Khan Artists, Team 6.  Alphonso, Jason,  Klaus, May, & Sean,

Khan Academy is an educational website that, as its tagline puts it, aims to let anyone “learn almost anything— for free.” (Thompson, 2011). The Khan Academy training strategies were initially thought of as a supplement to the normal curriculum; however, it has become an educational revolution (Thompson, 2011).  Khan found repetition through accessible reviewable videos that allow students to re-access and review any topic in privacy without the fear of ridicule or embarrassment.

Khan combined these ideas with his programming skills to create an online application which automatically generates questions that only allows students to move forward once mastery has been accomplished. Khan found support through Google and The Gates Foundation, and in 2006, developed Khan Academy. Borrowing from software trends such as gamification, Khan Academy rewards success through digital badges and points students that students complete lesson modules to collect. Khan Academy received both positive and negative feedback: constructionists felt Khan’s program was nothing more than lecturing and drills, (Thompson, 2011, p5) however, Khan describes it differently. Khan states that “the more that teachers flip their classrooms— with students watching his lectures at home—the more time is freed up for creative activities during the school day, like arts, games, or collectively brainstorming more abstract stuff…you’re actually liberating the classroom; you’re making it more human” (Thompson, 2011).

Many teachers, in general, have always been adaptive and tried to flip their classrooms by combining Google Docs and other software to track and aid their students to succeed. As the quality of online resources increases, teachers and administrators are realizing that there is no need to reinvent the wheel; somewhere the information has been written that explains the process better. Student-directed learning through Inquiry-based learning processes leads to deeper learning for the students (Justice et al., 2009). Justice (2009) discusses the difficulties institutions have when introducing new pedagogies. Inquiry-based learning is expected to include both seeking new knowledge and understanding through discussion and review. In regards to Khan Academy administration, there can be issues affecting current teaching practices. Instructors need to change or modify their perspectives in building relationships, providing the teaching style that enables the student to focus more on open-ended projects and student-centered assignments and assessments. Noer (2012) discusses that much of the current educational system is based on the Prussian Model that introduced free elementary schooling for reading, writing, and mathematics. This is a one size fits all approach, with synchronous communication between teacher and student where the teacher speaks and the student listens. Khan’s philosophy moves the learning through lectures or working on problems in students’ own time, leaving the classroom for mentoring and one-on-one tutoring. Technology in Khan Academy allows instructors to observe student progress through a dashboard, coaching students through questions that evolve as students progress towards mastery which is needed before students can move forward. Khan’s goal of changing education outlines a radical vision of the future of education.

Khan’s vision is to re-create the once common mixed-age classrooms, which in his opinion, encourages older learners to take responsibility for younger ones. He wants to provide different perspectives from teachers and students preferring a more qualitative approach to assessment and delivery process. Lofty dreams or future reality, Khan’s free short videos have already made substantial contributions to the online learning ecosystem. Pappano (2012) points out the difficulties and drawbacks of learning without some form of recognized certification and considers whether the simple act of learning suffices. In my opinion, leaving many of the questions unanswered, the following and successful reviews and testimonials all point to the possibility that there is value in Khan Academy. However, many questions remain: Does flipping the classroom work with all students and how does the change affect teaching procedures and mindsets? How is gamification used in Khan Academy and is it effective?  Which elements of the Khan Academy experience facilitate the self-discipline required for student-directed learning? To what degree is accessibility (WCAG standards) supported, and how might this impact the learning experience? What is needed to transition teachers and students when blending the Kahn Academy program into the current curriculum?

References

Justice, C., Rice, J., Roy, D., Hudspith, B., & Jenkins, H. (2009). Inquiry-based learning in higher education: administrators’ perspectives on integrating inquiry pedagogy into the curriculum. Higher education, 58(6), 841. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dale_Roy/publication/226493136_Inquiry-based_learning_in_higher_education_Administrators%27_perspectives_on_integrating_inquiry_pedagogy_into_the_curriculum/links/5551dd0908ae93634eca729d.pdf

Khan Academy. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.khanacademy.org/

Noer, M. (2012). One man, one computer, 10 million students: How Khan Academy is reinventing education. Forbes. pp. 1-8. Retrieved from http://www.prisim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/One-Man-One-Computer-10-Million-Students-How-Khan-Academy-Is-Reinventing-Education-Forbes.pdf.

Pappano, L. (2012). The Year of the MOOC. The New York Times, 2(12), 2012. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/massive-open-online-courses-are-multiplying-at-a-rapid-pace.html.

Thompson, C. (2011). How Khan Academy is changing the rules of education. Wired Magazine,126, 1-5. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/download/40764790/Khan_Academy_technology.pdf

There are many great ideas coming from the course combined learning tool list, developing a high-level project plan or choosing to access the readiness of your organization. Using the toolkit, we built or a hybrid version thereof, requires a comparison of pros and cons, but does it replace leadership responsibilities or help guide them?

In comparison, the variation between each group’s toolkit, in my opinion, is actually minimal and depending on the organizational stream it is being used in.  Each toolkit showed its advantages and disadvantages in meet the various and changing requirements.  When implementing successful change, communication skills and organizational skills all come into play as stated amongst all the group toolkits designed.

Implementing a successful change requires vision, strategies, plans, and analysis, but most of all it starts with the ability to lead or modify behavior in such a manner as to accomplish the goal or vision. Herold, Fedor, Caldwell, and Liu (2008) determined reflective leadership style intertwines well in change management, and transformational leadership theories, both of which are in support of a cultural change. Out of all key leadership traits, the ability to motivate others outweighs other management skills when implementing large or disruptive change Sarros, Luca, Densten, and Santora (2014).  When the majority of change implementation fails in meeting or possibly never getting off the ground, the various tools, programs are looked at as a designed tool to help overcome change. The reality is project management skills cover many areas of a project and every project has its own set of unique issues or problems to overcome. In my experience implementing change or something new into a company all relates to leadership and prep work done by a champion or group that takes ownership of the project and helps drive it forward.

References

Groups A-Tool Kits (2018) unpublished toolkits LNRT 525 Unit 4 Activity 2 https://padlet.com/carrielearn/iv5ayna2w1vj?utm_campaign=added_comment&utm_medium=desktop&utm_source=notifications

Castelli, P. A. (2016) ‘Reflective leadership review: a framework for improving organizational performance’, Journal of Management Development, pp. 217–236. doi: 10.1108/JMD-08-2015-0112.

Herold, D.M., Fedor, D.B., Caldwell, S. and Liu, Y. (2008), “The effects of transformational and change leadership on employees’ commitment to a change: a multilevel study”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 2, pp. 346-357.

Sarros, J.C., Luca, E., Densten, I. and Santora, J.C. (2014), “Leaders and their use of motivating language”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 226-240.

Addressing Change

How do leaders address change?

How is it possible to overcome obstacles such as differing opinions, opposing personalities and previous experiences, problems with resources, or unaligned goals and visions?  I interviewed three leaders from different careers in hopes of gaining a wider view of “leadership in change regarding digital learning environments”.   The three interviewees and I came from different careers, backgrounds and life experiences, and live or lived in various regions of Canada.  Our discussion focused on how each of us has developed unique viewpoints and leadership styles based on our experiences and how this affected the way we looked at implementing, participating in, and adapting to change in a digital environment.  To help determine what set of questions to ask, and to provide the same reference points to some of the reading material covered with the interviewees from the corporate side of leadership.   All interviewees have experiences in implementing change through leadership roles within the industries and organizations where the experiences are found.  Interviewing a fellow MALAT student, had the advantages of both us having completed the assigned reading, with all the different viewpoints and theories provided.

Surprisingly, findings that the interviewee perspectives leaned to include many aspects of resource management issues as well as multi-level communication keys in success.  In both the consultant and employee interview, I referenced Wiener (2009) to help focus the interview, as he brings in his view from a social cognitive theory perspective.  I was intrigued by the way he describes three implementation issues in change efficacy and felt his view could provide a basic overview in relationships in leadership on when to initiate change.  Weiner defines efficacy as a judgment of perceived capability to perform a task, in which one asks the questions “Do we know… do we have…, and can we…,” to determine if an organization is ready and willing to accept change.  In medicine, efficacy is defined as the capacity for beneficial change (or therapeutic effect) of a given intervention (e.g. a drug, medical device, surgical procedure, or public health intervention has efficacy if the symptoms of an illness are reduced or disappear).  The efficacy of any medical intervention is also considered to be the maximum effect a drug can produce, regardless of the dose (Google Dictionary). Although the definitions share a similar theme of focusing on overall effectiveness, the definition that drew my attention and on which I reflected most was that efficacy is the maximum benefit or best possible results regardless of the effort required to achieve them.  These definitions exemplified the evolution of thinking regarding effort vs results, demonstrating a need for a type of scale that can produce a graph or pendulum which shows the tipping point that also answers the question “If not now, when?” (Wiener, 2009).

Antwi and Kale (2014) reviewed Lewin’s Three-Step Model that examines how social groups are formed, motivated, and maintained.  As I interpreted the information from the interview process, a pattern that exemplified the role of leadership in implementing change. The key underlying impressions were without a champion or leader promoting and presenting the project with enthusiasm, the project will not succeed. As in Antwi and Kale’s (2014) comparison of the Canada Health Infoway Change Framework, with the first point being governance and leadership is essential in any implementation of change. The secondary interview findings promoted the need for resources at the right time and place, comparatively aligns with Antwi and Kale (2014) stakeholder engagement and perspectives.  Weiner (2009) surmises that the individual-level theories of behavioral change have provided more in successful change processes.

Personally, my experiences in leadership in group and individual, the various applications of presenting it, has both pushed groups to succeed or lead them to fail.  Both directions provide invaluable learning events for future change and organizational review on knowing when to initiate change.

Udas (2008) blogged that striking a balance between leadership through top-down decision making and resources needed in long-term planning requires middle management buy-in.  Indicating key points that follow a neutral process that maintains a seemingly continuous progress of reaching the successful outcomes. In his blog, he further states that policy, procedure, and technology need to come together to bridge the gap between vision and reality.  Many of these ideas were reemphasized with the interviewees, putting in my view leadership and change into both groups showing that individual skills and group harmonics require leadership in varying degrees throughout the organization.

References

Al-Haddad, S., Kotnour, T. (2015) ‘Integrating the organizational change literature: a model for successful change’, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), pp. 234–262. doi: 10.1108/JOCM-11-2013-0215.

Antwi, M. and Kale, M. (2014) ‘Change Management in Healthcare: Literature Review’, Monieson Centre for Business Research in Healthcare, Queen’s University, (January), pp. 1–35. Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4096/8d2ea62c423946f0089aacfb9d3f461035ed.pdf%0Ahttps://smith.queensu.ca/centres/monieson/knowledge_articles/files/Change Management in Healthcare – Lit Review – AP FINAL.pdf.

Udas, K. (2008, June 30). Distributed learning environments and OER: the change management challenge. [blog post].

Weiner, B. (2009) ‘A theory of organizational readiness for change.’, Implementation science: IS, 4(1), p. 67. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-67.

Google definitions

Efficacy vs. Potency – Pharmacology – Medbullets Step 1. step1.Medbullets.com/pharmacology/107007/efficacy-vs-potency

Efficacy – Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficacy

Boss or leader in times of change

Leadership is a critical requirement when initiating change, fact or fiction? Theories and models are reviewed in comparison to a changing world. Khan (2017) reviewed adaptive and transactional leadership finding neither leadership theory meets all the requirements of a leader. She inferred that the adaptive leadership has an edge in higher education’s leadership needs.  Leadership theories vary and through our assigned reading, I still haven’t found one answer that fits all.  Kahn’s comparison shows me that every leadership theory has pros and cons, my thoughts on which theory aligns with my approach. I can appreciate Castelli 2015 thoughts on reflective leadership and believe I tend to follow this theory.  In my first statement, I posted a true or false question, answering this question opens a conundrum of variations and definitions. However, I am a firm believer that when the proper leadership theory is introduced at the right time and place it will have a profound influence on the outcome of change.  Weller & Anderson (2013) examine resilience and the system’s ability to bounce back from change, external forces may still derail the project. Having a robust and resilient system, in my opinion, helps to absorb some of the Shock’s and possibly smooth out the roller-coaster ride. Properly enacted leadership that is flexible and adaptable will remove obstacles, and make the ride even smoother.

References

Al-Haddad, S. and Kotnour, T. (2015) ‘Integrating the organizational change literature: a model for successful change’, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), pp. 234–262. doi: 10.1108/JOCM-11-2013-0215.

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

Huggins, K. (2017). Developing Leadership Capacity in Others: An Examination of High School Principals’ Personal Capacities for Fostering Leadership. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 12(1).

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).

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

Our reading for Unit Two, activity1, leads us into the exciting field of Industrial design and design thinking. I started with System Designs Theories and Models and structured my reading from the big picture as to what do Instruction designers do and how the trade progressed Kenny, R. F. (2013). The view was very systematic and structured, initially following behavioral learning theories and then migrated to included cognitive theories. Other big changes were happening as instruction followed the constructivist learning theory migrating from teacher –controlled to learner-centered instruction. As a “Designer” the 4 competencies required where deemed to be:

1). Communication Skills,

2). Knowledge of Instructional design (ID) Models,

3). Problem solving / decision making,

4). Technology skills.

Rowland (1994) suggests, a novice requires these skills and gaining experience through a case-based method of instruction can provide the learner with the best methods of learning the design process. Which lead to the article from Shelley Goldman, Maureen P. Carroll, Z. K. and Leticia Britos Cavagnaro, Adam W. (2012) describing the process of thinking outside the box. Following the reciprocal research and design methodology which is designed to develop an on-going, organically connected solution finding process. Again, a change from learner-centered to human-centered with a stronger understanding of the interactions and empathy needed to transition to a design thinking process.  In theory, the 5 key areas in design thinking relate to the ability to empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test. (Hasso Plattner Institute of Design, 2007). By being able to define problem parameters moving to identifying relevant components within a complex problem-solving situation. The process of design thinking to me is a pathway or flight plan with many routes and connecting adventures to explore. By use of an expanded view or perspective that observes human-centered (empathy for others) ideology, experimental (envision- to do, to make, to visualize), collaborative (teamwork in problem-solving), metacognitive (being able to adapt to change) you are on your way to becoming a design thinker.

Innovation and Change as described the changing pedagogies in distance learning have migrated from a behaviorist or cognitivist models to a social constructivist model, as knowledge in how others affected learning within ID, the process continued down a path to include a connectivist model (views learning as a network of both human and non-human). In addition to the changing theories and learning processes or models, there still is a need to include “Technology” into the equation. Technology is a word with many definitions, in an ever-evolving environment Dron, J. (2014). I see it as an operational knowledge and or an interface as they are a part of the design process, each of which having implications on outcomes and an ability to automate (thus structured with predetermined outcomes) or flexibility to be creative, innovative to changing situations. Either way, choosing which technology to apply when, where, and how all need to be part of the design process and a thorough that the design thinking exercise.  Having technology with too much pre-programmed structure may limit creativity, however, have a course design with too little structure could cause students to quit or get too frustrated in deducing the solution through too much ambiguity. Coming from a Corporate side of training and development and dealing in a global training I could relate to how even though English is being used throughout the world regional/cultural understanding change perceived meanings and context of the language used could be misunderstood. All of which, will relate to distance learning as technology and language, culture, theories, and models are all changing at various speeds and times, however, must converge to ensure the training provided meets the 21 centuries needs.

References

Dron, J. (2014) ‘Innovation and How we Change’, Online Distance Education: Towards a Research Agenda, pp. 237–265. Available at: http://books.google.co.za/books?hl=en&lr=&id=9dH9AwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA237&dq=water+taylor+and+francis&ots=FO3_1cbZvM&sig=bVYig9e3pS6iQrxQ64Vz9vB5Gzo.

Shelley Goldman, Maureen P. Carroll, Z. K. and Leticia Britos Cavagnaro, Adam W. Royalty, Bernard Roth, Swee Hong Kwek, and J. K. (2012) ‘Design thinking research: Assessing d.learning: Capturing the Journey of Becoming a Design Thinker Shelley’, Design Thinking Research: Measuring Performance in Context, pp. 1–302. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-31991-4.

Kenny, R. F. (2013) ‘Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology / La revue canadienne de l ’ apprentissage et de la A Review of What Instructional Designers Do: Questions Answered and Questions Not Asked’, 31(1), pp. 1–11.

Schwier, R. A., and Wilson, J. R. (2010) ‘Unconventional Roles and Activities Identified by Instructional Designers’, 1(2), pp. 134–147.

Vann, L. S. (2017) ‘Demonstrating Empathy: A Phenomenological Study of Instructional Designers Making Instructional Strategy Decisions for Adult Learners’, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 29(2), pp. 233–244. Available at: http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/.

Co-written by Jason Keddie, Alfonso MacGregor, Fiona Prince, Klaus Rimke, and Gavin Sturgeon.

Activity 7 of the course LRNT523, Foundations of Learning and Technologies, at Royal Roads University asked students to read articles by Richard E. Clark, and Robert B. Kozma. We were then tasked as a group to find four documents that challenge the analysis presented by either Clark or Kozma and subsequently critique and question the claims made by those authors.

According to the Oxford Dictionary (n.d.), ‘Influence’ is defined as “the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something”. Clark (1994) confidently proclaimed that media will never influence learning since “they are not directly responsible for motivating learning” yet his argument seems to miss the nuance of the meaning of ‘influence’ as the following articles reveal.

Article 1 – Using Media to Motivate and Promote Language Production in the English as a Foreign Language Classroom

Bergeron (2015) asserts that media causes motivation while Clark (1994) contends that media does not cause motivation. Bergeron (2015) begins the overview section of the paper by stating that “the purpose of this paper is to provide a brief overview of how media can be effectively used to motivate” (p. 18). There is a consistent narrative throughout the paper that media are driving improvements in motivation and learning. For example, Bergeron (2015) states that “observation of students’ engagement during the unit of work suggests that the use of media tools…did effectively motivate students” (p. 23). This contrasts with Clark’s (1994) position that “media do not influence learning or motivation” (p. 1). Appropriate use of instructional methods, not media, according to Clark (1994), cause motivation and learning.

Bergeron (2015) also separates media into technical and non-technical categories, defining technical as mostly audio and video while defining non-technical as mostly writings, drawings, or images. According to Bergeron (2015), teachers should familiarize themselves with technical media because it is more effective with today’s learners. Bergeron (2015) does not adequately support the assertion that technical media is superior to non-technical media, and this concept would also contrast with Clark’s (1994) position since Clark believes that media do not influence motivation, which would mean that one form of media cannot influence motivation more than another form of media if neither form of media influences motivation.

Bergeron (2015) focused on the idea that media drives learning and motivation, but to a lesser extent comments on the instructional methods employed by the media. Bergeron (2015) details observing increased motivation and learning with the use of media, but according to Clark these increases in motivation and learning are due to changes in instructional method and not media.

Reading Bergeron’s paper while keeping Clark’s assertions in mind, it is easy to see all the instructional methods employed that may be the actual cause of the purported increases in motivation and learning.

Article 2 – Is This the Future of Adult Learning?

In this article, Bennett (2016) outlines three concepts that would improve literacy and earning power of adult learners as discussed at the MIT Media Lab by researchers, adult learning experts, and entrepreneurs. These concepts were: Read Out Loud (literacy improvement), Express Me (mobile learning during commutes), and Citizen Tutoring (provide mentoring opportunities from senior tutors). Each of these concepts incorporates the use of technology media to deliver intuitive and accessible information to adult learners while circumventing barriers of language and time.

By providing an atmosphere of accessibility and inclusivity, the media in Bennett’s article had a profound influential effect on the development of the learner and is in stark contrast to Clark’s argument. For example, Read Out Loud “allows the user to scan any book and view the text in English and any other language side-by-side” (Bennett, 2016) which enabled the parent to read along with their kids; thus, “parents are able to engage in this important part of their children’s education and play the role of teacher, while engaging in learning themselves” (Bennett, 2016). Not only does the children’s literacy improve with this media tool; the adults’ do, too.Improved literacy gives the adult learners additional options to select information integral to employment opportunities and provides “autonomy over improving general skills as well as increasing earning potential” (Bennett, 2016). When a technology provides the motivation to directly impact a person’s ability and desire to learn, develop, and improve their self-worth, that in itself is an influence; perhaps Clark will revisit this concept.

Article 3 – The Effects of High/low Interactive Electronic Storybooks on Elementary School Students’ Reading Motivation, Story Comprehension, and Chromatics Concepts

In order to explore if the media through which content is delivered to learners influences the outcome, Kao et al. (2016) divided a group of 40 fourth-grade students in two groups and provided them with the exact same reading material. All students received an e-book; what marked the difference was that one set of books were of low interactivity while the other set was of high interactivity. High interactivity consisted of having three advanced features that responded to the reader: “guidance”, “prompt”, and “feedback”.

The conclusions of the authors point toward the positive effects that interactivity has as a complement to reading material. This finding is supported by other researchers, such as Ciampa, Grant, and Lewin (as cited in Kao et al., 2016) who stated that motivation and engagement in readers are increased with illustrations, animations, and narrations when those features are congruent with the storyline and content of the e-book.

Article 4 – 7 Tech Innovations That are Drastically Changing the Way People Learn

When Clark (1994) wrote that media will never influence learning, did he foresee the invention of the following media and technology and their use in education? Miller (2017) claims that these seven tech innovations are drastically changing the way people learn because they support experiential learning–learning by doing. In keeping with our team’s focus on ‘influence’, we agree that these innovations do influence learning when thoughtfully included in the instructional design.

3D Printing
3D-printers are now affordable and easy to use right of the box. One application is to introduce learners to the basics of engineering through hands-on, problem-solving activities.
Gamification
Clear in-game rules, objectives, and competition in video games such as Minecraft (Educational Edition) increase learner engagement in subjects from history to reading comprehension.
Virtual reality
Interactive virtual reality platforms in classes, such as Biology (imagine dissection without the mess), Engineering, and Architecture allow students to learn through simulations and renderings; Google expeditions have made virtual travel a reality bringing the wonders of the world to a much greater audience.
MOOCS
Massive open online courses have increased accessibility to learning, allowing anyone with an internet connection to attend classes, even graduate studies. MOOCs are being used in both online and blended delivery models.
Skype
Even though it is a technology originating in 2003, Skype has become a popular media for connecting learners with teachers and tutors, especially for language learning services.
Big Data and custom learning
Algorithms and data tracking are used to guide the development of blended learning programs and give students the ability to customize their learning experience. This has been proven to reduce the dropout rate and increase comprehension. (Now that’s influence!)
IPads and Chromebooks A popular piece of tech that has and is immersed in the schools allowing teachers to facilitate rather than manage the learning of the students.
Clark may see these technical innovations as tools that could be replaced by other tools and methods; however, we must consider whether other tools and methods would provide the same level of engagement, motivation, and timeliness for learners.

References

Bennett, T. (2016, July 10). Is this the future of adult learning? [Blog post]. EdSurge News. Retrieved October 05, 2017.

Bergeron, S. (2015). Using media to motivate and promote language production in the English as a foreign language classroom.

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

Influence | Definition of influence in English by Oxford dictionaries. (n.d.). Retrieved October 05, 2017.

Kao, G., Tsai, C., Liu, C., & Yang, C. (2016). The effects of high/low interactive electronic storybooks on elementary school students’ reading motivation, story comprehension and chromatics concepts. Computers & Education, 100, 56-70.

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

Miller, L. (2017). 7 tech innovations that are drastically changing the way people learn [Blog post].