Group items tagged

This marginal standing is reflected in the tendency for educational technology academics to be located often within ‘support’ units and divisions, such as cross-faculty ‘Teaching & Learning Divisions’ or departmental ‘E-Learning Units’. Physically as well as intellectually, then, the field of technology and education is often found to be operating on the peripheries of academe

In short, we need to accept that academic work in the area of technology and education is currently falling short of what should now be a significant and substantial area of contemporary education scholarship.

Instead, the academic study of technology and education should be developing as much along the lines of critical social science as it does in the guise of a cognitive learning science.

attempting to move “outside the assumptions and practices of the existing order and struggling to make categories, assumptions and practices of everyday life problematic”.

As Sonia Livingstone (2012) puts it, this problematizing of technology and education usually pursues three basic lines of inquiry: What is really going on? How can this be explained? How could things be otherwise? As these questions imply, a critical approach also involves speaking up for, and on behalf of, those voices usually marginalized in discussions of what technology and education ‘is’ and ‘sh

What to do about digital technology?’ remains a high-profile

As Alison Hearn has argued, contemporary higher education is now predicated around ambitions to produce human capital rather than critical thinkers; and to foster creativity, innovation and knowledge rather than critical thinking.

This stems, at least in part, from the fundamental desire amongst most educational technologists to improve education through the implementation of digital technology. For many academics, then, technology and education is approached as an inherently ‘positive project’. Indeed, I suspect that most people working in this area are driven to some degree by an underlying belief that digital technologies are capable of improving learning and/or education in some way

I would argue that any academic who is working in the area of technology and education should feel obliged to be critical, or at least justify why they have chosen not to be critical

Arisaka (2001)

The future development of educational technology will not be determined by the technology itself, states Feenberg, but rather the politics within the educational community and national political trends. In taking a dialogic approach, he stresses educational technology of an advanced society should be shaped by educational dialogue rather than the production-oriented logic of automation.

According to Feenberg (1991), critical theory explains how technology is embedded in society through ‘technological code’ that is dialectical, contextual, aesthetic, and humanly, socially, and ecologically responsible.

In summary, Feenberg (2002; 5) calls for a profound democratic transformation of technologies, asking “can we conceive an industrial society based on democratic participation in which individual freedom is not market freedom and in which social responsibility is not exercised through coercive regulation?” He argues a good society should support the personal freedom of its members enabling them to participate effectively in a range of public activities. This can be manifest in democratizing technological design; pursuing a ‘democratic rationalization’ where actors participate in the technological design processes. For Illich (1973), ‘tools of conviviality’ produce a democratic and convivial society in which individuals communicate, debate, participate in social and political life, and help make decisions. Convivial tools free individuals from dependency and cultivate autonomy and sociality.

Don Ihde (1990)

E-learning literature increasingly perceives the role of the tutor as facilitator (Salmon, 2004), whilst in a connectivist learning environment, it may become further marginalised or even obsolesced (Siemens, 2004). This emphasis on informal and autonomous learning and student engagement with experts outside their formal educational institutions also recalls Illich’s (1970) community webs. Critical educators such as Freire and Feenberg are critical of the diminishing of critical engagement by the tutor and believe it is essential that teachers continue to have a directive role.

Friesen (2008) explores three myths pertinent to current e-learning literature: Knowledge Economy Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime Learning Technology drives Educational Change

Kellner stresses that multiple literacies, such as media, computer, and information literacies are required in response to emergent technologies and cultural conditions to empower students to participate in the expanding high-tech culture and networked society.

Karlsson (2002) however, suggests so called web literacies should be recognised and studied merely as print literacies that appear on the web. Feenberg (2002) reminds us arguments emerging around new educational technologies are nothing new. He suggests writing was one of the first (narrow bandwidth) educational technologies, and describes how Plato denounced writing as destructive to the dialogic relationship between teacher and student evident in spoken discourse. (Noble (1997) points out the irony in Plato using written text to critique writing, suggesting that similarly, the majority of current attacks on web-based media circulate online.)

What originated as a hastily-conceived title for a conference presentation has since become a catch-all term for a range of ‘ontologically non–compatible’ elements (Allen, 2008). In an attempt to conceptualize the meaning of Web 2.0, Allen identifies four key components: Technological implementations that prioritise the manipulation and presentation of data through the interaction of both human and computer agents. An Economic model. Using the Web to put people and data together in meaningful exchanges for financial gain. Users are perceived as active participants, engaged in creating, maintaining and expanding Web content. The politics of Web 2.0 are expressed in traditional democratic terms, which emphasises freedom of choice and the empowerment of individuals.

Under a critical perspective, the democratic forms of media consumption and production of Web 2.0 are challenged by the underlying “dictates of a neo-liberal socio–political hegemony” (Jarrett, 2008), as evidenced in the exploitation of user–generated content by major corporations (Petersen, 2008). As Silver (2008) reminds us, “when corporations say community they mean commerce, and when they say aggregation they mean advertising.” Scholz (2008) contends the Web remains largely the domain of “professional elites that define what enters the public discourse,” In addition, social conditions inherent in Web 2.0 practices such as personalization (Zimmer, 2008) and participatory surveillance (Albrechtslund, 2008) require a rethinking of traditional notions of identity, privacy and social hierarchies. As educationalists demonstrate an increasing determination to tap into the apparent technological and sociological affordances of Web 2.0, these are issues that cannot be ignored.

We begin by copying successful practice, and then begin to modify that practice to satisfy our own particular circumstances and needs

In addition to being expert in the discipline of teaching and pedagogy, the educator is now expected to have up-to-date and relevant knowledge and experience in it. Even a teacher of basic disciplines such as science, history or mathematics must remain grounded, as no discipline has remained stable for very long, and all disciplines require a deeper insight in order to be taught effectively.

What's significant about these examples is not so much the new opportunities they offer students, though there is that. It's that all of them redefine the educator's role in some significant way. They create entirely new categories of educator, such as "online lecturer" or "scientist studying polar bears". Entire disciplines, far removed from traditional "instructional design", are being created and populated by people who direct online videos, design learning communities, program massive games like Evoke. And they create new categories of roles and responsibilities for in-person educators.

Historically, it has been impractical to break up the roles of the teacher. You need a certain scale even to have a separate person assigned as a librarian or an audio-visual coordinator. You need a much greater scale, not to mention much better coordination, to have separate people assigned as lecturers, coaches, theorizers and evaluators. Yet relatively few of these roles need to be performed in person, and most of them scale pretty well.

what I find as I offer more and more types and instances of learning, both online and in person, is that we can achieve much more efficient, effective and rewarding learning by organizing the educational system according to the sorts of educational services people might want and need, rather than by predefined collections of students assigned, almost randomly, to individual teachers

one thing I have been observing is that educators have been gravitating toward one or another of these 23 roles. Some of them, presumably the more extroverted, have taken on the role of lecturer or demonstrator. Others, who were perhaps more technically inclined, have become programmers or bureaucrats. Still others, those perhaps work best with presence or human contact, prefer to function as coaches or mentors. Not everybody can perform every role; not everybody wants to perform every role.

it is frustrating when people identify the role of the teacher as the central factor influencing the success or failure of a student's education. Leaving aside any influence of external factors, such a statement begs us to question what aspect of the educator's role it is that is so vitally important. And while the likely answer may be that they all are, or that it depends on the individual student, it seems clear that continuing to treat them as a single role, to be performed by a single person, increasingly defies the reality that is today's educational system

Though there may still be thousands of people employed today with the job title of "teacher" or "educator", it is misleading to suggests that all, or even most, aspects of providing an education should, or could, be placed into the hands of these individuals.

not every student wants or needs the services of every role

In my last post, I introduced Helsper and Enyon’s (2009) idea that exposure to, and experience using, various digital technologies can have more of an influence that generation age on determining whether a person has the characteristics of a digital immigrant or a digital native. Of course, nothing is ever so clear cut. In his blog, Wesley Fryer discusses this, and expands the immigrant vs native classification into four categories, as shown below.

Goodyear, Carvalho and Dohn (2014, p 140) state that networked learning “ is no longer exotic”, however, I would argue that this very much depends on on one’s own perspective, which in turn would be shaped by personal experience and knowledge (aka the whole digital landscape debate).

(see Koutropoulis, 2011) Prensky’s division

about herself in the capacity of being a student,

smiss this message

"We need to provide research and evidence-based knowledge to publishers on what kind of devices (iPad, Kindle, print) should be used for what kind of content; what kinds of texts are likely to be less hampered by being read digitally, and which might require the support of paper,"