Tim's Blog LST401

Resnick Article

2006-11-22T16:13:00.000-08:00

Resnick Article-

In 1965, Gordon Moore, co-founder of Intel predicted that every 18 months (one evolution cycle) that the power of personal computers will double. In many ways he was right in his predictions. Interestingly enough for many subsequent years, even with the advancements of the computers, prices have traditionally stayed the same. We are at a point in our current technological development that evolutions no longer make practical differences in our PC use/power and are not fiscally worth upgrade every cycle. So finally we have seen a drop in price and will continue to see drops in price each evolutionally cycle (Cates, 2002).

At the beginning of article Revolutionizing Learning in the Digital Age in many ways you find Resnick explaining the effects of the statements above. Declining cost of computation is helping to make digital technology accessible to nearly everyone. This is a wonderful lead in for the author because he is able to plausibly pose the negative to this transformation and underline a societal downfall when it comes to technology and education. In his opinion we have made it possible to have technology but have failed to fundamentally rethink our approaches to learning, education and our ideas of how new technology can support them (A.K.A “The Learning Revolution”). In my opinion Resnick is speaking about the revolutionary change from computers use for productivity to computers being use a palate for thought and creation. I believe this idea of change is characterized well in Jonassesn work and definition of the phrase “Mindtools”. In further relation it is the movement away from the behaviorist theory of education to the constructivist approach (teacher centered vs. learner centered).

I fully support this change and I agree with the authors underlining point and his examples. Rethinking is needed and I liked his ideas related to new focus on making computers for children and not the continued reliance on using computers created for adults (although some of his examples may have seemed a bit to sci-fi to me). I was in agreence with his ideas related to the change in learning environment structure (ex: cross-curricular thematic units). He also does a nice job of explaining how computers can help the higher order thinking processes specifically synthesis (creating, designing). In this article and in previous articles I have read related to general idea of a “learning revolution”, I just wish the authors would take a bit more time to explain the lower levels of learning and how this revolution and new computer use will positively effect the basic knowledge and understanding of concepts even the most essentialist in nature.

I guess if I had to express my concern plainly in relevance to the article it would be this.
As demonstrated in the article’s Mike Lee, through the outlet of computers has grown immensity in his creativity and presentation of his artwork but I just wonder if Mike can balance his checkbook?

References:

Cates, W.M., (2002) Adoption of technologies: Edt471: Planning for implementing technology
in school settings. Retrieved October 10, 2006, from http://www.bb.lehigh.edu

Jonassen, D.H., Carr, C., & Yueh. (1998, March). Computers as mindtools for engaging
learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43(2), 24-32.

Moore, G., (1965). Moore’s law. Retrieved on November 20,2006, from http://www.intel.com
/technology/mooreslaw/index.htm

Resnick, M. (2001). Revolutionizing learning in the digital age. Publications from the forum for
the future of higher education. Boulder, CO: Educause.

Testing, Testing 123

2006-11-16T18:49:00.000-08:00

Critical Issue: Rethinking Assessment and Its Role in Supporting Educational Reform
Have we made our bed BUT must we lie in it?

I think it is so funny that this article was written in 1995. I spent quite a bit of time looking at this article thinking it was current (2003-5) and how it supports change related to the modern educational structure created by NCLB. Now upon reading its copy write information I find it predates NCLB, what a mind blower. It is amazing how well this information meshes with today’s problems in schools related to assessment and boy if they thought change should happen back then they must really think change should happen now. I guess we went the opposite way of their vision and became a country more essentialist and more reliant on high-stakes assessment. Although I feel that much of the ideas expressed in the article are in direct response to use of tests like the California Achievement test and the Stanford Achievement test the overall debate is still relevant. In a way it may be even more relevant today then in the 1990’s. I see and understand the relation but I can help but feel some divide/discourse because education, technology, and society all have changed so greatly over the last 10 years.

Is technology the answer?
I don’t know, but I feel that with the use of technology we may have the chance to create learning environments that get the best of both worlds. An optimal learning environment that will help us assess students, teach basics but is rooted in a constructivism.

References:

Bond, L. A. (1995). Critical issue: Rethinking assessment and its role in supporting educational reform. Retrieved, November 11, 2006, from http://www.ncrel.org

Cates, W. M. & Columba, L., (2002). Educational philosophies: Edt 471: Planning for
implementing technology in school settings. Retrieved September 26, 2006, from
http://lehigh.edu

Bloom: Learning for Mastery

2006-11-09T12:43:00.000-08:00

I am a fan of Bloom and have found his taxonomy to be very helpful in devising education that reaches a range of cognitive domains. In my previous study of bloom, I never realized how much behaviorist theory was involved in his ideas. I enjoyed this article because it took me away from the Bloom that is force fed to every education student across the US. I must say that the introduction of the article left me with more questions than answers and I got a bit confused with what he describes as the 1/3 idea within the educational system. I think he is making reference to what now is the outdated evaluative practice of the bell curve. Even with the confusion, I found the underlining ideas related to mastery of learning very interesting and well worth evaluation and personal reflection. It is amazing that even though this article was written in the 1960’s, its content is still so pertinent to modern education. Bloom is quite a visionary and makes reference to concepts like continual learning, tracking, audio visual methods and what I think is the idea that will later be coined by Howard Gardner as multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983).

In modern education we are still looking for a means to educate all students, and since the establishment of NCLB we have become more conscious of the fact that students are different and they learn differently. Bloom recognizes this idea of differences and explains that we must take the differences into account so that we can create learning environments which will allow for mastery for all students. In this article, he considers one approach to learning for mastery and describes a five-step approach: 1) aptitude for particular kinds of learning; 2) quality of instruction; 3) ability to understand instruction; 4) perseverance; and 5) time allowed for learning. Although I will not go into each of these, I will say that the cumulative effect is that educators need to develop better means of evaluation in order to assess learners’ mastery, needs and preferences in order to create strategies, methods and materials that will foster success. This is no easy thing and Bloom recognizes it as a major change for learners, teachers and administrators. The modern relevancy again comes into play, and we must consider if the methods, strategies and materials associated with further inclusion of technologies could help the fulfillment and process of change to creating environments which take advantage of the five steps.

Could instructional methods and evaluative tools incorporated with technologies be the vehicle to mastery learning?

References:

Bloom, B.S. (1968, May). Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment, 1(2), 1-12.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York:
Basic Books.

Mind Tools- response

2006-10-31T12:37:00.000-08:00

Mindtools

I personally really enjoyed the article Computers as Mindtools for Engaging Learners in Critical Thinking by Johassesn, Carr, & Yueh. I found the article very interesting because it makes a clear definition between instructional technologies being used as media for delivering instruction wherein the technologies attempt to instruct learners to technologies being used as mindtools. The authors define a mindtool as computer applications, which allow learners to interact, organize, and construct personal knowledge so that the learner acts as the designer. The computer functions as the mindtool and allows for the learner to engage in critical thinking about knowledge. Besides setting the distinction between instruction tools and mindtools the authors give some great and innovative computer application, which have been designed as or can be repurposed to fulfill the definition of being a mindtool.

I feel the main difference is the idea of supporting vs. engaging. The use of mindtools seems to fall best in line with Clarks view on media and constructivist thought (Clark, 1994). The instructional method behind/integrated in the way students use the technology creates a learning environment where students construct their own personal knowledge.
The authors elude that the use of mindtools supports one of my personal favorite pedagogy practices, which is having students teach material to foster deeper understanding and retention. In this case mindtools allow the learner to work with material and in essence teacher the computer. This concept falls in line with Papert’s idea that students learn more when they have deep interaction with materials realizing learning is not always easy or quick (Paper, 1993).

In my experiences with teaching in today’s modern classroom one of my biggest stumbling blocks is the fact that many students don’t want to think for themselves. Students are so used to teacher directed learning that they want someone to tell them the answer or how to think instead of thinking on their own. Students have a hard time with high order thinking skills specifically the application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. The students are pretty good at the knowledge and comprehension because of the constructs of their learning environments. Further practice is needed in higher levels thinking skills and I believe methods behind mindtools can fulfill an educational need by giving students opportunities to practice and develop these skills. The biggest obstacle I feel is in the aspect of time. Using technologies to support learning takes only a fraction of time compared to using the methods related to mindtools.

References:

Bloom, B.S., (1984). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Clark, R. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research
& Development, 42(2), 21-29.

Jonassen, D.H., Carr, C., & Yueh. (1998, March). Computers as mindtools for engaging
learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43(2), 24-32.

Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking schools in the age of the computer.
New York: Basic Books

Response to Seymour Papert and a word for learning

2006-10-25T13:00:00.000-07:00

The world according to Papert seems a bit unrealistic. If I had to summarize this chapter I would say that Papert (piggy backing on Polya and Peck) believes that education should be focused on the art of learning and modern education should be adjusted so that learners have the opportunity to spend relaxed time with problems (“play with problems”) and that good discussion promotes learning. At the root of Papert’s discussion is a valid cause and I find worth in the idea of further focus on teaching learning principles, time to work with task and discussion. But it just seems that the example professed in the work are far-fetched (the link to the Victorian’s and sexual thoughts, - come on), loose in research and hard to link to the real demands of educating a student as a whole.

I found so many problems with this article not because of what I eventually figured out to be the premise but because I feel teachers use so many solutions in today’s classroom to fix or fit all of the examples the author discussed. Which I feel from a teacher’s standpoint means that we have placed an emphasis on the art of learning. Within every page of the chapter (except the long winded discussion of flowers) I found myself writing in the side bar teacher practices that can combat or allow for the problem the author addresses. I walk away from this article only with a realization that a teacher faced with the parameters in which they face, must employ a wide variety of approaches, skills, and methods and that they must be multi-faceted in order to meet the needs of the learner.

After review of the notes I took during reading this chapter on proper/positive learning environments, social learning, inquiry, Blooms taxonomy, homework, parental influence, problem solving, school constraints, life long learning, assessment, active learning, direct instruction, standards based learning, clear objectives, construction of knowledge, motivation, learning modalities, linking/chunking, long and short term memory, play, problem solving, and research, I feel that the best teaching practice that can help teachers and students with the art of learning is called modeling. In quick review on the topic of modeling within a text I turn to quite a bit during teaching called the Skillful Teacher, modeling was actually labeled in the text as “modeling: the principle of learning”(Saphier, & Gower, 1997). A brief introduction to modeling is teachers enhance learning by thinking aloud for students; teachers go though the act of thinking (can be from a variety of methods to solve the problem) step-by-step role-playing the thought processes involved in solution of a problem. Teachers include being puzzled, making mistakes, self-correcting, and checking themselves along the way. This can be transferred even further by a concept with-in modeling called Say-Do where the students are provide an opportunity to explain how they solved a problem to the class or to a group of students. Modeling allows teacher to promote the act of learning including giving time to play with problems and good discussion. I think that the proper use of modeling can help teachers practice actively use the art of learning.

References:

Saphier, J., & Gower, R. (1997). The skillful teacher (5th ed.). Acton, MA: Research For
Better Teaching, Inc.

Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking schools in the age of the computer.
New York: Basic Books

Reaction: Will High-tech Kids Still Think Deeply?

2006-10-10T15:31:00.000-07:00

Reaction: Will High-tech Kids Still Think Deeply?

Marshall Mcluhan would be very proud of these two authors. It seems as though they have accepted Mcluhan’s challenge for society to evaluate both the positives and negatives associated with the use and development of new technologies. They have, without making specific mention to it evaluated the obsolescence side of Mcluhan’s Laws of Media tetrad (Mcluhan & Mcluhan, 1988). In essence Tarlow and Spangler in the (2001) article entitled “Now more than ever: Will high-tech kids still think deeply?” have begun to evaluate how the addition of technology has/will/could affect positively and negatively our literacy and thinking skills. The authors chose to look at literacy because they believe; literacy is the one thing, which has proven to have the greatest impact on the way people think. In evaluation the authors are left questioning weather or not the addition of new technologies will in fact make some of what they feel to be fundamental in the development of literacy and thinking skills obsolete.

I agree with the authors and share a fear that the use of technologies may in fact lead us in the wrong direction related to literacy. I am not a reading or literacy expert so I found the information related to how we develop thinking skills during traditional literacy activity very interesting. I can see how the use of technologies that “replace” traditional literacy activities may have a great effect on the way students develop thinking skills not to mention the learning models needed to develop the skills to read and write. Even in the section entitled “Beneficial?” the authors seem to berate the usefulness of technologies in literacy and thinking for all age groups. This all relates to the idea of obsolescence, with the incorporation of new medium and technologies we must question-what do we loose?

Although I feel the authors did a nice job of evaluating the obsolescence side of technology related to literacy. I feel they fell into a pitfall within Mcluhan’s tetrad. They only became conscious of the effects the technology may have, they never really came up with an answer to fix the effects. They only leave the reader with the warning that if we don’t use the tools well and create a new literacy that incorporates all they types of literacy (circular, linear, and multidimensional) then we are hastening the deterioration of our society. Well thanks a lot for that warning but what is the best way to develop this idea of new literacy?

I am left realizing that we as educators have our work cut out for us and that we will need to address the obsolescence factor in relation to many different technologies that have or may come along. I also see the importance of having experts in certain content areas so that we can use their knowledge of the subject matter to help point the positive and negative effects new technologies.

References:

McLuhan, M. & McLuhan, E. (1988). Laws of media: The new science.

University of Toronto Press.

Tarlow, M., & Spangler, K. L., (2002). Now more than ever: Will high-tech kids

still think deeply? The Education Digest. 67(3), 23-27.

Blog #4- Reeves Article

2006-10-03T11:09:00.000-07:00

Blog ReflectionReeves Article
An Evaluator Looks at Cultural Diversity

Cultural diversity as defined by Reeves (1997) is “sensitivity and attention to the values, orientations, learning styles, language factors, and traditions of learners from diverse cultural and ethnic background as well as those with special needs” (p.27). Reeves, states his belief that the concept of cultural diversity should be included in the evaluation of instructional programs and dismisses the argument of some that the attention to multiculturalism in today’s evaluation of instructional programs is just a “fad”. Reeves feel that sensitivity to cultural diversity should influence every aspect of human activity including instructional systems design and evaluation.

Modern evaluators of instructional design have begun to place more interest on the concept of cultural diversity and cultural sensitivity in evaluation of instruction. The creation of evaluative tools to judge cultural diversity has been slow coming and many within the field question the ideal way to assess instruction for cultural diversity. The focus on cultural sensitivity in instruction is based on the diversity issues of life in today’s modern world and because of growing commercial and academic institutions seeking global markets though distance learning and the World Wide Web.

I agree with Reeves that cultural diversity should be addressed and assessed in the evaluation on instructional design. But the question still remains HOW? I was enlightened by the examples the author used to demonstrate the cultural insensitivity that has been found in some instructional designs and I see how it can be very difficult to realize something is offensive to another culture. Like the example he used related to the ESL program and the Chinese culture where in the program has a question that is sensitive to Western society but insensitive to the traditional family value in Chinese culture.

Strategies for creating culturally sensitive evaluation:
From a teachers perspective I look at this problem and relate it to a fundamental concept within teaching- KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE. If a company wishes to market a program to a particular group they must collaborate with a wide range of representatives from target audience. Companies should be careful to consider the micro and macro cultural levels of the instructional design (McLaughlin & Oliver, 2000). The collaboration with representatives should be done if the program is to be marketed internationally or if it is to be used locally. The wide range of representatives can evaluate the program for insensitivity to all the different facets of cultural diversity (race, culture, values, language etc…). Unfortunately this is not an absolute solution; culturally bias things may slip past the evaluating phase. It is then the job of the teacher (the person who knows the particular audience the best) to adjust the program to the best of there ability so that it will not be bias. (Surprise, surprise teachers have been doing this for years.)

I leave this reflection with a question sparked by this article: Are we as a culture and internationally becoming hyper- sensitive toward cultural diversity? Are we really breaking down wall of diversity, just building them higher or are we all losing our own cultures by attempting to be so culturally sensitive?

References:

McLoughlin, C. & Oliver, R. (2000). Designing learning environments for cultural
inclusivity: A case study of indigenous online learning at tertiary level.
Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 58-72.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/aject16/mcloughlin.html.

Reeves, T. (1997). An educator looks at cultural diversity. Educational Technology,
37(2), 27-31

Response to McLuhan's Tetrad Wiki Task

2006-09-25T09:57:00.000-07:00

Blog Post # 3

Through an analysis of McLuhan’s life and ideas and through my own personal attempt to apply his tetrad (Laws of Media) to an emerging 2004 technology, I have come to a few realizations. First, McLuhan lived a life dotted with irony. We discussed certain ironic happenings in class, like the fact he studied media while he also became a fixture in media (appearing on television) and the debilitating loss, later in his life, of the ability to speak and read (two things he greatly enjoyed). I came to a realization after reading a piece from a Skinner article entitled McLuhan’s world – and ours. In the piece Skinner describes a 1969 article from Playboy Magazine interviewing McLuhan on his thoughts and ideas. Skinner (2000) describes the article as this:

…Mcluhan’s ideas emerge straightforward and well explained,
in large part due to the interview’s willingness to risk looking dumb
for asking obvious questions. It turned out that many of McLuhan’s
opinions, despite his reputation for being some kind of super scholar
and untimely thinker, were standard radical chic, while others were
radical even by the heady standards of 1969.(p.54)

Skinner’s statement turned me on to the fact that in many ways McLuhan became famous or infamous for the way he delivered his ideas rather then for the ideas themselves. He became an icon of perplexity. Common man tuned into McLuhan not to understand but instead to be baffled. It is ironic that the thing that gave McLuhan notoriety with the public (his complex batty oratory style) was also the thing that limited the public from unlocking his ideas and discredited him among his academic peers.

Second, McLuhan did a great job of coining catch phrase titles for his ideas, with the creation of titles like “the global village”, “media is the message” and “Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man” McLuhan made his ideas catchy and appealing to the common public (the group he really wanted to reach). But, the common public still had to rely on McLuhan’s over the top explanations of the concepts through his writings or oratory lectures to unlock the ideas. Most found this to be frustratingly impossible. I believe McLuhan may have made some headway in reaching the common man with the creation of the laws of media tetrad. Although the laws of media themselves are difficult concepts to understand the tetrad created and organizational structure to the laws, which makes them easier for people to break down, organize and use.

My third realization came after attempting to use the laws of media tetrad to analyze an emerging technology. I continue to use the word “attempting” because I had no idea if I used the tetrad correctly. With some reflection, I have realized that there really is no “correct” answer when using the laws and that they are not really laws at all. (Yet another catch phase developed by McLuhan?) Scientifically a law denotes a fact, something that has been tested (quantitatively and qualitatively) and is known to be true every time. Instead McLuhan really created the theories of media, (never been tested and proved to be correct) which created a theoretical model for understanding the effects of new technologies. I find it very interesting that McLuhan would even choose the words “laws”, because philosophically I don’t believe he created the tetrad to “prove” anything. He instead created them as a tool for man to consciously make their own realizations correct or incorrect about the effects of technologies.

In conclusion, I have come to quite a few realizations after the completion of my McLuhan task and I could go on for quite a bit longer. When it comes to McLuhan there is always more to unlock and realize. Although in many ways I feel like I failed to comprehend more of McLuhan’s than I was able to comprehend. I do leave this task with what I believe is his fundamental life lesson.

“Take time to evaluate the world around you and take the time to consider that everything you do has a consequence in that world.”

References:

Skinner, D. (2000, Winter). McLuhan’s world – and ours. The Public Interest, pp. 52-64.

Blog #2 Clark vs. Kozma

2006-09-12T12:37:00.000-07:00

The Late Great Media Debate
Clark vs. Kozma

Does media have an influence on learning?

This question is at the root of an historical debate among educational technologists Richard E. Clark and Robert B. Kozma. The question spawned what many scholars within the field refer to as the method vs. media debate.

Clark’s response to the question can best be summarized by the statement “media do not influence learning” (Clark, 1994), sighting that media is merely the vehicle in which instruction is delivered and can not be responsible for learning gains. Rather, it is the instructional method embedded within the media that allows for these gains (Clark, 1994). Central to Clark’s viewpoint is the idea of replaceability of media and media attributes claiming that “absolutely any necessary teaching method can be delivered to students by many media or a variety of mixtures of media attributes with similar learning results”(Clark, 1994). Clark leaves us with the idea that the answer to the question is an enthusiastic, cut and dry, no. Clark calls us to totally dismiss the idea of media influencing learning and asks us to stop confusing media with method and instead evaluate the instructional method within a presentation on the bases of efficiency, economics and overall satisfaction of meeting desired learning outcomes.

Kozma’s (1994) response to the question instead reframes the debate asking, “Not do, but will, media influence learning?” Kozma, instead of taking a definitive position of yes or no, looks optimistically at media and the development of new media as having the potential to influence learning. He states, “If there is no relationship between media and learning it may be because we have not yet made one” (Kozma, 1994). Kozma prefers to look at media not as a mere vehicle or an inert deliverer of instruction. He rather sees media as the conveyer, through which the learner interacts with unique attributes of the media during learning. The reciprocal interactions allow for the learner to actively, constructively, cognitively, physically and socially interact with the information held in the media (Kozma, 1994).

The debate within media and learning discussed by Clark and Kozma fundamentally continues to hold its value today. However, we must be cognizant of the fact that media and the technology within media has grown significantly over the past 20 years. I feel it is not at all inappropriate to continue the reformation of this debate, asking instead, “Has media influenced learning?” In reforming the question, in hopes of bringing the debate to the present, we must focus on the major technological developments in media over the last 20 years. The largest and most significant development within media must be attributed to the diversification and advances of the computer (Hastings & Tracey, 2005). In my opinion, the advancements of the computer and computer programs do not dismiss Clark’s debate that the methods within the presentation of the material is central. However, it does call into question his replacability challenge to media. I feel that the computer has revolutionized the replacability of media because the computer has become the most efficient, and to a degree, the least expensive means for delivering sound instructional methods. It is my feeling that the development of the computer and the way we use computers supports Kozma’s viewpoint that media has the ability to develop unique attributes that can influence learning and that are non-replaceable with other media. I feel that today’s computer has the unique capability (i.e., internet) to interact with the learner and allow the learner to develop social and cognitive processes by which knowledge can be constructed (Kozma 1994).

Bibliography:

Clark, R. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research
& Development, 42(2), 21-29.

Hastings, N., & Tracey, M. (2005). Does media affect learning: Where are we now?
TechTrends, 49(2), 28- 31.

Kozma, R. (1994) Will media influence learning. Educational Technology Research &
Development, 42(2), 7-19.

Blog Assignment 1: History of Technology's Use in Education

2006-09-05T12:04:00.000-07:00

History Repeating Itself?

The history and development of technology’s use within education has followed an all to familiar path inevitably succumbing to the same fate as many practices and philosophies within education. Unfortunately in many ways practices of technology in education have developed and fizzled similarly as things like phonics vs. whole language, New Math, Roberts English, Homogeneous grouping, and cooperative learning. Placing many of technologies past approaches and developments into a category referred to as educational trends. The overwhelming pattern in education of creating educational trends stems from the basic fact, learning communities (teachers, students, parents, administrators and government officials) are desperate to find the end all be all answer to educational success. This inevitably leads to a path of adoption of new philosophies and models and an even quicker withdraw of support for their use within education once desired outcomes are not produced or a new idea comes along.

This pattern of support and withdraw is evident within the history of technology’s use in education and can be observed from as early as its initial conception in the early 20th century (Reiser, 2001). During the early 20th century learning community believed that each sequential technological advance of the time period would revolutionize the way we taught and took great efforts to promote the current hot button trend integrating school museums, visual instruction and audio instruction. Unfortunately for the people of the early to mid 20th century none of these practices fulfilled their expectation and were slowly written off or pushed aside to be used only as supplemental materials. This common theme within technology’s use in education has continued even into the later 20th century with the adoption and withdraw of television as a instructional media and has continued with the leaps and bounds growth of computer technology (i.e. CAI, PLATO, desk top publishing software, Internet). A great revolution in the integration of instructional technology into education came during the mid 20th century when research programs begin to analyze the uses of audio visual media in education and knowledge of the principles of learning were integrated into the design of materials. Marking a shift in the emphasis on using technology materials for learning rather than teaching (AECT, 2004).

Can technology in education ever be truly integrated?
I feel that the problem with integrating technology into education is all based on are expectation. We have learned from experience that no one thing will revolutionize education, its just does not work that way. We must remove are focus on the next big thing to hit education but instead use all of our resources as tools to help meet the needs of diverse learners.

References:

Association of Educational Communications and Technology. (2004, October).
The Definition of Educational Technology: An analysis and explanation of the
concept. Chapter 1.

Reiser, R.A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part I: A
history of instructional media. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 49(1),53-65.

Ely, Donald P. (1997). The Field of Educational Technology: Update 1997.
A dozen Frequently Asked Questions. ERIC Digest. Syracuse, NY: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Information and Technology. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED413889)

Blog Up and Running

2006-09-04T20:35:00.000-07:00

Just a test !! Busy with reflection?