Fall 2019 - EDUC 931 G001
Doctoral Seminar Iin Educational Technology and Learning Design (4)
Class Number: 1161
Delivery Method: In Person
A doctoral-level survey of major scholars, theories and technological contributions shaping the field of educational technology and learning design. This offering focuses on understanding and differentiating several traditions of research development that have shaped and continue to shape the field.
EDUC 931 - Doctoral Seminar in Educational Technology & Learning Design 1
Offers a doctoral-level introduction to questions, problems and literature in the field of Educational Technology. We will consider what the role of an educational technology scholar is or ought to be, and how conceptions of this role have altered over time; the nature of educational media and mediation; and issues surrounding the diffusion of educational technologies in educational organizations, including colleges and universities as well as K-12 schools. In this connection we will explore histories of educational media and associated education reform efforts, and critically examine the published results of technology-based innovations in teaching and learning. A final theme explored in the course will be the ongoing debate over appropriate methods for empirically evaluating and refining educational technology innovations.
COURSE-LEVEL EDUCATIONAL GOALS:
Students will be expected to develop:
- a scholarly perspective on the historical development of the field of Educational Technology
- an appreciation of how learning technology innovation forms part of a larger historical process of education reform or change
- an understanding of how different learning technology innovations have fared in practice, and why this may have been
- a critical view of the literature and traditions of Educational Technology
- a stance on where their own scholarly work is located within the larger field
- Contribution to weekly online discussions (evaluated by portfolio) 30%%
- Critical review of the literature related to potential thesis topic 40%%
- Peer review of fellow students' draft writing. 20%%
- Class presentation on the state of the field of Educational Technology 10%%
For students wishing to read ahead, here is a partial list of other readings to be assigned:
Agalianos, A., Whitty, G., & Noss, R. (2006). The social shaping of LOGO. Social Studies of Science, 36(2), 241–267.
Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 167-207.
Clark, D., Tanner-Smith, E., Killingsworth, S., Bellamy, S. (2013). Digital Games for Learning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (Executive Summary). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Januszewski, A. (2001). Educational technology: The development of a concept. Libraries Unlimited. (selections)
Koedinger, K., Anderson, J. R., Hadley, W. H., & Mark, M. A. (1997). Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the big city. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 8, 30-43.
Mitterer, J., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (1986). LOGO and the transfer of problem solving: An empirical test. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 32(3), 176-194.
O'Neill, D. K. (2016). When form follows fantasy: Lessons for learning scientists from modernist architecture and urban planning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(1), 133-152. doi:10.1080/10508406.2015.1094736
O'Neill, D.K. (2017). 21st Century bunkum: What do we value about kids learning to code, and why? Teacher Learning and Professional Development, 1(2), 111–116.
O'Neill, D. K., & Feenstra, B. F. (2017). “Honestly, I Would Stick with the Books”: Young Adults’ Ideas About a Videogame as a Source of Historical Knowledge. Game Studies, 16(2). Retrieved from http://gamestudies.org/1602/articles/oneilfeenstra
Papert, S. (1987). Computer criticism vs. technocentric thinking. Educational Researcher, 16(5), 22-30.
Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Haugan Cheng, B., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331-337.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations (4th edition). New York: Free Press.
Selwyn, N. (2010). Looking beyond learning: notes towards the critical study of educational technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 26 (1), 65-73. Gee, J.P. (2008). Cats and Portals: Video Games, Learning, and Play. American Journal of Play, 1 (2) 229-245
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York, Teachers College Press. [Complete text available electronically through the SFU Library]
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, Basic Books. [Out of print: must be purchased used. I recommend Abebooks.com]
Graduate Studies Notes:
Important dates and deadlines for graduate students are found here: http://www.sfu.ca/dean-gradstudies/current/important_dates/guidelines.html. The deadline to drop a course with a 100% refund is the end of week 2. The deadline to drop with no notation on your transcript is the end of week 3.
SFU’s Academic Integrity web site http://www.sfu.ca/students/academicintegrity.html is filled with information on what is meant by academic dishonesty, where you can find resources to help with your studies and the consequences of cheating. Check out the site for more information and videos that help explain the issues in plain English.
Each student is responsible for his or her conduct as it affects the University community. Academic dishonesty, in whatever form, is ultimately destructive of the values of the University. Furthermore, it is unfair and discouraging to the majority of students who pursue their studies honestly. Scholarly integrity is required of all members of the University. http://www.sfu.ca/policies/gazette/student/s10-01.html
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY: YOUR WORK, YOUR SUCCESS