Jun/090
Why isn’t the future what it used to be? part 2
I ran across an interesting article, which relates to my previous post about how tecnology in education rarely meets the expectations of those who see its potential for improving teaching and learning. The authors draw upon the Technology I, II and III framework for describing technologists' attitudes and beliefs about achieving desired results in learning. The framework can be described as follows:
- Technology I: the belief that using certain tools will inherently lead to better learning. The problem with this belief is that the complexitites of human learning can rarely, if ever, be addressed wholely through a single tool, or even a collection of tools.
- Technology II: the belief that using certain design approaches or processes will automatically lead to better instruction, thus increased learning. The problem with this belief is that every learner's brain does not operate in the same way, and the complexity of learning environments will invariably disrupt any systematically designed instruction. Having been the designer of instruction for several years, I know from experience that the best laid plans are at the mercy of hundreds of environmental factors which the instructor may or may not be able to anticipate or control.
- Technology III: the belief that learning situations should define which technologies and design processes to use. Practitioners who ascribe to this belief are likely to embrace many design approaches and use a variety of tools. The problem with this belief is that it's hard to maintain due to what the authors describe as technological gravity. Given time, even the most rigorous and thoughtful Technology III practitioners will slip back into patterns of preferring one tool or design approach over others, regardless of their compatibility with the task at hand. I mean, some days we just feel like standing in front of the class and lecturing from slides.
The authors propose three "habits of mind" that, if one is disciplined enough to actually do them, will fight off technological gravity. I won't go into those three disciplines right now, but they are worth considering and may work.
I've read countless articles which start off by recounting the unfulfilled promises of educational technology. I even had a section in my dissertation on this very topic, describing the prophesies of educational film, radio, television, computer-based instruction and the Internet, and their failure to deliver the goods. Just as in sports and movies, hype surrounding educational technologies is rarely lived up to. New innovations are commonly seen as a solution before we even really know what the problem is. What if the innovation causes even more problems than previously existed? Boy, talk about disappointment! Educational technology should address pre-addressed problems or goals.
The Technology III mindset is practical, and I don't think it's hard to achieve. Just be flexible and don't put too much faith in one tool or approach to teaching. Pretty simple.
Jun/090
Going the Distance
It's summer, which means I have once again agreed to teach a couple of online classes for a college in my hometown. I have done this intermittently for the past 7 years (either online or face-to-face), and it's always a great experience. I've tinkered with the class since the first time I taught it, and I think I am ready to roll for another semester. An article I read recently discussed multi-scaffolding for multimedia enhanced instruction, which prompted me to rethink some of the ways I'm using technology in the online class.
The authors propose a typology consisting of 4 types of scaffolds:
- Situated video
- Screencasts
- Intelligent agents (virtual reality stuff)
- Collaboration zone
Though I don't think each of these types of scaffolding is essential for the classes I am teaching, it certainly provides a framework to which to compare my current practices. This is one reason I think it's so easy to get into a teaching rut. It's not that teachers don't want to do innovative and engaging things with their students, but they simply don't have a point of comparison to their current practices. Peggy Ertmer identifies a community of practice, among other things, as an essential agent in helping teachers transform their pedagogical beliefs toward the use of educational technology. Think about how hard it is to make changes in isolation, whether that change is a New Year's resolution or a new of way of doing a job you've performed for many years. Without someone to compare yourself to and offer encouragement, most ideas don't make it past the intention stage.
In my experience, online classes have been the ultimate silo. Most colleges use some sort of course management platform, and only the instructor and students have access to course materials. On one hand, this is nice because I don't want random people disrupting the class. On the other hand, no other instructors ever see what I am doing, and vice versa. In this case, I live almost 2,000 miles from the campus, but even the instructors who occupy the same physical space don't share or discuss their teaching practices.
So, at the onset of my new summer term, I am thankful for having run across the work of Aaron Doering and his colleagues. While I may not immediately employ each of the multi-scaffolding tools in this course, I have re-thought how I might support both student learning and self-efficacy in the online environment through smarter uses of technology.
