Click here to see my annotated spreadsheet for the sources I found for my paper on the impact the printing press had on education.

Shared post by Kathy Moore and Sherry Ruth.

We investigated how to make paperless paper towels after learning about them from a coworker who had received a roll as a gift.  Since the idea was new to both of us, we wanted to see what was available for instructions and if there was a community around the concept.  Before starting the research, we discussed the ease of the project, the reason behind it, and the uses of the final product.

As with many new ideas, we started with a Google search using phrases we thought would yield the best results.  Little did we know that “how to make fabric paper towels” would generate 76,800,000 results with 181,000 videos, and “DIY unpaper towels” would generate over 136,000 results, including 1,670 videos.  Multiple variations of different keywords, such as reusable, unpaper, fabric, alternative, washable, and paperless, all provided thousands of results showing the abundant possibilities to learn about this topic online.

We found great diversity among the various sources.  Blogs, websites, news articles, and videos offered multiple options including different styles, materials, methods, and uses.  That diversity even extended to the individuals providing the content which included sewers, quilters, crafters, money-savers, homesteaders, DIYers, fabric stores, chefs, minimalists, naturalists, and environmentalists. Videos and step-by-step photos with accompanying instructions provided detailed information, varying from non-sewing options to beginner sewer and expert-level lessons. The comments sections of many of these sources created strong networks as conversations often emerged amongst readers, offering suggestions, alternatives, encouragement, and personal stories.

We are confident that there is abundant content available on this topic and we could successfully learn how to make our own paperless towels using our preferred medium, method, and material.  Weller (2011) posits that any pedagogy based on the abundance of knowledge currently available should be socially based with free, abundant, and varied content that is easily generated and shared among users (p. 228).  The thousands of results from the internet search on our topic certainly met this criteria.  Though the amount of content could overwhelm some learners, further Google searches could narrow down the topic, for example, a search of “fabric unpaper towels ‘no sew’ flannel” results in 37 videos.

Extrapolating from Weller’s postulation, we believe that abundant content, including one’s own active participation in producing content and connecting with other participants, may be enough for some learners to learn some content successfully.  However, abundant content alone is not enough for all learners and all subjects.  There appear to be several determining factors which require consideration.  First, it depends on the learner’s prior knowledge of the subject and the subject itself (i.e., how much cognitive processing is required, such as learning how to play a scale on the piano versus Mozart’s Requiem).  Second, we believe it also depends greatly on the learner’s ability to navigate the abundant content.  The learner must know where and how to search, then how to sift through the abundant content to determine what is valid and appropriate for his/her situation.  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, abundant content alone may not be enough if the learner does not have the skills and motivation to successfully absorb the content as knowledge.  While Anderson believes “a goal of connectivist learning is to create new connections, regardless of formal education systems, to expand upon and build learning networks” (Anderson, 2016, p. 43), it may be insufficient as a sole source for learning such skills as being more empathetic, doing backflips or flying a fighter jet.  Given our skills and knowledge, however, we feel that we could complete this project based on the available content online and perhaps we will one day!

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.

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

“Learning is an enduring change in behavior, or in the capacity to behave in a given fashion, which results from practice or other forms of experience” (Shuell as cited in Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p. 45).

This quote stood out for me as I read Ertmer & Newby’s article about learning theories as it provides a solid definition of learning in a world where many definitions are available.  It got me thinking about how there are just as many learning theories as there are definitions of learning.  While I am not currently teaching, I do find that I am often working one-on-one with a co-worker to show him or her how to do something in specific software or helping with an issue that has appear in a project.  When I am coaching these individuals, I connect the new information with the knowledge they already possess allowing it to build on their foundation.  Before I started in this program, I did not realize that I was using the constructivist theory.  It makes sense to me to build on previous knowledge, providing a means to anchor the new information.  Given that I am not in the role of an instructor, and that I am often helping those who are, I find that I have to be careful not to teach in a systematic fashion, but to guide tactfully.  I find that if I approach the situation in such a way that builds on what they already know, they are more receptive to the new knowledge.  The benefit for those I work with is that they get to construct new knowledge by working in a live context meaning there is an increased probability of remembering the process, rather than me simply announcing how to go about completing the goal.  Jonassen (1991a), as cited in Ertmer & Newby maintain that constructivism theory is best applied when teaching advanced knowledge; in my circumstance, this is accurate.  Most of the instructors have basic to intermediate knowledge of the software and come to me when they are working with more advanced features.  The more knowledge they build, the more they will be able to problem-solve as issues arise, just as they would do with their students!

Jonassesn’s (1999) Constructivist Learning Environments, as showcased by Merrill (2002), focuses on problem solving by building on the knowledge the learner already possesses.  If learners do not come with the prior knowledge required as a foundation, they would benefit from demonstrations in order quickly construct the base on which to build the new knowledge (Jonassesn as cited in Merrill, 2002, p. 55).  When I demonstration a skill, I ensure that I explain what I am doing as I am doing it so the learner can have that information and add it to their knowledge base.  If I only demonstrate then they will not be able to absorb what I have done, which will not allow them to recreate the steps.  Since I do not teach over a long-term (yet), I use the interactions I do have to help individuals help themselves and after readings these articles I believe that constructivism is the best way to make that happen.

References

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.

The advancements in technology have brought many new tools that we can use in the classroom, but it seems that none of them fully replaces existing tools.  Reiser points out that in 1913 Thomas Edison claimed that books would soon be obsolete when he was introduced to the motion picture, but the change did not happen as quickly as Edison had declared (Reiser as cited in Saettle, 1968, p. 98).  Here we are, 106 years later, and we still use books; granted, we now have the option of paper or digital, but they are still a valued tool which did not vanish due to the next invention.  Although Reiser’s article was published in 2001, the history it presents provided me with the lesson that as new technologies are introduced it is important not to lose sight of the goal (i.e. what is the purpose of the new technology), and that just because something is new does not mean it will solve everything.  This applies to my current role by teaching me that the tool and problem need to fit in order for a solution to succeed completely.  When new systems are available and co-workers want to use it because it is new, I will now ask the question if this works to create the best solution or if it is purely a desire to use the new technology, where in the past of I have stayed quiet.  I am in favour of looking at new tools, but based on what I have read, I realise that is it important to understand their features.  Reiser states, “of 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, 2001, p. 61); this, when combined with Edison’s 1913 pronouncement, has caused me to learn never to make a statement that a piece of technology will wipe out the current tool; it is best to wait, with an open mind, and see what comes.

Weller’s article Twenty Years of EdTech provided a clear timeline of when educational technology became popular.  It made me think about the technology I use at work to support applicants and students, and I realized that we are not where we should be given the timeline in the article.  We use digital forms (or scanned paper forms) to gather information from applicants and students, when, according to Weller, Learning Management Systems (LMS) became popular in 2004.  Reading this article reminded me that a LMS can handle the data we collect by providing applicants and students one location to submit everything, but we are still using a number of tools and locations to gather and store information during the application process, continuing to when the students begin classes.  Using the amalgamation of processes makes it cumbersome for students and staff to know what information is held where.  Having a system that could manage all of the required information, filing it appropriately with the right people, being notified, and not using it to its potential increases workload and likelihood of error.  If we could connect the business and educational needs to the tool we have available (LMS) then the process would be clear to the applicants, students, and staff.  In the current system, we move data from one location to another in order to have it all in one location from multiple sources.  If we are living the future of technology, why are we not able to move forward and stop using methods of the past?  Is it a problem with the software, or an issue with training staff who may not have sufficient experience with the operation and application of the new tools or is it a problem with faculty, staff and, to some degree, students resisting or not understanding the positive implications of the sometimes rather drastic changes?

Weller states, “patience is required:  educational transformation is a slow burn”, my general lesson from these articles is that change takes time.  The right tool needs be based on the issue requiring a solution, if it will be successful, otherwise the risk is that further harm will occur.

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.

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

Dr. Elizabeth Charles has worked in the field of educational technology for 32 years.  In that time she was a member of the faculty in the photography department, researched pedagogy, and holds the position of Manager, Learning Community at Dawson College in Montreal, QC.  She is the co-director of Supporting Active Learning & Technological Innovation in Science Education (SALTISE), an association committed to stimulating learning by understanding, and potentially altering, the pedagogy surrounding technology in education (About Us, 2019. Para. 1).  Dr. Charles has received the PAREA grant five consecutive times, enabling her to continue studying the pedagogical effects on educational technology for learners.

Dr. Charles’ work intrigues me because of her focus on the impact technology has on students’ learning, rather than on promoting the latest technology or teaching paradigm.  In my experience, educators can become blinded by the shine of new tools losing sight of the impact of the application.  Dr. Charles looks past that shine to see how the tool may improve learners’ experience.  According to her LinkedIn profile, she completed her Master’s and Ph.D. degrees while working at Dawson College, meaning that she has experienced both sides of education at the same time, allowing her to test concepts and tools as she learned them.

While Dr. Charles’ research encompasses diverse topics and areas such as science education and pedagogy of changes in the classroom, she stays true to her focus on the why behind the technology or learning style.  Dr. Charles believes strongly in the strength of community and working with communities of practice to introduce change (2012 Recipients. n.d. para. 4).  In addition to her research, she led collaboration between colleges and universities to promote conversations surrounding social constructivist pedagogies and technology.  By working with both educators and learners, Dr. Charles continues to contribute to the field of educational technologies.  I am looking forward to following her work.

Dr. Elizabeth S. Charles (Loop. n.d. para. 1)

References

Conference Proceedings. (2019). Changing classroom designs: Easy; Changing instructors’ pedagogies: Not so easy… . Retrieved from https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.4789696

ISLS Repository. (2013). Taking DALITE to the Next Level: What Have We Learned from a Web-Based Peer Instruction Application?. Retrieved from https://repository.isls.org//handle/1/1225

Linkedin. (2019). Elizabeth S. Charles. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/in/elizabeth-s-charles-ba119b6/

Loop. (n.d.). Elizabeth S. Charles [Photograph]. Retrieved from https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/386663/overview

SALTISE. (2019). About Us. Retrieved from https://www.saltise.ca/about/about-us/

STLHE SAPES. (n.d.). 2012 Recipients. Retrieved from https://www.stlhe.ca/awards/college-sector-educators-award/2012-recipients/

When I think about history of technology in education, I find myself thinking about the early 1900s.  I think this is because so much has changed since that time and there are still people alive today who remember using a slate in school and now can use computers.

Educational Technology came into play during World War II, as the US military utilized films and media to train soldiers, which lead the ground work for the presentation software we have now (Educational Technology, 2019, para. 66).  As time progressed, computers became more commonly used and in the 1980s, they became affordable bringing them into the home (TED, 2016, 0.13).  In the 1980s and 1990s, education saw the arrival of Computer-based learning (CBL), introducing micro-worlds, and simulations (Educational Technology, 2019, para. 68).  These new atmospheres increased the methods, which students could learn, allowing those who struggled with reading and writing to learn in ways that worked for them.

Today there are computers everywhere from our pockets to our cars, including in our classrooms.  In his TedX Talk, Brown said “technology means that student of today have access to information that student of the past simply did not have” (Brown, 2016, 4:43); since he did that presentation technology has only advanced and more information is available.  Educators can now welcome technology into the classroom to have having guest speakers from all over the world connect over the internet allowing students to hear from people living the situation rather than read about it in a report.

Slate boards where used in classrooms as early as the fourteenth century until the mid-twentieth century (Slate (Writing), 2019, para. 7), meaning that educational technology remained consistent over 500 years; over the last 100 years we have gone from using slates in the classroom to tablets.  What will the history books say about the next 100 years?

Reference

Educational technology. (n.d.). In Edutechwiki. Retrieved September 8, 2019, from http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Educational_technology#A_short_history

TED. (2016, March 28). Redefining Learning & Teaching using Technology. | Jason Brown | TEDxNorwichED [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOTEQVYDPpg

Slate (writing). (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved September 8, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_(writing)