Month: September 2018

Posted on

The Eye of the Thai-ger

Not the Thai-tanic

For this week’s activity, exploring the pedagogy of abundance, Michael and Sue joined forces to explore an area of interest and report on the implications of the abundance of digital content.  Join us on our journey to find out more about the history of Thai food!

Constructing our search

We identified our topic asynchronously through Slack. Both of us have a love of Thai food and wanted to find out more about the history of how the combination of sweet, sour, salty, spicy and bitter tastes that characterize Thai Food.  

If at first you do not succeed, try Thai again

We agreed to conduct independent searches, using a variety of different search engines, and search parameters derived from The history of Thai food. 

We created a chart to record our results.  Before starting, we incorporated some of the suggestions from Will’s post on Considering your topic and constructing your search, and created a list of synonyms and search parameters (W.Meredith, personal communication, September, 19, 2018).  

 

Search  Engine Search parameters Number of results Time to get results Comments
Google History of Thai Food 168,000,000 0.73 seconds
  • Most had the same limited information such as countries of origin,   taste, ingredients, variations by region etc.
  • Most sources seemed to restaurants with a brief historical blurb
  • One scholarly article (2nd page)
  • No references
Google Scholar History of Thai Food 270,000 0.07 seconds
  • Most articles did not pertain to the history of Thai food
You Tube History of Thai Food N/S N/A
  • Documentaries about Thai food that did not include history
  • Lots of amateur videos – no references
  • Cooking shows with no history
Google “Food” AND “Thai” AND “History” 157,000,00 0.83 seconds
  • Same links as previous searches on first page
Google Scholar “Food” AND “Thai” AND “History” 270,000 0.07 seconds
  • Same results as previous search “History of Thai food”
Google Origin of Thai food 32,700,000 0.78 seconds
  • Mostly listing of restaurants with reviews
Google Scholar Origin of Thai food 94,800 0.35 seconds
  • Most articles did not pertain to the history of Thai food
BING History of Thai food 21,800,000 N/A
  • Similar results as Google
Encyclopedia Brittanica History of Thailand 1,730,000,000 0.74 seconds
  • Much rich history of the people, culture, economics etc.   Some information on the history of the food
Google Evolution of Thai Food 17,500,000 0.35 seconds
  • Similar results to previous searches
Discovery History of Thai Food 1161
  • Covered food and Thai culture
Discovery “History” AND “Thai” AND “Food” 1093
  • Similar to previous search – mostly Thai culture and some cuisine
Discovery “Chronology” AND “Thai” AND “Food” 19
  • Mostly about general information about agriculture in South East Asia
Google History of Thai Cuisine and influences 83,000,000 .65 sec
  • Strong initial results indicating some information about the history of Thai food
Google Thai food history timeline 21,300,000 .7 sec
  • Very similar to previous results
Google scholar Thai food historical timeline 7,680 .08 sec
  • Poor results. Covered a wide range of topics about Thailand
Google Scholar “timeline” AND “Thai” AND “Food” 7,590 .04 sec
  • Similar poor results from previous search
YouTube “Thailand food” timeline NA NA
  • Starts off with relevant topic, but then quickly diverges into broader topics
YouTube History of Thai food (also Thai food history) NA NA
  • Almost exact same as previous results.

 

As you can see, and as you learnt through your own experiences with the activity, when utilising search engines such as Google and Bing we retrieved millions of resources.  The challenge now was to weed through the massive amounts of resources and choices and determine which ones were valuable.

 

I soup-pose this looks right

Evaluating the literature to ensure its validity.

What we learned is the quantity does not necessarily mean quality!  Much of the literature we encountered was Produsage or as Anderson (2016) defines “user-led content creation, consumption, and active production online” (p. 41).  It was often of poor quality or intended to promote a business or product. Some of the criteria that we used to filter the massive amounts of information were:

  • Consideration would only be given to the first ten to fifteen results.  We rarely went past the first page.
  • If there were duplications in concepts we accepted them as being valid.
  • Who was the author? Were they part of an organization?
  • Did they provide contact information on the webpage?   
  • Did the site look professional?  Were there errors in spelling?
  • Was there an opportunity for others to comment and share their knowledge and experiences?  
  • Did the site share reading lists through social bookmarking? (Weller, 2011, p. 228).


The last two points made up a large part of our criteria for assessing validity.  For as Anderson (2016), states “It is through the digital traces of others that learners may formulate connected pathways to accessible online learning resources.” (p. 45).

 

En-Thai-sing

Does abundant content enable learning?

Abundant content does not promote learning on its own. “The transition from scarcity to abundance introduces massive amounts of information and choice, challenging students and instructors to develop their judgment, comparison, and evaluation skills” (Anderson, 2016, p. 41).   Although our search was on an informal topic, it occurred to us that the skills and criteria we used to assess the validity of the content retrieved through our searches was largely gained through experience, not something that was taught to us. We learned through the painful experience of hours of searching for resources to support our topics in the libraries, online, and from our parents, teachers and friends.  “In this digital, networked age, how can we ensure that learning environments are created and used by learners to access, process, filter, recommend, and apply information with the aid of machines, peers, and experts within the learning network” (Anderson, 2016, p. 43)? Weller (2011), posits that “moving to a more participatory, socially constructed view of knowledge” such as, resource and problem based learning, constructivism, communities of practice and connectivism learning theories could assist in accomplishing this (p. 228).  

Warschaeur (2007), postulates that learners must gain information and multimedia literacy skills to enable digital learning. He defines the two skills as follows:

Information literacy – refers to the ability to define what sorts of information are needed; locate the needed information efficiently; evaluate information and its sources critically; incorporate selected information into one’s knowledge base; understand the economic, legal and social issues surrounding the use of information; and access information ethically and legally (p. 42).

Multimedia literacy – refers to the ability to interpret, design, and create content that makes use of images, photographs, video, animation, music, sounds, texts, and typography (p. 43).

He also believes that mentorship and modeling from faculty, parents, siblings and friends plays a large role in whether or not learners develop these skills.

As free content continues to grow in abundance, educators must be mindful to provide learning activities that focus not only on content, but also include opportunities for learners to hone their evaluative skills and support the new ways in which knowledge is created (Anderson, 2016).

 

Food that is to Thai for

Thank you for joining us on our journey, and that you wanted to wok this way. To Thai it all together we encourage you to be mindful in your academic searches in the consumption of knowledge. Thai to remember the importance of validity in the medium, otherwise when you write a paper you may find yourself tongue Thai’d.

If you are too Thai-erd to read this blog, or you are short on Thai-m, you can learn about the history of Thai food through this video – 

References

Anderson, T. (2016). Chapter 3: Theories for Learning with Emerging Technologies. In Veletsianos, G. (Ed). Emergence and Innovation in Digital Learning: Foundations and Applications. Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Warschauer, M. (2007). The paradoxical future of digital learning. Learning Inquiry, 1(1), 41–49.

Weller, M. (2011). A pedagogy of abundance. Spanish Journal of Pedagogy, 249, 223–236.

Posted on

Go with the “Flow”.

Photo from https://daringtolivefully.com/how-to-enter-the-flow-state

It is important to understand the relationship between one’s skill level in comparison to one’s challenge level when encountering a learning experience. This is something I believe wholeheartedly. The optimal level of this relationship in learning is coined ‘Flow’ by the psychologist Dr. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (2014). This focused mental state is something that I have been interested in and studied for many years.  I have been competing in billiards for almost twenty years and teaching it to others for over fifteen years. When teaching others about billiards there is a three-step approach that correlates with Ertmer & Newby’s deconstruction of learning progression as outlined in, “Behaviorism, Cognitvism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design” (2013). I should state very clearly, that I do not subscribe to any certain camp, but feel that each position has merit in sequential learning processes.

There is a phrase that is often used in billiards, and that is “you play to the skill level of your opponent”. The chart showed at the top of this blog illustrates exactly that. When there is a similar level in experience and competition (or better yet, the opponent is slightly better) the learning is optimized. I am going to continue to use the example of teaching, and understanding, billiards to explain how behaviourism, cognitivism, and constructionism, is linked to learning as a sequential model.

To be competitive in billiards there are a lot of variables to understand. There are elements of geometry, physics, ergonomics, mindfulness, self-regulation (inhibition, shifting, and working memory), muscle memory, and a plethora of psychological theories. To explain to a learner all of the reasons why the cue should be positioned at a certain angle when they begin shooting would be overwhelming. It is simply too much novel information. It is best to create a simple task of setting up the cue ball and the object ball, and offer some basic instructions. This provides a reduced intake of stimulus so that the learner can understand what is required and is rewarded by repetitively sinking the object ball into the pocket. Etmer and Newby echo this and state, “[t]he goal of instruction for the behaviorist is to elicit the desired response from the learner who is presented with a target stimulus” (p. 50). In behaviourism psychology, this would involve both classical conditioning and operant conditioning. If you are interested in classical conditioning, please let me know and I would be happy to discuss it with you. To explain it through a short blog would use up too much space. With operant conditioning, there is a positive reinforcement (reward) when the object ball sinks through self-efficacy and social acknowledgement. This is the importance of creating simple drills.

The next stage of learning billiards is introducing more elements of physics, geometry, etc, to the learner so that the learner is able to break down the knowledge to be, “analyzed, decomposed, and simplified into basic building blocks” (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p. 52). This stage of cognitive understanding is all about the process of sequencing and thinking through the motions. Explaining why certain balls should be sunk in an order, or why hitting the cue ball with a certain force or angle is required to generate a specific response.

The final stage of teaching a learner is all about using previous experiences to build on future applications. I often use language as ‘remember when’ in my instructions at this point. I am addressing situations based on reflections of previous encounters in the learner’s memory. This is similar to Etmer and Newby’s postion regarding constructivism in learning when they state that the learner, “build personal interpretations of the world based on individual experiences and interactions” (p. 55).
All of these three stages encompass the importance of understanding the relationship with flow psychology. In that, the level of challenge, and learning is situational to ones current level of experience.
Another perspective in learning theory is detailed in, “First Principles of Instruction” (Merrill, 2002). Merrill discussed different learning theories and models. Once again, I am not comfortable with positioning myself inside a certain framework. It reminds me too much of the different camps in psychology’s history where each one thought that their model of the mind is correct and argued other views. Thankfully in the last twenty years, the differing camps are being merged into grander conceptions to create a gestalt perspective in counselling. Yes, there are conditioned responses. Yes, there are unconscious processes. Yes, our mind works similar to a computer. Etcetera. In mental health, it is not effective to position oneself to work with a client in a regimented approach. People are dynamic, and therefore instruction needs to be as well. I truly believe it is up to the instructor to be as knowledgeable as possible of different approaches and to then weave between them as they help a learner achieve goals. That said, this assignment had the requirement of aligning myself with a theoretical position. With a gun to my head, I select Shank’s learning by doing (Merrill, p. 56). A blended model (behaviour, cognition, and construction) that holds value in goal-based scenarios through recognition, operations, and a narrative.
This is why both literally, and figuratively, I believe that in learning it is best to “go with the flow”.
What about you? What is your position on learning? Most importantly, how do you learn?
References

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Toward a psychology of optimal experience. In Flow and the foundations of positive psychology (pp. 209-226). Springer, Dordrecht.

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.

Posted on

LRNT 523 – Is the medium the message?

There is an excitement that many associate with new technologies. A pulsating presence of an advancement that beats to the sound of an educational drum. In “A History of Instructional Design and Technology: Part I: A History of Instructional Media” and “A History of Instructional Design and Technology: Part II: A History of Instructional Design”, Reiser (2001) details the ebb and flow of instructional progression in the 20th century by noting what has been used and how. A continuous pattern is that the instructional media is purported as the next breakthrough in educational development only to discover that the impact was relatively minor or, sometimes, irrelevant. Specifically, Reiser states, “… as has been the case throughout the history of instructional media, an increased presence of technology in the schools does not necessarily mean an increased use of that technology for instructional purposes” (Reiser, Part I, p. 60). In each stage there is a proposition that the new media is the solution to the problem of engagement, and Reiser posits “[o]f the many lessons we can learn by reviewing the history of instructional media, perhaps one of the most important involves a comparison between the anticipated and actual effects of media on instructional practices (Reiser, Part I, p. 61). The history of instructional design bears a similar resemblance to the pattern of the history in instructional media. There is a growth of excitement in how learning can be delivered and how to increase maximum engagement from a learner. Yet, the critical nature of learning illustrated the potential for thriving. New ideas are introduced to solve a problem to then be questioned as to its potential. There is a noticeable formation of an ideal though, and that is the importance of being precise in goals, rewards, and objectives in pedagogical deliverance.

Comparably, Weller (2018) reinforces the narrative that there is an impotence of novel technology when it is introduced as an educational tool. It is as if instructional possibilities are fleeting fads akin to teenager seeking to self-actualize. In the previous twenty years, the internet offers a vital role in modern educational technology and Weller notes that beyond blogs other technologies fail to remain relevant (p. 39). Of interest is the possibility of the return of artificial intelligence (p. 44). This symbolizes that the pattern of novel instructional technology may have a return to applicability. Personally, I see that is a strong probability. Although both Reiser and Weller focus on the aforementioned narrative, there seems to be an overlook of the impact of learning tools from the past one hundred years. Learning has definitely changed over the past century, and as our lives become increasingly embedded in technologies like television, computers, and cell phones, there is a continuous passive learning that the newer generations are experiencing. It’s no longer in the classroom, it is all around us. For me, if I do not know something I will look it up on my cell phone.

To consider these lessons from the past and the application to my current work had me perplexed for most of the week. I help rehabilitate survivors of brain injuries, and instructional technology at first was not as applicable as others in this class who teach. There is the similarity of doing whatever it takes to help and a hope that a new application on a tablet will be the solution to help survivors learn to take their pills at a certain time. In my field, a new technology that may impact survivors is introduced about once a year. In many cases, it becomes an expensive trial and error. Especially with older survivors, like those who have had strokes. Alternatively, the younger survivors have grown up with a culture of technology surrounding them. This familiarity seems to impact the level of how much the tools are utilized and the effectiveness of them. An example is RLS, a younger man that was stabbed in the head. RLS has been learning new behavioural sequences through the repeated exposure to learning technologies. It is as if there is an awareness that technology can make life easier and therefore he is more open to the possibility. In comparison, SB is a 64-year-old who has experienced an ischemic stroke and was previously an arborist and therefore does not have the normative experience of how technology can assist but rather sees it as an additional tool to learn.

Overall I do see an ebb and flow of instructional technology and its application. It seems to be about managing expectations as some technologies are reintroduced as a learning tool but not necessarily as a “classroom” function but rather as a lifestyle learning experience. Perhaps history is cyclical, but maybe it is all about perception of value.

References 

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

Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part II: A history of instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 57-67.

Weller, M. (2018). Twenty years of EdTech. EDUCAUSE Review, 53(4).

Posted on

LRNT 523 – History of Educational Technology: From Plato to PLATO

From Plato to PLATO – Justice Remains in the Republic

Well, isn’t that a strange title for a blog about the history of educational technology? I’ll make you a promise – it will all make sense once you finish reading this blog. Hopefully.

So, in the history of educational technology what’s the story? When asked to understand something, quite often I will seek the etymology of the words. I took Latin as my second language in university. I know, I’m a little weird that way. The word education is from Latin and is broken down into two parts – the preposition ‘ex’ (from) and the verb ‘ducere’ (to lead). The word technology is from Greek and is broken down into two parts as well – techne (art or craft) and ology (the study of). So, in my mind, it roughly translates to ‘leading from the study of the craft’. Or something.

My next step in the discovery phase to understand this concept, I went to YouTube to see if I can get a rough idea of what it means through an audio-visual medium. There are many videos detailing the history. So I watched five. Most start by noting that all historical tools that assisted in leading others (teaching) are part of educational technology. This begins with the drawings of cave-men and continues with examples of recording and transferring knowledge. The timeline consists of major developments such as the writing utensils, printing press, and computers. There seems to be an acceleration in the speed of knowledge transfer. Especially in the twentieth century.

Thinking about historical events reminded me of taking a philosophy class about twenty years ago on Plato’s book Republic. In it, Socrates debates about what a just society is and that education was an element to such a just society. I could not quite remember so I dug around a little on google scholar to see if I could get the connection. Lee (1994) stated in succinctly as, “Plato regards education as a means to achieve justice, both individual and social justice”. Ah! That makes sense.

Okay, so since I am in google scholar I will search around here for a bit. Reiser is cited quite a bit, therefore I should investigate what is said. Reiser (2001) gives a definition on page 53 as

“The field of instructional design and technology encompasses the analysis of learning and performance problems, and the design, development, implementation, evaluation and management of instructional and non-instructional processes and resources intended to improve learning and performance in a variety of settings, particularly educational institutions and the workplace.”

It seems pretty much on par with the direction we were already heading to. I can understand and agree on what Reiser defines educational technology as. He also posits that historically there is a division between teacher, textbook, and chalkboard, and new forms of media (p. 55). It seems that he is suggesting that although cavemen drawings can be included as educational technology one should almost create a division between pre-industrialization and post-industrialization. To simplify, the turn of the twentieth century is a decent landmark for this division.

As a psychology major, I found an article involving B.F. Skinner called “Review Lecture: The Technology of Teaching” (Skinner, 1965) to pop out in the google scholar search. I ended up reading the paper. Personally, I found it quite interesting to see how he uses only portions of operant conditioning (rewards and punishments to shape behaviour) to explain educational technology. In operant conditioning, there are four methods – positive reinforcement (giving something appealing to repeat behaviour), negative reinforcement (removing something unappealing to repeat behaviour), negative punishment (removing something appealing to reduce behaviour) and positive punishment (giving something negative to reduce behaviour). The effectiveness is generally considered in that order as well. Give a sticker to repeat, and down to spanking to stop. What I found very interesting is that Skinner in this lecture discusses only positive reinforcement as a method to use educational technology. It made me wonder if modern education is based on the tenet of only positive reinforcement. With the “no child left behind” principle it kind of applies. It is just based on degrees of positive reinforcement. This does not apply to all institutions as failing in university is still a reality. Will that change, I wonder.

What about the rest of the world. Is the historical account the same? I thought about Turkey as it a major country that is centralized in the modern world and is considered a bridge between Europe and the east. In “Educational technology in Turkey: Past, present, and future”, Akkoyunlu (2002) asserts that Turkey’s instructional technology begins with the industrial revolution. Interesting! This is similar to what I was understanding from Reiser.

At this point, I felt that I could go down an academic rabbit hole if I kept going. I figured it may be better to go back to youtube and search for phases of educational technology. I found one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ir4-EFVhzI) that depicts three distinct phases.

1) Dynamic interaction

2) Textbooks are replaced with computers and online sources

3) Content consists of communication, collaboration, and creation

The video talks about modern educational technology is how students: become producers rather than receptors of knowledge, publishers of their creation, act as an audience from their peers, and therefore the piece becomes peer-reviewed. This sounds a lot like how Royal Roads is designed, and this class is a perfect example of this.

Okay. I think I have a basic understanding of it (maybe?) but PLATO is a new concept. What an amazing piece of technology this is. It is a computer system that revolutionized interactive learning. It really blew me away that I had not heard of it before and was such a major development. I thought it was interesting that Wikipedia states –

“Before the 1944 G.I Bill that provided free college education to World War 2 veterans, higher education was limited to a minority of the US population, though only 9% of the population was in the military. The trend towards greater enrollment was notable by the early 1950s, and the problem of providing instruction for the many new students was a serious concern to university administrators. To wit, if computerized automation increased factory production, it could do the same for academic instruction”

It seems that PLATO was a pinnacle piece in making the common man become more involved in gaining knowledge. The public was becoming empowered through education to create a just society. This brings us back to Plato’s Republic.

*breathes*

Phew! That was a long road to circle around, eh?

Anyways, if you are still reading this. Thank you! My interest in educational technology resides in virtual reality, augmented reality, and forms of learning that are based on heavy user interaction. From practicing surgeries for medical teams to interactive learning. For example, in Victoria BC there is a company called LlamaZoo and they have created a veterinarian tool for understanding canine anatomy. If you are interested here is a video demonstrating this form of learning –

https://youtu.be/l4IAE8s42ew

Have a great day!

References

Akkoyunlu, B. (2002). Educational technology in Turkey: Past, present and future. Educational Media International, 39(2), 165-174. Retrieved from: https://www-tandfonline-com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/action/doSearch?AllField=educational+technology+in+turkey%3A+past%2C+present+and+future

Lee, M. (1994). Plato’s philosophy of education: Its implication for current education. Retrieved from: https://philpapers.org/rec/LEEPPO

PLATO information from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLATO_(computer_system)

Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part I: A history of instructional media. Educational technology research and development, 49(1), 53. Retrieved from: https://docdrop.org/static/drop-pdf/A-history-of-instructional-design-and-technology-1-8nOHG.pdf

Skinner, B. (1965). Review Lecture: The Technology of Teaching. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 162(989), 427-443. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/stable/75554