Etchells et al. (2017) responds to an article in The Guardian titled, “Screen-based lifestyle harms children’s health” (Palmer et al., 2016), disagreeing with the perceived underlying message of the article that screens are inherently harmful and implying that the article was “moral panic about the impact of new technologies on our behaviour and development” (Etchells et al., 2017, para 1). Specifically, Etchells et al. (2017) argues that there is not sufficient research to implement policy guidelines and that additional research is required.
Despite the article’s title, Palmer et al. (2016) only mentions screen-time twice in the article, once in the first paragraph where they state four large issues that they believe are undermining children’s health and well-being and once in a subparagraph where the recommend, “National guidelines on screen-based technology for children up to the age of 12, produced by recognised authorities in child health and development” (Palmer et al., 2016, para 3). As Palmer et al. (2016) are recommending a recognised authority produces guidelines, this could in fact involve research if the recognised authority deems there is insufficient evidence. Additionally, Palmer et al. (2016) does recognise the issue is complex and there are numerous factors and has indeed cited four influential factors. So, in many ways although Etchells et al. (2017) are setting themselves up as an adversary, the desire to focus on children’s health and further understand and progress the issue appears to be something that they share with Palmer et al. (2016).
As a mother, I found Etchells et al.’s response unhelpful as they did not provide any guidance that could help even though they linked to several articles that specifically identified areas where there are known impacts of technology. For example, George & Odgers (2015) noted, “Sleep is one area where there is now compelling evidence that adolescents’ use of new technologies is having adverse effects on sleep duration and quality” (p. 16). A far more useful response is given by Livingston (2016) where she examines the American Academy of Pediatrics stance on screen time and the evidence behind it. This examination provides readers with a balanced viewpoint helping parents understand some of the nuances that Etchells et al. (2017) merely referred to as complex. Overall, Etchells et al. (2017) could have used the opportunity to help parents understand some of the things we do know about what is a very complex issue and instead their only recommendation is for more research. I find their approach to be antagonistic within the scientific community and uninformative to the public at large.
References:
Etchells, P., et al. (January 6, 2017). Screen Time Guidelines should be built on evidence, not hype. The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2017/jan/06/screen-time-guidelines-need-to-be-built-on-evidence-not-hype
George, M. J., & Odgers, C. L. (2015). Seven fears and the science of how mobile technologies may be influencing adolescents in the digital age. Perspectives on psychological science, 10(6), 832-851. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4654691/pdf/nihms704598.pdf
Livingstone, S. (October 21, 2016). New screen time rules from the American Academy of Pediatrics. Retrieved from: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2016/10/24/new-screen-time-rules-from-the-american-academy-of-pediatrics/
Palmer, S., et al. (December 26, 2016). Screen-based lifestyle harms children’s health. The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/dec/25/screen-based-lifestyle-harms-health-of-children
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
“Pixabay Sunset Evening Sky Colorful” by sbtlneet is licenced under CC0.
At a time when “we are witnessing a fundamental change in the production of knowledge and our relationship to content (Weller, 2011, p. 232), exploring content available online and determining how it could be used by a learner or instructor is critical to instructional designers. With this in mind, we chose the topic of photography in low light situations to investigate and determine if abundant learning resources existed online, and how these resources could be used in learning.
Do abundant resources exist online?
Two different approaches were taken to determine if abundant resources exist online. Lorri initially tried to find comprehensive content and then widened the search to examine other less inclusive sources. Rather than looking for a single source to teach me about low light photography, Donna started from the basic premise of resource based learning, which brings references to the fore (Weller, 2011) and searched for “low light photography.” Despite these different approaches, the same conclusion was reached. Outlined below is their exploration of content.
Lorri’s search for low light photography resources
Initially, I searched for one location that would teach me everything I needed to know to enable me to shoot good photos in low light conditions for the perspective of someone trying to learn on their own. Lynda.com offers the course “Photography Foundations: Night and Low Light”, but the instructor specifies prerequisite knowledge and recommended “Photography Foundations: Exposure”. So, I previewed this course as well. Both courses explain the principles well, but do not address specific cameras or outline practice requirements. So, my next question was, “How do I do this on my camera?” so I can practice. A Google search led me to an article which explained the shutter priority mode (one of the topics discussed in the course) for my camera step by step (Sylvan, 2011). Google searches also lead to many tutorials, videos and blogs with tips on taking photos in low light conditions as well as explanations regarding the associated camera controls.
Donna’s search for low light photography resources
I took a different approach to the task than Lorri did by focusing on bringing together many references to create an understanding of the subject (Weller, 2011). On the first pages of the over 18 million returns, I noticed multiple returns from https://digital-photography-school.com, https://www.creativelive.com, https://photographylife.com, and https://www.picturecorrect.com, as well as the https://expertphotography.com site that Lorri references. All sites in my sample offered multiple instructional posts for improving low light photographs, and the www.picturecorrect.com article included an infographic showing tips, technical issues, and how to use and hold your camera.
Is there a mechanism to help me improve?
“Learning is promoted when learners are guided in their problem solving by appropriate feedback and coaching, including error detection and correction, and when this coaching is gradually withdrawn” (Merrill, 2002, p. 49). With this in mind, options available to help a photographer improve their low light photography were examined.
Self coaching/critiquing resources
Having established that there is abundant information on the subject of photography in low light situations and how different cameras function, we were ready to take pictures and then try to self critique to improve our photos and troubleshoot problems. It was at this point that content became more difficult to interpret and slightly less specific. For example, Dunlop (2017) described ten ways to critique photos, but assumes you have a good understanding of photography. Within his article, he points out positive and negative aspects in photos and provides an example without specifying if it the example shows a negative or positive aspect. An additional challenge an online learner trying to self critique faces is determining the correct search terms to use, for example, a user may describe a photo as “blurry” when it is “grainy” or “high noise”.
Communities of Practice, Forums and Comments
Each of the sites discovered during the content search offered varying degrees of user interaction, and in all cases, the sites rely on conventional social media channels for user interactions. This type of interaction may be helpful to clarify the intent of an author, ask specific questions or seek help with problems that the photographer is experiencing.
Additionally, communities of practice can be helpful in coaching and troubleshooting. There are communities of practice for photography built on sites such as Flickr (Herrema, 2011). Flickr has two million groups (Flickr, 2017) where people can post pictures and share feedback to help improve their photography. These communities of practice promote growth and improvement and provide a peer group for learners.
Additionally, although peer feedback may be useful, that feedback has to come from a reliable source, which may be a teacher or instructor, but could also be a forum moderator or knowledgeable peer. Learning would occur much faster with a teacher present during practice sessions to coach the student as they are taking the photo rather than just critiquing the product.
Instructional Strategies
“Finding effective ways of dealing with this [abundance of content] may be the key element in any pedagogy” (Weller, 2011, 232). Course development was approached in two ways. Lorri viewed the content as a good source of theory prior to a face-to-face coached session. Donna viewed the synthesis of the content as part of the learning.
Lorri’s instructional approach
If I were designing a low light photography course, I would create a blended course using online content to provide theory for the learner and then scheduling practice sessions in person to provide coaching while the learners practiced taking photos. To ensure that learners reviewed all of the main teaching points and that their time was used efficiently, I would compile and share a list of the best resources related to low light photography for the learner’s review. I would also create a checklist or scavenger hunt for the learners to answer based on knowledge they would need to have about their camera. After their online review of the theory, I would meet with them for a face-to-face session where I would coach them as they took low light photos.
Donna’s instructional approach If I were designing a course containing content about low light photography, the principal task would be the “selection, aggregation and interpretation of existing materials” (Weller, 2011, p. 229). I would include the information in a photography course as follows: Part 1: The students read the blog posts, compare/contrast the blog posts’ advice, and create their own list of tips for low light photography. Part 2: Using the information from the blog posts and their own work, students produce their own photos. They are instructed to produce images using a range of settings so they can compare them to evaluate the effectiveness of applying the blog posts’ tips. Part 3: Students are required to submit their work for the instructor to critique, including information about the settings they chose and why. Part 4: Students are required to upload their work to a discussion forum for classmates to review each other’s work, ask questions, and offer advice. From the students’ perspective, beyond the knowledge about low light photography, one overarching goal of the course would be to teach the student how to curate knowledge, as they would be performing in the assignment. Unlike Lorri, I don’t see the need for an in-person instructor for this topic, and feel it could be successful as a fully online offering. The access to a subject matter expert (instructor) differentiates a paid course offering professional critiques from those anyone can receive online at sites such as https://www.reddit.com/r/photocritique.
Other thoughts
On-line learning for photography is practical as photographers are judged by the product they produce (their portfolio) rather than the education or training they have completed. In many fields there is not a tangible product that the learner can be judged on unless they are tested (or they challenge a test in an existing course). This may limit self-guided online learning to professional development in subjects such as engineering, business administration and sciences.
Summary
Despite our different approaches, we were both able to conclude that an abundance of information exists to inform a learner on the subject of low light photography and that a number of resources are available to help a learner improve their photos. Despite these similar conclusions, different instructional approaches were proposed to use the abundant content, one approach which focused on efficiently transferring knowledge and skills and the other an approach focused on improving the student’s curation of knowledge while they gained photography skills and knowledge. Having different instructional approaches using different media allows flexibility for the learner and shows that there is no one definitive way to design a course.
References:
Dunlop, J. (2017). How to capture great photos in low light [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://expertphotography.com/capture-great-photos-low-light/
Grigonis, H. (2017, June 1). Low light photography: 8 tips for making the most of dark scenes [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://blog.creativelive.com/low-light-photography-dslr-tips-for-making-the-most-of-dark-scenes/
Herrema, R. (2011). Flickr, communities of practice and the boundaries of identity: a musician goes visual. Visual Studies, 26(2), 135-141.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational technology research and development, 50(3), 43-59.
Phun, P. (2017, March 19). Night or low light photography tips [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.picturecorrect.com/tips/night-low-light-photography/
Sylvan, R. (2011, August 29). Nikon D5100: The Professional Modes. Retrieved from
Weller, M. (2011). A pedagogy of abundance. Spanish Journal of Pedagogy, 249, 223–236.
Wunderlich, B. (n/d). How to shoot in low light – 9 commonly asked questions [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://digital-photography-school.com/how-to-shoot-in-low-light-9-commonly-asked-questions/
I have read both Ertmer & Newby (2013) and Merrill (2002) in the past, using both to help me understand learning theory. I have agreed with the conclusion in Ertmer & Newby (2013) that “the designer’s ‘best’ approach may not ever be identical to any previous approach, but will truly ‘depend upon the context'” (p. 62). I also believe strongly in the veracity of Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction (2002) based on how they align with learning theory as well as my own experience as a student, a parent and teacher of adult learners.
Despite this, we are asked to read and align ourselves with one theoretical position and describe how it is applied in our day-to-day work. As Airworthiness Training Lead within the Directorate of Technical Airworthiness and Engineering Support, I could choose any theory as I see applications of all of the theories in both our training and day-to-day work. However, I will focus on cognitivism as the majority of the courses that we provide teach to the application level, in other words, they teach the “knowing how” (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p. 60), so this is most often the learning theory employed.
By U.S. Navy [Public domain], via Wikimedia CommonsLast week I monitored the second pilot of the “Flight Test Project Sponsor Course.” It is a day-long course aimed at providing Engineering Officers and Life Cycle Material Managers with the knowledge and understanding they need to execute project sponsor duties relating to flight test. To simplify it, they (the students) have a new aircraft part that they need to have tested. The course provides an understanding of the stakeholders in flight test, the different types of flight test, the process (Definition, Estimate, Tasking, Active, Closure) and the responsibilities of the project sponsor. Cognitive methods are employed by:
providing a strong organiser for the flight test process (used many times throughout the training session);
the emphasis on student participation in the training, directly drawing on their past experience and knowledge. The majority of students have considerable experience in aviation and are therefore able to provide examples to illustrate concepts during the course;
the gradual introduction of concepts from basic to advanced (for example, introducing the types of activities that you might need tested, then introducing the specific action words that can be used and finally teaching how to build an objective); and
providing follow-up after the course utilising the “test effect” (Adesope, Trevisan, & Sundararajan, 2017) to improve course content retrieval.
All of this is focused on ensuring learners know enough to act as the project sponsor. However, I said that we employed behaviorism and constructivism as well. The prerequisite for the Flight Test Project Sponsor Course is the Airworthiness Familiarisation training, a 3 hour online course that provides basic airworthiness knowledge (students must recall basic information and define terms). This course is a knowledge level course, focusing on the “knowing what” (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p. 60) and thus behaviourism is applied through the use of repetition, quizzes with informative feedback and a requirement for students to master one topic prior to moving on to the next (Ertmer & Newby, 2013). After students complete the Flight Test Project Sponsor Course, they will be mentored on their first project. This mentoring relies on constructivist theory as students gradually create their own understanding through the act of doing (Ertmer & Newby, 2013). So, in the end even though I have focused on cognitivism, I am really a systematic eclectic and so the theoretical position I am aligned with is using the learning theories and principles that best fit the situation.
References:
Adesope, O. O., Trevisan, D. A., & Sundararajan, N. (2017). Rethinking the Use of Tests: A Meta-Analysis of Practice Testing. Review of Educational Research, 87(3), 659-701.
Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43-59.
This week we are focusing on theories of learning, a subject I find fascinating. Within this course and the courses we have taken so far, we are developing a good baseline of knowledge from many sources describing the various learning theories; however, not everyone that we work with has this broad baseline nor has the time to study different theories. So, I am sharing with you links to quick, fun youtube videos given by “Crash Course” that explain some of the important concepts related to these theories. As an Instructional Designer, you can use these videos to help a Subject Matter Expert you are working with understand the basis of the approach that you are taking with respect to course design. You can also use these quick 10 minute videos to re-energize your interest in a topic. They are peppy, interesting and informative!
I hope one or more of these videos can help you tie together some of the learning that you have already experienced or reflect on specific aspects of your learning.
Greer, A., & Mott, V. W. (2010). Learner-centered teaching and the use of technology. Dynamic Advancements in Teaching and Learning Based Technologies: New Concepts: New Concepts, 248-263.
Kim, R., & Albert, L. R. (2014). The history of base-ten-blocks: Why and who made base-ten-blocks?. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(9), 356-365.
Leinhardt, G. (1992). What research on learning tells us about teaching. Educational Leadership, 49(7), 20-25.
Oliveira, C. (2009, August). The Moon in the Perception and Measurement of Social and Ritual Time. Comments on the Pre-historic Record. In Cosmology Across Cultures (Vol. 409, p. 364).
Stigler, J. W. (1984). “Mental abacus”: The effect of abacus training on Chinese children’s mental calculation. Cognitive Psychology, 16(2), 145-176.
Suh, J. M., & Moyer, P. S. (2008). Scaffolding special needs students’ learning of fraction equivalence using virtual manipulatives. Proceedings of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 4, 297-304.
I had fun with this activity! Initially, I strove to define educational technology. I liked the definition that its goal is “facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using and managing appropriate technological processes and resources” (Lazaro, 2014).
When I think of educational technology, I tend to think of modern technology, but interestingly, Levene’s History of Educational Technology timeline (2012) illustrates how items such as the slate are examples of instructional media supplementing instructional methods and advancing affordable education. This caused me to reflect on some of the low tech methods we currently employ in the military to great effect (such as flip-charts in a small-group brainstorming activity or a sand table to teach basic military tactics).
The timeline also pointed out some more modern technology such as student response systems can act as great enablers of formative assessment (Levene, 2012). Currently within the air force, we also use advanced educational technology. We are using linked simulators to train aircrew in joint operations with army and navy personnel, increasing training opportunities. This educational technology enables aircrew to remain proficient and current in emergency procedures in a way that is not possible to replicate safely on an actual aircraft (RCAF PA Imagery Section, 2014). We also use an online learning platform to deliver a great deal of distance learning and blended learning (ND and the CAF, 2014) which has enabled more people to be trained on basic, but specialized skills that we would not have the capacity or financial resources to teach using in-class methods (Margueratt & Fahy, 2003).
Based on examining the integration of basic and advanced technology into learning, one can come to the same conclusion as Scarlett, “Used appropriately technology can be integrated into a curriculum in ways that serve the needs of students but the tools of technology should never be seen as a means to an end in themselves” (2015).
References:
Lazaro, H. (2014, August 12). What is EdTech and why should it matter to you? Retrieved from https://generalassemb.ly/blog/what-is-edtech/
Levene, J. (2012). History of Educational Technology. Retrieved from http://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/64373/History-of-Educational-Technology/#vars!date=0205 BC-01-03_16:44:14!
Margueratt, D., & Fahy, P. J. (2003). Development of a defense learning network for the Canadian Department of National Defense. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 4(2).
National Defence (ND) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). (2014, November 17). DLN. Retrieved from http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/training-elearning/dln.page
Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) Public Affairs (PA) Imagery Section. (2014). Modelling & Simulation. Retrieved from http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/assets/AIRFORCE_Internet/videos/en/multi-media/modelling-and-simulation.mp4
Scarlett, A. (2015, September 2016). The good, the bad and the ugly: Technology and 21st century learning. Retrieved from https://internationaleducationtoday.com/2015/09/16/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-technology-and-21st-century-learning/
This week we are focusing on theories of learning, a subject I find fascinating. Within this course and the courses we have taken so far, we are developing a good baseline of knowledge from many sources describing the various learning theories; however, not everyone that we work with has this broad baseline nor has the time to study different theories. So, I am sharing with you links to quick, fun youtube videos given by “Crash Course” that explain some of the important concepts related to these theories. As an Instructional Designer, you can use these videos to help a Subject Matter Expert you are working with understand the basis of the approach that you are taking with respect to course design. You can also use these quick 10 minute videos to re-energize your interest in a topic. They are peppy, interesting and informative!