Jump to content

Talk:Educational technology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LOBOSKYJOJO (talk | contribs) at 04:10, 21 January 2019 (→Proposed Addition to Learning Analytics: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Doriineia (article contribs).

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Finkelsr, Juliagrace315, Linsmaim, Fairchia (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Katielee321, Juliagrace315, Linsmaim, Hoffma51.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Aalcaide.

Page list

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


Proposed merger from E-learning maturity model

Rambling philosophical, unreferenced article, which has been tagged since 2008. Propose merger here. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessing proposal as there is some literature citing the model. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing merge proposal, as it has no support and seems to have been withdrawn by the proposer (who has significantly improved the article since the proposal was made. Klbrain (talk) 10:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Idea for improvement

Add some information about technologies that are currently being worked on as well as some new technologies that are being implemented into some classrooms today, some that most schools will not have access to yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaldrich1109 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Add information for the possible positives that will come from these new technologies. Explain how they will benefit not only the students but education as a whole. Also focus on how implementing these new technologies will allow for a better educational system. For example 3D printing is a major asset that can be used throughout the educational world. It allows for perfection of the design before creating the actual prototype.

http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/future-classroom-technologies/

Idea for improvement

Add some information about technologies that are currently being worked on as well as some new technologies that are being implemented into some classrooms today, some that most schools will not have access to yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaldrich1109 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This comment appears to be in the context of a class assignment. Please remember that we are bound by WP:PILLARS, particularly WP:5P2 and WP:UNDUE, as well as considerations of WP:CRYSTAL. FeatherPluma (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially adding all of the new up to date technology used in classrooms with statistical facts is a good way to show its effectiveness in the classroom. I went through high school using an iPad and I found the educational experience a lot better and i think statistics would help prove many points and get the message across that technology is extremely beneficial. Even prosing a counter argument with negative results? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boorumr (talk • contribs) 23:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Add New Information

Add new information about technologies that are currently being used in high school classrooms, such as Google Classroom. Also, SmartBoards are only briefly mentioned in the article, so more about that can be added.Nataliewarner (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nataliewarner: This comment appears to be in the context of a class assignment. Thanks for adding Google Classroom - noting that better sourcing for some of the added content would be appreciated. SmartBoard is a brand of IWB, albeit with some claim to concurrent interactivity with other software, and as such needs less mention in an overview article. That section has been modified today. FeatherPluma (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree very much that the article could be improved explaining technology that is taking place in the classroom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliagrace315 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This comment appears to be in the context of a class assignment. Please be aware that the WP:NOT policy, specifically the WP:NOTHOWTO component, favors non-inclusion of "how-to" content. Also, this is an overview article; in general, we try to constrain article size per WP:SPLITTING. FeatherPluma (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

Some sections of the article, especially the "Teacher Training" section seems very biased to me. The viewpoint that technology is the best way to teach students in today's classrooms is over represented. The viewpoint of teachers that is expressed in the section is that teachers do not want to stray from traditional education, but this may not always be true. The section also states that student teamwork and collaborative problem solving, among other things, are not focused on in today's classrooms, which also may not always be true. These are only a few examples taken from this section, but overall it seems very opinionated.Nataliewarner (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nataliewarner: This comment appears to be in the context of a class assignment. I agree. The references supporting the assertions, such as Jenkins 2009 [1] are dated, are opinion pieces, and were being used somewhat synthetically. In light of the points made, I modified the article text, to tone down the overreach. As with many articles, incorporating newer sources that look at things from a broad perspective would be a nice improvement. I am not entirely sure that the bias has been fully removed with these new edits, but I think adding new well-balanced sources is going to be needed if we are to improve the content further. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in that this article seems to say that technology is going to be the only way in education. They do not seem to agree or appreciate any other ideas that have nothing to do with technology. There are plenty of other ways to teach people that is not just technology. Emerjo (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Emerjo: This comment appears to be in the context of a class assignment. As explained in the article, "technology" is loaded term with several definitional aspects: it is not confined to material technology. The addition of properly sourced content that addressed the non-material aspects you point to would be a nice addition. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Information

The "Sociocultural criticism" section seems like a lot of unnecessary information. I fail to see how the views of Lai, Leo Marx, and Winner have to do with educational technology in today's classrooms. I also think that more information on the effect that educational technology is having on today's students grade-wise could be added to improve the article.Nataliewarner (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nataliewarner: This comment appears to be in the context of a class assignment. The sourced views of these individuals are theoretical considerations or criticisms of potential applicability to any educational technology at any time. As to the impact of specific technologies on grades, please remember that we are bound by WP:PILLARS, particularly WP:5P2 and WP:UNDUE, as well as considerations of WP:CRYSTAL. Also, this is an overview article; in general, we try to constrain article size per WP:SPLITTING. I will look at the section again and see if it can be condensed. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the Theory section, more specifically, Behaviorism is a tad off topic and vague. I would suggest to add more reasoning on how behaviorism has to do with educational technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katielee321 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Katielee321: This comment appears to be in the context of a class assignment. "Technology" is a loaded term with several distinct definitional aspects: the concept is not confined in use to material technologies themselves, as explained in the article. That said, it may an improvement if an appreciable proportion of that section were merged to e-learning (theory) and / or learning theory (education). FeatherPluma (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Futuristic Thinking

As technology evolves, a pedagogy of futuristic thinking has formed. This is thinking about learning in an alternative way to help advance into the future. [1] Examples of such thinking is the using of VR in the classroom offering experiences to see a landscape or exhibit.

References

  1. ^ Oliver, M. "Technological determinism in educational technology research: some alternative ways of thinking about the relationship between learning and technology". Journal of Computer Assisted Learning.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Educational technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parameter modified per manual check. FeatherPluma (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

Hi there!

I'll be adding to the Assessment section of the page to include more information, primarily about how technology can be used for different types of assessments and giving some examples of possible tech assessments. My drafted section should go in early next week, if anyone is invested in that section and wants to take a look let me know! Doriineia (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like some helpful content added. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

One suggestion would be to add a link that leads you to an article that talks a little more about how schools can use Educational Technology. This can tell us what the benefits are if students and teachers use and incorporate technology in education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linsmaim (talk • contribs) 03:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

One suggestion would be to add a link that leads you to an article that talks a little more about how schools can use Educational Technology. This can tell us what the benefits are if students and teachers use and incorporate technology in education. Linsmaim (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One suggestion would be to add links to articles that can further the information given on the page. Also you could mention how useful google tools are in a classroom setting due to all of the tools that are given at no charge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffma51 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed category merge

I have proposed merging Category:Educational technologists to Category:People in educational technology; please comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 May 15#Category:Educational technologists. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"K-12" additions reverted

I have reverted a good-faith edit from December 2016 for this section, just wanted to offer a view reasons for this removal (too long for an edit summary): 1) It was atleast partially plagiarizing its source - the first sentence is a 1:1 copy. 2) Following the first point, the addition gives undue weight to a single source. 3) Wikipedia articles should not use first-person language and other essay-ish phrases. 4) Parts of the content seem biased and not totally "uninvolved" as required per WP:NPOV. 5) The addition misrepresents the source in some aspects, where the reference has a more nuanced view on the topic. For example: its introduction mentions that the exact advantages of digital learning are questioned by some experts and implementation of digital learning can be difficult (paraphrasing). For a balanced view on the topic such aspects need to be considered instead of only focussing on positive details. Lastly, 6) as a broad overview this article should only give succinct summaries of sub-topics. Detailed secondary information would be better suited for sub-articles.

The source is "Clemmitt, Marcia (2011). "Digital Education". Can technology replace classroom teachers?. 21 – via CQ RESEARCHER.", if any topic expert wants to use it for further improvements. GermanJoe (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning companies and products

Unless a company or application is mentioned in independent non-promotional sources and its mention would add significant encyclopedic information, such promotional name-dropping should be avoided. Wikipedia is not a textbook - generally trivial "examples" without substantial context are not needed. I removed several instances, where such examples were added without independent sources and any relevant additional information, or where the information was solely based on the provider's say-so. GermanJoe (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit removed

I have reverted the recent promotional addition for How People Learn II: Learners, Contexts, and Cultures. Aside from the clear promotion/advocacy (see WP:SOAPBOX), a simplistic overview of mostly obvious affordances added nothing of encyclopedic substance to the article and lacked any relevant topical context within the current content. Several of the listed points are also already covered in other article sections in far better context and detail (for example in "Practise"), others were hopelessly vague or banal buzzphrases without substantial factual information. Wikipedia is not a PR platform to popularize new publications, NGOs, or their activities. GermanJoe (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the edit is inherently promotional (it's a followup to an enormously well-respected book published by the National Academies) but the content of the edit - a contextless list of words - is hugely problematic. It needs to be further developed or removed completely. ElKevbo (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Respected publications can be promoted just like everything else and sometimes are. But I agree, after fav203's clarification, that there was apparently no promotional intent behind these edits (see comments below). [I struck the "promotional" details in my above message to reflect the later clarification].GermanJoe (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The edit is not promotional, nor is this a PR platform. Graduate students in a graduate course on educational technology are working to summarize and synthesize the key affordances of learning technologies from this well-respected book. While the reading just came out, it's the second version of the text from the National Academies Press that is HIGHLY regarded. The list of words was contextless because it hadn't been populated by the students yet. Their assignment - in groups, discuss two of the affordances and synthesize the chapter's explanation of them in your own words; describe why the two affordances your group is exploring are essential to learning; offer an example of a tool that accomplishes that affordance (and explain why you chose it); and add to a wikipedia page your evaluation and information related to your two affordances. I set up the template for them to populate with their groups. I LITERALLY just put it up when it was taken down, only to put it up again, for it to be taken down again. This was at least a good lesson in demonstrating how educational technology does not always work. fav203 —Preceding undated comment added 23:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Article space is not a good place to draft text. Feel free to workshop ideas in Talk or Draft space. ElKevbo (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the misunderstanding - unfortunately this assignment approach wasn't clear from the editing. I agree with ElKevbo, that a published article might be problematic for such extensive work by several groups at once, and separate draft page(s) or sandboxes might be a better starting point to develop a final text in your own time. Of course constant editing and occasional corrections are common activities here, but when too many editors work on one article at once with unfinished evolving information, it might get a bit messy. I'll post a few additional tips on your user talkpage to avoid bloating this discussion with unrelated general information. GermanJoe (talk) 02:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Edit

Can we possibly develop this topic as a new section?

Thank you.

LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technology in learning and teaching The United States Department of Education, in one of its published online articles said that technology brought basic organizational changes essential to accomplishing meaningful changes in term so productivity. Technology introduced digital learning tools such as personal computers along with new courses that support 24/7 learning. https://www.ed.gov/oii-news/use-technology-teaching-and-learning According to Edweek.org, technology can be found everywhere in education with American public schools providing at least one computer for every five learners since 2016. The federal government leads efforts to make available high-speed Internet and other web-based resources for free even in the most remote locations. https://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/technology-in-education/index.html

Should Educational technology contain a new section covering tools/production

It seems that Educational technology missing separate sections for software, tools, web and desktop based authoring apps, that EdTech specialists use to produce ALL online learning materials. What do you guys and girls think, should this be included here, or there's already a separate page for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svaitkus (talk • contribs) 13:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Addition to Learning Analytics

Hello

Can I add this definition to the Learning Analytics sub-section?

Thanks

LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Learning analytics Learning analytics refer to the “measurement, collection, analysis, and reporting of data regarding learners and their perspectives to understand as well as optimize learning and environments where it takes place.” Learning analytics are promptly implemented in multiple educational settings frequently without any research base as guidance. However, there must be an integrated as well as all-inclusive vision to promote learning analytics as research discipline and area of practice. Template:Siemens, George= https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2330605

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Educational_technology&oldid=879422899"