particularly interesting because the science of learning is a new concept for me. I have never formally considered how students learn or the role of technology in the learning process. It will be interesting to keep this topic in mind as I continue reading in this class. Molenda (2008) defines cognitivism as a way that “learners use their memory and though processes to generate strategies as well as store and manipulate mental representations and ideas” (p. 14). The researcher notes that there “is no single constructivist theory of instruction” (Molenda, 2008, p. 15). The connection between all iterations of constructivism is that “knowledge is constructed by learners as they attempt to make sense of their experiences” (Molenda, 2008, p. 15). Moving forward, it will be interesting to consider the role of technology in facilitating or improving upon the knowledge construction process. Perhaps, educational technologies such as virtual reality can present information to students in a realistic and meaningful way thereby improving the constructivist process for students. Overall, the chapter provided a comprehensive overview of theories in the educational technology field. It will be interesting to see how each of these theories is covered in future readings. References Molenda, M. (2008). Historical foundations. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. V. Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technologies (3rd ed., pp. 3-20). Routledge. https://members.aect.org/edtech/edition3/ER5849x_C001.fm.pdf What is Instructional Technology?
According to Januszewski and Persichitte (2008), “educational technology is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources” (p. 280). My definition of educational technology is technology (instructional media, hardware, and software) that aids in the learning process for students ranging from early learning to adults. After completing the readings there were various similarities, differences, and surprises when considering my definition and AECT's definition of educational technology. Similarities One similarity is that my definition and the AECT both include facilitating learning or using educational technology to positively impact learning. For the AECT, the goal of educational technology is “facilitating learning and improving performance” (Januszewski and Persichitte, 2008, p. 280). The AECT goes further by explaining how educational technology facilitates learning “by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources” (Januszewski and Persichitte, 2008, p. 280). According to Januszewski and Persichitte (2008), the 1994 definition of educational technology included four components including “(a) theory and practice; (b) design, development, utilization, management, and evaluation; (c) processes and resources; and (d) learning” (p. 278). Similarly, my definition includes resources (instructional media, hardware, and software) and learning. Differences There are various differences between my definition and the AECT definition. These differences can be separated into two sections: theory and ethics. Theory The AECT committee created a definition that includes the idea that educational technology relies “on the research and theory bases of many disciplines” (Persichitte, 2008, p. 332). In my definition, I did not consider that educational technology was a theory or a practice. I only considered educational technology tools as a means to enhance learning. Ethics According to Persichitte (2008), the AECT created a code of ethics and professional standards for educational technology (p. 336). I did not consider educational technology to be a profession or a field of study, and I did not include ethics or professional standards as part of my definition. Surprises It was surprising that Robert Heinich argued “a definition can be viewed as an attempt to establish a power base” (Januszewski, 2008, p. 344). For Heinich, defining the field is a political act that inherently establishes power. As a novice researcher, it seems that research should stay neutral. Yet, Januszeski (2008) agreed that “creating such a definition of educational technology is not a value neutral act” (p. 344). Does this imply that the changing definitions of the field reflect changing power dynamics within AECT? How does this impact the future of the educational technology field and its practitioners? References (2008). Definition. Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (Eds.), Educational technology: A definition with commentary (pp. 327-340). Routledge. Januszewski, A. (2008). Afterword. Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (Eds.), Educational technology: A definition with commentary (pp. 341-350). Routledge. Januszewski, A. & Persichitte, K. (2008). A history of the AECT’s definitions of educational technology. Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (Eds.), Educational technology: A definition with commentary (pp. 259-282). Routledge. Persichitte, K. (2008). Implications for academic programs. Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (Eds.), Educational technology: A definition with commentary (pp. 327-340). Routledge. |