Entry #3: Reaction to McLuhan Tetrad Wiki Task

“A wiki is an online workspace that allows members to collaboratively create and edit Web pages without requiring HTML knowledge, using no more complicated technology than a Web browser” (Barrick, Cuddihy, Maust, Spyridakis, Wei, 2005). As this was my first time using a wiki, I appreciated how easy it was to learn and use. Although, I think it would require a lot more time to more effectively use it and create a more aesthetically pleasing design, as there were many features I did not have time to explore. Another advantage of using the wiki was that it was simple to post all the materials for everyone to see. Thus, after the page was created, it was easy to add ideas, comments, and edit our work.

One downside to using the wiki was that it did not foster good discussion about changes/improvements and it created an interesting group dynamic. We used different colors to insert our comments within the text, but I could sense everyone’s hesitation to change anyone else’s work. I believe we were all used to a typical collaboration with group projects where members each do their separate part and then bring the pieces together in the end. The wiki on the other hand, allows the work to be entirely a group effort. It “erases some of the boundaries that exist between author and reader” and reinvents how teams think about working together (Barrick, et al., 2005). I would be interested to learn how other groups used the wiki and how they felt it changed their view of working as a team. In some ways, the wiki gave us the ability to all contribute and feel confident in the final product. But I can see groups encountering trouble when disagreements arise or when group members feel the need to be acknowledged for the parts on which they specifically worked.

Another feature of the wiki I did not like was the setup, because all the changes are kept in a version history list. Trying to go back to find something in a previous version would be difficult. Lastly, the formatting and design leaves a lot to be desired, and it was missing the helpful tools typical of a word processing program. The convenience factor, however, definitely encourages me to explore this tool further and I look forward to our second wiki task.

Lastly, one point I wanted to bring up was the notion of technology implementation. I realize that with any new technology, people must perceive it as a great deal better than what it is replacing, in order to desire to spend time learning the new technology. In this case, I didn’t really feel that the wiki was much more advantageous than just using email to correspond with group members. Also, the editing, formatting, and commenting features in Word are very helpful and I would have preferred to use that. I realize however, that I had limited time to use the wiki so I would be willing to explore it further. I think with more long term projects, the wiki would be helpful for cutting down on emails and really creating a collaborative piece of work. But, this is something to keep in mind when trying to create buy-in for a new technology. People must perceive it as a good use of their time to learn and use.


Resource

Barrick, J., Cuddihy, E., Maust, B., Spyridakis, J.H. Wei, C. (2005). Wikis for supporting distributed collaborative writing. Tools and Technology, 204. Retrieved September 25, 2006, from http://www.uwtc.washington.edu/research/pubs/jspyridakis/STC_Wiki_2005_STC_Attribution.pdf.

Entry #2: Clark/Kozma debate

This debate centers on whether media influences learning, both currently and in the future. While both Clark and Kozma agree that media has not influenced learning, they each have a slightly different approach. Clark (1994) feels that ultimately, media are “mere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not influence student achievement.” In contrast, Kozma optimistically believes that we should not consider whether media currently influences learning, but instead, how it will influence learning in the future. He disagrees with looking at media as mere vehicles, because he thinks this prohibits any further research in determining a possible relationship. The distinction between medium and method of instruction is one that Kozma believes should be erased, in order to fully assess the potential of various technologies (Kozma, 1994).

Do media influence learning? I would agree with Clark in that no, it does not directly influence learning, and that it is the instructional strategy underlying the use that leads to learning. This does not mean that technologies are not useful. In fact, Clark (1994) specifically explains how we should look at the efficiency and cost effectiveness of using particular technologies in the classroom. After studying effective teaching strategies, I truly believe that it is the appropriate strategy that is essential for an effective lesson. For instance, my middle school American history class involved many hands-on group projects, giving us the opportunity to research a specific time period and put together a newspaper, poster, or similar artifact. Whether these artifacts were created using computers or by hand, I do not think it made a difference. Rather, it was the interaction with peers and hands-on design that made the lesson meaningful. I cannot think of a time during my K-12 years when using media was the reason for achievement. Ultimately, with less technology focus in classrooms in the past, I do not think there was less student achievement or learning occurring compared with today. But what about the future?

We are living in a media-centric world and perhaps new advances in technology, combined with a changing youth population, will change the role of technology in education. Technology may now be able to improve learning by catering to students better. Old strategies may not be the answer for today’s youth who are now surrounded by technology and media. Interestingly, communications theorist Walter Ong believes that the types of media people use define the way they think. This notion suggests that today’s mediacentric youth may “think and cognitively perceive differently than previous generations” (Kenny, 2001). If this is true, then the instructional strategies and media that will be able to motivate students to learn and achieve will be different than in the past. Maybe in the future, students will need more stimulating, exciting, and technology-centered lessons and activities in order to be attracted to learning. I believe Kozma is correct in the need to continue research in this area, but I also think we should proceed with caution. Instruction must be effective, not just entertaining. In fact, we need to be careful to still teach students necessary skills, such as how to critically read textbooks. I am certain most students would rather watch a movie about a topic than read a textbook, but we must remember the importance of certain skills that may not be developed by using technology. Still, the ability for media to be a motivating factor in learning is a great asset for today’s youth. When looking to the future, the best approach will be to look combinations of appropriate instructional strategies with particular media. Research efforts can be concentrated here to allow for a balanced classroom that will meet the needs of future generations and utilize both the strengths of past instruction and the powerful possibilities of media and technology.



References:

Clark, R.E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.

Kenny, R. (2001, November). Teaching, learning, and communicating in the digital age. Annual Proceedings of Selected Research and Development [and] Practice Papers: Presented at the meeting of the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology: Atlanta, Georgia, November 8-12, 2001. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED470091). Retrieved September 9, 2006, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/27/b3/14.pdf.

Kozma, R.B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development. 42(2), 7-19.

Entry #1: History of Technology's Use in Education

History is filled with examples of technology implementation in the classroom, in hopes of revolutionizing instruction. The great enthusiasm for technologies such as radio broadcasts and public television was unfortunately not matched with the same amount of success in improving instruction. Today, computers and specifically the Internet are providing the next wave of hope. The question is whether this media will meet the same fate as many technologies used in the past. To achieve a more lasting influence, we must determine what mistakes to avoid and what further changes must occur in order to extract the full potential of this technology.

One key problem that repeatedly occurred in the past was the lack of collaboration between those designing media for the classroom, the teachers, and the administrators. For example, by the mid-1960s there was little interest left for using instructional television in the classroom, partially due to the poor quality of the programs, which often simply showed a teacher giving a lecture (Reiser, 2001). If teachers are going to be able to implement technology in the classroom effectively, administrators must also realize the related challenges that teachers face, including issues of time, training, resources, and technical support (Dove & Fisher, 1999). The mere presence of new technologies is not enough. The necessary support is crucial for the technology to make a difference and improve learning.

Thus, it is important to examine under what circumstances computers, or technology in general, have a positive impact on learning. Harvey Barnett (2003) identified eight areas on which we need to focus, including access, integration, broad-based reform, long-term outlook, professional development, teaching style, balance, and vision. Among these, professional development is one of the most crucial, because simply having technology will not make the classroom better. Though confident with technology skills, I have personally struggled at times integrating technology in meaningful ways into mathematics lessons. Creating change and improving instruction can only occur by using technology in innovative ways, paying attention to the needs of students and teachers. Teachers encounter much frustration in not knowing how to best use technology and instructional media to enhance instruction. Teachers not only need to learn how to use a particular media, but careful study of effective ways to use these technologies is important.

Balance is also a major concern. In the past, experts often thought that a particular technology would be able to single-handedly revolutionize the teaching profession. This approach lead to an unrealistic belief in the power of one particular media. Is there just one answer? I don’t believe so. There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ model for instruction. Instead, instruction should be differentiated to fit the needs of each student. It is here in fact that the greatness of various technologies comes into play. Together, different technologies can be used in meaningful ways to help make instruction more realistic, engaging, and accessible for students. Through innovative design and balanced instruction, students will achieve greater successes.


References:

Barnett, H. (2003, September). Investing in technology: The payoff in student learning. Syracuse, New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED479843). Retrieved September 3, 2006, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/2a/3a/1a.pdf

Dove, M.K. & Fisher, S.C. (1999, March). Muffled voices: Teachers’ concerns regarding technological change. Ohio. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 432281) Retrieved September 3, 2006, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/11/98/80.pdf

Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part I: A history of instructional media. Educational Technology, Research and Development. 49(1).