A GLIMPSE OF READINGS IN EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY
|
 |
|
|
This paper reports on the topics covered in EDT6103 Readings in Educational
Technology including the historical development of educational technology and its
theoretical, psychological and philosophical foundations; instructional design
models; past and present topics and trends in educational technology research;
recent and future trends in the area of educational technology. As a
requirement of this course, the final report includes discussion of the
following topics below and it also reflects our perceptions over the reading
tasks throughout the course based on the outcomes of learning objectives and criteria
on the final rubric. The sections in this final report are presented the
following topics listed below.
1- Definition
and the history of the field of educational technology (ET) and your own
definition
2- Educational
paradigms and their effects on ET
3- Instructional
design (ID), names of the ID Models, why there are so many models? Which model
can be chosen in where (for which considerations)?
4- Research
and research trends in ET
5- Learning
from multimedia, theory, types of cognitive loads, and principles/effects of
design in multimedia
6- E-learning,
types of e-learning, trends in e-learning
7- Technology
integration into education, models, important factors for integration
8- Big
media debate, positions of the big actors, your own view and implications
9- General
views and understanding about Educational Technology field regarding the topics
and our comments about theories with their interesting and important points.
1.
Introduction
There
are numerous definitions and interpretations of the root word “technology” in
literature which was predominantly defined as an amorphous style but the birth
of educational technology runs parallel to the needs of learning and
instruction earlier than 1900s. In order
to internalize and understand the field of education technology, we need to
walk in altered world, and figure out prevalence of newness as well as
following the changes in the scope of itself. Finn (1960) defines “technology”
as both human and non-human systems, processes, management and control
mechanisms as a way of adopting different perspectives and solutions to the
problems with viable settlements. (as cited in Gentry,1995).
There
have been also variety of technological developments and inventions that shape
today’s education. However, the main focus of technology in education needs to
be maximize learning that bears the question in our minds: “Do I have the
ability to use that technology by facilitating it effectively, efficiently and
attractively?” The answer might vary but it might lead us to ponder “how far we
away from Maddux’s type 2 applications”. Referring to Keller’s (1968) article
titled “Bye Bye Teacher, the work of teacher was based on personalized system
of instruction (PSI) maintained through self-pacing and reinforcement, but not
in the same line with formal education. Keller poses a critical stance in his
article by sharply emphasizing to carry on traditional ways of teaching would
be the end of teacher and lecturing would be only for motivational purposes but
not for transferring information. In early 1960s, PSI was the earliest glimpse
of e-learning of today and there is still need for teachers who provide right
way of reinforcement for learners.
More
specifically, teachers who provide effective, efficient and attractive
resources by meeting the AECT definition of Educational Technology.
Furthermore, EdTech’s definition has evolved over the years depending on
alternating theories and amorph of practices as well as technological advances.
On the other hand, the invention of blackboard was one of the demolition job
over education, and Claudius Crozet was the pioneer of this important education
tool’s emerged as a consequence of language barrier because of his accented
French.
As a result of this
barrier, he found an emergent solution by coloring one part of class Wall to
black and used the chalk to illustrate his lessons as a way of instruction. In
our view, the most compelling part of defining the etiology of education and
technology is to differentiate the first definitions which were based on
appliances and devices and later changed into message design which did not
work. This view is further supported by Edgar
Dale who introduced “Cone of Experience” in 1946 and later revised in 1969. He also
stressed that there is a direct relation between the design of instruction and
learning activities of each individuals notwithstanding their age groups so
that blackboard was a transfer of knowledge and joint communication between the
teacher and the learner.
1.2 Definition and
the history of the field of educational technology (ET)
Most of the time we
are not aware that the role of technology in education has actually been
discussed for almost 2,500 years or more because when we hear the word
technology today the word directly comes up is the Internet and computer/mobile
technologies. We seem to believe that those new technologies have always been
with us while we were actually without them two decades ago. However, when we
look back at the education history, we can easily recall that the earliest
formal teaching was through “speech” in ancient Greek.
Writing was the other
game-changer in education especially after the invention of printing machine in
the 15th century. The use of blackboards started at around 18th
century. With the betterment of transportation systems, the postal service led
to the starting of the first formal distance education through correspondence
in 1858. Although the 19th century saw the invention of the radio,
it did not become popular in education.
In the mid-20th
century, the US Army introduced the overhead projectors for training, which
made them a part of lectures in schools as well. Television was first used in
education in the 1960s. It was not in the form of lectures but mostly in the
form of documentaries. In time, audio- and video-cassettes were introduced,
which made it possible to review the material again and again.
In
the 1990s the cost of creating and distributing video fell completely due to
digital compression, the spread of personal computers and high-speed Internet
access. In 2002, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) offered its
recorded lectures free to the public through its Open Courseware project. YouTube started in 2005 and was used for maths
education with recorded voice-over lectures using a digital blackboard by The
Khan Academy in 2006.
The speed of
technology has a huge effect on people’s lives and, thus, also has a big impact
on people’s needs. Therefore, education has to make changes in its goals,
audience, content, design, management, evaluation and methods to account for
new lifestyles and job expectations. Educational technology (EdTech /ET) is
also required to cater for these changes in the education system and in our
daily lives. Therefore, it has to update itself on how to provide more timely
and effective learning environment for the audiences by taking their interests
and characteristics into account. The changes in approaching to EdTech can
easily be seen in its definition change in time.
The 1977 AECT
definition of ET reads: “Educational technology is a complex, integrated
process involving people, procedures, ideas, devices and organization for
analyzing problems and devising, implementing, evaluating and managing
solutions to those problems involved in all aspects of human learning.” (AECT,
1977, p.1, as cited in Reiser & Ely, 1997, p. 68). In this definition, educational technology is
considered as a complex process but without much explanation why it is so. In
addition, it does not provide a clear framework for educators. “Procedures” is
mentioned but we do not know what exactly they are. However, the definition
views EdTech as a process whose components are people (the target audience),
procedures (instructional design), ideas (innovations maybe), devices (the new
technology) and organization (the school or the company). Within this process,
the aim is to analyze the problems (needs analysis), devising (instructional
design), implementing (technology leadership maybe), evaluating (whether goals
are achieved or not) and managing (rethinking the whole process) solutions to
any kind of problem people face. This definition requires more clarity but at
the same time it includes the concepts that we have been talking about
educational technology. The 1994 AECT definition of ET reads: “Instructional
technology is the theory and practice of design, development, utilization,
management, and evaluation of processes and resources for learning” (AECT,
1994).
The 1994 definition
replaces “educational technology” with “instructional technology. I guess,
people understood instructional design should be emphasized as probably while
educators were trying to integrate technology during those 17 years, they
realized that this process required a good instructional design rather than
just bringing in some devices into the classroom. The term “device” was taken
out most probably because the educators grasped the idea that devices
themselves actually were not a catalyst for learning. From the “resources”, I
understood that educational technology should utilize any kind of available
devices – be it a ruler or a video on area calculation. Also, “theory” was
added to the definition, which meant that educational technology started to be
seen as a branch of educational science. However, the purpose and “how” part of
the definition lacks clarity.
The 2008 AECT
definition of ET reads: “Educational Technology is the study and ethical
practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using
and managing appropriate technological processes and resources” (Januszewski
& Molenda, 2008, p. 1). The 2008 definition went back to “educational
technology” from “instructional technology” after 14 years, which was also
criticized by Richey (2008) in terms of its de-emphasis of instructional
design, viewing it as a stray from systems approach. However, the addition of
the purpose “facilitating learning and improving performance” was important in
terms of considering technology as a catalyst rather than a magical product
that enables learning with a touch. Although the term “appropriate” was criticized
by other researchers like Hlynka (in Simonson, 2008),
I think it emphasized the use of necessary technologies rather than the popular
ones. In the same way, the definition says “technological processes” rather
than “technological products”, which seemed to make the distinction between
necessary and popular.
The 2018 AECT
definition of ET reads: “Educational technology is
the study and ethical application of theory, research, and best practices to
advance knowledge as well as mediate and improve learning and performance
through the strategic design, management and implementation of learning and instructional
processes and resources” (AECT, 2018 in Hastings & Bauman, 2020).
The newest definition
of educational technology is more explanatory in terms of what educational
technology is by stating that it is “the study and ethical application of
theory, research and best practices”. The purpose of educational technology in
this definition includes different concepts from the previous ones.
“Facilitating learning” is replaced by “to advance knowledge” and also expanded
by “mediate and improve learning and performance”. This definition also covers
the “how” part of educational technology through “strategic design, management
and implementation of learning and instructional processes and resources.” The
addition of “instructional processes” indicates that again there is a need for
good instructional design when using technology for learning.
As Dewey (1910) and Jonassen (2000, 2011) and others have argued, the emphasis
should not be on what to think but how to
think. The job of the teacher is to get students to think, and that means
getting students to doubt, to be uncertain, to be perplexed or even to be
confused. It is in such moments when learning (stable and persistent changes in
what a person or group of people know and can do) can occur. The job of the
teacher is to get students to have questions—to admit that they do not know or
understand, to commit time and effort to gain better understanding, to consider
alternative perspectives, and to reflect on their progress (Spector 2018).
Going forward, the focus should be on
learning rather than on technology. What educational technology researchers
should be doing is not inventing clever ways to use a new technology
or clever terms for things other scholars thought of decades earlier. We
need to do what Robert Gagné (1985) argued was the task of educators and
educational researchers—namely and simply, to help people learn.
What has been learned from educational research and learning
theory in the last 100 years? Assuming that some things have been learned,
which ones have been implemented on a significant scale for a sustained period
of time, and what impact, if any, have they had? Perhaps I will
be chastised as a modern day luddite for saying the
following: It is not clear to me that educational technologies have
improved learning and instruction on a large scale for any sustained period of time;
the nearly constant emergence of new technologies has only created the new
problem of learning to use those technologies effectively in support
learning, to borrow a line from Dijkstra’s The Humble Programmer (1972). What progress are we making in terms of using technology to
improve learning and instruction? Is it a lot? A little? In isolated cases? At
great cost? At a disadvantage to some? What do you think?
Taken together, all of the earlier definitions of educational
technology stated above leaded us to ponder on the way how we look at EdTech in
the eyes of learners not from the eye of technology in deed.
“Educational
Technology is systematic study of ever-growing methods and techniques based on
scientific knowledge, actualizing and evaluating the goals of education by
accessing multifaceted tools and facilitating learning by meeting the deficits
of instruction and optimize them in the eye of learners and theory in regard of
ethical, transformative and facilitative enhancement of lifelong technological
processes and learning resources.”
In a nutshell, educational technology aims to improve
performance and facilitate learning by means of technological tools as well as redesigning
and redefining instructional plans as to develop performance and minimize the
gaps between theory and practice in the field of education as Kocoglu and I
stated in aforementioned definition above.
2.
Educational
paradigms and their effects on ET.
Education
is not limited with classroom and its settings, it is a process of cultural
transmission and dynamic system that is effected by theories and philosophical
trends. Underlying theories are radically different but those made contribution
to another to shape each paradigms as necessitous and pending developments in
technology and human performance interactively. Learning is a content change in
behavior in the world that we unlearn and relearn the things surrounding us.
Behaviorism that reflects learning ropes of philosophy in the movement of
modernism in late 19th and early 20th century.
Theoretical background of educational
paradigms come from behaviorist, cognitivist and constructivist learning
theories and principles. Ertmer and Newby (2013) stresses that instructional
strategies that need to be fitted with the theory and instructional objectives need
to offer optimal means to construct instruction that facilitate learning. Reigeluth
(1999) emphasized the need for new paradigms in teaching and educational field
and their impacts over the theory of instruction design (as cited in Çağıltay
and Göktaş 2016). Much analysis needs to be done before full understanding of
extent of design oriented and description oriented theories because they are
quite different as like natural and artificial sciences. They both have
different objectives and research methods;
specifically, description oriented theories help us to figure out how
and why instructional theories work by applying probabilistic methods but they
do not offer any single prescription or cure comparing to design-oriented
theories.
Taken together, Schunk outlines (1991) five
questions that distinguish each learning theory from the others by listing them
regarding to the distinct viewpoints; behaviorism, cognitivism and
constructivism (as cited in Ertmer and Newby 2013). The questions mainly focus
on how learning occur, and factors influencing learning and transfer of
knowledge as well as expanding the list how instruction could be facilitating
and well structured. These theories serve same instructional methods with
different terminology and intentions. Theory of
Instruction has been played a critical role in one’s learning as a behavior
that stimulates recall of prior learning by enhancing retention and transfer by
comparing critical features from instructional design perspective and
performance improvement is effected by
especially with proliferation of use of web 2.0 tools, learning styles and new
trendy teaching methods that apply the tenets of constructivism.
Hence,
gaining learners’ attentions is one the emergent component of Gagne’s Theory of
Instruction (as cited in Driscoll, 2005, p.349). More significantly, every
individual has different type of learning styles so it is crucially important
to aware how to present an input effectively in order to prepare learners to
offer feedback or to ask for a demonstration to check the comprehension.
Gagne’s Nine Levels of Instruction provides us a step by a step approach that
can help trainees and facilitators structure their training so that the target
learners get most from their learning opportunities. This part of paper aims to
take a brief look at instructional theories of Gagne (1985) and Ausubel’s
Meaningful Learning and Schema Theory (1963) by explaining the relationship
between instructional theory and learning theory in detailed.
As
clearly stated in Driscoll’s book titled “Psychology of Learning for
Instruction”, learning occurs
whenever the conditions are ripe and it proceeds continually however, instruction can be defined as the
deliberate arrangement of learning conditions to promote attainment of some
intended goals (Driscoll, 2005). There are some strategies to gain attention
such as using intonations and adjusting volume of your voice, demonstrating a warm-up
video on the topic of instruction, or using some true/ concocting stories. Next
level is to inform learners about what they need to learn and why they need to
learn it. Explaining to the learners how their knowledge will shape and what
outcomes they will get at the end of the course is an effective way of
informing level. After that, matching and connecting new information with the
previous knowledge or topics learnt before can be used to stimulate learners to
recall of prior learning. Verbal clues, active learning and verbal instruction
that suit different learning styles are good to organize information in a
logical way for the fourth level called “presenting the stimulus”. Furthermore,
semantic encoding is another way of retaining the input through analogies,
storytelling, and using graphic organizers so that the alternative way of
retaining knowledge is given thoroughly. To elicit, a role play or presenting a
demo of what is learnt can be used as a practice of “responding level” and it
also gives instructor an opportunity to observe one’s progress and outcomes of
a new knowledge. Finally, giving feedback, assessing performance and enhancing
retention & transfer are the last three levels of instruction by Gagne
(1985). Short tests, pop-up quizzes, questionnaires, and completing a KWL chart
are the good examples of assessing performance of learners. Moreover, there are
many ways to do this as an instructor but the general idea is to create a
learning environment where the learners are committed to process new knowledge
of information and transferring the output to the other source of knowledge.
Notwithstanding, if we try to illustrate social formation of mind, Lev
Vygotsky would be the Mozart of psychology with his fundamental role of social
interaction in the development of cognition. He believed that society plays a
critical role in the process of making meaning and wrote numerous articles and
ten books before he passed away in his late 30s in 1934 (Vygotsky,1978). There
were few differences between Piaget and Vygotsky and those were based on
internal influences that stressed by Piaget’s cognitive development and
external influences that was the focus of social interaction by Vygotsky. To
Piaget, the power engine of cognitive development was the mismatch between
prior knowledge and current experiences or the tension between one’s beliefs in
one’s experiences. Whereas, Vygotsky emphasized that all children and humans
experience continuing development and there are no set stages for this
development; it starts with birth and ends with death. In addition, learning is
possible before a true set of development and it is a collaborative process
with social interaction between two people bur not one sided. That was one of
the commonalities between Piaget and Vygotsky since they both strived to
characterize cognitive development. The term “cognition” is defined by just
thinking or rational thoughts, in other words; it is the manipulation of ideas
inside our brain. Those ideas are reflected by spoken language as a part of
social process both formally and informally.
More specifically, children are sponges so they can
take every input surrounding them both socially and environmentally, then they
can internalize that input into cognition with their way of thinking. Once
cognition has been achieved the next goal starts with higher order thinking
that includes more complex cognition and it is based on prior knowledge with a
set of lower order skills. That performance of cognition becomes possible with
cerebral cortex however, ability to engage that capability is learned through
social experiences or the culture around us. Furthermore, it is crucial to
define the standard way of assessing a child’s mental age since we can only
find out what abilities have developed but there is no clue for what will
develop next. Hence, there is a gap between child’s actual developmental level
and higher level of potential development through problem solving with the help
of a more knowledgeable other (MKO) or an adult guidance. That development
refers to learning and processing information as well as acquiring abilities
for thinking (Vygotsky, 1978, p.83). It can be argued further, of course, that
while a child is scaffolding capacity may be involved in understanding the
input, and all learning is through active construction of knowledge in its
social borders; this view can be referred to
Kantian perspective of constructivism. Applying this view to education,
the role of MKO or an adult support in learning is highly effective unless
learning is accepted on trust or checked its validity by differing from Radical
Constructivism (Olssen, 1996).
There are
numerous methods and models lead educators and learners into technology-driven
society which is an indispensable outcome of content based curriculum. However,
there are repositories of varied information and it is challenging to include
necessary content into curriculum and design the lessons in interdisciplinary
system of 21st century skills of education. Language teachers in
this century needs to facilitate learners to be an autonomous and
self-regulated as well as knowing things surrounding us and how they are
related with each other.
In addition, Piaget and Bruner, Vygotsky (1962, 1978)
also emphasized the importance of this developmental process and they believed
that learner’s intellectual development could only be fully understand through
socio-cultural environment in which one’s development was occurring (Hirumi,
2002).
2.1
Learning
in History
To begin with epistemology of learning, empiricists,
for instance; Aristotle, believed that source of knowledge comes from the
sensory experience while nativists hold the view that knowledge is innate. On
the other hand, rationalists such as Plato, bend towards that mind is actively
constructs knowledge by recalling and discovering even if later rationalists
differed on some ideas of Plato. From this perspective of knowledge,
instructional design urges upon how to structure and encode new input by
recalling that is already known in order to facilitate learning.
From the lenses of Objectivism, meaning is perceived
as an independent of the understanding of individuals whereas Interpretivist
perspective emphasizes that knowledge is constructed and our mind interprets
sensory data and meaning depends on individual understanding (Gibson, 1966).
Similar to Interpretivists, pragmatists also ponder that reality is constructed
through social context but thought is governed by an individual perception in
understanding this reality.
Within the harmony of Behaviorism and Nativism which
was dominant in 1950s, I have series of observations from my classes reflecting
the reality of innate biological endowment and response behavior. Referring to
Chomsky’s Universal Theory, human beings have an innate capacity of learning or
acquiring the language they exposed to as well as encoding syntactic rules and
principals. Personally, I have experienced in one of my classes; the child
said: “Teacher drink water go”
instead of uttering “Teacher, may I go to
drink water”. This led me to ponder about set of unconscious constraints of
English comparing my example with the other child, whose father is English,
saying “Teacher, may I go to the water
fountain to fill up my bottle” with her British accent. This stance clearly goes in the same line
with Chomsky’s’ UG framework; “The acquisition of grammar is only possible if
it is guided by some kind of innate structure…” (as cited in Walt, 1991, p. 5)
In addition to this point of view, it is a kind of complex work for adult
learners I comparison with an adult speaker of English. To set an example, one
of my college friend from “State University of New York” was having trouble in
usage of spoken English “wanna” “I want
to go to Walmart” > “I wanna to go to Walmart” as a clear example
of fossilization instead of the generalization from the language she heard even
though most adults internalize this knowledge automatically and subconsciously.
Therefore, instruction is structured around the target input and practiced
through reinforcement.
Supportively, as Fahim and Mehrgan enumerated the pros
and cons of behaviorism in their article, it is hard to employ behavioristic
ideas for adult learning. (Fahim & Mehrgan, 2012, p. 160) Atkins’s term
which is used in socio-cognitive perspective “In the head and in the world” (
cited in Fahim&Mehrgan, 2012, p. 160) outstandingly clear our minds on how social and cognitive characteristics has an effect on acquisition. We could refer
that our methodologies in teaching is commonly based on rule memorization and
translation rather than applying communicative needs. It basically relies upon
awareness in language learning more than memorizing rules. I strongly believe
that as teachers we can do trendy theories based on SLA, but we need to teach
how our students could construct their own reality of learning based on
cognitivist constructivism by crystallizing impacts of their social and
cultural contexts different from classrooms to worldly conditions.
According to
Driscoll’s article (2005), which discusses Radical Behaviorism” by the paradigm
of “black box” referring to understanding behavior and learning, from the
lenses of B. F. Skinner in 1950s, vividly depicts that nothing can be known
about what goes on inside. As Skinner distinguished respondent; involuntary
reaction to a stimulus and operant behavior that inherently emitted by an
organism, behavior reoccurs if it has been rewarded or reinforced depending on
usefulness and effect on the behavior. It is crucial to re-emphasize the
contingencies of reinforcement for instance; giving a class dojo point to a
student who does an extra work and do book reports motivates other students to
read and do extra work to get more dojo point in order to change the avatar of
their dojo monsters so that this behavior enhances the probability of functions
however it might also serves as counterintuitive when a student gets minus dojo
point from his or her misbehave or not completed task. This happens because the
student perceives the reinforcement as a reward with its positive connotations
based on relativity of reinforcers. To determine which reinforcers are the most
effective depends on the instructional design by arranging environmental
conditions to make input comprehensible and meaningful. However, this principle
does not refer to the behavioral principal of punishment. As exemplified above,
giving minus dojo for each misbehave or missing homework may result in more
misbehave or aggression in behavior relating to psychological constraints.
In addition to those already mentioned, works
of constructivists are based on
“creating meanings” from experiences and much of what needs to be learned
requires advanced knowledge in ill-structured problems as described by Jonassen (1991) because the
learners acquire knowledge better when there is no biases and misconceptions
(as cited in Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p. 57). Besides our own interpretation
of these principles of learning, we could conclude that there is no specific
prescription of best approach or one approach is more efficient than the
others. As Akgun’s (2020) emphasizes in his course named “Readings in EdTech”,
the best answer is “it depends” because there are numerous factors affecting
learning in this constantly changing needs of community as well as Snelbecker
(1989) that was “collecting cherries” referring to eclectic approach which shed
light on instructional designers in a practical way (as cited in Ertmer,1993).
To clarify, there are
certain key elements that differentiates age of information and industrial
revolution, yet the results of main changes in teaching by means of team
building, problem solving, and critical thinking, communicating, taking
responsibility, and being able to adopt different point of views. Furthermore,
people have limited time to learn more things and they need to demonstrate or
reflect what they had as an outcome to the target audience. It is questionable
whether our education system and teaching methods will meet the requirement of
this need or there will be a need to make radical changes in our education
system. In order to answer this question poses in our mind, we need to look
over educational paradigms in Turkish education system closely. It is clear
that learners have different perspectives and styles in learning and building
their knowledge through traditional way is not always a good strategy to
follow. Students’ evaluations are done depending on a ranking system and
standardized education categorizes the students by their level of success and
it is also designed to rank them in order (Reigeluth, 1994). Educational system
design (ESD) is dealt with changing that automatized manpower as residuary
results of industrial revolution over the working class (field dependent) and
reformation of this system design requires process and analyzes the needs of
learners by adopting a learning oriented and evolved paradigm rather than
focusing on only cognitive domains but adopting skill development for
ill-structured cognitive tasks as an holistic way. Terminally, all those
aforementioned paradigms have contributed all the theories developed for
instructional design regarding to the notion “Equifinality” that stands for
more than one acceptable ways to strike a bargain.
As
it is shown in the matrix table 1 below, the outline of educational paradigms
impacting ET was summarized and presented in a matrix in EDT6003 class by
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Akgun.
|
Matrix of Paradigms |
Prominent Theorists |
Focus on Learning |
Teacher Role |
Student
Role |
Assessment
&Evaluation |
Epistemology |
E.T. |
Method |
|
Radical Behaviorists |
·
B.F.Skinner, ·
J.B.
Watson |
·
Stimuli-Response |
active |
passive |
·
Reference-based ·
summative |
·
objective |
Books, films One direction-informative Direct instruction |
Lecture Conference Programmed inst. |
|
Cognitivists |
·
D.P.
Ausubel ·
R.M.
Gagne ·
B.S.
Bloom |
·
Cognition |
active |
active |
·
formative |
·
objective |
Concept maps, animations Making connections Pre-new knowledge |
Discovery learning Expositive learning |
|
Constructivists |
·
D.
Jonassen ·
J.S.
Bruner ·
J.D.
Bransford |
·
Real
Life like situations ·
*situated ·
*context |
guide |
Active knowledge builder |
·
Performance
based |
·
Subjective ·
Heuristic |
*authentic *CTGV (Jasper, Woodbury Series, interactive videos |
Anchored Learning Problem Based Learning Project-based learning Situated learning |
|
Eclectic Paradigm |
J.H. Dunning |
·
Internalization ·
Real
life examples |
active |
active |
·
production
based |
·
holistic |
IB constructs |
Value-creating Production activities |
|
Connectivists |
G.Siemenrs S.Downes |
·
Learning
is a network |
Modeler Network
Administer Curator
|
Active and reflective |
·
Reference
based |
·
Subjective |
MOOCS C is behaviorist but nearly
constructivist (artificial intelligence needed) outnumber/asynchronous Blogs, social networks,Podcast,LMS |
Experience-activity Collaborative research Journal submissions |
Table 1: Outline of educational
paradigms
3.
Instructional design (ID) and ID Models
The
field of Instructional Design (ID) is one of the important aspects of human
performance and its development and it is also redesign of task oriented
feedback and implementation of efficient and effective solutions to human
performance problems. Instructional Design is a systematic process that makes
the acquisition of knowledge and skill more efficient and system is defined as
an integrated set of elements interacting each other in a “dynamic, cybernetic,
synergistic and interdependent” way (as cited in Gustafson&Branch, 2002).
In order to internalize ID process, the characteristics and their connections
need to be scrutinized in terms of system’s goals and objectives. ID approach
combines three phases; design, develop and evaluate. Each element is
interdependent to one another to actualize the goals of the system so it makes
the system synergistic as a whole. Then, monitoring the environment and
changing conditions depending on the needs make the system “dynamic” and
communicating with the other individual elements in an efficient way makes the
system “cybernetic” as defined clearly in Gustafson and Branch (2002).
As
Morrison, Ross, & Kemp, (2004) state that ID models adopt a systematic
approach of implementing the process for a specific educational initiative and
ID model is a framework of guide and allow learners to take control. On the
other hand, first attempts of ID model was originated from the demands of US
Army and use of instructional system design (ISD) was accepted by industrial
and commercial trainings in 1970s (Branson, 1975). In addition, Branson’s
design phase II (1975) was prepared
,which based on his inter-service procedures, for “Naval Training Device Center
Army Combat Arms Training Board”, and the model’s instructional objectives
provided precise learning objective: “must be able to do” and emphasized the
actions must perform to be satisfactory in a field environment. This approach precisely
refers to behaviorism as we analyzed the statements in the objectives written
imperatively so the model represents a rigorous and disciplined manner of
design.
From
the perspective of practitioners, Seels and Glasgow’s ISD model focuses on
project management, interaction and revision followed by a linear design as
like Air Force, Kemp, Morrison and Ross, and Dick and Carey. Whereas Kemp,
Morrison and Ross Model and R2D2 Model adopt more flexible nature of design,
and focus on process and product oriented approach with rapid prototyping, The
Reiser and Dick Model (1966) presents a linear model which has three phases;
needs analysis, instructional design management and implementation and
evaluation management (Seels and Glasgow, 1998). Besides, most of the ISD
models are the variations of ADDIE (analyze-design-develop-implement-evaluate),
this process presents conceptual components of ID and it involves making needed
changes so it follows an iterative process within its self-correcting nature Notably,
there are spread of variations in ID models and applications so it is
challenging to select a facilitative and creative model, which occurs in
reality, for the teaching professionals. In a like manner, rapid prototyping
can be built as model of system to design and develop the system itself in
order to test various design features in a quick way. One of the most important
aspect of rapid prototyping is alternatively based on problem discovery but not
problem solving (Tripp and Bichelmeyer, 1990).
ISD
is connected to the theories or in other words; paradigms with its iteractive, recursive and reflective processes.
The models are also categorized as “Classroom-oriented (ASSURE Model), Product-oriented
(rapid prototyping), and
System-oriented (Dick and Carey Model) because their target audiences vary for
instance; The Reiser and Dick and Kemp, Morrison, and Ross models are developed
for teachers while the Dick and Carey Model is intended for novices. These models
provide operational frame for instruction to execute it systematically. The
common grounds of ID models are to determine learning outcomes, teaching
strategy and material development whereas past researchers have found that the
least importance is given the costing accounts and distinguishing non-educational
options. Clearly stated, these characteristics of instructional design shape
our perceptions and predictions about the model that might fit with our
learning objectives and outcomes but is it not possible to make definitive
judgements in learning development. It might be helpful to implement small
scale, design and development based projects that runs flexible models
regarding the needs of the field and its axiology in an efficient, effective
and appealing way.
4.
Research and Research Trends in ET
We would
like to examine trends in educational technology (ET) in two parts: The trends
in the world and Turkey in the following statements.
The field of educational technology
deals with designing, developing, implementing and evaluating the learning and
teaching processes. Advances in technology present new gadgets, software and
ideas that can facilitate learning processes. Therefore, it is important to be
aware of how these changes affect research trends in Educational Technology,
what kind of studies have been done, what the most popular topics are and where
research is heading for.
The most
common method to identify the trends in a given field is to do an in-depth
analysis of articles in academic journals. Chen et al. (2020) did a detailed
analysis of 3,963 articles published between 1976 and 2018 (4 decades) in the
Computer & Education journal. They found out that the most popular topics
were “Context and collaborative learning (7.49%), E-learning and policy
(6.61%), Experiments and methodologies (6.01%), Human–computer interaction
(5.31%), and Social network and communities (5.19%).” They also studied which
countries contributed to the journal with which topics. According to their
findings, the top contributors were “the USA (78), Taiwan (76), the UK (56),
Spain (43), and the Netherlands (41).” There were some interesting findings as
well, stating that Turkey was more interested in experiments and methodologies
while Taiwan was active in context and collaborative learning. Regarding
themes, Blended Learning, TAMs and Game-based Learning have spurred interest
since 2003 and, thus, this trend will seem to continue.
Although
Chen et al.'s findings revealed that topics like Virtual Reality, Context and
collaborative learning, MOOCs and human-computer interaction have been in
decline since the 2000-2003s, we think collaborative learning and MOOCs still
have a potential as there is a need for more accessible education. Virtual
Reality is still expensive, its equipment is heavy, and the programs it offers
are limited in scope, which makes it inaccessible to a wider audience, so its
place in education will continue to be uncertain for a couple of years. In our
opinion, human-computer interaction research has declined because it has
transformed into machine learning and artificial intelligence studies as well
as the Internet of Things studies. Another resource for understanding the
trends, problems and solutions in Higher Education is the Horizon Report done
by the New
Media Consortium
(NMC) through conducting panels of experts from
higher education. The Educause Horizon Report: 2019 Higher
Education Edition classified trends in
three categories: Long-term, mid-term, and short-term (may become ubiquitous or
transform into a new iteration of a previous trend) as seen in Figure 1 &
2.
Figure 1. Key Trends Accelerating Higher Education
Technology Adoption
Figure 2. Key Trends
The 2019 expert panel agreed on two long-term trends:
rethinking how institutions work, and modularized and disaggregated degrees,
which are expected to be effective in decision-making processes of how higher
education reaches its mission and how students can have more control over their
learning. According to the report, the mid-term trends are more pragmatic,
which can lead to more collaborations with the industry. One of the most significant trends is, in our
opinion, measuring learning. Institutions today have a huge amount of data that
they don’t exactly know what to do with, so they may use learning analytics for
assessing, measuring, and documenting learning in a new perspective. Another
point that the panelists agreed on is that blended learning will remain as a
short-term trend.
There are two recent articles that review the research
trends and issues on educational technology. One focused on the articles
published in the Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology (TOJET) from
2012 to 2018 by Bozkaya,
et. al. (2019) and the other focused on postgraduate programmes in the
field of Educational Technology (ET) in Turkey between 1996 and 2016.
The article
by Bozkaya et. al. (2019) revealed that in the last 7 years 560 articles on
Educational Technology were published, however, the number of articles dropped
year by year (starting from 130 and falling to 59). Almost 79% of the articles
focused on higher education students and 50% of the articles were related to
Social Sciences. Their interesting finding was that during those years,
researchers studied more on language learning. When it comes to themes, media
and design-development were the most popular ones, identifying knowledge,
skills, attitudes, satisfaction and achievement levels of the participants.
Another interesting finding was that there were more studies regarding the
evaluation aspect of the field. Constructivism and related theories were the
most used theoretical background in these studies. The studies mostly were
about Web 2.0 tools and Web-based learning environments between the years of
2012-2018. The review also showed us that quantitative research was preferred
the most and surveys and interviews were the most frequently used data
collection tools.
Aydemir
& Can (2019) reviewed postgraduate theses between 1996 and 2016. According
to their research, the trend has moved from “learning environment” to “emerging
technologies and acceptance of emerging technologies”. The lesser interest in
social, cultural and political topics was an interesting finding in our opinion
because education is affected directly by these concepts. According to the
article, studies increasingly focused on the “Teacher/Instructor” and “Learner”
themes, especially in higher education with a dominance of quantitative
research.
Another
interesting finding by Aydemir & Can (2019) is that there were not any
critical research studies. “According to one of the most recent trend studies
conducted by Reeves and Oh (2017), there were no papers published in ETR&D
in a 25-year period with critical or postmodern goals. They concluded that this
finding could be attributed to insufficient coverage of critical perspectives
in the curriculum of ET doctoral programmes” (Aydemir & Can, 2019). As can
be seen in the two articles, the trending topics in Turkey seem to follow the
world trends which seem to focus on emerging technologies. As Aydemir & Can
(2019) mentioned this can be due to the easy publication of articles including
these trendy topics and also the powerful agents (thesis supervisors, leading
academic publications, leading academicians) have an impact on the trends. We
guess that the new trend will be about “distance education” as all schools in
the world have made a transition to online learning due to the pandemic. The
pandemic may also open the way for more research
on personalized and/or adaptive learning through intelligent tutoring systems
with/without Artificial Intelligence and Learning Analytics. Due to the fact
that the coronavirus may not go away, every school will have to offer online
lessons either fully or in hybrid form.
Higher education will continue to be the focal point in the
future as it is easier to do research in universities than K-12 schools,
allowing more freedom in terms of getting consent from students, parents and
administration. However, online learning in nursery and primary schools can be
studied as well since we have seen that there is a gap here. Most of the
studies on distance education aim at adults and young adults, however, young
learners are completely different in terms of teaching and learning methods.
We were expecting that Mobile Learning Environments would
be one of the trends, however, it was the contrary.
It is argued that the variety of definitions for mobile
learning environments (MLEs) has offered little to educational technology
research (Grant 2019),
insufficiently explaining the active ingredients (Clark 1983)
and ineffectually identifying their unique affordances (Reeves and Reeves 2015a, 2015b).
Finally, researchers in the U.S. and Korea who will be
designing, implementing, and evaluating MLEs should consider the following in
their studies: (1) mobilities of technologies, including functionality and
affordances (e.g., communications, curation, entertainment, personal
organization); mobility of learners with plans to prevent fragmented knowledge
(Traxler 2010)
and scaffold learning (Hill and Hannafin 2001)
through networked communities; and mobility of learning that may be place-based
(Zimmerman and Land 2014)
and occurring at different times and places (Tella 2003).
In addition, researchers need to address current faults in existing MLE
research by planning implementations with longer durations (cf. Sung et al. 2015a;
Sung et al. 2015b),
reporting research that fully describes pedagogical theory (Bano et al. 2018;
Baran 2014),
designing methods that focus on effects over perceptions (Alzahrani and Laxman 2016),
and consider ethnographic studies that follow learners’ everyday learning
(e.g., Caron and Caronia 2007;
Cui and Roto 2008).
We
have seen that even synchronous learning was not as effective as we thought
when it was done every day for a couple of hours. Of course, there is also the
question of how prepared the teachers were in terms of materials and online
teaching methods and how prepared the students were in terms of having the
necessary equipment such as cameras and microphones, and having access to the
Internet. There may be a need for more research on cultural, social and
political factors affecting this field as well since when the world totally
moved to online learning, as far as I see, there were some similarities and
also differences among the learners, teachers and institutions. These can be
studied in order to see whether online learning theories are one-size-fits-all
or not.
5.
Learning
from multimedia, theory, types of cognitive loads, and principles/effects of
design in multimedia
Educational
technology and instructional design have notable impact on students’ motivation
and commitment learning performance by reshaping various methods and
strategies. As one of the innovative instructions that provide multidimensional
aspects in learning, multimedia enable learners to practice contextually and go
beyond blackboard by means of its quality and function as a medium of
instruction. Specifically, having adequate vocabulary knowledge in a foreign
language is one the main determinants of how well learners speak as requirement
in mastering the four language skills; reading, listening, writing and
speaking. Generally, only words and their associated meanings in a text-only
format are used to be presented to students as a traditional way of teaching in
foreign language classrooms. However, with the development of technology,
multimedia such as adding visual text, spoken text and graphics on displays
manage learners’ retention and comprehension of input.
In the suggested readings on multimedia
learning, Mayer (2008) approaches the relation of educational research and
theory as one way street, two way street and dead end as like the metaphor of
“ivory towers”. He simply tries to explain how learning works in real life
situations by understanding how one’s brain work and perceive. Cognitive theory of multimedia learning is
one the most robust theory that is because it is evidenced and research based
as well as its proximity to the problems in real life settings.
To clarify, we need to seek to design
instructional massages that are evidence-based, theory grounded and outcome
focus by taking into consideration its ontology, epistemology and axiology. In
addition, it is crucial to distinguish difference between theory and principle,
for instance, Cognitive Load Theory,
which was developed by Sweller in late 1980s, is based on design implications
of long term (no known capacity or duration limits) and working memory (consciousness)
regarding to element interactivity,
which emerges depending on the demands in working memory, is related to what
extend instructional design is effective (Paas et al., 2003). Element interactivity is driver of intrinsic cognitive load and there
should be simultaneous interaction to make it comprehensible. Low-element
interactivity is defined as little interaction between elements and learned
independently. Sweller and Levine (1992) worked on means-ends analysis on
conventional problems to reduce cognitive load as like worked examples first
reported by Cooper in 1985s.
Multimedia (MM)
presentations as an instructional material are helpful to stimulate senses such
as hearing and vision by means of mediums as text, images, animation or audio
(Wang et al., 2011). In this taxonomy,
cognitive theory of multimedia learning (2002) describes eight
principles based on evidences on researches in the field of education that
guide educators axiology of designing instructional plans regarding to
learners’ performance in developing certain skills rather than merely being a
theory. The similar agreement comes from Mayer (2011) as he stresses the use
of multimedia as instructional material
to foster learning and learning depends on cognitive processing that attributes
relevant material and mental representation as well as integration of these
with existed knowledge from long term memory (Mayer, 2008).
Apart
from valuable impact of applying multimedia presentation in language classes,
one of the prominent characteristic of multimedia is embracing student centered
approach referring to learners’ needs in designing instructional materials
(Clark &Mayer, 2008). Principally, multimedia presentation deals with
certain cognitive processes; selecting, organizing, and integrating so that the
learners can create schemas and build the connections between verbal and visual
channels in order to make meaningful chunks in working memory and build
knowledge. The process of interactive multimedia for language learning is
demonstrated in the following figure 1
below.
Figure 1. Framework of Multimedia Learning (Mayer, 2011)
As it is presented
above, students figure out words and pictures from multimedia presentation and
the words are received by ears and visuals are perceived by eyes. This process
is called “selecting process” and those demonstrated “text and visuals” or “sound
and images” are linked to the working memory and integrated in the memory.
Terminally, learners integrate verbal and pictorial model as prior knowledge
based on the input taught through multimedia learning.
Cognitive
Load Theory (CLT) is the cornerstone of educational psychology and it is very
important in terms of guiding design of multimedia and teaching materials
effectively. Educators need to take into
account for the fact that learners are constantly under high cognitive load
especially in online learning environments nowadays. The cognitive structure of
working memory is limited as Miller (1956) stated that our working memory can
hold about seven items and process only three or four items of information
simultaneously. In addition, Sweller (1993) defined CLT as a mental state in
which new information exceeds learners’ working memory capacity and impedes
information processing. So, how does learning a new language differ from
learning other subjects?
Actually,
the answer of this question can be explained by referring three types of
cognitive load which I will touch them one by one in this week’s blog. As Dylan
Williams, a professor emeritus of educational assessment defined CL as “the
single most important thing for teachers to know”, language learners need to
deal with novel information that means “new information” such as an unusual
sight, an uncommon smell, a strange sound or an unexpected touch. Language
learner’s brain takes immediate note of an information because it is not usual
or familiar, so it might be threatening and identified as early as possible.
That’s why native speakers of a language deals with that information as it is
biologically primary task or a skill that reduce cognitive load. We all have
not evolved to learn a second language in the same manner we learn our native
language. That’s the reason that the instruction should be given wisely to
reduce the working memory load and information should be given integrated mentally
avoiding split-attention. Working memory is limited when we process novel
information but there is no limit in processing familiar information from long
term memory.
In addition, our brain processes information through
dual channels; auditory and visual in order to process information from our
sensory memory however each channel has a limited working memory capacity and
this limitation is directly relevant to instructional design and needed to be
considered by the teachers who are planning and delivering products and
experiences as well. In total working memory, there is a free capacity supports
learning with germane load, extraneous load and intrinsic load. Our teaching
methodology effects our working memory in terms of germane load which is
increasable. On the other hand, extraneous load is reducible by instructional
design referring to “usability” of teaching material and it is important to
have it less complicated and well designed. It is also highly related with
learner’s perception when the content first introduced.
Lastly, intrinsic load is like a surfboard so it
depends how the learner hangs five like a surfer. From this metaphorical
annotation, we can conclude that intrinsic load cannot be controlled by the
teacher since it depends on the learner’s experience himself while learning.
Nevertheless, this load can be irreducible by the instructor by analyzing the
learner’s needs, learning style, and difficulty level of content (Kalyuga,
2011). To put simply, cognitive processing is prerequisite for meaningful
learning and this can be supported by pre-training the content without having
irrelevant data referring to Coherence principle, and highlighting the
important elements in teaching material (signaling principle) and making them
clearly demonstrated and presented. I believe that it is not possible to
separate germane and intrinsic load in order to actualize meaningful learning,
maybe Socratic Questioning (triple filter test) can be supportive to reduce
germane load.
All in all, it
is important to map research trends in Cognitive Load Theory in order to get
more concrete examples to support these principles with different samples and
groups of learners because of complex structure of human cognitive
architecture. Sweller’s the most cited article, the
1988 Article, discusses the categories of cognitive loads; intrinsic,
extraneous and germane (as cited in Sweller et al., 2019). In a similar vein,
Mayer categorizes these three loads in cognitive theory of multimedia learning
as extraneous, essential and generative processing and he focuses on these
processes stressing more effective learning rather than aiming at only
cognitive load as well as reporting study findings with effect sizes.
6. E-learning, types of e-learning,
trends in e-learning
The first concept of E-learning (the way we know it) was
“CAI” which means Computer - Assisted Instruction (Zinn, 2000). According to
Khan (1998), e-learning is a delivery method used in distance education
allowing the exchange of resources via a network synchronously and
asynchronously exchange of resources over a communication network. Khan (2000)
emphasizes that e-learning offers a system to the learners and teachers where
communication and collaboration among them can be promoted. So, e-learning
integrates technology and learning in its simplest form, however it should be
noted that technology is a tool rather than a strategy.
Internet use in education and especially
higher education has resulted in some important changes in the way learning
occurs and led to significant changes in how learning takes place and is
communicated. Today the e-learning concept is not
just related to technology, but also concerned with learning strategies,
learning methods, content distribution and connection (Aparichio, 2016).
The study by Kimiloglu (2017) revealed that in the business
sector, most companies would like to incorporate e-learning for their corporate
training as a complementary technology, which can be described as Blended
Learning. This was an interesting finding as we thought that usually the
business sector leads innovation. However, we saw that they have more
traditional views than the universities.
7.
Technology
integration into education, models, important factors for integration
Integration of technology
in education can be characterized with its obstacles as defined internally and
externally. Internal obstacles such as perceptions and use of technology with
lack of user willingness and confidence whereas external barriers can be
exemplified as the shortcomings of accessing hardware and software systems and
being laggard in adopting systems (Ryan and Bagley, 2015). Through the process
of technology integration, there is a list of needs to be defined with a
detailed planning process in terms of having support and guidance, analyzing
learners’ instructional needs and readiness of resources in and outside of the
classroom. The question of how to integrate technology by utilizing and
enhancing teaching and learning process bears in mind over the last two decades
in terms of its complexity, trialability and observability. In addition, user
believes that using particular system referring to “perceived usefulness” can
be reinforced by promotions, reward winning systems by increasing human performance
since there are many determinants and extraneous factors impacting system for
people to accept or reject information technology.
On the other hand, user’s
free of effort in use of technology integration models refers to “perceived
ease of use and it builds up a positive-use performance so it is better to have
innovators who willingly try new technology and contribute increase in
performance (as cited in Davis et al. 1989). For instance, use of e-mail
systems and google documents can enable people to complete tasks in an easy way
referring to “perceived usefulness” however find these systems easy or complex
to use in terms of productivity and performance depends on one’s “perceived
ease of use” since individuals need to put their mental and physical effort on
that integration.
To exemplify, Davis et al. (1989 and Plouffe et
al.(2001) conducted Within-subjects model
comparison of behavioral intention to use and use in the context of market
field and
education
in their separate context and participants whereas the findings of these two
research were similar in terms of the perceptions of voluntariness which was
“very high”. Furthermore, Technology acceptance model (TAM) is regarded as more
robust and predictive comparing to other models proposed by means of user
acceptance and ease of use (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000).
Furthermore, it is crucially important to provide
support services consisting of educational technologists and systems for
encouragement for the sake of integration of instructional technologies (as
cited in Gulbahar, 2007, p.954). In our view, the most effective element of motivation is the use
of reward systems used in institutions for diffusion of innovative
technologies. However, use of devil's advocacy or getting an expert opinion;
educational technologist in program planning and extent of technology
integration into the curriculum are mostly neglected by the institutions.
As stated by Venkatesh and Davis (2000), TAM2 combines theoretical
constructs; subjective norm, voluntariness and image, and cognitive processes;
quality of output, perceieved ease of use and demonstrability of results. On the other hand,
TAM2 presents the influence of interrelated social forces to use or reject a
new technology referring to subjective norm which is described as a person’s
perception over the system (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). This earliest form of
system approach is parallel with continual revision and evalution of models
within adaptive systems.
8.
Big
media debate, positions of the big actors, your own view and implications
Tech - nol - o - gy (tɛkˈnɒlədʒi)
n. pl.
The application of
scientific knowledge to the practical aims of human life or, as it is sometimes
phrased, to the change and manipulation of the human environment. (Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d)
The etymology of “technology” comes from Greek word; tekhnologia in early 17th
century which is defined as a ‘systematic treatment’. The definition of technology is given above makes us to
ponder on what the word “technology” refers and comprises in the field of
educational technology. There are two common terms that we have noticed from
series of definitions in different literatures in within-case word analysis in corpus
of “technology” which are systematic and practical.
Besides,
influence of technology over student performance has been widely discussed in
terms of media and instructional strategy up to now since 1983. In order to
gain better understanding, Clark and Kozma’s Big Media debate needed to be
reframed and internalized in terms of having an inference why this discussion
is crucial for the future of debate over media in learning and method in instructional
design. Do media influence learning in a substantial way and what would be the
future of this debate? Our perspective on this debate represents the view that there
is still more need for research in this design of science in order to analyze
method of instruction in terms of two different views put forward by Clark and
Kozma.
As such we see in their debate of
Big Media, Clark (1983) poses that “media do not influence learning under any
conditions” while Kozma (1994) supports that media has influence in learning by
giving evidences utility of instructional method from Thinker Tools and Jasper
Woodbury Series (as cited in Kozma, 1994). Also, in a broader sense, term
of “technology” is a respond to societal needs and problems and creating
creative attempts in problem solving as reflected by Roblyer (2014).
The definitions had been done so
far underlie this popular debate’s core; media or method of instruction and
Clark (2000) indicates that the main source of this debate comes from these
variety of definitions and links debate to cost effectiveness. Clark (1983)
also creates schism between medium and method and contents that learning
outcomes vary depending on the method used as criticized by Kozma. However,
Clark and Kozma both have an agreement on evidence does not yet support the
claim: media or media attributes has an influence on the cost and efficiency of
learning (Clark, 1994, p.27).
Whereas,
Clark makes a strong claim by stating medium has no impact over learning as
contrary to Roblyer’s view on the knowledge of three components; content,
pedagogy, and technology (Roblyer et al., 2013). On the other hand, Jonassen
(1994) presents the issue by positioning constructivist and integrated approach
as well as supports the paradigm by stressing self-regulation and motivation
within the integration of media, method and content as opposed to the view of
Tennyson who perceives media as a complex structured tool that only used as a
cure for instructional design with no effect on learning by itself (1994).
Overall, we might accept any
reasonable and rigorous research paradigm to test the theory, yet Clark and
Kozma have defined the terms; method, media, and media attributes, from
different perspectives (Cagiltay and Goktas, 2016). To present our implications
over this debate from half-life of knowledge, we assume that big media debate
will take it longer because of advances in technology and needs to find
solutions for current problems in the
field of education given the fact that different media types and methods from an open-minded and flexible perspective.
9. Final
Thoughts
Clearly stated, our
perspective to educational technology needs to be away from shortsightedness
regarding to the rapid production of technologies and abreast of new methods
referring to connectivist paradigm. On the contrary to Everest Syndrome (Roblyer et al., 1988) technology integration is
transparent because of new trends in e-learning and grow steadily in as
aforementioned in Aparichio (Aparichio et al., 2016). Bridging technology and
media without perceiving it as a panacea
in education would lead us to sort out the needs and problems in the field by
planning, practicing, observing and developing strategy at stake. Based on this
comprehensive systematic approach, we, as practitioners, need to develop new
ways of giving instruction in synchronous teaching by taking into account of
appropriateness of input for virtual platforms focusing on perceived usefulness and ease of use.
In addition, it is quite interesting that these two variables are constant
despite of pendulum of technological developments. In terms of future research
in the field based on the aforementioned models, it is not possible to answer
the question bear in mind that; “which model of instruction work better?” but
purpose of each model of instruction is to increase learner’s performance
considering its effectiveness, efficiency and attractivity. Technology in
education has ever-changing rhythm as along the lines of Kabat-Zinn’s quote
“You cannot stop the waves, but you can learn to surf” so our ultimate goal is
to maximize learning by means of technology integration. The last but not least,
to better understand technology integration in education, we need to
internalize two variables; motivation and commitment.
REFERENCES
Association for Educational Communications
and Technology (AECT)
Branson,
R.K., Rayner, G.T., Cox, J.L., Furman, J.P., King, F.J., Hannum, W.H. (1975). Interservice
procedures for instructional systems development: Executive summary and model.
(Vols. 1-5) TRADOC Pam 350-30, Ft. Monroe, VA: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine
Command. Retrieved from https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a019488.pdf
Bozkaya, M., Aydin, I.E., & Kumtepe,
E.G. (2019). Research Trends and Issues in Educational Technology: A Content
Analysis of TOJET (2008-2011). Turkish
Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11, 264-277.
Behaviorism,
Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features From an
Instructional
Design Perspective” by P.A. Ertmer and T.J. Newby is reprinted from
Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 1993, pp. 50–72. doi: 10.1111/j.1937-
8327.1993.tb00605.x
Clark R. E. & Estes, F. (1998) Technology
or Craft: What are we doing? Educational Technology, 38(5), 5-11.
Chen, X. ( 1 ), Cheng, G. ( 1 ), Zou, D. ( 2 ), & Xie,
H. ( 3 ). (n.d.). Detecting latent topics and trends in educational
technologies over four decades using structural topic modeling: A retrospective
of all volumes of Computers & Education. Computers and Education, 151.
https://bproxy.bahcesehir.edu.tr:3190/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103855
Cho, E.,
Cho, Y.H., Grant, M.M. et al. Trends
of Educational Technology in Korea and the U.S.: A Report on the AECT-Korean
Society for Educational Technology (KSET) Panel Discussion. TechTrends 64, 357–360 (2020).
Driscoll, M. P., (2005). Meaningful learning
and schema theory (pp.115-152).
Driscoll, M. P., (2005). Learning and
Instruction (pp.349-377).
Driscoll, M. P., (2005). Interactional
theories of cognitive development (pp.245-261).
Driscoll,
M. P., (2005). Constructivism (pp.385-402).
Davis, F. D. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user
acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart. (pp. 319–339). Retrievedfrom https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.2307/249008
Ertmer,
Peggy, Newby &Timothy J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism:
comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective.
Performance Improvement Quarterly (6)4, 50-71. retrievedfromhttps://ocw.metu.edu.tr/pluginfile.php/9431/mod_resource/content/1/Ertmer-Newby-beh-cog-const.pdf
Gustafson, K., Branch, R. (2002). Survey of
Instructional Development Models (4th ed.). New York: Eric Publications.
Gülbahar, Y. (2007). Technology planning: A
roadmap to successful technology
integration in schools. Computers& Education., 49, 943-956.
Retrievedfromhttp://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.612.6730&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Fahim, M., & Mehrgan, K. (2012). Second
language acquisition: A Sociocognitive
perspective. World Science
Publisher, 1(3), 159-165. Retrieved from
http://worldsciencepublisher.org/
Fishbein,
M. & Ajzen, Icek. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An
introduction to theory and research. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233897090_Belief_attitude_intention_and_behaviour_An_introduction_to_theory_and_research
Hastings, N. B., & Bauman, J. A. (2020).
Trends, Issues, Best Practices and Current Research in Organizational Training
and Performance: an AECT Division of Organizational Training and Performance
Special Issue of Tech Trends. TechTrends: Linking Research &
Practice to Improve Learning, 64(2), 188.
Jonassen, D.H. (1994).
Learning with Media; Restructuring the Debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 31-39. Retrieved June 26, 2020
from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/164731/.
Joyce, B., Weil, M.,
Calhoun, E. (2014). Models of Teaching (9th Edition) Hardcover, 9th edition,
Pearson, ISBN 0133749304
Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: How many types of
load does it really need? Educational Psychology Review, 23(1),
1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9150-7
Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory:
How many types of load does it really need? Educational Psychology Review,
23(1), 1-19. doi: 10.1007/s10648-010-9150-7
Khan B.H. (1998). Web-based
Instruction (WBI): An Introduction. Educational
Media International, 35(2):63-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/0952398980350202
Khan B.H. (2000). Discussion of
resources and attributes of the web for the creation of meaningful learning
environments. Cyber Psychology &
Behavior,3(1):17-23. https://doi.org/10.1089/109493100316193
Zinn, K. L. (2000).
Computer-assisted learning and teaching. In Encyclopedia of Computer Science.
Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons, 328–336. Retrieved from
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1074100.1074248
Kara Aydemir, Ayşe & Can, Gulfidan.
(2019). Educational technology research trends in Turkey from a critical
perspective: An analysis of postgraduate theses. British Journal of Educational Technology. 50. 10.1111/bjet.12780.
Kozma, R. (1994). "Will media influence
learning: Reframing the debate." Educational Technology Research and
Development, 42(2), 7-19.
Mayer, R. E. (2002). Multimedia learning. In
B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of
learning and motivation (Vol. 41, pp. 85-139). San Diego: Academic
Press
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2014). The Cambridge
handbook of multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Sweller,
J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional
design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312.
Maddux, C. , Johnson, D. & Willis, J.
(1997). Educational Computing: Learning with Tomorrow’s Technologies, 2nd ed.
Allen & Bacon: Boston
NOVEL INFORMATION, AmosWEB Encyclonomic WEB*pedia,
http://www.AmosWEB.com, AmosWEB LLC, 2000-2020. [Accessed: April 19, 2020]
New
Media Corsortium., & Consortium for School Networking. (2019). Horizon report. Austin, TX: The New
Media Corsortium.
Retrievedfromhttps://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/smart-digital-education-market-571.html
Olssen, M., (1996) Radical constructivism and
its failings: anti realism and individualism. British Journal of Educational Studies, 44 (3),
275-295. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3122456
Roblyer, M. D.Doering, Aaron Herbert. (2013) Integrating
educational technology into teaching /Boston : Pearson/Allyn and Bacon
Publishers,
Retrievedfromhttps://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b7c1/294ebb9f97268adee6c79cbab3806105059c.pdf
Richey, R.C. (2008). Reflections on the 2008
AECT Definitions of the Field. TechTrends, 52, 24-25.
Ryan, T.G., & Bagley,
G. (2015). Nurturing the integration of technology in education. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 11 (1), 1-13.
Spector,
J.M. Remarks on progress in educational technology. Education Tech
Research Dev 68, 833–836
(2020). https://bproxy.bahcesehir.edu.tr:3190/10.1007/s11423-020-09736-x
Spector, J.M. Remarks on progress in educational technology. Education
Tech Research Dev 68, 833–836
(2020). https://bproxy.bahcesehir.edu.tr:3190/10.1007/s11423-020-09736-x
Simonson,
Michael, "Defining Educational Technology" (2008). Faculty Articles.
162.
https://nsuworks.nova.edu/fse_facarticles/162
Seals, B., & Glasgow, Z. (1998). Making instructional design decisions (2nd
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Sweller, J., van
Merriënboer, J.J.G. & Paas, F. Cognitive Architecture and Instructional
Design: 20 Years Later. Educ Psychol Rev 31, 261–292
(2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5
Tripp, Steven D. & Bichelmeyer, Barbara.
(1990) Rapid Prototyping: An Alternative Instructional Design Strategy.
Venkatesh, V. & Davis, F.D. (2000). A
theoretical extension of the technology
acceptance model:
four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2),
186-204. Retrievedfrom https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227447282_A_Theoretical_Extension_of_the_Technology_Acceptance_Model_Four_Longitudinal_Field_Studies
Walt, L. J., (1991). In search of a nativist
theory of second language acquisition. Perlinguam,
7(2), Retrieved from http://perlinguam.journals.ac.za/pub
Comments
Post a Comment