Category: LRNT 523

Authors: Ben Chaddock & Emma Keating (posted here as well)

Today’s post compares Kozma’s (1994) and Clark’s (1994) positions in the Great Media Debate with recent examples of techno-deterministic thinking by pro-tech firms. The Great Media Debate took off in 1983, with Clark’s article summarizing how fundamental learning methods will remain fundamental, despite technological changes in delivery methods or content that may improve efficiency.

Below we review articles about a new learning app for Microsoft teams and a sales-support article from a wifi installation and management firm and overlays Kozma and Clark’s outlook on both.

Article 1: New learning app for Microsoft Teams LINK 

This new app allows employers to collaborate all the learning they want their employees to do in one place (Our Training tab), including company-specific training. Users of the app can assign activities to their employees and track who has completed them.  Group chats enable peer conversation, and users can share links to media and training with each other. The app also links to Microsoft Learn and LinkedIn Learning for professional collaboration.

Kozma argues that the attributes that make media successful are not consistently present in the various forms of media to be relied upon to assist in learning. For example, in this new Teams learning app, many attributes may impact the quality of the learning, but it is very challenging to isolate a particular component that guarantees success. Moreover, the app does not provide a comprehensive library of modules, contributing to an inconsistent student experience that should not be relied upon for successful learning.

Clark would comment that the new media of the Teams app may not influence learning as it may not consider the cognitive or motivational factors of learning. Although the app includes some social components (chats and inter-user communication), it does little to support those aspects throughout the methods of the actual learning. For example, tracking employee training completion progress may motivate some, but little evidence is available that shows this action will positively influence learning or ensure comprehension and retention. 

Article 2: Pro-Techno stance from cloud company LINK

American wireless internet implementation and management firm SecurEdge is in the business of helping install custom wifi systems to schools and companies. This article lists numerous ways that digital tools and classrooms can help students learn.  Their claims include that digital classrooms help students of different learning styles, increase student engagement, that “traditional passive learning model is broken… [and] technology transforms the learning experience” (Mareco, 2017).

Kozma (1994) would agree that technology and digital mediums help create objects that generate conservation from an interactionist perspective. The unique features of the students, their beliefs and goals, interact with these digital objects and transform them from inert tools into a host for emerging ideas and hopefully meaningful dialogue between all parties (p. 21). However, Kozma (1994) also claims that traditional teaching models do not acknowledge or accommodate the interplay between media, method, and situation (p. 21); and that they are bound by the tenets of behavioural psychology and shy away from the messy nature of social constructivism (p. 21). 

Clark (1994) retorts that any medium, digital or otherwise, that supports learning includes characteristics that cause learning. For example, the difference between a printed textbook and a digital textbook.

Clark (1994) would associate the digital nature of the latter as a surface feature of the learning environment, and that the structural or fundamental element of the resource is the fact that both tools consolidate large amounts of information into a helpful and encouraging format for consumption, or most aptly, comprehension. Further, that the “active ingredient” should be distinguished in the process of assessing the quality of new teaching technology. Otherwise, we may become lost in our evaluation of what is fundamentally impacting our students’ learning (Salomon, 1979, as cited by Clark, 1994, p. 4). 

In conclusion, Amara’s law offers an important reminder that “we tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run” (PC Mag, n.d.).

References

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.

Kozma, R. (1994). “Will media influence learning: Reframing the debate.” Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19.

Mareco, D. (2017, July 28). 10 Reasons Today’s Students NEED Technology in the Classroom. Securedge Networks. https://www.securedgenetworks.com/blog/10-reasons-today-s-students-need-technology-in-the-classroom

Pradeep (2020, July 8). Microsoft reveals the all-new learning app coming to Microsoft Teams (video). MS Power User. https://mspoweruser.com/microsoft-learning-app-microsoft-teams-video/

PC Mag (n.d.) Amara’s Law. https://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/amaras-law

Considering my absence from the class discussion last week due to work commitments, I would like to post my reflection on the final 3^rd of Weller’s 25 years of ed-tech here. I thoroughly enjoyed the author’s clear writing style, centred viewpoint, and encouraging tone. I am excited to learn more about the industry’s history as the course and my experience in the MALAT program continues. But what was the biggest takeaway, and how will it impact my work going forward?

Our time horizon changes the way we facilitate learning.

In this final chapter of the book, Weller (2020) explores how in 2018, a division in the ed-tech community surfaced. The pro-tech camp aimed to create ‘perfect’ learning technologies. In contrast, the con-tech group became increasingly skeptical of any such claim and retreated to a more traditionalist point of view that learning must take place with pen and paper. While reading this portion of the book, I kept thinking about the topics that my fellow students were excitedly choosing to explore in Unit 2, most notably, what seemed like a pro stance on robots replacing teachers in the classroom. This idea caused great distress for me both as an educator and an economist (if my BA in econ would allow me to reference myself as such), and I have since become curious about my reaction to this idea and how Weller (2020) tackles the issue of people vs. technology in learning.

In chapter 18, Weller (2020) discusses the characteristics of the personal learning environment (PLE) and how it formed as an evolution of learning objects, open educational resources, ePortfolios, and connectivism. PLE’s incorporate the most helpful traits of these previous innovations and allow students to control their learning rate, work in an offline environment, yet interface their activities with an institutional system and evaluation criteria (Van Harmelan, 2006, as cited by Weller, 2020). However, in practice, PLEs failed because they often gave students too much flexibility and subsumed the teaching presence into the learning activities, leaving them to direct their learning and undertake that learning (Weller, 2020).

These two different tasks, directing and undertaking the learning, may clarify why a disconnect in the ed-tech community has developed in recent years. I was first introduced to this idea when I watched a John Cleese video about his acting and comedy career that explained the difference between brainstorming jokes and telling them. It is an entirely different mode of being. Unfortunately, I can’t find that resource today, but this clip introduces the concept (Popova, n.d). I see this concept every day in my battle to check emails, tackle small tasks, and complete major creative writing assignments for work or our MALAT program. The act of thinking vs. doing is so different. John Cleese recommended that we ‘go for a walk’ before creative activities and be disciplined enough to ‘avoid busy tasks’ during this creative portion of our day. But how does this idea relate to a discussion on the direction and undertaking of learning? Do those tasks correspond with the institutional value structures or individual personality traits of the people in the pro-tech and con-tech camps?

When imagining the stereotypical pro-tech person in education, one could argue that they are incentivized to cut costs, achieve more with less, and embody a wonderous optimism about the power of their innovations to help propel product sales. However, I would suggest that it is merely their time horizon. How far ahead they can imagine is just different from their con-tech counterparts. And this shorter time horizon may be created by the corporate environment that big-tech innovation currently resides. When the focus on improvement is limited to quarterly reports and investor dividends, results must be tangible and timely. As such, I hypothesize that proponents of corporate ed-tech are more interested in directing the learning and providing the best tools possible rather than being there when the learning takes place.

Conversely, educators in grade schools and post-secondary academies enjoy a greater time horizon where students learn, and teachers mature over multiple years and decades. The institutional value structure of the academy is very different from corporate and profit-driven entities. A great emphasis on undertaking the learning is present, and an appreciation for the messiness of learning is more widely accepted.

An area of future investigation may look at how people find themselves in the pro or con-tech camp? Is it indeed the difference between corporate and academic institutional values? Or do individual personality traits best forecast one’s patience for the learning process (or learning time horizon) or interest in directing or participating in the teaching? And it is these personality traits that propel people to pursue what is most meaningful to them, and they find themselves in either of these organizational structures as a matter of circumstance.

Weller (2020) concludes that although education and technology may look different on the surface in the future, like they did 25 years ago, underneath, the core principles will remain the same. More specifically, Weller (2020) forecasts increases in the use of blended learning and the internet, narrow forms of Artificial Intelligence (AI) that can help us learn specific tasks, and learning analytics, in all its catastrophe, will continue to become more pervasive.

Indeed, the future of learning will incorporate great nuance, but the core fundamentals of curiosity and critical thinking will remain tantamount.  And our role as educational administrators will be to optimize the characteristics of the tools available to us and meet our students in the middle, where long-term development and short-term engagement meet in harmony.

In closing, two recommendations come to mind. First, Caufield (2017a) reminds us to create activities that help students validate previous work in a field before adopting its viewpoint. Second, Jhangiani (2017) goes so far as to push students to brainstorm their own ‘test’ questions for lack of a better way to say it. These concepts are important to me as they are helpful and encouraging and allow teachers to direct the learning and be present.

References

Weller, M. (2020). 25 Years of Ed Tech. Athabasca University Press.

Popova, M. (n.d). John Cleese on the Five Factors to Make Your Life More Creative. BrainPickings. https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/04/12/john-cleese-on-creativity-1991/

Caulfield, M. (2017a). Web literacy for student fact checkers…and other people who care about facts. Retrieved from https://webliteracy.pressbooks.com/

Jhangiani, R. (2017, January 12). Why have students answer questions when they can write them? [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://thatpsychprof.com/why-have-students-answer-questions-when-they-can-write-them/

This week’s post reviews the 2^nd third of Weller’s 25 years of ed-tech and covers 2002 to 2011. One concept that has immediate relevance in my current work is chapter 9’s look at the Learning Management System (LMS). Weller (2020) highlights that if not carefully planned, an organization may set itself up for failure in the long run as these types of tools are costly to create and can take on a life of their own. Indeed, when organizations incorrectly value the costs and benefits of labour and capital, they can hold onto depreciating and maintenance-dependant assets for too long.  Although the costs of maintenance and new investment in the case of the LMS would be more apparent to an organization, the benefits of using old vs. new digital tools are more challenging to quantify. Weller (2020) refers to this concept as institutional sedimentation, whereby structures are built around founding principles and decrease institutional agility. To avoid sedimentation, Weller (2020) suggests organizations 1) articulate why an LMS will help, 2) how it matches their chosen learning theory, and 3) use 3^rd party tools, like Google Docs, when possible to reduce cost and incorporate institutional agility into their resources.

A second lesson I found most pertinent to my work in coach development is the use of ePortfolios discussed in chapter 15. Weller (2020) summarizes numerous definitions of ePortfolios from Lorenzo and Ittelson (2005) and Beethem (2005) as a collection of assignments that demonstrate student progress through informal and formal activities, and which are owned by the student, can be used for future reflective learning, and exhibit qualities that support evaluation by teachers. Although a great idea in principle, the implementation of ePortfolios has historically been a challenge. In my specific work as a coach developer, we use a portfolio for the evaluation and certification of our coaches. However, we have yet to create a resource designed with the student and the evaluator equally in mind. For example, recent revisions shifted from a Word doc version to a fillable PDF. However, the fillable sections made it difficult for the student and evaluator to read the answers. The evaluation criteria are also disjointed from the assignments, placed at the back of the resource, making it challenging for students to complete each task as designed and for evaluators to evaluate critical outcomes. Numerous other challenges are associated with the current design; however, there is interest in making further edits this off-season. Weller’s (2020) recommendations are helpful and remind us to adopt a student-centred approach that includes user-friendly formats, comprehensive instructions that match the evaluation criteria, and prompt students to complete some tasks in a community-hosted discussion, like a padlet or closed forum. This last element would incorporate concepts of the Personal Learning Environment and Connectivism spoken about in chapters 17 and 18, but that is for another day!

References

Weller, M. (2020). 25 Years of Ed Tech. Athabasca University Press.

Beetham, H. (2005). E-portfolios in post-16 learning in the UK: Developments, issues and opportunities. Retrieved from http://bectaepexpert.pbworks.com/f/Beetham+eportfolio_ped.doc

Lorenzo, G., & Ittelson, J. (2005). An overview of e-portfolios. Educause Learning Initiative, 1(1), 1–27. Retrieved from https://library.educause.edu/resources/2005/1/an-overview-of-eportfolios

Dear Reader,

Welcome back! Our MALAT cohort has returned to the blogosphere and today’s post reviews the first third of Weller’s 25 years in Ed Tech, a historical summary of educational technology since 1994. Each chapter explores one fundamental discovery or change relevant to a given year and helps remind us just how quickly technology has developed in the recent past. This first post reviews the opening eight chapters of the book, from the era of digital bulletin boards in 1994, to the acknowledgment and adoption of eLearning modules, computer-mediated communication (CMC) and constructivist educational design by 2001.

In my role as an NCCP Coach Developer, we use a mix of in-person and online modules to help coaches develop the skills necessary to provide safe learning environments for Canadians of all ages. In 2020, quadrennial updates to our most popular coach development pathway took place. Fortunately, our update cycle corresponded with the Covid-shutdown, and our team quickly incorporated numerous changes that helped us facilitate one of our most successful coach development seasons ever. But what elements of the new pathway worked? And why? And how can we make it even better?

In chapter 4, Weller (2020) explored traits that may help formulate an optimally designed online course. Carr-Chellman and Duschatel (2000) suggested six key attributes, including a comprehensive study guide, assignments that help students experience the primary learning theory in use, examples of previous work, and so on.  This was very interesting to me. For this post, I’ve contrasted this list with the various changes and characteristics that my coach development team and I have incorporated into our recent program revisions. Our recent revisions proved successful, with more coaches achieving certification in the last 18 months than we have certified in the previous 29 years. By comparing our updates with the proposed list of Carr-Chellman and Duschetal (2000), I am beginning to understand why the updates worked and how I can make further improvements in the future.

The six elements include:

Carr-Chellman and Duschatel (2000)	NCCP Cycling Pathway Updates (2020)
·     A comprehensive study guide that allows students to progress without the teacher	·       A NEW fillable journal helped students navigate the numerous official textbooks, complete all the assignments in the final evaluation portfolio, and consolidate their learning in one document. ·       NEW home study program offered, using recorded video calls from 2 different cohorts, allowing participants to work through materials at their own pace and support various learning styles. Application, including history in sports coaching, was required.
·     Assignments include collaborative and individual tasks that match & model the learning theory	·       EXISTING learning theory, including a mix of instruction and social constructivism. ·       NEW slide deck for ZOOM calls and NEW pre-event assignments to help ensure group activities were efficient.
·     Provide examples of previous student’s work	·       NEW samples provided in the slide deck ·       The NEW journal included key reference material on the page after difficult questions. Thus, participants could challenge themselves to articulate an answer using reflection and textbook, but know their solution and know that resources were easy to find if needed. This removed the anxiety of navigating the 300-page resource material and gamified the writing experience into “can I do the question without asking for help.” In post-event surveys, participants indicated this gamified design helped validate their existing knowledge base and built their confidence by acknowledging that they are indeed in a coaching program that matches their abilities and needs. In addition, students shared more detailed and forthcoming responses in later journal questions, evidencing how the journal design boosted student confidence.
·     No online textbook or primary text used
·     Student-to-student communication is emphasized, including informal discussions that encourage creativity	·       NEW journal and slide deck maximized group breakout room discussions. ·       EXISTING partner exercises during outdoor practice teaching, especially in the morning session.
·     The communication model improves understanding of fundamental learning theories (concepts) and intellectual dialogue	·       The EXISTING program emphasizes and demonstrates the NCCP’s five core competencies: Valuing, Interacting, Problem-Solving, Critical-Thinking, and Leading, and pushes participants to translate theoretical concepts into practical applications with a course conductor fulfills the role of guide, moderator and instructor in that order.

 

I have a question: What did Carr-Chellman and Duschetal (2000) mean by having no online textbook or primary text? I suppose they are proposing this in the context of a network or MOOC. In that case, I can see the lack of an official textbook as an inspiring way to push students to search the relevant academic literature and other resources for answers.

In the context of NCCP Coach Development, I see that we could include the concept of no primary textbook in our ongoing coach mentorship programs, designed for certified coaches who are attending seasonal calls to maintain certified status. In this context, we could prompt participants with a narrow research question two weeks before the seasonal meeting, expecting that they will contribute during breakout room brainstorming and the greater discussion amongst all participants.

References

Weller, M. (2020). 25 Years of Ed Tech. Athabasca University Press.

Carr-Chellman, A., & Duchastel, P. (2000). The ideal online course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(3), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00154