The Educational Technology Masters Program at Oklahoma State University (OSU) empowers students to discover and develop fluency with the effective partnership of instructional design (Plomp 2007) and educational technology. The Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) has provided several definitions of educational technology ("Reflections on the 2008 AECT Definitions of the Field," 2008). The most current states “Educational Technology is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources” ("Reflections on the 2008 AECT Definitions of the Field," 2008). The AECT has published a set of standards guiding professionals in the field in areas of content knowledge, content pedagogy, learning environments, professional knowledge and skills, and research. Creating, Using, Assessing/Evaluating, Managing, and Ethics are provided as indicators for each of the standards. Coursework associated with the OSU Educational Technology (EDTC) department is aligned with and guided by the AECT standards. Appropriately creating within the field of educational technology has many aspects ("Reflections on the 2008 AECT Definitions of the Field," 2008) and is best accomplished in partnership with intentional instructional design. Using the ADDIE system (analyze, design, develop, implement, and evaluate) I created a hybrid course through which students might engage in the arts through digital music technology. Guided by the ADDIE system, I considered instructional goals, learner characteristics, required resources, and the appropriate delivery system. Built into the design are opportunities for evaluation of the course for incorporation of potential revisions. Engaging in the coursework and discussions expanded my content knowledge in the field of educational technology and my understanding of how and when associated content is best used (Baird & Fisher, 2005). That understanding guided my decision to design the course for hybrid presentation (Al-Qahtani & Higgins, 2013), as research indicates blended learning designs result in slightly stronger learner outcomes than those presented face to face or fully online (Al-Qahtani & Higgins, 2013). As Web 2.0 resources afford opportunity for increased student participation, collaboration, and creativity (Ullrich et al., 2008) considered valuable for effective learning environments (Albert, 2015; Callaghan, 2016), I incorporated their generous use into my course design. The credibility of each source was carefully evaluated; determination of author, date of creation, frequency of updates, and other indicators were used for this evaluation (Schrock, 1998). When using others' resources throughout the course, appropriate credit and citations are given (Schrock, 1998). Important in creating the course was consideration of whether use of a digital technology resource best afforded learner construction of knowledge (Parrish, 2009). When suggested for use, digital technology resources were aligned with learning theories, specifically constructivism, in which students work through learning experiences reflective of authentic, real-life situations to construct learning (Schunk, 2016) and connectivism, which speaks to the growth of ideas which can occur as individuals interact (Dillenbourg, 2016). To facilitate critical thinking, opportunities for reflection occur throughout the course (Schunk, 2016). Student access to digital resources is of critical consideration when designing courses. Research indicates the presence of a digital divide, possibly on several levels (Ghobadi & Ghobadi, 2015). Elements of the digital divide related to the socio-economic level of the learning population may be alleviated through the use of open educational resources (OER). OER resources allow for revision, reuse, remixing, redistribution, and retention, and may mitigate financial restrictions inherent in the use of more stringently copyrighted materials (Wiley, Green, & Soares, 2012; Wiley, III, Ellington, & Hall, 2012). Perhaps most importantly, the OSU EDTC graduate courses helped me experience and internalize the value of collaboration (Schunk, 2016). It has been a privilege to work alongside talented peers and dedicated professors to, well, learn about learning. Having experienced the reality of being better together, I am eager to apply what I have discovered, share what I have learned, and be part of research which continues to enhance the effectiveness of the field (Reeves, 2006). I will continue to intentionally plan, expedite, and evaluate educational experiences of which I am a part. I will reflect what has been modeled for me throughout this program and demonstrate integrity in respecting my colleagues, students, and the ideas of others. References Al-Qahtani, A. A. y., & Higgins, S. E. (2013). Effects of traditional, blended and e-learning on students' achievement in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(3), 220-234. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00490.x
Albert, D. J. (2015). Social Media in Music Education. Music Educators Journal, 102(2), 31-38. doi:10.1177/0027432115606976 Baird, D. E., & Fisher, M. (2005). Neomillennial User Experience Design Strategies: Utilizing Social Networking Media to Support “Always on” Learning Styles. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 34(1), 5-32. doi:10.2190/6wmw-47l0-m81q-12g1 Callaghan, N. (2016). Investigating the role of Minecraft in educational learning environments. Educational Media International, 53(4), 244-260. doi:10.1080/09523987.2016.1254877 Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813-834. Cullen, R. (2001). Addressing the digital divide. Online Information Review, 25(5), 311-320. doi:10.1108/14684520110410517 Dillenbourg, P. (2016). The Evolution of Research on Digital Education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(2), 544-560. doi:10.1007/s40593-016-0106-z Ghobadi, S., & Ghobadi, Z. (2015). How access gaps interact and shape digital divide: a cognitive investigation. Behaviour & Information Technology, 34(4), 330-340. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2013.833650 Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (2008). Definition: Definition and Terminology Committee of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Educational Technology: A Definition with Commentary (2nd ed., pp. 1-14). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Owston, R. (1997). The world wide web: A technology to enhance teaching and learning? Educational Researcher, 26(2), 27-33. Parrish, P. (2009). Asthetic principles for instructional design. Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 57(4), 511-528. Plomp , T. (2007). Educational design research: An introduction. Reeves, T. C. (2006). Design research from a technology perspective. Reflections on the 2008 AECT Definitions of the Field. (2008). TechTrends, 52(1), 24-25. doi:10.1007/s11528-008-0108-2 Schrock, K. (1998). Separating the wheat from the chaff: How to tell the good sites from the bad. Internet Trend Watch for Libraries, 3(2). Schunk. (2016). Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective (Seventh Edition ed.). Boston: Pearson. Ullrich, C., Borau, K., Luo, H., Tan, X., Shen, L., & Shen, R. (2008). Why web 2.0 is good for learning and for research: principles and prototypes. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th international conference on World Wide Web, Beijing, China. Wiley, D., Green, C., & Soares, L. (2012). Dramatically bringing down the cost of education with OER. Center for American Progress. Wiley, D., III, J. L. H., Ellington, S., & Hall, T. (2012). A preliminary examination of the cost savings and learning impacts of using open textbooks in middle and high school science classes. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(3), 262-276.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
February 2018
Categories |