George's Blog

It is my opinion that the theories/models for change have not evolved too much over time. Theories such as Systems theory and Theory E are broad and overarching. In the Systems theory, an organization is a complex system where any type of change in one area will inadvertently cause a shift elsewhere. Theory E is a change management theory that describes the process of achieving the best economic results for an organization (Biech, 2007). Both these theories can be adopted into today’s contexts with minimal effort. For example, an adaptation would be depending on the environment, an implementation of technology may or may not cause a shift everywhere. Also, as a society it is hoped that the most important thing to an organization is not the bottom line and therefore Theory E should incorporate social license within the change management mandate.

In terms of an organizational change theory that aligns with my leadership approach, I believe that the Six step method most closely fits with my values. This method involves reassigning roles to accomplish a specific task with the six steps being: 1) jointly diagnosis change, 2) develop a shared vision, 3) foster consensus for change, 4) spread revitalization to all department, 5) institutionalize revitalization through policies, and 6) monitor & adjust strategies (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015). I strongly believe in shared leadership and collaborative endeavours, which the Six step method espouses throughout. While this method is not ideal in a large organization such as my own, the shared leadership component is strongly encouraged by my executive through all departments.

Leadership itself has a very important role to play in managing change. Chiefly, this is because often change is dictated from the top. To manage change well though, there needs to be an assessment of organizational readiness for the change. Weiner (2009) notes the three factors that influence the ability to implement change as being task demands, resource availability, and situational factors. If leadership fails to take stock of these factors, the organizational change will not have buy-in from staff and the process will be far less smooth than it could be, and perhaps even fail.

Failure can be caused by resistance. The resilience theory captured my attention as I had always wondered why large organizations were resistant to change. Holling’s ecological system analogy on how systems can absorb and adapt to change is fascinating (as cited in Weller & Anderson, 2013). I can now see how bureaucracies in their entrenched ways refuse to change institutionally. While there may be individuals who want change, the established ways and infrastructure may not give way. Mindset can also play a part. I believe once an effective strategy is in place such as one that informs all staff of the benefits of change and/or dictates the shared responsibility (Biech, 2007), there can be a positive transition which while may be slow, moves the organization into the future.

 

References

Al-Haddad, S., & Kotnour, T. (2015). Integrating the organizational change literature: a model for successful change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), 234-262.

Biech, E. (2007). Models for Change. In Thriving Through Change: A Leader’s Practical Guide to Change Mastery. Alexandria, VA: ASTD [Books24x7 database]

Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4(67).

Weller, M., & Anderson, T. (2013). Digital Resilience in Higher Education. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning.

My Approach

In my current role as a research analyst, I have not had many opportunities to take up the task of being a leader. When the situation does arise, often I have to take the reins unexpectedly. This is why adaptive leadership as described by Khan (2017) resonates with me. I do not think any two situations or projects are the same. While there can be many similarities and processes can be replicated, circumstances change; whether it is the people or the task at hand. Therefore the holistic view of adaptive leadership which takes into account leader-follower relationships and environmental issues (Khan, 2017) makes the most sense for me. My approach has always been one of open communication. I want to know what everyone is thinking and I value the input of all team members. Being a communicative leader creates a culture of trust and team members respect leaders who are transparent, actively listen, and are open to communication (Castelli, 2015). I think I am able to portray mindfulness, where I recognize the diversity of the team and am aware of the relationship dynamics at play. I have been lucky so far in that most of my leadership endeavours, I have been able to select who I would like to work with. This is not the case for most people, but I took into account my experience with the potential team members along with assessing their ability to both complete the task and work with others. My journey of self discovery in this Unit has revealed that I do take a values-based leadership approach and encourage others to share the values of working for a common good. O’Toole (2008) notes that values-based leaders “find personal satisfaction and fulfilment by providing the opportunity for others to realize their goals and potential” (p. 6). While I had not thought of it before, I do strive to assist others in their goals and help them try and reach their potential. That leads into my belief of shared leadership and having all take ownership of their tasks. There should be growth and credit for all and not just the leader.

Introduction of Digital Technology

Digital technologies have made an impact on education, but also on how people and situations can be managed. Where meetings would have to take place face-to-face in the past, teleconferences or web meetings are now common place. The dynamic of how people work has changed where physicality of an individual does not matter anymore. This is especially pronounced when working with team members who may be from another region or country altogether. The ability to respect diverse cultures and customs comes into play as these individuals may be bringing a different way of approaching situations which may not be familiar. The leader needs to lead by example in how to work with others of diverse cultures to show the team how best to interact with each other (Castelli, 2015).

Meaning and intention can also get lost when presented in text, so I have found that it is best to make sure everyone is clear and any potential miscommunication is cleared up. For example, a comment made in jest may not come across lightly and could be taken seriously. This is a danger when there is a lack of face-to-face situations to clear things up.

Building a social team environment can also be difficult with a lack of physical communication. There can be feelings of detachment or loneliness. I feel there needs to be enough check-ins/meetings so that all members can be in the loop while recognizing that too many of these sessions might cause an individual to feel like they are being checked up on or micromanaged. Team members need to be trusted with tasks as the leader cannot possibly do every little thing. Such check-ins should be to motivate and provide feedback that can improve performance and update on any changes that may have occurred.

Moving Forward

In summary, I believe that adaptive leadership must form the basis in terms of leading in digital learning environments, especially when ushering in change. The very concept of change implies that there will be unforeseen variables at play and new initiatives/concepts that need to be enacted. If one is not adaptive and follows a standard ‘playbook’, they run the risk of not being able to handle situations that are not standard and potentially mismanage a vital part of a project. Transactional leadership works well in situations where goals are clearly laid out with a set out process (Khan, 2017). Change in digital learning environments can often be unexpected and continuously evolving. Team members must also be motivated to continue working on their tasks, which could be a challenge when goals have not yet fully emerged or are in flux. Adaptive leaders “carefully recognize potential changes in the external environment and consider the best path that will positively affect the organization” (Khan, 2017, p. 179).

Utilizing values-based leadership is also an important tool towards ushering in change in digital learning environments. By having everyone on the same page and working towards a common good, all members of the team can work cohesively while maintaining motivation and morale (O’Toole, 2008). Shared leadership can be incorporated along with values-based leadership. Team members should be proud of their work and actively contribute towards the process. Moving forward, the model I aspire to adopt is one of values-based leadership that is adaptive and encourages shared ownership.

 

References

Castelli, P. (2016). Reflective leadership review: a framework for improving organisational performance. Journal of Management Development, 35(2), 217-236.

Khan, N. (2017). Adaptive or Transactional Leadership in Current Higher Education: A Brief Comparison. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(3).

O’Toole, James (2008). Notes Toward a Definition of Values-Based Leadership. The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, 1(1).

 

One of the readings this week is a case study on an instructional design process called TAPPA (Target, Accomplishment, Past, Prototype, Artifact). Having read a lot on the theory of instructional design in LRNT 524, it was refreshing to see how one of these methods works in practice. TAPPA seems to incorporate the speed and participatory design of rapid prototyping, the analysis and assessment components of the ADDIE model (basically the beginning and the end), and the Dick and Carey Model (which allows for a non-linear approach).

Moore’s (2016) five steps to TAPPA are:

Step 1: Target – What is the end result or goal for this project?

Step 2: Accomplishment – What are you hoping to accomplish with this artifact and how will you know if you have accomplished it?

Step 3: Past – Have you done anything like this previously?

Step 4: Prototype – Can you create a mock-up or an example of the finished product?

Step 5: Artifact – What have you created?

I quite like how each step is clear and a distinct milestone. By it’s very design you can also backtrack to different steps and modify when necessary which I appreciate. Past in particular is important, as I feel more often than not we should not be reinventing the wheel and recycle what has been proven to work effectively (with some innovative tweaks). I was excited when I read that the author was seeking to use this model for a hybrid instructional design process as it would be quite relevant for my work. Alas, the example was for the creation of webinars for government officials. TAPPA seems to work best for microinstructional courses which allow for quick alterations and adaptations to a changing audience. While that could be of use for the learners in my organization, it may not be the best model for hybrid high school courses which need to follow a strict curriculum and does not allow much freedom for change as the course progresses. Still, I see the steps in TAPPA being useful in some fashion and also there is commonality between this process and many others. This makes sense as it itself is a hybrid of others. What I’ve learned is that blending of methodologies is common, taking the best components of models and creating something that works in specific contexts. It seems there is much more renewal than true innovation.

 

References

Moore, R. L. (2016). Developing distance education content using the TAPPA process. TechTrends, 60(5), 425–432.

The readings for this week Assessing d.learning: Capturing the Journey of Becoming a Design Thinker (Goldman et al., 2012) and Innovation and Change: Changing How we Change (Dron, 2014) both had a lot of food for thought.

In the first article, Goldman et al. (2012) show how design thinking can be assessed. Their journey through various assessment types showed that you really have to think outside the box. Standard assessments would typically be able to adopt a form of a rubric, but when looking at mindshifts as described by the authors the type of rubric needed was a quandary. The changing viewpoints were best captured through action and therefore performance-based assessment was tried. The idea of the mindshift is something that resonates with me as I do not believe in the hard-wiring of individuals, but we all have our own personal skills and tasks with which we excel at. Intellectual risk taking is also another term that comes to mind and relates closely. An intellectual risk taker will experience mindshifts which will hopefully spur innovation and new thinking. The challenge with assessment comes with how do you know whether the process has been successful or not? How do you measure ingenuity? How much does the process matter?

The second article titled Changing How we Change (Dron, 2014) reminds me of why change is difficult. The barriers to adoption of new technology mentioned: resources, institution, subject culture, attitudes/beliefs, knowledge/skills, and assessment are all prevalent in my organization. I felt that Dron was channeling my thoughts and I found out why since as I read I found that the example used was in relation to K-12, which is where I’m currently employed in (seems like it is the same everywhere). Disruption in of itself is going to ruffle some feathers. Technology is meant to change things. Institutions are not open to change, but run the risk of being left behind. Of course there needs to be a plan of transition and plenty of supports to go with it. First it all begins with a change in mindset towards technology, or maybe a mindshift…

 

References

Dron, J. (2014). Innovation and Change: Changing how we Change. In Zawacki-Richter, O. & T. Anderson (Eds.), Online distance education: Towards a research agenda. Athabasca, AB: AU Press.

Goldman, S. et al. (2012). Assessing d.learning: Capturing the journey of becoming a design thinker. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel & L. Leifer (eds). Design thinking research: Understanding innovation. (pp. 13-33). Berlin: Springer.

As we progressed through the design thinking process (Stanford University Institute of Design, 2016), both my partner and I quickly found that we shared similar problems in our respective organizations. The problem that we sought to solve involved trying to include and empower adult students with English as a Second Language and adult students with minimal technological background within hybrid (blended) courses taught at our respective institutions. We found that students in either scenario (or both) were likely to be reclusive in the online environment or not be receptive to the style of learning that an online format provides. As we worked through the process, two components emerged as potential solutions that dig into what we believe to be the root of the issue.

Enhancing online teacher training to incorporate empathy and seeking to understand and negate negative feelings toward technology was the first solution we found. As researched by Vann (2017), online course design is very different from face-to-face course design and sometimes instructors do not have the same level of empathy toward their adult learners. She found that 87% of online students perceived lack of empathy from their online instructors when compared to face-to-face instructors. Vann also found that sometimes the best way to get instructors to have empathy and to understand the process is to actually put them through an online learning course so they can experience firsthand the obstacles that their students might have as online adult learners. We believe that creating an introductory online learning course for the instructors before starting and teaching their online course can give the instructors the tools, experience, and knowledge they need to be able to understand their students better and to identify with them in order to have a connection and be able to empathize.

Making adult students more comfortable with technology and to be able to learn at the same level as more tech-savvy students is the other solution that we found. We believe that this can be achieved by utilizing group activities through virtual discussions during the course. As stated by Seay (2006), adult students can be more successful in their online course when they are provided with a virtual study group or discussion forum so they can discuss their issues with their instructor or help each other understand the material. When adults are paired through virtual group activities with other students that have more technological knowledge, they can overcome challenges such as lack of confidence/familiarity with technology. Online discussions can help them learn from their peers. Also, it would be easier for them to reach out to the instructors for direction if they have more options to communicate.

While there were other components that we had come up with, we believe these two solutions: 1) Increasing teacher training with focus on empathy and 2) Creating a more social environment for students, are the best ways to start in making an inclusive online learning community. These solutions are specifically targeted to the unique demographics at our respective organizations. We hope that when teachers are comfortable using technology and can empathize with the unique backgrounds of their students, they can then create the inclusive system where students of any background or level can be successful and engage to their full extent.

References:

Seay, S. (2006). Strategies for success: Improving the academic performance of low-Income adult and first-Generation students in online general education courses. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 54(3), 22-35. doi:10.1080/07377366.2006.10401222

Stanford University Institute of Design. (2016). A virtual crash course in design thinking.

Vann, L. S. (2017). Demonstrating empathy: A phenomenological study of instructional designers making instructional strategy decisions for adult learners. International Journal Of Teaching & Learning In Higher Education, 29(2), 233-244.

This week’s readings dug a little deeper in terms of instructional design and what designers should being keeping in mind when doing so. Crichton and Carter (2017) mention how the mindset of the student is extremely important and reference the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s suggestions on the factors that learning environments should incorporate. They are that learning environments need to be 1) learner-centred, 2) structured and well-designed, 3) profoundly personalized, 4) inclusive, and 5) social (p. 18). These factors in my mind are straightforward and build upon what I know previously to be aspects to what a successful learning environment (whether it be online or not) should look like. The introduction of empathic design by Mattelmäki,  Vaajakallio, and Koskinen (2014) on the other hand throws me a curveball.

As a researcher I should be quite comfortable with learning theories. In reality though, I feel most grounded with concepts that can be practically seen. The ideas behind problem-based learning or inquiry-based learning have the core concept of trying to find a solution to a problem. Simple enough. Empathic design looks at human behaviour and tries to map learning to those actions (at least in my understanding). Through the reading I realize that it is much more complicated than that. “Empathic designers studied how people make sense of emotions, talk about them, and share them” (Mattelmäki,  Vaajakallio, & Koskinen, 2014, p. 68). Perhaps it is the abstract nature of empathic design that eludes me. I recognize that everyone is different and personalized learning leads to successful learning (as mentioned above). Mattelmäki,  Vaajakallio, and Koskinen talk a lot about the research into empathic design, but I guess I would like to see a practical example of how it is incorporated. I feel empathic design is always at the back of our minds when we think about learning environments, but to put my finger down on an aspect that is clearly empathy influenced is a challenge that I need to overcome.

 

References

Crichton, S. & Carter, D. (2017). Taking Making into Classrooms Toolkit. Open School/ITA.

Mattelmäki, T., Vaajakallio, K., & Koskinen, I. (2014). What happened to empathic design?. Design Issues, 30(1), 67-77.

Coming into the course LRNT524 – Innovation, Design and Learning Environments, I had my apprehensions as someone who had no experience with instructional design. As a researcher by day (and sometimes at night), I dealt with more of the evaluative piece at the end of a course. I’ve had little contact with the instructional designers who develop said courses. I suppose I’m at the E stage (Evaluate) for the ADDIE model as described by Bates (2014).

It’s definitely interesting to see the whole process from beginning to end. While I had known that there were a multitude of methods in designing instruction, the sheer of amount of theories and approaches have been overwhelming. The ADDIE model seems straightforward enough, where you Analyze what’s needed, Design learning objectives to meet the needs, Develop content that achieve the learning objectives, Implement the delivery of the content, and finally Evaluate whether the design is successful or not. The methodology is simple, but may not apply to every situation. Thomas (2010) introduces other methods such as the universal systems model, rapid prototyping, Gagné’s nine events of instruction, the Dick and Carey model, Smith and Ragan’s model, Merill’s Models of Instructional Design, and the Dynamic ID model among others. All of these models have some form of analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation, but vary in the way and order that these processes are enacted.

The universal systems model has an iterative process which gathers feedback from the output and continues to allow altered input. Gagné’s nine events of instruction splits up different events (e.g., stimulation of past learning, providing opportunity for students to show learning, etc.) into pre-instructional, instructional, and post-instructional phases. These methods very greatly in specificity and only the designer can determine which method would work best for their design challenge. I believe a challenge for myself will be to see what are the advantages to each model and under what scenario would each work best. As Bates (2014) points out, ADDIE “does not provide guidelines or procedures for deciding how to choose between different technologies, or what assessment strategies to use”. I would ask a question from one step back and wonder what are the guidelines or procedures for deciding how to choose an instructional design model? Luckily we are at the beginning of the course, so hopefully as we progress (and with more reading) the answer will become clearer.

 

References

Bates, T. (2014, September 9). Is the ADDIE model appropriate for teaching in a digital age? [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.tonybates.ca/2014/09/09/is-the-addie-model-appropriate-for-teaching-in-a-digital-age/

Thomas, P. Y. (2010). Learning and instructional systems design. In Towards developing a web-based blended learning environment (Doctoral dissertation, University of Botswana). Retrieved from http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/4245/04Chap%203_Learning%20and%20instructional%20systems%20design.pdf

Kirschner (2016) makes the case that learning styles and preferences should not dictate teaching methods. He makes a very compelling argument. As the author notes, there is no substantive literature that shows the benefits of adopting teaching methods to learning styles and producing better outcomes. One of his arguments was that people may not prefer what is in fact the best option for themselves. I especially liked his analogy that in terms of foods we may prefer sweet/salty or fried, but as an entire diet it would probably be a poor life choice.

While Kirschner makes some valid arguments, I am still of the belief that there is something to be had of learning styles and preferences. Yes, there isn’t much literature for improved outcomes by focusing on learning styles, but there isn’t any showing worse outcomes either. Unfortunately, this isn’t the case for unhealthy foods. While empirical evidence for achievement is lacking, literature on satisfaction and engagement exists. Kelly and Schorger (2002) found that there was a link between learning preferences/traits and student satisfaction. In fact, they found that extroverts were more satisfied with online learning than introverts.

Also one cannot even say that literature on the effect of learning styles on achievement does not exist. Berenson et. al (2008) found emotional intelligence to be a predictor of academic success in online learning, but when coupled with personality types, it became an even stronger variable. A big factor was sociability, which is a quality that is greatly influenced by learning styles.

Even though Kirschner believes that learning styles don’t serve a purpose in facilitating better outcomes, I’m not ready to toss this idea away just yet. There is a lot of literature out there on this topic, which means I have a lot more reading to do.

 

References

Berenson, R., Boyles, G., & Weaver, A. (2008). Emotional Intelligence as a Predictor for Success in Online Learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 9(2). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/385/1036

Kelly, K. L., & Schorger, J. (2002). Online Learning: Personalities, Preferences and Perceptions (Report No. 143). Missoula, Montana: University of Montana.

Kirschner, P. (2017). Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Computers & Education, 106, 166-171.

The resource I’d like to share is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator personality inventory. In essence it’s a personality test. This week we have been looking at the media debate and whether the medium facilitates learning or it’s all in the instructional method. I’d like to add another dimension to the mix and say that both medium and instructional method need to take into account personality type and learning styles.

Some believe that introverts are naturally drawn to online courses since there is little to no face-to-face interaction (Anitsal et al. 2008; Harrington and Loffredo 2010). Over the course of the last few weeks I have found that the answer is not so simple. While people may be classified as introverts and extraverts, there can be great differentiation even within each category. Naturally with each personality type, various instructional methods and delivery formats will have unique results on learners. For example an active more extraverted learner may prefer discussion board posting and engaging in more interaction with peers. A more reflective and introverted learner may well just prefer to observe a posted lecture video and submit their work individually. Both ways show learning, but assessment may not be equal. Instructional designers need to find a balance in what works for all types of learners.

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator personality inventory can be a tool for learners and instructors alike to identify personality and also learning style. There is no one size fits all in learning, so the more we know about our students, the more prepared we can be to teach them. Through my work in Assignment 2, I hope to learn more about personality types and what are the effects on e-learning (e.g., engagement, achievement, etc.).

See links for more information on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator:

MBTI Basics

Take the MBTI

 

References

Anitsal, M. M., Anitsal, I., Barger, B., Fidan, I., & Allen, M. R. (2008). Student evaluation of course attributes of online courses versus on ground courses: Impact of student personality traits. Proceeding from the Allied Academies International Conference, 13(1), 1–8.

Harrington, R., & Loffredo, D. A. (2010). MBTI personality and other factors that relate to preference for online versus face-to-face instruction. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 89–95.

Contributors: Lorri Weaver, George Tam, May Bahador, Stu Reed, Donna Baker

 

Both Clark (1994) and Kozma (1994) acknowledge that instructional methods and delivery of media must be aligned to facilitate learning. The debate is about the ability of more than one medium to support a selected instructional method, whether a given medium has capabilities that cannot be replicated by another medium, and whether or not the research is valid.

The debate should extend beyond applying Clark’s replaceability theory, which states that if both Media A and Media B yield a measurable improvement in learning, the issue becomes one of method rather than technology as the influencing factor (Clark, 1994). The debate should be about cognitive efficiency—reaching learning or problem-solving goals through optimal use of mental resources—and the efficiency of the technology to meet desired learning outcomes and instructional goals, and must also consider the complexities of the social situations within which they are used. As Kozma stated, “Rather than causes and effects, then, we are looking for causal mechanisms, which are the underlying processes that produce events. And rather than general laws we are looking for sufficient tendencies, which are the net effects of these mechanisms as they operate in complex social situations.” (Kozma, 1994, p. 16).

Our articles touch on different aspects of the debate.

 

Five benefits of video conferencing to learning

https://www.trainingzone.co.uk/community/blogs/irma-hunkeler/5-benefits-of-video-conferencing-to-learning

 

Hunkeler’s (2017) blog post on the benefits of video conferencing to learning supports some of Kozma’s claims (1994), while contradicting elements of Clark’s perspective (1994). While Clark claims that media does not in any way influence learning, Hunkeler asserts that a major advantage of video-based learning is its ability to cater activities to varied learning styles, which may have a direct effect on learning. Having the ability to collaborate through screen and file sharing, Hunkeler claims, results in better decisions and solutions by connecting with both auditory and visual learners. There is no mention, however, of how implementing instructional methods using technology measurably show advantages over face-to-face methods, which does not definitively contrast Clark’s claim that “there is no single media attribute that serves a unique cognitive effect for some learning task” (Introduction, para 2).  

Although Hunkeler states technological tools make content more available, as well as allowing access to experts who are not limited by location or time constraints, improved access does not prove that video is necessarily the best way to reach learning outcomes or collaborate in an employment context. The “complex social situations” described by Kozma (p. 15) must be the starting point for choosing the appropriate method and medium to maximize cognitive efficiency.

Virtual instructors: Almost as good as the real thing

http://www.clomedia.com/2017/02/21/virtual-instructors-almost-good-real-thing/

 

The main claim that Clark (1994) makes is that instructional media does not influence learning, and that it is the methods through which the instruction is taught that dictate learning. In the feature article by Marshall (2017), she describes how virtual instruction can nearly replace traditional instructor-led training in terms of providing quality learning. She enforces the notion that virtual instructor-led training may be not only cost-effective, but effective overall in terms of learning goals.

Addressing Clark’s statement about how media does not influence learning, Marshall notes that question and answer sessions may be incorporated in live face-to-face lessons or in a virtual setting, but in virtual settings there may be more engagement and the ability to ask questions at any time, unlike face-to-face sessions. In addition, all questions and answers may be tracked for future reference. It is this change in dynamic to the question and answer session that may alter the learning that takes place, refuting Clark’s claim that media does not influence learning.

The learning revolution:  It’s not about education

https://www.wired.com/insights/2014/01/learning-revolution-education/

 

Although Clark (1994) and Kozma (1994) disagree on whether instructional media influences learning, they both agree the instructional method plays a strong role in learning.  Witte’s article (2014) describes Babbel, a language learning system he co-founded and currently serves as the CEO.  He implies that technology alone will change education, stating, “A new trend is initiated by a whole new breed of learning technology start-ups that set out to make learning easier for everybody” (Witte, 2014, para 4).  

Witte’s article focuses solely on technology as an enabler of change to how people learn, claiming that the learning revolution occurring now is people using new technology for self-teaching (2014). The article does not refer to how the learning environment is designed, the instructional methods used, or whether a learning theory was applied, a perspective that directly contradicts both Clark and Kozma, who both identify the importance of applying instructional methods in learning.  

Social media’s influence on the education system

http://www.teachercast.net/2016/06/02/social-medias-influence-education-system/

 

Brenton (2016) explains that the use of social media  as a tool for learning in schools grows every year, and teachers are utilizing this powerful tool more and more to reach out to students and use it as a learning enhancement. As Brenton states, based on a study done by Harvard University, while completing group activities in post-secondary classes, students that used social media and online platforms to communicate and complete their group activities did much better than the one without using online platforms. She concludes that the improvement in grades is an indication of media influencing learning and having a positive effect in a classroom.

This article contradicts the claim made by Clark (1994) that media does not influence learning. On the other hand, it does support Kozma’s (1994) request that we examine how we, “… use the capabilities of media to influence learning for particular students, tasks, and situations” (p. 23).

References

Brenton, L. (2016, June 2). Social media’s influence on the education system [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.teachercast.net/2016/06/02/social-medias-influence-education-system/

 

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.

 

Hunkeler, I. (2017, September 29). Five benefits of video conferencing to learning [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.trainingzone.co.uk/community/blogs/irma-hunkeler/5-benefits-of-video-conferencing-to-learning  

 

Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning: Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19.

 

Marshall, J. (2017, February 21). Virtual instructors: Almost as good as the real thing [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.clomedia.com/2017/02/21/virtual-instructors-almost-good-real-thing/

 

Witte, M. (2014, January). The learning revolution: It’s not about education [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/insights/2014/01/learning-revolution-education/