Week 4 Blog – “Behaviorism and Educational Technology”

The readings on behaviorism were interesting.  I spent over two decades in the military, and I saw how this model was used to teach from basic training to other advanced schooling.  These courses all emphasized behavioral objectives as described by Robert Mager. At the time, I had to learn skills that would hopefully save me and fellow soldiers on the battlefield.  Objectives such as physical fitness and weapons qualifications were broken down to actionable tasks that we had learn.  Then we were put into certain conditions (2-mile running course, weapons range) that simulated battle conditions and then finally, provided a scoring system to determine how well we met the objective.  I believe this behavioral condition has worked on me.  I can’t go a couple of days without doing a physical workout such as running, weight-training or high-intensity cardio. (Saettler, 1990).  Reading some of the other articles, I believe that elements of behaviorism are ingrained in most other learning theories out there, as Foshay (2001) highlighted in one of his articles from 20 years ago. I think, if we sat theories next to each other to solve the same educational issue today, we would come to the same result with slightly different reasons for getting there.   

I was also fascinated by the early push in the 1960’s for individually guided education (IGE).  That fact the students were assessed, and objectives determined from there seems like a concept that keeps circling around throughout the last 50 years.  I like the idea of having some non-graded courses that allow students to go in his or her own direction without being pushed back to standardized testing.  After implementing in thousands of schools it would seem that money was the factor that kept holding back to push to further implement this educational change.  I believe with technology individualized education can be integrated.  School districts and states need to evaluate which subjects are truly useful in today’s society.  If STEM courses are the best for success for future occupations, then that should be the focus for standardization for student learning.  Every other course could be non-graded (pass/fail) and not require a standardized test. 

What would behaviorist from the 20^th century think about computer-assisted instruction and educational technology today?  Our whole society seems to be designed around behaviorism and the instructors are big corporations.  Whether on TV, internet, or radio, there is a constant push of information to achieve a desired behavior: buy more of something and eat or drink more of something.  Are we going from computer-aided instruction to computer-directed instruction as the technology tells us what we should learn without human interaction? 

Foshay, R. (July 2001). Is behaviorism dead? Should HPT care? ISPI News & Notes, 1-2

Saettler, P. (1990c). Behaviorism and educational technology: 1950 – 1980. Ch. 10 in The Evolution of American Educational Technology (pp. 286-317). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited

Week 3 Blog – “Talking Reinventing Public Schools with Dr. Charles Reigeluth”

This was a relevant topic for me since I have two school-aged children.  At times, I do not know what the focus of their education is. Is it to pass a test to demonstrate subject knowledge or teach children something of value they can use as adults?  It is also difficult to tell if my children are getting enough depth in the subjects they are required to take.  I sometimes ask them what they can use these subjects for when they get older.  I get a blank stare and a I don’t know why I have to learn this type of response in addition to the “I bored in school”. 

Dr. Reigeluth (Green 2015) spoke about changing the way education is viewed and taught in public schools.  He highlighted how many schools taught in the old paradigm of teaching topics for certain grade levels during a school year.  Even though teaching this way guaranteed that consistent information was taught to students, it did not consider the learning abilities and interest of the students.  It was interesting that Dr. Reigeluth mentioned that for this concept technology was a tool for the teacher not the student.  I can see this today with tools such as Canvas and Google Classroom which help facilitate instruction. 

His new paradigm had some interesting concepts.  Can you imagine a school that supports project-based learning with a wide variety of subjects for students to choose from that still achieve academic goals of a school district? Students would move along at their own learning ability and move to the next project once they have mastered the last.  This allows those students who need more time to learn a topic a chance to stay on a subject until they understand it.  This also benefits students who quickly learned a topic and want to move to the next educational challenge without having to wait on other students. 

The role of the teacher would also change from instructor to facilitator, mentor and designer based on the interests of the students.  In addition, the technology such as simulation or virtual reality applications would foster learning for students.  Technology would also simultaneously track student progress and select the next appropriate project based on previous performance. 

Reference:

Green, T. (15 January 2015). “Talking Reinventing Public Schools with Dr. Charles Reigeluth” (19:36). Site name. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrT_s0Lk_WM  

Week 2 Blog – “7 innovative approaches to course design”

Course design was not thought of much before the pandemic.  Instructors had to figure out ways to keep students involved in the learning process.  The author starts with the old ways of teaching in which the instructor devises an agenda of topics he or she wants to cover for the time period.  This ensures that all content and objectives are covered. Backward design and learner-centered course design are the two others highlighted traditional methods of instructional design.  The first is planning from the final goal and then adding the learning objectives The other is starting with the student and designing based on the students needs.  I favor the second approach because it involves the key aspect of education which is for the student to learn what they want or need to learn. 

Week 1B Blog – “A critical look at Educational Technology from a distance education perspective “

This article fascinated me.  I experienced some of the progression of distance education.  In 1989, I took my first correspondence course from the local education center at a military base in Germany.  This had to be one of the most challenging ways to learn a topic.  I was provided the book to read and took periodic tests after reading and studying the required chapters.  There was no instructor to ask questions about the content. I discovered quickly that this was not the method for me to effectively learn. The subject (date processing before computers) was so boring and unrelatable. Over the next couple decades, I had taken other more enjoyable distance courses that were both synchronous (in real time with instructor) and asynchronous (pre-recorded video or study content and send questions to instructor by email). 

Week 1A – “My Pedagogic Creed” Blog

This was a fascinating article by John Dewey.  There were numerous points that he had made but a few really stood out.  One was the purpose of education was to teach students to adjust to society.  By society, he meant the community or social structure in which the child was growing up in.  Dewey highlighted that schools, even at that time in the 19^th century, were teaching toward future goals and not students current needs.