Orwellian Echoes

The article by Etchells et al. in The Guardian in 2017 presents a subject that is polarizing in its extremes. Particularly as the issue in this case is specifically about children. The article is in response to a letter written by “writers, psychologists and charity heads” asking for policies to be created in the UK regarding children’s access to “screen time” (Etchells et al., para 1). Although I do not have children of my own, I do very much care about the other beings who share this planet, so I understand the responsibility inherent in this topic. However, the other, very concerning issue is the idea of government-imposed guidelines. As Etchells et al. observe, the authors of the letter requesting guidelines should be implemented, without adequate research could be disastrous.

It is likely that most of us could provide a number of examples of the results of unresearched government intervention. And for this reason, the concerns of Etchells et al. are noteworthy regardless of any one position on the spectrum of this issue. Instead of attempting to enforce restrictions on consumption of screen time, a commodity like any other, we would be better served by educating ourselves to make informed decisions based on in-depth research. Afterall, digital technologies are part of our lives and will be for the foreseeable future so managing their impact, rather than ‘outlawing’ their use will likely be more productive in terms of ethics as well as physical well-being.


Etchells, P., et al. (January 6, 2017). Screen time guidelines should be built on evidence, not hype. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2017/jan/06/screen-time-guidelines-need-to-be-built-on-evidence-not-hype

Photo by Viktor Forgacs on Unsplash

The Role of Chatbots in Education. Assignment 2, Part 2.

Throughout our known history, humans have used other beings to help us complete tasks and accomplish our goals with greater ease. Beginning with domesticating animals as a means of transportation and food, we then created machines to replace them. As our sophistication in the area of machinery has evolved, we have progressed to computers and other technologies that continue to expand our capabilities. In the past fifty years we have investigated the area of mechanical agents to create machines that emulate human characteristics. This essay explores the use of machines, robots, conversational pedagogical agents, social agents, and chatbots in the area of education drawing on the research of five articles and connecting their findings. For the purpose of this essay, the term ‘chatbot’ will be used throughout regardless of the various terms used in the articles. While some may believe that using chatbots in educational settings is not valuable, research shows that the use of chatbots improves the learner’s experience. Despite the controversy, chatbots are here to stay.

The authors of each article agree that chatbots and humans can interact and build relationships with each other to achieve learning objectives. Specifically, Riel (2019) suggests that three critical functions of educational chatbots are necessary to achieve educational objectives in a principled way. Conversational functionality: to engage in conversation with a human being. Educational goals: designed to meet intended educational goals. Pedagogical roles: assume a pedagogical role in its design if it will teach students. Furthermore, he states, “…an educational chatbot must also actively play a role in the learner’s education towards achieving the educational goals established by a chatbot’s designer (much like the work of a teacher, coach, or tutor)” (p. 3).  The idea of chatbots aiding in the process of learning by assisting humans is also discussed by Gulz, Haake, Silvervarg, Sjoden, & Veletsianos (2011), through the illustration of a math game in which students “teach their agents to play” (p. 134). In doing so, the agent assumes the role of a Teachable Agent (TA) which “constructs a mathematical model by means of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms” (p. 134). Further to this, Dale (2016) suggests that chatbots and humans can, and more importantly, do, engage in relationships. In fact, he believes we have already reached the point of being unconcerned if we are dealing with a real person or not. Brahnam & De Angeli (2008) expand this further, stating that chatbots have the ability to act as social stimuli, which are, “…animated, they perceive while they are perceiving, change while inducing change in others, have and elicit intents, motives, desires, and emotions” (p. 1). Bull, Hall, & Kerly (2007) employ the methodology of learner modelling which creates a model based on individual learners and allows for customization and interaction between the learner and a system that is collaborative and also, adaptive. The insights of each article provide an overarching opinion that chatbots can interact with learners in ways that resemble human interaction with other humans. However, human interactions are not solely positive in their nature and in this regard, relationships between chatbots and humans also reflects some of the negative outcomes of our engagement.

Brahnam & De Angeli (2008) write about the ‘dark’ side of human and chatbot interaction raising the questions about potential abuse of chatbots by humans. They argue that relationships can be developed with chatbots and can incorporate emotions such as rage and anger towards chatbots in the same way humans can experience emotions with one another. They state that chatbots can be abused and misused citing the examples of “cyberbullying, electronic spam, and frauds (p.5). This idea is also discussed by Gulz, Haake, Silvervarg, Sjoden, & Veletsianos (2011) in reference to a study conducted in 2008 by Doering, Scharber and Veletsianos which found significant instances of learners abusing chatbots. The authors’ opinion based on their subsequent study is that this issue is not as prevalent, however, they acknowledge the variables between the two studies and caution that their findings should be viewed in light of this caveat. The opinions expressed by Brahnam & De Angeli (2008) however, suggest that negative findings in studies are often framed in a more positive manner. Instead, their research determined “…that verbal abuses (e.g., insults, threats, foul language, sexual advances, and pornographic sex-talk) abound in user interactions” (p. 2). Given that violence between humans is a reality of our modern world, it would make sense that this would also be factor in the relationships between chatbots and humans and bears further consideration.

In each of the articles the authors highlight areas and make recommendations for future study and/or development. Riel (2019) expresses the concern that “…algorithms used in automated and personalized educational software disproportionately place underrepresented students into less-productive paths” due to “inherently biases in the system” (p. 10). He recommends that designers need to be aware of this and to account for it in the analysis of the data. Gulz et al. (2011) identify the need for longer term studies to be conducted to provide data that examines the effects of chatbot use overtime.  Bull et al. (2007) state that designing “specific scripts”, “a chatbot can provide the necessary negotiation facilities for an enhanced” learner experience (p. 12). Overall, the authors present positive viewpoints on the use of chatbots and the benefits that could be achieved while also suggesting further research is required. As Riel (2019) observes, “Such research is timely, as chatbots are poised to provide unique benefits and new possibilities to learning environments that are not achievable in more traditional learning situations” (p. 11).

Chatbots have a role to play in educational environments that will add tremendous value, however, attention needs to be paid to the specifics of that role. In that, chatbots should act as assistants, aiding humans, rather than replacing them. By examining the nuances of human relationships, we can use this data to create chatbot profiles that meet the needs of learners. Most importantly, given the trend and increasing use of chatbots, it is crucial that educators expand their research parameters to comprehensively study the positive, and negative impacts. Failing to do so distorts the full picture and results in a biased and inaccurate view. Whereas, endeavoring to examine the research findings meticulously will enable designers to make adjustments that improve the experience for the learner.


Brahnam, S., & De Angeli, A. (2008). Special issue on the abuse and misuse of social agents.Interacting with Computers, 20 (3), 287-291.

Bull, S., Hall, P., & Kerly, A. (2007). Bringing Chatbots into education: Towards Natural Language Negotiation of Open Learner Models. In: Ellis, R., Allen, T., & Tuson, A. (eds). Applications and Innovations in Intelligent Systems XIV. SGAI 2006. Springer, London Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-666-7_14

Dale, R. (2016). The return of the chatbots. Natural Language Engineering, 22(5), 811-817. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1017/S1351324916000243

Gulz, A., Haake, M., Silvervarg, A., Sjoden, B., & Veletsianos, G. (2011). Building a Social Conversational Pedagogical Agent: Design Challenges and Methodological approaches. In Perez-Marin, D., & I. Pascual-Nieto (Eds.), Conversational Agents and Natural Language Interaction: Techniques and Effective Practices. 128-155. IGI Global. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287623730_Building_a_social_conversational_pedagogical_agent_Design_challenges_and_methodological_approaches

Riel, J. (2019). Essential Features and Critical Issues with Educational Chatbots: Toward Personalized Learning via Digital Agents. In Khosrow-Pour, M. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Organizational Knowledge, Administration, and Technologies. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=3361302

Image retrieved from https://fr.snatchbot.me/insight/186/chatbots-in-education-applications-of-chatbot-technologies


The Influence of Technology in the Education Industry – Group Activity

The claim of no-learning benefit has been made and substantiated by Clark (1986). He acknowledges that media has economic benefits but not learning benefits. His theory on research and data is collected throughout many different research projects. He analyzed research that started in the 1960s and was tracked all the way up to the 1980s, but the data did not indicate how different teachers instructed.Clark (1986) also mentioned that authentic problems or tasks seem to be the most effective influence on learning. Since he believed that the media had no learning benefits, he stressed that a moratorium on further research dealing with media’s influence on learning was necessary (Clark, 1983).

Contrary to Clark’s (1986) research, the article “The Influence of Technology in the Education Industry” Dr Eliatamby (2018) says use of technology is, at its very core, blended learning. At its simplest, blended learning is “the integration of classroom face-to-face learning experiences with online learning experiences” (Garrison and Kanuka, 2004, p. 96). The use of blended learning creates space for students to actively participate in the interplay between their learning environment and their own cognitive processes (Kozma, 1994). Use of technology also allows for learning on the job or real-world learning to take place, or better generalization of student learning to real-world contexts (Kozma, 1994). This is supercritical in the age of industry 4.0.

In her article for Campus Technology, Reynard (2019) states the importance of understanding that how students’ think and learn has changed due to ongoing use of technology and talks about the integration of technology into design for learning. She falls firmly on the side of Kozma (1994) in advocating that course design should be done interdisciplinarily, setting out contextual problem-solving tasks for students, with an emphasis on the process of learning as opposed to the product (p.21). Use of technology in design for learning is not just about a method of delivering the information to the students, but also building utility with technology. Learning has to leave students equipped for the workplace, with skills that “involve thinking and processing information, including possible diversions of thought, redirection of focus and the integration of new ideas and trends,” and the ability to function within the technological world that they will be working in (Reynard, 2019).

In line with Eliatamby’s take on Technology and its role in learning Dalto (2018) adds that incorporating technology into a blended learning environment boosts learner retention.   Dalto touches on technological applications such a mobile learning, AR, VR and 3D simulated environments.  Clark (1994) argued that “. . . the usual uses of a medium do not limit the methods or content it is capable of presenting”, but his argument does not consider immersive environments that did not exist at the time of his writing.  These new technologies also allow for freedom of instruction did not Clark did not take into account, these technologies “. . . provide[s] the ability to train in situations that would otherwise be too dangerous or expensive in real life.” (Dalto, 2018. p.5)

As Hastings and Tracey suggested in 2005 and even more applicable now media capabilities have changed dramatically over the last generation and the focus of the conversation should not be if, but how media affect learning. “Computers have unique, non replicable capabilities and therefore can support instructional methods that other media cannot” (Hastings and Tracey, 2005).  The most important thing about the debate is to acknowledge that the instructional methods and the delivery medium must be aligned to facilitate learning.

Another consideration is raised by Watters in a recent blog post. Commenting on the function of computers in education, Watters  quotes Weizenbaum (1995), “It is much nicer, it is much more comfortable, to have some device, say the computer, with which to flood the schools, and then to sit back and say, “You see, we are doing something about it, we are helping,” than to confront ugly social realities” (2019, para. 10). Indeed, based on Watter’s blog about Sesame Street moving from PBS to HBO in 2015 and then in October, 2019 to HPO Max echoes Weizenbaum’s observation in 1995 as this move results in restricting access due to socio-economic barriers. It could be argued that Sesame Street has moved so far from their original goal which was to, “…create a show for public (not commercial) television that would develop school readiness of viewers age 3 to 5, with particular emphasis on the needs of low-income children and children of color” (2019, para. 11) that it would appear Sesame Street has ‘sold out’. The implication being that they sold out in favour of higher profit rather than remaining accessible to its original, marginalised audience. Instead, the programming is available to only those who have the means to pay for it.

It is possible that Clark would agree that Weisenbaum is correct in his observation that computers could be used as a superficial solution to a much deeper problem. Whereas, Kozma might suggest that educators must consider media’s impact on educational outcomes while also exploring the far-reaching impacts as technology continues to advance. Regardless, the question of whether media will, or will not, influence learning is also about the accessibility of media.


Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29. Retrieved from Potential_in_Higher_Education

Dalto, J. (2018). Ar, vr and 3-d can make workers better. Ise ; Industrial and Systems Engineering at Work, 50(9), 42-47. Retrieved from https://royalroads.on.worldcat.org/oclc/7862472750 

Eliatamby, M. (2018, July 02).The Influence of Technology in the Education Industry [blog post] (2018, July 02). Retrieved from  https://theknowledgereview.com/the-influence-of-technology-in-the-education-industry

Garrison & Kanuka (2004). The Internet and Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222863721_Blended_Learning_Uncovering_Its_Transformative_

Hastings, N.B. & Tracey, M.W.  Does media affect learning: Where are we now?  TECHTRENDS TECH TRENDS (2005) 49: 28. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02773968

Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning: Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19.

Reynard, Ruth (2019) Why Integrated Instruction is a Must For Today’s Tech Enabled Learning [blog post]. Retrieved from https://campustechnology.com/articles/2019/05/29/why-integrated-instruction-is-a-must-for-todays-tech-enabled-learning.aspx

Watters, A. (2019, October 04). Hewn, no. 324. [blog post]. Retrieved from https://hewn.substack.com/p/hewn-no-324

The Influence of Technology in the Education Industry [blog post]. Retrieved from  https://theknowledgereview.com/the-influence-of-technology-in-the-education-industry

Chatbots. Assignment 2, annotated bibliography, part 1

In this assignment, we were asked to identify a  topic/issue of historical significance, technology of historical significance, problem of historical significance, or person of historical significance to the field and create an annotated summary of 5 scholarly sources. Initially, I intended to explore the impact of chatbots on edtech, however, as a result of my research, my topic has evolved into a question. Do  chatbots have a place in education?
Stay tuned for part 2…i’m still thinking.
Assignment 2, part 1

Pepicq, B. (n.d). [digital image]. Retrieved from https://www.androidpit.com/tbt-early-chatbot-eliza

Graffiti – abundant content for lifelong learning. Lessons from Anderson, Banksy, and Weller.

Leigh and Sue’s reflection, Activity 5.
(Photos used with permission.)

The history of graffiti stretches all the way back to the days when humans lived in caves. People are constantly making meaning in our everyday lives. Graffiti is often perceived simply as a form of vandalism rather than art or a form of communication about social issues. In choosing this topic, we wanted to provide information that sheds light on the purpose of graffiti, its artists, and possibly, address the stigma associated with it. There is an enormous amount of information available about graffiti, however, the overall interpretation tends to be biased, presenting graffiti in a negative connotation, even as a criminal act, while ignoring the underlying process of communication (Alonso, 1998). Graffiti’s strong association with hip-hop culture in the later part of the 20th century influenced part of this lack of mainstream acceptance  or negative connotations (Thompson, 2009, p. 9).

So. What can graffiti teach us? Basquiat, Haring, and Banksy began their careers ‘writing’ or ‘tagging’ New York City subway cars in the 70s and 80s. The social commentary that graffiti artists, such as Banksy and other engage in, illustrates the power that graffiti as a source of communication that provides a platform for those whose voices could remain unheard is powerful. Questions and debates about graffiti as art or vandalism continue to colour public spaces (Baird & Taylor, 2010; Thompson, 2009). In any event, graffiti and ‘street art’ are free, open, and accessible. Weller and Anderson try to help us as educators make sense of the learning theories and pedagogy to manage and negotiate the open spaces that create at pedagogy of abundance. Banksy is all about accessible art that is open and belongs to the people. Banksy’s picture of “Girl with Balloon”, auctioned by Sothebys for 1.4 million dollars, was  promptly shredded before the horrified eyes of all present at the exclusive art auction. Banksy had a built-in shredder to destroy his work as a statement of taking back control of his street art, where the artist is a medium for the voices of marginalized communities. As Banksy states, “This is the first time the essentially bourgeois world of art has belonged to the people. We need to make it count”(Ellsworth-Jones, 2013, para. 3).

In exploring graffiti, the abundance of information on the Internet made learning about the topic very accessible. Even overwhelming. As a team of two, we decided before we started our  research that we would stay focused on three subtopics: history, culture, and graffiti as a form of communication and education. Weller states that educators “firstly [need to decide] how they can best take advantage of abundance in their own teaching practice, and secondly how do we best equip learners to make use of it?”(Weller, 2011). Anderson (2016) agree that the second challenge, is the most pressing and central to theories for learning and for teaching in the digital era. Anderson posits that “as important as scaling content is the power of effective search and retrieval methods” (2016, p.41).

Lessons from Weller (2011) and Anderson (2016) armed us with strategies to negotiate the wealth of information on graffiti and to contemplate how we would best equip learners to make use of the information on the topic. Graffiti, like technology, is everywhere and a powerful communication and learning tool. According to Banksy, “As soon as I cut my first stencil I could feel the power there. I also like the political edge. All graffiti is low-level dissent, but stencils have an extra history. They’ve been used to start revolutions and to stop wars” (Ellsworth-Jones, 2013, para. 5). With such power, comes responsibility, which leads to discussion on the objectivity and reliability of sources. This is something that is pertinent to educators and learners alike: how do we discern what we are reading on the Internet, as we research any given topic, is reliable? “Exploring pedagogies of abundance will be essential for educators to meet this challenge and equip their learners with the skills they need in an age of digital abundance”(Weller, 2011).


Alonso, A. (1998). Urban scribblings on the city landscape. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=

Anderson, T. (2016). Chapter 3: Theories for Learning with Emerging Technologies. In Veletsianos, G. (Ed). Emergence and Innovation in Digital Learning: Foundations and Applications. Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press. Retrieved from http://www.aupress.ca/books/120258/ebook/03_Veletsianos_2016-Emergence_and_Innovation_in_Digital_Learning.pdf

Baird, J., & Taylor, C. (Eds.). (2010). Ancient graffiti in context. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca

Banksy (nd). Girl with balloon [digital image]. Retrieved from https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-6-iconic-works-banksy

Banky (nd). Extinction and rebellion [digital image]. Retrieved from https://grist.org/article/it-looks-like-banksy-just-created-an-extinction-rebellion-mural/

Ellsworth-Jones, W. (2013). The Story Behind Banksy. Smithsonian.com Retrieved from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/the-story-behind-banksy-4310304/

Weller, M. (2011). A pedagogy of abundance. Spanish Journal of Pedagogy, 249, pp. 223-236. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/28774/2/BB62B2.pdf


An understated powerhouse of a person…in 249 words!

As is typical of my serendipitous encounters, through a combination of following my head, my heart, my intuition, and luck. I was led to: Anne-Marie Scott.

I’ll be honest in that I only just ‘met’ Anne-Marie yesterday so I’m still getting to know her. But what I’ve discovered thus far has me fascinated. A self described edtech lady leader and follower of #femedtech who works as the Deputy Director of Learning, Teaching and Web Services at the University of Edinburgh (UofE), Anne-Marie is closely involved in all things ed tech, as well as marginalized communities. She’s one of the leadership team for Girl Geek Scotland and also a Certified Member of the Association for Learning Technology (CMALT). She offers access to her CMALT portfolio and I can hardly wait!

You’ve likely heard that phrase: “an open book” and that’s what first struck me about Anne-Marie’s online presence. What you see is what you get, and she’s VERY open to freely sharing her ideas, data and her expertise. For example, here’s a blog post about her WordPress site, helpful for those like me, who are new to the software.

Through Twitter, her blog, the UofE blog and Instagram, Anne-Marie’s work is refreshingly honest, informed, diverse, inclusive, and cheeky. There’s clearly a lot I can learn from someone like her and I’m looking forward to it!

For more, here’s a studio visit (3:06-47:15) where she discusses the Internet and, her other, numerous interests with a group of students. Great food for thought!


Scott, A.-M. (n.d). [Twitter moment]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/ammienoot

Scott, A.-M. (April 28, 2019). Setting up my own WordPress site – what was I thinking? [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://ammienoot.com/brain-fluff/setting-up-my-own-wordpress-site-what-was-i-thinking/

Networked Narratives. (February, 12, 2019). Studio Visit with Anne-Marie Scott. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URk4K0–rkw

The ed tech ‘race’

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.


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

The history of ed tech is…the future!

As noted in the assignment, we were asked to research the topic before reading the unit readings, which I thought was an interesting way to explore a subject that I thought I knew quite a lot about. I was surprised to learn that there was an invention called an epidiascope, which I had never heard of! According to Parkin’s article it was used in classrooms as the first projector (2019, para. 16). The article doesn’t give dates, but I was interested enough to find out more. I learned that it was used in the early years of the 20th century. (“What is an epidiascope?”, n.d., para. 1)  The epidiascope was used to display a transparent, or opaque image through the illumination of a large lamp, which used mirrors to reflect the image onto a wall, or a screen. It sounds a bit ethereal, but if you look at the picture below, it looked more like a cross between a camera and a rather ugly, wood burning stove.

After getting over my unexpected fascination with the epidiascope, I then discovered this short video which manages to capture some of the technological highlights while also illustrating how much education has evolved. The video is a concise snapshot of the remarkable leaps that have been made in educational technology and ends with the statement, “This is just the beginning” (Scott-Bellow, 2009, 1:20). I think most of us would agree that the upcoming possibilities of ed tech are numerous and exciting.

As exciting as the future may look, it became apparent to me during my research that the beginning of ed tech did not ‘start’ on a specific date because there were a lot of differing opinions on that subject. That said, the general direction that emerged is that there will be many new technologies that will be available. Additionally, there seemed to be general agreement that ed tech should not be about the newest, fanciest tool, rather it should focus on the effectiveness of the learning. And if that is the future ‘take’ on education, I AM IN!


Parkin, T. (2019). A personal history of educational technology – one teacher’s view on the 20 items that changed life in the classroom over the last 50 years [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://thirdspacelearning.com/blog/history-of-educational-technology/

What is an epidiascope? (n.d.) Retrieved from https://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-epidiascope.htm

Scott-Bellow, A. (2009). A brief history of technology in education [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJ0nlh5FU5A