College of Education
University
of Washington
EDC&I 510
History of Educational Technology
|
Instructor:
Prof. Stephen T. Kerr |
Office: 206H Miller Hall Box 353600 |
|
Course meets: 164 Savery Hall |
Telephone: (206) 685-7562 |
|
Wednesday, 4:30 - 6:50 p.m. |
E-mail: |
|
Office
hours: by appointment (typically Weds.
pm and Thurs. am); send me e-mail. |
|
Session |
Date |
Assignment for Session |
Topic in Class |
|
1 |
|
--- |
Introductions Asking critical
questions about technology in education |
|
2 |
10/7 |
Comenius,
1658GU; Hartley, 2004E; Horn,
2001E; Carr, 2008E; Information
Aesthetics; Thinking with Type |
Text: The primary
technology in education (or is it…?) Demo of oral presentation Definition of project topics |
|
3 |
10/14 |
Hoban
& Van Ormer, 1951H; May & Lumsdaine, 1958H;
Salomon & Clark, 1977H; Schmidt & Vandewater, 2008J |
Film: Adding visual content and motion;
"realism"? Oral presentations |
|
4 |
10/21 |
Glaser,
1965H; Mager, 1975H; Suppes, 1968E; McDonald et al., 2005 GU |
Programmed
instruction: Behaviorism, the Skinnerian legacy, and the emergence of design Oral presentations |
|
5 |
10/28 |
Chu,
1968H; Clark, 1983J; Clark, 1994H; Clark,
2001H; McLuhan, 2007E; Salomon &
Perkins, 2005H |
Television and
multimedia: Bumping up complexity or
'edutainment'? Project check-in |
|
6 |
11/4 |
Papert,
1980H; Papert, 1987J; Pea, 1987J; Collins & Halverson, 2009H Review of literature
due |
Computers: Pushing control to the classroom level, and
visualizations to the fore Discuss review of literature |
|
7 |
11/11 |
Work on projects |
[UW Holiday – NO CLASS
MEETING] |
|
8 |
11/18 |
Dorn, 1974J; Bernard et
al., 2004J; Bernard et al., 2009E; Means et al., 2009E |
Distance learning from
TV to online: Moving the instructor
backstage Oral presentations |
|
9 |
11/25 |
Mielke,
1990H; Sawyer, 2006E; Design
Based, 2003J; Cobb et al., 2003J; Barab et al., 2007J |
Instructional design
to learning sciences: Trying to bring order out of the pedagogical
"buzzing, blooming confusion" Oral presentations |
|
10 |
12/2 |
Leonard, 1968H;
KnowledgeWorks, 2006E; Partnership for 21st C. Skills, 2007E; Turkle, 2009H |
Visiting Day, 2040: Future visions – mobile learning, CSCL, Web
2.0 and 3.0, knowledge management and education, technology and activity
theory, etc. Project check-in |
|
11 |
12/9 |
Final
project due |
Final presentations;
discussion; conclusions |
E UW
Libraries e-journal or other on-line source; see list at end of syllabus.
H
Handout to be distributed in class the
previous week (no e-version available).
J Article available via UW Libraries JSTOR
database; see
course web site for access information.
GU
Material available via Google Books, or UW Libraries E-book.
1. Course Rationale
and Goals
This
course is designed to help you think about how technology connects with the
processes and institutions of education.
The course is intended primarily for those working towards a masters or
doctoral degree in Educational Technology, Learning Sciences, or a related
field. The goal is to examine what
significant intellectual and empirical questions motivated the field at various
times during its development, rather than to consider in detail the development
of particular devices or their use.
The
field of educational technology is diverse, bringing together such different
perspectives as biophysics, cognitive psychology, graphic design, classroom
teaching, and organizational theory, and settings from elementary schools to
industrial sites. It is a topic of
considerable perceived importance now, as policy makers try to decide how
better to mesh the work of educational systems with a society made increasingly
complex and interconnected by technology.
We
might approach the intellectual development (history) of the field of
educational technology in several ways.
We might think about changes in the psychological notion of
"learning" over time, or about shifts over the years in ideas about
appropriate types of pupil activity to foster learning, or we might focus on
development of new images of the teacher's role vis a vis students. Instead, I've chosen a structure that is
based roughly on how communication devices and approaches emerged
chronologically, how they came to be used in education, how their use and their
effects were perceived and interpreted at that time, what research studies were
done, and how the legacy of those studies has (or has not) affected current
thinking. That chronological approach
allows us to ask how the results obtained from earlier studies would stand up
today, and what different questions we might ask now.
This course is not
primarily concerned with hardware, production, or how to use technology in the
classroom. It is instead an introduction
to the conceptual foundations of the field, to its history, to the types of intellectual
concerns and empirical questions that have been intriguing at different times
and in different contexts. The intent is
to provide a strong foundation for further course work, study, and empirical
research. To the extent that you can do
so, you are encouraged to use the course not only to develop understanding, but
also to push development of your own academic program within the College and
the University.
Reading and other lists. List of suggested
readings, journals, and relevant professional associations will be posted on
the course web site early in the quarter.
The faculty in the College of Education assume that graduate students
will read widely in their field, in ways that go well beyond the specific
requirements of individual courses. Accordingly, you should take very opportunity
to read widely and deeply about topics that interest you!
A special invitation. In a
course with subject matter as varied as this, and with a good many potential
links to current developments in education, technology, and society, it's quite
likely that you'll come across examples, news items, or online materials that
may be relevant and/or provocative. I
encourage you to share these in class, and I'll try to set aside some time for
this during each class session. There's
a Delicious site where you can link to things that you find online, and a
course Catalyst GoPost bulletin board for comments and discussion.
Delicious: edci510au09
Password: saVERY164
Catalyst GoPost: https://catalysttools.washington.edu/gopost/manage/stkerr/13011
2. Requirements
There are four
separate requirements for this course:
a. Readings and class discussion. The course presupposes your careful reading
and analysis of a variety of materials.
Read thoughtfully, think critically about the topics covered, and come
to class ready to discuss.
Due: Throughout the quarter; 10% of grade.
b. Review of Literature. Prepare a brief report in which you identify
several key research-based references for one of the topics we will consider in
the course (film, computers, design, etc.)
The point here is to become familiar with relevant journals and on-line
resources, to compare the merits of different authors' perspectives and
research methods, and to begin to become a "connoisseur" of these
kinds of materials.
Choose a subject area
or topic that is of interest to you.
Examples: Computer-based
animations for grade eight social studies; on-line learning for college math;
virtual reality for pilot training. The
review may be related to the intended topic of your Course project (see
below) or not, at your discretion.
In previous quarters, many students have found that it makes sense to
combine efforts and focus on one topic for both literature review and project,
but a significant minority have found that there is a benefit to exploring more
than one topic during the course. You
choose!
i.
Do a search of the literature that
describes research-based studies and projects in which your chosen technology
has been used. Use the many databases
and tools available to you via the UW Libraries: ERIC, PsycINFO, and many other specialized
resources in particular sub-fields.
Also, search more widely in other databases accessible through the Web.
ii.
Select 5 those reports that you believe
present the best evidence. Summarize
them briefly and then draw conclusions about the value of technology in that
particular setting. Do this in no more
than 6 double-spaced pages. In your
report, use about ½ page to set up the question and how you went about
your search, and about ½ page to summarize which studies you found to be
most valuable. That leaves you about 1
page per study to summarize findings. Be
sure to include for each study the full citation (
Due: November 4, 20% of grade.
c. Oral presentation on readings. You will make an oral presentation on the
readings for one course session (we'll choose dates at the first course
meeting). The point of the presentation
is to address these questions:
i.
What do the results and perspectives in
the studies we read say about how these research questions were perceived at the time the study was written/conducted?
ii.
How might contemporary researchers
approach the same research questions differently?
iii.
What important questions, not addressed in the work we read, might
be of special interest to researchers today?
iv.
Identify and describe one specific
research question that you might want to pursue around this general topic. How would you design the research study? If all went well, what would you hope to
find?
The oral presentation
should be prepared to take about 10 minutes, with time following for questions
from the class. You should bring with
you to class hard copies (1 per class member) of a one-page handout that
describes your ideas and proposals.
Due: Dates indicated on calendar; 20% of grade.
d. Final Project. Your project for the course should be related
to your interests, your intended future course of study, and (possibly) to a real project on which you
are currently working. The project can take
any of a number of different forms: A
research design, a proposal for funding, a plan for development of a
technology-based approach within an educational institution, an evaluation of
an on-going technology program, a full-scale review of research, or an
extension of some existing work in which you are already engaged.
We will spend some
time in class on two occasions checking in on your projects; see the calendar
for specific dates. At these times, be
prepared to describe briefly where you are in your work, what problems you've
encountered to date, how your thinking has changed, and what challenges you
anticipate as you proceed.
Format: Written paper, other document, material, site,
etc., as appropriate to project. Suggested
length: 15 pages or equivalent expenditure of effort.
Due: December 9.
50% of grade.
3. Additional Course
Expectations
Yes, Virginia, there are more of them. After all, this is an introduction to a
professional field in which you expect to spend years of your life, right? So why shouldn't we expect a lot of you!?
As part of your work for this course, you
should:
¨
Make yourself familiar with the UW
Library system and specifically with the kinds of resources (print and
electronic) that are available through the libraries. Orientations, help sessions, and tours are
organized by the staff in Suzzallo. (See
"Free Walk-in Workshops" on the UW Libraries site.)
¨ Make
yourself familiar with the computing facilities and services offered by the
University, the College of Education, the Catalyst WebTools, and the Center for
Social Science Computing and Research (CSSCR), as well as with other centers
that may be relevant to your own interests.
¨ Attend
one or more local professional gatherings in the region related to educational technology. Some examples: SIG CHI Puget Sound; ASTDps (Puget Sound
Chapter of the American Society for Training and Development); ESDs or school
district special interest groups; etc.
¨ Consider
joining one of the professional associations for people in our field.
¨ Make
it a habit to read the journals in our field regularly.
¨ Consider
attending (and presenting at) national professional meetings.
¨ Begin
to assemble a portfolio of your work (for masters students, this will also give
you an advantage when you come to the end of the program, since you have to
both attend and present at a "portfolio workshop"; for doctoral
students, think of it as beginning to create your professional "calling
card."
¨ Become
familiar with Web based resources that are useful, interesting (and, yes, they
can also be entertaining!)
¨ Share
findings with your fellow students.
¨
4. Grading
The various requirements for the course will be
weighted as follows when computing grades:
Participation
in class discussions 10%
Review
of Literature 20
Oral
Presentation on Readings 20
Project 50
A word on the oral presentations and discussions. It is important to learn
how to present ideas clearly and briefly, and how to critique others'
presentations incisively and positively.
It is easy to criticize someone else's work; it is more difficult (and
more important) to do so in a way that preserves that person's self-image and
dignity. The most respected scholars are
those who manage to combine clear and helpful suggestions for how things might
be done differently with a tone that is constructive and collegial. You should strive to attain this kind of
approach in scholarly criticism both in your work here and in your further professional
activity!
5.
Necessary Notices:
DUE DATES:
Having assignments ready by the date due is an essential requirement and
a basic expectation of graduate study.
Failure to observe this requirement can have dire consequences! Grades of "incomplete" will be
given only for certifiable medical reasons or in other extraordinary
circumstances.
DISABILITY ACCOMODATIONS: To
request academic accommodations due to a disability, please contact Disability
Resources for Students, 448 Schmitz, 206-543-8924/V, 206-543-8925/TTY, or at http://www.washington.edu/students/drs/. If you have a letter from Disability
Resources for Students indicating you have a disability which requires academic
accommodations, please present the letter to me so we can discuss the
accommodations you might need in this class.
If you have questions or concerns about disability accommodation
do not hesitate to contact me or
PLAGIARISM: Plagiarism,
submitting someone else's words or ideas as your own work, is a serious
academic offense. Cases of suspected plagiarism
will be referred to the Associate Dean for Academic Programs for adjudication. Possible penalties range from disciplinary
warnings to dismissal from the university. All students are expected to demonstrate
academic integrity at all times, and to learn what constitutes plagiarism. A useful definition of plagiarism can be found
at:
http://depts.washington.edu/grading/issue1/honesty.htm#plagiarism
6. Full List of Course Readings (both electronic
and handouts):
(NB: For
those currently mastering the arcana of the
Oct. 7
Comenius, Johannes. (1658) Orbis sensualium pictus (The
visible world). On-line. Excerpts of your choice. Look in Google Books for the 1887 edition,
with introduction and front matter by Charles Poole and others. Read some of the front matter to get a sense
of the context.
Hartley,
James. (2004). Designing instructional and informational
text. In Jonassen, D. (Ed.) Handbook
of Research for Educational Communication and technology. Second ed.
Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
http://www.aect.org/edtech/34.pdf
Horn, Robert E. (2001).
Visual language and converging technologies in the next 10-15
years (and beyond). Paper
prepared for the National Science Foundation Conference on Converging Technologies
(Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno) for Improving Human Performance
http://www.stanford.edu/~rhorn/a/topic/vl&id/artclNSFVisualLangv.pdf
Carr, Nicholas.
(2008). Is Google making us
stupid? The Atlantic. July-August.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google
A
site devoted to information visualization and visual communication
Thinking
with Type (Ellen Lupton, Princeton
Architectural Press, 2004)
A well-regarded recent book and companion site that
explores typography in fresh ways
Oct. 14
Hoban, Charles Francis, &
van Ormer; Edward B. (1950). Instructional film research, 1918-1950
(Rapid mass learning). State College, PA: Instructional Film Research
Program. Technical report, no.
May, Mark Arthur, & Lumsdaine,
Arthur A. (1958). Learning from films. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Excerpts.
[handout]
Salomon, Gavriel, and Clark,
Richard E. (1977). Reexamining the methodology of research on
media and technology in education. Review
of Educational Research, 47(1); pp. 99-120.
Available from JSTOR via UW Library. Go to UW Libraries website→ Articles
and Research Databases → In the box ("Enter database name"),
enter "JSTOR" → JSTOR search → Citation Locator. Scroll down to journal name ("Review of
Educational Research"), then enter "Volume" [47],
"Issue" [1], and "Start Page" [99]. That should take you there! You can print from JSTOR if you want a hard
copy.
Schmidt, M. E., &
Vandewater, E. A. (2008). Media and attention, cognition, and school
achievement. The Future of Children,
18(1), pp. 63-85 [jstor
Oct. 21
Glaser, Robert. (1965).
Teaching machines and programmed learning. Washington, DC: NEA, Dept. of Audiovisual
Instruction. Excerpts. [handout]
Mager, Robert F. Preparing instructional objectives. 2d ed.
Belmont, CA: Fearon.
Excerpts. [handout]
Suppes, Patrick. (1968).
Computer
technology and the future of education. Phi Delta Kappan, April, 1968.
http://suppes-corpus.stanford.edu/articles/comped/85-6.pdf
McDonald, Jason K., Yanchar,
Stephen C., & Osguthorpe, Russell T.
(2005). Learning from programmed
instruction: Examining implications for modern instructional technology. Educational Technology: Research and
Development, 53 (2), 84-98. [uw library e-journal]
Oct. 28
Chu, Godwin C.; Schramm;
Wilbur. (1968). Learning from television: What the
research says. Washington, DC: National
Association of Educational Broadcasters.
Excerpts. [handout]
Clark; Richard E. (1983).
Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research;
53(4); pp. 445-459. [jstor
Clark, Richard Å. (1994).
Media will never influence learning.
Educational Technology: Research and Development, 42(2), pp.
21-29. [handout]
Clark, Richard Å. (2001).
New directions: Cognitive and motivational research issues. In R. E. Clark (Ed.), Learning from media (pp.
263-298). Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishing. [handout]
McLuhan, Marshall. Gutenberg Galaxy and Understanding
Media. [Read about them in the Marshall McLuhan article
in Wikipedia. What would McLuhan
have made of Wikipedia?]
Salomon, Gavriel, &
Perkins, D. (2005). Do technologies make us smarter? Intellectual
amplification with, of and through technology.
In Sternberg, Robert J. & Preiss, David (Eds.) Intelligence and technology: The impact of
tools on the nature and development of human abilities (pp.
71-86). Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates. [handout]
Nov. 4
Papert, Seymour. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and
powerful ideas. New York, NY:
Basic Books. [handout]
Papert; Seymour. (1987).
Computer criticism vs. technocentric thinking. Educational Researcher; 16(1),
pp. 22-30. [jstor
Pea, Roy D. (1987).
The aims of software criticism: Reply to Professor Papert. Educational Researcher, 16(5), pp.
4-8. [jstor
Collins, Allan, &
Halverson, Richard. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of
technology: The digital revolution and schooling in America. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Excerpts.
[handout]
Nov. 18
Dorn, William S. (1974).
Technology in education: A case study of the Open University. International Review of Education /
Internationale Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft / Revue
Internationale de l'Education, 20(1), pp. 63-70. [jstor
Bernard, R.M., Abrami, P.C.,
Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P.A., Fiset, M. &
Huang, B. (2004). How does distance
education compare to classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical
literature. Review of Educational
Research, 74(3), 379-439. [jstor
Bernard, R.M., Abrami, P.C.,
Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E.
C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction
treatments in distance education. Review
of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243-1289. [uw library
e-journal]
Means, Barbara, Toyama, Yukie,
Murphy, Robert, Bakia, Marianne, & Jones, Karla. (2009).
Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning
studies.
http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf
Nov. 25
Mielke, Keith W. (1990).
Research and development at the Children's Television Workshop. Educational Technology: Research and
Development, 38(4), pp. 7-16. [handout]
Design-Based Research
Collective, The. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for
educational inquiry. Educational
Researcher (Theme issue: The role of design in educational research),
32(1), 5-8. [jstor
Cobb,
Paul, Confrey, Jere, diSessa, Andrea, Lehrer, Richard & Schauble,
Leona. (2003). Design experiments in
educational research. Educational
Researcher, 32 (1), 9-13. [jstor
Sawyer, R. Keith. (2006).
Introduction: The new science of learning. In Sawyer, R. Keith (Ed.) The Cambridge
handbook of the learning sciences.
http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521607773&ss=exc
Barab, S.,
Dodge, T., Thomas, M. K., Jackson, C., & Tuzun, H. (2007).
Our designs and the social agendas they carry. Journal of the Learning Sciences,
16(2), 263 – 305. [uw library e-journal]
Dec. 2
Leonard, George B. (1968).
Education and ecstasy.
New York, NY: Delacorte Press. [handout]
KnowledgeWorks Foundation /
The Institute for the Future.
(2006). Map of future forces affecting
education, 2006-2016. [And watch for a new edition of the Map in 2009!]
Partnership for 21st Century
Skills. (2007). Framework
and Maximizing
the Impact.
Turkle, S. (2009).
Simulation and its discontents.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Excerpts. [handout]
STK