After reading the first 8 chapters of 25 Years of Ed Tech, I feel that I have been living under a rock in many ways. The overall history of Ed tech is surprising to me because it dates further back than I had previously thought. In 1998, I was signing up for my first email address and unbeknownst to me, the first fully online undergraduate course would be developed in 1999 (Weller, 2020). I am left feeling fascinated at what was growing in the field of Ed Tech that I was completely unaware of.
Reading these chapters lead me to reflect on my own experience and beliefs concerning Ed Tech. Weller (2020) discussed the creation and relevance of Wikipedia as one of the biggest successes of wikis. Weller describes Wikipedia as a useful tool in higher education and one with very few errors (2020). This immediately confronted my distrust in Wikipedia and caused me to navigate back to my undergraduate years as the source of this distrust. During this time, I remember being explicitly told not to use Wikipedia as it was not a reliable source of information. I took this instruction as a golden rule and have not looked back until enrolling in the MALAT program and found myself surprised when an instructor offered an idea, linking to further reading from Wikipedia. This was a moment that opened my eyes to the world and possibilities beyond a textbook in a formal education setting. Reading Weller’s (2020) chapter on wikis has, in a sense, granted me permission to trust Wikipedia and has reminded me that I likely have much to unlearn from my instructivist experience in my undergraduate years as I embrace the constructivist learning environment afforded in the MALAT program.
References
Weller, M. (2020). 25 years of ed tech. Athabasca University Press. https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781771993050.01
A very good read Leah…
I won’t judge your professors from way back when too harshly on their mistrust of Wikipedia back in the day. I think humans are often cautious with things that are new and that break a long standing tradition. Wikipedia was a pioneer in democratizing knowledge. Making knowledge creation a larger community affair instead of one controlled by a few individuals. I can understand if I had been tool all my life to rely soley on academic articles or text books for knowledge to suddenly being told about this website where knowledge was just created by anyone. Pretty radical idea.
Do you think that the use of video and specifically YouTube as a learning tool today also might have reluctance by some of the more traditional educators out there who hold onto the fact that serious learning requires reading?
Thanks for reading, Micheal. I am not sure if there is as much reluctance to use YouTube as there may be for other forms of learning. In my experience working in a faculty, I have found that many professors were keen to use videos or YouTube to reinforce learning. I have seen it used as an effective tool in this context, but not really as a sole source of learning as it is often used in more informal learning.
The thing I really love about Wikipedia (and where it has improved significantly in recent years, in my opinion) is the references list on the better entries. Quite often there are some real gems in there that direct me to better first-generation sources of research, and this is what I increasingly tell my students to do.
Wikipedia’s content moderation also does seem to be getting better, as inaccuracies or pages needing more citations will often be flagged. It remains one of the most powerful examples of the “participatory web” that I can think of.
That’s a great point, Darren! Checking out the references is something that I will do as I explore Wikipedia in the future. And I agree, it is a powerful example of “participatory web” – thank you for making that point, as it has brought back the value of participatory culture to the front of my mind 🙂
The feelings you have identified are much the same as I felt reading the history of ed tech and very much feeling like “I’ve been living under a rock”. I was equally ashamed by reading the origin story of the internet, Chapter 2, and realizing that before now, I had never questioned its origin or initial functionality. This is coming from someone who is reasonably versed in the fourth industrial revolution and now has me questioning the basic foundation, or lack thereof, of my learning (better late than never, I suppose). I likewise shared the same Wikipedia experience as an undergraduate and will now have to review my feelings and trustworthiness of Wikipedia as an educational learning input versus a shallow high-level overview that was typically used as only a starting point to any inquiry. I especially like how Weller (2020) highlights explicitly the value and benefits of knowledge as contributing to or valuing public good and as having an aversion to commercial and proprietary solutions (p38). Public input and reducing the technical barriers of contributing content in itself creates a check in balance and a more equitable distribution of information and topics. Weller referenced one issue in particular, being a gender imbalance in terms of who is contributing, do you have a suspicion on which gender is more likely to contribute information? This part wasn’t clear to me. Thanks for sharing Leah, I enjoyed reading your post.
Hi Nicole, thanks for reading and for your comment! I agree with and also like your reference to Weller’s (2020) statement about the benefits of knowledge and the power of collaborative activity. This aligns with my belief that we all come with knowledge and experience to share and that knowledge should come from many sources and serve several purposes. With respect to Weller’s (2020) statement about the gender imbalance for contribution, I agree it was not clear. Yet, without a clarifying statement, my feeling is that Weller believes it to be obvious. Given that Weller refers to the imbalance as dominating what is deemed significant and going with what I know about the general gender imbalance in society, I would guess that the dominant contributors would be male. Did you have a hunch?
Thanks for sharing Leah! I feel the same about your reflection here. Ed Tech has been around for a while and I had never thought of checking out the history until my MALAT journey today. It is all very interesting. I believe it will certainly help my learning of this program by understanding what had happened in the past, which I was actually part of the Ed Tech history myself.
Thanks for the comment, Megan. It really is a strange thing to read about the history of Ed Tech, knowing that you were experiencing it as it unfolded – a unique perspective of before and after. Our parents and grandparents often share their hardships of how far they had to walk to school (for example) and I am often, as a parent, sharing with my daughter about my life before the internet. My mom and I often reflect on the differences in our parenting experiences based on the internet and the availability of information and resources and we are only 20 years apart. It’s wild to think about!
This is a great reflection, Leah! I too was told to not trust Wikipedia, but reading through the chapter made me realize that there appears to be a process in place to verify information posted so it can be looked at as a reliable source. Before reading this chapter, I was not aware of how it was used in education so students had a place to work collaboratively. I think we tend to trust “google” even though the information posted may not be verified as true and accurate. Did you find that you started thinking about how to verify whether or not the information found on the internet is true and accurate?
Hi Agia,
Truthfully, I feel like I have always had a good sense of distinguishing accurate from inaccurate information on the internet. I am not sure why or how but I have always been skeptical of any information and so I find that I am often cross-referencing everything. I spend a lot of time reading ‘real human’ reviews before I buy anything online because I initially distrust the company’s claims because I know they want to sell their product 😉 But I know this is a huge issue in the online world and there is a lot of “fake news” to sift through. I think it comes down to critical thinking, good research skills, and the ability to tap into your gut a little and what you know to be true about the world.
Thank you for sharing, Leah! I think you make several good points. I, too was surprised by how little I knew about the history of ed tech and how far back it goes. Educators also told me not to trust Wikipedia! Outside of the MALAT bubble, it seems that this sentiment is still strong. Do you think it will ever be “trusted” by the wider academic community? If so, what will it take to get more academics and students to trust it?
Thanks for reading, Tim! I am not sure, to be honest. I think there are systemic issues in many academia/higher ed environments that this is a symptom of. So I believe that there needs to be systemic change for there to be more openness to tools such as Wikipedia. I am hopeful that the Covid-19 pandemic has acted as a catalyst for change in higher ed, yet I see so many organizations reverting back to old ways so I guess time will tell.