The very readable and friendly, “25 Years of Ed Tech” beautifully describes my professional journey to date. Prior to reading the first third of the book, I knew my own lived experiences with Ed Tech, but I was surprised at how he perfectly encapsulated what I suspected about certain aspects of it. These include how constructivism has a place somewhere but not everywhere, the development of e-learning, and the appearance of digital diploma mills.
As a radiation expert, I agree that constructivism is “an approach that doesn’t apply equally across all disciplines; quantum physics, for example, is almost entirely theoretical and largely counter-intuitive, so bringing your own experience of quarks isn’t going to help” (Weller, 2020, p.30). Even now, critical safety training such as nuclear power plant operations continues to rely on a more traditional method of teaching, which is what I believe Weller meant. Constructivist learning, as well as e-learning, remain generally unpopular in the nuclear realm in my experience.
E-learning when present in nuclear remains asynchronous, low-risk, and regulatory box-checking. Weller provided the cost-effectiveness of e-learning thus: “software simulations are costly to produce, taking time and requiring the input of a range of experts. However, once made, these components are relatively cheap to reproduce, so the costs do not increase greatly as the number of students increases. This model … is well-suited to large population courses which are presented over several years without much alteration” (Weller, 2020, p. 46). I have seen this first-hand and a quick Google search for online safety training backs me up.
As the century progressed, I saw organizations whose officers are described by Reid in 1959 as “unethical self-seekers whose qualifications are no better than their offerings” (Noble, 1998, p. 368). I was unfortunately surprised by Weller’s and Noble’s works to learn that my hunches about this group were right.
Overall, I was pleasantly surprised at how well Weller’s book has so far described the history of Ed Tech and look forward to connecting his future revelations to my lived experiences.
References:
Noble, D. F. (1998). Digital diploma mills: The automation of higher education. Science as Culture, 7(3), 355–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505439809526510
Weller, Martin (2020). 25 Years of Ed Tech. Canada: Athabasca University Press.
Hi Corie,
Thank you for sharing a lovely post that is relevant and insightful into your line of work! In your post you addressed the cost of e-learning similar to how Weller addressed it in his book. This was something that was surprising to me! While the only experience Ive had teaching online was in the height of covid-19, I would have not imagined the cost of e-learning to be higher if anything I thought it would be reduced. I would also agree with you that Weller has done a great job of describing the history of Ed Tech in an accessible way that builds the readers understanding of concepts as he progresses through the chapters.
Thanks for sharing,
London
Thanks for your comment London. Yes, the initial cost of e-learning development for the type of asynchronous safety training that’s my main area of expertise was about $125k about a decade ago. Depending on the depth of the market, the time to realize some sort of ROI per course varies greatly. While I realize that Weller’s writing was about post-secondary learning at the university level, there is just so much LMS/e-learning use that’s done at the corporate level in that asynchronous style as well. It’s big business now! He really spoke to me with his comment on, “The initial production cost is high, but then the price per student is relatively low” (Weller, 2020, p. 46). I’ve lived that and can attest to its truth. The commodification of education (especially safety training) has eroded its quality, in my opinion. I’m looking forward to the rest of the book to see what he has to say!
Hi Corie,
I am also thoroughly enjoying Weller’s first chapters! I’ve been learning so much about tools/technologies/approaches I assumed I already knew about. I really appreciate the lens and personal stories Weller brings to the stories he tells about these years and technologies.
I currently teach in creative arts (journalism) at a community college and rely on constructivist methods in my teaching. Very interested to hear more on your own approaches to teaching which I imagine are so different from my own. You are the first radiation expert I meet! Thanks for sharing your perspectives here.
Thanks Alex! I absolutely agree. His style is great and it’s so very readable that I find myself nodding along, rather than reaching for my thesaurus, as happens with other academic work!
I think the first time I came to know anything about constructivism was when my son was in a Montessori preschool, but I didn’t know that’s what it was at the time. In the sciences, historically, it’s been hard to do. The “traditional” method of prof telling students stuff, then doing a lab (and the pain of writing it up) has been my experience. I much prefer constructivist methods and find that they work well in real life workplace settings, but I’m having trouble imagining how my initial postsecondary schooling might have been different.