The history of technology in education includes many perspectives. In “A History of Instructional Design and Technology: Part I: A History of Instructional Media” and “Part II: A History of Instructional Design” Reiser (2001) shares his viewpoints on the topic dating back to the early 20th century. Weller (2018) in his article “Twenty Years of EDTECH” offers his impressions on the impact of technology on education over the past 20 years. In this blog post I would like to examine a couple of lessons I took away from reading the articles and how these lessons are either meaningful or in conflict with my work as an educator today.
My first lesson presented itself through Reiser’s (2001) introduction of “media comparison studies”(p.57) which he claims demonstrated the same results of learned content, regardless if students were instructed by a teacher or through the use of different media such as “film, radio, television, or computer” (p.57). As a face to face and online instructor of children and adults I had a difficult time with this statement because I experience the need for human connection in my students daily. I simply cannot imagine the same learning outcome teaching a topic solely with the use of media void of human interaction and facilitation, versus a teacher facilitated session online or in the classroom. Weller (2018) supports my viewpoint when he uses his examination of the return and contribution of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in 2016 as a backdrop to highlight the importance of the educator in education. The development of intelligent tutoring systems gained much interest in the 1980’s and 1990’s and , after some disinterest, have re emerged recently (p. 44). Weller explains the challenges with AI as an ethical one, questioning how a programmed tutoring system could possibly prepare for all human complexities within a teaching environment. He states “ if learners don’t fit that conceptual model [embedded code], they will find themselves outside of the area in which compassion will allow a human to alter or intervene” (p. 46).
My second lesson surfaced as I remembered my start up days as an online instructor. I approached teaching online the same way as teaching in the classroom. However, I soon found out that the online classroom is unique and should not be treated the same as a physical face to face environment. Reiser (2001) states “in order to be effective, such programs [e- learning] cannot simply be on-line replicas of the instruction delivered in classrooms” (p.64). He continues to support my views when he addresses instructional design and the need to be selective and intentional with the use of media (p. 64). Both Reiser (2001) and Weller (2018) agree in their article conclusions that instructional design needs to play a role when using technology in education. Reiser implies this in the conclusion of Part II when he talks about how the use of media in education “requires careful instructional planning” (p.64). Weller expresses his view when he speaks about the next phase in education and technology and how, in this phase, we will need to work with intention and continue discussions about deliberate adoptions of technology as instructional tools (p.48).
I thought it interesting how Reiser introduced the awareness for instructional design 17 years ago and have Weller arrived at a similar conclusion today.
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).
Interesting that you picked the same section in your post, what I also mentioned in my comment response to George: ‘Reiser implies this in the conclusion of Part II when he talks about how the use of media in education “requires careful instructional planning” (p.64).’ Most people talk about educational technology, but it cannot live without the theory/research/practice combo, which is included in the carefully crafted definition of the field by Reiser (2001).
I also spent some time to think about AI in education and AI in general. I like Weller’s (2018, p. 48) sentiment: “Perhaps the greatest contribution of AI will be to make us realize how important people truly are in the education system.” AI is when it is not only programmed to do something (not only an algorithm) but by performing something (for example teaching), it learns and adapts. Scary, I think it is. It is not only programmed to do something but continuously learns from doing it. An example: a programmed trading algorithm is merely trading based on how the creator’s system was designed. But it does not learn or alter its trading system based on the executed trades. However, when that trading algorithm is programmed to consider not only the system what was designed by the creator, but continuously evolve or overwrite it based on the learning from the executed trades. That is the AI element: learning (acquire information, and how to use them), reasoning (using them to conclude), and self-correction.
I understand the mentioned ethical concerns, but I believe AI can show the value of the human in the education, and help those humans by automating some elements in grading… can assess students and adapt to their needs, helping them work at their own pace… AI tutors can provide additional support to students… ensuring they stay on track…
I believe the world always invents something new (which is excellent!), but before it is shipped to the public, the ethical consequences are never considered, and we only react to the problems as opposed to prepare for them. I sometimes have the question: just because we can should we do something… The tech community needs to start putting “OUGHT” before “CAN.” The web development industry, where I have been working for few years lacks, what most other industries whose work directly impacts people and the society we live in mostly has, is a practice built on a solid foundation of ethics.
I am babbling here, however as Sue described in her post: I have more questions than answers as well :-).
Hi Beata, thank you for your thoughtful comments. Following the reading of your post I started researching a bit deeper into AI and came across this website article “Artificial Intelligence: Implications for the Future of Education”, here is the link: http://www.gettingsmart.com/2018/01/artificial-intelligence-implications-for-the-future-of-education/
It covers many of the advantages of AI in education and I think you may enjoy reading it. Your comment about using “ought” before “can” resonates deeply with me as an educator and reminds me about be intentional in the design and execution of my courses. Thank you for the post.
Hi Anita,
Thank you for this post!
We should clarify what Reiser means with “media comparison studies.” These are studies that compare student outcomes between two (usually) groups that used different media in teaching. For instance a group that watched an instructor provide a lecture vs a group that watched the same lecture on video. These studies have, over and over again, generated the same results. That the use of a different medium does not yield higher learning outcomes. This is called the “no significant difference phenomenon” and you can explore it more here: http://nosignificantdifference.org/
When studies that find a difference between learning outcomes, it’s most likely that the change is attributable to a change other than the technology that slipped into the experiments. For example, the video group in the example above may have been given the option to replay the videos. All this to say that Reiser’s point is not contradicting this statement: “I simply cannot imagine the same learning outcome teaching a topic solely with the use of media void of human interaction and facilitation, versus a teacher facilitated session online or in the classroom.” The comparison you are making here is not between teaching vs. teaching+media. You are comparing a teaching session void of interaction to a teaching session that includes interaction (with media). In other words, the difference you are describing is a difference in pedagogy, while Reiser is discussing two groups with the same pedagogy (both interactive let’s say) but with/in different media. The change is subtle, but the essence of his message is this: If pedagogy remains the same, outcomes will remain largely the same even if you replace one technology with another.
There’s a debate in the field around this, and we’ll examine it in more detail during unit 3! Your point in the second paragraph that the online classroom is different points to the idea that this debate is not settled, and could allow us to do things *differently* rather than just serve as replacing activities that we do in face-to-face environments.
Thanks again!
Hi George, thank you for the clarification! The website you provided was very useful. I see your point when you wrote “When studies that find a difference between learning outcomes, it’s most likely that the change is attributable to a change other than the technology that slipped into the experiments.” So much to consider and no easy answers to many of the questions we may be having. Thank you for the food for thought.
Hi Anita,
Great post! I am very interested in AI especially when it involves education in the healthcare realm. After reading your post, I explored a little further on the topic of AI in medicine and came across an interesting discussion paper by Hand (1987). In his paper, he focused on one aspect of therapy and quoted from a psychiatrist, K.M. Colby. He mentioned that AI could provide “therapeutic conversation” to patients especially when a hospital does not have the manpower in the healing professions. This got me thinking…do I want a computer provide therapy or a real person? Does AI have the “soft skills” that a human possesses? I can see where AI would be very effective in training simulations, but when it comes to human interactions where compassion is required, then I am quite skeptical.
Cheers!
Reference:
Hand, D. (1987). Artificial intelligence and medicine: Discussion paper. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 80(9), 563-5.
Hi Joyce, thank you for the comment. We share the same skepticism about a machine emulating human emotion and empathy. The article you provided is very interesting, I never thought about AI in a therapeutic role. Your comment motivated me to look further into the use of AI within the medical system and I was surprised to find 30 year old articles reporting on the possible use of AI use for diagnosis of infectious diseases. The article is “An Artificial Intelligence program to advise physicians regarding antimicrobial therapy” by Edward H. Shortliffe, Stanton G. Axline, Bruce G. Buchanan, Thomas C. Merigan and Stanley N.Cohen written in 1973.