According to Salomon and Almog (1998), the relationship between educational psychology and educational technology is reciprocal. Technology facilitates the implementation of pedagogies that arise from research in educational psychology and psychology facilitates the development of new pedagogies in response to new technology.
Overall, I accept that these fields inform one another in a reciprocal manner. However, I think this reciprocal relationship may be less pronounced than Salomon and Almog suggest. Specifically, the reciprocal relationship currently facilitates research and theory more so than practice. For example, Salomon and Almog posit that educational technology needs educational psychology for rational and justification – educational psychology’s influence is theory-related. Similarly, the most notable influence of educational technology on educational psychology is that it reawakens dormant issues and demands new conceptualizations. The reciprocal nature of this relationship seems to be largely driving the development of theory and research in these examples.
Salomon and Almog argue that under constructivism, the two could meet to result in new learning environments. However, existing practices from educational psychology often absorb technology without really influencing learning – the same lesson is carried out on a computer versus on pen and paper. Thus, there isn’t as much evidence that this reciprocal relationship is alive in practice. It hasn’t quite resulted in the implementation of new pedagogies and new learning designs. I think it has the potential too, but I think Salomon and Almog’s current characterization of this relationship as a “fruitful alliance” is best represented in theory and research, rather than practice.
Hi Kimberly – What an interesting analysis of the reciprocal nature of ed psych and ed tech. I agree with your point about learning and teaching pedagogy being the same “on computers and on pen and paper.” However, this makes think about what we are doing in the College of Education with robot presence technology. Based on my knowledge, researchers here are interested in understanding how robots affect learning in the classroom settings, and not to mention how it has made it possible for students to learn from a distance in a more interactive way. All in all, I agree that the alliance between ed psych and ed tech is more research based and more needs to be done to bridge the practical implications of both.
.
Hi Kimberly, I appreciated your description of how the reciprocal relationship between educational psychology (EP) and educational technology (ET) is not as “fruitful” as Salomon and Almog suggest. I do think that constructivism could help bring them together to create new learning environments, but I also agree that this is not apparent in typical classrooms. Hopefully my own research will help contribute to making this happen. Through reading about my interest areas I’ve noticed a scramble to find EP foundations that accommodate all the new affordances of technology: “New technological affordances open up novel pedagogical possibilities that need fresh psychological explanations and justifications” (Salomon & Almog, 1998, p. 7). I think the misuse of technology that you mention is hindering the EP and ET relationship. Tech is not getting the recognition it deserves because its being applied in nonproductive ways that aren’t highlighting the potential seen by researchers.
Hi Krystal – You bring up an interesting example with the robots used on our campus. Maybe they serve as an example of what educational psychology and educational technology can do together – using technology for education while continually learning about how it influences the learning process and adjusting accordingly. Unfortunately, I think there are very few examples of this in the K-12 school system. Hopefully soon!
Hi Sarah – “Tech is not getting the recognition it deserves because it’s being applied in nonproductive ways that aren’t highlighting the potential seen by researchers” – brilliant statement! As a researcher, I can see the benefit of an EP/ET relationship and its implications for real-world classrooms. However, as a teacher, I know I would be wary of doing anything new until I knew that ET researchers were considering how technology contributes and enhances the learning process versus provides a novel experience. This speaks to Salomon and Almog’s (1988) statement regarding ET’s need of EP for justification and rationale. Since you say that you have noticed a struggle to find such a rationale, it may be that EP has not caught up just yet. Perhaps Salomon and Almog (1998) hyperbolize the current reciprocal EP/ET relationship by calling “fruitful,” but the potential is there for this to be true in the future.
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:
1 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)