A long-established principle within instructional systems design is to be complete and clear in analyzing learning needs and transforming those needs into learning goals and objectives (Dick, Carey, & Carey, 2009). It can and does happen, however, that a careful needs assessment can fail to uncover unstated goals. I recall an effort involving the development of a computer-based lesson for Air Force electronics training. Such training for newly recruited enlisted personnel took place at a Technical Training Center where senior enlisted personnel (non-commissioned officers; NCOs) led face-to-face lessons. The needs assessment was motivated by the lack of available of senior NCOs. The requirement then became to replace some of the instructor-led lessons with computer-based lessons. For the targeted subject matter, this was relatively easy as the things to be learned were primarily concepts pertaining to electronics along with some simple procedures to perform diagnostic tests. When a first prototype of a representative lesson had been constructed, the training commander rejected it because it did not include any of the behaviors and demeanor of senior NCOs. The designer’s natural question was “What does that have to do with electronics?” The commander replied that one goal of basic electronics training was to show recently recruited personnel how enlisted personnel were expected to behave. Fortunately, the change to include modeling NCO behavior was easily incorporated into the computer-based lessons using video clips.
What is happening in public schools in this era of high stakes testing and accountability? The needs assessments and content analyses have supposedly been conducted and specific learning objectives developed. Test items are allegedly linked to those learning objectives. Schools and teachers are evaluated based on how well the children do on standardized tests. I am wondering how this emphasis on high stakes testing is transforming our educational system. Objectives should also be linked to overall goals and not simply linked to the analysis of content. What are the goals that we expect of an educational system? Would we not like children who spend twelve or more years in school to develop certain behaviors that might be associated with responsible citizenship? Might there be a parallel in public school settings with the situation in technical training? Might we want children to see responsible adult behavior and have them begin to act accordingly just as the training commander wanted new recruits to see exemplary military behavior and to begin to act accordingly? What is not being tested and, as a consequence, not being rewarded in this era of high stakes testing? Do we test how well a child gets along with others? Do we test how collaborative a child is? Do we test a child’s ability to think critically and act ethically? Would we like such things to be part of a child’s education? If so, why are they not tested or emphasized in the same way that reading skills are tested? The notion of a progressive education that emphasized critical thinking, inquiry, and social responsibility (Dewey, 1938) seems to be altogether missing in the current environment of high stakes testing.
My small thought on this subject is just this: be careful what you wish for because you just might get it. The No Child Left Behind Act (http://ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml) and the associated incentives seem designed to bring about an educational system in which children do learn to read and solve standard mathematical problems. Is such a system designed to foster life-long reading and encourage careers in complex and challenging areas such as quantum mechanics or astrophysics? That remains to be seen but the early evidence suggests that high school graduates in the USA are still not seeking higher education and careers in critical areas of science, technology, engineering or mathematics. Moreover, the high-school drop-out rate is alarmingly high (AEA, 2009) as is the juvenile crime rate (http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/). Is this not troubling?
I am not suggesting that we ought to reward teachers whose students complete bachelors degrees in STEM subjects and do not commit crimes. This may not be such a bad idea, but it is certainly not simple to implement and it would surely introduce other disparities into an already complex educational system. What I am suggesting is that military commanders did trust their NCOs to model exemplary behavior and instill high standards of demeanor in recruits. Perhaps we should trust out teachers to model socially responsible behavior and instill high standards of demeanor in their students. Perhaps we could also trust our teachers to instill a sense of inquiry and other desirable habits of the mind. Maybe we ought to trust our teachers rather than treat them like servers in a cafeteria.
References
AEA (Alliance for Excellent Education) (2009). High school dropouts in America. Washington, DC: Allilance for Excellent Education. Retrieved from http://www.all4ed.org/files/GraduationRates_FactSheet.pdf April 20, 2010
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.
Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O, (2009). The systematic design of instruction (7th ed.). Columbus, OH: Allyn & Bacon.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Scientific Terminology
Feedback on the third edition of the Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (Spector, Merrill, van Merriënboer & Driscoll, 2008) suggests that there is a need to clarify basic scientific terminology, such as ‘theory’, ‘model’, ‘principle’ and ‘hypothesis’. A discussion at the 2009 AECT Session on “Building the Scientific Mind” led by Jan Visser suggests that additional terms also require clarification – namely, ‘perspective’, ‘approach’, ‘framework’, and ‘implication’. The editors of the 4th edition of the Handbook (Mike Spector, Dave Merrill, M. J. Bishop, and Jan Elen) are discussing having a chapter devoted to the use of these scientific terms in the context of instructional design and educational technology research. Meanwhile, I thought I might venture into this terrain myself to see where I might trip or falter.
These terms are the source of confusion and misunderstanding outside the domain of educational research as well. For example, the word ‘theory’ has an everyday, non-scientific use that is roughly equivalent to ‘supposition’. A person discussing why gasoline prices are high with another might say something like this: “My theory is that the oil companies are being greedy and manipulating prices to maximize profits.” That person could have used ‘supposition’ or ‘guess’ or ‘hunch’ or perhaps ‘belief’. In this case, the word ‘theory’ is used to refer to a particular claim. In science, ‘theory’ typically refers to a body of knowledge represented by a set of related claims. Moreover, a scientific theory typically has implications for what might happen in the future in addition to providing a basis for explanations of observed phenomena.
In short, the word ‘theory’ has a very different meaning when used in the context of scientific inquiry. In science, a theory is generally regarded as a set of well-established statements and principles that are used to explain groups of facts or a range of observed phenomena. The confusion about these two meanings of ‘theory’ is most evident in debates about the theory of evolution. Certain religious groups who advocate creationism use the word ‘theory’ in the informal, non-scientific sense when referring to the theory of evolution. Biologists and other scientists use the word ‘theory’ in the phrase ‘theory of evolution’ in the second sense. In effect, the two groups are talking about different things. It is worth adding that scientists are interested in explaining many observed facts, such as genetic changes in populations of organisms over successive generations and long periods of time. Moreover, two major processes comprise the modern theory of evolution – natural selection and genetic drift or mutation. Evolutionary biologists can explain a large number of observed facts and make predictions with regard to as yet unobserved phenomena. Creationists, on the other hand, are not trying to explain any particular set of facts. Rather, they are advocating a particular religious doctrine (or a specific claim) with regard to the origin of all things.
A further difference is that scientific claims, including scientific theories, are generally subject to refutation; that is to say that the scientist making a claim or defending a theory is, in principle, willing to be shown that the claim is wrong or the theory wrong-headed. The willingness and readiness to be wrong is what makes scientific progress possible (Popper, 1963, 1972). Kuhn (1962) and others argue that scientific theories are quite resistant to change and scientists are not nearly as willing as Popper suggests to embrace refutation of a long-held or well-established theory. In spite of such variations within the scientific community, I shall proceed with the scientific notion of ‘theory’ while acknowledging variations in interpretation.
In these notes, I am interested in the scientific use of ‘theory’ as it pertains to instructional design and educational technology research. Reigeluth (1983) notes that instructional design theory is primarily prescriptive in nature, rather than being descriptive in the way that learning theory is. For example, a cognitive theory of learning might involve a set of related claims about the role of mental models and schema in the development of expertise and understanding. Descriptive claim within a mental model theory of learning might be that (a) people construct internal representations to make sense of new or unexplained phenomena, and (b) these internal representations are created just when needed and are relatively transitory. Both claims are descriptive and could in principle shown to be wrong. An instructional design theory that builds on mental model theory might include, for example, these claims: (a) learners who do not have pre-existing experience with or knowledge in a particular area will progress more rapidly if provided an elaborated version of an expert’s mental model, and (b) learners with significant prior knowledge and experience will be inhibited or slowed down when presented an expert model in the course of designing a solution to a complex problem situation. These claims are prescriptive in the sense that they suggest how best to support learning, and, like descriptive claims, they could turn out to be wrong.
I want to work from the inside out – that is to say I want to consider a claim in educational technology research and then work backwards toward principles, models and theories that might be relevant.
A Claim: Attrition in first-year college calculus courses for non-mathematics majors is high because students do not see any relevance of calculus in their daily lives on in their careers. Note that I am not suggesting that this claim is true; in fact, it assumes facts not yet accepted – namely, that attrition in such courses is higher than in other courses. The instructional design claim that follows this claim would be something like this: First-year college calculus courses for non-mathematics majors will have a reduced attrition rate if issues of relevance are addressed early and throughout the course.
A Principle: What body of relevant instructional design knowledge might be relevant? What existing instructional design principles could be invoked to support the claim that devoting explicit time to issues of relevance will improve attrition? One might cite the first of Gagné’s (1985) nine events of instruction – namely, gain and maintain the attention of the learner in order to make learning effective. Citing relevance of what is to be learned might be one way to do this. Another principle that might be cited could be one of Merrill’s (2002) first principles of instruction – namely, help the learner integrate what has been learned into daily activities. Both principles suggest what can be done to help make learning activities more effective. As with other principles, either or both may turn out not to make a significant difference in terms of learning outcomes in particular contexts.
A Model: A model goes beyond principles and might be conceived of a bridge between a theory and a set of principles. A model can guide the articulation and instantiation of principles within the context of a particular theory. Both of the principles cited previously have associated models. Gagné (1985) presented nine events and subsequently articulated a model for implementing those events (Gagné, 1993). In that model, Gagné argued that the nine events did not need to occur in any particular order and they could often be grouped into three phases of instruction and treated together (set-up phase, primary presentation phase, resolution phase). Likewise, Merrill’s principle is one of five that include centering instruction around problems, activating prior knowledge (of individual or groups of learners), demonstrating new knowledge, applying the new knowledge to practical problems (whole tasks) with opportunities to practice with feedback, and helping learners integrate new knowledge in their daily lives or professional activities. In both cases, the individual principles are parts of a prescriptive model intended to guide the creation of effective learning. These sets of principles, with their interconnections and relationships one to another, comprise a model. At least that represents one kind of instructional model.
A Theory: The difference models and theories may be difficult to establish in the domain of instructional design and educational technology. For example, cognitive apprenticeship (Collins, 1991) is sometimes called an instructional design theory, sometimes an instructional design model, and sometimes an instructional design method. I am inclined to think of cognitive apprenticeship as another model comprised of a set of principles – that is to say that I view cognitive apprenticeship as more akin to Gagné’s nine events and Merrill’s first principles. A theory that might be associated with these three models (Gagné’s nine events, Merrill’s first principles, and Collins’ cognitive apprenticeship) might be situated theory (Lave & Wenger, 1990). Situated learning postulates, in one sense, that learning that is situated within a meaningful problem solving context, will be more effective than learning that is disassociated from meaningful problem solving contexts. This is a prescriptive theory. It is closely associated with and linked to a descriptive theory about learning – namely, the notion that people create internal representations in order to make sense of puzzling situations and new experiences. In other words, meaning is created or constructed in the context of specific situations. Meaning is context sensitive, in that sense. My general point is that a prescriptive instructional design theory could and probably should be motivated by a closely associated and established descriptive theory of learning.
Concluding Remarks
While these remarks may seem focused on individual words, my concern is not with particular words but, rather, with the thinking associated with scientific inquiry in instructional design and educational technology. My elaboration of these terms is probably naïve and perhaps wrongheaded on key points. I hope others will provide insights and improved representations. I do believe that we need to be careful in our use of scientific terminology. An instructional design theory should represent a set of well-established principles which can be used to generate prescriptions for designing effective learning support in a variety of circumstances. There may well exist many instructional design models (Andrews and Goodson, 1980), but one would expect there to be only a small number of instructional design theories. We need to take the scientific aspects of our instructional design and educational technologies activities seriously. I believe this because I believe that progress in instructional design and educational technology will depend on adopting principled, evidence-based approaches rather than relying on loosely held beliefs and advocating positions that are in vogue.
References
Andrews, D. H., & Goodson, L. A. (1980). A comparative analysis of models of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 3(4), 2-16.
Collins, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology. In L. Idol & B.F. Jones (Eds.), Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implication for reform (pp. 121-138). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.) New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Gagné, R. M. (1993). Computer-based instructional guidance. In J. M. Spector, M. C. Polson, & D. J. Muraida (Eds.), Automated instructional design: Concepts and issues (pp. 133-146). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated learning: Legitimate periperal participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research & Development, 50(3), 43-59.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge.
Popper, K. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.) (1983). Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Spector, J. M., Merrill, M. D., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Driscoll, M. (Eds.) (2008). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
These terms are the source of confusion and misunderstanding outside the domain of educational research as well. For example, the word ‘theory’ has an everyday, non-scientific use that is roughly equivalent to ‘supposition’. A person discussing why gasoline prices are high with another might say something like this: “My theory is that the oil companies are being greedy and manipulating prices to maximize profits.” That person could have used ‘supposition’ or ‘guess’ or ‘hunch’ or perhaps ‘belief’. In this case, the word ‘theory’ is used to refer to a particular claim. In science, ‘theory’ typically refers to a body of knowledge represented by a set of related claims. Moreover, a scientific theory typically has implications for what might happen in the future in addition to providing a basis for explanations of observed phenomena.
In short, the word ‘theory’ has a very different meaning when used in the context of scientific inquiry. In science, a theory is generally regarded as a set of well-established statements and principles that are used to explain groups of facts or a range of observed phenomena. The confusion about these two meanings of ‘theory’ is most evident in debates about the theory of evolution. Certain religious groups who advocate creationism use the word ‘theory’ in the informal, non-scientific sense when referring to the theory of evolution. Biologists and other scientists use the word ‘theory’ in the phrase ‘theory of evolution’ in the second sense. In effect, the two groups are talking about different things. It is worth adding that scientists are interested in explaining many observed facts, such as genetic changes in populations of organisms over successive generations and long periods of time. Moreover, two major processes comprise the modern theory of evolution – natural selection and genetic drift or mutation. Evolutionary biologists can explain a large number of observed facts and make predictions with regard to as yet unobserved phenomena. Creationists, on the other hand, are not trying to explain any particular set of facts. Rather, they are advocating a particular religious doctrine (or a specific claim) with regard to the origin of all things.
A further difference is that scientific claims, including scientific theories, are generally subject to refutation; that is to say that the scientist making a claim or defending a theory is, in principle, willing to be shown that the claim is wrong or the theory wrong-headed. The willingness and readiness to be wrong is what makes scientific progress possible (Popper, 1963, 1972). Kuhn (1962) and others argue that scientific theories are quite resistant to change and scientists are not nearly as willing as Popper suggests to embrace refutation of a long-held or well-established theory. In spite of such variations within the scientific community, I shall proceed with the scientific notion of ‘theory’ while acknowledging variations in interpretation.
In these notes, I am interested in the scientific use of ‘theory’ as it pertains to instructional design and educational technology research. Reigeluth (1983) notes that instructional design theory is primarily prescriptive in nature, rather than being descriptive in the way that learning theory is. For example, a cognitive theory of learning might involve a set of related claims about the role of mental models and schema in the development of expertise and understanding. Descriptive claim within a mental model theory of learning might be that (a) people construct internal representations to make sense of new or unexplained phenomena, and (b) these internal representations are created just when needed and are relatively transitory. Both claims are descriptive and could in principle shown to be wrong. An instructional design theory that builds on mental model theory might include, for example, these claims: (a) learners who do not have pre-existing experience with or knowledge in a particular area will progress more rapidly if provided an elaborated version of an expert’s mental model, and (b) learners with significant prior knowledge and experience will be inhibited or slowed down when presented an expert model in the course of designing a solution to a complex problem situation. These claims are prescriptive in the sense that they suggest how best to support learning, and, like descriptive claims, they could turn out to be wrong.
I want to work from the inside out – that is to say I want to consider a claim in educational technology research and then work backwards toward principles, models and theories that might be relevant.
A Claim: Attrition in first-year college calculus courses for non-mathematics majors is high because students do not see any relevance of calculus in their daily lives on in their careers. Note that I am not suggesting that this claim is true; in fact, it assumes facts not yet accepted – namely, that attrition in such courses is higher than in other courses. The instructional design claim that follows this claim would be something like this: First-year college calculus courses for non-mathematics majors will have a reduced attrition rate if issues of relevance are addressed early and throughout the course.
A Principle: What body of relevant instructional design knowledge might be relevant? What existing instructional design principles could be invoked to support the claim that devoting explicit time to issues of relevance will improve attrition? One might cite the first of Gagné’s (1985) nine events of instruction – namely, gain and maintain the attention of the learner in order to make learning effective. Citing relevance of what is to be learned might be one way to do this. Another principle that might be cited could be one of Merrill’s (2002) first principles of instruction – namely, help the learner integrate what has been learned into daily activities. Both principles suggest what can be done to help make learning activities more effective. As with other principles, either or both may turn out not to make a significant difference in terms of learning outcomes in particular contexts.
A Model: A model goes beyond principles and might be conceived of a bridge between a theory and a set of principles. A model can guide the articulation and instantiation of principles within the context of a particular theory. Both of the principles cited previously have associated models. Gagné (1985) presented nine events and subsequently articulated a model for implementing those events (Gagné, 1993). In that model, Gagné argued that the nine events did not need to occur in any particular order and they could often be grouped into three phases of instruction and treated together (set-up phase, primary presentation phase, resolution phase). Likewise, Merrill’s principle is one of five that include centering instruction around problems, activating prior knowledge (of individual or groups of learners), demonstrating new knowledge, applying the new knowledge to practical problems (whole tasks) with opportunities to practice with feedback, and helping learners integrate new knowledge in their daily lives or professional activities. In both cases, the individual principles are parts of a prescriptive model intended to guide the creation of effective learning. These sets of principles, with their interconnections and relationships one to another, comprise a model. At least that represents one kind of instructional model.
A Theory: The difference models and theories may be difficult to establish in the domain of instructional design and educational technology. For example, cognitive apprenticeship (Collins, 1991) is sometimes called an instructional design theory, sometimes an instructional design model, and sometimes an instructional design method. I am inclined to think of cognitive apprenticeship as another model comprised of a set of principles – that is to say that I view cognitive apprenticeship as more akin to Gagné’s nine events and Merrill’s first principles. A theory that might be associated with these three models (Gagné’s nine events, Merrill’s first principles, and Collins’ cognitive apprenticeship) might be situated theory (Lave & Wenger, 1990). Situated learning postulates, in one sense, that learning that is situated within a meaningful problem solving context, will be more effective than learning that is disassociated from meaningful problem solving contexts. This is a prescriptive theory. It is closely associated with and linked to a descriptive theory about learning – namely, the notion that people create internal representations in order to make sense of puzzling situations and new experiences. In other words, meaning is created or constructed in the context of specific situations. Meaning is context sensitive, in that sense. My general point is that a prescriptive instructional design theory could and probably should be motivated by a closely associated and established descriptive theory of learning.
Concluding Remarks
While these remarks may seem focused on individual words, my concern is not with particular words but, rather, with the thinking associated with scientific inquiry in instructional design and educational technology. My elaboration of these terms is probably naïve and perhaps wrongheaded on key points. I hope others will provide insights and improved representations. I do believe that we need to be careful in our use of scientific terminology. An instructional design theory should represent a set of well-established principles which can be used to generate prescriptions for designing effective learning support in a variety of circumstances. There may well exist many instructional design models (Andrews and Goodson, 1980), but one would expect there to be only a small number of instructional design theories. We need to take the scientific aspects of our instructional design and educational technologies activities seriously. I believe this because I believe that progress in instructional design and educational technology will depend on adopting principled, evidence-based approaches rather than relying on loosely held beliefs and advocating positions that are in vogue.
References
Andrews, D. H., & Goodson, L. A. (1980). A comparative analysis of models of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 3(4), 2-16.
Collins, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology. In L. Idol & B.F. Jones (Eds.), Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implication for reform (pp. 121-138). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.) New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Gagné, R. M. (1993). Computer-based instructional guidance. In J. M. Spector, M. C. Polson, & D. J. Muraida (Eds.), Automated instructional design: Concepts and issues (pp. 133-146). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated learning: Legitimate periperal participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research & Development, 50(3), 43-59.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge.
Popper, K. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.) (1983). Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Spector, J. M., Merrill, M. D., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Driscoll, M. (Eds.) (2008). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Scholarship in the Digital Era
An issue that arises in many tenure and promotion review meetings concerns what should count as credible and substantial contributions in the area of scholarship. Many universities base promotion, tenure and merit pay on three areas: scholarship, teaching and service. Emphasis varies from institution to institution; teaching colleges and universities typically stress quality of teaching over the other two areas; research institutions typically stress scholarship over the other two areas. In all cases, criteria and associated measures are quite important. These remarks focus primarily on the area of scholarship, although there are many important issues to consider in the other two areas.
What is research and what should count as scholarship? Answers vary from program to program and from discipline to discipline. In the performing and fine arts, performances and exhibitions at prominent venues count significantly, as one would expect. In applied programs (e.g., computer and information science, media studies, etc.), the development, evaluation and deployment of innovative programs count significantly. Traditionally, publications in refereed journals and invited presentations at national and international conferences are considered a mark of distinction. In computer and information science programs, ACM and IEEE proceedings are typically considered top-tier publication venues, whereas in educational technology and instructional design research programs, journals such as ETR&D are considered a preferred publication venue.
Issues that frequently arise concern the order of authorship, co-authoring with students, variety of publication venues, whether or not the journal is indexed and refereed, the impact factor of the journal, and so on. In some instances, publishing in online journals arises as a concern. In our discipline, there are reputable indexed, peer-reviewed journals (e.g., Education, Technology and Society).
In addition to online journals, non-traditional publication venues are now available. Examples include blogs, wikis and podcasts. My experience serving on tenure and promotions committees suggests a strong bias for traditional, peer-reviewed publications. Faculty who submit blogs, wikis and podcasts as publications are sometimes viewed as trying to pad their resumes with publications that do not reflect traditional research contributions. Those who write and read blogs and wikis and create and listen to podcasts argue that one often finds legitimate scholarship in those venues that is just as credible as many journal articles. If one accepts that this is sometimes true and likely to increase with time, what is a reasonable approach to recognize new forms of scholarship?
As with traditional forms of scholarship, there ought to be reasonably well-defined criteria and guidance for faculty. I believe that many institutions lack well-defined criteria and guidance for the traditional forms of research and scholarship. New forms of scholarship only make the task of recognizing scholarly contributions more challenging.
What is research? My sense is that research involves a systematic process of investigating a problem and answering questions where existing knowledge falls short or does not exist. Those who conduct research, then, recognize a gap in knowledge – their own knowledge and that of others – and are open to alternative approaches and answers to unresolved questions. This view draws a distinction between advocacy and research, although the boundaries are admittedly fuzzy and advocacy at its best relies on research and evidence. In addition, openness to alternative approaches recognizes the value of peer review. Double blind peer review in journals such as ETR&D is considered a critical part of assessing research significance. When reviewers critique a journal article without knowing the author or the other reviewers, and when authors revise and respond, again not knowing the reviewers, the presumption is that awareness of prior work and alternative approaches and explanations has occurred.
While a blog may allow for comments, anonymity is lost, which means that comments might be biased; in any case, the comments left by readers of blogs are certainly selective. While a journal editor selects the reviewers for a submission, the reviewers are generally obligated to offer a fair and detailed critique. A blog is more akin to comments presented to a class or at a meeting and quite different from a research paper critiqued by peers for a journal. My sense is that blogs should not be considered in the same category as refereed journal publications. This does not imply that blogs should not be counted at all. Rather, for programs that stress new forms of information and communications technologies, blogs, wikis, and podcasts may well count as a form of scholarship. However, blogs are more akin to presentations than to journal articles. Various programs should then decide how much significance to place on presentations and publications and other forms of scholarship (e.g., the creation of innovative instructional programs, learning environments, etc.). If one wants to create a legitimate place for blogs, wikis, and podcasts in the context of scholarly contributions, I believe it does not make sense to argue that they should count just like refereed journal publications, as that tactic is likely to meet serious resistance and create unnecessary disputes.
It does seem reasonable to argue that new technologies are changing the nature of research and scholarship. New ways of conducting research are available. Powerful tools for planning, implementing, disseminating and evaluating research are available. Online journals are becoming increasingly prevalent, and many good papers have been published in online journals. What we should not lose, however, in our rush to integrate technology into research and scholarship is the value of peer review. I suppose this puts me on one side of the debate of what to count as a significant research contribution in this area of networked technologies and social computing. Actually, there are probably many sides to this debate. Regardless of how this debate evolves, I hope that we do not lose sight of the distinction between advocacy and research, that we continue to value peer review and recognize that research essentially involves a willingness to be shown that one is wrong (see Popper’s Conjectures and Refutation), and that we find reasonable ways to encourage faculty and graduate students to engage in a variety of scholarly activities so as to ensure that knowledge is cumulative and relevant. I worry that fascination with new technologies may result in losing sight of the many relevant contributions from prior generations of technology. I worry that fascination with new technologies may result in devaluing the notion of the accumulation of knowledge – this amounts to a devaluation of science and engineering, in my less than humble opinion. I also worry that over-emphasis on traditional forms of scholarship will disincline many bright young scholars from pursuing careers at some of our best research institutions. I worry too much (I have that on the good authority of my better half).
What is research and what should count as scholarship? Answers vary from program to program and from discipline to discipline. In the performing and fine arts, performances and exhibitions at prominent venues count significantly, as one would expect. In applied programs (e.g., computer and information science, media studies, etc.), the development, evaluation and deployment of innovative programs count significantly. Traditionally, publications in refereed journals and invited presentations at national and international conferences are considered a mark of distinction. In computer and information science programs, ACM and IEEE proceedings are typically considered top-tier publication venues, whereas in educational technology and instructional design research programs, journals such as ETR&D are considered a preferred publication venue.
Issues that frequently arise concern the order of authorship, co-authoring with students, variety of publication venues, whether or not the journal is indexed and refereed, the impact factor of the journal, and so on. In some instances, publishing in online journals arises as a concern. In our discipline, there are reputable indexed, peer-reviewed journals (e.g., Education, Technology and Society).
In addition to online journals, non-traditional publication venues are now available. Examples include blogs, wikis and podcasts. My experience serving on tenure and promotions committees suggests a strong bias for traditional, peer-reviewed publications. Faculty who submit blogs, wikis and podcasts as publications are sometimes viewed as trying to pad their resumes with publications that do not reflect traditional research contributions. Those who write and read blogs and wikis and create and listen to podcasts argue that one often finds legitimate scholarship in those venues that is just as credible as many journal articles. If one accepts that this is sometimes true and likely to increase with time, what is a reasonable approach to recognize new forms of scholarship?
As with traditional forms of scholarship, there ought to be reasonably well-defined criteria and guidance for faculty. I believe that many institutions lack well-defined criteria and guidance for the traditional forms of research and scholarship. New forms of scholarship only make the task of recognizing scholarly contributions more challenging.
What is research? My sense is that research involves a systematic process of investigating a problem and answering questions where existing knowledge falls short or does not exist. Those who conduct research, then, recognize a gap in knowledge – their own knowledge and that of others – and are open to alternative approaches and answers to unresolved questions. This view draws a distinction between advocacy and research, although the boundaries are admittedly fuzzy and advocacy at its best relies on research and evidence. In addition, openness to alternative approaches recognizes the value of peer review. Double blind peer review in journals such as ETR&D is considered a critical part of assessing research significance. When reviewers critique a journal article without knowing the author or the other reviewers, and when authors revise and respond, again not knowing the reviewers, the presumption is that awareness of prior work and alternative approaches and explanations has occurred.
While a blog may allow for comments, anonymity is lost, which means that comments might be biased; in any case, the comments left by readers of blogs are certainly selective. While a journal editor selects the reviewers for a submission, the reviewers are generally obligated to offer a fair and detailed critique. A blog is more akin to comments presented to a class or at a meeting and quite different from a research paper critiqued by peers for a journal. My sense is that blogs should not be considered in the same category as refereed journal publications. This does not imply that blogs should not be counted at all. Rather, for programs that stress new forms of information and communications technologies, blogs, wikis, and podcasts may well count as a form of scholarship. However, blogs are more akin to presentations than to journal articles. Various programs should then decide how much significance to place on presentations and publications and other forms of scholarship (e.g., the creation of innovative instructional programs, learning environments, etc.). If one wants to create a legitimate place for blogs, wikis, and podcasts in the context of scholarly contributions, I believe it does not make sense to argue that they should count just like refereed journal publications, as that tactic is likely to meet serious resistance and create unnecessary disputes.
It does seem reasonable to argue that new technologies are changing the nature of research and scholarship. New ways of conducting research are available. Powerful tools for planning, implementing, disseminating and evaluating research are available. Online journals are becoming increasingly prevalent, and many good papers have been published in online journals. What we should not lose, however, in our rush to integrate technology into research and scholarship is the value of peer review. I suppose this puts me on one side of the debate of what to count as a significant research contribution in this area of networked technologies and social computing. Actually, there are probably many sides to this debate. Regardless of how this debate evolves, I hope that we do not lose sight of the distinction between advocacy and research, that we continue to value peer review and recognize that research essentially involves a willingness to be shown that one is wrong (see Popper’s Conjectures and Refutation), and that we find reasonable ways to encourage faculty and graduate students to engage in a variety of scholarly activities so as to ensure that knowledge is cumulative and relevant. I worry that fascination with new technologies may result in losing sight of the many relevant contributions from prior generations of technology. I worry that fascination with new technologies may result in devaluing the notion of the accumulation of knowledge – this amounts to a devaluation of science and engineering, in my less than humble opinion. I also worry that over-emphasis on traditional forms of scholarship will disincline many bright young scholars from pursuing careers at some of our best research institutions. I worry too much (I have that on the good authority of my better half).
Sunday, February 7, 2010
School Improvement and the National Will
We have heard for years about the sad state of America’s schools, including disappointment about the poor performance of students on standardized tests and reports of poor teaching and teacher preparation. You’ve heard the stories – Johnny can’t read, Janey can’t add, Joey thinks New Mexico is a country, Johelen thinks cosmology is about make-up, Jimmy thinks that Barak Hussein Obama is a terrorist, and their teachers read at an 8th grade level
Not long ago (October 22, 2009) the U.S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, said that colleges of education need to make dramatic changes to prepare children to compete in the global economy (http://ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/10/10222009a.html). He argued that teacher-preparation programs should ensure that new teachers master the content of the subjects they will teach; in addition, teacher education programs should have well-supported field-based experiences. Duncan went on to say that the ultimate goal of teacher preparation programs should be to create a generation of teachers who are focused on improving student achievement and ready to deliver on that goal (as if that is not the current goal). Such comments are just as insensitive as Duncan’s offhand remark that Hurricane Katrina was the best thing to happen to the New Orleans’ education system. Duncan later apologized for the Hurricane Katrina comment, but he does not appear to see that his recent comments about pre-service teacher preparation programs and in-service teachers ignore a great deal of evidence and are offensive to the many dedicated teachers working in schools and university professors devoting so many hours and so much effort to prepare new teachers for careers in schools.
There are problems with American schools, no doubt. The American education system is complex. Surely it can be improved. Surely it will not be improved by insulting those already working hard on school improvement. Many states and college programs already embed field experiences throughout the curriculum and require teachers to be competent in a subject domain. Of course more can be done, but doing the right thing and doing it right will require more than offhand remarks made in a short speech. Remaking the world of American education at large – everywhere and instantly – is not possible nor would it be wise were it possible. Basing change on the biases and beliefs of a few persons who happen to be in positions of influence is likely to generate new problems. It would be a good idea to be clear about the fundamental problem and likely causes prior to fixating on a solution.
So, what is the fundamental problem? Is it that students are not performing well on standardized tests? Is it that teachers do not stay with the profession very long? Is it that some university programs admit and pass almost anyone regardless of skills and knowledge? I believe those things belong in the category of symptoms – and any and all of those symptoms should be carefully examined based on the evidence. Those symptoms (assuming that there is adequate supporting data supports) are like the aches and pains one feels when suffering from an unidentified ailment. I worry that what appears to be happening with the health care reform effort will happen to the various school reform efforts. With regard to health care reform, we seem to have lost track of the problem, and the debate and discussion are now focused on various aspects of symptoms and solutions. The problem with American health care is not that insurance companies charge too much nor is it about whether or not health care should be provided by an employer or the government. The problem is that Americans are getting sick and dying – at alarming rates compared with other developed nations. It may be convenient to consider one’s own health and medical insurance and feel satisfied that all is okay. However, that is not a systemic view appropriate for policy formulation and large-scale planning and decision making.
From a systems perspective, all is not well with American health care, nor is all well with American schooling. As should be the case with health care, the first step is to be clear about the problem. Too many people are getting sick and dying. That can be established empirically and investigated rigorously – although that does not appear to be happening. Nevertheless, we ought to take a similar attitude with regard to improving American schools. The first step is to state the problem(s) clearly. It simply is a mistake to fixate on standardized test scores. At best that is a symptom.
What then is the problem? Is it that America is losing its competitive edge in the global marketplace? That was also suggested in Duncan’s remarks, and it appears in many of the education grants sponsored by the National Science Foundation and the Institute of Education Sciences. I wonder if this is an adequate description of the problem. Perhaps it is just another symptom. Regardless, we need to insist that our leaders provide a clear and defensible statement of the problem prior to going forth with solutions, especially those linked to test scores. If one accepts the loss of competitive edge, one could then look at what other countries have done when confronted with a similar situation. The examples might include Ireland, Finland, South Korea, and Japan. In those cases, there was a change in national policy placing a great deal more emphasis on education at all levels. The will of the people was well aligned with increased emphasis and spending on public education, even though people realized it would cost a great deal and would take many years to realize any noticeable gains. Gains were realized, though. In none of those cases was the focus on test scores, although test scores did improve dramatically. The focus of decision making and policy formulation was on providing proper support for education at every level. That required more funds – increased taxes – and a great deal of patience.
I mention these cases because there seems to be no real interest in increasing support for education in this country. We seem all too complacent with high rates of illiteracy, high drop-out rates from our high schools, and high rates of attrition among our teachers. We do not seem to be willing to provide more support. We seem to believe that by simply changing standards that the problem will be fixed. This seems all too unlikely. Too many American children are getting sick of school and dropping out of the competitive marketplace. Too many teaches are leaving the profession. Things are getting worse, and focusing on test scores does not seem at all related to getting at the underlying problem – the lack of national will to take pride in and properly support education in American.
I would recommend that our leaders talk with AECT’s Future Minds group to gain an appreciation for a systems perspective on school reform and improvement. I would like our leaders to look next at what the National Technology Leadership Coalition (NTLC) has to say about effective integration of technology in supporting education. Most of all, I would like our national leaders to show some leadership and tell us how long it will take and how much effort will be required to keep our children from getting sick of school and dying intellectually. It is also about time that we lifted the ban on talking about tax increases and talked about what we want for all Americans and what we are willing to pay to make that happen.
Not long ago (October 22, 2009) the U.S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, said that colleges of education need to make dramatic changes to prepare children to compete in the global economy (http://ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/10/10222009a.html). He argued that teacher-preparation programs should ensure that new teachers master the content of the subjects they will teach; in addition, teacher education programs should have well-supported field-based experiences. Duncan went on to say that the ultimate goal of teacher preparation programs should be to create a generation of teachers who are focused on improving student achievement and ready to deliver on that goal (as if that is not the current goal). Such comments are just as insensitive as Duncan’s offhand remark that Hurricane Katrina was the best thing to happen to the New Orleans’ education system. Duncan later apologized for the Hurricane Katrina comment, but he does not appear to see that his recent comments about pre-service teacher preparation programs and in-service teachers ignore a great deal of evidence and are offensive to the many dedicated teachers working in schools and university professors devoting so many hours and so much effort to prepare new teachers for careers in schools.
There are problems with American schools, no doubt. The American education system is complex. Surely it can be improved. Surely it will not be improved by insulting those already working hard on school improvement. Many states and college programs already embed field experiences throughout the curriculum and require teachers to be competent in a subject domain. Of course more can be done, but doing the right thing and doing it right will require more than offhand remarks made in a short speech. Remaking the world of American education at large – everywhere and instantly – is not possible nor would it be wise were it possible. Basing change on the biases and beliefs of a few persons who happen to be in positions of influence is likely to generate new problems. It would be a good idea to be clear about the fundamental problem and likely causes prior to fixating on a solution.
So, what is the fundamental problem? Is it that students are not performing well on standardized tests? Is it that teachers do not stay with the profession very long? Is it that some university programs admit and pass almost anyone regardless of skills and knowledge? I believe those things belong in the category of symptoms – and any and all of those symptoms should be carefully examined based on the evidence. Those symptoms (assuming that there is adequate supporting data supports) are like the aches and pains one feels when suffering from an unidentified ailment. I worry that what appears to be happening with the health care reform effort will happen to the various school reform efforts. With regard to health care reform, we seem to have lost track of the problem, and the debate and discussion are now focused on various aspects of symptoms and solutions. The problem with American health care is not that insurance companies charge too much nor is it about whether or not health care should be provided by an employer or the government. The problem is that Americans are getting sick and dying – at alarming rates compared with other developed nations. It may be convenient to consider one’s own health and medical insurance and feel satisfied that all is okay. However, that is not a systemic view appropriate for policy formulation and large-scale planning and decision making.
From a systems perspective, all is not well with American health care, nor is all well with American schooling. As should be the case with health care, the first step is to be clear about the problem. Too many people are getting sick and dying. That can be established empirically and investigated rigorously – although that does not appear to be happening. Nevertheless, we ought to take a similar attitude with regard to improving American schools. The first step is to state the problem(s) clearly. It simply is a mistake to fixate on standardized test scores. At best that is a symptom.
What then is the problem? Is it that America is losing its competitive edge in the global marketplace? That was also suggested in Duncan’s remarks, and it appears in many of the education grants sponsored by the National Science Foundation and the Institute of Education Sciences. I wonder if this is an adequate description of the problem. Perhaps it is just another symptom. Regardless, we need to insist that our leaders provide a clear and defensible statement of the problem prior to going forth with solutions, especially those linked to test scores. If one accepts the loss of competitive edge, one could then look at what other countries have done when confronted with a similar situation. The examples might include Ireland, Finland, South Korea, and Japan. In those cases, there was a change in national policy placing a great deal more emphasis on education at all levels. The will of the people was well aligned with increased emphasis and spending on public education, even though people realized it would cost a great deal and would take many years to realize any noticeable gains. Gains were realized, though. In none of those cases was the focus on test scores, although test scores did improve dramatically. The focus of decision making and policy formulation was on providing proper support for education at every level. That required more funds – increased taxes – and a great deal of patience.
I mention these cases because there seems to be no real interest in increasing support for education in this country. We seem all too complacent with high rates of illiteracy, high drop-out rates from our high schools, and high rates of attrition among our teachers. We do not seem to be willing to provide more support. We seem to believe that by simply changing standards that the problem will be fixed. This seems all too unlikely. Too many American children are getting sick of school and dropping out of the competitive marketplace. Too many teaches are leaving the profession. Things are getting worse, and focusing on test scores does not seem at all related to getting at the underlying problem – the lack of national will to take pride in and properly support education in American.
I would recommend that our leaders talk with AECT’s Future Minds group to gain an appreciation for a systems perspective on school reform and improvement. I would like our leaders to look next at what the National Technology Leadership Coalition (NTLC) has to say about effective integration of technology in supporting education. Most of all, I would like our national leaders to show some leadership and tell us how long it will take and how much effort will be required to keep our children from getting sick of school and dying intellectually. It is also about time that we lifted the ban on talking about tax increases and talked about what we want for all Americans and what we are willing to pay to make that happen.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Imagine That
Imagination is an interesting albeit elusive ability. What might the directive ‘use your imagination’ mean? When thinking about a reply to that question, you are using your imagination. Imagination is often considered to be a creative ability that some people have and some lack, at least on some occasions. However, the basic ability involves thinking – forming a mental image of something, especially something not immediately or directly perceivable. Surely that is the meaning that John Lennon had in mind in his song entitled “Imagine” in which he says, for example, “imagine all the people living life in peace.” Forming mental images is the essence of imagination. Ludwig Wittgenstein notes in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus that we picture facts to ourselves (#2.1). We have the remarkable ability to create internal representations of external realities. He failed to note that we also picture things that are not facts to ourselves. In any case, this ability to create internal representations to make sense of our experience is the essence of a naturalistic or constructivist epistemology. This imagining ability is how we build up our understanding of things. As such, it is, or should be, a critical concern of educators and instructional designers.
In the Philosophical Investigations, published two years after his death in 1951, Wittgenstein notes a second important human ability – namely the facility to engage in language games. Language games involve a language, which has recognized rules and conventions, and its use in various human activities. While Wittgenstein’s early work lays the foundation for a constructivist epistemology, his later work lays the foundation for communities of practice and the attention given by educational researchers to legitimate peripheral participation (see Lave & Wenger, 1991 – Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation). Many have argued that Wittgenstein’s early work is completely at odds with his later work, but this progression from a constructivist epistemology to a socially situated constructivist perspective seems quite natural to instructional designers and educational researchers.
We have two remarkable abilities: the ability to create internal representations, and the ability to talk about these internal representations with others who have similar abilities. All of us have these abilities. Imagine that.
I mention these abilities and imagination on account of digital engineering technologies with significant educational potential demonstrated at the annual summit of the National Technology Leadership Coalition (NTLC – see http://www.ntls.info/) held in January at the Punahou School in Honolulu. One of these technologies involves simple and affordable 3D modeling software (i.e., fablab Model Maker - http://www.aspexsoftware.com/tabs.htm) linked to a very affordable and compact 2D printer (http://www.aspexsoftware.com/desktop_engineering.htm) that can cut, perforate, or print lines on paper using the Silhouette Fabricator. The software and printer were designed to be used in schools (or at home) by children (or adults who are just big kids with wrinkles) to support and facilitate the ability to imagine a three dimensional object, lay out specifications for its paper-based creation, and then print/perforate/cut the paper to be used to create the model. An open-source program that provides somewhat similar capabilities is Papercut – see http://paper-model.com/. Imagine that. We can ask children to imagine how they could create a three dimensional object from a two dimensional piece of paper, and then give them the tools to test their imaginations. Imagine what a learning experience that would be.
A second technology showcased at NTLC 2010 involved digital fabrication and 3D printing – Fab@Home (see http://fabathome.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page) developed at Cornell University and demonstrated by Hod Lipson. The 3D printer also could be controlled by modeling or CAD/CAM software. This printer is available for the remarkably low price of $1,600. Here is how it works – you will of course have to use your imagination. First the layout/specifications for the three dimensional object are entered into a modeling or CAD/CAM program. This layout controls the printer which is a customized version of an inkjet printer that uses tubes instead of ink cartridges. The tubes can hold any stuff that will solidify after exposure to room temperature air – this includes liquid metals and plastics, latex, and even CheezWhiz. Gee whiz. Really? Really! The printing occurs a layer at a time with each layer being about one millimeter thick. On each pass, the printer squeezes the molding material out of the tubes according to the specifications in the modeling program. Gradually, layer by layer, the 3D object is created. We saw bicycle chains, chess pieces with embedded objects, a metal impeller, and other complex objects that had been printed using this technology. Imagine that. For about $2,000 you and your students can be in the business of creating all sorts of objects. Cornell is pursuing this line of research in part due to its tremendous educational potential. Since modern engineers use similar tools to prototype and test various objects, it makes sense to train engineers using the tools, technologies, and techniques they will encounter after graduation. How obvious is that? The challenge was to create affordable technologies for use in university engineering programs, and it appears that Cornell has succeeded. Imagine that college students in Ithaca, New York can create plans for objects that could be viewed, refined, and printed/created by college students in Beijing, China. I am planning to purchase one of these machines and print myself a new brain. Imagine that.
Where would we be without imagination? What happens to children when their imaginations are stifled or not supported with affordable and powerful tools? Imagine all the people, learning all about the world … using powerful and affordable tools and technologies. Imagine that.
In the Philosophical Investigations, published two years after his death in 1951, Wittgenstein notes a second important human ability – namely the facility to engage in language games. Language games involve a language, which has recognized rules and conventions, and its use in various human activities. While Wittgenstein’s early work lays the foundation for a constructivist epistemology, his later work lays the foundation for communities of practice and the attention given by educational researchers to legitimate peripheral participation (see Lave & Wenger, 1991 – Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation). Many have argued that Wittgenstein’s early work is completely at odds with his later work, but this progression from a constructivist epistemology to a socially situated constructivist perspective seems quite natural to instructional designers and educational researchers.
We have two remarkable abilities: the ability to create internal representations, and the ability to talk about these internal representations with others who have similar abilities. All of us have these abilities. Imagine that.
I mention these abilities and imagination on account of digital engineering technologies with significant educational potential demonstrated at the annual summit of the National Technology Leadership Coalition (NTLC – see http://www.ntls.info/) held in January at the Punahou School in Honolulu. One of these technologies involves simple and affordable 3D modeling software (i.e., fablab Model Maker - http://www.aspexsoftware.com/tabs.htm) linked to a very affordable and compact 2D printer (http://www.aspexsoftware.com/desktop_engineering.htm) that can cut, perforate, or print lines on paper using the Silhouette Fabricator. The software and printer were designed to be used in schools (or at home) by children (or adults who are just big kids with wrinkles) to support and facilitate the ability to imagine a three dimensional object, lay out specifications for its paper-based creation, and then print/perforate/cut the paper to be used to create the model. An open-source program that provides somewhat similar capabilities is Papercut – see http://paper-model.com/. Imagine that. We can ask children to imagine how they could create a three dimensional object from a two dimensional piece of paper, and then give them the tools to test their imaginations. Imagine what a learning experience that would be.
A second technology showcased at NTLC 2010 involved digital fabrication and 3D printing – Fab@Home (see http://fabathome.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page) developed at Cornell University and demonstrated by Hod Lipson. The 3D printer also could be controlled by modeling or CAD/CAM software. This printer is available for the remarkably low price of $1,600. Here is how it works – you will of course have to use your imagination. First the layout/specifications for the three dimensional object are entered into a modeling or CAD/CAM program. This layout controls the printer which is a customized version of an inkjet printer that uses tubes instead of ink cartridges. The tubes can hold any stuff that will solidify after exposure to room temperature air – this includes liquid metals and plastics, latex, and even CheezWhiz. Gee whiz. Really? Really! The printing occurs a layer at a time with each layer being about one millimeter thick. On each pass, the printer squeezes the molding material out of the tubes according to the specifications in the modeling program. Gradually, layer by layer, the 3D object is created. We saw bicycle chains, chess pieces with embedded objects, a metal impeller, and other complex objects that had been printed using this technology. Imagine that. For about $2,000 you and your students can be in the business of creating all sorts of objects. Cornell is pursuing this line of research in part due to its tremendous educational potential. Since modern engineers use similar tools to prototype and test various objects, it makes sense to train engineers using the tools, technologies, and techniques they will encounter after graduation. How obvious is that? The challenge was to create affordable technologies for use in university engineering programs, and it appears that Cornell has succeeded. Imagine that college students in Ithaca, New York can create plans for objects that could be viewed, refined, and printed/created by college students in Beijing, China. I am planning to purchase one of these machines and print myself a new brain. Imagine that.
Where would we be without imagination? What happens to children when their imaginations are stifled or not supported with affordable and powerful tools? Imagine all the people, learning all about the world … using powerful and affordable tools and technologies. Imagine that.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
New Year Notes from the AECT President
I hope that everyone has had a happy and safe holiday. The new year is off to a good start. We have interest from India in affiliating with their educational technology association, and we are finalizing plans for an affiliation with the Indonesian educational technology association. The National Technology Leadership summit is going to be held next week in Hawaii. I will be there representing AECT and both Abbie Brown and I will be there representing our journals. We hope to see an NSF ITEST proposal in collaboration with SITE (Gerald Knezek) and AACE result focusing on a repository for assessment and evaluation instruments.
I thought I would pass along a few thoughts about a couple of the writing assignments with which I am now involved; I would very much appreciate your input. First there is the 4th edition of the Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (with Dave Merrill, MJ Bishop and Jan Elen as co-editors). We will soon have a draft table of contents to share with AECT members for feedback. We are planning to have mostly new chapters and will again encourage more senior authors to team up with less senior authors. We plan to retain the broad international coverage we had in the 3rd edition and we will again have online access to AECT members through our agreement with Springer.
I am also co-editing with Susanne Lajoie a book series entitled “Explorations in the Learning Sciences, Instructional Systems and Performance Technologies,” again with Springer as the publisher. This series will consist of 12 or 13 volumes published over a three-year period. Keeping up with new technologies and how they might be integrated for the betterment of society is an ongoing challenge for all professionals. This book series is aimed at promoting dialogue among these various communities and in helping professionals maintain their knowledge and skills in a very dynamic and challenging climate of change and innovation. Susanne and I welcome your ideas for books in this series. The first book by John Sweller focusing on cognitive load theory and implications for the design of instruction is already in the production queue.
I am also editing a new textbook series to be published by Taylor-Francis/Routledge entitled “Integrative Approaches to Educational Technology: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Technology in Support of Learning, Performance, and Instruction.” The benefits of technology in terms of improving learning, performance and instruction have not been fully and widely realized for a variety of reasons. Funding for education typically lags behind funding in other sectors, such as healthcare and engineering, where the benefits are arguably more obvious and more easily measured. One fundamental reason for the lack of substantial and sustained success in realizing the potential benefits of technology in education is the lack of proper preparation of teachers, instructional designers, technology coordinators, media specialists, training developers and others who play key roles in implementing new technologies in various instructional contexts. This textbook series is aimed at those professionals and is intended to provide up-to-date, practical support for their preparation and continuing professional development. I am currently working on the first volume in the series that focuses on the foundations of educational technology. I am a bit behind in getting this book to the publisher, partly due to problems with technology (computer and email crashes in December from which I have still not fully recovered). Anyway, your thoughts about the foundations of our discipline and this series are also most welcome.
It looks to be a busy and hopefully productive 2010. All the best to all of you.
I thought I would pass along a few thoughts about a couple of the writing assignments with which I am now involved; I would very much appreciate your input. First there is the 4th edition of the Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (with Dave Merrill, MJ Bishop and Jan Elen as co-editors). We will soon have a draft table of contents to share with AECT members for feedback. We are planning to have mostly new chapters and will again encourage more senior authors to team up with less senior authors. We plan to retain the broad international coverage we had in the 3rd edition and we will again have online access to AECT members through our agreement with Springer.
I am also co-editing with Susanne Lajoie a book series entitled “Explorations in the Learning Sciences, Instructional Systems and Performance Technologies,” again with Springer as the publisher. This series will consist of 12 or 13 volumes published over a three-year period. Keeping up with new technologies and how they might be integrated for the betterment of society is an ongoing challenge for all professionals. This book series is aimed at promoting dialogue among these various communities and in helping professionals maintain their knowledge and skills in a very dynamic and challenging climate of change and innovation. Susanne and I welcome your ideas for books in this series. The first book by John Sweller focusing on cognitive load theory and implications for the design of instruction is already in the production queue.
I am also editing a new textbook series to be published by Taylor-Francis/Routledge entitled “Integrative Approaches to Educational Technology: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Technology in Support of Learning, Performance, and Instruction.” The benefits of technology in terms of improving learning, performance and instruction have not been fully and widely realized for a variety of reasons. Funding for education typically lags behind funding in other sectors, such as healthcare and engineering, where the benefits are arguably more obvious and more easily measured. One fundamental reason for the lack of substantial and sustained success in realizing the potential benefits of technology in education is the lack of proper preparation of teachers, instructional designers, technology coordinators, media specialists, training developers and others who play key roles in implementing new technologies in various instructional contexts. This textbook series is aimed at those professionals and is intended to provide up-to-date, practical support for their preparation and continuing professional development. I am currently working on the first volume in the series that focuses on the foundations of educational technology. I am a bit behind in getting this book to the publisher, partly due to problems with technology (computer and email crashes in December from which I have still not fully recovered). Anyway, your thoughts about the foundations of our discipline and this series are also most welcome.
It looks to be a busy and hopefully productive 2010. All the best to all of you.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Scientific Inquiry and Educational Research
I had the opportunity to sit in, as a guest lecturer, on a doctoral seminar in the Instructional Systems program at Florida State University in 2007. Prof. Norbert Seel, who led the seminar, asked students to indicate what each regarded as the single most important research question to be addressed in the next five years in the domain of instructional systems, broadly and loosely defined to include analysis, design, development, evaluation, management and technology. Answers reflected topic areas rather than research questions. He then asked each student to indicate an appropriate research methodology to address [part or all of] the indicated question – this proved to be problematic since topic areas rather research questions had been indicated. I was struck by two things. First, the notions of ‘science’ and ‘research’ seemed to vary considerably from one person to another. Second, specific responses indicated a strong tendency to only consider those aspects of instructional systems with which a particular individual was engaged, with the implicit assumption that what each was doing represented the most critical research issue in instructional systems.
What is science? What is the nature of scientific inquiry? What distinguishes scientific research from other forms of research? What do scientists do? There are many answers to such questions. They can be found in books on the philosophy of science and in nearly every introductory text to a particular scientific discipline. I found myself generating such questions during Prof. Seel’s seminar as various doctoral students provided their responses. I settled on a rough and ready representation of inquiry in physics as a starting point. For centuries, physicists have been asking such questions as these: (a) what kinds of things are there in the universe? (b) where did these things come from? and, (c) how do these different kinds of things affect each other? My first thought was that the basic questions within a discipline have remained fairly stable over the years; what have changed are the instruments and tools used to develop answers, which have led to new answers and some variations on the basic questions. Of course research methods and perspectives have also evolved, partly based on new answers to the basic questions. The basic research questions, though, change very little from one generation to the next, in spite of what we might want to believe our how innovative and radical our own approaches are. What changes are the answers to those basic research questions. Moreover, interpretations of the basic questions have changed considerably over the years; new interpretations of the basic questions might be regarded as representing a new approach, or possibly even a paradigm shift.
For example, Empedocles, (a pre-Socratic physicist who lived circa 492-432 BCE) believed that there were only four basic things - earth, air, fire and water – and that the physical world and our experiences could be completely accounted for in terms of these four elements and their interactions. Aristotle further elaborated this view of matter and argued that all earthly substances contained mixtures of these four elements, with the particular distribution of the basic elements determining the nature and appearance of a particular object. For example, a rock contained much more earth than air, fire or water, according to Aristotle, which is presumably why rocks are hard, not readily combustible, and not easily transformed into liquid or gaseous forms. Aristotle then identified four kinds of causes: (a) material cause – the basic composition of an object; (b) formal cause – the inherent or underlying structure of a thing; (c) efficient cause – how the thing came to be in its current state; and (d) final cause – the purpose of an object.
We do not think about the world in the same way as did Empedocles and Aristotle. Physicists no longer accept their account of the physical world. In spite of dramatic advances in physics in the last two thousand years, much has not changed. What has not changed are the basic questions: What kinds of things exist, where did they come from, and how do they interact? Scientists are still attempting to elaborate adequate answers to these basic questions. Modern answers are that there are some 118 or so elements – a few more than four – and these elements are comprised of more basic building blocks – with leptons, quarks, and bosons being the basic categories for these sub-atomic building blocks. Where did these things come from? Big bang … or is that just someone knocking on my office door?
My basic line of thought while listening to various doctoral students was that this framework might be applicable to Prof. Seel’s questions. Someone will tell me not to waste my time because such an account applies only to the hard sciences – the physical sciences, such as astronomy, biology, chemistry, and physics. This person says that the soft sciences (including the social sciences, the learning sciences, and what Herbert Simon called the sciences of the artificial) are different. I understand those distinctions, I think, but there are some common concerns that I believe apply across all the sciences. Basically, what scientists want to know is what exists – the building blocks – and how these things interact to bring about the things we observe, predict or would like to create. While causal interactions might be more difficult to establish in the social sciences, there is still strong interest in understanding, explaining, and predicting critical human interactions, including the development of knowledge and expertise. While the things that social scientists investigate might not be as precisely and narrowly defined as those investigated by physical scientists, there is still strong interest in identifying the basic elements that explain and can predict what we have observed and are likely to observe with regard to human learning and development. Moreover, if we wish instructional design knowledge and practice to be cumulative, it would seem to be in our interest to have a small set of basic questions and ways to explore those questions that others could examine with regard to credibility of methods and veracity of findings.
Perhaps this is a biased or naïve interpretation of science. Nonetheless, I am going to look for the basic elements and their interactions in the domain of instructional systems. What are the basic building blocks of an instructional system? What comes to mind immediately are students, instructors, things to be learned, and instructional resources. This might be an earth-air-fire-and-water kind of answer, though. Each of these elements might be further elaborated in terms of more discrete components which are more informative with regard to explaining interactions that are observed or desired.
What are the essential interactions or causal influences in an instructional or learning context? Outcomes common to most instructional and learning systems include improved understanding and performance with regard to some body of knowledge or set of skills. This implies that there should be reliable ways to assess relative levels of understanding and performance (relative to past performance or understanding or relative to a desired standard or goal). Other outcomes might be identified, and these might be further elaborated in terms of types of outcomes (e.g., affective, cognitive, psycho-motor or … there are many ways to cluster outcomes) and their relationship to knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, habits of minds, mental models, skills, and such.
Regardless of the sophistication and granularity of the components and interactions, we want to understand the various things that comprise an instructional or a learning system and how they are related, especially with regard to efficacy in achieving desired outcomes. Maybe. Well, I seem to recall Gagné saying that our job was to help people learn better. What can we do at a systems level to fulfill that responsibility? How can we measure and foster success?
Lastly, there is the notion of research issues central to progress in a domain. The students who responded to Prof. Seel each had a favorite area or method of inquiry. Why believe that one’s favorite area or method of inquiry is critical to progress in instructional and learning systems research, however? What evidence can one bring to bear to defend such a view? How might one identify critical areas and methods of research inquiry in educational technology?
One might think beyond oneself and beyond one’s own training and set of predispositions. One might look at what distinguished researchers in related areas have said. The Book of Problems (see the 2002 events archive at www.learndev.org) would be a good starting point, I would think. I recall the advice I was given when selecting a dissertation topic by Ed Allaire, my dissertation advisor at the University of Texas in Austin: Pick the central domain and then pick a central unresolved issue within that domain. Allaire’s perspective was that writing a dissertation was a part of an ongoing process of developing knowledge and competence, and, further, that familiarity with central issues was an essential part of that process. Of course there is some subjectivity in this – there will be different views about the centrality of domains and issues. I suspect, however, that a small number of alternatives can be identified. What might these alternatives be for instructional and learning systems?
That is where I thought the discussion might have gone in Prof. Seel’s seminar, or at least that is how it was going in my mind during the seminar. What I have not touched upon yet is a core issue involving values – values that are at the core of scientific inquiry. The starting point of scientific research is a desire to understand a phenomenon or situation or sequence of events. This implies that one admits to a state of relative ignorance: “I do not understand this.” One might say that humility (“I know that I do not know”) is the starting point of every scientific inquiry. What do leading instructional systems researchers admit to not knowing or not understanding? Again I recommend looking at Visser’s Book of Problems (www.learndev.org) to gain insight in to this question. There is too much that I do not know about learning and instruction for me to include the list here. However, one thing that I do not understand well is how particular people develop competence in solving complex, challenging and ill-structured problems. We do learn by doing, so engaging in and reflecting on such problem-solving and decision-making activities seems to be a necessary ingredient in the mix. It also seems woefully insufficient, however. More challenging still, from my perspective, is how we can measure individual progress in developing such skills, which I think is needed in order to develop and implement robust and reliable training programs. We could of course leave such matters to chance and coincidence, but there does seem to be an increasing demand for people who are skilled in solving very complex problems.
A second value to add to humility with regard to scientific investigation concerns being open to alternatives. “This alternative you or I have devised is only one possible approach or explanation; perhaps there are others.” The inability to imagine alternative explanations does not mean that alternative explanations do not exist. Alternative explanations always exist (this is a remark about the logic of scientific explanations). Humility is the starting point, and openness to alternative explanations is required for sustained inquiry.
Finally, one ought to engage in a kind of inquiry that will contribute to progress of human knowledge in and about the domain of inquiry. Scientific inquiry at its best is cumulative and progressive. This requires using reliable instruments and methods that others might also use. If every study is about a unique situation and every instrument used is unique to that study, then generalizing findings becomes a significant challenge – that is one of the many challenges confronting educational research, I think.
Perhaps no one mentioned such things because they are so obvious. I find myself requiring such reminders, though.
Mike Spector
AECT President
What is science? What is the nature of scientific inquiry? What distinguishes scientific research from other forms of research? What do scientists do? There are many answers to such questions. They can be found in books on the philosophy of science and in nearly every introductory text to a particular scientific discipline. I found myself generating such questions during Prof. Seel’s seminar as various doctoral students provided their responses. I settled on a rough and ready representation of inquiry in physics as a starting point. For centuries, physicists have been asking such questions as these: (a) what kinds of things are there in the universe? (b) where did these things come from? and, (c) how do these different kinds of things affect each other? My first thought was that the basic questions within a discipline have remained fairly stable over the years; what have changed are the instruments and tools used to develop answers, which have led to new answers and some variations on the basic questions. Of course research methods and perspectives have also evolved, partly based on new answers to the basic questions. The basic research questions, though, change very little from one generation to the next, in spite of what we might want to believe our how innovative and radical our own approaches are. What changes are the answers to those basic research questions. Moreover, interpretations of the basic questions have changed considerably over the years; new interpretations of the basic questions might be regarded as representing a new approach, or possibly even a paradigm shift.
For example, Empedocles, (a pre-Socratic physicist who lived circa 492-432 BCE) believed that there were only four basic things - earth, air, fire and water – and that the physical world and our experiences could be completely accounted for in terms of these four elements and their interactions. Aristotle further elaborated this view of matter and argued that all earthly substances contained mixtures of these four elements, with the particular distribution of the basic elements determining the nature and appearance of a particular object. For example, a rock contained much more earth than air, fire or water, according to Aristotle, which is presumably why rocks are hard, not readily combustible, and not easily transformed into liquid or gaseous forms. Aristotle then identified four kinds of causes: (a) material cause – the basic composition of an object; (b) formal cause – the inherent or underlying structure of a thing; (c) efficient cause – how the thing came to be in its current state; and (d) final cause – the purpose of an object.
We do not think about the world in the same way as did Empedocles and Aristotle. Physicists no longer accept their account of the physical world. In spite of dramatic advances in physics in the last two thousand years, much has not changed. What has not changed are the basic questions: What kinds of things exist, where did they come from, and how do they interact? Scientists are still attempting to elaborate adequate answers to these basic questions. Modern answers are that there are some 118 or so elements – a few more than four – and these elements are comprised of more basic building blocks – with leptons, quarks, and bosons being the basic categories for these sub-atomic building blocks. Where did these things come from? Big bang … or is that just someone knocking on my office door?
My basic line of thought while listening to various doctoral students was that this framework might be applicable to Prof. Seel’s questions. Someone will tell me not to waste my time because such an account applies only to the hard sciences – the physical sciences, such as astronomy, biology, chemistry, and physics. This person says that the soft sciences (including the social sciences, the learning sciences, and what Herbert Simon called the sciences of the artificial) are different. I understand those distinctions, I think, but there are some common concerns that I believe apply across all the sciences. Basically, what scientists want to know is what exists – the building blocks – and how these things interact to bring about the things we observe, predict or would like to create. While causal interactions might be more difficult to establish in the social sciences, there is still strong interest in understanding, explaining, and predicting critical human interactions, including the development of knowledge and expertise. While the things that social scientists investigate might not be as precisely and narrowly defined as those investigated by physical scientists, there is still strong interest in identifying the basic elements that explain and can predict what we have observed and are likely to observe with regard to human learning and development. Moreover, if we wish instructional design knowledge and practice to be cumulative, it would seem to be in our interest to have a small set of basic questions and ways to explore those questions that others could examine with regard to credibility of methods and veracity of findings.
Perhaps this is a biased or naïve interpretation of science. Nonetheless, I am going to look for the basic elements and their interactions in the domain of instructional systems. What are the basic building blocks of an instructional system? What comes to mind immediately are students, instructors, things to be learned, and instructional resources. This might be an earth-air-fire-and-water kind of answer, though. Each of these elements might be further elaborated in terms of more discrete components which are more informative with regard to explaining interactions that are observed or desired.
What are the essential interactions or causal influences in an instructional or learning context? Outcomes common to most instructional and learning systems include improved understanding and performance with regard to some body of knowledge or set of skills. This implies that there should be reliable ways to assess relative levels of understanding and performance (relative to past performance or understanding or relative to a desired standard or goal). Other outcomes might be identified, and these might be further elaborated in terms of types of outcomes (e.g., affective, cognitive, psycho-motor or … there are many ways to cluster outcomes) and their relationship to knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, habits of minds, mental models, skills, and such.
Regardless of the sophistication and granularity of the components and interactions, we want to understand the various things that comprise an instructional or a learning system and how they are related, especially with regard to efficacy in achieving desired outcomes. Maybe. Well, I seem to recall Gagné saying that our job was to help people learn better. What can we do at a systems level to fulfill that responsibility? How can we measure and foster success?
Lastly, there is the notion of research issues central to progress in a domain. The students who responded to Prof. Seel each had a favorite area or method of inquiry. Why believe that one’s favorite area or method of inquiry is critical to progress in instructional and learning systems research, however? What evidence can one bring to bear to defend such a view? How might one identify critical areas and methods of research inquiry in educational technology?
One might think beyond oneself and beyond one’s own training and set of predispositions. One might look at what distinguished researchers in related areas have said. The Book of Problems (see the 2002 events archive at www.learndev.org) would be a good starting point, I would think. I recall the advice I was given when selecting a dissertation topic by Ed Allaire, my dissertation advisor at the University of Texas in Austin: Pick the central domain and then pick a central unresolved issue within that domain. Allaire’s perspective was that writing a dissertation was a part of an ongoing process of developing knowledge and competence, and, further, that familiarity with central issues was an essential part of that process. Of course there is some subjectivity in this – there will be different views about the centrality of domains and issues. I suspect, however, that a small number of alternatives can be identified. What might these alternatives be for instructional and learning systems?
That is where I thought the discussion might have gone in Prof. Seel’s seminar, or at least that is how it was going in my mind during the seminar. What I have not touched upon yet is a core issue involving values – values that are at the core of scientific inquiry. The starting point of scientific research is a desire to understand a phenomenon or situation or sequence of events. This implies that one admits to a state of relative ignorance: “I do not understand this.” One might say that humility (“I know that I do not know”) is the starting point of every scientific inquiry. What do leading instructional systems researchers admit to not knowing or not understanding? Again I recommend looking at Visser’s Book of Problems (www.learndev.org) to gain insight in to this question. There is too much that I do not know about learning and instruction for me to include the list here. However, one thing that I do not understand well is how particular people develop competence in solving complex, challenging and ill-structured problems. We do learn by doing, so engaging in and reflecting on such problem-solving and decision-making activities seems to be a necessary ingredient in the mix. It also seems woefully insufficient, however. More challenging still, from my perspective, is how we can measure individual progress in developing such skills, which I think is needed in order to develop and implement robust and reliable training programs. We could of course leave such matters to chance and coincidence, but there does seem to be an increasing demand for people who are skilled in solving very complex problems.
A second value to add to humility with regard to scientific investigation concerns being open to alternatives. “This alternative you or I have devised is only one possible approach or explanation; perhaps there are others.” The inability to imagine alternative explanations does not mean that alternative explanations do not exist. Alternative explanations always exist (this is a remark about the logic of scientific explanations). Humility is the starting point, and openness to alternative explanations is required for sustained inquiry.
Finally, one ought to engage in a kind of inquiry that will contribute to progress of human knowledge in and about the domain of inquiry. Scientific inquiry at its best is cumulative and progressive. This requires using reliable instruments and methods that others might also use. If every study is about a unique situation and every instrument used is unique to that study, then generalizing findings becomes a significant challenge – that is one of the many challenges confronting educational research, I think.
Perhaps no one mentioned such things because they are so obvious. I find myself requiring such reminders, though.
Mike Spector
AECT President
Saturday, December 12, 2009
To Serve and Support
Ideas come and go. Sometimes they come back. Occasionally they take root. Here is one that has returned several times since I became AECT President. The idea is simply that a primary responsibility of an educator is to serve and support. This is not a new idea. I suppose it has returned because I have had the chance to see it in action several times in the last few months. I visited the annual convention of the New Jersey Association of School Librarians and saw many persons there demonstrating a variety of innovative technology integration efforts in New Jersey schools. The school librarians and media specialists who presented their work were uniformly focused on helping students learn. These educators were serving and supporting their students. I have been working with teachers in poorly performing rural K-8 schools in the Southeast where I have seen teachers dedicated to helping their students improve in reading, mathematics and science. I have visited schools in Indonesia and seen teachers there helping students learn without the benefit of any of the technologies we take for granted.
I recall the mentors I have had over the years. In our field, I have benefitted from the support of Bob Gagné and Dave Merrill and others who helped me develop an understanding of instructional technology and educational research. I have seen service and support in action, and I have personally benefitted from the service and support of others. I am now confronted with a serious question of conscience. Am I doing what I could or should to serve and support?
I am generally suspicious of self-assessments, but I will venture one here because I want to urge those who might read this to ask themselves the same question. I think I have done well with regard to my personal life and my family, especially my children (they might disagree with this assessment). However, when I think about service and support in my professional life I am inclined to say I have been more focused on self-service and self-promotion and less focused on service and support to students. This is perhaps not unusual. It is perhaps natural to want to advance one’s career. Doing so might incline one to focus on those to whom one reports – deans and directors and managers – rather than focusing on those for whom one is responsible – students, in my case, or teachers if you are a principal or a dean.
We seem to always be in the middle between those above us – those who pay our salaries – and those we, as educators, are supposed to serve and support. Most of my career has been in higher education and government service, so most of my work has involved adults – college students and government workers. My ideal notion of the chain of service and support is that it should be primarily directed down the official or professional hierarchy in which one is working. In a college or university, this would mean that the president’s service and support should be focused primarily on deans and directors – not the Board of Regents. The dean’s service and support should be focused primarily on faculty and staff – not the provost or president. The teacher’s service and support should be focused primarily on students. Likewise, in a school system, the superintendent’s service and support should be focused on principals, with principals focused primarily on teachers and teachers focused primarily on students.
I know this is a naïve and simplistic view of serving and supporting, but it is my view. When I then consider why I have fallen short, I think about the incentives to perform my duties and responsibilities. I am rewarded for publishing papers and getting grants. I am not directly rewarded for advising a struggling graduate student. Indeed, the time I spend with students is hardly noticed or taken into account in the university systems in which I have worked. There is a token look at service and support of students built into the tenure and promotion process, but that aspect of tenure and promotion that examines one’s service to and support of students is typically very superficial and only marginally influential on the outcome of a tenure and promotion decision.
Publish or perish is alive and well in academia. As a journal editor, I get several emails every year asking about the status of a paper submitted by a junior faculty member who is being reviewed for tenure. Has the paper been reviewed yet? What is the outcome? Will it be published, and, if so, when? The system encourages us to be concerned with ourselves. I have done well, I suppose, in this kind of system in terms of self-advancement. I have neglected students, though – more so than I should or would were I not so busy piling up words, writing papers, pursuing funding, and seeking to advance still more. I cannot blame the system for my behavior, nor am I sure how to improve a university system or a school system to focus on those we should be serving and supporting. I am merely the victim of this simple idea that one should serve and support those for whom one is at least partly responsible.
Of course I wonder about my role as AECT President as well. I should be serving and supporting the membership. How best can I do that? Again I am not sure, but I am convinced that communication is critical. I have heard from some members after the 2009 convention. Some were happy and pleased with the meeting, and some were disappointed. What could I have done differently to better serve and support all of the membership of AECT? One thing I hope to do is to keep the next AECT President, Barbara Lockee, informed of the things I am hearing from the membership. There is not much time to make significant changes in a short period of service, but one can initiate some changes that might be pushed further by the next leader.
Some of the changes that we have been pursuing on behalf of the membership began with prior leaders and include efforts to link AECT to national organizations such as the National Technology Leadership Coalition and the New Media Consortium. We are continuing to make efforts to improve the quality of presentations at the annual meeting by providing feedback to submitters and asking that the comments of reviewers be included in final papers and presentations. We have introduced reflection paper sessions to allow those with new but not yet well developed or empirically explored ideas to present those ideas and get feedback from others – a kind of scholarly mentoring. We are continuing the series of research symposia that focus on research pertaining to important aspects of educational technology.
There are some things to which we have not responded as well as we might have. The venue for the annual conference has been a contentious point over the years. We are not going back to Orlando in response to the membership. However, we are returning to Anaheim because the hotel has lowered its cost and the location will draw a significant number of people. Then I wonder whether the time spent on worrying about the complaints of a few about the venue should outweigh the concern from so many that we pick an affordable location with convenient air access.
In sum, I am not sure if I am really serving and supporting or simply being pushed in one direction or another by various constituencies. I am really not sure about this, but I will try to serve and support as best I can in my remaining 10 months in this position.
To serve and support others or to be self-serving and self-promoting – that is the question of conscience and the idea that has returned to haunt me. I hope that it will haunt you as well. I hope that idea takes root – it will surely require much nourishing and care in order to survive.
Meanwhile, I wish you a happy and safe holiday season.
Mike Spector
AECT President
I recall the mentors I have had over the years. In our field, I have benefitted from the support of Bob Gagné and Dave Merrill and others who helped me develop an understanding of instructional technology and educational research. I have seen service and support in action, and I have personally benefitted from the service and support of others. I am now confronted with a serious question of conscience. Am I doing what I could or should to serve and support?
I am generally suspicious of self-assessments, but I will venture one here because I want to urge those who might read this to ask themselves the same question. I think I have done well with regard to my personal life and my family, especially my children (they might disagree with this assessment). However, when I think about service and support in my professional life I am inclined to say I have been more focused on self-service and self-promotion and less focused on service and support to students. This is perhaps not unusual. It is perhaps natural to want to advance one’s career. Doing so might incline one to focus on those to whom one reports – deans and directors and managers – rather than focusing on those for whom one is responsible – students, in my case, or teachers if you are a principal or a dean.
We seem to always be in the middle between those above us – those who pay our salaries – and those we, as educators, are supposed to serve and support. Most of my career has been in higher education and government service, so most of my work has involved adults – college students and government workers. My ideal notion of the chain of service and support is that it should be primarily directed down the official or professional hierarchy in which one is working. In a college or university, this would mean that the president’s service and support should be focused primarily on deans and directors – not the Board of Regents. The dean’s service and support should be focused primarily on faculty and staff – not the provost or president. The teacher’s service and support should be focused primarily on students. Likewise, in a school system, the superintendent’s service and support should be focused on principals, with principals focused primarily on teachers and teachers focused primarily on students.
I know this is a naïve and simplistic view of serving and supporting, but it is my view. When I then consider why I have fallen short, I think about the incentives to perform my duties and responsibilities. I am rewarded for publishing papers and getting grants. I am not directly rewarded for advising a struggling graduate student. Indeed, the time I spend with students is hardly noticed or taken into account in the university systems in which I have worked. There is a token look at service and support of students built into the tenure and promotion process, but that aspect of tenure and promotion that examines one’s service to and support of students is typically very superficial and only marginally influential on the outcome of a tenure and promotion decision.
Publish or perish is alive and well in academia. As a journal editor, I get several emails every year asking about the status of a paper submitted by a junior faculty member who is being reviewed for tenure. Has the paper been reviewed yet? What is the outcome? Will it be published, and, if so, when? The system encourages us to be concerned with ourselves. I have done well, I suppose, in this kind of system in terms of self-advancement. I have neglected students, though – more so than I should or would were I not so busy piling up words, writing papers, pursuing funding, and seeking to advance still more. I cannot blame the system for my behavior, nor am I sure how to improve a university system or a school system to focus on those we should be serving and supporting. I am merely the victim of this simple idea that one should serve and support those for whom one is at least partly responsible.
Of course I wonder about my role as AECT President as well. I should be serving and supporting the membership. How best can I do that? Again I am not sure, but I am convinced that communication is critical. I have heard from some members after the 2009 convention. Some were happy and pleased with the meeting, and some were disappointed. What could I have done differently to better serve and support all of the membership of AECT? One thing I hope to do is to keep the next AECT President, Barbara Lockee, informed of the things I am hearing from the membership. There is not much time to make significant changes in a short period of service, but one can initiate some changes that might be pushed further by the next leader.
Some of the changes that we have been pursuing on behalf of the membership began with prior leaders and include efforts to link AECT to national organizations such as the National Technology Leadership Coalition and the New Media Consortium. We are continuing to make efforts to improve the quality of presentations at the annual meeting by providing feedback to submitters and asking that the comments of reviewers be included in final papers and presentations. We have introduced reflection paper sessions to allow those with new but not yet well developed or empirically explored ideas to present those ideas and get feedback from others – a kind of scholarly mentoring. We are continuing the series of research symposia that focus on research pertaining to important aspects of educational technology.
There are some things to which we have not responded as well as we might have. The venue for the annual conference has been a contentious point over the years. We are not going back to Orlando in response to the membership. However, we are returning to Anaheim because the hotel has lowered its cost and the location will draw a significant number of people. Then I wonder whether the time spent on worrying about the complaints of a few about the venue should outweigh the concern from so many that we pick an affordable location with convenient air access.
In sum, I am not sure if I am really serving and supporting or simply being pushed in one direction or another by various constituencies. I am really not sure about this, but I will try to serve and support as best I can in my remaining 10 months in this position.
To serve and support others or to be self-serving and self-promoting – that is the question of conscience and the idea that has returned to haunt me. I hope that it will haunt you as well. I hope that idea takes root – it will surely require much nourishing and care in order to survive.
Meanwhile, I wish you a happy and safe holiday season.
Mike Spector
AECT President
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Reflecting on reflection paper presentations
We introduced reflection papers this year at AECT. They were not as successful as I had hoped. This session type is modeled after the reflection paper presentations introduced at CELDA (Cognition and Exploratory Learning in the Digital Age) 4 or 5 years ago.
I just returned from CELDA 2009 and the reflection paper session worked beautifully again there. There are some relevant differences. The sessions at CELDA were about 2 hours in length with 8 presenters in each session. The posters were put up in the room at the beginning of the session. Session attendees were given 15 minutes to take a quick look at the posters at the start of the session after reviewing how the session would proceed. Then, each presenter had 3 to 5 minutes to present the problem addressed – not an overview of the paper but the problem addressed in the paper, why the problem was significant, and the general approach taken to address the problem. There was no Q&A after the individual problem statements. Then, the presenters were seated as a panel at the front of the room and the facilitator (in this case it was one of the conference organizers – I did it twice this past week and Kinshuk did it twice – we had 4 such sessions) provided an overview of the main issues presented and proceeded to ask a few questions of the presenters to get things started. There followed a serious discussion among panelist-presenters and the audience that lasted for about an hour. All four of these sessions turned out be quite good and conversations continued after the session and throughout the conference. Some presenters were seasoned researchers and some were junior researchers.
I am hoping we can approach that kind of session at AECT – high quality, active mentoring involved, good discussion and interaction, and so on. The key difference, I think, is that the reflection paper presenters were given a chance to reflect on their problem and approach as panelists in a very collegial discussion atmosphere with many probing questions.
I just returned from CELDA 2009 and the reflection paper session worked beautifully again there. There are some relevant differences. The sessions at CELDA were about 2 hours in length with 8 presenters in each session. The posters were put up in the room at the beginning of the session. Session attendees were given 15 minutes to take a quick look at the posters at the start of the session after reviewing how the session would proceed. Then, each presenter had 3 to 5 minutes to present the problem addressed – not an overview of the paper but the problem addressed in the paper, why the problem was significant, and the general approach taken to address the problem. There was no Q&A after the individual problem statements. Then, the presenters were seated as a panel at the front of the room and the facilitator (in this case it was one of the conference organizers – I did it twice this past week and Kinshuk did it twice – we had 4 such sessions) provided an overview of the main issues presented and proceeded to ask a few questions of the presenters to get things started. There followed a serious discussion among panelist-presenters and the audience that lasted for about an hour. All four of these sessions turned out be quite good and conversations continued after the session and throughout the conference. Some presenters were seasoned researchers and some were junior researchers.
I am hoping we can approach that kind of session at AECT – high quality, active mentoring involved, good discussion and interaction, and so on. The key difference, I think, is that the reflection paper presenters were given a chance to reflect on their problem and approach as panelists in a very collegial discussion atmosphere with many probing questions.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
News from the Nov 17th AECT Board Meeting
AECT leaders are hard at work improving the association, and we had an especially productive AECT Board meeting this afternoon. Here are a few examples of the outstanding work being done on behalf of AECT members from today’s meeting. Barbara Lockee has led a task force to identify and recommend a system to improve conference planning - from the initial call for papers, through the submissions and review process, to scheduling and then developing the conference program. The system that her task force recommended is All Academic, which is the system used by AERA. It is very easy to use with all of the functionality we require. In addition, it is affordable and will allow us to provide more meaningful feedback to submitters and receive improved papers from those whose proposals are accepted. The third biennial AECT Research Symposium, led by Les Moller, is moving forward with an extended call for papers. The plan is to hold the symposium just after the summer leadership development meeting in Bloomington July 22-23 (exact dates may change slightly). The Board voted to join the New Media Consortium (NMC – www.nmc.org) so as to make NMC activities and resources more available, accessible and affordable for AECT members. This move, along with our affiliation with the National Technology Leadership Coalition (NTLC; http://www.ntlcoalition.org/) should ensure AECT a continued presence at the national level with prominent educational technology organizations.
The Board is addressing financial issues in a very measured and responsible manner. A financial review of AECT 2009 indicates that the conference will end in the black (the current estimate is a net income of about $15K; not all of the expenses have been totaled). This is less than originally projected and less than we earned in Orlando, but not all that bad given the tough economic times. To keep the conference economically viable, the Board is eliminating one-day registrations and the super early bird registration while lowering the other conference rates for 2010.
AECT has sponsored the International Student Media Festival (http://ismf09.ipower.com/new/) since 1974. ISMF started to become quite popular with state student media festivals in the last five or six years. This year there were about 1200 student entries and a strong program in Louisville – not quite as large as the previous festival in Orlando. The Board’s goal is for sponsorship of ISMF to be revenue neutral, but this year’s expenses exceeded the revenue generated by registered participants and corporate sponsors by about $33K; most of the shortfall was due to the loss of corporate sponsors (tough economic times). The Board decided that ISMF has value, especially to several of our divisions and to our state affiliates, but we also want to avoid future losses, so expenses allowed for 2010 will be reduced by $20 in order to have revenues we can realistically expect to meet known expenses. Otto Benevides has invested a great deal of time and effort in making ISMF successful in terms of student participation and workshops for students. AECT would like to see the festival continue to be a success and is taking a position of continued sponsorship with a careful eye on expenditures to ensure that we do not have another significant loss on the books. I learned on a recent visit to the New Jersey Association for School Librarians (NJASL) annual meeting that New Jersey is planning to introduce the student media festival there. ISMF sponsorship helps to put AECT in a leadership position within the K-12 educational technology community, which is one of our constituencies.
Another issue involving AECT’s role in the educational technology community and our financial situation concerns NCATE (National Council of Accreditation of Teacher Education; see http://www.ncate.org/). We pay NCATE $20K every year and spend another $5K sending AECT representatives to NCATE meetings so that AECT can serve as a SPA (Specialty Program Area) accrediting group. In that role, AECT has accredited about 21 programs. This process requires a great deal of time and effort on the part of AECT volunteers in addition to the $20K we have to pay for the privilege of serving as an NCATE SPA. The Board thinks the funding model for NCATE is backwards and voted today to send a strong message to NCATE saying as much. We realize that many people have strong feelings with regard to NCATE affiliation, so we encourage you to give us your feedback, insights and experiences in the next few months while we wait to see if NCATE will take action to reverse the funding model. If there is no response from NCATE, then we will need to have a membership-wide discussion with regard to continued affiliation.
As I tried to convey at the General Membership Meeting in Louisville on October 30th, I believe that AECT is healthy financially and professionally. I think the quality of the conference continues to improve, although we can obviously do better – I am sure that Barbara Lockee will exceed all expectations and provide a stellar conference in Anaheim in October 2010. We have new university, state and international affiliates, and more likely to come. Our publications are doing exceptionally well – the impact factor for Educational Technology Research & Development doubled this year, which is a remarkable achievement – many thanks again to Steve Ross for his long service as the ETR&D Research Editor. You will soon see a new Website and some new features on that Website, including free access to publications not available elsewhere. Life in Second Life is proceeding on course. More webinars are planned that should be of interest. We are moving in positive directions given such indicators.
However, my view is biased. I want to hear more from you. The Board wants to hear more from you. What should we be doing that we are not doing or not doing well? What are we doing well that we should be sure to keep doing well? Let us know.
Have a safe and happy Thanksgiving.
Mike Spector
The Board is addressing financial issues in a very measured and responsible manner. A financial review of AECT 2009 indicates that the conference will end in the black (the current estimate is a net income of about $15K; not all of the expenses have been totaled). This is less than originally projected and less than we earned in Orlando, but not all that bad given the tough economic times. To keep the conference economically viable, the Board is eliminating one-day registrations and the super early bird registration while lowering the other conference rates for 2010.
AECT has sponsored the International Student Media Festival (http://ismf09.ipower.com/new/) since 1974. ISMF started to become quite popular with state student media festivals in the last five or six years. This year there were about 1200 student entries and a strong program in Louisville – not quite as large as the previous festival in Orlando. The Board’s goal is for sponsorship of ISMF to be revenue neutral, but this year’s expenses exceeded the revenue generated by registered participants and corporate sponsors by about $33K; most of the shortfall was due to the loss of corporate sponsors (tough economic times). The Board decided that ISMF has value, especially to several of our divisions and to our state affiliates, but we also want to avoid future losses, so expenses allowed for 2010 will be reduced by $20 in order to have revenues we can realistically expect to meet known expenses. Otto Benevides has invested a great deal of time and effort in making ISMF successful in terms of student participation and workshops for students. AECT would like to see the festival continue to be a success and is taking a position of continued sponsorship with a careful eye on expenditures to ensure that we do not have another significant loss on the books. I learned on a recent visit to the New Jersey Association for School Librarians (NJASL) annual meeting that New Jersey is planning to introduce the student media festival there. ISMF sponsorship helps to put AECT in a leadership position within the K-12 educational technology community, which is one of our constituencies.
Another issue involving AECT’s role in the educational technology community and our financial situation concerns NCATE (National Council of Accreditation of Teacher Education; see http://www.ncate.org/). We pay NCATE $20K every year and spend another $5K sending AECT representatives to NCATE meetings so that AECT can serve as a SPA (Specialty Program Area) accrediting group. In that role, AECT has accredited about 21 programs. This process requires a great deal of time and effort on the part of AECT volunteers in addition to the $20K we have to pay for the privilege of serving as an NCATE SPA. The Board thinks the funding model for NCATE is backwards and voted today to send a strong message to NCATE saying as much. We realize that many people have strong feelings with regard to NCATE affiliation, so we encourage you to give us your feedback, insights and experiences in the next few months while we wait to see if NCATE will take action to reverse the funding model. If there is no response from NCATE, then we will need to have a membership-wide discussion with regard to continued affiliation.
As I tried to convey at the General Membership Meeting in Louisville on October 30th, I believe that AECT is healthy financially and professionally. I think the quality of the conference continues to improve, although we can obviously do better – I am sure that Barbara Lockee will exceed all expectations and provide a stellar conference in Anaheim in October 2010. We have new university, state and international affiliates, and more likely to come. Our publications are doing exceptionally well – the impact factor for Educational Technology Research & Development doubled this year, which is a remarkable achievement – many thanks again to Steve Ross for his long service as the ETR&D Research Editor. You will soon see a new Website and some new features on that Website, including free access to publications not available elsewhere. Life in Second Life is proceeding on course. More webinars are planned that should be of interest. We are moving in positive directions given such indicators.
However, my view is biased. I want to hear more from you. The Board wants to hear more from you. What should we be doing that we are not doing or not doing well? What are we doing well that we should be sure to keep doing well? Let us know.
Have a safe and happy Thanksgiving.
Mike Spector
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
