STATIC VS. DYNAMIC TECHNOLOGIES

“As technology becomes integrated into the learning environment,

the instructor or instructional designer must make decisions regarding which

technology to use to achieve specific learning outcomes.  Certainly, many

criteria must be considered when selecting specific technology for a

given lesson, but the paramount decision should be the capability of

chosen technology to support knowledge building, which

indicates the need for interactivity.”

 

                                                                        ~ Leslie Moller (2008)

 

          Moller (2008) states “Technology can be conceptualized along a continuum of static to dynamic”.  Examples of static technologies include:  podcasts; video casts; Web pages, and text.  Each of these technologies are efficient at broadcasting information.  However, each does little to assist the student to build their own knowledge.  Static technologies allow learners to capture information (Moller, 2008).

 

          Moller (2008) states “With a move toward the middle of the continuum we often see technologies or learning approaches that includes, wikis, blogs, discussion boards, chats, and other similar approaches. The middle-of-the-road approaches all learners to interact with the content.”  Learners need to analyze what their classmates are contributing.  They also need “to consider and compare these ideas to an existing knowledge representation or other information, and to synthesize and present responses that reflect the initiating idea.”  In this case new knowledge is created through analysis and argumentation (Moller, 2008).

 

          Moller (2008) states “The dynamic end of the interactivity continuum includes tools that involve learners on a much deeper cognitive level.  These tools can include virtual simulations and gaming, multi-user environments, and mind tools.”  Jonassen (2006, pg. 21) states “mind tools represent a constructivist approach towards using computers (or any other technology, environment, or activity) to engage learners in representing, manipulating, and reflecting on what they know, not reproducing what someone tells them.  When a mind tool is used, knowledge is constructed by the learner, not provided by the teacher.”  This being said a deeper understanding of what is being taught will be achieved (Moller, 2008).

 

          At this point in my academic journey I see myself between the middle and the dynamic end of the interactivity continuum.  I say this because I have spent two master degree programs in the middle and now see myself working into the dynamic end.  During my last two degree programs we worked with the middle-of-the-road approaches but did not really progress into areas on the dynamic end.  I now see myself progressing towards this with projects that I have been working on (i.e. video projects, etc.).  I see myself steadily moving towards the dynamic end with the more I progress through my current degree program.

References
Jonassen, D. H., (2006).  Modeling with technology: Mindtools for conceptual change. (3rd ed.).
          Uppper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education
Moller, L. (2008). Static and dynamic technological tools.  [Unpublished Paper].

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Blogs I Posted To:

sportz75.wordpress.com

http://brandyhiett.wordpress.com/