Reflections on the state of educational technology (original) (raw)
Related papers
Reflections on the state of educational technology research and development
Educational Technology Research and Development, 2000
In this article, I comment on the seven articles that appeared in the special issues of Educational Technology Research and Development (1998, 46(4); 1999, 47(2)) and an associated American Educational Research Association (AERA) symposium, as well as other selected developments in educational technology as presented in a recent edited volume (Jacobson & Kozma, in press). I address the importance of the research and development (R&D) described in these articles and ident~Cy five interconnected themes that cut across many of them: the centrality of design, the enabling capabilities of technology, collaboration with new partners, scaling up of projects, and the use of alternative research methodologies. Together, the projects described in these articles are defining new directions for educational technology that put it at the forefront of educational R&D. At the same time, I direct a critique and challenge to traditional instructional systems design (ISD) technology programs.
Perspectives on educational technology research and development
Educational Technology Research and Development, 1989
This is the introductory article for the first issue ofEducational Technology Research and Development (ETR&D). The authors review the issues and process that led to the decision by the AECT Executive Board to co-publishEducational Communication and Technology Journal (ECTJ) and theJournal of Instructional Development (JID) in a new journal. The results of analyses of ECTJ and JID by Schwen and Middendorf (1987) and Dick and Dick (1989) are briefly summarized. The authors then report their own survey of AECT members to determine the topics and types of articles the members would prefer to read in ETR&D. Member preferences are compared with the actual content of the last ten issues of ECTJ and JID. Finally, the authors briefly discuss their own perspectives on ETR&D.
I have asked my co-editors at Educational Technology Research & Development (ETR&D) for an opportunity to share a few reflections as my 15 years of service as ETR&D Development Editor draws to a close. These few remarks represent my reflections about some of the things I have observed over the years. The categories into which I have chosen to group these reflections are: (a) writing, publishing, and editing; (b) instructional design and technology research; and (c) attitudes and abilities. The main messages I try to convey are: (a) simple, descriptive language tends to promote understanding, (b) advocacy can easily lead to over-promising and loss of confidence in our professional discipline, and (c) humility and open-minded inquiry are essential for learning and instruction. Some of these remarks may seem disconnected and unnecessarily personal. That is a risk one takes when trying to express what one genuinely believes. I do hope these thoughts will provoke others, as I have been provoked to learn more and more over the years.
An Overview of Progress and Problems in Educational Technology
2001
Educational technologists have promised that great advances and improvements in learning and instruction would occur on account of new and emerging technologies. Some of these promises have been partially fulfilled, but many have not. The last decade of the previous century witnessed the consolidation of new approaches to learning and instruction under the banner of constructivism. This so−called new learning paradigm was really not all that new, but renewed emphasis on learners and learning effectiveness can clearly be counted as gains resulting from this constructivist consolidation within educational research. At the same time, technology was not standing still. Network technologies were increasing bandwidth, software engineering was embracing object orientation, and wireless technologies were extending accessibility. It is clear that we can now do things to improve education that were not possible twenty years ago. However, the potential gains in learning and instruction have yet to be realized on a significant global scale. Why not? Critical challenges confront instructional designers and critical problems remain with regard to learning in and about complex domains. Moreover, organizational issues required to translate advances in learning theory and educational technology into meaningful practice have yet to be addressed. The current situation in the field of educational technology is one of technification. New educational technologies are usable only by a scarce cadre of technocrats. Constructivist approaches to learning have been oversimplified to such a degree that learning effectiveness has lost meaning. As a consequence, education is generally managed in an ad hoc manner that marginalizes the potential gains offered by new learning technologies. This paper presents an overview of progress and problems in educational technology and argues that educational program management must be integrally linked with technology and theory in order for significant progress in learning and instruction to occur on a global scale.
An editorial on research and development in and with educational technology
Educational Technology Research and Development, 2014
As ETR&D embarks on a new year with two new editors (Tristan Johnson and Patricia Young), we thought it would be appropriate to provide our perspectives on research and development in and with educational technology. These remarks are not intended in any way to constrain what should be submitted to or published in ETR&D. This is a peerreviewed journal, and the peer reviewers decide what is worth publishing. Our roles are to (a) recruit and assign qualified reviewers (generally those with five or more years past their terminal degree and who have published in ETR&D or a similar quality journal), (b) guide authors in responding to reviewer recommendations, and (c) manage a variety of related issues. However, we thought it might be useful to share a framework and associated perspectives that might prove useful to those planning and conducting research and development efforts. Please take the following remarks as suggestive and far from exhaustive or comprehensive. Please continue to submit high quality manuscripts to ETR&D through our online Editorial Manager site located at www.editorialmanager.com/ etrd.
Reflections on the Future of Instructional Design and Technology
The Instructional Design & Technology Futures group, an informal group of scholars that has been meeting for a few short years, put together this panel addressing the compound question: Where are we going and how will we get there? We have come to ask this question as a result of thinking about where we have been and wondering how we survived. We evolved from early groups working with new (at the time) educational technologies such as the mimeograph and overhead projector and applying systematic engineering processes to the design of instruction and learning environments. We have been affiliated with a number of disciplines including educational psychology, information studies, and library science. We claim to be a discipline that applies theory to practice -learning theory to instructional design practice. The much promised benefit of doing so would be improved learning and more efficient instruction. Well, something always seems to get in the way. Technologies become obsolete, teachers become frustrated, and researchers are lured into industry.
In this paper we describe the criteria of Technology I, II, and III, which some instructional theorists have proposed to describe the differences between a formulaic and a reflective approach to solving educational problems. In a recent study, we applied these criteria to find evidence of a technological gravity that pulls practitioners away from reflective practices into a more reductive approach. We compared published reports of an innovative instructional theory, problem-based learning, to the goals of the theory as it was originally defined. We found three reasons for technological gravity, as well as three approaches some practitioners have used to avoid this gravity. We recommend that instructional technologists adopt our three approaches, as well as the criteria of Technology III, so they may better develop instruction of a quality consistent with the innovative instructional principles they claim, and that best characterizes the goals they have for their practice.
Foundation Of Instructional technology
An engaging book for professional educators and an ideal textbook for certificate, masters, and doctoral programs in educational technology, instructional systems, and learning design, Foundations of Educational Technology, Second Edition offers a fresh, interdisciplinary, problem-centered approach to the subject, helping students build extensive notes and an electronic portfolio as they navigate the text. The book addresses fundamental aspects of educational technology theory, research, and practice that span various users, contexts, and settings; includes a full range of engaging exercises for students that will contribute to their professional growth; and offers the following fourstep pedagogical features inspired by M. D. Merrill's First Principles of Instruction:
2021
Our goal in this chapter is to explore the history of educational technology research by identifying research trends across the past 50 years. We surveyed 20 representative research papers from each decade ranging from 1970 to 2020. We used bibliometric data to select these representative papers and then qualitatively analyzed and manually coded them. We found that while the particular technologies investigated consistently changed, research generally progressed from addressing theoretical difficulties to determining the affordances of instructional technologies and finally to studying pedagogical strategies. We saw this trend on a macro level, occurring over 50 years. These findings imply that educational technology research (a) is iterative, beginning with the adoption of new technologies by practitioners; (b) relies on determining the effectiveness of instructional technologies; and (c) ultimately investigates teaching strategies related to technology.
Educational technology: Four decades of research and theory
Educational Technology Research and Development, 1992
... A brief history of instructional development. In GJ Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (pp. 11-19). ... Steven M. Ross is at Memphis State University, Howard Sullivan is at Arizona State University, and Robert D. Tennyson is at the University of Minnesota.