Reiser (2001) and Weller (2018) suspend time and check in with what we have learned so far about educational technology. (Photo credit to Pixabay user annca.)

Edtech Updates: Then and Now

Further study of the history of educational technology (edtech) is not complete without considering which advancements have allowed enhanced learning. By checking in regularly with evidence that supports our practices, we can hope to avoid financial losses, frustrations, and waste. Our cohort has been asked to review, compare, and contrast two articles that were written at different times and give snapshot updates on the knowledge of the field of edtech. Our assigned activity was to read Reiser’s (2001) two articles on a history of instructional design and technology and Weller’s (2018) editorial piece on the last 20 years of educational technology (edtech). We were asked to consider the relevance of the earlier works in comparison to the newer piece and then consider their reported ‘lessons learned’ in the context of our own work.

Reiser (2001) highlighted the fact that the term instructional technology was strongly associated with the media utilized in the instructional process. My earlier blog post (Boyce, 2018, para 2) eluded to an oddity in definitions of edtech still currently found in dictionaries, despite the more comprehensive definitions given by collective associations in the field of educational technology (Richey, 2008). Reiser also mentioned the matter of learning occurring regardless of which media is used to convey the information to the learner (video, face to face, or audio). He also noted that the process utilized in the teaching is of primary importance. For these reasons, I would argue that many of Reiser’s arguments still hold relevancy in discussions to date. 

Both authors make mention of the differences between projected and actual outcomes of the utilization of technology in education, offering that the end result typically has minimal impact on educational practice change (Reiser, 2001; Weller, 2018). Weller (2018) maintains that if a technology does not have an effect on practice with initial exposure, it may lend itself to support a different technology later on.

As an aside, and in consideration of tone, Weller’s (2018) article carries undercurrents of his frustration with the increasing diversity in the field of educational technology resulting in what he claims as “…no shared set of concepts or history” (p.34) My own background is in healthcare, so I am curious as to what he would say about my reflections, opinions, and comments about future directions. My view of diversity in groups leans toward it supporting improved perspectives, social discourse, and opportunities for growth. By it’s very nature, educational technology connects us and knits our networks together, so perhaps diversity in this field is inevitable.

Are we doing enough to leverage the benefits of social learning in healthcare? (Photo by Pixabay user geralt)

EdTech design: Is this Applicable to Healthcare?

When considering how the content of these articles give meaning to my current work, I am compelled to mention Reiser’s (2001) statements about the applicability of educational technology practices from the business and industry sectors when they are ported over to social systems such as education – or in my case, healthcare. This concern is further supported by Burkman (1987) when he lists variables of instruction that differ between the military/industry and public education. These included:

• Structure (centralized vs. decentralized)
• Mission of training and education
• Focus of performance of skill and knowledge learned (immediate or delayed)
• Economic basis
• Degree of academic freedom
• Role of Instructor (temporary vs. career)

I would argue that continuing (clinical) healthcare educational structure appears to share variables from both military environments (minimum competency training at minimum cost for the maximum number of people) and public education environments (high degree of academic freedom with the educator determining methods of instruction) (Burkman, 1987). According to Burkman (1987), a focus on efficiency in clinical education should make the environment open to readily adopting instructional design products; however, clinical educators have variable backgrounds, experience, and autonomy, resulting in inconsistent training practices. Healthcare educators should be wary of adopting edtech training practices that are not specifically designed for healthcare contexts.

Healthcare frustrations: Are we missing out on social learning?

The concept of social learning is addressed in both the articles we reviewed and yet, clinical healthcare environments are not capitalizing on the benefits. Both Reiser (2001) and Weller (2018) described the benefits of engaging in collective, social learning activities while using edtech. Reiser (2001) touched on the impact of the constructivist movement in educational psychology that occurred in the 1990’s, engaging learners in solving real-world problems and working in groups. He supported that edtech has allowed the provision of increased interactivity (learner-learner interaction) in numerous learning environments. Weller (2018) described blogs and social media as having great potential for social, collaborative learning. The potential benefits of social constructivist learning are further supported by Wenger (2010) when he implicated that the introduction of social media and other new technologies has expanded the interest in communities of practice. Ranmuthugala, Plumb, Cunningham, Georgiou, Westbrook and Braithwaite (2011), state that their research on communities of practice in healthcare found indications that “…CoPs, on their own or as part of larger interventions, may have a role in improving healthcare performance” (p. 14). These collective networks are still few and far between in healthcare, and if formed, they often require face to face meetings.

My experience is that most clinical social learning is done on ‘the-fly’ during the chaos of the day in an attempt to debrief and reflect on our often intense and sometimes traumatic experiences. Healthcare practitioners have the added concern of privacy and confidentiality to complicate our learning conversations and must always consider these constraints on our conversations. We are told that online, social networks environments and social media are potentially hazardous ground for healthcare learning considering those constraints; however,  I do not believe adequate attempts to structure ‘safe’ social learning environments using technology have occurred in clinical education.

Wenger (2010) stated that “In healthcare, communities of practice offer the potential of new learning partnerships that are not hostage to professional silos” (p. 7). Team members can enjoy the benefit of learning from other disciplines in the context of these networked groups. The Royal College of Physicians reported that “…teams in many health care settings are ‘inherently unstable’ and provisional; changing from shift to shift, and existing for only a brief time” (as cited in Egan & Jaye, 2009, p. 113). Our teams are often fragmented, being quickly formed and just as quickly disbanded once our mission is resolved. I postulate that social learning has not been utilized to its maximum potential in healthcare education in post-graduate clinical environments. Healthcare teams could greatly benefit from networked, social learning and it is my hope that we see edtech become contributory to facilitating this movement.

References

Boyce, C., (2018, September 7). Educational technology: A brief look back. [Blog post] Retrieved from https://malat-webspace.royalroads.ca/rru0066/educational-technology-a-brief-look-back/

Burkman, E (1987). Factors affecting utilization. In R. Gagne (Ed), Instructional Technology: Foundations. (pp. 429-455) Retrieved from ocw.metu.edu.tr/file.php/118/Week9/burkman-factors_affecting_utilization.pdf

Egan, T. & Jaye, C. (2009). Communities of clinical practice: the social organization of clinical learning. Health, (13)1, p. 107-125.

Ranmuthugala, G., Plumb, J.J., Cunningham, F.C., Georgiou, A., Westbrook, J.I., & Braithwaite, J. How and why are communities of practice established in the healthcare sector? A systematic review of the literature. Health Services Research, 11, p. 273. Retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/11/273

Richey, R. C., Silber, K. H., & Ely, D. P. (2008). Reflections on the 2008 AECT Definitions of the Field. TechTrends, 52(1), p 24-25

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).

Wenger, E. (2003). Communities of practice and social learning systems: The career of a concept. In D. Nicolini, S. Gherardi, & D. Yanow (Eds.), Learning in organizations (pp. 76-99). Armonk, NY