To view and download the full-size image of the infographic, click Educational Video and its Socio-Cultural Impact

Team 2: Caroline, Sandra, Sanjay, and Sharon

Innovation and emergence in digital technologies have caused massive changes in the way we communicate, interact, and learn. And there is no stopping the accelerated growth in digital technology. The power of the internet has made learning ubiquitous and allowed easy dissemination of educational media of both video and audio to the masses. Our critical inquiry in the use of video in education led us to explore Khan Academy’s website and one of its courses called Growth Mindset. Like many online education websites, Khan Academy offers engaging free online education,  with a mission to “provide free, world-class education to anyone, anywhere” (Khan Academy, n.d.).  This grandiose assertion of solving the complex issues of equity and accessibility in education is shared by many technology-minded pundits, with a perspective that a techno-solutionism approach can determine the utopian future of teaching and learning that is free and for everyone. However, the other side of the lens shows a different perspective.  It calls for a deeper critical look at the impact of proprietary content, drawbacks to injecting dominant views, didactic/one-sided approach, and digital inequity.

Open versus Proprietary Content

Our critical look at the educational video through the context of Khan Academy prompted the question: If free video platforms became widely used in education, what would we be losing out on? Free educational resources are not necessarily open educational resources, and failing to make this distinction impacts education on an individual and global level. Open resources can be retained, revised, remixed, reused, and redistributed (Wiley, 2014). Selwyn (2010) implores academics and educators to consider the “social realities of technology use” (p. 66). On a socio-cultural level, open licensing is not just about who can remix content, but also about how the remixing of content can impact its value to society. Free video content may be attractive because it is available online and doesn’t cost to use, however it is often provided with a proprietary license. This inability to revise content may make the content less relevant to the diverse learners consuming their content.

Culturally Inclusive Design

The educational video has created an immense opportunity to enhance learning with its high interactivity, vivid imagery, and deliberate messages, that if designed well, is a powerful medium to empower learners to think critically. It is, therefore, important that when engaging in learning, learners can relate to the content and its meaning in their own socio-cultural context.  Several studies have shown the importance of applying a culturally responsive pedagogy in the learning design for an effective learning outcome and educational success of students (Farmer, 2012; Kennedy, 2012, Muller & Ragoonaden, 2017; Nelson & Parchoma, 2018). The growth mindset video is about learning how to shift your mindset from seeking perfection to continuous improvement. This western-centric view of self-improvement may cause tension in learners that may not have the same cultural frame of reference. Hence, learning platforms like Khan Academy may benefit from having space were adapting the content to make it culturally relevant and appropriate to the beliefs and values of the students is possible- aiding in reinforcing the learning activity.

Social Constructivism Pedagogy

Just as Khan Academy may benefit from culturally relevant content, it can also encourage multiple ways of learning. The instructional video from Khan Academy provided an in-depth explanation of the benefits of a growth mindset together with providing participants with the opportunity to answer self-reflective questions as a method to confirm understanding and apply new learning. The learning was completed in isolation without the opportunity to share knowledge and perspectives.  Human beings are social people who learn, grow and develop knowledge through discussion, group work and interaction with others (Schrader, 2015; Barak, 2017). The preceding describes social constructivism which maintains that collaboration with others is a key component of learning and knowledge is created when it is shared (Phillips, Sheffield, Moore & Robinson, 2016) As learning is a social process, enhanced through group work and discussions with peers and facilitators, reflective exercises must incorporate small group interaction providing opportunities for listening to perspectives, acknowledging differences in understanding and furthering a new level of learning.

Digital Equity

Lastly, it can be argued that Khan Academy and its free delivery of quality content represents a step forward for learning in digital spaces. However, it is important to consider that as platforms like Khan Academy emerge, their progress cannot be measured by the standards of the model user. There are people who “who enjoy ubiquitous access to the internet, operate multiple devices and accrue the benefits to digital fluency of regular opportunities for practice” (Smythe, Pelan & Breshears, 2018, p.12). This type of online engagement must be looked at through a lens of digital equity, which means ensuring adequate access for historically marginalized and socioeconomically or geographically disadvantaged persons (Becker, 2006, p. 3). These populations may experience barriers to access to the internet, necessary devices and technology literacy. Their realities are often not considered when designing a digital learning space like Khan Academy.   

Our inquiry into the use of educational videos highlights the inequities found in digital technology.  A cursory overview of Khan Academy advocates a free, online platform that addresses areas in education that require additional mastery. Upon further analysis a different perception is unveiled that highlights, the absence of (a) culturally responsive pedagogy that emphasizes a learners cultural frame of reference, (b) free licensing permitting OER usage; (c) digital equity for marginalized users; and (d) social constructivist pedagogy to focus on the creation of knowledge through interaction with others.  Rather than a techno-solutionism approach that focuses on media that delivers the information, learning needs to center on the activities and practices that encourage reflection and thinking. 

References

Barak, M. (2017). Science teacher education in the twenty-first century: A pedagogical framework for technology-integrated social constructivism. Research in Science Education, 47(2), 283–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9501-y

Becker, J. D. (2006). Digital equity in education: A multilevel examination of differences in and relationships between computer access, computer use and state-level technology policies. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 15(3), 1-38. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v15n3.2007

Farmer L.S.J. (2012) Culturally sensitive learning practices. In: Orey M., Jones S., Branch R. (eds) Educational Media and Technology Yearbook. Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, vol 36. Springer, New York, NY. Retrieved from https://doi-org.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/10.1007/978-1-4614-1305-9_14

Kennedy, C. P. (2012). Indigenizing student-centred learning: A western approach in an indigenous educational institution. Journal of International Education Research (JIER), 9(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.19030/jier.v9i1.7494

Muller, L. & Ragoonaden, K. (2017). Culturally responsive pedagogy: Indigenizing curriculum. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 47(2), 22-46. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1154077 

Nelson, D., & Parchoma, G. (2018). Indigenizing curriculum development and online course design: A Caribbean study. TechTrends, 62, 375–382. https://doi-org.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/10.1007/s11528-018-0272-y

Phillips, Alana S., Anneliese Sheffield, Michelle Moore, and Heather A. Robinson. (2016). An online social constructivist course: Toward a framework for usability evaluations. Quarterly Review of Distance Education,17(1):1–10. Retrieved from: https://royalroads.on.worldcat.org/oclc/7132229715

Selwyn, N. (2010). Looking beyond learning: Notes towards the critical study of educational technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00338.x

Wiley, D. (2014). Defining the “open” in open content and open educational resources. Retrieved from http://opencontent.org/definition/

Schrader, D. E. (2015). Constructivism and learning in the age of social media: Changing minds and learning communities. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2015(144), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20160

 Smythe, S., Pelan, D., & Breshears, S. (2018). The LinkVan Project: Participatory technology design in Vancouver. Language and Literacy, 20(3), 9-25.   https://doi.org/10.20360/langandlit29406