Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 283–297 | Cite as

Lessons Learned: Findings from MIT Initiatives in Educational Technology (2000–2005)

Article

Abstract

Since 1999, MIT has undertaken an extensive effort in creating and implementing educational technology. Broadly speaking, there have been two kinds of efforts: developing web-based services for higher education and creating educational technology applications for use in the classroom. This article reviews a group of projects that produced educational technology applications for use in the classroom or for classroom-based activities and were assessed by educational researchers in the Teaching and Learning Laboratory (TLL). From those in depth studies, as well as less extensive involvement with a half dozen more initiatives, we draw three major findings on the role and impact of educational technologies as they were developed and used at MIT over 6 years: (1) the most successful educational technologies meet a specific instructional need that has been unmet or poorly met by traditional media; (2) too much technology or technology that does not work well can be detrimental; and (3) there are important relationships between the technologies and the learning environments in which they operate.

Keywords

educational technology instruction learning learning environments 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to acknowledge the contributions of the researchers who conducted the assessments upon which this paper is based: Miri Barak, John Belcher, Thomas Clay, Yehudit Judy Dori, Judy Fischer, Julie Greenberg, Steven Lerman, Alberta Lipson, Rudolph Mitchell, John Newman, Rahul Sarathy, Natalie Smith, and Cynthia Dernay Tervalon.

References

  1. Barak M. (2006). Transitions from traditional to ICT-enhanced learning environments in undergraduate chemistry courses Computers and Education 48(1):30–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barak M., Lipson A., Lerman S. (2006). Wireless laptops as means for promoting active learning in large lecture halls Journal of Research on Technology in Education 38(3): 245–264Google Scholar
  3. Bates A. W., Poole G. (2003). Effective Teaching in Higher Education Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  4. Belcher, J. (2003). Improving student understanding with TEAL. The MIT Faculty Newsletter 16(2): 1, 8–11Google Scholar
  5. Breslow, L. (1986). Media ecology: An interdisciplinary approach to the study of communication. Paper presented at the Association for Integrative Studies Conference, Bowling Green, OhioGoogle Scholar
  6. Breslow, L. (2002). Strategic assessment at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Proceedings of the e-Technologies in Engineering Education Conference, published online at http://www.coe.gatech.edu/eTEEGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, D. G. (Ed) (2000). Interactive Learning: Vignettes from America’s Most Wired Campuses. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar
  8. Clay, T. (2002). Overview report on MIT MetaMedia. Unpublished assessment report, the Teaching and Learning Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  9. Clay, T. (2004). XMAS: Evaluation of the cross media annotation system. Unpublished assessment report, the Teaching and Learning Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  10. Dori Y. J., Belcher J. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect students’ understanding of electromagnetic concepts? The Journal of the Learning Sciences 14(2): 243–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garvin, D. (2003). Making the case: Professional education for the world of practice. Harvard Magazine 56–65: 107Google Scholar
  12. Greenberg J. E., Smith N. T., Newman J. H. (2003). Instructional module in Fourier spectral analysis, based on principles of how people learn Journal of Engineering Education 92(2): 155–164Google Scholar
  13. Laurillard D. (2002). Rethinking University Teaching 2nd edition. RoutledgeFalmer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. LeBon, L. E. (2003). Students petition against TEAL. The Tech 123(14): 1, 17Google Scholar
  15. Lipson, A. (2000). An examination of student usage patterns and attitudes toward PIVoT: A pilot study. Unpublished assessment report, the Teaching and Learning Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  16. Lipson, A. (2002). A formative assessment of Mission 2005. Unpublished assessment report, the Teaching and Learning Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  17. Mitchell, R., Fischer, J., and del Alamo, J. A. (2006). A study of the impact of a MIT microelectronics online laboratory on student learning. Paper presented at the International Conference on Engineering Education, San Juan, Puerto RicoGoogle Scholar
  18. Newman, J. (2002). 6.001 report on the outcomes of online learning. Unpublished assessment report, the Teaching and Learning Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  19. Nystrom, C. (1973). Towards a science of media ecology: The formulation of integrated conceptual paradigms for the study of human communication systems. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York UniversityGoogle Scholar
  20. Pahl C. (2003). Managing evolution and change in web-based teaching and learning environments Computers and Education 40(2): 99–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Postman N. (1985). Amusing Ourselves to Death Viking Penguin, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Scheker, H. P. (1998). Integration of experimenting and modeling by advanced educational technology: Examples from nuclear physics. In B. J. Fraser and K. J. Tobin (Eds), International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 383–398). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic, as cited in Dori and Belcher (2005)Google Scholar
  23. Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., and Donovan, S. S. (1997). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Research Monograph No. 11, University of Wisconsin—National Institute for Science Education, Madison, WIGoogle Scholar
  24. Tervalon, C. D., and Sarathy, R. (2002). Student views of 8.224: A qualitative case study. Unpublished assessment report, the Teaching and Learning Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  25. The New Media Consortium and the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (2006). The Horizon Report accessed 7/11/06 at: http://www.nmc.net/pdf/2006_Horizon Report. pdfGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Teaching and Learning LabMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations