Abstract
In this work, we theorise the role of the educational technologist in an educational institution as a “variety-handler”. That is, we theorise the educational technologist as responsible for the orchestration of educational and technical resources, namely tools, either to attenuate systemic variety or amplify regulative variety at a certain level of recursion. To do so, we carried out a single case study that focused on the work of the educational technologist in a Music College. The educational technologist provided support to an accordion teacher and his student in remote music lessons. We collected qualitative data from the practice of the educational technologist and the experience of both the teacher and the student over six months (mainly observations and interviews) and we analyzed them building on research from managerial cybernetics, in particular, Stafford Beer’s Viable System Model (VSM). Our case study indicates that, depending on the context, the educational technologist may overtake many roles, such as be a designer, technician, researcher, planner and so on. But the central role is that of handling variety in order to avoid disruption that could potentially affect the lesson negatively.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
From: https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/115003279466-Preserve-Original-Sound [last accessed 20 June 2019]
The Original Sound mode is now available in Zoom in a way where one actually retains echo-cancellation, if he/she wishes to.
References
Aagaard, J. (2017). Breaking down barriers: The ambivalent nature of technologies in the classroom. New Media & Society, 19(7), 1127–1143.
Ashby, W. (1957). An introduction to cybernetics. London: Chapman & Hall Ltd.
Aslan, A., & Reigeluth, C.M. (2013). Educational technologists: Leading change for a new paradigm of education. TechTrends, 57(5), 18–24.
Beer, S. (1974). Designing freedom. Toronto: House of Anansi Press.
Beer, S. (1981a). Brain of the firm. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Beer, S. (1981b). Diagnosing the system for organisations. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Beer, S. (1983). The will of the people. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 34(8), 797–810.
Beer, S. (1984). The viable system model: Its provenance, development, methodology and pathology. In R. Espejo, & R. Harnden (Eds.) The viable system model (pp. 11–37). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Bergold, J., & Thomas, S. (2012). Participatory research methods: A methodological approach in motion. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung, 13(1), 191–222.
Creswell, J.W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.
Danermark, B., Ekström, M., Karlsson, J. (2019). Explaining society: Critical realism in the social sciences. London: Routledge.
Davidson, J. (2003). A new role in facilitating school reform: The case of the educational technologist. Teachers College Record, 105(5), 729–752.
Davies, P. (2010). On school educational technology leadership. Management in Education, 24(2), 55–61.
Duchastel, P.C. (1978). Illustrating instructional texts. Educational Technology, 18(11), 36–39.
Eisenhardt, K.M., & Graebner, M.E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fox, O., & Sumner, N. (2014). Analyzing the roles, activities, and skills of learning technologists: A case study from city university london. American Journal of Distance Education, 28(2), 92–102.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (2013). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Hamilton, E., & Friesen, N. (2013). Online education: A science and technology studies perspective/Éducation en ligne: Perspective des études en science et technologie. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 39(2), 1–21.
Hartley, J., & Benington, J. (2000). Co-research: A new methodology for new times. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(4), 463–476.
Henderson, M., Henderson, M.J., Romeo, G. (Eds.). (2015). Teaching and digital technologies: Big issues and critical questions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Imzirli, O.S., & Kurt, A. (2009). Basic competencies of instructional technologists. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 998–1002.
Johnson, M. (2019). Uncertain education. technology and higher learning through a cybernetic lens. Blurb.
Johnson, M., & Liber, O. (2008). The personal learning environment and the human condition: From theory to teaching practice. Interactive Learning Environments, 16(1), 3–15.
Kowch, E.G. (2005). Do we plan the journey or read the compass? an argument for preparing educational technologists to lead organisational change. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(6), 1067–70.
Leonard, A. (1999). To change ourselves: A personal vsm application. (Retrieved from: https://web.archive.org/web/20150205152907/http://allennaleonard.com/PersVSM.html, Accessed 20 June 2019).
Leoste, J., & Heidmets, M. (2019). Factors influencing the sustainability of robot supported math learning in basic school. robot 2019: Fourth iberian robotics conference: Advances in robotics.
Lorenz, B., Kikkas, K., Laanpere, M. (2014). The role of educational technologist in implementing new technologies at school. In Lecture notes in computer science learning and collaboration technologies. technology-rich environments for learning and collaboration (pp. 288–296). Berlin: Springer.
Mayes, R., Natividad, G., Spector, J. (2015). Challenges for educational technologists in the 21st century. Education Sciences, 5(3), 221–237.
Mitchell, P.D. (1975). The discernible educational technologist. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 12(5), 306–325.
Oliver, M. (2013). Learning technology: Theorising the tools we study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(1), 31–43.
Orengo, M. (2016). Theoretical notes regarding the practical application of stafford beer’s viable system model. Kybernetes, 47(2), 262–272.
Papert, S. (1987). Information technology and education: Computer criticism vs. technocentric thinking. Educational researcher, 16(1), 22–30.
Polycom. (2011). Music performance and instruction over high-speed networks. (Retrieved from: https://www.broadconnect.ca/resource-centre/whitepapers/video-conferencing/music-performance-and-instruction-overhighspeed-networks.pdf, Accessed 20 June 2019).
Ritzhaupt, A., Martin, F., Pastore, R., Kang, Y. (2018). Development and validation of the educational technologist competencies survey (etcs): Knowledge, skills, and abilities. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(1), 3–33.
Selwyn, N. (2011). Editorial: In praise of pessimism – the need for negativity ineducational technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 713–718.
Selwyn, N. (2016). Making sense of technology and educational change in education and technology: Key issues and debates. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. academy of management journal. Sociological Theory, 50(1), 20–24.
Slack, C.W. (1968). Who is the educational technologist, and where is he? Educational Technology Publications.
Tennyson, R.D. (2001). Defining core competencies of an instructional technologist. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 355–361.
Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167–186.
Wei-Chen Hung, W.-C., & Jeng, I. (2013). Factors influencing future educational technologists’ intentions to participate in online teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 255–272.
Winner, L. (1987). The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Witte, J. (2007). Why the tail wags the dog: The pernicious influence of product-oriented discourse on the provision of educational technology support. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 203–215.
Yin, R.K. (2019). Case studies: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix: Types of data collected in remote lessons
Appendix: Types of data collected in remote lessons
Lesson | 4/10 | 3/11 | 17/11 | 12/01 | 26/01 | 2/02 | 9/03 | 21/03 | 31/03 | 6/04 | 13/04 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Observation | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||
Participant comments | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x |
Photos | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||
Video clips | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||||
Full lesson video rec. | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||||
Setup spec. | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bardone, E., Tonni, T. & Chounta, IA. The educational technologist as a variety-handler. Educ Inf Technol 25, 4015–4040 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10091-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10091-5