{"id":782,"date":"2021-09-04T02:30:50","date_gmt":"2021-09-04T06:30:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0205\/?p=782"},"modified":"2021-09-21T22:41:04","modified_gmt":"2021-09-22T02:41:04","slug":"unit-1-activity-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0205\/unit-1-activity-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Weller’s 25 Years of EdTech: 1995 – 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”3.22″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”3.25″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text” _builder_version=”3.27.4″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”]\n

For our activity this week, we were assigned the first eight chapters of Martin Weller’s book 25 Years of Ed Tech<\/span><\/span><\/a>, which discusses the history of ed-tech across higher education since 1994. Each chapter sheds light on a particular technology, theory, or concept that has impacted each year from the proposed beginning up until present day. Chapter 1 through 8 touches on topics ranging from Bulletin Board Systems (BBS) to Constructivism to E-learning standards. All eight chapters were very insightful and presented a plethora of information, most of which was utterly foreign to me. However, it was Weller’s Chapter 4 1997 on Constructivism, which is not a technology, nor a pedagogy, but a learning theory that was particularly fascinating to me. Here’s why…<\/p>\n

When I think back to 1997, I am flooded with thoughts, inflamed by a vivid imagination and having watched too many sci-fi movies, about how technology would irrevocably change the world. Regrettably, now in 2021, I am still waiting on my hover skateboard, like the one from “Back to the Future II<\/span><\/a>“. The problem lies in the common misconception that innovations once realized (whether in the form of tools or ideas) will work for everyone in every situation.<\/p>\n

In the 1990s, with the introduction of the web, educators sought an alternative to Instructivist, lecture-based teaching models due to the technological limitations of that time. Constructivist theory, developed in the 1960s from a synthesis of Piagetian and Vygotskian perspectives, was adopted as a ‘solution’ to compensate for these limitations, which subsequently sparked a broader progressive education movement. A teacher went from being a “sage on the stage” (a person who teaches) to a “guide on the side” (a facilitator of learning) with their primary responsibility to create an interactive and collaborative setting where learners sat at the center of the knowledge sharing and construction process (Weller, 2020, p. 29). It is therefore not hard to see the attraction of this theory in an online learning context as “the web gave agency to learners \u2014 they could create, collaborate, and discover for themselves, freed from the conventions of time and distance.” (Weller, 2020, p. 29).<\/span><\/p>\n

Yet, Weller cautions that this constructivist approach was in some cases an excuse for poor online course design: grounds for educators to remove themselves from the content creation process, because as Weller mentions, in Constructivism, knowledge is not acquired until one reflects upon and creates meaning from their experience, for only then can they come to understand the world around them. Conventional teaching practices (e.g., developing learning materials, reviewing lecture notes, anticipating questions and formulating answers, and preparing for examinations) may no longer seem appropriate under the principles of Constructivism. A dichotomy therefore emerges between the magic-bullet (Constructivism) and the old-fashioned Instructivist approaches that were now deemed wrong. But, it doesn’t have to be this way.<\/p>\n

After reflecting on 10 years of experience as an ESL instructor in conjunction with the learnings from this chapter, I believe Constructivism may be too broad to be of use in all teaching situations. I understand there can never be one overarching theoretical framework that accounts for how people learn in all contexts. How we learn depends on multiple interacting factors that defy any one-size-fits-all solution. Yet, it appears we are continuously trying to find a simple solution to teaching and learning problems with emerging fads. As there appears to be no one evidence-backed method that dominates, for educators to make informed instructional choices, I argue one should be aware of both the hugely promoted strengths as well as the under-acknowledged limitations. And, instead of viewing something as good or bad, we should be asking, \u201cIn what situation is this appropriate?\u201d and \u201cWhat kind of learning is likely to result?\u201d. For, even though some approaches are more likely to succeed than others, they all have their limitations.<\/p>\n

What do you think? Has teaching and learning become lost in a sea of educational trends? If so, how did it get this way? Or, more importantly, is there something that can be done to stop it?<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n

Weller, M. (2020). 25 Years of Ed Tech. AU Press, 27-35. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.15215\/aupress\/9781771993050.01<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

For our activity this week, we were assigned the first eight chapters of Martin Weller’s book 25 Years of Ed Tech, which discusses the history of ed-tech across higher education since 1994. Each chapter sheds light on a particular technology, theory, or concept that has impacted each year from the proposed beginning up until present […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":199,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"Weller, M. (2020). 25 Years of Ed Tech. AU Press, 27-35. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.15215\/aupress\/9781771993050.01<\/a><\/strong>\r\n \r\nFor our activity this week, we were assigned the first eight chapters of Martin Weller's book 25 Years of Ed Tech<\/a>, which discusses the history of ed-tech across higher education since 1994. Each chapter sheds light on a particular technology, theory, or concept that has impacted each year from the beginning up until present day. Chapter 1 through 8 touches on topics ranging from Bulletin Board Systems (BBS) to Constructivism to E-learning standards. All eight chapters were very insightful and presented a plethora of information, most of which was utterly foreign to me. But, Weller's Chapter 4 1997 on Constructivism, which is not a technology, nor a pedagogy, but a learning theory was fascinating to me. Here's why...\r\n\r\nWhen I think back to 1997, I am flooded with thoughts, inflamed by a vivid imagination and having watched too many science-fi movies, about how technology would change the world. Regrettably, here in 2021, I am still waiting on my hoverboard. The problem lies in the common misconception that innovations (whether in the form of technology or ideas) will work for everyone. \r\nIn the 1990s, with the introduction of the web, educators sought an alternative to Instructivist, lecture-based teaching models. Constructivism theory, developed in the 1960s from a synthesis of Piagetian and Vygotskian perspectives, was used as a solution and subsequently sparked a broader progressive education movement. A teacher went from being a \"sage on the stage\" (a person who teaches) to being a \"guide on the side\" (a facilitator of learning)(p. 29). The teacher's primary responsibility was to create an interactive and collaborative setting where learners sat at the center of the knowledge sharing and construction process. It is therefore not hard to see the attraction of this theory in an online learning context as \"the web gave agency to learners \u2014 they could create, collaborate, and discover for themselves, freed from the conventions of time and distance.\" (p. 29). \r\n\r\nYet, Weller cautions that this constructivist approach was in some cases an excuse for poor online course design: grounds for educators to remove themselves from the content creation process, because as Weller mentions, in Constructivism, knowledge is not acquired until one reflects upon and creates meaning from their experience, only then can they come to understand the world around them. Conventional teaching practices (e.g., developing learning materials, reviewing lecture notes, anticipating questions and formulating answers, preparing for examinations) no longer seemed appropriate under the principles of Constructivism, particularly with learners' association with technology. A dichotomy emerged between the magic-bullet (Constructivism) and the old-fashioned Instructivist approaches that were now deemed wrong. But, after reflecting on 10 years of experience as an ESL instructor in conjunction with the learnings from this chapter, Constructivism may be too broad to be of use in specific teaching situations. And, I understand there can never be one overarching theoretical framework that accounts for how people learn in all contexts. How we learn depends on multiple interacting factors that defy any one-size-fits-all solution. Yet, it appears we are continuously trying to find a simple solution to this complicated problem with emerging fads. As there appears to be no one evidence-backed method that dominates, for educators to make informed instructional choices, I argue one should be aware of both the hugely promoted strengths as well as the under-acknowledged limitations. And, instead of judging something to be good or bad, we should be asking, \u201cIn what situation is this appropriate?\u201d and \u201cWhat kind of learning is likely to result?\u201d. For, even though some approaches are more likely to succeed than others, they all have their limitations.\r\n\r\nWhat do you think? Has teaching and learning become lost in a sea of educational trends? If so, how did it get this way? Or, more importantly, is there something that can be done to stop it?<\/strong>\r\n","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[45,47,46],"class_list":["post-782","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-lrnt523","tag-constructivism","tag-ed-tech","tag-weller"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0205\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/782","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0205\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0205\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0205\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/199"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0205\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=782"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0205\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/782\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":840,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0205\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/782\/revisions\/840"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0205\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=782"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0205\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=782"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0205\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=782"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}