An example of changing theories/models is the ‘revised’ Bloom’s taxonomy. Nouns were replaced with verbs such as ‘analyze’, ‘evaluate’, and ‘create’, reflecting 21st-century skills, increased technology integration, and a shift towards what people perhaps consider more valuable. In this week’s readings, there were several more examples of how educational psychology has shifted to accommodate and keep up with the ever-changing technology-infused world. I wish to speak about a few examples in particular.
First, the ‘Cognitive Flexibility Theory (CFT)’ (Spiro et al., 2007) is reflective of hypertext, deep learning on the web, and a ‘new Gutenberg’ revolution- these three are indicators of the ‘age of information’. ‘Cognitive Load Theory (CLT)’ by Sweller is now a bit inadequate to explain and better learning in newly emerging and ever-changing ill-structured knowledge systems. Thus, this shift from CLT to CFT in certain systems and domains is an indication of how research in educational psychology has *already* shifted due to technological advances.
Second, the research on social networks *now* needs a shift in educational psychology and ‘accurate modeling to evaluate social network phenomena in light of new technologies’ (Mishra et al, 2015, p. 30). I further elaborate this in the next discussion question.
Third, Mishra et al. (2015), talk about ‘boundary conditions’ where educational psychology theories can be applied, such as newly emerging spaces on the web, cloud, etc. This would enable more data to be generated which could better already existing theories and indeed perhaps ensure that theories are never stagnated, but ever evolving to suit new conditions, especially given the pace at which certain tech environments are growing at.
—–
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P., Cruikshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., … & Wittrock, M. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy. New York. Longman Publishing. Artz, AF, & Armour-Thomas, E.(1992). Development of a cognitive-metacognitive framework for protocol analysis of mathematical problem-solving in small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 9(2), 137-175.
I had not thought about Bloom’s taxonomy until you brought it up, but I think that’s a great example. The idea of changing from nouns to verbs is a great way to think about the changes in learning goals discussed by Kuhn (2007) and many others talking about 21st century skills. I also appreciate your reference to the idea of boundary conditions. It didn’t make it into the final edit of my response, but this idea of shifting boundaries is one of the reasons I like the word growth, rather than change, to describe the evolution of educational psychology in relation to advances in technology. I like to think of technology as the impetus that is keeping educational psychology in its zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978).
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sukanya, thanks for sharing those specific examples of how technology has impacted educational psychology. Similar to Katie’s view’s, I see educational psychology as evolving concurrently with the advances in technology. With the advances in neuroscience that reveal the complexity of the human brain, certain theories have been revised or disconfirmed, such as Howard’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences. The CLT model that Sweller et al hinge their arguments, based on Information-Processing Theory, may be one of the theories that will soon undergo a major revision as we learn more about cognitive processes. The computer metaphor may be limited and inaccurate as a metaphor for the human mind. As CFT suggests, the human brain is capable of non-linear and multiple processes– it’s not as “cut and dry” as information processing theory’s depiction of the human mind. I agree with Katie’s observation that technology drives the evolution of educational psychology by enabling growth into previously uncharted territory.
https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer
Hi Sukanya – One thing that stood out to me from your post was our need to understand the impact of social networks in light of new technology. Specifically, this got me thinking about how in educational psychology we often study peer influences in academic settings, and the methods in which we currently study this phenomena. In other words, I think our current generation and those that will proceed will be more socialized on social media outlets and we need new measures to capture the effects of these relationships. Mishra et al. (2015) support this by stating “social links indicated in automatically generated and dynamically updated network graphs are not valid indicators of real user connection as previous research using social graphs from physical observations of in-person interactions would suggest” (p. 30).
Administrators:
Christine Greenhow
Diana
Rand
cainwil1
Ming
Top Posters:
galvins1: 51
richkat3: 50
albertsk: 43
moudgal1: 43
schellma: 41
liraamal: 39
Emilia: 35
zhumengd: 34
Forum Stats:
Groups: 6
Forums: 19
Topics: 97
Posts: 339
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 0
Members: 77
Moderators: 0
Admins: 5
Most Users Ever Online: 58
Currently Online:
2 Guest(s)