The Permeation of Technology into Cognition, Theory, and Instruction | Base Group Summary | Discussion

1. We all seemed to converge on the fact that educational technology and educational psychology are in a reciprocal relationship, with each influencing the other. Where we departed from each other was the degree to which ET and EP influence each other. Some of us believed that the relationship was stronger than others; however, most of us believed, as Sarah so aptly put it, ET and EP are not yet a “happily married couple with children”.

In the context of this reciprocal relationship many of us discussed the adoption of technology from outside education, into educational environments, and the impact such adoption has on EP. We discussed that technology can be used superficially or deeply in classrooms. That is, technology can be used to replace non-tech materials (i.e. pen and paper with a word processor), or technology can be used to foster pedagogical practices that were not possible before the integration of technology, such as virtual simulations of microscopic particles.

A secondary point of discussion was on the distinction between ET and technology; we came to the conclusion that ET diverges from general technology by its integration with EP theories. ET interacts with EP in one of two ways: by merging with current theory or by generating new theories.

In our discussions many of us also brought up effects with technology, effects of technology, and effects through technology. This framework introduced by Salomon and Perkins (2013) describes the ways in which technology may make us more cognitively capable. Effects with technology describes how technology enhances cognition while an individual is using a technology, effects of technology describes the lasting effects of technology on cognition and how it persists in an individual after an individual stops using the technology; and effects through technology describes how technology fundamentally reorganizing performance.

2. We came to the consensus that the IS and LS fields are complementary in their common aim of improving education and that both fields have a shared interest in educational technologies. We generally agreed that the IS and LS fields have a lot to gain from cross-collaboration and that design-based research seems to be a natural point of convergence. Methodologically, DBR is an appropriate fit for IS and LS research, as both fields tend to be favor naturalistic settings and both fields will benefit from the iterative design process.

In general many of us thought that IS was more interventionist in nature, and was concerned more with using tools (many times technological tools) to design new methods of instruction in order to help an individual learn. We also mostly agreed that the LS was more concerned with the design of an effective learning environment. However, there were also differences of opinion in how these differences manifest themselves in practice. Some of us thought that IS could be considered more practical, while the LS is more theoretical in nature. Others thought that IS is more focused on the instructor, while LS is more focused on the learners.

While many of us identified the historical divergence of IS and LS as one of the major causes of the current schism between the two fields, we agreed that there were more commonalities than differences between the fields. We noted that any points of epistemological differences may have stemmed from the divergent historical roots which are less salient now. Both IS and LS are steeped in educational technology. ET permeated IS as a natural extension of the work IS does on designing instructional material, while LS has origins in the field of artificial intelligence (where its ET roots developed), and approaches problems from a cognitive science perspective. Historically, IS has been rooted in cognitive and behaviorist perspectives; LS has been rooted in the constructivist perspective, although the field draws from both cognitive constructivism and sociocultural constructivism.

Discussion Questions:

1. When does a piece of technology become “educational technology”?

2. How would you describe the key distinctions between IS and LS?

3. Given DBR’s current standing in research, do you think it is a valid method of collecting data and informing theory? Do you think that DBR will continue to gain acceptance, and if so, do you think DBR has the power to unite IS and ET?