Educational technologies: Difference between revisions

The educational technology and digital learning wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(51 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Stub}}
{{Stub}}


<categorytree mode="pages" depth="1" style="float:right; clear:right; margin-left:1px; border:1px solid gray; padding:0.7ex; background-color:white;">Educational technologies</categorytree>
== Definition ==
== Definition ==


'''Educational technologies''' are technologies that are used in education. Not to be confounded with [[educational technology]] - the field.
'''Educational technologies''' are technologies that are used in education. Not to be confounded with [[educational technology]] - the field.
See also the very complete [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_virtual_learning_environments History of virtual learning environments].


== Families of technologies ==
== Families of technologies ==


[[User:DSchneider|DSchneider]] is ''not yet sure'' which categories to adopt and how to create a global taxonomy.  
There exist several taxonomies that attempt to classify educational technologies and their uses.  


=== Overview ===
=== Overview ===
Line 15: Line 14:
Basque and Lundgren-Cayrol (2003) found and analyzed 24 different typologies of ICT usage in schools and proposed a "meta-typology" with three categories:
Basque and Lundgren-Cayrol (2003) found and analyzed 24 different typologies of ICT usage in schools and proposed a "meta-typology" with three categories:


# Typologies centered on the teaching/learning act and that use classification criteria like the (1) computer's role in a pedagogical relation, (2) learner/computer control, (3) pedagogic strategy, (3) association of ICT to a specific stage in a instructional design.
# Typologies centered on the '''teaching/learning act''' and that use classification criteria like the (1) computer's role in a pedagogical relation, (2) learner/computer control, (3) pedagogic strategy, (3) association of ICT to a specific stage in a instructional design.
# Typologies centered on the school and educational actors, i.e. (1) typologies that associate ICT with school activities and (2) those focus on ICT use by the actors
# Typologies centered on '''the school and educational actors''', i.e. (1) typologies that associate ICT with school activities and (2) those focus on ICT use by the actors
# Typologies centered on the learner, i.e. (1) typologies that categorize ICT usage according to learner preferrences for cognitive strategies, (2) those who categorize ICT according to cognitive functions they support and (3) those that classify ICT according to their support for learning stages or cognitive processing stages.
# Typologies centered on '''the learner''', i.e. (1) typologies that categorize ICT usage according to learner preferences for cognitive strategies, (2) those who categorize ICT according to cognitive functions they support and (3) those that classify ICT according to their support for learning stages or cognitive processing stages.


=== The Media Cube ===
=== The Media Cube ===
Line 23: Line 22:
Repenning et al. (1998) define media with three dimensions: media richness, interactivity and accessibility.
Repenning et al. (1998) define media with three dimensions: media richness, interactivity and accessibility.


[[Image:media-cube-repenning.gif |frame|none|The media cube (Alexander Repenning, Andri Ioannidou and James Ambach)]]
[[Image:media-cube-repenning.gif |frame|none|The media cube - Copyright Alexander Repenning, Andri Ioannidou and James Ambach and reproduced here with permission by Alexander Repenning.]]


This picture argues that different kinds of media have different kinds of affordances for the design of learning environments.
This picture argues that different kinds of media have different kinds of affordances for the design of learning environments.
See also the [[big media debate]] which is about the question whether media "can even be the message", i.e. that a medium could incomporporate a instructional functionality that can not be had with an other.
See also [[the media debate]] which is about the question whether media "can even be the message", i.e. whether a medium could incomporporate a instructional functionality that can not be had with an other medium.


=== Longstaffe, 1996 ===
=== Longstaffe, 1996 ===


Longstaffe defines categories that in similar form also can be found with other authors. Within a pedagogical design these categories are not exclusive of course, although there is some clustering, e.g. presentation in CBT is always associated with some form of interaction but not necessarily with extra information or communication. Modern Web-based CBT (e-learning) adds this dimension.
Longstaffe defines categories that in similar form also can be found with other authors. Within a pedagogical design these categories are not exclusive of course, although there is some clustering, e.g. Presentation in CBT is always associated with some form of interaction but not necessarily with extra information or communication. Modern Web-based CBT (e-learning) since the mid-90's adds these dimensions to some extent.
 
; (1) Presentation
: Presentation of contents (texts, pictures, diagrams, animations) on various technical supports.
; (2) Information
: The computer as a library
; (3) Interaction.
: Various kinds of interaction that include quizzing software, [[CBT]], [[Simulation]]s, [[microworld]]s etc.
; (4) Communication.
: Various [[CMC]] tools such as email, forums, audio/video conferences, virtual environments, etc.
; (5) Professional software tools
E.g. word processors, CAD systems, simulation software, laboratory software, etc.
 
Since Longstaffe publishes his taxonomy, interaction and communication tools did evolve.
; (6) [[cognitive tool]]s
: Cognitive tools are a combination of professional software tools, information, interaction and communication tools that support learning by doing something.
; (7) [[Internet of things|Interactive things]]
*  Recent trends in [[ubiquitous computing]], [[microworld]]s, [[social software]] etc.) also include "smart & networked" objects that can be manipulated. That trend has been identified as early as mid-90's by practitioners of educational technology (e.g. Meryn, 1998).
 
In addition, many applications that are used in education did become "social", e.g. allow individuals to profit from each other in one or another form. Typical examples are the yet vastly underused social software tools like collaborative [[citation index]]es.
 
== Bruce and Levin ==
 
Bruce and Levin (1997) <ref name="bruce1997">Bruce, B. C., & Levin, J. A. (1997). Educational Technology: Media for Inquiry, Communication, Construction, and Expression. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(1), 79–102. https://doi.org/10.2190/7HPQ-4F3X-8M8Y-TVCA </ref> {{quotation|describe a new way of classifying uses of educational technologies, based on a four-part division suggested years ago by John Dewey: inquiry, communication, construction, and expression. This taxonomy is compared to previous taxonomies of educational technologies, and is found to cover a wider range of uses, including many of the cutting-edge uses of educational technologies.}}. The authors suggestion using the term of ''media'' to emphasize the mediative aspect of technologies. {{quotation|"Media" suggests  the mediational function of technologies, which link the student to other learners, teachers, other technologies, ideas, and the physical world. Moreover, as technologies become embedded in social practices, they tend to become invisible; we focus less on the fact that they may be consciously employed as a tool to do a task, and come to see the task itself as central, with the technology as substrate.}} (Bruce and Levin, 1997)
 
The taxonomy:
 
'''A.   Media for Inquiry'''
# Theory building--technology as media for thinking, Model exploration and simulation toolkits Visualization software, Virtual reality environments, Data modeling--defining categories, relations, representations Procedural models, Mathematical models, Knowledge representation: semantic network, outline tools, etc. Knowledge integration
# Data access--connecting to the world of texts, video, data, Hypertext and hypermedia environments Library access and ordering, Digital libraries Databases, Music, voice, images, graphics, video, data tables, graphs, text
# Data collection--using technology to extend the senses, Remote scientific instruments  accessible via networks, Microcomputer-based laboratories, with sensors for temperature, motion, heart rate, etc. Survey makers for student-run surveys and interviews, Video and sound recording
# Data analysis, Exploratory data analysis Statistical analysis Environments for inquiry Image processing Spreadsheets, Programs to make tables and graphs Problem-solving programs
 
'''B.   Media for Communication'''
# Document preparation, Word processing Outlining Graphics, Spelling, grammar, usage, and style aids Symbolic expressions, Desktop publishing Presentation graphics
# Communication--with other students, teachers, experts in various fields, and people around the world: Electronic mail, Asynchronous computer conferencing, Synchronous computer conferencing (text, audio, video, etc.) Distributed information servers like the World-wide Web Student-created hypertext environments
# Collaborative Media: Collaborative data environments, Group decision support systems, Shared document preparation, Social spreadsheets
# Teaching Media: Tutoring systems, Instructional simulations, Drill and practice systems, Telementoring.
 
'''C.   Media for Construction'''
# Control systems--using technology to affect the physical world Robotics
# Control of equipment Computer-aided design
# Construction of graphs and charts
 
'''D.   Media for Expression'''
# Drawing and painting programs
# Music making and accompaniment
# Music composing and editing
# Interactive video and hypermedia
# Animation software
# Multimedia composition


;Presentation
We believe this to be an interesting taxonomy since it is based on what learners and teachers can do with a technology. However, the "construction" category may not be developed enough. More precisely, there is an overlap with "Media for inquiry", in particular the "theory building section" which can be a constructive activity using some kind of constructionist environment.
Presentation of contents (texts, pictures, diagrams, animations) on various technical supports.
;Information
The computer as a library
;Interaction.
Various kinds of interaction that include quizing software, [[CBT]], [[Simulation]]s
;Communication.
Various [[CMC]] tools such as email, forums, audio/video conferences, virtual environments, etc.
;Software tools
E.g. word processors, CAD systems, simulation software, etc.


== A flat typology of major categories ==
== A flat typology of major educational sofware categories ==
{{comment | This is '''very''' provisional}}
{{comment | This is '''very''' provisional}}


Line 55: Line 95:
* [[Hypertext]]
* [[Hypertext]]


=== Cognitive tools ===
=== Cognitive tools and social software ===
Overview: [[cognitive tool]]s
 
* See [[cognitive tool]]s
* See [[social software]] (Some social software has a huge potentiel to enrich blended project-oriented learning designs).


=== Communication and collaboration ===
=== Communication and collaboration ===
Line 66: Line 108:
* [[Videoconferencing]]
* [[Videoconferencing]]
* (some) [[LMS]] modules
* (some) [[LMS]] modules
=== Social computing ===
* Overview: [[Social computing]]


=== ICT as a subject ===
=== ICT as a subject ===
Line 78: Line 124:
* [[Simulation]]s,  
* [[Simulation]]s,  
* [[Hypertext]]
* [[Hypertext]]
* [[Serious game]], [[gamification]], [[Simulation and gaming]]


=== Professional Tools ===
=== Professional Tools ===
Line 86: Line 133:


* Course preparation tools
* Course preparation tools
* Presentation software (e.g. Powerpoint)
* [[Presentation software]] (e.g. Powerpoint)
* [[Videoconferencing]]
* [[Videoconferencing]]
=== Assessment tools ===
* [[Quizzing tool]]s
* Computer assisted [[Grading forms]]
* [[Peer assessment]] software or modules


=== Tutoring and exercising ===
=== Tutoring and exercising ===


* [[computer-based training]] software, also called [[courseware]] sometimes.
* [[computer-based training]] software, also called [[courseware]] sometimes.
* [[web-based training]] software, e.g. the [[e-instruction]] core of [[e-learning]]
* [[web-based training]] software, e.g. the [[e-instruction]] core of [[e-learning]] systems like [[learning management system]]s
* [[Multimedia]]
* [[Multimedia]]


Line 102: Line 155:
* Collaborative [[hypertext]]s such as [[Wiki]]s
* Collaborative [[hypertext]]s such as [[Wiki]]s
* Learning environments like [[WISE]], [[BGuILE]], [[Knowledge Forum]]
* Learning environments like [[WISE]], [[BGuILE]], [[Knowledge Forum]]
=== Integrated systems ===
However be aware that they nor neutral, nor can they do everything !!
* [[Learning management system]]s
* [[Personal learning environment]]s, i.e. systems based on the integration of [[web service]]s, in particular [[social software]].
== Hardware used in education ==
* Special purpose PCs like [[OLPC]] (one laptop per child).
* PDAs, mobile phones, etc. (see [[mobile learning]] and [[ubiquitous computing]
* [[e-book]] hardware
* Classroom technology such as embedded PCs, overhead projects, smartboards, voting devices (see [[Technology-enhanced classroom]] and [[Computer-integrated classroom]])
* [[Immersive virtual reality]] systems such as caves
* [[Digital design and fabrication in education|Digital design and fabrication]]
== Evaluation and choice of technologies ==
See also:
* [[educational technology]]
* [https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/evidence-summaries/teaching-learning-toolkit Teaching and learning toolkit], an interactive website that relates cost/evidence  and months impact for a number of components, including [https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/evidence-summaries/teaching-learning-toolkit/digital-technology/ digital technology]
In the 1990's and 2000' David Squires and collaborators published a number of texts on usability and learning of educational software, e.g.
<ref>Squires, D., & Preece, J. (1996). Usability and learning: evaluating the potential of educational software. Computers and Education, 27(1), 15-22.</ref>
<ref>Squires, D., & Preece, J. (1999). Predicting quality in educational software. Interacting with computers, 11(5), 467-483.</ref>
<ref>Squires, D. (1999, January). Educational software and learning: Subversive use and volatile design. In Systems Sciences, 1999. HICSS-32. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 7-pp). IEEE. </ref>.
In ''An heuristic approach to the evaluation of educational multimedia software'', Squires.<ref>Squires, D. (1999). An heuristic approach to the evaluation of educational multimedia software.</ref> defined a set of evaluation heuristics.
{{quotationbox|
4.1 Is the complexity of the multimedia environment appropriate?
A multimedia collage of text, graphics, video and sound may appear to be complex to the user. However, it may be the case that complex presentation is being used to present very limited educational material. In this sense the environment is only complex in a superficial sense. A deeper complexity is one that relates the structure of the multimedia environment to conceptual development.
4.2 Is the learner active?
The possibilities of multimedia presentation can lead to the development of environments in which the user is conceived as a passive recipient of a multimedia collage. Users are encouraged to become absorbed by the environment, rather than control it. The use of multimedia in this way clearly does not lead to a sense of involvement and ownership.
4.3 Is fantasy used in an appropriate way?
Many multimedia environments are fantastic in the sense that they mimic real life situations in an extreme fashion. Such environments are often labelled as examples of virtual reality. While the fantasy associated with these environments may be intrinsically motivating it may mitigate against the development of authenticity.
4.4 How appropriate is the content to the curriculum?
Curriculum issues may be explicit, implicit, or even absent, in the content of a package. Software in which curriculum issues are explicit is typified by packages that have been deliberately designed to be used with a defined curriculum. Implicit curriculum issues stem from cultural assumptions made by designers. An absence of curriculum issues arises when software not originally intended for use in education is "high jacked" for use in schools, e.g. word-processors.
4.5 How navigable is the software?
The software must be easy to use, and not create unnecessary usablity problems. Some idea of the structure of the environment should be provided, perhaps in the form of a map. The design should be consistent and icons should be meaningful. The interaction should be authentic, with the task matched to the interface design.
4.6 What form of learner feedback is provided?
Leaner feedback can be extrinsic, as in a tutorial package, or intrinsic, as in a simulation. Is the type of feedback appropriate for the intended learning outcomes and any assumed theory of learning?
4.7 What is the level of learner control?
It has been acknowledged for some time that the extent to which learners can develop a sense of ownership in an educational software environment is determined by the level of control they have in their interaction with the software environment (Chandler, 1984; Wellington, 1985; Blease, 1985; McDougall and Squires, 1986; Goforth, 1994). This implies that the use of multimedia software which provides high levels of learner control will help students feel that they are instrumental in determining the pattern and process of the learning experience, i.e. in developing a sense of ownership.
4.8 Are learners motivated when they use the software?
As with feedback, motivation can be either intrinsic or extrinsic. From a constructivist point of view the motivation should be intrinsic, with the task itself providing sufficient motivation. Extrinsic feedback needs to be viewed with care, as it can be misleading or irrelevant, e.g. when more attractive feedback is provided for incorrect rather than correct answers in a drill and practice exercise.
}}


== Links ==
== Links ==


* [http://www.ait.net/technos/ TECHNOS Quarterly]. TQ: TECHNOS Quarterly for Education and Technology is a forum for the discussion of ideas about the use of technology in education, with a focus on reform (1992 - 2002)
There exist many directories that list educational technologies. Unfortunately, most of these only last a few years before they are taken off-line or fall in disrepair.


* [http://www.cenorm.be/cenorm/businessdomains/businessdomains/isss/cwa/learning+technologies.asp European Committee for Standardization (CEN)- Learning Technologies]. List of CWAs (publications)
* [http://c4lpt.co.uk/Directory/index.html Directory of Learning Tools] by the [http://c4lpt.co.uk/ Centre for Learning & Performance Technologies]. An interesting mix, although I'd make some different choices. Anyhow, such lists express reality (things that are being done for real) quite well we think.
 
* [http://www.scoop.it/t/interactive-teaching-and-learning Interactive Teaching and Learning], “Exploration of engaging learning spaces and technologies that support them”, Curated by Anne Whaits


== References ==
== References ==
=== Cited with footnotes ===
<references />
=== Other ===


* Basque, Josianne & Sylvie Doré (1998) Le concept d'environnement d'apprentissage informatisé, Journal of Distance Education/Revue de l'enseignement à distance, 13(1), ISSN 0830-0445, [http://cade.icaap.org/vol13.1/dore.html HTML]
* Basque, Josianne & Sylvie Doré (1998) Le concept d'environnement d'apprentissage informatisé, Journal of Distance Education/Revue de l'enseignement à distance, 13(1), ISSN 0830-0445, [http://cade.icaap.org/vol13.1/dore.html HTML]


* Basque, J, & K. Lundgren-Cayrol, K. (2003). Une typologie des usages des TIC en éducation. Document pédagogique du cours TEC 6200 "Technologie de l'information et développement cognitif", Montréal: Télé-université.  [http://www.teluq.uquebec.ca/expl_tec6200/pdf/typologie.pdf PDF]
* Basque, J, & K. Lundgren-Cayrol, K. (2003). Une typologie des usages des TIC en éducation. Document pédagogique du cours TEC 6200 "Technologie de l'information et développement cognitif", Montréal: Télé-université.  [http://www.teluq.uquebec.ca/expl_tec6200/pdf/typologie.pdf PDF]
* Robert Bibeau (2004), ''Taxonomie des ressources numériques normalisées: vers un patrimoine éducatif'', VIe  Journées de l'Innovation Foix (France) [http://www.robertbibeau.ca/foix/toulouse.html HTML] (see also his [http://www.robertbibeau.ca/ homepage])


* Denis, Brigitte (2002), Quels usages des logiciels mettre en oeuvre en contexte éducatif ? Centre de Recherche sur l'Instrumentation, la Formation et l'Apprentissage (CRIFA) du Service de Technologie de l'Education de l'Université de Liège (STE-Ulg) [http://www.enseignement.be/prof/dossiers/tice/sugg/Article%20UPTICE1.pdf PDF]. (retrieved 18:36, 26 June 2006 (MEST)).
* Denis, Brigitte (2002), Quels usages des logiciels mettre en oeuvre en contexte éducatif ? Centre de Recherche sur l'Instrumentation, la Formation et l'Apprentissage (CRIFA) du Service de Technologie de l'Education de l'Université de Liège (STE-Ulg) [http://www.enseignement.be/prof/dossiers/tice/sugg/Article%20UPTICE1.pdf PDF]. (retrieved 18:36, 26 June 2006 (MEST)).


* Locatis,Craig, Al-Nuaim,Hana (1999), Interactive technology and authoring tools: A historical review and analysis, Educational Technology Research and Development, 47, 3, 9/18/1999, Pages 63-75, [http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02299634 DOI 10.1007/BF02299634] {{ar}}
* Locatis,Craig, Al-Nuaim,Hana (1999), Interactive technology and authoring tools: A historical review and analysis, Educational Technology Research and Development, 47, 3, 9/18/1999, Pages 63-75, [http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02299634 DOI 10.1007/BF02299634] {{ar}}
* Meryn, Siegfried (1998), Multimedia communication: quo vadis ?, Medical Teacher, Volume 20, Issue 2, Mar 1998, Pages 87 - 90, [DOI 10.1080/01421599881156 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01421599881156] {{ar}}


* Repenning, A., Ioannidou, A. and Ambach, J. (1998). Learn to Communicate and Communicate to Learn. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 98 (7). [http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/98/7 HTML Hypertext] - [http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/98/7/repenning-98-7-paper.html HTML]
* Repenning, A., Ioannidou, A. and Ambach, J. (1998). Learn to Communicate and Communicate to Learn. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 98 (7). [http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/98/7 HTML Hypertext] - [http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/98/7/repenning-98-7-paper.html HTML]
* Spector, J. M. (2016). Foundations of educational technology : integrative approaches and interdisciplinary perspectives. Routledge.
** Page 52 includes a table that matches technologies with various instructional activities


* University of California at Berkeley, Field Guide to Design Experiments in Education, Chapter "Design Experiment Technologies" [http://www.soe.berkeley.edu/sandhtdocs/tech.html HTML] in
* University of California at Berkeley, Field Guide to Design Experiments in Education, Chapter "Design Experiment Technologies" [http://www.soe.berkeley.edu/sandhtdocs/tech.html HTML] in
Line 129: Line 256:
* Marshall, J. Granville (2000), Understanding the Peril & Promise, Nouns & Verbs, of Educational Technologies, Technos: Quarterly for Education and Technology. [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HKV/is_3_9/ai_66408226 HTML] - [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HKV/is_3_9/ai_66408226/print HTML Print]
* Marshall, J. Granville (2000), Understanding the Peril & Promise, Nouns & Verbs, of Educational Technologies, Technos: Quarterly for Education and Technology. [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HKV/is_3_9/ai_66408226 HTML] - [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HKV/is_3_9/ai_66408226/print HTML Print]


* Zuckerman, O. (2006, in preparation). Historical Overview and Classification of Traditional and Digital Learning Objects, MIT Media Lab. [http://llk.media.mit.edu/courses/readings/classification-learning-objects.pdf PDF]
* The Becta review 2007, Emerging technologies for learning, [http://partners.becta.org.uk/index.php?section=rh&catcode=_re_rp_ap_03&rid=11380 Overview in HTML / download PDF]


[[Category:Educational technologies|Educational technologies]].
* Zuckerman, O. (2006, in preparation). Historical Overview and Classification of Traditional and Digital Learning Objects, MIT Media Lab. [http://llk.media.mit.edu/courses/readings/classification-learning-objects.pdf PDF]  [[Category:Educational technologies|Educational technologies]] .
[[Category:Overviews]]
[[Category:Edutech families]]
[[Category: Taxonomies]]

Latest revision as of 15:05, 13 February 2020

Draft

Educational technologies
Affordances and constraints of learning technologies
Artificial intelligence and education
Authoring tools
Classroom technologies
Cognitive tools
Design methodologies
E-learning tools
Educational design tools
Educational games
Educational hardware
Educational modeling languages
Educational robotics
Educational software
Edutech families
Learning approaches and technology trends
Learning management systems
Learning objects
Microworlds
Personal learning environments
Position paper
Simulation environments
Standards
Teacher tools
3-D Environments
Affordances and constraints of simulations
App
Assistive Technology
Blogs
Clicker
Concept Maps
Conferencing
Digital Gaming
Digital Storytelling
E-tutorial
Ebooks
Educational technologies
Elearning management system
Epodcast
Eportfolio
Facebook
Hypertext
Interactive video
Ipads
Ipod
Laptop
Lecture Capture
Lucidchart
Microblogs
Mobile Device
Mobile Technology
MOOCS
Multi-Media
Online Discussions
Open Education Resource
Open learner model
Pedagogical agent
Screencasting
Serious game
Short Message Service
Simulation
Skype
Smartphone
Social Media
SocialSoftware
Synchronous communication technology
Tablet
Video
Video discussion platform
Video-web learning platforms
Virtual communities
Virtual Labs
Virtual Presentation
Virtual Realities
WebQuests
Whiteboard
Wikis
YouTube

Definition

Educational technologies are technologies that are used in education. Not to be confounded with educational technology - the field.

Families of technologies

There exist several taxonomies that attempt to classify educational technologies and their uses.

Overview

Basque and Lundgren-Cayrol (2003) found and analyzed 24 different typologies of ICT usage in schools and proposed a "meta-typology" with three categories:

  1. Typologies centered on the teaching/learning act and that use classification criteria like the (1) computer's role in a pedagogical relation, (2) learner/computer control, (3) pedagogic strategy, (3) association of ICT to a specific stage in a instructional design.
  2. Typologies centered on the school and educational actors, i.e. (1) typologies that associate ICT with school activities and (2) those focus on ICT use by the actors
  3. Typologies centered on the learner, i.e. (1) typologies that categorize ICT usage according to learner preferences for cognitive strategies, (2) those who categorize ICT according to cognitive functions they support and (3) those that classify ICT according to their support for learning stages or cognitive processing stages.

The Media Cube

Repenning et al. (1998) define media with three dimensions: media richness, interactivity and accessibility.

The media cube - Copyright Alexander Repenning, Andri Ioannidou and James Ambach and reproduced here with permission by Alexander Repenning.

This picture argues that different kinds of media have different kinds of affordances for the design of learning environments. See also the media debate which is about the question whether media "can even be the message", i.e. whether a medium could incomporporate a instructional functionality that can not be had with an other medium.

Longstaffe, 1996

Longstaffe defines categories that in similar form also can be found with other authors. Within a pedagogical design these categories are not exclusive of course, although there is some clustering, e.g. Presentation in CBT is always associated with some form of interaction but not necessarily with extra information or communication. Modern Web-based CBT (e-learning) since the mid-90's adds these dimensions to some extent.

(1) Presentation
Presentation of contents (texts, pictures, diagrams, animations) on various technical supports.
(2) Information
The computer as a library
(3) Interaction.
Various kinds of interaction that include quizzing software, CBT, Simulations, microworlds etc.
(4) Communication.
Various CMC tools such as email, forums, audio/video conferences, virtual environments, etc.
(5) Professional software tools

E.g. word processors, CAD systems, simulation software, laboratory software, etc.

Since Longstaffe publishes his taxonomy, interaction and communication tools did evolve.

(6) cognitive tools
Cognitive tools are a combination of professional software tools, information, interaction and communication tools that support learning by doing something.
(7) Interactive things
  • Recent trends in ubiquitous computing, microworlds, social software etc.) also include "smart & networked" objects that can be manipulated. That trend has been identified as early as mid-90's by practitioners of educational technology (e.g. Meryn, 1998).

In addition, many applications that are used in education did become "social", e.g. allow individuals to profit from each other in one or another form. Typical examples are the yet vastly underused social software tools like collaborative citation indexes.

Bruce and Levin

Bruce and Levin (1997) [1] “describe a new way of classifying uses of educational technologies, based on a four-part division suggested years ago by John Dewey: inquiry, communication, construction, and expression. This taxonomy is compared to previous taxonomies of educational technologies, and is found to cover a wider range of uses, including many of the cutting-edge uses of educational technologies.”. The authors suggestion using the term of media to emphasize the mediative aspect of technologies. “"Media" suggests the mediational function of technologies, which link the student to other learners, teachers, other technologies, ideas, and the physical world. Moreover, as technologies become embedded in social practices, they tend to become invisible; we focus less on the fact that they may be consciously employed as a tool to do a task, and come to see the task itself as central, with the technology as substrate.” (Bruce and Levin, 1997)

The taxonomy:

A.   Media for Inquiry

  1. Theory building--technology as media for thinking, Model exploration and simulation toolkits Visualization software, Virtual reality environments, Data modeling--defining categories, relations, representations Procedural models, Mathematical models, Knowledge representation: semantic network, outline tools, etc. Knowledge integration
  2. Data access--connecting to the world of texts, video, data, Hypertext and hypermedia environments Library access and ordering, Digital libraries Databases, Music, voice, images, graphics, video, data tables, graphs, text
  3. Data collection--using technology to extend the senses, Remote scientific instruments  accessible via networks, Microcomputer-based laboratories, with sensors for temperature, motion, heart rate, etc. Survey makers for student-run surveys and interviews, Video and sound recording
  4. Data analysis, Exploratory data analysis Statistical analysis Environments for inquiry Image processing Spreadsheets, Programs to make tables and graphs Problem-solving programs

B.   Media for Communication

  1. Document preparation, Word processing Outlining Graphics, Spelling, grammar, usage, and style aids Symbolic expressions, Desktop publishing Presentation graphics
  2. Communication--with other students, teachers, experts in various fields, and people around the world: Electronic mail, Asynchronous computer conferencing, Synchronous computer conferencing (text, audio, video, etc.) Distributed information servers like the World-wide Web Student-created hypertext environments
  3. Collaborative Media: Collaborative data environments, Group decision support systems, Shared document preparation, Social spreadsheets
  4. Teaching Media: Tutoring systems, Instructional simulations, Drill and practice systems, Telementoring.

C.   Media for Construction

  1. Control systems--using technology to affect the physical world Robotics
  2. Control of equipment Computer-aided design
  3. Construction of graphs and charts

D.   Media for Expression

  1. Drawing and painting programs
  2. Music making and accompaniment
  3. Music composing and editing
  4. Interactive video and hypermedia
  5. Animation software
  6. Multimedia composition

We believe this to be an interesting taxonomy since it is based on what learners and teachers can do with a technology. However, the "construction" category may not be developed enough. More precisely, there is an overlap with "Media for inquiry", in particular the "theory building section" which can be a constructive activity using some kind of constructionist environment.

A flat typology of major educational sofware categories

This is very provisional

School and student administration

  • no entries so far here

Resource management, databases, libraries

Cognitive tools and social software

Communication and collaboration

Social computing

ICT as a subject

Microworlds, Simulation, Experimentation, Games

Professional Tools

E.g. Word processors, HTML editors, Mathematical and simulation software

Teaching tools and assessment

Assessment tools

Tutoring and exercising

Environments for project-oriented learning

(including problem-based learning, inquiry-based learning, project-based learning etc.)

Integrated systems

However be aware that they nor neutral, nor can they do everything !!

Hardware used in education

Evaluation and choice of technologies

See also:

In the 1990's and 2000' David Squires and collaborators published a number of texts on usability and learning of educational software, e.g. [2] [3] [4]. In An heuristic approach to the evaluation of educational multimedia software, Squires.[5] defined a set of evaluation heuristics.


4.1 Is the complexity of the multimedia environment appropriate?

A multimedia collage of text, graphics, video and sound may appear to be complex to the user. However, it may be the case that complex presentation is being used to present very limited educational material. In this sense the environment is only complex in a superficial sense. A deeper complexity is one that relates the structure of the multimedia environment to conceptual development.

4.2 Is the learner active?

The possibilities of multimedia presentation can lead to the development of environments in which the user is conceived as a passive recipient of a multimedia collage. Users are encouraged to become absorbed by the environment, rather than control it. The use of multimedia in this way clearly does not lead to a sense of involvement and ownership.

4.3 Is fantasy used in an appropriate way?

Many multimedia environments are fantastic in the sense that they mimic real life situations in an extreme fashion. Such environments are often labelled as examples of virtual reality. While the fantasy associated with these environments may be intrinsically motivating it may mitigate against the development of authenticity.

4.4 How appropriate is the content to the curriculum?

Curriculum issues may be explicit, implicit, or even absent, in the content of a package. Software in which curriculum issues are explicit is typified by packages that have been deliberately designed to be used with a defined curriculum. Implicit curriculum issues stem from cultural assumptions made by designers. An absence of curriculum issues arises when software not originally intended for use in education is "high jacked" for use in schools, e.g. word-processors.

4.5 How navigable is the software?

The software must be easy to use, and not create unnecessary usablity problems. Some idea of the structure of the environment should be provided, perhaps in the form of a map. The design should be consistent and icons should be meaningful. The interaction should be authentic, with the task matched to the interface design.

4.6 What form of learner feedback is provided?

Leaner feedback can be extrinsic, as in a tutorial package, or intrinsic, as in a simulation. Is the type of feedback appropriate for the intended learning outcomes and any assumed theory of learning?

4.7 What is the level of learner control?

It has been acknowledged for some time that the extent to which learners can develop a sense of ownership in an educational software environment is determined by the level of control they have in their interaction with the software environment (Chandler, 1984; Wellington, 1985; Blease, 1985; McDougall and Squires, 1986; Goforth, 1994). This implies that the use of multimedia software which provides high levels of learner control will help students feel that they are instrumental in determining the pattern and process of the learning experience, i.e. in developing a sense of ownership.

4.8 Are learners motivated when they use the software?

As with feedback, motivation can be either intrinsic or extrinsic. From a constructivist point of view the motivation should be intrinsic, with the task itself providing sufficient motivation. Extrinsic feedback needs to be viewed with care, as it can be misleading or irrelevant, e.g. when more attractive feedback is provided for incorrect rather than correct answers in a drill and practice exercise.

Links

There exist many directories that list educational technologies. Unfortunately, most of these only last a few years before they are taken off-line or fall in disrepair.

References

Cited with footnotes

  1. ↑ Bruce, B. C., & Levin, J. A. (1997). Educational Technology: Media for Inquiry, Communication, Construction, and Expression. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(1), 79–102. https://doi.org/10.2190/7HPQ-4F3X-8M8Y-TVCA
  2. ↑ Squires, D., & Preece, J. (1996). Usability and learning: evaluating the potential of educational software. Computers and Education, 27(1), 15-22.
  3. ↑ Squires, D., & Preece, J. (1999). Predicting quality in educational software. Interacting with computers, 11(5), 467-483.
  4. ↑ Squires, D. (1999, January). Educational software and learning: Subversive use and volatile design. In Systems Sciences, 1999. HICSS-32. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 7-pp). IEEE.
  5. ↑ Squires, D. (1999). An heuristic approach to the evaluation of educational multimedia software.

Other

  • Basque, Josianne & Sylvie Doré (1998) Le concept d'environnement d'apprentissage informatisé, Journal of Distance Education/Revue de l'enseignement à distance, 13(1), ISSN 0830-0445, HTML
  • Basque, J, & K. Lundgren-Cayrol, K. (2003). Une typologie des usages des TIC en éducation. Document pédagogique du cours TEC 6200 "Technologie de l'information et développement cognitif", Montréal: Télé-université. PDF
  • Robert Bibeau (2004), Taxonomie des ressources numériques normalisées: vers un patrimoine éducatif, VIe Journées de l'Innovation Foix (France) HTML (see also his homepage)
  • Denis, Brigitte (2002), Quels usages des logiciels mettre en oeuvre en contexte éducatif ? Centre de Recherche sur l'Instrumentation, la Formation et l'Apprentissage (CRIFA) du Service de Technologie de l'Education de l'Université de Liège (STE-Ulg) PDF. (retrieved 18:36, 26 June 2006 (MEST)).
  • Locatis,Craig, Al-Nuaim,Hana (1999), Interactive technology and authoring tools: A historical review and analysis, Educational Technology Research and Development, 47, 3, 9/18/1999, Pages 63-75, DOI 10.1007/BF02299634 (Access restricted)
  • Repenning, A., Ioannidou, A. and Ambach, J. (1998). Learn to Communicate and Communicate to Learn. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 98 (7). HTML Hypertext - HTML
  • Spector, J. M. (2016). Foundations of educational technology : integrative approaches and interdisciplinary perspectives. Routledge.
    • Page 52 includes a table that matches technologies with various instructional activities
  • University of California at Berkeley, Field Guide to Design Experiments in Education, Chapter "Design Experiment Technologies" HTML in
  • Using Technology to Support Education Reform - September 1993, Chapter II: Educational Technologies, HTML
  • Longstaffe J.A., Using computer technology in support of teaching and learning. J. Audiov. Media Med., 1996, 19, 33-36
  • Marshall, J. Granville (2000), Understanding the Peril & Promise, Nouns & Verbs, of Educational Technologies, Technos: Quarterly for Education and Technology. HTML - HTML Print
  • Zuckerman, O. (2006, in preparation). Historical Overview and Classification of Traditional and Digital Learning Objects, MIT Media Lab. PDF .
Retrieved from "https://edutechwiki.unige.ch/mediawiki/index.php?title=Educational_technologies&oldid=73958"