After reading and comparing Robert Reiser’s article Part 1: A History of Instrumental Media (2001) and Martin Weller’s Twenty Years of EdTech (2018), Weller concurs Reiser’s viewpoints. Both articles focused on the history of technology within education; Reiser reviewed the 1900’s to 1999 and Weller reviewed 1998 to 2018. As Reiser went through the decades, a common theme that emerged was that new technology in education would always fall short of its predicted success. Reiser concluded that technology would continue to influence education in the future, but at a slower pace than expected. Weller confirmed this in his article, noting that integrating technology into education was complex. Moreover, he states that some ideas need several iterations to occur, before they are successfully integrated into the educational sphere.
The notion that one shouldn’t simply discard older ideas without thorough consideration, is very meaningful to my work. At the educational institution where I work, we have started numerous new programs since I started several years ago. Ideas we have used in the past that have either failed or been dismissed, whether it’s for recruitment, marketing, or curriculum mapping, have re-emerged and been successfully adapted within other programs. Sometimes a change in content, a difference at the program level or shift in student population serves as a catalyst for an old idea to be new again. Being able to examine previous ideas that were not able to be successful, has provided inspiration to execute nuanced solutions through learning from past failures and/or barriers to success.
In Weller’s article he discusses Learning Management Systems (LMS) and how they can be restrictive. Providing one way of implementing an online experience for students, staff and teachers can lose out on potential innovation. I work in a department of creatives that work in art, design, media and communication fields. Since our LMS is a requirement for courses, it creates a conflict, as those that have the skillset to be innovative cannot fully apply these skills to the assigned digital learning space. The LMS is a great way to provide consistency across courses and a framework for a digital learning space. However, being bound to the rigidity of the LMS can sometimes take away from the uniqueness of some of the creative programs, due to a lack of customization and inflexible visual elements. Moreover, the LMS doesn’t always integrate with many of the excellent software and digital tools that are being developed or currently exist, which is another limitation to its use.
Through exploring technology from the past, as well as critically examining educational technologies, it is possible to learn new lessons, strengthen innovation and move forward with useful takeaways and adaptions that can positively impact the learning environment.
References:
Reiser, R. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part 1: A history of instructional media. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), pp. 53-64. Doi: BF02504506
Weller, M. (2018). Twenty years of ed tech. Educause Review Online, 53(4), pp. 34-48. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2018/7/twenty-years-of-edtech
September 15, 2019 at 10:19 am
Thank you for engaging with the materials in relation to your work, Sanjay. Attempting to stretch an LMS to fit unique needs is a struggle that many of us are facing. I thought it may be worthwhile mentioning that so as to assure you that you’re not alone. I am curious though: Given that your colleagues and department have faced those struggles, and I imagine developed creative solutions to circumvent some of those, what’s on the horizon? Is there any thought given to work with a different technology when new programs are developed? Or, perhaps there’s a culture of helping one another learn how to “bend the LMS” to do what instructors need it to do? How are you, as a department, moving forward with regards to the current LMS impeding practices that you want to adopt?
September 15, 2019 at 5:55 pm
Thank you, George for your assurance!
One of the approaches that has been taken is to augment the LMS, rather than to rely on it solely. For example, in a creative field such as Graphic Design, students are encouraged to develop online portfolios to build their professional brand. This is outside of the LMS, using platforms such as WordPress, AboutMe etc. As well, many faculty use other tools in addition to the LMS to support collaboration, such as Google applications, Adobe products like Spark, Screencast etc.
Working with new technology, though encouraged, can have its opportunities and challenges. For example, with one of our design programs, virtual reality technology is being implemented. However, there are limitations based on instructor training/knowledge, consistency across courses in the same program, as well as costs associated with technology.
I definitely think peer-to-peer community practices around this work are integral. I know we have a rich community of learning and training opportunities through our teaching and learning department. There are full courses that can be takes (I have taken advantage of this opportunity as well!).
I think as the LMS evolves, as does the breadth of knowledge with technologies that can co-exist within the course; this supports the experience of learners.
September 15, 2019 at 6:34 pm
Thanks for your post, Sanjay. I had a similar experience as an elementary and secondary teacher, having embraced the websites that I created on my own before the schools introduced LMS that we were encouraged to use. As you shared, the LMS we were asked to use (D2L and Google Classroom) were nowhere near as colourful, creative, or engaging as the websites I laboured over… So for a while, I attempted to maintain BOTH — my class website and communication through LMS. Well, that didn’t last long, for many obvious reasons… time-management, repetition, and more traffic to the core basics of assignments that the LMS communicated: one-stop, not two-stop shopping is more appealing to most people, young and old. 🙂
I appreciated the incorporation of student portfolios that your department promoted as one way to overcome some of the rigidity of the chosen LMS.