Educational technology at the crossroads: New mindsets and new directions

  • Charles M. Reigeluth

Abstract

Educational technology seems to be suffering from an identity crisis. Many exciting things are happening in the field, but increasingly we educational technologists find ourselves on the sidelines in our own ballgame. People from other disciplines are taking an interest in educational technology, but they show little interest in our knowledge base (often even little awareness that it exists!) and little interest in our professional organizations and publications. Why is this happening? What can we do about it? To what extent might our mindset be the problem? What new directions do we need to pursue to improve the health and value of our field? These are the central issues which this article discusses.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (1985).Computer-based instruction: Methods and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  2. Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1978).Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  3. Banathy, B. H. (1988). Systems inquiry in education.Systems Practice, 1, 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beissner, K., & Reigeluth, C. M. (1989, February).Course sequencing with multiple strands using the elaboration theory. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
  5. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.) (1956).Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.Google Scholar
  6. Bruner, J. S. (1960).The process of education. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  7. Collins, A. (1988, November).Towards a design science of education. Paper presented at a NATO workshop, Milton Keynes, England. Also in E. Scanlon & T. O'Shea (Eds.),New directions in educational technology. New York: Springer Verlag (in press).Google Scholar
  8. Collins, A., & Stevens, A. L. (1983). A cognitive theory of inquiry teaching. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1985).The systematic design of instruction (2nd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar
  10. Dorsey, L., & Olson, J. (1989, February).Midlevel instructional strategies. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
  11. Elsom-Cook, M. (1988, November).Guided discovery tutoring. Paper presented at a NATO workshop, Milton Keynes, England. Also in E. Scanlon & T. O'Shea (Eds.),New directions in educational technology. New York: Springer Verlag (in press).Google Scholar
  12. Ferguson, D. (1988, November).Advanced technology in the teaching of mathematics and science. Paper presented at a NATO workshop, Milton Keynes, England. Also in E. Scanlon & T. O'Shea (Eds.),New directions in educational technology. New York: Springer Verlag (in press).Google Scholar
  13. Gagné, R. M. (1985).The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  14. Goldfried, M. R. (1980). Toward the delineation of therapeutic change principles.American Psychologist, 35, 991–999.Google Scholar
  15. Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  16. Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of motivational design.Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2–10.Google Scholar
  17. Martin, B. L., & Briggs, L. J. (1986).The affective and cognitive domains: Integration for instruction and research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  18. McCalla, G. (1988, November).ITS: Navigating the rocky road to success. Paper presented at a NATO workshop, Milton Keynes, England. Also in E. Scanlon & T. O'Shea (Eds.),New directions in educational technology. New York: Springer Verlag (in press).Google Scholar
  19. Merrill, M. D. (1983). Component display theory. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Merrill, M. D. (1989, February).Knowledge engineering an instructional design expert system. Workshop presented at the annual convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
  21. Merrill, M. D., Reigeluth, C. M., & Faust, G. W. (1979). The instructional quality profile: A curriculum evaluation and design tool. In H. F. O'Neil, Jr. (Ed.),Procedures for instructional systems development. New York: Academic Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  22. Merrill, P. F. (1976). Task analysis—an information processing approach.NSPI Journal, 15(2), 7–11.Google Scholar
  23. Merrill, P. F. (1987). Job and task analysis. In R. M. Gagné (Ed.),Instructional technology: Foundations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  24. Reigeluth, C. M. (1983a). Instructional design: What is it? In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.). (1983b).Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  26. Reigeluth, C. M. (1983c). The elaboration theory of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  27. Reigeluth, C. M. (1989a, February).A model of instruction for understanding. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
  28. Reigeluth, C. M. (1989b, February).Sequencing and integrating cognitive strategies with subject-matter content. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
  29. Reigeluth, C. M. (1989c, February).Prescriptions for designing a theoretical elaboration sequence. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
  30. Reigeluth, C. M., & Curtis, R. V. (1987). Learning situations and instructional models. In R. M. Gagné (Ed.),Instructional technology: Foundations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  31. Reigeluth, C. M., & Schwartz, E. (1988, Autumn). A prescriptive theory for the design of computer-based educational simulations.Journal of Computer-based Instructional Systems, 15(4).Google Scholar
  32. Reiser, B. (1988, November).Problem solving and explanation in ITS. Paper presented at a NATO workshop, Milton Keynes, England. Also in E. Scanlon & T. O'Shea (Eds.),New directions in educational technology. New York: Springer Verlag (in press).Google Scholar
  33. Roma, K. (1989, February).Formative-evaluation research on the instructional model for understanding. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
  34. Romiszowski, A. (1981).Designing instructional systems. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  35. Romiszowski, A. (1984).Producing instructional systems. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  36. Romiszowski, A. (1988). Personal communication.Google Scholar
  37. Simon, H. A. (1969).Sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Smith, M. E. (1985, February). Recognizing research opportunities.Performance & Instruction Journal, 9–12.Google Scholar
  39. Snelbecker, G. E. (1983).Learning theory, instructional theory, and psychoeducational design. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles M. Reigeluth
    • 1
  1. 1.the School of EducationIndiana UniversityBloomington

Personalised recommendations