It seems to me that the extent to which educational technology and educational psychology are related is heavily situation dependent.
As mentioned in Salomon and Almog, many times education will adopt an already existing technology for educational purposes and will use this technology in accordance with current educational psychology theories and frameworks (Salomon & Almog, 1998). In this sense the technology and the psychology do not influence each other, rather, some technical tool will replace a role formally filled by a less technological counterpart without challenging existing theory.
Alternatively, it sometimes occurs that technology has such a profound impact on the educational landscape that it necessitates the creation of new psychology theories to explain the pedagogical affordances offered by the new technology (Salomon & Almog, 1998). Salomon and Perkins 2013 call this phenomenon “effects through technology”, suggesting that such technological innovations, “…reshapes activity systems, rather than just augmenting them.” (Salomon & Almog, 1998, Page 79).
In practice this interaction between psychology and technology is quite salient in the creation of virtual learning environments. The technology which makes distance learning using a computer and the internet possible has demanded the creation of new research into psychological principles which seeks to understand and describe this new type of learning, while ensuring its effectiveness. In turn, as these psychological theories regarding virtual learning have become refined, they have informed the way in which new technology in this domain is developed.
I agree with your characterization of Salomon and Almog’s (1998) point that oftentimes, technology is used in classrooms in ways that don’t challenge current educational philosophies. But I found myself questioning their pessimism. In my experience sometimes so-called equivalent replacements lead to unexpected changes that turn out to be beneficial for kids. For example, during my career physical base-10 blocks that kids use to build numbers were widely replaced by digital versions. The designers didn’t intend to make any changes other than the medium, but the experience of “breaking” the digital blocks versus “trading” the physical blocks seemed to affect kids’ understanding of place value. Might it have been more beneficial if the designers were more intentional? Sure. But the “low impact” change wasn’t useless.
Hi Matt, I’m very interested in exploring the epistemology of VR/augmented reality. I think that’s a great example of a highly innovative technology that could potentially demand a new direction in the field of theory/research. I guess I believe that, more often than not, technology tends to be incorporated in a way that fits into pre-existing theories/philosophies, even if the affordances/constraints of the technology isn’t necessarily the best fit for the theoretical framework and vice versa. In other words, I find it more common practice to adapt existing theories to fit the features of a novel technology and to justify its use in an educational context, rather than the technology generating a new set of theories.
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)