Photo by Pereanu Sebastian on Unsplash
Reading 25 Years of Ed Tech by Martin Weller has been a walk down memory lane as the author highlights each pivotal year of innovation and effective implementation in the field of higher education. Starting in 1994, I think it is a perfect place to begin as the timeline and experiences are relatable. I can still clearly remember the dial-up modem sound, type-writing classes, and when words per minute was an important asset on the resume. As I dive into the historical literature of ed tech, I have several observations to highlight:
-
- Weller (2020) gives a great view of how technology has drastically changed in the field of education over the years, yet not many things have changed. New technology and terminology are used to discuss old ideas. For example, the pioneers of the constructivism model are Piaget (1964) and Vygotsky (1978); only in 1997, it received recognition.
- To further build on the first point, ed tech is an interdisciplinary field that changed and evolved in many directions. From Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) to the web, then to e-learning standards, these technologies continue to be agents to transfer knowledge in formal and informal settings.
- Lastly, the most drastic change is how information can be presented and accessed nowadays. The author highlights Web 1.0 as “the most important aspects of what the web gave education – the freedom to publish, communicate, and share” (Weller, 2020, p.18).
As the nature of the field pushes us to be innovative and discover the next best tip, tool, and tech, this activity has been an excellent opportunity to look back and reflect on how technology progressed and changed the way we live and work.
References:
Piaget, J. (1964). Part I: Cognitive development in children: Piaget development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(3), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660020306
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weller, M. (2020). 25 Years of Ed Tech. Athabasca University Press.Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.
Hi, Vanessa. Long-time reader, first-time commenter. Some interesting thoughts that are getting me thinking, but your posts always get me thinking, so this is nothing new. I’m intrigued by your first and last bullet points, particularly the connection between older educational concepts the way we interpret them and approach them with new tools and technology. In your experience, do you think that the tools and technologies you’re (or we’re) using today for online education are allowing for better education or simply different education?
Thank you, David, for your comment and thoughtful question. I took some time to think about your question too so, you also got me thinking!
In humble opinion and observation after working in the field for 13 years, the way we learn now (in-class and online) is a different education and better in many ways, but not all. For example, with access to online resources, we now read anywhere between 10 to 30 articles/textbooks/posts per course. That simply was not possible in the traditional setting. Thus, it is better because we have access to a massive wealth of knowledge, though I question if we deeply understand what we read or just at the surface level.
I also question why our generation seems to be so much “busier” than ever in comparison to the traditional way of living and working. Thoughts?
Interesting thoughts, Vanessa. I would agree that learning has improved in many ways, and I am grateful I don’t have to do APA by hand, or with a typewriter. There are definitely improvements that I would not want to change.
I have my theories on why we’re so much “busier,” but they aren’t founded on any research and are just opinions. I think a major part is that we CAN be busier. We don’t HAVE to spend all day preparing meals, cleaning clothes, washing dishes. When a design draft is done, a client expects it immediately because I CAN send it to them immediately. Before I would have to print and courier it to them, forcing us to slow down. We read 10–30 articles because we have easy access to them and CAN read them. Do, or can, we read them as deeply? I’m not answering that question because George can see these comments.
I find it fascinating that people want to be able to do less work so they can spend more time relaxing and focusing on things they enjoy. Sometimes I wonder if people would simply fill their lives with other busy things because there is an innate human need to be occupied with meaningful work. We have removed much of that labour thanks to PDFs, Skip the Dishes and washing machines, but we’ve just replaced it with more “stuff.”
So then here’s a follow-up: can or should I help teach my students how to build relaxation into their lives? Can I facilitate this through the timing of due dates and the number of activities I require of them? Should I be requiring them to only focus on the essentials and avoid any busywork within a course?
Dial up, what a great memory (beep squeak, beeeeeep). Invention, the mother of necessity, appears to be a sticking point within the adaptation of technology. I like the idea that we progress through original technology, producing new ideas to build better technology while maintaining focus on the future.
Thank you for your comment, Rod.
Yes, remember how we couldn’t use the telephone and the internet at the same time? Long-distance calls were expensive and usually talk to one person at a time. Now, we can broadcast to thousands around the world with a push of a button. It’s truly amazing!!!