Moral Philosophy and IT (Readings)

I have 3 readings associated with this topic.

The first is titled "What is Moral Philosophy" by Louis P. Pojman. The larger purpose of this reading is, of course, to explain what exactly moral philosophy and why it is important. Morals shape the lives of everyone beyond even religions and laws. It is important to have an understanding of it when you are creating, using, interacting, etc. It has some sort of play on any and every action. It has a different effect on each person as well, so those interplays can be very complex. It is important to remember that.

The second is an article called "Searching for Moral Guidance About Educational Technology" by Randall G. Nichols. It is from the journal Educational Technology. This article is a good illustration of what exactly morality has to do with IT. As outlined above, morality plays into all parts of life and technology is not immune to this condition. There are many moral considerations about technology. I will fully admit to not thinking to long and deeply about those issues often. About larger technology like stem cell research and cloning, yes, but not about educational technology. Then again, I was really raised to accept it without question, just based on all the technological changes just within my own lifetime.

The third and final reading is a paper titled "Augmented Reality: A Class of Displays on the Reality-Virtuality Continuum" by Paul Milgram, Haruo Takemura, Akira Utsumi, and Fumio Kishino. It appeared in an SPIE journal titled Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies. This outlines some specifications for a type of virtual reality known as augmented reality. This is basically taking the real world and blending it with virtual images, I believe. A lot of the article went over my head. However, this is definitely another moral issue. If you are allowing people to experience a virtual interactive world, will they become less grounded in this one? I have seen enough shows and movies dealing with this topic that I am made very skeptical.

Paradigm Shifts (Reading)

We have 6 readings associated with this topic.

The first is called "What is a Paradigm Shift?" and it is from www.taketheleap.com. The next reading is called "What is Your Paradigm?" and it is from www.erm.ecs.soton.ac.uk. The third is "Critical Theory" from en.wikipedia.org. The fourth reading is called "Paradigm Shifts and Instructional Technology" by Timothy Koschmann. It is a chapter from a larger book called "CSCL: Theory and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm". The fifth reading is called "Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge" by Punya Mishra and Matthew J. Koehler. It appears to be from a journal called Teachers College Record. The final reading is a few pages from the first chapter of Andrew Feenberg's book "Critical Theory of Technology".

The answers to the following questions are all gleaned from the sources outlined above.

1. What is a paradigm?
Paradigms are essentially ways of thinking or schools of thought. It helps shape the approaches that we take to things and how we think about the world. They are subject to change and many different ones can be found based on the beliefs of people. In that sense a "paradigm shift" is the replacing of one way of thinking with another. One of the examples provided was the way that thinking and doing changed with the introduction of the personal computer and the Internet.

2. What is the shift in IT that Koschmann outlines?
The shift is discussing the usage of technology in education. The previous views discussed seem to be more about the process of the individual and technology likewise outlined the feelings of the philosophy as tools to help the individual. In this sense, the shift is the growing belief of learning to be a collaborative process. Following that, technology in education is becoming more the tools to support and enhance that collaboration in a variety of ways.

3. How does Koschmann's shift align with paradigm shift discussed in rapid prototyping?
Both are based in the emergence of different ways of thinking about learning. Rapid prototyping assumes that it is hard to follow a prescriptive method for design because learning is complicated. Things are learned due to a variety of factors and they affect each other. CSCL is similar in that it states learning is hard to outline in a scripted fashion, because it is affected by social factors, which can be very hard to predict.

4. Define and explain TPACK.
TPACK refers to an approach of looking at content, pedagogy, and technology as intricately connected skills, ideas, and thoughts that are essential to a teacher in order to make them effective. As stated in the article, TPACK:
"requires an understanding of the representation
of concepts using technologies; pedagogical techniques that use
technologies in constructive ways to teach content; knowledge of what
makes concepts difficult or easy to learn and how technology can help
redress some of the problems that students face; knowledge of students’
prior knowledge and theories of epistemology; and knowledge of how
technologies can be used to build on existing knowledge and to develop
new epistemologies or strengthen old ones."
So it really is about the complex interplay of the three types, keeping many basic rules in mind. The approach is different between all teachers with no right answer. In that sense, it is ever changing and dynamic.

5. How does TPACK align with Koschmann's paradigm shift?
It is saying that teaching is much too complicated to be approached in a prescribed manner, in much the same way that Koschmann and Tripp talked about how learning was much too complicated to do the same. Koschmann also talked about his theory as being about viewing interactions (among people) as being integral to learning. TPACK is about interactions as well (though between content, pedagogy, and technology) being integral to teaching.

6. What is critical theory?
Critical theory is a school of thought that focuses on the examination and critique of society and culture, based on information gleaned from the studying of people. It's goal is generally the change of society for the benefit of it. It calls upon many other schools of thought and many of the sciences in order to do this.

Instructional Technology Professional Organizations (Readings)

There are 4 readings associated with this topic. They are mainly just about some different organizations.

The first organization highlighted is the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT). The information comes from their official website: http://aect.site-ym.com/. The main focus of this organization seems to be gathering people who want to improve education through technology. The only thing I was able to find about conferences related to this organization is their upcoming AECT 2012 International Convention which is October 30-November 3 and is open to both members and nonmembers. The organization does have two journals that are released bimonthly: Educational Technology Research and Development and TechTrends. The mission that the organization represents is to provide a forum on an international levels for the exchange and dissemination of ideas related to the topic. The organization is meant to serve people who involved with designing better instruction using technology. They really seem to address the need to use technology to further education and learning, as well as represent and speak for it. They want members to share ideas and they want the target audiences to see and understand those same ideas.

The second organization highlighted is the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). The information comes from their official website: https://www.iste.org/. The main focus of the organization seems to be the importance of technology to education. They have two conferences: ISTE 2013 and ISTE Leadership Forum. They have two journals (Journal of Research on Technology in Education and Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education) and one magazine (Learning and Leading with Technology). The mission of the organization seems to be pushing for policy change and money grants to support technology in schools to be used for educational purposes. In this case, they are serving schools and students in term of tech support and teachers in terms of helping their opinions to be heard. They address problems of policy makers not necessarily supporting technology in education by exposing them to the ideas and thoughts of its members.

The third organization highlighted is the Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). The information comes from their official website: http://www.aace.org/. It's a little hard right off the bat to tell what their purpose is, though their name would suggest that they are focused on bringing, keeping, and using computers in education. They have a fairly large number of conferences attached to them: EdMedia, E-Learn, Global Learn, Global TIME, and SITE. They also have a number of journals attached to them: (International Journal on E-Learning Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, Journal of Interactive Learning Research, Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, AACE Journal, and Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education. The mission seems to be about providing people a place to share information and ideas about using computers and technology in education. It seems to be there to serve teachers and others who want to use computers and digital learning. I'm not sure exactly what problems they address.

The fourth and final organization highlighted is the International Society of the Learning Sciences (ISLS). The information comes from their official website: http://www.isls.org/index.html. The focus of this group seems to be on enhancing learning with and without technology. They do not have any posted conferences, though it is obvious that they have them. They have two affiliated journals: Journal of the Learning Sciences and International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning. Their mission is to enhance their field by providing dialogue about it. They serve professionals and students interested in the field. It answers the problem of needing a place to talk about ideas and share research.

Alternative ID Models (Reflection)

1. What is the paradigm shift that Tripp and Bichelmeyer (rapid prototyping) point out in instructional design? Ties in with some other models.

There are three assumptions that they point out as being significant in showing that rapid prototyping is a paradigm shift. The first is that there is a difference between science and design. The second is that it is possible to gain scientific knowledge by using materials developed by design science. The third is that validity means something different when applied to design theories than when it is used with educational psychology. This point really confused me, to be honest. Mainly I think it means that research should be based on finding out if a model works? I'm just not entirely sure how this relates exactly to paradigm shift. Anyway, the fourth assumption is that the human experience is a subjective thing and that perfect objectivity is not possible. These four things are some of the base beliefs underlying rapid prototyping and it's these things that make it a paradigm shift in thinking about design.

2. What is the correlation between the three theories? Similarities? Don't talk about surface level (ie. all have design component). Talk about fundamental assumptions. Are they equally dynamic?

The number one thing that I noticed as being in common between them all is the belief that linear models such as traditional ID are too confining to allow for real success. The other thing that I noted is that they all believe that learning is more complex than a system like traditional ID can account for. Personally, those are what I believed to be their most important similarities. It is what essentially puts them in their own category apart from traditional ID. Their similarities basically outline a different belief system as far as what learning is.

Alternative ID Models (Readings)

This week, I have three readings.

The first is one that I have actually already read for another class. It is called A General Set of Procedures for Constructivist Instructional Design: The New R2D2 Model. It is by Jerry Willis and Kristen Egeland Wright. It appears in a journal called Educational Technology.

1. Explain the principles of recursion, reflection, and participation.

The principle recursion refers to the idea that many things can be addressed at one time within the stages of the process. At that suggestion, there are not really stages because so many things are happening at the same time. Reflection refers to checking constantly for quality and consistency with the goals and aims. This means that at any time the process can be corrected. I believe participation is referred to as being the quality of the team-based nature of the ID development.

2. What are the central tenants of traditional ID that Willis and Wright argue against with constructivist ID?

It argues pretty heavily against the linearity and "set in stone" nature of traditional ID. Beyond that, I think it was more discussed in the previous article about R2D2.

3. According to the authors, what is the difference between procedures and guidelines?

Guidelines are more suggestions of what to do and how to think whereas procedures are thought of as being indicative of linearity and have to be followed. This article puts this in the section titled "procedures" but they make it evident that they really mean "guidelines".

4. What actions/activities make up the three focal points of R2D2?

In define, there are 4 actions that are listed. These are define focus, create and support participatory team, create progressive problem solution, and develop phronesis or contextual understanding. Under Design and Develop, there are 3 actions listed. These are select development environment, conduct cooperative inquiry, and design and develop product. Under Dissemination, there are 4 actions listed. These are conduct summative evaluation, create final package, diffuse, and adopt.

The second is titled What Can We Learn from Chaos Theory?: An Alternative Approach to Instructional Systems Design. It is by Yeongmahn You and is from a journal called Educational Technology Research and Development.

1. What does the author mean by "goodness of fit"?

In this sense, the author is referring to a goodness of fit between chaos theory and instructional design. The goal is to identify them with each other in terms of allied root disciplines and to show how they translate into the other.

2. Explain the key elements of Chaos Theory.

There are three key elements of Chaos Theory: sensitive dependence on initial conditions, fractals, and strange attractors. The idea behind sensitive dependence on initial conditions is that the slightest fluctuation or difference in one part can disproportionally effect other parts of the system. Fractals are geometric constructs that are irregular throughout with the same degree of irregularity on every scale. Strange attractors are elements that pull systems into unpredictable results.

3. Compare and contrast key assumptions of traditional ISD with dynamic non-linear systems.

Traditional ISD follows an inflexible, linear path while non-linear systems are more flexible, not following a given path in order to allow for unpredictable elements. Traditional ISD assumes that learning is predictable and can be controlled with manageable pieces while non-linear systems assumes it is impossible to control and predict a reaction. Traditional ISD considers learning and learners as a closed system where non-linear systems view them as open systems. Traditional ISD relies on a negative feedback loop in order to correct itself where non-linear systems rely on positive feedback in order to keep developing. 

4. Describe how the author applies the key elements of Chaos Theory to ISD.

The elements of chaos eliminate the need for objectives and focuses instead on whole tasks with objectives emerging as further work is done. Design then becomes more about building learning environments. It also encourages looking at evaluation in an entirely new way since it is more about goals that individuals set for themselves.

The third and final reading is another reading that I have looked at in another class. This reading is titled Rapid Prototyping: An Alternative Instructional Design Strategy and is by Steven D. Tripp and Barbara Bichelmeyer. It is also from the journal called Educational Technology Research and Development.

1. Explain the key features of the design highlighted by the author.

The features that rapid prototyping, specifically as software design, exhibits are usage and testing of prototypes. This means that while the designers are planning, they also create and test a prototype of that plan or product to inform their further decisions.

2. What is rapid prototyping and what are its key components?

Officially, rapid prototyping is defined as system development methodology based on building and using a model of a system for designing, implementing, testing, and installing the system. The key components include , when applied to software design: determining feasibility, studying the present system, defining the prototype, building the prototype, exercising the prototype, converting, and installing. Many of these components occur at the same time within the process.

3. How do the key components of rapid prototyping apply to ID?

The ideas of creating computer programs and creating instructional designs is outlined to be similar and therefore helpful. Some of the same measures can be taken to greatly aid in the ID process. Taking the process and translating it into instructional design changes the components to the following: assess needs and analyze content, set objectives, construct prototype (design), construct prototype (research), and install and maintain system. Again, many of these components occur at the same time.

4. What ID problems does rapid prototyping address that traditional ISD does not?

It addresses the idea that complex situations exist, primarily. Regular patterns for ISD do not work in every situation and this is one of the models that try to address that. 

5. What is the paradigm shift that rapid prototyping offers ID?

It offers a paradigm shift in how design takes place and how instructional designers can synthesize learning environments.

Challenging the Assumptions of Traditional ID (Reflection)

I wanted to talk about briefly the ideas of objective and subjective that were raised in last week's class.

For me, I learned about the terms objective and subjective in terms with how objectivists would think about them. I learned that objective means founded in fact and subjective means founded in opinion. It had not really occurred to me that there were two schools of thought there. It's hard for me to understand to an extent the way that interpretivists think of objective and subjective. There is definitely an appeal to it. I like the idea of objective being based in agreement and subjective being based in disagreement. To be honest, that is really how I view many things in the world already. The issue for me is not so much how to think of the terms, but simply how to define them. I would like to think a little bit more in terms of the interpretivist approach, but it is hard for me to change how I have always thought to define something.