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 20^th 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).