Learning technology: Theorising the tools we study

an article by Martin Oliver (Institute of Education, University of London) published in British Journal of Educational Technology Volume 44 Issue 1 (January 2013)

Abstract

This paper identifies a significant gap in existing work within the field of educational technology – the failure to explain technology theoretically – and proposes an agenda for addressing this.

While there are discussions of theory within educational technology research, these typically focus on learning. Technology itself is seldom considered, being treated instead as “natural” or given.

This is in marked contrast to other fields of study, in which robust theories of technology have been developed.

The consequence of this is that technology is treated as if it will cause learning – and when it does not, there is no clear explanation of why.

To advance this discussion, two traditions of work theorising technology are introduced – one positivistic, including work on affordance, and the other (largely unrepresented in educational technology) that provides a social account.

An example of each is used to analyse a case study, so as to contrast the kind of claims that currently get made about technology with those that we could make. It is argued that adopting a social account of technology would enable richer, better-integrated claims to be made about technology use.

Practitioner Notes

What is already known about this topic

• Technology is a central concern of research in the field, but it is not clear how we should think about this term.
• While work in the field some decades ago tried to conceptualise technology, it is now treated as a taken-for-granted category.

What this paper adds

• Systematic evidence is provided that we rely on a “common sense” understanding of technology.
• The idea of technology is explicitly debated in other fields of study, and two of those traditions are reviewed here.
• An example is provided that illustrates that these other conceptions of technology can provide richer accounts of empirical work than those currently dominant in the field.

Implications for practice and/or policy

• We cannot assume that technology will simply have “effects” on people.
• Alternative accounts of technology provide richer explanations of technology use, and would benefit the field.

---

Computing with competencies: Modelling organizational capacities

an article by Elena García-Barriocanal, Miguel-Angel Sicilia and Salvador Sánchez-Alonso (University of Alcalá, Madrid, Spain) published in Expert Systems with Applications Volume 39 Issue 16 (15^th November 2012)

Abstract

The notion of competency provides an observable account of concrete human capacities under specific work conditions. The fact that competencies are subject to concrete kinds of measurement entails that they are subject to some extent to comparison and even in some sense, calculus.

Then, competency models and databases can be used to compute competency gaps, to aggregate competencies of individuals as part of groups, and to compare capacities.

However, as of today, there is not a commonly agreed model or ontology for competencies, and scattered reports use different models for computing with competencies. This paper addresses how computing with competencies can be approached from a general perspective, using a flexible and extensible ontological model that can be adapted to the particularities of concrete organizations.

Then, the consideration of competencies as an organizational asset is approached from the perspective of particular issues as competency gap analysis, the definition of job positions and how learning technology can be linked with competency models. The framework presented provides a technology-based baseline for organizations dealing with competency models, enabling the management of the knowledge acquisition dynamics of employees as driven by concrete and measurable accounts of organizational needs.

Highlights

► We review the current state of competency models and the needs for more complex competency schemas.
► We present a general model for expressing competencies and how it is expressed in the form of an ontology.
► We describe how that model can be used for different tasks involving computation and inference with competencies.

Hazel’s comment: 
Some readers will remember the post I wrote last week about dropping some journals from my regular reading list. I have also been looking at the number of journals for which I receive alerts. I know that these individually do not take as long to deal with as the hard copies in the British Library but there are significantly more of them. There is, moreover, a limit to how long I can sit and look at article titles, decide whether to read the abstract, decide whether to blog and then reformatting and checking – I have to get up and go do something else such as housework for a while before coming back to the cerebral activity. This journal was one I very nearly dropped – and what a gem I would have missed. I've not read the full article but an ontology of competence has got me really excited (sad person that I am).

---