Educational Technology

A Definition with Commentary

Al Januszewski, Michael Molenda, Al Januszewski, Michael Molenda

• Editore: Routledge
• Anno: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781136503344
• Edizione: 2
• Argomento: Pedagogía
• Categoria: Educación general

Sponsored by the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), this book presents a definition of the field of study and practice known as educational technology or instructional technology. It reflects the collaborative efforts of all members of the AECT Definition and Terminology Committee.

The volume begins with the statement of the definition itself (chapter 1), followed by commentary chapters on each of the key terms and concepts contained in the definition (chapters 2-9). Chapter 10 provides historical context for the current definition by reviewing salient elements of prior AECT definitions. Chapter 11 discusses ethical considerations and chapter 12 concludes by discussing ramifications of the current definition for academic programs in educational technology.

This book is appropriate for anyone working in the field of educational technology: students, instructors, researchers and in-service providers.

1
Definition

Definition and Terminology Committee of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology

The Definition

CONCEPTIONS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY have been evolving as long as the field has, and they continue to evolve. Therefore, today’s conception is a temporary one, a snapshot in time. In today’s conception, educational technology can be defined as an abstract concept or as a field of practice. First, the definition of the concept:

Educational technology is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources.

Elements of the Definition

Each of the key terms used in the definition will be discussed as to its intended meaning in the context of the definition.

Study. The theoretical understanding of, as well as the practice of, educational technology, requires continual knowledge construction and refinement through research and reflective practice, which are encompassed in the term study. That is, study refers to information gathering and analysis beyond the traditional conceptions of research. It is intended to include quantitative and qualitative research as well as other forms of disciplined inquiry such as theorizing, philosophical analysis, historical investigations, development projects, fault analyses, system analyses, and evaluations. Research has traditionally been both a generator of new ideas and an evaluative process to help improve practice. Research can be conducted based upon a variety of methodological constructs as well as several contrasting theoretical constructs. The research in educational technology has grown from investigations attempting to “prove” that media and technology are effective tools for instruction, to investigations formulated to examine the appropriate applications of processes and technologies to the improvement of learning.

Important to the newest research in educational technology is the use of authentic environments and the voices of practitioners and users as well as researchers. Inherent in the word research is the iterative process it encompasses. Research seeks to resolve problems by investigating solutions, and those attempts lead to new practice and therefore new problems and questions. Certainly, the ideas of reflective practice and inquiry based upon authentic settings are valuable perspectives on research. Reflective practitioners consider the problems in their environments (e.g., a learning problem of their students) and attempt to resolve the problems by changes in practice, based upon both research results and professional experience. Reflection on this process leads to changes in the considered solution and further attempts to identify and solve problems in the environment, a cyclical process of practice/reflection that can lead to improved practice (Schön, 1990).

Current inquiry problem areas are of en determined by the influx of new technologies into educational practice. The history of the field has recorded the many research programs initiated in response to new technologies, investigating how to best design, develop, use, and manage the products of the new technology. However, more recently, the inquiry programs in educational technology have been influenced by growth and change in major theoretical positions in learning theory, information management, and other allied fields. For example, the theoretical lenses of cognitive and constructivist learning theories have changed the emphasis in the field from teaching to learning. Attention to learners’ perspectives, preferences, and ownership of the learning process has grown. These theoretical shifts have changed the orientation of the field dramatically, from a field driven by the design of instruction to be “delivered” in a variety of formats to a field which seeks to create learning environments in which learners can explore—often assisted by electronic support systems—in order to arrive at meaningful understanding. The research emphasis has shifted toward observing learners’ active participation and construction of their own path toward learning. In other words, interest is moving away from the design of prespecified instructional routines and toward the design of environments to facilitate learning.

Ethical practice. Educational technology has long had an ethical stance and a code of ethical practice expectations. The AECT Ethics Committee has been active in defining the field’s ethical standards and in providing case examples from which to discuss and understand the implications of ethical concerns for practice. In fact, the recent emphasis in society on the ethical use of media and on respect for intellectual property has been addressed by this AECT committee for the educational technology field. The evolution and promulgation of AECT’s ethical principles are discussed in depth in chapter 11.

There has been an increase in concerns and attention to the ethical issues within educational technology. Ethics are not merely “rules and expectations” but are a basis for practice. In fact, ethical practice is less a series of expectations, boundaries, and new laws than it is an approach or construct from which to work. The current definition considers ethical practice as essential to our professional success, for without the ethical considerations being addressed, success is not possible.

From the perspective of critical theory, professionals in educational technology must question even basic assumptions such as the efficacy of traditional constructs such as the systems approach and technologies of instruction, as well as the power position of those designing and developing the technological solutions. Contemporary ethics oblige educational technologists to consider their learners, the environments for learning, and the needs and the “good” of society as they develop their practices. Considering who is included, who is empowered, and who has authority are new issues in the design and development of learning solutions, but an ethical stance insists that educational technologists question their practice areas in these ways as well as in the more traditional constructs of efficiency or effectiveness.

The AECT Code of Professional Ethics includes principles “intended to aid members individually and collectively in maintaining a high level of professional conduct” (Welliver, 2001). AECT’s code is divided into three categories: commitment to the individual, such as the protection of rights of access to materials and efforts to protect the health and safety of professionals; commitment to society, such as truthful public statements regarding educational matters or fair and equitable practices with those rendering service to the profession; and commitment to the profession, such as improving professional knowledge and skill and giving accurate credit to work and ideas published. Each of the three principal areas has several listed commitments that help inform educational technology professionals regarding their appropriate actions, regardless of their contexts or roles. Consideration is provided for those serving as researchers, professors, consultants, designers, and learning resource directors, for example, to help shape their own professional behaviors and ethical conducts.

Facilitating. The shift in views of learning and instruction reflected in cognitive and constructivist learning theories has engendered a rethinking of assumptions about the connection between instruction and learning. Earlier definitions in this field implied a more direct cause and effect relationship between instructional interventions and learning. For example, the first formal AECT definition (Ely, 1963) referred to “the design and use of messages which control the learning process.” Later definitions were less explicit but continued to imply a relatively direct connection between well-designed, well-delivered instruction and effective learning. With the recent paradigm shift in learning theories has come a greater recognition of the learner’s role as a constructor as opposed to a recipient of knowledge. With this recognition of learner ownership and responsibility has come a role for technology that is more facilitative than controlling.

In addition, when learning goals in schools, colleges, and other organizations shift toward deep rather than shallow learning, the learning environments must become more immersive and more authentic. In these environments, the key role of technology is not so much to present information and provide drill and practice (to control learning) but to provide the problem space and the tools to explore it (to support learning). In such cases, the immersive environments and cognitive tools educational technologists help design and use are created to guide learners, to make learning opportunities available, and to assist learners in finding the answers to their questions. Even in cases in which a more expository strategy is justified, where presentation and drill and practice are appropriately emphasized, the learner must still attend to, process, and take meaning from the activities. The learner is still in control, not the instructional program. Therefore, educational technology claims to facilitate learning rather than to cause or control learning; that is, it can help create an environment in which learning more easily could occur.

Facilitating includes the design of the environment, the organizing of resources, and the providing of tools. The learning events can take place in face-to-face settings or in virtual environments, as in microworlds or distance learning.

Learning. The term learning does not connote today what it connoted 40 years ago when the first AECT definition was developed. There is a heightened awareness of the difference between the mere retention of information for testing purposes and the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and attitudes used beyond the classroom walls.

One of the critical elements of instructional design is to identify the learning tasks to be pursued and to choose assessment methods to measure their

Figure 1.1. A visual summary of key elements of the current definition.

attainment. Learning tasks can be categorized according to various taxonomies. A straightforward one is suggested by Perkins (1992). The simplest type of learning is retention of information. In schools and colleges, learning may be assessed by means of paper-and-pencil tests that require demonstration of such retention. Computer-based instruction units (as in “integrated learning systems”) may incorporate multiple-choice, matching, or short-answer tests comparable to paper-and-pencil tests.

The learning goal may include understanding as well as retention. Assessments that require paraphrasing or problem solving may tap the understanding dimension. Such forms of assessment are more challenging to the designer, mainly because they are more labor intensive to comstruct and evaluate.

Learning goals may be more ambitious, such that the knowledge and skills are applied in active use. To assess this level of learning requires real or simulated problem situations, something that is obviously challenging to arrange. Some would characterize these differences in types of learning simply as surface versus deep learning (Weigel, 2001).

Such types or levels of learning have long been acknowledged, but there has been a growing demand in schools, higher education, and corporate training for more attention to the active use level. It is increasingly perceived that time and money spent on inculcating and assessing “inert knowledge” (White-head, 1929) is essentially wasted. If learners do not use the knowledge, skills, and attitudes outside the classroom, what is the point of teaching them? So today, when educators talk about the pursuit of learning, they usually mean productive, active use, or deep learning. Pursuing deep learning implies different instructional and assessment approaches than surface learning, so this shift in connotation has profound implications for what processes and resources are “appropriate.”

Chapter 2 explores facilitating learning in some depth.

Improving. For a field to have any claim on public support it must be able to make a credible case for offering some public benefit. It must provide a superior way to accomplish some worthy goal. For example, for chefs to claim to be culinary professionals they must be able to prepare food in ways that are somehow better than non-specialists—more appealing, safer, more nutritious, prepared more efficiently, or the like. In the case of educational technology, to improve performance most of en entails a claim of effectiveness: that the processes lead predictably to quality products, and that the products lead predictably to effective learning, changes in capabilities that carry over into real-world application.

Effectiveness of en implies efficiency, that is, that results are accomplished with the least wasted time, effort, and expense. But what is efficient depends on the goals being pursued. If you want to drive from San Francisco to Los Angeles in the shortest time, Interstate Highway 5 is likely to be efficient. However, if your real goal is to see the ocean views along the way, State Highway 1, which winds along the coastline, would be more efficient. Similarly, designers might well disagree on methods if they do not have the same learning goals in mind. To a great extent, the systematic instructional development movement has been motivated by concerns of efficiency, defined as helping learners reach predetermined goals that are measured by objective assessments.

The concept of efficiency is viewed differently in the constructivist learning approach. In this approach, designers place greater emphasis on the appeal of the instruction and on the extent to which learners are empowered to choose their own goals and their own learning paths. They would more likely measure success in terms of knowledge that is deeply understood, experienced, and able to be applied to real-world problems as opposed to less authentic or embedded measures of learning, such as objective tests. Such designs, however, would still need to be planned for learning to occur within a particular time frame with some goals in mind and resources for meeting those goals. Among parties who have managed to agree on goals, efficiency in reaching those goals surely would be regarded as a plus.

With high expectations for learning, and high stakes for successful achievement becoming ever more important in society, other things being equal, faster is better than slower and cheaper is better than more expensive.

Performance. First, in the context of this definition, performance refers to the learner’s ability to use and apply the new capabilities gained. Historically, educational technology has always had a special commitment to results, exemplified by programmed instruction, the first process to be labeled “educational technology.” Programmed instruction materials were judged by the extent to which users were able to perform the “terminal objective” after instruction. Terminal objectives were stated in terms of the actual conditions for which people were being trained or educated, and they were assessed according to how well learners functioned under these conditions. ...

Indice dei contenuti

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• CONTENTS
• Dedication
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• 1 Definition Definition and Terminology Committee of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology
• 2 Facilitating Learning
• 3 Improving Performance
• 4 Creating
• 5 Using
• 6 Managing
• 7 Processes
• 8 Resources
• 9 Values
• 10 A History of the AECT’s Definitions of Educational Technology
• 11 Professional Ethics and Educational Technology
• 12 Implications for Academic Programs
• Afterword
• Contributors
• Author Index
• Subject Index