Thoughts on Technology in Education

As part of the class I'm taking this semester, Introduction to Educational Technology, we were asked to set up a blog to use for reflection on various readings throughout the course. I already have this blog, Online Learning & Technology, so I will be using this blog to post my reflections.

In reflecting upon the two articles this week, Beyond Technology Integration: The Case for Technology Transformation (Reigeluth & Joseph, 2002), and Of Luddites, Learning and Life (Postman, 1993), I found that I agreed with both articles in some areas and not so much in other areas.

Reigeluth & Joseph proposed that technology "might allow us to transform our teaching methods in ways that could result in quantum improvement in learning..." (2002). The authors showed some of the "key markers that distinguish industrial-age and information-age systems" and give examples of how these changes are requiring us as educators and learners to change or adapt to a new learning paradigm. Just as the "industrial age ushered in new transportation needs...," the "information age as brought in new educational needs--to prepare all learners to problem-solve, take initiative, use metacognitive skills, work well in teams," etc. (Reigeluth & Joseph, 2002). Reigeluth & Joseph give a very positive outlook on technology's ability to transform education and learning.

On the other hand, Postman, in Of Luddites, learning and Life (1993), argues that true learning is not about how quickly the information can be accessed or how much information can be accessed, as those issues were dealt with long time ago, but rather it is more about learning to get along with each other, learning to live as part of a community and live a useful and productive life. Postman goes on to quote the summary in the first chapter of Robert Fulghum's All I Ever Really Needed to Know I Learned in Kindergarten, "share everything, play fair, don't hit people, put things back where you found them, clean up your own mess, wash your hands before you eat, and of course, flush." (Postman, 1993). Postman sees learning and education as the means to teach students about life and sees technology as more of a distraction rather than a means of transformation.

I find that I fall somewhere in between these two viewpoints. I believe that the information age has changed the way we view the world and the way learners learn and technology is very much at the forefront of these changes. Can technology really bring about the transformation in education as described by Reigeluth & Joseph? Not entirely. Even with technology there are students who will be unmotivated no matter what an educator does to motivate them, there are and will be students who don't have the capabilities or the support needed to achieve all of the necessary necessary steps.

There were two points brought out by the authors that I feel are worth mentioning, as I've experienced in my own life or have seen it the lives of other students/workers and can see where it makes a difference. The first point involves "fellow learners" or "peer-assisted learning and collaborative learning." (Reigeluth & Joseph, 2002). When I have others to truly collaborate and learn with, learning becomes easier, more abundant, and more effective. Learning with others brings about a synergy that isn't as readily available when a person is trying to learn on his/her own. Technology can assist in bringing about peer-assisted learning and collaboration. Unfortunately, at times it can also detract from this type of learning.

Another point the authors brought out is the use of different technologies and methods of delivery should be based upon the learning requirements. The examples they gave were of "learning to perform a procedural task, perform a complex cognitive task, vs. developing deep understandings" all have different learning requirements, therefore different technologies or methods of delivery should be used to accommodate the learning requirements. (Reigeluth & Joseph, 2002).

Although I wouldn't agree with Postman's overall outlook on the usefulness of technology in education, I have to agree with his conclusion that technology cannot solve all of the problems in the world or in education and even though it brings many advantages, it will also bring along disadvantages, or as stated by Postman, "technology is always a Faustian bargain. It giveth and it taketh away." (Postman, 1993). We see these ideas played out every day in society. We all know that technology has not solved society's problems of crime, abuse, hunger, famine, flood, wildfires, depression, or unemployment. And even though technology has given us more time, it has also taken more time in other areas. For example, I know a young woman who has learning disabilities and has decided she isn't smart enough to learn to read, take care of her children, do household chores, keep a budget, or keep a job, but she has decided she can play video and computer games and has no problem spending her husband's earnings and the money she gets from the state to ensure that she has games to play. She can't see the value in using the money to ensure they have a home of their own, food on the table, clean clothes, or anything else. Additionally, rather than help with the household and take care of her children, she chooses to spend time playing the video and computer games. Has technology resolved the issues? No. In fact, in this situation, it has only added to the issues.

We must remember that technology is only a tool. When it is useful and can make a difference, then use it; when it detracts or distracts from, than don't use it or use something different.

References:
Postman, N. (1993). Of Luddites, learning, and life. Technos Quarterly, 2(4). Available at: http://www.ait.net/technos/tq_02/4postman.php

Reigeluth, C.M. & Joseph, R. (2002). Beyond technology integration: The case for technology transformation. Educational Technology, 42(4), 9-13. Available at: http://www.indiana.edu/~syschang/decatur/documents/96_Tech_Transformation.pdf

Thoughts on eLearning Project Management...

An important step in any project, is to be sure everyone, SMEs, instructional designers, media producers, graphic designers, etc. are in agreement on what the project "looks" like. The project should be clearly defined in the project scope and any questions or clarification needed should be done upfront when possible, while planning and organizing the project.

The second phase of the project involves gathering information, developing the blueprint, creating and testing draft materials or mockup, and then producing master materials upon approval of the draft material or mockup.

During each step within the second phase it is important to share the information with the stakeholders. In particular, the blueprint or design specifications "will allow all relevant reviewers to look at course content and strategy at a point before a lot of energy and cost is expended in writing text and transitions, formatting job aids creating graphics or case studies, or writing scripts. This early review permits the design team to make substantive structural revisions while the course is still easily revisable." (Greer, 1992).

Obtaining approval to proceed after creating and testing draft materials or mockup is key to the success of the project, but it is also where many projects can go awry or be delayed. This is when a project manager may find that some of the stakeholders didn't express their concerns for the original direction of the project or didn't provide all of the necessary information. Additionally, if there were any holes in the planning of the project, this is where it will become apparent.

And this is where my current project has been stalled again... It's a learning lesson in progress.

DiSC Profile

This past Tuesday I attended Part 1 of 3 workshops called, "Working Collaboratively to Serve Our Students." The focus for most of the workshop was on getting to know more about each of the attendees, who were new employees at DU, and reviewing/discussing the results of our DiSC profile that each of us had taken earlier.

I had forgotten that I had taken the DiSC profile before, but when I saw the results graph, I immediately recognized it. It looked the same as it did when I took it over 10 years ago. Ugh! My primary dimension is a high "C" (Conscientious) and my secondary dimension is a fairly high "S" (Steady). I'm fairly low in both the "D" and "i" dimensions, which means I'm conservative (ok with me), mild, quiet, unsure (double yuck), dependent (double yuck again) and modest (ok) and logical (ok) controlled, retiring (double yuck) suspicious (yuck) and pessimistic (yuck again). I'm not totally thrilled by the results as it frames me as a very boring person, at least in my mind it does. On the other hand, it definitely provides some benefits to my employer as I'm accurate, conscientious, steady, calm, and systematic and consistent in achieving results.

So, my question then is, "How does this relate to my role as Instructional Technologist"? I'm not sure. In my mind, it doesn't seem to fit as well as some of the other profiles would. It does fit as a project/production coordinator, which is what I did for 12-14 years and it did fit within the role of Instructional Design Technician position at my previous employment, since the position was really about completing projects.

In my new role, at my new employer, there are a lot of technology projects that could and possibly need to be addressed and I can see that my being involved would be helpful, but I'm not sure that is what I was hired for. Additionally, I don't know that we have the resources we need to complete the projects. I do have to admit this is another area that I'm usually good at. I usually can find the resources I need to achieve what needs to be accomplished. The only issue that I won't have any control over and can make the difference as to whether or not the results are successful is getting the money to obtain the resources needed. Hmmm...I guess I need to meet with my boss sometime soon to clarify and plan a few things.

Instructional Architect vs Builder

Over the past two weeks, I've searched for a description of my role as an Instructional Technologist (IT) that would better define the role for me, that would help me to "see" how the role fits within the Instructional Design (ID) team, specifically, and the DU Online team overall.

One of the first descriptions I came across that provided an overview of what I do was by blogger, Amy Thornton. In her blog post called, "What Does an Instructional Technologist Do?", Amy breaks her job down into six points of focus:

• Evaluate new technologies to discover new and better ways to enhance instruction
• Assist faculty in discovering methods of improving their instruction with and without technology
• Conduct training sessions teaching faculty and staff how to use new technologies
• Conduct research studies evaluating the use of technologies and their impact on student learning outcomes
• Create training materials to accommodate the self-learners and provide resources for our “customers”
• Manage the implementation of new technologies on-campus for the use of instruction.

This is an accurate picture of what I feel I should be doing and will be doing (once I have some additional training and direction) with one exception. The "implementation of new technologies" will be for online rather than inseat or "on-campus," although it's not completely impossible that I will participate in implementation for inseat eventually.

Even though I now had a description that gave me an overview of what I need to be doing, I still questions how I should be fitting in with the ID team. Obviously, some of this direction will come from my boss and from the ID that I work with, but when I came across an EDUCAUSE Quarterly article from 2005, called, Leadership in Instructional Technology and Design: An Interview, written by Peter DeBlois (2005), I found the exact description that made sense and reflected the views of the ID on our team.

DeBlois interviewed two faculty members and three participants, at the end of the first Instructional Technology Leadership Institute held in 2005. One of the faculty, Lawrence Ragan, described the two branches of instructional technology and instructional design in this way, "The designer's role is to craft a learning experience so that you achieve an outcome, and the technologist's job is to create the environment for that to happen in." He went on to say, "Think of an interior designer. He isn’t the one doing the building; he tells you where he thinks the lighting should go and how things should be arranged. He doesn’t build the furniture. The technologist says, “You want a chair, I’ll build you a chair.” The designer is the one who has to think about placing it." In other words, the ID is the "architect" and the IT is the "builder."

I like this description and believe that I have the skills and natural ability to be the "builder." But having said that, I recognize that there are several software programs used by the ID and others in the DU Online team that I need to learn and learn quickly to be better able to assist them effectively. Additionally, I need to learn the ID's "instructional blueprint" to be better able to "build" appropriately and become more aware of "institutional" and "campus" priorities to build the right things at the right time. At least now I have a focus!

New places and new faces...

Monday was my first day at my new job. I'm working as an Instructional Technologist at DU in GR. Although it takes time to adjust to a new place and new faces, I think I'm going to like it. The culture here seems more business-like, than it did at my last position, but I'm not surprised since one of DU's strengths is its focus on educating students for careers in business, information management, and health professions.

One of my responsibilities will be to educate and encourage faculty in the use of technology to better engage students and enhance learning. Although challenging, this is an area I am excited about and look forward to being involved with.

Today I've attended a Wimba session on Blackboard 9 at the DU Connect '10 online conference. Later tonight I hope to attend a couple more sessions, along with attending sessions tomorrow. Not only does this introduce me to some of the faculty members and online team members, it also gives me an idea of how things are done here at DU.

I'm hoping to be able to update this blog more regularly in the upcoming weeks and months and begin sharing some useful ideas and tools.

Thanks for listening!

Does Teaching Online Really Take More Time?

Does Teaching Online Really Take More Time?

Posted using ShareThis

How Wikis Streamline Student Collaboration Projects

How Wikis Streamline Student Collaboration Projects

Posted using ShareThis