In the beginning of this course, I considered the relationship between educational psychology and educational technology as a predominantly one-directional influence in the sense that I considered educational psychology to be the driving force behind the way technology becomes adapted and applied in educational contexts. The Salomon & Almog (1998) reading has shifted my initial conception of this relationship, however, I still question the reciprocity between educational psychology and educational technology in the sense that I’m still on the fence as to whether or not educational technology truly exerts an influence on educational psychology. I agree with the argument underlying the Nickerson (2005) and Salomon & Perkins (2005) readings that technologies (general technologies, not just “educational” tech) exerts an influence on human cognition. I agree that technological advances shapes educational psychology– for instance, the Information Processing Model is an example of technology’s direct influence in shaping a theoretical perspective within educational psychology. I believe that technological developments influences research methodology (eg. development of neuroscience technologies to analyze cognitive processes), which in turn contribute to the generalization of new theories and constructs in educational psychology.
However, I struggle to see “educational technology” as having a separate, distinct influence on psychology. In the examples that Salomon raises of educational technology infuencing educational psychology– such as LOGO and CMC– they are examples of technologies that became “educational technologies” when the technological features and affordances were merged with educational psychology/philosophy/rationale.
“ Technologies and prevailing psychological conceptions of learning, thinking, and instruction have always served and inspired each other in reciprocal ways. On the one hand, technologies in education have served to facilitate and realize the kinds of pedagogies that emanated from the changing zeitgeists and from prevailing psychological conceptions. On the other hand, and possibly only recently, technologies have been imported into education, challenging it and requiring novel psychological explanations and pedagogical justifications.”
In the above quote, Salomon & Almog suggest the ways in which technology influences educational psychology: “On the other hand, and possibly only recently, technologies have been imported into education, challenging it and requiring novel psychological explanations and pedagogical justifications” (p. 2). Salomon & Almog argue that technologies alone don’t consitute as “educational” artifacts. In order to be applied effectively in educational contexts, novel technologies demand the development of new educational theories and rationale in order to support its usage.
In my opinion, “educational technology” product of the convergence of technology and educational psychology.
My current conceptualization of educational technology and educational psychology is:
Technology + Educational Psychology/Philosophy/Pedagogy = Educational Technology
One could argue that the distinction “technology” and “educational technology” is a matter semantics– but it seems to me from the readings up from this point that the development “educational technologies” arise out of the integration of a piece of technology and a theory (whether behaviorist, IPM, or constructivist). I do believe that it’s important to maintain a distinction between the original technology (eg. coding/computing languages) that was merged with the theory (eg. constructivism) to produce the “educational technology” (eg. LOGO). My central argument is that “educational technology” does not just spontaneously manifest, devoid of any educational psychological influences. If we blur the line between “technology” and “educational technology”, does that mean that any piece of technology is automatically considered “educational technology” when it’s used in a classroom environment, without any psychological/pedagogical rationale?
I struggle with some of these same issues. For example, I have trouble thinking of iPads as ed tech (ET). Something that helped me make sense ET’s influence was realizing that the term “educational technology” carries two meanings. One way of thinking of ET is as *a set of designed objects*, like LOGO. With this meaning, it’s hard to think about how ET influences ed psych. But another way of thinking of ET is as *a field of study*. I have a much easier time thinking about how ET can influence ed psych with this meaning. The question isn’t about how tech influences psych. It’s about how *what we’ve learned through studies of ed tech* influences *what we decide to study next about ed psych.*
Hi Katie, I think your way of explaining ed tech as a field of study rather than a set of designed objects helps me see the distinction between the two, and helps me see the distinction between ET and technology in general. I still tend to see the field of ET as a byproduct of the interaction between technology and psychology. Perhaps my lack of familiarity with educational psychological theories/concepts that have been generated from ET is keeping me from seeing the influences if ET on ed psych, but I do know they exist (ie. “connectivism”, social network analysis, etc).
I agree with you about iPads as well!
Hi Marissa, I agree with you: it’s difficult to see how educational technology (ET) will influence educational psychology (EP).
When I reflect on my time as a teacher, I think of how technology was pushed into school with no rationale other than a celebration of its existence; I saw no reason for technology to impact EP. My perspective changed once I began my research though. I now see the difference between the potential of quality tech implementation compared to thoughtless tech implementation. As Salomon and Almog (1998) summarize, “When some technology can be smoothly assimilated into existing educational practices without challenging them, its chances of stimulating a worthwhile change are small” (p. 2). I think we are seeing little of ET influencing EP because so much tech is used ineffectively. Once this is resolved, we will be able to see how technology can challenge psychology to grow with advancing times.
Hi Marissa, Katie, & Sarah – Your responses really made me think about the distinction between EP, ET, and technology (i.e. the literal tools) used in classrooms. Marissa argued that ET doesn’t manifest without influence from EP – I, too, struggled to see ET as its own field versus a sub-field. Moreover, I was a confusing ET the field with ET the tools. Katie’s clarification helped me see the difference! (Although, I still agree with Marissa that it’s hard not to see ET as a byproduct of EP.) Finally, I can relate to Sarah’s experience seeing technology being pushed in schools with no rationale. I honestly think this is why it is so hard for me to see ET as a field. To teachers, many tools are marketed as “changing the way students learn,” yet most serve only to provide novelty. I agree with Sarah that technology being used ineffectively is a huge issue and I hope that ET and EP can work together to solve this problem so “educational technology” is no longer synonymous with “really-long-professional-development-session-to-learn-to-use-a-technology-that-will-be-used-once-yet-still-added-to-my-CV-under-skills.”
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)