College of Education
University
of Washington
EDC&I 510
History of Educational Technology
|
Instructor: Prof. Stephen T. Kerr |
Office: 122K Miller Hall Box 353600 |
|
Course meets: 215 Miller Hall |
Telephone: (206) 685-7562 |
|
Wednesday, 4:30 - 6:50 p.m. |
E-mail: |
|
Office
hours: by appointment (typically Weds.
2-3:30 pm and Thurs. 10 am-N); send me e-mail to request a specific time. |
|
Session |
Date |
Assignment for Session |
Topic in Class |
|
1 |
9/28/11 |
--- |
Introductions Asking
critical questions about technology in education |
|
2 |
10/5 |
Comenius,
1658GU; Hartley, 2004E; Carr, 2008E; Information AestheticsE; Thinking with
TypeE; Kavett videosE; WikibooksE |
Text: The
primary technology in education (or is it…?); typography and design; open
textbooks Review of favorite (least favorite) textbooks Definition of project topics |
|
3 |
10/12 |
Hoban
& Van Ormer, 1951R; May & Lumsdaine, 1958R;
Salomon & Clark, 1977J; Schmidt & Vandewater, 2008J |
Film: Adding visual content and motion;
"realism"? Oral presentations (Technology Comparison and
Innovative Uses) |
|
4 |
10/19 |
Holland
(in Glaser), 1965R; Mager, 1975R; Suppes, 1968E; McDonald et al., 2005 GU |
Programmed
instruction: Behaviorism, the Skinnerian legacy, and the emergence of design Oral presentations (Technology Comparison and
Innovative Uses) |
|
5 |
10/26 |
Chu
& Schram, 1968R; Clark, 1983J; Clark, 1994R;
Clark, 2001R; McLuhan, 1977E; Salomon &
Perkins, 2005R |
Television and
multimedia: Bumping up complexity or
'edutainment'? Project check-in Oral presentations (Technology Comparison and
Innovative Uses) |
|
6 |
11/2 |
Papert,
1980R; Papert, 1987J; Pea, 1987J; Gee, 2008E;
MacArthur Foundation, 2011E. |
Computers and
Gaming: Pushing control to the
classroom level; visualizations and play to the fore (an online tour of gaming) Oral presentations (Technology Comparison and
Innovative Uses) |
|
7 |
11/9 |
Ito
et al., 2008E; Lenhart
et al., 2010E; Greenhow et al., 2009E |
Social
Media: Can we harness social
networking for learning? Blogs, wikis,
Facebook, Twitter, etc. Oral presentations (Technology Comparison and
Innovative Uses) |
|
8 |
11/16 |
Dorn, 1974J; Bernard et al., 2004J; Bernard
et al., 2009E; Means et
al., 2009E |
Distance
learning from TV to online to mobile:
Moving the instructor backstage Oral presentations (Technology Comparison and
Innovative Uses) |
|
9 |
11/23 |
Mielke,
1990R; 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 (Technology Comparison and
Innovative Uses) |
|
10 |
11/30 |
Leonard, 1968R; Future of Ed 2020, 2011E; Partnership for 21st C.
Skills, 2007E; Turkle, 2009R |
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 |
12/7 |
Final
project due |
Final project presentations;
discussion; conclusions |
E UW
Libraries e-journal or other on-line source; see list at end of syllabus.
R
UW Libraries E-Reserve material.
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, and to consider how those same questions are
treated today, rather than to consider in detail the development of particular technologies
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 student activity to foster learning, or we might focus on
development of new images of the instructor'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 and the results obtained from
research studies. The intent is to
provide a strong foundation for further course work, study, and empirical
research, and theory development. 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.
Readings and other resources. Lists of suggested
readings, journals, and relevant professional associations are posted on the
course web site. 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 every
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
are two course Catalyst GoPost bulletin boards:
one for course presentations (so we all can access your work), and
another for general comments and discussion.
See links on the course web site.
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. Technology Comparison Assignment
Choose a
content topic which you are interested in teaching about and then choose
two-three modes of delivery (or two-three different technologies) that you
might use in teaching about it. For example, you might choose to teach about
the earth’s axial tilt and its relation to the seasons of the year. To do so, you could design one activity that
includes a smart board in a classroom, and another that includes a video (or
video game and textbook). The purpose here is to investigate how the choice of technology
can shape how the content gets presented, and perhaps also how students come to
think about the content. So, your design
strategy matters! As you do this
assignment, think about what factors guide your choices, and how you think
about the role of devices and presentation variables in instruction.
Format: 2-3
pp. description (preferably illustrated) of the different approaches you chose;
for each approach, describe: (1) The topic you’re teaching about; (2) the particular
technology you’d use; (3) any design specifics about the materials (animation,
graphics, type of student activity to be promoted, etc.); and (4) brief comparative
evaluation and discussion of the value of the technologies for the
instructional purposes you intend. In
addition, the presentation should include at least three annotated references
(using APA format for the citation) from the research literature (or comparably
well-done descriptive pieces, if the approach does not yet have a history of
research associated with it). You’ll
choose your own due date (between Oct. 12 and Nov. 23) for this assignment
during the first class session. Present
briefly in class (< 10 min., plus time for questions/discussion) and post on
the GoPost site for presentations before the due date
Due: Throughout the quarter (10/12-11/23); 20% of grade.
c. Innovative
Uses of Technology Assignment
Choose one
type of technology (preferably one with which you are not already familiar), investigate
its current uses carefully, and identify at least one unique or innovative instructional
use that is relevant to your interests, course project, or professional work. You could choose an entire device or system
(Smart boards, smart phones, etc.), you could focus on how technology is used
in a particular setting (health education in developing countries, training for
military tanker maintenance technicians), you could look at delivery systems
(online high schools), or you could look at visualization techniques that rely
on technology (animations of large data sets, conceptual relationships, etc.)
Format: 2-3
pp. description of the technology or approach you chose to investigate. Be sure to describe: (1) The technology
itself; (2) the particular aspects of it that are of interest to you, and why;
(3) what you discovered about its current use (good and bad examples, settings,
etc.); and (4) your assessment of the value of the technology for the
particular purposes you’re interested in.
In addition, the presentation should include at least three annotated
references (using APA format for the citation) from the research literature (or
comparably well-done descriptive pieces, if the approach does not yet have a
history of research associated with it).
You should also include links to positive and negative examples of use
(but these are not research
citations.) You’ll choose your own due
date (between Oct. 12 and Nov. 23) for this assignment during the first class
session. Present in class (as above) and
post the assignment on the GoPost site for presentations before the due date
Due: Throughout the quarter (10/12-11/23); 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 (and/or other document, material,
site, etc., as appropriate to project). Suggested
length: 15 pages or equivalent expenditure of effort.
Due: December
7. 50% of grade.
3. Additional
Course Expectations
(These are really just general
expectations of all graduate students in the College of Education!)
¨
Make yourself familiar with the
UW Library system and specifically with the kinds of resources (print and
electronic) that are available through the libraries. For detailed help, you can email or chat
online with a librarian.
¨ Make
yourself familiar with the computing facilities and services offered by the
University, the College of Education, Catalyst WebTool workshops, 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); community
college, ESD, or school district special interest groups; etc.
¨ Consider
joining one of the professional associations for people in our field (ICLS,
AECT, ISTE, ACM, etc.). Consider
attending (and presenting at) one of their meetings.
¨ Make
it a habit to read the journals in our field regularly.
¨ Assemble
a portfolio of your work (for masters students, this helps at the end of the
program, when you have to present at a Colloquium; for doctoral students, it’s
a professional "calling card."
4. Grading
The various requirements for the course
will be weighted as follows when computing grades:
Participation
in class discussions 10%
Technology
Comparison Assignment 20
Innovative Uses of
Technology Assignment 20
Final
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/pdf/AcademicResponsibility.pdf
6. Full List of Course Readings (both
electronic and handouts):
(NB:
For those currently mastering the arcana of the
Oct. 5
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
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
Looks at the Wikibooks project;
select one text. Will these replace
traditional textbooks?
Look at Karen
Kavett’s How to Identify
Fonts and An Intro
to Typography on YouTube
Oct. 12
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.
[E-Reserve]
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. 19
Glaser, Robert. (1965).
Teaching machines and programmed learning. Washington, DC: NEA, Dept. of Audiovisual
Instruction. Excerpts. [E-Reserve]
Mager, Robert F. Preparing instructional objectives. 2d ed.
Belmont, CA: Fearon.
Excerpts. [E-Reserve]
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. 26
Chu, Godwin C.; Schramm;
Wilbur. (1968). Learning from television: What the
research says. Washington, DC: National
Association of Educational Broadcasters.
Excerpts. [E-Reserve]
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. [E-Reserve]
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. [E-Reserve]
McLuhan, Marshall. (1977).
The Medium is the Message.
Three-part lecture
on YouTube. Watch enough to get the
flavor of McL’s style. (And, if you’ve
not seen it, be sure to watch this brief scene from Annie Hall
– now the title of a new book!)
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. [E-Reserve]
Nov. 2
Papert, Seymour. (1980).
Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books. [E-Reserve]
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
Gee, J. P. (2008).
Video games and embodiment. Games
and Culture, 3(3-4), 253-263. [uw library e-journal]
MacArthur Foundation
(2011). Re-imagining
learning in the 21st century. (Video)
Nov. 9
Ito, M. et al. (2008). Living
and Learning with New Media: Summary of Findings from the Digital Youth Project. MacArthur Foundation.
Lenhart, A., Purcell,
K., Smith, A. & Zickuhr, A.
(2010). Social
media & mobile internet use among teens and young adults. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American
Life Project.
Greenhow, C., Robelia,
B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a
digital age: Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educational Researcher, 38(4),
246-259. [uw
library e-journal; also directly from AERA]
Nov. 16
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
Penga, H., Sua, Y-J.,
Choua, C., & Tsaib, C-C.
(2009). Ubiquitous knowledge
construction: mobile learning re-defined and a conceptual framework. Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, 46(2),171–183. [uw library e-journal]
Nov. 23
Mielke, Keith W. (1990).
Research and development at the Children's Television Workshop. Educational Technology: Research and
Development, 38(4), pp. 7-16. [E-Reserve]
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]
Nov. 30
Leonard, George B. (1968).
Education and ecstasy.
[Selection] New York, NY:
Delacorte Press. [E-Reserve]
KnowledgeWorks Foundation / Future of Ed / 2020
Forecast. (2011).
Partnership for 21st
Century Skills. (2007). Framework
and Maximizing
the Impact.
Turkle, S. (2009).
Simulation and its discontents.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Excerpts. [E-Reserve]
QR Code for EDC&I 510
(in case you want to put the course website on your mobile device!)
STK
9/27/11