Journal Reflection September 16, 2008
Davies, I. K. (1978). Educational Technology: Archetypes, Paradigms and Models. In J. H. Hartley & I. K. Davies (Eds.), Contributions to an Educational Technology, Volume 2. (pp. 9-24). New York: Kogan Page.
An archetype is a perspective and when consistent can be a “universal principle for thought and action.” A paradigm is a concrete theory that is more limited than an archetype and helps explain events. It is usually qualitative in nature and can be expressed in words, numbers, or visually. A model (quantitative) is a specific and detailed representation of something real.
Educational Technology One:
This technology is a hardware approach. Davies believes this technology will increase the teacher’s impact on student learning by the aid of teaching devices. It is focused on large groups of students, recognizing costs and extending outside the classroom.
Educational Technology Two:
This technology is a software approach, emphasizing technology aids in learning. Technology Two is meant to enhance a teachers’ own teaching. It provides guidelines for new teachers or an opportunity to fine-tune skills of experiences teachers. Technology, in this form, is considered the instrument of what’s being taught. The technology is based on goal setting, task analysis, motivational principles, and evaluation.
Idea: *Shaping Behaviour
Educational Technology Three:
Technology Three is an integrated hardware and software approach. It places importance on the environment in which learning takes place and in the overall experience. It emphasizes group efforts and requires a range of skills to be used when problem-solving.
Idea: *Integrated Approach
The Audio-Visual Archetype or its hardware is used to aid classroom presentations and teaching, improve classroom demonstrations, help solve logistical problems, part of both teaching and learning processes, and automates and speeds up evaluation process.
The Engineering Archetype has a more step-by-step approach to learning with a defined set of objectives and an evaluation scheme at the end to provide feedback. This reminds me of how some teachers today feel pressured and accountable during CRT performances.
The Problem-Solving Archetype relies on a variety of skills and the learning experience to solve problems in a particular situation at any time. Skills have to be available and an aim in mind when approaching a problem. There may be different ways of approaching a problem, however, the end product is what all are striving to achieve.
I seem to use aspects of all. Mainly, Educational Technology Three and the Audio-Visual Archetype, along with some in the Problem-Solving Archetype. I have to consider hardware and software when instructing with technology to determine limits and to create expectations for students. I like exposing students to technology and allowing them opportunity to reach an end goal, yet not restricting them to how they get there. However, I feel there has to be a certain knowledge and skill level of students to get to this point. I like to model technology as well in my teaching, visually appealing to student learning styles. Students have opportunities to create for example, slideshows, videos, and animations.
Davies article is still applicable today as it covers aspects of technology education and how it is dealt with by teachers. Many teachers have varying purposes for integrating technology and in their expectations for students. Students themselves deal with some of the issues presented in this article daily with their iPods, webcams, X-box, and so on. In schools, an approach to technology may be handled differently everywhere but will have indicators of the technologies and archetypes discussed in Davies’ article.