Ed-Tech and the Success of the Twice-Exceptional Learner

2e in 2030

When the term 2e garnered attention in the mid-1990s (Twice Exceptional, n.d.), educators were still reluctant to shift resources to this small percentage of students. 2e or twice-exceptional refers to gifted learners (meaning they perform significantly higher in intelligence or creativity measures than typical learners), that also have secondary differences (dyslexia, ADHD, etc.) in the way they learn (National Association for Gifted Children, 2019). It was often concluded that these students could manage fine without intervention because they are gifted. Educators maintained that lower ability students needed their help; the truly special needs students with cognitive delays and physical impairments require the majority of their capacity to support. The research said that 2e students struggle was as crucial as those with other special needs. However, by not giving the attention they need, we were doing them harm and stunting their potential for flourishing as adults (Willis, 2011).

Thankfully, by the early 2000s, educators started to make changes in the way we see ‘special needs’ and inclusion (Neumann, 2004). 2E and gifted learners took their place among those with special needs. The system finally found ways to include these students in education. Now, in 2030 we see the bounty of sensational and groundbreaking work coming from those previously seen as; ‘able to look after themselves’ or ‘be fine on their own’ when given the inclusion in education they so desperately needed.

The following is just a summary of how these 2e students managed to find success in an ever-evolving educational technology landscape.

To be continued…



National Association for Gifted Children. (2019). A definition of giftedness that guides practice [Whitepaper]. NAGC. https://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources/what-giftedness

Neumann, L. (2004). Accommodating 2e students. Davidson Institute. https://www.davidsongifted.org/search-database/entry/a10446

Twice Exceptional. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved October 16th, 2020, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twice_exceptional

Willis, J. (2011). Twice-exceptional children, exceptional challenge – A brain-based view. Twice-Exceptional Newsletter. http://www.2enewsletter.com/article_willis_challenges.html


The Media Debate in Current Events


By Kristin Beeby and Sandra Norum  

fortune cookie fortune
“The Purpose of Argument” by ImNotQuiteJack is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

The great media debate between Clark and Kozma highlights the significance of critically evaluating the learning media.  Their arguments are relevant today especially in light of the quick pivot to online education during the global pandemic. The following articles will be explored through their perspectives. 

Article #1 Summary

 The article, How Technology will transform learning in the COVID-19 era by Utkarash Amitabh discusses how higher education is ultimately changing to match economic trends and the ‘unbundling’ of education—this unbundling is where ed-tech provides opportunity and innovation. The author outlines four major shifts; return on investment career specializations, lifelong learning, shorter periods for learning and new business models. The author argues this unbundling will bring about a certain amount of disruption in ed-tech. These disruptions include; “learning hard skills with direct employment prospects…networking…[and] a push for soft skills”, (Amitabh, 2020). The author then points out that if higher education is to survive this era of unbundling and disruption, it will need to combine both AI and communities. Amitabh (2020) argues that ed-tech using AI and communities will bring together the world’s brightest minds to collaborate on real-world problems. Ultimately, however, the author notes that AI is still missing the community aspect and must overcome this deficit to be successful. The article ends on the notion that socio-economic factors and market trends are always a function of ed-tech being equitable. Ultimately, this clamouring for the market share may make ed-tech increasingly affordable.

Clark’s Response to Article #1

Clark’s (1994) response to Amitabh’s noted changes to education would be that they do not represent improved learning through technology. Instead, he would argue that these changes are driven by the pandemic’s political and economic climate. If Clark’s “armchair experimental criteria” (p. 1) were applied to the Artificial Intelligent (AI) referred to by Amitabh, it would fail. Even Amitabh explains that AI is most effective when used within a community. The name alone of Artificial Intelligence refers to attributes that mimic human processes; therefore, the true human interaction would be more beneficial to learning than AI acting like Clark’s metaphorical delivery truck. Amitabh identifies other trends in education like the unbundling of education as students want shorter, more specified courses. Clark would resent the great economic investment in ed-tech but would receive some reassurance that the trends brought on by COVID-19 are trends that look at providing a solution to a problem rather than trying to fit a solution to a problem.  To this, he would caution us to continue to question evidence and to carefully consider our choices in a medium.

Kozma’s response to Article #1

Ed-tech is a way for educators to innovate and bring alive the topics to engage our learners. In some cases, it is even a way for educators to streamline and capitalize on what the current societal needs are. Using the ideas put forth by Kozma (1994) in the debate whether media influences learning; we can frame Amitabh’s arguments with the following lens: In this particular era of online learning, educators can reach learners who may not otherwise be able without online platforms and e-learning. This disruption and unbundling of education provide learners with more specified and economic avenues to achieving their educational goals. Learners from around the world can now connect seamlessly to collaborate. Kozma would agree that this closing of geographical gaps has made the scope of ed-tech even more dynamic and prosperous. Kozma would likely contend that AI, one of the most intriguing technological innovations of 21st-century learning, has the potential to personalize learning and provide access to marginalized or differently-abled learners. In moving forward, the educator’s greatest challenge then becomes addressing the need to connect to others and build communities for our learners. These connection needs and the innate human drive to belong is where ed-tech should point its compass.

Article #2 Summary

 In their article, The COVID-19 pandemic has changed education forever. This is how. Li and Lalani (2020) consider the potential long-term implications of learning due to the rapid shift to online education caused by the global pandemic. They outline how ed-tech companies are taking advantage of this opportunity by offering free access, one-stop shops, and partnerships. These authors identify two possible outcomes to this shift in education. The first is the poor preparation will lead to poor sustained adoption. The second possible outcome is a new hybrid form of education. These authors list several examples of the latter but caution the effect of the digital divide. Research is cited that claims improved retention and increased speed in online learning. They provide a conflicting argument, however, that younger learners need more structure. To summarize, there are benefits and drawbacks to the shift to online learning and only time will show any lasting effects on education.

Clark’s Response to Article #2

With the pandemic closing schools worldwide and students and teachers having to shift to online learning, some educators face moving outside of their comfort zone and teaching with an unfamiliar medium. Richard E. Clark (1994) would say this shift is also forcing learners to adjust their cognition to suit these fads. There was already a growing movement for implementing e-learning across the education field, but true empiricists like Clark, know this is premature. Clark would point out that a lacklustre showing of evidence that media influences technology, the education sector needs to tread carefully through this minefield of ‘free platforms’ and ‘unlimited access’ to the unmanageable number of providers. We see the continued monetization of education in businesses pairing with public school districts under the guise of helping parents navigate online learning during school shutdowns. Clark highlights concerns on the shifting to untested and unproven methods of teaching we see in these e-learning situations. There is also the problem of equitable access. With a large percentage of families not supported with tools or bandwidth, we are only widening the education gap for those who are already struggling. Clark would agree there is an argument to be made for e-learning becoming a more efficient and seemingly economical way of learning, he would contend there is much work to be done in the realm of methodology and theory. Online learning may have the potential to democratize education and disseminate knowledge, but it should not be at the cost of sound practice and positive student outcomes.

Kozma’s Response to Article #2

Kozma’s (1994) argument avoids absolutes by considering the potential role technologies may play in the future, a future that is perhaps now being realized. Technology and the world has changed immensely, particularly in the midst of a global pandemic. Has the not-too-distant future Kozma refers to arrived? Kozma’s argument uses the improved cognitive processes for the students using ThinkerTools like the benefits in the article. Kozma points to the role of research in learning more about the influence of media on technology and he would be enthused by the number of real-world experiences occurring in education’s response to COVID-19 and the resulting shift in perspective. “Perhaps a more productive approach would be to view the design process is a dynamic, creative interaction – or conversation, to us Schon’s term – between the designer, the situation, and the medium in which the design both shapes and is shaped by each of these factors” (p. 21). In Li and Lalani’s article, we witness the mutual interactions Kozma describes as school districts, educators, and ed-tech companies work together to form a swift option for students at home. This shift to remote learning has also put more emphasis on the accessibility of technology. This prevalence of users may lead to some of the innovations and patterns Kozma alluded to.


Amitabh, U. G. (2020, August 31). How technology will transform learning in the COVID-19 era. Retrieved September 21, 2020, from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/08/how-edtech-will-transform-learning-in-the-covid-19-era/

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29. http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~bmann/0_ARTICLES/Media_Clark.html

Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning: Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=

Li, C. and Lalani, F. (2020, April 29). The COVID-19 pandemic has changed education forever. This is how. Retrieved September 22, 2020, from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/coronavirus-education-global-covid19-online-digital-learning

Karen Spärck Jones (1935-2007)

I Think I Would Have Liked Her.

Computer Laboratory/University of Cambridge

I wish I could have spoken to her. Karen Spärck Jones. But she died in 2007, from cancer at the age of 71. Both she and her husband were computer science professors at Cambridge University. He died in 2003 and was seemly an intelligent and worthy man. The New York Times ran his obituary and listed the two awards he obtained in his field. When Dr. Karen Spärck Jones died in 2007 with six awards under her belt and over 200 publications, the paper was silent until 2019 when the New York Times finally decided to run an obituary for her in a column titled “Overlooked.” Indeed. A force to be reckoned with, it seems. Karen Spärck Jones’s work in linguistics and computing revolutionized how search engines function. Her contributions to computing are the underpinnings of some of the most widely used search engines today. She conceptualized what we call ‘inverse document frequency‘ (Spärck Jones, 1972), which is still used today for term weighting in search engines. It is almost unfathomable that she was mostly unrecognized during her career even though bringing linguistics and computing together has been formative in ed-tech. Her seminal paper, “A statistical interpretation of term specificity and its application in retrieval” from 1972 has been cited over 4000 times, most of those happening after the turn of the century. In a 2007 interview, just months before her death, after being awarded the Lovelace Award (the top award in computing in the UK), she had much to say about being a woman in a man’s world. She talked of how Cambridge wasn’t ‘woman-friendly’ in her time there, and how she was disappointed it took her until 1999 to become a professor. In her most famous quote, she leaves us with this: “Computing is too important to be left to men.” Hear, hear, sister!


Spärck Jones, K. (1972). A STATISTICAL INTERPRETATION OF        TERM SPECIFICITY AND ITS APPLICATION IN RETRIEVAL. Journal of Documentation, 28(1), 11-21. doi:10.1108/eb026526

Spärck Jones, K., & Runciman, B. (2007). Computing is too important to be left to men. ITNOW, 49(4), 18-20. doi:10.1093/itnow/bwm008

Martin Weller’s 25 Years of Ed-Tech: A Book Club – Part 2

You Might Need Coffee For This One…

coffee and book
“Coffee and Book” by wuestenigel is licensed under CC BY 2.0

In Martin Weller’s 25 Years of Ed-Tech, the years 2002 up to and including 2011, are quite relevant to my practice today. I have recently been tasked with providing a program/support to the gifted students in my K-12 school district. We are a relatively small district with approximately 6000 students, and we have had no gifted-ed program or supports for the last 15 or more years. In June of this past year, I was tasked with creating a Gifted Program.

I set to work reading, researching and learning the ‘best practices’ in gifted-ed. The common thread that I kept coming across was that these students needed to be challenged, and they need to interact with like-minded peers (Wallace, Sisk & Senior, 2018). With these students ranging from ages 8 to 18, my first problem was; what does that even look like? These students are spread across the district, spanning many buildings and schedules. Enter Web 2.0, blogs, videos, e-portfolios, and personal learning environments (Weller, 2020).

As Weller discusses quite eloquently through these chapters, and as Dr. George Veletsianos discussed with me in an earlier blog, connectivism as pedagogy, or at least as a set of principles (Weller, 2020).

Weller (2020), discusses the varied use of e-portfolios (p.102), and I am hopeful that by addressing the explicit teaching of e-portfolios, and how and why they can work for a student at a young age, we will see an upturn in their usefulness in the future.


Wallace, B., Sisk, D. A., & Senior, J. (Eds). (2018). The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education. London, England: Sage.

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


Martin Weller’s 25 Years of Ed-Tech: A Book Club

Grab Your Glass of Wine, and Pull up a Chair.

wine, book, glasses
“Ingredients” by jeffsmallwood is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

The idea that  Dr. George Veletsianos suggested we look at reading the book 25 Years of Ed Tech by Martin Weller (2020) for our course, as a ‘book club,’ resonated with me. Thus, my takeaways from these first eight chapters are in the form of some statements on what I was thinking as I was reading, as well as some questions I have. I am hoping that some (or all) of my questions might be addressed in the comments section.

First, I’d like to preface that I learned a whole lot in the first 1/3 of this book! It took me a lot longer to read than I anticipated because I kept stopping to research (see rabbit hole list) some part of what Weller was discussing, which to me, means this is a great read so far.

General Statements

I am fascinated with creativity. Sir Tim Berners-Lee is a great example. I am especially entranced with the intersection of the logical-sequential (programming, coding, etc.…) and out of the box thinking required for the creation of new technologies. Berners-Lee lived in that intersection in his design of the four technologies needed for the birth of the web (Weller, 2020).

I am not a formally trained tech person, but I am a formally trained educator. I found this book so far, to be a robust melding of the two perspectives. I imagine each branch will have different takeaways, and I am very glad this cohort has both in our midst!

Questions I have:

In the chapter titled Constructivism (Weller, 2020), I kept waiting for the mention of John Dewey. When he wasn’t mentioned, I looked to the list of references; still no Dewey. My question is this: When discussing education, and pedagogy, does John Dewey always need to be mentioned? Is it time we leave him in the past and look to more recent philosophers of education and learning? Or does John Dewey have a place in developing ed-tech?

In the discussion about learning objects and e-learning standards, did anyone else wonder where the conversation on differentiation or accessibility (in a special-ed sense) was? Did these developers think about various learning needs or learning disabilities?

I will leave it at that. Although there are more questions I have, and I am hopeful those will be answered by the discussion that follows.


Rabbit Hole Readings:

Computer History Timeline

Virtual Teamwork: Mastering the Art and Practice of Online Learning and Corporate Collaboration.  Edited by Robert Ubell (see section “Dewey Goes Online” – free access).

Technology Trends in Special Ed 


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



Expert Advice on Grant Writing


Research Proposals – What you Need to Know

dock on ocean in SA

In an online Q&A with researcher and professor Dr. George Veletsianos, students queried him about various aspects of research and the world of academia in general. What stood out for me was his advice about applying for research grants. Let me summarize what I came away with:

      • Know your audience: Find out about who is behind the grant. What do they stand for? What is the history of the organization? Strive to address any world views they may hold and show that you understand their goals.
      • Don’t be afraid to sell yourself: It is an interview of sorts. Don’t be shy!
      • Explain the following:

Why you? – Demonstrate that you are the best person for the task, find a connection in your life, past work that may illustrate this.

Why now? – What previous research can you link to culminate up to now; show it is relevant to what is happening in the world at present?

Why bother? – How is what you want to study contributing to man and woman’s knowledge base, and how is it connected to what the grant providers call for research?

Research is not cheap. There is money in the hands of willing agencies and organizations. All you need to do is win it with a worthy proposal.



Veletsianos, G. (2020). Questions about Research for George Veletsianos [Audio recording]. Retrieved from https://bluejeans.com/playback/s/PES97xtVyEHk1N21CMu2Nf6cWuxkum7cyWE7yZV9PPdarszJA4QnOQtZNBqC2oid


Open Education


One small step toward a better world: Systemic Racism and Privilege  

Before we can truly see how Open Education and Open Education Resources (OER’s) are the way we need to start viewing, practicing and spreading knowledge, we need to understand why they are so important.

Privilege. A word we should be familiar with, given the time and political environment we are living in. If you are unclear about what privilege really is or is not, go to this website to get a nice overview.

I am not sure how we find equality for all if we do not embrace Open Education. With the fact that the ‘haves’ are the vast majority of people attending the world’s top universities because they attended the top highschool because they attended the top middle school… Do you see where this is going? We can do better. We have to do better.

I found the following video to be a concise way to look at privilege. Have a look:

Open Education is a way to eliminate privilege that comes from sitting in the front row, from not realizing those in the back row deserve more. For me, I abhor the idea of all those voices that are not getting heard. In those voices, there may be a cure for cancer, a model for rainforest sustainability, the next brilliant world leader, or a physicist meant to discover a unifying theory.

Now that we can see real progress in Open Learning, it is time to push that momentum. As a grad student, I will share, I will allow the use of my privilege thus far, even if only to add to the growing number of amazing individuals who have started this movement. Open Educational Resources are only the beginning.

Ethical Responsibility


Themes in Research: A Preview on Ethics

Ethics in human research is a deep ocean of ideas, practices, and norms. Multiple books, papers, dissertations and research have added to this vast area of knowledge. My purpose is not to add any insight to this sea of discourse; but rather to briefly outline what ethics is in research and probe some of the main touchstones for qualitative, quantitative and mixed research methods that have already been highlighted in multiple pieces of literature. As a topic that speaks to me; I find it important to keep ethical standpoints in the forefront of my knowledge base as I move forward in my academic career.

What is Ethics?

Defining ethics for the purpose of this discussion will be shortsighted, however, a brief overview is necessary to initiate this dialogue. In its simplest terms, ethics in human research is “The application of moral rules and professional codes of conduct to the collection, analysis, reporting, and publication of information about research subjects, in particular active acceptance of subjects’ right to privacy, confidentiality, and informed consent.” (Dictionary of Sociology, n.d.; Encyclopedia.com, n.d.; 2020). While I do not plan on unpacking all parts of this definition, it is important to note that it covers a very broad scope and is intended to blanket all aspects of research.

In Qualitative Research

Johnson and Christenson’s (2014) definition of qualitative research outlines that it “…relies on the collection of qualitative data (i.e., nonnumerical data such as words and pictures) …” (p. 33). This type of research can be ethically challenging because of the innately personal and interpretive nature of qualitative data. An example of this can be seen in any type of evaluation research, where “…determining the worth, merit or quality…” (Johnson & Christenson, 2014, p. 10) in the researcher’s focus and results. Since the research is engaged in looking at human behaviours or personal perceptions this creates highly sensitive and personal information that would be confidential in nature. However, multiple steps, such as ensuring anonymity and confidentiality that are built into ethical guidelines by government agencies like the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research in Canada (2016), work to negate these confounding factors for researchers and subjects alike.

In Quantitative Research

Quantitative research involves studies in which the data that are analyzed are in the form of numbers” (Drew et.al., 2008, p. 69). Numerical analysis, while seemingly objective can have ethical concerns. The quantitative study can have all the key elements of experimental design, or it can be non-experimental in design (Johnson & Christenson, 2014). Any type of research must be carried out with great care and attention paid to equity, quantitative methods are no exception. The ethical issues may arise in the case of an experimental design study which entails the manipulation of an independent variable (something that is theorized to cause change) and the effect that manipulation has on a dependant variable (something that is theorized to be susceptible to the independent variable). An experimental group would receive an intervention/manipulation, but the control group would not. The comparison of the outcomes of these two groups are then analyzed (Johnson & Christenson, 2014).

The ethical questions come into play when we consider experimental research with human beings and the assignment of individuals to one group that will receive treatment (intervention) and other individuals to another group who will not get the treatment (control group). Is it fair to let a group of individuals not have the privilege of an intervention we hypothesize would help them or in the opposite case; apply treatment top a group we theorize would harm them? In many cases, it would be unethical to manipulate said variable and study the effects. Johnson and Christensen (2014) give the example of finding a causal relationship between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, pointing out that it would be unethical to conduct a purely experimental study to find this relationship (Johnson & Christenson, 2014). One would have to force an experimental group of non-smokers to smoke cigarettes and compare medical outcomes to that of the non-smoking control group. This would be unethical because you are knowingly causing harm to individuals. Instead, researchers use many creative methods to ensure ethics are in place. Including, using both qualitative and quantitative data to come to conclusions.

In Mixed Methods Research

As its name implies, mixed methods research is a combination of both qualitative and quantitative designs; and because of this, mixed methods research falls prey to the same ethical dilemmas that its component parents do. Are the recruitment processes fair and equitable; do power relationships need to be addressed; what are the cultural impacts; are there considerations for vulnerable populations; are there negative impacts of your research? These are all examples of questions that a researcher must answer to obtain approval from research institutions like Royal Roads University (Royal Roads University. n.d.). These measures help researchers and institutions protect their subjects from harm; that in the not so distant past; happened far too often.

Milgram’s obedience study (Milgram, 1963) and the Stanford prisoner experiment (Haney et al., 1973) are two high profile examples of mixed methods research that failed to protect their subjects. In both these psychological studies; participants were asked to perform tasks that; after the fact; harmed them psychologically (Baumrind, 1964). If today’s ethics policies had been more solidly in place, then those studies would have been designed very differently.


Conducting research; especially involving fellow human beings is a privilege and a responsibility. It is my hope that any individual embarking down this road takes more than just a cursory read of the ethics in research literature and develops a thoughtful and extensive evaluation of the best practices and problems concerning ethics in research. Thankfully, institutes of research such as universities, adopt rigorous policies and procedures for ensuring the ethical treatment of subject being studied (Royal Roads University, n.d.). Beyond that, the Canadian government has standards in ethical research as well (Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research, 2016). There is a responsibility for researchers to tackle the inequalities and injustices of our world; not add to them.


Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: after reading milgram’s “behavioral study of obedience.”. American Psychologist19(6), 421–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040128

Dictionary of Sociology. Retrieved July 10, 2020 from Encyclopedia.com:  https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/research-ethics

Drew, C. J., Hardman, M. L. & Hosp, J. L. (2008). Ethical issues in conducting research. In Drew, C. J., Hardman, M. L., & Hosp, J. L. Designing and conducting research in education (pp. 55-80). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483385648

Johnson, R.B. & Christensen, L. (2014). In Educational research: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1, 69-97.

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology67(4), 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525Royal

Roads University. (n.d.). Ethics – For Students.

Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research (Canada), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, & Canadian Institutes of Health Research. (2016). Tri-agency framework, responsible conduct of research. Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/crr-rcr/RR4-1-2016-eng.pdf.



Theoretical Frameworks


Theoretical Framework Team Project: Cognitive Load, Personality, Activity and Motivation; a brief overview.

Through a fantastic group experience; I was able to be a part of the creation of the following video.


Coghlan, D., and Brydon-Miller, M. (2014). Activity theory. The SAGE encyclopedia of action research (Vols. 1-2), (pp. 22-24). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446294406

Cook, D. A., & Artino, A. R. (2016). Motivation to learn: an overview of contemporary theories. Medical Education, 50(10), 997–1014. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13074

Kaptelinin, V., and Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with technology : Activity theory and interaction design (Ser. Acting with technology). MIT Press. https://royalroads.skillport.com/skillportfe/assetSummaryPage.action?assetid=RW$26870:_ss_book:18551#summary/BOOKS/RW$26870:_ss_book:18551

Kaushal, K.B., Leon, Y.W., & Chun-Yen, C. (2019). The impact of personality on students’ perceptions towards online learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4). https://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/article/view/4162/1569

Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296. https://10.1023/A:1022193728205


If you would like to see the annotated bibliography that seeded this video, have a look here.

Good Research Questions


To Research or Not to Research: What is the Question?

Research is innately a human quest. We seek answers, and we aim to explain the world around us. We must remember egalitarian principles that are; all people deserve to be treated equally (Arneson, 2013). We should also look at utilitarianism; the greatest good for the highest number of people, if we aim to improve our world (Dulgnan, 1999).

When human philosophy and scientific research find each other; we can move toward helpful, ethical and worthy questions to drive our curiosity. We can create good research questions.

In asking these questions; we may look to philosophical answers.

“W.P.F. – Greece” by Pollatos Dimitris is licensed under CC0 1.0


Arneson, Richard, “Egalitarianism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/egalitarianism.

Duignan, Brian. [1999] 2000. “Utilitarianism” (revised). Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 5 July 2020

George Mason University Writing Center. (2008). How to write a research question. Retrieved from https://writingcenter.gmu.edu/guides/how-to-write-a-research-question