From the two assigned readings of van Merriënboer and de Bruin (2014) and Lowyck (2014), it has become clear that in education, the knowledge that gained the biggest spotlight is now driving what most educators know and accept as fact in regards to educational technology (e.g., if a trusted educational technology company states their fact that their new product is going to help close the achievement gap of low-level readers while also providing their research to back up their claim, people may just accept it without question based on that company’s reputation). That is not to say that the spotlight always was shining on the most correct understanding of how educational technology works or how it benefits those who integrate it into their work, rather that generations have been influenced and may have misconceptions in regards to best practices with educational technologies.
Lowyck summarized five observations on paradigms and perspectives on learning. In his first observation, “Observation 1: Evolutions in Society and Education Have Influenced the Selection and Use of Learning Theories and Technologies”, he argued that in today’s intellectual society, with access to all of the research that is available, policy makers still lack a strong foundational knowledge in educational technology (Lowyck, 2014, p. 5). Through his observations, he questioned “policy makers and their unrealistic expectations due to lacking of knowledge of the multidimensionality of technological solutions for education” (Lowyck, 2014, p. 5). He was not saying that policy makers are looking for a simple solution to a complex problem, rather their lack of knowledge misguides decisions for purchasing technology adoptions on simple solutions for complex problems. Businesses are in business to make money and the understanding of marketing is part of the business model. This leads educational leaders, and policy makers, down wrong and/or misguided paths to improve student learning and achievement through educational technology.
Similarly, van Merriënboer and de Bruin (2014) made an argument that eight different paradigms strongly influence specific learning theories due to a particular focus and research within each perspective. They did not state that any one specific paradigm is right or wrong, but rather that they are all not right and/or wrong. Merriënboer and de Bruin continued to explain that “... the universe of instructional theories is practically infinite and each instructional theory is dealing with only a small fraction of the whole universe” (van Merriënboer & de Bruin, 2014, p. 23). It makes sense that prominent paradigms reach the majority of educators as their popularity far outweighs the others. The blending of these paradigms needs to occur for educators to truly have a better, and more complete understanding of the, as the title says, research paradigms and perspectives on learning.
In regards to the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) standards for students, there is a direct connection linking the first standard to the last. The first standard, 1.1 Empowered Learner states “Students leverage technology to take an active role in choosing, achieving, and demonstrating competency in their learning goals, informed by the learning sciences” (International Society for Technology in Education, 2016, p. 1). The standards start off the student learners by empowering them as independent and collaborative learners so that each student can improve his/her learning through the use of educational technology. Once students feel successful, and confident, in the use and manipulation of the technology, the other standards become building blocks guiding them to the final standard, 1.7 - Global Collaborator. Ideally, a student will now “... be prepared to thrive in a constantly evolving technological landscape…” in which the landscape refers to a global community of learners (International Society for Technology in Education, 2016, p. 2). As educators, it is desirable to have students be able to communicate collaboratively with anyone in the world. As the students progress through the ISTE standards, they will become closer to achieving global collaboration.
Now, while students progress through the ISTE standards, education has not always been in the leading forefront of educational technology. Educators may have good intentions and try their best, but it should be noted that just access to technology is not the answer. It helps, but more must be done. Placing a computer screen in front of a student or a tablet in the hands of a child does not mean or should be implied that learning will naturally occur.
All of the videos assigned reiterate the ideas that what is known about educational technology is ever-changing. The information known 100 years ago was cutting edge at that time. People knew what they knew until it was questioned while new technology was developed and integrated over time. People thought that the introduction of blackboards would be terrible for education. The same was true for whiteboards, smartboards, iPads, laptops, and on and on. Kirschner and Hendrick (2021) suggested within their video that Silicon Valley has a very specific narrative that “there is something very fundamentally broken with education. Schools are disastrous for children and they are bored out of their minds. What they need is a little bit of Silicon Valley fairy dust sprinkled over them” (Festival of Education UK, 2021, 19:48). To be clear, they did not agree with this proposed Silicon Valley narrative, rather go as far as stating that it is the “teachers inspiring and enthusing students in a very relational way without using gimmicks or tricks” (Festival of Education UK, 2021, 20:36). I agree that it is the teachers who use their tools, whatever they may be, to help build their relationships with their students over building the technology lesson to teach their students who will positively reach more of their students and thus promote a better and conducive learning environment that truly influences student learners and achievers. I like to think that I am one of those teachers - one who builds positive and professional learning relationships over those who just bring in technology because it may be exciting to students.
Of course, after reading these assigned chapters and articles, looking at the ISTE standards, and viewing the videos, I am led to internal questions. If there is not a simple solution to a complex problem that will make learning happen, do educators stop looking for the next new possible solution? Is it possible that the most important part of improving student learning and achievement is not on a screen but rather the person behind the student who is looking at the screen? What are best practices that align instructional/educational technology within a positive classroom environment that focuses on student-to-student and student-to-teacher relationships? In light of all of this, I believe it is time to look at what my vision for teaching and learning with technology is going to look like going forward.
As I began my quest for a specialist degree, one of my assignments was to develop a vision for teaching and learning with technology. It was very heavily focused on instructional technology, 21st-century skills, a mention of furthering digital I.Q. and focusing on students improving their deeper understanding of technology standards. I feel now is the time to strongly consider a new vision that focuses more on positive relationships while utilizing technology tools if they can enhance the learning and achievement of my students. I firmly believe that students will want to do better for people who believe in them. I know I will put more effort in for people who believe in me - there is no difference in my mind. I do not need an assignment to direct me to update my vision, as it is obvious that, just like prescription glasses and contacts, educators need a checkup from time to time to ensure a clear vision.
References
Festival of Education UK. (2021, June 30). Keynote | Paul Kirschner & Carl Hendrick [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/qt0Xbh88tsM
International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). ISTE standards for students. https://www.iste.org/standards/iste-standards-for-students
Lowyck, J. (2014). Bridging learning theories and technology-enhanced environments: A critical appraisal of its history. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 3-20). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_1
van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & de Bruin, A. B. H. (2014). Research paradigms and perspectives on learning. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 21-29). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_25
Lowyck summarized five observations on paradigms and perspectives on learning. In his first observation, “Observation 1: Evolutions in Society and Education Have Influenced the Selection and Use of Learning Theories and Technologies”, he argued that in today’s intellectual society, with access to all of the research that is available, policy makers still lack a strong foundational knowledge in educational technology (Lowyck, 2014, p. 5). Through his observations, he questioned “policy makers and their unrealistic expectations due to lacking of knowledge of the multidimensionality of technological solutions for education” (Lowyck, 2014, p. 5). He was not saying that policy makers are looking for a simple solution to a complex problem, rather their lack of knowledge misguides decisions for purchasing technology adoptions on simple solutions for complex problems. Businesses are in business to make money and the understanding of marketing is part of the business model. This leads educational leaders, and policy makers, down wrong and/or misguided paths to improve student learning and achievement through educational technology.
Similarly, van Merriënboer and de Bruin (2014) made an argument that eight different paradigms strongly influence specific learning theories due to a particular focus and research within each perspective. They did not state that any one specific paradigm is right or wrong, but rather that they are all not right and/or wrong. Merriënboer and de Bruin continued to explain that “... the universe of instructional theories is practically infinite and each instructional theory is dealing with only a small fraction of the whole universe” (van Merriënboer & de Bruin, 2014, p. 23). It makes sense that prominent paradigms reach the majority of educators as their popularity far outweighs the others. The blending of these paradigms needs to occur for educators to truly have a better, and more complete understanding of the, as the title says, research paradigms and perspectives on learning.
In regards to the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) standards for students, there is a direct connection linking the first standard to the last. The first standard, 1.1 Empowered Learner states “Students leverage technology to take an active role in choosing, achieving, and demonstrating competency in their learning goals, informed by the learning sciences” (International Society for Technology in Education, 2016, p. 1). The standards start off the student learners by empowering them as independent and collaborative learners so that each student can improve his/her learning through the use of educational technology. Once students feel successful, and confident, in the use and manipulation of the technology, the other standards become building blocks guiding them to the final standard, 1.7 - Global Collaborator. Ideally, a student will now “... be prepared to thrive in a constantly evolving technological landscape…” in which the landscape refers to a global community of learners (International Society for Technology in Education, 2016, p. 2). As educators, it is desirable to have students be able to communicate collaboratively with anyone in the world. As the students progress through the ISTE standards, they will become closer to achieving global collaboration.
Now, while students progress through the ISTE standards, education has not always been in the leading forefront of educational technology. Educators may have good intentions and try their best, but it should be noted that just access to technology is not the answer. It helps, but more must be done. Placing a computer screen in front of a student or a tablet in the hands of a child does not mean or should be implied that learning will naturally occur.
All of the videos assigned reiterate the ideas that what is known about educational technology is ever-changing. The information known 100 years ago was cutting edge at that time. People knew what they knew until it was questioned while new technology was developed and integrated over time. People thought that the introduction of blackboards would be terrible for education. The same was true for whiteboards, smartboards, iPads, laptops, and on and on. Kirschner and Hendrick (2021) suggested within their video that Silicon Valley has a very specific narrative that “there is something very fundamentally broken with education. Schools are disastrous for children and they are bored out of their minds. What they need is a little bit of Silicon Valley fairy dust sprinkled over them” (Festival of Education UK, 2021, 19:48). To be clear, they did not agree with this proposed Silicon Valley narrative, rather go as far as stating that it is the “teachers inspiring and enthusing students in a very relational way without using gimmicks or tricks” (Festival of Education UK, 2021, 20:36). I agree that it is the teachers who use their tools, whatever they may be, to help build their relationships with their students over building the technology lesson to teach their students who will positively reach more of their students and thus promote a better and conducive learning environment that truly influences student learners and achievers. I like to think that I am one of those teachers - one who builds positive and professional learning relationships over those who just bring in technology because it may be exciting to students.
Of course, after reading these assigned chapters and articles, looking at the ISTE standards, and viewing the videos, I am led to internal questions. If there is not a simple solution to a complex problem that will make learning happen, do educators stop looking for the next new possible solution? Is it possible that the most important part of improving student learning and achievement is not on a screen but rather the person behind the student who is looking at the screen? What are best practices that align instructional/educational technology within a positive classroom environment that focuses on student-to-student and student-to-teacher relationships? In light of all of this, I believe it is time to look at what my vision for teaching and learning with technology is going to look like going forward.
As I began my quest for a specialist degree, one of my assignments was to develop a vision for teaching and learning with technology. It was very heavily focused on instructional technology, 21st-century skills, a mention of furthering digital I.Q. and focusing on students improving their deeper understanding of technology standards. I feel now is the time to strongly consider a new vision that focuses more on positive relationships while utilizing technology tools if they can enhance the learning and achievement of my students. I firmly believe that students will want to do better for people who believe in them. I know I will put more effort in for people who believe in me - there is no difference in my mind. I do not need an assignment to direct me to update my vision, as it is obvious that, just like prescription glasses and contacts, educators need a checkup from time to time to ensure a clear vision.
References
Festival of Education UK. (2021, June 30). Keynote | Paul Kirschner & Carl Hendrick [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/qt0Xbh88tsM
International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). ISTE standards for students. https://www.iste.org/standards/iste-standards-for-students
Lowyck, J. (2014). Bridging learning theories and technology-enhanced environments: A critical appraisal of its history. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 3-20). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_1
van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & de Bruin, A. B. H. (2014). Research paradigms and perspectives on learning. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 21-29). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_25