While reading the first third of Weller’s book, a few items spoke to me. One of the largest things that I identified was the consistent attempt to industrialize and standardize learning content and processes. The chapters on E-Learning, Learning Objects, and E-Learning Standards all focused on this standardization and, honestly, to some extent, is still sorely needed in the modern online learning experience. This process is nothing new in education; publishers have had a stranglehold of educational resources for hundreds of years. Yet, I was somewhat shocked to see the internet, in many ways, the great equalizer of content, being used by the education profession in such ways earlier in its life cycle. Yes, I know this is a naive view, yet I grew up and was engrossed in the educational field during these times, not as a professional, but as a student. I am looking back at this time with a hint of nostalgia and some disdain for modern resources hidden behind exorbitant paywalls with special “educational discounts.”
Yet, this brings me back to the industrialization of education. Being an individual with experience as a software developer and a teacher, I have been afforded a relatively unique view of educational technology. Technology for education is often developed with the assumption that everyone learns the same. In truth, the assumption is made if we input theses specific variables, they will always receive the same output. Most seasoned educators exclaim from the highest mountaintops that no two classes are the same, and they are right; this is because educators not only have to deal with the complexity and instability of the human mind but the complex social interactions that can make or break a learning experience. In many ways, education is part science and mostly art because while they need a strong foundation, how they build upon that foundation depends on the needs of the learners and surrounding community. The problem that I see in the early years of educational technology, which is still very prevalent today, is that we often take these learning (foundational) objects and impose them as best practices or a one size fits all mentality, removing the autonomy needed to adapt to the needs of students and the learning environment.
References
Weller, M. (2020). 25 Years of Ed Tech. Athabasca University Press.
Hi Michael,
Your last point resonates with me as well. While reading the chapters on Learning Objects and E-learning Standards, I also noticed that these conceptions were very limiting. I am glad that someone in your unique position as both a formally trained educator and a software developer can see the gap in the discussion. I am hopeful that as we travel further down this historical road, we will see the point at which differentiation and accessibility come to be at a pivotal juncture.
Sandra,
I am interested in Weller’s take myself; we are getting near the years where I became very engrossed in educational technology, and I am looking forward to a (hopefully) new perspective of my ed-tech shenanigans.
I feel another big reason why no 2 courses are the same, is that even if they might share the same (or very similar) content, if the intended audience is different, those courses will (and should) look very different. A computer science student taking a law course for a computer science degree will probably want to focus on very different topics than an accountant, or an lawyer. At BCIT many of the courses do just this: although they teach the same content, they will be delivered very differently depending on the program being taught. I teach a database course to web developers differently than to computer programmers, and differently again to IT specialists.
Patrick,
One day, I hope that differentiation is brought down to the individual level rather than a group level.
That’s an excellent point. I would agree.
Hopefully I try to do that in my classes, but there’s probably way more I can do to facilitate this.
Patrick,
I feel AI has a powerful contribution to make in this area, but I have yet to find a viable solution. I hope someone, or some group is working hard at this and does not block it behind a huge paywall.
Very spot on Mike. You mention the industrialization of education and it got me thinking about the monetization of education, especially with more and more schools electing to go online now to deliver content due to COVID-19. Are you seeing people forced into using/buying ed tech to deliver curriculum like I have seen in BC?
Yes, I have Ash, my division just went through the process of selecting an LMS for our online component.
All classes are different, yes. I’m seeing it with the 523 course as well. The make-up is very different from the 2019 cohort!
The strategies I used for teaching an Environmental Science course for six weeks this summer was nothing like I’ve done in the past. I felt like I was the artist you mention, trying to paint the best picture possible given the extreme circumstances!
More than ever, during secondary course planning and design, teachers are finding it difficult to pinpoint the details of a course before getting to know the students and their circumstances. Students’ needs are variable (especially during this pandemic). Why spend all that time, only to find out the approach should have been different? Right now, I’m trying to think more about the big ideas first and then let the details unfold later. I will need to rely on more open resources, teacher networks, and a week by week schedule. We can do this in K-12, but how is it done post-secondary?
Wendy,
I would argue we do not do it well in K-12. We attempt, which is worth something, but the amount of man-hours needed is astronomical and not feasible in a traditional public environment. I have tried to use AI to create learning pathways based on the students’ needs using a few inputs. Still, human beings are far too complex for a simple AI system to determine the best path forward at this time (I feel there is value, but the technology needs more time).
I am glad you noticed the art element of education, I am a very logical guy, but I appreciate it nearly every day.