...definitions.. seems like an easy topic when we are in undergrad or completely science based. Hydrogen..pretty simple. Water? A bit more complicated but still something concrete.
What about understanding a rather more abstract word like "throw"? In our usual context it might mean to cause to take flight manually I suppose. It might also mean a woven blanket to another person. And if you are in Computer Sciences, it might mean to deliver a concept between programs. You can imagine how "throwing something out" gets confusing.
So how will "Educational Technology" ever be adequately defined? The Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) has proposed one definition.
"Educational technology is the study and ethical practice of facilitating and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological process and resources."
AECT goes on to define all the operative words within the 2008 re-definition. Denis Hlynka, for one, has rebutted with some very cogent arguments albeit from a personal perspective with a sample size of one.
I think that the proposed definition tries to be more than one thing and ultimately, while cleverly crafted, sounds at odds with itself. It tries to disavow the idea of the noun "technology" as restricted to a piece of hardware and expand it to the more abstract concept of "study". Adding the word Theory into Educational Technology (E.T.) might assist in pulling away from the commonly held, industrial based, and computer centric public impression.
While the idea of adding the word theory, or theory and practice, is not a hill to die on, there is a more significant flaw in the definiton that restricts the potential breadth of vision that those with " stars in their eyes" (Beckwith, 1988) must not accept. Is learning not more than improving performance? The athletic metaphor or the industrialist factory image immediately comes to mind and restricts the true spirit of innovation except in the area where it can be measured by efficiencies gained. Is there an underlying hiddden curriculum in these words that subtley demonstrates the conflict between the quantitative and the qualitative researchers? Does it not serve to sustain the myth that quantitative measurement is the only legitimate method of demonstrating value?
By limiting the definition to performance, educational technologists restrict their study and reflection to measurable, applied science outcomes. It will continue to anchor the field of study rather than inspire creativity. At the very least, the idea of improving performance must be qualified further to include an explicit statement about qualitative scholarly outcomes or remove the limiting words altogether.
It's time for E.T. to ride up into those stars.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dr. D,
ReplyDeleteI appreciated your post and was drawn to your comments about the term "performance." Similar to Hlynka you question the use of the term "performance" in the definition. However, it wasn't until I read your post that I began thinking about the quantitative implications the term "performance" may have on some audiences. The writing committee defines performance in several ways using terms such as "deep learning" and "applied contexts." I believe the indicators for success can be supported through both quantitative and qualitative methods. What do you think about modifying the phrase "facilitating learning" to "facilitating deep learning" and removing "improving performance" in the definition?
Barb
Barb... the committee did a good job in reviewing the definitions of the terms and their expanded discussion did include a broader scope of their view of performance. Nonetheless, the vernacular of "performance" is rife with metaphorical images of Nike, Adidas or possibly a staged performance. (Now that would be an interesting thread...are all performances "staged"?).
ReplyDeleteI would favour the removal of the "IP" and then would allow others to add adjectives as they saw fit.