EDD 8008‎ > ‎

Discussion 1



For this discussion, please read:

Saettler, chapter 1: “The Meaning of Educational Technology” and

“The Definition of Educational Technology,” which can be found at: www.indiana.edu/~molpage/Definition%20of%20ET_classS05.pdf

[ For the same presentation of the AECT definition, set within a useful discussion of the meanings of educational technology, see “The Meanings of Educational Technology” at:www.indiana.edu/~molpage/Meanings%20of%20ET_4.0.pdf

Then, address the following:

How does AECT’s definition of educational technology compare with your own, personal definition or understanding of the field? What’s similar? What’s different? Anything surprising? And how do these definitions compare with the popular (layman’s) definition or understanding of the field?

Our discussion begins on Sunday, September 4 and ends on Saturday, September 10. Be sure to have contributed your main posting (addressing the above questions) by Wednesday of the discussion week. And, be sure you've responded to at least one classmate's posting by the end of the discussion week. Finally, it's good form to check the status of any discussion thread you started and ensure that you've responded to anyone who asked a question of you. 


----------------  

How does AECT’s  definition of educational technology compare with your own, personal definition or understanding of the field? What’s similar? What’s different? Anything surprising? And how do these definitions compare with the popular (layman’s) definition or understanding of the field?
I was absolutely flabbergasted that anyone could write so much about such a short sentence.   The structure of the paper gave me some ideas about how to analyze the heart of concepts that I thought were fairly obvious.   At first I was put off by the length of the analysis, but when I actually read the AECT definition, the issue became clear:  There are many assumptions that we bring to the table when we look at a definition.   While we are not disputing the meaning of "the," there are some possible areas of misunderstanding with several key terms.
The word by word parsing of meaning helped me see the nuances in language.   Just look at the 24 words:
Educational technology is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources.
One of the key points I have been focusing on in my professional career is "...the focus moved from what the instructor is doing to what the learner is doing."   This definition of the process of teaching vs. learning is critical and it is the point that constructivists have often pressed (Dennis Littky (2004) writes about creating a "student centered school').   Under this definition we are facilitating learning, not just using technology in cool ways.
It is clear that just "using technology" is not a appropriate use of technology -- there ought to be a reason for using the technology other than "just to get some technology in the class."   That is the importance of focusing on the student learning outcomes rather than on the teachers's procedure, which might look fun but might not have been effective for learning.
Surprising:  I hadn't considered the ethical realm of the technology.   I had thought of technology as being neutral (it's neither bad or good, it's what you do with it").   But that's just the point...   When I saw the three parts ( Commitment to the Individual, Society and the Profession), the structure made sense to me and it became clear that a society like AECT ought to express the moral use of the technology.
Layman's/Popular definition:  I posed the question to my mother, asking her to think about the meaning of "educaitonal technology."  She asked, "Is that like the video recorder that you use in class? Or a tape player or audio tape recorder in a language class?"  The notion that a class can take place without a face-to-face component is unthinkable to her.  
References
Littky, D. (2004).  The Big Picture:  Education is everybody's business.   Alexandria, Va: ASCD


------------------   

COMMENT

 

 

In response to your comments:

 

 

 

“ One of the key points I have been focusing on in my professional career is "...the focus moved from what the instructor is doing to what the learner is doing."This definition of the process of teaching vs. learning is critical and it is the point that constructivists have often pressed (Dennis Littky (2004) writes about creating a "student centered school'). Under this definition we are facilitating learning, not just using technology in cool ways.

 

It is clear that just "using technology" is not a appropriate use of technology -- there ought to be a reason for using the technology other than "just to get some technology in the class." That is the importance of focusing on the student learning outcomes rather than on the teachers's procedure, which might look fun but might not have been effective for learning.”

 

I enjoyed your thoughts, as they made me ponder a bit the importance of a teacher-centered vs. a student-centered environment more deeply. In one of the online courses I teach, Adult Learning, my students participate in two different tools to help “determine” their teaching and learning styles: the Soloman and Felder Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire and Conti’s Principles of Adult Learning Scale (I added the links below for anyone who is interested in taking them and discovering their learning/ teaching styles). Many of my students are very surprised to find they are teacher-centered, and therefore, unconsciously teach students the way they were taught or they teach students by capitalizing on their personal learning preferences. They are not necessarily thinking about “what the learner is doing” and therefore, are not always using media, tools, and technology that are meant to promote student learning.

 

I wonder what others think about this…? ~Laurie

 

 

 

Soloman & Felder Learning Styles Questionnaire: http://www.engr.ncsu.edu/learningstyles/ilsweb.html

 

Principles of Adult Learning Scale: http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/agexed/aee523/PALS.doc

 






======  


Dear EDD8008 students,

Following are the activities for this week:

1.  ParticipateDiscussion 2, “Forerunners and Beginnings” based on Saetler Chapters 2 and 3 and Specto et al. Chapter 1.
2. View: Class session 3, “The Literature Review”. This session will be available by the end of the day, or tomorrow.
3. Read (for discussion 3): Spector et al., chapter 7; Saettler, chapters 10 and 11 Additional resources: Jonassen, chapters 1 and 4

Thanks for submitting your summary and reflections for Session 2: What is instructional technology. Most reflected on two main aspects: the questioning of the field as a profession, and the changing of terms form "instructional" to "educational" technology.


Hopefully, you will keep reflecting on these issues of the field and how its definitions have evolved since its first definition in 1963.  Both terms have been used interchangeably by some, and the AECT has changed them back and forth. The values and perspectives of the committees, as well as the theory and the technology, have been influential to continually redefining the field. Some say IT is a subset of ET, others use the terms interchangeably. In the international realm, the term educational technology is better known that instructional technology is. The definition of 1994 of instructional technology discussed the domains of the field which, in turn, related to the systems approach to instruction. The new definition of educational technology is mostly focused on student-centered learning without imposing the systems approach to instruction. 

As for whether instructional technology is a profession or not, it would certainly depend on the criteria of professionalization against which it is measured. According to Finn, back in 1963 the audiovisual field failed to fulfill a main criterion: a theoretical base. Some argue that nowadays, the field still has not fully met this criterion. Also, think about this: Is there an association responsible to detect and act upon professional malpractice?

We can safely say that the field is evolving from a craft toward a profession, but it is not there yet.

Regarding your Discussion Moderator activity. Thanks for submitting your choices for Discussion moderation.
Here is the list
  1. Discussion 4 (Week 7): Sub-cluster 3 (Aparna, Ayasia, and Laura).
  2. Discussion 5 (Week 8): Sub-cluster 2 (Patricia, Janice, and Stephan)
  3. Discussion 6 (Week 9): Sub-cluster 5 (Shreill, Mercedes, and Daniel)
  4. Discussion 7 (Week 10) Sub-cluster 1 (Elber, Karen, Terrell, and Kecia)
  5. Discussion 8 (Week 11): Sub-cluster 4 (Cynthia, Rosnel, and Laurie)
Remember that would first need to find one additional scholarly reading related to the discussion topic. Second, you would pose a question or two based on the this material. All groups please send me your questions and reading no later than Week 5.

The discussion facilitator (or “moderator”) helps to keep the discussion “moving along.” That means reading all the postings and asking probing questions, especially when postings are less than complete or less than clear. Of course, you're welcome to build on the postings, citing your own experiences or useful references related to the topic. Proper facilitation is a lot of work, but one of the nice things about doing this as a group is that you can divide the work. You may take a formal approach, deciding who will facilitate on Sunday, who on Monday, and so on. Or, you could take an informal approach, responding to those postings you find most interesting or about which you really have something to add.

The following resources are both practical and interesting:

DeAngelis, K. (2009, March). Online learning: Facilitating discussion. Teaching tip sheet. Charlotte, NC: UNC Charlotte Center for Teaching and Learning.

http://teaching.uncc.edu/files/file/TeachingTipSheets/OnlineLearningFacilitatingDiscussionTipSheet.pdf

Everson, M. (2010, October 19). Understanding the instructor’s role in facilitating online discussion. Faculty Focus. http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/asynchronous-learning-and-trends/understanding-the-instructors-role-in-facilitating-online-discussions/


Haavind, S. (2008). Facilitating online discussions, with Sarah Haavind. Boston, MA: Simmons College. http://at.simmons.edu/blendedlearning/learnhow/casestudies/haavind/interview.php


Toledo, C. (2006). “Does your dog bite?” Creating good questions for online discussions. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 18(2), 150-154. www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/articleView.cfm?id=85

And

Rovai, A. P. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 77-88. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.001 (you can find in NSU's library)

Keep up the good work.

Best,

Dr. Orellana




=======  



Laurie is observant...


 

Hey! Did you notice our own Michael Simonson wrote the “They’re Back!” page of the Saettler text? :)

 

This week’s readings (AETC, 2004; Saettler, 2004) proved VERY enlightening! Without giving much thought to its definition—definitions—I assumed a very narrow designation of educational technology: modern hardware or software used in education. The word “technology” appeared more prominent, taking a supportive role to “educational.” This limited view might be because of my experience in education. I did not grow up with “technology” as we now know it—computers, high-tech audio-visual equipment, etc. I was lucky to listen to a vinyl recording of H. G. Wells’ “War of the Worlds” as reward for good class behavior in Art, or a black and white filmstrip on a projector (…remember how the film would break?), “The Shrew,” in English class. My teachers used overhead projectors and ditto copiers—all “devices and media” (Saettler, 2004, p. 6). My first taste of “technology” as a senior in high school in 1984—an Apple computer. My view of technology, up until moments ago, slanted toward “something used to control learning” (AETC, 2004, p. 4); Again, emphasis on technology.

 

AETC (2004) and Saettler (2004) have helped me see the “educational” half of the term is where the significance truly lies and the “ technology” half is the support necessary for facilitated/ guided learning to occur. I can relate more recent learning and teaching experiences to this. “…[T]he role of technology is not so much to present information…(to control learning) but to provide the problem space and tools to explore it (to support learning)” (AETC, 2004, p. 4). Our online learning management system, Blackboard, is the problem space, and the Alvin-Sherman databases are the technology provided to further learning, for example.

 

I am struck that “the goal of promoting learning…is distinctive…” to educational technology (AETC, 2004, p. 9). Improving performance is less about rote learning and more about acquiring skills and knowledge that can be used immediately in the field (AETC, 2004). Finally, if educational technology is a study, I am excited to explore it more and add to its field! ~Laurie

 

References

 

AETC. (2004). The definition of educational technology. Retrieved from www.indiana.edu/~molpage/Meanings%20of%20ET_4.0.pdf

 

Saettler, P. (2004). The evolution of American educational technology. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, Inc.





============  



DISCUSSION ABOUT "ETHICS"


Good reflections! Please remember to actually cite the readings (E.g., Saetler and AECT) and include them in the reference list. 

As for technology is "neither bad or good, it's what you do with it," I tend to agree with you. Actually, others (including me) do not like the word "ethical" in the new definition. Think, if IT were a profession, would practitioners/researchers in the "profession" need to be told that you have to be "ethical"? Does the definition of medicine or architecture include "ethical" in it?

Dr. Orellana




 
I think the issue about "ethical" comes from two situations


a)  Stanley Milgram

nuff said.
(I am delighted that he did the experiment.  It makes a great lesson and it got me thinking when I was 15 years old and first heard of the experiment.   I would be devastated if I had undergone that experiment.  I can see why it is banned but I am delighted that people are allowed to talke about Stanley Milgram's experiment).



b)  the professional oath that teachers take.   We have ethical standards in Florida, required by the legislature.
I agree, it's silly.   If you are a professional, it is assumed that you are ethical, since your colleagues will toss you out of the association if you are found to steal or cheat.   But the presence of unions and delay in removal is probably why teachers have to use the word ETHICAL.

========== 

Code of Ethics – Education Profession

6B-1.006 Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida

6B-1.001 Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida.

  1. The educator values the worth and dignity of every person, the pursuit of truth, devotion to excellence, acquisition of knowledge, and the nurture of democratic citizenship. Essential to the achievement of these standards are the freedom to learn and to teach and the guarantee of equal opportunity for all.
  2. The educator's primary professional concern will always be for the student and for the development of the student's potential. The educator will therefore strive for professional growth and will seek to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity.
  3. Aware of the importance of maintaining the respect and confidence of one's colleagues, of students, of parents, and of other members of the community, the educator strives to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct.
Specific Authority 229.053(1), 231.546(2)(b) FS. Law Implemented 231.546(2)(b) FS. History - New 3-24-65, Amended 8-9-69, Repromulgated 12-5-74, Amended 8-12-81, 7-6-82, Formerly 6B-1.01.

6B-1.006 Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida.

  1. The following disciplinary rule shall constitute the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida.
  2. Violation of any of these principles shall subject the individual to revocation or suspension of the individual educator's certificate, or the other penalties as provided by law.
  3. Obligation to the student requires that the individual:
    1. Shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety.
    2. Shall not unreasonably restrain a student from independent action in pursuit of learning.
    3. Shall not unreasonably deny a student access to diverse points of view.
    4. Shall not intentionally suppress or distort subject matter relevant to a student's academic program.
    5. Shall not intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement.
    6. Shall not intentionally violate or deny a student's legal rights.
    7. Shall not harass or discriminate against any student on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, national or ethnic origin, political beliefs, marital status, handicapping condition, sexual orientation, or social and family background and shall make reasonable effort to assure that each student is protected from harassment or discrimination.
    8. Shall not exploit a relationship with a student for personal gain or advantage.
    9. Shall keep in confidence personally identifiable information obtained in the course of professional service, unless disclosure serves professional purposes or is required by law.
  4. Obligation to the public requires that the individual:
    1. Shall take reasonable precautions to distinguish between personal views and those of any educational institution or organization with which the individual is affiliated.
    2. Shall not intentionally distort or misrepresent facts concerning an educational matter in direct or indirect public expression.
    3. Shall not use institutional privileges for personal gain or advantage.
    4. Shall accept no gratuity, gift, or favor that might influence professional judgment.
    5. Shall offer no gratuity, gift, or favor to obtain special advantages.
  5. Obligation to the profession of education requires that the individual:
    1. Shall maintain honesty in all professional dealings.
    2. Shall not on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, national or ethnic origin, political beliefs, marital status, handicapping condition if otherwise qualified, or social and family background deny to a colleague professional benefits or advantages or participation in any professional organization.
    3. Shall not interfere with a colleague's exercise of political or civil rights and responsibilities.
    4. Shall not engage in harassment or discriminatory conduct which unreasonably interferes with an individual's performance of professional or work responsibilities or with the orderly processes of education or which creates a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment; and, further, shall make reasonable effort to assure that each individual is protected from such harassment or discrimination.
    5. Shall not make malicious or intentionally false statements about a colleague.
    6. Shall not use coercive means or promise special treatment to influence professional judgments of colleagues.
    7. Shall not misrepresent one's own professional qualifications.
    8. Shall not submit fraudulent information on any document in connection with professional activities.
    9. Shall not make any fraudulent statement or fail to disclose a material fact in one's own or another's application for a professional position.
    10. Shall not withhold information regarding a position from an applicant or misrepresent an assignment or conditions of employment.
    11. Shall provide upon the request of the certificated individual a written statement of specific reason for recommendations that lead to the denial of increments, significant changes in employment, or termination of employment.
    12. Shall not assist entry into or continuance in the profession of any person known to be unqualified in accordance with these Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida and other applicable Florida Statutes and State Board of Education Rules.
    13. Shall self-report within forty-eight (48) hours to appropriate authorities (as determined by district) any arrests/charges involving the abuse of a child or the sale and/or possession of a controlled substance. Such notice shall not be considered an admission of guilt nor shall such notice be admissible for any purpose in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory. In addition, shall self-report any conviction, finding of guilt, withholding of adjudication, commitment to a pretrial diversion program, or entering of a plea of guilty or Nolo Contendre for any criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation within forty-eight (48) hours after the final judgment. When handling sealed and expunged records disclosed under this rule, school districts shall comply with the confidentiality provisions of Sections 943.0585(4)(c) and 943.059(4)(c), Florida Statutes.
    14. Shall report to appropriate authorities any known allegation of a violation of the Florida School Code or State Board of Education Rules as defined in Section 1012.795(1), Florida Statutes.
    15. Shall seek no reprisal against any individual who has reported any allegation of a violation of the Florida School Code or State Board of Education Rules as defined in Section1012.795(1), Florida Statutes.
    16. Shall comply with the conditions of an order of the Education Practices Commission.
    17. Shall, as the supervising administrator, cooperate with the Education Practices Commission in monitoring the probation of a subordinate.
Specific Authority 229.053(1), 231.546(2)(b) FS. Law Implemented 231.546(2), 231.28 FS. History - New 7-6-82, Amended 12-20-83, Formerly 6B-1.06, Amended 8-10-92, 12-29-98.

http://www.fldoe.org/edstandards/code_of_ethics.asp



HOME




return to 8008

Comments