3. SECTIONS Model

After reading Bates paper on the SECTIONS model of selecting technology for educational proposes, I think this is was a good model or guide over all.  I do disagree with a few points he makes.  The first is the E or Easy of technology part.  Bate states that, “It is important that students and teachers not spend a great deal of time on learning how to use educational technologies or on making the technologies work”. (Page 87) 

I really disagree with this statement.  Over the past several years I have taught using online technology in a blended model.  It has been my experience that the more proficient I am with the educational technology the better I can implement and teach my content.  I understand what Bates is trying to say, that we should focus on the subject matter, not the technology.  But if we are embarking on teaching in a DE environment we are reliant on technology to communicate with our learners.  Therefore it is a clear understanding of the technology that we should be focusing on how to implement our content.  It seems obvious to me that the better we are are at using the technology the more we are going to get out of the learning.  This also applies to students with different learning styles.  If an instructor that doesn’t learn the technology to its full capabilities will limit their effectiveness in apply tools for better outcomes? I equate this statement to a person learning to fly a plane. Ask the instructor not to focus on the controls, but to teach the theory of flight. Sounds like a crash a burn situation to me. Bates does mention that there has to be “basic set of literacy skills”, but this is not enough in my eye, for a successful implementation of a new learning technologies. At best this is a minimum for students in a F2F environment, not online DE.  I understand that most educational domains are not computer savvy, but if we are to do an effective job at teaching online, then the computer skills of the tools should be appropriate.  

I have seen instructors who have basic knowledge of a technology try to implement a new tool into their practice and then become discourage and return to their original methods. I’ve been one of those instructors. I have experienced this first hand, the problems and limited knowledge of the technology. I didn’t learner the technology completely so I become frustrated and rejected the process.  I believe one part of a successful implementation of a new technology into an educational environment is that the institution should have a strategic approach in training facility on DE technology.  In my experience, this has been a hole in the process.  This stage has been left to the individual teacher to learn the technology and apply it, most times without support from the institution.  So when Bates stated that teachers not spend a great deal of time on learning how to use technology, it struck a nerve.  Maybe in a perfect educational setting, with a supportive institution, a topic specific content and a step by step educational technology (ET), this would be the case.

Another thought related to this idea when teaching in a synchronized environment.  This requires a significant orchestration of technology on the part of the instructor and the students, whether the tool is simple or sophisticated.  If little attention is paid to the technology, the effectiveness of the learning will be diminished.  There are so many features, strategies and techniques required in using DE tools.  If an instructor pays little attend, as Bates suggests, the learning outcomes maybe reflected negatively.  To me there seem to be a ratio, the more skilled the instructor has with the technology, the proportional level of learning outcomes by the students.  

I do agree with Bate when learning a new ET, students should have a practice session before a live class. Student as well as instructor should be fluent with the tool before class starts.  If a student has problems understanding the system during the class, this can have a significant impact on their learning outcomes or dis-courage them completely.  I feel that not preparing the students for this environment is setting some them up for failure. This is not a reflection of the selected technology, but the preparation on the part of the student, instructor and institution.

Bate talks about selecting technology and the easy in which to use it by students.  For the most part, I have little control over the design of the tools.  I can select a tool that has a simple design, but that might come at the sake of functionality.  I get Bates point on making it easy for the user and instructor.  But there has to be a balance between functionality and usability.  I don’t think I would select a system solely on the basis that it’s easy to use.

Bates states that, “Given the rapid rate of change in technology, it would be wise to NOT invest too much time and effort in a particular technology unless the materials can easily be moved into a new technology environment” (Page 90).  I agree with Bates point of selecting a technology is a large investment in time and effort and should be considered carefully.  Bates states that the future of speech recognition (SR) technology and kinesthetics will become more prevalent in the future. In the 9 years since this paper was written we still don’t have computers with user friendly SR or kinesthetic technology at our ready disposal.  I believe it’s very difficult to see the future of technology. This is a matter of luck when selecting technology in some cases.  Granted, SR technology is out there but it’s not that accessible, friendly or cost effective.  I don’t think we should wait for technology to develop to point where it’s easy to use!  I always said to my students, that everything is easy, went you know how. You just have to invest the time and effort.  What’s the knowledge worth to you?

We are choosing to teach and learn a cyber environment.  As such, we need the pre-requisite of those technologies to be able to function accordingly. I feel that many institutional administrations do not value the level of technology knowledge required for instructors and learner in a DE environment. In my institution for example, basic essential computer literacy skill are not a pre-requisite for many computer based or online programs.  I believe there is an assumption that students have these skills from high school, other education or osmosis.   Bates seems to focus on the tool as the concern/problem, select an “easy to use tool”. I see the concern being as much the instructor/students knowledge of the tool.  I don’t think we can expect that instructors and students learning online using advanced technology, not to have high level computer knowledge these days.  I’m curious, if online Universities have students that start a course and drop out because the students were unprepared to use the technology or did not feel comfortable using it?   If that is the case then closer attention may be paid to online technology pre-requisites.  This would open the door to designing and selecting technologies that are more dynamic/robust learning tools.  If the instructors and students are not limited in the use of tool, the technology becomes less visible and the content becomes the focused. This may equal greater learning.

As a possible solution to this problem maybe a course in, Online Living and Learning could be offered as a pre-requisite for students without a computer background.  With this type of course offering as a base knowledge for online learners may un-tie the instructor’s hands when it comes to selecting a DE technology.   

Any Thoughts?

Thanks Rhyon, Robert and Bonnie for starting and adding to this conversation.  I must agree when I read the Bates and Poole statement “It is important that students and teachers not spend a great deal of time on learning how to use educational technologies or on making the technologies work. (Page 87) I thought yeah right, easier said than done.   Like you I know what the authors are trying to say the technology should not over take the primary goal of student learning.  We all know it does which is very frustrating for all parties concerned as it takes away from learning.

You and Robert both mention that time needs to be invested to learn these new technologies and learn them well.  Being an instructor in a post secondary institutions that depend on government funds and corporate donors, budgets are a huge issue.  The educational institution I am most familiar with is very quickly falling behind in infrastructure and technology software hardware areas.  We have an absolute awesome team of Teaching Learning Tech staff to support us; however they are stretched with their workloads.  Instructors teach in classroom that still has the “old overhead projectors” [which of course no one uses].  Many classrooms are not equipped with a computer, thus if we use a laptop and want to use a visual presenter we have to book them from media services and drag them to our classrooms on a cart.  As Bates and Poole (2003) and others point out support for technology use and problem solving has significant bearing on success and failure.

From a personal perspective, I attend as many workshops on incorporating technology in the classroom as I can.  I have used Desire2Learn for close to two years now and there is still so much I don’t know.  Sharing this from an instructor perspective, there are so many classroom management, technology and course content balls to keep in the air.  Learning a new technology usually requires a learning curve and a period of adjustment for both the instructor and the student, whether it is F2F or DE.  As an instructor who teaches in a lecture classroom of facing 115 students and something technical goes wrong, confidence goes out the window, I lose my focus to the technology, the student lose their focus [and start texting someone or leave], plus valuable teaching time is lost.  The technology has to be value added to the content and student learning.  If it does not seem worth it, yes, I have to admit, I sometimes take the easier (same old same old) route as I only have so much “gas in my tank” and time in my electronic calendar.     What is pedagogically best, over what can be realistically achieved is not without internal struggle.

Thanks so much for staring this thought provoking discussion.

Dianne from MB

Dianne wrote,

Many classrooms are not equipped with a computer, thus if we use a laptop and want to use a visual presenter we have to book them from media services and drag them to our classrooms on a cart. As Bates and Poole (2003) and others point out support for technology use and problem solving has significant bearing on success and failure

Hi Dianne

In many cases, not just in this specific one, this is actually by design! Guess which stakeholder group DIDN'T have much input on these decisions?

I popped into a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ course this past week to check out a clicker problem ... I was informed about the several recent issues with the room's projector, the connection to it and I also noticed the delays involved with the instructors having to switch their laptops (as one left and the other came).

You are 100% correct ... support is critical for success with using technology. In fact, support is critical for success with teaching in general.

Back to the original post briefly though; Bates & Poole, I think, are trying to make the point that technology shouldn't be a barrier to learning. In the planning stages of choosing technologies, the best possible effort needs to go into ensuring that the technologies are as well-designed as possible. In practice, technology will always be:
1) flawed
2) unable to meet all possible needs
3) flawed
4) subject to system instability (i.e. changing one part of the system can introduce problems for connected technologies)
5) did I mention flawed? 

If a technology proves to be too likely to promote frustration and negative responses, it should be either not adopted, or if already adopted, replaced, fixed or abandoned.

Again, item #2 above needs to be noted. What one instructor finds useful/intuitive, another may not.

But, I do agree that personal investment into becoming competent with the tools at hand is the minimum requirement for any profession. This is not a new concept - think back to film projectors, mimeograph machines, even the lowly photocopier. In fact, learning how to manage chalkboard space so that info was presented in a coherent fashion and could integrate with the various pull-down maps/charts, was/is an important part of teaching.

Just my .02
c

Bonnie,

I've been teaching using a blend style for a couple of years and find the pro's out weight the con's.  It just takes time to get over that technology hump. I have found that my students in a blended model learn the skills needed for DE.  Many technologies and tools that we use in Blended are repeated in DE.

Maybe this as a strategy for helping students function more efficiently/confidently in a DE environment?

I'm going to start observing this with my current student!

Thanks for new thought

Hi Cam

I agree with you - good example too.

In fact, technology is only a solution if/when it is actually used! So a tech solution that is too complicated for the target users is not a solution at all.

c