The Teacher as Designer ofInstructional Technology:Transcending time andtechnology in designing forglobal teaching and learning David Whittier, EdD Educational Media Technology Program Boston University email@example.com
Predictions about Technology in EducationTeacher as Designer of Instructional Technology – Case studies – Research – History of the field The Unmet Promise of Education TechnologyBy Robert Slavin on September 14, 2011 6:59 AM | Leave a comment
History of Predictions by Non-TeachersFilm:“Books will soon be obsolete in theschools. Scholars will soon be instructedthrough the eye. It is possible to teachevery branch of human knowledge withthe motion picture. Our school systemwill be completely changed in tenyears” (Edison, 1913)
Radio "This is no place to indulge in idle fancies, but it is no imaginary dream to picture the school of tomorrow as an entirely different institution from that of today because of the use of radio in teaching” (1927) (Pittman 1986, 40)
Television"Television will not be simply aluxury entertainment service.Its educational potential isunlimited. It will be the mostpowerful communication tool ofthem all” (Journal of the AER, v. 6, no. 6 - Feb. 1947)
Computer"The computer will blow up the school." (Papert 1984)
Video Games• Video games can reshape education (Feller, 2006)• Games teach team building, multitasking and problem-solving under duress• Scientists call it the next great discovery, a way to captivate students so much they will spend hours learning on their own. Its the new vision of video games
Video Games (continued)The Federation of American Scientists says thatvideo games can redefine education. The theoryis that games teach skills that employers want:analytical thinking, team building, multitaskingand problem-solving under duress(Msnbc, Technology and Science Oct. 18, 2006)
Three Game Changing Tools That WillTransform Education - 2011• Apple IPad• Microsoft Xbox• Promethean ActivBoard Mobile System
Research on Educational Film• Film “will only attain its highest degree of effectiveness when accompanied by good teaching”• The “teacher’s own interest” helped determine effectiveness (Knowlton and Tilton, 1929)
Non-Teachers have their own agenda“Lack of teamwork among the variousconstituencies of film producers, teachers andeducators, historians, business people, andeducational psychologists” contributed tosignificant failure in educational film. (McClusky, 1937)
Television“Television was hurled at teachers.” (Television in Education - 1960s and 70s)“The technology and its initial applications tothe classroom were conceived, planned, andadopted by non-teachers” (Cuban, 1986)
Research was ignored• “It is clear from the available studies thatthey hold significant implications for the useand design of instructional films and relatedmedia.• However, it is a puzzling fact that thisextensive program failed to influence filmproduction” . . . (Lumsdaine, 1961)
Educational TV 1955• St. Louis experiment found that TV instruction could not carry the “complete instructional burden and follow-up instruction by classroom teachers was necessary.”• Pittsburgh Project - effectiveness of televised lessons depend on the quality of the follow-up by teacher (Saettler, 1990, p. 367)
Classroom Teachers are Integral “Some of the most successful uses seem to depend on the studio teacher and the classroom teacher working as a team, toward the same learning goals” Chu & Schramm, (1979)• Classroom teachers are an integral part of the success of educational television• Television can enhance learning under the right conditions
Programmed Instruction (PI)• Programmed instruction plus classroom teaching was more effective than either alone (Denver PS, 1960s, n=6000).• The more enthusiastic the teachers, the better the student work.• However, difficult and time consuming to implement.• Teacher attitudes proved to be a critical factor in the success of PI.
Technology dependent on the skilledTeacher“A well-designed and well produced TV programcan and does teach . . . especially true whenthe medium is in the hands of a skilled teacher” (Cambre, 1988)
Washington Post, April 5, 2007Educational software, a $2 billion-a-yearindustry that has become the darling of schoolsystems across the country, has no significantimpact on student performance, according to astudy by the U.S. Department of Education
2007 Educational Software ResearchA study on the “Effectiveness of reading andmathematics software products: Findings from thefirst student cohort,” (Dynarski et al., 2007),reported no difference in performance onstandardized tests between students who used thesoftware and those who did not.Why Not?
Why Not?1. Emphasis on “products” separate from the teachers who would use them and the processes to plan and implement.2. Behaviorist, or “transmission” model of the software.3. Students used the software largely independently, in a tutorial model, apart from teacher direction.4. No “good links to other study and activities in the classroom as it largely stood alone in roughly 10% of the classroom time in which it was deployed.” (Fitzer et al., 2007)
Conclusion on 2007,$3 million software trial“Puzzling absence of the teacher in the conceptionof the software and its trial.”
A Costly Lesson 2009• “15,000 Birmingham students k-5 were each given a computer, at a cost of $200 apiece. . . It did not take long, however, for several major flaws in this plan to become evident.”• School leaders “negotiated the citys purchase of the computers for $3 million, and that was apparently as far as their thought process went.• Their plan did not include sufficient time, money, or resources to train teachers how to use the laptops or how to incorporate them into the curriculum.”
Teachers should decide“Teachers will alter classroom behavior selectivelyto the degree that certain technologies help them tosolve problems they define as important and avoideroding their classroom authority” (Cuban, 1986)
Patterns in Educational Technology• “The glowing early promises that these technological innovations would revolutionize education failed to materialize.• Most failed because their main objective was to prove that technology was wonderful and they lacked “any theoretical or experimental foundation.” They “quickly faded away” (Saettler, 1990)
Patterns in Educational Technology• Pattern of New Technology in Education: • Extravagant Predictions • Exaggerated Claims
The “Teacher as Designer ofInstructional Technology” (TDIT)• Responds to historical lessons learned by putting teachers in charge of producing their own resources.• ED-101 educates pre-service teachers (PST) to integrate technology into processes of teaching by producing instructional Websites.• University required technology lab linked to field placement.• Supervising classroom teacher is PST’s client for technology lab Web development.
Teachers Understand Best• The constraints imposed by time, skills, logistics, real life, schedules and buildings. Teachers understand best the need for assimilation, individualization and differentiation among their students• “Contextually Constrained Choice” (Cuban, 2001)
Measuring History• Two-part questionnaire assessing participating pre-service teacher’s self- reported knowledge of:• Part 1. Technology and Curriculum Integration Competencies (13 items) and• Part 2. Common Teaching Practices (5 items)
ED 101 pre/post over 10 semesters 2005-2011 Part 1. Technology and Part 2. Common Teaching Curriculum Integration Practices (5 items)Competencies (13 items)
From year 1 (ED101) to year 4 (STv) 24% Decline Slight Increase
Teacher as Designer of InstructionalTechnology - Transcends Time andTechnologies• Putting teachers in charge of educational technology creates highest probability of effectiveness regardless of the technology in use.
Your Objectives for Global LearnersIdentify how to leverage emerging mobiletechnologies, Web 2.0 technologies, and Web-basedcomputing in general to engage learners locally andat a distance who can benefit from being linked,regardless of time and place.
To Contribute Go To:• http://goo.gl/UGxdr• http://goo.gl/UGxdr.qr