The article, Educational Technology – An Unstoppable Force: a selective review of research into the effectiveness of educational media (1999), by Ken Spencer provides us with a brief assessment of technologies applied to educational settings as they have progressed over the past several decades.
The author observes that with technologies such as film, radio, and television, research suggests that there are no significant disadvantages in studying from filmed, broadcast or televised courses.
Spencer’s (1999) argument for no significant difference suggests that
“much of what is happening in mediated instruction hardly differs from what is happening in the classroom. And the classroom is a most inefficient device for education.”
The author suggests that technologies such as film, television or radio offer no real efficiencies to learning or comprehension due to the fact that “the human information processing system has processing limits and best deals with information that has been simplified. This actually matches better with the types of tests which are administered to measure learning” (Spencer, 1999).
Spencer (1999) notes that from a psychological perspective, “much of the information that is attended to by the sense organs is actually filtered out before it reaches the higher levels of cognitive processing. In many cases…simplification makes the world more comprehensible because it places less demands on the processing system: it is, by its very nature, partly processed, the extraneous information having been stripped out.”
In other words, there are no significant measurable differences because the information passed to the student by the instructor, the television or radio program, book, graphic, or photograph, “is not usually sufficiently well-adapted to the student’s needs. The information is often too much, in quantity or speed of delivery, and the student perceives only a fraction of it, and understands even less” (Spencer, 1999).
Spenser’s research suggests that the new media of the twentieth century, film, television and radio, did not provide the learner with any tangible form of control. Stephen Downes (2004) might classify this as the first stage of technological progress where technology introduces us to a new way of doing the same old thing.
Enter the computer and the second stage of technological innovation. Although early iterations of computers in classroom merely offered a replication of workbook-type activities (i.e., stage one skill and drill), we are beginning to use technology in new ways “to advance beyond what is possible in the classroom” (Downes, 2004).
Unfortunately, Spencer’s (1999) article reads a bit dated as it focuses on research and innovation introduced in the early 1990s. At that time, Spencer noted “the newer integrated [computer-based] learning systems, combining mastery strategies with the ability to provide rapid feedback and make decisions about suitable remedial materials, represent the true state of Educational Technology.” Spencer (1999) then talks about advances in artificial intelligence and reminds us that
“The expert has traditionally been the teacher, but there has been a search for mechanical means to do the same job, just as there were searches for mechanical devices to play chess.
Not one to lead us too far afield, the author then comes back to the notion that
“Teachers will always be needed, because of the human touch. Their role will undoubtedly change; it may even become more rewarding. And, of course, teachers do use educational technology. They always have done: the written word, on a blackboard or in a book, represents technology which is so embedded in teaching that we hardly acknowledge its presence. The new technologies, such as artificial intelligence tutors, are just emerging. Soon they, too, will become ubiquitous, and so totally embedded within the educational context that they will become transparent, in much the same way that written communication is hardly noticed as an embedded technology today.”
I find this argument particularly amusing in the author’s sense of trust, awe, and admiration for instructional technology. (I wish he might have included a comment about flying cars.)
But Spenser does make a good point here about the ubiquitous nature of computing. As noted more recently by Paul Dourish (2004), the notion of embodiment (or embodied interaction) and both tangible and social approaches to computing is quickly becoming the norm in society. However, since I believe we are as Downes (2004) suggests, in the middle of this transformation from replicating the old and inventing the new, the transparency of new technologies is not yet possible nor do I believe many researchers and advocates of instructional technology want it to be. With the migration and personalization of learning environments from many-to-one, there is an underlying need for control in a personal, social, and commercial sense. Downes (2004) writes
”other commentators have argued that as learning becomes more personalized, content delivered to learners will tend to emphasize what they want to see and hear, and not necessarily what they need to see and hear. This has already become a concern in non-learning communities, such as politics and media, as clustering around particular topics or particular political points of view is observed. Yet, in learning, there are some things that everybody must learn, such as mathematics and literacy, whether they opt for such content or not.”
Thus the notion of transparency needs to be examined more closely considering the opportunities afforded by embodied interaction. Downes (2004) also suggests that
”As online learning becomes less expensive and more streamlined (particularly if supported by commercial interests) there is a danger that learning, like most consumer goods, will be offered at varying levels of quality, with the best education being provided to those willing to pay, a more common and less palatable industrial grade learning being provided for most, and none at all for those without the means to access it. The dictates of the marketplace pay little attention to the public good, and while society may prefer that every student be provided a quality education, this may not be in the best interests of corporate providers.”
It is again worth noting that as new learning technologies and means of learning are put into practice, educators, researchers, critics and pundits need to be aware of the social and commercial impacts of learning and to be sure that standards of quality of both content and accessibility, are clear and obtainable.
Implications of Spencer’s argument for ubiquitous computing are well founded. Computational power and the world of learning are becoming more integrated with differing elements of our lives on a daily basis, more so than ever before. Direct access to learning is no longer limited to a formal classroom, and as such the impacts will be felt not only in the workplace, but also in governance and the corporate sphere. I believe keeping the nature of such emergent and embodied interaction transparent is critical in maintaining proper social checks-and-balances so that such technological innovation does not serve to oppress those unable to control it.
References:
Dourish, P. (2004) Where the action is: The foundation of embodied interaction. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Downes, S. (2004). From Classrooms to Learning Environments: A Midrange Projection of E-Learning Technologies. Posted by Stephen Downes June 10, 2004. Retrieved 10 January 2006 from http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=33.
Spencer, K. (1999). Educational Technology – An Unstoppable Force: a selective review of research into the effectiveness of educational media. Educational Technology & Society: 2(4). Retrieved 08 January 2006 from http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_4_99/spencer.html.
Keywords: AI, educational technology, embodied interaction, flying cars, instructional technology, learning, media, mediated instruction, Paul Dourish, social computing, social responsibility, Stephen Downes, tangible computing, teaching, transparency, ubiquitous computing
Comments
I find this all very interesting. You said and quoted:
'In other words, there are no significant measurable differences because the information passed to the student by the instructor, the television or radio program, book, graphic, or photograph, “is not usually sufficiently well-adapted to the student’s needs. The information is often too much, in quantity or speed of delivery, and the student perceives only a fraction of it, and understands even less” (Spencer, 1999).'
I'll admit, I didn't go read the original article, but this paragraph seems to indicate that we're not improving learning with technology, but simply automating a poor way of passing information! And I wonder if we have too much of a focus on the technology and not enough on learning.
Obviously there is good instructor-led learning and more and more, some really good technology-based learning. It seems like so much of what we have out there focuses on presenting content instead of firing imagination and curiosity. It's possible, I think, to do that using technology in an economically feasable way, which can still make learning accessible to more and more people. But we need to focus on the learning process more than on the technology-based tools.