Although both Reiser and Weller discuss the history of ed tech in their articles, as Reiser’s was written in 2001 it lacks the relevance of Weller’s written in 2018 because the impact of the intervening seventeen years is of course, substantial. Specifically, when Reiser wrote the article in 2001 eLearning was just being introduced and the subsequent use of learning management systems (LMSs) had not even begun. As a result, a comparison of Reiser’s and Weller’s articles isn’t truly possible in my opinion because the evolution of ed tech between the 2001 and 2018 has been substantial. That said, Weller’s article does explore the history of ed tech comprehensively, however, I believe both articles fail to account for an important factor when considering ed tech in instructional design. And that is the cumulative experience that each learner brings to the learning environment, both personally and professionally.
Reiser and Weller observe ed tech’s primary success, or lack thereof, based on the technology itself, and how it functions etc., rather than whether or not the learning was achieved. Additionally, how technology outside of the learning environment is experienced by the learner is not considered. And this is the primary lesson I believe we can learn from the past because learners in today’s world are using, and being influenced by technology in their everyday lives. Regardless of whether or not a particular technology is used in the design of a course or program, it cannot be denied that learners bring their expectations into the classroom, so their experience using technology should not be overlooked.
In my work as an instructional designer I must consider the body of knowledge that learners have, particularly as I design for adult learners in a corporate setting. Therefore, in the analysis stage of design, I need to determine what level of technology is required to best suit the learning objectives as well as the needs of my audience. As Weller (2018) states “Integrating into the mainstream the participatory culture that web 2.0 brought to the fore remains both a challenge and an opportunity…” (p. 40). Weller specifies “higher education” however, this is an approach that I believe is suitable for any setting with adult learners and it is a crucial component in my work.
Although I agree with Weller, I would argue that Weiser’s prediction of the impact of media on the changes in instructional practices “…are likely to come about more slowly and be less extensive than most media enthusiasts currently predict” (2001, p. 62) is incorrect. Based on my observations, the opposite is true. Instead the impact of ed tech has resulted in an increasing reliance on external eLearning courses populating our LMS at the expense of in-house expertise from subject matter experts and instructional designers. The danger I see is an increasing reliance on external providers who are viewed as the experts and whose course offerings often do not always meet the needs of the organization. Although there are a number of factors, one of the main ones is the speed at which organizations feel compelled to implement ed tech. As a result, there’s a need to slow down and truly analyze the needs of the organization and its learners, to successfully identify technologies that meet those needs rather than adopting the newest technologies in the race to keep up.
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. Retrieved from https://link-springer-com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/article/10.1007/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
Hi Sue, you have an interesting perspective that I appreciate. I agree that learners in the digital age are more independent. They rely more on their digital skills to seek new information, connect with others, and learn new skills, which Weller briefly mentioned. Yes, learners are becoming agents of their learning, and it seems most educational institutions are still stuck in their old ways. I share your sentiment about organizations that seem to gravitate towards outside expertise and/or maybe in a rush to implement and upgrade to newer tools. I concur that organizations need to slow down and ask reflective questions. What do we really want for our organization and learners?
Thanks for the comments Sharon! There seems to be a theme of learner-centric learning that’s emerging, which I think is long overdue. I’m hopeful this will actually translate into more reliance on internal development to assess needs and design curriculum that reflects the just-in-time and learning in the flow approaches that are emerging in the field. I’d like to see that balanced with more robust development at the onset to onboard new employees with a more immersive, and enjoyable experience than we currently have. There’s interest, it’s just a matter of whether or not this will materialize as opposed to being talked about!
Thank you for this reflection, Sue. One of the main points in the articles is that instructional practice has remained relatively static regardless of the advancement of technology. I mention this because I have also seen the explosion of online learning from outside providers as you mention, the likes of Lynda/LinkedIn, Masterclass, and on and on it goes. But, most courses from these providers, are information products with assessments and discussion boards added to them. In that sense, they rarely depart from a transimission-oriented approach to teaching/learning, which is the critique that Reiser and Weller would make. In other words, even if these providers are moving fast and are adopting new technologies, it doesn’t seem that they are providing a new model of education. I’d be interested in your thoughts on this given your instructional design expertise and experiences…
Thanks for such an interesting question George. You make a good point that I would agree with. There is a lot of room for development, which I’m hoping will be one of the main learning outcomes from DipLAT program.
What I can share from my background is I have had the experience of creating a course to help staff develop their customer service skills to educate customers regarding additional features and products that were available through their mortgage. I designed the course to be fully interactive by guiding the learners to research learning resources to help them develop their unique approach. They were also expected to share their findings with the rest of the group at our meetings.
We collaborated to develop ‘scripts’ to practice their skills via role play exercises. And we also reviewed recorded calls to provide feedback. As data was readily available because of the organization’s monitoring system it was easy to access this information and provide statistical feedback (as well as anecdotal feedback from myself and participants, as well as their colleagues) throughout the course. The course lasted three months and I ran the course two times at the organization (during my time there) and it was successful from a performance perspective as well as other staff were eager to take the course.
This was a face-to-face course, but it would well digitally too I believe.
Also, I wanted to share a bit of information about Lynda, which as you say, offer “transimission-oriented approach”, however there are some courses which offer helpful tips to designers.
Lynda, https://www.lynda.com/
(Partnered with LinkedIn. Library card access is free or a months free trial)
Increasing learner engagement
https://www.lynda.com/Classroom-Management-tutorials/How-Increase-Learner-Engagement/473889-2.html?autocompleteMovieId=517509
Digital citizenship
https://www.lynda.com/Classroom-Management-tutorials/Welcome/440956/476069-4.html
And for those interested, some information about Udemy.
Udemy https://www.udemy.com/
I attended a conference in April this year and went to the workshops Udemy presented. Apart from the courses they offer, I was more interested in what they’re doing with their own employees. For example, they use augmented reality (AR) to onboard new hires which allows them to explore the corporate office using the ZOOMER app Udemy has purchased. But there is also a free version too. They also encourage employees to record videos, tutorials etc., to share with their peers on a variety of topics.
Thanks for your interesting post and reflections, Sue. It was thought-provoking to read your reflections on Reiser and Weller’s articles, from your work as an instructional designer. Your points about concerns about external providers, and a rush for companies to adopt edtech — that is not always suited to the needs of the companies and their learners, have many parallels to the world of K-12 education. What is most common, as George pointed out, across sectors, is a need for a new model for education, one that meets the new challenges and opportunities that accompany these technologies. As an instructional designer, on some level, I feel like you have “more control” over moving towards that new model for education. Whereas in the K-12 learning environments that I have been a part of, the edtech (in MANY forms) is bestowed upon teachers to use, often at their will, and a new model for education is just starting to evolve. I feel there is a need for a significant pedagogical shift in K-12 that is still a ways off, ironically, because of the ” edtech race.” Do you see that in your sector? Do you feel that you have more control over the need for a new model of education, as an instructional designer?
Thanks for your comments Leigh. I’m curious about what you mean by “a new model of education”?
And also too, George, if you can explain your interpretation please?
From my perspective, it’s about involving the learner as an active participant at its foundation, but I wanted to understand how you both perceive it.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
Sue