Syllabus

Educational Technology Seminar

ET 690

Education Specialties Department
School of Education
Loyola University Maryland
2034 Greenspring Drive
Timonium, MD 21093

Syllabus: ET 690 Educational Technology Seminar
Credit Hours: 3
Term: Spring 2014
Location: Graduate Center Timonium Campus
Time Mondays, 4:30pm - 7:00pm
Professor: David M. Marcovitz, Ph.D.
Office: Graduate Center - Timonium Campus 26N
Phone: 410-617-2250
Office Hours: 4-4:30pm before class and by appointment
Email: marco@loyola.edu

Education Department Learning Outcomes
I. Competence X
   I.A. Possesses Broad Knowledge X
   I.B. Creates Productive Learning Environments  
   I.C. Reflects on Practice X
   I.D. Displays Leadership X
   I.E. Forms Community Relationships X
II. Conscience X
   II.A. Behaves Ethically X
   II.B. Is Committed to Social Justice X
III. Compassion X
   III.A.Exemplifies Cura personalis X

CATALOG DESCRIPTION

Prerequisite: ET605 and ED600/ED670 or permission of instructor. This course examines current trends in the field of educational technology.

COURSE RATIONALE

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.

COURSE OBJECTIVES

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.

COURSE MATERIALS

Primary Texts (Required):

Postman, Neil. (1995). The end of education: Redefining the value of school. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Turkle, Sherry (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.

Morozov, Evgeny. (2013). To save everything, Click here: The folly of technological solutionism. New York: PublicAffairs.

Materials Needed:

Primary Texts

Software (provided in Loyola University labs):

COURSE OUTLINE AND SCHEDULE OF CLASSES

Class Date
Topics Assignments
1 1/13

Introduction to course

Class Participation

The Purpose of School

 
2 1/27

The "gods" of Education

The future

Postman, Preface and Chapters 1-4
3 2/3

Narratives and the Purpose of School

The politics of technology and artifacts

Postman, Chapters 5-9 and Epilogue

Winner, "Do Artifacts Have Politics"

4 2/10

Discussion of  Turkle, Chapters 7-9

Issue Discussion

Turkle, Chapters 7-9
5 2/17

Discussion of Turkle, Chapters 10-12

Issue Discussion

Turkle, Chapters 10-12

Paper 1

6 2/24

Discussion of  Turkle, Chapter 13-14, Conclusion, and Epilogue

Issue Discussion

Turkle, Chapter 13-14, Conclusion, and Epilogue
7 3/3

Discussion of  Morozov, Introduction, Chapters 1-3

Issue Discussion

Morozov, Introduction, Chapters 1-3
8 3/10

Discussion of Morozov, Chapters 4-6

Issue Discussion

Morozov, Chapters 4-6

Paper 2

9 3/17

Discussion of  Morozov, 7-9, Postscript

Issue Discussion

Morozov, Chapters 7-9, Postscript
10 3/24

Debate Groundwork

Issue Discussion

Online Articles
11 3/31
Prepare for Debate and Final Paper Paper 3
12
4/7
Prepare for Debate and Final Paper

13 4/21
Class Debate Final Paper or Debate Notes

Postman, Turkle, and Morozov 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.

COURSE REQUIREMENTS

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
Paper 1 17.5%
Paper 2 17.5%
Paper 3 17.5%
Final Paper 17.5%
Class participation 30.0%

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.

ATTENDANCE POLICY

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.

PLAGIARISM

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/).

LEARNING DISABILITIES

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.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

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: Viking.

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.

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 from http://www.wordyard.com/2010/09/02/in-defense-of-links-part-three-in-links-we-trust/

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

Turkle, Sherry (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.

Winner, Langdon (1980). Do artifacts have politics. Daedalus, 109. 121-136.

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


Return to ET690 Home Page.

This page was prepared by Dr. David M. Marcovitz.

Last Updated: January 2, 2014