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: Fall 2016
Location: Graduate Center Timonium Campus (.601, .602, .603, .604 sections)
Thomas Wootton High School (.M01, .M02, .M03, .M04, M05 sections)
Time Mondays (.M01 section), 5:00pm - 7:30pm
Tuesdays (.601, .602, .603, .604), 4:30pm - 7:00pm
Thursdays (.M01, .M02, .M03, .M04, M05 sections), 5:00pm - 7:30pm

Last night of class meets until 9pm
Professors: .M01, .601, .602, .603 .604 Sections
David M. Marcovitz, Ph.D.
Timonium Campus 26N
410-617-2250
marco@loyola.edu

.M02, .M03, .M04, .M05 Sections
Robert Kenyon, Ed.D.
Timonium Campus 26M
410-617-1668
rskenyon@loyola.edu

Educational Technology Key Concpets
Key Concept Learning Objectives
Key Concept 9:
Critical Perspectives
9.1 Candidates will be able to understand the pros and cons of technology from a variety of critical perspectives and apply  that understanding to evaluating current and potential technology in schools and society.
  
9.2 Candidates will be able to demonstrate how technology can be used to empower some and disempower others in schools.

9.3 Candidates will be able to use critical frameworks to think about the value of specific technologies

School of Education 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/AD776/ED776 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.

5. Students will understand a variety of frameworks for understanding technology in schools and society.

HYBRID COURSE

This 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.

COURSE MATERIALS

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.

Toyama, Kentaro. (2015). Geek heresy: Rescuing social change from the cult of technology. New York: PublicAffairs.

Wagner, Tony (2012). Creating innovators: The making of young people who will change the world. New York: Scribner.

Materials Needed:

Primary Texts

Software (provided in Loyola University labs):

COURSE OUTLINE AND SCHEDULE OF CLASSES

Numbers in the table below DO NOT refer to chapter numbers.

Schedule

Readings (refer to dates above for when your section must complete the readings)

Reading Name
Specific Reading
Postman 1
Postman, Preface and Chapters 1-4
Postman 2
Postman, Chapters 5-9 & Epilogue
Turkle 1
Turkle, The Case for Conversation & One Chair
Turkle 2
Turkle, Two Chairs & Three Chairs
Turkle 3
Turkle, The Path Forward & A Fourth Chair
Toyama 1
Toyama, Introduction, Chapters 1-3
Toyama 2
Toyama, Chapters 4-7
Toyama 3
Toyama, Chapters 8-10, Conclusion
Wagner 1
Wagner, Chapter 1
Wagner 2
Wagner, Chapter 2 and 1 Profile from Chapters 3 or 4
Wagner 3
Wagner, Chapters 5 and 6

Assignment Due Dates

(Book papers are due 2 classes after the end of the book discussion)

Paper
M01
601/603
602/604
M02/M04
M03/M05
Postman (Paper 1) October 3
September 20
September 20
September 29
October 6
Turkle (Paper 2) October 31
October 18
November 8
October 27
November 3
Toyama (Paper 3) December 5
December 6
December 13
December 8
December 15
Final Paper or Debate Notes December 19
December 20
December 20
December 22
December 22

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.

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.

LATE ASSIGNMENTS

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.

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.

WEATHER-RELATED CLOSINGS
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

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

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: 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.

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 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

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, 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: August 11, 2016