Blog # 3 McLuhans Tetrad - Wiki Assignment

While watching McLuhan’s Wake, I tried to listen to the ideas presented and understand how they can be applied today. By the end of the movie, I was somewhat skeptical about the value of McLuhan’s tetrad so many years later. It wasn’t until I began to apply the questions to my assigned technology that I began to see how universal his theory is. Once I understood the parameters, I could see how McLuhan’s Laws of Media can be applied to any piece of technology.

Many, if not all of the groups broke along the lines of one member being the primary person on one question. Our group decided this almost immediately. Once all the answers were posted, we would comment on each answer and work out any disagreements. When completed, each answer should represent the thoughts from all group members. As the assignment stated, each group should form a consensus or describe the issues that made a consensus impossible. As I listened to each group present, I didn’t hear many differing opinions. I saw no evidence of disagreement, my own group included.

As I though about this I found myself examining the way we broke down the questions. Personally, I found it was easier to define each segment before moving to the next. Once you have determined what is extended, it becomes easier to define what is obsolete. Each segment builds on the foundation laid before. If you had to only answer one segment, such as what is retrieved, it becomes much harder to formulate a good answer to the question. This could explain why there was so much agreement. Once the question has been answered by one individual, it is easier to agree if you don’t already have your own point of view.

After this realization, I thought of how the assignment may have differed if it was a traditional group assignment. In a face to face meeting, ideas are introduced to the group dialog and varying opinions are introduced immediately. The group then works out the difference or agrees to disagree. In my own experience though, the outcome is still usually the same. One person usually throws out an answer and then everyone else comments on it. This scenario is not much different than what we did online. I then struggled to determine if the issue was with the wiki itself, the assignment, or the individual group members.

The wiki (Hawaiian for quick) allows “all students to contribute to a space that is immediately and automatically updated” (Bold, 2006). It is hard to find fault with a technology that allows members of the group to make their thoughts immediately available. The assignment could be completed equally as well in an online collaboration or a standard group task with everyone meeting face to face. The only issue I found with the assignment was the time constraint of one week. Given additional time, I think varying opinions would have eventually surfaced. Finally, I looked at my group and the process we followed. We determined how we wanted to answer each question. We each did our portion and commented on other answers and had a complete assignment in the end. I still hadn’t pinpointed what was wrong.

In conclusion, I realized there was nothing wrong with the technology or the assignment. In addition, nothing was actually “wrong” with the groups either. Had we tackled the assignment from a different angle, where we each answered every question and then merged the answers to a true collaborative answer, more disagreement may have been visible. In the end the answers were supposed to be a consensus. Our presentations showed just that.

References

Bold, Mary. (Spring 2006). Use of Wikis in graduate course work. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17, p5(10). Retrieved September 25, 2006 from Expanded Academic ASAP via Thomson Gale:

Blog # 2 Clark/Kozma Debate

Richard Clark and Robert Kozma agree that in 1994, there was “no compelling evidence in the past 70 years of published and unpublished research that media cause learning increases under any conditions” (Clark, 1994). This fact is essential to understanding the focus of this debate. The authors look at the topic from polar opposites. Clark looks at the history of media and learning and takes the stance that because there has not been a relationship defined in the past, there isn’t a relationship to be made. Kozma, on the other hand, looks forward. His position focuses on building a relationship that hasn’t previously existed.

We have the benefit of reviewing the debate twelve years after the articles were published. Advances in technology come faster and more often than they did in 1994. I focused on this point in my first blog entry. With this in mind, Kozma’s position seems to be correct. His argument acknowledged that at the time, we were at a point where emerging media could begin to influence the educational process. Clark’s position was concrete, as shown in his title, Media Will Never Influence Learning. In Clark’s argument, there is no room for change.

Does this mean the debate is no longer valid? Have we answered Kozma’s question of Will Media Influence Learning? It is hard to discount the impact computers have had on the learning process. As Hastings and Tracey have shown, the internet grants access to mass amounts of information through search engines and public databases (2005). This one media supports the Kozma argument and further exposes the flaw in Clark’s argument. Change is a part of life, especially in technology. Closing the door on the possibility of change doomed Clark’s position.

Last week’s class illustrates where we stand today. As Dr. Bishop stated, we don’t even need to go to the library anymore (2006). We can gain instant access to information and resources to support our arguments or research using the computer and available databases. If we examine this example using Clark’s argument, we would need to ask if we could get the same access from another source. The answer is simply no. Even going to the library and searching through old journals and micro-fiche for weeks or months could not give us the same results we can get in an hour using the internet. The media is not interchangeable as Clark insists.

The state of media and its uses in the educational environment are very different then when Clark originally wrote his article Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media in 1983. Hastings and Tracey want to “reframe the original debate to ask, not if, but how media affects learning” (2005). I would agree that this is a valid question in 2006 and should be answered. Only then will our field be able to close the Clark/Kozma debate. Only by answering this new question can we answer Kozma.

References

Bishop, M.J, (2006, September). LST401 Class 2.

Clark, Richard E. (1994). Media Will Never Influence Learning. Education Technology, Research and Development. 42(2), 21-29.

Hastings, Nancy B., & Tracey, Monica W. (2005). Does Media Affect Learning: Where Are We Now. TechTrends. 49(2), 28-30.

Kozma, Robert B. (1994). Will Media Influence Learning? Reframing the Debate. Educational Technology, Research and Development. 42(2), 7-19.

Blog Post #1

The use of technology in the classroom is not a new concept. For almost one hundred years, educators have been looking for ways to integrate technology into the educational arena. Each new concept was going to revolutionize the educational process. As we have seen, every one fell short of expectations. This leads us to question; will today’s newest advances suffer the same fate? As I read the articles, I began to realize that for the first time, the outcome may be different. The technology is not significantly better that past advances. Imagine the excitement in the early 1900’s when film began to make its way into the classroom. Today it doesn’t seem very impressive but this was in a world without television. The reason success seems to be on the horizon is a direct result of learning from our failures.

In the past, each new technology was a groundbreaking achievement that would alter the educational process. This statement was easy to make because advancements were slow in coming. Today, advancements come very quickly. If we think of our own education, how much changed in the time from first grade until graduation? I remember getting VCR’s in grade school and in high school we had IBM 286 computers to learn computer programming. Aside from that, nothing much changed. Now let’s look at the graduating class of 2006. They started first grade in 1995. In that twelve year span, the computer to student ratio went from one computer to nine students (Anderson & Ronnkvist, 1999) to the current ratio in our district, one computer to every three students. Additional advancements such as Smartboards and digital visual presenters have found there way into classrooms in the last three years. Music classes use iPods and students can checkout an mp3 player with a book downloaded to memory. The library system itself has undergone major changes over the educational span of one graduating class. Does anyone remember a card catalog?

Most technology media only has a short lifespan today until it is replaced by something better. We can look at the computer itself. First we had the fifty pound desktop computer. Next, the fifteen pound notebook. Within a few years, the notebook became five pounds. Then, the Tablet PC came out allowing you to use your PC just like a paper bound notebook. If that wasn’t enough, the new Ultra Mobile PC’s are being released this month. They are six inch by nine inch fully functional Tablet PC’s. We no longer have time to redefine the educational process based on the media itself. By the time it is fully integrated, it is outdated. As a direct result, the goal of educational technology is not to control learning but provide the tools to make the learning process easier (AETC, 2004). No single advancement will ever be the one to change the educational process. The change will be the cumulative effect of multiple advancements and a change in expectations. This fundamental change may be the difference between the technologies of yesterday and educational technology today.


References:

Anderson, R. E. & Ronnkvist, A. (1999). The presence of computers in American schools: Teaching, learning and computing: 1998 national survey (Report #2). Irvine, CA:Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 430 548).

Association of Educational Communications and Technology. (2004, October).The Definition of Educational Technology: An analysis and explanation of theconcept. Chapter 1.

Reiser, R.A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part 1: A history of Instructional Media. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 53-63

1st Blog for LTS 401

Welcome to my blog.