BERA Educational Technology SIG 7 April

The BERA EdTech SIG met at the Open University on 7 April. It's taken a while to get to this post because of the holiday and return to work I had in the intervening time... This was the first SIG meeting for some time, and the central location (Milton Keynes) made it very accessible. The event was over-subscribed!

No wonder it was popular. The theme of "Critical and theoretical approaches to research" is both timely and interesting, and the invited speakers - Prof Martin Oliver, Dr Sarah Hennessey and Prof Eileen Scanlon, with opening comments from Prof Jill Jameson - are quite a line-up.

Jill started with some opening comments framing the day's theme. Drawing in particular on the works of Carr, Selwyn (1, 2), Feenberg and Bulfin et al (all recommended reading!), Jill proposed that many in TEL reflect an "evangelistic positivism", and that much research can be described in terms of "a lack of problematisation, with superficial and naïve analysis". The opening comments were bold, critical and thought-provoking.

Martin picked up the baton and continued the theme in his opening address, "Educational technology: Why should we care?" Martin drew attention to the fragmented, incoherent research-base underpinning TEL and the apparent emphasis of promotion over evidence. Martin referenced the ideas of Friesen, Selwyn and Aristotle among others in his expose of technological determinism and subjectivity. The keynote was a powerful reminder of our responsibility as TEL practitioners and decision-makers to ask meta-questions about what we do, and to be concerned with power and authority rather than implementation. Among the more memorable statements for me, Martin suggested we should care about those critical of TEL and actively involve ourselves in their views; he also pointed out that efficiency is a poor driver for TEL implementation, as "education is not an information shovelling exercise". Well said. There was plenty in Martin's comments to urge debate and sober, reflective decision-making.

Sarah's keynote, "Criticality in reporting Ed Tech research: The BJET Editorial perspective" focussed on approaches researchers should consider if they are to make a positive contribution to literature. Various questions were raised, including these:

  • Is the research analytical, or descriptive? 
  • Does the research provide critique and balance, or does it gloss over issues? 
  • Are alternative explanations entertained? 
  • Are links made across the literature, and is the literature critically interpreted? 
  • Are counter-examples or explanations sought? 
  • Might any success be due to novelty value? 
  • Are sampling and the general population valid and well-described? Could the findings be replicated and sustained? 
  • Is the research innovative or at least original? Is it significant to existing knowledge and theory? 
  • Is the intervention tested with real users? Are there convincing learning outcomes? 
  • What are the implications for practice and policy? 
  • What is the role of the teacher? 
Sarah pointed out that many BJET submissions are based on technologies that have been simply introduced, rather than built on educational need.

Finally, Eileen's talk "TEL: Interdisciplinarity and Inquiry" promoted the merits of interdisciplinary research. Despite its challenges, Eileen established the many benefits that can arise. She promoted the design-based research methodology, and the Beyond Prototypes work she was involved with.

Afternoon workshops provided three options, each following up on one of the keynote addresses.

All in all a very positive day. Great connections, stimulating ideas, suitable challenges - a day well spent! Many thanks to the organisers and participants for an effective day of professional development. More to come, I trust!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A further update to "Reading and studying from the screen"

Image
Elevator tale: Like the previous post " An update to "Reading and studying from the screen " updating my 2016 paper " Reading and studying on the screen ", this post surveys various articles not previously considered. This time ten articles released subsequent to mine and a further thirteen not included are considered. The additional articles help to portray a much richer series of nuances to what it means to read on-screen and how comparison studies between on-screen and print reading might be furthered.  Image: Hobbies on a Budget, https://www.flickr.com/photos/62030038@N02/ Earlier this year I posted an update to my 2016 article in the Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning " Reading and studying on the screen: An overview of literature towards good learning design practice ". The article considered much, but not all, of the scholarship at the time related to how on-screen education might be advanced in the face of student preferenc
Read more

On AI in Ed

Image
I'm presenting a paper at next week's EDEN conference in Barcelona , on the topic of ethics for AI in education. In researching the paper, I took the time to get up to speed with some of the latest ideas. I read Frankish & Ramsey's Cambridge handbook of artificial intelligence and Boddington's Toward a code of ethics for artificial intelligence to ensure a good foundation on top of some article and internet research. Let me begin by saying that there is a HUGE array of literature already developed on the subject of AI in education (AIED). A regular AIED Society international conference generates substantial proceedings and there is at least one dedicated journal (the International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education ), ensuring that momentum is ongoing. In considering how AI might be applied in education it’s helpful to think about AI in terms of weak and strong forms. Weak AI is based on acting intelligently and the automation of specific ta
Read more

Into cognitive theory: Making it stick, How we learn, and more smudging

I recently finished reading Make it stick  by Peter C. Brown, Henry L. Roedigger III, and Mark A. McDaniel, published 2014 by Harvard University Press. The Kindle version is available here ; a summary version is also available on Kindle here . What I like about the book is summed up in this paragraph: Much of how we structure training and schooling is based on learning theories that have been handed down to us, and these are shaped by our own sense of what works, a sensibility drawn from our personal experiences as teachers, coaches, students, and mere humans at large on the earth. How we teach is largely a mix of theory, lore, and intuition. But over the last forty years and more, cognitive psychologists have been working to build a body of evidence to clarify what works and to discover the strategies that get results (p.7).  The difference is between common sense (likely a projection of our own preferences!) and evidence when it comes to promoting effective learning. Without giv
Read more