Ed Tech: Devices or Design? What did we learn after 70 years? Was Clark right? EDC&I 510 28 Oct. 2009

The Legacy 70+ years of research on devices “Is film better than traditional instruction?” “Is programmed instruction better…?” “Is television better…?” Eventual exhaustion…

Was ID the answer? Advent, in early 1970s, of INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN Or was it “Instructional Development,” or “Instructional Systems Design,” or…? Connection with then-current enthusiasm for “Systems Theory” and “Systems Research” Cf. Robert McNamara’s approach at Pentagon

Why ID? Sense that “it’s not the devices, it’s how they’re orchestrated and used” that makes a difference A kind of “rear-guard action” in defense of traditional technology-effects approaches Not yet linked into Clark’s careful analysis

Clark’s Revolution “Mere Vehicles”! Large-scale meta-analyses of multiple “media comparison” studies Typically, NSD (No Significant Difference) results But, in a few cases, some significant differences do show up – Why? Was it the technology itself that was better used, or….?

It’s the Design, Stupid! Clark: Not the technology (medium) itself, but the design that went into it Example: well-prepared (designed) film vs. “traditional instruction” What was the “traditional instruction”? Typically, some prof. giving the same lecture he’d given 28 times before, with no special preparation

So what does “design” mean? Basically, careful (thorough) advance thinking about things like: Intended outcomes (what learners should be able to do) Learners’ prior education and experience (what they bring in with them) Learners’ probable assumptions (mental models, analogies, comparisons, etc.) Types of support or help that learners may need How to enhance “Invested Metal Effort” and motivation

So what’s a fairer test? Same design effort for each type of learning activity (e.g., extensive design of a lecture and of a filmed presentation) Outcomes defined in accord with medium (type of response desired mirrors type of instruction, experience provided) Ceteris paribus (other conditions held equal)

Is that all there is? Well, maybe not… The Salomon (& Perkins) argument

Cognitive Technologies Tools (both “hard” devices and “soft” symbol systems) can affect (and maybe effect) cognition

Types of effects Effects with technology: Effects of technology: “Perform smarter” (better, quicker, etc.) Effects of technology: “Cognitive residue” – zoom studies, etc. Effects through technology: Reorganization of activity patterns and intellectual operations - reading and writing reorganize processes of generating comparing, presenting ideas

Effects with technology “It’s a spreadsheet problem!” (Ed Lazowska, ca. 1998) Extends abilities in basic and important ways Transfer and psychological embedding of software-based functionality

Effects of technology “Cognitive Residues” -- Salomon’s zoom studies Visualization (per technology-based approaches) Framing (ability to shift and reposition one’s point of view)

Effects through technology Literacy Numeracy “The world is available” “The world is visual” “The world is editable”

But, but, but… Clark would likely say “these aren’t real psychological variables!” I.e., you can’t easily isolate, control them, or monitor how they get called on or applied in specific situations Does that make them unreal?

And yet… In some ways, there’s an assumption these sorts of cognitive tools, media effects are important features of daily life “Net generation” arguments “Media literacy” discussions “Medium is the message” Etc., etc., ….