Technological advances can have a dramatic impact on learning environments. Instead of forgetting the history of ed-tech, or ignoring it all together, we must learn to leverage lessons from the past as we re-write the history of embedding educational technology in new applications (Watters, 2014b).
This lesson resonates with me in my career to date, most of which has been spent designing and delivering adult education in not-for-profit or government funded companies. My roles have given me the ability to follow my passions, thereby leaving me feeling inspired every day. However, the red thread that weaves throughout every role is limited capacity, both human and financial. In 2001, Reiser included “research and theory, as well as practice” (2001a, p. 54), as part of the definition of the field of instructional design and technology. As my work tends to be project-based, the expectations for measurable outcomes are constantly shifting. Due to the short-term nature of project-based work, coupled with quick turn-arounds in project design and launch, time for reflection on lessons learned is lost.
In addition, with each new board of directors or funder, comes new rules, new governance and new expectations. In working to meet shifting stakeholder expectations around technical innovation, I notice that the interventions we create are designed almost solely for computer-aided instruction, as opposed to computer-aided inspiration. Instead of considering how the use of computer networks could enable communication between stakeholder groups, we remain focused on leveraging technology to automate learning (Bates, 2014). From reading that post-World War II research found that learning was not impacted by media type (Reiser, 2001a), I begin to wonder if spending all of our time embedding the newest technologies into our program design is the best approach. After all, effective learning that meets the needs of the learner cohort is the goal.
Changes to technology use take time, a well-resourced plan and champions in every stakeholder group. As Watters describes, consumption must balance creation (2014a). Bates (2014) notes that technology is becoming increasingly interwoven into our daily lives, but also reminds us that “claims made by for a newly emerging technology are likely to be neither true nor new” (para. 30). Watters’ (2014b) reminder that the first Dot Com bubble did not result in substantial profits or educational outcomes cements my resolve to focus on improving the quality of the training we provide, with a focus on constructivist practices that emphasize “authentic learning tasks” (Reiser, 2014b, p. 63), as opposed to incorporating the newest fad in ed-tech.
References
Bates, T. (2014). A short history of educational technology. Online learning and distance education. Published December 10, 2014. Retrieved from: https://www.tonybates.ca/2014/12/10/
a-short-history-of-educational-technology/
Reiser, R.A. (2001a). A history of instructional design and technology: Part I: A history of instructional media. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 53-64. Retrieved from: https//doi.org/10.1007/BF02504506
Reiser, R.A. (2001b). A history of instructional design and technology: Part II: A history of instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 57-67. Retrieved from: https//doi.org/10.1007/BF02504928
Watters, A. (2014a). The history of the future of Ed-Tech, Chapter 1. In The monsters of educational technology. Licensed under the Creative Commons CC BY-SA.
Watters, A. (2014b). Un-fathomable: The hidden history of Ed-Tech, Chapter 2. In The monsters of educational technology. Licensed under the Creative Commons CC BY-SA.
Hi Karen,
Thanks for including the video! I’m listening to it now as I write this. I too have worked in non-profit for many years, and sometimes they suddenly spend a bunch of money on things like SMART boards, with no time spent educating instructors on the immense functionality! They cost a huge amount of money, and many teachers don’t have the digital literacy skills or make the time to really find practical educational methods to use them. I am totally for real-world-tasks as well, particularly in adult education. Do you use needs assessments before you start your units?
Hi Stu.
A big part of developing curriculum involves completing thorough needs analyses with various stakeholders. Including explanation of employer needs, for example, provides a real-world context that job seeking learners value.
We also use pre and post-intervention assessments with learners. Instuctor feedback includes that it is valuable for learners to self-assess their topic knowledge and level of confidence before and after they participate in an intervention. And, the same feedback helps instructors uncover areas that could use further exploration.
It’s not a perfect system, of course. I often question the value of self-assessments. Are learners actually learning or are they rushing through assessments, adding feedback that they think we want to hear? My ongoing challenge is to measure how impactful our curriculum is in supporting learners to success in leveraging the information explored when back on the job. How do you measure success in this context? Being from similar environments, I wonder if you wrestle with this question as well.
Thanks, Stu! KM.