Personalisation in educational technologythe absence of underlying pedagogies

  1. Antonio Bartolomé 1
  2. Linda Castañeda 2
  3. Jordi Adell 3
  1. 1 Universitat de Barcelona
    info

    Universitat de Barcelona

    Barcelona, España

    ROR https://ror.org/021018s57

  2. 2 Universidad de Murcia
    info

    Universidad de Murcia

    Murcia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/03p3aeb86

  3. 3 Universitat Jaume I
    info

    Universitat Jaume I

    Castelló de la Plana, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02ws1xc11

Mostrar afiliaciones +
Revista:
International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education

ISSN: 2365-9440

Año de publicación: 2018

Número: 15

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.1186/S41239-018-0095-0 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

Personalization is one of the recurring themes in education and has occupied a large amount of specialised literature, since its appearance in the 1960s. A systematic exploration of the literature of the last 55 years (1960–2015) is presented and is intended to analyse which educational perspective underlies the customized environments or experiences proposed in the educational technology that is addressed in the literature. It is important to understand that this analysis is a very relevant challenge, if we want to understand what pedagogical approaches have been continuously developed and how and why we should consider their future. The results show a complete centralisation of experiences in technological developments, the majority of them focussed in Higher Education, as well as a lack of an explicit pedagogical perspective in the experiences analysed, especially those with greater impact. It also shows a shortage of in-house pedagogical material – developed in the light of this research, that evolves and makes an impact on the educational landscape.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Alheit, P. (1994) The 'biographical question' as a challenge to adult education. International Review of Education 40 (3 5):283–298.
  • Anderson, L. W. (2005). Taxonomy Academy Handbook. The Taxonomy Academy. Anderson Research Group.
  • Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
  • Audi, R. (2011). Epistemology: a contemporary introduction to the theory of knowledge. New York: Routledge.
  • Castañeda, L. (2011) Analizar y entender la enseñanza flexible. Un modelo de análisis de desarrollo curricular. Píxel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 39, 167-195
  • Chih-Ming Chen, (2008) Intelligent web-based learning system with personalized learning path guidance. Computers & Education 51 (2):787–814.
  • Cobo, C. (2016). La Innovación Pendiente.: Reflexiones (y Provocaciones) sobre educación, tecnología y conocimiento. Montevideo: Penguin Random House.
  • Bartolomé, A. (1994). Sistemas Multimedia. En Sancho, J. (1994). Para una tecnología Educativa (pp. 193-220). Barcelona: Horsori.
  • Beethan, H., & Sharpe, R. (2007). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: designing for 21st century learning. New York: Routhledge.
  • Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: the search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4–16.
  • Bloom, B. S., Engelgart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H. Y., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.) (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals. Handbook I: cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
  • Bulger, M. (2016). Personalized learning: the conversations we’re not having. Data and society working paper. Recuperado a partir de https://www.datasociety.net/pubs/ecl/PersonalizedLearning_primer_2016.pdf.
  • Carlson, H. L. (1991). Learning style and program design in interactive multimedia. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 41–48.
  • Coll, C. (2016). La personalització de l’aprenentatge escolar: un repte indefugible. In J. M. En Vilalta (Ed.), Reptes de l’educació a Catalunya. Anuari 2015. Barcelona: Fundació Faume Bofill ISBN: 978-84-945264-8-0. http://www.fbofill. cat/sites/default/files/RepteseducacioCatalunya.Anuari2015_041016.pdf.
  • Conole, G. & Fill, K., (2005). A learning design toolkit to create pedagogically effective learning activities. Journal of Interactive Media in Education. 2005(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.5334/2005-8
  • Dede, C. (2008). Theoretical perspectives influencing the use of information technology in teaching and learning. In J. Voogt, & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73315-9_60.
  • Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction, (3rd ed., ). New York: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Duchastel, Ph. (1986). Intelligent computer assisted instruction systems: the nature of learner control.
  • Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by Expanding. An Activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: comparing critical features from a design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50–72.
  • Friesen, N., & Hug, T. (2009). The mediatic turn: exploring concepts for media pedagogy. In K. Lundby (Ed.), Mediatization: concept, changes, consequences, (pp. 63–83). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
  • Fry, E. B. (1966). Máquinas de enseñar y enseñanza programada. Madrid: Magisterio Español.
  • Gayeski, D. M. (1995). Interactive toolkit. Itahca (NY): OmniCom Associates.
  • Gillespie, F. (2002). Instructional design for the new technologies. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 76. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.7603.
  • Holma, K., & Hyytinen, H. (2015). The philosophy of personal epistemology. Theory and Research in Education, 13(3), 334–350.
  • Hudson, K. (1984). Introducing CAL: a practical guide to writing computer-assisted learning programs. London: Chapman & Hall.
  • Hung, D. (2001). Theories of learning and computer-mediated instructional technologies. Educational Media International, 38(4), 281–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523980110105114.
  • Illeris, K. (2009). A comprehensive understanding of human learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning: learning theorists … in their own words, (pp. 7–20). London: Routledge.
  • Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Hall, C. (2016). NMC horizon report: 2016 higher education edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
  • Kemp, J. E., & Smellie, D. C. (1989). Planning, producing and using instructional media. New York: Harper & Row.
  • Klotz, G. (1971). La enseñanza programada. Barcelona: Redondo.
  • Larkin, J., & Chabay, R. (Eds.) (1992). Computer-assisted instruction and intelligent tutoring systems: shared goals and complementary approaches, Technology in Education Series (). Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Lumsdaine, A. A., & Glaser, R. (Eds.) (1960). Teaching machines and programmed learning: a source book. Oxford: National Education Association.
  • Martínez, F. (2001). El profesorado ante las Nuevas Tecnologías. In F. Blazquez (Ed.) Sociedad de la Información y Educación, pp. 193–215. Badajoz: Junta de Extremadura.
  • Marzano, R. (1998): What are the general skills of thinking and reasoning and how do you teach them?. Clearing House 71 (5). 268–273.
  • Marzano, R. (2001). Designing a new taxonomy of educational objectives. In T. R. Guskey, & R. Marzano (Eds.), Experts in assessment series. Thousand Oaks, CA: Orwin Press.
  • Marzano, R. J., Brandt, R.S., Hughes, C.S., Jones, B.F., Pressein, B., Rankin, S & Suhor, C. (1988). Dimensions of thinking: A framework for curriculum and instruction. Alexandria: The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Marzano, R., & Kendall, J. (2007). The new taxonomy of educational objectives, (Segunda Edición ed., ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Orwin Press.
  • McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: evidence-based inquiry. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
  • Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Millward, R., Mazzucchelli, L., Magoon, S., & Moore, R. (1978). Intelligent computer-assisted instruction. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 10(2), 213–217. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205127.
  • Najjar, L. J. (1998). Principles of educational multimedia user interface design. Human Factors, 40(2), 311–323.
  • Okoli, C., & Schabram, K. (2010). A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems research. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 10, 26.
  • Pane, J. F., Steiner, E. D., Baird, M. D., Hamilton, L. S., & Pane, J. D. (2017). Informing progress: insights on personalized learning implementation and effects. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation Available at www.rand.org/t/RR2042.
  • Puentedura, R. R. (2012). The SAMR model: background and exemplars (slides). Retrieved from http://www.hippasus. com/rrpweblog/archives/000073.html
  • Rogers, C.R. (1951). Client-centered Therapy: Its Current Practice, Implications, and Theory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  • Rickel, J. W. (1989). Intelligent computer-aided instruction: a survey organized around system components. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 19(1), 40–57. https://doi.org/10.1109/21.24530.
  • Schwier, R. A., & Misanchuk, E. R. (1993). Interactive multimedia instruction. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Educational Technology Publications.
  • Selwyn, N. (2016). Is technology good for education? Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism. A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3-10. Retrieved from: http://www.itdl.org/journal/jan_05/article01.htm
  • Skinner, B. F. (1965). The Technology of Teaching. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 162(989), 427–443 http://olms.cte.jhu.edu/olms2/data/resource/99656/Skinner%20(1965).pdf.
  • Skinner, B. F. (1960). Teaching machines. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 42(3), 189–191 http://www.jstor.org/ stable/1926170
  • Skinner, B. F. (1979). Tecnología de la enseñanza. Barcelona: Labor
  • Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007). A leader's framework for decision making. Harvard business review, 85(11), 68.
  • Taylor, R. (Ed.) (1980). The computer in the school: tutor, tool, tutee. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Tomei, L. A. (2003). Challenges of teaching with technology across the curriculum: issues and solutions. London: Information Science Puyblishin.
  • U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2017 National Education Technology Plan update. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/HigherEd-NETP.pdf
  • Verhagen, P. (2006). Connectivism: a new learning theory. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(3), 379–393. https://doi.org/10.2190/D4JW-NR13-ADTA-MR8A.
  • Williamson, B. (2013). The future of the curriculum: school knowledge in the digital age. London: MA: The MIT Press.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet