Educational Technology Seminar
Education Specialties Department
Prerequisite: ET605 and ED600/ED670/AD776/ED776 or permission of instructor. This course examines current trends in the field of educational technology.
While it is important to have a strong background in the nuts and bolts of educational technology, including a great deal of hands-on experience, educational technology leaders must also be able to examine issues critically. This course examines educational technology from a critical perspective, including how computers affect the purpose of school and whether/when or not computers are appropriate in school and society.
1. Students will understand the deeper impact of technology on the educational process.
2. Students will be able to apply critical analysis to issues of technology and education.
3. Students will examine current issues from a critical perspective.
4. Students will understand the positive and negative impacts of technology on society and education.
5. Students will understand a variety of frameworks for
understanding technology in schools and society.
HYBRID COURSEThis course includes both face-to-face and online meetings. Full participation in both aspects of the course is required. All online aspects of the course are asynchronous. Refer to the chart below for specific dates that the course meets in person.
Primary Texts (Required):
Postman, Neil. (1995). The end of education: Redefining the value of school. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Turkle, Sherry (2015). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in the digital age. New York: Penguin Press.
Wagner, Tony (2012). Creating
innovators: The making of young people who will change the world.
New York: Scribner.
Software (provided in Loyola University labs):
COURSE OUTLINE AND SCHEDULE OF CLASSES
Numbers in the table below DO NOT refer to chapter numbers.
Readings (refer to dates above for when your section must
complete the readings)
||Postman, Preface and Chapters 1-4|
||Postman, Chapters 5-9 & Epilogue|
||Turkle, The Case for
Conversation & One Chair
||Turkle, Two Chairs & Three
||Turkle, The Path Forward & A
||Toyama, Introduction, Chapters 1-3|
||Toyama, Chapters 4-7|
||Toyama, Chapters 8-10, Conclusion|
||Wagner, Chapter 1|
||Wagner, Chapter 2 and 1 Profile from Chapters 3 or 4|
||Wagner, Chapters 5 and 6|
Assignment Due Dates
(Book papers are due 2 classes after the end of the book discussion)
|Postman (Paper 1)||October
|Turkle (Paper 2)||October 31
|Toyama (Paper 3)||December
|Final Paper or Debate Notes||December 19
Postman, Turkle, Toyama, and Wagner refer to the primary texts.
The professor reserves the right to make changes to this schedule. Changes to the schedule and changes in assignments will be announced in class and/or via email.
You are expected to:
1. Attend all classes.
2. Complete all reading assignments as assigned in class.
3. Participate in class discussions (both in-class and electronic).
4. Participate in the class debate or write a final paper
5. Complete all required papers.
6. Lead class discussions as assigned in class.
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES AND GRADING CRITERIA
Presentations and written materials should reflect the student's knowledge of the subject as well as the use of higher-order thinking skills (analysis, interpretation, synthesis, and evaluation). Materials should be presented in a professional manner, including correct spelling, punctuation, grammar, and usage.
For this class you will write four papers (three shorter papers and one final paper), and you will be graded on class participation. Class participation includes your presentation of class readings and issues, your participation in discussions not led by you, and your participation in the class debate. Papers and class participation will be given grades ranging from A+ to F, including + and - grades in between. Grades will be weighted as follows:
|Assignment||Percent of Grade|
There will be some opportunities to lead discussions and/or participate in debates in lieu of papers. Any alternative to writing a paper will be weighted the same as the paper would have been.
Each assignment will be awarded a letter grade from A to F (including all + and - grades in between and with A+ being awarded in very rare cases), except that some assignments might be awarded a numerical grade on a 100-point scale. For the purposes of averaging, the following numeric equivalents will be used: A+ = 100; A = 95; A- = 92; B+ = 88; B = 85; B- = 82; C+ = 78; C = 75; C- = 72; D+ = 68; D = 65; D- = 62; and F = 0. When the grades are averaged, the following scale will be used to assign the final grade (note that A+, C-, D+, D, and D- are not options for final grades): above 92 = A; 90 - 92 = A-; 87.5 - 90 = B+; 82 - 87.5 = B; 80 - 82.5 = B-; 76.5 - 80 = C+; 70 - 76.5 = C; below 70 = F. For further explanation of this system, click here.
Assignments are generally due before the start time of class for
anything that is due on the day of an in-person class. Assignments are
generally due by midnight of the date of class for anything that is due
on the day of an online class. Any change in these times will be
communicated by the instructor in advance. Assignments will receive an
automatic reduction of one +/- grade for every day or partial day they
are late. For example, an assignment that is due by class and handed
in after class will have the grade reduced 1 +/1 grade (e.g., from an A-
to a B+). An assignment that is handed in 3 days late will have the
graded reduced by 3 +/- grades, which is the equivalent of one full
letter grade. Exceptions will only be made when an excension is
granted by the instructor in advance or when a documented emergency at
the last minue prevents handing in the paper in a timely fashion.
Due to the fact that this an interactive, discussion-oriented course, students are required to attend all class sessions. Absences and tardies will significantly impact the class participation grade.
If class is scheduled in person and cannot meet in person, such as due to snow, class will not be cancelled. The professor will make arrangements for virtual class that might be synchronous or asynchronous.
Plagiarism will not be tolerated. Unless otherwise stated, all work handed in for assignments is expected to be the original work of the student. Work that is not your own should be properly and clearly credited to the original author. Any plagiarized work will lead to a grade of F for the course.
Note that your instructor has access to many of the same resources that you do and can easily check for plagiarism in a number of ways (see for example http://www.plagiarism.org/).
If you have a disability that is documented with the Disability Support Services Office (DSS) and wish to discuss academic accommodations, please contact your instructor as soon as possible. If you have a learning disability that has not been documented, you may contact the Disability Support Services Office (410-617-2602) for assistance.
Boyd, Danah (2014). It's complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Bromley, Hank and Apple, Michael W. (Eds.). (1998). Education/Technology/Power: Educational computing as a social practice. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Burbules, Nicholas C., Callister Jr., Thomas A. (2000). Watch IT: The risks and promises of Information Technologies for Education.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Bryson, Mary, and de Castrell, Suzanne. (1998). "New technologies and the cultural ecology of primary schooling: Imagining teachers as Luddites in/deed." Educational Policy, 12(5), 542-546. [Online]. Available: http://www.educ.ubc.ca/faculty/bryson/gentech/Luddites.html
Carr, Nicholas. (2010). The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
"Class Wars" (1997). The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition. [Online]. Available: http://interactive.wsj.com/public/current/articles/SB876948980231759000.htm
Cuban, Larry. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cuban, Larry. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Daniel, Sir John, Cottrell, Robert, & Kozma, Robert (2007). "The Economist Debate Series: The continuing introduction of new technologies and new media adds little to the quality of most education." The Economist. Retrieved: February 16, 2009, from http://www.economist.com/debate/overview/121
Davidson, Cathy H. (2011). Now you see it: How the brain science of
attention will transform the way we live, work, and learn. New York:
Doerr, Anthony (January/February 2009). "Am I Still Here? Looking for Validation in a Wired World."Orion Magazine. Retrieved: January 5, 2009, from http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/4234
Ellul, Jacques. (1964). The Technological Society. (John Wilkinson, Trans.). New York: Alfred A. Knopf. (Original work published 1954)
Erneling, Christina (2010). Towards
discursive education: Philosophy, technology, and modern education.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gardner, Howard, & Davis, Katie (2013). The app generation: How
today’s youth navigate identity, intimacy, and imagination in a digital
world. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Healy, Jane M. (1998). Failure to connect: How computers affect our chilren's minds--and what we can do about it. New York: Touchstone.
Ito, Mizuko, et al (2008). Living and learning with new media: Summary of findings from the digital youth project. The John D. and Catherine T. MacAruthur Foundation. Retrieved: December 1, 2008, from http://digitalyouth.ischool.berkeley.edu/files/report/digitalyouth-WhitePaper.pdf
Joy, Bill. (2000). "Why the future doesn't need us." Wired, 8(4). [Online]. Available: http://www.wirednews.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html
Katz, Jon. (1997). "Fear of a Tech Planet." Hotwired. [Online]. Available: http://hotwired.lycos.com/synapse/katz/97/38/katz1a_text.html
Kendrick, Michelle. (1997). "Cultural Rage and Computer Literacy: A Response to Theodore Roszak." ALKI: The Washington Library Association Journal. [Online]. Available: http://www.wla.org/alki/jul97/roszak2.html
Lessig, L. (2001). The future of ideas: The fate of the commons in a connected world. New York: Random House.
Lessig, L. (2004). Free culture: How big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity. New York: The Penguin Press.
MacKenzie, Donald and Wajcman, Judy. (Eds.). (1985). The social shaping of technology: How the refrigerator got its hum. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.
MacKenzie, Donald and Wajcman, Judy. (Eds.). (1999). The social shaping of technology (2nd Ed.). Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Marcovitz, D.M. & Son, J.D. (2008). "Point/Counterpoint: Is educational technology shortening student attention spans?" Learning & Leading With Technology, 36(1), 8-9. Retrieved January 5, 2009 from: http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Publications/LL/LLIssues/Volume3620082009/AugustNo1/36108m.pdf
Morozov, Evgeny. (2013). To save
everything, Click here: The folly of technological solutionism.
New York: PublicAffairs.
Oppenheimer, Todd. (2004). The flickering mind: The false promise of technology in the classroom and how learning can be saved. New York: Random House Trade Paperback.
Palfrey, John & Gasser, Urs. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. New York: Basic Books.
Postman, Neil. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Postman, Neil. (1995). The end of education: Redefining the value of school. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Rosenberg, Scott (2010, August 30). In Defense of Links, Part One:
Nick Carr, Hypertext and Delinkification [Web log message]. Retrieved
September 7, 2010 from http://www.wordyard.com/2010/08/30/in-defense-of-links-part-one-nick-carr-hypertext-and-delinkification/
Rosenberg, Scott (2010, September 2). In Defense of Links, Part
Three: In Links We Trust [Web log message]. Retrieved September 7, 2010
Roszak, Theodore. (1994). The cult of information: A neo-luddite treatise on high-tech, artificial intelligence, and the true art of thinking, 2nd Ed. New York: Pantheon.
Roszak, Theodore. (1997). "The Ethics Of Affordability Community, Compassion, and The Public Trust: Theodore Roszak." ALKI: The Washington Library Association Journal. [Online]. Available: http://www.wla.org/alki/jul97/roszak.html
Roszak, Theodore. (1999). "Shakespeare never lost a document to a computer crash." [Online]. Available: http://trace.ntu.ac.uk/opinion/theo1.htm
Software & Information Insdustry Association. (2000). 2000 Report on the Effectiveness of Technology in Schools. Washington, DC: Software & Information Industry Association.
Stager, Gary. (2005). "Gary Stager on the State of Educational Technology: Why the Tech Movement Is on Life Support." District Administration. [Online]. Available: http://www.districtadministration.com/page.cfm?p=971
Stoll, Clifford. (1999). High-tech heretic: Why computers don't belong in the classroom and other reflections by a computer contrarian. New York: Doubleday.
Talbott, Steve (2002). "From Baby Walkers to High Tech: The anti-developmental stance." NetFuture, 135. [Online]. Available: http://www.oreilly.com/people/staff/stevet/netfuture/2002/Aug2902_135.html#2a
Talbott, Steve. (1996). "Reengineering society for efficiency: It is possible; but do we want it?" [Online]. Available: http://www.oreilly.com/people/staff/stevet/meditations/efficiency.2.html
Talbott, Steve. (1996). "Will Advertising Keep the Net Free." [Online]. Available: http://www.oreilly.com/people/staff/stevet/meditations/advertising.html
Talbott, Steve. (1996). "Do Computers Benefit Education." [Online]. Available: http://www.oreilly.com/people/staff/stevet/meditations/educ.html
Talbott, Steve. (2003). "A New Assessment of Computers in the Classroom" NETFUTURE, 153. [Online]. Available: http://www.praxagora.com/stevet/netfuture/2003/Oct3003_151.html#2a
Talbott, Steve. (2003). "Does the Future Computer." NETFUTURE, 142. [Online]. Available: http://www.praxagora.com/stevet/netfuture/2003/Feb2503_142.html#2
Talbott, Steve. (2003). "The Internet: Reflections on Our Present Discontents." NETFUTURE, 150. [Online]. Available: http://www.praxagora.com/stevet/netfuture/2003/Oct0703_150.html#1d
Talbott, Steve. (2004). "Where Does the User End and PowerPoint Begin?" NETFUTURE, 153. [Online]. Available: http://www.praxagora.com/stevet/netfuture/2004/Jan0604_153.html#1b
Toyama, Kentaro. (2015). Geek heresy: Rescuing social change from the cult of technology. New York: PublicAffairs.
Turkle, Sherry (2011). Alone
together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other.
New York: Basic Books.
Turkle, Sherry (2015). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in the digital age. New York: Penguin Press.
Winner, Langdon (1980). Do artifacts have politics. Daedalus,
Winner, Langdon. (1997). "Cyberlibertarian Myths and the Prospects for Community." [Online]. Available: http://www.rpi.edu/~winner/cyberlib2.html
Winner, Langdon. (1999). "Digital Technology's Role in a Good Education." EDUCOM Review, 34(1). [Online]. Available: http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/html/erm9910.html
Winner, Langdon (2000). "Enthusiasm and Concern: Results of a New Technology Poll." NetFuture, 103. [Online]. Available: http://www.oreilly.com/people/staff/stevet/netfuture/2000/Feb2900_103.html
Winner, Langdon. (2003). "Science Policy and the Push for Nanotechnology" NETFUTURE, 153. [Online]. Available: http://www.praxagora.com/stevet/netfuture/2003/May2003_145.html#3
This page was prepared by Dr. David M. Marcovitz.
Last Updated: August 11, 2016