The Definit finitio ion n of Educ Educatio tional Tec Technolog logy by A ssociation ssociation for for Edu Educa cationa tionall Comm Communi unications cations and and Techno Technollogy (AE (A ECT) CT ) Definition and Terminology Committee J une 1, 2004 This This is a pre-pu -publica lication ion draf raft of the first irst chapter of a book to be publish lished by AECT. ECT. I t may beused only only for scholar scholarlly study study and and re review view. I t may not be be reproduced. reproduced.
The The Definit finitio ion n Conceptions onceptions of educational tional technology technology have been evolvi evolving ng as long long as thefield eld has, and they continue to to evol evolve. ve. Therefore refore today’s y’ s concep conception tion is a temporary porary one, a snapshot in in time. I n today’ today’s s conception, ption, Educa Educationa tional Technology nology can be defined as an abstract concept or as as a field of practi practice. ce. First, the definition of the concept: concept: Educational technology is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological proces pr ocesses and res resource our ces. s. Elements of the Definition Each of of the key terms used in in the defini efiniti tion on wil will be discus discussed as to thei their inte i ntended meaning ning in in the conte context xt of thedefinition. nition. Study. The theoretical understan erstanding ding of, as wel well as the practi practice ce of of, educat educatiional technology, technology, requires continual continual knowled knowledge construction construction and refine refi nement through resea research and reflective reflective practice, practice, which which are encompassed in in theterm “study.” “study.” That is, is, “study” refers refers to inf informa ormation tion gathering thering and analysi alysis s beyond the the traditi ditiona onal conceptions ptions of of research. I t is is inte intended to incl include udequantita ntitati tive ve and qua qualitati tative ve research as well as other forms of disciplined inquiry such as theorizing, philosophical analysis, historical investigations, nvestigations, developm velopment projects, projects, fault fault analyses, system analyse alyses, and evaluations. evaluations. Research has traditi traditionall onally y been both agenerator nerator of new ide ideas and an evaluative evaluative process to help im improve practice. practice. Research can beconducted based upon a variety variety of methodol ethodologi ogical cal constructs as well as severa several contrasting contrasting theoretical theoretical constructs. constructs. The research in in educa educationa tional technology nology has has grown from from investigations attem attempting to “prove” that me media dia and and techno technollogy are ef effective tools tools for for lea l earning, rning, to inve i nvesti stiga gations tions created to describe describe and detail tail the appropriate ppropriate appli plications cations of processes and technol technologi ogies es to the improvemen provement of learning. I mportant to the newest research in in educati ducational onal techn technol ology ogy is is the use of authenti thentic c environme environments and thevoice voice of practiti practitione oners as well as resea researchers. rchers. I nherent in the word “resea “research” is i s the iterative tive process it encompasses. Research seeks to resol resolve ve problem problems by investigati investigating ng sol soluti utions, ons, and and those attempts lead to new practice practice and therefore new problem problems and questions. tions. Certainly, ertainl y, the ide ideas of refl reflective ective practice practice and inquiry nquiry based based upon authen authentic tic settings ttings are valua valuable ble perspectives ctives on resea research. Reflecti efl ective ve practi practitione tioners consider the p probl roblem ems in in their environm environment (f (for example, ple, a lea learning rning probl problemof their
1
students) and attempt to resolve resolve the problem problems by changes changes in in practice, practice, based upon both rese research results results and profes professiona sional experience experience.. Reflection eflection on this this process leads to changes in in theconsidered considered solution solution and and further attem attempts to ide identif ntify and solve solve problems in in the environm nvironment, a cycli cyclical process process of practi practice/reflect ce/refl ectiion that can lead to to im improved practice. practice. (Schön, (Schön, 1990) 1990) Current inquiry problem areas are often determined by the influx of new technologies into educational cational practice. practice. The history history of the field eld has recorded the many research program programs s initi initiate ated in response response to new new technologi chnologies, es, investigati investigating ng their best design, design, developm development, util utilization, zation, and management. However, more recently, ntly, the inquiry inquiry program programs in in educa educationa tional technology nology have bee been infl influe uenced by growth and change change in major ajor theoretical theoretical positi positions ons in lea learning rning theory, theory, inf i nforma ormation tion management, and other allied fields. For exam example, ple, the theoretical lenses of cogni cognitive tive and and constructiv constructiviist theories ories have changed the emphasis sis in in thefield from from teachi aching to learning. Attenti ttention on to lea learners’ rners’ perspectives ctives,, prefere preferences, and and ownership ownership of the learning rning process has grown. These theoretical theoretical shif shifts have changed theorienta ori entation tion of the field dramatically, from a field driven by the design of instruction to be “delivered” in a variety of formats (technol (technologies ogies or strateg strategies) to a fi field which which seeks seeks to create create lea learning rning envi environm ronments in in which which lea learners rners can expl explore—ofte ore—often n assisted by electronic support systems— s—iin order to arrive arri ve at meaningful ningful understan erstanding. ding. The The research emphasis has shifte ifted toward observing ing lea learners’ active ive particip icipa ation ion and construction ion of their own path path toward lea learning. rning. I n other other words, inte interest rest is is moving oving away from from the design sign of pre-speci pre-speciffied instructional routines and toward the design of environments to facilitate learning Ethical practi practice ce.. Educationa tional technology technology has long had had an ethical stance stance and alist of ethical practi practice ce expect expectations. ations. The AECT Ethics thics Committee ttee has been active ctive in defini efining ng the field’s d’s ethical standa standards and and in in providi providing ng case exam examples ples from which which to discuss discuss and understand the the impli implications cations of ethical ethical concerns for pr practi actice. ce. I n fact, the recent recent emphasis sis in society society on the ethical use of media and on respect for for intell intellectua ectual property has been addressed by this this A AE ECT committee for the educational cational technology field. The There has been an inc increase in concerns and attention ion to the ethica ical iss issues with ithin education ional technology. nology. Ethics thics are not not merely “rul “rules es and expecta xpectati tions” ons” but are are a basis sis for practice. practice. I n fact, ethi ethical practice practice is les less a series series of expectations, ctations, boundaries, ries, and new new laws than it is is an approach or construct from from which to work. Our definition considers ethical practice as essential to our professional success, for without without theethical ethical considera considerati tions ons being eing addressed, success success is not possi possible. ble. From the perspective of critical theory, professionals in educational technology must question their practices practices and concern themselves with with thei their appropriate appropriate and ethical use. From From theperspective ctive of critical theory, it is vital to question even basic assumptions such as the efficacy of traditional constructs such as the systems approach and technologi chnologies es of instruction, nstruction, as wel well as the power positi position on of those designing gning and developi veloping ng the technologi technological cal soluti solutions. ons. A postmodern stance might impel educati educational onal technologists technologi sts to conside consider their their lea learners, the environme nvironments for for lea learning, rning, and the needs and the“good” of societ society y as they they develop their practi practices ces. Considering onsidering who is incl i nclude uded, who is is em empowered powered,, and who who has has authori authority ty are new new issues in thedesign and developme development of lea l earning rning sol soluti utions, ons, but an ethical thical stance insists nsists that educati ducational onal technologi technologists sts question question their their practice practice areas in these ways as as well as in the more traditi traditional onal constructs of efficiency or effectiveness.
2
The AECT Code of Ethics Ethics include includes principles principles “inte “intende nded to ai aid members ind indiividu vidua ally and and colle coll ective ctively in maintaining a high level of professional sional conduct conduct” ” (Well (Welliver, ver, 2001 2001). ). AECT’ CT ’s code code is divi divide ded into into three categori tegories es: Commitment to the Indiv Indiviidual, such as as theprotecti protection on of rights rights of access to material rials, s, and efforts efforts to protect the health and and safety safety of profess professionals; Commitment to Society, Soci ety, such as truthful truthful public publi c statem statements regardi regarding ng educational ucational matters or fair fair and equitable uitable practices practices with with those rendering ri ng service service to the profess profession, and Commitment to the Profes rofession, sion, such as improving improvi ng profess professional knowled knowledge and ski skilll, and givi giving ng accurate accurate credit to work and ideas published. Each of the three three princi principl ple e areas has several listed commitments which which help inform inform educational cational technology technology profes professionals sionals regardi regarding ng their appropri appropriat ate e actions, regardles rdless of their context or role. role. Considerati onsideration on is provide provided for those serving rvi ng as researchers, profes professors, consultants consultants,, designers, and learning rning resource resource di directors, for f or example, ple, to help shape their own own profes professional sional behaviors viors and and ethical thical conduct. Facil cilitati tating ng.. The shi shift in vie views of of learning and and instruct nstructiion reflected in cogniti cognitive ve and constructivi constructivist st theories theories has caused a dramatic atic change in assumptions ptions about the connection ction between instruct nstructiion and learning. Earli Earlier def definitions nitions in this fie fi eld impl implied a more direct rect caus cause e-andnd-effect relat relatiionshi onship p between instructi nstructional inte i nterventions and learning. rning. For exam example ple the 1963 AECT defini defi niti tion on refers refers to “the “the design sign and and use of messages which which control control thelearning arning proces process s.” L ater ter de definitions nitions were were less explicit, but continued to imply a relatively direct connection between well-designed, well-delivered instructi nstruction on and and ef effecti ective lea learning. rning. With Wi th the recent paradi radigmshift shift toward greater lea l earner rner ownershi ownership and responsibility has come a role for technology that is more facilitative than controlling. I n addition, dditi on, as learning rning goals goals in in school schools, s, coll colleges, and other organi organizations have shi shiffted ted toward toward deep rather than shall shallow ow lea l earning, rning, the lea learning rning environme vironments have have become more im immersive ersive and more authentic. I n these environm vironments, the key key role rol e of technol technology ogy is is not so much to prese present infor inform mati ation in in drill-and-practice format (to control learning) rning) but to provide provide the problem problemspace and thetools tools to explore xplore it it (to (to support learning). rning). I n such cases, the immersive ersive environme vironments and cogniti cognitive ve tools tools educational cational technologists technologi sts help design sign and use use are created to guide lea learners, to make lea learning rning opportuni opportuniti ties es avai available, and to assist assist lea learners in fi finding the answers to thei their questi questions. ons. Therefore, educationa tional technology nology claims claims to facilitate learning rather rather than to cause or control control learning; rning; that is, is, it it can help crea create an environme nvironment in in which learning more easily could occur. Facilitating includes the design of the environment, the organizing of resources, and the providing of tools. tools. I t may stil still entai tail the useof direct direct instructi nstruction on withi within n apre-specif cified framework in some cases, or the use of openopen-ended inquiry nquiry methods to gui guide de further lea learning rning in other cases. The learning rning events can take place in face-to-face settings or in virtual environments, as in micro-worlds or distance learning. L earning. rning. The term “lea “l earning” rning” does does not connote today what it it connoted connoted forty forty years ago when the first AE AECT definiti nition on was was developed. There is a heightened awarene wareness of the dif difference between tween the mere retenti tention on of inform nformation for for testing purpos purposes es and the the acquisiti cquisition on of skil skills used beyond the clas classroom walls. L earning rning tasks can can becateg categorized orized according ccording to various rious taxon taxonom omies. A strai straightforward one is suggested by Perkins Perkins (1992). (1992). The sim simples plest type of learning rning is retention of inform informa ation. tion. I n schools and coll colleges lea learning rning may be asse assessed by mean means of tests that require require demonstration onstration of such retenti retention. on. Computer-ba r-based instru instructi ction on uni units (as in “i “integrated grated learning rning syste system ms”) frequently tly operate thi this way. The
3
learning goal may include understanding standing as well well as retenti retention. on. Assessments that require require paraphrasi raphrasing or problem problemsolvi solving ng may tap the understanding dim dimension. sion. Such forms forms of assessment are more challen chall enging, ging, mainl ainly y because they are more lab labor-i or-intensi ntensive ve to evalua valuate. L earning rning goal goals s may bemore am ambiti bitious, ous, such that the knowledge and skills are applied in active active use. To assess this this level of lea l earning rning requires real or sim simulat ulated ed problem problemsitua situations tions,, someth something that that is obvious obviouslly challen chall enging ging to arrange. rrange. Somewould would characterize rize these differences in in types types of learning rning simpl simply as surfacev surface vs. deep learning (We (Weigel, 2001 2001). ). Such type types or leve l evells of learning rning have long long been acknowledg cknowl edged, but there has has been agrowing growi ng demand in in school schools, s, highe higher education, education, and corporate corporate training for for more atten attention tion to theactive-use active-uselevel. I t is increas increasingly ngly perceived perceived that that time and money spen spent on incul inculcati cating ng and assessing ssing “inert “inert knowledg knowledge” is is essentiall ntially y wasted. I f learners rners don’t don’t usethe knowled knowledge, skil ski lls, and atti attitude tudes outsi outside the clas classroom, what is thepoint point of teachi teaching them? So today when educators ducators talk talk about about the pursuit pursuit of lea l earning rning they usua usually mean p productiv roductive, e, active-use ctive-use,, deep deep learning. rning. Pursuing Pursuing deep learning rning impli plies dif different instructiona instructional and assessment approaches than surface surface learning, rning, so thi this shif hift in in connotation tion has profound profound impli plications cations for what processes and resources resources are “appropri “appropriate.” ate.” The The shift in view iews of lea learning ing and ins instruction ion reflected in cognitiv itive e and constructivis ivistt theories ies previousl previously y discusse discussed has caused a dram dramatic atic change in assumptions ptions about the connection ction between instruct nstructiion and learning. Earli Earlier def definitions nitions in this fie fi eld impl implied a more direct rect caus cause e-andnd-effect relat relatiionshi onship p between instructi nstructional inte i nterventions and learning. rning. For example, ple, the earli rliest AE AECT defini defi niti tion on (El (E ly, 1963) 1963) refers refers to “the “the design and use of messages which which control the learning process.” process.” L ater definitions were less explicit, but continued to imply a relatively direct connection between welldesigne signed, wellwell -delivered vered instru instructi ction on and and effective lea learning. rning. With Wi th the the recen recent paradi radigmshift shift toward toward greate greater learner ownership and responsibility has come a role for technology that is more facilitative than controlling. I n addition, dditi on, as learning rning goals goals in in school schools, s, coll colleges, and other organi organizations have shi shiffted ted toward toward deep rather than shall shallow ow lea l earning, rning, the lea learning rning environme vironments have have become more im immersive ersive and more authentic. I n these environm vironments, the key key role rol e of technol technology ogy is is not so much to prese present infor inform mati ation in in drill-and-practice format (to control learning) rning) but to provide provide the problem problemspace and thetools tools to explore xplore it it (to (to support learning). rning). I n such cases, the immersive ersive environme vironments and cogniti cognitive ve tools tools educational cational technologists technologi sts help design design and and use are created created to guide learners, rners, to make lea learning rning opportuniti opportunities es availab vail able, and to assist assist lea learners in fi finding the answers to thei their questions. questions. Guidi Guiding ng include includes thedesign sign of the environm vironment, the organi organizi zing ng of res resources, ources, and and the providi providing ng of tools. tool s. I t may sti stilll entail the useof direct direct instructi nstruction on withi within n a prepre-specif cified framework in in some case cases, or the use use of open-ended inqu inquiry methods to guide furthe further lea l earning rning in in other cases. The T he learni learning ng events, vents, of course, can take take place placein face face-to-f to-facesettings ttings or in virtual environments, as in micro-worlds or distance learning. I mproving. proving. For a field fi eld to have have any claim claim on publ public support support it it must be able ble to make a credi credibl ble e case case for off offering some public ubli c benefit. I t must provi provide de a superior rior way to accom accompli plish some worthy worthy goal. For example, ple, for for chefs to claim cl aim to be culinary profes professiona sionals they must be able ble to prepa prepare food food in in ways that are somehow better better than nonnon-speciali cialists— sts—m more appe appeali aling, safer, more nutriti nutritious, ous, prepared prepared more effi efficien ciently, tly, or the like. I n the the case of educational educational technology, ology, to “im “improve perform rforman ance” most often entails aclaim claim of effecti effectivene veness: that the processes lead predictably redictably to quality quali ty products, and that the
4
products lead predictably to effective learning, changes in capabilities that carry over into real-world application. Effectiveness often implies efficiency, that is, that results are accomplished with the least wasted tim time, effort, and expen expense. But what is is efficien cient depends on the the goals bei being pursued. I f you want want to dri drive ve from San Francisco to Los Los Ange Angeles in the the shortest time, Inte I nterstate rstate Highway 5 is li likely kely to beeffi efficien cient. However, if your real goal is to see the ocean views along the way, State Highway 1, which winds along the coastli tline, would would bemore efficien cient. L ikewise kewise, designers might well disa disagree gree on on methods if they do not have the same learning learning goal goals s in in mind. To a great great extent, the system systematic atic instructi instructional onal developm development movement has been motivated otivated by concerns concerns of effi efficien ciency, defined defined as helping ping lea learners reach predete predetermine rmined goals goals that are measured by objecti objective ve assessments. The The concept of efficie fficien ncy is view iewed differently in the constructivis ivistt lea learning ing approach. In this approach, designe designers place place greater greater emphasis sis on the appeal of the instructi instruction on and on the extent to which which learners are empowered to choose their own own goals and their own own learning learning paths. aths. They would would more li likely kely measure success in in terms of knowledg knowl edge that is is deeply understood and experi experien enced, and able ble to be appli pplied to realreal-world worl d problem problems as opposed to les less authentic tic or embed embedded measures of lea l earning, rning, such as objecti objective ve tests. Such des designs, however, would would sti stilll need to beplan planned for lea l earning rning to occur withi within n a particul rticular ar time frame with with some some goals in in mind and and resources for for meeting ting those goal goals. s. Among parties parties who have have managed to agree agree on goals, effi eff iciency ciency in in reaching ching those those goals surely surely would would beregarded as a plus. plus. With high expectations ctations for lea l earning, rning, and and high stakes for successf successful ul achievem achievement becoming ever more im important portant in in society, society, other things things being being equal, equal, faster is is better than slower slower and chea cheaper is is better than more ore expensive. expensive. Performance. I n the the conte context of this this defi defini niti tion, on, perform rforman ance refers to the the learner’ rner’s s abil bility to use use and apply the new capa capabil bilities ties gained. Historicall storically, y, educationa tional technology nology has always had had a special cial commitment to results, exempli plified by programmed instruction, nstruction, the first first process to be labeled educati ducational onal technology. technology. Programm rogrammed instruction nstruction material rials s were judge judged by theextent extent to which which users were able ble to perform rform the the “terminal objective” objective” after inst instructi ruction. on. Terminal objec objecti tives ves were stated ted in in term terms s of the actua actual conditi conditions ons for for which whi ch peopl people were were bei being trained trained or educated and were assessed accordi ccording ng to how well well learners functioned functioned under these these conditi conditions. ons. The The reference to “improving ing perfor formance” also lso reinfo inforrces the newer connotation ion of lea learning ing: not jus just ine inert knowled ledge but usable capability ility. The The use of “perfor formance” in this definit finitio ion n is not meant to imply that education ional technolog logy encompasses all forms of performa performance improvement. provement. As is advocated advocated in the the relate related field fi eld of performa performance technology, technology, there are many dif different erent sorts of interventions i nterventions that may beused in in theworkpl workplace ace to im improve perform rforman ance: tool, tool, ince incentives ntives,, organi organizational change change, cognitive cogniti ve supp support, job j ob redesign, sign, in in addition dditi on to instructi nstruction on (Stolovi (Stolovitch tch and Kee Keeps, 1992). 1992). Since Since it encom encompasses all these sorts of inte interventions, performa performance technology chnology is is a broade broaderr concept than educational cational techn technol ology. ogy. The The definit finitio ion n mention ions three major jor fun function ions that are int integral to the concept of Edu Education ional Tec Technolog logy—cr —creating ing, using ing, and managing ing. The These fun function ions can be view iewed as separate sets of activit ivitie ies s that might be be carri rried out by dif different erent people ople at dif different tim times. They can also beviewe viewed d as phases of the larger process of instructi i nstructional onal devel developm opment. Advocates of a systems approach to instructi instructional onal
5
development would would go further further to specify specif y that these functions functi ons be accompanied by by evaluation evaluation process processes es at each phas phase. Monitori onitoring decisi decisions ons and taking king correcti corrective actions ctions at each phas phase are criti critical cal attribut attributes es of the systems approach. Examples ples of such evalua valuation tion activi ctiviti ties es are mentioned unde under the hea headings dings of Creating, reating, Using, sing, and and Managing below. Creating. ting. Creation tion ref refers to to the resea research, theory, and practi practice ce involved involved in the generation of lear earning ning envir environm onments in many dif different sett settiings, form formal al and nonf nonformal. ormal. Creating ting can include ncludea variet riety y of activi activiti ties es, depending nding on thedesign sign approach that is is used. Design approaches can evolve evolve from from dif different developer mindsets: aesthe aesthetic, tic, scien scientif tific, engineering, ring, psychol psychological ogical,, procedural procedural,, or systemic, each of which which can can beemployed ployed to produce produce thenecessary material terials s and condi conditions tions for effecti effective ve lea learning. rning. A systems approach, for for example, ple, might entail procedures for analyzing an instructional problem, designing and developinga developing a solution, evaluating and revisi revi sing ng decisi cisions ons made at each step, and then implem plementing ting a solution. olution. A ssessing resul results ts and taking king correcti corrective ve action ction al along the way is is referred to as formative evaluation, evaluation, whi whille assessing ssing theimpact of the project roj ect at the end is referred referred to as summative ati ve evaluation. evaluation. Dif Di fferent sorts sorts of eval evaluative tive questions are are asked at dif different sta stage ges. A t the the front front--end anal analys ysis stage: stage: is there a performa rformance problem problemand does it entail instructional nstructional needs? I n learner analysis: analysis: what are the characteristics ristics of the learners? rners? I n task analysis: analysis: what capabil bilities ties must the learners master? At the design sign stage: What are the learning rning objectives objectives? ? I s the blue blueprint print aligned with those those objectives? objectives? Do instructional materials instantiate the principles of message design design? ? At thedevelopm velopment stage: does the prototype actua actually guide guide learners toward the the object objectiives? ves? At the implem plementati tation stage: is thenew soluti solution on being used and used properly? roperly? What is is its im impact on the the origi ori ginal nal problem problem? Design and developm velopment processes are inf inflluenced by by the varied varied analog alog and and digital digi tal techn technol ologi ogies es used to create learning rning environme environments. Designing gning for teacher-l cher-led class classroom instruction, nstruction, for for exam example, ple, may foll ollow a dif different path than designi signing ng for a computer-bas uter-based sim simulati ulation on game. What is is created may be not only only the material ri als s for instruction nstruction and and the the surrounding urrounding learning learning environme nvironments, but also databases for knowled knowl edge management, onli online databa databases for for problem problemexplorati exploration, on, automated help help systems, and portfolios for displaying and assessing learning. Using. This This elem lement refers to the theories ies and practice ices relat lated to bring inging ing lea learners int into contact with with learning conditions tions and resource resources. A s such, such, it it is is Acti Action on Central Central,, where the solution solution mee meets the the problem. problem. Using sing begins gins with with the selection of appropriate propri ate processes and and resources—m resources—methods ethods and materials, ri als, in other words—wheth words—whether er that sel selection is is done done by by the learner learner or by an instructor. Wise Wi se selecti ection is is based on materials evaluation, evaluation, to determine rmine if existi existing ng resources are sui suitable for for this this audien udience and purpose. purpose. The Then the lea learner’s encounter with ith the lea learning ing resources takes plac lace with ithin some enviro ironment follo follow wing ing some procedures, often often under the guidance of an instructor, instructor, the planning ning and conduct of which which can fit under the lab label of utilization. of utilization. I f the resource resources s invol involve ve unfamiliar media or methods, thods, their usability may be tested before use. I n some cases there is is a consci conscious ous effort to bring bri ng an an instruct instructiional innovation tion to the attenti ttention on of instruct nstructors, ors, to market it. This diffusion process can can be another another phase of using. using. When teachers incorporate incorporate new resources into their curricular plans, this is referred to as integration; integration; when when such integration integration takes takes place on a larger scale, incorporating the innovation into the organizational structure, it is referred to as institutionalization. institutionalization.
6
I n a systems approach, the design sign team would monitor onitor the effectivene ectiveness of the usage usageat each phase and take corrective corrective actions actions where indicate indicated. Managing. One of the earliest responsibilities of professionals in the field of educational technology has bee been management; in the earl early y years this this took the form form of directing the operations of audiovisua ovisual centers. A s media production production and instructiona instructi onall development processes became more compl complicated and and large larger-scale, r-scale, they had had to master proj project ect management skill skills as wel well. As distance nce education cation programs based on informa nformation tion and communicati unications ons technologi chnologies es (I CT) develope developed, educational cational technologists found themselves involved in deli delivery very systemmanagem anagement. ent. I n all of these these managerial functions, there are sub-functions of personnel personnel managem anagement and inform nfor mation ati on management, referring to the issues of organ organizing zing thework of peopl people and pl planning and controll controlling the the storage and processing of informa nformation tion in in thecourse of man managing projects projects or organizati organizations. ons. Prudent rudent management also requi requires res program evaluation. evaluation. I n the systems approach, this this entail tails quality control measures to moni monitor results results and quality assurance measures to enable enable continuous conti nuous im improvem provement of the management processe processes. People who carry out management functions functi ons may be seen as exercisi exercising ng leadership, leadership, combining management expertise xpertise with with support of ethical ethical practi practice ce in all all phases of educational tional technology technology practice. practice. A ppropriate ppropriate. The term “appropriate “appropriate” is is meant to apply pply to both process processes es and resources, resources, denoti denoting ng suitability for and compatibility with their intended purposes. The The term “appropriat iate technolog logy” is wide idely used int internation ionally in the field of community ity development to refer to a tool or practice practice that that is thesim simplest plest and most benign nign soluti olution on to aproblem problem. The concept grew out of the environme nvironmental movement of the 1970s, 1970s, sparked by the book, Small is Beautiful (Schum (Schumacher, 1975), 1975), in which which the term was coine coined. I n this sense, appropriate propri ate technologies technologi es are those that are connected with with the local users and cultures cultures and are sustai sustaina nable ble withi within n the local economic circum circumstances. Sustainabil bility is is particul rticularly arly cri critical tical in in settings ttings like developing veloping countri countries es, to ensure that the soluti solution on uses uses resources carefull carefully, mini minim mizes damageto the environme vironment, and wil will be avai available to future generations. rations. A ECT’s profess professional standards standards have longed onged recogni recognized zed that that appropriate propri ateness has an ethical dimensi nsion. A num number of provisions provisions in the the AECT Code of Ethics Ethics (Welli (Well iver, 200 2001) 1) are are relevant. relevant. Secti Section on 1.7 is is the broadest and perhaps most directl directly y relevant relevant item item, specif specifying yi ng therequirem requirement to “prom “promote current current and and sound sound prof profes essiona sional practi practices ces in theuseof technology nology in in educa education.” tion.” Section 1.5 requir requires es “sound prof profes essiona sional procedure procedures for for evaluation and s selecti election on of materials terials and equipmen quipment.” Section Section 1.6 requires rese researchers archers and and practi practiti tione oners to protect indivi individua duals “f “from rom conditions tions harmful to health and and safety. ety.” ” Section 1.8 requir requires es the avoidance avoidance of content content that that promotes otes gender, ethnic, nic, racial racial or reli religious gious stereotypes, stereotypes, and it it encourages the “developm “development of programs and media that emphasize size the diversi diversity ty of our society society as as amulticultura ulti culturall communi unity.” Furthe urther, Section 3 of AEC A ECT T’s Codecal calls for providing providing "opportunities for culturally and intellectually diverse points of view" and avoiding "commercial exploitation", as well as following copyright laws and conducting research and practice using procedures guided by by profes professiona sionall groups groups and and institutional institutional review review boards boards. Of course course, a practi ractice ce or resou resource rce is appropriate ppropriate only if i f it i t is li likely to yie yield resul sults. This im implie pli es a crite criteri rion on of effect effectiivenes veness or usefulne ulness for the intended purpose purpose. For exam example, ple, a particul particular ar computerputerbased simulati ulation on gam game might be selected by a social social studies studies teacher if if past experien ri ence indi indicate cated that that it it
7
stim stimulate ulated thesort of pertinen rti nentt discussion discussion that sheintended ntended. I t would would be judged appropriate ppropriate in terms of usefulness. “Appropri “A ppropriate ateness” has sometim etimes been used used as a rubric rubric for for attempts to censor book books s or other instructi nstructiona onal materi aterials. als. Challenges may be bas based on claim claims that the material rial is i s sexual xually explici expli cit, t, contains off offensive sive lan language, or is otherwise rwise unsuite uited d to a parti particul cular ar age age group. group. That is is not the the connota connotation tion or the context intended in this definition. I n summary, the selection ection of methods ethods and media should should be madeon the basis sis of “best practices” practices” appli plicabl cable to agiven given situa situation, tion, as as specif cified in Section 1.7 of the Code of Ethi Ethics. cs. This his impl implies that educational cational techn technol ology ogy profess professionals kee keep them themselves selves updated on the the knowledg knowledge base of the fi field and use that knowled knowl edge base in making aking decisions. decisi ons. Random choices, choices, which which might be acceptab acceptable for those outside outside the profes profession, sion, do not not meet thecrite criteri rion on of “appropriate “appropriate.” .” I nform nformed, profes professiona sionally sound sound choi choices help learners learn productively while making wise use of the time and resources of the organization, including the tim time and effort effort of educational ucational technologi technologists sts themselves selves. Tec Technolog logica ical. I n terms rms of lexicograph lexicography, y, it i t is is unde undesirab sirablle to use use the the word “technol “technological ogical” ” in in a definiti nition on of “ed “educationa tionall technol technology.” ogy.” I n this case case, the useis justi ustified because cause“technologi ological” cal” is is a shorthand shorthand term that descri describes bes an approach to human activi activity ty based on the definiti nition on of technology technology as “the systematic application of scientific or other organized knowledge to practical tasks” (Galbraith, 1967, p. 12). I t is is away of thinki thinking ng that is is n nea eatly tly summarized rized in one one word. I t would be more awkward to paraphras paraphrase e the concept of “technologi “technological cal” ” withi within n thenew def definiti nition on than to sim simply ply use the shorthand term. The The term modifies both processes and resources. Firs First, it modifies processes. The There are “nontechnological technologi cal” ” processes processes that could could beused in in planning planning and implem implementing instructi instruction, on, such as the everyday decision-making processes of teachers, which may be significantly different from those advocated in in this fiel fi eld. d. The field eld advocates the use of processes that have some clai claim m of worthy worthy res results, ults, based on rese research or at at lea least reflect reflectiive development. Without Wi thout the the “technologi “technological” cal” modif odifier, any any sorts of models, protocols, or formulations could be included in the ambit of educational technology, blurring the boundaries ries with with Curricul Curri culum umand Instru Instructi ction on or educati ucation on in in general. ral. Second, the term also modifi modif ies resources, the hardware and sof software tware entailed ntail ed in teaching—sti aching—stilll picture pictures, s, vide vi deos, audi audiocassettes, ttes, satellite upl upliinks, computer programs, DV DV D disks disks and and playe players, and the the like. These are the most publicly cly visi visibl ble e aspects of educational educational technology. technology. To igno ignore re the them in this defini definiti tion on would would be to create a greater communicati unication on gap between tween speciali cialists sts and nonnon-speciali cialist st readers. Proce Processe sses. A process process can bedefined as as a series of acti activiti vitie es directe directed toward toward a specifi ecified resul result. t. Educationa tional technologi technologists sts ofte often n employ ploy speciali cialized zed processe processes to design, sign, develop, and produce produce lea learning rning resources, subsumed into into a large larger process of instructional nstructional development. From the 1960s 1960s through the 1990s a central central concern of the field was the pursuit of a systems approach approach to instruct i nstructiional developm velopment. To many, the systems approach was and is central to the ide identity ity of the field. ld. A paradigmshi shift occurred occurred in the the decade cade since the the prior (1994) (1994) AEC A ECT T definition, niti on, involvi involving ng postm postmodern and and constructi constructivi vist st infl influe uences am among others. To sim simpli plify, the focus moved from what the instructor nstructor is is doing oing to what what the learner is doing. oing. I n this this view, indivi individua duals construct construct their own knowl knowled edge and gain ownership ownership based on their struggles struggles to make sens sense of the their experien experience. To the extent that the
8
teaching-l ching-lea earning rning experi xperien ence is is abstracted stracted from real-world world appl appliicati cation and and to the extent that it it is is controll control led and possessed by the teacher, it it dim diminishe nishes the likeli kelihood of learner engagement, mastery, mastery, and trans transffer of the skil skill. This sensi nsibili bil ity cam came into confl confliict with the the plan-and-control sens sensiibili bil ity of systematic tic instructional development, a conflict whose resolution is still being negotiated. I n thecontext of the defi defini niti tion, on, “processe “processes” also incl include ude those of using using and managing ging resources as well as those of crea creating ting them. Resources. ources. The many resource resources s for lea learning rning are central central to the identity ntity of the field. field. The pool of resources has expanded with with technological technologi cal innovations nnovations and and the developm velopment of an understanding nding regardi regarding ng how these technologi technological cal tools tool s might help guide guide learners. Resources esources are people, ople, tools, tools, technologies, technologi es, and materials ri als desi designe gned to help learners. Resources esources can include nclude high-t high-tech ech I CT system systems, community unity res resources such such as libraries braries, zoos, zoos, museums, and peopl people with with special cial knowl knowled edge or expertise. expertise. The They inc includ lude digit igita al media, ia, such as CD-RO CD-ROMs Ms,, Web site ites and WebQuests, and elec lectronic perfor formance support systems (EPS (EPSS) S).. A nd they they incl include udeanalog media, dia, such such as as books and other other print print materials, terials, vi video recordings, recordings, and other traditi traditional onal audi audiovisua ovi sual materi materials. als. Teachers discover discover new tools tools and create new resources; lea learners can coll collect and locate locate their own resources; resources; and educational ucational technology technology speci special aliists add to the growing list of possible resources as well. Conclusion What is proposed here is a revised definition of the concept of educational technology, built upon A ECT ECT’s most rece recent prior rior definition nition of ins i nstruct tructiional techn technol ology ogy (See (Seels and Riche Ri chey, 1994). 1994). I t is is a tentati tative defi defini niti tion, on, subject to further reconsi reconside deration over tim time. Educationa tionall technology technology is i s viewe viewed as a construct construct that is is larg larger er than than instruct instructiional technology, technology, as education tion is is more general than instru instructi ction. on. Further, educational tional or instructi instructional onal technology technology can be seen as discrete discreteelem elements withi within n performa rformance technology, nology, the hol holiistic stic approach approach to im improving proving perform rforman ance in in the workplace workplacethrough through many dif different means, including training. The The concept of educationa tional technology technology must bedistingui distinguishe shed from from the the fi field and the profes profession sion of educational cational technology. technology. The vali validity dity of each can be judged separatel parately y from from theothers and can bejudged by different criteria. This This definit finitio ion n differs fro from previou ious ones in several regards. Firs First, the term “study” ins instead of “research “research” ” im impli plies a broade broader view view of the many form forms s of of inqu i nquiry, incl i ncluding uding ref reflecti ective practi practice. ce. Second, Second, it it makes an expli explicit cit commitment to ethical practice. Thir Third d, the objec ject of education ional technolog logy is cast as “facilitating learning,” rning,” a claim claim more modest than that that of controll controlling or or causing learning. rning. Fourth, it it is is intenti intentional that lea learning rning is place placed at thecente centerr of the definiti nition, on, to highli highlight ght the centrali centrality ty of lea learning rning to educationa tional technol technology. ogy. I t is thegoal of promoting oting learning that is distinctive about the field, compared to other fields with which it might be conflated, such as infor inform mation technol technology ogy or perform rforman ance technology. technology. Fifth, “improving performance” implies a quality criterion, a goal of facilitating learning better than is is done done with with approa approaches other than Educationa tional Technology, echnology, leading ding to usa usable ble ski skillls, not just just inert knowledg knowl edge. Sixth, Sixth, it i t descri describe bes the major functi unctions of the field field (crea (creation, tion, use, use, and ma management) in broader, less technical technical terms than previ previous ous defi defini niti tions ons in order to refl reflect ect an eclect clectiic view view of the design sign proces process. s.
9
Seventh, it it specif cifies that the tools tools and methods ethods of the field fi eld be “appropri “appropriate ate,” meaning ning sui suited ted to the people ople and condi conditi tions ons to which they they are appli plied. Finally, it i t makes the the attribute ttributeof “technol “technological ogical” ” expl explicit, cit, wi with the rationale rationale that that tools and methods ethods tha that are not not technol technological ogical fall outsi outside the boundaries ries of of the field. The The terms “improving ing” and “appropriat iate” are explicit licitly ly inc includ luded in the definit finitio ion n in order to recogni recognize ze the the central ntrality of such values to the core meaning ning of educational technol technology. ogy. I f the work of the field is not done “better” by professionals than it is by amateurs, the field has no justification for public recogni recogniti tion on or support. support. I t must repres represent some spe speciali cialized zed experti xpertise se that is is appli applied ed with with professi professional soundness. References Ely, D.P D.P.. (196 (1963). The T he changing changing role role of the audiovisua udiovi sual process: process: A definiti nition on and glossa glossary of related terms terms. Audiovisual Communication Review 11:1, Supplem Supplement 6. Galbrai Galbraith, th, J.K J .K.. (1967). Th ). The new ind industrial rial state. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Perkins Perkins,, D. D. N. N. (19 (1992 92). ). Technol chnology ogy meets cons construct tructiivism vism: Do Do they ma make a marria rriage? I n T. M. Duff Duffy y& D.H. D.H. J ona onassen (Ed’s), (Ed’s), Constructivism and the technology of education: A conversation. conversation. Hillsdale, NJ : La L awrence wrenceErl Erlbaum. Schön, Schön, Dona Donald A A.. (19 (1990 90). ). Educating the reflective practitioner. practitioner . San Franci Francisco sco:: J ossey-B y-Bass. ss. Schumacher, E. F. (1975). Small is beautiful: economics as if people mattered. mattered. New York: Y ork: Harpe Harper & Row Row Seels, B., & Richey, R. (1994). I nstructional nstructional technol technology ogy:: The defini finiti tion on and and domains ains of the field. field. Washington DC: DC: Associati A ssociation on for Educati Educationa onal Com Communications unications and Technology. echnology. Stolovitch Stolovitch, H., H., & K eeps, E., E., ed’ ed’s. (1992 (1992). A handbook of perfor perform mance technology chnology.. San Franci Francisco sco:: J ossey Bass. Weigel, V. B. (2001). Deep learning for a digital age: Technology's untapped potential to enrich higher education. San San Franci rancisco sco:: J ossey-B y-Bass. ss. Welli Welliver, ver, P. W., ed. ed. (2001 (2001). A Code of Professional Ethics: A guide to professional conduct in the field of Educational Communications and Technology. Technology. Bloomington ngton,, I N: A ssociation ssociation for Educa ducati tiona onal Communications unications and and Tech T echnology nology
10
