|The content of EdTech was merged into Educational technology on March 2013. That page now redirects here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.|
|The content of Instructional technology was merged into Educational technology on July 2014. That page now redirects here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.|
|The content of Information and communication technologies in education was merged into Educational technology on August 2014. That page now redirects here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|To-do list for Educational technology:|
Educational technology category page
How should the article be integrated with or effectively link to the Educational technology category page? It seems that the See Also section should be reduced and that this should instead link to the category. Roycekimmons (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Theory & Practice Issues
I am not sure why theory and practice would be in the same section. The section doesn't even include any "practice" information. I also suggest the "theory" section is not useful as is, primarily because it simply lists brief descriptions of three theoretical perspectives (not theories). Unfortunately, the article does not say how these "theories" relate to educational technology. If these theories have something to say about educational technology, that information should be included, otherwise, I suggest omitting this information or just putting in links. The list of theorists is also problematic because some listed are not very much associated with ET theory and some who are, are omitted. It is sort of astounding that this article doesn't even mention R. E. Clark who asserted that media use cannot affect learning. This is a significant theoretical issue and places limitations on what can be expected from ET on student learning. Robotczar (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input. Please consider using your ideas yourself to edit the article to improve it. I made some changes that pick up on some of your comments. You indicate that the descriptions are theoretical perspectives (not theories). I added wording to address your point. However, Wikipedia naming conventions prefer brevity, so the names of links within this encyclopedia are driven by that choice of styling. I separated theory from practice. I disagree that practice is absent, but agree that the connection is wobbly. I will add a brief mention of Clark when I have a moment. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
This section consistently advocates based on opinions instead of presenting information. It quickly takes an advocacy position for "ecological" perspectives, instead of simply reporting that some educators assert that position. It is inappropriate that the second paragraph says that "unless this happens, it is likely that…" It can be reported that some scholar or researcher makes this claim, but the article offers this position as established fact.
The third paragraph has some repetitive information, but it is focused on babies and DVDs which is only tangential to this topic because babies are not in the formal educational system. Ditto for problems related to the use of computers and cell phones. This research is about general use, not technology used in a regulated instructional environment, which would address concerns about distractions and time wasting. This article should stick to technology use in formal education, as part of a designed curriculum.
The next paragraph presents unrelated, unsupported statements that are wrong. Increasing corporate profits via hyped technology is a legitimate concern, but no support is offered for this assertion. Much of what this paragraph says is incorrect. Most online tests are not adaptive, and being adaptive is unrelated to corporate hype or profit. The Khan academy is thrown in and criticized without citations or even a coherent argument. (Why is focus on the end result bad?) The "computer-based instructional model", whatever that is, does not "encourage" students to work individually. Whether students work individually or collaborate is about pedagogy, not technology. ET can support collaborative learning for example via online discussion forums and other social media.
Is the percentage of MOOC registrants an issue important enough to be considered in this article? That information is better on the MOOC page. This information is really not basic to the topic of educational technology. Also, MOOCs are in fact, an educational environment using a specific pedagogy, it is not a form of educational technology. Omit it.
Again, the Everest effect section takes a position instead of reporting it as that is is said by some specific people. This section also makes some large claims, one citation is insufficient to claim that the instructional environment, including instructional method, changes just due to technology.
The rest of this section has similar, or worse problems. One can hardly understand the relevance of "phantom objectivity" to this topic. Maybe a philosophical diatribe belongs on the technology page, but not here. Technology is not going away any time soon, and as been present in education since the inception of formal education. Books are media and technology. Please get rid of this stuff. Some legitimate criticism exists, and this sort of stuff simply distracts from the real issues. Robotczar (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)