EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY (ENGLISH, PHD)
PhD	TR-NQF-HE: Level 8	QF-EHEA: Third Cycle	EQF-LLL: Level 8

Course Introduction and Application Information

Course Code	Course Name	Semester	Theoretical	Practical	Credit	ECTS
EDT6103	Readings in Educational Technology	Spring	3	0	3	9

Basic information

Language of instruction:	English
Type of course:	Must Course
Course Level:
Mode of Delivery:	Face to face
Course Coordinator :	Dr. Öğr. Üyesi YAVUZ SAMUR
Course Lecturer(s):	Prof. Dr. ŞEFİKA FEZA ORHAN
Recommended Optional Program Components:	None
Course Objectives:	Course vision is to provide both foundational and emerging critical research ideas/topics/themes as they relate to educational technology and innovation as well as technology management.

Learning Outcomes

The students who have succeeded in this course;
1. Produce a timely, publishable, critical review paper by;
a. Running a systematic literature review;
b. Critically evaluating historical development, theoretical, psychological and philosophical foundations of educational technology and technology management;
c. Integrating instructional/learning design insights into effective and efficient technology-‐enhanced learning experiences;
d. Critically evaluating different perspectives, issues, emerging and future trends in the EdTech field;
e. Gaining insights into human performance technology and improvement;
f. Combining learning design, technology integration and performance improvement as they relate to transfer of learning/effective learning;
g. Integrating insights from learning/cognitive science and cognitive psychology into technology integration in education;
h. Narrowing down their review topic and making it manageable;
2. Produce a high-‐quality comparative critical reflection paper;
3. Create a productive personal agenda/list of future research ideas for the future (bonus).
4. Perform well earning more than 150pts on the end-‐of-‐semester quiz (bonus).

Course Content

This course provides students with insights into the field of educational technology and technology management based on past, present, and future research directions. The course basically covers historical, theoretical, psychological and philosophical foundations of educational technology; instructional/learning design; human performance technology/improvement; past and present issues and trends in educational technology research; the emerging and future trends in educational technology;; and application of learning science/cognitive science to effective and efficient technology integration. Learners will go through an intensive literature review and end up with a critical review paper by the end of the semester.

Weekly Detailed Course Contents

Week	Subject	Related Preparation
1)	What would I get out of this course? Why? How? -‐ What are the things in the syllabus that are for me? -‐ How do scientists generally read an article or any other scientific work? -‐How to read to comprehend and remember more?	In-‐class readings: Anderson (2010); Kozan (2016).
1)	What would the future be holding for us? Is it just technological? *augmented reality/human-‐computer interaction/social robots/holograms/virtual reality in attitudinal change/big or small data mining in education? etc…	Reading: Harley et al. (2016).
2)	What is technology? How impactful is it really on learning?	Radings: Stolovitch & Keeps (2011), Chps. 10 & 11; Ertmer(2015)
3)	What are the myths about technology in education?	Reading: De Brucyckere et al. (2015)., Chp. 4
4)	How to make technology matter more? What has the research in learning & instruction been like recently?	Reading: Schnotz (2016).
5)	How to make technology matter more? What are some impactful learning strategies?	Readings:Fiorella & Mayer (2015); Hattie & Donoghue (2016)
6)	What are the psychological foundations of EdTech?	Reading: Lowyck (2014)
7)	How can ID, HPT and EdTech go hand in hand?	Readings: York & Ertmer (2016); Foshay et al. (2014).
8)	Do we need teachers as what/who of technology integration?	Reading: Kirschner (2015).
9)	Why bother about distance education?	Reading: Rovai & Downey (2010)
10)	Is it possible to achieve educational change with technology?	Reading: Toh (2016)
11)	What would be the role of games in education/learning?	Reading: Mayewr (2016)
12)	What is this MOOC stuff all about?	Reading: O’Donnell et al. (2015)
13)	What insights can learning analytics provide for us?	Reading: Avella et al. (2016)
14)	What can we learn from transdisciplinary research?	Reading: Kier et al. (2013)

Sources

Course Notes / Textbooks:

• Heinch, R. M. (1973). Is there a field of educational communications and technology?, Audio-visual instruction, 18(5), 31-‐36.
• Januszewski, A., & Persichitte, K. A. (2008). A history of the AECT’s definitions of educational technology. In A. Januszewski & M. Molenda (Eds.), Educational technology (pp. 259-‐282). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Luppicini, R. (2005). A Systems Definition of Educational Technology in Society. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (3), 103-‐109.
• Reiser, R.A. (2012). A history of instructional design and technology. Chapter 3 in Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (2nd Ed.). Reiser, R.A., & Dempsey, J.A. (Eds.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Edu. Inc.
• Reiser, R.A. (2012). What field did you say you were in? Defining and naming your field. Chapter 1 in Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (2nd Ed.). Reiser, R.A., & Dempsey, J.A. (Eds.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Edu. Inc.
o Articles
• Avella, J.T. et al. (2016). Learning analytics methods, benefits and challenges in higher education: A systematic literature review. Online Learning, 20(2).
• Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first-‐ and second-‐order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. ETR&D, 47(4), 47-‐61.
• Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. (2015). Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 1-‐25.
o Book chapters and selected chapters in:
• Anderson, J. R. (2010). Cognitive psychology and its implications (7th Ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.
• Brown, A., & Green, T. D. (2016). The essentials of instructional design: Connecting fundamental principles with process and practice (3rd Ed.). NY: Routledge.
• De Bruyckere, P., Krischner, P., & Hulshof, C. (2015). Urban myths about learning and education. San Diego, CA: Academic press.
• Ertmer, P. (2015). Technology in integration. In J.M. Spector (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of educational technology (pp. 748-‐751). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
• Foshay, W.R., Villachica, S.W. & Stepich, D.A. (2014). Cousins but not twins: Instructional design and human performance technology in the workplace (Chapter 4). Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (4th Edt.) (J.M. Spector, M.D. Merrill, J. Elen & M.J. Bishop) (Eds.). USA: Springer.
• Lowyck, J. (2014). Bridging learning theories and technology enhanced environments: A critical appraisal of its history. In J.M Spector et al. (eds.), Handbook of R on Edu. Comm. & Tech. (pp. 3-‐20). NY: Springer.
• Merriënboer, J. J. G. & Kirschner, P.A. (2007). Ten steps to complex learning: a systematic approach to four-‐component instructional design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• O’Donnell, E., Sharp, M., Lawless, S., & O’Donnell, L. (2015). Learning theories: ePedagogical strategies for massive open online courses (MOOCS) in higher education. In E. McKay, & J. Lenarcic (Eds.), Macro-level learning through massive open online courses (MOOCS): Strategies and Predictions for the Future (pp. 92-‐118). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
• Reigeluth, C.M. (Ed.). (2009). Instructional-‐design theories and models volume III: A new paradigm of instructional theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stolovitch, H. D., & Keeps, E. J. (2011). Telling ain’t training. Danvers, MA: ASTD Press.

eyond media discussion
• Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-‐based, experiential, and inquiry-‐based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-‐86.
• Hmelo-‐Silver, C., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-‐based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-‐107.
• Kuhn, D. (2007). Is direct instruction an answer to the right question? Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 109-‐113.
• Schmidt, H., Loyens, S., van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2007). Problem-‐based learning is compatible with human cognitive architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 91-‐97.
• Sweller, J., Kirschner, P., & Clark, R. (2007). Why minimally guided teaching techniques do not work: A reply to commentaries. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 115-‐121.

References:

• Agarwal, P.K., Finley, J.R., Rose, N.S., & Roediger, H.L. (2016). Benefits from retrieval practice are greater for students with lower working memory capacity. Memory, 17, 1-‐8.
• Branch, R.M. & Kopcha, T.J. (2014). Instructional design models (Chapter 7). Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (4th Ed.) (J.M. Spector, M.D. Merrill, J. Elen & M.J. Bishop) (Eds.). USA: Springer.
• Brown, A., & Green, T. D. (2016). The essentials of instructional design: Connecting fundamental principles with process and practice (3rd Ed.). NY: Routledge.
• Chow, A. S. (2013). Merging design principles, systemic change and leadership thinking. TechTrends, 57(5), 64-‐72.
• Driscoll, M.P. (2014). Psychological foundations of instructional design. Chapter 4 in Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (2nd Ed.). Reiser, R.A., & Dempsey, J.A.
(Eds.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Edu. Inc.
• Ertmer, P.A., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. PIQ, 26(2), 43-‐71. Reprinted from 1993.
• Ertmer, P., York, C. S., & Gedik, N. (2009). Learning from the pros: How experienced designers translate instructional design models into practice. Educational Technology,
49(1), 19-‐27.
• Gasevic, D. et al. (2014). Where is research on Massive Open Online Courses Headed? A data Analysis of the MOOC research initiative. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(5), 134-‐176.
• Hwang, G.-‐J., Hung, C-‐M, & Chen, N-‐S. (2014). Improving learning achievements, motivations, and problem-‐solving skills through a peer assessment game development approach. ETR&D, 62, 129-‐145.
• Ke, F. (2016). Designing and integrating purposeful learning in game play: a systematic review. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64, 219-‐244.
• Martin et al. (2011). New technology trends in education: Seven years of forecasts and convergence. C & E, 57, 1893-‐1906.

Evaluation System

Semester Requirements	Number of Activities	Level of Contribution
Quizzes	1	% 30
Homework Assignments	1	% 70
Total		% 100
PERCENTAGE OF SEMESTER WORK		% 100
PERCENTAGE OF FINAL WORK		%
Total		% 100

ECTS / Workload Table

Activities	Number of Activities	Duration (Hours)	Workload
Course Hours	14	3	42
Project	2	35	70
Midterms	1	30	30
Final	1	50	50
Total Workload			192

Contribution of Learning Outcomes to Programme Outcomes

No Effect	1 Lowest	2 Low	3 Average	4 High	5 Highest

	Program Outcomes	Level of Contribution
1)	To comprehend current and advanced knowledge in the field of educational technology and being able to relate this knowledge information with education.
2)	To comprehend relations between Educational Technology and others disciplines and being able to state ideas concerning possible implementations in framework of these relations.
3)	To be able to evaluate, improve and design applications, methods generate new ideas which are innovative for educational technology.
4)	Being able to manage original research in educational technology using interdisciplinary perspective.
5)	Being able to investigate original issues within the frame of scientific research techniques as independently or in cooperation with others. Then being able to present the obtained results as research report.
6)	Being able to advocate original views in discussions in the field of educational technologies.
7)	Being able to communicate with experts in the field of educational technologies in written, orally and visually.
8)	Being able to create new ideas and techniques concerning educational technology using high level mental process such as creative and critical thinking, problem solving and decision making.
9)	Being able to make contributions to the society in being an information society and sustaining this by following the emerging scientific, technological, social and cultural developments.
10)	To make contribution to solve social, scientific, cultural and ethic problems in issues related to e-learning technologies and promote development of these values.
11)	Being able to make contributions to the knowledge in the field by publishing a scientific article in the field of educational technologies at national or international journals.
12)	Being able to lead the situations when original and interdisciplinary problems are needed to be solved.