Educational Technology can be a difficult term to define. In my classes presentations many examples of Ed Tech were explored and commented on by the presenting group. Many of the Ed Tech examples that were used to illustrate the wide range of technology enabled solutions for differing problem domains within education were very advanced and utilized cutting edge technologies. Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality and other new technologies were explored and they did have great possibilities in terms of their possible uses in moving education forward. These could be loosely defined as high-tech solutions. What caught my attention was a presentation by a group that pointed out the use of their chosen ed tech was built around the concept of lo-tech; technology that did not rely upon new graphics cards or up-to-date operating systems in order to function effectively. The group chose audio as their technology – specifically podcasts; which requires minimal technological infrastructure in order to be effective.
The reality of many educational technologies is that they demand the user/student to have very modern equipment in order to take advantage of the technology’s features. In theory, this of course makes a lot of sense, but in practice, this perfect environment is not always possible. Many students do not have the personal economics or resources that allow them to own up to date computers and software. Education has many barriers already in place for many students, and technological demands add to this.
May 28, 2020 at 7:48 pm
Hi Earl – thank you for your perspectives. The point you bring up is very important – I hadn’t quite thought of this way before. How can we leverage more widely available/ubiquitous technology to enhance learning, rather than simply relying on better/newer technology to drive digital learning? This makes me think of a faculty I work with that started using cellphones for gamified learning in the classroom. Initially, they started this practice as they found students used cellphones in class for non-academic purposes. Integrating the phones into learning was an engagement strategy. Of course, not all students may have a cell phone, but nevertheless, using more widely available technology, rather than specific/costly tools brings more students further along the digital literacy spectrum. This also reminds me of an article I previously read, “Rethinking everyday technology as assistive technology to meet students’ IEP goals” (Bouck, Flanagan, Miller, & Bassette, 2012) that spoke to how more commonplace devices can serve as accessibility and UDL tools, with cellphone features such as recording, dictation and text magnification etc. These devices are often much more economically viable, and portable, rather than specialized accessibility software and hardware (though of course, these too play a role). Your reflection is certainly making me further consider how can we be more intentional in education to utilize commonplace technologies to foster equity and access for diverse learners.
Bouck, E., Flanagan, S., Miller, B., & Bassette, L. (2012). Rethinking everyday technology as assistive technology to meet students’ IEP goals. Journal of Special Education Technology, 27(4), 47-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264341202700404
May 31, 2020 at 12:01 pm
Hi Earl,
Thank you for your perspective. As one of the members of the podcast crew, I am happy to see you discussing the accessibility of this low-tech tool. Obviously it would be wonderful for all students to have access to all the high-tech learning tools (e.g. video lessons, VR, AR), but that is not yet our reality.
Looking forward to reading more about your critical inquiry.
Warm regards,
Terra
August 9, 2020 at 10:43 am
Hi Terra,
Thank you for your comments, I like the idea of podcasts, in that they provide a communication model which is not hampered by high tech demands of the user. Although form is important, it should never create a barrier for students.
June 6, 2020 at 1:27 am
Hi Earl,
You’ve highlighted an interesting point about the word technology: why do we so often conflate it with the newest and shiniest of inventions? As a cohort, we looked at Gartner’s hype cycle in a previous course, and this correlation between new and technological was painfully evident. What harm are educators causing with this assumption? What I’ve observed in schools and technology conferences is the concerning tendency to take EdTech from a technology-first approach. Educators first select a new and exciting technology: virtual reality, augmented reality, etc. Then they try and look for ways to inject it into their lessons. Often, they return home from conferences with a checklist of new apps and devices to implement, rather than a checklist of pedagogies or theories to consider. I wonder, what can schools do to curb this tendency? What can they do to help make so-called “old” technologies just as supported, visible and accessible for teaching with as the new tech? As you’ve noted, chasing the hype cycle can be damaging for both students and schools. Technology, if and when it is introduced to teaching, should be from a student-first and learning-first approach.
Gartner. (n.d.). Gartner Hype Cycle | Hype Cycle Research Methodology [Website]. Retrieved from https://www.gartner.com/en/research/methodologies/gartner-hype-cycle
August 9, 2020 at 10:48 am
Hi Sandra,
Thank you for your comments. You raise an interesting question; how can schools curb the tendency of Instructors and other school members from chasing the latest shiny edtech – great thought. Perhaps a focus on pre-loading school members with knowledge that surrounds learning theories and frameworks would be one way of grounding the Instructors’ knowledge before they entertained new tech approaches may help inform what they may experience at conferences.