The most poignant lesson from EdTech past is how economic interests define education technology selection, often at odds with the underpinning theoretical framework. The argument presented by (Weller, 2018, p 5) in Twenty Years of Ed Tech supports the conclusion that while enterprise solutions (LMS) aid rapid implementation they are often a Faustian pact. Innovation in educational design can be stifled by restrictive patents when vendors limit resource choices. These technologies as (Watters, 2014, p. 22) stated are a silo and “Control is in the hands of administrators, teachers, and IT but rarely in the hands of learners.” Technology that promises to address pedagogical possibility often works to exclude. The problem is locating fantastic resources that cannot be employed due to licensing, patents, or copyrights that keep the focus on return on investment and not on the potential learning benefits. The problems I encountered as a post-secondary trades (Crane & Hoisting Equipment Operator) instructor is the lack of autonomy that silos create. When the institution takes a singular approach to content delivery it impedes innovation and dilutes it down to a canned experience.
The evolution of Edtech as articulated by (Weller, 2018, p 34) indicates no shared concepts or history due to its multidisciplinary nature. Every discipline has the need for continuous learning. Various technologies from multitude sources have been adopted into the EdTech fold with varying degrees of success. I’ve seen this in my work in the military and trades instruction with the push to adopt bling technologies as evidence of innovation in learning design. As (Weller, 2018, p.46) insightfully points out this can be the desire rather than a solution to a problem. In my experience over 25 years of teaching I have been subjected to design failure in computer-based drill and kill and poorly constructed simulator-based training that replaced tried and true andragogically sound teaching. The lesson is in the evaluation of instructional media before we champion the technology it should be fully evaluated (Reiser, 2001, p.61 ) describes the importance of formative evaluation testing before resources are in the final form. Also, we should not discount a technology completely as summative evaluation is equally meaningful as we learn from our failures and this often leads us to new areas of exploration or implementation. This is meaningful in my work as an educator as I often take the gold in something and leave the rest. My experience in early computer-based and simulator training now informs my use of these technologies in my instructional practice. In effect, the early poor design has taught me how to best employ them as a complimentary resource rather than a replacement for teaching.
References
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504928
Watters, A. (2014). The Monsters of Education Technology. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/audreywatters/the-monsters-of-education-technology.pdf%0Afiles/434/MonstersWatters.pdf
Weller, M. (2018). Twenty Years of Edtech. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/~/media/files/articles/2018/7/er184101.pdf
September 14, 2018 at 4:14 pm
Hi Lorne – great post which draws on the inherent challenges that can be the by-product of educational technologies. Your example of “design failure in computer-based drill and kill and poorly constructed simulator-based training” is an important reminder of why evaluating instructional technology is important before adopting it…particularly given the context of the training scenario. However, with the pace of rapid change in the EdTech field and often the push from leadership to produce quickly and with limited budgets, I sometimes wonder how we can thoroughly evaluate a new technology before implementing it – despite lessons from the past. What are your thoughts on this?
September 16, 2018 at 12:51 pm
Hi Mel
My thoughts – I think its money well spent. Robert Stake in “Types of summative assessment and formative assessment” explains the value of assessment and discusses the challenges of a lack of budgets and time for assessment. I love the quote “ When the cook tastes the soup, that’s formative. When the guests taste the soup, that’s summative.” (Bob Stake) We need good soup in Ed Tech.
https://resourced.prometheanworld.com/types-of-summative-formative-assessment/
September 23, 2018 at 1:38 pm
Thanks Lorne! Love the quote which is a helpful way to remember the differences between formative and summative assessment.
September 15, 2018 at 6:26 am
Hi Lorne. Thanks for a great post. There is a lot there that can be discussed further. I wanted to focus on your quote “Control is in the hands of administrators, teachers, and IT but rarely in the hands of learners”. As a fellow trades educator, I found myself saying ” amen” as I read your blog post. I’m not sure if this is typical in all field but I know that the trades world can be a “don’t ask or question, just do what you’re told” atmosphere. As I have taught the past 9 years I have found that my students have brought to my attention methods and technologies that have benefitted myself as an instructor. Not to mention that we have been mandated to use methods and materials that are not always in the students best interest (in my opinion). I also agree that we can use these techniques and technologies with a formative assessment model. See what works and “keep the gold” as you say.
September 16, 2018 at 1:02 pm
Hi Chad
I always appreciated the input from students as a way of keeping attached to the industry. It is a unique situation where we are given curriculum to teach and it’s already a stale dated history lesson of the way it used to be done. Technical training in apprenticeship has to keep pace with developments in the industry to be relevant and this is sometimes a huge challenge. Thanks for your comment.