Researching the history of educational technology is an interesting and interminable venture. A simple internet search will turn up an endless array of articles, blogs, videos, podcasts, and other internet medias analyzing diverse topics related to the field of EdTech. Although there is seemingly an endless amount of information on the subject; the topics, concepts, and frameworks (or lack of) can leave researchers with more questions than answers. Perhaps the problem is that the history of the field is vast, nebulous, and to all appearances based on a variety of opinions on origin and definition. Januszewski (1996, p.285) found that individual constructs varied in the field of educational technology, but that the plurality of histories provided more options to adopt EdTech for specific needs. Nearly a quarter of a century later, the disparity in these histories has led to players without an instructional design background filling specific EdTech needs. Collins and Halverson (2010) argued that new technologies have exploded, and companies are capitalizing on educational technology products that are targeting consumers with deep pockets and that schools are being left behind. They argued that if schools continued to be excluded from the technology discussion, they “may not be able to adapt and integrate new technologies, and the association of schooling with education, developed over the past 150 years, will dissolve into a world where wealthier students pursue their learning outside of the public school” (Collins, & Halverson, 2010, p.165). In more recent publications, the theme of learning from our history, or lack of history to mold the future continues to be explored. Macgilchrist, Allert, and Bruch (2019) speculated about the inherent characteristics of future students through three imagined futures influenced by the present-day policies of educational technology. The authors hypothesized that these social science fiction scenarios could inform future research in educational technology and guide the ID of digital learning environments, and after exploration of the nebulous history of EdTech and its equally hazy future I agree this is warranted; let us clean up the messy landscape now and create a solid history for the future.
References:
Collins, A., and Halverson, R. (2010). The second educational revolution: rethinking education in the age of technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26,18-27. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00339.x
Macgilchrist, F., Allert, H., & Bruch, A. (2019). Students and society in the 2020s. Three future ‘histories’ of education and technology, Learning, Media and Technology, doi: 10.1080/17439884.2019.1656235
Januszewski, A. (1996). History in Educational Technology. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED397800
Thanks for the post, Lisa. I appreciate the notion of understanding the histories of the field to lead us toward a brighter future. And thanks for bringing the Macgilchrist, Allert, and Bruch article to my attention. I look forward to reading it!
Thank you Lisa for highlighting that we do have a role here in creating a history for the future of educational technology. This is so true, I am glad we are able to be contributors in a way!
Thanks for the resources Lisa! I look forward to checking them out. I too wonder where we’re headed but I’m also optimistic as we have opportunity to influence the direction.
The idea of cleaning up the messy landscape is a great one Lisa. You have made your points well about the need to understand the history of Learning and Technology. More importantly, you have captured the notion that the incessant and uncontrollable advancement of technology itself has made the history, as you say, ‘Hazy” to fully understand and get a clear picture as to how to move forward. Now the question is: how do we move forward when technology is ever and always changing? and part II…how do we evaluate the multi-faceted dynamic history of this field? Great thoughts that has lead me to come big questions. Thanks for the post.
Januszewski’s plurality of histories is such a great encapsulation of the field! There are so many histories and paths that are placed as the ‘history’ of ed tech by so many different voices that it can lead you to think that it’s all kind of over messy, but Januszewski uses this as a positive – and I think he’s right.