Mel LST 401

Blog Post #10 Resnick

2006-11-21T14:52:00.001-08:00

Melinda Lepko
Blog Post #10
Response to Resnick

Revolutionizing Learning in the Digital Age

According to Mitchel Resnick, author of “Revolutionizing Learning in the Digital Age”, learning how to learn is becoming more important than what students are actually learning (2001). Teachers are encouraged to allow to students more freedom to learn about learning and think creatively rather than teaching students basics of math and grammar. The hope is that with new, emerging technology students will think, create and design and in the process learn the basic skills that were once taught directly by the teacher. Basically Resnick (2001) believes that students will learn multiplication on their own. While I would love for Resnick’s theory to be correct, I am having trouble truly believing that students will learn basic skills this way.

There are some elements of Resnick’s argument that I completely agree with. For example, I too feel that “learning is an active process in which students construct new understanding of the world around them through active exploration, experimentation, discussion, and reflection.” (Resnick, pg 47) As educators, we cannot expect students to learn and construct meaning by simply sitting in their seats listening to us. Students must be actively engaged and encouraged to explore new (and old) topics.

The most difficult thing for me to grasp is the changing role of the teacher. Throughout my education teachers have been at the center of all of my classes and I am unsure of how I am going to become this “new” type of teacher. In my educational experience the teacher taught by providing us with some basic information, showing some examples, giving us time to try on our own, providing feedback and corrections, and then finally testing us on the information, through formal tests or through a written paper. As I got older my teachers “taught” in one of two main ways: 1) Lecture in the front of the room while students follow along with the instructor’s PowerPoint presentation or overhead notes or, 2) The teacher would give and assignment and some brief instructions and students would need to go out on their own and figure it out. While I have done consistently well throughout my schooling, I would not say that I have learned as much as I should have because neither method of instruction has been particularly beneficial for me as a learner.

In my opinion the classroom should be filled with a variety of learning opportunities, strategies, methods and styles because every classroom is filled with a variety of learners. The teacher should be more than just the assigner and assessor (which is what I fear Resnick is suggesting) because technology alone cannot teach students everything they need to know. As I stated in an earlier blog, students should learn with technology and not from (Blog #7, Mindtools, 1998). Students need human interaction and teacher and peer guidance beyond the limited amount Resnick is suggesting in “Revolutionizing Learning in the Digital Age” because not all students will learn well or learn about learning through the use of tools such as Computer Clubhouse. Some, if not many students will struggle and require additional instruction beyond what computers alone can provide. Technology can, at times, be used alone as a tool for students to learn with, but there is still a great need for teacher centered elements within the classroom.

References

Jonassen, D.H., Carr, C., Yueh, H. Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends. March 1998. Vol 43, 2. pg 24-32.

Resnick, M. (2001). Revolutionizing learning in the digital age. Publications from the forum for the future of higher education. Boulder, CO: Educause.
Available online at http://www.educause.com/reources

Blog Post #10 Resnick

2006-11-21T14:52:00.000-08:00

Blog Post #9 Assessment

2006-11-14T13:30:00.000-08:00

Melinda Lepko
Blog Post #9
Assessment and Educational Reform

I am not convinced that there is one “best practice” form of assessment and instead I believe that a combination of assessments in a variety of forms is the best course of action and the best way to truly assess the knowledge of students. Each assessment should be directly linked to both what has been taught and what purpose the assessment serves. As Linda Ann Bond writes in her critical issue summary Rethinking Assessment and Its Role in Supporting Educational Reform, “Assessment decisions always should be related to the purpose of the assessment and the content to be assessed.” (1995, Pg. 3) Sadly many educators do not make connections between the two elements and create and use tests that do not serve the appropriate purpose nor do they test the students in the correct way. Standardized tests alone cannot properly assess students in all aspects of education and it is important for educators and assessors to realize that there are other, better ways to assess student knowledge.

Another element that assessment creators and users must recognize is that the design of the assessment affects the results and outcome of the assessment. This is where technology can play the biggest role in assessment. As society as a whole, grows and adapts to advancements in technology, students must also begin to develop similar competencies in technology. Using technologies as tools to assess students can lead to better understanding of what students have actually learned as well as what they can apply. Combining technology in the assessment process will assist student with their current educational gains as well as assist them in the future because all students will undoubtedly need to use varying levels of technology throughout their lives.

An ERIC Digest article entitled, Alternative Assessment and Technology notes that new standards are emerging in assessment and that because of the development of standards, assessments are actually changing the curriculum and the way it is being taught. “A newly designed assessment system must accurately measure and promote the complex thinking and learning goals that are known to be critical to students’ academic success and to their eventual sustained achievement and contribution to their communities.” (1993, Pg. 2) Alternative assessments that are being developed include elements such as videos, portfolios, and the development of websites. Through the creation and completion of such projects, students are “tested” on not only their knowledge of a certain subject, but also their ability to complete complex tasks (create a video or website) as well reflect on such tasks (portfolio reflections). ERIC states what “new” assessment should include, or rather what successful tasks will enable students to demonstrate:

Successful tasks will be complex enough to engage students in real thinking and performances, open-ended enough to encourage different approaches, but sufficiently constrained to permit reliable scoring; they will allow for easy collection of records, and they will exemplify ‘authentic’ work in the disciplines. (1993, Pg. 2)

Though assessments are not a new topic in educational reform they are a topic of great importance. Certain assessments are directly responsible for job placement and college acceptance (SAT and ACT) and therefore assessments must be evaluated closely and updated constantly to meet the changing educational standards in society. Personally, I believe that combining varying forms of assessment such as standardized tests, alternative assessments, projects, performance based assessments etc. are all necessary if educators and researchers want to truly “test” student knowledge.

References:

Bond, Linda Ann. (1995) Critical issue: Rethinking assessment and its role in supporting educational reform. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Learning Point Associates. Retrieved November 13, 2006 from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/assment/as700.htm

Eric Digest. (1993) Alternative assessment and technology. Eric Development Team. ERIC Document Number: ED365312. Retrieved on November 13, 2006 from www.eric.ed.gov

Blog #8 Bloom

2006-11-07T14:40:00.000-08:00

Melinda Lepko
LST 401
Blog #8
Bloom

I have read much about Bloom, his taxonomy and his theories about learning. His contributions to the field of education are undeniable. His approach is student centered and therefore closely related to my own personal beliefs about teaching and, more importantly, learning. I was impressed with his “Learning for Mastery” article published in 1968 because even though I was published nearly 40 years ago, it is still incredibly relevant to the world of education today. Bloom claims that there are five variables that must be examined when looking at education (by education I mean the learning environment as a whole including the learner, instructor etc.) The variables are
1) Aptitude
2) Quality of instruction
3) Ability to understand instruction
4) Perseverance
5) Time allowed for learning
Bloom goes in detail about each variable and how it affects learning. He not only describes how the variable affects learning but he also reveals the affects that biases within each variable can affect outcomes. For example, Bloom talks about the bias that some educators have in which they believe that only 30% of students will be able to learn and master the material presented to them. Bloom argues that with ample time and proper support through tutoring and direct or guided instruction that 95% of students should be able to master any and all skills. (Bloom, 3)
While I thoroughly enjoyed the article over all because it reinforced my beliefs in the student centered approach to learning, I must also admit that the article became a little wordy and hard for me to understand at times. I was therefore thrilled when I found an article by Glenn M. Hymel and Walter E. Dyck entitled, “The Internalization of Bloom’s Learning for Mastery: A 25-Year Retrospective Prospective View” which helped to explain and re-examine some of the topics that Bloom covered in “Learning for Mastery”. But again, some of the wording was dry and too overly scientific for my liking. What I gathered from “Internalization” was that Bloom’s theories about mastery and learning for mastery have forever changed the world of education. Bloom encourages educators and researchers alike to view learning more optimistically. Bloom brefily touches on the concept of “self-fulfilling prophecy” and he notes that students have the ability to become exactly what they think they are. If student are leaning in a positive supportive, optimistic environment where they feel safe, comfortable and confident they will absolutely learn more.

Bloom, Benjamin S. Learning for mastery. Instruction and Curriculum. Regional Education Laboratory for the Carolinas a nd Virginia, Topical Papers and Reprints, Number 1. Pages 1-19.

Dyck, Walter E. & Hymel, Glenn M. The internalization of Bloom’s learning for mastery: a 25-Year retrospective-prospective view. Presented to American Educational Research Association. Atlanta. April 15, 1993.

Blog Post #7 Mindtools

2006-10-31T12:44:00.000-08:00

Melinda Lepko
October 31, 2006
Blog #7
Mindtools

Mindtools are the most useful and beneficial forms of technology to be used in schools. The broad spectrum of technology tools known as “Mindtools” includes spreadsheets, databases, graphic organizers, hypermedia, and collaboration tools. Mindtools are programs that ask students to think critically and analytically about what they are learning rather than asking students to learn through useless rote memory and repetition. Jonassen, Carr, and Yueh write in their article Computers as Mindtools for Engaging Learners in Critical Thinking,

Mindtools are computer applications that, when used by learners to represent what they know necessarily engage them in critical thinking about the content they are studying. Mindtools scaffold different forms of reasoning about content. That is, they require students to think about what they know in different meaningful ways. (1998, p. 24)

Mindtools allow material and information to be presented in a variety of ways and therefore a variety of students are able to learn and interpret the data. The variety also helps students to begin to see information in different ways. For many students, information is presented in two ways 1) the teacher 2) the book. Mindtools give students the chance to both view the material differently as well as organize the material differently in ways that best suit each individual students personal learning needs.

Mindtools work with learners to build upon existing knowledge as well as create an organizational system within which to learn new information. As all teachers know, some of the best ways to help students learn and get them exited about learning is to relate the new material with material that students already know and are comfortable with. Using this method, students are able to build off of existing knowledge and therefore they learn more. As Jonassen, Carr and Yueh write,

[ T ]echnologies should not support learning by attempting to instruct learners, but rather should be used as knowledge construction tools that students learn with not from. (1998, p. 24 emphasis mine)

When instructors use Mindtools in this way, they remain in control of student learning while at the same allowing their students the freedom to examine the topics in a way that best suits their learning needs. Mindtools are not a substitute for instruction because students should not learn solely from the Mindtool, but rather the Mindtool should be used as an additive element within the curriculum to aid the students in their understanding of the material.

In an article by Nancy Hertzog and Marjorie Klein entitled Beyond Gaming: A technology explosion in early childhood (2005), researchers found that students learned more and were more motivated to learn when using Mindtools freely in their classroom. Students as young as four used digital cameras to photograph and organize their artwork. Some students worked on the Internet with the help of teachers and parent volunteers to research topics and write reports using word processing software. Students created concept maps and graphic organizers to show the results of an experiment. Using the graphic organizers the students were able to make deeper and more meaningful connections between all of the individual elements. Students used PowerPoint and Word to reflect on previous projects (art work, stories, plays etc.). (Beyond Gaming, 2005)

Mindtools are the technology that all teachers should be using in their classrooms. It is engaging, motivating and can be personalized to meet the needs of individual learners. The most beneficial element of the Mindtools cited in the Computers as Mindtools article is that many of the Mindtools can be used across all subjects and integrated into virtually every curriculum. The teacher training would also be very minimal because most Mindtools can be used at varying degrees of complexity; they can be made as advanced or basic as the teacher and learners need them to be. Using technology in the form of Mindtools should give hope to educators everywhere. If technology can be implemented into the classroom as a leading form of learning support rather than the trying to be the sole learning tool, than I think technology will find a more comfortable and longer lasting place in the world of education.

References

Carr, Chad., Jonassen, David H., & Yueh, Hsiu-Ping. Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. Techtrends. Mar 1998. Vol 43, 2. pg 24-32.

Hertzog, Nancy & Klein, Marjorie. Beyond gaming: a technology explosion in early childhood classrooms. Gifted Child Today. Summer 2005 Vol 28, 3. pg. 24-31

Blog Post #6 Papert

2006-10-24T09:49:00.000-07:00

Melinda Lepko
Blog Post #6
Response to Papert

There is a realization that I am slowly coming to as a young person studying to become a teacher:

It’s not about the way you teach; it’s about the way students learn.

It is a difficult concept to grasp because most of the elementary and secondary education I have received has been teacher centered. I am personally comfortable and familiar with the method of teaching where the teacher stands up front and students complete problems at their desks or the respond in unison to the teachers basic questions. All students work at basically the same pace and “learn” the same way. For most of educational career I have been taught that I must learn the way the teacher is teaching me. Now I am beginning to realize that my job as a teacher will (and should) be much different than the teachers of my past.

Some call it student-centered others call it direct instruction and I am sure that in the years to come there will be even more terms developed and created to label the new methods of teaching and more importantly teaching learning. For me, it is not about what this theory or technique is called, the real difficulty is that no two students learn exactly the same…so how are teachers supposed to teach to a variety of different learners? Seymour Papert places incredible importance on the examination of the way in which students learn and teaching the students about learning rather than focusing solely on what the students are learning. Some simple tips that Papert gives are things like taking your time and having meaningful discussions. Learning through personal interaction and discussion is becoming a more popular teaching technique.
Hara Estroff Murano (2006) examined an alternative school in Framingham MA in which the students were free to “play” all day and to create their own curriculum through what the teachers and school believe to be their innate desire to learn. Students are given complete freedom at the school and it is amazing how the students use each other and the knowledge of their teachers to learn. They learn through requested overnight hiking trips, field trips, weekly meetings, classroom instruction can and is often requested by the students. Everyone involved with this school believes that all children have an innate desire to become successful knowledgeable humans and they allow the students the chance to explore this human instainct. Adults and teachers are simply there as a guide or to answer questions. The school thrives on the personal interactions between all involved.

Researchers in a variety of disciplines believe that human interaction is critical for learning and the best learning comes as a result of social participation. Relationships provide both the deep motivation and context for acquiring information; people are driven by the desire to understand the perspective of others. (Murano, 2006 pg. 5)

While I am unsure that allowing students complete freedom would be successful with all learners, I do feel that students need to play a larger role in what they are learning and more importantly how they learn. I know that I learn more through class discussion and interaction with my peers than through my assigned readings but I am also old enough to realize the benefits of the combination of reading, speaking, and listening working together as a unit to enhance my learning. As researchers and educators work with students and diverse learners I feel that the student-centered approach to teaching and learning will be most successful through the collaboration of both the teacher and the learner and the mutual respect that is necessary for a healthy learning environment.

Papert, Seymour. (1993) A word for learning. THE CHILDREN'S MACHINE Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer. Basic Books, New York p. 82-105.

Marano, Hara Estroff. (2006) Class dismissed. Psychology Today. New York. May/Jun 2006. 39, 3 p. 94-101 Retrieved on October 20th 2006 from http://proquest.umi.com ProQuest ID: 1029339581

Blog Post #5 Tarlow and Spangler

2006-10-17T06:49:00.000-07:00

Mel Lepko
Blog Post #5
Response to Tarlow and Spangler Article

Currently, literacy and its exact educational definition seem to be a confused mess. Experts, researchers, and educators cannot seem to agree on a specific definition of literacy and what determines a child’s literacy. It is hard to define literacy without some serious examination of the history of literacy. Tarlow and Spangler (2001) point out the changes in literacy overtime. We were once a society that relied solely on spoken word. If you could listen and speak you were considered literate. We then grew to be a society of writers and readers. Information was passed from person to person, generation to generation through both written and spoken word. Are we once again growing to include a new type of literacy; media literacy? Teachers are amazed that students who cannot read printed word on a page are able to play computer games and create web pages. (Tarlow and Spangler 2001) Is this child considered literate?
Students are able to sit in front of a television and play video games for hours on end yet they struggle to sit in class and pay attention for more than 15-20 minutes. How is this possible and does it have anything to do with literacy? Again it depends on one’s definition of literacy. If media literacy is to be considered just as valuable as being able to read and write, then we must change our attitudes toward this form of literacy and use media and technology to our advantage. (Tarlow and Spangler 2001)
One advantage of media literacy is its ability to appeal to diverse groups of learners. With the current trend of diversifying instruction to meet the needs of all students, media and technology can be used to assist in the process and the ability of the teacher to reach and connect with more students. This is especially true of special needs students. An article by Tara Jeffs, Michael Behrman and Brenda Bannan-Ritland entitled Assistive Technology and Literacy Learning: Reflections of Parents and Children, notes the positive results of using “assistive technology to build literacy skills.” (2006, pg 37) Parents and teachers used traditional techniques to try and teach reading and writing to students, but were met with resistance and frustration. When parents implemented assistive technologies using the computer and internet they had much more success and positive interaction with their children. Students not only learned, but they enjoyed the learning. Parents were impressed with the technologies as well as the speed with which the students learn to use the technologies. (2006, pg 41) Parents noted that because many of the assistive technologies used media such as the internet and television that their children’s knowledge base was growing more rapidly than if they were using traditional books and methods. The students were exposed to more diverse topics and therefore learned more than just reading and writing; they learned about the world around them.
In the end the issue goes back to one that I posed in an earlier blog: we must not focus solely on the technology itself, but rather the way in which the technology is implemented within the classroom or learning environment and who the learner is right now and who we want that learner to become.

References

Bannan-Ritland, B., Behrman, M. & Jeffs, T. Assistive technology and literacy learning: reflections of parents and children. Journal of Special Education Technology. 21 (1) Winter 2006.

Tarlow, Mary-Claire & Spangler, Katherine L. 2001. Now more than ever: Will high-tech kids still think deeply? The Education Digest. 67 (3) Research II Periodicals. p 23.

2006-10-03T12:24:00.000-07:00

Melinda Lepko

Blog Post #4

Reeves Article

Overall I would have to agree with Reeves’ point of view and his claim that up to this point little or no focus has been placed on diversifying assessment. As an education major I have learned much about differentiated instruction and the importance of taking into consideration the cultural differences within the classroom. But much of the focus has been placed on the instruction and not on the assessment.

One of the theories I have learned about is that of Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Howard Gardner suggests there are at least 6 different types of learners and that teachers should try to reach each of these students through differentiated instruction. (Smith, 2002) For example some students are visual learners while others learn more by doing rather than just watching. Other students learn through music and others through art. In many of the examples of differentiated instruction (whether technologically based or not) I have seen or read about, I cannot recall many instances in which the assessment was also differentiated. Currently the trend is to attempt to differentiate the instruction so that all of the students can learn the material but in the end all of the kids must take the same test to pass the class. One of the most drastic examples of this is standardized testing such as the PSSA tests given in Pennsylvania. One of the reasons for this lack of diversity in assessment is because of the lack of diversity of the individuals creating the assessment. (1997, pg 27) For the most part the individuals creating the tests are white, affluent males.

In all honesty, I can see how this topic seems to be a never-ending battle because someone or some group will always be left out or offended by what is included or excluded. One assessment simply cannot properly serve, represent, and appeal to every cultural, racial, ethnic, or gender difference but assessments should at least attempt to do so. Currently, many people might argue that standardized assessments in the United States are designed for the cultural majority of white, middle class students. Assessments should be designed with a multicultural perspective.

In the end I think Reeves is simply suggesting that we work to make assessment more inclusive and accepting of diversity. As Reeves suggests at the end of his article, “The ultimate goal should not be designing culturally neutral instructional materials (and assessments) but creating learning environments that are enriched by the unique values that are inherent in different cultures.” (1997, pg 30) Assessments can and should be used to promote acceptance and understanding of various cultures and learning styles. The more young people are exposed to and taught about people that are different from them the more they will grow to both appreciate and respect those differences and the people that embody them.

References

Reeves, T. (1997). An evaluator looks at cultural diversity. Educational Technology, 37(2), 27-31.

Smith, M. K. (2002). Howard Gardner and multiple intelligences. the encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved October 1 from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm

Blog Post #4 Reeves Article

2006-10-03T12:18:00.000-07:00

Melinda Lepko

Blog Post #4

Reeves Article

References

Reeves, T. (1997). An evaluator looks at cultural diversity. Educational Technology, 37(2), 27-31.

Smith, M. K. (2002). Howard Gardner and multiple intelligences. the encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved October 1 from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm

Blog #3 Wiki Task

2006-09-26T09:01:00.000-07:00

Melinda Lepko
Blog Post #3
Wiki Task

Before class on Tuesday September 12th 2006 I had never even heard the word “wiki”. I learned quickly through trial and error and with some brief research that a wiki is, in the most simple terms, an online collaboration tool. In my opinion, wikis combine email, blogging and online discussion boards into one solid, yet editable space. The beauty of the wiki is that any member of the group can post and even more importantly edit other posts without having to learn HTML or some difficult programming code. You simply post, edit and save.

At first the capabilities sound wonderful. Group members can edit each others work and make changes as needed. Personally I corrected a few spelling mistakes that my classmates missed in their postings and thought nothing of it. I thought the editing element of the wiki was its most impressive feature until a classmate admitted to the anger he felt when someone else came in and edited his “stuff”. Educause Learning Initiative touched briefly on this element in an article entitled “Seven things you should know about Wikis” (2006). It read, “A wiki is a webpage that can be viewed and modified by anybody with a Web browser and access to the Internet. This means that any visitor to the wiki can change its content if they desire” (p. 1). A common resource called Wikipedia is set up this way. Any individual may change the content of this widely-used resource. It is scary to think that people use this resource and believe in its validity when the truth is that anyone anywhere in the world with Internet access can add, edit, and remove information based on personal preference rather than actual research-based fact.

The article goes on to note that to avoid many of the problems that can be associated with open editing “many wikis require authorization so only group members can modify content” (p. 2 ). In an article published by The Center for Scholarly Technology at the University of Southern California (2006), author Jude Higdon adds “

In the traditional use of wikis, all members of the wiki had full rights to add, edit and delete every Web page on the site. While this is sometimes useful, having different types of authoring and editing permissions for different users is sometimes also beneficial. Increasingly wiki tools are offering the ability to add users who can view, add, edit, and delete pages or any subset of those privileges. (p. 1)

As the wiki tool becomes more advanced, it is becoming more and more applicable for use in and around the classroom. Higdon (2006) notes eight uses for wikis, each of which of contain their own benefits, such as Student Journaling for reflection, Personal Portfolios for collection of assets, Research Coordination and Collaboration for sharing and editing, Curricular and Cross-Disciplinary Coordination for debate and revision, and Inter-term Project Management for ongoing orginaization. (p. 2)

Educause Learning Initiative. (2006). Seven things you should know about wikis. Retrieved September 23, 2006 from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7004.pdf

Higdon, Jude. (2006). Pedagogies of wikis. The Center for Scholarly Technology, University of Southern California. Retrieved September 23, 2006 from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI0626.pdf

Blog Post #2 Clark/Kozma

2006-09-19T07:39:00.000-07:00

Blog Post #2
Clark/Kozma Debate

The Clark and Kozma debate is an interesting one because at times I felt as though they were both arguing the same thing in different ways. I found Kozma’s argument more in line with my personal philosophy and therefore I found myself siding with him. Kozma seems to focus more on the learner and the outcomes rather than the specific attributes of media and the ways in which they sometimes overlap.
Clark claims that attributes of certain media can be shared and are therefore there is no correspondence between certain media and their attributes. Basically he is claiming that if two forms of media can produce the same results than the result is not because of the media but rather because of the way that media was used. As Kozma points out, there is some truth to what Clark is saying because, for example, a still picture can be displayed on television, on a computer or as an actual picture on a piece of paper. (1994) Kozma goes on to point out that “A medium is distinctive to the extent that its defining cluster of attributes is unique, that is, different from the defining clusters of other media.” (1994) Kozma is arguing that it is not fair to simply look at one attribute that was used during one study to determine the outcome because attributes do not come in sets of one but rather they develop in clusters. The advantage of clustering attributes is that different students can use different attributes in different situations for similar outcomes.
“Understanding the ways in which students use the unique processing capabilities of the computer is essential to understanding the influence the computer may have on learning and to building media theory.” (1994) Kozma’s debate focuses on the learner first followed by the development of media theory. He argues that we must look at how the student interacts with the media to determine how it will affect learning rather than the other way around. Kozma actually changes the overall question being asked from “Do media influence learning?” to “In what ways can we use the capabilities of media to influence learing for particular students, tasks and situations?” (1994). In the end it is the student who must benefit from the technology.

Clark, R.E. (1983.) Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research. 53(4) 445-459.

Kozma, Robert B. (1994) Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. ETR&D. 42(2) 7-19.

Blog Post #1

2006-09-19T07:38:00.000-07:00

Blog Post #1
History of Technology’s Use in Education

There is a long history between education and technology; a history that is not always pleasant or even friendly. For many people outside the debate, there is confusion and misunderstanding as to why the two fields are in conflict. In truth the two fields have been colliding, rather violently at times, throughout the 20th century and are now, more than ever in my opinion, at a crossroads.
In the past it seems as if education has been extremely resistant to the changes that are caused by the addition of new technologies. There are always great expectations at the introduction of each new, innovative idea. Predictions are made about the way technology will change education forever. As Robert Resier (2001) cites from Saettler (1968) “In 1913 Thomas Edison proclaimed: ‘Books will soon be obsolete in the schools…It is possible to teach every branch of human knowledge with the motion picture.” Obviously this prediction did not come true and the question I am forced to ask is why? What is the disconnect between technology and education? Why is the full potential of the relationship not being realized?
It seems as if one of the causes of this separation may be the exponential growth rate of the field of technology in general. It seems as if everyday a new program or a new type of software is developed and it is understandable that education has trouble keeping up. With the introduction of each new technology there is what I will call an “implementation gap”. What I mean is that when a new technology is introduced to the general field it takes time to realize its possible uses in education. This delay is followed by a period of time within which school district examine a technology and decide whether or not to purchase the new technology and get it into the schools. Often times there is a teacher and classroom that uses the new technology or media in a sort of experiment to test the true usefulness of the technology. The next step is training the teachers so that they are able to use the technology and finally teachers must alter and change lesson plans and curriculum to adjust to the new technology. By the time all of these steps are completed, a new ‘better’ technology is introduced and the process begins again.

Reiser, Robert A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part 1: A history of instructional media. Educational Technology, Research and Development. Washington. 49(1), 53-64

Saettler, P. (1968). A history of instructional technology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Welcome!

2006-09-12T12:45:00.000-07:00

Hi there!