Reiser’s (2001) accounts of the history of instructional media illustrated the evolution of teaching. From the teacher providing instructions to the students using tools, such as blackboard, chalks, and textbooks, to the media technologies that helped in aiding the dissemination of teachings to the masses. Media technologies played a significant role during world war II that led to the success of the American soldiers fighting the war. However, in the education realm, media technologies had brought little progress in achieving its goal of reaching a vast population of learners. But, Reiser expected that the technologies supporting digital media and computers of the future would provide more significant opportunities in the learning design and instructions.
Fast forward to Weller’s (2018) article on the 20 years of EdTech; he shared a similar sentiment to Reiser’s article. Education technologies did have a facelift, but the usage and their projected utilities were slow in the uptake. And then a revolution happened. According to Reiser (2018), the proliferation of digital technologies and the innovation of the internet and web 2.0, caused a significant shift in the learning interactions between teachers and students. Digital tools such as mobile devices, laptops, and tablets and with the combination of online social tools aided in the democratization of learning. Hence, formal learning became co-dependent with informal learning. Here lie the challenges and opportunities of the 21st-century learning. While digital technologies and online social tools can potentially extend learning beyond the walls of the classroom; developing digital skills and social media literacies are critical in the digital age.
To progress is to learn from our past. What struck me from Reiser’s article was his lists of the five categories of instructional design and technology and adding the sixth category of analysis. He further asserted that “research and theory, as well as practice, play an important role in the field” (Reiser, 2001, p. 54). It is vital to garner and analyze data to understand the efficacy and the impact of instructions, especially in digital settings. In my work environment, technologies mediate learning. Immediate feedback from the learners is not a luxury afforded in eLearning; hence, the ability to analyze data is core in providing meaningful and relevant education and training. Furthermore, learning design anchored in research and theory, strengthen the integrity and value of our training program.
As we expanded training in the organization, the challenges of access and dissemination of training faced us. Weller’s comment on the value of the LMS and its advantages makes me ponder on how our organization has implemented its use. Due to the cost associated with seats licensing and other technical limitations, there are groups in our organization that did not have access to the LMS. To alleviate this problem, some teams developed their own LMS. Others circumvented the standard process by creating their methods to provide learners with an alternative to accessing eLearning training programs.
Currently, our organization has approximately four LMSs. As education and training are becoming more integrated at UHN (University Health Network), and the announcement of the strategic education plan, UHN Education Strategic Priorities 2019_2023, the issue of managing several LMSs is in the forefront. It seems that Weller’s comments about the LMS still ring true today. The LMS was considered the only route for delivering eLearning content, which had dire consequences. No one should be left behind, and learning is about the people sharing ideas. I am hopeful with the UHN education strategic priorities; it will resolve the issues of access to education and training.
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. Retrieved from https://link-springer-com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/article/10.1007/BF02504506
University Health Network. (2019). UHN’s Education Strategic Plan. Retrieved from https://michener.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/UHN_Education.pdf
Weller, M. (2018). Twenty years of EdTech. EDUCAUSE Review, 53(4). Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2018/7/twenty-years-of-edtech
Thank you for these comments, Sharon. The authors that we explored, and your own reading, make some recommendations, or at least share some insights, about the continued use of technology in education. I am curious as to what insights you believe may be helpful to teams enacting UHN’s strategic plan. What lessons could help stakeholders avoid mistakes of the past and successfully enact the priorities listed in the document you shared?
Hi George, I have several critical lessons from the readings that I found insightful. First, the digital age has made it easy to enhanced and build new digital tools, but it is not that easy to change people’s old, traditional belief systems and behaviours. It takes time and patience. Second, asking the right questions. Watters (2014), in one of her keynotes, talked about the questions we should be asking since the questions will steer our practices and use of the technology. She spoke of the LMS and the focus on content management. It is not about the needs of the teachers and learners. Larry Cuban, in his book Teachers and Machines, he also spoke of the importance of asking questions to help inform how we should use technologies in education. As UHN enact their education priorities, it is vital to ask the right questions. Who are we serving? What is the purpose of the technologies we are using? What do our learners and teachers want, and how do we partner with them to create the learning ecosystem?
Hi Sharon,
I like the holistic approach you take. And it sounds like there is opportunity to spend time in the planning stages. I believe it was Winston Churchill who said something along the lines of: If you fail to plan, you plan to fail. I’ve observed many times that this is true if organizations rush to find solutions without taking the time in the upfront analysis. Do you think the UHN will include this in their strategy?
Sue
Hi Sue, thank you for your feedback. I am with you about planning it well. I think this one of the many lessons learned in the LMS implementation at UHN. A rush to find a solution with limited involvement from different stakeholders. Several months ago, the organization embarked on an “appreciative inquiry,” and engaged multi-disciplined groups to discuss the current and future state of our LMS. It was a good outcome and heard different perspectives, their angst, and hopes of the future state. Several action items were documented as a result of the appreciative inquiry. A good sign that the organization is not in a rush. We are working together, the various education/training departments to be part of the solution. Thank you for this question, it helps highlight that we at UHN, are slowly but surely learning from our past lessons.
Wonderful developments Sharon! And like you I’m hopeful this new approach continues for the UHN.