Talk:Educational technology

Page list

All pages with titles beginning with E-learning
All pages with titles beginning with Talk:E-learning

Educational technology category page

How should the article be integrated with or effectively link to the Educational technology category page? It seems that the See Also section should be reduced and that this should instead link to the category. Roycekimmons (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Theory & Practice Issues

I am not sure why theory and practice would be in the same section. The section doesn't even include any "practice" information. I also suggest the "theory" section is not useful as is, primarily because it simply lists brief descriptions of three theoretical perspectives (not theories). Unfortunately, the article does not say how these "theories" relate to educational technology. If these theories have something to say about educational technology, that information should be included, otherwise, I suggest omitting this information or just putting in links. The list of theorists is also problematic because some listed are not very much associated with ET theory and some who are, are omitted. It is sort of astounding that this article doesn't even mention R. E. Clark who asserted that media use cannot affect learning. This is a significant theoretical issue and places limitations on what can be expected from ET on student learning. Robotczar (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Please consider using your ideas yourself to edit the article to improve it. I made some changes that pick up on some of your comments. You indicate that the descriptions are theoretical perspectives (not theories). I added wording to address your point. However, Wikipedia naming conventions prefer brevity, so the names of links within this encyclopedia are driven by that choice of styling. I separated theory from practice. I disagree that practice is absent, but agree that the connection is wobbly. I will add a brief mention of Clark when I have a moment. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Following up on your comment, I have removed all the theorists. For future accessible reference (beyond the readily available back versions) they were Alan November; Seymour Papert; Will Richardson; John Sweller; Don Krug; David Warlick; Alex Jones; Russell Long; George Siemens; David Wiley; David Wilson; Bernard Luskin. Many have their own WP article, some do not. I am sure they could be added back here, perhaps also Clark, but as you comment, if these theorists and their theories have something to say about educational technology, it might be more useful if the contribution they made was supported by wp:rs here, along with inline discussion in relevant text in this article e.g. history section etc. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Criticism Criticism

This section consistently advocates based on opinions instead of presenting information. It quickly takes an advocacy position for "ecological" perspectives, instead of simply reporting that some educators assert that position. It is inappropriate that the second paragraph says that "unless this happens, it is likely that…" It can be reported that some scholar or researcher makes this claim, but the article offers this position as established fact.

The third paragraph has some repetitive information, but it is focused on babies and DVDs which is only tangential to this topic because babies are not in the formal educational system. Ditto for problems related to the use of computers and cell phones. This research is about general use, not technology used in a regulated instructional environment, which would address concerns about distractions and time wasting. This article should stick to technology use in formal education, as part of a designed curriculum.

The next paragraph presents unrelated, unsupported statements that are wrong. Increasing corporate profits via hyped technology is a legitimate concern, but no support is offered for this assertion. Much of what this paragraph says is incorrect. Most online tests are not adaptive, and being adaptive is unrelated to corporate hype or profit. The Khan academy is thrown in and criticized without citations or even a coherent argument. (Why is focus on the end result bad?) The "computer-based instructional model", whatever that is, does not "encourage" students to work individually. Whether students work individually or collaborate is about pedagogy, not technology. ET can support collaborative learning for example via online discussion forums and other social media.

Is the percentage of MOOC registrants an issue important enough to be considered in this article? That information is better on the MOOC page. This information is really not basic to the topic of educational technology. Also, MOOCs are in fact, an educational environment using a specific pedagogy, it is not a form of educational technology. Omit it.

Again, the Everest effect section takes a position instead of reporting it as that is is said by some specific people. This section also makes some large claims, one citation is insufficient to claim that the instructional environment, including instructional method, changes just due to technology.

The rest of this section has similar, or worse problems. One can hardly understand the relevance of "phantom objectivity" to this topic. Maybe a philosophical diatribe belongs on the technology page, but not here. Technology is not going away any time soon, and as been present in education since the inception of formal education. Books are media and technology. Please get rid of this stuff. Some legitimate criticism exists, and this sort of stuff simply distracts from the real issues. Robotczar (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Please consider using these ideas to edit the article to improve it. Careful edits to mainspace would be most welcome. I made some changes that pick up on some of your comments. However, a more thorough rewrite based on some of these principles is very reasonable, and you could think about doing them ! Of course I do not agree with everything - for example, that MOOCs "are NOT educational technology", but are instead a categorically different DNA called "educational environments". Well, yes, I see what you are saying on the positive side, they ARE "environments" of a sort, but what why would that exclude them from being educational technology - is there some clear criterion? Babies are not excluded here, nor are informal educational approaches, or self-learning, nor even diatribes about phantom objectivity, as long as there is some relation to educational technology in its broadest inclusive sense. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)]

Thanks for your response. I will consider some editing of the page, but my objections here are large and I think some talk is required before heading in a new direction. An instructional delivery environment sets parameters for technology use for instruction. Both MOOC and online courses use the same technology--it is in instructional method that they differ. Does online technology compared to classroom technology affect student learning independently of pedagogy? Many studies (and Clark) suggest not. Whatever the case, this issue needs to be mentioned--it is rather germane to ET. Overall, I see a problem in viewing technology, or educational technology--technology used in formal education (not for babies or self learning)--as an educational method. (A page on learning technology could include babies and self learning. Generally, this article confuses learning and education.) Educational technology (as used in this context) involves use of tools to support instructional methods, it is not a method itself. Whether one agrees or not, this is a key issue that needs to be addressed on a page addressing the definition of educational technology.Robotczar (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)