Educator's Voice

Vol 9, Issue 6
November 13, 2008

The Myths of Educational Technology

Online learning is still debated. In 2008 there are still instructors and schools whose heels are dug into the mire and who will not entertain that online learning is not only possible, but sometimes better. Several of these arguments seem based on a lack of data, often hinging on word of mouth or story (myth).

Myth is derived from the Greek word “Mythos” meaning to describe traditionally, historical events. However, in modern times a more popular definition has aligned itself with mythos—an unfounded, false notion. Myths are often assumed to be correct, even though they typically are not.  Plus, myths play a large part in most people’s lives. From simple urban legends to outright fabrications, myths can be entertaining but they can also be dangerous. Myths apply to everyone and everything, including technology and education.

Myths about technology and education are abundant and varied. However, there is also an intersection of the two as myths are concerned. While there are a few articles proclaiming the “myths” of education and technology, few would purposefully purport themselves as not factual or over-exaggerated. To find many of the myths concerning technology, one of the best sources is, ironically, the Internet. A simple Boolean search of “technology, education and myths” presents hundreds of thousands of hits.  

It is important here to define technology. The assumption will be made that teachers claiming technology does not work or has hurt learning are focusing on two primary factors: computers and the Internet. To say that “technology” has hurt education would include everything from the calculator over the abacus and the word processor over the pencil. So, this research will assume that many elements of technology have become acceptable or been around long enough to pass muster in the eyes of most teachers.

An article found on Princeton University’s Web site, authored by a tenured faculty member (Hargittai, 2005) states, “Users always have to question the reliability of the available information. If students are not aware and conscious of this problem, they may use and learn the wrong facts about anything from historical information to scientific data.”  

How is this any different from learning to discern information from books, periodicals, television, etc?  Isn’t an instructor’s job to teach how to properly vet information and use it both appropriately and effectively?  

In another Web site article, Wendy Butler (2004) expresses that, “Students will work with each other less and focus more on the technology, isolating themselves from interaction.” This quote from “e-Books in the Classroom” illustrates an uninformed opinion. While many online teachers will explain that interaction, both social and content driven, is significantly better and more holistic online, research suggests this as well. As described in TechTrends, Li and Akins (2004) explain, “In addition, carefully designed and thoughtfully implemented group work can nourish interaction. This can be facilitated in a variety of ways, including group chat, forums, projects, e-mail, telephone calls, video conferences and meetings beyond the online course (p. 4).” Li goes on to describe the ability to get interaction from all students in an even, outcomes-based environment, eliminating wallflowers, bullies and loners. As well, he identifies the ability to affect multiple learning styles more effectively through the online medium (p.57).

Additionally, the book Personal Computers in Education (Bork, 1995) states, “Interaction with other students—peer interaction—is very valuable in the learning process; computers can serve well in encouraging peer learning in a variety of ways” (p. 92). Bork even includes references specific to young (elementary) students. With the use of computers, children can communicate with other children their age and see what they are like or how other children’s cultures differ from their own. Students learn to interact multi-modally, rather than only using traditional methods. And students not only enhance these communicational skills, they learn in a new way that is more meaningful to their generation and their culture (Bork, 1995).

Another myth surrounding computers in the classroom is how it shapes the ethics, both work (ethic) and personal, of a student. Plagiarism is often cited regarding how computer use can diminish a student’s ethics. In Clifford Stoll’s book, From Silicon Snake Oil: Second Thoughts on the Information Highway, about the negative effects of computers in the classroom, he presumes that, “Computers and the Internet…make it too easy for everyone. A student can bring up three different articles on wolves about what they eat, their habitat, and how they interact with one another. Then they just copy and paste, and suddenly they are done (p. 68).”  

Stoll disagrees with using computers in the classroom because it makes things too easy for a student. However, some researchers seem to differ. Hargittai (2005) states, “They [students] have to discover (even if they are assisted in this process) in knowing how deep to explore a certain topic. This is no different in the classroom or the online classroom.” The myth that computers make it too easy to work seems to be fallacious in theory. Too easy does not have to equate to negative. As well, the myth that computers make cheating too easy actually has nothing to do with online education as much as the teaching of ethics in general. Using a computer to plagiarize information can be done as easily for an on-ground class as it can for an online class. Either way, it is the responsibility of teachers to instruct students in ethics, explain source citation and prepare them to use technology responsibly. This would be impossible in an environment where technology was not referenced.

So, as Bigam and Rowan (2004) surmise, “Thus, the implementation of any new technology needs to be seen in terms of the changes that will always derive from the new ways people relate to one another as they develop new ways of doing things. Whether this can be judged to be good, bad, to improve or not, can only be made on a case-by-case basis (p.4).”

Whether or not educators choose to involve technology in their classrooms is an important decision. Their lack of comfort or ability with technology should not contribute to this decision, but ultimately it does. Instead, educators should look at technology as it has always been looked at: a tool. The calculator is a tool, the protractor is a tool, the word processor is a tool, as is the computer and the Internet. Buying into the myths of the uneducated, uninformed or technologically biased is a dangerous proposition when it comes to the future of students, education and ultimately, our culture. And, as students are making clear as they gain more and more ability to choose their educational future, technology is here to stay.  

-- Jeff D. Borden, M.A.
Director of Academic Training & Consulting, eCollege

References
Bigum, Chris, & Rowan, Leonie (2004). Flexible learning in teacher education: myths,
muddles, and models. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education. 32, No. 3, 213-226.

Bork, Alfred. Personal Computers for Education. New York: Harper and Row, 1995.

Butler, Wendy. (2003.) Ebooks in the Classroom. About.com. Retrieved September 10, 2007, from About.com website: http://publishing.about.com/arts/publsihing/library/weekly/aa072200b.htm

Hargittai, Eszter (2005). The pros and cons of implementing the internet in the classroom:
    Making sense of the hype. Retrieved September 9, 2007, from Princeton University Web site: http://www.princeton.edu/~eszter/edu/intro.html

Li, Qing, & Akins, Melina (2004). Sixteen myths about online teaching and learning in higher
education: Don't believe everything you hear.. TechTrends. 49, No. 4, 51-60.Stoll, Clifford, Silicon Snake Oil: Second Thoughts on the Information Highway, Doubleday, 1995.

 Instructor’s Tip:

Writing Learning Objectives… Do You Know Your ABCDs?

With all the buzz about eCollege’s Learning Outcomes Manager tool, many of us will start focusing our attention on writing meaningful learning outcomes or evaluating the outcomes we have with a critical eye. How many of us have written our own learning outcomes, or taken a good look at the ones provided for us? (And admit it, how many of us simply reference the objectives from the course textbook without putting much thought into them at all?)

In order to be meaningful, learning outcomes need to be specific, measurable and/or observable. It is necessary to use action (performance) verbs that are observable and measurable (such as “The Helpful Hundred” listed by O’Bannon) and to avoid verbs like understand, know, appreciate, comprehend, learn and so on, because these are not measurable. One method for writing meaningful outcomes is the ABCD method, which suggests incorporating the following four elements into each learning outcome (see O’Bannon):

A is for audience: the learner that the objective is written for.

B is for behavior: the verb that describes what the learner will be able to do after the instruction.

C is for condition:  the circumstances under which the objectives must be completed.

D is for degree: the standard the learner must meet to demonstrate acceptable performance on the objective.

For example, the following (an example from my textbook) is not a properly written ABCD objective: The student should understand the basics of primate taxonomy, emphasizing the major taxa (suborder, superfamily, family, genus and species). This objective has an audience, but does not have a measurable behavior, condition or degree.

On the other hand, we can rewrite the objective to incorporate the ABCD elements: Given a blank primate taxonomy chart, the student will complete the suborder, superfamily, family, genus and species levels of the taxonomy chart with 80% accuracy. This objective has an audience (the student), a measurable behavior (complete the suborder, superfamily, family, genus and species levels of the taxonomy chart), a condition (given a blank primate taxonomy chart) and a degree (with 80% accuracy).

Ultimately, there is no one correct way to write learning objectives as long as they are specific, measurable and observable. However, the ABCD method for writing objectives is one approach and is a useful way to get started.

-- Gail E. Krovitz, Ph.D.
Senior Instructional Design Consultant, eCollege

References:

B. O’Bannon. How do I write an instructional objective? Retrieved June 3, 2008 from:

http://slate.it.utk.edu/~bobannon/writing_objectives.html

Related Links:

>> Educator's Voice Archive

Related Links:

>> Educator's Voice Archive