Paradigm Shifts on Educational Technology and its Posibilities for Transformative Action

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This article had been presented at First International Conference on Current Issues in Education (ICCIE) held by Yogyakarta State University and National University of Malaysia in Yogyakarta, September 15-16, 2012 and published in its Proceeding (2012) pages 483-490.

Edi Subkhan
Curriculum and Educational Technology Department, Education Faculty, State Semarang University
edi_subkhan@yahoo.com
Abstract

In the recent decade there are paradigm shifts on educational technology such as from obsession to be a discipline toward field of studies, from controlling into facilitating learning practice, from positivism and behaviorism toward constructivism perspectives, from surface to deep learning practice, from inert knowledge to usable knowledge, from mastery learning toward meaningfull and transformative learning practice. But in Indonesia this paradigm shifts almost doesn’t have any significance change on learning practices, there are lots of obstacles such as the lack of deep understanding about the paradigm shift and structural-organizational problems. In other side, this paradigm shifts open up the possibilities of educational technology to be more transformative, because the paradigm shifts bring the educational technology more sociological, political, and contextual then ever, and it is important, because the real social facts—especially in Indonesia—need the transformative education actions to make a significance changes in the social realm. This article investigates this issue critically and then proposes several basic requirement on how adressing educational technology to be more transformative theoretically and practically.

Keywords: constructivism, facilitating, paradigm shifts, sociological, transformative education.


Introduction

Talking about the real socio-cultural facts on education and how to increase its quality bring the educational technology tobe one of the most important determinant factor among others. Many people said that educational technology acts as “panacea” to overcome all of the education problems, in other side this opinion had been countered by the facts that lots of learning practices using tools, devices, and technological system couldn’t solve the learning problems within and outside the classroom (in formal/official education), moreover it engenders other learning and education problems. For example, the presence of computer in the term of Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI) in Indonesia, especially when it going into the school, several cases indicate that learning practices become less focus than previously, because students not only looking at the message content, but also looking at the computer as it is (refers to my personal experiences). Moreover, as an “instruction” system, CAI only have a few interactive, dialogic, and contextual dimensions in which only exercising the students cognitive surface domain.

Refers to the basic concept of the learning theory, students don’t only have a cognitive domain, but also affective and psychomotoric domains (refers to Bloom’s taxonomy, see Molenda & Pershing in Januszewski & Molenda [eds], 2008: 51-53). This theory challenges the old Instructional System Design (ISD) to formulate and create the concept and practice of using computer to be more interactive, dialogic, and contextual. It is important, because actually they don’t only need to mastery the lesson on the cognitive term, but also need to transform and enhancing their knowledges, skills, and attitudes more deeply, and it can only be done through interactive, dialogic, and contextual learning practices. Theoretically this direction is based on the constructivist learning theory and transformation educational practices in which focusing on the students process on constructing their knowledges, skills, and attitudes and laid the educational practices on the wider socio-cultural and political economy context (see Bryn Holmes & John Gardner, 2006).

The illustration above shows us that educational technology is always in motion, i.e. corrects and improves the learning practice using technology—in the term of hard and soft technology—theoretically and practically. Based on the “appropriate” and “ethical practice” principles (see Alan Januszewski & Michael Molenda [eds.], 2008) educational technology always seeking the most appropriate concept design and practice on creating, using, and managing learning media and method. On this effort, educational technology always take into consideration the development of the learning theory from the behavioristic, cognitivist, and constructivist; and also the various paradigm on social theory and educational studies. Finally several “new” ideas on designing and practicing educational technology are formulated to facilitate the learning practices in accordance to the learning and educational objectives appropriately and ethically.

Indeed, the development of the learning theory and practice rooted on the paradigm shift, because paradigm contain philosophical view and epistemological stance. In relation to the way on formulating theoretical construct on learning practice, paradigm become the basic reference and foundation on defining the ideal concept and practice of the learning by offering some and/or several perspective philosophically and critically, i.e. learning practice should focus on the student, not on the teacher (student centered); the role of learning media isn’t to controll the learning practices anymore, but to facilitate it appropriately and properly; education shouldn’t be remote from the society, conversely education should engaged and getting involved within society; education is not about how to transfer the knowledge from the teacher the student, but about transform the student’s knowledge, skill and attitude toward social transformation, and etc. All of the basic assumptions above refers to the learning and educational paradigm called constructivism and transformative education (see further example and discussion in Bryn Holmes & John Gardner, 2006; Maureen Pope & Pamela Denicolo, 2001).

So, it is clearly that paradigm—in this case—directing the learning and educational practice to follow its several basic assumptions. In the practical levels, especially in the field of educational technology, all of the learning media and method definitely based on several learning and educational paradigm, including on seeing the “technology” wether as a technical or socio-cultural phenomenon (see Neil Selwyn, 2011). Because of its important position, this article trying to analyse critically the change and development of the educational technology from its paradigm domain, especially focusing on the implications of the paradigm shifts on the learning and educational practices and its posibilities for transformative actions to change the education to be better (in the midst of this article I will explain why transformative actions—in the notion of transformative education—are important).

 

Paradigm Shift on Educational Technology

In this critical analysis to investigate several kind of paradigm shifts on educational technology I use two fields of analysis. First, taking from the development of the educational technology within Association for Educational Communication and Technology (AECT) as a solid organization with a wider influences to the field, and secondly, taking from an educational technology “movement” outside AECT. Both of them have a different characteristic and orientation on their own development, the former have a long evolution on developing educational technology based on several learning and educational paradigm (behavioristic, cognitivist, constructivism, and etc), and the later have a strong emphasis on socio-cultural, political, and ideological orientations from the beginning to counter the positivistic and behavioristic notions of educational technology.

First, there is a shifting from striving to be a discipline toward defining educational technology as a field of studies. Early definitions of educational technology (especially 1963 definition) enacted by Association for Educational Communication and Technology (AECT) was heavily influenced by James Finn’s six characteristics of a profession, Finn seeing educational technology as a profession and then said “the most fundamental and most important characteristic of a profession is that the skills involved are founded upon a body of intellectual theory and research” (1953: 8, in Januszewski & Molenda [eds], 2008: 263). It means that educational technology certainly perceived and developed as a discipline like other more established disciplines (psychology, sociology, natural science). Influenced by this direction, early Indonesian educational technologist, Yusufhadi Miarso (2007: 62) also said that educational technology need a strong philosophical foundation (ontology, epistemology, axiology) to prove itself as a discipline.

But in 1972 definition, educational technology declares itself as a field of studies, refers to the part of the definition point out by Ely (1972: 36, in Januszewski & Molenda [eds], 2008: 267) “Educational technology is a field involved in the facilition of human learning through the systematic identification, development, organization and utilization of a full range of learning and through the management of the processes”. This definition be strenghtened by the recent definitions enacted officially by AECT in 2004 that “Educational technology is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources” (Januszewski & Molenda [eds], 2008: 1). The concept field of studies is more flexible and sociological than discipline which is more restricted according to positivistic paradigm and often unfamiliar with the transdiscipline approach to solve the problems in society (Edi Subkhan, 2011b: 98-99).

Second, the early development of educational technology within AECT is under the light of management and system theory such as in the 1963 definition referred to “the desgin and use of messages which control the learning process.” Robinson, Molenda, and Rezabek (in Januszewski & Molenda [eds], 2008: 16) said that in this version, the focus is on messages, specifically, messages that control learning. The 1963 definition makes the strongest connection between learning and educational technology intervensions. Januszewski (2001: 42-43, in Januszewski & Molenda [eds], 2008: ibid.) proposed that the word control had two connotations, which were derived from the dominant theory at that time: the behaviorist learning theory notion that consequences of behaviours determined wether or not they were learned and the communication-theory notion that processes were regulated by feedback.

The significant paradigm shift appear in the 2004 definition by AECT that the main role of educational technology is to facilitate learning practice. It means that learning media shouldn’t in the form of non-interactive and “instructive” design, but interactive, participative, and dialogic; moreover teachers roles in class is no longer to control the learning practices anymore, but to facilitate it appropriately. This orientation situated the students/learners as the most important subject seems under the notions of humanism philosophical ground and progresivism educational movement. Robinson, Molenda, and Rezabek (in Januszewski & Molenda [eds], 2008: 41) said:

[…] the term facilitating learning in order to emphasize the understanding that learning is controlled and owned by the learners. Teachers and designer can and do influence learning, but that influences is facilitative rather than causative.

Third,  according to the 2004 definition of educational technology by AECT, the words “improving performance” reinforces the newer connotation of learning: not just inert knowledge, but usable capability. Molenda & Pershing (in Januszewski & Molenda [eds], 2008: 49) said that the goal on improving performance dealing with the claims to improve the performance of individual learners, of teachers and designer, and of organizations. Therefore, on achieving this goal the discourse about learning practice moving away from the kind of surface learning to deep learning, in other term, from “bookish learning” toward “real learning.” Surface learning is identified by memorization, drill and practice, conceiving material as unrelated bit of information, in other side deep learning always questioning the materials critically, trying to conceive the materials critically by relating it with students previous knowledge and their daily life activities (ibid., 53, refers to Weigel, 2002: 6).

This paradigm shift derived from the logic of economic effectiveness and efficiency under the ideas and practices of new managerialism in organizations (Edi Subkhan, 2012). As a corporate management system, new public managerialism directing the learning and educational practice in school and campus emphasize on achieving students/learners performance. It means learners have to show their own skills and competencies empirically, in other word the learning practice should attained the learners to “perform” their knowledge, skill, attitude, and etc. In the industrial society and educational paradigm devoted to supply the labour, performance is very important, because they are really need skillfully labour than labour with critical consciousness. Basically, this shifting influenced by the notions of meaningful and useful learning paradigm, that learning practice should be meaningful for the learners and society, and useful for occupation purposes. And this goals cannot be achieved without deep learning activities and usable knowledge for the best “performance” purposes.

Fourth, several paradigm shifts above, especially on the shifting toward facilitating and performance paradigm (2004 definition by AECT) actually laying constructivism paradigm in the dominant position among other (i.e. behavioristic and cognitivistic). Karagiorgi and Symeou (2005: 18) by citing several references (Mayer, Hendry, Jonassen, Perkins, Solomon, Cole) said that constructivist theory assuming knowledge as being actively constructed by the individual, and knowing is an adaptive process, which organises the individual’s experiential world. Hence, the learner is not considered as a controlled respondent to stimuli as in the behaviourist rubric, but as “already a scientist” who actively constructs knowing while striving to make sense of the world on the basis of personal filters: experiences, goals, curiosities and beliefs. Knowledge for constructivism cannot be imposed or transferred intact from the mind of one knower to the mind of another.

Lots of learning methods derived from constructivism i.e. self-directed learning, discovery learning, co-operative learning in groups, problem-based learning, collaborative learning, engaged learning and etc. For example, Robinson, Molenda and Rezabek (in Januszewski & Molenda [eds], 2008: 36) citing Tinzmann, Rasmusen and Foertsch (1999: 6) who’re defining engaged learning in the notion of constructivism.

Students are explores, teachers, cognitive apprentices, producers of knowledge, and directors and managers of their own learning. Teachers are facilitators, guides, and colearners; they seek professionals growth, design curriculum, and conduct research. Learning tasks are authentic, challenging, and multidisciplinary. Assessment is authentic, based on performance, seamless and ongoing, and generates new learning.

Fifth, outside the AECT, several sholars and intellectuals who’re concern on educational technology issues tend to conceptualize and examine it in more sociological terms. Neil Selwyn (2011) as I’ve mentioned him in the introduction seeing the technological side of educational technology not only as technical phenomenon, but also as a cultural one by identifies activities and practices on using technological processes and resources and its socio-cultural context. In more philosophical analysis, Andrew Feenberg (2002) examine the integration of technology into education based on Marxian theory, especially Critical Theory, and then propose the future educational technology toward transformative actions. Similar directions has been done by Denis Hlynka (2004) and Kimberley Osberg (1994) by using postmodern perspective on analyzing educational technology, including on how to create and use learning media and method according to postmodern view. But as I’ve examine it on my previous work (Subkhan, 2011a) these more sociological and critical analysis by using several critical social theories are not the mainstream direction in educational technology.

Implications for Learning Practices and Its Obstacles

The first paradigm shifting of educational technology actually have a great impact on developing this field of studies based on the notions transdisiplinary approach. By conceived educational technology as a field of studies it means that an effort to examine and develop educational technology should beyond disciplinary approach toward transdiscipline approach, in other words: doesn’t restricted by the only one perspective based on one discipline like psychology, sociology, economic, and etc. This approach open up many more opportunity to solve educational technology problem and develop it appropriately (by creating, using, and managing technological processes and resources) because of employing several theories from many “discipline” and field of studies relates to educational technology in broad wide senses. The reseach result would be more in the senses of critical discourse and rich of informations, hence the opportunity to develop and/or build some “new” and specific studies within educational technology is widely opened.

The second to the fifth paradigm shift influences the practical levels on creating, using, and managing learning media and method, curriculum design, learning enviroment design, and etc directly. In Indonesian context, those paradigm shifts actually forcing the teachers, learning media and method designer, learning resources manager, curriculum designer and etc to create, use, and manage the learning practice using “technological processes and resources” under the light of facilitating and constructivism paradigm. For example, they should create web-based learning environment which is more interactive, dialogic, and be followed by the real social activities that lead the learners on enhancing their knowledges and skills in according to the usable knowlede and skill; the teachers also should practicing learning activities more meaningful for the learners/students, connecting the theoretical knowledge and skill to the real world, and give the students an authority to choose, create, and develop their own knowledge and skill to be learn and their own method to learn appropriately.

Ironically, this paradigm shifts doesn’t fully be conceived yet by lots of educational technologist scholar in Indonesia, moreover it is not an interesting topic to be discussed seriously and critically. Indonesian professional association of educational technology (Ikatan Pengembang Teknologi Pendidikan Indonesia, IPTPI) seems doesn’t have any interest on discussing philosophical, epistemological, ideological, sociological, cultural, and political sides of educational technology. Although most of the Indonesian educational technologist was infleunced by the mainstream paradigm, concept and practice of educational technology officially derived from AECT, but they’re still left behind on the epistemological and socio-cultural discourse (IPTPI never held a seminar or conference on philosophical, epistemological, or socio-cultural issues in the last decade). Moreover they’re more focusing on the technical level such as how to design various learning media based on certain social context and internet, analysing the learning result according to different learning media and method, developing learning media according to the logic of Research and Development (R & D) approach, and etc.

Therefore, this facts implies educational technology in Indonesia become underdeveloped field of studies, the learning media and method design doesn’t have a strong enough theoretical, philosophical, ideological, and socio-cultural foundations, the teachers don’t have a high competency to modify and elaborate learning practice based on constructivism paradigm, in others word still depend on the old fashioned learning media and method. Most of the teachers and educational technologist only discussing on the surface level about several “new” concept such as facilitating, performance, constructivism, student centered, dialogic learning practice, and etc, but they don’t addresing it into more deep and critical discussion from philosophical domain to the “how to” dimension. Maybe my explanations seems exaggeration and hyperbole, but based on my own experience got along with lots of teachers, scholars, and lecturers who’re “practicing” educational technology in several universities (i.e. Jakarta State University, Semarang State University) indicate that they don’t have enough ability on understanding and articulating the paradigm shifts on those both theoretical and practical level.

 

Identifying the Posibilities for Transformative Actions

If we analyse several paradigm shift above carefully and critically, there are some similarities between the mainstream direction of educational technology (toward more sociological, contextual, empowering the learners to arrange their own learning practices, proposing deep and meaningful learning concept and practice, under the notions of humanism, progresivism, and constructivism paradigm) and the transformative education ideas and practice. What is transformative education, and is it important relates the paradigm shift on educational technology with transformative education in Indonesian socio-cultural context?

In short, transformative education is an educational paradigm in which addressing educational practice not only to achieve personal performance, moreover it should transform and change the existent social reality which is often unjust, totalitarian, preserve discrimination, exploitation, negative stereotyped based on ethnicity, religion, race, and etc. Transformative education have several identical names i.e. critical pedagogy (Henry Giroux, 1983; Peter McLaren, 1995), critical education (further discussion see Manuel Castells et al., 1994), radical pedagogy (Mark Bracher, 2009), popular education (Roem Topatimasang, Toto Rahardjo, Mansour Fakih, 2010), transformative pedagogy (H.A.R. Tilaar, 2002), oppositional pedagogy (Henry Giroux, 1983; Peter McLaren, 1995);  education for liberation (see for example by Paulo Freire, 2005; Noah De Lissovoy, 2008), and etc. All of these names have the same or similar basic concepts on education i.e. education is not a neutral things, education is a site of ideological and political struggle, the first aim of education is to build students critical consciousness, then fight againts silent culture, colonialism, capitalism, neoliberalism, unjust, exploitation, discrimination, corruption, racism, and etc, ultimately education should reconstruct the social reality toward social justice, prosperity, and also building emancipatory and democratic society.

Transformative education meets its importance in Indonesian socio-cultural and political context, because lots of problems cannot be solved based on conservative and liberal education paradigm/ideologies. Conservative educational paradigm tend to preserve the dominant knowledge, values, ideology, culture, and social order, so it doesn’t have any progressive notions on reconstructing the social reality to be better than previously, moreover liberal educational paradigm with it emphasize on exercise personal achievement toward best performance on knowledge, skill and values, doesn’t enough to answer the social, cultural, political, and structural challenges such as unjust, discrimination, racism, and etc above (Roem Topatimasang et al., 2010). So, the only way to rebuild and reconstruct our society through education is by employing transformative education paradigm, because under the light of several critical social theories this paradigm could analyse social reality on searching the roots of social problems and then formulates several concepts to solve the problems fundamentally and radically.

Moreover we cannot depend on constructivism learning paradigm to rebuild and reconstruct the social reality because of its limited roles, because constructivism only acts as a theory of knowing and never in clear relation with the passion on questioning about social justice and building democratic society—for example. But it doesn’t means that constructivism is useless for transformative education agendas, as I have mention it above about some similarities between several paradigm shifts on educational technology and basics principles of transformative education, there are posibilities on using those paradigm shifts as a “medium” and learning method to facilitate the learning and educational practices toward transformative actions. Several learning methods above i.e. discovery learning, problem-based learning, collaborative learning, engaged learning, and etc have the same basic concepts with transformative education/critical pedagogy learning practice such as dialogic, problem-posing learning, social involvement, democratic, partisipatory, emancipatory learning practice and etc (see Ira Shor in Peter McLaren & Peter Leonard [eds.], 1993). In the end, several paradigm shifts above under the light of constructivism could be the foundation of the learning theory for transformative education purposes.

 

Toward Transformative Educational Technology

One last paradigm shifts above we weren’t discussing it yet a lots is an orientation toward more critical, sociological, cultural, political, and ideological direction by employing several critical social theory (i.e. Critical Theory, postmodernism, critical discourse analysis, and etc). Actually this critical and sociological direction are not a new within educational technology, several writers such as Denis Hlynka, Stephen Kerr, Randall Nichols, Vanessa Allen-Brown, Robert Muffoletto, Andrew Yeaman, and etc concern on this issues since the early definition had been enacted officially by AECT in 1960’s, but their positions within ACET—in the terms of epistemological and ideological stance—never dominating the intelectual climate (further discussion see David Jonassed [ed.], 1996). At least Hlynka build “his own educational technology studies” in Canada (University of Manitoba) by writing several books and papers on educational technology by employing critical theory, postmodernism, post-structuralism and etc. Like many others intellectual who’re concern on educational technology outside AECT (i.e. Neil Selwyn, Bridget Somekh, Avril Loveless, Viv Ellis, Donna Lecourt, Katrina Miller), Hlynka, Kerr, Nichols, and Muffoletto, awalys consistent on developing educational technology in more sociological, cultural, and critical.

Back to the discussion about the possibilities for transformative action trough several paradigm shifts on educational technology above, it is clear that the more sociological, cultural, and critical orientation of educational technology by Hlynka, Selwyn, Loveless, Lecourt and etc have the same theoretical and ideological foundations with transformative education paradigm. Both of them using several social critical theory on analyzing educational technology and educational studies itself. It means that transformative education have a solid ground in educational technology as a field of studies, not only by the marginal intellectual movement like Hlynka, Selwyn, Loveless and etc which are clearly using critical pedagogy/transformative education paradigm on examine and develop it critically by referring several works of Paulo Freire, Henry Giroux, Peter McLaren, Marshal McLuhan, Andrew Feenberg, Manuel Castells, or their theoretical constructs derived from the Marxian, Nietzschean, Foucaultian, Gramscian, Habermasian, and etc philosophical foundations, moreover also by the paradigm shifts based on constructivism learning theory, humanism, and progresivism philosophical spirit in which open up the oportunity of the critical and transformative education ideas develop itself extensively on educational technology.

For example, based on the educational technology paradigm to facilitate the learning practice: when the learners have a lots of authority on deciding the knowledge, skill, values, and culture they want to learn, it is similar with the basic concept of liberation education or critical pedagogy because this kind of paradigm doesn’t forcing the learners to learn what the teachers want. So, teachers and learners/students are in equal position to decide what kind of knowledge, skill and etc to be learnt together, what kind of learning method and evaluation to be conducted in class, when and where the learning practice taking place, and etc. There is a negotiation between student and teacher in the democratic, dialogic and participatory process, and this processes lead the student to be more aware about his/her right and responsibility, also consider about “micropolitics”—in Foucault term—of the self, classroom and school. In short, enhancing students critical consciousness. This beginning learning practice could be following by problem-posing learning method, social involvement, and etc to lead the student questioning what they read, learn, conceive, see, and do.

Those learning practices above are in the kind of deep and meaningful learning practices, and it will addressing the student to know and consciouss about what the really happen beyond the social reality? Are there any social unjust, discrimination, oppression, and exploitation in education and society? Depart from this critical analysis and consciousness students/learners try to change/transform the social reality they learnt in the form of “learning by doing”, i.e. problem-posing learning method—in the term of Paulo Freire—and social involvement could be conducting upon textual and/or contextual base, hence the students facing the problem based on text and discussing it in the class or facing it by getting involved within some social problems in society. In this case they aren’t only in deep learning practice about the problems they and society face, but also in the way to act on solving the problems and trying to change the social reality. In other words, by those learning process students/learners transform their knowledge, skill, value, culture, attitude, idological stance (individual-personal transformation, transformative learning) and then transform the social reality toward social justice, democratic, emancipatory, participatory, tolerance, humanism and etc (social transformation, transformative education).

This kind of learning and educational paradigm in Indonesian context have a lots of potential to make a change through educational practices, especially in the kind of “critical or transformative educational technology” according to the massively developed and usage of educational technology (soft and hard technology) in schools, campuses, homeschoolings, and etc. In the recent days, all of learners from the middle class in Indonesia have a phonecell to communicate one each others, most of students in middle class universities in Indonesia have a netbook, notebook, laptop, tablet and etc. All of those stuff are learning media to facilitate the learners/students enhancing and achieve their intellectual capacity, skill competence, personal attitude, values, cultures, ideologies and etc. By directing those recent educational phenomena in Indonesia toward more transformative actions through transformative educational technology, it is possible to make a significance changes.

 

Conclusion

Most ot the learning and educational practice in Indonesia now tend to supply the industrial and corporate need by creating competence labours for occupation purposes, moreover senior high school and higher education also dominated by the “internationalization” logic in the forms of international school project (Rintisan Sekolah Bertaraf Internasional) and world class university, and most of the formal educational practices under Ministry of Education and Culture (Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan) conducting their learning practices to prepare the students ready for global competition. In several cases there are no differences anymore between public education and private education, neither does between educational instituions and corporation because of their embedded “competition ideology” (see Agus Nuryanto, 2008; Darmaningtyas & Edi Subkhan, 2012).

Those phenomena indicates that our national education system much focusing on the global challenges and employment and almost lost attention on such social justice, socio-cultural, and political economy problems. Several programs such as “character education” and “anti-corruption education” don’t have any significant impact in school, campus and society because it is only operates on “theoretical and conceptual” levels. Major direction on building students with high quality competencies to achieve their best achievement/performance in academic, hard and soft skill, and entrepreneurship is not enough, because it is only related with personal-individual change. Several obstacles above in the sense of socio-cultural, structural, institutional, political, ideological, philosophical, epistemological, and etc cannot be solved only depend on personal achievement. We need more sociological, political, and ideological strategy and methodological approach to solve those complexity problems. The presence of transformative education through educational technology is a certain kind of the “politics of hope”—in the terms of Henry Giroux (1997)—on rebuilding our nations character, reconstructs our social reality, empowering our community.

Educational technology as a field of studies encompassing wide range educational practices from early childhood education, elementary education, unto higher education; including informal and formal education, it is such a potential to make a significant change in Indonesia, but furthermore I think we need to concern as Neil Selwyn (2011: 1) said that “educational technology is a topic that is often talked about, but less often thought about,” so we need to initiate educational technology development to solve several socio-cultural problems above, not only to solve the learning practice problems. Therefore it is important what has Neil Selwyn said (2011: 17) that:

[…] educational technologies are not simply neutral tools that are used in benign ways within educational contexts. Like all other technologies, educational technology is intrinsically linked with the social, cultural, economic and political aspects of society.

References

  1. Bracher, M. (2009). Radical Pedagogy: Identity, Generativity, and Social Transformation. New York & Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
  2. Castells, M. et al. (1994). Critical Education in the New Information Age. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
  3. Darmaningtyas & Subkhan, E. (2012). Manipulasi Kebijakan Pendidikan. Yogyakarta: Resist Book.
  4. De Lissovoy, N. (2008). Power, Crisis, and Education for Liberation: Rethinking Critical Pedagogy. New York & Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
  5. Feenberg, A. (2002). Transforming Technology: A Critical Technology Revisited. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  6. Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 30th Anniversary Edition. New York & London: Continuum.
  7. Giroux, H. (1983). Theory and Resistance in Education: A Pedagogy for the Opposition. Massachusetts: Bergin & Garvey Publisers, Inc.
  8. Giroux, H. (1997). Pedagogy and the Politics of Hope: Theory, Culture, and Schooling. Colorado & Oxford: Westview Press.
  9. Hlynka, D. (2004). Postmodernism in Educational Technology: Update 1996-2002. In Jonassen H. (ed.). Handbook of Research on Educational Communication and Technology. 2nd Edition. New Jersey & London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  10. Holmes, B. & Gardner, J. (2006). E-Learning: Concepts and Practice. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
  11. Januszewski, A. & Molenda, M. (eds.). (2008). Educational Technology: A Definition with Commentary. New York & London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  12. Jonassen, D. (ed.). (1996). Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
  13. Karagiorgi, Y. & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating Constructivism into Instructional Design: Potential and Limitations. Educational Technology and Society. 8 (1), 17-27.
  14. McLaren, P. (1995). Critical Pedagogy and Predatory Culture: Oppositional Politics in a Postmodern Era. London & New York: Routledge.
  15. Miarso, Y. (2007). Menyemai Benih Teknologi Pendidikan. Jakarta: Prenada Media Group.
  16. Molenda, M. & Pershing, J. (2008). Improving Performance. In Januszewski, A. & Molenda, M. (eds.). Educational Technology: A Definition with Commentary. New York & London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  17. Nuryatno, A. (2008). Mazhab Pendidikan Kritis: Menyingkap Relasi Pengetahuan, Politik, dan Kekuasaan. Yogyakarta: Resist Book.
  18. Osberg, K. (1994). Rethinking Educational Technology: A Postmodern View. Human Interface Technology Lab Technical Report R-94-4. Retrieved July 28, 2012 from http://www.hitl.washington.edu/publications/r-94-4/educational-tech.html.
  19. Pope, M. & Denicolo, P. (2001). Transformative Education: Personal Construct Approaches to Practice and Research. London & Philadephia: Whurr Publisher.
  20. Robinson, R., Molenda, M. & Rezabek, L. (2008). Facilitating Learning. In Januszewski, A. & Molenda, M. (eds.). Educational Technology: A Definition with Commentary. New York & London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  21. Selwyn, Neil. (2011). Education and Technology: Key Issues and Debates. London & New York: Continuum.
  22. Shor, I. (1993). Education is Politics: Paulo Freire’s Critical Pedagogy. In McLaren, P. & Leonard, P. Paulo Freire: A Critical Encounter. London & New York: Routledge.
  23. Subkhan, E. (2011a). Pedagogik Kritis dalam Teknologi Pendidikan. In H.A.R. Tilaar, Lody Paat, & Jimmy Ph. Paat (eds.). Pedagogik Kritis: Perkembangan, Substansi, dan Perkembangannya di Indonesia. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
  24. Subkhan, E. (2011b). Reposisi Tren ICT Bidang Kajian Teknologi Pendidikan. Masyarakat Telematika dan Informasi: Jurnal Penelitian Teknologi Informasi dan Komunikasi. 2 (2), 89-113.
  25. Subkhan, E. (2012). Dari Public Good ke Private Good, dari Kontrol Negara ke Mekanisme Pasar Bebas: Narasi Kapitalisme Global Pendidikan Tinggi. Semarang: unpublished paper.
  26. Tilaar, H.A.R. (2002). Perubahan Sosial dan Pendidikan: Pengantar Pedagogik Transformatif untuk Indonesia. Jakarta: Grasindo.
  27. Topatimasang, R., Rahardjo, T., & Fakih, M. (2010). Pendidikan Popular: Membangun Kesadaran Kritis. Yogyakarta: Insist Press.

Tinggalkan Balasan

Isikan data di bawah atau klik salah satu ikon untuk log in:

Logo WordPress.com

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Logout / Ubah )

Gambar Twitter

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Logout / Ubah )

Foto Facebook

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Logout / Ubah )

Foto Google+

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Logout / Ubah )

Connecting to %s