By Denys Koval & Christopher Rowe

Over the past week, we’ve been exploring a disagreement in the EdTech world known as the Great Media Debate.  In the late 80’s and early 90’s, Richard E. Clark and Robert B. Kozma separately authored a series of articles presenting their opposing views on the issue of whether or not media has an impact on learning.  Clark’s (1994) position was that media was simply a delivery tool for learning methods and while necessary, could be replaced with a media with overlapping attributes that performed similar cognitive functions (pp. 22, 26).  Kozma (1994), on the other hand, believed that the specific cluster of attributes associated with a medium, presented opportunities for employing unique learning methods (pp. 13-14).  These opposing views continue to influence how educational technologists introduce new tech into a learning environment.  With this debate in mind, we’ve found two contemporary articles discussing the use of technology in the classroom and considered how both Clark and Kozma would respond to them.

Individualism

Zoë Bernard (2017), tech reporter for Business Insider magazine, wrote an article titled Here’s how technology is shaping the future of education, focusing on how technology is increasingly providing educators with the ability to assess their students on an individual level, and thereby tailor lesson plans to suite their unique needs.  She pointed to developments in the EdTech industry which have increased the accessibility of this strategy.   Kozma and Clark would have interpreted Bernard’s article differently, to be certain.  They would have neither agreed on the proper implementation of the new technology mentioned in the article, nor on the method of its development.

Bernard described how the increased availability of adaptive learning software such as DreamBox, which can monitor an individual student’s progress and provide the appropriate curriculum for their skill level, is allowing educators to work with learners at a pace set by the student. If presented with software like DreamBox, Kozma might argue that the availability of this new technology would provide educators with an opportunity to develop new teaching methods to best take advantage of its unique characteristics.  Kozma (1994) asserted that theories to direct the use of media in instructional design should consider both the unique capabilities of media, but also the “complexities of the social situations with which they are used” (p. 15).  Classrooms are indeed social environments.  If we change the social environment of the classroom, by tailoring the experience to meet the needs of the individual, Kozma would likely say that we must develop new teaching methods designed specifically for the unique cluster of attributes presented by the media forcing that change.  In contrast, Clark might argue that it was always possible for an educator to learn about the progress of an individual student and tailor learning plans to meet their needs, but that this software makes the teacher’s ability to do that more efficient.  Clark (1994) insisted that “the methods used in CBI [computer-based instruction] can be and are used by teachers in live instruction” (p.24).  He believed that teaching methods and the media used to deliver them are separate and that various media could be used to achieve the same goal.  The difference, he claimed, in the way that various media impact learning, is the efficiency with which a particular media might achieve learning outcomes (p. 22).

In her article, Bernard (2017) included a quote from DreamBox’s senior vice-president of learning, Tim Hudson, who expressed that “it’s important that we listen to teachers and administrators to determine the ways technology can assist them in the classroom.”  While Kozma and Clark likely would have both approved of Hudson’s insistence on communicating with educators in the development of new tools, chances are they would disagree on how that communication should take place.  Kozma would likely have been interested in seeing what technology had been developed, so that he could create effective teaching methods based on whatever new capabilities that technology presents.  He argued that while the implementation of a specific technology would limit the options available to educators, the capabilities of that media would also provide direction on what could be accomplished with it (Kozma, 1994, p. 20).  Clark, on the other hand, would probably have approached software developers looking for the technology that would most efficiently facilitate a specific teaching method he already had in mind.  It was Clark’s (1994) position that “it is important to derive media that are capable of delivering the method at the least expensive rate and in the speediest fashion” (p. 26).  From his perspective, it would be the teaching method that should dictate the choice of a technology.

Socially Accessible

Celano, the author of the article Technology in the classroom: How educators are using remote technology as they return to school, published on Owl Labs’ website, references NBC News Correspondent Kerry Sanders, who reported that due to Covid-19, about 30% of the kids from Charter School USA stopped learning due to the lack of engagement between teachers and their students. Owl Labs then promotes the Meeting Owl as a solution for a virtual classroom, emphasizing its 360° camera, which allows educators to teach as they normally would by treating their virtual classroom as a physical one, therefore allowing remote students to stay engaged.

Clark might argue that while the Meeting Owl increases the accessibility of the learning method that the teacher is employing, while it cannot be directly responsible for motivating learning. He would cite Salomon and others “who draw on the new cognitive theories which attribute motivation to learners’ beliefs and expectations about their reactions to external events – not to external events alone” (Clark, 1994, p. 23).

Kozma might argue that Meeting Owl can be responsible for increasing the motivation to learn by making students feel like they are a part of a social process, which is achieved by facilitating interaction with physical resources as well as other students in the classroom. “Learning is not the receptive response to instruction’s “delivery”. Rather, learning is an active, constructive, cognitive and social process by which the learner strategically manages available cognitive, physical, and social resources to create new knowledge by interacting with information in the environment” (Kozma, 1994, p. 3).

References

Bernard, Z. (2017, December 27). Here’s how technology is shaping the future of education. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/how-technology-is-shaping-the-future-of-education-2017-12#even-with-technology-being-used-in-more-and-more-classrooms-teachers-will-be-as-important-as-ever-3

Celano, K. (2020). Technology in the Classroom: How Educators are Using Remote Technology as They Return to School. Owl Labs. https://www.owllabs.com/blog/technology-in-the-classroom-how-educators-are-using-remote-technology-as-they-return-to-school

Clark, R.E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299088

Kozma, R.B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19. https://doi-org.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/10.1007/BF02299087

An Influencer in Educational Technology

I’ve recently been tasked with providing a little background on an influential player in the educational technology field.  After some investigating, an individual came to my attention who has had both a significant impact on ed tech in his own right, but has also provided a platform for others to spread their reach.  The gentleman in question is Dr. Derek Bruff, Director of the Center for Teaching and Senior Lecturer in Mathematics at Vanderbilt University.  In his capacity as the Director for the Center of Teaching, Bruff looks to provide practical applications for the use of ed tech by faculty in higher education, and in so doing, he’s been quite prolific.  He posts regularly to his blog (Agile Learning), has published two books (Teaching with Classroom Response Systems: Creating Active Learning Environments and Intentional Tech: Principles to Guide the Use of Educational Technology in College Teaching), has authored a long list of cited publications.

What interests me most, however, is his podcast, Leading Lines.  Produced at Vanderbilt University, Bruff acts as host and interviews a wide range of educators, discussing the application of technology in education.  It’s with this tool that Bruff provides a platform for passionate, skilled, and creative educators representing a diverse selection of perspectives.  Episodes are released on a rough, bi-weekly schedule and focus on first hand experiences with tech and students.

I’ve subscribed to the podcast.  I recommend you do the same!

Software Sedimentation (Alignment with Current Practice)

One concept that Weller presented in his book that resonated with me is that of software sedimentation (Lanier, 2002, as cited in Weller, 2020, p. 65).  The idea is that a piece of software becomes so entrenched in the way an institution operates, it becomes extremely difficult to move away from it.  In the program that I teach in, we suffer significantly from this sedimentation.  In one specific instance, we use a particular program to schedule the music for our radio station called Selector.  It’s an old DOS based program that functions adequately and does a decent job of presenting scheduling techniques to our students.  It is, however, without question, outdated.  Not only do we know of better programs, we actually have the license for one; a program called MusicMaster.  The issue is that the amount of labour that would be involved in replacing the old system with the new one is so significant that it seems insurmountable.  I don’t have a solution to recommend for this problem, but I suppose the first issue is to recognize there’s a problem in the first place.

Celebration of Failure (A Conflict with Current Practice)

As I continue to read through Weller’s book, I’m beginning to recognize a recurring theme; one of failed attempts to develop mainstream technology adoption in education.  Many chapters tell the tale of grand innovations that were popular with a short period before fizzling out.  What comes to my attention is the commonality in the reasons for the failures.

• • High Overhead (too much work input… not enough return)
    • Learning Objects – Metadata
    • Personal Learning Environments – Customization
    • E-Portfolios – Lack of support from institution
  • Definition Debates (Lack of consensus)
    • Learning Objects
    • Social Objects

One thing we don’t appear to be good at, is celebrating our failures.  New technology that doesn’t reach a certain threshold of adoption into the mainstream, disappears quietly into the night… as opposed to benefitting from a celebratory examination of the failure to harvest what lessons we can to apply them to future projects.  As a result, similar to my previous post on the first eight chapters of this book, we’re condemned to repeat our mistakes.  In a TED (2016) video, Google X’s Captain of Moonshots, Astro Teller, described how they have long employed the philosophy of celebrating failure, which has allowed them to tackle seemingly impossible tasks with some success (13:40).  I find that in the college system, we play lip service to this idea.  We regularly tout the idea that failure is the great educator, but seldomly do we put the concept into practice.  If we could be more vocal about celebrating our failures and exploring the lessons to be learned from them, we would be less likely to repeat the same mistakes in the future.

References

TED. (2016, May 9). Astro Teller: The unexpected benefit of celebrating failure [Video file]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t13Rq4oc7A

Weller, M. (2020). 25 years of ed tech. Athabasca University Press. https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781771993050.01

I’ve been reading Martin Weller’s book titled, 25 Years of Ed Tech.  It’s an historical recounting of Weller’s experience as a professor of educational technology at Open University in the UK with the development of ed tech over a twenty-five year period beginning in 1994.

Was 1994 the appropriate year to start with?

I think so.  The book that Weller set out to write is a history of how web based digital technology has had an impact on education, not a history on educational technology in general.  Certainly, educational technology was in use prior to 1994 and took many forms, but in order for this book to be focused and concise, Weller would have had to make a decision on what to include and when to begin.  Lunduke (2017) indicated that Bulletin Board Systems (BBS), the topic of the first chapter of 25 Years of Ed Tech, had been in use since the eighties.  Having said that, Weller (2020) admitted in the introduction of his book that he’s “guilty of… being rather arbitrary in allocating a specific year to any given technology“ (p. 6).  The book had to begin somewhere, and the transition between BBS and the web was certainly a pivotal moment into the era which is the central theme of this history.  So, this seems like a logical place to start.

Reactions to Weller’s Writing

One of main themes of Weller’s (2020) book that has so far stood out to me is the “historical amnesia of educational technology” (p. 11).   This concept reinforces Santayana’s (1905/2017) frequently misquoted passage, “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” (p. 132).  This theme was most obviously illustrated to me when Weller outlined Carr-Chellman and Duschatel’s (2000, as cited in Weller, 2020) application of constructivism theory in the development of the ideal online course.  The list of recommended components are so familiar…

• • An online study guide
  • No online textbook
  • Assignments
  • Examples of previous student’s work
  • Student-to-student communication
  • Interactive skill building

This list holds up so well, despite being twenty years old and created in the infancy of online learning, and yet I feel like those who are developing online courses for the first time in the post COVID-19 educational environment, are discovering these concepts for the first time as though they were new.

References

Lunduke, B. (August 28, 2017). History of computers, part 1 – The bulletin board system. Network World. https://www.networkworld.com/article/3220488/history-of-computers-part-1-the-bulletin-board-system.html

Santayana, G. (2017). The life of reason. ProQuest Ebook Central. https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca (Original work published 1905)

Weller, M. (2020). 25 years of ed tech. Athabasca University Press. https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781771993050.01

 

Earlier in the summer, a number of my classmates and I had the honour to participate in a video chat with Dr. George Veletsianos (2020), faculty member of the School of Education & Technology at Royal Roads University, Canada Research Chair in Innovative Learning and Technology, and Commonwealth of Learning Chair in Flexible Learning.  He’s an extremely accomplished researcher and it was a gift to have the opportunity to engage him in conversation about his experiences.

The Question

During our conversation he was kind enough to answer many of our questions, but there was one topic that really resonated with me.  My classmate, Mike MacKay, asked Veletsianos where he should start his research into how Augmented Reality (AR)/Virtual Reality (VR) impact transformative learning.  Mike was concerned, due to the newness of this technology, that there may not be much research connecting these two concepts.  The answer was really interesting.

The Answer

Veletsianos presented the idea that performing a literature review to establish the existing knowledge on a specific topic is similar in structure to an onion (31:38).  The specific research question that you’re looking to answer could be considered the very innermost layer of the onion.  This is where you’ll be looking for previous research that specifically speaks to the topic you’re pursuing.  In Mike’s example, this would be research looking for a connection between AR/VR and transformative learning.  Once you’ve read the literature that covers your specific topic, your attention should turn to less direct, but related research… moving to more outer layers of the onion.  Again, turning to Mike’s example, rather than looking directly at the connection between AR/VR and transformative learning, it would be appropriate to look at how else AR/VR has associated with learning in general.  At the same time, it would make sense to read the foundational research on transformative learning, entirely separate from AR/VR.  In this way, you as the researcher, will develop an extremely robust understanding of the available knowledge regarding your topic, and you’ll likely be able to identify a gap in that knowledge where you can fit in and begin developing a path for your own study.

References

Veletsianos, G. (2020). George’s meeting. BlueJeans Network. https://bluejeans.com/playback/s/PES97xtVyEHk1N21CMu2Nf6cWuxkum7cyWE7yZV9PPdarszJA4QnOQtZNBqC2oid

It was my pleasure recently to have had the opportunity to listen to Clint Lalonde (2018), Associate Faculty at Royal Roads University in the School of Education & Technology, and Manager of Education Technologies at BCcampus, while he presented on Open Education and Creative Commons licenses.  As both an educator and a media professional, I’m fairly well versed in copyright and the appropriate attribution of borrowed materials, but he did bring some ideas to my attention that I had not yet been exposed to.  There were a couple of points that really stuck out to me as worthy of presenting here.  Those points include the Five Rs of Open Education Resources (OER) and the TASL (pronounced “tassel”) acronym for Creative Commons attribution.

The Five Rs of OER

While I have used the concept of Open Education in my own teaching, I was doing so without my knowledge.  It was super interesting to learn much more about the concept and I was particularly keen to hear about how one might categorize a learning material as an Open Resource.  During this pre-recorded presentation, Lalonde described a rule one could follow to categorize a piece of learning material as an Open Resource called the Five Rs of OER (24:32).  The Five Rs are represented by the following…

Retain

In order for a resource to be considered Open, it’s important that the student be able to retain that resource.  It’s becoming increasingly common for textbook publishers to sell students access to online textbooks rather than a hardcopy of the book.  The online textbook brings many advantages such as supplemental resources, practice quizzes, and more, to assist in deeper learning of a topic, but unfortunately when the license period purchased by the student expires, access is relinquished.  This practice underlines the importance of a student’s ability to retain access to a resource used in their education in perpetuity.

Reuse

The next R refers to the idea of reusability of a particular resource; that the student will be able to continue to make use of it over time.  While describing this privilege, Lalonde referred to a concept called the “Reusability Paradox” (26:20).  He asserted that a good piece of learning material has context to whatever knowledge the educator is presenting to the student, but if that resource is to be reusable over time, then it requires that it be without context.  Lalonde then went on to show that this Reusability Paradox is avoided through application of the next R.

Revise

The Reusability Paradox introduces the importance of a student’s ability to revise a resource so that it continues to be of use over time.  I’m fairly confident that we all have a textbook sitting on a dusty bookshelf from a course taken years ago that is no longer relevant.  The use of online learning resources brings not only the ability to share, but the ability to make revisions to that resource to ensure its lifespan and versatility as a reliable tool is drastically increased.

Remix

Another important attribute of an Open Resource is the ability to combine it with another.  An educator’s ability to remix resources into a new work, again, drastically increases the versatility of that tool. If an educator should be presented with the need to combine a chapter from one textbook with a chapter from another to adapt it to a new context, this should be allowable without any fear of repercussions from the creator of either resource.

Redistribute

Finally, educators should be able to make use of these resources.  The ability to redistribute an Open Resource ensures that a certain piece can be copied or reprinted for use in a class without any concerns of copyright infringement.  This way, educators can provide their students with the knowledge they need, without the burden of additional expenses on learning materials.  This is so important in a world where the costs of higher education are already so restrictive.

TASL

Later on in his presentation, Lalonde introduced this useful acronym to remind users of the necessary attribution requirements when making use of content with a Creative Commons license (43:00).  The TASL acronym represents the following requirements…

T – Title – Meaning the title of the piece
A – Artist – The name of the creator of the piece
S – Source – Users must include the source from which the piece was drawn
L – License – Users must present the nature of the license associated with the piece, as illustrated in the image at the top of this page.

Curiously absent from the acronym is the additional requirement that users include a description of any adaptation to the work, if the license allows for it.

References

Lalonde, C. (2018). Into the great wide open [Video file]. Royal Roads University, School Education & Technology, 2018 MALAT Virtual Symposium. https://ca.bbcollab.com/collab/ui/session/playback/load/822e24b327fb446fb5458d18bba3416e

In preparation to do my research, I first have to consider how to focus my time and energy, both of which are limited resources.  With that idea in mind, I can’t read all the literature on a given topic, but rather, I need to focus my attention.  In order to do that, I need to develop a strong research question that will narrow my field of vision.  With that idea in mind, two concepts to keep in mind while developing a good research question are…

• Find a focused topic
• Be Open-Ended

Find a Focused Topic

In order to point the efforts of my research in a specific direction, I need focus.  Booth, Colomb, Williams, Bizup, and Fitzgerald (2016), all university English professors, pointed out that “Without that focus, any evidence you assemble risks appearing to your readers as little more than a mound of random facts” (p.34). As I consider the idea of focus in a research question, I can’t help but compare it with photography, a subject with which I’m more familiar.  Photography is a subtractive art.  Our world is one filled with chaotic imagery and a skilled photographer understands that in order to capture a compelling image, one must remove the distractions and focus on a narrow field.  The photographer subtracts the majority of what is presented in order to isolate a specific image.  I see the development of a research question as a similar endeavour.  If I were to have interest in learning, for example, about the use of glass in architecture, there would be a mound of information to go through and I would spend far too much time coming to a vague conclusion.  Now, if I were to focus my attention instead on the use of stained glass in 15^th century gothic architecture, I would have a much more narrow field of vision and my time spent researching would be far more productive.

Be Open Ended

Once you’ve determined your topic, you should narrow it down even further with a good open-ended question such as “How”, “What”, or “Why” (“What Makes,” 2014).  An open-ended question is important so that you don’t immediately hit a brick wall.  Again, I see a similarity with a technique I’ve used in my professional experience.  When conducting an interview for radio or television, it’s important that we stay away from asking “yes” or “no” questions.  If I were to ask my interviewee if they were having a good day, they may just answer “yes” or “no” and I’m back to asking another question without moving my program along.  If I had done my research beforehand and knew they were having a good day, I would do better by asking them to tell me why they were having a good day.  Now I’ll get a much more interesting and thoughtful response.  If I apply this technique to my example research topic established in the previous section, it could lead to an even more specific and thought provoking question.  My question, then, might be… How did the use of stained glass in 15^th century gothic architecture impact religious ceremonies?  Now I’m getting somewhere…

References

Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & FitzGerald, W. T. (2016). The Craft of Research, Fourth Edition (Fourth). University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226239873.001.0001

Duke Trinity College of Arts & Sciences. (2014). What makes a good research question?. Retrieved from https://sites.duke.edu/urgws/files/2014/02/Research-Questions_WS-handout.pdf