cover
next page >
Cover
title: author: publisher: isbn10 | asin: print isbn13: ebook isbn13: language: subject publication date: lcc: ddc: subject:
Educational Media and Technology Yearbook 2003. Vol. 28 Branch, Robert Maribe.; Orey, Michael.; Fitzgerald, Mary Ann. Libraries Unlimited 1591580323 9781591580324 9780313023002 English Educational technology, Teaching--Aids and devices, Instructional materials centers, Instructional materials personnel. 2003 LB1028.3E38 2003eb 371.3078 Educational technology, Teaching--Aids and devices, Instructional materials centers, Instructional materials personnel.
cover
next page >
< previous page
page_i
next page >
Page i EDUCATIONAL MEDIA AND TECHNOLOGY YEARBOOK
< previous page
page_i
next page >
< previous page
page_ii
next page >
page_ii
next page >
Page ii This page intentionally left blank.
< previous page
< previous page
page_iii
next page >
Page iii EDUCATIONAL MEDIA AND TECHNOLOGY YEARBOOK Mary Ann Fitzgerald, Michael Orey, and Robert Maribe Branch, Editors 2003 VOLUME 28 Published in Cooperation with the ERIC® Clearinghouse on Information & Technology and the Association for Educational Communications and Technology
A member of the Greenwood Publishing Group Westport, Connecticut • London
< previous page
page_iii
next page >
< previous page
page_iv
next page >
Page iv Copyright 2003 Libraries Unlimited All Rights Reserved Printed in the United States of America No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or other wise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Libraries Unlimited A Member of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. 88 Post Road West Westport, CT 06881 www.lu.com Suggested cataloging supplied by Libraries Unlimited: Educational media and technology yearbook.—Westport, CT : Libraries Unlimited, A Division of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc., 1985v.Annual 2003- vol. 28“Published in cooperation with the ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology and the Association for Educational Communications and Technology” Continues: Educational media yearbook ISBN 1-59158-032-3 1. Educational technology—United States—Yearbook. 2. Instructional materials centers—United States—Yearbook. 3. Instructional materials personnel—United States —Yearbook. I. Fitzgerald, Mary Ann, ed. II. Orey, Michael, ed. III. Branch, Robert Maribe, ed. IV. ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology. V. Association for Educational Communications and Technology LB 1028.3.E372 2003 370.778 2003
< previous page
page_iv
next page >
< previous page
page_v
next page >
Page v Contents Preface Contributors Part One TRENDS AND ISSUES Introduction Michael Orey Issues and Trends in Instructional Technology: Treading Water Michael Molenda, Michael Sullivan A Content Analysis of Women’s Contributions to the Leading Instructional Technology Journals, 1995–2000 Anne L. Foley, Janet Morgan Developing Science Education Materials via Computer-Based Support Susan McKenney From Instruction to Construction: Learning in the Information Age Violet H. Harada Do You Want to Be in Control or Not? An Unasked Question in CBI Research Jung Lee Ethics and Privacy Considerations for Assessing Ethical Issues Erin Brewer, Nick Eastmond, Reed Geertsen Developing Ethical Behaviors in Students: What Schools Must Do Doug Johnson Privacy Primer for Educators Judith Lewandowski Manufacturing Technophobia: Computerization’s Mythical Fears Andrew R. J. Yeaman Distance Learning The Experience of Two Learners Learning at a Distance via the Internet a la Epic Learning Michael Orey, Lynne Koenecke A Systematic Approach to Determining the Scalability of a Distance Education Program Richard C. Snider, Ross A. Perkins, Glen A. Holmes, Barbara B. Lockee
< previous page
page_v
ix xi 1 3 21 32 40 49 67 77 90 98 115 122
next page >
< previous page
page_vi
next page >
Page vi Identifying Factors That Affect Learning Community Development and Performance in Asynchronous Distance Education Leslie A. Moller, Douglas Harvey, Margaret Downs, Veronica M. Godshalk Overcoming the Distance Divide: Streaming Video in a Teacher Preparation Program Peter Serdyukov, Mark Ryan, Clifford Russell, Ruth Black PT3 Grant Reports P3T3: Purdue Program for Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology James D. Lehman Restructuring Teacher Education: Building a Theoretical Base Joyce A. Pittman InTime: Online Video Resources for Teacher Educators Featuring Technology Integration in PreK–12 Classrooms Karla Krueger, Marius Boboc, Yana Cornish Faculty Learning to Use Technology: PT3-Supported Systemic Reform Initiatives in Teacher Education Gregory L. Waddoups, Nancy Wentworth, Rodney Earle Integrating Technology Throughout a Preservice Teacher Education Program: A PT3 Grant Project at the University of Northern Colorado Donna Ferguson Pabst, Edward Caffarella Modeling Technology Integration in a Teacher Education Course Taralynn S. Hartsell, Steve Chi-Yin Yuen Part Two SCHOOL AND LIBRARY MEDIA Introduction Mary Ann Fitzgerald Proof of the Power: Recent Research on the Impact of School Library Media Programs on the Academic Achievement of U.S. Public School Students Keith Curry Lance Data Collection for Evaluating School Library Media Programs Nancy Everhart Standard Time: Integrating the 10 CONCEPTS with National and State Standards for a Dynamic Library Media Program Ruth Toor, Hilda K. Weisburg Fostering Library Media Specialist–Educational Technologist Collaboration Ruth V. Small, Celestia Ohrazda, Pamela Revercomb, J. Michael Spector Moving from Cooperation to Collaboration Through the Use of Technology: A Professional Development Model for School and Public Librarians Sandra Hughes-Hassell, Jacqueline C. Mancall, Sarah Reid, Sarena Deglin
< previous page
page_vi
139 152 161 169 183 198 205 213
225 228 238 247 250 260
next page >
< previous page
page_vii
Page vii Cataloging Update 101: How to Get the Most out of Your Online Catalog Elizabeth Haynes Part Three LEADERSHIP PROFILES Introduction Michael Orey Francis M. Dwyer: Visual Researcher Extraordinaire David M. (Mike) Moore Tribute to John G. Hedberg: Professor of Education, University of Wollongong Thomas Reeves Part Four ORGANIZATIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS IN NORTHAMERICA Introduction Anna E. Burdett United States Classified List Alphabetical List Canada/International Part Five GRADUATE PROGRAMS Introduction Anna E. Burdett Graduate Programs in Instructional Technology [IT] Classified List Alphabetical List International Programs Part Six MEDIAGRAPHY Print and Nonprint Resources Introduction Anna E. Burdett Mediagraphy Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, and Electronic Performance Support Systems Computer-Assisted Instruction Distance Education Educational Research
< previous page
page_vii
next page > 274
283 284 287
291 292 292 298 360 365 367 367 375 423 425 428 428 429 433 445
next page >
< previous page
page_viii
Page viii Educational Technology Information Science and Technology Instructional Design and Development Libraries and Media Centers Media Technologies Professional Development Simulation, Gaming, and Virtual Reality Special Education and Disabilities Telecommunications and Networking Index
< previous page
next page > 447 450 452 453 460 463 464 465 467 471
page_viii
next page >
< previous page
page_ix
next page >
Page ix Preface The purpose of the 28th volume of the Educational Media and Technology Yearbook is to explore current developments in the field of instructional technology as of early 2003 and to provide an historical sampling of instructional technology issues for the preceding year. In the year 2002, we noted several trends in the field, some new and others continuing from recent years. Distance learning continued to be a major trend, accompanied by a great deal of development but also with more critical restraint and emphasis on rational choices. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent emphasis on security measures made traveling more difficult, and thus corporate educators increased their use of online conferencing and e-learning avenues. It seemed clear that scholarship in the area of distance learning remained an important area of need, especially regarding the effectiveness of instructional strategies. On the education side, particularly in the areas of teacher education and higher education in general, the number of elearning opportunities for students increased. However, institutions used more caution in their choice of distance learning as a delivery mode, because of the fiscal failure of many early for-profit higher education distance learning initiatives (see the chapter by Molenda and Sullivan, ‘‘Issues and Trends in Instructional Technology: Treading Water”). Institutions (as well as corporations) were more likely to study the return-on-investment likelihood of distance learning initiatives. As a result, hybrid models—offerings employing a mixture of face-to-face, online, and virtual-learning opportunities—gained space in program offerings. Another idea gaining prominence was that instructional technology programs should consider undergraduate degrees or undergraduate programs. This idea is not new but garnered attention because of the need for instructional technology personnel in businesses and schools at a lower-entry level. In the realm of emerging technologies in educational contexts, wireless networks and “personal digital assistants,” or increasingly, “pocket PCs” or handheld computers, both gained ground. Both types of technologies appeared in educational settings, and development of educational applications for them prospered. The audience for the Yearbook consists of media and technology professionals in schools, higher education, and business contexts. Topics of interest to professionals practicing in these areas are broad, as the table of contents demonstrates. The theme unifying each of the following chapters is the use of technology to enable or enhance education. Forms of technology represented in this volume vary from traditional tools such as the book to the latest advancements in digital technology. Areas of education encompass widely ranging situations involving learning and teaching. As in prior volumes, the assumptions underlying the chapters presented here are as follows: • Technology represents tools that act as extensions of the educator. • Media serve as delivery systems for educational communications. • Technology is not restricted to machines and hardware but includes techniques and procedures derived from scientific research about ways to promote change in human performance.
< previous page
page_ix
next page >
< previous page
page_x
next page >
Page x • The fundamental tenet is that educational media and technology should be used to 1. achieve authentic learning objectives, 2. situate learning tasks, 3. negotiate the complexities of guided learning, 4. facilitate the construction of knowledge, 5. support skill acquisition, and 6. manage diversity. The Educational Media and Technology Yearbook has become a standard reference in many libraries and professional collections. Examined in relation to its companion volumes of the past, the present volume provides a valuable historical record of current ideas and developments in the field. Part 1, “Trends and Issues,” presents an array of chapters that develop some of the current themes listed here, as well as others. The chapters in part 2, “School and Library Media,” concentrates on issues of special relevance to K– 12 education, school learning resources, and school library media centers. In part 3, “Leadership Profiles,” authors provide biographical sketches of the careers of instructional technology leaders. Part 4, “Organizations and Associations in North America,” and part 5, ‘‘Graduate Programs in North America,” are, respectively, directories of instructional technology-related organizations and institutions of higher learning offering degrees in related fields. Finally, part 6, the “Mediagraphy,” presents an annotated listing of selected current publications related to the field. The editors of the Yearbook invite media and technology professionals to submit manuscripts for consideration for publication. Contact Mary Ann Fitzgerald (
[email protected]) for submission guidelines. Mary Ann Fitzgerald Robert Branch, Michael Orey, and Tom Reeves each contributed ideas to this preface.
< previous page
page_x
next page >
< previous page
page_xi
next page >
page_xi
next page >
Page xi Contributors Ruth Black Marius Boboc Robert Maribe Branch Erin Brewer Anna E. Burdett Edward Caffarella Yana Cornish Sarena Deglin Margaret Downs Francis M. Dwyer Rodney Earle Nick Eastmond Nancy Everhart Mary Ann Fitzgerald Anne L. Foley Reed Geertsen Veronica M. Godshalk Violet H. Harada Taralynn S. Hartsell Douglas Harvey Elizabeth Haynes John Hedberg Glen A. Holmes Sandra Hughes-Hassell Doug Johnson Lynne Koenecke Karla Krueger Keith Curry Lance Jung Lee James D. Lehman Judith Lewandowski Barbara B. Lockee Jacqueline C. Mancall Susan McKenney Michael Molenda Leslie A. Moller David M. (Mike) Moore Janet Morgan Celestia Ohrazda Michael Orey Donna Ferguson Pabst Ross A. Perkins Joyce A. Pittman Thomas Reeves Sarah Reid Pamela Revercomb Clifford Russell Mark Ryan Peter Serdyukov Ruth V. Small Richard C. Snider J. Michael Spector Michael Sullivan Ruth Toor Gregory L. Waddoups Hilda K. Weisburg Nancy Wentworth Andrew R. J. Yeaman Steve Chi-Yin Yuen
< previous page
< previous page
page_xii
next page >
page_xii
next page >
Page xii This page intentionally left blank.
< previous page
< previous page
page_1
next page >
Page 1 Part One Trends and Issues Introduction The primary focus of this yearbook is to identify trends and issues in the field of instructional technology, to document the normal ebb and flow of ideas, concepts, theories and applications that are a part of the nature of this field. This book is no different in that regard to its 27 predecessors. It tries to capture the essence of the field taken as a snapshot for this year. As was initiated in the last volume, the present volume further expands on the use of categories within part 1. This year it includes chapters under the categories “Ethics and Privacy,” “Distance Learning.” and “PT3 Grant Reports,” as well as several general chapters. The work in these three areas was substantial enough over the past year that this categorization scheme seems to continue to be warranted. The general chapters in the ‘‘Trends and Issues” section form a strong collection of things to think about within the field. Molenda and Sullivan have once again spent the time to figure out what we are doing in the field and making predications as to where we will be going. Some of the driving forces in the field are represented in the distance learning and PT3 categories, but many other issues suggest that all is not perfect in the field. The Foley and Morgan chapter represents the trend in the research toward critical theory and socially responsible research. Although this chapter focuses on the feminist perspective and women researchers in the field, its purpose is to help us not only embrace a feminist view in our research but to become advocates for it. The McKenney chapter also represents this socially responsible kind of idea. The project discussed by McKenney is designed to help teachers in less-developed countries (in Africa) and is spearheaded by one of best departments on instructional technology that is based in a developed country (the Netherlands). It also addresses the trend to be more fully engaged in the schools. Harada’s chapter further describes the kinds of issues facing our schools and the learning that goes on in them. As technology evolves, so do the methods used by teachers. Finally, Lee’s chapter brings us back to one of the bigger issues that we have faced in the past in multimedia development: user control. Because much of the learning that is going on today is mediated by technology, basic issues in the design of technologybased learning tools reemerges. Of the three subcategories that I created for this section, perhaps the most important in our information age is the category on ethics and privacy. Using a literary device employing cases, Edwards, Eastmond, and Geertsen explain ethical dilemmas and compare a humanist response to a religious response. In most cases, the responses are similar, and their chapter helps us to think about our own professional ethics. Johnson focuses on student ethical behavior. This chapter is helpful in discussing guidelines for student behavior as students face new technologies in the classroom. The Lewandowski chapter helps us understand many of the dangers that lurk on the Internet and guides us to teaching and modeling appropriate technology use that protects an individual’s privacy. In this day and age, we need to employ these teaching suggestions. Finally, the Yeaman chapter forces us to reflect on technology use. I, for one, find myself being the technology advocate. I want to use and figure out good ways of using the latest thing to develop. In my quest to use
< previous page
page_1
next page >
< previous page
page_2
next page >
Page 2 the technology, I must pause and reflect about how this technology might be bad for me or for my learners. The second subcategory, distance learning, is one of the hottest topics in the field. However, as the Molenda and Sullivan chapter suggests, this trend may be waning in the face of some of the highest-profile companies either going out of business or severely curtailing operations. In the end, we are relearning that the instructional solution needs to fit the needs of the learners in the situation in which they find themselves. To that end, Orey and Koenecke address online blended learning as a model for meeting various needs. Snider, Perkins, Holmes, and Lockee addresses the issues they are considering for expanding their online master’s degree program. Scalability is the big lure for online learning, and issues of scalability are complex. One of the most important issues with scalability is learning community development, an issue explored in more depth by the Moller, Harvey, Downs, and Godshalk chapter. Another dream of online learning researchers and practitioners is video. With broadband Internet connections increasing, video will soon be ubiquitous. Serdyukov, Ryan, Russell, and Black address many of the issues surrounding the use of video in online learning. The last category concerns PT3 (Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology) grant reports. The goal of the PT3 grants is to help students studying to be teachers to learn how to use technology for improving their future students’ learning. The reports gathered here are few compared with the number of grants issued, but they show the extent of the impact of these grants. Some of the reports describe the blending of multiple strategies to achieve the goal (see Lehman’s, Pittman’s, and Pabst and Caffarella’s chapters). Others focus on innovative technologies employed to achieve the goal (the chapter by Krueger, Boboc, and Cornish). Each of these chapters describes the large-scale implementation under way that affects multiple faculty in multiple departments and in some cases at multiple universities. Hartsell and Yuen take the perspective of one or two of those faculty that are part of this larger effort. In the end, many good ideas are being implemented in preservice teacher education to better prepare teachers to use technology in the classroom. There is considerable overlap between the projects, but each chapter also provides some powerfully unique issues. Give them all a read, and you will come away with some very good ideas for working with teachers. Michael Orey
< previous page
page_2
next page >
< previous page
page_3
next page >
Page 3 Issues and Trends in Instructional Technology Treading Water Michael Molenda Indiana University Michael Sullivan Agency for Instructional Technology Instructional technology is not practiced in a vacuum. Since our previous review (Molenda and Sullivan 2002) went to press, the landscape has shifted dramatically. The bursting of the Internet stock bubble in late 2000 helped make 2001 the worst year in the history of the high-technology industry. One indicator of the scale of the debacle is the number of jobs lost—some 500,000 in the United States. Among the hardest-hit stalwarts were Lucent (40,000 jobs), Motorola (39,000 jobs), Xerox (8,600 jobs), AOL (4,100 jobs), Walt Disney (4,000 jobs), and IBM (2,800 jobs). Some of the other forces that have shaped events since then include stagnation of the national economy throughout 2001 and into 2002, leading to the reappearance of budget deficits at the state and national levels after a decade of growth; the election of a new administration at the federal level, signaling new priorities in education; and the terrorist attacks in September 2001, exacerbating the economic slump and provoking changes in national priorities, as well as undermining air travel in the short run. As in previous reviews (Molenda and Harris 2001; Molenda and Sullivan 2000, 2002), we have monitored developments in the three broad sectors in which instructional technology is employed—corporate training, higher education, and K–12 education—and report the status and trends in each sector. In addition to the external forces just mentioned, there are, of course, internal dynamics within each school, college, and other organization in which instructional media and technologies are used. We will discuss how these internal dynamics affect technology use as well and will show how the trends within these sectors add up to indicate that instructional technology is treading water—struggling to hold its place in adverse circumstances. CORPORATE TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT The use of instructional technology in the corporate sector was affected by larger forces operating in the national economy as well as by the imperatives within the domain of training and performance improvement. The bursting of the dot-com bubble had an immediate effect on the e-learning vendor business. Bankruptcies, mergers, and consolidation characterized 2001 and 2002—a complete turnaround from the trends of prior years. There were over two dozen major acquisitions, often motivated by larger vendors’ desire to add technological capability by picking off smaller innovative companies. Within companies’ training departments, the economic recession led to cuts in training budgets, slowing the pace of adoption of e-learning. The September 11 terrorist attacks brought a temporary loss of confidence in air travel, encouraging more organizations to look for technological substitutes, such as videoconferencing and Web-based courses. It is too soon to gauge whether any substantive changes in instructional technology use happened and whether they persisted after the travel slump relented.
< previous page
page_3
next page >
< previous page
page_4
next page >
Page 4 Heightened security concerns added impetus to the movement to decentralize large offices, with increased telecommuting. A survey conducted just prior to September 11, 2001, indicated that about one-fifth of the adult workforce do at least part of their work away from a central office setting (Davis and Polonko 2001). As the trend to work away from the office continues, so will the trend to learn away from the office. Issue 1: Use of Technology-BasedMedia for Delivery of Instruction Classroom Instruction Despite earlier predictions to the contrary, face-to-face classroom instruction is still the most universally applied format of training, being used “always” or “often” at 94 percent of companies (Galvin 2001, 66). In terms of the percentage of time spent in training, classroom instruction stands at about 77 percent overall, indicating an increase of about 4 percent over the prior year, while courses delivered via computer with no instructor declined by 2 percent, to just 11 percent of all training (Galvin 2001, 66). Over the past five years, there has been no detectable decrease in the use of face-to-face classroom instruction, whereas there is evidence that Internet and intranet delivery is steadily gaining momentum. One could conclude that Internet-based training is not replacing traditional training but rather supplementing it. Traditional Classroom Media Print materials—manuals and workbooks—remain high in popularity, being used in virtually all organizations, with an “often” or ‘‘always” rating of 78 percent (Galvin 2001, 56). Videotapes are used at least occasionally at 92 percent of companies, a rate comparable to that of 10 years ago. However, only 61 percent of responding companies used video materials “often” or “always.” The use of slides and overhead transparencies has not been tracked consistently over the years, but these media formats seem to be receding slowly, as they are replaced by computer-based display media. The use of games and simulations (non-computer-based) has held steady for the past four years, being used “often” or “always” at 31 percent of companies (Galvin 2001, 56). Telecommunications Media Videoconferences distributed over satellite or cable are used for training at about 40 percent of all companies but are not used for a large proportion of training time except in the military services. They tend to be used for special purposes, such as the rollout of new products or new tools at companies with widely scattered locations. Desktop computer-delivered streaming video is used “often” or “always” at about 5 percent of companies (Galvin 2001, 56). Computer-Based Media Computer-based delivery systems have made gradual advances in the past decade. In the early 1990s, this meant delivery via floppy disk or local network (LAN); more recently, this means delivery via CD-ROM, the Internet, or an intranet. About 40 percent of all companies report using CD-ROM–based instruction “often” or “always,” compared with 60 percent using Internet or intranet delivery (Galvin 2001, 67). Taken together, however, these computer-mediated delivery systems account for only about 9 percent of all time spent in training, holding just about steady for the past four years, according to an American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) survey (Van Buren and Erskine 2002, 44). This falls far short of the prediction of 23 percent made by this same audience three years earlier. If the ASTD findings are a valid indicator, the
< previous page
page_4
next page >
< previous page
page_5
next page >
Page 5 growth rate of e-learning seems to have hit a plateau, as we pointed out in our previous report (Molenda and Sullivan, 2002). The discrepancy between the bullish talk about e-learning and its low visibility on annual surveys may also be due in part to under-reporting of technology-based learning. As is discussed further below, there is a growing acceptance of the notion of “blended learning,” the mixing of face-to-face episodes with online episodes. If a training course meets face-to-face for two days at a central facility—during which there are several videoconferences with learners at other sites—and it is preceded and followed by practical exercises and small-group projects conducted over the Internet, should a respondent classify this as conventional training or e-learning? Issue 2: Constraints on Acceptance andUse of Technology The leveling off in the growth of e-learning may indicate that corporations are still struggling to find the proper fit of high-tech delivery within their overall training program. It may also reflect some resistance on the part of trainees. Researchers at ASTD contacted some of the companies that reported declines in the use of e-learning (Van Buren 2001, 17). Several managers reported that they faced declining enrollments in e-learning courses as a result of negative experiences of learners in such courses. Islam (2002) refers to e-learning dropout rates of 70 percent and proposes that inadequate instructional design may be the culprit. He points to the expository, text-heavy, “pedagogical” approach commonly found in e-learning courses, contrasting it with the problem-based, inductive, “androgogical” approach advocated for adult learners. Another constraint is the instability of the supply of off-the-shelf products. Vendors follow different technical standards on different platforms, which may or may not fit into a company’s learning management system. Further, bankruptcies and mergers may dissipate the brand identification of known and trusted products—here today, gone tomorrow. It is enough to drive a prudent training administrator to a ‘‘wait and see” approach. During the more adventuresome times of the Internet bubble, companies were purchasing whole libraries of e-learning courses and simply dumping them into the in-basket. By 2002 they were shifting to a much more selective pay-per-use basis (Welber 2002). Because much corporate e-learning is outsourced to external vendors, it looks as though the future use of e-learning is linked to the development of the industry that supplies the courseware. This industry, even with the massive consolidation seen in 2001–2002, is still characterized by a multitude of small players. The gurus of the e-learning business anticipate that a major change is around the corner—that the technology giants, such as Oracle, SAP, IBM, and Microsoft, will eventually enter and dominate the marketplace with what buyers are looking for: one-stop, totalsolution shopping centers (Harris 2002; Schelin and Smarte 2002). In summary, indications are that e-learning is stagnating at the present time and that its future prevalence will be limited. Indeed, the plateau effect we detected a year ago is now beginning to be reflected in the literature. Van Buren and Erskine now predict that “e-learning in the typical firm will finally settle in at 20 percent of all training… butit may take some years to get there” (2002, 18). Issue 3: Challenges to Existing Paradigms Blended Learning In everyday discussion, we tend to yield to the temptation to classify learning events into discrete categories: classroom, online, self-directed, action learning, and so on. In fact, however, corporate training programs consist more and more of hybrids: face-to-face classroom interspersed with Web-based team projects; satellite videoconferences followed by small-group discussions at remote sites; on-the-job action learning plus mentoring via
< previous page
page_5
next page >
< previous page
page_6
next page >
Page 6 e-mail. The idea of combining conventional and online methods has come to be recognized as a “third path,” referred to as blended learning. Online activities offer self-pacing, standardization of information dissemination, and rapid deployment of new material; but face-to-face learning allows practice with feedback, team building, networking, and the other functions that are tied to people’s emotional responses. There is a growing consensus that the future belongs to blended approaches (Zenger and Uehlein 2001). HIGHER EDUCATION The use of technology in the higher education sector has been much less immediately affected by the external events regarding the national economy and political affairs. The downturn of the national economy in 2000–2001 led to shortfalls in state tax revenues, which led to tightening of budgets at most state-supported universities, which in turn forced cutbacks in planned upgrades or expansions of academic computing. In addition, the collapse of the dotcom bubble forced many of the vendors of high-tech software and services into mergers or insolvency and reduced the flow of capital into entrepreneurial “eduventures.” However, the tempo of change is driven much more by the dynamics of forces within colleges and universities themselves. That is, investment in new technology tends to be driven by payoffs, particularly economic payoffs. Organizations implement technology with the hope that it will increase their benefits or decrease their costs. In the case of higher education, technology has not proven to be a cost reducer in the educational side of their operations. Indeed, as long as universities are organized as they are, there is little possibility to reduce instructional costs. So technology advocates are left with the claim that benefits increase—greater numbers of students reached, students more satisfied, faculty more content or productive, and the like. This argument is not as potent at the economic one, so the pace of adoption tends to be slower than in other sectors. Issue 1: Use of Technology-BasedMedia for Delivery of Instruction Classroom Media College and university media managers continue to struggle to support both the analog media—audio- and videocassettes, slides, and overhead transparencies—still preferred by many instructors and the digital media, which are seen as the technological future. The trend seems to be to gradually reduce support for analog media and increase support for digital. The challenge is to try to achieve a level of productivity with digital media that was never possible with the analog media. Managers are seeking standardization to allow compatibility within and across departments. Standardization would allow updating and expanding of existing materials without having to start all over, as is the case with analog media. As in the corporate sector, the dream is an enterprise-wide database for all the institution’s instructional media. We reported last year (Molenda and Sullivan 2002) that the pace of faculty adoption of computer-based media appeared to be slowing. According to the Campus Computing Project (2000), the percentage of courses using Internet resources rose between 1997 and 1999 by 10 percent, 8 percent, and 6 percent, respectively; then, between 1999 and 2000, it rose by only 4 percent. The comparable figures for courses having Web pages are 5 percent, 9 percent, 6 percent, and 3 percent. This points to a possible plateauing of adoption long before reaching universality. We projected an S-shaped adoption curve, with Internet resources plateauing around 45 percent of all courses and Web pages around 35 percent. Unfortunately, the Campus Computing Project did not continue to measure these indexes in 2001, so we cannot verify our projections. The one comparable question asked in the 2001 survey was whether each institution was supporting any “full online courses”
< previous page
page_6
next page >
< previous page
page_7
next page >
Page 7 as part of their Web services. On this index, the increase from 2000 to 2001 was only 1 percent—from 55 to 56 percent of all institutions—after a 10 percent increase the previous year (Campus Computing Project 2001, 2). This is one indicator that the plateau effect continues. Distance Education By the middle of 2002, it was clear that the distance education “land rush” was definitely over. After American universities had spent more than $100 million to develop Web-based course offerings, by 2002 the landscape was littered with the dry bones of failed e-learning enterprises. For example: • New York University, Temple, and University of Maryland closed their for-profit ventures in late 2001. • The U.S. branch of the Open University of the United Kingdom closed in June 2002. • Fathom (Columbia University) and UNext (Cardean University) scaled back and changed direction to short courses for the corporate training market. • SUNY Buffalo dropped its online master’s of business administration program. • Hungry Minds, California Virtual University, and several other for-profit enterprises have been sold, scaled back, or disbanded. • National Technological University, highly successful as a nonprofit distance university, formed a for-profit venture to pursue the corporate training market; in a few years it burned through all of its resources and was purchased by Sylvan Learning Systems (Arnone 2002b). And distance education seems to be dropping off the radar screens of campus information technology chiefs. For example, in EDUCAUSE’s annual survey of top issues facing administrators, on the question of issues with “a high potential for becoming significant in the coming year,” distance education dropped from first place in 2001 to sixth place in 2002 (Kobulnicky and Rudy 2002, 10). This does not mean that the distance education movement is doomed. In fact, distance education offerings and enrollments continue to increase. However, it has become clear that distance education is not a way for a traditional institution to get rich quick. The number of institutions actually offering distance education courses and programs is difficult to pin down precisely. The last scientific survey was conducted by the U.S. Department of Education for the 1997–98 academic year. One source of estimates is an annual survey by Market Data Retrieval. Their surveys indicate a steady growth in the number of American two-year and four-year institutions that offer “some” distance education—growing from 70 to 84 percent—and those that offer online courses leading to a degree—growing from 30 to 39 percent between 2000 and 2001 (Jecusco 2002). Of course, the offering of distance programs varies greatly by type of institution. Whereas relatively fewer community colleges or small liberal-arts colleges offer such programs, about 80 percent of four-year public universities offer distance programs, with the proportion rising to nearly 90 percent for larger institutions. It is quite clear that the growth is coming from courses offered wholly or in part via the Internet. Courses offered via one-way or two-way video have tended to remain stable. So, while the big-ticket for-profit ventures have stumbled, incremental growth continues. Distance education business model. Experiences early in the decade of 2000 showed that it was difficult for “dual mode” institutions—those that offer both traditional
< previous page
page_7
next page >
< previous page
page_8
next page >
Page 8 residential programs and distance programs—to offer distance programs profitably. Proprietary institutions such as University of Phoenix (37,000 online students) and Jones International University (6,000 online students) seem to have developed a successful business model. But traditional universities are still searching for a model. The period of 2000–2001 was notable for the rush of consortium building. Many universities were concluding that only by sharing the up-front costs—such as course development and marketing—could their distance education programs hope to be economically competitive. Many consortia were formed on a statewide basis; in fact, over 30 such consortia had been formed by 2001, including Illinois Virtual Campus, Kentucky Virtual University, and SUNY Learning Network. These consortia serve primarily as portals, offering a single front door to courses and degrees at many different institutions. All three of the states cited here—Illinois, Kentucky, and New York—reported steady increases in enrollments, all growing by 70 percent or more between 2000 and 2001. With total enrollments of over 25,000, programs such as the SUNY Learning Network appear to be on the path to financial viability. Issue 2: Constraints on Acceptance and Use of Technology Faculty Acceptance Incremental growth in faculty use of digital media continues, although perhaps at a reduced rate, as indicated by the trends in the Campus Computing Project reports between 1997 and 2000. Unfortunately, this question did not appear in the 2001 survey, so it is an open issue. For most faculty users, media are still incorporated in their teaching in supplementary ways. That is, technology is used to the extent that it is consistent with conventional roles, and face-to-face courses are designed to be teacher dependent. Faculty acceptance of technology is also being affected by their involvement in distance education, and as of 2000 about 10 percent of all faculty members were teaching or had taught distance courses (Abacus Associates 2000). Because most distance education courses are taught by the same faculty who teach face-to-face courses, the faculty tend to carry their distance education habits over into the conventional classroom. Course Web pages, links to Internet resources, team work spaces, and e-mail correspondence turn out to be just as valuable for face-to-face classes as they are for distance classes. Indeed, the trend in technology application is toward hybrid courses, courses that combine some face-to-face time with online experiences; this is much the same as the trend in corporate training toward “blended learning.” One must recognize, however, that a major constraint to faculty adoption of digital technology is that such work is still generally not given weight in faculty performance reviews. There is still a widespread perception that tenure and promotion decisions give precedence to research performance, whereas effort spent on integration of technology contributes only to the “teaching” part of the portfolio (Young 2002). And because technology-based instructional development consumes more time and effort than conventional teaching, the aspiring professor is “throwing good money after bad” when working with technology. Funding Infrastructure and Support Colleges and universities continue to struggle to pay for their information technology infrastructure. In the 2000– 2001 academic year information technology costs rose a median of 11 percent over the previous year, while overall expenditures rose only about 3 percent (Olsen 2001b). The budget squeeze hits hardest at smaller colleges that are already struggling to survive in the competitive American higher education marketplace. Many smaller
< previous page
page_8
next page >
< previous page
page_9
next page >
Page 9 colleges have not yet made structural changes to their budgets to account for information technology expenditures, instead improvising from year to year, using “budget dust’’ left over in other accounts to take care of technology needs (Phipps and Wellman 2001). The Campus Computing Survey of 2001 indicates that a growing number of respondents had experienced a decline in their academic computing budget for that academic year—with 18 percent reporting decreased budgets compared with 11 percent a year earlier (Campus Computing Project 2001, 3). The situation promises to be even more grim in the near future, especially at state-supported universities. The weakened national economy has led to budget deficits for 2002–2003 in 37 states. Harsh cuts in higher education funding have already been announced in California, Wisconsin, and Tennessee (Selingo 2002). In California the cuts will mean a slowdown in the upgrading of computers and reductions in tech support (Carnevale 2002). Wireless computing. As wireless technology develops, there is some hope that wireless systems may some day replace wired systems, at a lower overall cost. Not only is this a dubious proposition, but as of 2001, only about 6 percent of college campuses were fully wireless, a gain of only 2 percent over the previous year. However, about half of all campus have some wireless LANs in operation, a 20 percent leap from the previous year (Campus Computing Project 2001, 4). The battle of the bandwidth. Bandwidth, or network capacity, is a growing concern among computing administrators (Olsen 2001a). They see demand rising sharply with no end in sight. The major culprit is student downloading of audio and video materials. Downloading music is now the leading type of student computer use, with apparently insatiable appetites for ever more music. “Downloading MP3s can account for up to 85 percent of the Internet traffic at universities, MP3 downloads can consume as much as 85 percent of a normal university network’s capacity,” according to a Northwestern University spokesman (Majerowicz 2001). And yesterday’s music downloading pales in comparison to today’s student video-streaming of pirated films. Administrators are beginning to negotiate caps on how much bandwidth the university will subsidize rather than just endlessly adding capacity (Olsen 2001a). Information technology staff. One trend that has reversed quite sharply from previous years is the difficulty of retaining the necessary staff to take care of the infrastructure. Information technology staffing showed up as one of the top two concerns of respondents to the 2001 EDUCAUSE survey (Lembke and Rudy 2001) but a year later had fallen completely off the list of major concerns (Kobulnicky and Rudy 2002). The big difference is the swelling of supply of information technologists following the dot-com collapse. Faculty support. It has taken a few years for the realization to dawn, but many colleges and universities are coming to understand that their technology investments are unlikely to have an impact on improved teaching and learning until they actively support faculty use. To carry out this mission, a new enterprise is emerging: the Teaching, Learning, and Technology Center (TLTC). Hundreds of universities now support a one-stop shopping center where faculty can go to get help preparing technology-based instruction. Typically, according to Long (2001), these TLTCs combine the services of information technology support and faculty development, sometimes adding the library. Seen in the overall context of productivity improvement, the TLTC is yet another cost of the high-tech enterprise, one that is often overlooked in the accounting. An important project for the future will be to determine whether these investments actually yield improved outputs and in that way contribute to productivity improvement.
< previous page
page_9
next page >
< previous page
page_10
next page >
Page 10 Issue 3: Challenges to Existing Paradigms “Content” as a Valuable Asset During the boom years of the dot-com mania, it became commonplace to view course materials, as they become digitized, as “content” and as a valuable commodity. Universities sought ways to commercialize the “intellectual property” that they thought they owned (although professors tended to view this differently). Publishers, who already sat on huge piles of ‘‘content,” perceived themselves as being in a good position to launch online colleges. One notable example was an online college started by Harcourt Higher Education in 2000, with a prediction of 50,000 to 100,000 enrollments within five years. It disappeared in late 2001, having attracted a total of 32 students. As Wilson (2002) points out, the company acted as though content were the essence of education, whereas it is actually just one element in the “value chain,” and probably the lowest one. Those trying to start new online colleges discover that they have to build the rest of the value chain (including administrative structures, curricular integrity, student support, faculty guidance, academic credibility, and so on), which is expensive and time consuming. In the end, probably the hardest element to attain is the prestige of the degree—something that existing institutions have spent decades, if not centuries, developing. What the entrepreneurs have learned is that information is not education. Telling is not teaching, and watching is not learning. If it were, college libraries would not need all those other buildings surrounding them on campus. Digital Materials as Ephemeral We are beginning to understand not only that digital storage media (floppy disks, CDs, etc.) are physically degradable but also that they are subject to shrinkage due to market forces. As software applications become obsolete, information stored in earlier versions become less and less accessible. As server space becomes filled, older files may be deleted or discarded when the hardware is upgraded. Even more obvious is the loss of educationally useful material on the Web. Material that is available today may disappear tomorrow because it is obsolete or not maintained by the provider or because the provider goes out of business. “Link rot” is the term that has been coined to describe this phenomenon. Markwell and Brooks (2002) have calculated the extinction rate for 500-some links embedded in three biochemistry courses for high school teachers. In the first 21 months, about 100 links had gone dead, yielding a “half-life” of 55 months for such science education links. Offerors of distance education courses that are repeated over a number of years view link rot as a real and growing problem—one more ongoing maintenance expense. The Faculty and the Traditional Classroom Paradigm Plenty of evidence indicates that educational institutions are investing more and more in technology. There is not a lot of evidence that this investment is yielding greater productivity. In the business sector, such investments took a decade to yield results, but they eventually did. However, the crucial factor was that businesses were facing the necessity to undergo reengineering of business processes for greater efficiency. That has not happened yet at most colleges and universities. The economic problem is that most distance education and other technology-based instruction continue to follow the traditional labor-intensive paradigm of 25 students engaged with a professor, who plays the roles of subject-matter expert, designer, lecturer, orchestrator of all activities, giver of feedback, and evaluator. Putting the course syllabus on the Web in a face-to-face class does nothing to decrease overall costs or to increase learning. Likewise, setting up a distance education course with one all-purpose instructor and a capped limit of 25 students is like “installing a bullet train between Philadelphia and New York but mandating that it should only carry
< previous page
page_10
next page >
< previous page
page_11
next page >
Page 11 as many passengers as a sedan could accommodate. Furthermore, it should not move beyond 65 miles per hour” (Saba 2002). Changing the paradigm in ways that would affect the roles of faculty would not be popular. In fact, faculty groups have already spoken out clearly about the need to carry over traditional practices into distance education. Resolutions to that effect were passed at the American Federation of Teachers and National Education Association conventions in the summer of 2000 and also by the Nova Scotia Teachers Union in 2001 (Carr 2001). But the tools for restructuring the teaching-learning paradigm are now at hand; successful models are readily available. The Open University has successfully served over 12,000 students per year in an online course. The University of Illinois has tripled enrollment in its foreign language courses without adding faculty by relying heavily on a new software program that automates grading of homework exercises and quizzes. Virginia Tech has lowered costs while increasing enrollments and student success in mathematics with its lab-based Math Emporium. Technical Standards Movement A development that has come rapidly to the fore is the adoption of a single, campuswide course management system (CMS). These systems are meant to provide a common user interface for both on-campus “Web-enhanced” courses and online courses. The most popular proprietary CMSs are Blackboard, WebCT, and eCollege, in that order (Jecusco 2002). The dream of users and producers alike is to arrive at a set of technical standards that would allow interoperability among all of the CMSs. Just as the popularization of videocassette players was delayed until international standards evolved, experts feel that the advent of technical standards for online learning software will remove a big obstacle to the flourishing of online learning (Arnone 2002a). Such standards are also key to the realization of the concept of reusable learning objects, a critical element of cost-effective multimedia production. K–12 EDUCATION K–12 education, too, has been affected by economic and political forces at the national level. The demise of the dotcom world and the recession, exacerbated by the events of September 11, 2001, resulted in severe decreases in state tax revenues. By early 2002, 33 states reported that spending exceeded budgeted levels, and up to 17 states had cut or anticipated cutting K–12 education funding (Gehring 2002). In Indiana alone, there were $190 million in cuts to the K–12 budget and another $280 million in delayed payments. Of that, $40 million had been designated for computer hardware and $1.7 million for professional development in technology (Zehr 2002). Enthusiastically supported by the new Bush administration, the movement toward privatization marched on as the number of charter schools grew by 14 percent and the number of privately managed public schools showed signs of growth in Philadelphia and elsewhere (Cable 2002). There was a cloud on the horizon, however, as the largest private operator of schools, Edison Schools, Inc., faced a major financial crisis, stemming in part from questions about the effectiveness of their schooling model (Henriques and Steinberg 2002). In that Edison positioned itself as a strong user of technology, a failure in the marketplace may somewhat taint the instructional technology aura. Issue 1: Use of Technology-BasedMedia for Delivery of Instruction Traditional Audiovisual Media There has been little formal research to track school use of the older technologies at the national level. Piecing together some local and regional reports, plus interviews by the authors, can provide some outlines of the larger picture:
< previous page
page_11
next page >
< previous page
page_12
next page >
Page 12 • VHS video reigns: Regional media centers indicated that more than 80 percent of all titles circulated were VHS video materials and that circulation had increased in some districts but had decreased in others. Individual regional media centers loaned between 4,300 and 29,000 videos in the most recent year, with the average being about 6,500 (INFOhio 2002; MacIntyre 2002; National Association of Media and Technology Centers 2000; Smith 2002). • In some locales, VHS video collections have been dispersed from district collections to individual schools, so circulation figures are no longer available. • Digital video approaches: Public television stations and other suppliers in Virginia, Utah, North Carolina, and Texas have committed to digital video services. ASSET in Arizona has created a statewide, publicly controlled service for distributing digital material. • The majority of the digital video distribution is in the form of streaming video provided by commercial vendors, United Learning and AIMS Media being two of the larger. • Other companies, such as Dukane and Celerity, offer a local server model for video distribution. It appears that instructional video use is in a transitional phase, with distributors experimenting with different technologies and protocols while many continue to offer titles in conventional analog format. Many have assumed that DVD use would increase as new hardware was purchased and older media became obsolete. The growth of DVD in the consumer market has been barely short of spectacular, but in the K–12 world DVDs have hardly surfaced in circulation statistics. The authors’ surveys indicate that media centers are purchasing and distributing very few DVD titles, because of both a dearth of titles in education and a lack of demand in schools. One media director commented, “$50 VCRs look like a disposable item to schools, so why switch?” Of course, VCRs may eventually go the way of 16-mm film projectors, and CD drives may eventually be replaced as well, so there will be a transition. But it will not apparently happen any sooner than required in K–12 education. There is even less evidence on which to estimate the extent of use of other traditional media. Although sample surveys sponsored by the authors have revealed that most schools still have overhead projectors and audiocassette players, it is difficult to speculate about the extent of their use. The same schools also support computer projectors and CD players. Elementary schools still keep and use record players. The authors previously reported that schools increasingly had whiteboards, replacing chalkboards (Misanchuk, Pyke, and Tuzun 1999, 3). In summary, it appears that audiovisual media in the traditional analog formats, led by videocassettes, are still widely in demand by teachers; digital versions of these media play a growing but complementary role. Computer-Based Media The computer acquisition mania in the K–12 education community appears to be waning. The E-Rate program administered by the Federal Communications Commission has led to billions of dollars being spent to connect lesswealthy schools to the Internet. More than 92 percent of all schools now have access to the Internet, and 72 percent have a high-speed connection (Market Data Retrieval 2001). The oft-cited student-to-computer ratio has improved to 4:1, and a newer measure of students to multimedia computer has reached 7:1. The ratio of students to Internet–connected computer is also 7:1 (Market Data Retrieval 2001; Skinner 2002, 60).
< previous page
page_12
next page >
< previous page
page_13
next page >
Page 13 Student Computer Use Large-scale studies of actual student uses of technology are rare. A recent survey of Wisconsin educators asked about frequency of student use of various computer resources. The results can be summarized as follows: • Used every day: productivity tools (e.g., word processing, spreadsheets). • Used once a week: online research. • Used a few times per month: simulations, e-mail communication, problem solving with real data sets, visualization tools (e.g., Inspiration). • Used seldom: integrated learning systems (e.g., Jostens, PLATO). The categories that could be considered directly instructional—simulations, problem solving, and integrated learning systems—were concentrated among the least -used applications (Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction 2001). Special uses are arising as the technology matures. One of the most intriguing areas is special education. Open captioning of video for the hearing impaired has become quite common, and children with multiple disabilities are being helped in novel ways. One example is the outfitting of children with wearable computers that are capable of speech (Bruno 2002). These uses, which provide students with functionalities beyond the scope of a teacher or textbook, appear to be uncontroversial and easily accepted. Technology as the purveyor of instruction has yet to attain the same acceptance. Equity in Access The continuing concern over equity still exists, but to a lesser degree. Schools have addressed the issue of technological discrepancies between ethnic groups, males and females, and higher and lower socioeconomic groups. Schools with high minority enrollments have 4.7 students per computer, and schools with lower minority enrollment have 3.6 students per computer (Market Data Retrieval 2001). There are still indicators that different groups may use computers in different ways. A Maryland study revealed that 87 percent of low-poverty schools used computers for students to draft, revise, and publish writing, whereas only 50 percent of high-poverty schools reported that use. Other applications that may reveal a more constructivist approach to instruction had similar differences (Maryland State Department of Education 2002). Reflecting the priorities of the new administration, cutbacks in two federal programs may slow the trend toward equity. The Community Technology Centers Program and the Technology Opportunities Program are both slated to be eliminated or drastically reduced as of this writing (Dickard 2002). The current schedule of legislation has affected a number of programs that supported technology (e.g., Star Schools), but language within the bills permits some latitude in moving funds. It remains to be seen if technology can be a magnet for funds that school administrators could spend on other categories. Issue 2: Constraints on Acceptance andUse of Technology In-Service Training The issue of teacher preparation is now center stage. A bare majority of schools (51 percent) now report that a majority of their teachers are at least at the intermediate skill level in computer use, an 11 percent increase in one year (Cable 2002). The tremendous growth in access to the Internet has only recently been accompanied by hope for a corresponding effort in staff development to prepare teachers. In 1994 only half of all teachers had had professional development activities in the area of technology (National Education
< previous page
page_13
next page >
< previous page
page_14
next page >
Page 14 Goals Panel 1994). Since then, the funds available for professional development in technology use have been fairly constant at about 5 percent of the total technology budget (CEO Forum on Education and Technology 1999). The amount spent on staff development as a percentage of school technology budgets actually decreased from 2000 to 2001 (Skinner 2002, 55). So it appears that progress is being made, but funding support still lags. Preservice Training A major issue with teacher use has been the cohort of teachers who began teaching prior to the computer era. With an annual attrition rate of nearly 20 percent, the teaching population will change quite rapidly, and newer teachers are more likely to have a high comfort level with technology. They are also increasingly likely to have taken a required course in technology as part of a teacher preparation program; 34 states now are in arrangements with accrediting agencies requiring some form of computer education. There are currently 3 million teachers, so the process of replacing teachers to gain skill in technology usage will be a massive one. Teacher Acceptance Surveys indicate that in 78 percent of all schools, a majority of teachers use computers daily (Cable 2002). But among the total teacher population, only 39 percent are using computers, indicating that teachers are less likely to use computers than the population as a whole, 66 percent of whom are reported to be computer users and 54 percent of whom have an online connection (U.S. Department of Commerce 2002, 9). In fact, the authors’ earlier sponsored research indicates that teacher use of computers was concentrated on housekeeping tasks such as attendance, record keeping, word processing, and e-mail (Misanchuk, Pyke, and Tuzun 1999), indicating that even the 39 percent of teachers who are users may well be engaged in activities that have modest instructional impact. Teachers will increasingly be drawn into involvement with technology because of the demands being placed on their students. A great majority of states now have specific academic requirements for students to demonstrate technology competencies. In Wisconsin, for example, this takes the form of ‘‘Information and Technology Literacy Standards” (Skinner 2002, 56). This “bottom-up” pressure is added to the “top-down” pressure of teacher licensure requirements. Effectiveness Claims We have previously pointed out (Molenda and Sullivan 2000, 10) that there is a history of being unable to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in student learning in “method A versus method B” research studies. There is even a work, The No Significant Difference Phenomenon (Russell 1999), dedicated to documenting the hundreds of research reports that reach the conclusion that no particular technology can, in and of itself, be viewed as causing a significant learning increase. Russell’s book has now spawned a Web site (http://teleeducation.nb.ca/nosignificantdifference/) devoted to gathering summaries of new research studies reporting results that either support or refute the “no significant difference” position. Each new year brings new claims as to the instructional effectiveness of technology or some new application of technology. It was recently announced, for example, that there is a positive impact from the use of handheld computers in the classroom (SRI International 2002). But the results concerned a teacher survey rather than any measured learner improvement. Marshall (2002) reviews many of the studies of the past five years, concluding that certain applications in certain settings can be shown to have supported learning in a quantitative sense. Some the studies reviewed by Marshall concern computer applications; others deal with video. Although the author makes many strong claims, such as “Historical
< previous page
page_14
next page >
< previous page
page_15
next page >
Page 15 evidence suggests that technology can, and did teach” (vi) and “More than 50 research studies addressing voice, video, and computer-based learning provide conclusive evidence that students can, and do, learn from educational technologies” (vi), the review fails to mention the literature documenting less-favorable results, such as Chu and Schramm’s (1968) definitive reviews of research on television in the 1960s. So the debate goes on. A cottage industry is emerging for educators and evaluators who wish to attack the use of technology in instruction. Cuban and Kirkpatrick (1998) lead a long list of people questioning the use of technology. Criticism of technology will not cease, and technology will be blamed for many of society’s ills. Indeed, the critics still attack television regularly, and a new study even claims that technology induces obesity (Lakdawalla and Philipson, 2002). Whatever one may believe, there are studies to support it. It is unlikely, then, that the research will make a significant difference in teacher practice or use of technology. There is, in fact, little evidence that teachers are ever persuaded to change their practices because of research findings. A wealth of evidence, as Heinich points out in his classic paper “The Proper Study of Instructional Technology,” indicates that teachers’ media decisions “are based on totally different factors: accessibility of materials, level of supervision required, display requirements, delivery system capability, etc.” (Heinich 1984, 83). Issue 3: Challenges to Existing Paradigms Virtual Schools After a rocky start, distance learning has apparently found a niche in K–12 education. Twelve states have established online high school programs, and five others are developing them (Trotter 2002, 16). Of course, the 40,000 to 50,000 students enrolled represent only one-tenth of 1 percent of the K–12 population. If the Florida Virtual School is typical, 37 percent of the online students are home schooled and 8 percent are in private schools, leaving very few public school students who are actually enrolled in online programs (Doherty 2002, 20). One report (Peak Group 2002) predicts that the broader market, including noncredit classes such as advanced placement review and state test preparation, is estimated to grow to over 1 million students by the 2004–2005 school year. The Perceived Value of Technology The decline in the dot-com sector is not likely to be reversed in the near future. Venture capital investment in education dropped 73 percent from 2000 to 2001, and there is no indication of any turnaround soon (Evans 2001). Without the stimulation of new capital, technology ages quickly. One consequence is the already-discussed concept of “link rot’’ or hyperlink extinction. This challenges users and suppliers alike as educators are forced to constantly review lesson plans and assignments, and Web providers are challenged to maintain all links live and safe. The ultimate impact of teachers being concerned about content is that it “puts a floor on learning [but] it can also impose a ceiling by limiting exploration and scope” (Goldman, Cole, and Syer 1999, 2). The perceived value of technology is likely to be diminished if the rate and quality of change are perceived as negative. The Personal Computer as a Concept Another area of instability is the form of the technology itself. Schools, like other consumer groups, face the constant barrage of obsolescence and innovation. A recent paper informed schools that they did not need personal computers (PCs) but rather servers and thin clients. A statement declaring that “[p]utting personal computers in the classroom is
< previous page
page_15
next page >
< previous page
page_16
next page >
Page 16 absolutely the wrong idea” (Costlow 2001) challenges the basic concepts on which the information revolution in education is based. These same issues arise with operating system software, application software, and communication infrastructure. CONCLUSIONS Limits to Growth The perception of technology adoption progressing on a steep upward slope toward universal acceptance was brought into question in these pages last year when the authors claimed that a plateau had been reached. Our contention is that the adoption of new technologies follows an S-shaped curve, with the pace slowing as the market matures and becomes saturated. Nevertheless, there is still a popular misconception, fed by commercial interests and naive boosterism, that technology is being integrated into education at an ever-increasing pace. We contend that it is not. Naive misconceptions about technology adoption are frequently based on extrapolations from two or three data points on a graph. An example is the following pronouncement reported in a journal of the software industry: “Leaders of E-Mexico claim that by 2025, 98 percent of Mexican citizens will be online” (Fredell 2002, 14). This outlandish prediction is made in face of a reality in which only one of three Mexicans owns a radio (a cheap technology that has been mass marketed for over 70 years) and only one of ten owns a telephone (the technology most people use to access the Internet). Even the slightest glance at economic realities would lead to a far more modest projection of Internet penetration. However, if you ignore the reality and just look at the Mexican Internet adoption rate—doubling from 1 percent to 2 percent between 2000 and 2001—and then project that into the future in a straight line, you can come up with a prediction as absurd as this one. The reality is that the potential for “full adoption” may vary from product to product and market to market. In the case of the Mexican Internet, it may be that the realistic upper limit of adoption may be something in the range of 25 to 30 percent. So we might see a steep upward climb in adoption in the early stages and then see the slope taper off in the middle stage and flatten at the later stages. Much of the confusion about the supposed growth of technology stems from the ever-increasing expenditures for information technology in business and education. Institutions do indeed plan for expenditure increases most years, and total expenditures for information technology increase annually. In one sense—the economic one—this is growth. However, most of these expenditures are for replacement hardware, communications, and staff. Few of the customers would describe this as growth, although vendors might, and the staff hired would. If the definition of growth is level of expenditure, there may be growth. Much of the confusion concerns the definition of growth, as well as the definition of success. The Elusive Cost Barrier The growth in the expense of information technology appears to be contrary to past precedent. We have come to expect the traditional economic model of technology whereby increased penetration leads to lower capital costs as well as increased reliability and decreased operating costs. Radio, television, telephone, and air travel followed this model, with the $1,000 threshold being the critical barrier to large-scale consumer market penetration. Information technology first followed this trend but now appears to be following a contradictory model, with costs increasing as penetration increases. In particular, software costs have increased as Microsoft and others have removed product support from products a few years old, forcing customers to constantly upgrade. Many of the software
< previous page
page_16
next page >
< previous page
page_17
next page >
Page 17 upgrades also require hardware upgrades, leading to a situation in which accounting standards are likely to change to permit a more rapid depreciation of computer equipment. In higher education, annual increases in technology fees have become as predictable as tuition increases. The cost of technology per student is apparently increasing (if one takes the annual budgetary figures at face value). Because it is increasing on a per student basis, we conclude that all factors involved in information technology combine to cost more per year. This factor is actually being studied under the guise of total cost of ownership, or TCO. TCO is a methodology of analyzing all the costs involved in an information technology implementation, from electricity to staff development. TCO seems to be increasing. Information technology complexity has apparently not diminished to the point of requiring less training for operators, and hardware reliability has not increased to the point where machines are projected to have a longer usable life. Software continues to have planned obsolescence to the point where operating systems are not supported after five or six years. The entire information technology economic model appears to be based on increasing costs at a rate greater than increases in performance. Industry has reluctantly accepted that premise. Higher education is attempting to adapt to that premise, and K–12 education is struggling to stay behind. REFERENCES Abacus Associates. (2000). A survey of traditional and distance learning higher education members. Washington DC: National Education Association. Arnone, M. (2002a, May 24). Mixing and matching distance-education software. Chronicle of Higher Education, A33– A34. Arnone, M. (2002b, March 20). Sylvan Learning Systems to acquire National Technological U. Chronicle of Higher Education. [Online]. Available: http://chronicle.com/free/2002/03/2002032001u.htm. (Accessed March 20, 2002). Bruno, M. J. (2002, May 10). High-tech help for disabled children. Washtech.com. [Online]. Available: http://www.washingtonpost.com/articles/A62798-2002May9.html. (Accessed May 10, 2002). Cable, C. (2002, January). Positive trends abound in schools this fall. Market Data Retrieval. [Online]. Available: http://www.schooldata.com/datapoint73.html. (Accessed May 10, 2002). Campus Computing Project. (2000). The 2000 national survey of information technology in higher education: Struggling with IT staffing. The Campus Computing Project. [Online]. Available: http://www.campuscomputing.net. (Accessed April 19, 2001). ———. (2001). eCommerce comes slowly to the campus. The Campus Computing Project. [Online]. Available: http://www.campuscomputing.net/summaries/2001/index.html. (Accessed November 1, 2001). Carnevale, D. (2002, May 23). California budget cuts will bring reductions in spending for campus technology. Chronicle of Higher Education. [Online]. Available: http://chronicle.com/free/2002/05/2002052301t.htm. (Accessed May 23, 2002). Carr, S. (2001, May 29). A teachers’ union in Canada seeks more control over distance education. Chronicle of Higher Education. [Online]. Available: http://chronicle.com/free/2001/05/2001052902u.htm. (Accessed May 29, 2001). CEO Forum on Education and Technology. (1999). Year two school technology and readiness report. Washington DC: CEO Forum. Chu, G. C., and Schramm, W. (1968). Learning from television. Washington, DC: National Association of Educational Broadcasters. Costlow, T. (2001, February 21). Schools need servers, not PCs. EE Times. [Online]. Available: http://www.eetimes.com/story/oeg20010221s0069. (Accessed May 3, 2002). Cuban, L., and Kirkpatrick, H. (1998). Computers make kids smarter—Right? Technos 7:2, 26–31.
< previous page
page_17
next page >
< previous page
page_18
next page >
Page 18 Davis, D. D., and Polonko, K. A. (2001). Telework in the United States: Telework America Survey 2001. Telework America. [Online]. Available: http://www.telecommute.org/twa/index.htm. (Accessed April 17, 2002). Dickard, N. E. (2002, April 24). Digital-divide disconnect. Education Week, 22. Doherty, K. (2002, May 9). Students speak out . Education Week, 19–24. Evans, T. (2001). Education industry revenues top the $100 billion mark. Boston, MA: Eduventures.com. Fredell, E. (2002, May). Mexico: Moving toward a true digital economy. Upgrade, 12–15. Galvin, T. (2001, October). Industry report 2001. Training, 40–75. Gehring, J. (2002, April 24). States short $27 billion in FY 2002 revenues, report says . Education Week, 29. Goldman, S., Cole, K., and Syer, C. (1999). The technology/content dilemma. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Harris, P. (2002, April). E-learning: A consolidation update. Training and Development, 27–33. Heinich, R. (1984). The proper study of instructional technology. Educational communications and technology journal 32:2, 67–88. Henriques, D. B., and Steinberg, J. (2002, May 14). Financial crisis for largest private operator of schools. Chicago Tribune, 11. INFOhio. (2002). Preparing Ohio area media centers for statewide resources sharing. (Proposal). Columbus, OH: INFOhio. Islam, K. A. (2002, May). Is e-learning floundering? e-learning, 22–26. Jecusco, C. (2002, January). The college technology review 2001–2002. Market Data Retrieval. [Online]. Available: http://www.schooldata.com/datapoint74.html. (Accessed May 10, 2002). Kobulnicky, P., and Rudy, J. A. (2002). Third Annual EDUCAUSE survey identifies current IT issues. EDUCAUSE Quarterly 2002:2, 8–21. Lakdawalla, D., and Philipson, T. (2002). The growth of obesity and technological change: A theoretical and empirical examination (NBER Working Paper No. w8946). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Lembke, R., and Rudy, J. (2001). Second annual EDUCAUSE survey identifies key IT issues. EDUCAUSE. [Online]. Available: http://www.educause.edu/issues/survey2001/report.asp. (Accessed June 8, 2001). Long, P. D. (2001, June). Trends: Technology support trio. Syllabus, 8. MacIntyre, R. (2002). E-mail communication with Michael Molenda, May 17. Majerowicz, A. (2001, October 23). IT limits mp3 download space. Daily Northwestern Online. [Online]. Available: http://www.dailynorthwestern.com/daily/issues/2001/10/23/campus/n-packeteer.shtml. (Accessed November 19, 2001). Market Data Retrieval. (2001, November 5). Federal and state funding initiatives boost technology in K–12 public schools across the nation. Market Data Retrieval. [Online]. Available: http://www.schooldata.com/pr27.html. (Accessed May 10, 2002). Markwell, J., and Brooks, D. W. (2002, May 15). Broken links: Just how rapidly do science education hyperlinks go extinct? University of Nebraska. [Online]. Available: http://www-class.unl.edu/biochem/url/broken_links.html. (Accessed May 30, 2002). Marshall, J. M. (2002). Learning with technology: Evidence that technology can, and does, support learning. Alexandria, VA: Cable in the Classroom. Maryland State Department of Education. (2002). 2001–2002 MBRT/MSDE technology inventory: Technology inventory summary. Maryland State Department of Education. [Online]. Available: http://msde2.aws.com/summary.asp. (Accessed May 24, 2002). Misanchuk, M., Pyke, J. G., and Tuzun, H. (1999). Trends and issues in educational media and technology in K–12 public schools in the United States. Instructional Media 24, 3–5.
< previous page
page_18
next page >
< previous page
page_19
next page >
Page 19 Molenda, M., and Harris, P. (2001). Issues and trends in instructional technology. In R. M. Branch and M. A. Fitzgerald (eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook 2001: Volume 26. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Molenda, M., and Sullivan, M. (2000). Issues and trends in instructional technology. In R. M. Branch and M. A. Fitzgerald (eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook 2000: Volume 25. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. ———. (2002). Issues and trends in instructional technology: Hitting the plateau. In M. A. Fitzgerald, M. Orey, and R. M. Branch (eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook 2002: Volume 27. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. National Association of Media and Technology Centers. (2000). 2000 NAMTC bi-annual survey totals. Cedar Rapids, IA: National Association of Media and Technology Centers. National Education Goals Panel. (1994). National education goals. Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel. Olsen, F. (2001a, November 2). How big a “pipe?’’ Colleges struggle to provide network bandwidth. Chronicle of Higher Education. [Online]. Available: http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i10/10a04301.htm. (Accessed October 29, 2001). ———. (2001b, October 30). Survey of colleges’ spending on IT finds overall increase, hints of a digital divide. Chronicle of Higher Education. [Online]. Available: http://chronicle.com/free/2001/10/2001103001t.htm. (Accessed October 30, 2001). Peak Group. (2002). Virtual schools across America: Trends in K–12 online education, 2002. Los Altos, CA: Peak Group. Phipps, R. A., and Wellman, J. V. (2001). Funding the “infostructure.” Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation. Russell, T. L. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. Saba, F. (2002, May 3). Connecting the dots: Cost of higher education, reduced resources. Distance-Educator.com. [Online]. Available: http://www.distance-educator.com/saba/modules. (Accessed May 15, 2002). Schelin, E., and Smarte, G. (2002, April 1). Straight talk: A conversation with Hemang Dave of THINQ Learning Solutions. e-learning, 98–100. Selingo, J. (2002, April 19). States with the biggest deficits take aim at higher education. Chronicle of Higher Education. [Online]. Available: http://chronicle.com/weekly/v48/i32/32a02401.htm. (Accessed May 15, 2002). Skinner, R. A. (2002, May 9). Tracking tech trends. Education Week, pp. 53–67. Smith, J. (2002). E-mail communication with Michael Molenda, May 17. SRI International. (2002, March 6). SRI International and Palm announce findings that show positive impact of handheld computers in classrooms. News release. [Online]. Available: http://www.sri.com/news/releases/03-0602.html. (Accessed May 3, 2002). Trotter, A. (2002, May 9). E-learning goes to school. Education Week, pp. 13–18. U.S. Department of Commerce. (2002). A nation online. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Van Buren, M. E. (2001). The 2001 ASTD state of the industry report. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development. Van Buren, M. E., and Erskine, W. (2002). ASTD state of the industry report. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development. Welber, M. (2002, January). Where we’ve been and where we’re going. e-learning, 15–17. Wilson, J. M. (2002, May). More than digital content: Long live your course. Syllabus, 12–14. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2001). 2001 school district technology survey results. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. [Online]. Available: http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/dlcl/imt/01disreslt.html. (Accessed May 20, 2002).
< previous page
page_19
next page >
< previous page
page_20
next page >
Page 20 Young, J. R. (2002, February 22). Ever so slowly, colleges start to count work with technology in tenure decisions. Chronicle of Higher Education, A25–A27. Zehr, M. A. (2002, April 17). Indiana schools cutting back as economic realities hit home. Education Week, 22. Zenger, J., and Uehlein, C. (2001, August). Why blended will win. Training and Development, 54–60.
< previous page
page_20
next page >
< previous page
page_21
next page >
Page 21 A Content Analysis of Women’s Contributions to the Leading Instructional Technology Journals, 1995– 2000 Anne L. Foley Education Department University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Janet Morgan Instructional Design, Development, and Evaluation Syracuse University INTRODUCTION This study uses a content analysis to develop themes of the articles written by women in the leading instructional and educational technology journals between 1995 and 2000. A previous study of journal literature (Foley, Keener, and Branch 1994) examined women’s contributions to the literature from 1988 to 1992. This study provides a comparison of current findings to the trends and issues identified by Ely (1996), Molenda, Russell, and Smaldino (1998), and Foley, Keener, and Branch (1994). The current analysis adapted methods and categories comparable to Ely’s ongoing analyses of the literature of the field (Ely, Foley, Freeman, and Scheel 1992; Ely 1996). This study takes a critical look at these articles from a feminist perspective as a way to determine the status of gender issues being addressed by women in the educational and instructional technology field. RATIONALE A rationale for investigating women’s contributions to the literature in educational and instructional technology comes from several sources. Molenda (1996, 38, 40) describes an agenda for research in the field to “determine where the knowledge gaps are” and calls for an examination of the “adequacy of journals and periodicals” as a means of describing communication within the profession. In addition, Molenda calls for an examination of external forces that influence the field. Specifically, he asks, “What societal forces are affecting the profession? What are the forces that assist or impede the appropriate adoption of technology in education?’’ (41). A rationale for examining the contributions of women to the literature of the field cites a broad examination of societal forces that influence the profession, including gender issues emanating within a patriarchal society. In addition, feminists raise questions as to our interpretations of what is “appropriate” in the adoption of technology in education and how our design of media affects the messages sent to women in the field. The authors’ personal experiences in higher education and in the educational technology field have yielded real concerns in terms of how or if women’s perspectives are incorporated into the field. Most articles, books, and literature in the field to which instructional design students are exposed continue to be written by men from a clearly masculinist perspective. That the field has the potential to change is evidenced by the introduction of texts by women (Driscoll 1994, 1998; Seels and Glasgow 1990; Seels and Richey 1994; Smith and Ragan 1999) used in one of our foundational instructional design courses.
< previous page
page_21
next page >
< previous page
page_22
next page >
Page 22 A Focus on Women’s Contributions There are valid reasons for a study of the field to include a focus specifically on women’s contributions. As is documented in recent statistics, teaching is (still) a female-dominated profession. Findings from the 1993–1994 survey by the National Center for Education Statistics show that 73 percent of teachers in public K–12 education and 75 percent of teachers in private K–12 education are women (National Center for Education Statistics 2001). Ely (1996) states, “There is an insistence that teachers must become technologically literate.” As noted in both Ely (1996) and Molenda (1998), computers are pervasive in education settings, and educational technology is seen as a “major vehicle for educational reform” (Ely 1996, 25). Women, then, are potentially prime purveyors of the educational and instructional technology literature as it relates to K–12 education. As Knupfer (1997, 32) argues, “The fact is that the field of instructional design has been shaped by male influences for many years, and it will take many years to correct some of the inequitable practices that have resulted within a social system that perpetuates gender bias.’’ Knupfer expresses concern over the preparation of instructional designers and “teachers they train, who will not have an opportunity to examine [feminist] issues during their education, and to those who are influenced by these men’s recommendations for instructional practice whether directly or through the literature” (32). In their article on gender and curriculum, Bryson and de Castell (1995, 38) concur that technology is “pregendered” from a masculine stance and add that this works to disempower women by leaving “the gender of technology intact and [operating] in different ways on the regenderment of women.” They also observe that although it has not often been documented, “Women are usually involved significantly in the development and/or early uses of technologies and then squeezed out of the picture as ‘expertise’ coalesces around male technocrats” (22). They note that the technologies most often designed for or accessible to women tend to “reify and produce gender effects…which consolidate already inequitable class and race positionings” (22–23). An examination of multimedia by Henderson (1996, 87) mentions the “inclusions and exclusions that act in the interests of particular cultural, class and gendered groups” inherent in media design and that are derived from the unique perspectives of each designer. She cites the competitive, violent nature of computer gaming software and inequitable access to technology that “shape symbolic and material culture…. [And in] turn this molds the larger conceptual view of reality” (87). Henderson cites the need to include members of the various “minority groups” on design teams in order to develop a “multiple cultural” perspective (101). However, Damarin (1994, 34) notes that conservative groups have usurped the “radical” stance on equity as another “opportunity to capitalize upon ‘human resources’ from a larger pool of individuals” and sees technology as a tool for incorporating knowledge from “societal subgroups“ rather than as a tool for empowerment. From a feminist stance, Damarin discusses the qualities of equity and caring in relation to educational technology. She asks whether educational technology can function within an ethic of care from its “anti-ethical position” and responds, “the answer is ‘Maybe, and only with great effort’ ” (37). Reflections on Previous Studies In Ely’s most recent analysis of the publications in the field, he (1996) has identified eight trends, including the pervasive use of computers in education, networking as one of the fastest applications of technology, increased advocacy for the use of educational technology, increasing availability of computers outside of schools, educational technology as a vehicle for education reform, and the need for teachers to become technologically literate. Molenda, Russell, and Smaldino (1998) identified 10 key issues from their analysis of the literature of the field. The four most relevant to this analysis are the incorporation of computer- and telecommunications-based media into instruction, acceptance and support of educational technology, applications of interactive technologies, and restructuring of basic organizational processes. A previous analysis of the content of articles written by
< previous page
page_22
next page >
< previous page
page_23
next page >
Page 23 women (Foley, Keener, and Branch 1994) revealed that most articles concerned computers (11 percent), computerassisted instruction (5 percent), and the nonspecific category of design and development (8 percent). Only 2 percent of all the articles written by women in the same period addressed gender issues. The fact that so few women in the field were writing about gender raised the question concerning “the experiences of women attempting to publish in the field of instructional technology” (Foley, Keener, and Branch 1994, 59). METHODOLOGY AND LIMITATIONS Major Research Questions Two questions guided this current study: • What topics are women writing about in leading educational technology journals? • Are women in the field of instructional technology addressing issues of gender in the field? Journal Selection Selection of seven journals for inclusion in this analysis were based on Ely’s (1999) identification of those publications read by educational technologists. Six of the seven journals are cited as leading educational technology journals for publishing in the field (Price and Maushak 2000); Innovations in Education and Training is not included in that list. The seven journals included in this analysis are British Journal of Educational Technology, Educational Technology, Educational Technology Research and Development, Innovations in Education and Training International, Journal of Research on Computing in Education, Learning and Leading with Technology (formerly published as Computing Teacher ), and TechTrends. Analysis was conducted in these journals over a six-year period, 1995 to 2000. Author Identification Determination of an author’s gender was based on analysis of the first name of one of the first two authors. Some journals provided pictures of the primary authors or brief biographies that often included a feminine or masculine pronoun. Difficulties arose when authors were identified by first initials only and for those European names that are typically used by either women or men (Robin, Leslie, Lyn, etc.). Because neither of the coders were familiar with Asian, Arabic, Indian, and some European names, a list of unfamiliar names was distributed to colleagues from these geographic areas for further identification. For those cases in which gender could not be determined for first or second author, the article was not included in the analysis. Content Analysis This study employed a content analysis methodology based on previous studies by Ely, Foley, Freeman, and Scheel (1992) and Foley, Keener, and Branch (1994). The process of content analysis involved 1) identifying the total number of articles each year, excluding regularly published columns and editorials; 2) ascertaining the number of articles written by women as either first or second author; 3) describing the content of the article by two coders independently using the content categories shown in figure 1; and 4) determining final category placement through a negotiated dialogic process. Both coders, the authors of the present work, are experienced instructional designers. The coders examined each article authored by women and identified a category that best described the focus of the article. Whenever possible, the coders used the author’s words
< previous page
page_23
next page >
< previous page
page_24
next page >
Page 24 Figure 1. Categories for Content Analysis (with Total Number of Articles by Women Written on Each Topic) The Field (1) Status (11) History (3) Definitions (3) Legal Aspects (1) Standards (1) Future 0 Ethics 0 Personnel Professional Education 0 Roles & Responsibilities 0 Leadership Qualities 0 Individuals of Note 0 Management Implementation (14) Diffusion/Dissemination (8) Logistics/Operations (4) Planning Processes (2) Organization (1) Education Policy (1) Facilities (1) Policies (1) Finance/Budget 0 Technology (Technical Developments) Multimedia (35) Computer Software (27) Telecommunications (21) Computer Assisted Instruction (19) Hypermedia (11) Games/Simulations (10) Computer Related(Use) (10) Computer Networks (10) Video (6) Web Based Instruction (5) Virtual Reality (4) Television (4) Authoring Tools (2) Programming (2) Tutorials (1) Electronic Classrooms (1) Audio/Radio 0 Media 0 Instructional Processes & Services Distance Education (49) Expert Systems (17) Course Development (16) Assessment (12) Interactive Learning (9) Problem Solving (7) Product Evaluation (7) Product Development (6) Motivation Strategies (5) Formative Evaluation (5) Message Design (5) Curriculum Development (4*) Program Development (3) Process Evaluation (2) Program Evaluation (2) Cost Effectiveness (1) Learner characteristics (1) Needs Assessment (1) Task Analysis 0 Drill& Practice 0 Design & Development (1) Instructional Strategies (34) Learning Strategies (12) Context (1) Objectives (1) Cooperative Groups (1) Cooperative Learning (1) Front End Analysis 0 Content 0 Media Selection 0 Services(1) Student Services (4)
Learning Styles (2) Information Services (1) Curriculum Support 0 Skills Instruction 0 Society & Culture (1) Gender Issues (11) Multicultural Issues (10) Minority Issues (3) Research & Theory Research Theory (7) Model Construction (6) Application (6) Cognitive Theory (4) Constructivism (3) Research Methodologies (2) Case Studies (1) Behavioral Theory 0 Humanistic Theory 0 Proposals 0 New Categories WWW-Internet (40) Integration of Technology in Education (32) Effects of Technology (30) Teacher Education (29) Professional Development (26) Attitudes (11) Change (7) Education K-12 (6) Continuing Education (6) Computer Literacy (4) Performance Technology (4) Collaboration (3) Visual Literacy (3) Training (2) International Programs (2) Academic Achievement (2) Quality Control (1) Communication (1) Integrated Learning Systems (1) Ergonimics (1) Situated Learning (1) Anxiety (1) Instructional Systems Design (1) Adult Education 0 Library/Media Centers 0 Interpersonal Skills 0 *An additional 295 articles by women authors on the topic of curriculum development appeared in Learning and Leading with Technology and were not included in the present analysis. to assign a content category. In cases where different words described the same thing (i.e., computer-assisted instruction, computer-based instruction), one category was created for both (in this case, computer-assisted instruction). For the topics minority issues and multicultural issues, the separate categories were maintained and articles were counted in the category based on the author’s use of language. After independent coding, the coders negotiated differences in selection of category, making a case for one or the other or collaboratively choosing an alternate category that satisfied both coders. Because negotiation was an essential part of the process, analysis had to be conducted in a timely fashion. Articles had to be independently coded and discussed within a short working period so
< previous page
page_24
next page >
< previous page
page_25
next page >
Page 25 that the coders could remain familiar with the content of each article during negotiations. One difficulty in determining category arose when addressing process or product over context; for this, coders chose the focus determined by the authors when assigning categories. Finally, because the purpose of this study was to determine if women are writing about women’s issues in the field, gender was a primary category regardless of context. FINDINGS This study examined 993 articles published by women as first or second authors between the years 1995 and 2000 in the seven journals included in this study, 55 percent of the total articles published by these journals within this time frame (Foley and Morgan 2001). Two of the journals included in this study, British Journal of Educational Technology and Innovations in Education and Training, are published internationally, although no differences were noted in their content from those published in the United States. All of the journals included in the study except one had a research focus. Learning and Leading with Technology, the exception, is oriented to the K–12 education practitioner. This journal was unique in another feature—it published more than 600 articles in the six-year period of this study, nearly one-third of the total number of articles (1,809). Of the articles written by women in Learning and Leading with Technology, 295 were in the category of curriculum development. Because it was felt that this inordinate number of articles in one category from one journal would skew the findings, this number was not included in the final content analysis. The predominance of female teachers in public and private schools (National Center for Educational Statistics 2001) may account for the predominance of women authors publishing in this practitioner-oriented journal. Clearly, there is a difference between research- and practitioner-based journals both in terms of quantity of articles published, the gender of the primary authors, and the content of the articles they wrote. An examination of the content analysis was done on two levels. Categories were sequenced by the number of articles found in each category. The most frequent content categories and journals in which they were published are shown in table 1 in order from most to least number of articles. Further analysis clustered individual categories together into the themes found in table 2. Comparison of Findings This study found that computers and technology are clearly the most frequently addressed topics by women writing in the field. Technology is addressed on several levels: development (software, multimedia), implementation (distance education and instructional strategies), and preparation (continuing education, teacher education, and professional development). This makes intuitive sense, as technology addresses the main focus of research in the field. More specifically, women also wrote about computer networking and applications of technology, the World Wide Web and the Internet, telecommunications, multimedia, and hypermedia. In addition, much of the content of the literature in this study focused on the uses of technology to deliver instruction, specifically in the development of distance education as a means to effectively reach a wider audience of learners. In agreement with Ely’s (1996) findings, women in this study are writing about the need for more training and education in the use of technology, as evidenced by the numbers of articles on professional development, teacher education, and continuing education. Many of the articles in this study addressed the integration of technology in classrooms and curriculum, specifically computer-assisted instruction, Web-based instruction, and the use of expert systems. Similar to Molenda, Russell, and Smaldino’s findings (1998), the women in this study addressed how best to instruct students, with a focus on authentic, learner-centered activities, instructional strategies that support active and interactive learning, problem solving, and diverse learner styles and learning strategies. Women in this study addressed the integration of technology in education and the effects of technology as a way of moving education reform and meeting current needs for reaching teaching and learning standards.
< previous page
page_25
next page >
< previous page
page_26
next page >
Page 26 Table 1. Categories with 10 or More Articles by Women in the Leading Journals Journal Titles/Categories BJ ET ETRD IE JR LL TT Total Distance Education 5 9 5 4 3 6 17 49 WWW-Internet 2 10 9 2 4 6 7 40 Multimedia 5 3 5 7 9 2 4 35 Instructional Strategies 5 2 16 10 1 34 Integration of Tech. in Ed. 4 2 6 6 14 32 Effects of Tech. 8 5 1 3 3 7 3 30 Teacher Ed. 2 3 1 1 12 1 9 29 Software 1 3 3 1 10 7 2 27 Professional Development 3 2 13 2 4 2 26 Telecommunications 2 3 2 4 5 2 3 21 CAI 6 4 3 6 19 Expert Systems 5 7 1 1 1 2 17 Course Development 2 3 3 1 7 16 Implementation 1 1 5 1 4 2 14 Assessment 8 4 12 Learning Strategies 1 4 7 12 Status 2 5 1 3 11 Hypermedia 2 2 2 4 1 11 Gender Issues 4 6 1 11 Attitudes 3 8 11 Computer Related (use) 1 1 1 6 1 10 Simulations 3 4 2 1 10 Multicultural 3 3 2 1 1 10 Computer Networks 2 1 2 4 1 10 Note. BJ = British Journal of Educational Technology; ET = Educational Technology; ETRD = Educational Technology Research and Design; IE = Innovations in Education and Training; JR = Journal of Research on Computing in Education; LL = Learning and Leading with Technology; TT = TechTrends Questions Arising from the Findings Contrary to the findings of Molenda, Russell, and Smaldino (1998), articles by women in this study rarely addressed policy or advocacy in the use of technology, nor did they focus on management issues. An examination of the roles of women in the field may explain this lack of focus. How many women are in management and administrative positions where policy is addressed? The women in this study rarely cited instructional systems design or research paradigms, methodology, or theory. Are women’s articles more practitioner focused than men’s? How does the lack of articles on policy or management reflect the discriminatory notion that women are not suited to abstract thinking? This study revealed no articles addressing the role of computers or technology in homes or commu-
< previous page
page_26
next page >
< previous page
page_27
next page >
Page 27 Table 2. Themes by Percentages % Major Themes 25% Technology-Software, Media, Internet 24% Instructional Delivery Systems 15% Training and Education
of Articles Including Within-Theme Categories Within Theme Categories (WWW, Telecommunication, Computer Software, Games/Simulations, Multi/Hypermedia, Computer Networks) (Distance Education, Expert Systems, Computer Use, CAI/CBI, Instructional Strategies, Interactive Learning) (Integration of Technology in Education, Teacher Education, Professional Development) 10% Design, Development, and (Course Development, Assessment) Evaluation 8% Society and Culture (Effects of Technology, Gender Issues, Multicultural Issues) 5% Learners and Learning (Attitudes) 4% Utilization Processes (Implementation, Diffusion/Dissemination) 3.7%Research and Theory 3% The Field (Status) 1.4%Management nities. Is this a counter-reaction to women’s traditional place in the home and community and outside of the professional technological arena? Unlike the findings from the previous study, this study showed no strong focus on authentic assessment, although there were articles that addressed assessment in general. There were several surprising omissions found in the content analysis of these articles. Unlike Ely’s and Molenda’s previous studies, the articles analyzed here did not address the more traditional audiovisual media. Is it possible that as the media has become more pervasive, there is a tendency toward its unquestioned acceptance, much like the pervasive hum of electricity that incorporates our lives? Does technological convenience transform into technological necessity and therefore it no longer needs to be discussed? Can we imagine life before technology and what we have given up as well as gained since its introduction? Women tended to write about technology as a goal (product) rather than as a means to an end (process). There was no consideration of what that difference might entail but rather an acceptance of the product as something unquestionably good. These articles tended to describe technology with an uncritical gaze, without reflection on theo-
< previous page
page_27
next page >
< previous page Page 28 Figure 2. Comparison of Trends Ely (1996)
Molenda,Russell, & Smaldino (1998) • Computers are pervasive in schools and • Computer-based media has higher education institutions. Virtually every been into the instructional student in a formal education setting has mainstream. access to a computer. • Networking is one of the fastest growing • Telecommunications-based applications of technology in education. media has been incorporated into the instructional mainstream. • Access to television resources in the • Traditional audiovisual media school is almost universal. has been incorporated into the instructional mainstream. • Advocacy for the use of educational • There has been greater technology has increased among policy acceptance and support of the groups. concept of educational technology. • Educational technology is increasingly • The home is seen as locus of available in homes and community settings. technology-based learning. • New delivery systems for educational technology applications have grown in geometric proportions.
< previous page
next page >
page_28 Women's Contributions
• Computer software, interactive media, and the internet are pervasive themes. • Instructional delivery systems, including distance education and computer assisted instruction are predominant topics. • A few articles written about the uses of television and video.
• Articles frequently address the integration of technology in education, effects of technology on our learning, and professional development. • The effects of technology on society and culture, our every day lives were of concern. • There is greater application of • There is a focus on cutting edge advanced interactive technology and media, hypermedia, technologies (multi-media, multimedia, virtual reality, and the hypermedia, virtual reality). Internet.
page_28
next page >
< previous page Page 29 Ely (1996)
next page >
page_29 Molenda, Russell, & Smaldino (1998)
Women’s Contributions
• Educational technology is • Training and professional education are seen as perceived as a major vehicle in the ways to implement the change process. movement toward education reform. • There is a new insistence that • There is much focus on teacher preparation and teachers must become professional development initiatives in the use and technologically literate. integration of technology. • • There has been a • restructuring/reengineering of basic organizational processes. • • Paradigms and procedures • There is a much greater focus on implementation for instructional systems of media than development of research models and design are being updated. paradigms. • • There is growing interest in• Instructional delivery systems including learner-centered, inquiryinstructional strategies, learner strategies, learning based instruction. styles and interactive learning were frequently cited. • • There is a commitment to • Course and curriculum design, development, and increasingly authentic evaluation with a focus on implementation assessment. predominate the literature.
< previous page
page_29
next page >
< previous page
page_30
next page >
Page 30 retical frameworks or critiques. Figure 2 compares the trends found in Ely (1996), Molenda, Russell, and Smaldino (1998), and the current study. CONCLUSION We are concerned by the dearth of some topics in these articles. The statements of concern voiced by many feminists as to the gender inequities in the field were not reflected in the content of articles included in this study. Only 11 of the articles (1.5 percent) during the six-year period focused on gender issues. Comparing this figure to Foley’s previous findings of 2 percent (Foley, Keener, and Branch 1994), there is no real change and in fact a slight decrease in the percentage of articles regarding gender issues. As can be seen in table 1, most of the articles addressing gender issues were published in Journal of Research in Computing (6) and Educational Technology (4). Curiously, a quantitative analysis of these same journals within the same time frame found that Educational Technology had the overall lowest annual mean percentage of articles published by women (38 percent) (Foley and Morgan 2001). Nonetheless, others (Bryson and de Castell 1995; Damarin 1994; Henderson 1996; Knupfer 1997) are writing about gender bias and the design and applications of technology, indicating the gender issues that for some are not resolved in the field. Questions arise as to why this is not a more pervasive theme of women’s contributions to the literature in the publications identified as the leading journals in the educational and instructional technology field. If women are not writing about gender issues (typically seen as a woman’s problems), who is? If not in these leading journals in the field, where are gender issues being raised in relation to technology? Are they being raised at all? Why are women (still) not writing about gender and technology in the leading journals of the field? Is it an unacceptable topic for publication in journals? Is it threatening to a future career in educational and instructional technology to have a gender citation on a vita? Returning to the questions raised by Molenda (1996, 41) in his agenda: Why is gender not addressed as part of the “societal forces that affect the profession” in a patriarchal society and historically masculine field? How can gender help define the “appropriate adoption of technology in education’’ as well as the forces that assist or impede adoption? That the above questions were not found to be addressed in the content of articles included in this analysis of the literature certainly points to a gap of knowledge that needs to be addressed in the field. Although in general, gender issues are seen to be part of women’s domain of concerns, based on our findings only a few women in the educational and instructional technology field have shown interest in further developing our awareness of these issues. REFERENCES Bryson, M., and de Castell, S. (1995). So we’ve got a chip on our shoulder! Sexing the texts of “educational technology.” In J. Gaskell and J. Willinsky (eds.), Gender in/forms curriculum: From enrichment to transformation. New York: Teachers College Press. Damarin, S. K. (1994). Equity, caring, and beyond: Can feminist ethics inform educational technology? Educational Technology 34:2, 34–39. Driscoll, M. P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. ———. (1998) . Web-based training: Using technology to design adult learning experiences. San Francisco: JosseyBass/Pfeiffer. Ely, D. P. (1999). The field of educational technology: Update 1997. In R. M. Branch and M. A. Fitzgerald (eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook 1999: Volume 24. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Ely, D. P. (1996). Trends in educational technology 1995. (Report No. ISBN-0-937597-40-6). Syracuse, NY: Information Resources Publications, Syracuse University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 396 717) Ely, D. P., Foley, A. L., Freeman, W., and Scheel, N. (1992). Trends in educational technology. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information.
< previous page
page_30
next page >
< previous page
page_31
next page >
Page 31 Foley, A. L., Keener, P. G., and Branch, R. C. (1994). Women’s contributions to instructional technology journals. Educational Technology Research and Development 42:2, 55–62. Foley, A. L., and Morgan, J. (2001, October). Women’s contributions to the leading journals in instructional technology, 1995–2000. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communication and Technology, Atlanta, GA. Henderson, L. (1996). Instructional design of interactive multimedia: A cultural critique. Educational Technology Research and Design 44:40, 85–104. Knupfer, N. N. (1997). Gendered by design. Educational Technology 37:2, 31–37. Molenda, M. H. (1996). An agenda for research on the educational media and technology profession. In D. P. Ely and B. B. Minor (eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook 1996: Volume 21. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Molenda, M. H., Russell, J. D., and Smaldino, S. (1998). Trends in media and technology in education and training. In R. M. Branch and M. A. Fitzgerald (eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook 1998: Volume 23. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). NCES fast facts. [Online]. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/. (Accessed December 3, 2002). Price, R. V., and Maushak, N. J. (2000). Publishing in the field of educational technology: Getting started. Educational Technology 40:6, 47–52. Seels, B., and Glasgow, Z. (1990). Exercises in instructional design. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Seels, B. B., and Richey, R. C. (1994). Instructional technology: The definition and domains of the field. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Smith P. C., and Ragan, T. J. (1999). Instructional design. New York: Macmillan.
< previous page
page_31
next page >
< previous page
page_32
next page >
Page 32 Developing Science Education Materials via Computer-Based Support Susan McKenney OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY Exploring the computer’s potential supportive role in curriculum development has been included in various research agendas in the last decade, especially within the Faculty of Educational Science and Technology at the University of Twente in the Netherlands. From 1996 to 2001, this organization’s Department of Curriculum conducted a development research study entitled CASCADE-SEA (computer assisted curriculum analysis, design and evaluation for science education in Africa). The CASCADE-SEA project aimed to learn more about how electronic performance support systems (EPSSs) can contribute to curriculum development and the professional development of teachers in the domains of science and mathematics education. In particular, this study investigated ways of offering support to African science and mathematics teachers creating exemplary lesson materials for classroom use. This report describes the study’s origins, its research approach, and the results of the investigation. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The CASCADE-SEA study was rooted in the notion that teacher professional development and curriculum development occur simultaneously, even synergistically. It aimed to support such development at a practical crossroads: the creation of exemplary lesson materials. Reflective practice has long held a place in the domain of professional development and is considered by many to be a key ingredient in in-service education (Fullan 1991; Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, and Stiles 1998). By reflecting on one’s own ideas regarding good teaching practice and making those thoughts explicit for others (for example, in the form of exemplary teacher guides), teacher development takes place. When teachers use exemplary lesson materials to inspire, support, or improve their daily practice, curriculum development occurs. Particularly in developing nations, such lesson materials play a crucial role in curriculum development (de Feiter, Vonk, and Van den Akker 1995; McKenney and Van den Akker 1998). Whereas some countries are engaged in replacing out-dated or irrelevant materials, others strive to fill a profound void of teaching resources. Many countries in this region (Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Namibia, and the Republic of South Africa, to name a few) use regional resource centers to support teachers’ professional development. In most cases, such centers are staffed with specially trained teachers who are responsible for in-service activities. Often, these facilitator teachers coordinate regional projects, including the development of lesson plans and classroom materials. The notion of engaging teachers in materials development as an effective form of in-service is widely advocated (Ball and Cohen 1996; Ben-Peretz 1990; de Feiter, Vonk, and Van den Akker, 1995). And it is this practice that the CASCADE-SEA study aimed to support, via the computer. Previous exploration into the computer’s potential for offering added value to curriculum development produced promising results (Nieveen 1997), particularly with regard to the creation of classroom materials (Nieveen and Van den Akker 1999). CASCADE-SEA built on existing knowledge in this domain. It aimed to learn more about the characteristics of an EPSS that would support facilitator teachers engaged in the process of creating exemplary teacher guides. Simultaneously, this program was designed to promote
< previous page
page_32
next page >
< previous page
page_33
next page >
Page 33 the professional development of its users and advance curriculum implementation within the realm of secondarylevel science and mathematics education in southern Africa. RESEARCH DESIGN The CASCADE-SEA study was shaped by the pursuit of answers to the following main research question: What are the characteristics of a valid and practical support tool that has the potential to impact the performance of (resource) teachers in the creation of exemplary lesson materials for secondary-level science and mathematics education in southern Africa? The quality aspects that are central to this question were carefully defined, as illustrated below: • Validity. The system should include “state-of-the-art knowledge” and should be internally consistent. • Practicality. The system should meet the needs, wishes, and contextual constraints of the members of the target group. • Impact potential. The system should positively influence the curriculum development efforts of the target group and positively contribute to the professional development of its users. Inquiry into the supportive role of the computer in the creation of locally relevant and useful classroom materials took place through a development research approach. Seels and Richey (1994, 127) define this as “the systematic study of designing, developing and evaluating instructional programs, processes and products that must meet the criteria of internal consistency and effectiveness.” For additional information regarding this approach, refer to Richey and Nelson (1996), Van den Akker (1999), and Reeves (2000). The study took place in three main phases. The initial, analysis phase aimed to obtain a working knowledge of the target setting, user group, and areas in which a support tool could be used. Previous exploration into computer-based support for curriculum developers at the Dutch National Institute for Curriculum Development (SLO) yielded a tool (CASCADE) that served as a springboard throughout this study, especially in this analysis stage. For detailed information on this research, see Nieveen (1997). This phase consisted of two main cycles. Beginning with a study of relevant literature and interviews with experts and professional curriculum developers, the analysis phase culminated in visits to various curriculum development and teacher development programs in southern Africa. During the visits, an English version of the CASCADE tool (designed for the SLO) and initial analysis findings were presented to expert and user groups who were involved in materials development as part of an inservice scenario. They offered feedback in the form of initial design ideas, as well as tentative suggestions for future cooperative activities. The bulk of the research activities took place during the design and development phase, which relied heavily on the cooperation of these same (and other) institutions and individuals. Through iterative cycles of design, development, and prototype evaluation, the CASCADE-SEA tool evolved. The main criteria on which these (four) prototypes were evaluated during the design and development phase were validity and practicality. Finally, the end evaluation phase of this study explored the potential impact of the CASCADE-SEA system in terms of (potential) contributions to teacher development and curriculum development as a result of its use. This phase may best be described as “semi-summative” in nature. This is because the end evaluation mainly possessed characteristics of summative evaluation (in particular, the aim) but maintained a number of formative evaluation elements as well. Across the three phases of research, four basic strategies were employed: screening, expert appraisal, microevaluation, and tryout (see Nieveen 1997). The developers conduct a screening, which involves a comparison of that which has been developed and the initially defined desired characteristics. In an expert appraisal, experts are solicited for feedback
< previous page
page_33
next page >
< previous page
page_34
next page >
Page 34 on that which has been developed. The micro-evaluation strategy is used to evaluate prototypes with small groups of users or experts, usually trialled outside of the intended (or target) setting. Finally, during the tryout, the evaluand is tested by the target group in the target setting. In each of the three main phases of this study, two or three of the strategies were applied, as illustrated in figure 1. The figure is organized by phase, cycle, and circuit. The analysis and evaluation phases contained two cycles, and the design phase contained four cycles. Each cycle consisted of various circuits, involving different groups of actors (some more than once). These circuit descriptions are denoted by numbered sequence, group name, and (if applicable) that group’s participation number (e.g., NL2 refers to the second cycle in which the Dutch expert group participated). ABOUT THE PROGRAM Throughout its development, the CASCADE-SEA program evolved through four prototypes and a final version. During this evolution, two main kinds of changes took place. Each prototype aimed at learning more about a specific aspect or area of curriculum development (in this case, science education materials design); at the same time, fine-tuning design specifications for the program as a whole was also on the agenda. For example, the first prototype showed a general structure for integrating the processes of analysis, design, and evaluation. It also mapped out some of the anticipated forms of support that would be elaborated in later versions. The second prototype took one subcomponent (building individual lessons) and elaborated it in such a fashion that the sub-program could function independently of the “mother’’ program (first prototype). The third and fourth prototypes added further phases of materials development (rationale and analysis, respectively) while also attempting to integrate general design guidelines that had been generated in previous cycles of evaluation. The final version of CASCADE-SEA consists of two main elements: a CD-ROM (or 16 diskettes) and a Web site. Although the number of CASCADE-SEA users with Internet access is rapidly increasing, many still work with the system in an off-line setting. For this reason, the Web site is a supplement to the main program. It supports that to which the Internet is extremely well suited: communication. Whereas the CD-ROM aids the materials designer in making personal decisions about how to create a series of lesson plans (a teacher guide), the Web site aims to foster communication between materials designers. This is done through various means, especially a discussion forum and a shared database. The database contains a variety of completed lesson plans as well as building blocks for materials (clip art, activity ideas, etc.), which visitors are free to use. They are also encouraged to contribute any similar resources for biology, chemistry, physics, or mathematics. Figure 2 shows a snapshot of the CASCADE-SEA Web site from the database browse page. The CASCADE-SEA CD-ROM aims to support those groups and individuals involved in the process of creating exemplary lesson materials or teacher guides, usually to be shared among colleagues in the same region. Toward that end, the program asks the users to consider what they would like to achieve (why they are making materials, and what kinds of materials would be useful for that particular setting). If the developer already has a basic rationale in mind, then the computer helps to make this explicit and generates a “rationale profile” that may then be used in discussion with codevelopers. Should the users have difficulty determining key issues related to the materials they are about to develop, then CASCADE-SEA will recommend that the analysis section be visited. In the analysis portion of the program, support is offered in conducting a materials needs and context analysis, which (when completed) will then aid in forming a rationale. Once the user has generated sufficient specifications regarding the kind(s) of materials to be developed, the design phase supports the creation of these materials. It helps the user map out a lesson series, build individual lessons, and think about the layout, form, and style to be applied. For users who have completed some of the development (ranging from rationale formation to a complete lesson series), support is also available for conducting a formative
< previous page
page_34
next page >
< previous page
page_35
next page >
Page 35 Figure 1. Activity Overview
* = Carried out completely or in part by someone other than the primary researcher/ developer. Note. Strategies: DS = developer screening; EA = expert appraisal; ME micro-evaluation; TO = tryout. Users: PS = preservice teachers; IS in-service teachers; CD = curriculum development. Experts: SE = science education; CD = curriculum development; PS = performance support. See appendix A of McKenny (2001, 243) for definitions of group name acronyms. evaluation of that which has been designed so far. The evaluation component is heavily based on the original CASCADE program, although it has been translated in terms of both language and context. Figure 3 shows the main menu page from the CASCADE-SEA program. EVALUATION FINDINGS As described earlier, validity pertains to state-of-the-art knowledge (about curriculum development, teacher professional development, computer-based support, and how to
< previous page
page_35
next page >
< previous page
page_36
next page >
Page 36 Figure 2. Final Version of CASCADE-SEA (Support Web Site) at http://projects.edte.utwente.nl/cascade/seasite/
realize it via the interface) and internal consistency (coherence throughout the various system components). Few participants disputed CASCADE-SEA’s possession of state-of-the-art knowledge; similarly, sparse commentary was given concerning internal inconsistencies. In fact, numerous participants were enthusiastic about these aspects of the program. However, the degree to which the program may be labeled valid is much more difficult to pinpoint. For example, although participants generally agreed that CASCADE-SEA contains state-of-the-art knowledge, some found the volume to be overwhelming, some were satisfied with it, and still others considered it (present but) incomplete. Participant opinions also varied, though not as emphatically, about the internal consistency of the program. Whereas most participants were satisfied with this aspect in relation to the interface and support, opinions diverged with respect to the content of the program. Some participants appreciated the interconnectedness of the content in the various components, but the majority found this aspect to be (present yet) weak. Although determining where CASCADE-SEA’s validity should be placed on a quality continuum remains difficult, the participant reactions indicate that the support and interface are subject to less dispute than the content of the program. Practicality refers to the way in which CASCADE-SEA fits with contextual realities as well as the individual perceptions or beliefs of users in the target setting. This includes the notions of instrumentality (specifying procedures to complete a task), congruence (in this case, linking with the way teachers go about producing exemplary lesson materials in the target setting), and cost (the amount of investment effort compared to the return yielded). Generally speaking, the program was viewed to be practical; based on the participant responses, “quite practical” might be a better descriptor. Here, too, the main area in which opinions diverged was in relation to the content. With regard to instrumentality, participants generally appreciated the guidance offered by the program, although some concern was expressed (mostly by experts in curriculum development and
< previous page
page_36
next page >
< previous page
page_37
next page >
Page 37 Figure 3. CASCADE-SEA CD-ROM Main Menu Screen
teacher professional development) that CASCADE-SEA could offer too much step-by-step guidance. To some user groups, the level of English used was seen to present an overly difficult challenge. Most participants felt that the program was quite congruent with the needs and wishes of the target group, and many emphasized the importance of using the program within a training setting. Opinions were more mixed regarding the costs associated with using the program, particularly time investment. Whereas some participants found CASCADE-SEA to shorten the length of time they would otherwise invest, others found the opposite to be true, mostly because the program inspired them to be more thorough than otherwise would be the case. Although suggestions were given for improvements, participants were more consistently satisfied with the support and the interface aspects of the program. And even though their reactions were not always unanimous concerning the degree to which CASCADE-SEA may be labeled practical, the overall consensus was far less varied when compared with validity aspects. In the case of CASCADE-SEA, positively impacting the performance of its users means that it helps to create betterquality materials than those that would be made without the support of the computer. In addition, the program should contribute to the professional development of its users. The data collected throughout this study indicate that CASCADE-SEA does indeed possess the potential to positively impact the performance of its users but that the extent of this potential is strongly influenced by how the system is used and by the personal characteristics of those using it. The structured nature of the program was judged by participants as useful in helping them articulate procedural specifications for the teachers who eventually use the materials. The support and layout of the materials created with the aid of CASCADE-SEA were judged to be easy to use and comparable to or better than those created without the aid of the program. Further, participants generally indicated that they felt they learned from the CASCADE-SEA experience, although some (mostly experts, as well as a few user groups) raised concerns that the program could make things “too easy” for the user and either stifle creativity or encourage ‘‘laziness” as a result.
< previous page
page_37
next page >
< previous page
page_38
next page >
Page 38 Most participants noted that such concerns (as well as the potential benefits) would be influenced by contextual factors affecting implementation. DISCUSSION Through the development of a valid and practical system, this study has shown that the computer has the potential to positively impact curriculum development and teacher development by supporting the creation of exemplary lesson materials in southern Africa. Users (generally) produce better materials than they otherwise would and learn from this process due to the program’s combination of the following: • Content. CASCADE-SEA systematically structures the materials development process and illustrates its iterative nature through analysis, design, and evaluation activities that are guided by an explicit rationale. • Support. CASCADE-SEA blends generic and tailor-made advice, internal and external tools, implicit and explicit learning opportunities, and written and verbal communication aids to assist the user throughout the materials creation process. • Interface. CASCADE-SEA offers the content and support through a direct, consistent, and forgiving visual (and technical) representation, which grants the user both flexibility and control over the process. The desired quality aspects are neither absolute nor completely objective. In addition, the precise extent of the program’s validity, practicality, and impact potential is difficult to ascertain. In part, this stems from the nature of the quality aspects themselves, which tend to be inherently intersubjective. However, it is this author’s opinion that the relatively small scale and brief evaluation events (ranging from a half-day to one month, repeated over a period of six months) allow only a limited degree of insight into these areas. A follow-up study (or cluster of studies) featuring long-term evaluation of the program’s use in a professional development program may offer more robust and informative indications of these aspects, especially in terms of CASCADE-SEA’s impact potential. Although such a study could bolster the knowledge base on the quality of tools such as this, the fact would remain that the quality aspects are also relative to the context in which the program is employed, as well as to the needs, expectations, and beliefs of individual users. The CASCADE-SEA research highlighted the importance of continuously seeking heightened contextual understanding as an integral part of the design and development process. It is hoped that insights from this approach may help speak to the oft-cited criticism that the field of educational research is inadequately linked with practice. Additional information about the CASCADE-SEA research is available in McKenney (2001), which may also be found online at http://projects.edte.utwente.nl/cascade/seastudy/. REFERENCES Ball, D., and Cohen, D. (1996). Reform by the book: What is—or might be—the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher 25:9, 6–8, 14. Ben-Peretz, M. (1990). The teacher-curriculum encounter. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press . de Feiter, L., Vonk, H., and Van den Akker, J. (1995). Towards more effective science teacher development in southern Africa. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. London: Cassell. Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P., Love, N., and Stiles, K. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. McKenney, S. (2001). Computer-based support for science education materials developers in Africa: Exploring potentials. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Twente.
< previous page
page_38
next page >
< previous page
page_39
next page >
Page 39 McKenney, S., and Van den Akker, J. (1998, April). Exploring CASCADE-SEA: Computer assisted curriculum analysis, design, and evaluation for science education in Africa. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, San Diego, CA. Nieveen, N. (1997). Computer support for curriculum developers. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Twente. Nieveen, N., and Van den Akker, J. (1999). Exploring the potential of a computer support tool for instructional developers. Educational Technology Research and Development 47:3, 77–98. Reeves, T. (2000). Socially responsible educational technology research. Educational Technology 40:6, 19–28. Richey, R., and Nelson, W. (1996). Developmental research. In D. Jonassen (ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications technology. New York: Macmillan. Seels, B., and Richey, R. (1994). Instructional technology: The definition and domains of the field. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Van den Akker, J. (1999). Principles and methods of development research. In J. Van den Akker, R. Branch, K. Gustafson, N. Nieveen, and T. Plomp (eds.), Design and development methodologies in education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
< previous page
page_39
next page >
< previous page
page_40
next page >
Page 40 From Instruction to Construction Learning in the Information Age Violet H. Harada Library and Information Science Program University of Hawaii TODAY’S LANDSCAPE Technology permeates all aspects of our lives and evolves at a pace that is at once terrifying and exciting. The Internet attracts 1 million new users a month. The number of components on a silicon chip doubles approximately every 18 months, and processing speed doubles every year. Computers themselves continue to shrink in size, replacing pencils and paper notebooks at many work sites (Craver 1994; Pappas 1996). These developments are creating profound changes in the ways information is created, stored, and accessed. Wright (1993) cites the following examples: • Graphic interfaces and pointing devices allow easier access to multiple forms of information. • Online and electronic databases enable retrieval of finding tools and full-text formats and graphics. • Alternative input and output hardware and software provide touch screens, voice input and output, and video and still graphics. • Enhanced telecommunication capabilities make possible increasingly speedy and inexpensive access to remote databases. • New software for information creation and manipulation yields a range of simple authoring systems and artificial intelligence programs. For students growing up in a techno-society, digital technology is part of the natural landscape. Students use the Internet to “manage their personal finances, check the scores of their favorite team, chat online, go to a virtual birthday party…. [T]heir parting expression is ‘email me’ ” (Tapscott 1999, 8). In short, the electronic evolution affects the way we create wealth, manage our economy, deliver our entertainment, run our government, make scientific discoveries, and meet environmental challenges. It also influences how we learn and teach. In this reflective piece, I maintain that student empowerment in an information-rich society depends on the convergence of learning principles and instructional practices that harness technology’s power to extend and deepen learning. In forwarding this thesis, I summarize research findings and discuss their implications for rethinking traditional practice. WHAT RESEARCH TELLS US Studies conducted in the last decade have indicated that the effective application of technology offers many benefits, ranging from improvement in language skills development to promotion of student collaboration (Bialo and SivinKachala 1996). A sampling of the research follows. • Language arts. Technology enhanced students’ language development, specifically in understanding the relationships among the parts of the English language, in
< previous page
page_40
next page >
< previous page
page_41
next page >
Page 41 reading comprehension, in sound discrimination and decoding in context, and in creating oral narratives (MayfieldStewart et al. 1994; Foster, Erickson, Foster, Brinkman, and Torgesen 1994). • Critical thinking. Internet use produced significantly higher scores on measurements of information management, problem solving, communication, and presentation of ideas (Follansbee, Hughes, Pisha, and Stahl 1997; Means and Olson 1994). • Motivation and self-confidence. Use of electronic resources, including telecommunication projects and multimedia productions, resulted in positive effects on student attitudes and student motivation (Borgman, Hirsh, Walter, and Gallagher 1995; Mendrinos 1994). • Individualized instruction. Access to online resources created options for independent learning and strategies for individualizing classroom instruction, based on student needs. Use of these resources supported inquiry-based teaching and the inclusion of students with disabilities in mainstreamed classrooms (Kafai and Bates 1997; Peck and Dorricott 1994; Woronov 1994). • Student collaboration. Social interaction among students working together in electronic environments was shown to improve thinking skills, vocabulary development, and conversational competence (Morton 1996). Recent studies have experimented with designing online learning tools that help students construct representations of their learning using collaborative learning processes. One such study (Suthers and Hundhausen 2001) reported that alternative tools using text, graph, and matrix formats all improved the ability of students to express their emerging knowledge in a collaborative, electronic medium. Along with the benefits cited, other computer-related studies have more precisely defined obstacles faced by novice searchers. The inhibiting factors, which they identify, are not new to educators; they are familiar deficiencies magnified by the information glut that students face. According to Neuman (1995), the sophistication, complexity, and specificity of information obtained through electronic resources frequently exceed the comprehension levels of the students, as well as their needs. Some of the salient findings are summarized below: • Domain knowledge. Inadequate domain knowledge severely compromised the chance of a successful search experience because students were unable to pose appropriate research questions or select effective search terms. The students’ level of background knowledge determined not only the types of resources they most needed but also the relevance of the information and sources they eventually located (Gross 1997; Hirsch 1997; Scott and Van Noord 1996). • Basic language and literacy skills. Problems in reading comprehension, alphabetizing, spelling, and vocabulary resulted in students being unable to locate relevant sources or to skim and scan online texts for main ideas. Lacking these skills, students also encountered problems in selecting appropriate search terms and generating alternative terms (Fidel et al. 1999; Nahl and Harada 1996). • Evaluative competence. Young students were quick to assume that everything found on the Internet was correct. They also failed to apply criteria such as accuracy or adequacy to the information located (Kafai and Bates 1997; Watson 1998). • Information-handling skills. Young information users did not always perceive searching as a set of clear expectations with a sequence of activities and strategies. They also had little notion of information searching as a nonlinear and linked process (Neuman 1995). Consequently, they were unable to switch approaches
< previous page
page_41
next page >
< previous page
page_42
next page >
Page 42 when searching stalled (Fidel et al. 1999; Solomon 1994). This ability to manage a “process of learning” was also deemed critical in studies that extended to workplace skills (Kuhlthau 1999, 7). Lateral thinking processes, the ability to think in a relational way using databases, and searching for information were identified as essential for entry-level positions in many fields (Barner 1996). Pitts (1995) offers a grounded theory that synthesizes the complex relationships among these various cognitive strands. Based on her observations of high school students engaged in research, she posits that their ability to conduct effective searches and to create knowledge from data depends on their competence in several critical areas: content area knowledge, technical proficiency in product creation, and skills in information searching and problem solving. Weaknesses in any one of these spheres affected student progress throughout the assignment and ultimately influenced the quality of the students’ final presentation. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE A critical assumption underlying all of these studies is that computers in themselves do not automatically change the nature of teaching and learning. It is the way in which their use is integrated into classroom activity that produces educational benefits for students (Herring 1999; Kosakowski 2000). In short, the planning focus must be on the ‘‘individual educational needs of students and how educators meet those needs…rather than on what technology is or does” (National Education Association Special Committee on Educational Technology 1989, 11). To make our own professional sense of the growing body of research, we must examine these findings in the context of what needs to be learned and how learning occurs. Current teaching and learning beliefs support an interactive approach that relates new information to what is already known, that links abstractions to experience, and that evaluates ideas encountered in light of their relevance and utility (Thomas 1999). In this constructivist approach, there is a fundamental shift from instruction to construction and delivery. Learning is not simply assimilating knowledge transmitted by textbooks and instructors but personally building and communicating knowledge. In this paradigm, students “must DO not simply LISTEN” (Tapscott 1999, 9). If we wish to create information-rich cultures that support high expectations, a spirit of independence, and a sense of community, the following essential questions must be addressed (Donham 1998): • How will technology allow students to do something of significance substantially better than they could otherwise? • How will it empower them to function at higher cognitive levels? To begin making the critical connections between learning principles and their implications for practice, we need to identify the characteristics of effective learning environments and to examine how technology contributes to the creation of such communities. Figure 1 juxtaposes selected attributes of a dynamic learning culture (Bruner 1962; Gardner 1983; Newman, Secada, and Wehlage 1995; Papert 1996; Wright 1993) with research findings in information technology. To summarize, schools that capitalize on computer technology recognize that information is fluid and easily manipulated through the cognitive tools of the search process. In “post-modem schools,” the emphasis shifts from “descriptive research,” where students merely move words around, to “explanatory research,” where there is “real digging to answer how and why things are related” (McKenzie 1996). The use of electronic and online applications enables users to visually and concretely view their searches and results on the screen. Instantaneously, the abstract becomes the
< previous page
page_42
next page >
< previous page
page_43
next page >
Page 43 Figure 1. Information Technology: Attributes of a Dynamic Learning Culture and Their ResearchSupported Implications Attributes of Dynamic Learning Research-Supported Implications Culture • Learning is active and rigorous; • Online learning tools present new options for knowledge representations that it focuses on discovery and help students to map concepts and ideas and to outline terms visually as well as creative construction. abstractly. • Authoring tools encourage interactive modes of communication. • Learning is nonlinear and • Hypermedia tools allow for divergent and nonsequential manipulation of multisensory. information. • Electronic databases and indexes provide hierarchical and hyperlinked access to multiple forms of graphic, textual, and multimedia information. • Learning is collaborative and • Collaborative online learning tools encourage participants to comment on one social. another's notes, ask questions, and highlight what they find interesting. • Online networks expand opportunities to seek and share information with a global community. • Electronic publishing enables teams to generate a common electronic knowledge base. • Learning is diversified. • Electronic tools aid in customizing learning (e.g., online portfolios) and in accommodating different learning styles (e.g. authoring tools, application software with multiple learning options). • Networks and shared databases allow students to learn different things at the same time. They may also study separate aspects of a situation and share that knowledge with others. • Adaptive technologies allow students with disabilities to more fully engage in various learning experiences with their peers. • Learning is problem based, • Electronic simulations allow for real-world applications. Emphasis is on questions inquiry driven. and problem solving rather than simply answers. • Online access provides current links to human and electronic resources on timely issues throughout the world. • Learning is process oriented. • Information-literacy skills focus on learning how to learn, on articulating information seeking process and on problem-solving strategies. • Evaluation software programs help students assess and evaluate their own progress and retool and improve upon past practices. • Learning is guided rather than • Teacher is less lecturer, more coach. Working with computers allows instructors directed. to observe and to facilitate. There is more dialogue and mutual conversation than in teacher-controlled instruction. • Learning is student centered. • Electronic tools and online access to information places decision making more directly in the hands of learners. • Technology enhances opportunities for projects that are negotiated between student and instructor. • Learning is a lifelong endeavor. • Proficiency in information-literacy skills is essential in both classroom and workplace. • Electronic access dissolves the artificial boundaries of the school day and the classroom. Learning is possible anywhere, anytime. concrete. “The reasoning powers of the intellect interact with the sense of touch, sight, and hearing for a holistic learning experience that involves the cognitive, affective, and sensorimotor domains” (Mendrinos 1994, 13). In the electronic world, as learners are thinking, they are also doing. SNAPSHOTS OF EMERGING PRACTICES What does student learning look like in such information-literate communities? The literature abounds with promising illustrations of programs and projects that strive to
< previous page
page_43
next page >
< previous page
page_44
next page >
Page 44 integrate critical thinking and problem-solving skills in the new information landscape (e.g., CEO Forum on Education and Technology 2001; Follansbee et al. 1997; ThinkQuest n.d.). This section briefly considers several examples from two Hawaii-based projects: “Building Effective Teaching and Learning Partnerships” and “Hawaii Networked Learning Communities.” Partnerships Project The Partnerships Project, which was launched with an American Association of School Libraries/ABC-CLIO leadership grant, brought together over 20 teams of K–12 teachers and library media specialists (Harada 2001). Their collaboratively designed units focused on authentic, inquiry-driven learning experiences that included a range of electronic tools. Two of the elementary grade projects are briefly described here. Water Quality At Mililani Waena Elementary, upper-grade students joined with teams from neighboring schools to analyze the quality of water reserves in their community and how this affected their families. They formulated questions essential to their investigation, brain-stormed possible online and print resources to consult, collected data samples on field visits to wells and local streams, devised electronic mind maps of data gathered, learned to create graphs and spreadsheets, and ultimately presented their group findings at an environmental summit sponsored by the Mililani Community Association. Throughout the process, students maintained logs reflecting their informationseeking process. Assassin Bug When a kindergarten student at Waikele Elementary discovered a strange bug on the school playground, his finding initiated a flurry of interest in his classroom. He and two classmates volunteered to find more information about the bug. They involved their teacher and the library media specialist, and ultimately, they sent e-mail to an entomologist at the University of Hawaii. Learning the identity of the bug was not sufficient for these children; they wanted to know if it was dangerous and how they might share their information with the rest of the school. Through further email conversations with the entomologist, the kindergartners procured digital photographs and more information about the insect. Finally, they collaborated with their school technology coordinator, who helped them script and produce a two-minute video on their findings. Aired on the school’s closed-circuit television system, the team’s effort inspired other students in their class to embark on similar investigations of different insects. Finally, the class created a mind map of its collective information search process with the teacher’s guidance. Hawaii NetworkedLearning Communities The Hawaii Networked Learning Communities (HNLC) project (1999), recently awarded a five-year, $6 million grant by the National Science Foundation, is a rural systemic initiative targeting improvement of science and mathematics education in disadvantaged and geographically isolated K–12 schools in the state (see lilt.ics.hawaii.edu/hnlc). The enterprise focuses on inquiry-based, technology-enhanced learning. Examples of projects that are at the beginning stages of implementation are summarized here. Environmental Mapping Schools on the Big Island (Hawaii) plan to use Geographic Information Systems (GIS), computer programs designed to analyze spatial data and to create an efficient method for investigating relationships in the environment. They will gather and examine data along the Hamakua coastline and build databases on area characteristics, species present, and patterns of use. Global Positioning Systems (GPS) will be used to supplement the data
< previous page
page_44
next page >
< previous page
page_45
next page >
Page 45 gathered through GIS by allowing students to more precisely locate data points of interest. GPS will also allow them to identify specific resources, such as endangered plants, with a high degree of accuracy. A wireless network will connect schools as they collaboratively manage data collection to address issues in their respective communities. Numerous research opportunities may emerge from this network. For example, experts can assist students at any time or location while schools develop a growing database on native plant species. Because digital photographs and GPS data will be continually entered over several years, students can observe emerging trends as they conduct research in ways never possible in a one-year course. Endangered Plants The Hawaii Forestry and Communities Initiative has forged a partnership with Laupahoehoe High School to design and create an endangered species botanical garden, which will function as a “nurse forest” to regenerate native species in an understory for native dry land forest plants. Seeds and plants will then be distributed to the community for reforestation of the local area. As it grows, the nurse forest will be underplanted with other endangered and rare Hawaiian plants to form a viable plant and seed bank for the school and community. The project is envisioned as a cross-disciplinary endeavor. For example, bioagriculture classes will sample soil for composition, pH levels, and nutrients and analyze this data through graphical and statistical means. Business classes will gain skills in math and accounting by monitoring the sale of plants and expand their entrepreneurial skills by developing a Web site for the project. English and social studies classes will research the plants for their cultural significance and design brochures to increase the public’s awareness of these endangered species. Resource Management A K–12 school complex on the northeastern end of Oahu is presently engaged in a community study of land and sea restoration based on the Hawaiian concept of ahupuaa. In a unique system of resource management in ancient Hawaii, the ahupuaa was a highly developed segment of land and ocean that was also an economic, political, and cultural unit. Within each ahupuaa, people had to concentrate on renewable resources (solar energy, water, etc.) to sustain their social unit. In the present ecological project, students examine issues that integrate marine science with urban and agrarian concerns. They study how the environment has changed over time, how human activities have modified the ecosystem, and what society must do to promote its restoration. Electronic access to primary documents and to community experts will be critical in their investigation. Online chat rooms and interactive Web sites will be vital avenues for collaborative conversations and information documentation. In addition, the instructional team will be identifying various authoring tools that students might use to chart information and to communicate their findings. Common Threads Collectively, these snapshots capture certain attributes that are crucial to our understanding and appreciation of what learning can be in an information-rich environment: • Real-world problems and issues are fertile grounds for authentic learning opportunities. • The inquiry process begins with the learner’s genuine sense of curiosity; the learner’s questions lead to more questions. • Deep learning requires access to and use of information from a global bank of resources. • Knowledge construction is a social venture involving a collaborative community of learners of all ages bound together by a mutual interest or goal.
< previous page
page_45
next page >
< previous page
page_46
next page >
Page 46 • Learning opportunities are negotiated efforts between students and instructors; the latter become engineers who shape rather than dictate these opportunities. • A process approach to information searching and management must be incorporated into the total learning experience. • When shaped around critical community issues, these experiences can foster a lifelong sense of social responsibility and stewardship. The use of current and cutting-edge technologies extends and enhances our capacity for building these dynamic learning communities. They allow for a collaborative construction of knowledge that is built over time. Contributions to this knowledge base can be generated from various locales and can engage diverse partners. These applications also introduce creative and divergent alternatives for manipulating data and for presenting information and knowledge to a truly global community. MEETING OUR FUTURE Mind-boggling advances in telepower, telecommunication networks, interactive media, smart technologies, and virtual-reality applications proliferate the present information landscape. Whether we are ready for it or not, our future is upon us. The solution is not merely to acquire more hardware and to expand our network infrastructures. The real challenge we face is to make thoughtful decisions about what is worth learning and how to empower students to achieve this learning. McKenzie (1998) indicates that our goal should be to produce young people capable of navigating through a complex, often disorganized information network while making up their own minds about the important issues of their lives and their times. To do this, they must possess a ‘‘toolkit of thinking and problem-solving skills” to shape their own meaning making process. Indeed, learning in an information-rich environment engages all of us in the adventure of searching for connections. It invites us to explore and create new constructs. Ultimately, such learning entails forming bridges from data to new knowledge and insight. REFERENCES Barner, R. (1996). Seven changes that will challenge managers and workers. Futurist 30:2, 14–18. Bialo, E. R., and Sivin-Kachala, J. (1996). The effectiveness of technology in schools: A summary of recent research. School Library Media Quarterly 2:1, 51–57. Borgman C. L., Hirsh, S. G., Walter, V. A., and Gallagher, A. L. (1995). Children’s searching behavior on browsing and keyword online catalogs: The science library catalog project. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 46:9, 663–684. Bruner, J. (1962). On knowing: Essays for the left hand. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. CEO Forum on Education and Technology. (2001). The CEO Forum school technology and readiness report. [Online]. Available: http://www.ceoforum.org/downloads/report4.pdf. (Accessed December 4, 2002). Craver, K. W. (1994). School library media centers in the 21st century. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Donham, J. (1998). Enhancing teaching and learning: A leadership guide for school library media specialists. New York: Neal Schuman. Fidel, R., Davies, R. K., Douglass, M. H., Holder, J. K., Hopkins, C. J., Kushner, E. J., Miyagishima, B. K. , and Toney, C. D. (1999). A visit to the information mall: Web searching behavior of high school students. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 50:1, 24–37. Foster, K. C., Erickson, G. C., Foster, D. F., Brinkman, D., and Torgesen, J. K. (1994). Computer administered instruction in phonological awareness: Evaluation of the Daisy Quest program. Journal of Research and Development in Education 27, 126–137.
< previous page
page_46
next page >
< previous page
page_47
next page >
Page 47 Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Gross, M. (1997). Pilot study on the prevalence of imposed queries in a school library media center. School Library Media Quarterly 25:3, 157–166. Harada, V. H. (2001). Professional development as collaborative inquiry. Knowledge Quest 29:5, 13–19. Herring, J. E. (1999). The use of the Internet in school libraries: An international and comparative survey. In L. Lighthall and E. Howe (eds.), Unleash the power! Knowledge-technology-diversity: Papers presented at the Third International Forum on Research in School Librarianship. Seattle, WA: International Association of School Librarianship. Hirsch, S. G. (1997). How do children find information in different tasks? Children’s use of the science catalog. Library Trends 43:4, 725–745. Kafai, Y., and Bates, M. J. (1997). Internet Web-searching instruction in the elementary classroom: Building a foundation for information literacy. School Library Media Quarterly 25:2, 103–111. Kosakowski, J. (2000). The benefits of information technology. In R. M. Branch and M. A. Fitzgerald (eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook 2000: Volume 25. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Kuhlthau, C. C. (1999). Literacy and learning for the information age. In B. K. Stripling (ed.), Learning and libraries in an information age: Principles and practice. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Mayfield-Stewart, C., Moore, P., Sharp, D., Brophy, S., Hasselbring, T. Goldman, S., and Bransford, J. (1994, April). Evaluation of multimedia instruction on learning and transfer. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. McKenzie, J. (1996). The post modem school in the new information landscape. FNO From Now On: The Educational Technology Journal. [Online]. Available: http://fromnowon.org/oct96/postmodem.html. (Accessed December 4, 2002). ———. (1998). Grazing the net: Raising a generation of free range students part one. FNO From Now On: The Educational Technology Journal. [Online]. Available: http://fromnowon.org/text/grazing.html. (Accessed December 4, 2002). Means, B., and Olson, K. (1994). The link between technology and authentic learning. Educational Leadership 51:7, 15–18. Mendrinos, R. (1994). Building information literacy using high technology: A guide for schools and libraries. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Morton, C. (1996). The modern land of Laputa: Where computers are used in education. Phi Delta Kappan 77:6, 416–419. Nahl, D., and Harada, V. (1996). Composing boolean search statements: Self-confidence, concept analysis, search log, and errors. School Library Media Quarterly 24:4, 199–207. National Education Association. (1989). Special committee on educational technology. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Neuman, D. (1995). High school students use of databases: Results of a national Delphi study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 46:4, 284–298. Newman, F. M., Secada, W. G., and Wehlage, G. G. (1995). A guide to authentic instruction and assessment: Vision, standards, and scoring. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education. Papert, S. (1996). The connected family: Bridging the digital generation gap. Marietta, GA: Longstreet Press. Pappas, M. L. (1996). Electronic learning in 2002. School Library Media Activities Monthly 13:1, 37–38. Peck, K. L., and Dorricott, D. (1994). Why use technology? Educational Leadership 51:7, 11–14. Pitts, J. M. (1995). Mental models of information: The 1993–94 AASL/Highsmith research award study. School Library Media Quarterly 23:3, 177–184.
< previous page
page_47
next page >
< previous page
page_48
next page >
Page 48 Scott, M., and Van Noord, G. (1996). Conducting original research at the high school level: The student’s perspective. American Biology Teacher 58:4, 217–219. Solomon, P. (1994). Children, technology, and instruction: A case study of elementary school children using an online public access catalog (OPAC). School Library Media Quarterly 24:1, 43–51. Suthers, D. D., and Hundhausen, C. D. (2001). Learning by constructing collaborative representations: An empirical comparison of three alternatives. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, and K. Hakkarainen (eds.), European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Proceedings, March 22–24, 2001. Maastricht, Netherlands: Universiteit Maastricht. Tapscott, D. (1999). Educating the net generation. Educational Leadership 56:5, 6–11. ThinkQuest. (n.d.). ThinkQuest library of entries. [Online]. Available: http://www.thinkquest.org/library/. Thomas, N. P. (1999). Information literacy and information skills instruction: Applying research to practice in the school library media center. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Watson, J. S. (1998). If you don’t have it, you can’t find it: A close look at students’ perceptions of using technology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 49:11, 1024–1036. Woronov, T. (1994). Machine dreams: Six myths (and five promising truths) about the uses of educational technology. Harvard Education Letter 10:5, 1–3. Wright, K. (1993). The challenge of technology: Action strategies for the school library media specialist. Chicago: American Library Association.
< previous page
page_48
next page >
< previous page
page_49
next page >
Page 49 Do You Want to Be in Control or Not? An Unasked Question in CBI Research Jung Lee Instructional Technology Richard Stockton College of New Jersey INTRODUCTION Since the 1960s, when computer-based instruction (CBI) was introduced to provide individualized lessons, a great deal of research has been done to determine the effects of learner-controlled instruction (LC) versus programcontrolled instruction (PC) (Williams 1997). Generally, under the assumption that providing instructional control might positively benefit students’ learning, these CBI studies compared the effectiveness of two separate groups: one under LC instruction and the other under PC instruction. Under LC, students have control over their learning by choosing learning activities; under PC, a program makes such decisions for students. However, until recently, none of the studies asked whether students liked to have the control over their learning. Researchers missed the fact that under LC, students lack the freedom of “giving up the control to the program.” In other words, under LC, they are forced to have control throughout the lesson. Some students may not like to have the control; instead, they may like to be taught by a computer program. Students’ preference of control in CBI had not been questioned. In Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior, Deci and Ryan (1985, 31) asserted that “people do not always want control of outcomes; indeed, they often prefer to have others take control. What people want is choice about whether to be in control.” According to Deci’s self-determination theory (Deci 1980; Deci and Ryan 1985), when people decide whether to have control, they are intrinsically motivated even when they decide not to be in control. On the other hand, even when people have control over their situation, if it is not their choice to have this control, they are not self-determined or intrinsically motivated. Thus the need for choice of whether to be in control is more important than the need for control. In addition, Steinberg (1991) argued that while some students were motivated by total freedom in learning, others were motivated by a totally controlled system. This claim suggests that there are individual differences in the motivational value of learner control. Thus, before providing the control of instruction, the initial choice of instructional control should be given to students to satisfy students’ differences in motivation as well to increase intrinsic motivation. If this assumption proves valid, then the type of instructional control should be the first choice instructional designers allow students to make in their learning environment. Through this study, I attempted to investigate whether allowing students to choose the type of instructional control (i.e., whether to be in control or not) in a CBI would influence students’ behaviors. Figure 1 illustrates the question asked in this study compared with the question asked in the previous studies. CHOICE AND ITS EFFECTS ON LEARNING Experimental studies have revealed that students who were allowed to make a choice showed positive learning behaviors. Langer (1975) and Swann and Pittman (1977) reported that even when the choices provided seemed ‘‘trivial” or completely “illusory,” subjects’ motivational effects remained apparent. When students have choices in their activities, their sense of control over their learning situation and their motivation increase. Those feelings can lead to positive effects on students’ behavior.
< previous page
page_49
next page >
< previous page
page_50
next page >
Page 50 Figure 1. Illustration of the Study
First, students motivated by the act of choosing have shown high performance (Maehr 1984; Stipek and Weisz 1981). Perlmuter and Monty (1977) summarized a series of studies in which they manipulated choice as a variable in paired-associate learning tasks. Their findings revealed a positive relationship between college students’ performance and the perception of control that the students gained by exercising choice over their instruction. White (as cited in Savage, Perlmuter, and Monty 1979) found similar positive effects for choice in a reading task. Fifth-grade students were given varying levels of choice over the selection of four stories that would be read to them during a reading comprehension test. Students who were allowed to choose as few as one story title did better on the test than those who had no choice. Cordova and Lepper’s (1996) study also showed high performance by students who had choices. Second, students who were allowed to make choices have shown higher satisfaction or enjoyment with the task or the instruction than students who were not given those choices. Cordova and Lepper’s study (1996) showed that students in the choice condition enjoyed and liked their learning more than students in the no-choice condition. Third, students who were given the freedom to choose showed different patterns in learning time from those students with no freedom to choose. From the literature review,
< previous page
page_50
next page >
< previous page
page_51
next page >
Page 51 I found that motivated students showed two patterns in learning time: persistence (Keller 1983; Maehr 1984) and intensive learning (Keller 1983). Swann and Pittman (1977) showed that when first, second, or third graders were allowed to choose the play activity, they persisted at the task longer than students who were simply assigned the activity. Kail’s (1975) study showed that undergraduate students who were allowed to choose a task from the five tasks presented to them persisted longer at the task than those who were not allowed to choose. Myrow’s (1979) study also showed a similar result. When 11th- and 12th-grade students had freedom to choose the topic of study from six alternatives, they spent more time studying the materials than when they had no freedom. In Zuckerman, Porac, Lathin, Smith, and Deci’s (1978) study, college students in the choice condition chose three puzzles from six puzzles and decided how much time they would spend on solving each puzzle. Meanwhile, subjects in the no-choice condition were given three puzzles and time for solving them. The subjects in the choice group demonstrated their intrinsic motivation by continuing their engagement with the puzzles during free time in the experimental period while the no-choice group engaged in other activities, such as reading magazines. These studies concluded that students’ increased motivation made them persist at the learning tasks. Motivated students also engage in intensive learning in a fixed time. In Perlmuter and Monty’s (1977) first experiment, the subjects who were allowed to choose a response word from five alternative words matching with a stimulus word learned more rapidly and became more proficient than the subjects who were assigned the response words. In Cordova and Lepper’s (1996) study, elementary school students who were allowed to make personal choices learned more in a fixed time period than the students who were assigned the instructional material. The results of this study suggest that students who make choices learn faster than those who do not have the choices. Previous researchers who attempted to investigate the relationship between motivation and learning time developed only one directional hypothesis. Whereas some studies hypothesized that students with high motivation would learn faster, others hypothesized that students with high motivation would persist longer at tasks. The present study attempts to combine these two hypotheses: Motivated students would either learn faster or persist longer at their task. Hence, a group of motivated students would demonstrate more spread-out learning time than a group of nonmotivated students. As Keller (1983, 388) argued, “People tend to persist longer, or more intensely for a shorter period at tasks when they are motivated than when they are not.” From this literature review, I hypothesized that the students who were allowed to choose a type of instructional control would show better performance, greater satisfaction, more intensive learning in a fixed time, or greater persistence than the students who were assigned a type of instructional control. RESEARCH HYPOTHESES An experimental research design was adopted for this study. College-level students in an experimental group were allowed to choose between two types of instructional control at the beginning of the instruction. Students in a control group were randomly assigned one type of instructional control. From the literature review, the following research hypotheses were developed concerning post-test performance, satisfaction with the instruction, and time-in-lesson. 1. Performance. Students who make a choice of instructional control at the beginning of the instruction will achieve higher scores in the two performance tests, (i.e., A: multiple-choice knowledge test; and B: hands-on application test) than students who are assigned a type of instructional control. 2. Satisfaction. Students who make a choice of instructional control at the beginning of the instruction will be more satisfied with the instruction than students who are assigned a type of instructional control.
< previous page
page_51
next page >
< previous page
page_52
next page >
Page 52 3. Time-in-lesson. Students who make a choice of instructional control will display greater variability in time-inlesson than students who are assigned a type of instructional control. RESEARCH METHOD Design andSubjects The primary independent variable was the choice of instructional control (choice versus no-choice). The dependent variables were students’ performance measured by two post-test scores (a multiple-choice test and an application test), satisfaction questionnaire, and time-in-lesson. Subjects were 90 college students enrolled in an undergraduate education course at a western university in the 1998 spring semester. They were 38 males and 52 females who were randomly assigned to the experimental group and control group. Their grade levels varied from college freshman to graduate school. There were no differences between the two groups in gender (χ2 = .357, df = 1, p = .55) or grade level (χ2 = 1.96, df = 5, p = .74). The course in which subjects were enrolled was an introductory computer course focusing on a hands-on experience with computers. This study was conducted toward the end of the semester, by which time subjects had learned computer operating systems and a word processing, spreadsheet, and presentation program by completing the previous modules offered in class. However, the class had no exposure to either CBI or online tutorials before the present study was conducted. CBI used for this study was a new type of instruction for most of the students. Materials Based on a HyperStudio tutorial produced by Roger Wagner, two different HyperStudio tutorials, an LC-type tutorial and a PC-type tutorial, were produced by the researcher to meet the particular requirements of the experiment. Both lessons (LC and PC) had identical content. However, in the LC lesson, students were free to determine the sequence of instruction by choosing from a range of topics. For the PC lesson, students followed a predetermined sequence established by the researcher. Experimental Group andControl Group The only difference between the experimental and the control group was whether they had the choice of instructional control at the beginning of the lesson. For the experimental group, the choice of LC and PC was given with the definition and characteristics of LC and PC at the beginning of the lesson (fig. 2). Subjects in the choice group started the lesson by making the choice of instructional control. Hence, in the experimental group, there were two subgroups of subjects: those who chose LC and those who chose PC. In the control group, subjects started the lesson with a type of instructional control already installed in the computer and did not know there was another type of instructional control (fig. 3 and fig. 4). Half of the subjects in the control group were given LC; half were given PC. While all students were working with the lesson, the HyperStudio program recorded each student’s choice of instructional control, path, and the amount of time he or she spent on each screen. RESULTS The hypotheses of this study were that the students’ choice of the instructional control might positively influence their behaviors regarding 1) performance on post-tests, 2) satisfaction with the lesson, and 3) the amount of time spent on the lesson. The test results for each hypothesis follow. T tests, correlation, chi-square tests, Bartlett tests, and Welch’s
< previous page
page_52
next page >
< previous page
page_53
next page >
Page 53 Figure 2. Choice Group (Experimental Group) Start Screen and the Information of the Screen
t′ tests were used to analyze the data. Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics for all variables.1 Due to the exploratory nature of this study, an alpha of .10 was set for the significance level. Preliminary Analyses Preliminary analyses were performed to determine whether any differences in subjects’ familiarity with computers, CBI, and authoring software existed between the two groups. Such initial differences in ability would have influenced the subjects’ performance. From the survey data, chi-square tests revealed that the two groups had no significant
< previous page
page_53
next page >
< previous page
page_54
next page >
Page 54 Figure 3. No-Choice LC (One of Two Control Groups) Start Screen
Figure 4. No-Choice PC (One of Two Control Groups) Start Screen
differences in their familiarity with computers (χ2 = 2.27, df = 4, p = .69), CBI (χ2 = 1.96 df = 4, p = .74), and authoring software (χ2 = 6.83, df = 4, p = .15). Thus, the two groups had equivalent abilities in computers, computer-based instruction, and authoring software at the beginning of this study. Also, because two types of instruction were used in this study, there was a possibility that their instructional effectiveness was not equal. Such differences might affect students’
< previous page
page_54
next page >
< previous page
page_55
next page >
Page 55 Table 1. Descriptive Statistics Variable Mean SD Minimum Maximum N Multiple-choice knowledge test Choice group 7.34 1.36 5.00 10.00 53 Choice LC 7.20 1.37 5.00 9.00 15 Choice PC 7.39 1.37 5.00 10.00 38 No-choice group 7.35 1.44 4.00 10.00 37 No-choice LC 7.26 1.45 4.00 9.00 19 No-choice PC 7.44 1.46 5.00 10.00 18 LC group (choice and no-choice) 7.24 1.39 4.00 9.00 34 PC group (Choice and no-choice) 7.41 1.39 5.00 10.00 56 Hands-on application test Choice group 9.68 2.33 2.00 12.00 53 Choice LC 10.00 1.89 6.00 12.00 15 Choice PC 9.55 2.49 2.00 12.00 38 No-choice group 8.89 2.90 1.00 12.00 37 No-choice LC 9.63 3.02 2.00 12.00 19 No-choice PC 8.11 2.63 1.00 12.00 18 LC group (choice and no-choice) 9.79 2.56 2.00 12.00 34 PC group (choice and no-choice) 9.09 2.60 1.00 12.00 56 Satisfaction score Choice group 3.79 .55 2.00 4.89 53 Choice LC 3.88 .48 3.33 4.78 15 Choice PC 3.76 .58 2.00 4.89 38 No-choice group 3.60 .50 1.67 4.22 37 No-choice LC 3.55 .62 1.67 4.22 19 No-choice PC 3.65 .35 2.89 4.17 18 LC group (choice and no-choice) 3.69 .58 1.67 4.78 34 PC group (choice and no-choice) 3.72 .51 2.00 4.89 56 Time in lesson (in seconds) Choice group 1073.0 401.98 90.00 2751.00 53 Choice LC 846.20 428.90 90.00 1919.00 15 Choice PC 1162.6 358.31 697.00 2751.00 38 No-choice group 1037.8 206.36 570.00 1565.00 37 No-choice LC 1017.1 205.89 570.00 1351.00 19 No-choice PC 1059.6 210.49 741.00 1565.00 18 LC group (choice and no-choice) 941.71 329.52 90.00 1919.00 34 PC group (choice and no-choice) 1129.5 320.03 697.00 2751.00 56 performance. Simply by choosing one type of instructional control, the performance of one group may have shown higher than those of the other group. In this case, the factor affecting better performance is not the act of choice but the type of instructional control. To verify the equivalence of two types of instruction, the two control groups’ characteristics and post-tests were analyzed. Chi-square tests revealed that the randomly assigned LC and PC groups were equivalent in gender (χ2 = .3, df = 1, p = .86), grade level (χ2 = 3.64, df = 4, p = .46), and familiarity with computers (χ2 = 5.68, df = 3, p = .13), CBI (χ2 = 1.11, df = 4, p = .89), and authoring software (χ2 = 3.59, df = 4, p = 4.64). The results of t tests showed no differences in the post-tests between two groups (multiple-choice test: t = .38, p = .71; application test: t = 1.63, p = .11). Therefore, it was verified that two types of instruction were equivalent in instructional effectiveness. Testing of Hypothesis 1: Performance Hypothesis 1 proposed that the choice group would show better performance measured by a multiple-choice test and an application test than the no-choice group. The z scores of the two post-tests were averaged into a single measure for the overall performance.2 The two groups’ overall performance were not different ( t = 1.01, p = .32).
< previous page
page_55
next page >
< previous page
page_56
next page >
Page 56 Hypothesis 1.A: Multiple-Choice Knowledge Test The results showed that the two groups’ mean scores were almost equal ( t = .04, p = .97). Therefore, hypothesis 1.A was not supported. Hypothesis 1.B: Hands-On Application Test Data showed that the choice group scored higher than the no-choice group, but the difference was not large enough to be statistically significant ( t = 1.43, p = .16). Therefore, hypothesis 1.B was not supported. Testing of Hypothesis 2: Satisfaction Hypothesis 2 proposed that the choice group would be more satisfied with the lesson than the no-choice group. The satisfaction means were 3.79 for the choice group and 3.60 for the no-choice group. This difference in mean satisfaction scores is represented in figure 5. (The circles in the figure represent outliers; the asterisk represents extreme outlier.) The difference was statistically significant at the .10 level (two-tailed) ( t = 1.71, p < .10). This finding indicates that subjects in the choice group were more satisfied with the instruction than those in the nochoice group. Thus, the hypothesis was supported. Effect size is .35, and power equals .49 (Cohen 1988). A t test was conducted to investigate whether there was any difference in satisfaction between the two choice groups. No difference was found ( t = .71, p = .48). Also a 2 (choice of instructional control) x 2 (the type of instructional control) factorial analysis was conducted to verify whether the type of instructional control influenced subjects’ overall satisfaction. There was no significant interaction between the two factors, F(1, 86) = .87, p = .35. Testing of Hypothesis 3: Time-in-Lesson Hypothesis 3 proposed that the choice group’s time-in-lesson would display greater variability than that of the nochoice group. Mean learning time was 1,073.08 seconds for the choice group and 1,037.81 seconds for the nochoice group. The two groups spent almost the same time finishing the lesson. However, the standard deviations were 401.98 for the choice group and 206.36 for the no-choice group. Bartlett’s test of homogeneity of variance showed that the two groups were significantly different in variance (.95X21 = 16.45, p < .05) (Glass and Hopkins, 1996). Thus, it was concluded that the two groups were heterogeneous in time-in-lesson. Figure 6 shows the actual distribution of the two groups’ time-in-lesson, which indicates that the choice group’s completion time is more spread out than the no-choice group’s.3 The two distributions have equal medians, but unequal variances. This finding supports the hypothesis. DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of college students’ choice of the type of instructional control in CBI on achievement, satisfaction, and time-in-lesson. In performance tests, no significant differences were found between the choice and no-choice groups. The choice group, however, was more satisfied with the lesson than the no-choice group. Also, the choice group showed greater variability in time-in-lesson than the no-choice group. Effects of Choice on Performance Several considerations may explain why the t test did not reach the significant level on post-tests. First, some extraneous factors beyond the researcher’s control occurred during conducting of the research. The experiment was held in a real class situation, and in
< previous page
page_56
next page >
< previous page
page_57
next page >
page_57
next page >
Page 57 Figure 5. Satisfaction Box Plot
< previous page
< previous page
page_58
next page >
Page 58 Figure 6. Time-in-Lesson Box Plot
each section, approximately 15 students sat in an open-style computer laboratory. Although subjects were told to work individually, some interaction between subjects occurred while working with the lesson and post-tests. This opportunity to help each other could have contaminated post-test and satisfaction scores, as well as completion time. Second, the instructional material used for this study was a HyperStudio basic tutorial, in which overall instructions were not difficult for subjects with a basic knowledge about computer applications. With this relatively easy instructional material, along with the small size of this sample, statistical significance would be less likely. Third, the post-tests were too basic. In other words, the post-tests were constructed not to measure the maximum knowledge students acquired from the lesson but rather to measure basic knowledge. Because of high motivation, students in the choice group may have increased their knowledge above the minimum level that the post-tests measured. In addition, as indicated earlier, the item analysis revealed that the multiple-choice test was easy. The easiness of the multiple-choice test resulted from the researcher’s misinterpretation of the pilot testing. The original form of measuring the immediate retention of concepts was a short-essay form. After the first pilot testing, the form was changed to the multiple-choice test form to avoid any subjective scoring. The people participating at the second pilot testing were graduate students mostly majoring in adult learning and technology or undergraduate students who were familiar with the subject matter and computers. Hence, even though they had higher scores in the multiplechoice test, which indicated the easiness of the test, the researcher considered it was caused by the higher ability of the students in the subject matter than that of the target population. Effects of Choice on Satisfaction The results indicate that students in the choice group were more satisfied with the instruction than students in the no-choice group. Furthermore, whether students in the
< previous page
page_58
next page >
< previous page
page_59
next page >
Page 59 choice group chose LC or PC, their satisfaction with the instruction was equal. This result indicates that once students had made a choice about whether to be in control, their satisfaction was the same whether they or the computer program controlled their learning. This finding provides empirical support for Deci’s self-determination theory. Also, a 2 x 2 factorial analysis result showed that there was no interaction between the choice of instructional control and the type of instructional control. Therefore, it is generalized that the choice of instructional control was the only factor that made a difference in satisfaction rate. LC advocates argued that giving control to students would increase their motivation; however, this study shows that just giving students control over their learning (i.e., the no-choice LC condition in this study) did not influence students’ satisfaction. Even though the effect size was relatively small (.35), the practical significance of this exploratory study should not be ignored. As Cohen (1988, 25) has argued, ‘‘In new areas of research inquiry, effect sizes are likely to be small. This is because the phenomena under study are typically not under good experimental or measurement control or both.” In addition, he also pointed out that when phenomena that cannot be brought into the laboratory are studied, the influence of uncontrollable extraneous variables makes the size of the effect small. The present study is a new area of research and was conducted in an open classroom. Effects of Choice on Time-in-Lesson Previous researchers who tried to investigate the relationship between motivation and learning time developed only one directional hypothesis. Whereas some studies hypothesized that students with high motivation would learn faster, others hypothesized that students with high motivation would persist longer at tasks. This study tried to combine these two hypotheses: Motivated students would either learn faster or persist longer at their task. Hence, a group of motivated students would demonstrate more spread-out learning time than a group of non-motivated students. To once again quote Keller (1983, 388), “People tend to persist longer, or more intensely for a shorter period at tasks when they are motivated than when they are not.” The time-in-lesson data from this study show these patterns. Students in the choice group finished their lessons within a more widely varying range of time than those in the nochoice group. Students in the choice group tended to stay for either a shorter or longer time period than the nochoice group stayed. However, the learning time in the choice group was not related to students’ performance (multiple-choice test: r = .01; application test: r = −08). Also, their satisfaction was not related to the time-in-lesson ( r = .07). In other words, regardless of the time they spent, subjects in the choice group learned equally or were equally satisfied with the instruction. Therefore, it is concluded that early completion was no indication of lack of comprehension or interest in the lesson. As shown in figure 6, there were some outliers and one extreme in the choice group. It was thought that the data of these outliers and one extreme may have caused the difference in variability in time-in-lesson between the choice and no-choice groups. A Bartlett test was conducted to test this assumption after eliminating the data of outliers and extreme. The result revealed that there was also difference in variability between the two groups (.95X21 = 3.22, p < .10). The researcher observed that the subjects who finished quickly seemed to be already familiar with the instructional materials and concentrated on the part they did not know already. Their study pattern was considered as intensive learning. One might also assume that the subjects who spent a longer time than any others did not focus on the study. However, it was observed that the subjects who spent a long time did not do so because they were distracted from the lesson but simply because they continued working on it. Their study pattern was considered as persisted learning. As revealed in the preliminary analyses, there were no differences in the subjects’ backgrounds, such as prior knowledge of the subject, between the choice and no-choice groups. In other words, in the no-choice
< previous page
page_59
next page >
< previous page
page_60
next page >
Page 60 group, as in the choice group, some subjects were already familiar with the subject. However, the presence of all the outliers and the extreme only in the choice group implies that by enhancing their intrinsic motivation, the choice of instructional control gave the subjects a chance to assess their level of knowledge. In contrast, the subjects in the no-choice group followed the lesson rather mechanically. Therefore the no-choice group subjects all finished almost in the same length of time. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE STUDY Instructional designers have argued that LC has beneficial consequences for both motivation and cognition (Kinzie 1990; Merrill 1980; Ross and Morrison 1989). However, as Carrier (1985) pointed out, previous research does not support the argument: studies comparing the effectiveness of LC with PC have shown mixed and inconsistent results. Their failure to prove the effectiveness of LC in CBI could be viewed from the point of view of choice and control theory. In other words, this research ignored that students might not want the control and that, as a consequence, the freedom of choice does not link to positive learning behaviors. No previous study in CBI has been done from the learner’s role in making a choice of control. As an exploratory study, the generalizability of the present study has limitations; however, the results seem to have important implications for instructional design. The primary contribution of this study is the demonstration of the possibility that allowing students to choose the type of instructional control may increase students’ motivation. The choice group’s satisfaction and time-in-lesson data suggest they may have been more highly motivated. In a comprehensive review of LC, Williams (1997, 961) concluded that “learner control or program control might be better for some people or under some conditions, but not on the whole.” Hence, both types of instructional control play an important role in accommodating individual differences. This study opens a practical solution to this situation. With today’s technology, it is feasible to provide two types of instructional control and allow students to choose. If the definition of LC is allowing students to exercise their own judgment on their learning process, choosing the type of instructional control in CBI is one of the instructional decisions and can be a type of LC, but it has received little scholarly attention. As Freitag and Sullivan (1995) proposed, allowing students to choose the type of instructional control by providing both types of instruction may be an alternative form of LC. The results of this study also suggest that when the choice is given, the determinants of choice should be considered. In this information age, making choices plays an increasingly important role in shaping the course people follow through life. Often, people have too many choices or poor options. If choices are to be provided effectively, psychological determinants in giving and receiving choice should be considered. For instance, on a Web page, questions must be asked, such as how many choices should be given, how the options should be presented, or whether the visitors will be aware of these choices. Determinants of choice are issues we know little about in CBI. For example, Lepper and Malone (1987, 239) argued, “There is a potential danger in believing that additional choices will always enhance motivation.” Gray’s (1987) study reported that students showed more negative attitudes toward LC than toward PC in CBI, and she concluded that too much choice provided in LC could distract students. In Lahey and Crawford’s study (1976), when 16 possible strategies were given to navy students in studying electronics, most of the students used only three of the strategies consistently. Cordova and Lepper (1996) also pointed out the issues of novelty and habituation: if motivational embellishment strategies, such as providing choices, were overused, their positive effects could dissipate over time. This present study demonstrates that even when the choice is simple, but satisfies the conditions of determinants of choice, positive effects can be expected. As an exploratory study, the present study has some limitations and points to suggestions for further research. First, it assumed that allowing students to choose the type of
< previous page
page_60
next page >
< previous page
page_61
next page >
Page 61 instructional control at the beginning of the study with information about the options would satisfy the determinants of perceived choices. As a consequence, the choice may positively affect students’ behavior. However, this study did not ask subjects about the feeling of choice per se (i.e., the degree of the subject’s perception of choice). Among the choice group, the individuals’ degree of perceived choice might be different. The question of whether the provided choice options evoke the feeling of choice should be investigated. In addition, the relationship between the degree of perceived choice and motivation needs to be studied. Second, the study was conducted under the assumption that students were able to choose the effective type of instruction control based on their needs. It is also possible that students may have only a limited ability to choose their effective type of instruction. Cognitive or metacognitive characteristics of students may affect their choice. Research needs to be conducted to determine the relationship between the effectiveness of students’ choice and their cognitive or metacognitive characteristics. Third, the amount of information provided to the students to guide their decisions may be a critical variable and one that needs to be investigated in more detail. As too many choices do not enhance motivation, too much information provided with the choice options would not help the sense of choice either. Fourth, it is possible that the instructional control type students initially choose may not be the type of instruction they have expected. As a consequence, students’ choice may not heighten their achievement or enhance their satisfaction. Hannafin (1984) suggested that a provision should be made for switching to the other option in CBI. That is, if initial learning is ineffective under one control strategy, subjects should be able to switch to the other control option. Psychologically, students allowed to switch their first choice anytime may feel more freedom than when there is no way to switch after they have made the choice. Providing switch options would be another way to improve students’ learning in CBI. If two types of instructional control are available, it will also be feasible for the instructional designers to provide the switch option. Further research is needed on the provision of switching options. NOTES 1. To analyze the time-in-lesson data, the amount of time was converted to seconds. Even though the choice group and no-choice group had identical contents after they started the lesson, the choice group had one more selection step that the no-choice group did not have: making a choice between two types of instructional control. Hence, the choice group spent extra time in order to select the type of instructional control. Therefore, before analyzing the time-in-lesson, the actual selection time that individual subjects in the choice group spent on making a choice was subtracted from the amount of individuals’ completion time. The average of time spent for selecting a type in the choice group was 85.91 seconds ( s = 88.19). 2. Because the weights of two tests were different, the original scores were converted to z scores. 3. To compare two different means with different variability, the Welch t′ test was conducted. It showed that the two groups’ time difference was not significant ( t′ = 1.04; p > .1). REFERENCES Carrier, C. (1985). Introduction: Exploring computers and individual differences. Educational Communication and Technology Journal 33:3, 155–157. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press. Cordova, D., and Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology 88:4, 715–730. Deci, E. L. (1980). The psychology of self-determination. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determinating in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
< previous page
page_61
next page >
< previous page
page_62
next page >
Page 62 Freitag, E., and Sullivan, H. J. (1995). Matching learner preference to amount of instruction: An alternative form of learner control. Educational Technology, Research, and Development 43:2, 5–13. Glass, G. V., and Hopkins, K. D. (1996). Statistical methods in education and psychology (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Gray, S. H. (1987). The effect of sequence control on computer-assisted learning. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction 14:2, 54–56. Hannafin, M. (1984). Guidelines for using locus of instructional control in design of computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Instructional Development 7:3, 6–10. Harvey, J. H., and Johnston, S. (1973). Determinants of the perception of choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 9, 164–179. Jellison, J. M., and Harvey, J. H. (1973). Determinants of perceived choice and the relationship between perceived choice and perceived competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 28, 376–382. Kail, R. V. Jr. (1975). Freedom of choice, task performance, and task persistence. Journal of Experimental Education 44:1, 33–35. 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, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kinzie, M. B. (1990). Requirements and benefits of effective interactive instruction: Learner control, self-regulation, and continuing motivation. Educational Technology, Research, and Development 38:1, 1–21. Lahey, G. F., and Crawford, A.M. (1976, April). Learner control of lesson strategy: Some tentative results. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Langer, E. J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32, 311–328. Lepper, M. R., and Malone, T. W. (1987). Intrinsic motivation and instructional effectiveness in computer-based education. In R. E. Snow and M. J. Farr (eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruction: Aptitude and affective process and analyses. Volume 3. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Maehr, M. L. (1984). Meaning and motivation: toward a theory of personal investment. In R. E. Ames and C. Ames (eds.), Research on motivation in education. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Merrill, M. D. (1980). Learner control in computer based learning. Computers and Education 4, 77–95. Myrow, D. (1979). Learner choice and task engagement. Journal of Experimental Education 47:3, 200–207. Perlmuter, L. C., and Monty, R. A. (1977). The importance of perceived control: Fact or fantasy? American Scientist 65, 759–765. Ross, S. M., and Morrison, G. R. (1989). In search of a happy medium in instructional technology research: Issues concerning external validity, media replications, and learner control. Educational Technology, Research, and Development 37:1, 19–33. Savage, R. E., Perlmuter, L. C., and Monty, R. A. (1979). Effect of reduction in the amount of choice and the perception of control on learning. In L. C. Perlmuter and R. A. Monty (eds.), Choice and perceived control. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Steinberg, E. R. (1991). Computer-assisted instruction: A synthesis of theory, practice, and technology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Stipek, D. J., and Weisz, J. R. (1981). Perceived personal control and academic achievement. Review of Educational Research 51:1, 101–137. Swann, W. B. Jr. and Pittman, T. S. (1977). Initiating play activity of children: The moderating influence of verbal cues on intrinsic motivation. Child Development 48:3, 1128–1132.
< previous page
page_62
next page >
< previous page
page_63
next page >
Page 63 Williams, M. D. (1997). Learner-control and instructional technologies. In D. H. Jonassen (ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. New York: Macmillan Library. Zuckerman, M., Porac, J., Lathin, D., Smith, R., and Deci, E. L. (1978). On the importance of self-determination for intrinsically-motivated behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 4:3, 443–446.
< previous page
page_63
next page >
< previous page
page_64
next page >
page_64
next page >
Page 64 This page intentionally left blank.
< previous page
< previous page
page_65
next page >
page_65
next page >
Page 65 Ethics and Privacy
< previous page
< previous page
page_66
next page >
page_66
next page >
Page 66 This page intentionally left blank.
< previous page
< previous page
page_67
next page >
Page 67 Considerations for Assessing Ethical Issues Erin Brewer Nick Eastmond Reed Geertsen Utah State University INTRODUCTION The code of ethics published by the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) (2002) is the authority usually cited in discussions of professional ethics in the field of instructional technology. This code offers time-tested prescriptions for measuring behavior to see if an action is acceptable to our peers. For many of us, the code offers a way of anticipating behaviors that could cause present or future difficulty. The AECT Code of Ethics can be thought of as a fence to keep people from engaging in behavior contrary to the interest of our community of professionals and the public we serve. In this article, we take a wider view to help identify ethical issues and to select strategies for handling behaviors ranging from inconsiderate or unprofessional to immoral or illegal. We offer a classification scheme along with a typology of reactions for dealing with the inappropriate actions of others. Our position is that if properly identified and handled in a socially responsible way, unacceptable professional behavior can be dealt with effectively with minimal disruption to people’s lives. The professional development of AECT is enhanced when all of us seek to build our own ethical sensitivity and thereby avoid engaging in inappropriate behavior. We can also raise each other’s sensitivity when ethical issues are examined and responded to within the framework of appropriate social roles. This way of looking at the world recognizes the fact that ethical judgments are based on values and social roles that overlap with our professional roles and affiliations. Furthermore, appropriate responses to inappropriate professional behavior varies according to one’s social location in relation to the violator. On the one hand, our extraprofessional roles contribute to the frames of reference we use to help shape our personal interpretations of professional ethics. In this regard, all interpretations of ethics are influenced by the fact that everyone has their own set of “cultural blinders,’’ so that some of our prescriptions may appear “cultural bound” to some readers. On the other hand, an appropriate response to a perceived ethical violation for a person in a superordinate position of authority may be ethically inappropriate for a person in a subordinate or parallel position to the violator. The question of inappropriate ethical behavior requires two separate judgments. First, how unacceptable is the behavior? Second, what is the appropriate response to the behavior? We believe that it is worthwhile and indeed possible to develop classification schemes and typologies to clarify these issues within any particular culture. The search for a common ground for these conventions among individuals with diverse backgrounds and different social locations is a worthwhile goal of any professional association. We further believe that ethical judgments that rely on different philosophical underpinnings have more in common with each other than most people might expect. To illustrate this, we will present ethical dilemmas and the responses to these dilemmas by two people with differing approaches. We realize that we are attempting to address a set of questions that have occupied philosophers, as well as secular and religious leaders, since the dawn of history. There are
< previous page
page_67
next page >
< previous page
page_68
next page >
Page 68 genuine differences of opinion among well-meaning people when these questions are discussed; this is what makes them “issues.” Some of these differences can be attributed to positional influences on social perceptions. We offer our ideas as a basis for future discussion but realize that this discussion will hardly be the last word or the definitive statement on this matter. If we can help clarify the issues and perhaps provide a broader social context for understanding ethical behavior, we will have succeeded in our task. A CONTINUUM FOR ASSESSING INAPPROPRIATE ACTIONS In our discussions with students learning about ethics and with professionals in the field, we find that it is helpful to be able to label actions according to their position on a continuum roughly from “Acceptable” to ‘‘Heinous,” recognizing that the actions that fall under these labels vary based on culture and environment (see fig. 1). As already mentioned, we believe that moral, ethical, and legal codes can be viewed as fences to keep people from social harm. Although some may view fences as containers, thus unduly constraining personal choice, we view these fences as guidelines that help us make more informed choices, which in turn can help us avoid decisions and actions that could be viewed as ethical compromises. Fences are put on the edge of cliffs to prevent people from falling. They are put around hazardous waste dumps to prevent people from being exposed to toxins. They are placed along freeways to prevent people from getting killed or maimed by oncoming cars. Just as physical fences are used to prevent people from physical harm, moral, ethical, and legal guidelines can help people avoid ethical violations and subsequent loss of professional esteem. They also keep us from inflicting social harm on others. Fences are also used to protect the collective interests of the many from the harmful actions of the few, such as by keeping trespassers off private property. Our position is that each of these categories—legal, ethical, and moral—serve as a “fence” to keep individuals from stepping into territory with potentially grievous consequences. In many instances, one, two, or three of these guidelines or “fences” signal an area of potential liability. Behavior can be unethical without being illegal, immoral without being unethical, and even illegal without being immoral. It is more likely, however, that these categories will overlap, thus providing multiple fences to help guard the individual from harm’s way. Three cases are presented below to help provide a clearer understanding of the ethical, legal, and moral fences that collectively inform both the perceptions of both our professional colleagues and the general public. Case 1 Sally Doe gave a presentation at recent conference. She exceeded her allotted time to such a degree that people coming to see the next scheduled presentation found her still presenting to an audience. Several people who came to see the next presenter left thinking there was a mistake in the schedule. Sally Doe ignored those entering and leaving the Figure 1. A Continuum of Inappropriate Actions
< previous page
page_68
next page >
< previous page
page_69
next page >
Page 69 room, an action that not only left the second presenter with very little time to present but also eliminated nearly all of her audience. How inappropriate was this behavior? What, if anything, could someone else have done? Although to many, the first presenter’s actions might be viewed as “inconsiderate,” they likely would not be seen as immoral. However, she was giving the presentation at a professional meeting and was therefore performing in a professional role. As a result, her behavior would most likely be viewed by her colleagues as “unprofessional” and bordering on “unethical” by way of Section 1.9 of the AECT Code of Ethics. That section reads that members “Shall refrain from any behavior that would be judged discriminatory, harassing, insensitive, or offensive and, thus, is in conflict with valuing and promoting each individual’s integrity, rights, and opportunity within a diverse profession and society.’’ The foregoing statement reflects a strong concern for the impact of one’s behavior on the social “rights” and “opportunities” of others. The social consequences of behavior are important considerations in most ethical assessments. These social consequences are also more difficult to anticipate than the more immediate reactions to the “discriminatory” or “harassing” aspects of behavior. Taking more than the allotted time expressing one’s point of view is considered rude in a professional conference setting. This sort of breach can have serious social consequences for others, as was the case for the next scheduled presenter and for those who wanted to hear his presentation. If Sally Doe had taken her discussion out into the hall rather than use the conference room, her behavior would have changed from unprofessional to inconsiderate. Nevertheless, it would still not be socially acceptable because by her continuing beyond her allotted time, individuals in her session are still probably drawn away from the audience for the next presentation. This, in turn, negatively impacts the social “opportunity” of the subsequent presenter. Case 2 An online course administration system was set up so that an instructor could receive an electronic copy of all emails students sent from the class site without the students knowing about it. The system allowed students to send both class-related as well as personal e-mails from the class site. Tom Doe, a faculty member using the carbon copy (CC) option, noticed a potentially embarrassing e-mail sent by a male student to a female who was probably his girlfriend. One of his colleagues heard Tom read this e-mail out loud in an area where several others could hear its contents and the name of the sender. Tom Doe laughed at the student and made a derogatory comment about the student’s lack of intelligence. How inappropriate was Tom’s behavior? What, if anything, should an observing colleague have done? Is this behavior illegal, unethical, or immoral? Secretly monitoring e-mail messages is certainly unethical. How does the instructor’s reading the e-mail from the class to his colleagues influence our ethical judgment of his action? Does it make it even more illegal? Although employers may have the right to monitor employee’s e-mails, a federally funded university probably does not. In addition to being potentially illegal, it is clearly unethical by way of the AECT Code of Ethics Section 1.4, which states that members “Shall conduct professional business so as to protect the privacy and maintain the personal integrity of the individual.” Even though this instructor’s behavior was clearly unethical and possibly illegal, it was apparently not immoral to him. Case 3 During the term in which a course was taught, one of the class members in a graduate seminar was involved in opening a restaurant. One day in class, he invited the entire class (about eight people) to hold class and eat at his restaurant during the next scheduled class period. Following the meal, when the instructor and other class members attempted to pay, the student refused, saying that he was acting as host and that providing the meal was something he just wanted to do. What should the instructor have done? Would accepting the student’s offer to cover costs be considered unethical or immoral?
< previous page
page_69
next page >
< previous page
page_70
next page >
Page 70 The third case presents a problem frequently encountered in indirect exchanges. In this type of exchange, one party is expected to perform a service for another but is not to receive direct payment for that service from the recipient because it might compromise the way that service is to be performed. Instead, the party performing the service is reciprocated from a third party who in turn is reciprocated from the party receiving the service. For example, university students pay fixed rates of tuition to the university, the university hires and pays faculty according to some set pay scale, and faculty teach and grade students using impartial standards. But in all three instances, the exchanges are to be kept impersonal and indirect in order for the system to work. These types of exchanges are typical in society, where people do things for others as representatives of some larger organization and in which evaluations must be made. In fact, where people are rewarded indirectly, the acceptance of a direct reward in what is supposed to be an impartial or impersonal relationship is against the rules. A professor who charges his or her students extra tuition for services rendered has compromised the system of indirect exchange and has engaged in inappropriate behavior. Although less extreme, paying for an instructor’s dinner, or several dinners, during the term in which the student is to receive a grade breaches the rules of indirect exchange because direct exchanges tend to obligate and induce reciprocity. In ethics this problem is often referred to as a “conflict of interest.” Assessments of “inappropriate” behavior are influenced by a variety of other social influences that overlap with professional work and affiliations. Religious training and involvement with youth groups are two such examples. These possible personal influences on ethical judgments are examined next. How someone responds to the above three cases will depend on many factors, but we would like to show how similar conclusions about the appropriateness of behavior in each of the cases presented can be reached by two people using very different perspectives. THE INFLUENCE OF RELIGION John Doe is an active member of a Christian church. Its religious code of moral behavior is generally more inclusive than either ethical or legal sanctions. In most cases, John seeks guidance from the Bible through regular Bible study. Through this study, he finds direction for his moral and ethical compass. By reading the scriptures daily as counseled by his ecclesiastical leaders and as counseled in Deuteronomy 17:19, he attempts to address life’s perplexing moral situations. Sometimes he falls short but recognizes that Christianity is built on the belief in divine help through repentance and faith in Christ, the cornerstone of his religion. He recognizes that others in his society may not share his specific beliefs, but it does not change the value of having the help of the scriptures for his own “moral compass.” Although the AECT Code of Ethics has provisions (Section 2.4) dealing with ethical dilemmas, he more frequently relies on scripture and a moral sense of right and wrong. Case 1 In the first situation, the presenter who has gone overtime has violated the Golden Rule, paraphrased as “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Leviticus 19:18). The long-winded presenter has lost sight of the impact of her actions on others. No one would want to be treated this way. It is clearly a social violation. Case 2 In the case of the disclosed confidence about the contents of an e-mail message, the Golden Rule could again be invoked. However, more specific things about speech can give guidance. From Proverbs 16:21: “The wise in heart shall be called prudent, and the sweetness of the lips increaseth learning.’’ And verse 27: “An ungodly man diggeth up evil; and in his lips there is as a burning fire.” The problem here is that the teacher has not been careful with the confidential message entrusted to him.
< previous page
page_70
next page >
< previous page
page_71
next page >
Page 71 Case 3 A scripture from the Bible provides insight into the third case, which seems on the surface to be relatively harmless: “Judges and officers,…Thou shall not wrest judgment; thou shall not respect persons, neither take a gift; for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous” (Deuteronomy 16:18–19). The teacher of this class would be in a position to judge the student’s performance when giving him a grade; therefore, accepting the gift would be morally wrong. THE INFLUENCE OF HUMAN RIGHTS Mary Doe is not an active member of any religious institution and therefore does not have a specific religious code on which to base her actions. Instead of relying on a religious code for informing her choices, she is heavily influenced by the notion of social contract, relying upon the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights, as well as an internal sense of right and wrong based on a liberal humanist view that all people have inherent value. The fact that she and others have the freedom to wrestle with ethical decisions is a direct result of a social contract that provides a legal fence; however, it is not as prohibitive as the professional ethics fence. She finds that protecting individuals’ fundamental rights is a solid compass for assessing ethical dilemmas. In addition, because the framers of the Constitution were careful to preserve the rights of individuals, many ethical dilemmas are not clearly covered by legal dictate. In these cases, Mary is somewhat of a moral pragmatist, and once again, preservation of individual rights is a strong imperative in how she assesses behavior. On what basis does she make these extralegal judgments? Despite not having any specific religious doctrine to rely on as a moral compass, she finds that most of her specific moral beliefs are encapsulated in the Girl Scout Law. (She currently serves as a local Girl Scout leader.) As a leader, she teaches and has had her Girl Scouts memorize the following: I will do my best to be honest and fair, Friendly and helpful, Considerate and caring, Courageous and strong, And Responsible for what I say and do; And to Respect myself and others, Respect authority, Use resources wisely, Make the world a better place, And be a sister to every Girl Scout. She believes, as part of her moral compass, that the last line should be extended to “everyone.” It is interesting that this law was developed for a diverse religious and cultural population, as the Girl Scouts are an international organization. As a result of this need to be inclusive of a diverse population, it is also very general and therefore does not offer specific behavioral prescriptions. Because she does not have strict tenets to guide her behavior, Mary must grapple with each morally challenging situation and determine the correct ethical or moral choice for her. Surprisingly, though, despite its brevity and generality, she feels that Girl Scout Law captures the basics of most moral behavior; the difference between it and a religious doctrine is that it does not offer specific situational solutions to moral dilemmas. Case 1 When a proposal is accepted by a conference, presenters are given the opportunity to share their work with colleagues. In exchange, the presenters agree to adhere to the structures of the conference. In case 1, Sally Doe fails to adhere to the time allotted to her by conference organizers, thus violating a tacit agreement between her and the conference organizers. This behavior is therefore unethical because it threatens the core compact upon which conferences are built.
< previous page
page_71
next page >
< previous page
page_72
next page >
Page 72 Case 2 In case 2, Tom Doe is violating a student’s right to privacy, a right guaranteed by the Constitution. By sharing the contents of the email with a colleague, the instructor also violates the Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), an act designed to protect students’ privacy. Therefore this action is probably illegal on two fronts, violating the student’s Constitutional rights as well as violating FERPA. In addition, it is immoral. Instructors are vested with power over their students, and any behavior that exploits this power is immoral. Case 3 When the student suggested meeting in a different venue, Mary would have thanked him for his offer, but declined. The instructor has a contract with students to meet at a certain time in a specified place. Asking students to move class could have inconvenienced them, and social pressures may make it difficult for the students to express their concerns. Because members of professional groups frequently adhere to somewhat different moral standards, a professional code of ethics is helpful in bringing consensus to a diverse group, in much the same way that the Girl Scout Law provides general principles of behavior for Girl Scouts and their leaders. A professional code of ethics is important to bring consistency to how people with radically different moral codes like John Doe and Mary Doe deal with ethical dilemmas. What this means, however, is that there will be choices that are viewed by some as ethically wrong that may not be morally or legally wrong and vice versa. RESPONSES TO INAPPROPRIATE ACTIONS Although categorizing behaviors can be perplexing at times, determining an appropriate response to an inappropriate action can be even more challenging. It may sometimes be easier to take an ethical or legal relativist approach, but in some cases not addressing an ethical or legal violation can itself be unethical or illegal. And there are cases when a person feels morally required to take action even though there is no ethical or legal imperative. Just as there is a range of behaviors that can be classified from “appropriate” to ‘‘inappropriate,” there is a range of actions that can be taken when inappropriate behavior is encountered. These can be viewed as a continuum of interventions ranging from mild to severe (see fig. 2). We believe that just as a parent is better off intervening with action that is as benign as possible—a child should not be scolded or reprimanded if a simple “knowing look” obtains compliance—someone trying to deal with the inappropriate behavior of a coworker should use milder interventions before moving to severe ones. More severe interventions invite defensiveness, resistance, or retaliation, so the gentler correction is certainly preferable—if it works. The placement of choices along the continuum shown in figure 2 often reflects an individual’s personal style and intensity of commitment to moral codes. For example, some may be more inclined to confront a person directly before appealing to an authority figure, whereas others feel more comfortable passing the responsibility directly to an authority figure. With this in mind, we will look at how Mary and John say they would respond to each of the cases. In case 1, Mary and John are positioned as members of the presenter’s audience. In case 2, Mary and John are the faculty member with whom the offending instructor is sharing the e-mail. And in the third case, Mary is a student in the class where the proposal to meet at a restaurant was made, and John is the faculty member who teaches the class. John Doe John Doe’s reactions to the three cases are presented in the first person.
< previous page
page_72
next page >
< previous page
page_73
next page >
Page 73 Figure 2. Options for Intervention
Case 1 “As a member of the audience, I would be aware that one speaker has gone 10 minutes overtime. I would raise my hand and point out that fact and would probably do it as a question: ‘Am I right in assuming that the two of you were to divide the time equally? If so, I’m interested in hearing from Person X (oblique confrontation).’ If my hand was not recognized, I might stand up and blurt out the same message (direct confrontation), if I felt strongly enough about it (and that is not unlikely). If totally ignored, I would probably walk out (noncompliance). If I felt strongly enough about it, I might send a note to the conference organizers, letting them know of my displeasure (appeal to authority).” Case 2 “If I overheard another teacher talk about elements in the private e-mail of a student, I would probably go to the colleague in private and share my concern (direct confrontation). That decision, to confront or not, would depend on my relationship with that person, if I thought it was strong enough to handle a bit of strain. If not, I might take up the matter with an administrator over the program (appeal to authority). I most certainly would inform members of my class that the e-mails they are sending should not be considered private (preventing the situation). I would caution my students at least to avoid putting material into their e-mails that is overly personal. I would hold the communication between peers to be private, really none of my business, and as much as possible avoid monitoring or reading it, even if the technology did allow that option for teachers.” Case 3 “In the case of the gifted meal, as the instructor, I would have to see myself as a judge who had received a gift. Because my job would require that I judge or grade the student’s class performance, I would have to recognize that accepting the gift of the meal for the entire class could influence my judgment and therefore would be inappropriate. I would go to the student, possibly after the meal if I did not recognize this problem beforehand, assure the student that the class appreciated his hospitality, but I would insist that it was my moral obligation to pay for all class members. By insisting that the student accept the money, a potentially difficult situation would have been averted when grades were given out.” Although the AECT Code of Ethics has a similar provision (Section 2.4), for this particular instructor, it is more likely that the scripture would produced the realization that accepting the gift would be inappropriate. Another person might have felt obligated to pay for the meals by way of the AECT provision. Mary Doe Mary Doe’s responses to the three cases are also presented in the first person.
< previous page
page_73
next page >
< previous page
page_74
next page >
Page 74 Case 1 ‘‘As a member of an audience in which a presenter exceeds their allotted time, I would be uncomfortable because I do not have the authority to respond in a proactive way, but I would feel an imperative to do something. I can imagine a number of different responses, and of course these responses would be different depending on whether I was enjoying the presentation or anxious to have it conclude. If I was interested in the presentation, I would tell the presenter that I am interested in what she is saying and ask her if she could give me references to publications or Web sites so I could learn more because the time for the presentation had expired. If I was not enjoying the presentation, I would probably get up and leave when the presentation time had expired.” Case 2 “I would report this violation to an appropriate authority figure rather than confronting the colleague directly. In this case, I feel that the instructor acted both unethically and immorally, but the department head is also partly to blame for using a system that allowed the instructor to violate the student’s right to privacy. Confronting the instructor may have altered his behavior, but it would not get at the source of the problem. In this case, an appeal to authority would be the only way to ensure that the system would be changed to prevent future ethical, moral, or legal violations of students’ privacy.” Case 3 “As a student in this situation, I would make a counterproposal that we meet at the restaurant after the semester was over to celebrate classes being over, thus moving a social event to a more appropriate time and place. By doing this, the instructor would maintain the contract he or she made with the students to hold class at a specific time and place, and the students in the class would not feel that the student who owned the restaurant gained any advantage on them in the instructor’s eyes by treating the class to a meal.” In the professional setting of AECT, a person would be generally well advised to simply approach a coworker and suggest that there are ways to handle copyright within the law rather than blowing the whistle and notifying the employer or the owner of the copyright. The small number of cases actually reported to the AECT Ethics Committee (less than a handful of cases in the past decade) implies that most corrections of ethical violations take place elsewhere. Appealing to the professional ethics committee of AECT, a fairly serious step, might be seen as an “appeal to authority” among professional peers. Such actions are not taken lightly. In addition, Whicker and Kronenfeld (1994) report in a survey of workers on a college campus that 65 percent of faculty respondents reported being fearful of retaliation from coworkers if they chose to report inappropriate behaviors to an authority. The low number of cases brought to the AECT Ethics Committee could also indicate that members do not view AECT as a potent authority. Because AECT is in no way an exclusive association, a person expelled from AECT would have several alternative professional groups to join. Therefore censure by the AECT Ethics Committee may not pack the punch needed to be considered an authority as do organizations such as the American Medical Association or the American Bar Association. THE SOCIAL RELATIVITY OF RESPONSES TO INAPPROPRIATE ACTIONS It is possible to take ethical stances in our profession even when individuals are coming from quite different philosophical or religious positions, as illustrated by the views and responses of Mary Doe and John Doe. We would argue that this congruence indicates an underlying moral order to our society and a fairly high level of agreement among its individuals, including an agreement, generally, to tolerate differences. However, appropri-
< previous page
page_74
next page >
< previous page
page_75
next page >
Page 75 ate actions are always contingent on social circumstances, and this is where a well-intended response to a clearly agreed upon inappropriate behavior can still lead to trouble. Robert Merton (1957) was one of the first social scientists to point out that much of our behavior takes place within the context of social roles. Our performance in these roles is influenced by the reactions of other role partners, who are typically arrayed in what Merton calls a role set. Partners in a role set vary according to their authority and responsibility for monitoring the role behaviors of others in role relationships. They also vary in the frequency of their contact and in the observability of others’ role behavior. The idea of ethics is inherently connected to social roles and the social norms connected to these social roles because most ethical issues focus on the negative social impacts of unethical behaviors on others. The responses given by Mary and John could be radically different if their role in the situation was changed. For instance, if Mary were a conference organizer rather than just a member of the audience, chances are that she would have been much more active in her response to the presenter who was taking too much time. There are also the roles of current presenter, listener in the audience, session presider (if there is one), next presenter, intended listener to the next presenter, program coordinator, and so on. Some of these roles have official authority over conference activities, and other do not. Appropriate responses in one role may be inappropriate, and may even constitute an ethical violation, if carried out in another role. On the other hand, if someone does not act, then negative social consequences are inevitable. Otherwise, there would be no need for a normative time limit on presentations. Furthermore, when violations of ethical norms get ignored, ethical behaviors typically decline over time because people tend to pay greatest attention to those aspects of behavior that others deem to be important enough to sanction when inappropriate. But sanctioning also must be appropriate according to the recognized authority in role relationships. Otherwise, efforts to correct inappropriate behavior are likely to lead to hostility and retribution. An appropriate response to inappropriate behavior varies according to the social position of the responder. Even within the same role, Mary’s probable response in case 1 varies depending on her interest in the presentation. In either case, her response would be socially appropriate for someone in the role of an audience member. John is more active in his response by asking a question about the time, thus giving the presenter a chance to avoid a confrontation. Because these kinds of situations are not uncommon at conferences, our professional association may be well served by developing a series of tactful comments that anyone might use regardless of their role to reduce the likelihood of direct confrontations in situations such as this. Both Mary and John are sensitive to authority issues in the second case study. Mary seems less inclined to directly confront someone she knows and with whom she works. John seems more concerned about preserving a collegial relationship than about changing a system of numerous potential ethical violations. Both responses show a broader assessment of the social positions of those involved and a wider array of possible responses contingent on one’s social position. For example, John mediates his response by how well he knows the violator. Both have a concern for students’ rights to privacy; however, Mary is concerned about all students, whereas John is more concerned about his immediate role partners, that is, his own students. The reactions of the two respondents show how responses to inappropriate behavior may sometimes ignore the broader implications of social roles in deciding how to respond to a violation. They also show that in other instances, such as a personal colleague, greater consideration of social roles is more likely to enter into the decision of how to respond. Mary seems to be less patient in finding a solution and may be too quick to involve authority. However, as she noted, she feels that the crux of the problem was not with her colleague but with the system that allowed him to abuse his student’s rights. A personal confrontation with the colleague who read the e-mail is more consistent with the similarity in social standing of the two role partners. In all responses to inappropriate behaviors of professional colleagues, we would hope to see more responses prefaced by a statement indicating some reflection upon social circumstance: “It depends on my relationship to the
< previous page
page_75
next page >
< previous page
page_76
next page >
Page 76 violator! If I’m a lay member of the audience, if I’m the next presenter, if I’m the session coordinator,” and so on. Likewise, “I’m a close friend, I’m a department head, I’m the chair of the person’s tenure committee, I’m a close friend of the computer network administrator,” and so forth. In the third case, considerable difficulty can be avoided if the consequences of the action can be foreseen and thus avoided. Mary’s status as a student suggests a different course of action than John’s action as a teacher. And the timing of the response is important as well. If the dinner comes after grades are turned in for the class, as Mary suggests, then the influence of the gift on judgment is avoided. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS Just as some people work within dietary restrictions to maintain health, some will see actions mentioned here as outside their moral code. Followers of Mahatma Ghandi would disavow all use of force to bring about a change in another person, thus ignoring the option for personal use of force and avoiding the consequences of fighting and war but possibly losing their own life. A variety of other stances are possible. The appropriate response to the inappropriate actions of others, however, should not usurp the legitimate authority of others unless they fail to fulfill their obligations to protect our collective ethical obligations. Our classifications of items on both continua are meant not to give license to inappropriate action but rather to suggest the range of possibilities that we see. We have also tried to clarify some of the social circumstances that should be considered prior to responding to inappropriate behaviors that may threaten the ethical integrity of our profession. A moral relativist might feel most comfortable in a world without fences; however, in professional associations, it is important to have a code of ethics that provides a degree of common agreement for members. It is important to have a code of ethics to fall back on when assessing behavior. The code can act as something of a parent to those who have difficulty with arguing a decision made on ethical grounds. “I’d love to make an illegal copy of this software for you, but it is against the AECT code of ethics (and the law)” may be a moral cop-out, but it is one way to handle an uncomfortable situation. AECT’s fence does not suggest that the AECT Code of Ethics should supercede a moral or legal fence but suggests rather that there is common agreement about what actions lie within ethical behavior and what actions do not; therefore, the code acts more as a reinforcement to moral and legal fences. It should be noted that in many cases, a personal code of behavior will prevent the need to refer to the professional code. By following the AECT Code of Ethics, we ensure professional integrity and a set of common assumptions about what is acceptable and what is not. By knowing the basis for our action, we are more likely to act consistently and in harmony with principles and values to which we subscribe. At the same time, we must remember that ethics serve to protect the collectivity from the negative social consequences of inappropriate behavior. If we are not careful, however, our out-of-role responses to inappropriate behavior can have many of the same negative social consequences as the behaviors we are trying to prevent. REFERENCES Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (2002). AECT Code of Professional Ethics. [Online]. Available: http://aect.org/about/Ethics.htm. (Accessed February 2002). Merton, R. K. (1957). Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Welliver, P. W., ed. (2001). A code of professional ethics: A guide to professional conduct in the field of educational communications and technology. Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Technology. Whicker, M. L., and Kronenfeld, J. J. (1994). Dealing with ethical dilemmas on campus. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage.
< previous page
page_76
next page >
< previous page
page_77
next page >
Page 77 Developing Ethical Behaviors in Students What Schools Must Do Doug Johnson Director of Media and Technology Mankato Area Public Schools, Mankato, Minnesota Stories abound that can cause any educator nightmares: • A student is caught downloading pornographic materials on school computers. • A student is abducted by a stranger she has met in an Internet chat room. • Students hack into a school server and cause damage. • A student uses the printer in the computer lab to print reams of encyclopedia pages. • A student sets up a satirical “school’’ Web site that appears critical of individual teachers. • Parents complain to the school board when their children are suspected of plagiarizing materials from the Internet. • A student receives unsavory spam sent to his school e-mail account. • Students use the Internet to locate information from hate groups. And the list goes on. Highly publicized stories like these are enough to make even the strongest proponent of technology use in schools wonder if technology is worth the problems it generates. It is sometimes difficult to remember that technology is neutral. It is neither evil nor holy. The same hammer that builds a cathedral can be efficiently used to break the cathedral’s windows. The same mechanical engineering that caused the traffic accident takes the injured to the hospital. The same Internet connection that helps students find great information for a term paper can be used to download pornography. Of all the understandings that school leaders need to have about technology, its proper use is easily the most important. Adults teach by example, so they must exemplify safe and ethical technology use. Administrators are responsible for enforcing ethical computer use through good policy writing, good staff development activities, and the enforcement of school rules related to technology use. All schools must take deliberate steps to ensure that students are not just being taught how to use technology but how to use it productively, safely, and wisely. Educators must plan deliberately if technology is to be safely, legally, and ethically used in schools and if schools are to be effective in creating young citizens who will continue to be safe and ethical users even when not being supervised. Such an effort has three major components: 1. It must develop adult awareness of the safe and ethical dimensions of technology use. 2. It must create good technology policies, guidelines, and rules.
< previous page
page_77
next page >
< previous page
page_78
next page >
Page 78 3. It must offer opportunities for both staff and students to build understandings and practice ethical actions. The components of such a plan are briefly examined here. WHAT ADULTS NEED TO UNDERSTAND When students start using technology, especially information technologies that consist of computers and computer networks, they start operating in a new world: a virtual world in which behaviors may not be easily judged to be right or wrong. If a student steals a music compact disc from a local store explaining that the reason she stole it was that she did not have the money to purchase it, we can easily judge that action to be both illegal and unethical. However, if a student downloads a copyrighted piece of music from the Internet, and he gives the same reason, we may question the impropriety of the action. Nothing physical was stolen. It is a common practice. The likelihood of being caught is negligible. Young people, especially teenagers, are more knowledgeable and more comfortable in the virtual world —“cyberspace”—than are most of the adults who now teach them. As reported by the Center for Media Education (2001): Yet while there has been substantial public debate about protecting children and teens from inappropriate and harmful content on the Internet, very little is really understood about the nature of the digital content and services created for and by teens—the actual Web sites where they spend so much time and to which they devote so much attention. As a consequence, even as this new medium is becoming a pervasive presence in teens’ lives, it remains largely under the radar of parents, scholars, and policymakers alike. As a first step in ensuring student ethical use of technologies, schools first need to make sure that teachers and other staff members understand some important concepts. What Technology (or Computer) Ethics Means Computer ethics, better labeled “information technology ethics,” deals with the proper use of a wide range of telecommunication and data storage devices. Ethics is the branch of philosophy that deals with moral judgments, issues of right and wrong, and determining what behaviors are humane and inhumane. Most Western codes of ethical behavior describe actions as “ethical’’ that do one or more of the following: • promote the general health of society • maintain or increase individual rights and freedoms • protect individuals from harm • treat all human beings as having an inherent value and accord those beings respect • uphold religious, social, cultural, and government laws and mores Simply, an “ethical action” does no harm to oneself, other individuals, or society. The terms ethical, safe, moral, appropriate, and legal are all used when discussing whether technology behaviors are right or wrong. Although often used almost interchangeably, there are distinctions among the terms: • Ethical use is the most generic term that applies to actions that may be considered right or wrong.
< previous page
page_78
next page >
< previous page
page_79
next page >
Page 79 • Safe use applies to situations in which physical harm may come to a user or user’s property. • Moral use applies to situations to which religious or spiritual values apply. (Is the action good or evil?) • Appropriate use applies to actions that may be right or wrong depending on when, where, and with whom they happen. • Legal use applies to situations in which established laws are violated. A single action may be unethical, unsafe, immoral, inappropriate, and illegal (such as sending a computer virus that harms data). But many acts fall more into one category than the others. The viewing of pornography arguably may be construed as immoral, but not unsafe or illegal if done by an adult in private. A student using a school computer to view sports scores is not illegal, but it could be considered inappropriate if it violates school guidelines. Any discussion about ethical behaviors is challenging because human beings usually place actions on an ethical continuum rather than simply judging them as ethical or unethical. Because of personal values established by religion, upbringing, education, and experience, it is difficult to reach consensus on many of these value-laden issues. A single act by a student can be construed as mischievous (or even ethical) by one teacher and malicious by another. The Responsibility of Schools in Teaching Computer Ethics In direct and indirect ways, children begin to learn ethical values from birth. And although families and religious institutions are assigned the primary responsibility for a child’s ethical education, schools have the societal charge to teach and reinforce some moral values, especially those directly related to citizenship and school behaviors. Nearly all ethical issues that surround technology deal with societal and school behaviors and are an appropriate and necessary part of the school curriculum. Schools not teaching ethical behavior are negligent in fulfilling the responsibilities expected of them by society. Why Technology Ethics Deserves Special Consideration Using technology to communicate and operate in a “virtual world,” one that only exists within computers and computer networks, is a new phenomenon that is not well understood by many adults who received their primary education prior to its existence. Both fear and romance accompany new technologies. Movies, as well as books and television programs, often make ethically questionable or illegal actions, such as breaking into secure computer systems, seem heroic or at least sympathetic. There are many parallels between the physical and virtual worlds that can help us place new virtual experiences into a more familiar context, but there are major differences between these worlds as well: • Intellectual property in digital formats, whether software, images, music, or text, can now be duplicated with incredible ease and speed, making copyright violations and plagiarism more common. • Prior to the Internet, minors faced physical barriers of access to sexually explicit, hate-group, and terrorist materials. • Access to strangers is no longer primarily seen as a physical threat and a known risk but can happen in chat rooms or via e-mail. • The ability to send unsolicited commercial messages to millions of Internet e-mail users (spamming) was not possible before there was e-mail or the Internet.
< previous page
page_79
next page >
< previous page
page_80
next page >
Page 80 • Digital photography has made the manipulation of images undetectable, an impossible feat with chemical photography. One of the most significant reasons that computer ethics deserves special attention is because of our rather human ability to view one’s actions in the intangible, virtual world of information technologies as being less serious than one’s actions in the real world. Most adults or children would never contemplate walking into a computer store and shoplifting a computer program. Yet software piracy (the illegal duplication of computer programs) costs the computer business billions of dollars each year. Most of us would never pick a lock, but guessing passwords to gain access to unauthorized information is a too-common activity. Information technology misuse by many people, especially the young, is viewed as a low-risk, gamelike challenge. Electronic fingerprints, footsteps, and other evidence of digital impropriety have historically been less detectable than physical evidence. There is a physical risk when breaking into a real office that does not exist when hacking into a computer database from one’s living room or den. Illegally copying a book is costly and time consuming; illegally copying a computer program can be easily done in seconds at very small expense. Pornography viewed on a Web site seems to disappear as soon as the browser window is closed. Educators need to be aware and understand that another, counter set of “ethical” behavior also exists—that espoused by hackers. Being described as a “hacker’’ once indicated only a strong interest and ability in computer use. Popular use of the word has changed, so that now “hacking” describes gaining unauthorized access to computerized systems and data. The term “cracker” is also used but is often applied to a hacker who has a malicious intent. Some common hacker beliefs include the following: • All information, especially digital information, should be free and available to all people. • Breaking into computer systems points out security features to those who are responsible for maintaining them. • Hacking is a form of learning about computers and is harmless. • Hackers help monitor the abuse of information by the government and business (D. G. Johnson 2000). Teachers need to know and understand these counterculture beliefs and be able to offer reasons why they need to be questioned for their logic and ethics. Existing Ethical Codes of Technology Use Not long ago, ethical technology questions were only of interest to a few specialists. But as the use of information technologies spreads throughout society and its importance to our national economies and individual careers grows, everyone will need to make good ethical decisions when using information technologies. Studies show that persons involved in computer crimes acquire both their interest and skills at an early age. Many organizations and individuals have written lists of ethical “rules” for technology use. One of the mostly widely used and easily understood sets of computer use principles is “The Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics” from the Computer Ethics Institute (1992), which reads much like the biblical Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt not use a computer to harm other people, thou shalt not interfere with other people’s computer work,” and so on. Arlene Rinaldi (1998) has written a well-respected set of Internet guidelines called “The Net: User Guidelines and Netiquette.” This more informal set of expected behaviors
< previous page
page_80
next page >
< previous page
page_81
next page >
Page 81 helps new users learn the manners and etiquette of an often-impatient online community. In her guide, newbies (inexperienced telecommunications users) learn that typing in all capital letters is considered shouting and therefore rude; sending chain letters via e-mail is improper and a waste of resources; and humor and sarcasm are easily viewed as criticism and should be used with care in electronic communications. A variety of guides should be made available to staff and students, and one should either be adopted or an original set of guidelines written. Although an entire school or district may wish to use a single set of guidelines, each classroom teacher needs to understand, teach, and model the guidelines. Simple, easily remembered guidelines are probably the best for children: Johnson’s 3 P’s of Technology Ethics 1. Privacy—I will protect my privacy and respect the privacy of others. 2. Property—I will protect my property and respect the property of others. 3. Appropriate use—I will use technology in constructive ways and in ways which do not break the rules of my family, religion, school, or government. (D. A. Johnson 1998) Although sometimes more difficult to enforce in a consistent manner, a set of a few guidelines rather than a lengthy set of specific rules is more beneficial to students in the long run. By applying guidelines rather than following rules, students engage in higher-level thinking processes and learn behaviors that will continue into their next classroom, their homes, and their adult lives. The Major Issues of Technology Ethics The scope of information technology ethics is very broad. In addressing ethical behaviors, categorizing the issues under the major headings of privacy, property, and appropriate use helps provide a framework for discussions. Scenarios and discussion questions for the issues discussed below can be found on the author’s Web site, www.doug-johnson.com/ethics/index.html (D. A. Johnson 2002). Privacy: Does my use of the technology violate the privacy of others, or am I giving information to others that I should not? Privacy issues are a hot-button topic as people become more aware of how easily technology can gather, hold, and analyze personal data. Students need to be aware of technology issues related to privacy both so that they can protect their own privacy and so that they can honor the privacy of others. Protecting one’s privacy • Students need to understand that businesses and organizations use information to market products, and that information is often gathered electronically, both overtly and covertly. Information given to one organization may well be sold to others. All citizens should be able to articulate and control to the degree possible the amount of information a company knows about them. A company that knows a lot about an individual can use it to customize products for the individual but also to manipulate that person. • As students use technology to communicate, they need to know that a stranger is a stranger, whether met on the playground or on the Internet. The same rules we
< previous page
page_81
next page >
< previous page
page_82
next page >
Page 82 teach children about physical strangers apply to virtual strangers. In conversing in chat rooms, with instant messaging programs, or through e-mail, students lose the visual clues to the other person. We know only what the other person tells about him- or herself (often much to the chagrin of those in search of romance on the Internet). • Schools have the right to search student and employee files that are created and stored on school-owned computer hardware. Schools have search policies on lockers and book bags, and the same policy can be extended to computer storage devices. Respecting others’ privacy • Information does not become public just by virtue of its appearance on a computer screen. Students who are accustomed to the public viewing of television monitors need to realize that student-created work on a computer screen should be treated as privately as work created in a paper journal. • Information inadvertently left accessible does not mean that it is appropriate to access it. Forgetting to lock one’s home is not the same as allowing anyone to enter it. Although information may be about students (such as grades), that information does not necessarily belong to them. Students certainly do not have the right to look at information about other students. One question that might be raised is: “What right do students have to check the accuracy of the data gathered about them, and what would be the correct procedure for making that check?” Property Issues: Do my actions respect the property of others, and am I taking steps to keep my property safe? Property issues, especially those regarding intellectual property, have come to the forefront of ethics discussions. As already noted, the ease with which property can be copied has led to greater instances of piracy, plagiarism, and even disdain for copyright laws, as evidenced in the rampant use of Napster-like music acquisition. As with privacy, students need to understand that property is a two-sided issue: they need to respect the property of others, as well as protect their own property from the abuses of others. Respecting the property of others • Students need to know that computer software is protected by copyright law. It is unlawful, as well as unethical, to make copies of computer programs without permission or payment to the producer of those programs. It also needs to be understood that when purchasing software, one is usually only purchasing the right to use the software. The ownership of the code that makes up the program stays with the producer. This means that one cannot alter the program or resell it. The vast majority of software licenses require that one copy of a program be purchased for each computer on which it is to be run. The inability to pay for software is not a justification for illegal copying. • Software falls into three main types: freeware (that which can be used indefinitely without payment), shareware (that which can be used for a trial period and then must either be erased or purchased), and commercial software (that which must be purchased before use). Understanding the concept of shareware is a good way of helping students understand why purchasing software benefits them. The profits that software producers make are partially used to fund the development of more software. If the profit motive is lost from software creation, less software and fewer improvements are likely to be made.
< previous page
page_82
next page >
< previous page
page_83
next page >
Page 83 • Plagiarism is easier than ever, thanks to the computer. Students need to understand when and how to cite information from a broad range of print, electronic, and primary sources. Academic work is increasingly becoming available for sale or downloading from the Internet. Online services now offer help in writing “personal” essays requested for college admissions offices. • Both hacking and creating viruses are property offenses because they cause damage or misuse technology resources such as bandwidth. • Students need to learn to treat intellectual property the same way they would treat physical property and that the theft or destruction of such property is unethical (and unlawful). Deleting a file or erasing a disk constitutes the destruction of property even though the magnetic medium of the hard drive or the plastic case of the computer disk is left intact. • Deliberate waste of school materials through excessive printing is not uncommon. Students need to understand that it is wrong to waste finite resources. Like vandalism, students need to understand that everyone is affected by such activities. Protecting one’s own property • Students need to know about the unethical practices of others and how to protect themselves from those practices. • Computer viruses, often infecting a computer through downloading software from the Internet, can be detected and destroyed by virus protection programs. Students need to know how to find, install, and use these protection programs. • Investment, health, and employment scams are rampant on the Internet. • Students need to know that their own original work is protected by copyright laws and that they have a right to give or not give permission for others to use it. • All technology users need to know that passwords must be kept confidential to prevent the unauthorized access to a student’s data (and to ensure privacy). • All citizens (including students) have the ethical responsibility for reporting wrongdoing, including destruction of property. Although there are many reasons students are reluctant to do so, as adults we need to express our beliefs that reporting unethical or criminal behavior serves a social purpose. Younger students often believe that school property is owned by the teachers and administrators and are surprised to learn that it is their parents’ taxes or fees that must be used to pay for vandalized or stolen school resources. Appropriate Use: Does this use of technology have educational value, and is it in keeping with the rules of my family, my religion, my school, and my government? Appropriate use is often a gray area of technology ethics. Rules made because of scarcity of resources, because of religious values, and for actions that may simply be tasteless or cause discomfort in others are difficult to create and enforce. The types of misuse of technology in this category range from the mischievous to the malicious. Place, audience, and purpose can all be factors in determining whether an action can be gauged as appropriate. Place • Most schools allow students to use free time in school to complete personal tasks—to read a book or magazine for enjoyment, to write a letter to a friend, or to draw
< previous page
page_83
next page >
< previous page
page_84
next page >
Page 84 for pleasure. Technology, too, should be available to students for uses not tied directly to the curriculum—to play games, to send personal e-mail, or to search for Internet information of personal interest. The ethical issue here becomes that of an allocation of resources. For most schools, the demand for technology has outpaced its acquisition. Computers and Internet access are usually in short supply, and priority needs to be given to students who have an academic task to complete. • Students may use personal technologies inappropriately at school. Personal digital assistants (PDAs), cell phones, pagers, and wireless laptop computers give students the ability to communicate surreptitiously. This form of communication can be used to cheat and can distract from classroom activities. Audience • A good deal of Internet content is tasteless, offensive, and lacking in educational value. Schools should define, and teachers should help students understand, the qualities and conditions under which an item becomes inappropriate for school use. Students need to understand the concepts of pornography, racism, and sexism. Students may be exposed to information produced by hate groups and political extremists. Such experiences may be springboards to meaningful discussions about propaganda and free-speech issues. Materials and topics that students may access from home without parental disapproval are not always appropriate for reading or viewing in schools where a wide range of value systems exist. • Most schools have harassment policies and appropriate-language rules. Students need to understand that harassment is wrong regardless of its medium, and of course, they need to recognize that language used among friends is not always the language used in public discourse of any kind. Purpose • As noted previously, technology is neutral. It can be used to generate attention and for mischief—two great goals children and young adults have always had. • Students can use technology to “edit” photographs. Deliberate distortion of events may harm both those involved in the event and the reputation of the reporter. Although such actions may seem frivolous, journalistic integrity is a serious issue of which even young photographers need to be aware. • Just as students have created “alternate” school newspapers of a satiric nature, they are now creating ‘‘alternate” school Web sites and personal student Web sites that are hosted on nonschool computers. Unless the messages on them can be proven to be libelous or threatening, these sites are protected by students’ First Amendment rights. School officials need to be careful in how they deal with such sites, despite the degree of embarrassment they might cause. • Disguise, impersonation, and other forms of “trying on” new personalities are common childhood and adolescent behaviors. The anonymity of the Internet limits such impersonation only to the degree that a lack of a student’s writing skills or sophistication of thought allows discovery. Role playing in a physical context is often seen as both healthy and educational. We need to help students ask when such activities are productive and when they might be harmful. • Students need to be aware that the Internet is rife with hoaxes and learn to check sites carefully for authenticity and accuracy (see U.S. Department of Energy 2002).
< previous page
page_84
next page >
< previous page
page_85
next page >
Page 85 WHAT ALL STUDENTS NEED TO UNDERSTAND It is quite obvious that students need to understand and apply both school rules and local and national laws that apply to information technology use, especially those related to privacy, property, and appropriateness as described above. They need to know the immediate and long-term consequences for both themselves and society if they choose to act against school rules or the law. Students also need to know that the ability of officials to detect technology misuse is growing. Network security systems are becoming more sophisticated in tracking who uses what resource at what time. Students need to realize that most Web browsers keep a viewable log of recently visited sites, that most e-mail messages include a return address, and that some schools are using programs that record all the keystrokes a student makes during a computer session. All of us need to understand that organizations have the right to search file-server space and read the e-mail messages of students (and staff), especially if there is probable cause. Electronic fingerprints, virtual footprints, and broken digital locks are growing more visible each day. Students need to understand both their rights and responsibilities related to information technology use. As the Internet becomes a more indispensable source of information and learning activities, it may become viewed as an integral part of one’s right to an education, but rights are accompanied by responsibilities. We have an obligation to teach students that they have a right to due process if charged with a violation of rules or laws. Pragmatically, students need to know how to protect themselves and their data from strangers, hackers, computer viruses, and unauthorized use. POLICIES, GUIDELINES, AND RULES SCHOOLS NEED TO HAVE School officials who understand the ethical issues surrounding technology use can use those understandings to formulate policies, rules, and guidelines for use by both students and staff. These rules should be in written form, readily available, and frequently revised. Acceptable Use Policies Most schools now have adopted an “Acceptable Use Policy” that governs the use of the Internet and other information technologies and networks in a school. This policy needs to be school board adopted and should apply to both staff and student technology use. Everyone in the school, as well as parents, needs to know and understand these policies. The Mankato, Minnesota, Schools’ Acceptable Use Policy (Mankato Area Public Schools 1998) describes the role of networked technologies in education, the due processes by which violators of the policy are protected, and some explicit rules of use: Users are prohibited from using school district Internet resources or accounts for the following purposes: 1. To access, upload, download, or distribute pornographic, obscene or sexually explicit material. 2. To transmit or receive obscene, abusive or sexually explicit language. 3. To violate any local, state or federal statute. 4. To vandalize, damage or disable the property of another person or organization. 5. To access another person’s materials, information, or files without the implied or direct permission of that person.
< previous page
page_85
next page >
< previous page
page_86
next page >
Page 86 6. To violate copyright laws, or otherwise use another person’s property without the person’s prior approval or proper citation, including the downloading or exchanging of pirated software or copying software to or from any school computer. 7. Unauthorized commercial use or financial gain. Web Site Guidelines Schools that have created Web sites will need to establish guidelines. These guidelines usually address • the purpose of the Web site, • the identification and responsibility for oversight of the Web site, • the persons authorized to create and maintain pages on the site, • content standards for the site, including subject matter and quality, • privacy safeguards for students placing work on the site, including whether photographs or e-mail addresses can be included and whether parental permission needs to be given, • a short restatement of general technology use policies of the district that apply to the use of the Web site specifically, • technical standards including using standard HTMLconventions, limiting the size and amount graphic files, establishing the date and authorship of pages, and establishing a schedule for page updating and revisions, and • contact information for questions or problems about the site. Building and Library Rules Individual buildings and library media centers may choose to create rules for technology use that are more specific to their own programs. These rules, which are often driven by the availability of technology, should be created by a buildingwide committee rather than a single individual. Such rules might cover • the appropriate use of e-mail, chat rooms, and recreational use of the Internet, • the downloading and use of bandwidth intensive files such as those that carry sound and video, • printing policies, • length of time an individual student may use a computer with Internet access, • use of privately owned and downloaded software (software installation policy) by both students and staff, • where and how student created files are stored, and • whether and how student activities while using technology are monitored. Plagiarism Guidelines Increasingly, schools are writing specific guidelines that address plagiarism. These guidelines should clearly state, in language appropriate to the age level of the student,
< previous page
page_86
next page >
< previous page
page_87
next page >
Page 87 • what plagiarism is, • how to correctly identify sources, including text and graphics, from both print and electronic sources, interviews, and ideas from a variety of sources including conversations, songs, television programs, computer programs, and so on, • the ideas that do not need to be documented, including personal experience, generally accepted facts, and results from personally conducted experiments, • the penalties for submitting work that has been plagiarized, and • a warning of how plagiarism can be detected. Some schools have incorporated plagiarism guidelines into general “cheating” guidelines. An example of such a guideline is one created for the students at Lakeview High School, Battle Creek, Michigan (Lincoln 2002). WHAT SCHOOLS NEED TO DO TO TEACH AND ENCOURAGE ETHICAL BEHAVIORS Schools must take a proactive approach to creating ethical technology users. Informing students and staff about ethical issues, discussing technology uses in light of ethical values, detecting technology misuse, and enforcing the appropriate use of technology resources are ongoing tasks. No single approach to educating students about the proper use of technology can be relied on to create ethical users of information technologies. 1. Staff development activities need to address ethical issues and develop an awareness and understanding of these issues in all adults who work with students. These activities can be specific in-services or integrated into general teacher technology classes. Library and technology departments can raise the awareness of ethical issues by sending short e-mail “bulletins” to district staff listservs (D. A. Johnson 2002). 2. Policies, guidelines, and rules need to be readily available to staff, students, and parents. Basic rules for technology use should be available as handouts in offices, media centers, and classrooms. They should be posted on the school’s Web site. Many schools print them in staff and student handbooks. Each year, technology rules should be explained and discussed during student orientation to the school and to the media center, during new-staff orientation, in classes at the beginning of major research projects, and during parent open houses. 3. All staff members should be encouraged to articulate personal values in situations where ethical decisions must be made and should encourage the discussion of ethical issues as a part of classroom instruction. “Cases,” whether from news sources or from actual school events, can provide superb discussion starters and should be used when students are actually learning computer skills. Students need practice in creating meaningful analogies between the virtual world and the physical world. Frances Jacobson Harris (2001), from the University Laboratory High School Library in Urbana, Illinois, uses an electronic bulletin board to present ethical issues and allow students to comment on them. 4. All staff members should model ethical behaviors of technology use. Students learn more from what we do than what we say. Verbalizing how we personally make decisions is a powerful teaching tool. 5. All staff members should reinforce ethical behaviors and react to nonethical behaviors. Technology-use behaviors should be treated no differently than other behaviors—good or bad—and the consequences of student behaviors should be the same. It is important not to overreact to incidences of technological misuse (D. A. Johnson 1997). Should a student bring inappropriate reading material to school, we do not ban reading for that child. Should a student access inappropriate material on the Internet, we should not ban the child’s use of the Internet.
< previous page
page_87
next page >
< previous page
page_88
next page >
Page 88 6. Students’ understandings of ethical concepts need to be assessed. Technology-use privileges should not be given to students until they have demonstrated that they know and can apply ethical standards and school policies. Testing of appropriate use needs to be done prior to students gaining online privileges such as e-mail accounts or Internet access. The teacher should keep evidence of testing on file in case there is a question of whether there has been instruction on appropriate use. 7. Schools must work to create environments that help students avoid the temptation to misuse technology resources. Computer screens that are easily monitored, passwords not written down or easily guessed, and the habit of logging out of secure network systems all help remove the opportunities for technology misuse in a classroom. Schools that remotely monitor student computer use with special software should alert students of this ability. Students should not be left unattended where computer access is possible. Curricular purposes for technology use should be stressed (D. A. Johnson 2000a). 8. Teachers and media specialists must begin to prevent plagiarism by designing good research projects. A great deal of effort goes into detecting plagiarism without always much thought into preventing it. Well-designed assignments that are personal, that ask for higher-level thinking, and that require creative solutions to problems or answers to questions significantly decrease the ability and temptation to plagiarize the materials of others (D. A. Johnson 1996). 9. Use national and state library and technology organization student competencies that stress ethical use of information and technology. Both the International Society for Technology in Education’s (2000) and American Association of School Librarians’ (1998) student standards for technology and information literacy have ethical-use components. These should be used as guides when writing local curricula. 10. Schools have an obligation to educate parents about ethical technology use. Through school newsletters, talks at parent organization meetings, and school orientation programs, the school staff needs to inform and enlist the aid of parents in teaching and enforcing good technology practices. Parents should be made aware of the American Association of School Librarian’s online course that has been written just for them (D. A. Johnson 2000b). 11. Ethical instruction needs to be ongoing. A single lesson, a single unit, or a single curriculum strand will not suffice. All teachers, librarians, and staff members must integrate ethical instruction into every activity that uses technology. CONCLUSION Educators must plan deliberately if technology is to be safely, legally, and ethically used in schools and if schools are to be effective in creating young citizens who are safe and ethical users. To not do so would be unethical. REFERENCES American Association of School Librarians. (1998). Information power: Building partnerships for learning. Chicago: American Library Association. Center for Media Education. (2001). TeenSites.com. [Online]. Available: http://www.cme.org. (Accessed March 11, 2002). Computer Ethics Institute. (1992). Ten commandments of computer ethics. Available: http://www.brook.edu/its/cei/cei_hp.htm. (Accessed March 11, 2002). Harris, F. (2001, November). Teaching Internet ethics to teens. Presentation made at the American Association of School Librarians conference, Indianapolis, IN. International Society for Technology in Education. (2000). National educational technology standards for students: Connecting curriculum and technology. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
< previous page
page_88
next page >
< previous page
page_89
next page >
Page 89 Johnson, D. A. (1996, January). Copy, cut, plagiarize. Technology Connections 2, 50. [Online]. Available: http://www.doug-johnson.com/dougwri/cut.html. (Accessed March 11, 2002). ———. (1997, December). Mischief and mayhem. Technology Connection 4, 48. [Online]. Available: http://www.doug-johnson.com/dougwri/mayhem.html. (Accessed March 11, 2002). ———. (1998, November/December). Developing an ethical compass for worlds of learning. MultiMedia Schools 5, 42–47. [Online]. Available: http://www.infotoday.com/MMSchools/nov98/johnson.htm. (Accessed March 11, 2002). ———. (2000a, September/October). Creating high temptation environments. Library Talk 13, 64. [Online]. Available: http://www.doug-johnson.com/dougwri/tempt.html. (Accessed March 11, 2002). ———. (2000b). Raising good citizens for a virtual world: an online ethics primer for parents. Online course for the American Association of School Librarians. [Online]. Available: http://www.ala.org/ICONN/fc-ethics.html. (Accessed March 11, 2002). ———. (2002). Resources for teaching ethical technology use. [Online]. Available: http://www.dougjohnson.com/ethics/index.html. (Accessed March 11, 2002). Johnson, D. G. (2000). Computer ethics (3d ed.). Paramus, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Lincoln, M. (2002, January/February). Internet plagiarism: An agenda for staff inservice and student awareness. MultiMedia Schools 9, 46–49. [Online]. Available: http://www.infotoday.com/MMSchools/jan02/Lincoln.htm. (Accessed March 11, 2002). Mankato (Minnesota) Area Public Schools. (1998). Internet acceptable use policy: Policy 524. [Online]. Available: http://www.isd77.k12.mn.us/guidelines.php3. (Accessed March 11, 2002). Rinaldi, A. (1998). The net: user guidelines and netiquette. [Online]. Available: http://www.fau.edu/netiquette/net/. (Accessed March 11, 2002). U.S. Department of Energy. (2002). Hoaxbusters. [Online]. Available: http://hoaxbusters.ciac.org/. (Accessed March 13, 2002).
< previous page
page_89
next page >
< previous page
page_90
next page >
Page 90 Privacy Primer for Educators Judith Lewandowski Center for Education and Research in Information Assurance and Security (CERIAS) Purdue University INTRODUCTION Junk mail, phone calls from telemarketers, online surveys, e-mail spam, grocery savings cards, security cameras, cell-phone tampering, phone logs, workplace surveillance: What common factor unites these items? Personal privacy in jeopardy. Consider the variety of settings provided in the preceding examples. On any given day, the average person is barraged with requests for personal information, creating an almost-continuous solicitation pattern. In this time of increased Internet use and dependence, the protection of privacy has become a critical issue. In a 1999 poll conducted by NBC and the Wall Street Journal, individuals were asked which of the following eight issues they were most concerned about in the upcoming century: world war, terrorism, global warming, economic depression, racial tensions, availability of guns, overpopulation, or loss of privacy. The majority of respondents indicated that privacy was their main concern (Adams 2000). This study was done in 1999, well before the events of September 11, 2001, so privacy may no longer be the main concern, but it remains an important one. For teachers, the issue of privacy is also of great concern. Federal law mandates that teachers protect the information they gather and record regarding their students (National Center for Education Statistics 1998). Failure to do so could result in personal and professional liability. In addition, as educators move to integrate the Internet within the standard curriculum, it is critical that teachers and administrators take a few steps to ensure the protection of their students as well as to teach their students specific techniques that emphasize a more secure use of the Internet. Despite the clear-cut expectations of a teacher’s responsibility to protect the sensitive information associated with normal classroom activities, many fail to do so. One reason for this lack of attention to privacy issues in schools revolves around the absence of information regarding privacy as it directly applies to the K–12 school environment (National Center for Education Statistics 1998). This article will attempt to clarify 1) the main components of privacy, 2) methods of obtaining personal information, 3) the impact of technology on privacy, 4) legislation regarding education and privacy, 5) practical techniques for teachers to implement, 6) dissemination of privacy awareness to students, and 7) the need for additional research and exploration of the topic of privacy. UNDERSTANDING THE ISSUE AND IMPACT OF PRIVACY What Is Privacy? According to Hildreth and Hoyt (1981, 31), privacy refers to the “ability to control the degree to which people and institutions impinge upon one’s life and the ability to adjust the level of privacy to changing needs.’’ World Book Online refers to privacy as “the right claimed by individuals to control the disclosure of personal information about themselves” (Smith 2001). In other words, privacy focuses on the ability of an individual to determine who accesses, uses, and views their personal data. As technology capability has improved, it has become increasingly easier for individuals to track, monitor, and sell the personal information of others without their permission. This practice is ethically and legally un-sound.
< previous page
page_90
next page >
< previous page
page_91
next page >
Page 91 To combat the unethical distribution of personal data, the United States and the member states of the European Union came together in 1980 to address the sensitive issue of protecting an individual’s privacy. This coalition composed the basic principles of privacy that universally protect the consumer (“Big Brother” 2000). In 1998 the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reaffirmed the application of these guidelines to the online solicitation of information as well (Adams 2000). Specifically, these principles include the following: 1. Notice. Consumers have the right to be notified that data are being collected, how the data will be used, and to whom it will be disclosed. 2. Choice. Consumers should be able to limit the use of information beyond what is needed to complete the transaction. 3. Access. Consumers should have a timely and inexpensive way to view data gathered about them and contest its accuracy. 4. Security. Organizations that gather data from consumers must reasonably ensure that the information they keep is secure against loss or unauthorized use. 5. Enforcement. Effective enforcement against privacy violators is critical to the protection of personal information. According to these guidelines, Internet users should always have the upper hand in controlling the dissemination and acquisition of their personal data. Unfortunately, the last principle, enforcement, is also the most difficult to apply. In many instances, uninformed users are unknowingly providing marketing firms and data-collection agencies with valuable personal information that can be used to their disadvantage. Assessing Individual Vulnerability “Why is privacy important?” “Am I really at risk?” “What’s the worst that could happen if someone had access to my personal information?” These questions are typical of individuals who are skeptical about the importance of protecting personal privacy. The danger here lies in the lack of knowledge of what could occur with a severe breach of privacy. Paranoia around the issue of privacy is not the answer; rather, a well-developed awareness of the realities associated with privacy protection will help teachers understand their roles in protecting themselves, their classroom data, and their students. In 1993 MacWorld launched an investigation surrounding the ability of unauthorized users to obtain information from celebrities. Through online solicitation and searches, the editors obtained the following information on individuals for an approximate cost of $112 per celebrity: birth date, home address, home phone number, Social Security number, neighbor’s address and phone number, driving record (including physical characteristics), marriage record, voter registration information, biographical information, tax liens, campaign contributions, vehicles owned, real estate owned, commercial loans or debts, civil court filings, and corporate ties (“Privacy in the Workplace” 1993). This information was all obtained in a legal and ethical manner. Many states now house information in online directories that are readily available to citizens (usually for a small annual fee). This practice is not dramatically different than that applied to the types of records maintained at the local courthouse or federal building. The distinction, however, lies in the ease of use, availability, and practical anonymity that surround the acquisition of such records. In addition, individuals should be aware that an unauthorized user could maliciously use such information to apply for credit cards, identification records, and school transcripts or to obtain authorization to access records stored on a school network. THE IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY ON PRIVACY ISSUES The advent of technology has brought rapid change to the protection of privacy. Specifically, the Internet has made the online solicitation of information extremely easy,
< previous page
page_91
next page >
< previous page
page_92
next page >
Page 92 resulting in an increased compilation and distribution of personal data (Adams 2000). Prior to the Internet, marketing firms compiled lists of potential consumers based on major life events such as public accounts of marriage, death, births, home purchases, and so on. Another method of collection was through direct mailings in which the advertisers would promise coupons, recipes, free gifts, and other trivial novelties in exchange for a compilation of self-reported information. Many of these tactics were expensive and inaccurate and had a very low response rate. Data-Collection Techniques The methods of data collection have changed dramatically with the adoption of the Internet. Marketing firms have established systems by which they readily obtain detailed personal information from unsuspecting Web surfers. With these advanced tracking procedures, even seemingly benign browsing practices can lead to fairly dramatic privacy issues. In her booklet The Internet Invasion, Helen Adams (2000) identifies the primary methods of information solicitation: 1. Direct data collection. Online users voluntarily complete surveys or information requests in return for a small benefit. 2. Indirect data collection. Web site owners obtain information by depositing “cookies” onto your hard drive. These cookies are small files that contain identifiable information including any of the following: the name of your Internet service provider, the “specs” of your particular computer and components, passwords, past online purchases, last site visited, areas viewed on current site, and so on. The benefits of using cookies include the ability for users to customize their online activities. (Some individuals appreciate the fact that their favorite sites will recommend items such as books, movies, or clothing based on their previous purchases.) The downside to cookies is that they collect a highly marketable database of intimate information that can be sold, stored, and adapted to create an extremely detailed personal profile of your online habits. When these two methods of collection are combined with the readily available governmental records, an individual’s personal privacy could be easily abused. PRIVACY AS A CONCERN FOR K–12 EDUCATORS Technology, Privacy, andFERPA The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) was established in 1974 to provide protection to the content and disclosure methods of student records and personal information (Voelker 1998). This legislation required schools receiving public funding to provide parents with the opportunity to review and protest the content of student records, medical information, special education status, test results, and so on. In addition, the legislation also required that schools have the written permission of the student’s parents or guardians prior to releasing records to other agencies and institutions. Teachers or school officials who fail to comply with the protection of these records can be held liable for the invasion of privacy. Because the institution and its employees are responsible for protecting the integrity of such information, teachers must be able to demonstrate that “due care’’ was taken to protect the records as best they could (National Center for Education Statistics 1998). According to FERPA, the types of information that need to be protected by educators include, but are not limited to, birth date, address, parental information, emergency contact information, grades, test scores, transcripts, activities, special education records, discipline reports, medical and health records, attendance, awards, Social Security numbers, and pictures (Marczely and O’Dell 1991).
< previous page
page_92
next page >
< previous page
page_93
next page >
Page 93 FERPA is especially important for those teachers who are in the habit of sending sensitive student information via email. Because of the insecure and public nature of e-mail, this practice does not comply with FERPA. Many users perceive e-mail as a private form of communication that protects the integrity and confidentiality of the content (Sermersheim 1998). This simply is not true. When a standard e-mail message is sent, its content is vulnerable for scrutiny by anyone who can intercept the message. (The interception of e-mail is a simple procedure for those “in the know” and occurs quite frequently.) Unless an encryption method is used (e.g., PGP or encrypted attachments), the confidentiality of e-mail is not assured. Once it leaves a person’s machine, it may stop at several points prior to its final destination (CAUSE 1997). By including sensitive information within an unprotected e-mail, a teacher has not taken reasonable safeguards to protect the data and therefore is in violation of FERPA. Collection of Children’s Information As technology integration increases, the online behavior and awareness of students becomes a critical concern for educators. As society has become enamored with the wonders of the Internet, children have become regular visitors to the online world. According to a 1999 survey, 16 million children (or 14 percent of U.S. citizens under the age of 18) regularly use the Internet. Of those users, 6 million are children under the age of six (“Congress Takes Up” 1999). A study conducted by Cai and Gantz (2000) suggested that a majority of Web sites targeted at children regularly collect personal information from their underage users. As children use the Internet, they may unknowingly be providing their personal information to marketers, information tracking agencies, or individuals with malicious intent. The information-gathering techniques used by these sites ranged in appearance from being well camouflaged to clearly marked (Cai and Gantz 2000). Oftentimes, students will volunteer their personal information in order to receive a reward or prize. Marketers have found that the direct data-collection methods work exceptionally well with children. Studies have indicated that students will often willingly provide personal information in the hopes of receiving some type of allusive benefit. A recent study suggested that 45 percent of teenagers are willing to provide detailed personal information to a Web site in exchange for a ‘‘great free gift” (Carlson 2000). Students are a prime target for marketing techniques. Forester Research estimates that of individuals between the ages of 16 and 22, one-third will make online purchases totaling in value more than $4 million (Adams 2000). With this kind of purchasing power, industry is very interested in courting their young consumers, sometimes to a questionable extent. For example, a U.S. News and World Report article described the presence of code embedded within a children’s software product created by Mattel. The embedded code was able to collect data from the host computer and relay it to Mattel via the Internet. According to a Mattel spokesperson, the software was designed to provide consumers with “additional product content” (Hawkins 2000). The federal government responded to the vulnerability of children online and the need to protect their personal information by passing the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) in 1998. According to this legislation, for Web sites directed at children or those that collect information from children under the age of 13, the following rules apply: 1. Web sites must provide easy access to a privacy statement that includes a description of a. the type of personal information collected, b. how the site will use the information, and c. where to contact someone to answer additional questions about the collection and distribution process. 2. Web sites must get verifiable parental consent before gathering, using, or distributing a child’s personal information.
< previous page
page_93
next page >
< previous page
page_94
next page >
Page 94 3. Web sites must notify parents if they modify the process for collecting or using the child’s personal information. 4. Web sites must give parents access to review all personal information collected about their children. 5. Web sites must allow parents to remove their consent and thereby delete the information stored regarding their child. COPPA applies to commercial Web sites (nonprofit sites are exempt). Parental permission can be obtained through a variety of methods including e-mail, toll-free hotlines, digital certificates, traditional mail, and faxed forms. The level of parental permission depends on the intended use of the collected information. The FTC has also extended the rights of deeming parental permission to teachers. If, within the context of classroom activities, a student is prompted to provide permission to submit information, a teacher may respond as the guiding authority. Of course, it is a wise idea for teachers to double-check with their school district’s Acceptable Use Policy prior to authorizing the submission of personal information. Practical Privacy Techniques for Teachers The issue of privacy can feel overwhelming to the average educator. What follows is a list of simple techniques that teachers can use in their classrooms in an effort to protect the sensitive information they work with on a daily basis. Practice Proper Information Security Techniques Be sure to practice “due care” when storing sensitive student information. Use encryption techniques where possible and be sure to protect against unauthorized access to your computer through an unlocked classroom door or readily available password. Simple security measures can help solidify the protection of privacy and indicate a teacher’s commitment to maintaining the integrity of sensitive information (Lewandowski 2002). E-Mail Awareness Remember that e-mail is not private; information sent via this medium can easily be accessed by outside sources. Teachers should never send sensitive student information over an unprotected e-mail connection. Educators who are required to do so should investigate the various e-mail encryption programs (such as PGP), which are readily available, affordable, and easy to use. Download Precautions The types of data-collection techniques described in the Mattel software are not unusual. There are many “free” services available on the Web. Teachers who face limited budgets often see these offers as a good way to supplement the creativity of their classroom. Interactive educational games, relevant screen savers, and dynamic graphics can all lend an element of freshness to a classroom. Before you decide to download these files, however, you may want to ask yourself these questions: 1. What is the purpose of the download? Will it enhance the educational value of your lesson? If not, then you probably want to negate the risk and not download the file to your school computer. 2. Where are you getting this file from? Is it a trusted source? Have you heard of this location before—or is it simply a fly-by-night site? Again, if you are not certain that the site is trustworthy, you will want to avoid downloading the item.
< previous page
page_94
next page >
< previous page
page_95
next page >
Page 95 Close the Cookie Jar Be sure to make it a practice to clean out the cookies placed on your hard drive. With just a little browsing, it is easy to accumulate quite a few cookies. It may also be appropriate for you to set your browser to its highest level of security to prevent the immediate installation of cookies. This practice will provide you with the ability to monitor which cookies (if any) you will allow to be stored on your hard drive. This feature is available through both Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator (Lake 2000). Read Privacy Statements Prior to submitting any information on the Web, you should carefully read the site’s privacy statement. These statements are legally binding documents that the Web site owner must follow or face legal action. Refrain from submitting information to sites that do not provide a readily available privacy statement. Set Up a Second Online Account Many online users are tempted to sign up for online coupons, sweepstakes, and newsletters. Prior to sending out your information to all of these sites, you may want to set up a second online account using one of the free e-mail services such as Hotmail or Yahoo. By doing this, you can still benefit from the online promotions, but it will reduce the amount of spam and junk mail that you receive in your main accounts. Dissemination of Privacy Practices to Students After employing the preceding practical privacy techniques within their classrooms, the next step in the fight to protect personal privacy is for educators to disseminate similar information to students. As already noted, students today live, learn, and will eventually work in a world that is interconnected and technology driven. It is critical that schools meet the needs of this new work environment by providing students with an opportunity to learn and practice the necessary skills they will need to succeed. The fundamentals of protecting one’s personal privacy are certainly one of the “new” skills that should be addressed within this context (Willard 2000). According to the Kidz Privacy Web site of the FTC (www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/kidzprivacy/), the basic components of a privacy curriculum include the following principles for students: 1. Never give out your last or family name, home address, or phone number in chat rooms, on bulletin boards, or to online pen pals. 2. Do not tell other students your screen name, user ID, or password. 3. Look at a Web site’s privacy policy to see how the site uses the information you give them. 4. Web sites must get your parent or teacher’s permission prior to collecting personal information. 5. If a site has information about you that you and your parents do not want it to have, your parents can ask to see the information and have it deleted. Other topics that are important to include revolve around the identification of subtle techniques that are often used by Web site owners as a means of “tricking” users into providing information or allowing third parties cookies to collect data. Teachers need to help their students distinguish legitimate sites from advertisements, to distinguish fact from fiction (Willard 2000). For example, students need to understand both the true purpose of banner ads and ways to recognize their inclusion on a site.
< previous page
page_95
next page >
< previous page
page_96
next page >
Page 96 One of the simplest ways to address privacy issues within the current curriculum is to incorporate simple, short lessons each time technology is used. The Center for Education and Research in Information Assurance and Security (CERIAS) K–12 site (http://www.cerias.purdue.edu/K-12) offers a series of lesson plans that can be used as a springboard for discussing privacy and other related security issues. Likewise, the FTC (http://www.ftc.gov) offers an abundant resource of privacy-related materials that could easily be incorporated into any classroom. Another resource, Trust*e (http://www.truste.org), offers a sample contract for students outlining several of the FTC’s privacy principles. There are countless resources for including privacy issues within the current curriculum of almost any classroom, and as this issue continues to gain prominence, these resources will only increase in availability and importance. NEED FOR ADDITIONAL RESEARCH The explosion of technology use by children over the last ten years has been extremely dramatic (‘‘Congress Takes Up” 1999). According to a survey conducted by Youth Culture, Inc., the average teenager uses the Internet between 8 and 10 hours per week (Ferguson 2000). This behavior leaves many parents concerned with the protection of the children’s personal privacy within the online environment (“Parents Fear” 1999). Despite these findings, very little research has been done to explore the impact of privacy issues upon the many facets of the K–12 learning environment (student awareness, teacher practices, school policies, etc.). Only through these means will the educational community be able to thoroughly evaluate the effectiveness of policy, practice, and student awareness. Institutes of educational technology research should revise their agendas to address the many issues (including privacy protection) surrounding the integration of technology. Without a detailed examination of current privacy practices and vulnerabilities, appropriate recommendations cannot be made. CONCLUSION As we introduce technology into our classrooms, it is important to combine the technical skills with both ethical and soft skills. The issue of privacy is critical, complex, and ever changing. It is an area that needs to be addressed by educators, administrators, parents, and students. School officials have a legal and ethical responsibility not only to protect the personal information of their students but also to teach them how to do it for themselves. Within their classrooms, teachers must demonstrate proper privacy-protecting techniques to protect student information as well as to serve as active role models for their students. REFERENCES Adams, H. (2000). The Internet invasion: Is privacy at risk? McHenry, IL: Follett Software. Big brother is watching you. (2000). Consumer Reports 64:5, 43–48. Cai, X., and Gantz, W. (2000). Online privacy issues associated with Web sites for children. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 44, 197–200. Carlson, S. (2000). Teens will give online marketers personal information for money, a study finds. Chronicle of Higher Education 46:39, 50. Cause. (1997). Privacy and the handling of student information in the electronic networked environments of colleges and universities. [Online]. Available: http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub3102.pdf. Congress takes up Internet privacy for kids. (1999). Curriculum Review 38:6, 4. Ferguson, S. (2000). The wired teen. Maclean’s 113:22, 38–41. Hawkins, D. (2000). Privacy worries arise over spyware in kids’ software. U.S. News and World Report 129:1, 55.
< previous page
page_96
next page >
< previous page
page_97
next page >
Page 97 Hildreth, G., and Hoyt, C. (1981). Children and privacy: Implications for parents and teachers. Journal of Home Economics 73:4, 31–33. Lake, M. (2000). Stealth surfing: Tips, tricks, and slick little products to help you browse, shop, and send e-mail incognito. PC World 18:6, 121–129. Lewandowski, J. (2002). The CERIAS sleuth: K–12 information security education. [Online]. Available: http://www.cerias.purdue.edu/K-12. (Accessed February 27, 2002). Marczely, B., and O’Dell, F. (1991). Privacy problems for public schools. Clearing House 64:3, 203–207. National Center for Education Statistics (1998). Safeguarding your technology. [Online]. Available: http://nces.ed.gov. (Accessed March 30, 2001). Parents fear Internet’s influence on children. (1999). Media Report to Women 27:2, 7–9. Privacy in the workplace. (1993). CQ Researcher 3:43, 1009–1032. Sermersheim, M. (1998). Computer access: Selected legal issues affecting higher education. Washington, DC: National Association of College and University Attorneys. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED430430) Smith, R. (2001). Privacy, right of. [Online]. Available: http://www.worldbookonline.html. (Accessed March 30, 2001). Voelker, V. (1998). Legal basics: A handbook for educators. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa. Willard, N. (2000). Legal and ethical issues related to the use of the Internet in K–12 schools. Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal 2, 225–264.
< previous page
page_97
next page >
< previous page
page_98
next page >
Page 98 Manufacturing Technophobia Computerization’s Mythical Fears Andrew R. J. Yeaman Detroit, Michigan ABSTRACT This chapter gives a literary reading to technophobia as a cultural phenomena. It addresses the role of researchers and teachers in labeling and processing learners who acknowledge that computer activities can be difficult to learn, that computers may be unreliable, and that computer failures include the possibility of severe consequences. The chapter is composed in a self-referential manner suitable for critical work and takes the shape of a discussion. This investigation is located at the junction where cultural studies and science and technology studies come together. It reflects on the decade since the first published criticism of computer anxiety research. The author draws on Roland Barthes’s critical theorizing to write against taking technophobia for granted. The self-interview is one way of generating a reflexive narrative. Here, a succession of readers are directing their questions to an author. You can take this interview not so much as a transcribed dialogue and more as you would a scene between characters in a novel or a film. You may recognize some of the voices, including your own. Okay, I’ll go first because I want to know what you mean by reflexive. My intention in creating this narrative on Manufacturing Technophobia: Computerization’s Mythical Fears is to generate a critique. Therefore this is an answer about reflexivity and the reflexive form. Originating from literature, the diffusion of the reflexive mode has opened up thinking in criticism and the social sciences. Writers in the reflexive genre do not hold to imitating conversation and often use textual formalities such as graphic formats, figures, citations, reference lists, and endnotes or footnotes,1 which fulfill their usual purposes. Once you learn how to identify reflexive writing, you cannot stop yourself from noticing reflexivity because it is a popular convention. Anyone who remains puzzled may understand better by simply going forward and reading ahead. What else can be said except try it, you may like it. So, how are things going at the moment? Great! The second edition of Computers in Education: Social, Political, Historical Perspectives should be ready for fallterm classes (Muffoletto and Knupfer 2002). The first edition was influential in creating fresh interest and thinking about society, aesthetics, and ethics. The book was unusual because these ideas came from inside of educational media and technology. Tell us some more. Computers in Education signifies that instructional computing is not neutral2 but connects with the rest of the education community and with society. As a textbook, it subsequently affected the careers of many teachers, media specialists, computer coordinators, and school librarians. It has been effective in legitimating the position that their work is culturally framed, which is a truly important understanding. I heard you mention ethics. In other words, we have social responsibilities, and in meeting them we are ethical, in the broad sense of ethics. Thinking about what we do matters, too, and provides the theme of a companion text: Education and Technology: Critical and Reflective Practices (Muffoletto 2001).
< previous page
page_98
next page >
< previous page
page_99
next page >
Page 99 I see you have a chapter on “The Mythical Anxieties of Computerization,” which is being reprinted in Computers in Education (Yeaman 1993b, 2002). So, what is that all about? Computer anxiety is a false construct that is used in ways that could be unethical. Far from being phobic, everyone suffers from the negative aspects of computerization. These consequences include poorly designed computers, lack of knowledge of what to do with them, and disregard by the Let’s computerize! bandwagon for unwanted social effects. For example, hard-to-catch errors are occurring faster, so people fritter away “an average of 5.1 hours a week in sheer computer hassle” (McGrath 1999). Nevertheless, disliking the prospect of working or playing with computers does not mean psychological deficiency. And you identified and analyzed the myths? Yes, it is a familiar mode for expressing yourself in writing, much like a recent article that answered 12 slurs against teacher education (Berliner 2000). Seven myths about computer anxiety were selected for analysis. As you can see from these two, myths are more complex than simply declaring one thing true and another thing false: • Myth: Computer anxiety is the biggest obstacle encountered when people learn about computers. • Myth: People can be educated out of being computer anxious. “No,” on the other hand, is an equally good answer to your question. It was not a matter of beginning by singlemindedly looking for flawed notions to debunk. It was not a search for evidence that technology teachers believed technophobia was a reality. Nor was it a condemnation of professors’ teaching and research for being normalizing, as the academy traditionally leans in that direction. The investigation started out from my presence as an actor on the educational computing and technology stage. Something was happening, and I was in the middle of it. Instead of aiming to design and produce effective learning experiences that incorporated electronic media, when appropriate, there was a shift of emphasis to massive computerization. The purpose was unexplained. The rhetoric was the imperative: We must! Requesting real justifications frustrated authority figures such as department chairs, computing coordinators, principals, superintendents, deans, and university vice presidents. They each told me in their own voice, “We don’t have time for any sort of in in-depth planning.” That was interesting, so I continued to listen, watch, read, pose questions, and try out interpretations by talking to anyone who came along. From observing. I discovered that beliefs about computing and technology do not have to be useful or have any purpose or be reasonable in any way whatsoever. Their function can be nothing more than to be beliefs. In assessing what people say they think against what they do, questions of consistency and coherence are not, after all, in themselves such important questions. Latour (1993/1996, 37) expressed this succinctly with a reminder: “Technological reality isn’t rational, and it’s no good rationalizing it after the fact.’’ I thought about semiology, and asked why questions. The theme of computer anxiety recurred, but it was unverifiable. There ought to be productive value in the accusation of technophobia, whether against a teacher or a student or a student teacher, but there was no accountable material gain. Then a computer system I was teaching to students at the time inspired me to compose a poem. The class had been amused when I demonstrated responding to the prompt on the command line by typing in HELLO. It brought me to comprehend that logic was unnecessary, except in the superficial sense of syntax error. Next, I started writing down these anomalies, essay style, in journal books, which is a reasonable way of approaching cultural analysis. What I subsequently uncovered were mythical beliefs being accepted as obvious and accurate, even though some had only been presented as research topics or conjecture. You can appreciate that lifting myths out of the domain of psychology allows their examination as cultural issues. When that takes place, the domain of culture shows myths up as neither totally obvious nor completely accurate.
< previous page
page_99
next page >
< previous page
page_100
next page >
Page 100 If you accept that change—and computers and technology are always changing—is restrained by tradition, then alleged computer fears come into focus as myths. As if viewed through the eyes of Roland Barthes, they can be understood. Recognizing what is already offers the comforts of seeing absoluteness, totality, and universality as constrained by mythology. You can crack the codes of life’s text, so to speak; see Barthes (1985/1988, 288). If I wanted to learn more about Barthes, where should I start? Anything by Barthes is worth reading, but I ought to recommend three particular items written about him. These are Roland Barthes, the Professor of Desire (Ungar 1983), “The Deaths of Roland Barthes” (Derrida 2001), and Calvino’s (1989) essay on Barthes’ funeral. Calvino’s tribute is the beautiful myth of Barthes himself. Throughout his life, Barthes demonstrated that one could look with both “scientific generalization” and “poetic sensitivity’’ for “the uniqueness of every object” (Calvino 1989, 306). You are citing and quoting, but what about direct observation? Textuality is a pillar of investigation in cultural studies, but my thinking and writing are also checked against my experiences in instructing children and adults about media, technology, and computers. Those daily duties taught me that people become justifiably anguished when machines of all types go wrong or are operated improperly. It can be difficult or impossible to tell the difference between those two conditions. You can probably think of occasions from your own life where it would have been better for everyone to have tried being more cautious in using whatever technology was around. Do you have a story about that? Yes. After editing a professional newsletter for a few years, it occurred to me that it should be deposited and available through the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC). When it was indexed, my name was misspelled. Twice I asked for the online index to be fixed, and each time I received e-mail saying it would happen. The error has not been corrected, and it appears that technology has taken over; see Yearman [Yeaman] (1998). Those things just happen—I mean, are there examples where more than one person was affected? No names will be mentioned, but this comes from the Technology Hall of Shame. I was visiting a middle school and given the standard tour. Next to the library media center was a computer lab filled with a class that looked busy. I asked if I could stop and observe through the window for a few minutes. These particular students were working at math problems with multiple-choice answers. The principal had instituted a drill program in the school toward raising test scores. I must have frowned because my guide thought I disapproved of computer drills. I said “no” but inquired as to what was happening at one of the lab’s stations. A student’s computer had frozen up and needed to be rebooted. I then said I would like to meet the aide in charge of the drill lab. Making conversation, she told me these system errors happened all the time. It turned out that mysterious crashes occurred to about one in five students every hour all day long. Their previous answers were lost, and there was no alternative except to start over. I found that consequence dehumanizing, but as I was a guest I kept my thoughts to myself, although I had become curious. The cause of the computer crashes was not easy for the aide to explain because it was an interaction between hardware and upgraded software that was apparently intended for the next generation of upgraded hardware. I remained concerned, and later that day I talked with the computer teacher in charge of the computer labs. Well, yes, the aide’s story was correct and, yes, they had called the software help hotline and, yes, everyone had come to understand there was a problem. The result of my query was disappointing: nothing had been done to put things right, and it looked as if nothing would be done. Despite the computer teacher not being an Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) member, I mentioned two relevant principles in the AECT Code of Professional Ethics, Section 1—Commitment to the Individual (Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2002):
< previous page
page_100
next page >
< previous page
page_101
next page >
Page 101 In fulfilling obligations to the individual, the members: 5.Shall follow sound professional procedures for evaluation and selection of materials, equipment, and furniture/carts used to create educational work areas. 7.Shall promote current and sound professional practices in the appropriate use of technology in education. The next response seemed twisted: Well, these are the very reasons why the aide is always so active supervising and assisting students in the drill lab. I was reminded, as if I did not know about these things, that people are needed to make technology work properly. I thought to myself that this claim is undeniable but it also should be fully implemented. I replied that the technical glitch in the drill software was definitely fixable, only needing a computer programmer to write a patch so the drill programs would run properly on those particular machines. Apparently, that idea confirmed the suspicion that I was an unabashed computerist. It was explained to me that certain teachers were opposed to the computer drills. No, I was informed, they were not technophobes. These teachers spoke out for more time spent on creative learning activities with computers. The principal, regardless, insisted on using this computer lab for the purpose of drills and improving test scores. I left, wondering what I might had stumbled into. A technology conflict between the principal and some teachers was not the sort of trouble I expected. The possibility of having uncovered sabotage by neglect or at least an expression of teacher resistance crossed my mind. Then I saw there was no need to worry about my role or being mistaken for a technoid. I remembered encountering broken, malfunctioning, or hazardous classroom equipment and realized this was the same. It was much like objecting to ineffective instruction, ranging from illegible presentation slides to unattainable learner outcomes. As a professional, I was always compelled to intervene. Many times I had noticed something as simple as a frayed power cord or a damaged plug and wanted to replace a machine right away. Most teachers were pleased, but a number of teachers would take this as personal criticism and protest that there was no emergency, no fire, no electric shocks, nothing was blowing up, there must be a circuit breaker around here somewhere, and that the bare metal wires had been hanging out for quite a while without anyone being hurt. Their comebacks demanded respectful and diplomatic argument until it was understood there would be compliance. My goal was to coordinate our shared instructional values with what took place in classrooms. The social aspects were important, so any persistence had to be gentle to allow saving face. Only once in a while would there be the degree of obstinacy that required invoking authority. After a month, I was back at the school again. When the moment was right, I tactfully returned to the topic of the computer crashes and inquired if a solution had been found. No, everything was continuing on as before. Sometimes you just have to do the best you can with the technology you have already. This time I asked the computer teacher what the principal thought should be done. Well, no one had told her about the computers going down. I said it was just a matter of time before parents began thinking something was wrong in the computer lab and she would hear about it from them. At this point, the result has become obvious, so it makes sense to jump straight to the conclusion. In combination with my earlier inquiries, it was the threat of parents complaining to the principal that prompted action. On one of my later visits to the school, I learned that the turnkey system vendor responded by providing a new software release, which ended the computers crashing. Of course, this was not a solitary, deviant instance. This sort of event happens all the time; see Nichols (1997). My point, here, is that I hope you, too, will detect mindless technology situations where things just happen, confront the
< previous page
page_101
next page >
< previous page
page_102
next page >
Page 102 betrayal without excessive blaming, and develop ways to make the systems work better for people. Okay now, what is this cartoon all about? It looks as if the smiling woman in figure 1 has just smashed a computer with a hammer. When it was printed, librarians were the intended audience. The woman may be a problem patron, although the wider context was librarianship education. The cartoon was labeled “Computer Repair,” which could be the topic she is teaching or possibly what she is trying to learn. The humor comes from computing being an ambiguous activity. That could be emphasized by taking what I said earlier as the caption: “Disliking the prospect of working or playing with computers does not mean psychological deficiency.” Uncertain, contradictory feelings about computers may be reasonable when you consider that “[t]he business is expanding fast enough that it’s still much better to have billions of chronically annoyed customers than millions of happy ones” (Stephenson 1999, 106). That sentence could be an alternative caption, too. Anyway, the cartoon will be used as a focal point to draw things together at the end of this chapter. You can also compare it with image j0078782 from Microsoft Office Clip Gallery. What is meant by your title: Manufacturing Technophobia? The title reflects Manufacturing Victims (Dineen 1998), which warns readers about how psychology functions as a business working to the detriment of clients. Manufacturing also refers to Herman and Chomsky’s book on Manufacturing Consent: The “societal purpose” of the media is to inculcate and defend the economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that dominate the domestic Figure 1. From Lee (1999). Copyright 1999 by the American Library Association. Reprinted by permission.
< previous page
page_102
next page >
< previous page
page_103
next page >
Page 103 society and the state. The media serve this purpose in many ways: through selection of topics, distribution of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis and tone, and by keeping the debate within the bounds of acceptable premises. (Herman and Chomsky 1988, 298) Our profession continues to manufacture a perverse mythology about technophobia and computer fear. Colleagues with disciplined understandings of technology and society remain rare, but Computers in Education (Muffoletto and Knupfer 2002) works to raise consciousness. The desired transition may take a long time. Perhaps the spread of awareness indicates a profession growing out of adolescence and developing a conscience about its cultural roles (Yeaman 2000). Surely, questions of conscience are matters concerning our professional ethics? If only! You can read in my foreword to AECT’s A Code of Professional Ethics that professional ethics overlap with other types of ethics but remain distinct in being about professional jurisdiction (Yeaman 2001a). It may be enough to say that ‘‘a hard technology knows no conscience.” Did this investigation of yours reach anyone beyond students and teachers reading a chapter in a textbook? TechTrends had a short but different version of the chapter as “Seven Myths of Computerism” (Yeaman 1992). Education Digest edited it, cut the annotated bibliography, and reprinted the article under a new title: “Whose Technology Is It, Anyway?” (Yeaman 1993c). That condensation was selected for a volume in Phi Delta Kappa’s “hot topics” series (Yeaman 1994d). Subsequently, my work was credited in the author’s note at the front of Technophobia for “defining” computerism as “blind faith in the inherent good of computers” (Brosnan 1998). That quotation appeared again in “Geek Learning” (Clark 2000, 42) and in “Technology, the Pleasures of the Interface, and the Psychology of Motivation” (Shutkin 2001, 280). What have you published since? My subsequent writing persists in the direction of cultural studies. The topic I write on is social technology. You may want to look online and read “Cyborgs Are Us” (Yeaman 1994a). You could go to a library and read “Deconstructing Modern Educational Technology” (Yeaman 1994b), “The Discourse on Technology” (Yeaman 1997), or “Coming of Age in Cyberspace” (2000). Also, there are my introductory remarks (Yeaman 2001b) to situate Educational Technology: The Development of a Concept (Januszewski 2001). Wait a minute! Aren’t you ignoring the very latest research results proving Cauca-sians are the least computer anxious race, students from wealthier families are less computer anxious than students from poorer families, people in industrial countries are less computer anxious than people in agricultural countries, men and boys are less computer anxious than women and girls, children are less computer anxious than adults, the middle aged are less computer anxious than senior citizens, school district expenditures on technology correlate with test scores, and that the World Wide Web has changed everything, everywhere, forever? The research appears as only more of the same old thing. Developments in hardware, software, and online services are part of the social practice of educational computing. By the way, from the scientific outlook, proving is a peculiar word although everyone knows what you mean. Research producing no significant differences is rarely reported at conferences and nearly never appears in print. Similarly, any inverted results would not be publicized because of being counterintuitive. All these anomalies would be tossed out by the investigators themselves because they do not meet expectations and cannot be explained within what could be called their paradigm. In other words, science and pathological science can be indistinguishable because of the social structuring of knowledge. There are many unscientific prejudices among individuals and institutions in support of what they already believe to be true. One should keep in mind that surveys may be shaped and interpreted by what is already believed to be true. Social researchers following Goffman (1974) take elicited statements in the light of impression management and con-
< previous page
page_103
next page >
< previous page
page_104
next page >
Page 104 cern with being evaluated. The cultural studies viewpoint is convergent: responses to computer-anxiety surveys are also performances inside relationships. Those responses are within a context of things already believed to be true. The published studies showing that this group is less computer anxious than that group are rather unhelpful. Many would be rated worthless if reconsidered from a non-reductionist perspective. In contrast to the digital divide propaganda about everyone needing computerization, the critique of computer anxiety as a myth is reasonable, legitimate, and solid. I don’t know quite how to put it, but can you outline for us why the computer-anxiety tests are just not good enough? Computer-anxiety testing looks like science, thereby creating the so-called facts of technophobia. They do not seem to exist otherwise. The supposed neutrality of each test instrument conceals that its purpose is to sort its population into groups. Overall, tests of computer anxiety construct artificial divisions between people as if mirroring reality. The clinical appearance is a mask for the social purposes. You can experience the fallacies of the inference process for yourself. When you get to the end of this chapter, you will encounter an exercise involving computer-anxiety test questions. All right, do you think educational research is changing? Not only has qualitative and critical inquiry in educational technology continued but also sociocultural investigators are flourishing (Yeaman 1995). It is likely Computers in Education (Muffoletto and Knupfer 1993, 2002) is playing a part in moving research on educational technology forward. Some of the chapters demonstrate how to engage qualitatively and produce substantial results. De Vaney’s (1993) analysis of “Where in the World Is Carmen San Diego?” provided inspiration for writing up another instance of unfair demonization in “Where in the World Is Jacques Derrida?” (Yeaman 1994c). The widespread exposure of undergraduates to critical theory and cultural studies is fostering and normalizing postpositivist thought in schools and colleges of education (De Vaney 1998; Yeaman 1998). From this improvement in undergraduate preparation, it is likely that the second edition of Computers in Education will have more impact. Regarding my own cultural work on computer anxiety as a myth, Roland Barthes is known more than ever for influencing thinking in the social sciences and the humanities and is included in The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism (Leitch et al. 2001, 1457–1475). Do you have an example of research you like? When David Shutkin used Computers in Education (Muffoletto and Knupfer 1993) at Ohio State University, one of his graduate students in Cultural Studies in Education connected technophobia and Foucault. The focus was on ‘‘Luddism” as a discourse (Rahill 1999). Parallel to Sale’s (1995) book on industrial rebellion, Brian Rahill’s thesis links computerization to cultural reproduction through schooling. Shutkin, who is now at John Carroll University, put Brian Rahill and me in touch with each other. At first Brian and I talked on the phone. Brian would say “Michel Foucault,” and I would say “Roland Barthes.” We met over lunch in Columbus, Ohio, last year. Our exchanges were pleasant, and we found out that our ideas fitted together. Brian would say “discourse,” and I would say “mythology.” As you may already know, Foucault and Barthes were well acquainted and each had involvement in the other’s professional and intellectual life (Eribon 1989/1991). I’ve heard people say that computer fear is caused and spread by technophobic teachers. Validity is claimed for that position (Weil, Rosen, and Wugalter 1990; Rosen, Sears, and Weil 1993), but no concrete evidence for causation and infection is reported. I asked Brian Rahill what he thought, based on his reading in the research literature. He agreed with my evaluation that there are no published data proving technophobic introducers produce a new generation of technophobes. It looks unlikely that computer anxiety could be retrospectively shown as inflicted by teachers or family.
< previous page
page_104
next page >
< previous page
page_105
next page >
Page 105 Next, we turned to a brochure Brian obtained from Michelle Weil’s consulting business as a “techno-therapist.” It claims: “59% of Americans describe their attitude toward technology as ‘hesitant’ or ‘resistant.’ ” We laughed. Just think how bad things would be if the public had less critical awareness of technology and were even more enthusiastic. Some months later, puzzled by the strong convictions despite the lack of rigorous support, I reviewed the TechnoTherapist brochure. On the back is a cheery cartoon character with a Tom Tomorrow–style caption: ‘‘A former technophobe who’s now techno-friendly wonders how she ever lived without these products.” It was a moment of realization: the cartoon depicts the Techno-Therapist whose photograph is on the front of the brochure. This leads back to the weaknesses built into the psychological approach to life. Of course, it is good to make sense of one’s own existence, but confirmation of what is already believed true is easier to find than anything else. Genuine social concerns can be mistaken as issues of mental hygiene. It is wrong to tell others, “Clean up your thinking so you can fit in and be technologized.” It is scapegoating to cast those teachers who neglect to encourage the purchase of computer technology products as the villains. All right, how did technophobia become technostress? The Chronicle of Higher Education printed a two-page article under a crisis headline: “2 Researchers Say ‘Technophobia’ May Afflict Millions of Students” (DeLoughry 1993). The story was the lead feature in the information technology section and reported by its editor. The headline continued in smaller type: “Fear of technology seen as growing educational problem as use of computers expands.” In the top right quadrant of the page is a five-inch-square color photograph of Larry Rosen and Michelle Weil, who are husband-and-wife researchers. Like many West Coast psychologists, they are dressed casually. Behind them is an ATM, serving as an emblem of both corporate sponsorship and mundane computerization. They have slight smiles on their faces while looking intent and concerned. They look like pleasant folk who would fit right in with others I know. If we met at a faculty barbecue, we would get along normally. You can imagine Professor Rosen complaining that his students were computerphobic because they had trouble following his step-by-step computer assignments (Greenly 1988). Imagine me sympathizing by nodding my head then answering with a smile, “Ah, forget the phobia and the step-by-step. Let me tell you how to achieve results with your class by doing instructional design.” However, this was not a picnic. In response to the article, I wrote a letter to the editor. My letter was published. It dismissed technophobia and suggested: “It is important to encourage the better design of computer products…. The instructional materials for learning how to use hardware and software deserve scrutiny…. Computerization reflects the cultural meanings of the existing social order and, in part, serves to maintain that order” (Yeaman 1993a). So what’s the real problem on campus? The big trouble—everywhere—could be technoconformity. And by technoconformity, what you mean is technomania? Probably, but it is best to avoid psychological labels as much as possible. Clinical usage and exaggeration for effect tend to overlap. When a topic is social, it is better to work with a social vocabulary. Okay now, let’s go back to technophobia turning into technostress. When Weil and Rosen’s 1997 book came out, technophobia was not in the title. It was Technostress (Weil and Rosen, 1997). The subtitle starts out Coping with Technology, which goes along with the rhetorical move from phobia. When you have stress, your problem is taken to be fixable. In this way, psychologists silently slide over from identifying pathology to discussing something familiar and regular. They stop pointing their fingers and reach out with sympathy by offering their tips for coping. Psychologists continue to put down teachers as they did before: “There are a lot of computerphobic teachers teaching our kids to use computers. What we’re going to do, if we don’t correct that, is produce another generation of computerphobic kids” (Greenly
< previous page
page_105
next page >
< previous page
page_106
next page >
Page 106 1988, 18). For a minor but obvious instance of conflict between professions, note that Technostress (Weil and Rosen 1997) winds up with the scenario of a community raising money for more computers in their schools. It is as though making instructional technology decisions should not be a professional responsibility of professional educators. In comparison, the primacy of psychologists is asserted. Rosen and Weil are completely respectful when addressing mental health workers in The Mental Health Technology Bible (Rosen and Weil 1997). I am surprised that Genco (2000) as a high school librarian and technology team leader has only good things to say in reviewing Technostress. He fails to notice and object to the psychologists’ disrespect for the education profession. The discrepancy is explainable. It is human to discern what meets one’s desires and expectations. What do you see for the future of research on technophobia, technostress, computer anxiety, computer fear, computer attitudes, and so on? The reputation for being pseudoscientific will grow. No one will be embarrassed. Rather than fighting to stop the pathological research from falling into disrepute, professors will simply move on to researching something new. Like other fads in education and psychology, this one should eventually be forgotten. More optimistically, our profession’s investigative efforts and practical work could become closer connected toward understanding social technology (Januszewski, Nichols, and Yeaman 2001). Then there will be changes in the classroom? To some degree, culture is always affected by science, but this is like other professional scenes. It is not research that has defined educational technology; see Januszewski (2001). What occurs between teachers and students has seldom been influenced much or in a permanent manner by academic scholarship and research. When computer instruction is somewhat ineffectual, you may still hear that responsibility rests with the technophobic learners who evade dealing with their technostress. Can you leave us with some more upbeat thoughts? As may be expected, any feelings regarding the manufacture of technophobia are your personal choice, but we can end with an exercise. It is a textbook activity for applying what might be learned. Exercise Adults are far more thoughtful and socially aware than the makers of psychological tests generally seem to believe. Computer-anxiety and technophobia test questions can be used as stimuli for small groups instead of treating them as legitimate things requiring responses on questionnaires. Sample questions are presented in figure 2. If you are teaching classes of your own, you may want to try having your students comment on these items, too. Discussing how computer anxiety and technophobia are socially constructed is a meaningful classroom activity for undergraduate and graduate students. It increases awareness of the nonneutrality of culture and technology. This is a good purpose and a reasonable goal. You should decide how you will know if it has been realized. Here are a few aspects to think about and talk through: • Do you want some of the terms to be defined by group members first? • Where do you anticipate the conversations will branch? • What good is it to explain an answer by talking when someone could simply make a pencil mark on a test sheet? • Is it likely researchers will discover something useful from having individuals respond to these surveys?
< previous page
page_106
next page >
< previous page
page_107
next page >
Page 107 Figure 2. These are typical items quoted from Christensen and Knezek’s (2000) report on the statistical reliability of 14 computer-anxiety tests. Nine complete subscales are published in an appendix (333–336).
• Could answering these computer-anxiety questions cause some students to behave in negative ways? • Alternately, could technology fear be learned from the questions and show up as an outcome, even if that is not how people feel to begin? • Why does technophobia research diminish the power to choose by diverting attention from planning, implementing, and evaluating technologies?
< previous page
page_107
next page >
< previous page
page_108
next page >
Page 108 Questions to Answer 1. Answer this question for each item in figure 2: Why do you think this item is on a computer-anxiety test? 2. How truthful and accurate are responses when the whole class knows they are supposed to show enthusiasm for computing? 3. How truthful and accurate are responses when indicating anxiety at first may cause the instructor to be less demanding? 4. The previous questions should raise feelings of uncertainty. In contrast, this question may be more satisfying. It requires interpretation of an ambiguous visual. Which of the test items in figure 2 would make humorous or satirical captions for the cartoon in figure 1? What are your reasons? NOTES 1. An author on the borders of criticism and the social sciences who is known for giving a literary reading to cultural phenomena is Roland Barthes. See, for instance, Barthes’s intellectual autobiography (1975/1977). On the sociological side is Bruno Latour. See, for instance, Latour’s sociohistory of a failed development in subway technology (1993/1996). A book on organizational communication, Casing a Promised Land contains an afterword with a self-interview to illuminate the development of “Dr. Bud” as an investigator (Goodall 1994). In science studies, the ethnographic Epistemic Cultures includes endnotes that are conversations with fictitious physicists, biologists, sociologists, and anticipated readers (Knorr Cetina 1999). In education, William Heard Kilpatrick wrote reflexively regarding the Foundations of Method as early as 1925 (A. Januszewski, personal communication, January 14, 2002). This way of theorizing has legitimacy for qualitative investigations. See Grumet’s (1990) essay “On Daffodils That Come Before the Swallow Dares” for a current demonstration situated beside similar approaches. For instances of extended reflexive dialogues in educational media and technology, see Cunningham’s (1992) dialogue on constructivist learning and instruction, and Yeaman (2001a), where answers are provided to frequently asked questions about professional ethics. 2. Not being neutral does not imply anyone or any power is in control of technology. Although technology can be successfully applied when human purposes and abilities converge with machine purposes and abilities, it is not under control. Technology cannot be possessed in a way that means it is controllable. REFERENCES Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (2002). AECT Code of Professional Ethics. [Online]. Available: http://aect.org/about/Ethics.htm. (Accessed February 2002). Barthes, R. (1977). Roland Barthes by Roland Barthes (R. Howard, trans.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. (Original work published 1975) Barthes, R. (1988). The semiotic challenge (R. Howard, trans.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. (Original work published 1985) Berliner, D. C. (2000). A personal response to those who bash teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education 51, 358–371. Brosnan, M. (1998). Technophobia: The psychological impact of information technology. London: Routledge. Calvino, I. (1989). In memory of Roland Barthes. In P. Creagh (trans.), The literature machine. London: Pan Books. Christensen, R., and Knezek, G. (2000). Internal consistency reliabilities for 14 computer attitude scales. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 8:4, 327–336. Clark, C. J. (2000). Geek learning. TechTrends 44:5, 41–45.
< previous page
page_108
next page >
< previous page
page_109
next page >
Page 109 Cunningham, D. J. (1992). Assessing constructions and constructing assessments: A dialogue. In T. M. Duffy and D. H. Jonassen (eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DeLoughry, T. J. (1993, April 28). 2 Researchers Say “Technophobia” May Afflict Millions of Students. Chronicle of Higher Education, A25–A26. Derrida, J. (2001). The deaths of Roland Barthes. In The work of mourning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. De Vaney, A. (1993). Reading educational computer programs. In R. Muffoletto and N. N. Knupfer (eds.), Computers in education: Social, political, historical perspectives. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. ———. (1998). Can and need educational technology become a postmodern enterprise? Theory into Practice 37:1, 72–80. Dineen, T. (1998). Manufacturing victims: What the psychology industry is doing to people (2d ed.). Montreal: Robert Davies Multimedia. Eribon, D. (1991). Michel Foucault (B. Wing, trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1989) Genco, P. (2000). Technostress in our schools and lives. Book Report 19:2, 42–43. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston: North-eastern University Press. Goodall, H. L. Jr. (1994). Casing a promised land: The autobiography of an organizational detective as cultural ethnographer (expanded ed.). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Greenly, M. (1988). Computerphobia. Futurist 12:1, 14–18. Grumet, M. R. (1990). On daffodils that come before the swallow dares. In E. W. Eisner and A. Peshkin (eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate. New York: Teachers College Press. Herman, E. S., and Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. New York: Pantheon Books. Januszewski, A. (2001). Educational technology: The development of a concept. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Januszewski, A., Nichols, R. G., and Yeaman, A. R. J. (2001). Philosophy, methodology, and research ethics. TechTrends 45:1, 24–27. Kilpatrick, W. H. (1925). Foundations of method: Informal talks on teaching. New York: Macmillan. Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Latour, B. (1996). ARAMIS or the love of technology (C. Porter, trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1993) Lee, R. (1999, April). Remember all the cool stuff we learned in library school? Stuff like…American Libraries, 80–81. Leitch, V. B, Cain, W. E., Finke, L., Johnson, B., McGowan, J., and Williams, J. J., eds. (2001). The Norton anthology of theory and criticism. New York: Norton. McGrath, P. (1999, September 20). Potholes on the road ahead: Tense about the future? You’re not alone—High tech can create high anxiety. Newsweek, 70. Muffoletto, R., ed. (2001). Education and technology: Critical and reflective practices. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Muffoletto, R., and Knupfer, N. N., eds. (1993). Computers in education: Social, political, historical perspectives. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. ———. (2002). Computers in education: Social, political, historical perspectives (2d ed.). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
< previous page
page_109
next page >
< previous page
page_110
next page >
Page 110 Nichols, R. G. (1997). Disempowering homo technologus. Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society 17, 297–304. Rahill, B. (1999). Producing the technophobe: The discourse of technophobia and the erasure of the Luddites. Master’s thesis, The Ohio State University. Rosen, L. D., Sears, D. C., and Weil, M. M. (1993). Treating technophobia: A longitudinal evaluation of the computerphobia reduction program. Computers in Human Behavior 9, 27–50. Rosen, L. D., and Weil, M. M. (1997). The mental health technology bible. New York: Wiley. Sale, K. (1995). Rebels against the future: The Luddites and their war on the industrial revolution—Lessons for the computer age. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Shutkin, D. S. (2001). Technology, the pleasures of the interface, and the psychology of motivation. In R. Muffoletto (ed.), Education and technology: Critical and reflective practices. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Stephenson, N. (1999). In the beginning…wasthecommand line. New York: Avon Books. Ungar, S. (1983). Roland Barthes, the professor of desire. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Weil, M. W., and Rosen, L. D. (1997). Technostress: Coping with technology @work @home @play. New York: Wiley. Weil, M. W., Rosen, L. D., and Wugalter, S. E. (1990). The etiology of computerphobia. Computers in Human Behavior 6, 361–379. Yeaman, A. R. J. (1992). Seven myths of computerism. TechTrends 37:2, 22–26. ———. (1993a, June 9). The excesses of computerization [Letter to the editor]. Chronicle of Higher Education, B6. ———. (1993b). The mythical anxieties of computerization: A Barthesian analysis of a technological myth. In R. Muffoletto, and N. N. Knupfer (eds.), Computers in education: Social, political, historical perspectives. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. ———. (1993c). Whose technology is it, anyway? Education Digest 58:5, 19–23. ———. (1994a). Cyborgs are us. Electronic Journal on Virtual Culture 2:1. [Online]. Available: http://www.monash.edu.au/journals/ejvc/yeaman.v2n1. (Accessed May 5, 2002). ———. (1994b). Deconstructing modern educational technology. Educational Technology 34:2, 15–24. ———. (1994c). Where in the world is Jacques Derrida? A true fiction with an annotated bibliography. Educational Technology 34:2, 57–64. ———. (1994d). Whose technology is it, anyway? In D. H. Wishnietsky (ed.), Assessing the role of technology in education. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa. ———. (1995). ECT Foundation establishes a new award for qualitative scholarship. TechTrends 40:4, 43–44. ———. (1997). The discourse on technology. In R. M. Branch and B. B. Minor (eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook: Volume 22. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. ———. (1998). Like a face drawn in sand at the edge of the sea? TechTrends 43:1, 15–16. ———. (2000). Coming of age in cyberspace. Educational Technology Research and Development 48:4, 102–106. ———. (2001a). Foreword. In P. Welliver (ed.), A code of professional ethics: A guide to professional conduct in the field of educational communications and technology. Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications and Technology. ———. (2001b). Foreword. In A. Januszewski, Educational technology: The development of a concept. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
< previous page
page_110
next page >
< previous page
page_111
next page >
Page 111 ———. (2002). The mythical anxieties of computerization: A Barthesian analysis of a technological myth. In R. Muffoletto, and N. N. Knupfer (eds.), Computers in education: Social, political, historical perspectives (2d ed.). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Yearman [Yeaman], A. R. J., ed. (1998). ITED Newsletter, 1991–1997. Washington DC: Industrial Training and Education Division, Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 409 883)
< previous page
page_111
next page >
< previous page
page_112
next page >
page_112
next page >
Page 112 This page intentionally left blank.
< previous page
< previous page
page_113
next page >
page_113
next page >
Page 113 Distance Learning
< previous page
< previous page
page_114
next page >
page_114
next page >
Page 114 This page intentionally left blank.
< previous page
< previous page
page_115
next page >
Page 115 The Experience of Two Learners Learning at a Distance via the Internet a la Epic Learning Michael Orey Lynne Koenecke The University of Georgia ABSTRACT This paper presents the results of a comparative case study of learners who participated in an online class using many different online technologies: live online classrooms, streaming computer-based training modules, bulletin boards, chat rooms, online coaches, and a management system that was accessed in a learning portal at Epic Learning, Inc. The results indicate that even though all these different technologies were used, one person flourished and one did not. The implication is that there may be a group of individuals who may not be able to learn very effectively using online technology. The demand for continuing education is on the rise. Lifelong learning has become an accepted necessity. It has become vital for one to continue learning to prevent being deemed a relic. Many factors have contributed to this shift toward continuing professional development. Innovations in technology, rapid expansion of knowledge, and professional competence demands have increased people’s need to continue their education throughout their entire careers (Queeney 1995). Adult learners are seeking out every source available to fulfill their need for knowledge and skills. During the twentieth century, companies provided some of this continuing education through apprenticeships or on-the-job training, and colleges and universities helped bear the burden by offering certification programs and some modifications to their structures to support professional development. Technology and the information age have challenged the ability to keep up with that type of training and education. Corporations have started to seek out alternative possibilities to keep their workforce trained at a level that is not only ‘‘leading edge” but sometimes “bleeding edge.” Colleges and universities must react more quickly to technological changes if they wish to provide a share of professional-development training and education (Van Dusen 1997). Many corporations and universities are in a race to provide courses, programs, and training in a mode of delivery that will be conducive to the quickly changing environment. They are developing corporate universities, which represent the fastest-growing segment of the adult education market. Corporate University Xchange (www.corpu.com) estimates that there were more than 1,600 corporate universities in 2000, up from 400 in 1988. At the current rate of growth, the number of corporate universities could surpass the number of traditional universities by the year 2010 and become the primary educators of postsecondary students in the United States (Meister 1998). METHODOLOGY The goal of this study was to examine the learning experiences of students enrolled in a self-paced technical training program delivered at a distance. The purpose was to provide an in-depth description of students’ perceptions and experiences using this mode of delivery. Qualitative inquiry was used to provide an inductive and exploratory methodology for this study. The research design was a comparative case study of two participants. Learners enrolled in a self-paced technical training program were interviewed in
< previous page
page_115
next page >
< previous page
page_116
next page >
Page 116 their learning environment. They were learning computer networking skills in a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineering (MCSE) curriculum. Participants The participants in this study were largely people who were interested in changing or initiating careers. In order to achieve career goals, they needed to obtain this training or certification. The participants were grouped geographically, based on three areas of the United States in which they lived: Atlanta, Georgia, Seattle, Washington, and San Diego, California. The majority of the survey respondents came from these cities because Epic Learning’s original physical locations were in these cities, where the company’s initial sales and marketing efforts for the MCSE program were focused. Ten participants were selected based on several criteria. For maximum variation, several demographic factors were considered: age, sex, previous computer experience, previous educational experience, physical location, progression in the program, and reason for choosing this mode of delivery. However, for various reasons, the list of 10 participants fell to just 2 whom we were able to follow in detail. The result is more of a sample of convenience. Background The context for this study was a training company in Atlanta, Georgia, Epic Learning, Inc. This company has moved its entire business focus from a brick and mortar training company toward becoming a total online solution for technical training, and they are addressing the inherent distance challenges and benefits. Curriculum previously delivered through more traditional modes is now delivered through the Internet. The student works through the curriculum’s training plan to complete courses, readings, and computer-based training modules (CBTs) in a selfpaced environment. This environment is defined solely by the student and could be the student’s home, office, or a combination of both. Blended E-LearningSM With Epic Learning’s distance learning approach, the MCSE student receives a complete learning resource with several components and a variety of learning experiences. Every student receives the same components, regardless of their schedule or location. As part of this certification package, a student receives the following: • A Dell Pentium III 450Mhz computer with NT 4.0 workstation. This allows the student to conduct hands-on labs and practice the skills taught in the lectures, readings, and CBTs. • Online, live, synchronous instruction. Courses are delivered through a Web browser and a software product called Placeware. Instructors deliver live presentations with audio, delivered through either a conference call or streaming audio. Students can ask questions and participate in interactive questions and answers. Courses are recorded for later review. • Books, including Microsoft Official Curriculum books and Teach Yourself Networking Visually. • Streaming and downloadable CBTs. Students have access to NetG CBTs with interactive modules pertaining to the MCSE content. The CBTs not only present their content but also contain pre- and postassessment tests and an engine to keep track of completed sections and test scores. • A homeroom assignment. Upon membership, students receive a Web learning portal called a homeroom. This is a personalized Web space where they can enroll in and attend classes, launch CBTs, check their reading assignments, look at career options, and so on.
< previous page
page_116
next page >
< previous page
page_117
next page >
Page 117 • A training plan. Akin to the deliverables of a course syllabus, the training plan lays out a path for the completion of all of the Blended E-LearningSM components associated with that package. It is currently sorted by program week and will soon be even more flexible by offering various sorting methods. This will allow students to customize the way they view their progress in the course. • An online coach. The online coach is very similar to a teaching assistant, by holding virtual hours and acting as a source of information and technical support. Each coach has successfully tested through the same material as the students and interacts via e-mail, live chat, or phone with the students. The live chat feature even allows the coach to take control of the student’s remote PC for demonstration and troubleshooting purposes. • Study rooms. Content-specific bulletin boards are available for student chat. Students can ask questions or answer those posed by their virtual classmates. Administrators moderate the chat and encourage meaningful participation. The live classes, readings, CBTs, coaches, training plans, homerooms, and study rooms that makes up Epic Learning’s Blended E-Learning combine to make a very flexible program that meets the needs of a variety of learners. Epic Learning feels that the majority of learners choosing this method are likely to be highly motivated. Although the learners may have chosen a more traditional delivery method, this program meets the needs of busy people looking for convenience, flexibility, and hands-on experience. RESULTS The two participants in this case were selected from a group of learners who had purchased an online MCSE training program from Epic Learning and who were asked to fill out questionnaires voluntarily. We describe both of the cases here and then discuss similarities and differences between the two cases. We begin with Paul. Paul Paul is a 43-year-old white male who works for the local public works and has a plumbing background. The analogy of pipes carrying water and network wiring carrying data is an explicit analogy that he suggested helped him understand some concepts about networking: “[S]ome of the correlation between hydraulics, if you will, in physics and how all those things go together, it is so unbelievable how they all mesh together.” Paul has a high school degree with no postsecondary studies. Although he indicates that “generally I am not a bright person,” he does seem to grasp concepts well, and he was the first to complete an online MCSE with Epic. He started in mid-August 1999 and had passed all six exams by April 2000, or in about eight months. Learning Environment Paul tried to spend three days per week working on his MCSE studies. In addition, most of his labs were done on the weekends when he had more time. He worked 10 hours per day, five days per week, with the addition of 25 to 50 hours per week devoted to his studies. Paul has been one of the better students in the Epic Learning program, progressing more quickly than most. Room layout. Paul used a small, extra bedroom as his study room in his house. The approximate dimensions of the room were 10 feet by 10 feet. The room had one twin bed, two desks, and a wall of book shelves. The desks were arranged in an Lshape in one corner of the room, with computers on each desk. The desk parallel to the bed faced a window with blinds, which, during the interview, were partially up, and the blinds themselves were open. This afforded a view of some shrubs outside the window. The window
< previous page
page_117
next page >
< previous page
page_118
next page >
Page 118 desk held his previously owned computer and printer. The nonwindow desk held his Epic Learning–supplied computer and an older computer used as his primary domain controller. This room was shared as an office by both Paul and his wife, although we assume that the twin bed could be used by overnight guests. Overall Learning Experience When describing his learning experience with Epic Learning, Paul contrasts his experience with others’. Some of his friends have taken MCSE course work in a piecemeal fashion. The result is that from his perspective, they have wasted a lot of time and not adequately progressed toward finishing their certifications. For Paul, the Epic core is the Epic training plan (what he terms the Epic “protocol”). The “protocol’’ is a curriculum page at Epic Learning that has each of the Blended Learning elements accessible. It lays out the entire MSCE learning experience. Paul not only followed along on the Web page, but he printed out the “protocol” and now has a well-worn and marked-up version on his desk. The epitome of his experience with the “protocol” is stated by Paul in this way: “They set up my whole agenda here and I have been just knocking them out.” Part of the overall experience that Paul seemed to enjoy is the live lectures taught in the evening by instructors who work as MCSEs during the day. According to Paul, the online instructors were “totally awesome.” It appears, from his description of the instructors, that he developed a relationship with them: they called him by name and asked him questions that indicate they know who he is. Although he used coaches to some extent, Paul did not seem to value them as highly as he did the instructors. One problem is that he had his own coach (as do all Epic learners), but when he clicked on Live Help, he usually got a coach that he did not know. In terms of community building, it seems like the turnover in coaches led Paul to not want to contact the coaches. He wanted them to know how he was progressing, but the fact that he did not know who he would get until they replied made the experience too impersonal: “I like personal communication. I like to hear their voices. I like to know who I am talking to because when you are on the Internet there is a lot of area where there is no accountability. I want it to be a real relationship in that when I am talking to them, ‘Hey what’s going on?’ or ‘Hey what do you need?’ ” So, relationships seem important to Paul. He felt that if you have a relationship, then there is no need to go through a lot of introductory stuff, such as “Who are you” and “What do you know.” The practice exams were another part of the Blended Learning experience that became central for Paul’s learning experience. In the study mode, when he got to something that he did not know, Paul used it as an opportunity to look into the idea or procedure in much more detail. He would look in his books and notes, run through the procedures in the software, and use other sources to examine the unknown area more closely. Then, when finished, he would go through the exam in review mode to examine each of the trouble spots again, until he felt more confident with the area. After all, a large number of students fail the certification exams, and it costs $100 every time they take one. The training plan is divided into modules or steps. For Paul, the process of learning a step began with the CBT and the readings. During the week, he would try to read the book at work or any other setting where he might have 15 minutes to sit and read. In addition, he would get on the CBT in the evening after he got home. On weekends and in evenings, he would reread the books in front of the computer to correlate what was being discussed with the actual software on the computer. All the lab activities are in the books, so he chose to do those on the weekend as well. (Because he works 10 hours per day, five days per week, starting a lab on a weeknight was a “bad idea.”) He took instructor-led classes when they were offered and when he was available to take them. Several times each week he would be logged into a classroom during an instructor-led class. In fact, Paul says that when he was working on a lab out of his book on his server computer, he often logged onto a classroom—even if he had already passed the certification exam on that class—and listened in on the instruction. He says he did this “just to listen to them and see what they are saying, because as they are learning to teach they are adding
< previous page
page_118
next page >
< previous page
page_119
next page >
Page 119 stuff that I didn’t hear originally. So, I am picking up on that.” One problem that he ran into is that he was one of the first students to sign up for the MCSE online with Epic and was progressing more quickly than others. Consequently, Epic did not yet have a core group that was advanced to his level, meaning that he was often left waiting for the classes to be offered, when he had already completed all the other materials for that step in the training plan. His response to that problem was, “That doesn’t hold a good horse back.” At the end of his program, Paul was looking for some practical experience. Although Paul valued his learning experience with Epic, it only got him so far. Becoming a network administrator involves real-world experience. He was hoping to move into a part-time position with his current employer. As he put it, it would be transitional job from his “blue-collar” role to his new “white-collar” career. However, he felt that this would be only for a short period and that he would quickly move into a fulltime network position (within ‘‘six months”). Another issue was raised at the end of his program. He completed his MCSE for NT 4.0 just as Microsoft was announcing the rules for becoming certified for Windows 2000. For two reasons, Paul was not concerned: first, there would continue to be a large installed base of NT 4.0 with which to work, and second, he saw Windows 2000 as another learning opportunity. Paul was the first student at Epic to complete his MCSE entirely online. At the end of the program, we asked him what Epic could do to improve, and he said that they ought to keep doing what they have been doing. In the end, he reiterated his respect for the instructors in terms of their knowledge and their willingness to pass on their knowledge. Teresa Teresa is a 43-year-old white female who is currently a full-time mom. She has a high school degree plus computer repair certification for her successful completion of a local community educational program. This certificate is not the same as the industry standard’s Computer Technical Industry Association’s (CompTIA’s) A certification. She has also taken a few college courses specializing in electronics, but she has no college degrees. Teresa is married and has three children. Her youngest is in middle school (12 years old); the other two are in high school (15 and 16 years old). She also volunteers at the local middle school to assist the students with the use of the computer, software, scanner, printer, and the Internet. Her other responsibilities are to ensure that the students are surfing acceptable Web sites and to schedule the hours for other parent volunteers. She also maintains and upgrades the computers when needed. Her MCSE I certification would offer Teresa an opportunity to pursue a career outside the home and to supplement her household income. Learning Environment At the time of the interview, Teresa had stalled in her progress towards her MCSE I certification. The interview took place on 10 December 1999. The Thanksgiving holiday had just ended, and Christmas was quickly approaching. It was Teresa’s intent to pick things back up after the holidays. The training plan for the MCSE curriculum is divided into five major areas based on the certification exams (the first two exams are based on the same content). By the time of the interview, she had completed about a third of the content for those first two exams. Room layout. Teresa’s room is large with a cathedral ceiling. It is a room dedicated to being an office and learning environment. Along one wall stands two long tables—one eight-feet long, the other six feet—with four filing cabinets between them. The Epic computer is on the six-foot table at the right side of the filing cabinets and closest to the door. At the left side of the file cabinets, on the eight-foot table, sits another high-end computer along with a scanner and a printer.
< previous page
page_119
next page >
< previous page
page_120
next page >
Page 120 Overall Learning Experience Teresa had a problem with the length of the instructor-led classes. There was a lot of information packed into these two-hour classes. As she put it, “The two-hour presentations have so much information packed into them that a person does not have adequate time to think about and absorb the concepts presented, especially when there are distractions. Shorter sessions may actually be more productive.” We asked Teresa to describe her usual way of going through a step. Her answer indicated that she felt she needed to be more systematic about it. Sometimes she would do the reading first, sometimes the instructor-led class, and sometimes the CBT. She also talked about retaking the CBT because a lot of time had elapsed or because she did not really understand it the first time. A complaint she had about the training plan was that the reading assignments skipped around in the book, rather than proceeding sequentially. She seemed to suggest that the structure of the curriculum was dictated by the structure of the CBTs. The CBT might cover topics A, B, and C in that order whereas the book might cover those same topics in the order C, A, and B. The curriculum was Epic Learning’s device to synchronize these different sequences, and Teresa seemed to want to try and fit the CBT sequence into everything else. Teresa indicated that she called for help and used the online help. She felt that the phone help was quicker and more elaborate and allowed her to be more interactive in the process. For example, if she had a question while using her computers for a lab, she called a coach who guided her through the task in real time. They worked through to the solution together more spontaneously than when using a computer chat session. She feels the online help is good for questions regarding the understanding of the learning materials and for general guidance in following the curriculum. When participating in the online instructor-led classes, Teresa would sometimes move from one computer to the other. She used the Windows 95 configuration to participate in the classes and used the other computer, configured with Windows NT, to follow some of the examples given by the instructors. One of the questions we raised during the interview had to do with feedback that the students received on their performance. Feedback is built into the CBTs, but there is very little opportunity to provide feedback on the performance of any other aspect of the student’s learning. Teresa related that her coach had contacted her from time to time to check on her and had encouraged her, saying that she was making good progress. However, there was no real opportunity to provide more specific performance feedback. For example, after having set up a primary domain controller, a coach might have looked at what she had done and provided specific feedback on her settings. Because the coach could not see what Teresa had done, though, further feedback could not be given. In the end, Teresa did not finish her MCSE. Instead, she signed up for an A certification class offered at the local community college. In addition, she applied and was accepted to take a class for service technicians offered by the local school district. She felt that these classes afforded a better experience for her and were more readily applicable to her career objective. Although these courses suited her long-term career goals, she was perhaps the most active participant in the free career workshop classes that Epic offered. Apparently, the smaller amount of content offered in these one-hour courses (as opposed to a 12-month learning package) was easier for her to partake of than the larger packages that she purchased. Some frustrations. Teresa had paid for her program in May, but the online program did not get up and working until mid-July. Further, changes during those initial months to work out any bugs had become irritating. The whole site changed in structure and look at least four times since she had started. This was a source of some frustration. CONCLUSIONS We began this paper discussing the great increase in distance learning over the past few years. Different people and different organizations have attacked this issue in different
< previous page
page_120
next page >
< previous page
page_121
next page >
Page 121 ways. Some professors have put their syllabi on the Internet and feel they now have an online component to their class. Others have used bulletin boards, chat rooms, and other online computer-mediated communication components as their solution to this problem. Others have solved the problem with CBTs or Web-based training modules (WBTs; CBTs that are streamed over the web). Still others have progressed to the point where they have virtual online classrooms. Epic Learning has combined all of that together in what they call Blended Learning. It was our belief going into this research project that this combination would meet the needs of many different kinds of learners. However, although Teresa had some small successes in the online environment, she is now flourishing in the regular classroom studies that she started outside of Epic. Paul, on the other hand, flourished in Epic’s Blended Learning environment. A conclusion to draw from this study is that online learning is not for everyone. Another conclusion to draw from this study is that you can buy technology to solve your educational problems, but it will not always get used the way you intended. For example, Epic had bulletin boards and chat rooms available, but very little use was made of them. When you look at the description of the experiences that Teresa and Paul had, most of the discussion focuses on the CBTs, readings, labs, and live classes. Very little mention was made of the community-building applications that were available to the learners. Community building is an active process, and although there were tools available for community building, there was little direct activity for building these communities. Another difference between Teresa and Paul was how self-directed Paul seemed to be. He treated his learning like a job. He worked hard at it and spent a considerable amount of time at it. When Epic was unable to offer live classes to him because he was so far advanced above the other students, he said that you cannot “hold a good horse back.” When Teresa found the two-hour classes too full of information, she wished Epic would change the way they did things and would make the classes shorter. When we talked about online communities, Teresa got very excited (and disappointed when things did not happen in this regard) and Paul felt that communicating online was too anonymous and he did not like doing it. The bottom line is that different people want different things in their learning experience. Some people will flourish with online learning experiences while others will fail. Epic Learning seems to offer many different learning experiences so that more people can be served, but in the end, there may be some people who can never flourish in an online class. Teaching and learning is inherently a human-to-human experience. Some people may not be able to handle a mediated experience, and who these people are is a topic for further research. REFERENCES Meister, J. C. (1998, November). Ten steps to creating a corporate university. Training and Development, 38–43. Queeney, D. S. (1995). Assessing needs in continuing education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Van Dusen, G. C. (1997). The virtual campus (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Volume 25, No. 5). Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.
< previous page
page_121
next page >
< previous page
page_122
next page >
Page 122 A Systematic Approach to Determining the Scalability of a Distance Education Program Richard C. Snider Ross A. Perkins Glen A. Holmes Barbara B. Lockee Virginia Tech The topic of scalability has been prevalent in recent information technology literature, specifically focusing on increasing the capacity of technological infrastructures to support an increased load on a system. However, the scalability of distance education programs requires the perspective of the field of instructional technology to assess the implications of serving an increased number of learners. When referring to scalability from a more holistic perspective, one must revise the definition of the concept to reflect broader, systemic implications. Therefore, we propose that scalability be defined as expanding the reach of an instructional program without further burden on instructional resources. In an effort to investigate how to determine the scalability of an instructional program, a group of researchers devised the process detailed herein through analyzing a distance-delivered master’s degree program and the potential challenges and ramifications of enlarging its participant base. The end result of engaging in this task was a generalizable procedure in which others may engage to assess the capacities and limitations of their own distance programs. This chapter describes the analysis process in general, as well as its specific application to evaluating the scalability of the aforementioned distance program. CONTEXT FOR ANALYSIS The Instructional Technology Master of Arts (ITMA) program at Virginia Tech is offered through on-campus courses or via the Internet through online courses. The distance learning degree was created by faculty members in the instructional technology program in the fall semester of 1997 and implemented a year later in the fall of 1998. The primary purpose of the online degree program was to reach out to practicing education professionals around the state of Virginia. The three areas of the commonwealth from which students participated included northern Virginia, Franklin County, and Abingdon. These areas are also close to regional graduate centers that offer a number of resources for distance learners. The first iteration of ITMA came to a close in May 2001, when many of its original 65 members finished their degrees (some students completed their degrees early). The second iteration of ITMA involves a new group of students, numbering close to 100, which is made up of education professionals from Virginia’s Tidewater area and the Roanoke and Abingdon areas. The faculty who developed and taught courses in the first offering of the program learned many lessons from their initial attempt and applied them to the development of courses for the second iteration of ITMA, which started in the fall of 2000. They are redesigning courses with somewhat different goals in mind. First, they seek to dramatically reduce the amount of time they have to spend away from campus; in the initial phases of
< previous page
page_122
next page >
< previous page
page_123
next page >
Page 123 the project, faculty spent time traveling to remote sites to teach and work with students. It was also important to reduce the amount of time spent answering e-mail and grading projects. At the same time, they hope to create a program that will allow for an increased number of students. Preliminary projections suggest that 1,000 or more students could matriculate into an adequately designed ITMA program. The pressure to increase the scale of the program is both internal and external. The program faculty themselves would like to see their efforts reach a wider audience and possibly generate extra revenue. The university has encouraged many departments and programs in various colleges to pursue the development of widescale distance education initiatives. The effort to scale the ITMA program for a larger number of learners, however, cannot take place without a definitive understanding of all the processes that affect the students from the time they first learn of the program until the time they graduate. As a result, a scalability analysis of the ITMA program was conducted. ANALYSIS PROCESS The basic issue in the scalability review was to examine the effect that a large number of learners would have when matriculated into a fairly small program. It is important to note that the scalability review considered here did not require dozens of analysts; the reviewing group consisted of two graduate students and their faculty advisor. In this instance, though, a small team may actually have been an advantage in that potentially confounding issues were ignored in favor of focusing on the most essential elements of the program. The analysis also took place within the confines of a single academic semester and as a result was not exhaustive but attempted to be representative and generalizable. The scalability analysis worked from the premise that effectively serving a larger student population would not sacrifice the quality of the existing instruction but would increase the efficiency of how these students were served. Based on this premise and because of the project’s time constraints, the group attempted to identify broad areas and specific processes within these areas to investigate. The essential elements of any program are broadly the same at any institution: learner enrollment, course offerings, learner assessment. These broad elements, however, are systems in and of themselves and as such contain a number of specific processes that could create a “bottleneck’’ and severely restrict upward scalability. Therefore, administrative elements including personnel, policies, procedures, and tasks involved in the ITMA program were investigated. In addition, a representative instructional module was analyzed in terms of content delivery and grading processes. The analysis of the administrative process and the representative instructional module used a simple three-step formula to guide the inquiry. The initial step consisted of clearly and fully describing the process as it currently exists. The next step involved identifying inefficiencies in the process that would cause problems if the number of students were increased tenfold. Finally, solutions were identified that could overcome the inefficiencies or bottlenecks in the process. Besides selecting the three key areas of analysis (administrative, instructional, and grading), another important decision made in this particular review was to examine the processes in such a way that important details would surface. The guiding principle throughout the process was that the reviewers would look for those places where the flow of information was severely restricted. The only way of doing this was to look at each area in-depth. Rather than describe in general terms the process of enrollment, for example, the reviewers did interviews with those intimately familiar with the process. If the reviewers had looked at the range of ITMA modules, rather than just one, it is quite possible that details would have been missed. Examining one module in-depth is also quite appropriate in that upward scalability depends on the ability of each specific part of the overall program
< previous page
page_123
next page >
< previous page
page_124
next page >
Page 124 to absorb increased interaction. If even one part fails, the whole system is in jeopardy. There is a danger, of course, in choosing a specific learning module that happens to lend itself very well to a scaled-up version, but the module used in this review was not a haphazard choice. Quite to the contrary, the reviewers looked across the range of modules and chose this one precisely because the assignment load and class procedures were more complicated than most other modules. If this particular module passed the hypothetical stress test, they reasoned, so would the others. Within this simple approach, however, the researchers had to consider many complex components to fully describe the process and then analyze it in terms of efficiency. These components included consideration of the individuals involved in the program and their specific roles, the facilities and equipment currently available and how these technologies are used in the process, the existing policies and procedures and their effect on the overall process, and the nature of the materials (i.e., forms, instructional content, grading rubrics) used within the process. In addition to this basic approach, the reviewers also considered the impact of their proposed solutions on both the instructors and the students. The goal in this was to increase efficiency without overburdening these individuals. Because course designers and instructors (in this case, they were one and the same) are stakeholders in any distance learning program, it was important to consider their insights with regard to upward scalability. This is especially true if an instructor must administer the course him- or herself or if the designer must reengineer large portions of a course to accommodate more learners while at the same time having to develop new courses. As a result, the individuals proposing the solutions were cognizant of the resources needed to accomplish the tasks. During the review process, it was also important to keep in mind the perspective of the learner. The learners’ needs, especially in regard to communication and “ease of use,” are important issues in all instances, but in distance learning especially. Distance learners often feel isolated from the institution because of physical distance alone, and problems with communication and unclear (or complicated) instructions regarding administrative tasks (payment, enrollment, turning in assignments, etc.) can quickly become frustrating. Learner angst may lead to alienation and then to dropout. A caring faculty and staff in a quality distance program should not take attrition as a matter of course—it can be prevented when the right combination of support mechanisms is in place. In the process of determining the scalability of the instructional program, three issues were not addressed. First, the philosophical underpinnings of the instruction were not considered. The course objectives and methodologies were chosen by faculty as part of a comprehensive design process; therefore, the reviewers’ role was to assess scalability without altering the underlying theoretical assumptions of the instruction. Also, the technological aspects of scalability for the ITMA program were not considered, as those issues have already been addressed in current information technology literature (i.e., increasing server size, expanding infrastructure, etc.). Finally, the economic impact of the instructional decisions or design of the program did not enter into the review process because the focus was specifically on serving more people with resources already in place at the university. The following sections present an overview of the primary areas of analysis and detail some of the solutions that were developed. The paper concludes with an overall summary of the analysis and its usefulness. ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES The first task undertaken in the analysis process was the examination of the administrative systems associated with the implementation of a Web-based degree program. This was done by identifying personnel who assist in the program’s administration, describing administrative policies, and outlining the administrative tasks for entry into the program.
< previous page
page_124
next page >
< previous page
page_125
next page >
Page 125 The analysis gave the authors at least some ability to predict areas likely to suffer unmanageable strain and inefficiency if the program were to accept many more students than were enrolled. Assumptions Whenever one is considering a larger-scale program, marketing efforts for the given program will also be augmented to attract a greater number of learners. This analysis assumed that advertisements, brochures, and other marketing initiatives had effectively reached the target audience, which in this case includes professional educators in the commonwealth of Virginia. It was assumed that the ITMA program would not develop its own marketing materials but would rely on existing sources to diffuse knowledge of the program. In addition, the analysis of administrative procedures assumed that applicant information had been processed by the university’s graduate school database and that all necessary enrollment forms had been sent by the graduate school to the prospective students. Personnel From the time a student first applies to the online degree program until the time he or she graduates, a number of noninstructional personnel are involved in the process of ensuring that all procedures have been followed. A description of those involved in administrative processes follows. General Administrative Personnel Employed in areas such as the graduate school, registrar’s office, bursar’s office, computing services, and so on, general administrative personnel perform a variety of tasks that help move a student from the application process all the way to graduation. Some tasks involving these workers are time intensive, such as keying data from paper-based forms or sending information packets to students. Other tasks are automated, such as overseeing the automatic processing of registration for classes. Department of Teaching and Learning Employees Three employees in the Department of Teaching and Learning at Virginia Tech have direct interaction with students who apply and enroll in the ITMA program: the department’s graduate secretary, a professor who serves as the instructional technology program area leader, and a professor who coordinates the ITMA program. Other Faculty or University Staff Occasionally, ITMA administrators must rely on other university faculty or staff to disseminate pertinent information. This was particularly true in the early stages of the ITMA program, when many distance learning processes were not yet well established. Two people who still assist with ITMA efforts are a representative from the Institute for Distance and Distributed Learning and a librarian whose specific function is to assist off-campus learners with the university library system. Equipment The ITMA program makes use of a dedicated Microsoft NT server to deliver instructional content over the Internet. Currently, all Web-based content consists primarily of text and graphics in an HTMLenvironment.
< previous page
page_125
next page >
< previous page
page_126
next page >
Page 126 Policies Every system at the university level is guided by policies, all of which can potentially impede or expedite attempts to scale distance programs upward. The policies guide what information students must submit to complete their application packet, when students can enroll for classes, the method students can use to pay for classes, scholarship criteria, use of university resources, and so on. One policy related to the application process requires the instructional technology program area leader to review all applications and then make a decision as to whether an individual student is accepted. The only role of the graduate office is to ensure that an application packet is complete and to inform the student of the decision. Another policy provides those who are full-time teachers in Virginia with a tuition discount. To become eligible for the reduced tuition, teachers must submit signed forms to the bursar’s office. A third example of a wide-reaching policy concerns the assignment of a student’s personal identification (PID) and password (PW). Receiving the PID/PW is tantamount to becoming an “official” part of Virginia Tech, for it is by logging on to the university network that a multitude of services becomes available. Procedures The flowchart shown in figure 1 demonstrates the administrative process from the application stage until the time the student first registers for courses. This segment of administrative tasks accounts for the largest number of people not directly related to the ITMA program. Other administrative procedures not outlined in figure 1 include tasks related to reenrollment and graduation preparation. Problems and Solutions The task of the authors was to identify only those problems whose solutions could be generated by instructional technology program personnel. Some issues affecting admissions and application processing require a philosophical change or a technological solution that is beyond the scope of the instructional technology program. Such issues include, but are not limited to, the routing of application information and the way that transcripts are sent from other institutions. Problem 1: Inefficient Communication The interaction between the graduate school office, Department of Teaching and Learning graduate secretary, and instructional technology program area leader is not efficient. The main reason is that a good deal of paperwork is being sent back and forth. In a number of instances, one group of people had information concerning a particular student while another group had no information about that student. One problem that has arisen is that the ITMA staff member does not know immediately who has been accepted and who has not. A local database of necessary information should be made accessible to those involved in the application decision process. The database information would be drawn from information already in the university database and would allow for supplemental information entered by the student. The system would be linked to the external university database systems so changes made in one area would be reflected in the other. Problem 2: Complex Application Review Process Acceptance decision procedures are not amenable for large numbers of students. Because the application information sent to the program area leader is paper based, that
< previous page
page_126
next page >
< previous page
page_127
next page >
Page 127 Figure 1. The Entry Administrative Process for a Student Who Applies to the ITMA Program
person must review each one individually. This is time consuming even with a low number of applicants, but if the system were scaled up and received hundreds of applications, the increased workload would be difficult to manage. Given that the database solution suggested as a solution to problem 1 was developed, decision makers could access various levels of applicant information. The database would include information organized by levels, with immediate access to primary data and easy access to supporting information as needed. For example, the grade point average (GPA) of the applicant could be accessible on the main screen. If the student’s undergraduate GPA is at or below 3.0 (the minimum criteria for acceptance to the ITMA program), access would be granted to the student’s transcript information or perhaps a letter written by the student explaining the GPA. Various selection criteria could be filtered automatically and thus reduce the time needed to make an acceptance decision. This solution would work effectively for small or large numbers of student applications. A second solution could be to change policies that required a person to make a decision. The adoption of an “open university” model or a more rigorous filtering system might be possible.
< previous page
page_127
next page >
< previous page
page_128
next page >
Page 128 Implementation Scope and Sequence Instructional technology faculty or graduate students could develop the local automated database in house. The existing Microsoft NT server can be used in conjunction with either freely available scripting languages such as Active Server Pages or commercial products such as Macromedia’s Cold Fusion to connect a Microsoft Access database with an HTMLinterface. An experienced programmer could develop a local database system while an instructional designer developed the layout for the interface. This system could then be tested by the individuals who would make use of it, and subsequent changes would be made based on the feedback from these tests. INSTRUCTIONAL CONTENT In analyzing the instructional content of the ITMA online program, the authors initially interviewed relevant faculty and staff to obtain information concerning the assumptions and personnel involved in an implementation of a scaled version of the content. In addition, these individuals helped to identify two typical lessons that could be further analyzed in hopes of providing problems and solutions that could be generalized to other modules and to the instructional content of the program as a whole with regard to scalability. Assumptions There were three primary assumptions with regard to the content in a scaled environment. First, it was assumed the content would be taught to a larger audience without increasing the available personnel or facilities. Second, it was very important to the faculty and staff to preserve the quality of the content while increasing the potential audience. Finally, the faculty and staff made it clear that in a scaled-up model all of the instructional content that is delivered must still be graded. Personnel, Facilities, and Equipment The personnel involved in development, organization, and delivery of instructional content included an instructor, a program coordinator, and a technical support provider. The instructor is primarily responsible for designing and delivering the content. The program coordinator is responsible for enrolling users. The technical support provider is responsible for maintaining the technology used to deliver the content. All face-to-face instruction generally takes place within one classroom or two computer labs. Each room is capable of supporting approximately 25 to 35 students. As already mentioned, the ITMA program makes use of a dedicated Microsoft NT server to deliver instructional content over the Internet. Again, all Web-based content primarily uses text and graphics in an HTMLenvironment. Analysis The content analysis focused on two primary components, the presentation of the content and the strategies used to present the content. These components were investigated using a single instructional module and two typical lessons within that module. The Multimedia Authoring module was chosen for analysis. The development component of the module was the specific area of analysis. This section will present the content organization and look at two of four lessons (lessons 2 and 3) with regard to the objectives, strategies, and scale of this module. These two lessons will then be analyzed in terms of scalability.
< previous page
page_128
next page >
< previous page
page_129
next page >
Page 129 The development section of the module introduces the process of creating a multimedia project. The students learn to use a specific tool, HyperStudio, to create the project. Within this section, the students learn to develop design strands, learn about scripting concepts and techniques, construct multimedia projects using the HyperStudio scripting language, and use the HyperStudio environment to produce a working multimedia project. Lesson 2 Lesson 2 introduces the learner to the HyperStudio interface through a HyperStudio tutorial. The interface and introduction to multimedia authoring is presented through a live presentation by an instructor. Lesson 2 also provides students with a few materials. The learner can download both the “Introduction to HyperStudio’’ and the “Introduction to Hyperlogo Scripting” Power Point slideshows. The lesson also provides learners access to a HyperStudio tutorial from Mediacentric World. The stated objectives for this lesson include the following: • Create buttons. • Define linear program control. • Define nonlinear program control. • Create navigational links. • Resolve RAM and storage issues. • Use proper file types. • Import and control media. • Draw HyperStudio bitmap images. • Define bitmap images. • Define frame animation. • Define path animation. • Create frame animation. • Create path animation. The assignment for the lesson is to complete the Mediacentric World tutorial. Instructors, the lesson states, will be available to support the learners in this step. The instructional strategy for this involves an instruction and practice technique. The learners receive the instruction and then are required to practice using the tutorial. Lesson 2 Problem: Inefficient Presentation Strategy The primary problem regarding the strategies involved in lesson 2 is in the face-to-face presentation of the HyperStudio interface instruction. This type of approach works well with a limited size group, but if the number of students is increased, then the amount of time spent in face-to-face instruction could increase when viewed in light of the number of available instructors and the facilities needed to support the students. In the context of preserving the overall nature of the instructional objectives, sequence, and strategies, there are a number of possible solutions to overcome the restrictions of the face-to-face component. The presentation and feedback given during the face-to-face component would be more scalable if incorporated into the Web-based content. Both presentations seem to be quite linear in nature and deal with specific topics (as demon-
< previous page
page_129
next page >
< previous page
page_130
next page >
Page 130 strated in the slide shows that accompany the lesson). The content could be placed in text format and added to the Web page or could even be set up in a streaming video or audio format with indications as to what slide was currently being discussed. In either instance, the resource strain encumbered by additional students would not be a factor. The instructor support, or feedback, component could also be streamlined in a number of ways. The lesson could make use of a number of graduate students or former ITMA students who would be willing to provide feedback via phone or e-mail. However, this solution still has the problem of becoming unmanageable if the number of students in the program increases significantly. A more efficient system might involve creating an online “expert system” database that would be capable of answering frequently asked questions (FAQs) regarding content problems based on student queries. An online FAQ or database of content solutions that can be searched by topic or keyword may also be useful. Implementation Scope and Sequence The transfer of existing content to the Web is a straightforward process. If the choice is to place the content in HTMLformat, then the content expert must either place the content on the Web him- or herself or work with an instructional designer or a person knowledgeable with HTMLto do so. If the choice is to stream either audio or video to present the instruction, this, too, can be done relatively easily. The instructor can present the content while someone knowledgeable of the appropriate video- or audiorecording techniques could record the presentation, digitize the recording (if necessary), compress it, and place it on the Web server for streaming. As far as the feedback component is concerned, considerable time and effort would have to go into developing an online expert system, FAQ, or content database. Initially, a content expert would have to map out important concepts and common problems and solutions with regard to the content. Once this content is completely identified and mapped out, it can be organized and shaped into an expert system, FAQ, or query-accessible database. Lesson 3 Lesson 3 is structured to provide learners with cognitive strategies that will (a) empower them to design scripting functionalities using a top-down analysis process composed of verbal functionality descriptions, pseudo code, algorithms, and the actual scripts, (b) empower them to independently implement the assistance provided by scripting reference materials, and (c) prepare them for advanced course work in authoring languages within which they can apply the fundamental concepts of global and local variables, looping, and conditionals within new authoring environments. (Burton 2000) The learners receive a limited exposure to the logic and process of scripting through an introduction to vocabulary and an overview of top-down analysis through a HyperScript stack. The stack is revisited twice more, as the instruction elaborates concepts and techniques. During the second visit, the instructor demonstrates scripting techniques while duplicating the stack’s scripted functionalities. Each stack card illustrates at least one new aspect of a required scripting functionality. During the third visit, students themselves replicate the scripted functionalities. These activities take place in a face-to-face class meeting scheduled to last two hours. This contact time with the instructor is intended to enable students to continue to work independently through the Exploring HyperLogo Tutorial by Bill Lynn (1997–1998).
< previous page
page_130
next page >
< previous page
page_131
next page >
Page 131 Initial assignments include working through the tutorial of the first section in the reference manual. Required topics of variables, looping, and conditionals are reinforced with specific scripting problems, although flexibility is built in to allow individual students to shape assignments so that they will be pertinent to individual students’ professional needs. The culminating assignment is completion of the HyperScript semester project using at least one HyperScripted function. Materials for this lesson include a HyperStudio stack entitled “Scripting Lesson” and the Hyperlogo tutorial entitled Exploring HyperLogo Tutorial: A Scripting Language for HyperStudio (Lynn 1997–1998). Students are also expected to obtain HyperLogo: A Scripting Language for HyperStudio reference by Mike Westerfield (1997). The stated objectives for this lesson include the following: • List and describe the steps of the top-down analysis process. • Define and describe an analogy for looping. • Script a functionality using looping. • Define and describe an analogy for conditionals. • Script a functionality using conditionals. • Define and describe an analogy for local and global variables. • Script a functionality using local and global variables. • Describe to-be-scripted object’s functionality in words. • Write pseudo code. • Choose programming technique(s). • Code objects. • Assemble objects within title. • Use HyperStudio scripting functionality. This lesson involves a number of assignments. Some assignments are done during the two-hour meeting, and others are done independently. The first assignment, done in class, involves replicating the ‘‘Scripting Lesson” stack demonstrated in class. For the practice component of this assignment, students are expected to complete Lynn’s (1997–1998) tutorial independently. The students are also required to submit one of the stacks that they completed during the tutorial. The students also complete an assignment whereby they create a stack based on the information contained in chapter 1 of Mike Westerfield’s (1997) reference. They are required to submit the stack and are also required to produce a number of documents describing specific analogies for various scripting processes and concepts. These documents are also submitted. Finally, the students are presented with a few design problems that they must solve using specific scripting components. Each of these assignments is submitted as a HyperStudio stack. Lesson 3 Problem: Alternative Strategies Needed Again, the primary problem with regard to the strategies involved in lesson 3 is in the face-to-face presentation of the HyperStudio scripting instruction. This type of approach works well with a limited size group, but if the students are increased, then the amount of time spent in face-to-face instruction could increase when viewed in light of the number of available instructors and the facilities needed to support the students. A primary solution to the problem involves incorporating the content delivered during the face-to-face meeting into the Web-based content. This can take a number of forms.
< previous page
page_131
next page >
< previous page
page_132
next page >
Page 132 Because the scripting objectives are specific and well focused, it would be possible to present content “snippets” over the Web with regard to each of the scripting functions. For example, a JAVA-based or FLASH-based tutorial demonstrating how to set up a looping function, accompanied by audio comments, could adequately relay the concept. In addition, the tutorial practice piece could be accompanied by JAVA-based applets that allowed the students to test their scripting skills. These applets could provide automatic and immediate feedback to the students. This solution, again, would eliminate problems in a scaled environment, allow students to revisit the material, and provide immediate feedback. Implementation Scope and Sequence A programmer and content expert would need to get together to develop the JAVA-FLASH tutorials and the JAVA applets to provide feedback to students. The content expert could determine what the applet would need to do, and then the programmer could create the applet. The time and effort required to complete this task would depend on the nature and complexity of the tutorials and feedback applets. GRADING AND FEEDBACK The analysis of the grading and feedback component of the ITMA program was a logical extension of the instructional content analysis. Similar to the content analysis, this investigation looked at the grading and feedback process with regard to the Multimedia Authoring module. The process, however, was typical of all of the online modules. There were two primary assumptions regarding the grading and feedback process. First, all of the content that is delivered for a course must be assessed in some manner. Second, it is very important for the students to receive timely feedback on the graded material. Personnel and Equipment The personnel involved in the grading of content for the Multimedia Authoring module includes the instructor and a grader. The instructor typically develops the grading rubrics that are needed to assess the content. The grader uses the rubrics to actually perform the task of grading the work that the student has submitted. The ITMA Microsoft NT server was used to provide a Web-based submission form and file transfer protocol (FTP) site to help the students get their work to the grader. In addition, the grader made use of a spreadsheet, word processor, and e-mail program to grade the work and provide feedback to the students. Analysis The online Multimedia Authoring module consists of assignments related to the planning, development, and evaluation of a multimedia project. Each assignment is accompanied by a grading rubric. A grading scale is used for all assignments, and each grade is weighted based on the category of the assignment. Each assessment item includes a description of the assignment and requirements and a grading rubric. The following is a sample of an assessment item: Module 1: Planning Introduction Introduction Assignment A A. Pat ran into a few problems because Pat attempted to cut corners. What were they? Please compose a paragraph with the answers.
< previous page
page_132
next page >
< previous page
page_133
next page >
Page 133 • Save your paragraph as a Web page with the name “planningintro.htm.” • This is NOT a Portfolio assignment. • Publish your paragraph to the Module08 folder within your ITMA Web. • Publish a second page, called “index.htm” to your Module08 folder. Use this index page for links to all of your nonportfolio, Module 08 assignments. • Create a link on your index.htm page to the planningintro.htm assignment. • Complete the online Submission Notification Form. (Assignments will not be graded until a Submission Notification Form is received.) The following criteria will be used to evaluate the assignment. Criteria (pass-fail) Yes No Used correct file name. Published and linked file as specified. Used APA style where appropriate. Posted to student's website during the first week of class. Answer covered the entire range of Pat's story, as detailed in the on-line Director title. The Multimedia Authoring module also includes a grading scale and an assignment weight description. The following grading scale is used for module 8: A Exceeds all assignment specifications. Clearly outstanding work B Meets all assignment specifications C Meets most assignment specifications (missing 1 or 2 specifications) D Meets few assignment specifications F Not submitted or not acceptable
< previous page
page_133
next page >
< previous page
page_134
next page >
Page 134 The module 8 assignments are weighted as follows: Module 08 Assignment Weights 40 Completed multimedia project 30 Completed Portfolio Assignments 30 Completed Module 08 Assignments Each student has access to an individual folder on a centralized server system. Each student’s folder contains subfolders to hold assignments for every online module in the program. In the Multimedia Authoring module, students are asked to create an index page in the module’s folder listing and linking each of the assignments. The student fills out a submission notification form for every assignment. There is one form for each assignment. Each form contains a “blind field’’ with the assignment name and also the following information for the student to fill out: Submission Notification To receive review and credit for a Module 08 Multimedia Authoring online assignment submission, you must submit this form. Submit an Assignment Submission Notification form every time you publish a Module 08 Multimedia Authoring assignment or revision to your ITMA website for review and evaluation. 1.Please provide the following information. Last Name: First Name: E-mail Address: Your ITMA Web URL: Your URLfor this assignment: Today’s Date (mm/dd/yy): 2.Is this the first time you are submitting this assignment or is this a revised submission? Choose one of the following options. original revised The students are told that before the assignment form has been submitted, they should verify that the assignment can actually be viewed using the URLprovided. If the URLis correct and the form is submitted, the students should know the instructor will have sufficient information to grade their work. Once the form is completed, the information is sent to an NT server running Microsoft Frontpage. This program then places the information into a text file. Once the assignments are completed, the grader downloads the text file from the server and places it into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The spreadsheet contains the following data:
< previous page
page_134
next page >
< previous page Page 135 AsgnName
Status
next page >
page_135 Last
First
email
ITMAUrl
AssgnURL
Date
Submission
• AsgnName = The name of each assignment • Status = Status of the assignment: Ungraded or Graded • Last = Student’s Last name • First = Student’s First name • Email = Student’s email address • ITMAURL= Student’s ITMA web address • AssgnURL = The URL for the student’s assignment • Date = Date the assignment is turned in • Submission: Status of the assigmnent’s revision history: Original or Revision Note. AsgnName = the name of each assignment; Status status of the assignment—ungraded or graded; Last = student’s last name; First = student’s first name; E-mail = student’s e-mail address; ITMAURL = student’s ITMA Web address; AssgnURL = the URLfor the student’s assignment. Date = date the assignment is turned in; Submission = status of the assignment’s revision history—original or revision. In order to grade each assignment, the grader opens the spreadsheet document and a Microsoft Word document with a description of the assignment and the grading rubric. The grader then opens a Web browser, accesses the appropriate URL, and either grades the work online or downloads it to the local computer for grading. The grader then fills out the rubric in the word processor and assigns a letter grade based on the grading scale, enters any additional comments into the word processor document, updates the spreadsheet document, and finally, uses an email program to attach the word processor document and send the results of the assessment to the student (see fig. 2). Typically, the grader uses one computer to complete this task and switches between the various applications. At least one grader, however, has found it to be easier to use two computers: one having the browser displaying the student’s work, the other with the spreadsheet, word processor, and e-mail program. The graders thought it very time-consuming and cumbersome to grade by switching between the many applications on a single computer. The grader using two computers Figure 2. Grading and Feedback Process
< previous page
page_135
next page >
< previous page
page_136
next page >
Page 136 found that to be a good solution but added that some issues with the scripting assignments slowed down the process. The grader mentioned that many of the HyperStudio assignments would not work online and had to download to the local computer before they could be graded. Problem 1: Assignment Acquisition The first problem with regard to efficiency of the grading process concerns how the grader acquires the assignment from information submitted by the student. Currently, this information is downloaded from a text file and manually imported into a spreadsheet. The assignment acquisition process can be accomplished automatically and subsequently save valuable time. One solution would be to initially set up the assignment submission form to send the student’s information to a database located on a Web server. A script could them be set up to extract the data from the database and display it through another HTMLdocument accessible to the grader. The HTMLdocument would allow the grader to query the database records based on student name and then display the appropriate student’s name, address, ITMA URL, assignment URL, submission type, and submission date. Problem 2: Complex Grading Process Presently, the grader is required to simultaneously run a Web browser, a word processor, a spreadsheet, and an email program to grade the student’s submitted work and return the result. The process is not only cumbersome but very time consuming and would likely present problems if the program is scaled up. The process by which assignments are graded can be accomplished much more efficiently by using a single application to access the necessary information and to send feedback to the student. One solution would involve using a Web browser to access a page consisting of multiple frames. Within this page, a header frame would contain a search form to query by student name; a second frame, located in a column on the left-hand side of the window, containing the extracted data from the query plus a line designating the grading status (graded or ungraded), a form for taking notes, and a button to e-mail the results to the student; a third frame, located in the upper right-hand column of the window, displaying the assignment URL; and a fourth frame, located in the lower right-hand column, containing the grading rubric for the displayed assignment (see fig. 3). The Web interface would use a series of scripts to extract information from the data submitted by the student on the assignment submission form. The student information section would display that data, the assignment section would display the actual assignment URLfrom the student’s FTP folder, and the grading rubric would display one of a number of HTMLpages containing grading rubrics for all module assignments. A script could match the appropriate rubric to the assignment as determined by a blind field containing the assignment name in the assignment submission form. The e-mail form would send the grader’s comments to the student e-mail defined in the assignment submission form. The exact nature of how this system will work depends in part on the structure of the course assignments. If all assignments are designed to be submitted via the Web, the solution described above will work accordingly. If it becomes necessary for students to submit assignments that are too large to be done online and subsequently need to be sent via a Zip disk or other high-capacity disk, the same system could be used with a slight addition to the assignment window. The assignment window would contain a button to locate the assignment on the computer of the instructor. The instructor would locate the assignment on his or her computer (either the hard drive or disk drive), and the assignment would subsequently appear in the browser window. For this system to work properly, all assignments need to be submitted in a format that is viewable through a Web browser. Therefore, all word processing and Power Point
< previous page
page_136
next page >
< previous page
page_137
next page >
Page 137 Figure 3. Proposed Grader Interface
assignments will need to be converted to HTMLform by the student before submission. Furthermore, all project assignments need to be viewable over the Web with or without a plug-in. If a plug-in is needed, the grader must have that plug-in installed on the browser used for grading. Implementation Scope andSequence The solutions described here can be implemented in two steps. First, a database and scripting interface will need to be set up to move the information submitted by the student on the assignment submission form to a database residing on the Web server. The particular
< previous page
page_137
next page >
< previous page
page_138
next page >
Page 138 solution can be achieved using a database such as Microsoft Access and scripting tools such as Cold Fusion, Active Server Pages, or Personal Home Page hypertext preprocessing language. The second solution would also require a scripting system to extract data from the Web-based database for display in an HTMLpage. Furthermore, the scripting system must be able to query the database by student name and display the assignment URLin a particular frame and the appropriate grading rubric in another frame. Finally, the system must be able to send the contents of the notes form to the e-mail address specified in the student’s e-mail field in the database located on the Web server. An experienced programmer could easily develop both of the solutions in a 40-hour period. The system could then be tested for a week and any bugs worked out by the programmer in an additional 40-hour time frame. SUMMARY Projected campus enrollment limits, changing demographics, the evolving learning needs of professional practitioners, and the economic implications of educating or training diverse audiences at a distance are among several factors forcing colleges, universities, and other institutions to explore ways of increasing efficiency, without compromising the quality of their services. The previous sections of this chapter describe a simple approach toward an upward scalability analysis of an online distance education program (ITMA) across three dimensions: administration, instructional content, and grading. Several problems in each area were targeted for the analysis. Each of the problems was isolated for its perceived threat or hindrance toward any scalability effort. Proposed solutions to each of the problems vary somewhat. Yet most, if not all, suggest the use of computer technology (e.g., integrated information systems, stand-alone or remote databases, customized tutorials, and the like) as a primary remedy. Whereas the solutions are viable, they do pose additional concerns that must be addressed. For example, a considerable amount of programming expertise is either implied or required for most solutions. And although readily available “in-house” or elsewhere, they would necessitate additional dollar and time costs for complete design, development, and evaluation or revision. At the core of the researchers’ concern remains the basic question: “Can a modified ITMA program accommodate as many as 1,000 students, all enrolled at the same time, likely to be at different points in their plan of study, and at the same time minimize or eliminate reductions in instructional quality?” Based on this preliminary analysis, the answer appears to be “yes.’’ Time will tell, however, whether the proposed solutions are adopted and implemented. REFERENCES Burton, J. K. (2000). Multimedia authoring. Virginia Tech instructional technology master’s program. [Online]. Available: http://www.itma.vt.edu. (Accessed September 15, 2001). Lynn, B. (1997–1998). Exploring HyperLogo Tutorial: A scripting language for HyperStudio. [Online]. Available: http://www.hpedsb.on.ca/ec/est/9798/el_mm/res/hltutor.pdf. Westerfield, M. (1997). HyperLogo : A scripting language for HyperStudio Reference . El Cajon, CA: Roger Wagner.
< previous page
page_138
next page >
< previous page
page_139
next page >
Page 139 Identifying Factors That Affect Learning Community Development and Performance in Asynchronous Distance Education Leslie A. Moller Instructional Systems Program Penn State University Douglas Harvey Instructional Technology Program Richard Stockton College Margaret Downs Dell Computer Corporation Veronica M. Godshalk Business Administration Penn State University ABSTRACT Asynchronous distance education provides an opportunity for meaningful learning beyond the capacity of the traditional classroom if learning communities are created that encourage knowledge building through information exchange and social reinforcement. This article describes the development of learning communities within the context of asynchronous distance education. To examine the argument that the community affects learning achievement, we studied 12 graduate students enrolled in a graduate-level asynchronous distance education class. The semester-long class, conducted using Internet-based conferencing software, worked on solving four different case studies. The students were arbitrarily assigned to one of three four-person teams. The course was constructed as a regular class and not an “experiment.” We felt that this plan, although sacrificing some research integrity, would better capture the reality of this type of interpersonal interaction. All the student messages were saved for later analysis. The results of both the messages and case studies were compared, showing a significant pattern emerging, indicating the importance of community. The preliminary results indicate a relationship between learning achievement and strength of the community. Although, because of the small sample population, no statistical significance can be attached to these findings, the data do provide a foundation for a rich discussion. The empirical data are triangulated by qualitative analysis collected through interviews and student journals. The qualitative data support the empirical results and explain why the community may have had its impact by identifying factors that led to the community’s cohesion. LITERATURE REVIEW Learning andDistance Asynchronous distance education (ADE), as a learning tool, has evolved to a point where it is technologically feasible and socially acceptable. With concerns over its effectiveness largely resolved, ADE offers two potentially distinct advantages over face-to-face
< previous page
page_139
next page >
< previous page
page_140
next page >
Page 140 instruction: 1) the ability to deliver instruction anytime and any place, thus increasing access for learners who could otherwise not be served, and 2) the ability to create an environment that allows for knowledge building based on collaborative and reflective learning (Barry and Runyan 1995; Moller 1998; Moore and Kearsley 1996). However, for distance education to reach its potential for knowledge building, existing pedagogy and the accompanying instructional strategies that include fostering community development must be expanded to exploit the capabilities presented by the technology. One key factor that can inhibit the potential effectiveness of ADE is the strategic development of a learning community (Jonassen, Davidson, Collins, Campell, and Haag 1995; Moller 1998). The Role of Community When the goal of ADE is to attain knowledge-building levels, learners must have membership in a community dedicated to learning topic-specific information. According to Wilson and Ryder (1996, 801), “[G]roups become communities when they interact with each other and stay together long enough to form a set of habits and conventions and when they come to depend upon each other for the accomplishment of certain ends.” This description is consistent with Shaffer and Anundsen (1993), who wrote that communities can be defined as a dynamic whole that emerges when a group of people share common practices, are interdependent, make decisions jointly, identify themselves with something larger than the sum of their individual relationships, and make long-term commitments to the general group’s well-being. The two basic functions of a learning community are to provide social reinforcement and to provide intellectual exchange (Moller 1998). By providing social reinforcement, a learning community creates an opportunity to satisfy a human need for self-esteem that encourages one of the internal conditions necessary for a learner to be ready and able to learn (Maslow 1954). McIsaac and Gunawardena (1996) stated that social presence, the degree to which the person feels, or is seen by others as, “real,” is a significant factor that affects satisfaction and achievement. Social reinforcement is a natural and positive outcome resulting from others in a community who contribute a sense of identity through shared values, norms, and preferences (Cathcart, Samovar, and Henman 1996). Intellectual exchange, a second function of a learning community, is concerned with collaboration and resulting knowledge building. According to Jonassen (1998), computer-supported collaborative learning allows physically separated learners to create and share knowledge. Exchanging information allows alternate information and perspectives to be considered and learners to actively analyze or organize their own thoughts (O’Malley and Scanlon 1990). Neilson (1997), in advocating collaborative learning through technology for organizational learning, states substantiated assumptions—including groups outperforming the best member in complex problem solving, sharing knowledge as a critical element in success, and leveraging knowledge in a rapidly changing environment—as advantages of belonging to a community for information exchange. Meaningful learning requires the learner to be actively engaged in cognitive manipulation of the instructional content or information. To a degree, learning occurs within the teacher- or content expert–learner exchanges and dialogues. However, as Moore and Kearsley (1996, 131) pointed out, ‘‘[L]earner to learner interaction is desirable for pedagogical reasons.” Intellectual exchange is described as invaluable for the application and evaluation of learning. Gay and Lentini (1995, 2) confirmed this assumption, noting that “learning is fundamentally built up through conversations between persons or groups; involving the creation and interpretation of communication.” Furthermore, they argued, “conversations are the means by which people collaboratively construct beliefs and meanings as well as state their differences” (2). It is evident that although their views and beliefs are individually held, these are, in fact, influenced and expanded by information received from other perspectives. Thus individuals are more able to enlarge their own beliefs and more likely to take risks when supported by a community of other learners (Grabinger 1996). According to Scardamalia and Bereiter (1994, 265), intellectual support communities are a “means for redefining classroom discourse to support knowledge building in
< previous page
page_140
next page >
< previous page
page_141
next page >
Page 141 ways extensible to out-of-school knowledge advancing enterprises.” Scardamalia and Bereiter supported their argument by reporting that “evaluations of CSILE [computer-supported intentional learning environments] students greatly surpass students in ordinary classrooms on measures of depth of learning and reflection, awareness of what they have learned or need to learn, and understanding of learning itself. Moreover, individual achievement, as conventionally measured, does not suffer” (265). Ahern, Peck, and Laycock (1992, 307) concluded, after their study of 80 undergraduate students, that asynchronous computer-mediated communications improve the acquisition and application of knowledge without a teacher-centered orientation. Furthermore, their review of the research has shown “that this type of interaction is not merely noise in the instructional context, but essential to the cognitive development of the students” (307). In other words, a learning community contributes to effective learning by fostering cognitive development through communication, argumentation, and critical analysis. This occurs from increasing the range of ideas and capitalizing on the possibilities of brainstorming or collaborative idea generation. Furthermore, the community provides the necessary emotional support for growth or intellectual risk-taking behaviors. It is doubtful that learners would engage in substantive and rich conversations without the feelings of acceptance that a community provides. Learners also need support in terms of interpersonal encouragement and assistance to fully maximize their potential academic and intellectual development (Gunawardena 1991; Moore and Kearsley 1996). Those learners may see problems as overwhelming, which may increase their anxiety, resulting in a lack of confidence. This will likely decrease their motivational level, expended effort, and the resulting learning achievement (Moller and Russell 1994). Unlike learners in a face-to-face environment, the asynchronous distance learner may not have opportunities to observe other learners with similar problems or develop shared strategies that assist in solving those problems. Students who are unsuccessful at overcoming difficulties are more likely to discontinue their efforts to reach their educational goal (Kember, Lai, Murphy, Siaw, and Yuen 1994; Kember, Murphy, Siaw, and Yuen 1991). The purpose of this research effort was to explore the relationship between community and learning in asynchronous environments. Specifically, it was to first determine if a stronger learning community would lead to increased learning and productivity, as indicated by better solutions and higher grades in case studies, and second, to look for evidence or indications of what causes students to form a learning community via asynchronous technology. METHODOLOGY The study population consisted of graduate students enrolled in an ADE class. The semester-long class, conducted using Internet-based conferencing software, worked on solving four different case studies. The 12 students were arbitrarily assigned to one of three four-person teams. Using a combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods, an analysis was conducted of the factors that affected community building in the asynchronous course, as well as the possible relationships of these factors to learning outcomes. The factors considered included the following: 1. Quantity of comments made by student teams is the sheer volume of messages exchanged between members of each team within their team conference. 2. Amount of community-building types of comments made by student teams—the number of messages that were judged by a three-member panel to be practical, social, or interpersonal in nature. 3. Degree of perceived responsibility and isolation of individual team members relative to their team. 4. The methods by which each team appeared to form community—how connected each individual appeared to be to their teammates, how often they made
< previous page
page_141
next page >
< previous page
page_142
next page >
Page 142 community-building comments, and how quickly the team appeared to solidify its community identity. Factors one and two were studied quantitatively, and factors three and four were considered using the qualitative data gathered via end-of-course interviews and student journals. The following sections describe the methods used for the study and report the data collected. Because this was an exploratory study, the quantitative data were not analyzed using advanced statistical procedures. Rather, the data were used to determine specific trends and possible areas to be studied more closely using the qualitative data. Descriptive Data Total Comments To determine if community affected achievement, we needed to determine if the groups differed in their community development process or intensity. The first step in examining community building within the asynchronous course environment was to track the comments of each team. To manage this procedure for comparison to the case scores, we first grouped comments according to the case being considered. The learning outcomes were quantitatively measured on a team-by-team basis, using team-produced answers to four separate case studies. Three independent raters judged each team’s answers to each of the four case studies. For each answer, a score was assigned, ranging from 0 to 60 points, based on a rubric that included 12 criteria each worth five points. The case scores were used as a measure of the team members’ combined understanding of the course content (see fig. 1). The resulting data (see fig. 2) revealed that in all but the third case, Team A produced the greatest number of comments of the three teams (case 1 = 54 comments, case 2 = 74 comments, case 4 = 33 comments). In the third case, Team B produced the greatest number of comments (case 3 = 69 comments). However, in the first and second cases, Team B produced the fewest number of comments (case 1 = 36 comments, case 2 = 33 comments). Team C’s comment totals were between the other two team’s totals, except in the fourth case, for which they produced the fewest number of comments (case 4 = 22 comments). Note that less casework time was allotted, by the schedule, for the fourth case than the other cases, a likely explanation for the sharp decrease in comment totals for that case. Community-Building Comments Each comment made by students was judged by a team of three raters to determine if it was indicative of community-building activity. To determine which comments were related to building community, raters looked for criteria that would suggest whether an individual comment was meant to connect with other team members in one of three ways indicative of community building: practical, social, and interpersonal (see table 1). From this rating rubric, trends appeared in the data for the community-building comments (see table 2) that were also in evidence for the total comments data. Team A had the highest number of community-building comments for case 1 (42 comments), case 2 (41 comments), and case 4 (17 comments). Team B recorded the fewest communitybuilding comments in case 1 (22 comments) and case 2 (14 comments), and Team C had the fewest for case 4 (10 comments). Discrepancies with the data for total comments (fig. 2) appear only in the third case. Team B, not Team A, recorded the lowest number of community-building comments for case 3 (30 comments), and Team C recorded the highest number of community-building comments for case 3 (39 comments). Case Scores Case scores for the four cases (see fig. 3) revealed little difference in team scores for the first and third cases, with teams scoring within one or two points of each other.
< previous page
page_142
next page >
< previous page
page_143
next page >
Page 143 Figure 1. Rubric for Grading Case Answers Please rate each answer; 1 is poor, 5 is strong. 1. Have the key issues, questions, and concerns in the case been clearly and coherently identified? 2. Have those issues been represented in a way that can be supported by the facts from the case and the research literature? 3. Does the solution take into consideration relevant constraints presented in the case? 4. Have the interests and perspectives of the different people involved in the case been considered? 5. Have various explanations and interpretations been considered? 6. Have various courses of action and their consequences been considered? 7. Does the solution recommend an alternative that is reasonable in light of the facts? 8. Does the solution recommend a workable alternative that is practical? 9. Has a coherent argument been made to support the recommended alternative? 10. Do proposed solutions fit with accepted instructional design practices? 11. Are proposed solutions specific and detailed? 12. Overall Rating However, in the second and fourth cases, Team A scored 10 to 18 points higher than the other two teams (case 2 = 52 points, case 4 = 53 points). Summary of Quantitative Data The general trend revealed that Team A, in all but the third case, made the most comments and generated the highest number of community-building comments. Team A also scored consistently high on all four cases relative to the other two teams. Team A scored very closely to the other teams in the first and third cases and much higher on the second and fourth cases.
< previous page
page_143
next page >
< previous page
page_144
next page >
Page 144 Figure 2. Total Comments Made by Team and Case Number
Team B appeared to be the least-connected group, except in case 3, as evidenced by recording a low number of comments. Closer inspection of the third case revealed that despite an increase in total comments, Team B had the fewest community-building comments (30 out of 69 total comments) of the three teams for the case. Team C exhibited an average amount of community-building compared with the other groups. In the first two cases, the quantity of comments fell between the extremes for total comments and community-building. For the third case, Team C showed the highest number of community-building comments, despite not having the highest number of total Table 1. Representative Comments for Three Community-Building Characteristics Type of Comment Examples Practical - designed to deal with issues of team coordination “I will post our team answer on Friday evening (time, responsibilities). please send me any changes before then.” “I am out of town until next week - I will post my thoughts on Case 4 when I get back in town.’’ Social - fostering sense of group identity within assignment “That was a really interesting point - I had not context (affirmation of ideas, valuing of opinions). thought of taking that perspective on the case.” “We really did a great job of pulling our answer together!” Interpersonal - provide personal glimpses of individual “Sorry to hear about your problem at work - hope it outside assignment context (emotional, friendship). improves soon.” “I really enjoyed my vacation last week - it was nice to get away to the mountains for a change.”
< previous page
page_144
next page >
< previous page
page_145
next page >
Page 145 Table 2. Total Community-Building Comments by Team and Case Number Team Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 A 42 41 36 17 B 22 14 30 12 C 36 29 39 10 comments. For case 4, Team C had both the lowest total comments and the lowest number of community-building comments. The following trends seemed to be in evidence: 1. Teams B and C scored similarly on case answers for all four cases (within five points of the other team’s score). Team A scored similar to Teams B and C on the first and third cases but scored much higher on the second and fourth cases. 2. Overall, Team A made the greatest number of comments (220), as well as the greatest number of communitybuilding comments (136). 3. Team A began making comments, including community-building comments, earlier (the first two cases) and at a higher rate (128 total comments, 83 community-building comments) than the other two teams. Figure 3. Case Scores by Team and Case Number
< previous page
page_145
next page >
< previous page
page_146
next page >
Page 146 Based on the trends apparent in the quantitative data, the qualitative data were analyzed to determine whether the numbers of comments and case scores could be associated with other factors, such as individual responsibility, isolation, and social connection among team members. The following section reports the results of the qualitative methods used in the study. These results are the participants’ reported perspectives of their experiences in this asynchronous course. Qualitative Results The teams each developed a community within their own team and among the other teams through asynchronous interactions. The teams revealed a sense of satisfaction and confidence with learning asynchronously as they became more familiar with how to interact with each other and with what to expect from each other within the limitations of technology and asynchronous learning. Research on learning communities shows that people significantly connect through face-to-face and personal interactions versus connecting on a personal expressionlimiting level through technology-based communication. Communication via messages was the link for developing a sense of community. The feelings of being part of a community varied between teams and changed over time. We believe, based on respondents’ information, that the feeling of connectedness was caused by team members’ senses of responsibility, and differences in sense of responsibility contributed to the difference in performance. Students also reported the need for more socializing and real-time communication, thus the missing link to community development in asynchronous learning. Although socializing and real-time learning may be the antithesis of ADE, the desire for these underscores the need to feel connected. The next sections report the findings of the major qualitative themes that revealed where community did and did not develop in the data. These themes include sense of responsibility, feeling connected, and learning. Sense of Responsibility and Feeling Connected One of the main themes that emerged from the interview and journal data is that teams felt a differing sense of responsibility to the other team members in doing their work. Team A seemed to feel the most responsibility to their team members. One student stated, “I feel a great responsibility to the team.” Students in Team A relayed a sense of community responsibility in that they were aware that their actions affected everyone and wanted to have a positive outcome: “It’s not just letting myself down, whereas let’s say in class [traditional class], if I didn’t read the assignment, I really see mostly that other people would participate, and it is my loss, versus this class [asynchronous class] I see it more like I’m letting my group down.” Another participant related community responsibility to the smaller class size: “It [feeling responsible] might also be a function of the size of the group that in a class it’s 26 people, and if I weren’t to communicate, maybe somebody else would. Whereas in a group of four, you are much more responsible.” A feeling of guilt also existed for a Team A student when there were challenges to active participation. This student had difficulties keeping up with the community because of work travel: “[I] feel guilty, like I’m not keeping up my end of the work.” Team B members evidenced a less well defined sense of responsibility within their community. One Team B member seemed confused about her responsibility: “The team work format is unclear, not sure of my responsibilities in this group.’’ That statement was made at the beginning of the course; a sense of what was expected from each other developed over time, as team members solved problems (cases) together. Over time, natural leaders emerged in Team B. As one Team B student stated, “I am glad for the leadership roles that some students have taken.” This may have been because of, or the cause of, the slow formation of community responsibility within Team B. A member of Team C also expressed the sentiment that the team took some time to get to know each other and ultimately felt that everyone “carried their own weight” when
< previous page
page_146
next page >
< previous page
page_147
next page >
Page 147 she reported, “This case was difficult for me because we were dealing with getting the program set up, feeling our way around one another as a team, and trying to decide how best to approach the case (our roles as team members), everyone carried their own weight.” Another student stated, “I feel a great responsibility to the group,” and another student recounted that she felt “more responsibility in this course than in a traditional course.’’ Another Team C member stated that she felt the learning opportunity was directly linked to the sense of responsibility shared by the team members: “If [I] expected to have more responsibility and had more time, [the] class would learn more.” We concluded that Team A more quickly developed a sense of responsibility, followed by Team C, and later by Team B. This corresponds to the community-building comments and case score patterns. We believe that the posting of community-building comments encouraged the students in Team A to develop more intimate relationships, a contributing factor in developing a sense of responsibility. For example, a member of Team A noted this feeling of connection when she said, “I think I felt a little more connected with the group knowing a little more about what’s going on with them.” Most students noticed that there were fewer opportunities to feel connected in a distance education setting than in a traditional classroom setting but that additional time helped them to feel connected to their team members. We suggest, based on the quantitative reporting of the types of comments, that it is not time per se, but rather the increased degree of intimate communication that makes a difference. A student in Team B noted that over time, she “felt more connected at the end, not at all at the beginning, but it grew.” Another stated that “getting to know each other helps.” This is consistent with the increase of messages that resulted in a stronger community for Team B as time passed. Once again, it also could explain why Team B’s case scores improved. One Team B student noted, “Our team members benefited, though not instantaneously, but through group dynamics of sharing information this way adds perspective that may not be available in one-on-one instruction.” The asynchronous communities developed more trust as the result of the quantity and quality of feedback, and the community became stronger and more connected. We suggest that the quality of feedback is higher with stronger community. A Team A member stated that a “common problem builds community.” Another Team A member noted, “We have different ways of looking at a situation or question with regards to wanting more feedback to broaden their perspective.” Conversely, a Team B member stated that “[i]t would be good to have some type of feedback,” indicating a lack of communication, possibly resulting from a lack of trust built within the community. A Team C member reported, “Team members feedback was good,” and another member of Team C stated that “brainstorming and feedback were congenial.” Another Team C member reported that “learners developed a framework for feed back and solution/problem solving.” Once again, Teams A and C demonstrated behaviors associated with a community while Team B lagged in this performance. This corresponds with Team B’s lower case scores or team performance. Each of the teams stated that they would have liked more socializing, defined as: verbally talking to someone, talking in live-chat, classroom interactions, and face-to-face interactions. One Team B member reported that she would have liked to have been able to verbally talk to someone, and another Team B member noted that “e-mail interactions seem less personal in chat.” Another Team B member “missed off-line communications” and wrote: “I need to be in the social arena, but I would have arranged a telephone conversation because I think that is a viable alternative or a viable complement.” These Team B members were revealing their feeling and need to have more personal interactions in their learning environment by verbally talking with their colearners. These types of comments were not expressed as strongly by Teams A or C. Team members in all three groups mentioned classroom interactions and face-to-face interactions as a more desirable way to get to know their colearners. For example, one Team A member wrote: “Would like to see everyone discuss the class and socialize more.” Another Team A member reported, “That [social interaction] is the only thing I
< previous page
page_147
next page >
< previous page
page_148
next page >
Page 148 miss about the classroom set-up.” Comments by two more students in Team A revealed that seeing others was important and missed in their asynchronous chat learning experience: “Miss seeing her [fellow student] in class” and “Sometimes I think we would be able to connect better if we had face-to face talk.” Team B and Team C members also mentioned their desire to have more classroom interactions and face-to-face interactions. One Team B member stated: There were two people in the class I knew, and I was really hoping that I could be on their team, because I think if you establish something…like if I am thinking “I don’t know how to respond to this,” so you knew them and you could maybe deal with them, maybe, differently than with a stranger. A Team C student noted that “traditional class characteristics are taken for granted—you relate more in person.” Another Team C student commented that the team would have liked to have gotten to know fellow students on a more informal basis: We thought it would be real neat idea to have the whole class get together for pizza or something at the end; the group seems to be talking to one another more than at the beginning of the class; would like to suggest more socializing—more socializing would help bring people closer together and be more interpersonal; develop bond with your team needs to happen more. Another Team C student related that more chat time helped develop bonding between fellow team members: ‘‘In our chat a considerable amount of time was spent on interpersonal stuff. I liked learning more about my team members.” Learning Learning occurred among the teams as their communities developed, working together to achieve the common goal of completing instructional design projects. Members of Team A reported that they learned through independent research, which happened in several different ways: Learned through my own exploration and team’s reference suggestions. Being out there alone is a great help in that I am developing a way to learn to solve the cases by looking at the real issues and not making too many assumptions…. The cases are so realistic. Posted ideas before chat so we could have time to review ahead of time. Even though the research was accomplished independently, the team members collaborated on their ideas and shared their findings that were beneficial to their learning process and to contributing to a sense of community. Members of Team B reported that they noticed having more time to think about the projects before posting their responses, whereas in the classroom setting, the time is limited and limits the ability to think through issues as thoroughly as in the asynchronous environment. I put more time in, I would read the message, I would print it out, I would think it out, I would try and research it, respond to it, I would post it. Whereas face-to-face in class, you have those three hours, that’s it. Have ability to spend more time thinking about questions than in traditional classroom setting.
< previous page
page_148
next page >
< previous page
page_149
next page >
Page 149 Members of Team C also noted that they liked having more time to think about their responses to the learning issues: I like having time to reflect and react rather than just try to work as fast as you can off the top of your head in class. Finding solutions on your own is real-life experience. Go onto the Internet to see if I can find an answer…. I am so excited; I liked having time to think. Can think about response, then post it. Able to research before responding go to the Internet to see other resources there. Students on all three teams agreed that they were more satisfied with their contributions when they had more time to think about their responses. The independent research activities among the teams revealed that they achieved a sense of satisfaction in the learning when they could spend more time thinking about their responses before posting their answers in chat. However, Team A and C students also noted the benefit in posting their research findings to share with other team members, as well as posting their responses early so that others could have a little time to think about them. Although shared learning was generally considered a positive experience across the teams, the types of social learning interactions that occur in the traditional classroom setting were missed. Team A members reported that both shared experiences and independent research were valuable: It’s tough for me to say whether I learned more from our shared experience or from my own attempts to formulate a solution. I might feel more connected in a traditional class because others used to bring up a lot of stories of their work that were relevant to what we were learning in class. I wonder if there may be a way for the teams to share our papers after they are completed. I would like to learn from them. Team C members also reported that both shared experiences and independent research were valuable: I learned from sharing. Shared some of the stuff I found,…posted it and decided they can read it or not. Learned through my own exploration and teams reference suggestions. I am very proud of our groups effort in coming up with solutions. Another Team C member stated, “This case gave me the encouragement to break away from the security of relying on the questions at the end of the case and rely more on my own judgment.” CONCLUSION The purpose of this research effort was to explore the relationship between community and learning in asynchronous environments, specifically, first, to determine if a stronger learning community would lead to increased learning and productivity, as indi-
< previous page
page_149
next page >
< previous page
page_150
next page >
Page 150 cated by better solutions and higher grades in case studies, and second, to look for evidence or indications of what caused students to form a learning community via asynchronous technology. We believe that the descriptive data indicate that more peer interaction, as expressed by community comments, resulted in heightened learning, as evidenced by the case scores. This is consistent with Mason and Kaye (1990, 19), who noted that “[g]rowing out of this high level of interaction and the permanence of the discussion record is the possibility of a group creation, where people make leaps in understanding that are unlikely to happen in isolation.” The importance of group interaction is supported by Grabinger’s (1996) assertion that although our own views and beliefs are individually held, our views are in fact influenced and expanded by information we receive from other perspectives. Thus we are more able to enlarge our own beliefs and more likely to take risks when supported by a community of other learners. The descriptive data describes a trend. This trend indicates the group that made the most community-building comments had higher scores on the case studies. Further evidence can be found in the qualitative analysis of the learner journals and interviews. Once again, the team that usually performed the best expressed the strongest sense of responsibility among fellow team members. According to Barab and Duffy (2000, 38), “Most community members view themselves as part of something larger. It is this part of something larger that allows the various members to form a collective whole as they work towards the joint goals of the community and its members.” Thus we consider that “viewing yourself as part of something larger’’ was expressed in terms of an obligation or responsibility to meet the needs of the group. In this asynchronous learning process, most students reported gaining a sense of confidence from the act of learning about the subject and themselves. Building their self-confidence through independent and collaborative research and being proud of their team’s efforts and outcomes resulted in a sense of satisfaction among members of the learning communities. The desire for collaborative research was great when students wanted to get feedback, and this helped them feel connected to their team members. Even in the independent research activities, students reported wanting to share their research and to benefit from others’ research. REFERENCES Ahern, T., Peck, K., and Laycock, M. (1992). The effects of teacher discourse in computer-mediated discussion. Journal of Educational Computing Research 8:3, 291–309. Barab, S., and Duffy, T. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D. H. Jonassen and S. M. Land (eds.). Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Barry, M., and Runyan, G. B. (1995). A review of distance-learning studies in the U.S. military. American Journal of Distance Education 9:3, 37–47. Cathcart, R., Samovar, L., and Henman, L. (1996). Small group communication: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Madison, WI: Brown and Benchmark. Gay, G., and Lentini, M. (1995). Communication resource use in a networked collaborative design environment. Ithaca, NY: Interactive Multimedia Group. Grabinger, R. S. (1996). Rich environments for active learning. In D. H. Jonassen (ed.). The handbook of research for educational communications and technology. New York: Macmillan. Gunawardena, C. (1991). Current trends in the use of communications technologies for delivering distance education. International Journal of Instructional Media 18:3, 201–213. Jonassen, D. H. (1998). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (ed.), Instructional design theories and models: Their current state of the art (2d ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., and Haag, B. B. (1995). Constructivism and computermediated communication in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education 9:2, 7–26.
< previous page
page_150
next page >
< previous page
page_151
next page >
Page 151 Kember, D., Lai, T., Murphy, D., Siaw, I., and Yuen, K. (1994). Student progress in distance education courses: A replication study. Adult Education Quarterly 45:1, 286–301. Kember, D., Murphy, D., Siaw, I., and Yuen, K. (1991). Towards a causal model of student progress in distance education courses: Research in Hong Kong. American Journal of Distance Education 5:2, 3–15. Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row. Mason, R., and Kaye, T. (1990). Toward a new paradigm of distance education. In L. Harasim (ed.), On-line education: Perspectives on a new environment. New York: Praeger. McIsaac, M., and Gunawardena, C. (1996). Distance education. In D. H. Jonassen (ed.), The handbook of research for educational communications and technology. New York: Macmillan. Moller, L. (1998). Designing communities of learners for asynchronous distance education. Educational Technology and Research Development Journal 46:4, 115–122. Moller, L., and Russell, J. (1994). An application the ARCS model confidence building strategies. Performance Improvement Quarterly 7:4, 54–69. Moore, M., and Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Neilson, R. (1997). Collaborative technologies and organizational learning. Hershey, PA: Idea Group. O’Malley, C., and Scanlon, E. (1990). Computer-supported collaborative learning: problem solving and distance education. Computer Education 15:1, 127–136. Scardamalia, M., and Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of Learning Sciences 3:3, 265–283. Shaffer, C. R., and Anundsen, K. (1993). Creating community anywhere: Finding support and connection in a fragmented world. New York: Putnam. Wilson, B., and Ryder, M. (1996). Dynamic learning communities: An alternative to designed instruction. In M. Simonson (ed.), Proceedings of selected research and development, national convention of Association for Educational Research and Technology. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communication and Technology.
< previous page
page_151
next page >
< previous page
page_152
next page >
Page 152 Overcoming the Distance Divide Streaming Video in a Teacher Preparation Program Peter Serdyukov Mark Ryan Clifford Russell Ruth Black National University Higher education, including teacher preparation programs, is rapidly becoming technology based. Educational technology is expanding opportunities for effective learning penetrating into both campus-based and Web-based curricula. Educational technology offers diversified and effective content presentation, varied and results-oriented practical activities, access to virtually unlimited information resources, automated and efficient assessment, and communication capabilities. It offers the means to improve the quality of teaching and enhance learning. Along with the numerous potential benefits, however, it brings new problems and complications. One of the countereffects of increasing technology dependence is a growing distance divide, both physical and social, between students and instructors in today’s education that is grounded in the paradox of contemporary social life and technology. We believe technology is there to make our life better—easier, more comfortable, and enjoyable, as well as fuller and more efficient. However, in our social life, we begin to drift apart from each other, becoming ever more involved in various individual forms of technology-based work, entertainment, and enjoyment. Examples abound. A similar picture can be seen in strictly pedagogical terms. Today, education is (or at least, should be) unequivocally learner centered. Learning, we believe, in order to be efficient, needs to provide the learner with a multiplicity of options of customized reality-based curricula. Nevertheless, because of some social and technological factors, among them the rapidly spreading use of information technology (electronic media in general and online education in particular), learners are becoming increasingly distanced from their schools and instructors. Reality-based experiences seem to disappear as the learner becomes more and more divorced from hands-on practices. This leads not only to the growing divide between the key participants in the educational interaction but to the disappearance of the teacher as a role model from the student’s perspective as well. Moreover, it is not only the teacher’s personality that may well become obsolete in online education (as classes are taught mostly by merely sharing text files); life and professional experiences that the teacher brings to class may also become lost through textdominated technology. It becomes vital to preserve “human dimension” in a technology-based learning environment (Serdyukov 2000). In our research, we address important pedagogical issues attempting to bridge the physical and social distance emerging in online education by capturing and bringing reality-based experiences straight to the student’s computer. In various theory-based classes, such as “Educational Foundations,” sharing abstract notions may work quite well in a traditional text-based paradigm. However, in a methodology class, such as “Specific Instructional Approaches to Reading” or “Methodology for Second Language Instruction,’’ there is an inherent need for reality-based visual approaches to classroom practices. It is only through visual representation of reality-based approaches that students can attain a truly comprehensive model as a premise to develop their own
< previous page
page_152
next page >
< previous page
page_153
next page >
Page 153 instructional techniques. Recall of text-based content presentation and communication in today’s online education, being extremely useful for delivering learning texts and student-instructor written-form interaction, is not necessarily the most effective way of information presentation. Numerous research documents have demonstrated that the visual component of content presentation plays an important role in raising quality of content perception, processing, and retention. Text-based instruction is particularly limited in its efficiency in teacher preparation that to a large extent is built on simulating functional models, for example, teaching practices, which are usually observed directly in the classroom. For online classes that purport to teach a methodological approach, we posit this solution set: visual presentation of the instructional content through streaming video. The rationale is straightforward. You cannot fairly ask a student to efficiently demonstrate an approach without the antecedent of a competent presentation. In other words, for methodology classes, visual expert presentation precedes visual student demonstration. The pedagogic focus of online teacher preparation is, after all, on how to adapt and transform traditional teaching practices and the content of courses to include students for whom the traditional onsite practices and interactions are restricted because of the nature of their learning. In teacher preparation, it is imperative to compensate for the lack of real-life instructional situations. Streaming video (SV) is one of the promising tools that may help to bridge the gap between students and instructors in online education and improve classroom-based learning at the same time. SV technology enables the real-time or on-demand distribution of audio, video, and multimedia on the Internet. Streaming media is the simultaneous transfer of digital media (video, voice and data) so that it is received as a continuous real-time stream. Streamed data is transmitted by a server application and received and displayed in real-time by client applications. These applications can start displaying video or playing back audio as soon as enough data has been received and stored in the receiving station’s buffer. A streamed file is simultaneously downloaded and viewed but leaves behind no physical file on the viewer’s machine. There are two main types of streaming: progressive streaming (on demand) and real-time streaming (live or in real time). Progressive streaming takes a compressed video file and downloads it to the user’s hard drive via hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) over the Internet. Real-time streaming is usually broadcast to the user’s browser directly from a server. Because real-time streaming uses RTSP (real-time streaming protocol), the user will need access to a special video-streaming server (Streamingmedia.com). The infusion of SV in online education can be based on the situated learning model. This model was put forward by Lave and Wenger (1991). Instead of regarding learning as the acquisition of certain forms of knowledge, they have tried to place it in social relationships—situations of coparticipation. As William F. Hanks puts it in his introduction to their book, “Rather than asking what kind of cognitive processes and conceptual structures are involved, they ask what kinds of social engagements provide the proper context for learning to take place” (Lave and Wenger 1991, 14). It is not so much that learners acquire structures or models to understand the world but that they participate in frameworks that have structure. Learning involves participation in a community of practice (see Smith 2001). In other words, the complexity of the online course should not be on the screen but in the interaction between a student and the instructor (Ryan 2002). Until recently, there had been only two accessible and widely used technological means of dynamic visual delivery in a distance learning format: broadcast television and videotape. Educational television, warmly embraced by educators at its inception, lacks flexibility, and its use is eventually limited by its synchronicity. Videotape is certainly more convenient than television broadcast because of its asynchronicity. With the advent of SV, we received a powerful tool for visualization and can now increase the video component in the content delivery. Copyright restrictions place limitations on its applications. Nevertheless, limited copyright agreements necessary for dissemination of digitized video
< previous page
page_153
next page >
< previous page
page_154
next page >
Page 154 materials to the students can be obtained from large publishers by the universities that use their books. National University installed a university-wide system as of January 2002. Now it is possible to design SV instructional applications and develop strategies and techniques of its use in students’ learning. So, what are the educational prospects of SV? What models can we accept or develop? How can we use it in instruction to facilitate students’ learning? Significantly, what is important in SV course delivery is not only the video itself that now can be on any student’s computer but the activities based on this tool that are arranged so as to help students reach the desired outcome of the learning. Steeples and Goodyear (1999) describe asynchronous collaborative multimedia environments that are used to support professional development and to enable key elements of real-world working knowledge that are tacit and embedded in working practices to be rendered into sharable forms for improving working approaches and for professional development. They believe that “multimedia communications technology can offer innovative ways of: a) capturing rich examples of working practices (and the tacit knowledge therein); b) rendering the examples into communicable objects; c) sharing and subjecting these objects to close scrutiny within a community of learners; and by doing so, d) create authentic experiential and reflective environments for learning” (Steeples and Goodyear 1999, 207). To create such an environment for learning, we can use a number of professionally made video materials, including special instructional videos, documentaries, and even feature films. “Best practices” videos are one of the best resources for teacher preparation programs. However, often we cannot find the video that suits our topic or objectives. Then we can create one within our means; for example, record our own video introduction to the course, videotape the lecture we are going to teach, or present a tape with a demonstration of some situation we want to use in classroom activities, such as a fragment of a lesson in school or a student’s teaching. The first two do not require any copyright; in the third case, we must seek permission from all those whom we videotape. Best student practices videotaped in the classroom can also be an asset. The advent of professors’ video presentations leads us to a student-produced demonstration of a given methodological approach. The value of having the student send a video demonstration (now via mailed VHS, soon via video streaming) with age-appropriate learners (after viewing a professor’s chosen video presentation) of a discreet methodological approach cannot be underestimated. This kind of student-produced video assignment is one that can almost never be replicated in the traditional higher-education classroom where age-appropriate students (5 to 17 years old) are simply not available. Thus in a very special way, this highly documented approach takes us one step further in reality-based education. Clearly, online education, especially in a methodology class, engages the human element via video, which enhances the student’s range of social and pedagogic skills. There are three kinds of instructional video products, as illustrated in figure 1—ready-made, instructor-made, and student-made videos—and there are various formats of video that can be used in teacher preparations. There is also a possibility of mixing it with other materials, such as text, PowerPoint slides, and Internet resources. There are several goals in using video: 1. To deliver the course content (videotaped lectures and instructional video). 2. To illustrate some points of the lecture presented orally or in a text format (video clips). 3. To use videotaped materials for analysis and discussion (“best practices” documentary and demonstrations video, students’ videos). 4. To offer visual reality-based models for a comprehensive view of practices that work best in today’s classroom.
< previous page
page_154
next page >
< previous page
next page >
page_155
Page 155 Figure 1. Video Used in Education Ready-made video Instructor-made video • Instractional videos • Course introduction • Documentaries • Lectures • Features • Demonstrations • Best practices
Student-made video • Demonstration of practices
5. To use videotaped material as an instrument for self-evaluation or assessment (students’ self-video). 6. To incorporate a more holistic (i.e., intellectual, social, emotional) dimension to classroom learning, spurring both cognitive and affective growth (feature film, videotaped demonstrations). 7. To humanize the online class by presenting both the instructor and students in video format. Video can be used not only for the instructional material presentation but also for information search, project development, problem solving, role playing, simulating real-life experiences, and synchronous as well as asynchronous group discussions. The last application is particularly important for professional training when videotaped real-life situations are used for group analysis and discussion. It can also be used as an assessment instrument when the student’s real activity in a predesigned situation is recorded and later used in the class for analysis, discussion, and evaluation. Extensive use of SV requires specific organization and forms of activities. Figure 2 shows one of the models of an SV-based lesson that we are currently using at National University. It consists of eight steps. The model consists of three phases: • Presentation phase (steps 1–3). The lesson starts with the teacher’s introduction to the topic, which can include previewing activities, such as question-and-answer session, brief outline of the video, a short discussion of the topic, and so on. Then the teacher gives a task for the video-based activity, and the video is presented. Usually, the time of the demonstration is up to 10–15 minutes. • Active phase (steps 4–6). This phase includes two types of group activities—a synchronous discussion (chat) right after the demonstration that consists mostly of questions and answers and asynchronous discussion that covers essential issues presented in the video. It also embraces a number of independent assignments. • Conclusion phase (steps 7–8). Practice can be project presentation or a role play that will end with the students’ performance evaluation based on their assignments and participation in activities. A number of activities can be used in this model. The following is an example of the activities set that we implement in an SV-based ‘‘Methodology of Second Language Instruction” class (Berg 1997).
< previous page
page_155
next page >
< previous page
page_156
next page >
Page 156 Figure 2. Model of an SV-Based Lesson
Topic: Methods Used in a Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) Class (SDAIE strategies target ELL—English Language Learners) Video: K–3 Preservice Reading Partnership Program 1. Introduction. We are going to observe an SDAIE class in a video. Our task is to learn from the experiences we will see. There will be several
< previous page
page_156
next page >
< previous page
page_157
next page >
Page 157 assignments for you. The first will be a previewing task: “In the video clip you are going to watch now, you will see a SDAIE lesson in the third grade. The teacher uses various tools and techniques in this class. 2. Your task will be to evaluate this lesson. Please focus on the following items: a. Lesson structure b. Strategies and activities used by the teacher in the lesson c. Students’ learning d. Teacher’s performance This assignment keeps the students focused while watching the video and helps them to find the right information. 3. Video presentation. 4. After viewing the video, the students are invited to discuss the video using the plan suggested before. The chat takes place within 24 hours of watching the video. It allows students to review the most important observations, share impressions, focus students on what is essential for their development, and answer their questions. 5. After viewing the lesson, the students will attempt the following: 1. Make up a list of used strategies and activities, describe and analyze them, and evaluate the efficiency of each in achieving the learning outcomes. 2. Describe each of the students’ activities. 3. Pay attention to the teacher’s work: What were the most important actions the teacher did to achieve the goals of the lesson? 4. Define the teacher’s teaching style. 5. Have the objectives been met? If not, please specify. 6. Add your comments on the lesson you watched, offer your critique, solutions, and suggestions for improvement. 7. Evaluate the teacher’s and students’ performances. 8. What strategies and techniques you observed would you use in your teaching? 9. Build a model of the class you have watched; write the plan. 10. Discuss your findings with your peers; develop a common understanding of the SDAIE lesson plan, strategies, and activities. 11. Present your observation as a case study. 12. Develop a project—your lesson plan. 13. Implement your lesson plan in a classroom setting and demonstrate in a video. 14. We will watch and discuss your demonstration. 6. The asynchronous discussion may include both assignments 10 and 14 under step 5. An asynchronous discussion will take place within two to three days after the SV presentation, chat, and required assignments. It will allow students
< previous page
page_157
next page >
< previous page
page_158
next page >
Page 158 to share their reflections of the issues, elaborate on important questions, present their arguments, and interact. Discussions provide an opportunity for students to verify their observations and opinions, and receive feedback from peers. For the instructor discussions are a material for students’ evaluation. Practice involves assignments 11–13 under step 5. Assessment is based on the students’ outcomes presented in their work. In this model, students learn results from their interaction with the group and the instructor and from their activities based on the situated learning model presented through SV. The learning process in this model, which takes students from situations to group interactions, produces an effect in cognition. This observation is confirmed by the interpretation of collaborative learning given by Goodyear and Steeples (2000), who argue that situations generate interactions that trigger cognitive mechanisms that in turn produce the desired learning effect. The advantages of an SV-based approach are not exclusive to online instruction. In fact, any traditional onsite class may avail itself of the SV reality-based benefits (e.g., working with age appropriate learners). That is to say, SV is a hybrid tool, which can be used in virtually any instructional format. This is so because it adds a reality-based human dimension to learning, and students are best prepared for teaching when instruction brings the real world into the classroom. SV is opening new opportunities for online education. It brings the human dimension back into students’ learning—in a specific, technology-mediated format: students can now see their instructor on the screen and watch real-life situations, such as teaching practices, that can prepare them for their own teaching. It enhances new content acquisition by combining the multiple modalities, text and image. It creates the platform for situated learning based on observing reality-based classroom situations. Finally, it permits students to perform actual demonstrations in real classrooms with live students, allowing professorial feedback on a “hands-on” approach. REFERENCES Berg, M. (executive producer). (1997). K-3 preservice reading partnership program [video recording]. San Diego, CA: San Diego State University. Goodyear, P., and Steeples, C. (2000). Web-based teaching: Purposes and pedagogy. [Online]. Available: http://csalt.lancs.ac.uk/jisc/resources.htm. Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Ryan, M. (2002). Ask the teacher: A practitioner’s guide to teaching and learning in the diverse classroom. Boston: McGraw Hill. Serdyukov, P. (2000). The human dimension in a technology-based educational environment. IFIP TC3 WG3.2/WG3.6 International Working Conference on Building University Electronic Educational Environments. Boston: Kluver Academic. Smith, M. (2001). The social/situational orientation to learning. [Online]. Available: http://www.infed.org/biblio/learning-social.htm. (Accessed December 4, 2002). Steeples, C., and Goodyear, P. (1999). Enabling professional learning in distributed communities of practice: Descriptors for multimedia objects. Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 99 World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, Seattle, June 19–24, 1999.
< previous page
page_158
next page >
< previous page
page_159
next page >
page_159
next page >
Page 159 PT3 Grant Reports
< previous page
< previous page
page_160
next page >
page_160
next page >
Page 160 This page intentionally left blank.
< previous page
< previous page
page_161
next page >
Page 161 P3T3 Purdue Program for Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology James D. Lehman Department of Curriculum and Instruction Purdue University INTRODUCTION Over the past quarter century, the emergence of modern, computer-based technologies has transformed many aspects of work and daily life. We are in the midst of an information technology revolution that is changing the very fabric of society, so that technology knowledge and skills are increasingly viewed as essential to success in the twenty-first century. As a result, computers and the Internet have become the focus of major educational initiatives and reform efforts. One such initiative is the U.S. Department of Education’s Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) program, which aims to impact teaching and learning by better preparing teachers to use technology effectively in the classroom. A number of national reports have decried the poor state of teacher preparation with respect to technology use (e.g., Moursand and Bielefeldt 1999; Office of Technology Assessment 1995; Panel on Educational Technology 1997; Smerdon et al. 2000). These reports indicate that technology is not central to teacher preparation in most colleges of education. Problems include limited use of technology in teacher education courses, an emphasis on teaching about technology rather than teaching with technology, lack of faculty modeling, insufficient funding and faculty professional development opportunities, and lack of emphasis on technology in students’ field experiences. Although the United States has nearly achieved its goal to equip all schools with computers and Internet access, only about one-third of teachers feel well prepared to use these technologies (Smerdon et al. 2000). Given that over 2 million teachers are expected to join the workforce in the coming decade, changes in teacher education now can pay significant dividends in the future. Moursand and Bielefeldt (1999) recommended addressing the issue of teacher preparation to use technology through 1) institutional planning for integration of educational technology into teaching and learning, 2) technology integration across the teacher preparation curriculum rather than limited to stand-alone courses, 3) increased opportunities for student teachers to use technology during field experiences, and 4) faculty development to bring about appropriate modeling of technology uses in their courses. After more than five years of reform planning by its faculty and administration, the School of Education at Purdue University is now in the final stages of implementing completely restructured elementary and secondary teacher education programs that make significant strides toward addressing these recommendations. A PT3 implementation grant, P3T3: Purdue Program for Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology, is providing significant support for the implementation of these reforms. PURDUE UNIVERSITY’S P3T3 PROJECT Purdue University’s new teacher education programs, which were launched with students entering teacher preparation programs in the fall of 1999, feature a cohesive set of courses, arrayed in a series of blocks, with practical experiences accompanying each block. The programs are anchored by four thematic strands—technology, diversity, field experience, and portfolio assessment.
< previous page
page_161
next page >
< previous page
page_162
next page >
Page 162 The technology strand is composed of three interwoven threads. First, like many other teacher education institutions, Purdue has a required introductory-level educational technology course that students take at the beginning of their teacher education program. Unlike many technology-only courses, it focuses on helping students build basic technology knowledge and skills within the context of planning, implementing, and evaluating instruction (Newby, Stepich, Lehman, and Russell 2000). Second, instruction in the application of technology in specific disciplines and with a variety of learners is integrated throughout block and methods courses, building on the foundations laid in the beginning course. Third, technology provides a supporting infrastructure for communication, engagement, and reflection on practice. The diversity strand is supported through appropriate course work and by exposing preservice teachers to various forms of diversity (e.g., socioeconomic, rural and urban, religious, cultural, intellectual, special needs and gifted populations) during field experiences. Because Purdue is not located near a major urban center with concomitant cultural and ethnic diversity, technology helps give exposure to diversity by providing linkages to diverse urban settings at a distance. The field experiences strand is supported by Theory into Practice (TIP) components that accompany each block of courses in the new program. The TIPs provide more and more cohesive field experiences for the students than were available in the past. Through distance education linkages, technology plays a role in this strand as well. Finally, the portfolio strand is being implemented through a new requirement that all teacher education students will develop a professional portfolio to 1) be used for self-reflection on learning and practice, 2) document professional growth, and 3) provide the foundation for performance-based licensure. To support this initiative, Purdue’s P3T3 project is creating a Web-based electronic portfolio system that supports students’ creation and maintenance of their portfolios. Fortuitously, Purdue’s P3T3 project was funded at just the right moment to play a significant supporting role in the implementation of the new teacher preparation programs. The overall goals of the P3T3 project are to 1) prepare preservice teachers to demonstrate fundamental technology competencies, using technology as a tool for teaching and learning, personal productivity, communication, and reflection on their teaching; and 2) prepare teacher education faculty in the School of Education, as well as selected colleagues in the Schools of Science and Liberal Arts, to teach preservice teachers in technology-rich environments, modeling approaches that future teachers should use themselves when they teach K–12 students. The project is meeting its goals via three complementary components: 1) a faculty development and mentoring program designed to assist the faculty in learning new teaching and learning technologies and effectively modeling their use in teacher education courses; 2) technology-enabled distance field experiences for preservice teachers in diverse settings; and 3) the development of a dynamic electronic portfolio system that provides preservice teachers with the tools to select multiple ways of viewing their evolving teaching practice, reflect on that practice, and use digital representations to meet performance-based assessments. Ultimately, we hope that preservice teachers will learn about technology, see it modeled by their instructors, reflect on their own learning about teaching using digital technologies, and in the end, use these technologies for teaching and learning with their K–12 students. The remainder of this paper provides an overview of the three implementation components of the P3T3 project: faculty development, technology-enabled field experiences, and the dynamic electronic portfolio system. Together, these three components provide a cohesive solution to many of the problems related to technology integration that confront colleges of education, and one that fits well the particular needs of teacher education at Purdue University. FACULTY DEVELOPMENT The faculty development component of the P3T3 project focuses on helping faculty acquire and refine technology knowledge and skills that they can use and model for the prospective teachers in their classes. Two main emphases in the effort are 1) modeling a
< previous page
page_162
next page >
< previous page
page_163
next page >
Page 163 problem-based and learner-centered approach to technology integration and 2) using the Internet as a teaching and learning resource. Research in technology-rich classrooms has shown that teachers tend to shift toward more learner-centered practices in these environments (Sandholtz and Ringstaff 1996). Adopting a problem-based perspective to teaching technology (Hill 1999) offers an approach that aligns with the learner-centered characteristics of technology-rich classrooms. To promote this view of technology integration, the P3T3 project involves faculty participants in problem-based workshop experiences to model ways that they might use technology themselves. A range of technologies is employed, but use of the Internet is a frequent emphasis. The Internet arguably is one of the most significant educational developments in the past half century. According to data from the National Center for Education Statistics, in the fall of 2000, about 98 percent of U.S. public schools were connected to the Internet (Cattagni and Farris 2001). Given that the Internet is becoming pervasive in K–12 schools, university teacher educators need to model its use to help prospective teachers see effective ways to integrate the Internet in their own classrooms. Many of the faculty development initiatives of the P3T3 project focus on Internet technologies (e.g., Web page development, WebCT, Internet protocol (IP)-based videoconferencing). The professional development component of the P3T3 project involves a two-day “start-up” workshop, technology skills development workshops, and a yearlong support and mentoring program for participating faculty members. Approximately one-third of the faculty in the School of Education, along with selected teaching assistants and colleagues in the Schools of Science and Liberal Arts, participate in each of the three years of the project. By the end of the project, it is our aim to have involved the entire School of Education faculty and selected others. The two-day start-up workshop provides an initiation into the project for participating faculty members and teaching staff. Original plans called for start-up workshops to be offered during the summers, when most faculty members have free time. Because of a late start during the first year of the project, two start-up workshops were conducted during break times in the 2000–2001 academic year. Subsequent workshops have been offered in the summers as planned. Each workshop enrolls about 20 participants. Believing in the value of heterogeneous grouping, the “ideal” participant mix we aim to create is about 10 education faculty members, 4 graduate teaching assistants who work with teacher preparation courses, 2 faculty members from liberal arts and science, 2 education undergraduates, and 2 master technology-using teachers from our K–12 partner schools. Although no single workshop has had this ideal composition, members of all of the constituent groups have participated at one time or another. In part, the start-up workshop is designed to model problem-based learning processes as described by Torp and Sage (1998). In this process, individuals are confronted with an ill-defined problem, define the parameters of the problem, conduct an investigation, and communicate the results. Although problem-based learning need not involve technology, we emphasize the use of technology as a tool in the process and, additionally, as the content of the start-up workshop investigation itself. For our workshop, participants working in small groups address the question, “What technologies are available at Purdue University to support teaching and learning, how can they be used, and what do faculty and students need to know about them?’’ Teams develop their own investigations, gather information, and prepare multimedia reports about their investigations to present to the other groups. Technology is used during this process to acquire background information (e.g., Internet), produce artifacts (e.g., digital camera photos), and prepare a presentation (e.g., PowerPoint). Through this process, faculty members are exposed to constructivist approaches to technology integration in the service of content learning. They are able to participate in the process, reflect on the roles of teachers and learners, and see applications of specific technologies in the classroom. We seek to give the participants a relatively rich example of technology integration that they can draw on when conceptualizing possibilities for technology integration in their own classes. Following the problem-based learning activity, we demonstrate a variety of available technologies to participants to raise awareness. Faculty members need to see models of
< previous page
page_163
next page >
< previous page
page_164
next page >
Page 164 what is possible in order to stimulate ideas for how they might integrate technology into their own classrooms (Ertmer 1999). We examine examples of technology integration in K–12 classrooms, and we ask the faculty to reflect on potential uses of technology in their own teaching. Finally, we ask participants to develop and share concrete plans for integrating technology into at least one course that they will teach during the coming academic year. This engenders a sense of commitment and gives the faculty members a clear goal to focus their efforts. This planning activity is the culmination of the start-up workshop. In the first two years of our implementation project, 45 members (about 60 percent) of the education faculty, 10 graduate teaching assistants, and 7 faculty members in science and liberal arts have participated in start-up workshops. In addition, two faculty members from a regional campus and two from the School of Consumer and Family Sciences, which were not originally partners in the project, have also participated. Following the start-up workshop, a number of hands-on, skills-development workshops are offered for participating faculty members and others. We offer these workshops immediately following each start-up workshop in the summer. We also repeat them at various times throughout the academic year to accommodate varying schedules and to permit others to participate. Workshop topics include WebCT (the “standard” Web-based course environment at Purdue), Web page development (e.g., FrontPage, Dreamweaver), working with graphics, managing one’s university computer account, digital video capture and editing, IP-based videoconferencing, and so on. These workshops are designed to help the faculty develop the technology knowledge and skills they might need to better integrate the use of technology in their own teaching. A typical workshop involves two hours of hands-on work; complex topics, such as WebCT, are presented in a series of workshops covering components. Some workshops are led by members of the P3T3 staff, and some are presented by representatives of Purdue’s Multimedia Instructional Development Center, a campuswide faculty support service that is partnered with the P3T3 project. To date, there have been nearly 600 enrollments in these workshops. During the project’s second year, we introduced Techie Talk, another sort of faculty development session. Techie Talk presentations or miniworkshops last 30 to 60 minutes and are conducted over the lunch hour during the academic year to allow the faculty and others to drop in. Some Techie Talk sessions focus on specific technology skills (e.g., tips for using e-mail or Microsoft Word); others focus on faculty success stories related to technology integration (e.g., WebCT for course support, using IP-based videoconferencing to connect with K–12 schools). They offer a means of providing information and skills development in a format that is more abbreviated than full workshops, and they provide a vehicle through which the technology integration successes of faculty members can be showcased. To assist the faculty in carrying out their plans and developing their own expertise, we have an academic yearlong support and mentoring program. The P3T3 staff reviews participants’ personal plans for technology integration, and based on the specifics of each plan, a graduate assistant with appropriate skills is matched to an individual faculty member to serve as a liaison with the project. The graduate assistant contacts the faculty member and offers support throughout the year, either working directly with the faculty member or, when necessary, referring the faculty member to another person with appropriate expertise. Support is provided through one-on-one tutoring and assistance at the faculty member’s request. In addition, the P3T3 staff offers a drop-in help session one afternoon each week throughout the academic year for faculty members who are working on technology integration projects and need immediate assistance. Each faculty member also receives a modest supply and expense funding to support integration activities or purchase materials. With this support, faculty members and graduate teaching assistants have successfully implemented many technology initiatives. TECHNOLOGY-ENABLED FIELD EXPERIENCES Many colleges of education face difficulties placing students in field situations that provide for needed experiences such as interaction with diverse student populations and
< previous page
page_164
next page >
< previous page
page_165
next page >
Page 165 observation of exemplary technology use. This problem is particularly acute for Purdue University, which is not located near a major metropolitan center. As one way to address this problem, Purdue’s P3T3 initiative is making use of two-way videoconferencing to link college students and classrooms with K–12 students and classrooms. Purdue’s P3T3 project has developed partnerships with several schools in diverse areas of Indiana. Two-way video technologies, including an intrastate fiber optic video network and Internet videoconferencing, are being used to link with our partner school sites. Some of our partner K–12 schools are linked to Vision Athena, an intrastate fiber optic video network operated by the Center for Interactive Learning and Collaboration, a partner in the P3T3 project. Although Purdue University does not have a direct connection to the Vision Athena network, we can connect with schools on the network through a video bridge. The other technology that we are beginning to use extensively is IP-based (H.323 standard) videoconferencing. Using room-to-room and desktop-to-desktop videoconferencing systems made by Polycom (http://www.polycom.com), we can establish good quality video and audio connections over the Internet. This technology is affordable (desktop units cost several hundred dollars, room-to-room units several thousand) and very flexible because a connection can be established between any two locations with access to a reasonably fast Internet connection (128 Kbps or better). We have been experimenting with various models for using this technology to enhance university classes, promote partnerships with the K–12 schools, and so benefit teacher education. In the most extensive pilot project to date, Professor JoAnn Phillion has linked a section of one course, the first course in Block I of the new teacher education programs, to an elementary school classroom in East Chicago, an urban center in northwest Indiana. The aim of this pilot project is to explore the use of videoconferencing and the Internet for helping preservice teachers observe and develop understanding of multicultural issues associated with diverse classrooms. Using technology to address multicultural issues is a developing approach in K–12 classrooms; much of this work involves having students use the Internet as a resource (Clark and Gorski 2001). However, at the present time, little work is being done that links learning about technology and learning about diversity in preservice teacher education programs. The students in Professor Phillion’s class, who are just beginning their teacher education studies, can make observations of the remote class, interact with students and the teacher, and even conduct small instructional lessons via the two-way video connection. Several benefits of this approach have emerged. These beginning students are not skilled observers of the classrooms. Like earlier work using closed-circuit connections to classrooms (Hoy and Merkley 1989), Professor Phillion has found that because she observes alongside the students, she can direct students’ observations to help them become better observers themselves. She has also found that the shared observational experience leads to opportunities for richer class discussions. In addition, the students have an opportunity to grow in their understandings of diverse classroom settings. Although some students initially harbor misconceptions, such as that the students will be poorly behaved or the teacher will teach differently because this is a diverse classroom, these misconceptions are dispelled through firsthand experience. The preservice teachers also learn to prepare materials aimed at diverse students (e.g., a skit in English and Spanish) and learn to work with students using a distance mode of education. In another pilot project, preservice teachers in Professor Tristan Johnson’s classes use the videoconferencing to link with elementary classrooms to conduct lessons that they have designed specifically for the elementary students. Most recently, Professor Johnson’s students used the capability for application sharing, a feature of the computer desktop-to-desktop videoconferencing units, to help students understand concepts related to simple machines. Then, using the video connection, the Purdue students served as the judges for a simple machine-building competition among teams of elementary students. The elementary students benefited from the lesson and from having external evaluators available to assess their work, and the Purdue students benefited by getting to test the instructional materials they had developed with real learners. Preliminary evaluation of these technology-enabled field experiences indicates that they are instructionally valuable, show preservice teachers a real-life application of the
< previous page
page_165
next page >
< previous page
page_166
next page >
Page 166 technology, increase their confidence, and better prepare them for the classroom. Short-comings related to the technology include the difficulty of getting through school Internet firewalls to establish IP-based videoconferencing connections and problems hearing students on the remote end over the ambient classroom noise. Overall, however, the positives seem to outweigh the limitations, and we plan to continue exploring this technology. DYNAMIC ELECTRONIC PORTFOLIO SYSTEM Portfolio assessment is becoming an important way to address competency-based standards for teacher education. Portfolios allow preservice teachers to build rich collections of materials to document their teaching knowledge, dispositions, and performance. There is growing interest in the use of electronic multimedia portfolios for documenting growth and development of preservice teachers (Barrett 2001; Read and Cafolla 1999). Multimedia portfolios have advantages over their paper counterparts including the ability to represent materials in multiple ways, ability to link to standards, reduced storage demands, accessibility, and students’ development of technology skills through the process of creating the portfolio. As part of its P3T3 project, Purdue is developing a dynamic Web-based portfolio system that will provide preservice teachers with the tools and opportunities to select multiple ways of viewing their evolving teaching practice, reflect on that practice, and use digital multimedia representations of their work to meet performance-based assessments. Electronic portfolios, or e-portfolios, can be developed using tools ranging from off-the-shelf generic computer applications to a customized application built specifically for that purpose (Barrett 2001). In the P3T3 project, we have focused on the latter. We are building a customized, large-scale electronic portfolio system as one part of an overall dynamic assessment system. The system is dynamic in that 1) it encourages ongoing collection and archiving of relevant performances deemed important by a teacher candidate; 2) the teacher candidate can choose a variety of media forms to represent the complexities of teaching; and 3) the teacher candidate can choose, by reflecting on the individual performances, which of his or her archived materials best represents a given performance standard. In short, the dynamic aspect of the Web-based model lies in both its capability to store a range of media that are easily accessible and the way it provides the teacher candidate with a scaffold for systematically thinking about and reflecting on his or her work. The teacher candidates can juxtapose a variety of representations of their work, each highlighting or complementing aspects of ongoing practice and their learning about the practice. The electronic portfolio system supports a direct connection between ongoing assessment and reflective practice. The e-portfolio system, which is now being tested, resides on a server with about two terabytes of storage space, enough to give each one of our nearly 2,500 preservice teachers the storage equivalent of a CD-ROM. Students’ artifacts are stored in a Microsoft SQLServer database, a popular choice for large-scale, Web-accessible databases. Students interact with the system through a Web-based interface that is driven by Microsoft Active Server Pages (ASP) technology. Because it is Web-based, students can access the e-portfolio system from any place that has an Internet connection. This provides for great flexibility of access. The e-portfolio system supports several basic functions: 1) file uploading for archiving of students’ materials, 2) artifact creation and categorization, and 3) overall portfolio creation. In our parlance, an artifact consists of a file or files with an associated narrative that a student submits as evidence to address particular teaching standards. When completed, an artifact is a Web page that includes common components such as the student’s picture, course information, standards information, and the student’s narrative; it also includes components that the student chooses to include such as links to specific files that he or she created and uploaded (e.g., word-processing documents, photos, digital videos). The use of an artifact template simplifies the process, an important consideration given the large numbers of preservice teachers at our institution, while still giving individual students options to customize the presentation. Students can categorize each artifact
< previous page
page_166
next page >
< previous page
page_167
next page >
Page 167 according to three portfolio themes: 1) Attention to Learners, 2) Understanding Curriculum in Context, and 3) Commitment to Professional Growth. In addition to these three themes, the system tracks the 10 INTASC (Interstate New Teacher Assessment Consortium) principles. Beyond these, students can address other standards and theoretical perspectives through their narratives. The portfolio consists of all the students’ artifacts plus an integrative narrative that ties the work together. Similar to an individual artifact, the overall portfolio, when constructed, is a Web page with embedded links that lead to artifacts rather than individual files. Thus, a portfolio can be represented as a tree structure with the main portfolio page hyperlinking artifacts, which in turn hyperlink to individual files that represent the student’s individual works. Faculty members can log into the system to assess students’ work. Because most artifacts will be created as part of courses, the system links individual students’ artifacts to the courses in which they are created. The instructor then can retrieve all of the students’ artifacts for a particular course during a particular semester for assessment. In order to track students’ progress and growth as they proceed through the teacher education program, another layer of assessment corresponds to review of the overall portfolio. In Purdue’s assessment system, this overall review occurs at four points in the student’s academic career. At each of these checkpoints, or gates, a gatekeeper committee checks the students’ portfolios to ensure that they are making appropriate progress. During this, the project’s second year, the Purdue e-portfolio system is being pilot tested by students in the first two blocks of the teacher education programs. In the mean-time, the faculty has continued to work toward finalizing the processes and assessment procedures that were to be applied when the portfolio system became a required element of the teacher education programs in the fall of 2002. Ultimately, the e-portfolio system will help our preservice teachers to address performance-based standards for teacher education while simultaneously contributing to the primary goal of the P3T3 project by providing a vehicle through which they, through their use of the technologies needed to build and work with the portfolio, will learn about and develop competence with the very technologies we want them to use with their future students. SUMMARY Purdue University’s PT3 implementation project, P3T3: Purdue Program for Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to use Technology, seeks to prepare our teacher education students to effectively use computers and allied technologies for personal productivity, for documenting and reflecting on teaching practice, and for effective teaching and learning. Three interrelated components form the basis of our approach for achieving these aims: 1) a faculty development program, 2) use of two-way communication technologies for virtual field experiences, and 3) development of a dynamic Web-based electronic portfolio system for preservice teachers. Through these approaches, we seek to ensure that teacher education reforms initiated in 1999 are implemented according to the faculty’s vision that emphasizes diversity, field experience, portfolio assessment, and technology as key to the preparation of all teachers. In the end, we expect that these reforms will lead to better-prepared teachers who will in turn improve the education for those schoolchildren that they touch. For more information about the P3T3 project, visit the project’s Web site at http://p3t3.soe.purdue.edu. REFERENCES Barrett, H. (2001, August). Electronic portfolio development strategies. Presentation at the PT3 annual grantees meeting, Washington, DC. Cattagni, A., and Farris, E. (2001, May). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994 – 2000 (Report No. NCES 2001–071). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
< previous page
page_167
next page >
< previous page
page_168
next page >
Page 168 Clark, C., and Gorski, P. (2001). Multicultural education and the digital divide: Focus on race, language, socioeconomic class, sex, and disability. Multicultural Perspectives 3:3, 39–44. Ertmer, P. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development 47:4, 47–61. Hill, J. R. (1999). Teaching technology: Implementing a problem-centered, activity-based approach. Journal of Research on Computing in Education 31:3, 261–279. Hoy, M. P., and Merkley, D. J. (1989). Teachers on television: Observing teachers and students in diverse classroom settings through the technology of television. Ames, IA: Iowa State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 319 711) Moursand, D., and Bielefeldt, T. (1999). Will new teachers be prepared to teach in a digital age? (Research study by the International Society for Technology in Education, commissioned by the Milken Exchange on Educational Technology). Milken Exchange on Educational Technology. [Online]. Available: http://www.mff.org/pubs/ME154.pdf. (Accessed December 4, 2002). Newby, T. J., Stepich, D. A., Lehman, J. D., and Russell, J. D. (2000). Instructional technology for teaching and learning: Designing instruction, integrating computers, and using media (2d ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall. Office of Technology Assessment. (1995, April). Teachers and technology: Making the connection (Report No. OTAEHR-616). Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Panel on Educational Technology. (1997, March). Report to the president on the use of technology to strengthen K– 12 education in the United States. Washington, DC: President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology. Read, D., and Cafolla, R. (1999). Multimedia portfolios for preservice teachers: From theory to practice. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 7:2, 97–113. Sandholtz, J. H., and Ringstaff, C. (1996). Teacher change in technology-rich classrooms. In C. Fisher, D. C. Dwyer, and K. Yocam (eds.), Education and technology: Reflections on computing in classrooms. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Smerdon, B., Cronen, S., Lanahan, L., Anderson, J., Iannotti, N., and Angeles, J. (2000, September). Teachers’ tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers’ use of technology (Report No. NCES 2000–102). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Torp, L., and Sage, S. (1998). Problems as possibilities: Problem-based learning in K–12 education. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The contents of this paper were developed under a grant from the U.S. Department of Education. However, the contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and the reader should not assume endorsement by the federal government.
< previous page
page_168
next page >
< previous page
page_169
next page >
Page 169 Restructuring Teacher Education Building a Theoretical Base Joyce A. Pittman Teachers College The University of Cincinnati ABSTRACT University of Cincinnati (UC) faculty, and especially teacher education faculty, are being encouraged to restructure traditional methods, related relevant content courses, and instructional approaches to include technology into courses. The expectation is that teacher education must begin to respond to changing student populations and the resulting need for alternative modes of learning. Therefore, I theorize that it is critical to collaborate with faculty to create professional development that unites technology and pedagogy. This partnership with faculty must come early in defining a theoretical base for its restructuring effort. During Year 1 using the Cincinnati Comprehensive Education Restructuring Technology Infusion Initiative (CERTI2) model as a case study, UC’s goal is to capture the process of implementing an integrated technology-pedagogical model through the expertise of between 30 and 40 CERTI2 faculty associates. These associates will allow faculty adopters of technology across the arts and sciences, curriculum and instruction, and special education disciplines to serve as liaisons among faculty and between faculty and instructional designers. In providing support to faculty in CERTI2’s move toward this coordinated studies model, UC is preparing varying levels of research, technical, and professional support, consulting to dialogue about implications for pedagogy, the nature of resistance, and ways to scholarly document and disseminate success encountered in establishing a faculty professional development program to infuse technology within Teachers College. During Years 2 and 3, this information will ultimately embody infusion throughout preservice teachers’ fieldbased experiences and online support and electronic portfolio systems. This extensive effort will profoundly change the teacher education program and provide collective benefits to the university, schools, and the Cincinnati urban community and neighboring areas. By the end of Year 3, it is estimated that CERTI2 will influence over 2,000 teachers and 40 to 50 university faculty. INTRODUCTION Does it make sense to provide professional development in new technologies and pedagogy for educators to improve teacher education and the professional teaching practice? Common sense would dictate a “yes” answer: How else will education improve the teaching profession except by those who are preparing future teachers? Assuming a yes response, I advance the question to does it make good sense and why? Ely (1996, 29) quotes James D. Finn (1953) who, in his argument for a theoretical base for the audiovisual field, once warned: Without a theory, which produces hypotheses for research, there can be no expanding knowledge and technique. And without a constant attempt to assess practice so that the theoretical implications may be teased out, there can be no assurance that we will ever have a theory or that our practice will make sense.
< previous page
page_169
next page >
< previous page
page_170
next page >
Page 170 BACKGROUND New theories about how to reengineer faculty and change teacher education will require ongoing evaluation and assessment of all efforts in the education community. The ability to effectively use technology will be as crucial a skill for teachers as for students entering the twenty-first-century workforce. They both must not only be comfortable with technology but also understand how to use technology “to locate and evaluate information, to learn, reason, make decisions, solve problems, and to collaborate and work in teams” (CEO Forum 2001). Only those who are well versed in productive and meaningful uses of technology will be able to compete in an increasingly global playing field. Toward this end, state and federal governments have heavily funded efforts to educate students to use and learn from technology; $37.8 billion between 1989 and 1999, with another $5.8 billion projected for 2000 and 2001 (CEO Forum 2001). Technology use in and of itself is not enough. Initiatives must now shift their focus from acquiring hardware and setting up the requisite infrastructure to fully integrating technology into the curriculum and implementing methods for students to learn with technology. PREPARING TOMORROW’S TEACHERS Such an endeavor is obviously contingent upon teachers. Teachers must be proficient enough with technology use to integrate technology into their curricula and to facilitate productive learning. The authors of Educational Testing Services’ report Computers and Classrooms assert, “Helping teachers to learn how to integrate technology into the curriculum may be one of the most critical factors for successful implementation of technology applications. Only when teachers understand technology and how it can be used will we see significant student outcomes” (Coley, Cradler, and Engel 1997). Only recently have Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) grants and other professional staff development at K–12 and college levels begun to concentrate on training prospective teachers to use technology before they move into the classroom. The need for technology-proficient teachers is even more pronounced in urban areas with a high population of minority or low-income students. Wenglinsky (1998, 25) in Does It Compute? points out that not only are such urban classrooms less likely to be connected to the Internet, even when technology exists, but that these students are “less likely to be exposed to higher-order uses” than are Caucasian or more affluent students. Further, unequal access to computers at home only widens the gap between affluent and low-income students. Technology initiatives must therefore pay special attention to narrowing the gap for these students through the initiation of professional development activities. Ryan (1991, 161) asserts that students of teachers who had appropriate technology professional development score higher on a variety of tests than students whose teachers did not. THE CERTI2 INITIATIVE Cincinnati, Ohio, has a low level of Internet access and high percentage of low-income households and minority residents. Cincinnati Public Schools (CPS) has 70 percent minority students; over 80 percent are eligible for free or reduced lunch. The Cincinnati Comprehensive Education Restructuring Technology Infusion Initiative (CERTI2), a project at the University of Cincinnati (UC) College of Education initiated through a U.S. Department of Education (1999–2002) PT3 program grant, has taken responsibility in developing teachers skilled in the use of technology to public school systems in the region. CERTI2’s professional development and learning activities focus on pedagogy demonstrated to be successful in urban environments. To support the college’s restructuring effort and to change ways of thinking about teaching and technology, faculty, administration, and CERTI2 project members are collaborating on these three goals:
< previous page
page_170
next page >
< previous page
page_171
next page >
Page 171 1. building the technology expertise of faculty and students, 2. instituting performance-based and authentic assessment, and 3. ensuring equitable access to high-quality education for all. One important component, related to the first goal, is the development of an electronic portfolio system that may incorporate computer use, multimedia, video, and the Internet. Another important component, related to the third goal, is the creation of learning communities within the city of Cincinnati and partnerships across the state of Ohio. The Community-School Access to Technology study of Cincinnati Public Schools, involving schools now participating in CERTI2, indicated that teachers use computers less than 10 percent of their teaching time; less than 15 percent of teachers reported high comfort levels in a technological environment or in using computers (Pittman 1999, 2000). Statistics like these prompted UC’s College of Education to support the PT3 initiative to improve the use of technology to improve student learning and teacher and educator practices in the classroom (Pittman 1999, 2000). CERTI2: A THEORY-BASED APPROACH At the forefront of the CERTI2 professional development story are theories of teachers’ adoption stages for integrating new technologies in teaching practice. Hall’s Concerns-Based Adoption (C-BAM) and Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow Stages of Development (ACOT-SOD) technology integration models, which deal with how adult educators learn new technologies, hold a center position in the analysis of evaluator reports, professional observations, and collaborative learning projects. By relating the emerging concepts surrounding training and technology integration, policy makers and educators can improve their understanding of current technology training and new standards when speaking about the training of teachers to raise educational and human performance (Hall and Loucks 1979). Data from these models could have profound implications for restructuring the current technology training standards to better meet the needs of teachers and teacher educators. Training in new technologies for teachers often resembles a limited vision of technology and empowerment that usually characterizes a growing profession—limited because in some circumstances deciding teacher quality based on the recommendations are supported by revolving interpretation of narrowly defined technology standards. In this case, the term revolving describes the process employed often by decision makers that overlooks the organizational context, social conditions, and other conditions that required changing teacher practice in the first place. As he asserted the importance of educators possessing an historical understanding and perspective of education and new technologies, Koetting (1996) cited Finn, who identified in the first issue of Audio-Visual Communications Review in 1953 “characteristics of a profession.” To understand professional development, it is important to review those five elements. According to Finn, a profession has at least these characteristics: 1. an intellectual technique, 2. an application of that technique to the practical affairs of people, 3. a period of long training necessary before entering the profession, 4. an association of members of the profession into a closely knit group with a high quality of communication between members, and 5. a series of standards and a statement of ethics enforced by an organized body of intellectual theory, constantly expanding by research.
< previous page
page_171
next page >
< previous page
page_172
next page >
Page 172 OVERPOWERING BARRIERS Without ongoing professional development, challenges become barriers, which could preclude implementation of new curriculum, instruction, and technologies. As a result, some new initiatives may seldom move beyond the test phase in practice because the challenges become overpowering. “Overpowering barriers” are those that include vast political networks, inadequate technology tools and infrastructure, human misunderstandings, and faulty interpretations. Overpowering barriers are serious because they disenfranchise individual learners and educators and geld the potential of engaged learning, powerful new assessment strategies, and performance-based systems. Without these experiences, educators will not be able to build innovative instructional designs and training and teaching practices using new technologies (Pittman 1998). Disenfranchisement practices are sometimes unintentionally enacted in reform policies at the national and state levels. In the process, implementation issues contribute to the growing concern about defining high-quality professional development for teachers to learn new technologies. Recent technology forums at national conferences have increased discussion about the efficacy of existing technology standards to meet the needs of all teachers, especially members of minority groups in urban and rural schools and universities. In response, legislation creating the PT3 program was enacted in 1999. Since 1999, PT3 has awarded over 400 grants to education consortia to help address this challenge (http://www.pt3.org). CERTI2 is one of 400 institutions awarded the benefits of this act of Congress. As the story unfolds, I focus more on UC’s Technology Plan 2000 and how it ensures access to technology and support for teachers and educators in UC’s teacher education program. CERTI2 follows in the footsteps of a nationally recognized predecessor, the Cincinnati Initiative for Teacher Education, which from 1995 to 2000 prepared teachers to meet licensing and certification standards using a portfolio assessment system to examine and determine whether students were meeting state requirements. Today, that practice continues in an environment supported by educational technologies and information systems. PURPOSE The CERTI2 story is presented to achieve two goals: • To understand and reflect on groundwork in existing training practices in new technologies at UC’s College of Education. • To continue looking at existing standards, practices, and policies that oversee the quality of teachers in public schools within the state of Ohio, and especially in nearby Cincinnati communities. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT About three years ago, UC leaders recognized that to meet twenty-first-century education reform goals, teachers need ongoing new skills to teach in new technologically oriented and learner-centered environments. All content area programs at the university now require technology preparation or teacher competency portfolios for licensing and certification. The practice is driven by partner schools, which are now drafting policies requiring teachers to demonstrate competency using portfolios and other performance-based measures (Cincinnati Public Schools 2001). Although the number of teachers across the country and especially minorities are having difficulty with the new Praxis teacher licensing exams, UC enjoys a high percentage of students excelling on the tests (Gitomer, Latham, and Ziomek 1999). However, the
< previous page
page_172
next page >
< previous page
page_173
next page >
Page 173 report’s findings clearly indicate that passing the Praxis I exam is not necessarily an extraordinary achievement. For example, in Virginia, reportedly the state with the highest cutoff scores, candidates are only required to answer 70 percent of the math questions correctly in order to pass. To put this in perspective, 70 percent is a failing grade in almost any university course. Moreover, this is a test in which only 12 percent of the questions involve the use of algebra, compared with 25 percent on the 12th-grade National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) math exam. Still, the report indicates 44 percent of Praxis I test takers nationwide would fail to pass Virginia’s standard. Minnesota sets the lowest cutoff score and only requires candidates to answer 50 percent of the test questions correctly. Sadly, 10 percent of Praxis I takers nationally would fail to meet this standard.1 As a result, there is a growing concern about maintaining high-quality teaching and the integration of new technologies by educators and teachers. The Ohio Department of Education and other Ohio colleges of education are linking International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) and National Commission for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) technology standards to other licensing standards and teacher requirements, respectively. Research shows there is a need for more evidence to support standards efficacy to meet the training and technical support needs of teachers to integrate new computer and educational technologies. As a result, the potential impact on teaching and learning suggests that the relationship between popular technology standards’ efficacy to guide effective teacher training and technical support is relatively uninvestigated. The research and evaluation questions addressed here are the following: • How does the CERTI2–UC professional development partnership improve access to continuing professional development activities in new and assistive technologies for Ohio educators? • Does it make sense to provide professional development in new technologies and pedagogy for teacher educators to improve teacher education and teaching in professional practice schools? TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT This analysis is focused on the efficacy of CERTI2, which is incorporating existing state and national technology standards to ensure access to appropriate training, support, and technology Ohio educators perceive they need to meet the requirements of these standards and integrate technology into their professional practice. Results of a pilot study during summer 2000 with a partner, Ohio SchoolNet, reveal that five factors seem to contribute to most educators’ perceptions about training and technical support services they need to integrate general and assistive technologies: 1. research-based practice, 2. professional development, 3. technical assistance and support, 4. information dissemination, and 5. training in new technologies. A subsequent goal is to share the conceptual frameworks used to assess and evaluate outcome in a way that can inform programmatic outcomes. MODEL COMPONENTS AND DEFINITIONS The framework in figure 1 represents the CERTI2–UC partnership model found in the action plan within the contract. Under the model four primary strategies are identified,
< previous page
page_173
next page >
< previous page
page_174
next page >
Page 174 three goals, and 32 variables. Based on activities and strategies outlined in the proposed plan, training and support activities are correlated to achieve local, state, and national standards for technology integration and reform. In the case of CERTI2, there is a special focus on access to technology to increase the inclusion of students with disabilities in the statewide assessment process and in general education. (See fig. 1.) CERTI2 SIGNIFICANCE CERTI2 adheres to the call for accountability sounded by governmental bodies such as U.S. Department of Education’s 21st Century Schools program and private agencies like the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. CERTI2’s operational plans dovetail well with the goals spelled out in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary School Act (ESEA), signed into law on January 8, 2002. It redefines the federal role in K– 12 education and will help close the achievement gap between disadvantaged and minority students and their peers. The act sets four basic principles: 1. stronger accountability for results, 2. increased flexibility and local control, 3. expanded options for parents, and 4. an emphasis on teaching methods proven to work (http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/esea/). This law requires states, cities, and schools across the nation to take responsibility for qualified teachers in their schools. States, cities, and schools may be required to do the following: • Adopt performance examinations for all new teachers. • Phase out teachers with emergency certificates within five years. Figure 1. Professional Development Conceptual Framework (Johns Hopkins University, Center for Technology in Education [Pittman 1999])
< previous page
page_174
next page >
< previous page
page_175
next page >
Page 175 • Eliminate the practice of assigning teachers to teach who lack adequate preparation, especially in new technologies (Gitomer, Latham, and Ziomek 1999). HOW FACULTY GET INVOLVED IN CERTI2’S PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT CERTI2 is attempting to help schools by preparing UC education faculty to develop innovative approaches to training new teachers. The process begins with a Call for Participation distributed via listserv, Web site, and hard copy in mailboxes (see flowchart in fig. 2). Upon responding, the faculty member usually requests more information. A meeting is set up with the project director. After a successful meeting, the faculty member is invited to attend an individual or group orientation. Orientation The orientation is very important because many faculty are looking for an answer to the question “Why must I do this.” Because the question is a complex one, we respond in the orientation with background information for PT3 funding with the U.S. Department of Education and why the project was selected for funding. Strengths and weaknesses of the CERTI2 proposal are discussed and often debated in an open forum. One faculty member who voiced some of the strongest dissents in one such forum is now one of our most promising participants. He seems to have gained a renewed enthusiasm for his field. Faculty buy-in is an important first step, which is reason enough to employ a foundation based on humanistic approaches that encourage faculty members to engage in critical analysis of each step in the adoption process. Taking this approach has helped project management and the advisory board to continue revising the conceptual framework, which is hoped will become a model for others by the end of Year 3 of the project. Decision Time When a faculty member decides to get involved, an individual technology plan is required. During the orientation, we provide a template and then follow up using virtual and face-to-face communications as needed. We often find that we must change the format of the technology plan pending the faculty member’s plan. We remain flexible as long as they address core criteria: purpose, people, and technology products; process for integration; and how the strategies will influence teaching practice, student performance, and personal growth. Faculty Technology Plan Review The plan is then reviewed by the CERTI2 project management team. Afterwards, it is forwarded to CERTI2 internal and external evaluation teams, who decide in collaboration with the management team if the plan is consistent with CERTI2 project goals. When the plan is accepted, the faculty member is notified of upcoming training and welcomed into the CERTI2 learning community. Should the plan need revising, the project director schedules private consultation. The plan is reviewed with the faculty member, who is given examples and coaching about how to improve the plan. It is then revised and accepted. Thus far, we have not had a faculty member refuse revisions to a plan. Most seem grateful to get the feedback. As project director, I simply explain why the plan is not acceptable and thereby does not meet funding requirements. Technical Support Consultant for Ongoing Coaching andMentoring Assigned With the assistance of a technical consultant (Tech-CAT), a graduate research associate selected for his or her technical and training expertise, the faculty member begins to identify preservice teachers to develop standardsbased electronic artifacts for teaching
< previous page
page_175
next page >
< previous page
page_176
next page >
Page 176 Figure 2. Professional Development Flowchart
portfolio. This is done using a proprietary software package capable of incorporating still images, video, and hypertext into a CD or Web presence (Lectora). The faculty begins to develop an online instructional support system (OLIS) using UC’s online virtual classroom system (Blackboard). Faculty have the choice of mixing or matching these and other elements such as their own existing Web pages as they deem appropriate.
< previous page
page_176
next page >
< previous page
page_177
next page >
Page 177 Tech-CATs meet with faculty one hour per week and submit weekly vignettes and progress reports. The project director and evaluators use these vignettes to monitor the process within the workings of the restructuring framework. Online Communication To accommodate participants’ schedules and provide an ongoing record of progress, the project uses e-mail, listservs, and two portals provided through the Blackboard software: one portal is open to all participants; the other is open to faculty and graduate research assistants only. At appropriate times, evaluators collect self-assessments from faculty members to monitor technology skill development processed using the C-BAM and ACOT-SOD models. PROFESSIONAL TEACHING ORGANIZATION MISSIONS Although the missions of National Commission for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) focus on preservice teacher education and graduate programs in higher education, the literature shows that NCATE-ISTE standards have made significant progress in calling attention to the need for technology training and support for all teachers. Herein, the question addressed is about the effectiveness of professional development provided by CERTI2 to help educators by improving access to training and technical support in technology needed to achieve integration. Because UC is an urban institution, it is important that we focus on how professional practice presents different requirements for schools in urban Cincinnati than those in surrounding areas. A recent report, “Falling Through the Net: New Data on the Digital Divide,” indicated a profound gap in access and distribution of technology in metropolitan and rural areas that have large populations of special needs students (National Telecommunications and Information Administration 1999). Research showed that despite existing efforts to increase access to technology in public schools, teachers in these environments remain the least likely to have access to new technologies, training, or other needs (Coley, Cradler, and Engel 1997). Unidentified gaps in knowledge about what educators in urban environments need to know and be able to do may be a facilitating source for questions about the ISTE technology standards. New information may be required to increase the efficacy of professional development and training needs of CERTI2 teachers and educators in new technologies. The national teacher quality study reports that the lack of information about teachers (educators) and effective pedagogy for training teachers in new technologies is worthy of extended discussion (Lewis et al. 1999). The project’s research efforts decidedly focus on characteristics of professional teaching, theory, policies, and practices that are guiding the professional development of teachers in new technologies. Clearly, the missions of earlier teacher licensing and certification standards did not address teacher competence in new technologies. Critics of standards argue that based on the results of teacher quality reports, setting higher standards and not enforcing them has added to the glut of underqualified teachers in public schools (Lewis et al. 1999). Although there are disparate visions of what constitutes teacher quality among the various standards, the literature suggests agreement on three critical elements: • teacher preparation • qualifications • teaching practices
< previous page
page_177
next page >
< previous page
page_178
next page >
Page 178 LIMITATIONS The literature review is embedded in the story as it unfolds and is used to examine concerns about professional development standards and practices that guide training in new technologies for experienced K–12 public school teachers. I acknowledge the following limitations. • Criteria for judging technology standards in new technologies were defined within the social context of the project activities. • Participants in the project were voluntary. • Findings of the project evaluation should not be generalized for all Ohio educators. The CERTI2 analysis of professional development efforts thus far do not contain all factors related to the effectiveness of the ISTE National Educational Technology Standards foundation training standards in new technologies and their adequacy for all teachers and teacher educators. MOVING ON TO WHAT HAPPENED As noted previously, the project operates on the theory that evaluation must be an integral part of every project. The role of evaluation is not to point out what was wrong or unsuccessful. Evaluation is a useful tool for project management to assist in the decision-making process. It provides an understanding of what is working or not working, as well as insight into why things are successful or not. It can help identify what must change in continuing projects as well as point out strengths that could contribute to the success of future projects. Evaluation provides both project management and outsiders a stronger understanding of project goals, objectives, activities, and results. The “AEIOU’’ approach to evaluation does not dictate the model of evaluation or methods of data collection. It simply provides a structure and guidance for the collection of data and the reporting of results. The AEIOU approach has five components: • Accountability • Effectiveness • Impact • Organizational context • Unanticipated outcomes Accountability, effectiveness, and impact must be included in all evaluation reports; organizational context and unanticipated outcomes are included when applicable. The following data summaries are structured around CERTI2’s goal 1, to building technology expertise of faculty. DATA SUMMARIES FOR GOAL 1: BUILDING TECHNOLOGY EXPERTISE OF STUDENTS AND FACULTY Accountability “Did the project do what it said it was going to do?” Basically, the answer is “yes.” The building of faculty expertise was initiated through a series of workshop experiences, conferences, and individualized training sessions. Workshop training was initiated during the summer of 2000. Project conferences were conducted during the fall 2000 and spring 2001 academic quarters. Individualized training sessions for participating faculty were initiated during the winter quarter 2001.
< previous page
page_178
next page >
< previous page
page_179
next page >
Page 179 The building of student expertise was initiated through curriculum changes made by faculty teaching basic professional development courses. These curriculum changes in individual courses are identified in the technology plans completed by participating faculty. Effectiveness Data pertaining to goal 1 involved the development of both students and faculty technology expertise. Studentexpertise data were collected in individual classrooms during the spring quarter of 2001. Faculty data were also collected during the spring quarter of 2001. Faculty data were collected using the C-BAM and the Levels of Use of an Innovation and Stages of Adoption of Technology instruments. When Faculty Development Support Systems Make Sense In summary, technical support, equity, and access to technology, together with high-quality preparation, are essential ingredients for successfully reinventing teacher education. The entire first year, participating college faculty reported availability of current computer hardware in their offices as well as a computer at home with appropriate software for word processing. Eighty-six percent of the faculty reported Internet access in their offices. Software access in classrooms is also critical. Technology is only effective in the classroom when it is available; teachers understand it and can connect its use to curriculum and performance outcomes. Fourteen percent of the participating faculty reported no access to software of any kind in their assigned classrooms. Twenty-one percent of the faculty had access to Blackboard or PowerPoint software in their assigned classroom. The Tech-CAT program provided one-on-one training of faculty, assisting individual faculty members in acquiring the necessary technology to effectively integrate technology and pedagogy. The effectiveness of the CERTI2 project rests on the availability and technical support of technology for faculty use. CERTI2 IMPACT Innovation The project’s impact can be demonstrated at this time in terms of the faculty data. Prior to individualized training with the Tech-CATs, participating faculty were asked to report their stage of innovation of the aforementioned technologies. The six “Stages of Innovations” range from nonuse to renewal: 1. awareness 2. learning the process 3. understanding and application of the process 4. familiarity and confidence 5. adaptation to other contexts 6. creative application to new contexts As illustrated by the pie chart in figure 3, participating faculty during the spring quarter were very knowledgeable. Only 16 percent of the faculty reported that they were currently trying to learn the basics (stage 2), whereas an additional 16 percent reported that they were beginning to understand the process of using technology and could think of specific tasks in which it might be useful (stage 3). An additional 16 percent reported a sense of confidence in using the computer for specific tasks (stage 4). Over half of the faculty reported being able to use technology in many applications as an instructional tool and to be able to integrate technology into the curriculum (stages 5 and 6).
< previous page
page_179
next page >
< previous page
page_180
next page >
Page 180 Figure 3. Faculty Stages of Adoption of Technology
Levels of Use Project data also reflect actual levels of use of technology in the classroom. These data are presented in figure 4. The Levels of Use of an Innovation instrument includes seven levels ranging from nonuse (level 0) through renewal (level 6). Again, the data reflect a relatively high level of expertise of participating faculty. Only 14 percent of the faculty were seeking or acquiring information about technology in education (level 1: orientation). An additional 14 percent reported focusing most efforts on the short-term, day-to-day use of technology with little time for reflection. Primary efforts were directed toward mastering tasks required to use the technology (level 3: mechanical use). Thirty-seven percent of the respondents reported using technology routinely in the classroom (level 4A: routine) or refining and varying the use of technology in their classrooms (level 4B: refinement). Fourteen percent of the faculty reported the ability to integrate efforts with the related activities of other faculty in the college (level 5: integration). In addition, 21 percent of the faculty are operating at the highest level of technology use. These participants report being experts involved with the reevaluation of technology use in education and of exploring opportunities to impact new developments in the field (level 6: renewal). EPILOGUE The first year of the CERTI2 project has been an unqualified success. This complex, ambitious project is attempting to promote large-scale change within the Cincinnati public school system and the University of Cincinnati. The quality of leadership for the project proved critical given the scope of responsibilities assumed by the project director. The ability of the project director to maintain the project focus is highly critical in the success of any reform effort in teacher education. Program objectives promised during the first year must be met in a timely fashion. Because of the attention and partnerships established to build the infrastructure within the college, the groundwork was laid for a successful second year of the CERTI2 project. Overall, it has been a commendable administrative performance by the entire College of Education within the university.
< previous page
page_180
next page >
< previous page
page_181
next page >
Page 181 Figure 4. Faculty Levels of Use of an Innovation
NOTE 1. For more background reading about how teacher education programs may be wise not to rely so heavily on Praxis I as a measure of teacher performance, Ruth Mitchell and Patte Barth (1999) explore this issue in much greater intensity. REFERENCES CEO Forum. (2001, June). Year 4 report: Key building blocks for student achievement in the 21st century. [Online]. Available: http://www.ceoforum.org/reports.cfm. (Accessed December 6, 2002). Cincinnati Public Schools. (2001). Restructuring teacher evaluation system. [Online]. Available: http://www.cpsboe.k12.oh.us/general/TchngProf/TES/TEStitle.html. (Accessed December 6, 2002). Coley, R., Cradler, J., and Engel, P. (1997). Computers in classrooms: The status of technology in U.S. schools. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. [Online]. Available: http://www.ets.org. (Accessed December 6, 2002). Ely, D. P. (1996). James D. and the development of a professional association for the field of instructional technology. In D. P. Ely and B. B. Minor (eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook: Volume 21. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Gitomer, D., Latham, A., and Ziomek, R. (1999, May). The academic quality of prospective teachers: The impact of admissions and licensure testing. The Teaching and Learning Report Series, Educational Testing Service Policy Center. [Online]. Available: http://www.edexcellence.net/better/tchrs/07.htm. (Accessed December 6, 2002). Hall, G., and Loucks, S. (1979). Teacher concerns as a means for facilitating and personalizing staff development. Teachers College Record 80, 36–53. Koetting, J. R. (1996). On the importance of historical understanding within our own work. In D. P. Ely and B. B. Minor (eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook: Volume 21. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Lewis, L, Basmat, P., Carey, N., Bartfai, N., Farris, E, and Smerdon, B. (1999). Teacher quality: A report on teacher preparation and qualifications of public school teachers. Education Statistics Quarterly. [Online]. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/1999080/. (Accessed December 6, 2002).
< previous page
page_181
next page >
< previous page
page_182
next page >
Page 182 Mitchell, R., and Barth., P. (1999). How teacher licensing tests fall short. Thinking K-16 3:1, 3–23. National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (1999). Falling through the net: Defining the digital divide. [Online]. Available: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99/. (Accessed December 6, 2002). Pittman, J. (1998). Professional development: Do we need new standards for training in-service teachers? A Literature Review. Unpublished report, Iowa State University. ———. (1999). A study of professional development, research, practices, and policies to prepare inservice teachers in new technologies: Implications for training standards in new technologies. Ph.D. dissertation, Iowa State University. ———. (2000). A study of community-school access to technology in Greater Cincinnati. An unpublished report. The University of Cincinnati. Cincinnati, Ohio. Ryan, A. W. (1991). Meta-analysis of achievement effects of micro-computer applications in elementary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly 27:2, 161–184. U.S. Department of Education. (1999–2002). Preparing tomorrow’s teachers to use technology. [Online]. Available: http://www.pt3.org. (Accessed December 6, 2002). Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
< previous page
page_182
next page >
< previous page
page_183
next page >
Page 183 InTime Online Video Resources for Teacher Educators Featuring Technology Integration in PreK–12 Classrooms Karla Krueger Marius Boboc Yana Cornish University of Northern Iowa ABSTRACT InTime (Integrating New Technologies into the Methods of Education) is a Catalyst grant for Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) from the U.S. Department of Education to the University of Northern Iowa College of Education. InTime resources for teachers include a theoretical framework of robust education illustrated by online videos of PreK–12 teachers using technology in the classroom, teacher insights about each activity, case studies, and probing questions. MISSION The mission of Integrating New Technologies into the Methods of Education (InTime) is to help educators improve student learning at all levels (PreK through university) and in all content areas. We work with PreK–12 teachers and university faculty to accomplish this. We use contemporary technology, high-quality conceptual models, online streaming videos, case studies, and probing question analysis to help educators learn the skills necessary for improving student learning. Our conceptual models include the latest research on the use of standards to improve learning as well as the most contemporary strategies available from cognitive psychology and learning research. Additional models show educators how to support learning, including democracy in the classroom, information processing, and in-depth analysis of teacher knowledge and behavior. Our mission is not to divide the work of the educator into small parts but rather to functionally view the complex system that promotes quality learning. OBJECTIVES The project objectives are to produce change in teacher education programs in three ways. First, new online video resources grounded in current educational research and theory are on the Web site. These video scenarios feature PreK–12 teachers effectively integrating technology and components of quality education in a variety of grade levels and content areas. Second, participating faculty at the collaborating universities (Eastern Michigan University, Emporia State University, Longwood College, Southeast Missouri State University, and the University of Northern Iowa) are revising their courses to model technology integration using the video scenarios and online discussion forum. Finally, faculty share strategies for integrating technology and course revisions with other faculty through a variety of activities. To revise their courses, participating faculty must also have access to 1) adequate resources to support course revision, 2) technical support in the course revision process, 3) professional development programs to support course revision, 4) online video vignettes to use in course revisions, and 5) opportunities to participate in networked learning communities at the project Web site.
< previous page
page_183
next page >
< previous page
page_184
next page >
Page 184 InTime resources are useful for 1) teacher educators creating case studies, 2) preservice teachers learning about effective pedagogical techniques, 3) in-service teachers searching for ideas and independent professional development, 4) professional developers seeking resources to demonstrate good teaching and technology integration, and 5) administrators developing teacher quality initiatives and mentoring programs. Technology as Facilitator of Quality Education (TFQE) Model The strength of the InTime project lies in its ability to bridge the gap between theory and practice with the combination of a rich theoretical framework and practical video examples. All video examples are examined using the Technology as Facilitator of Quality Education (TFQE) model (Callahan and Switzer 2001) developed at the University of Northern Iowa. At the core of the model (fig. 1) is the concept of students at the center of their own learning. This means that students are “active participants in their learning rather than passive recipients; students are more intrinsically than extrinsically motivated; learning is more individualized than standardized” (Callahan and Switzer 2001). Students at the center of their own learning are woven throughout the seven dimensions of the TFQE model: 1. principles of learning 2. aspects of information processing 3. standards from all content disciplines 4. tenets of effective citizenship in a democratic society 5. teacher knowledge (knowledge of students and in-depth content knowledge) 6. teacher behavior (classroom management and pedagogy) 7. technology Figure 1. Technology as Facilitator of Quality Education Model
< previous page
page_184
next page >
< previous page
page_185
next page >
Page 185 As Callahan and Switzer (2001, 217) explain: The seven dimensions of the model provide a way for educators to view the integration of technology-related tools into a robust educational environment and thus answer the hard questions regarding support for the shift in our educational activities toward technology. The model sets up a framework for this robust educational environment and identifies key points at which technology should be implemented and evaluated to determine its impact…. In so doing, the model allows a variety of stakeholders to see the complex process that is education and how technology is affecting that process. The principles of learning, the first layer of the model, are based on Peter Ewell’s (1997) eight principles for promoting learning: active involvement, patterns and connections, informal learning, direct experience, compelling situation, reflection, frequent feedback, and enjoyable setting. These insights are drawn from research in cognitive science, which suggests that major differences exist between knowledge based on recall and knowledge based on deeper forms of understanding. Research tells us the learning that is based on deeper forms of understanding is rich, complex, and occasionally unpredictable. In the second layer of the model, stages of information processing help students address vast quantities of information from multiple sources. These stages facilitate students’ ability to process information into a context more meaningful to them, thereby evolving into knowledge. Although several information-processing models have been developed, InTime uses the Pathways to Knowledge model developed by Marjorie L. Pappas and Ann E. Tepe (1997). It is a well-conceived and well-documented model. The stages are appreciation, presearch, search, interpretation, communication, and evaluation. These fit well into the model because a classroom environment in which students are placed at the center and the principles of learning are evident is also a classroom conducive to effective use of information processing models. Content standards from all content areas developed by organizations representing each discipline are the third layer of the model. Standards define what PreK–12 students should know and be able to do at various points in their academic career. These may be used to judge the quality of curriculum content or as part of an evaluation method. Typical content standard areas include the arts, foreign language and English as a Second Language (ESL), health and physical education, language arts, math, social studies, science, vocational education or career technical, and other areas such as technology and information literacy. The fourth layer of the model depicts the tenets of democracy, that is, skills for effective citizenship in a democratic society. These include tolerance, critical thinking and decision making, thinking together and making meaning, power sharing and empowerment, and individual responsibility and civil involvement with others. These skills help people recognize and respect the beliefs of others, think critically and reach careful conclusions and decisions in group situations, think about complex social problems, experience challenges in a supportive environment and participate and share authority, and take personal responsibility within a group as well as sharing responsibility for mutual tasks. Teacher knowledge of student characteristics and in-depth content knowledge surround all of the first four layers of the model because a sound understanding of students’ multiple intelligences (Gardner 1983, 1994) and various learning styles (Dunn and Griggs 1995) is necessary to embrace the kind of quality education described in the previous layers. In addition, teachers’ in-depth understanding of their content provides a foundation for pedagogical content knowledge that enables teachers to make ideas accessible to others (Shulman 1986). At the same level of the model, teacher behavior encompasses effective classroom management and pedagogy. Classroom management focuses on content management, conduct management, and covenant management (Froyen and Iverson 1999). These components aim to encourage and establish student self-control by promoting positive student achievement and behavior. Finally, pedagogy in the TFQE model is represented by the
< previous page
page_185
next page >
< previous page
page_186
next page >
Page 186 professional teaching standards that demonstrate the teaching profession’s consensus of the critical aspects of effective pedagogy. Technology surrounds all other model layers because it defines the technology competence of the teacher to effectively integrate technology into instruction. Technology, as well as all of the other layers, allows the teacher to become the facilitator of learning. At the University of Northern Iowa, we use Preservice Teacher Technology Competencies (Krueger, Hansen, and Smaldino 2000) based on the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (International Society for Technology in Education 2000). These are organized in three categories: 1) basic technology equipment operations and concepts, 2) technology resources and tools for information literacy, and 3) technology resources and tools for content areas. Each competency is written with five defined levels of proficiency: a. prenovice—(no experience), b. novice/awareness—(minimal experience), c. apprentice/professional skill (experience doing something on a personal level), d. practitioner/curricular integration (experience using these resources to create learning opportunities), and e. expert/reflection (reflection on the use of these resources to create learning opportunities). The TFQE model helps to organize current theory and research that represent components of quality teaching. Current research is continuously being added to the model. It simultaneously allows for the integration of new research findings, while maintaining the structure to evaluate the impact of technology tools on these new findings as part of an ongoing evaluation process. VIDEOS InTime’s growing online database has nearly 600 video vignettes, ranging from 2 to 20 minutes in length, covering over 14 subject areas for prekindergarten to 12th grade, and featuring over 60 different lessons. The vignettes exemplify the use of technology and components of the TFQE model. Videos are taped in natural settings—of real teachers, real students, and real classrooms. None of the videos is staged or scripted, but the quality and content are controlled. Each lesson is analyzed and edited into nine different versions of the video, each emphasizing a TFQE model dimension within that particular lesson. This allows the user to view the lessons through different “lenses” or elements from the TFQE model. Project personnel analyze raw video footage and write narratives connecting the videos to theory and describing how the teacher is demonstrating one of the seven elements from the TFQE model. The narratives also connect the videos to current educational research and theory. For example, there is a seventhgrade science lesson about collecting and analyzing water-quality data. For this lesson, a video explains how the teacher incorporated principles of learning. Another video on the same lesson shows how the water-quality lesson incorporates content standards; another video describes the tenets of democracy that may be observed during the water-quality lesson; another explains information processing using the lesson; and so on. In addition to the seven videos for each lesson depicting theories from the TFQE model, there are a teacher interview video and a activity overview video. In the interview video, the teacher explains his or her goals and objectives, explains the lesson and how it fits into context of the unit and course, and provides insights about the students’ characteristics, teaching strategies, and more. The activity overview video focuses on the whole activity including the teacher introduction of the lesson, transitions, interactions of teacher and students and students to students throughout the lesson, and the conclusion of the lesson.
< previous page
page_186
next page >
< previous page
page_187
next page >
Page 187 The edited videos of approximately 5 to 10 minutes in length are searchable at the project Web site by grade level, content area, and all elements from the quality education model, which have been analyzed and identified in the videos by project personnel. The videos are accompanied by a scrolling transcript, background information and lesson insights from the teacher, sets of probing questions for viewers (fig. 2), an online discussion forum, and a “Case Study Builder” feature. This feature enables educators to easily and efficiently make use of the resources as case-study assignments for their teacher education students. Online Videos as Case Studies The video vignettes are highly useful for case analysis and reflection because they feature real teachers and real students in real classrooms. A graduate student who used InTime was excited at the prospect of being able to observe another teacher’s practice as though a “fly on the wall’’ in that classroom. Seeing such a variety of instruction that illustrates teaching standards and the theories behind them helps teachers improve their own pedagogical techniques. Gideonse (1999, 1) offered the following broad definition of what a case is and what case instruction means: [Cases are either] open-ended (resolution left to the reader or analyst) or closed (resolution provided as part of the test). Cases are sometimes long and elaborate or only the fewest sentences needed to outline a predicament. Sometimes they are videoclips or films of “real life” in a classroom setting. They can be predicaments presented orally to a group. They can be stories. They can be generated professionally (by someone trained to prepare cases) or by teacher education students themselves and practitioners. Despite attempts by the cognoscenti (e.g., Shulman, Sykes, Merseth, etc.) to establish limits to what constitutes a case in their parlance, it seems clear that those engaged in Figure 2. Sample InTime Video Page
< previous page
page_187
next page >
< previous page
page_188
next page >
Page 188 what they think of as case instruction will continue to use the terms expansively. According to Merseth (1994), the three categories of case studies are 1) cases as exemplars; 2) cases as opportunities to practice analysis, the assimilation of differing perspectives, and contemplation of action; and 3) cases as stimulants to personal reflection. Feedback from faculty participants about how they use the videos shows that InTime videos are useful for all three categories. Probing questions that include focus questions for previewing and reflection questions for postviewing support faculty use of the video cases. Many educators find the probing questions very useful as an advanced organizer, a discussion stimulator, and a facilitator of critical thinking when using the vignettes in the case-study context. The Case Studies Builder is a new InTime Web site feature to help faculty structure the online resources for case studies. This idea came from InTime methods faculty and practitioners who wanted to customize InTime materials to match content of their courses. When designing a case study, users are guided through a step-by-step selection process, starting with the selection of a topic from the model (for example, tolerance). This gives the user a list of three videos recommended for teaching about this topic. Next, they select a video lesson from the list. From there, they automatically get background information on the lesson and a checklist of observable behaviors to note in the video. Next, faculty can write questions for two final sections: questions for reflection and activities for extended thinking. At this point, the case study is finished and can be printed and distributed to their students. VIDEO TO WEB PROCESS The process of creating a video archive that could be used by faculty, administrators, professional developers, and preservice and in-service teachers is quite complex. Videos developed by the project can be streamed from the project Web site. The streaming product used is available from RealNetworks. It supports both Macintosh and PC platforms. The clients use RealPlayer to access media from the RealServer located at the University of Northern Iowa. This means that online videos can be viewed from almost any modern computer (check the project Web site for minimum system requirements) and can be projected full screen when presenting them to groups of people. To view the videos online, users need to download a free version of RealPlayer (instructions for downloading RealPlayer are on the InTime Web site www.intime.uni.edu under “Help”). Once the activities have been taped by a three-person camera crew and analyzed by project staff, the selected clips are condensed, reviewed, edited, encoded, transcribed, synchronized, and eventually streamed from a media server at the University of Northern Iowa. The steps of moving the video from its original form to its final Web version follow: 1. Classroom taping. A crew of three people goes to classrooms in each of the five participating states to tape the classroom activities. The crew uses three professional digital cameras (Sony DSR300Lwith studio accessories and Vinten tripods) to capture both wide-angle and close-up views. The teacher wears a small, wireless microphone (lav mic). An additional lav mic is used if there are teaching assistants or media specialists helping the instructor. To capture student audio, an omnidirectional stick microphone with a parabolic reflector and a PZM table microphone are used in addition to microphones mounted on the cameras. The classroom activity is followed by an interview with the teacher describing and commenting on the activity. The taping usually takes from one to seven hours. 2. Graduate assistants review. Over three to four days, our team of graduate assistants (GAs) views a copy of the VHS classroom activity tape. Each GA has researched a specific aspect of the TFQE model and reviews the tape, looking for approximately five-to seven-minute scenes that demonstrate that specific area of the model. Based on their model checklist, the GAs note counter times and write narratives on how the activity reflects the model. Another GA selects clips for the teacher interview video and creates the activity overview video.
< previous page
page_188
next page >
< previous page
page_189
next page >
Page 189 3. Rough-cut meeting. To confirm their selections, the GAs meet with project directors to view VHS tape rough cuts of their selected scenes and narrations to determine the best ones to use. 4. Editing. A team of student editors edits the narratives, double-checking selected counter times and scenarios. In addition, they indicate how the live audio clips and narration should be mixed to tighten up the scenes. 5. Recording professional-quality voice-overs. The video producer contacts the local voice talent to record the narratives. The talent is recorded in a PMB-2 Soundbooth package audio booth from Markertek Video Supply with an Audio Technica ATM31a microphone. Sound Forge 4.5 is used to record the narration as a WAV file. 6. Final edit and titles. All nine videos are edited using Avid Media Composer 10.1. First, the footage needed is digitized at a two-to-one resolution. Then the footage is synchronized on three television screens. This allows the editor to switch between camera angles while editing. Next, the narratives are put together with the video clips. The sound levels are tweaked, with the editor choosing the best microphone and audio track for each part. Titles and dissolves are added, color is adjusted if necessary, and the camera angles are chosen. Editing all nine videos (of approximately five to seven minutes each) for each classroom activity takes approximately one week. 7. Edited video encoded and posted for transcription. A digital tape master copy of the edited video is encoded for MPEG and RealVideo to be viewed over the university’s local area network (LAN) and the Internet. Movie Maker MPEG Encoder by Optibase is used to make the MPEG file. This file is converted to a RealMedia (rm) file using RealProducer. The MPEG 1 format of the videos can be used for transcoding to RealMedia format any time Real upgrades the RealMedia codecs. 8. Creating a video transcript. Student employees view the video from either the LAN or Internet and create an ASCII (plain text) file transcript. Before being posted to the InTime Web site, the transcript is checked against the video for spelling, punctuation, and accuracy. 9. Adding scrolling text. The text file is processed through a parsing program, written by a student, to separate the text into five-word segments and add time codes for the final real-text format. Teachers and students are identified in the scrolling text by the labels “Teacher” and ‘‘Student” as appropriate. The result of this process is a new ASCII text file that is time-code synchronized with the video in order to scroll the text with the video. 10. Synchronize video with scrolling text. Using RT Maker, student employees watch the videos and put the time code into the ASCII text file. The resulting files pair the video, audio, and scrolling text of each video. It takes approximately 60 to 90 minutes to synchronize 6 minutes of videotape with the transcript, thus requiring approximately one full day for each set of eight videos. The product is finished by creating a SMILfile that joins the video and the real-text file together. 11. Videos posted to the Web. As the video files and Web pages become available, they are posted to a multiterabyte storage area network using a file server and to a separate Web server. This content will then be available via the Internet and an intranet. The file server and media servers have equal access to the files placed on the storage area network. 12. Database entry. Student employees enter the information about the videos via a Web page form into a database that allows a user to search for videos based on the model elements in the video. The database was created using Microsoft Access software and works in tandem with Microsoft IIS. 13. Video distribution. Currently, one media server with access to the multiterabyte storage array delivers the video to users in combination with a separate Web server. A load balancer works across three media servers that will have equal access to the multiterabyte storage array to handle the growing traffic. The media server uses the RealServer product and is capable of streaming RealMedia, QuickTime, MPEG1, MPEG2, MP3 and various other formats allowing the university the flexibility for delivering content to its users. 14. Alternative distribution. The videos are also available in CD and DVD formats, where necessary to provide improved quality of service.
< previous page
page_189
next page >
< previous page
page_190
next page >
Page 190 EVALUATION OF PROJECT EFFECTIVENESS Two parallel evaluation efforts are designed to address the project effectiveness both formatively and summatively. The main categories of the formative stage of the evaluation process are 1) teacher reflective practice, 2) Web site resources, and 3) project progress. 1. Teacher reflective practice. The teacher reflective practice takes into account project goals, indicators, benchmarks, and measures as they relate to classroom practice. The following categorization of evaluation data sources lends itself to understanding the complexity of the project: • Stages of concern questionnaire (SoCQ) data collected from the participating faculty. The first two sets were administered at the beginning and the end of a preparation workshop offered before implementing the InTime project. All the subsequent sets have been administered at the beginning and the end of each semester during which InTime was used in the methods classes taught by the participating faculty. • Revised syllabi and technology integration action plans collected from all participating faculty as evidence of their project-based planning of classroom instruction. The accommodations made to integrate InTime into the methods classes taught by the participating faculty are also included in the final course revision reports that have been submitted to the project management team. An in-depth analysis of all these data reveals that the InTime experienced users, as indicated by the SoCQ positive evolution pattern, have been creative and effective in the overall use of the project materials and technology. • InTime WebCT postings in separate forums for participating faculty and the students enrolled in their methods classes. The rationale for using this method to assess the project effectiveness relies on facilitating reflective thinking and encouraging an exchange of ideas about the integration of technology and components of quality education. • Technology competency pre- and post-test data collected from students enrolled in the classes taught by the InTime participating faculty. The pretest has been administered at the beginning of the semester, prior to exposing students to the InTime project, and the post-test has been administered at the end of the same semester. • Phone interviews with participating faculty, based on the formative evaluation of their to-date use of the projectdeveloped resources. The InTime management team constantly takes into account the input from all participants and focuses on possible ways to improve certain aspects of the project. The next step of the formative evaluation effort is to encourage the InTime faculty to reflect on the facilitators and hindrances in the employment of InTime resources. • PT3 baseline survey administered to all project participants. This survey is a 35-page formal evaluation instrument used to assess the impact of Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) grant activities on teacher preparation programs at recipient institutions of higher education. 2. Web resources. • Web Site Usability questionnaire data collected from the participating faculty. This particular instrument was created by the InTime management team in an attempt to capitalize on the input from participants regarding their use of the project in the college classroom. • Web site server report that breaks the overall number of hits and visits over a given period of time down to top pages visited, geographic location of visitors, search engines used, and so on.
< previous page
page_190
next page >
< previous page
page_191
next page >
Page 191 3. Project progress. Weekly, quarterly, and annual project progress reports are sent to project staff and the granting PT3 central office. All these reports offer details concerning the status of different project-related tasks and their assigned InTime staff members, upcoming deadlines, project presentations at various local/national/international conferences, and so on. These reports are used to assess the project progress and adapt any further developments to the needs of the participants and other users. At the end of the project’s third year, a professional evaluation team will examine summatively the effective impact of new learning resources and new standards developed. Teacher Reflective Practice Extensive data have been collected in relation to the movement of individual faculty toward integrating technology into their methods courses. These changes have been charted using the SoCQ from the Concerns-Based Adoption model created by Hall, George, and Rutherford (1977). [The model] assumes change to be a highly personal and lengthy process, one that affects individuals differently. The model hypothesizes two dimensions along which individuals grow as they become more familiar with and sophisticated in using innovations: Stages of Concern about the Innovation (SoC) and Levels of Use of the Innovation (LoU). (Loucks, Newlove, and Hall 1998, 1) Data for each of the measures are collected and used by methods faculty involved in course revision to determine the effectiveness of their strategies to integrate technology. The following different stages of concern in the SoC questionnaire assess several major factors that influence the adoption process of any given instructional innovation: awareness, informational, personal, management, consequence, collaboration, and refocusing. The first stage is related to the degree a user is aware of the innovation. A little over half of the InTime participating faculty who have completed at least four SoC questionnaires have high scores on the awareness stage. A possible explanation is that although they have become comfortable with the innovation, they are currently concerned with other issues not related to the project. The second stage of the questionnaire focuses on the innovation-centered information that the user has acquired or has yet to acquire. Most of the InTime respondents’ scores are constantly decreasing, in the average to low region. This indicates that the faculty have acquired content-specific knowledge that enables them to implement the innovation effectively. The third stage of the questionnaire emphasizes users’ possible personal concerns about the innovation and its consequences. Although these concerns reflect uneasiness regarding the innovation, they do not necessarily indicate resistance. The vast majority of the InTime participating faculty who have completed at least four SoC questionnaires have fluctuating average to low scores. This indicates increasing comfort using the innovation. The next stage is related to the degree to which managing the innovation poses problems to the user. Once again, the vast majority of the InTime respondents display average to low scores, indicating that logistics, time, and management are not hindering issues in using the innovation. The fifth stage of the questionnaire represents possible concerns a user may have regarding the consequences of the innovation on students. Almost all the respondents have average to low scores. This trend not only indicates increasing comfort using the innovation but also demonstrates the effective communication between the faculty and their students during the implementation process. The sixth stage deals with concerns a user may have about collaborating with others on the innovation. Half of the InTime faculty who have completed at least four SoC
< previous page
page_191
next page >
< previous page
page_192
next page >
Page 192 questionnaires display high scores on this particular stage. The most likely interpretation is indicative of possible impediments in sharing knowledge and information about the innovation. The seventh stage of the questionnaire focuses on the various ideas or suggestions that a user might have gained from using the innovation. Most of the InTime respondents have fluctuating average to low scores. This interpretation also indicates faculty comfort in using the innovation. However, the results graphs of more than half of the respondents show they have ideas or suggestions as to how the innovation could be improved or implemented differently, thus pointing out refocusing in using the InTime project. Overall, the graphs based on the scores for at least four SoC questionnaires indicate increasing familiarity with the innovation. The individual differences in scores are related to the specifics of the contexts in which each participating faculty uses InTime. These data can also be tied with the information gathered from the Web Site Usability questionnaire administered to all participating faculty. Their increasing familiarity with the innovation is to be found in the degree to which they find the InTime online resources accurate contentwise, effective, and helpful in their professional practice. Revised syllabi and technology integration action plans have been collected from all participating faculty as evidence of their planning process centered on InTime. The project staff identified some of the commonalities among all of these revised syllabi. The focus of this overlap is on the goals that the faculty revisited and adapted to integrate technology into their methods classes. It should also be noted that the more positive the SoCQ evolution pattern (as demonstrated by the graphs previously mentioned), the more accommodating to InTime these revised syllabi are, as follows: a. Students are to identify the ways in which technology can support student learning. b. Students are to view and critique the InTime online video vignettes. c. Students are to engage in online chat using the InTime WebCT. d. Students are to take a set of pre- and post-tests designed to assess their technology competencies as preservice teachers. e. Instructors are to model the use of varied instructional technologies in alignment with those demonstrated in the InTime online video vignettes that students are to watch as a class requirement. InTime WebCT postings have been collected from their different forums (by institution) in an attempt to use this kind of qualitative data as a way to assess formatively the project effectiveness. Taking into account the input from participating faculty and the students enrolled in the methods classes they taught at the five universities, the InTime staff could offer assistance in adapting the project to the various needs of the users. For instance, a team of methods faculty created their own preliminary technology assessment tool based on the InTime Technology Competencies Test. The students who have been exposed to the project in the methods classes taught by the participating faculty also had the opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns, if any, related to the use of technology in the classroom, as demonstrated by the InTime online video vignettes. In addition to meeting the requirements of their class by critiquing the video vignettes, these students also share their insights by relating the topic to their experiences either as students or student teachers. The following examples show the wealth of qualitative data the project staff have had to incorporate into their evaluation efforts: I found that the video “Giving ’Em the Business” presented a new and entertaining way to incorporate mathematics into the elementary school classroom. Children of this age (or any, for that matter) have a much easier time grasping concepts presented to them through real world scenarios rather then just learning off of a chalkboard. The video seemed to show the students showing
< previous page
page_192
next page >
< previous page
page_193
next page >
Page 193 genuine enthusiasm for the projects as opposed to barely staying awake, which is a common occurrence in many math classrooms. On top of being a great educational opportunity for math, this project also incorporates many other areas such as technology and language arts, two very important fields of study for the student of today. Overall, this was a very effective, hands-on approach to learning, which involved the kids “doing” instead of just watching. Plus, planning a business, marketing the product, guessing sell prices, estimating income, is all part of the “real world,” so this was a very practical problem. Even though it was a math lesson, it incorporated many other ideas as well. Technology planned a vital role as well. Not only were they using a variety of software programs on the computer to design pictures for their business and calculating profit, loss, spending, etc. they also were incorporating other technology, such as the digital camera. It was used effectively, but was not the only thing they used. They worked technology into the project, but did not over use it, which I thought was important. I agree that it was important that technology was incorporated, but not overused. You want for your students to have a solid background in technology but you do not want it to overshadow the basic principles that you are trying to teach. I agree with what you said. I had the same feelings about technology as you did. I liked how you also said that they used many different software programs. I had forgotten about them when I wrote my response. The things presented in this lesson do allow the students to feel like they are a part of the “real world.’’ I had commented that they felt like adults. We have also been collecting data on the evolution of technology competencies for students enrolled in the classes taught by the InTime participating faculty prior to and after implementing the project. While implementing the new online learning resources and standards, methods faculty could model the use of instructional technology to their students. Therefore, the technology competencies of preservice teachers would change over time either positively or negatively. These competencies have been evaluated formally by administering a set of technology competencies pre- and post-tests at the beginning and toward the end of a semester when the InTime project would be used in a methods class. A negative change on the post-test compared to the pretest would point out the fact that students could have overrated their technological skills before using the InTime project in class. Under these circumstances, the lower post-test scores would be interpreted as students’ better self-reflection regarding their skillfulness in using technology in the classroom as demonstrated by the InTime video case studies they analyzed in class. A positive change could rely on the learning curve that students go through while using the InTime project in class, as well as on the methods faculty’s modeling of appropriate uses of instructional technology. No change in technology competencies could indicate various hindrances that affected the learning process assisted by the InTime project. In this case, the methods faculty’s insights on the dynamics of the class would reveal the possible causes for the zero difference between the technology competencies pre- and post-test. For instance, the data collected for the fall 2001 semester during which the InTime project was implemented in various methods classes at all five participating universities revealed no change in technology competencies. Of the 269 students who took both the pre- and post-tests, a little over half showed no change in their technology competencies. An accurate analysis of the figures would have to take into account the specifics of each class using the InTime project.
< previous page
page_193
next page >
< previous page
page_194
next page >
Page 194 The PT3 baseline survey represents yet another set of data that helps in assessing the effectiveness of the InTime project as a PT3 grant. An initial look at what a PT3 grant represents in today’s communication era can put things into the right perspective: Federal, state, and local agencies are investing billions to equip schools with computers and modern communication networks, but only one-third of our nation’s teachers feel well prepared to use computers and the Internet in their teaching. With 98 percent of our schools connected to the Internet and the powerful learning that the Internet makes possible, profound changes in the way future teachers are taught are necessary if we are to meet the demand for teachers prepared to educate twenty-first-century learners. In response to this need, the PT3 initiative awards grants to consortium partners that are working to transform teacher preparation programs. The challenge of transformation is daunting. PT3 grantees are developing models, tools, support, and incentives to help faculty make the change to technology-infused teaching, both within schools of education and throughout the campus (available at www.pt3.org). Under these circumstances, the impact of the InTime project on the five participating colleges of education is of substantial importance in assessing the effectiveness of this particular PT3 grant. Based on the data collected from our InTime faculty, some major differences occurred between the period before and after project implementation: • Faculty and students in the participating teacher preparation programs shifted from inadequate to adequate access to technology, including a substantial increase in the availability of hardware, software, computer labs, and supporting staff. • Participating faculty engaged in new activities as a result of the project. These primarily included a) providing professional development to help faculty integrate technology into the curriculum, b) redesigning the curriculum to incorporate technology, c) developing online learning environments, d) obtaining hardware and software, e) identifying model school or college of education programs at other institutions of higher education for preparing teachers to use technology, f) addressing state technology standards for students in their teacher education programs, and g) collaborating with PreK–12 schools. • Participating faculty now more often improve their technology knowledge and skills, expand their curriculum to include more technology-focused classes, and integrate more technology in the curriculum of nontechnology classes. • Participating faculty changed their curricula to include a) more online courses, b) more student time spent observing PreK–12 teachers via electronic means, c) technology courses completed earlier in the teacher preparation program (as a prerequisite for both student teaching and for other courses in the program), and d) more required technology-focused courses. In addition, faculty have been using more technology in instruction in the following areas: technology basics, using the Internet to provide essential course information to students, using multiple media to communicate information in the classroom, and requiring students to develop lessons and make in-class presentation using technology. Faculty also offered more core courses in which students are instructed on basic technology skills, classroom information management, ethical issues related to technology, and ways to integrate technology into the curriculum. As a result, faculty perceive their students as more proficient in terms of technology operation and concepts, planning and designing technology-enhanced learning environments and experiences, teaching, learning, and curriculum, assessment and evaluation, and productivity and professional practice.
< previous page
page_194
next page >
< previous page
page_195
next page >
Page 195 Evaluation of Project-DevelopedWeb Resources The Web Site Usability questionnaire, an instrument designed by InTime staff members to evaluate usability of online resources developed by the project and administered among faculty-participants, demonstrates that for the vast majority of respondents the overall resources were 1) easy to use, 2) useful for instruction, 3) supportive of teaching and learning styles, and 4) content accurate and free of errors. When asked to comment on each of the resource components, the faculty participants expressed overall satisfaction with the format and content of video examples and teacher insights available on the site. Regarding the theoretical framework of the project—TFQE model —the faculty also found it to be useful and easy to use for them and their students. Despite its later addition to the site, the Probing Questions feature became quite popular among faculty participants, according to their responses to the instrument. The majority of them started to use it as soon as it became available and reported that it was userfriendly and beneficial. Based on the data collected using this questionnaire, the majority of faculty participants used project-developed online resources quite frequently in their classes and found them to be supportive of teaching and learning. One example along these lines is offered by the comment one participant mode with regard to the overall usefulness of the InTime Web site: This Web site is helpful to visual, auditory, and tactile learning. Students like to see the videos and read the lesson plans, articles, and video captioning. Others like the auditory features of the videos. Tactile learners like the computer aspect. Summary: TELL ME and I’ll forget. SHOW ME and I may remember. INVOLVE ME and I’ll understand. This Web site does all three. Server reports data collected using Webtrends, Inc., software is another way to assess the impact of the project and its resources on a regular basis. These reports provide specific information on visits to the InTime site, such as who, from where, how often, for how long, pages most frequently hit, and so on. The following statistics from June 12, 2002, reflect the most recent evolution in the life of the Web site: 1) number of successful hits to date: 4,124,125; 2) number of visits to date: 114, 964; 3) average number of hits per day: 5,412; 4) top geographic region: North America (82,963 visits); 5) most active countries: United States (81,873), United Kingdom (1,136), and Australia (1,071). Project Progress Reports The weekly, quarterly, and annual project progress reports sent to project staff and the granting PT3 central office provide stakeholders with specific information related to the various tasks within the project, past and upcoming formal presentations of InTime at different local, national, and international conferences and workshops, and the status of the online resources production. Therefore, both the granting organization and the project personnel can at any given time assess how the project goals and objectives are constantly being met. In addition, these reports provide information related to new directions in which the project is going. The instruments of both formal and informal evaluation show that the InTime project has had a major positive impact on the participating faculty and their students. The long-term effects of the project on the teacher education programs involved will be displayed once these students go into real classrooms and apply their knowledge and skills. Therefore, the InTime project represents an invaluable resource for all those interested in improving our schools by preparing better teachers and it may serve as a model for future similar projects. FUTURE DIRECTIONS In the future, we would like to enhance the interactivity of the site for faculty and student use of the video vignettes as case studies. “Cases don’t teach themselves. Instruc-
< previous page
page_195
next page >
< previous page
page_196
next page >
Page 196 tors are needed to facilitate case analysis and discussion…. [I]t can appear that teaching with cases requires less preparation on the part of the instructor,…when, in reality, it may actually require more preparation” (Sudzina 1999, 10). We have found that if the videos are not introduced appropriately as cases for analysis and reflection, the students will jump to quick criticisms of the teaching without having read the teacher’s lesson insights or fully understanding the case. We also believe that these theory-based practical video examples are an ideal resource to support opportunities for mentor-based teaching licensure programs. We also see a need to expand the online library of video cases to include all content standards at all levels plus multicultural and low socioeconomic examples. Faculty feedback has indicated they want more music examples, more math examples, more science examples, and so on. An even more pressing issue is the need to enhance the site with multicultural education examples of teaching students of various cultures as well as cases that demonstrate strategies for teaching in low socioeconomic schools. We would also like to improve access to videos and to specific points within videos through more extensive video indexing and software that allows search of the scrolling text. We have begun work to adapt the InTime resources as a demonstration of teaching standards for in-service teacher professional development. In addition to aligning the TFQE model to national standards for teachers and teacher preparation (National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium, National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, and ISTE National Educational Technology Standards for teachers), we have started developing videos that demonstrate the Iowa Teaching Standards that will be used for teacher evaluation. These videos will help teachers prepare to meet the standards and improve in areas where needed. Another area to develop is case studies of effective technology integration in higher education settings to improve student learning in college-level general education, content area, and teacher preparation courses. Finally, we would like to continue work in translating InTime resources into other languages and creating culturally appropriate videos from other countries and cultures. The InTime Web site currently offers translations of the TFQE model in a variety of languages. The project Web site is available at www.intime.uni.edu. REFERENCES Callahan, W. P., and Switzer, T. J. (2001). Technology as facilitator of quality education: A model. In W. Heineke and J. Willis (eds.), Methods of evaluating educational technology. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Dunn, R., and Griggs, S. A. (1995). Learning styles: Quiet revolution in American secondary schools. Westport, CT: Praeger. Ewell, P. T. (1997). Organizing for learning: A point of entry. [Online]. Available: http://www.intime.uni.edu/model/learning/learn_summary.html. (Accessed March 15, 2002). Froyen, L. A., and Iverson, A. M. (1999). School wide and classroom management. The reflective educator-leader (3d ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. ———. (1994). Creating minds. New York: Basic Books. Gideonse, H. D. (1999). What is a case? What distinguishes case instruction? In M. Sudzina (ed.), Case study applications for teacher education: Cases of teaching and learning in the content areas. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Hall, G. E., George, A. A., and Rutherford, W. L. (1977). Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: A manual for the use of the SoC Questionnaire. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. International Society for Technology in Education. (2000). National educational technology standards for teachers. [Online]. Available: http://cnets.iste.org/index3.html. (Accessed March 15, 2002).
< previous page
page_196
next page >
< previous page
page_197
next page >
Page 197 Krueger, K., Hansen, L., and Smaldino, S. (2000, April). Preservice teacher technology competencies. Tech Trends 44:3, 47–50. Loucks, S. F., Newlove, B. W., and Hall, G. E. (1998). Measuring levels of use of the innovation: A manual for trainers, interviewers, and raters. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Merseth, K. K. (1994). Cases, case methods, and the professional development of educators. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED401272) Pappas, M. L., and Tepe, A. E. (1997). Pathways to knowledge : Follett’ s Information Skills model (3d ed.). McHenry, IL: Follett Software. [Online]. Available: http://www.pathwaysmodel.com. (Accessed March 15, 2002). Schulman, L. (1986, March–April). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 4–14. Sudzina, M. (1999). Guidelines for teaching with cases. In M. Sudzina (ed.), Case study applications for teacher education: Cases of teaching and learning in the content areas. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
< previous page
page_197
next page >
< previous page
page_198
next page >
Page 198 Faculty Learning to Use Technology PT3-Supported Systemic Reform Initiatives in Teacher Education Gregory L. Waddoups Nancy Wentworth Rodney Earle Brigham Young University INTRODUCTION Program Background Researchers, parents, and politicians have called for reform in K–12 education to include problem-based approaches to teaching and learning and the integration of learning technologies (Fullan and Stielgelbauer 1991; Means 1994). Broadly, there have been two approaches to facilitate this systemic reform. One approach includes providing inservice training to practicing teachers, which is designed to help them change their teaching practice (Fullan and Stielgelbauer 1991). A second approach includes reforming preservice education to include the use of learning technologies in the context of problem-based teaching and learning (Levin, Levin, and Buell 1999). Both approaches require complex changes in people, processes, and support structures (Fullan and Stielgelbauer 1991). This article reports on a Brigham Young University (BYU) Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) project to reform preservice education by creating technology-enhanced curriculum through the support of faculty design teams. Connecting curriculum and technology is a goal of BYU’s McKay School of Education teacher preparation program. As part of the PT3 federal grant, the McKay School of Education is supporting graduate and undergraduate students, technology specialists, public school teachers, and university faculty in a collaborative effort to create technologyenhanced curricula. The key feature of these efforts is the development of faculty design teams, which are organized and supported to create technology-enhanced and problem-based curriculum. The process of faculty change is often complex (Armstrong 1996; Abbey 1997; Candiotti and Clarke 1998), but it is most successful in the context of robust support structures (Dusick 1998). In this article, we report on the initial processes associated with organizing and supporting the faculty design teams and provide evidence that teacher education faculty are reforming their teaching practice. Preparing tomorrow’s teachers to use technology in schools is a complex endeavor requiring the infusion of technology into curriculum and instructional practices at all levels of the preservice program. The United States has been involved in a massive effort to infuse the use of technology into curriculum and instruction for more than a decade (Office of Technology Assessment 1995). Too often, both university instructors and public school teachers are unable or unwilling to integrate technology into their curricula (Strudler, McKinney, and Jones 1995; Willis, Robin, and Willis 1995). There are a number of reasons for this: computer illiteracy, computer phobia, disinterest, lack of equipment, and lack of time to learn appropriate uses of technology. Technology instruction for university instructors, public school teachers, and preservice teachers is often an introduction to computer software that is isolated from curriculum development (Wentworth 1998). Teacher education programs often perpetuate the isolation of technology from curriculum and instruction. In many instances, prospective teachers take a computer literacy class separate from content methods classes and rarely engage in real collaboration on how
< previous page
page_198
next page >
< previous page
page_199
next page >
Page 199 schoolteachers could integrate technology into authentic learning experiences. Likewise, many public school classrooms do not link instruction to real-life situations or technology integration, thus limiting the practical experiences of preservice teachers (Pappillion and Cellitti 1996). The PT3-funded restructuring efforts outlined here are designed to alleviate these weaknesses in traditional teacher preparation through simultaneous redesign of teacher preparation and K–12 curricula, enriching both with technology integration. Preparing tomorrow’s teachers to integrate technology into their instruction requires university faculty to provide preservice teachers with examples and experiences of learning that is enhanced with technology. These goals are being achieved by creating curriculum design teams composed of School of Education faculty, content-specific methods teachers, cooperating teachers, and instructional design and technology specialists who together will redesign our current teacher preparation curricula with the purpose of integrating technology. BYU Teacher Preparation Program Brigham Young University graduates more teachers than any other teacher certification program in the United States, preparing more than a thousand teachers each year. The BYU students referred to in this paper include candidates in elementary, secondary, and special education. They enter the elementary program in cohorts of approximately 30 and work together for two semesters of methods certification courses, sharing both professors and public school experiences. Services are provided by a cohort team that includes a university faculty supervisor, a clinical faculty associate (CFA, an outstanding teacher from the public school who spends two years on campus), four university methods teachers, and eight cooperating teachers in each of four schools in which field experiences are provided. The BYU School of Education also supports a secondary education program with many of the faculty housed in the arts and sciences. In addition to content courses in the field(s) in which they plan to teach, students complete professional education courses and practicum experiences that prepare them to teach in a secondary school setting. Students may also receive a special education endorsement to accompany their elementary or secondary certification. Project Design The primary goal of the BYU PT3 project is the systemic restructuring of the teacher education curriculum to produce technology-proficient future teachers who can act as change agents in their school settings. This will require both the design of technology-enhanced curricula for both the teacher education program and the mentoring of BYU faculty and students in the use of these curricula. It will also require ongoing collaboration of all participants in sharing successes in curriculum development and implementation. Curriculum design teams have been assembled and are in the early stages of reviewing, designing, and implementing university curricula that integrate technology into the restructured teacher preparation program. Currently, 30 percent of teacher education faculty (from Arts and Sciences and the School of Education) are participating in curriculum design teams. Evaluation Method, Data Collection, and Data Analysis We have conducted a situated evaluation of the processes of personal and institutional change associated with the first-year implementation of the BYU PT3 project. Situated evaluation is a process-oriented approach and focuses on identifying the ways in which systemic reform is often complexly realized in the lives and practices of individuals (Bruce and Rubin 1993). To trace the complex personal and institutional processes associated with the PT3 grant activities, we are developing case studies of four faculty design teams (Merriam 1988). Case study data were collected during the 2000–2001 academic year and will continue to be collected throughout the project implementation. The data collected in-
< previous page
page_199
next page >
< previous page
page_200
next page >
Page 200 cluded detailed observations of the efforts of the PT3 support team related to the organization, support, and training of faculty design teams. Although we are early in the grant activities, we have found important principles associated with the organization and support of the faculty design teams. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION AND SYSTEMIC REFORM IN TEACHER EDUCATION From our analysis of the initial activities of the PT3 support staff and the faculty design teams, we have discovered three basic principles that have led to successful personal and institutional change. First, early efforts must be made to understand the needs of key stakeholders involved in the teacher preparation program. Meeting the needs of key stakeholders and building buy-in from them is crucial for the early success of the implementation of the BYU PT3 grant activities. Second, a core management team organized and led by faculty must initiate the institutional change activities. It is crucial that these change efforts be seen as organic and originating from the faculty. Indeed, faculty occupy a unique place as mediators between administrators, students, and district support staff and as such are important change agents. Third, faculty design teams should be organized according to naturally occurring alliances in the teacher education program. This requires understanding these alliances and using them to bolster reform initiative. Flexible support structures should be developed to support faculty design teams, including access to instructional technologies. Also, training must be constructed to support the various needs and interests of teacher education faculty and design team members. A one-size-fits-all approach to reform will not be successful in the context of teacher education programs. In addition, collaboration between and among faculty design teams should be supported and encouraged. Only through this collaboration can systemic reform take hold and lead to institutional change (Fullan and Stielgelbauer 1991). Stakeholder Needs Analysis It is important at the beginning of a systematic reform program that the main interests and concerns of key stakeholders be addressed and help guide the decision-making process. The key stakeholders in this program include teacher education faculty, School of Education and teacher preparation administrators, teacher education students, schools, and districts. Teacher education faculty are interested in preparing preservice teachers to successfully facilitate children’s learning. Many teacher education faculty want to use technology to teach preservice teachers because they see it as an opportunity for their students to learn important skills. Faculty members have a stake in the design, development, and delivery of teacher education programs. They must consider the amount of time it will take to learn new technologies, develop course content, and interact with students using the selected technologies. School faculty who are not initially participating in the design teams are also stakeholders because the decisions made will set precedents that influence the allocation of funds for teaching in technology-enhanced classes. Administrators in the School of Education share faculty interests but are also concerned about maintaining the reputation of the teacher education program within the state and region. From the perspective of faculty and administrators, the key question is whether the activity related to the PT3 grant improves the quality of instruction and connects preservice teachers to important knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Teacher education students expend a great deal of time, money, and energy completing their certification. They are concerned with the quality and usefulness of their learning and how they are prepared to teach as they enter the schools. The design and implementation of technology-related and reformed curriculum must consider the practitioner orientation of preservice students. A key component of early success in our PT3 initiative has been to identify the stakeholders’ interests and design our activities to meet the needs of these key stakeholders.
< previous page
page_200
next page >
< previous page
page_201
next page >
Page 201 Core Management Team Activities The BYU PT3 grant is a faculty-generated and organized activity. The organic nature of this program is important for the success and dispersion of this innovation throughout the School of Education. Indeed, much of the important work done to facilitate change takes place on a one-to-one basis in the hallways and offices of faculty. The core management team consists of two faculty coprincipal investigators, an evaluator, a grant manager, an administrative assistant, and a research assistant. Each person has played a key role in implementing the BYU PT3 initiative. The principal investigators are responsible for the direction of the PT3 grant and must balance the needs and desires of the multiple stakeholders. They coordinate the activities designed to support the faculty design teams. The grant manager and administrative assistant organize the public training meetings, keep minutes in the weekly planning meeting, review new software and training opportunities, and serve as a general resource for the core team. The evaluator is responsible for identifying stakeholder interests, collecting and analyzing data, and providing feedback to the other members of the grant team. The PT3 core team meets weekly and communicates often through e-mail. During the first seven months of implementation, a weekly planning meeting was held to plan, organize, and report on grant-related activities. This weekly meeting consisted of strategies for implementing technology initiatives in the teacher education program, including what kinds of training opportunities to make available and how to maximize attendance at the training sessions. In addition, this group often reviewed potential computer programs and training opportunities to make available to teacher education faculty. In the core team meetings, members discussed their weekly activities related to the PT3 initiative and received direction about how to more effectively use grant-related funds. In summary, these meetings provide a place for information sharing, critical feedback, strategy development, and accountability. Faculty Design Teams As already noted, the central component of BYU’s PT3 grant is the constitution and support of faculty design teams, which work together to reform their teaching and integrate technology into their teacher preparation courses. These faculty design teams are built on subject matter alliances in the teacher preparation program, including faculty members who teach the same courses or work in the same departments. The design teams are being organized and supported in all areas in the teacher preparation program at BYU, including content areas, methods, special education, and instructional psychology and technology. Each faculty design team developed a contract in which they identified deliverables they would produce as part of their participation in the grant. These deliverables include units of practice, curricular tasks and activities, instructional materials, and technology-related projects such as electronic portfolios. In addition, each contract specifies support to be provided for the design teams to complete their projects. In this way, the contracts serve as a basis for both the design teams and the principle investigators to coordinate their activities. These contracts were drafted and signed by the design team members and the two principal investigators. Flexible Support for Facilitating Innovation and Change The PT3 core team has elected to support the design teams through a combination of organized training sessions, less-formal training tailored for specific and immediate needs, and funding to compensate members for conference travel and for time spent on grant-related activities. These flexible support structures are crucial for the successful implementation of faculty design teams. To meet faculty members’ needs, a series of workshops have been organized and developed that focus on particular areas related to technology integration in teacher edu-
< previous page
page_201
next page >
< previous page
page_202
next page >
Page 202 cation. For example, during one semester, we invited a well-known technology consultant to provide two extended training sessions on units of practice and the use of video in the context of teacher preparations. Both sessions were well attended and met the needs of particular faculty wanting this specific training. Many participants reported that the training provided them with the information they needed to continue progress on their design team projects. Based on faculty feedback and a comprehensive needs analysis, we are now designing a summer institute for School of Education faculty that will provide in-depth training focusing on implementing technology in the teacher education program. At least as important is the less-formal training that was often conducted by the principal investigators with the faculty design teams. This informal training and mentoring took place via phone conversations, through e-mail, in design team meetings, and in the hallways. For example, a principal investigator might speak on the phone to a member of a design team about a technology-related project, attend a faculty design team meeting to discuss their project, follow up in the hallway about the project, and give specific suggestions. Having two faculty members who dedicate their time and expertise to the integration of technology has been crucial to the early success of the BYU PT3 initiative. It is also important to be flexible with regards to the use of grant money to support systemic reform and technology integration. For example, some design teams need money for specific software and hardware. Others need money to hire assistants to help them accomplish a particular task. The contracts served as a method for identifying faculty design teams’ need and providing them with needed resources. Developing a flexible method for awarding faculty design teams money is important and helps foster the systemic reform of curriculum and the integration of technology. The resources made available to faculty design teams include the formal training on software and systemic reform from technology experts, funds to attend conferences and make presentations, and payment for design team meetings and for attending formal training sessions and the summer institute. The payment for attending conferences supported career advancement goals of many of our participants, and reimbursement for time spent in training reinforced the importance and commitment to technology integration and systemic reform by the School of Education and the teacher education program. Fostering Collaboration Between and Among Design Teams In addition to providing financial assistance, it is important to foster collaboration between and among design team members. Such collaboration is another sign that systematic reform is taking hold and will outlast the activities of the design team. Currently, most of the collaboration is in the form of sharing ideas and suggestions during training experiences. We are also using technology to promote sharing and community building. For example, we are developing a program Web site on which faculty design teams can post their work. We have a shared server account, where members of the PT3 grant can access the work and ideas of other design teams. Finally, we are supporting an asynchronous threaded discussion board where faculty can discuss their use of technology in their classrooms and within the teacher education program. This listserv provides an opportunity for the development of collaborative relationships between and among faculty design teams. The emergence of communication and collaboration between and among design teams is an important sign of the effectiveness of our PT3 initiative. Commitment to Systemic Reform and Technology Integration Ultimately, unless key stakeholder groups are committed to systemic reform and technology integration, there is little likelihood that reform initiatives will be successful. All activities must be accomplished with an eye toward helping key stakeholders maintain such a commitment. The final goal is to create commitment within the key stakeholders. Although admittedly, we have a long ways to go, we feel that there is ample initial evidence for the commitment to using technology.
< previous page
page_202
next page >
< previous page
page_203
next page >
Page 203 Faculty Design Team Example Currently, eight faculty design teams with a total of 30 faculty members who have signed contracts are participating in PT3 grant-related activities. For example, one design team consists of a combination of faculty members and clinical faculty associates who are responsible for overseeing the teaching experience of preservice students. Their project involves developing electronic portfolios so their students can store and demonstrate knowledge, skills, and dispositions related to their preservice training. All eight faculty members of the design team have participated in formal training concerning the development of units of practice, the use of iMovie, and the use of PowerPoint. By answering members’ questions on an informal level, the principal investigators have provided guidance to the design team. Members were compensated for their time to attend the training session and for the time they met as a team. In addition, members of this team attended a national conference and participated in presentations focusing on the use of electronic portfolios in preservice teacher education. Those who attended the conference were energized and plan to submit a proposal for presentation at subsequent teacher education conferences. Although it is too early to reach definitive conclusions, this design team is making progress toward reforming their teaching and integrating technology into their teacher education courses. CONCLUSION Although the BYU PT3 initiative is in the early stages of activity, our ongoing evaluation has uncovered the principles that have led to our early success. These include systematically analyzing and balancing the needs of stakeholders, developing a core team supportive of the PT3 initiative, and deploying flexible structures to support the efforts of the faculty design teams. Through our ongoing research and evaluation, we will build on these principles to develop a model for systemic reform by integrating technology into the context of teacher education curriculum. REFERENCES Abbey, G. (1997). Developing a technology-friendly faculty in higher education. In D. Willis, B. Robin, J. Willis, L. Price, and S. McNeil (eds.), Technology and teacher education annual, 1997. Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Armstrong, G. (1996). One approach to motivating faculty to use multimedia. T.H.E. Journal 23:10, 69–71. Bruce, B. C., and Rubin, A. D. (1993). Electronic quills: A situated evaluation of using computers for writing in classrooms. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Candiotti, A., and Clarke, N. (1998). Combining universal access with faculty development and academic facilities. Communications of the ACM 41:1, 36–41. Dusick, D. M. (1998). What social cognitive factors influence faculty members’ use of computers for teaching? A literature review. Journal of Research on Computing in Education 31:2, 21–36. Fullan, M. G., with Stielgelbauer, S. (1991) . The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers School Press. Levin, S. R., Buell, J. G., and Levin, J. A. (1999). TEbase: Connecting pre-service teachers and technologies via webenabled databases. Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education SITE í99 Conference (pp. 1865–1870). San Antonio, TX. Means, B. (ed.). (1994). Technology and education reform: The reality behind the promise. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pappillion, M. L., and Cellitti, A. (1996). Developmental technology inservice training. Available: http://www.coe.uh.edu/insite/elec_pub/html1996/08gradua.htm#willis. (Accessed May 6, 2000).
< previous page
page_203
next page >
< previous page
page_204
next page >
Page 204 Strudler, N. B., McKinney, M. O., and Jones, W. P. (1995). Integrating technology into teacher education courses: Longitudinal perspectives on overcoming impediments. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education 11:3, 15–20. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers & technology: Making the connection. OTA-HER616. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. ED 386 155. Wentworth, N. (1988). Technology inservice: A powerful change force. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 213–216. Willis, J., Robin, B., and Willis, D. A., eds. (1995). Technology and teacher education annual. Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computers in Education.
< previous page
page_204
next page >
< previous page
page_205
next page >
Page 205 Integrating Technology Throughout a Preservice Teacher Education Program A PT3 Grant Project at the University of Northern Colorado Donna Ferguson Pabst Edward Caffarella Department of Educational Technology University of Northern Colorado INTRODUCTION In June 2000, the Department of Educational Technology (ET) at the University of Northern Colorado (UNC) received a Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) grant funded by the U.S. Department of Education. The grant, entitled ‘‘Infusing Technology Use in the Preparation of Colorado Preservice Teachers,” sets forth a blueprint for systematically changing the teacher education programs at UNC by infusing technology throughout the curriculum. The grant builds on the strengths of the existing UNC Partnership Schools and of the graduate programs in the Department of Educational Technology. The project has three overarching goals: 1) graduates of the UNC teacher education programs will effectively use technology for instruction in their classrooms when employed as fulltime teachers, 2) UNC student teachers will effectively use technology for instruction in the partner school classrooms, and 3) UNC faculty members will effectively use technology for instruction and model appropriate technology use for preservice teacher education students. The three goals of the grant are being met through five specific initiatives: 1) enhance the required educational technology courses for students in the Professional Teacher Education Programs (PTEP) courses, 2) model appropriate technology use and integrate technology use into the PTEP courses, 3) model appropriate technology use and integrate technology use into the general education and content area discipline courses, 4) integrate technology use by PTEP students in partner schools, and 5) build a model for the effective use of technology in preservice teacher education programs. All of the grant activities are designed to meet one or more of these initiatives. This article focuses on the way the PT3 grant team at UNC has designed and implemented an infusion model that uses the best practices of technology. Although there has been a major investment in technology for K–12 schools, the actual use and integration of this technology have been somewhat disappointing. Research by the Office of Technology Assessment (1995) and others (Moursund and Bielefeldt 1999) indicates that without reform to the education of teachers, we will not see improvement in technology integration in the general education curriculum. A National Center for Educational Statistics (2001) study showed that 98 percent of public schools had Internet access in 2000. Although 65 percent of teachers had Internet access in their classrooms, only 20 percent were using advanced telecommunications in their teaching (National Center for Educational Statistics 2000). REDESIGN OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY COURSES The preservice teacher education candidates enrolled in a university must be able to recognize and address the technology integration needs of the schools in which they are ultimately placed, and they must be able to model the various technology usages for the teachers and students with whom they will be working. Preservice teacher education programs need to coordinate educational technology in order to better prepare prospective
< previous page
page_205
next page >
< previous page
page_206
next page >
Page 206 teachers (Moss 1988). To that end, initiative 1 of UNC’s PT3 grant is designed to enhance and restructure the educational technology courses taken by PTEP students. All students enrolled in the elementary, middle grades, and secondary UNC PTEP programs are required to take two one-credit hour courses in educational technology. Students typically take the first course early in their program, during their sophomore year, and the second just before student teaching. Prior to the redesign efforts of the team, both classes had a heavy emphasis on the technological tools appropriate for use in K–12 classrooms. Although the classes were listed as specifically appropriate for elementary, middle, or secondary preservice teachers, much of the content was generic. During the fall and spring semesters, there are approximately 18 sections of the courses with 20 students in each section. Sections are also taught during the summer term, with a total of approximately 800 undergraduate preservice teacher education students during the year. The grant team, consisting of the project director, the grant manager, and seven doctoral students in the Department of Educational Technology, has followed an instructional design process in the redesign efforts for the undergraduate courses in the Department of Educational Technology.1 As part of the needs analysis, the grant team fully investigated research, state and federal standards, university curriculum, and the needs of the partner schools. Qualitative data gathered and analyzed by Lohr, Javeri, Mahoney, Strongin, and Gall (2000) found students taking undergraduate educational technology courses at UNC wanted more challenging projects, more product examples and nonexamples, and fewer open laboratory meeting times. The graduate teaching assistants felt that students who took the course online and did not attend many, if any, of the classes had turned in less-sophisticated projects than those who participated in the weekly class sessions. The grant team gathered data from the 27 UNC partner schools (K–12) from seven districts in northern Colorado. They interviewed principals, teachers, and technology coordinators and observed the classroom uses of technology. The evaluation of the data collected highlighted several key issues: 1) networks and file servers are playing a major role in the schools, 2) the balance between platforms is shifting away from Macintosh and toward Windows machines across all grade levels, 3) teachers are not able to generalize how to use software outside of the way they were originally instructed to use it, 4) student information management systems have become a critical component for schools because state regulatory agencies demand extensive and comprehensive student data every year, and 5) with standards and assessment demanding more and more physical (time and energy) and financial (budgetary resources) support, technology facilitators (technology support personnel) have become one of the lowest priorities of the K–12 personnel- and time-allocation matrix. The original undergraduate educational technology courses were created prior to the development of the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) (2002) and Colorado’s Preservice Teacher standards for student learning (Colorado Department of Education 2000). As the courses have been enhanced and restructured, these standards, as well as those of the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) (2001), have been used as guides to ensure that UNC teacher education students have mastery of the appropriate applications and integration of technology in K–12 classrooms. The PT3 grant team began the redesign process with the first educational technology course taken by UNC’s preservice teacher, the 200-level classes. To best achieve the goal of integrating the knowledge, usage, understanding, and dissemination of technology into the consciousness of these preservice teachers, it was important to create not only comprehensive, effective course material and exercises but to make the instructions efficient and projects appealing as well. It was also critical to create instruction that would meet the PT3 grant goals, standards (CDE, ISTE, NCATE), UNC curriculum guidelines, data gathered from the cohort of partner schools, and the findings of Lohr, Javeri, Mahoney, Strongin, and Gall (2000). Technology in Education Students typically take the first educational technology course (“Technology in Education for Elementary, Middle, and High School”—200 level) during their sophomore year.
< previous page
page_206
next page >
< previous page
page_207
next page >
Page 207 Their technological skills generally vary from mastery of one or more software packages to no computer skills whatsoever. Because the original courses were not structured to effectively meet students’ varying skill levels, the redesigned 200-level courses were divided into discrete modules that differed for elementary, middle, and secondary grade levels. The first step in the process of redesigning the Department of Educational Technology’s first required course for UNC’s undergraduate preservice teachers was to identify the optimals (the skills necessary in order to meet the criteria outlined in Colorado’s preservice teacher standard 7 [Colorado Department of Education 2000]). The required skills and knowledge base were then matched to the curriculum content of the existing 200- and 300-level courses. The difference between the optimals and actuals illuminated for the team the gaps that needed to be addressed in the redesign process. Of the components identified in the optimals list, some were deemed so universally understood that they were dropped completely from consideration for the course material; others were categorized as basic enough to be listed as prerequisite skills for the course; and some were not presently being addressed and so were added to the required instruction for the course. The tasks, skills, and knowledge-base requirements that remained were either redesigned or combined with other tasks. Templates were then created for the PowerPoint instruction, Web-based tutorials, and rubrics used for assessing the projects. The templates were designed to ensure uniform wording and formatting both within the instructional content and the in rubrics used to assess the students’ skills acquisition and knowledge retention. The next step, once the course syllabus had been created, was to assign the instructional design and redesign tasks to members of the team. The graduate assistants were divided into three teams (design, development, and usability) for the purpose of creating the instructional modules. The elementary education course (ET 247) was designed and developed first and then modified to meet the specific needs of middle grade (ET 248) and secondary (ET 249) preservice teachers. In the initial step of the redesign process, the design team identified the critical components needed by the learner to understand and use the software tools taught in the courses. These components were placed in the rubric that eventually formed the structure for the creation of the PowerPoint presentations and Webbased tutorials. This process identified the specific tasks required of the learner to show proficiency in the understanding and use of the tools, and on which the learner’s grade is dependent. The entire PT3 team reviewed the rubrics to evaluate, provide feedback, and revise them. The development team then implemented the agreedupon revisions and finalized the instructional module. Once the instruction was created, the usability team critiqued it for clarity, giving constructive criticism for its improvement. Each module was then beta tested by the entire PT3 grant team and appropriate skill-level learners. Revisions based on feedback from these beta-testing sessions were also implemented into the instructional modules. This analysis–beta-testing–revision process continued over several months to ensure the most effective, efficient, and appealing courseware possible. All of the course materials (PowerPoint presentations, tutorials, assignments, rubrics, teacher notes) are published on the Web for easy student access at www.coe.unco.edu/ET247, www.coe.unco.edu/ET248, and www.coe.unco.edu/ET249. All assignments are turned in as e-mail attachments and include spreadsheets, advanced word processing, PowerPoint, graphics manipulation, graphic organizers, multimedia presentations, Internet searching, electronic portfolios, and Web-development projects. The students access their grades online using the Pinnacle Student Viewer developed by Excelsior Software. All of the assignments are based on some facet of K–12 curriculum or management strategies or both. Educational Technology Applications Lohr, Javeri, Mahoney, Strongin, and Gall (2000) found that students who completed the required undergraduate courses in educational technology had strong technology skills but did not have good skills for the integration of those technologies into their instruction.
< previous page
page_207
next page >
< previous page
page_208
next page >
Page 208 This finding is also reflected in a national study by Persichitte, Caffarella, and Tharp (1998). Preservice teachers need to see technology integration modeled in the teaching and learning process (Oliver 1994; Siegel 1994). They need to be taught how to integrate the technology seamlessly into the curriculum as well as understand how to use the hardware and software. Students typically take the 300-level educational technology courses just prior to student teaching at the end of their junior or beginning of their senior year. The original courses (ET 347, ET 348, and ET 349) were tools based and followed a similar format to the 200-level courses, addressing more advanced skills. To meet ISTE, NCATE, and Colorado Preservice Teacher standards, as well as the objectives of the grant, the 300-level courses have been transformed into theory-based, instructionally modeled, technology-integrated classes. An instructional design process similar to the one used for the redesign of the 200-level courses was used for the redesign of the 300-level courses. The graduate assistants were divided into a theory team and a case-study team based on the course content. Both teams individually followed a design, development, and evaluation model of instructional design. Original data gathered during the partner school visits were enhanced with additional data gathered from interviews with subject matter experts, extant data from the partner schools, and assessment documentation. Five components were identified as critical to technology integration: 1) software and media evaluation, 2) learning theory, 3) room management, 4) data evaluation, and 5) instructional design. The theory portion of the 300-level classes addresses these components during the first seven weeks of the course. This instruction is delivered in a variety of ways (didactic, cooperative learning, differentiated, discovery) to model the ways various teaching strategies can effectively deliver similar content through the use of technology. Assignments during this portion of the course include software evaluation, lesson planning, and room arrangement. The software evaluation component is a critical one for novice teachers. To make informed decisions about instructional software, teachers need to be aware of and understand the qualities of good software. The first assignment for the 300-level courses, therefore, is based on the identification, evaluation, and selection of appropriate-quality instructional software. In addition, during the first half of the course, PTEP students must complete three lesson plans following the format detailed on the course Web site. Each of the three required lesson plans needs to address 1) varying combinations of computers in a classroom (e.g., one, multiple, full laboratory), 2) different teaching strategies, 3) Colorado K–12 student standards, 4) multiple types of instructional software, 5) modifications or extensions for exceptional students, and 6) learner characteristics. Students are given a chart from which they must “pick and choose” from a list of options under each of the six categories listed above. This method was chosen to ensure that students investigate different types of delivery, instructional software, and room design when creating their lesson plans. The second half of the 300-level course is a case study designed to support the student’s understanding of datadriven instruction and simulates real life in a K–12 classroom. The seven-week case study uses an analysis, design, development, implementation, evaluation (ADDIE) instructional design model to build on the theory students mastered during the first part of the term. The overall scenario of the case study focuses students on a teacher who has his or her first teaching job in a school with lower-than-normal test scores. The school has new technology that was part of a grant from the preceding year. Student learning is scaffolded using an innovative Flash interface that allows them to access informational documents (www.coe.unco.edu/ET347). These data are in the form of audio, video, spreadsheet, and text files similar to those found in the typical K–12 school. Using this information, students must create data-driven instruction appropriate for a particular class of diversified students. In the process, students complete a needs analysis, create a technology management plan, revamp an existing lesson plan to address the needs analysis and use the technology in the classroom, and finalize an evaluation for the grant foundation. The redesign efforts of the required 200- and 300-level educational technology courses each took a full year for analyses, design, development, implementation, and eval-
< previous page
page_208
next page >
< previous page
page_209
next page >
Page 209 uation. Because instructional design is not a linear process with a definitive sequence and ending point, members of the team continually rework and improve areas of concern. Feedback from instructors of the current 300-level courses and from professors in the College of Education indicates that there is a tremendous difference between the ability levels of students who have taken the newly designed and the original 200-level courses. The redesigned 300-level courses were fully implemented in fall 2002; however, like the 200-level courses, revisions will be ongoing. Because of constantly changing hardware, software, and market requirements, the team members understand that these courses are a work in progress. As a result, the team’s efforts will continually be focusing on an illusive moving target. FACULTY Faculty members in higher education institutions are being held more accountable for their use of technology and its integration into their coursework (Cheung 1999). Students, however, continue to report only limited use of technology in general education and content area courses for instructional delivery, assignments, and student interaction. For these students to be prepared to use technology in their classrooms, they need to experience the effective use of technology throughout their academic career. If preservice teachers can experience the effective use of technology in education and content area courses, they will gain a set of visual and experiential models on which they can build their personal view of technology integration. Because undergraduate instruction is not known for producing exemplary teacher models, most preservice teachers do not see much modeling of effective instructional strategies (Bruder 1993). Further, only limited faculty development is being done in relation to technology-rich environments (Machanic 2001). Fawson and Smellie (1990) suggested that colleges of education increase the opportunities for preservice teachers to use technology effectively, and begin modeling proper applications of technology and teaching strategies in the learning process. Persichitte, Caffarella, and Tharp (1997, 1998) completed two studies commissioned by the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education that investigated student and faculty use of technology by colleges and departments of education. The authors found that the institutions surveyed generally had extensive infrastructure already in place but that the faculty were either not using it at all or were only using it for personal productivity, rather than for instructional activities. The data also showed students were not being required to use technology for class projects. Both studies emphasize the importance of preservice teacher education students’ exposure to effective models of technology use and integration throughout their preservice preparation programs. Initiatives 2 and 3 of the PT3 grant are designed to address the issues of technology use, integration, and modeling by university faculty. These initiatives are directed toward effective technology integration and modeling appropriate technology use in the classroom. The work with faculty has, in addition, paralleled the findings of Brown (2001), who analyzed the way professors at 45 campuses effectively used technology to enhance their teaching. Brown found five common teaching strategies that supported effective technology integration: 1) increased faculty-student interaction, 2) involving outside subject matter experts, 3) in-depth discussions and debates to encourage higher-level thinking skills, 4) differentiated instruction, and 5) student collaboration. Under these initiatives, in the spring of 2000, the PT3 team began to support the redesign and augmentation of 48 courses in both the PTEP and general education–content area discipline area courses. These redesign efforts include two types of activities: 1) design efforts with the support of individual coaches and 2) faculty seminars. Faculty in the College of Education and College of Arts and Sciences are invited each term to apply for a PT3 Faculty Fellow grant. The online application asks faculty members to complete a project abstract, detail demographic data (e.g., name, department, course title, and description), and prepare a three- to five-page project proposal that includes the proposed uses of technology, how the proposed uses will model technology for the preservice teachers, how
< previous page
page_209
next page >
< previous page
page_210
next page >
Page 210 the proposed technology will improve the course, and the proposed cost of supplies, software, and materials necessary for the redesign efforts. The proposal should detail both the delivery of instruction and student use of technology. Proposals from faculty members in the College of Arts and Sciences must also include documentation showing the course is typically taken by a minimum of 50 PTEP students each semester or is composed of at least 75 percent PTEP students. Faculty members need no prior technology experience other than the ability to complete the proposal in a word template and attach the completed document to an e-mail message. A team composed of the grant’s project director, grant manager, and college deans reviews the applications each term and selects between four to six faculty members to participate as fellows. Faculty fellows accepted to be involved in the grant are released from one course for a semester. By spring term 2002, 19 faculty members had participated: 11 from the College of Education and 8 from the College of Arts and Sciences. Faculty-Student Teams To support the redesign efforts, each instructor is paired with a doctoral student from the Department of Educational Technology who serves as a technology coach. Once fellows are selected, the team matches as closely as possible the interests and proposal descriptions of the faculty to the backgrounds and expertise of the student coaches. At the beginning of the term, coaches begin the working relationship with their faculty by contacting them and arranging for a meeting to discuss the ideas presented in the proposal. During the initial meeting, faculty-student pairs brainstorm potential technology integration strategies, identify goals, prioritize tasks, consider project constraints, set meeting times, and create a schedule and timeline of activities necessary for the success of the project. Coaches provide the training, support, and instructional design expertise as well as appropriate technology integration tips so each faculty member can accomplish their goals independently. The pairs work closely together throughout the semester on design, development, and implementation issues. Faculty fellows come into the project with a wide variety of expertise, progress at various speeds, and complete redesign efforts with varying success. Each chooses different areas on which to focus, depending on their particular interests and ideas for change. Faculty members have worked with electronic presentations, synchronous and asynchronous communication, Web design and development, digital video editing, graphics editing, using electronic portfolios for assessment, instructional software, adaptive technologies, productivity software, teleconferencing, online course delivery, and video production. Access to adequate software, hardware, and networking is critical to the redesign efforts. Student-faculty pairs are fortunate to have access to high-end computer technologies in the various College of Education and Department of Educational Technology computer laboratories. Once faculty members have completed their semester, they have diverse support options through the university so they may continue to modify their courses. Support includes, but is not limited to, computer lab consultants, Informational Technology Services, Educational Technology faculty and graduate students, former faculty fellows, and College of Education technical support personnel. In addition, some of the student-faculty pairs continue their collaborative efforts after the fellowship is completed. The redesign efforts have resulted in curriculum revisions that are both instructionally improved and technologically enhanced similar to those described by Brown (2001). After having worked with several cohorts of faculty members, the UNC PT3 team decided structure was necessary in the process of working with faculty fellows. A checklist was created so the graduate assistants could make the best use of their time and expertise while effectively and efficiently supporting faculty members. The student-faculty teams now review the original proposal, identify achievable goals, decide project restraints, produce midterm and final reports, equitably divide responsibilities, and identify actual faculty needs. Adding this structure has eased the fear factor faculty experienced, helped the redesign process run more smoothly, and markedly enhanced the end products.
< previous page
page_210
next page >
< previous page
page_211
next page >
Page 211 Faculty Fellow Seminars All of the faculty fellows participate in faculty seminars on the use and integration of technology in course work. The weekly seminars provide the opportunity for faculty fellows to extend their knowledge and understanding of technology use in instructional settings and realize the importance of embedding the technology use within their courses. Professional development in the area of technology integration must carefully avoid over-emphasizing the bells and whistles of the technology so that faculty members focus their attention on the message, not the technology used to deliver it (Machanic 2001). Subject matter chosen for the seminars is based on the needs and interests of the participants during a given semester. The contents of the seminars have included synchronous and asynchronous communication, Smart classrooms, Blackboard training, Web-based learning environments, effective PowerPoint presentations, mechanics and conventions of the Web, electronic portfolios, audio and video editing, creation and manipulation of digital graphics, file management, advanced word-processing techniques, redesign exemplars, and student management systems. These meetings, approximately 16 hours over the course of the semester, provide an opportunity for fellows to not only gain knowledge of new technologies but also share successes, concerns, and frustrations in an environment of support and problem solving. The project director and grant manager, both educational technology faculty members, provide structure to and content for the seminars, identify subject matter experts to deliver further training, and provide a link between the faculty fellows, graduate coaches, and content explored during the seminars. Through the support of the graduate assistant coaches, project director, project manager, and other subject matter experts, the faculty fellows are able to not only redesign the course for which they were chosen to participate in the grant but continue experimenting and learning on their own. Enthusiasm has been high among those faculty members who have participated in this fellowship opportunity, and although they begin their journey at very different levels of proficiency, most have significantly improved their skills and ability to seamlessly integrate technology into the content they deliver. SUMMARY Fundamentally, the PT3 grant is based on the premise set forth by Kent and McNergney (1999, 51) that “technology could transform the most basic tools used by teachers, and this transformation might also create radically new types of learning environments.” The long-term results described here for the redesign of Department of Educational Technology, PTEP, general education, and content area discipline courses are not yet known, but the short-term and systemic effects are already yielding great dividends. Preservice teachers who have completed the new 200-level educational technology classes have far more advanced technological skills than those who finished the course prior to the redesign efforts. Faculty members who have participated in the grant and successfully integrated various technologies into their courses are excited about the results they have achieved. Current PTEP students are beginning to see technology modeled in their education and content area courses. The work made possible by the PT3 grant is allowing preservice teachers to see and value the use of technology for teaching and learning. It is our hope that the effective uses of technology in preservice teachers’ courses and the opportunity for them to develop their own skills will serve as models that UNC’s future teachers will employ one day in their own classrooms. NOTE 1. Members of the UNC PT3 grant team include Carrie Sanzone, graduate assistant; Dennis Charsky, graduate assistant; Donna Ferguson Pabst, grant manager; Edward Caffarella, project director; Erin Hunt, graduate assistant; Jea Ahn, graduate assistant; Leslie Beville, graduate assistant; Manisha Javeri, graduate assistant; and Pei-Lin Liu, graduate assistant.
< previous page
page_211
next page >
< previous page
page_212
next page >
Page 212 REFERENCES Brown, D. G. (2001). Teaching strategies and faculty workshops. Syllabus 15:2, 20. Bruder, I. (1993). Redefining science: technology and the new science literacy. Electronic Learning 12:6, 20–24. Cheung, S. A. (1999). The first year faculty experience. Focus Online 9(2). [Online]. Available: http://wwwl.dal.ca/~oidt/focus92.html. (Accessed December 6, 2002). Colorado Department of Education. (2000). Performance-based standards for Colorado teachers. [Online]. Available: http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeprof/download/pdf/li_perfbasedstandards.pdf. (Accessed December 6, 2002). Fawson, E. C., and D. C. Smellie. (1990). Technology transfer: A model for public education. Educational Technology 30:4, 19–25. International Society for Technology in Education. (2002). National education technology standards for teachers: Preparing teachers to use technology. [Online]. Available: http://www.iste.org/netst/netst.pdf. (Accessed December 6, 2002). Kent, T. W., and McNergney, R. F. (1999). Will technology really change education? From Blackboard to Web. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Lohr, L., Javeri, M., Mahoney, C., Strongin, D., and Gall, J. (2000, October). Rapid application development of selfpaced preservice teacher technology courses. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Denver, CO. Machanic, M. (2001). Faculty development in higher education: Best practices review and planning recommendations for technology-rich learning environments. DEOSNEWS 11:3. [Online]. Available: http://www.mindymac.com/BestPractices1a.htm. (Accessed December 6, 2002). Moss, J. R. (1988). Utah: A case study. Phi Delta Kappan 70:1, 25–26. Moursund, D., and Bielefeldt, T. (1999). Will new teachers be prepared to teach in a digital age? Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Education Technology. National Center for Educational Statistics. (2000). The digest of education statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. ———. (2001). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994–2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2001). Standards for Professional Development Schools. [Online]. Available: http://www.ncate.org/2000/pdsstands_10-00.pdf. (Accessed December 6, 2002). Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Oliver, R. (1994). Factors influencing beginning teachers’ uptake of computers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 2:1, 71–89. Persichitte, K. A., Caffarella, E. P., and Tharp, D. P. (1997). The use of technology by schools, colleges, and departments of education. Unpublished manuscript. ———. (1998). Technology integration in teacher preparation: A qualitative research study. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 7:3, 219–233. Siegel, J. (1994). Teach your teachers well. Electronic Learning 13:7, 34.
< previous page
page_212
next page >
< previous page
page_213
next page >
Page 213 Modeling Technology Integration in a Teacher Education Course Taralynn S. Hartsell Steve Chi-Yin Yuen The University of Southern Mississippi ABSTRACT This paper addresses the projects involved for Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) minitechnology grants to help augment the curriculum and improve technology integration in an undergraduate teacher education course entitled Computer Applications in Education. The project involves developing and implementing several Web–based multimedia instructional modules, creating an educational software library, establishing professional development opportunities for its instructors, revising the course structure and standardizing the curriculum, and developing a centralized course Web site for students and instructors to access. Personal experiences, ideas, and curriculum materials that have been developed as a result of these projects are demonstrated to provide other educators with examples of how to integrate technology into the curriculum. Technology has a tremendous influence in the education field. Our schools and colleges have seen a rapid growth in technology integration. The use of computers, CD-ROM, interactive video, Internet, networking, and satellite technology are becoming routine components in the instruction of our students. This trend will continue to grow especially as the technology changes and improves. Adapting course curriculum to accommodate changes in technology use and educational standards is critical for the success of educating future professional educators. This paper focuses on the efforts of two professors who tried to restructure and enhance the course curriculum of an undergraduate Computer Applications in Education course at The University of Southern Mississippi with the use of U.S. Department of Education Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) grants. A background of the course is given to explain the rationale for securing PT3 grants to improve the course curriculum. Activities and projects that have been completed in an attempt to restructure the course curriculum for Computer Applications in Education are also explained to provide educators with examples on how to integrate technology into the curriculum. BACKGROUND Technology has played a significant role in education by allowing educators and students to access unlimited amounts of information. However, this trend has also fundamentally changed the way educators teach and the way students learn. Teachers have a new challenge in that they must ensure that the increase in technology also results in an increase in learning. This challenge leaves teachers in a quandary because the current educational environment often does not foster professional development, technology access, or incentives. However, states are recognizing these challenges by taking actions to resolve them (Atkins and Vasu 1998). One example of states that are taking action to foster professional development and technology ‘‘know-how” is Mississippi. With the growing demands and emphasis on the integration of technology in education, the Mississippi State Department of Education required all new elementary education teachers seeking licensure in Mississippi after 1995 to have a three-semester hour course that addresses the application of microcomputers in
< previous page
page_213
next page >
< previous page
page_214
next page >
Page 214 education. In responding to the demands and requirements, the Department of Technology Education at The University of Southern Mississippi (USM) developed a course, Computer Applications in Education (IT 365), in 1995. This course is continually improving on its curriculum and instructional aspirations since its inception. Access to PT3 grants at The University of Southern Mississippi has helped augment the course’s direction and structure. The present authors, two professors in the department, have been in charge of restructuring the curriculum by using available PT3 funds. The IT 365 curriculum was designed to address the National Educational Technology Standards for Students (NETS-S) and National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T) set by the International Society for Technology in Education, such as learning about the social, ethical, and human issues concerning technology use and gaining knowledge about the basic operations and concepts of technology. In addition, the course has several goals to help future professional education students learn how to integrate computers into the classroom: • Prepare professional education students with a sound understanding of technology operations and concepts so they can use technology to enhance their productivity and professional practice. • Prepare professional education students to adopt and use technology as a means of delivering instruction to their students. • Create an environment in which professional education students feel comfortable to explore the possibilities of incorporating technology into their instruction. • Assist professional education students with locating and accessing resources relative to technology and curriculum design. • Understand the social, ethical, legal, and human issues surrounding the use of technology in schools and apply that understanding in practice. • Promote collegiality and networking opportunities for future teachers. Course content ranges from covering basic computer hardware and software to locating Internet resources and databases. More specifically, the course has 12 sections: 1) Computers, Teachers, Students, and Learning, 2) Computer Hardware, 3) Computer Basics, 4) Word-Processing, 5) The Internet, Its Resources, and Applications, 6) Instruction and Learning, 7) Learning with Graphics, 8) Learning with Spreadsheets, 9) Learning with Databases, 10) Learning with Multimedia, 11) Utilizing PowerPoint, and 12) Teacher Utility Software. In short, Computer Applications in Education is a course designed to help future professional education students learn how to integrate computers into the classroom. In addition, the course also helps students learn, evaluate, and use resources that are essential for classroom management, professional productivity, and dealing with issues of equal access. As a result, the course supports the NETS for training future teachers to apply technology in the area of student learning and student assessment. APPLICATION OF THE PT3 GRANTS The Internet is emerging as one of the predominant instructional tools, with the World Wide Web emerging as the easiest and most popular way to access the Internet. The Internet can offer students instant access to a variety of resources. These include conducting educational research, locating curriculum resources and lesson plans, conversing with online experts, and participating in discussion groups. The Internet also provides students with resources they might not otherwise have, such as establishing real-world learning experiences, inviting higher-order thinking skills, and providing purposeful and motivational learning activities. This new wealth of information is opening doors for teacher collaboration and changing the way teachers teach and students learn. Our belief is that the use of multimedia and Web-based environments facilitates changes in teaching and
< previous page
page_214
next page >
< previous page
page_215
next page >
Page 215 learning. Multimedia and the Web are widely acclaimed as new and improved forces in education and as powerful tools in enhancing the delivery of instruction. With the multimedia and Web-based instructional approach, IT 365 students will not only better understand the course content but also become familiar with new instructional strategies and be more likely to use multimedia and the Web in their classrooms upon entering the educational classroom. One of the major goals of our PT3 grants was to develop a series of multimedia and Web-based instructional modules for IT 365. The professional education faculty members used and modeled the use of multimedia as well as Web-based instructional approaches in presenting course materials to the students. In addition to developing multimedia and Web-based instructional modules, the project examined the consistency and quality of the curriculum. Currently, six or seven sections of IT 365 are offered to USM teacher education students each semester. If each section has its own instructor, maintaining consistency across the curriculum becomes difficult. Yet maintaining uniformity is necessary to ensure that all students who are enrolled in that particular course obtain the same level of skill and knowledge as the others. Thus, it is important to ensure that the course curriculum is standardized across sections. In addition, sustaining consistent instruction requires the professional development of the instructors involved in the course so that each will have the same level of competency and knowledge concerning that subject matter. In response to the need to develop a standard and practical curriculum for the students and instructors involved with the course, the authors applied for and received two separate PT3 minitechnology grants from the university. These grants were used to develop multimedia and Web-based instructional modules, create an educational software library for student evaluation, acquire technologies that instructors would use to demonstrate the current educational technology used in teaching and learning, provide professional development of the instructors, and create a course Web site for teachers and students to access. The purposes of the two grants were to standardize the curriculum and to help students better understand computer applications in education through the use of multimedia and Webbased instructional materials. MULTIMEDIA AND WEB-BASED INSTRUCTIONAL MODULES A growing number of studies demonstrate that proper use of technology in the classroom can improve student achievement, attitudes toward learning, self-esteem, and attendance (Coley 1997; Mann, Shakeshaft, Becker, and Kottkamp 1999). With the use of technology, learning becomes more student centered and cooperative, and teaching becomes more interactive and rewarding. The use of multimedia and the Web in education is growing and creating changes in the way teachers teach and students learn. With the use of multimedia and Web-based instructional approach, students not only understand the course content better but also become more accustomed to these state-of-the-art technologies. The first part of the project to be completed was the development of multimedia and Web-based instructional modules for students to complete course assignments. Several modules in IT 365 had been identified as being suitable for Web-based learning. These modules included 1) computer basics, 2) word processing, 3) database, 4) spreadsheets, 5) electronic presentation, 6) networking, and 7) Internet for teaching and learning. The content outline of each module is shown in table 1. All of the modules were developed using a Web authoring program called Claris HomePage and uploaded to the dedicated IT 365 server purchased through the grant. The Web modules can be accessed on the Web at http://dragon.ep.usm.edu/~it365/module/ (see fig. 1). Students could use these modules at home or in the computer laboratory. The modules served as supplementary material for those who needed extra instruction outside of class. During lectures, these Web modules were projected directly from a computer using a video projector as the instructor reviewed the material. This played an important role by allowing students to focus their attention on the instructor’s lecture and participate in classroom discussions without the worry of taking notes in class; note taking was not as critical because students knew they could
< previous page
page_215
next page >
< previous page
page_216
next page >
Page 216 Table 1. Major Content of Each Web Module Module Content Computer Basics • Introduction • History • Categories of Computers • The Hardware Components of a Basic Computer System • Software Basics • Maintaining Your Computer System • Security, Privacy, and Ethics Word Processing • Introduction • Managing Word Documents • Viewing Documents • Working with Text • Working with Graphics • Creating Tables • Special Features Electronic Presentation • Introduction • Creating a Slide Show • Working with Master Slides • Animations and Transitions • Graphics • Managing Presentations Spreadsheets • Introduction • Working with the Data • Managing Excel Worksheets • Formulas and Functions • Formatting Data • Page Setup • Charts • Previewing and Printing Database • Introduction • Interface • Getting Started • Creating a Database File • Creating a Form by Using AutoForm • Managing Data • Creating a Report by Using AutoReport • MailMerge • Help Networking • Introduction • What constitutes a Network • Media Access Methods • Network security • Terminology Internet • Introduction • Internet in Education • Communications • File Searching • Ethical Issues retrieve most of the lecture information at a later time from the Web modules. In addition, the Web-based instructional modules provided many answers and step-by-step procedures for helping students complete the class assignments when problems arose. In addition to the Web-based instructional modules, an interactive multimedia tutorial on the Internet was developed to help students explore how to integrate the Internet in the classroom. The Internet tutorial consisted of seven major sections (Internet basics, Internet in education, Internet tools, using Internet through Ocean, online Internet resources, key terms, and quiz) with more than 70MB of files incorporating text, images, sounds, animations, and movies (see figs. 2 and 3). The Internet tutorial was just one example of an innovative instructional approach in presenting course materials to the students. The tutorial was designed to help students better understand the Internet and learn
< previous page
page_216
next page >
< previous page
page_217
next page >
Page 217 Figure 1. The Main Screen of Web-Based Instructional Modules
Figure 2. The Main Menu of Multimedia Internet Tutorial
< previous page
page_217
next page >
< previous page
page_218
next page >
Page 218 Figure 3. What Is the Internet? A Sample Screen of the Internet Tutorial
how to use the Internet as an instructional tool, a telecommunications tool, and a research and curriculum tool. The Internet tutorial was developed using a multimedia instructional protocol that used text, graphics, sounds, animations, and movies. It was a self-paced, interactive, and stand-alone application. Students could use the Internet tutorial in the computer laboratory and proceed at their own rate of progress to learn the material. In addition, some parts of the tutorial could be used in the form of interactive multimedia presentations. During lectures, these multimedia materials were projected directly from a computer using a video projector. The professional education faculty members used and modeled the use of multimedia as well as Web-based instructional approaches in presenting course materials to the students as a result of this project. The project helped students better understand computer applications in education and addressed the need and the use of multimedia and Web-based instruction in the classroom. The multimedia and Web-based instructional approach in teaching IT 365 served as a model for future classroom teachers in the use of technology. Students in the course observed how instructional materials could be made available online and gained an understanding of the advantages for Web-based instruction. The Web modules were helpful supplementary materials for students when they forgot how to perform a function for their assignments (e.g., how to add slide transitions to a PowerPoint slide-show). Students discovered how Web-based materials could be used to provide students with supplementary materials. Students in the course told instructors that they liked having the supplemental information available online because that way they did not have to wait till class time to ask any questions that arose. Students and instructors have constantly detected typos and misspellings that helped improve the Web modules. Therefore, this part of the project will be under continuous update and revision as long as changes need to be made to meet current technology standards.
< previous page
page_218
next page >
< previous page
page_219
next page >
Page 219 EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE LIBRARY The Department of Technology Education had a small collection of educational software or courseware for teaching K–12 subjects to evaluate. However, the project needed software for Pentium-based computers, and most of these software programs were for Macintosh computers or for non-Pentium based computers. Therefore, a K–12 software clearinghouse was created so that students could have hands-on experience in applying and evaluating educational software or courseware for use in teaching various subjects before they left the course. Several content areas were addressed in the software library: social studies, math, language arts, logical thinking, and teacher utility programs. As the result of the project, 57 titles were included into the educational software library. However, setting up the clearinghouse was not an easy task. Several obstacles occurred during the project. First, acquiring all of the software at the same time was difficult to do. Because the software came from different publishers, they arrived in increments. In addition, some of the software titles had to be back ordered, further delaying the project. When all of the software arrived, testing the software for computer compatibility was the next obstacle. We discovered that not all of the software could be used on the newer computers in the lab because of new operating system and network configuration problems. Thus, several software titles had to be installed on an old Pentium I computer in the lab. This made it difficult for students to evaluate software because they could only access the software from the old Pentium station. At the moment, the situation has not been corrected because the software on the old computer does not have an up-to-date version. A software evaluation form was developed for students to review and assess the instructional quality of the software selected. The students were required to complete the software evaluation form to demonstrate what they assessed. Students’ comments concerning the software were divided. In short, they either liked the software or they did not. One student voiced her satisfaction with a software program entitled ZAP: I personally believe that this software can be used in my classroom when studying electricity and other science related subjects. This software was both fun and educational because it gave a short tutorial then followed-up with different activities. The only problem I faced was trying to find my way around the home page. There were no clear instructions on what exactly to do, but it was fairly easy to find out. I believe I would recommend this software as a learning supplement in science. On the other side was a discontented voice concerning the software program Representing Fractions. This software would not work well in my classroom. Mainly because it is not fun or exciting. I also did not know what to do and I am so sure that my kids would have a problem getting around in the program. I don’t believe this software was for either edutainment or educational purposes. It was just very boring. Some technical aspects were difficult to overcome and so was getting started. I could not get off of the first lesson. I would not recommend this software to my school. Teachers already have a full curriculum and they would have to spend time getting every student started. In the program manual, I saw some good exercises to do, but they were mainly for the whole class to do. The manual was better than the software. Clearly, students took these software evaluations seriously and noted some aspects of the programs that would not help teachers in the classroom because of poor design, necessary troubleshooting, limited instructions, and so on. The clearinghouse provided the students with ample hands-on experience in applying and evaluating educational software or courseware for use in teaching various subjects. It also helped students learn what
< previous page
page_219
next page >
< previous page
page_220
next page >
Page 220 characteristics make up effective educational software, allowing them to be more prepared to purchase software that will be most valuable. STANDARDIZING THE COURSE Computer Applications in Education was a multisession course—that is, many sections were offered each semester and taught by different instructors. When several sections of a particular course are offered at the college level, it is difficult to maintain consistency across the curriculum if each section has its own instructor. As previously noted, however, maintaining uniformity is necessary to ensure that all students who are enrolled in that particular course obtain the same level of skill and knowledge as the others. Thus, it was important to ensure that the course curriculum for Computer Applications in Education was standardized across sections so that it could meet the General Preparation and Professional Preparation standards of the NETS-T. Several activities were planned for this part of the project to maintain consistency and quality across the curriculum. The first activity involved holding several meetings to generate ideas and curriculum materials for the course. An IT 365 Curriculum Committee was established that included the major professors, two adjunct instructors, and two former students. The committee reviewed the existing curriculum and examined the current NETS-S and NETS-T. Then, the committee restructured the existing curriculum based on research findings and input from all the committee members. The committee helped improve the structure of the curriculum by establishing new instructional modules and order of lessons, gathering and developing different assignments that could be used to teach students a particular module, and creating a standardized test bank from which instructors could select test questions. As a result, an IT 365 instructor’s handbook was created. The IT 365 Instructional Materials Handbook explained all of the 12 modules covered in the course and denoted which chapters in the required textbook corresponded to what module. Each module in the handbook also contained examples of assignments that instructors could use and adapt. To evaluate student achievement in the new standardized curriculum, the committee created standardized assessment tools to measure student performance in the course. A centralized test bank was created so that instructors could choose which test questions to include in their exams. This ensured that all students taking the course in different sections were meeting course objectives. The effort of restructuring and standardizing the curriculum paid off. It helped ensure the quality and maintain uniformity so that all students who completed the course obtained the same level of technology skills and knowledge that were required by the course, as well as ISTE NETS. In addition, the standardized curriculum helped new instructors understand the goals and objectives of the course by providing them with a direction for course preparation. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT One of the important elements of the project was providing course instructors with professional development opportunities. The role of the instructor is critical to the full development and use of technology in the classroom. Faculty must acquire both the technology skills and foresight into how technology can improve teaching and learning to be able to successfully integrate technology into the curriculum (Sprague, Kopfman, and Dorsey 1998). According to Sprague, Kopfman, and Dorsey (1998), the biggest obstacle toward integrating technology in instruction is that the faculty lack a vision of why or how to use technology in the classroom. Faculty need time to reflect upon their own teaching practice. They need to explore software and technology appropriate to the content area and obtain technical support as they begin to implement new teaching approaches. Thompson, Hansen, and Reinhart (1996) have stated that the most effective way to help teachers integrate technology into their courses is through working on a one-on-one basis whereby individual needs can be addressed.
< previous page
page_220
next page >
< previous page
page_221
next page >
Page 221 Part of the grant for this project was used to provide course instructors with professional development opportunities. Two faculty retreats at the USM’s Gulf Coast Extension Campus were arranged. The retreats covered topics such as learning new technologies purchased through grant funds, discussing current issues and practices concerning the use of technology in the classroom (e.g., fair use, copyright law, funding, integrating technology into the curriculum), and brainstorming on ways to improve the existing curriculum. Furthermore, training sessions were held to demonstrate basic operations and the use of an external CD writer, digital photo imaging and digital video with Sony CD Mavica digital camera, multimedia authoring using Toobook II Instructor, Web development, and how to use personal digital assistants (PDAs) in teaching and learning. In addition to the training activities, three instructors, including one adjunct, were supported to attend a statewide technology conference, Mississippi Educational Computing Association, in spring 2002. Feedback from the instructors indicates that they had a positive experience because the conference gave them the opportunity to learn how school teachers in Mississippi used technology in their classrooms. Moreover, one of the instructors learned about newer technologies such as I movies and E-clickers. This example demonstrates the importance of continuing professional development in the field. COURSE WEB SITE A centralized course Web site (http://dragon.ep.usm.edu/~it365/) was developed with the purpose of housing instructional materials to be accessed by teachers and students in the course. The Web site contained several items that were relevant for those involved in the course: course information, syllabus, course objectives, assignments, resources, a link to the Web modules created in the first PT3 grant, and a security-accessed instructor’s site (see fig. 4). The content of the Web site served both students and instructors by providing them with necessary information and instructional materials. Course information gave students a background into the course content along with a description of the course goals. The online syllabus was a standardized form that all course instructors for IT 365 had to follow. The only difference between the course instructors in terms of the syllabus was the attendance policy. Instructors were allowed to develop their own attendance policy, but they had to adhere to the grading policy of 50 percent for homework and assignments and 50 percent for exams. The course objectives were made available online and kept separate Figure 4. IT 365 Course Web Site (http://dragon.ep.usm.edu/~it365/)
< previous page
page_221
next page >
< previous page
page_222
next page >
Page 222 from the syllabi. Assignments were also made available online to both the students and the instructors. This allowed students who missed class to download the assignments to personal computers at home. Another benefit was that instructors no longer had to make hard copies of the assignments to distribute in class. They simply needed to tell their students which assignments to complete, and the students were then responsible for downloading and printing out hard copies of the assignments themselves. An online clearinghouse that listed different teaching resources was located under the resources page. Resources were divided into three categories and are still under development: 1) resources for teachers, 2) resources for students, and 3) resources for parents. IT 365 instructors could obtain instructional materials, retrieve online resources, and participate in discussion groups for course-related issues at their own secured site. An instructor listserv was also created so that those responsible for teaching the courses could communicate and exchange ideas as the semester progressed. EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES Acquisition of technologies that instructors could use to train students about the operation of current computer technologies and how to integrate them into the curriculum was part of the project. The technologies acquired were an external CD writer, a digital Sony Mavica camera that could capture stills and video segments, and four Visor Pro PDAs that instructors used to demonstrate to students the new trend in mobile computing in education. In addition, software for the PDAs was also purchased to help instructors learn what types of software could be found to assist teachers and students in teaching and learning. Software purchased included educator and collegiate editions of Mobile Mentor Software and Documents to Go. Three Targus portable keyboards were also purchased. This not only helped the instructors learn how to use the PDA like a notebook computer but also demonstrated to the students how rapidly PDAs were becoming an integral part of education. CONCLUSION We are entering a new era in information technology. Advances in technology and the goals of education align so closely that we have an unprecedented opportunity to change the way we think and learn. Therefore, adapting course curriculum to support changes in technology use and educational standards is important for the instruction of future educators. Today, it is not beyond reach to provide every student with access to the world’s knowledge and a unique path of learning tailored to individual needs. Although the project is not yet complete and the final part of the project assessment and revision is underway, the project has been well received, as evidenced by positive feedback and comments generated from students, instructors, and educators from other institutions. So far, results of the efforts made in this project have been successful. This project helped students better understand the course materials and addressed the need and use of multimedia instruction and Web-based materials in the classroom. It also provided students with practical experience in using technology as instructional tools so they can in turn use their knowledge and skills to enrich and improve learning. In addition, the availability of educational software helped students understand the practical applications of such software, how to assess the effectiveness of educational software, and how to make future decisions when they have to purchase software. The software collection provided students with ample hands-on experience in applying and evaluating educational software or courseware for use in teaching various subjects. In addition, the IT 365 curriculum became standardized. The software purchased and modules developed in this project were made available to all instructors (including adjunct faculty) teaching IT 365. Furthermore, the project served as a model for our future classroom teachers in the use of technology in Mississippi schools. It opened the students’ eyes and extended their horizons through showing just how technology could be used to enhance teaching and learning. We expect that some of these students will soon become leaders and catalysts in the schools and
< previous page
page_222
next page >
< previous page
page_223
next page >
Page 223 school districts to initiate, plan, coordinate, and implement the use of technology in the schools. This will lead to a stronger curriculum and provide a higher quality of education in the K–12 schools. In the final analysis, the individuals who will reap the benefits of the project are the students enrolled in IT 365. Students completing the course will be as knowledgeable about computers in education as their national counterparts, thus giving them the edge they need to succeed in the K–12 classroom. Technology integration is critical, and those who have the technical skills will excel. This is what the project hopes to accomplish in years to come. REFERENCES Atkins, N., and Vasu, E. (1998). The teaching with technology instrument. Learning and Leading with Technology 25:8, 35–39. Coley, R. J. (1997, September). Technology’s impact: A new study shows the effectiveness—and the limitations—of school technology. Electronic School Online. [Online]. Available: http://www.electronic-school.com/0997f3.html. (Accessed March 10, 2002). Mann, D., Shakeshaft, C., Becker, J., and Kottkamp, R. (1999). West Virginia ’ s basic skills/computer education program: An analysis of student achievement. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Family Foundation. Sprague, D., Kopfman, K., and Dorsey, S. L. (1998). Faculty development in the integration of technology in teacher education courses. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education 14:2, 24–28. Thompson, A., Hansen, D., and Reinhart, P. (1996). One-on-one technology mentoring for teacher education faculty: Case study reports. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1996: Proceedings of SITE 96: Seventh International Conference of the Society of Information Technology and Teacher Education. Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
< previous page
page_223
next page >
< previous page
page_224
next page >
page_224
next page >
Page 224 This page intentionally left blank.
< previous page
< previous page
page_225
next page >
Page 225 Part Two School and Library Media Introduction In the year 2002, several national events and trends made their impact on the world of school library media. The United States experienced an economic downturn, caused in part by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, resulting in dramatic budget cuts in educational systems at all levels. At the same time, the shortage of media specialists continued and deepened, and some professional preparation programs sought ways to recruit and prepare more library media specialists. This process was difficult, especially because the shortage of higher education faculty for school library media also continued. On the political scene, President Bush enacted his campaign for ‘‘No child left behind,” a group of programs that required increased accountability, testing, and adherence to standards. Representing a contrast in educational philosophy, 2001–2002 marked the first year that school library media specialists could pursue National Board of Professional Teaching Standards certification. These professional standards encouraged reflective practice and inquiry-oriented pedagogies. One of the most exciting developments of 2002 in the area of school library media research was a renewal and expansion of the classic 1993 “Colorado study” (Lance, Welborn, and Hamilton-Pennell 1993), which indicated a relationship between media centers and student achievement. In this edition of the Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, “Proof of the Power: Recent Research on the Impact of School Library Media Programs on the Academic Achievement of U.S. Public School Students” by Keith Lance provides a condensed version of these extensive studies. The current round of studies includes Alaska, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Oregon, with studies still in progress in Iowa and New Mexico. Although I hesitate to endorse the use of the word “proof” in regards to correlational research, I believe that these studies provide strong support for the influence of school library media programs on student achievement. The most compelling result of these studies is that, except for socioeconomic level, school library media-related factors “almost always outperformed other school characteristics, such as teacherpupil ratio and per pupil expenditures.” These results were presented at the White House in June 2002, and it is too early to predict possible ripples of influence. Information Power (American Association of School Librarians and Association for Education Communication and Technology 1998) provides standards for school library media programs, and the excellent supplement (American Association of School Librarians 1999) provides a rubric for evaluating programs. However, program evaluation is inconsistently practiced because of difficulty of planning and implementation. Nancy Everhart provides a valuable overview of the program evaluation process in “Data Collection for Evaluating School Library Media Programs.” As she argues, library media programs must justify the expense of staffing and resources in terms of student learning. Studies such as Lance’s help to establish the value of school library media programs on a state-by-state basis, but it is even more important that individual programs be able to provide evidence of effectiveness. Despite the current emphasis on standards and accountability, curricular benchmarks are by no means new phenomena at state and national levels. However, the political climate
< previous page
page_225
next page >
< previous page
page_226
next page >
Page 226 of 2002 pushed state and local school systems into installing accountability systems that entailed professional risks to educators and high-stakes achievement standards for individual students. The pressure to attend to standards above all else may have tempted practitioners to abandon any progress they may have made toward constructivist, inquiry-based, or problem-based pedagogy because these pedagogies take considerable instructional time to implement and usually do not address standards as directly as more targeted instruction. “Standard Time: Integrating the Ten CONCEPTS with National and State Standards for a Dynamic Library Media Program” by Ruth Toor and Hilda Weisburg embraces the challenge of addressing curricular standards while still advocating and practicing problem-based learning. This chapter presents a strategy for aligning information literacy standards with state curricular standards, including their “10 CONCEPTS” for structuring library media programs. The next two chapters explore the theme of learning communities and discuss two sets of colleagues with whom school library media specialists should take particular care to build relationships. In “Fostering Library Media Specialist–Educational Technologist Collaboration,” Ruth V. Small, Celestia Ohrazda, Pamela Revercomb, and J. Michael Spector of Syracuse University explore the development of collaboration between the library media specialist and educational technologist at the school level. As they point out, collaboration between these two key people often does not occur at a constructive level. This collaboration is important because in an era of budget cuts and personnel shortages, administrators may reconsider staffing and consider saving dollars by eliminating either the school library media specialist or the educational technologist. In many school systems, the presence of both (and in some cases either) of these roles is not mandated by rules or standards. In reality, both roles are essential in any K–12 school today. Where productive collaborations between media specialist and educational technologist allow them to provide information and technology to support all learning needs in the school, it will be more difficult to dispose of either person. It is time for the territoriality and competition that often exist between these roles to evolve into mutual interdependence. Small et al. outline a course in preservice programs for both roles to provide the foundation and strategies for establishing productive collaborative relationships. Further exploring the theme of learning communities, “Moving from Cooperation to Collaboration Through the Use of Technology: A Professional Development Model for School and Public Librarians” by Sandra Hughes-Hassell, Jacqueline C. Mancall, Sarah Reid, and Sarena Deglin of Drexel University provides another model for professional development. This chapter balances the chapter by Small et al. by tackling in-service professional development rather than preservice education, and by exploring collaboration between two types of librarians who have experienced difficulty doing so in the past. Again, collaboration between these two professional roles is essential. In this instance, collaboration allows the two kinds of libraries to address learning needs that are specific to the larger community. The chapter presents a model of collaboration that provides support through technology tools in an online environment. One particular appeal of this model lies in the practicality of reducing or eliminating face-to-face meetings, traditionally difficult to accomplish given the busy schedules and rigorous on-site demands for both roles. Turning to practical school library management matters, the science and discipline of cataloging is one area that seems easy to neglect in the rush of attending to other, more instructionally oriented activities. Elizabeth Haynes provides a brief refresher course in “Cataloging Update 101: How to Get the Most out of Your Online Catalog.’’ This chapter provides a review of the purpose of cataloging and machine-readable cataloging (MARC) record anatomy. In addition, it presents recent changes in Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR2) and MARC record formats, and suggests strategies for improving vendor MARC records and for cleaning up existing databases. Haynes ends the chapter with an especially helpful section on obtaining MARC records from the Internet. The widespread adoption of automation systems over the past 20 years has greatly reduced the hours needed to maintain catalogs, freeing them for more collaborative and instructional tasks. Sharing
< previous page
page_226
next page >
< previous page
page_227
next page >
Page 227 high-quality records over the Internet should now reduce the time requirement even further, and this chapter outlines a practical approach for taking advantage of the resources that are now available. The authors of these chapters were invited to write for the Yearbook on the basis of presentations made at important professional and research conferences in late 2001 through mid-2002. These chapters represent research and prescriptive strategies that together exemplify the important trends and developments in the library media field this year. We hope that library media specialists, school administrators, higher education faculty, and school library media researchers will find useful information within them. Mary Ann Fitzgerald REFERENCES American Association of School Librarians. (1999). A planning guide for information power: Building partnerships for learning. Chicago: American Library Association. American Association of School Librarians and Association for Education Communication and Technology. (1998). Information power: Building partnerships for learning. Chicago: American Library Association. Lance, K. C., Welborn, L., and Hamilton-Pennell, C. (1993). The impact of school library media centers on academic achievement. Castle Rock, CO: Hi Willow Research.
< previous page
page_227
next page >
< previous page
page_228
next page >
Page 228 Proof of the Power Recent Research on the Impact of School Library Media Programs on the Academic Achievement of U.S. Public School Students1 Keith Curry Lance Library Research Service Colorado State Library and University of Denver By mid-2001, researchers affiliated with the Library Research Service of the Colorado State Library and the University of Denver had completed four statewide studies on the impact of school library media programs on the academic achievement of U.S. public school students: • Information Empowered: The School Librarian as an Agent of Academic Achievement in Alaska Schools (Lance, Hamilton-Pennell, and Rodney 2000) • Measuring Up to Standards: The Impact of School Library Programs and Information Literacy in Pennsylvania Schools (Lance, Rodney, and Hamilton-Pennell 2000b) • How School Librarians Help Kids Achieve Standards: The Second Colorado Study (Lance, Rodney, and HamiltonPennell 2000a) • Good Schools Have School Librarians: Oregon School Librarians Collaborate to Improve Academic Achievement (Lance, Rodney, and Hamilton-Pennell 2001) BACKGROUND Philosophically, these studies are rooted in the Information Power model espoused by the American Association of School Librarians and the findings from six decades of research related to the impact of school library media programs on academic achievement. Information Power The latest edition of Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning (American Association of School Librarians and Association for Educational Communication and Technology 1998) identifies three roles for school library media specialists. In a learning and teaching role, the library media specialist (LMS) advances the instructional goals of the school. As a provider of information access and delivery, the LMS develops collections and services and facilitates their use. And as a program administrator, the LMS serves as the library media center (LMC) manager as well as a schoolwide advocate and trainer for information literacy. Previous Research Findings Over the past half century, there have been about 75 studies on the impact of school library media programs on academic achievement. Each of the study reports summarized herein contains an exhaustive review of the literature reflecting this time period. For that reason, only a thumbnail summary of that review is provided here.
< previous page
page_228
next page >
< previous page
page_229
next page >
Page 229 Learning and Teaching Many early studies of this topic demonstrate the value of the mere presence of a professionally trained and credentialed LMS. Such correlations, however, beg the question of what the LMS is doing that makes a difference. In more recent studies, the LMS’s contributions as a creator of and collaborator in a learning community have been the focus. These studies indicate that students perform better academically where the LMS • is part of a planning and teaching team with the classroom, • teaches information literacy, and • provides one-to-one tutoring for students in need. Information Access and Delivery One of the most consistent strands of research on this topic is composed by studies that demonstrate the value of • quality collections of books and other materials selected to support the curriculum, • state-of-the-art technology that is integrated into the learning and teaching processes, and • cooperation between school and other types of libraries, especially public libraries. Program Administration A key role of the LMS, but one that has only been the subject of research for a decade, is program administration. In today’s schools, the LMS is not only the manager of the LMC but also an advocate for information literacy with the principal, at faculty meetings, and in standards and curriculum committee meetings. In addition to being an advocate, the LMS is a trainer who provides in-service programs for teachers on resource-based learning, integrating information literacy into the curriculum, and getting the most out of technology, as well as teaching students. To be a successful advocate for information literacy, research shows, the LMS must • have support staff who free the LMS from the LMC to participate in important meetings, • win and keep the support of the principal, • manage networked technology, and • raise funds successfully. Motivations for Further Research Given the substantial body of research already available on the impact of school libraries, it might be asked why yet another study, let alone multiple studies, needed to be done. There were two major motivations behind these studies: confirming the findings of the original Colorado study (Lance, Welborn, and Hamilton-Pennell 1993) and expanding on that study in several ways. Time, place, and educational politics were the key issues related to confirming the original Colorado findings: • Do those results hold up over time? • Are they consistent from one state to another?
< previous page
page_229
next page >
< previous page
page_230
next page >
Page 230 • And perhaps most important, do the claimed relationships between library media programs and student performance exist when a state’s standards-based tests are substituted for a norm-referenced test (i.e., the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, or ITBS)? The original Colorado study identified the importance of the LMS playing an instructional role in the school, but it did not define what that meant or what it involved doing. Further, although the study’s findings implied the value of principal and teacher support, they did not exactly address those issues, and the study failed in an attempt to demonstrate the important relationship of information technology—particularly school networks—to the library media (LM) program. In the four most recent studies, all of these motivations for further research were addressed successfully. Samples Among the four states, different grades were tested at different levels; but generally, each state tested at elementary, middle, and high school levels. Table 1 identifies the tested grades and number of schools participating in the studies by state. School Library Surveys In each state, school LM programs were surveyed at the building level on a variety of topics. The topics common to all four state studies were staffing levels, staff activities, collection size, usage statistics, and available technology. Respondents for participating libraries were asked to report LM staffing levels, including numbers of individuals and numbers of hours worked per typical week for different types of staff. Ultimately, the distinction between professionally trained and credentialed LMSs and all other types of staff became the critical one. To respond to the concern that the original Colorado study did not define what was meant by “an instructional role,” the recent surveys asked for a distribution of staff hours per typical week among various activities related to exercising leadership in the school, collaborating with classroom teachers, and creating and maintaining a strong relationship between the LM program and school technology. Like most surveys of LM programs, these asked for counts of the number of items in the LMC’s collection by format (e.g., books, periodicals, audio, video) and usage statistics (e.g., numbers of individual and group visits to the LMC). To assess the level of integration between the school’s LM and technology programs, the surveys also requested counts of computers both in the LMC and elsewhere in the school—provided the computers were networked to library resources. In addition to a Table 1. Grades Tested, Number of Participating Public Schools, and Number of Public Schools by State, 1998–99 State (Year Studied) Grades tested Number of participating public schools* Number of public schools Alaska (1998) 4, 8 & 11 211 461 Pennsylvania (1999) 5, 8 & 11 435 1,691 Colorado (1999) 4&7 200 1,178 Oregon (2000) 5, 8 & 10 513 1,215 *Schools including more than one tested grade may be counted more than once.
< previous page
page_230
next page >
< previous page
page_231
next page >
Page 231 general count, numbers of computers capable of particular functions were requested (e.g., providing access to the library catalog, licensed databases, and the World Wide Web). Available Data In addition to survey data on school libraries, the studies required substantial amounts of available data: test scores for schools; other school data, including the teacher-pupil ratio, per pupil expenditures, and teacher characteristics, such as the percentage with advanced degrees, average years of experience, and average salary; as well as community data, including the racial-ethnic distribution of students, the percentage of students eligible for the National School Lunch Program (i.e., poverty), and the percentage of the community’s adults who graduated from high school. The test of academic achievement varied by state. Alaska used the California Achievement Tests (CAT), but Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Oregon used their own state-designed, standards-based tests. On the basis of an analysis done as part of the original Colorado study, reading scores were used in all four states. The earlier study found that reading scores are extremely highly correlated with other types of test scores—so much so that the other types of scores are statistically redundant. State departments of education were the sources of most of the remaining data. The only data item they could not provide was the percentage of adult high school graduates in the community. This data was obtained for each school’s community from either the U.S. Census American Factfinder (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet)or the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Web site (http://www.ffiec.gov/). RESULTS Successful Types of Library Media Predictors Although the results of the four studies varied somewhat, on the whole, the findings concerning what aspects of school LM programs are important were remarkably consistent. LM Program Development In all four states, the level of development of the LM program was a predictor of student performance. In all four states, data on staffing levels correlated with test scores. In Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Oregon, additional data on collections and expenditures were predictive of reading scores. Where LM programs are better staffed, better stocked, and better funded, academic achievement tends to be higher. Staff Activities Levels of student performance were also related, in all four states, to the extent to which LM staff engaged in particular activities related to the teaching of information literacy and to the exercise of leadership, collaboration, and technology. LMC Usage In Alaska, Colorado, and Oregon, individual student visits to the LMC correlated with test scores. Notably, group LMC visits did not demonstrate such a correlation in Alaska or Colorado but did in Oregon. This last state had mounted a statewide initiative to encourage teacher-librarian cooperation in connection with class visits to LMCs. Technology In Alaska, the availability of Internet-capable computers in the LMC was tied to test scores. In Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Oregon, where similar questions were asked about
< previous page
page_231
next page >
< previous page
page_232
next page >
Page 232 technology, achievement levels increased with the availability of networked computers both in the LMC and elsewhere in the school where access to catalogs, licensed databases, and the Internet was provided. Alaska Findings In Alaska, the percentage of students scoring proficient or above on reading tests was higher for schools with • more hours per typical week of professional librarian staffing; • more staff time spent weekly delivering information literacy instruction to students, planning cooperatively with teachers, and providing in-service training to teachers; • collection development policies that address the issue of reconsideration requests or challenges to library materials; • computers with modem capability (to access the Internet); and • a relationship—formal or informal—with the public library. In addition to these direct predictors of test scores, the Alaska study identified one series of relationships worthy of note. Schools with more librarian staffing spend more time teaching information literacy, resulting in more student visits to LMCs and, in turn, higher reading scores. Pennsylvania Findings In Pennsylvania, higher average reading scores for schools were associated with • the presence of school librarians with more hours per week of support staff; • higher expenditures on the LM program; • larger collections of information resources (e.g., books, periodical subscriptions, Access Pennsylvania and other databases); • more computers, both in the LMC and throughout the school, that provide access to information resources (e.g., licensed databases, the Internet); and • spending more LM staff time integrating the teaching of information literacy into the school’s curriculum and approach to addressing academic standards. A cluster of LM staff activities was identified with this integration of information literacy into the school: • teaching cooperatively with teachers as well as independently, • providing in-service training to teachers, • serving on curriculum and standards committees, and • managing information technology. Colorado Findings The latest Colorado study identified four direct LM predictors of academic achievement—and one indirect one. The four direct predictors are LM program development,
< previous page
page_232
next page >
< previous page
page_233
next page >
Page 233 collaboration activities of LM staff, technology, and flexible scheduling. The indirect predictor is leadership activities of LM staff. The original Colorado study identified an LMC size factor comprising total weekly LM staff hours per 100 students, volumes per student, and periodical subscriptions per 100 students. The latest study in that state identified a similar, but more elaborate LM program development factor comprising • total weekly librarian staff hours per 100 students, • total LM staff hours per 100 students, • volumes per student, • periodical subscriptions per 100 students, • electronic subscriptions per 100 students, and • LM expenditures per student. Where the Pennsylvania study found a single cluster of staff activities related to integrating information literacy into the school, the latest Colorado study found two clusters of staff activities, one associated with leadership and another associated with collaboration. This leadership factor consisted of typical weekly LM staff hours spent • meeting with the principal, • participating in faculty and curriculum and standards committee meetings, and • meeting with other LM staff at local and district levels. Notably, the leadership factor was an indirect rather than a direct predictor of reading scores. Leadership creates an environment for collaboration which, in turn, leads to higher test scores. The collaboration factor embraced LM staff hours spent • planning cooperatively with teachers, • teaching information literacy, • providing in-service training to teachers, • identifying materials for teachers, and • supporting local networking to link the LMC and classrooms. As in Pennsylvania, Colorado schools tended to have higher test scores if they had local networks of computers, both in the LMC and in classrooms, that provided access to information resources, particularly licensed databases and the Internet. At the secondary level only, the Colorado results also provide some preliminary evidence for flexible scheduling. In that state, at that school level, reading scores correlated with individual visits to LMCs, but not group visits. Although evidence about the differences between these two types of visits is anecdotal, it indicates that group visits are more often for traditionally assigned library periods, when little or no information literacy instruction may be taking place. By contrast, when students are visiting the LMC individually, they are believed to be more likely to be pursuing somewhat self-directed learning in which they are exercising information literacy skills.
< previous page
page_233
next page >
< previous page
page_234
next page >
Page 234 Oregon Findings The most recent of the four studies conducted by Lance, Rodney, and Hamilton-Pennell (2001) was for Oregon. It identified one direct LM predictor of academic achievement, an LM program development factor similar to the one yielded by the latest Colorado study, as well as a host of indirect predictors. In Oregon, the LM program development factor comprises • total LM staff hours per 100 students, • print volumes per student, • periodical subscriptions per 100 students, and • LM expenditures per student. The analysis of indirect predictors of student test performance identified an elaborate web of relationships consistent with the findings in Alaska, Pennsylvania, and Colorado. A strong and successful LM program has the following characteristics: • It is adequately staffed, stocked, and funded. Test scores rise with the size of the LM staff, collection, and budget. • Its staff are actively involved leaders in their school’s teaching and learning enterprise. As in other states, meeting with the principal, serving on key school committees, and holding LM staff meetings help to create a collaborative environment. Where LM staff spend more time in these activities, students perform better. • Its staff provide access to and delivery of materials and information that support that enterprise. When LM staff spend more time developing local collections and when LM programs exploit the collections of other libraries via interlibrary loan, test scores improve. • Its staff have collegial, collaborative relationships with classroom teachers. The more time LMSs spend identifying useful materials and information for teachers, planning and delivering instruction with them, and providing inservice training to teachers, the higher the level of academic achievement by students. • It embraces networked information technology. Networked computers are more widely available, and where LMSs are more involved in managing school networks, test scores are higher. After the latest Colorado study indicated a correlation with test scores for individual, but not group, visits to LMCs, it was somewhat surprising that the Oregon study yielded such correlations for both individual and group visits. The group visits correlation is a likely consequence of an intensive campaign in that state to encourage classroom teachers to bring their classes to the LMC for team teaching involving both the LMS and the teacher. Common Findings All of the recent studies of the impact of school LM programs on academic achievement provide evidence to support several common findings: • Professionally trained and credentialed school LMSs do make a difference that affects student performance on achievement tests.
< previous page
page_234
next page >
< previous page
page_235
next page >
Page 235 • For LMSs to make this difference, the support of principals and teachers is essential. • LMSs cannot perform their jobs effectively unless they have support staff who free them from routine tasks and enable them to participate in a variety of one-to-one and group meetings outside the LMC. • LMSs have a two-fold teaching role. They are teachers of students, facilitating the development of information literacy skills necessary for success in all content areas, and they are in-service trainers of teachers, keeping abreast of the latest information resources and technology. • LMSs also must embrace technology to be effective. They must ensure that school networks extend the availability of information resources beyond the walls of the LMC, throughout the building, and in the best cases, into students’ homes. Distinguishing Results Although the four recent studies consistently yielded the foregoing common findings, each study also produced some distinguishing results. • The Alaska study was the first to identify the importance of LMSs as teachers of information literacy. It was also the first to demonstrate the impact on achievement of the LMS as an in-service trainer of teachers. • The Pennsylvania study was the first to delineate the specific activities of LMSs involved in an integrated, collaborative approach to teaching information literacy. • The second Colorado study was the first to distinguish between the leadership and collaboration activities of LMSs and to demonstrate the critical proactive contribution of leadership activities to setting the stage for collaboration and, in turn, higher achievement levels for students. • The Oregon study demonstrated that group visits to LMCs, particularly those for information literacy instruction, as well as individual visits can be a predictor of test performance. This study was also the only one of the recent group to indicate the value of time LMSs spend developing collections and of interlibrary loan activities. Controlling for School andCommunity Differences The distinguishing feature of the research model employed in the original Colorado study as well as its recent successors in Alaska, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Oregon is controlling for school and community differences. Claims by earlier studies to have established cause-and-effect relationships between characteristics of LM programs and academic achievement did not do this. Consequently, their results were called into question readily. For example, when it was found that higher LM expenditures correlated with higher test scores, it was easy to explain away this relationship by attributing the test scores to higher school expenditures generally. The cause of higher achievement was not spending on the LM program in particular but rather being a prosperous school that could afford to spend more on everything. To preclude this and similar criticisms and to establish a stronger claim that reported correlations reflect cause and effect, these studies encompassed data on schools (i.e., per pupil spending, teacherpupil ratio, various teacher characteristics) and their communities (i.e., poverty levels, racial-ethnic demography, adult educational attainment). These additional variables address most, if not all, of the stronger arguments that could otherwise be made to discount the consistent findings of this line of research.
< previous page
page_235
next page >
< previous page
page_236
next page >
Page 236 In all four states, analyses were conducted to measure the impact on test scores of each LM, school, and community characteristic while controlling for the others. Table 2 summarizes the percentages of variation in test scores that were explained by LM programs at each grade level in the Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Oregon studies. (Such analyses could not be conducted successfully in Alaska because of data and other circumstantial limitations.) After accounting for the considerable impact on academic achievement of community socioeconomic conditions— from one-third to three-quarters depending on the state and the school level—LM predictors almost always outperformed other school characteristics, such as teacher-pupil ratio and per pupil expenditures. IMPLICATIONS Recommended Actions by School Officials The practical implications of these research findings are a clear and straightforward call to action. • School LM programs should be funded sufficiently to employ both professional and support staff and to have both information resources in a variety of formats and the technology necessary to extend the LM program beyond the walls of the LMC. • LMSs should be recognized and used by principals and teachers as professional colleagues in the teaching and learning enterprise. Where such recognition and the collaboration to which it leads do not exist, the LMS must exercise some leadership in changing the environment. • Technology is an essential part of a successful LM program. Information resources, including licensed databases, should be available throughout the school via networked computers in classrooms, labs, and offices. LMSs who wish to make effective presentations of the findings of these studies may find helpful another recent publication, Powering Achievement: School Library Media Programs Make a Difference—The Evidence (Lance and Loertscher 2001). It provides handouts and slides for presentations of varying length and focusing on different issues. Table 2. Percentage of Test Score Variation Explained by Library Media Variables Alone, by School Level and State, 1998–99 School Level Percent of test score variation explained by library media variables alone Pennsylvania Colorado Oregon Elementary 4% * 8% 4% Middle 5% * 2% 3% High 6% * n/a 5% ** *In Pennsylvania, these percentages represent the average variation explained by library media specialist staffing based on a series of partial correlation analyses. **At high school level in Oregon, the effects of community variables are included in unexplained variation.
< previous page
page_236
next page >
< previous page
page_237
next page >
Page 237 Other Research Questions Like all research, these studies raised almost as many questions as they answered. They call for further research, both qualitative and quantitative: • How can LMSs be taught the leadership skills they need to succeed? Although such training is fairly widely available, there is little extant research identifying best practices in this area. • How should LMSs, teachers, and students interact to improve academic achievement? Although studies such as these establish relationships between test performance and certain types of staff activities—cooperative teaching, for example—these findings do not offer much in the way of practical advice to LMSs about how they can successfully engage teachers and students. • How does the availability of and involvement with information technology affect the interactions of LMSs, teachers, and students? These studies indicate that the presence of technology and LM staff involvement with it are important, but they do not explain how electronic access to information facilitates effective relationships between LMSs and others. NOTE 1. This article first appeared in Multimedia Schools, September 2001, published by Information Today, Inc., Medford, NJ. This version has been updated and adapted with permission from Keith Curry Lance. REFERENCES American Association of School Librarians and Association for Educational Communication and Technology. (1998). Information power: Building partnerships for learning. Chicago: American Library Association. Lance, K. C., Hamilton-Pennell, C., and Rodney, M. J. (2000). Information empowered: The school librarian as an agent of academic achievement in Alaska schools (rev. ed.). Juneau: Alaska State Library. Lance, K. C., and Loertscher, D. V. (2001). Powering achievement: School library media programs make a difference —The evidence. San Jose, CA: Hi Willow Research. Lance, K. C., Rodney, M. J., and Hamilton-Pennell, C. (2000a). How school librarians help kids achieve standards: The second Colorado study. San Jose, CA: Hi Willow Research. ———. (2000b). Measuring up to standards: The impact of school library programs and information literacy in Pennsylvania schools. Greensburg, PA: Pennsylvania Citizens for Better Libraries. ———. (2001). Good schools have school librarians: Oregon school librarians collaborate to improve academic achievement. Portland, OR: Oregon Educational Media Association. Lance, K. C., Welborn, L, and Hamilton-Pennell, C. (1993). The impact of school library media centers on academic achievement. Castle Rock, CO: Hi Willow Research.
< previous page
page_237
next page >
< previous page
page_238
next page >
Page 238 Data Collection for Evaluating School Library Media Programs Nancy Everhart Division of Library and Information Science St. John’s University School library media specialists are under increased pressure to provide substantive data to justify school library media programs. Administrators and parents, concerned about students’ test scores and the school’s budget, require reassurance that monies spent on the school library media program are reaping rewards in terms of student achievement and service. A further challenge for school library media specialists is that students are increasingly turning to electronic resources. Methods for determining the use of electronic resources need to be established so that this data can be used to demonstrate the value of the school library media program. This article defines and describes the methods of evaluation typically conducted in school library media centers, proposes alternative types of data collection, provides sources of evaluative data for benchmarking purposes, and discusses current and future challenges and opportunities related to evaluating digital school libraries. EVALUATION METHODS Quantitative Versus Qualitative Library evaluation is either quantitative or qualitative. Quantitative evaluation involves collecting numerical data: circulation statistics, collection and equipment counts, number of classes using the school library media center, number of lessons planned with teachers, and so on. However, there are some dangers to relying solely on quantitative evaluation. Woolls (1999) illustrates the drawbacks of quantitative measures when administrators place too much emphasis on counting things with little regard to their quality to meet requirements for size and numbers. Quantitative measures of service can be performed but will give inaccurate results if most students and teachers are unaware that these services exist, or if many services are offered that are not requested by teachers or students. Quality is harder to gauge but is ultimately more important. Quality measures often involve surveying or interviewing users as to their satisfaction with the services, collections, and facilities of the school library media center or calculating how information needs are met. The following list helps to clarify the distinctions between quantitative and qualitative measures (Woolls 1999): Quantitative Measures Qualitative Measures Number of lessons planned with teachers Level of planning Circulation of fiction books Students’ success rate in finding a desired fiction book Number of periodical titles Percentage of media center’s titles cited in student research papers Library attendance Students’ satisfaction with library hours
< previous page
page_238
next page >
< previous page
page_239
next page >
Page 239 Inputs, Outputs, andOutcomes Another approach to classifying methods of school library media center evaluation is in terms of inputs, outputs, and outcomes. Inputs are the resources available to the system, ranging from financial, staffing, and material resources in print or digital forms; outputs are the activities the system exports ranging from transactions to hours the premises are available to the availability, use and usability of the material resources, to name a few (Kyrillidou 2002). Bradburn (1999) characterizes numerous output measures for school library media programs in the areas of use and availability. The Institute of Museum and Library Services (2000) defines outcomes as ‘‘benefits or changes for individuals or populations during or after participating in program activities, including new knowledge, increased skills, changed attitudes or values, modified behavior, improved condition, or altered status.” In their unique roles as information specialist, teacher, and instructional consultant, school library media specialists actively participate in both the planning and implementation of outcomes-based education (American Association of School Librarians 1994). Outcomes-based evaluation of school library media programs is also increasing in popularity given that this form of reporting can substantiate their worth. Techniques to Collect Data The various types of evaluation techniques used in libraries can be categorized as surveys, interviews, numbers gathering, and observation (Johnson 1996). These methods are complementary and can be used in combination to evaluate a service or project. Each of these techniques is discussed here within the context of the school library media center. Surveys Surveys, or questionnaires, can be used to gather information that is self-reported, reported from others, or reported from records. The advantage of surveys is that information can be gathered, summarized, analyzed, and put to use in a short amount of time. Representative self-reported information in a school library media center setting includes self-evaluations using rubrics, facility surveys, and collection surveys (Everhart 1998). Other surveys involve asking others (students, faculty, administration, and parents) for their input. Survey responses from others are especially useful for measuring attitudes. School library media specialists have an added advantage in that high response rates to surveys can be achieved. Teacher surveys can be placed in mailboxes and students can be surveyed in classes or homerooms. To get objective, honest answers to surveys, it is important that respondents remain anonymous. Frequently, students and faculty are questioned about their awareness, use of, and satisfaction with the school library media center’s resources (Everhart 1998). Questionnaires using data that is reported from existing records most typically involve circulation and attendance statistics. Further sources could include budgets, inventory records, lesson plans, student work, journals, logs, computer network reports, schedules, and interlibrary loan records (Everhart 1998). Data from these sources can be combined, restated, and analyzed to produce output measures. Interviews Interviews may be especially useful in gaining input from children using elementary school library media centers because the chief skill needed by the respondent in the ability to speak. Advantages of interviews include the following: misunderstood questions can be
< previous page
page_239
next page >
< previous page
page_240
next page >
Page 240 clarified in the process, responses can be obtained quickly, and interviewing can have a positive public relations effect since each participant receives personal attention from the school library media center staff. Disadvantages are that interviews are time consuming, they are not the best approach if specific figures are required, and the interviewee may be reluctant to reveal opinions or information, especially about sensitive issues (Johnson 1996). A popular interview method for evaluation is the focus group interview. A focus group consists of a small, representative sampling of those people whose opinions you are interested in obtaining. Participants are interviewed together because group dynamics make it easier for some people to express attitudes, ideas, and opinions. It is better when using children if the participants do not know each other well. A focus group interview can be used in conjunction with a written survey, which can provide ideas as to types of questions to ask or to clarify certain responses after the survey has been completed (Everhart and Bishop 2002). Numbers Gathering Numbers gathering, quite similar to questionnaires using self-reported data, may be the only type of evaluation performed by many school library media specialists simply because it is traditional. Compiling circulation and inventory statistics and keeping track of attendance are prevalent; in addition sometimes rote activities are used, without much thought going into how to use these statistics for comparisons, trend analysis, and achievement of goals. Many other types of numbers can be collected, put to use in simple formulas, and interpreted for beneficial school library media center evaluation. Sample calculations are found in a subsequent section of this article on alternative types of data collection. Observation Observing users’ behavior is an ongoing activity in school library media centers but is not often considered a formal evaluation technique in this setting. However, one can conduct formal evaluations by observing such activities as student behaviors at the circulation desk, online catalog, or card catalog; searches of electronic resources; use of special collections; use of furnishings; teacher behavior with classes; student behaviors before and after instruction; use of displays, bulletin boards, learning centers, and handouts; and behaviors at special programs. When using observation as an evaluation technique, one needs to define the behavior to be studied and to standardize the process used to observe. Determinations must be made for what you are trying to learn, where you are going to make the observations, when the observations will occur, who will make the observations, how the observations will be made, how the observations will be recorded, how the results will be analyzed, and how the results will be reported (Zweizig and Johnson 1996). EVALUATION TYPICALLY CONDUCTED IN SCHOOL LIBRARY MEDIA CENTERS School library media centers are complex institutions encompassing a wide range of services and resources. A variety of evaluation techniques have been identified by Everhart (1998) in the each of the following areas: • Curriculum. Assessing the involvement of the school library media specialists in support of the curriculum, alternative assessment of students’ information literacy, determining the collection’s support of the curriculum, and evaluating cooperatively planned lessons.
< previous page
page_240
next page >
< previous page
page_241
next page >
Page 241 • Collections. Matching the collection to the users, collection holdings, expenditures for collections, evaluation criteria for individual items, quality of the collection by checking lists, catalogs and bibliographies, and user opinions of the collection. • Facilities. Evaluating existing school library media centers—space, design, functional areas, furnishings, technology; planning for new facilities, combined school-public libraries, and unobtrusive measures of physical facilities. • Technology. Selecting library automation vendors, using the reporting options available on automated systems, queuing theory and determining numbers of computer workstations, evaluating curricular software, electronic reference sources, and Internet Web sites. • Personnel. Conducting the performance appraisal processes for school library media specialists, calculating time expenditures, school library media specialist evaluation of the library clerk, and evaluating student aides. • Usage. Measuring student use, faculty use, circulation analysis, in-house use of school library media center materials, fill rate, circulation surveys, school library media center attendance, interlibrary loan, information access beyond the school, and bibliometrics. ALTERNATIVE DATA FOR EVALUATION Much of the data already collected by school library media specialists can be expressed in ratio form. Several benefits surface when school library media center resources and services are presented in terms of their relationship to the individual student. First, the data clearly represent the value of the school library media program. Second, teachers, administrators, and parents can more easily understand the data, thus providing the potential to garner outside support. And third, if other school library media programs collect similar data, comparisons among them are simplified. For example, it is straightforward to calculate the circulation rate per student by dividing the total number of items circulated per year by the total number of students in the school. Similarly, the ratio of school library media center visits per student is determined by dividing the total number of visits per year by the total number of students in the school. Data collection to determine yearly circulation and visits can be streamlined by compiling weekly circulation and multiplying it by the number of weeks in a school year. Likewise, determining school library media center expenditures per student entails dividing the school library media center budget by the number of students in the school. A measure of books-per-student is calculated by dividing the total books in the collection by the number of students in the school (Everhart 2001). Other, more descriptive, statistics and methods for collecting them are described by Bradburn (1999) in the areas of media center and materials use, resource and media specialist availability, and staff development. Colorado school library media center ratios (Library Research Service 2000) address staffing, the collection, funding, cooperation between the library media center staff and classroom teachers, and circulation. SOURCES OF EVALUATIVE DATA National Instruments Many school library media specialists who collect evaluative data may experience difficulty interpreting them. They want to know how “good” their school library media program is. To interpret the data they collect, they need standards of comparison. These standards can be located at the national, state, and local levels.
< previous page
page_241
next page >
< previous page
page_242
next page >
Page 242 The national guidelines for school library media programs are contained in Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning (1998), a joint document produced by the American Association of School Librarians (AASL) and the Association for Education Communications and Technology (AECT). Although it is qualitative in design, school library media specialists can use Information Power to acquaint themselves with the components of a quality program. Perhaps more helpful for evaluation purposes is the School Library Media Program Assessment Rubric for the 21st Century (Adcock 1999), designed by AASL’s Teaching for L earning Task Force. The rubric is intended to be used by administrators and school library media specialists as a self-assessment tool and action plan. Several sources exist on the national level for quantitative data that can be used for comparison purposes. One of the most comprehensive is the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The most recent survey (National Center for Education Statistics, Library Statistics Program 2002) on school library media centers was conducted in 1999–2000 and collected data about school library collections, expenditures, staff, facilities, technology, and services. The Library Research Service (LRS) conducted the “Colorado study” in 1993 (Lance, Welborn, and Hamilton-Pennell 1993 ), which links student achievement to quality school library media programs. An updated study was carried out in Colorado in 2000 (Lance, Rodney, Hamilton-Pennell 2000), as well as in Alaska (Lance, Hamilton-Pennell, and Rodney 1999) and Pennsylvania. The LRS questionnaire (Library Research Service 2000) solicits information about staffing levels, time spent on a variety of staffing activities, collection holdings by format, usage levels, and available technology and its functionality. School data is also used in the areas of state reading test scores and community and school characteristics. School Library Journal presents a biannual report of expenditures in school library media centers (Miller and Shontz 2001). Mean and median budget sums are presented for elementary, middle, and high schools throughout the United States. Useful breakdowns of expenditures on books, audiovisual, and electronic resources, as well as average expenditures per pupil, can be used as points of reference to compare with a local school library media program. State Instruments There are two potential sources of evaluation information for school library media programs at the state level. One is the state department of education, which may have a division or a director of school library media programs. The other is a state professional association for school library media specialists. Each of these organizations may supply surveys, rubrics, checklists, and other instruments to gather data at the local level. Guidelines or standards may also have been published. On occasion, state research reports and statistics are available, via these agencies, that may have used the same instruments to gather their information. Once again, useful comparisons can be made with local programs. Provision of evaluative information at the state level is uneven throughout the United States (Everhart 2000). School library media specialists residing in a state with limitations in this area could benefit by availing themselves of instruments from other states. An excellent portal to tools from state agencies is School Library Standards and Evaluation (Bertland 2002). Some examples of data collection instruments and statistical reports available through state agencies follow. Sample Data Collection Instruments • Vermont: School Library Media Evaluation (Schubert 1999). An overall program evaluation form that uses a rating from 1 to 4. Areas covered include philosophy, access, use, collaboration, and professional development and support.
< previous page
page_242
next page >
< previous page
page_243
next page >
Page 243 • Maine: SLMS Evaluation Kit (Maine Association of School Libraries 1998). This comprehensive kit evaluates the school library media specialist as a leader, planner, manager, teacher, and information specialist. Performance indicators and concrete examples give guidance to completing the rubric. Sample Statistical Reports • Delaware: Governor’s Task Force on School Libraries Spring 2000 Survey Summary (Harris 2000). A brief report is given on staffing, collections, budgets, and state test scores. The most recent survey form is also here. • Kentucky: Results of the 2000 LMS Report Kentucky (Cox and Culbertson 2000). Data is provided for staffing, levels of technology, library automation, circulation, usage, challenged materials, and collaborative planning. • Texas: Texas School Libraries: Standards, Resources, Services, and Students ’ Performance (Smith 2001). A wide range of statistics is given under the broad areas of school library standards and library performance, the relationship between library resources and activities and student performance, and student performance in schools without librarians. Local Instruments Ultimately, school library media specialists will want to determine how their programs compare with similar school library media centers in their immediate area or within their own school district. In some districts, a supervisor of school library media services may coordinate evaluation efforts, ensuring that all programs are collecting similar data for reporting purposes. For those school library media specialists without the benefit of a district supervisor, benchmarking, a method often employed in other types of libraries, could prove constructive. According to Muir (1994, 3), “Benchmarking is a Total Quality tool used to measure and compare your library’s work processes with those in other libraries. The goal of benchmarking is to increase your library’s performance by adopting the best practices of your library benchmarking partners.” To apply benchmarking in a school library media center setting, cooperation from similar school library media centers is necessary. Each school library media specialist measures his or her own program, compares measures, and decides who is the highest performer. The highest performer is referred to as the “best practiced,’’ meaning this program has the most effective practices in place. Then the school library media specialists interview their bestpracticed partner, figure out how his or her practice works, modify it to make it work in their own situation, and adopt it (Gohlke 1997). School library media specialists should select a process that can be easily improved with benchmarking and that has a long turn-around time. They should benchmark a school library media center process that is important to their most influential customers, that emphasizes the media specialist’s professional skills, that faces competition from outside sources, and that is not in transition (Gohlke 1997). EVALUATING SCHOOL LIBRARY MEDIA CENTERS IN A DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT As students increase their use of electronic sources, methods of reporting this use have grown in importance. Documenting the significance of the school library media program in the digital environment cannot be overemphasized as there are implications for the overall survival of the program and school library media specialist’s job. Unfortunately, no accepted standards for gathering and reporting data about electronic resources exist,
< previous page
page_243
next page >
< previous page
page_244
next page >
Page 244 and there is no nationally available data for benchmarking (Bauer 2001). Currently, a combination of computer reporting options, observation, and bibliometrics can satisfy the need for some of this data. Computer Reporting Options Automated systems for school library media centers generate a wide variety of reports for evaluative purposes and, if studied, can be used to make planning and administrative decisions. The types of reports vary according to the type of automated system used. For example, online public access catalogs (OPACs) commonly report on patron searching and can generate statistics on the number of searches, how many were successful or unsuccessful, and searches matching certain parameters. The data can be used for a variety of evaluative purposes such as measuring the effects of instruction or publicity. Software for networked terminals offers additional reports. For example, it is possible to monitor searches per terminal, per location, by database used, or by Web site accessed. When students are assigned individual passwords, reporting software is capable of generating statistics on individuals as to where, when, what, and how they used network programs. With this additional information, school library media specialists can evaluate the impact of location and student demographics on usage (Everhart 1998). Tracking software for the Internet enables the school library media specialist to view statistics about the types of Web sites visited as well as the length of time a student spends at each site. In systems whereby students use personal passwords, individual student use can be examined. This is not for judging how students use a site but for evaluative purposes similar to those of OPAC usage. Determining the usage of a school library media center’s Web site can depend on studying server log files, which are the files that record each time a file on the server is requested. At a minimum, the date and time the site was accessed, the Internet provider address of the requester, size in bytes of the file requested, and a result status of every hit on the Web site are reported (Bauer 2001). Observation Observation will often clarify what automated reporting systems do not reflect. Student behaviors at computer terminals might involve asking others for help, using printed guides, revealing body language, and verbal comments. Often these behaviors will provide clues for areas of information skills instruction. A carefully constructed observation form guides in collecting this data. Examining Student Work Examining student work may be used to determine the number, types, and currency of electronic sources, the use of other libraries, and the search process itself. Methods for examination include checking bibliographies, assigning logs to keep track of the research process, and developing incremental rubrics to assess information literacy skills. CONCLUSION Data collection for evaluating school library media programs can take many forms. It is essential to match the correct evaluative method to the problem one is trying to solve, use the data obtained to make short and long range plans, and report the results to the appropriate people. If the data collection is conducted scientifically and presented clearly, numerous rewards can be realized.
< previous page
page_244
next page >
< previous page
page_245
next page >
Page 245 REFERENCES Adcock, D. C. (1999). A planning guide for information power: Building partnerships for learning with school library media program assessment rubric for the 21st century. Chicago: American Association of School Librarians. American Association of School Librarians. (1994). AASL position statement on the role of the library media specialist in outcomes-based education. [Online]. Available: http://www.ala.org/aasl/positions/ps_outcomeed.html. (Accessed March 1, 2002). American Association of School Librarians and Association for Education Communications and Technology. (1998). Information power: Building partnerships for learning. Chicago and London: American Library Association. Bauer, K. (2001). Resources for library assessment: Tools for a new era. College and Research Libraries News 28, 12–14. Bertland, L. (2002). School library standards and evaluation. [Online]. Available: http://www.sldirectory.com/libsf/resf/evaluate.html#top. (Accessed March 12, 2002). Bradburn, F. B. (1999). Output measures for school library media programs. New York: Neal-Schuman. Cox, K., and Culbertson, D. (2000). Results of the 2000 LMS report Kentucky. [Online]. Available: http://www.pld.fayette.k12.ky.us/lms/Results_of_the_2000_LMS_Report.htm. (Accessed March 13, 2002). Everhart, N. L. (1998). Evaluating the school library media center: Analysis techniques and research practices. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. ———. (2000). An evaluation of the information provided to school library media specialists by state library agencies. School Library Media Research 3, article 5. [Online]. Available: http://www.ala.org/aasl/SLMR/vol3/statedocs/statedocs.html. (Accessed March 10, 2002). ———. (2001, October). Evaluate your school library with statistics everyone understands. Paper presented at the meeting of the Ohio Educational Media Association, Columbus, OH. Everhart, N. L., and Bishop, K. (2002). Using focus groups with young people. Knowledge Quest 30:3, 36–38. Gohlke, A. (1997). Benchmarking basics for librarians. [Online]. Available: http://www.sla.org/division/dmil/mlw97/gohlke/sld001.htm. (Accessed March 11, 2002). Harris, J. (2000). Governor’s task force on school libraries spring 2000 survey summary. [Online]. Available: http://www2.lib.udel.edu/taskforce/summary.htm. (Accessed March 12, 2002). Institute of Museum and Library Services. (2000). Perspectives on outcomes-based evaluation for libraries and museums. [Online]. Available: http://www.imls.gov/pubs/pdf/pubobe.pdf. (Accessed March 14, 2002). Johnson, D. W. (1996). Evaluation methods. In D. Zweizig, D. W. Johnson, J. Robbins, and M. Besand (eds.), The tell it! manual: The complete program for evaluating library performance. Chicago and London: American Library Association. Kyrillidou, M. (2002). From input and output measures to quality and outcome measures, or, From the user in the life of the library to the library in the life of the user. Journal of Academic Librarianship 28, 42–46. Lance, K. C., Hamilton-Pennell, C., and Rodney, M. J. (1999). Information empowered: The school librarian as an agent of academic achievement in Alaska schools. Juneau, AK: Alaska State Library. Lance, K. C., Rodney, M. J, and Hamilton-Pennell, C. (2000). How school librarians help kids achieve standards: The second Colorado study. Castle Rock, CO: Hi Willow Research. Lance, K. C., Welborn, L., and Hamilton-Pennell, C. (1993). The impact of school library media centers on academic achievement. Castle Rock, CO: Hi Willow Research. Library Research Service. (2000). School library media center benchmarks Colorado 2000. [Online]. Available: http://www.lrs.org/documents/slmc00/narrative2000.pdf. (Accessed March 9, 2002).
< previous page
page_245
next page >
< previous page
page_246
next page >
Page 246 Maine Association of School Libraries. (1998). SLMS evaluation kit. [Online]. Available: http://www.maslibraries.org/resources/slmseval/slmseval.html. (Accessed March 12, 2002). Miller, M. L., and Shontz, M. L. (2001). New money, old books. School Library Journal 47:10, 50–61. Muir, H. J. (1994). Collecting and analyzing benchmarking data: A librarian’s guide. Universal City, TX: Library Benchmarking International. National Center for Education Statistics, Library Statistics Program. (2002). School library media centers, 1999–2000. [Online]. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/libraries/school.asp. (Accessed March 8, 2002). Schubert, L. (1999). School library media evaluation. [Online]. Available: http://www.valley.net/~vema/indic2.htm. (Accessed March 13, 2002). Smith, E. G. (2001). Texas school libraries: Standards, resources, services, and students’ performance. [Online]. Available: http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ld/pubs/schlibsurvey/index.html. (Accessed March 8, 2002). Woolls, B. (1999). The school library media manager. Englewood, CO. Libraries Unlimited. Zweizig, D., and Johnson, D. W. (1996). Observation. In D. Zweizig, D. W. Johnson, J. Robbins, and M. Besand (eds.), The tell it! manual: the complete program for evaluating library performance. Chicago and London: American Library Association.
< previous page
page_246
next page >
< previous page
page_247
next page >
Page 247 Standard Time Integrating the 10 CONCEPTS with National and State Standards for a Dynamic Library Media Program Ruth Toor Library Consultant and Editor of School Librarian’ s Workshop Basking Ridge, New Jersey Hilda K. Weisburg Library Media Specialist, Morristown High School Morristown, New Jersey State curriculum standards are proliferating. Although many do not specifically include the library media program, it is imperative that library media specialists prepare lesson plans incorporating the standards to demonstrate their understanding of these requirements to prove themselves essential to the educational community. The problem is that these standards are invariably written in stilted professional jargon and presented as individual items encouraging a return to single-skill lessons devoid of connection to meaningful research. The challenge is to address state standards while still designing problem-based units. The solution is to develop a matrix that aligns state standards, national standards from Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning (American Association of School Librarians and Association for Educational Communication and Technology 1998), and the “10 CONCEPTS” first introduced by the present authors in Learning, Linking, and Critical Thinking: Information Strategies for the K–12 Library Media Curriculum (Weisburg and Toor 1994). By so doing, library media specialists can select the concepts (and subconcepts) that are introduced or practiced in the lesson or unit, determine which of the national standards are addressed, and then identify the state standards that have been included. The result of using this sequence is that lessons retain their relevance and state requirements are met. Generally, each unit incorporates almost all the 10 CONCEPTS (with the appropriate subconcepts), several national standards and indicators, and a number of the state standards reflecting authentic and student-centered activities intrinsic to a dynamic library media program. Many state school library media associations, including New Jersey (our home state), already have matrices that show the connection between the national and local state standards (see Educational Media Association of New Jersey 1999). Those states that have not done so should be encouraged to create one to facilitate the instructional process. Adding the 10 CONCEPTS further improves the focus and design of library media units whether the objective of the lesson is use of print or electronic media or a combination of the two. (See table 1 for an example page of such a matrix.) The 10 CONCEPTS are particularly important because they encompass in basic terms the entire library media program and provide learners with core knowledge allowing them to effectively and efficiently use any library from kindergarten through college. The concepts are organized to reflect all aspects of information-gathering and organizing strategies from the simplest to the most complex. Concepts 1 and 2 look at library arrangement, concepts 3–5 speak to the arrangement of resources, concepts 6–8 address criteria for evaluation, and concepts 9 and 10 are summarizing ideas. To understand how easily these lucid concepts can encompass a broad range of age and sophistication, one has only to look at concept 2, which eliminates the inaccuracy of
< previous page
page_247
next page >
< previous page
page_248
next page >
Page 248 Table 1. 10 Concepts Concept Concept Concept Concept Concept Concept Concept Concept Concept Concept
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
10 Concepts A shared pool of materials benefits everyone Library materials are arranged by subject Reference materials are available for all subjects Recognition of the arrangement of a resource speeds access to its information Indexes are the major key to locating information rapidly Not all information is equal Timeliness of information is an important consideration Information may carry bias Research requires both thinking and communicating Voluntary reading builds knowledge
Source: Weisburg and Toor (1994). stating that libraries are divided into fiction and nonfiction and allows students to grasp how the Dewey Decimal Classification and Library of Congress Classification are similar in function if not design. To further observe how the 10 CONCEPTS are both simple and flexible while meeting the needs of all library users, examine the subconcepts of concepts 7 and 8 (see figs. 1 and 2). The subconcepts given in figures 1 and 2 reveal several important characteristics. Despite being written in 1994, they are highly relevant in the Internet age. For example, 7.2 and 7.4 should remind students to examine when a Web page was last updated. The blank line at the end of each subconcept encourages making additions as needed. It would be appropriate, for example, to have 8.5 now read: “URLs with primary domains of ‘org’ reflect the views of the organization.” The timelessness of the 10 CONCEPTS can be appreciated when one realizes that they were written in 1994. Despite the numerous changes in technology and library media programs, they are still relevant and will continue to be so because they address the essential core of how libraries and information are structured. By incorporating them with the standards in Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning (American Association of School Librarians and Association for Educational Communication and Technology 1998) and whatever standards individual states have imposed, library media specialists can continue to present meaningful lessons while meeting the new requirements. REFERENCES American Association of School Librarians and Association for Educational Communication and Technology. (1998). Information power: Building partnerships for learning . Chicago: American Library Association.
< previous page
page_248
next page >
< previous page
page_249
next page >
Page 249 Figure 1. Concept 7
Source: Weisburg and Toor (1994). Figure 2. Concept 8
Source: H. K. Weisburg and R. Toor (1994). Educational Media Association of New Jersey. (1999). Information literacy standards for student learning and the New Jersey core curriculum content standards April 1999. [Online]. Available: http://www.emanj.org/s1april99.html. (Accessed March 22, 2002). Weisburg, H. K., and Toor, R. (1994). Learning, linking, and critical thinking: Information strategies for the K–12 library media curriculum. Chatham, NJ: Library Learning Resource.
< previous page
page_249
next page >
< previous page
page_250
next page >
Page 250 Fostering Library Media Specialist–Educational Technologist Collaboration Ruth V. Small Professor, School of Information Studies Celestia Ohrazda CAS Student, School of Education Pamela Revercomb Doctoral Student, School of Information Studies J. Michael Spector Professor, School of Education Syracuse University Collaboration implies a mutual interdependence with each participant bringing something of value to the collaboration effort (Salomon 1992). This requires a reliance on others to accomplish tasks effectively, a mutual respect for each other’s ability to do so effectively, and interpersonal communications in order to successfully coordinate and consolidate efforts (Malone and Crowston 1993). Small (2002) states, “To be motivated to collaborate, all participants must first see some personal value in collaboration and believe that they have the knowledge and skills necessary to be successful collaborative partners.” A genuine collaboration involves a shared vision, common goals, coordinated work toward those goals, recognition of individual specialization and expertise, a climate of trust and mutual respect, and reliance on individuals to work effectively in teams toward shared goals (Muronaga and Harada 1999). These are prerequisites to establishing a “collaborative culture.” Collaborative instructional and curriculum planning has become an increasingly critical role for the twenty-firstcentury educator. Effective collaboration between library media specialists and teachers, for example, ‘‘helps to create a vibrant and engaged community of learners, strengthens the whole school program as well as the library media program, and develops support for the school library media program throughout the whole school,” according to Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning (American Association of School Librarians and Association for Education Communication and Technology 1998, 51). This chapter reflects our systemic and multidimensional view of collaboration. At the systems level, we view the major components in a curriculum as faculty, students, courses, content, and experiences (Spector 2001). Experiences include projects and activities on the part of both students and faculty, so they are neither unidirectional nor unidimensional in nature. Moreover, experiences are dynamic; they are cumulative, and the nature of relevant interactions changes over time and with specific circumstances. Collaboration can and should include a variety of diverse individuals with relevant interests and expertise working within and across these components and dimensions. Two such individuals with common interests and goals related to the use of information and instructional technologies in schools are the educational technologist and the library media specialist.
< previous page
page_250
next page >
< previous page
page_251
next page >
Page 251 LIBRARY MEDIA SPECIALIST–EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGIST COLLABORATION Van Epps (1999) describes the “instructional technology team” as made up of 1) library media specialists, who are largely responsible for teaching information literacy skills and providing leadership on the integration of information literacy, resources, and technology with the curriculum, and 2) educational technologists, who support teachers in the classroom by collaborating on lesson plans that incorporate technology and by providing staff development opportunities. These two groups can and should work together and with classroom teachers to design, develop, and implement instruction that incorporates information and instructional technologies that enhance learning. Unfortunately, there is evidence that collaborative partnerships are not as common as we might like (e.g., see Haycock 1999). What can be done to foster a collaborative culture between these education professionals? We believe that technology can serve as the catalyst for creating opportunities for educational technologists and library media specialists to work collaboratively in educational contexts. THE ROLE OF TECHNOLOGY Technology provides new and exciting opportunities for collaboration. Technology literacy is an essential capability for living and learning in the information age. Technology skills involve both technical expertise and nontechnical expertise with regard to the domains of use and context. We must find meaningful ways to integrate technology into the life, work, and education of people. As Fjuk (1998, 70) defines it, [A] distributed collaborative learning community is a “place” that is created by the individual students through their individual and collective actions, framed by the conditions of performing these actions. These “places” are not developed by the systems designer. The designer’s role is to support the students’ work of creating that community, and in such a way that the computer systems become integrated parts of the students’ activity. Because technology is such a significant and substantial player in the roles and responsibilities of both library media specialists and educational technologists, it can be an effective force in fostering their collaboration. One potential environment for accomplishing this is in the professional preparation programs of these two groups. As preservice educators begin to understand the scope and nature of their future roles and responsibilities, their coursework can reflect the critical importance of collaboration. Courses that provide early opportunities for preservice library media specialists and educational technologists to learn how to effectively collaborate on the application and use of various technologies in instruction and learning will help these two groups to understand the importance and benefits of collaboration to themselves, each other, other educators, and their students. The rest of this chapter focuses on a description of such a course. THE COURSE The development of the course ‘‘Information Technologies in Educational Organizations” at Syracuse University began as a response to the need to revise and update two master’s degree programs, one in the School of Information Studies and one in the School of Education, to satisfy current New York State certification requirements for library media specialists and educational technologists in schools. These requirements emphasize collaboration among educational professionals to enhance the learning of all students, in-
< previous page
page_251
next page >
< previous page
page_252
next page >
Page 252 cluding those with disabilities and special needs, and to encourage collaborative projects that support the use of instructional and information technologies for teaching and learning. With funding from a Syracuse University Vision Fund grant, two professors and two advanced graduate students from the Department of Instructional Design, Development and Evaluation in the School of Education and from the School of Information Studies collaborated to develop and teach a graduate-level, interdisciplinary course for students in both programs. The course, offered for the first time in fall 2001, was intended to 1) introduce students to a range of new and emerging technologies and their implications for education, 2) allow faculty from both schools, as well as external guest speakers, to present different perspectives and discuss a range of topics and issues related to the use of technology for teaching and learning, and 3) provide a structured opportunity for students from both programs to work collaboratively on technology-based activities and projects that meet the authentic needs of actual clients (i.e., on-site educators). Course Goals The goals of the course were as follows: • To create an innovative approach to teaching and learning about information technology use in education. • To encourage collaborative planning and teaching in the areas of information and technology literacy. • To provide opportunities for students to work collaboratively on school-based technology projects. • To present firsthand learning experiences from noted practitioners and researchers. • To teach students to use technology to plan and work cooperatively. Learning Objectives By the end of the course, students were expected to be able to do the following: • Demonstrate an ability to design, manage, and evaluate technologies used in a learning environment. • Demonstrate an understanding of telecommunications policies that affect the use of technology in schools. • Describe methods of determining the appropriateness and effectiveness of implementing and using a range of self-contained and distributed technologies within a range of learning environments. • Demonstrate knowledge of the impact of technology on information services and instruction for diverse learning audiences. • Synthesize information presented by a variety of researchers and practitioners in course seminars and readings. • Understand the uses of technology for language acquisition and literacy development. • Successfully complete site-based technology-related team projects for clients. • Use computer-based collaborative software as one method for team interaction. • Understand the roles of the library media specialist and the educational technologist in the application of technology for meeting curricular, faculty, and organizational needs and requirements.
< previous page
page_252
next page >
< previous page
page_253
next page >
Page 253 • Develop skills in collaboration with other professional staff to support instruction through services that enhance the learning and independence of diverse audiences. Methods Multiple instructional methods were employed, including lectures, discussions, demonstrations, role plays, debates, labs, hands-on activities, field trips, and guest speakers. Grant funding supported a number of field trips and guest speakers. Field trips allowed students to experience firsthand a number of innovative technological applications in education. For example, students visited the Information Institute of Syracuse with presentations by representatives of several projects housed there, including the AskERIC educational question-and-answer service, the Gateway to Educational Materials (GEM), the Virtual Reference Desk (VRD), and the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Information and Technology. Noted guest experts and practitioners participated both live and virtually in sessions on such topics as telecommunications policies, ethical issues, knowledge-management tools, collaborative-learning technologies, and the use of national education databases. The following were some of the guest speakers: • An expert on “the digital divide.” • A panel of two pairs (a library media specialist and an educational technologist) of practitioners who consistently work together on a range of projects and programs. • A member of the International Board of Standards for Training, Performance, and Instruction’s committee developing “Competencies for Online Teaching and Training” (COTT). • The developers of a “next-generation” online learning tool prototype, combining DVD and Web technology to deliver flexible, modular, multimedia instruction and including such features as video-based case studies, active lesson book marking, and individual note indexing and review. • A member of the development team for a set of tools for developing effective online instruction. • One of the developers of WELES (Web-Enhanced Learning Environment Strategies), a tool for integrating NASA resources into teaching to inspire science learning. • The developer of a set of widely used Web evaluation tools for education and business. • An expert who provides innovative assistive technological needs assessments for people with disabilities. • The Internet policy specialist from the Office for Information Technology Policy of the American Library Association, who conducted a telephone-based session on the impact of telecommunications policies (e.g., e-rate) on education. Student teams were required to prepare and deliver an introduction of the weekly speakers. This engaged students in student-student collaboration as well as student-presenter collaboration in formulating appropriate introductions. Most guest speakers and other special sessions of interest to a wider audience (e.g., the entire university, distance students in remote locations, faculty and students at other colleges) were simultaneously broadcast through the Web using Web-casting technology. This technology allowed remote participants not only to synchronously view the session
< previous page
page_253
next page >
< previous page
page_254
next page >
Page 254 but also to interact with the speaker by sending questions and comments via their computers. In addition, all Web casts were archived for future viewing by both students in the class and others. The course textbook Surviving Change: A Survey of Educational Change Models by James Ellsworth (2000), published by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology, provided the basis for developing students’ understanding of how the technologies and issues covered in class affect change within educational organizations. Through synchronous and asynchronous discussion groups using a Web-based learning environment, students engaged in a dialogue and debates about several change models described in the textbook and the relevance of those models to their collaborative technology projects. Content Students were introduced to a wide range of existing and emerging self-contained and distributed technologies, studying them in relation to telecommunications policies, information and instructional services to diverse groups and individuals, research and learning, and collaboration. Course content and topics were often covered in several different ways, including speaker presentations, readings, panel discussions, demonstrations, and computer lab sessions, as well as through class role playing and brainstorming activities. Four areas received particular emphasis: assistive technologies, distance learning technologies, online teaching, and ethical issues involving technology in the schools. Each of these is described in the following sections. Assistive Technologies An early design decision was made to include many technologies, technology users, and settings in which technology might be used in this survey course. One implication of this decision was to explicitly include various technologies to support those people with disabilities. The module on assistive technologies was presented by the director of technology services for ARISE (an independent living center for adults with disabilities). The speaker, who is confined to a wheelchair, has considerable expertise in many different assistive technologies and specializes in computer-based technology support for those with disabilities. His presentation included a videotape on state-of-theart assistive technologies, a number of motivating anecdotal success stories, and a review of technologies available at ARISE. Distance Learning Technologies The design team was well aware of the emphasis being placed on distance learning in schools, in industry, and in the learning research literature. Consequently, a number of sessions were devoted to synchronous and asynchronous technologies. Two invited speakers demonstrated different approaches within each of the two major modalities (synchronous and asynchronous). In addition, two speakers addressed blended (hybrid) approaches that integrated aspects of each modality in the same module or unit of instruction. Online Teaching Technologies The notion of competencies for teaching and training in online environments is also of interest in schools and business settings and a major topic of concern for the International Board of Standards for Training, Performance, and Instruction (IBSTPI). Two members of IBSTPI presented work in progress by that board on standards and competencies involving online learning in addition to tools for designing and delivering online learning developed at Teéleé-universiteé (the distance learning university of the University of Queébec).
< previous page
page_254
next page >
< previous page
page_255
next page >
Page 255 Technology in Schools: Ethical Issues Ethical issues related to the use of technology are of particular interest in school settings. Some of these issues include filtering or censoring Internet access, copyright protection, and plagiarism. A panel that included school administrators, parents, legal experts, and technology and media specialists was moderated by the director of the Office of Professional Development for the School of Education at Syracuse University. This panel discussion was quite animated and directly addressed many sensitive issues in a constructive manner. The discussion was so engaging to both panelists and students that the teaching team lost track of time and skipped the break period without anyone noticing or complaining. Technologies The class was held in a state-of-the-art digital classroom containing computer-based presentation technology (including CD, DVD, and Internet connections), multiple cameras for videotaping, videoconferencing, and Web casting, and a Smart Board, as well as more traditional classroom technologies (overhead, opaque, video projection system, whiteboards). A wide variety of technologies was demonstrated, such as Web-based learning tools, wireless communications, synchronous and asynchronous distance learning technologies, videoconferencing systems, and technologies for people with disabilities. Frequently, students were engaged in using or demonstrating these tools. Web-casting technology was used to broadcast several sessions to a larger audience. Faculty and both campus and distance students in the two schools were invited to view the sessions and submit questions to the guest speakers. WebCT, a Web-based learning environment, allowed ongoing instructor-student and student-student communication and facilitated both synchronous (chat room) and asynchronous class discussions and assignments. Assignments Each of the four course assignments was intended to give students a different type of technology-based learning experience. Each assignment is described in the following sections. WebQuests As an integral part of learning to use information and technology in an efficient and effective manner, students developed a WebQuest on a topic of their own choosing appropriate for use in a subsequent learning environment. A WebQuest is defined by creator Bernie Dodge at San Diego State University as “an inquiry-oriented activity in which some or all of the information that learners interact with comes from resources on the Internet” (Dodge 1998). A template was provided to guide WebQuest development. The submitted WebQuest assignments were accompanied by a brief description of the WebQuest, its purpose, and target audience. The emphasis in this activity was on learning how to synthesize information. To create an effective WebQuest, students were required to find appropriate Web sites relevant to the topic involved. These Web sites then had to be integrated into a coherent lesson plan. Students selected a wide variety of topics for many different instructional settings, some in elementary and secondary school settings, as well as some in business training settings. Student feedback on this particular activity was quite positive. Several students indicated that this activity provided an opportunity to create a Web page in support of a learning objective, which was something they had not done previously and had regarded as beyond their capabilities.
< previous page
page_255
next page >
< previous page
page_256
next page >
Page 256 Evaluation of School Web Sites A request was issued to educators subscribed to LM_NET, the school library media listserv, to volunteer to have their Web sites evaluated by the Syracuse students. More than 30 school districts from 17 states throughout the United States, three foreign countries (Egypt, Canada, Australia), and one Indian Nation School volunteered. Each student was assigned a school Web site to evaluate. Students were trained in the use of WebMAC Professional (Small and Arnone 1999) and Content Validity Scale (Arnone and Small 1999). They were required to teach at least two other people to use the instruments, evaluate the assigned site, summarize results, and reflect on and submit their evaluation report to their client, describing their methods and results and making recommendations for improvement. This assignment not only demonstrated the importance of evaluating information resources but also provided a valuable service to the education community. Electronic Portfolios The purpose of the electronic portfolios assignment was to allow students to collect, organize, and reflect on their assignments and activities completed in the course in an electronic format. This included a technology survey, completed at the beginning and end of the course, that assessed their knowledge of and skills with various technologies, allowing students to assess their growth and development over the course of the semester. In preparing for the assignment, students were reminded that many schools and businesses now advocate the development of electronic portfolios (for students, teachers, and other professional use as well). In addition, as educational technologists and school library media specialists, they would likely be involved in teaching students how to create these portfolios. They might also serve as systems operators for a school district or business and would have to manage or assess portfolios on that network. The electronic portfolios were expected to contain the following: • A synopsis of and commentary on each of the assignments and various course activities in which they had participated (e.g., role plays, use of various technologies, field trips). • The results of their pre- and post-technology surveys. • A reflective essay describing what they found to be the highlights and challenges presented during the course and an assessment of their personal learning growth throughout the semester. Collaborative Technology Projects A key aspect of this course involved a collaborative technology project. The collaborative project activity provided students an opportunity to apply knowledge and skills related to educational technology to a real-world situation. This assignment required students to spend 45 hours on site, working in collaboration with each other and on-site educators on a client project involving an educational application of information technology throughout the semester. In 2004, this type of fieldwork experience will be a requirement for certification of both school library media specialists and educational technologists in New York State. Clients introduced their project opportunities during the first class session, and students were given one week to communicate their choices of a project. Project sponsors were recruited from local school districts, colleges and universities, and businesses. Teams were formed on the basis of selected project, including students from both schools where possible. Projects were conducted in a variety of settings, including elementary and secondary schools, community colleges, and several organizations at Syracuse University.
< previous page
page_256
next page >
< previous page
page_257
next page >
Page 257 The following examples reflect the range of projects undertaken: • Staff development to assist faculty at an urban K–8 school in designing or redesigning lessons to incorporate computer technology. • Updating the Web site for a regional consortium of school districts so that the site can be used to facilitate access to electronic databases, support a training program of online library resources, and provide training in the use of the Web site for curricular applications and in support of the learning standards. • Developing a module-based instructional program for a college library’s databases. • Examining a high school online learning program and determining the causes of and potential solutions to its high dropout rate. • Developing and implementing training for elementary teachers using newly purchased technologies (e.g., FlexCam, SmartBoard). • Planning a professional conference for a university-based organization for administrators from 130 central New York school districts that advances technology use and practice for academic success. Each project team presented an overview of the activities and outcomes of their project in the final class session. COURSE EVALUATION An ongoing evaluation was integral to course development and delivery. Students were made aware that the course was new and that their feedback was not only encouraged but also vital to the ongoing evaluation and improvement process. At the time of this writing, data are still being collected from all participants (instructors, graduate assistants, speakers, panel members, and students) as part of a summative evaluation effort. The instruments used to collect the evaluation data were designed to determine how well the objectives of the course had been incorporated (and met) through assignments, speakers, collaborative technology projects, and other class activities. Data were collected through several instruments, including pre- and post-technology surveys, midsemester evaluations, standard university course evaluations, electronic portfolio (self-reporting) analyses and reflections, and interviews of students, guest speakers, and course developers. Results Overall, feedback from the formative evaluation was positive for the assignments, relevance of the topics and content, guest speakers, instructors, and teaching assistants. All students agreed that the variety of speakers and formats was a good concept; however, some said they would prefer the course to be less of a survey and more of a hands-on course. Some students indicated that the collaborative technology projects were ‘‘going well”; others had difficulty scheduling meetings with their team or site supervisors, felt they were not experienced enough to meet the demands of the project, or were confused or unclear about the expectations for the projects. Students requested more class time to work with their project teams. Many of the students felt WebCT presented difficulties, complaining that they experienced “much frustration” while attempting to upload assignments, were uncomfortable posting to the discussion groups, or had trouble finding things on the site. Several steps were taken in response to the feedback from the midsemester evaluation. In-class demonstrations were given to show students how they would be expected to
< previous page
page_257
next page >
< previous page
page_258
next page >
Page 258 use WebCT for uploading or otherwise contributing to class assignments. Collaborative technology project teams were asked to present a progress report and solicit suggestions from the class. More discussions and small-group brainstorming sessions followed guest speakers. Preliminary results from the summative evaluation indicate the following: • The collaborative technology projects were integral for giving the students the experience of working collaboratively with learning technologies. Although site and project supervisors attended the first class session to present their projects and were invited to attend the final presentation from their project team, there needed to be a more formal means of collecting feedback from them while projects were in progress. • Educational technologies that will be essential in the workplace should be presented at the hands-on level to guarantee competence. However, a basic level of ability needs to be established for students prior to taking the course. Students in the course ranged from advanced network administrators to students who were still shaky sending e-mail attachments. A prerequisite series of computer lab sessions could be offered to assure a base level of needed skills. FUTURE PLANS Additions and modifications will be made to the course based on the results of the summative evaluation. In addition, the course is being redesigned for distance (Web-based) delivery in the fall of 2002. The online course will use videotaped guest lectures and will incorporate virtual guest speakers, panel discussions, and group work. Ways to provide opportunities for students to work together in collaborative teams from disparate locations on technology projects are being explored. REFERENCES American Association of School Librarians and Association for Education Communication and Technology. (1998). Information power: Building partnerships for learning. Chicago: American Library Association . Arnone, M. P., and Small, R. V. (1999). Content validity scale. Fayetteville, NY: Motivation Mining. Dodge, B. (1998). The WebQuest page: Site overview (updated October 2001). [Online]. Available: http://webquest.sdsu.edu/webquest.html. (Accessed November 13, 2002.) Ellsworth, J. B. (2000). Surviving change: A survey of educational change models. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology. Fjuk, A. (1998). Computer support for distributed collaborative learning. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo. Haycock, K. (1999, September/October). What works: Collaborative program planning and teaching. TeacherLibrarian 27. [Online]. Available: http://www.teacherlibrarian.com/whatworks27,1.html. (Accessed November 13, 2002.) Malone, T., and Crowston, K. (1993). The interdisciplinary study of coordination. Computing Surveys 26:1, 87–119. Muronaga, K., and Harada, K. (1999, October). The art of collaboration. Teacher-Librarian 27:1, 9–14. Salomon, G. (1992). What does the design of effective CSCLrequire and how do we study its effects? SIGCUE Outlook: Special Issue on CSCL 21:3, 62–68. Small, R. V. (2002). Collaboration: Where does it begin? Teacher-Librarian 29:5, 8–11. Small, R. V., and Arnone, M. P. (1999). WebMAC professional. Fayetteville, NY: Motivation Mining.
< previous page
page_258
next page >
< previous page
page_259
next page >
Page 259 Spector, J. M. (2001). Tools and principles for the design of collaborative learning environments for complex domains. Journal of Structural Learning and Intelligent Systems 14:4, 483–510. Van Epps, S. (1999, March/April). Vision to reality: Transforming the school library into the information technology hub of the school. MultiMedia Schools. Information Today. [Online]. Available: http://www.infotoday.com/MMSchools/mar99/vanepps.htm. (Accessed November 13, 2002.)
< previous page
page_259
next page >
< previous page
page_260
next page >
Page 260 Moving from Cooperation to Collaboration Through the Use of Technology A Professional Development Model for School and Public Librarians Sandra Hughes-Hassell Jacqueline C. Mancall Sarah Reid Sarena Deglin Drexel University BACKGROUND With a 2000–2002 National Leadership grant Building Collaboration Through Technology: A Professional Development Model for School and Public Librarians, Drexel University, College of Information Science and Technology, and the Office of Commonwealth Libraries—the state library agency of Pennsylvania—developed, tested, and revised a professional development model that focuses attention on the benefits of developing long-term collaborative relationships between school and public librarians in the same community and breaks new ground in school and public library technology implementation.1 The model, described in this article, is based in part on what we have learned from past studies of school and public library cooperation, that is, what worked and what did not. A national study authored by Fitzgibbons (2000) provided a deep and detailed history of relevant research and reporting on this topic. We learned that among the factors that inhibit cooperation are lack of funding, personality issues, inadequate staffing, governance issues, and insufficient technology at the building level. We read with interest suggestions that cooperative efforts should be aimed at specific user groups, rather than at enhancing the institutions involved, and that time for public and school librarians to meet together and develop personal relationships was key to success. We adapted some of the suggestions in the design of our professional development. We believe that real collaboration is mutually beneficial and based on a shared vision and shared goals for particular user groups and communities (Mattessich, Murray-Close, and Monsey 2001). Our model calls for action plans that spell out who should be involved, what they should do, when, and how. Our model is designed to respond to the continuing educational needs of youth librarians, address growing public expectations for libraries to integrate technology into their services, maximize the impact of state library technology expenditures, and harness the synergy created when public and school librarians in the same community collaborate to address an identified community need. It represents a partnership between Jacqueline C. Mancall and Sandra Hughes-Hassell from Drexel University and Barbara W. Cole, John Emerick, and Elizabeth Fordon from Pennsylvania’s Office of Commonwealth Libraries. Pam Berger, an educational technology consultant with more than 20 years experience as a school librarian and leader in technology-curriculum integration, was selected to develop the training materials and to deliver the professional development instruction. GOALS OF THE MODEL Building Collaboration Through Technology was designed to enable school and public librarians to gain new tools, skills, and knowledge for working collaboratively in
< previous page
page_260
next page >
< previous page
page_261
next page >
Page 261 an increasingly electronic world. Specifically, school and public librarians trained through this model will be able to • create and maintain a collaboratively developed school-public library Web site that supports an identified community need, • locate, evaluate, and integrate Internet resources, including online periodical and reference databases provided by state library agencies or school districts, into their library services and programs, • share ideas and problem solve in an electronic environment, and • sustain their collaborative efforts beyond the initial training period. DESIGN OF THE MODEL The model’s design was based on research that shows that effective professional development exposes practitioners to actual practice rather than descriptions of practice; involves opportunities for group support and collaboration; focuses on concrete and authentic applications; involves opportunities for ongoing observation, critique, and reflection; and provides deliberate feedback by skilled practitioners (Elmore 1997). The design was unique in that it incorporated the following innovative electronic technologies: TAPPEDIN, a multi-user virtual environment (MUVE) that enables people anywhere to engage in real-time (synchronous) collaboration, send e-mail, post to bulletin boards and listservs (asynchronously), and browse Web sites collaboratively in a single online venue (http://www.tappedin.org/). ICONnect, a technology initiative of the American Association of School Librarians, which provides online courses to educate librarians about the use of the Internet, examples of best instructional practices using the Internet, a question-and-answer help-and-referral service called KidsConnect for K–12 students, and a service for families and caregivers that enables them to become more effective users of Internet resources for youth (http://www.ala.org/ICONN/). CyberTours, a free educational Web site that automatically guides the user through preselected Web sites to explore a curriculum-based theme or teaching strategy, expanding the content concepts and theory of curriculum-technology integration. CyberTours includes topics such as search engines, active learning sites, home-page development, weaving Web curriculum, and teaching the Internet (http://www.infosearcher.com/cybertours/). POWER Library, an electronic initiative of Pennsylvania’s Office of Commonwealth Libraries which provides access to more than 2,000 full-text periodical titles, a newspaper file, an encyclopedia, a special children’s reference database, and an archive of current and historical photographs. FrontPage2000, a powerful Web authoring tool used to create and manage Web pages. FrontPage contains Web page templates, themes, and other design elements that make creating a Web site quick and easy. Inspiration, a visual learning tool that enables users to develop their ideas and organize their thinking. Inspiration can be used to assist with brainstorming, planning, outlining, diagramming, concept mapping, and Webbing. ROLE OF THE PARTNERS The Office of Commonwealth Libraries identified the test sites for the model, recruited the school and public librarians from each site to form a local team, selected the facilitators, and provided access to the POWER Library resources. It was also in charge
< previous page
page_261
next page >
< previous page
page_262
next page >
Page 262 of publicity and marketing. Drexel University assumed primary responsibility for conducting the formative and summative evaluation, hosting and maintaining the project Web sites, and managing the grant funding. Mancall and Hughes-Hassell also worked closely with Berger to develop and revise the training materials. Both Drexel University and the Office of Commonwealth Libraries shared responsibility for disseminating the model to other state library agencies, departments of education, professional associations, and district-level school administrators around the country. TEST SITES The model was tested in six sites in Pennsylvania selected by the Office of Commonwealth Libraries. Two of the sites represented urban communities (areas of 50,000 or more people in incorporated places), two suburban communities (areas of 2,500–49,999 people in incorporated places), and two rural communities (areas of less than 1,000 people per square mile). Each test site included two teams; each team was composed of one school librarian and one public librarian from the same community. Each librarian was expected to know Windows or Macintosh platforms, be able to use a Web browser, and have 24-hour Internet access. TRAINING STAFF Pam Berger acted as the lead trainer for both the face-to-face and online instruction. Two trained project facilitators were also available on-site and online to support participants’ learning. Sally Trexler, coordinator of technology for school librarians in Allentown, Pennsylvania, and Kay Haskell, a school library media specialist in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, worked one-on-one with the teams and individuals during the on-site and online training, monitored the online threaded discussion, provided troubleshooting advice to participants, and assisted Berger with instruction. MODEL COURSE OF STUDY The training component of the model extended over a two-month period, with periods of face-to-face (on-site) instruction followed by periods of online training (virtual electronic environment), for a total of 43 days (see table 1). All of the training required the locally based teams to work collaboratively. The on-site training sessions engaged participants in hands-on activities, such as mind mapping, learning FrontPage 2000, and designing a team Web site.2 In the online training sessions, the participants were involved in online courses, collaborative discussions in a virtual environment, and exploration of electronic databases. The project was evaluated throughout the training, and modifications were made as needed. The training materials consisted of a participant’s manual in print and electronic format (PDF), the textbook Internet for Active Learners (Berger 1998), and the technologies previously mentioned. A focal point of the project was an instructional Web site that contained information, instructional resources, and communication tools. The on-site training sessions were conducted in a state-of-the art classroom in the upper school at the Milton Hershey School in Hershey, Pennsylvania. Participants also received laptop computers loaded with the appropriate software to support their exploration and learning at home. The laptops became the property of the participating library upon completion of the project. EVALUATION OF THE MODEL Evaluation of the model was both formative and evaluative. It focused primarily on assessing the participants’ ability to use the technological tools and skills introduced during the training, analyzing the collaborative experience, and identifying strengths and weaknesses of the model. The methodology included both quantitative and qualitative ap-
< previous page
page_262
next page >
< previous page
page_263
next page >
Page 263 Table 1. Course of Study Training Session Date of Delivery Type of Delivery Content 1 July 10-12, 2001 Onsite x Introduction to course, developing a team Web site x Types and patterns of online resources x Communication in an online virtual community 2 July 13-23, 2001 Online x Collaboration in a virtual environment x Utility of Online courses (1BASICS, Web navigation) 3 July 24-25, 2001 Onsite x Web evaluation x Development of team Web site x FrontPage 2000 Clinic 4 July 26-Aug 6, 2001 Online x Evaluation of Web sites x Use of search engines x Utility of Online course (FamiliesConnect) x Collaboration in a virtual environment 5 Aug 7-9, 2001 Onsite x Reference question interchange online x Magazine indexes and other online resources 6 Aug 10-16, 2001 Online x Internet services for families and caregivers x Provision of reference service online x Completion of Team Web sites x Critique of Team Web sites 7 Aug 17, 2001 Onsite x Presentation and showcase of team Web sites x Refinement of Web sites x Establishment of personal objectives proaches including pre- and post-technology questionnaires, a collaboration survey, final project evaluation survey, telephone interviews, participant logs, mind mapping, and observation. Assessing the Participants’ Ability to Use Technology Several data sources were used to assess the participants’ ability to use the technological skills and tools introduced during the training—a technology questionnaire, mind maps, and the participants’ completion of a team Web site. Technology Questionnaire A technology questionnaire was administered prior to and after the training. Participants were asked to indicate on a scale of 1 to 4 their knowledge of and ability to use e-mail, chat, threaded discussion, virtual environments, general electronic information resources, the POWER Library resources, search engines, Web site evaluation criteria, and Web development software. Data analysis indicates that prior to the training, the participants’ comfort level with electronic communication technology varied (see fig. 1). All of the participants had access to and were capable of sending and receiving email, six used bulletin boards, and all of them had some knowledge of virtual environments. Most of them, however, did not par-
< previous page
page_263
next page >
< previous page
page_264
next page >
Page 264 Figure 1. Use of Electronic Communication Technology Prior to Training
ticipate in chat, threaded discussion, or virtual environments, such as TAPPEDIN, on a regular basis. As figure 2 shows, participants’ knowledge of electronic resources also varied. Most of them were familiar with and used the POWER Library resources, most indicated more than novice ability in the information search process, and approximately one-third taught Web evaluation. Most (74 percent) of the participants indicated little or no experience with Web site development. The technology questionnaire was readministered two months after the training ended to assess changes in the participants’ technology abilities. Improvement was evident. Use of e-mail to communicate increased, with almost all of the group claiming they use e-mail on a regular basis as well as teach others to use it, and knowledge and comfort with a virtual environment moved from knowledge with rare use to half claiming they use a virtual environment occasionally and an additional one-third who work virtually on a regular basis (see fig. 3). As figure 4 shows, there was also growth in the participants’ knowledge, use, and evaluation of electronic resources. Although most participants had some knowledge and use of Pennsylvania’s POWER Library Resources before our training, after training almost all (80 percent) claimed an advanced understanding and expert use status and had the ability to teach others about these resources. In addition, self-analysis by participants of their knowledge and ability to both develop and evaluate Web sites advanced from novice status for most to post training indication of ability to teach others about criteria for evaluation of Web sites and intermediate to advanced understanding of Web development. Technology Mind Maps On the last day of the training, participants completed a series of group mind maps showing what they had learned during the project. The mind maps, grouped on a “Know-
< previous page
page_264
next page >
< previous page
page_265
next page >
Page 265 Figure 2. Knowledge and Use of Electronic Resources Prior to Training
It-All Wall,” included comments on five components of the training. Two of the mind maps, shown in figures 5 and 6, were related to technology use. Participant comments on both mind maps demonstrated a comfort level with technology that was not apparent prior to the training. For example, one participant, who said she did not think she would like using a laptop, loved it so much that she threatened it would need to be pried from her “cold, dead fingers.” By the end of the training, participants also felt comfortable using FrontPage 2000 to create a Web site from scratch. As one participant put it, “The mystery is gone—I can do it myself!’’ Team Web Sites The major outcome for participants was the development of a team Web site aimed at serving the needs of their communities. During the first training session, each team created a mind map identifying a topic in their community that could best be addressed by the public and school librarian working collaboratively. Topics ranged from young adult literacy to celebrating a community’s 50th anniversary. Ten of the original 12 teams completed a team Web site (see table 2). Although the Web sites vary in level of sophistication, each contains certain basic design elements such as an audience-appropriate theme, shared borders and a navigation bar, internal and external hyperlinks, and graphics. The purpose of each page is clearly stated and supports the needs of the community. Four of the Web sites provide opportunities for students to contribute original content—oral histories, interviews, creative writing, or photographs. The two teams that did not complete a Web site were unable to overcome either technical or personal problems. One team had not backed up their data. When the hard drive on one of the laptops crashed, they lost their data and as a result, their momentum. The other team’s efforts were complicated when one team member withdrew from the project after the first training session. Although the other team member remained with the
< previous page
page_265
next page >
< previous page
page_266
next page >
Page 266 Figure 3. Use of Electronic Communication Technology after Training
project, health problems forced her to resign her library position shortly after the training sessions ended. Analyzing the Collaborative Experience A variety of strategies were used throughout the training to support collaboration. During the first training session, for example, participants created mind maps of their public and school library programs to identify overlaps in services and potential topics that could be best addressed by a joint public-school library Web site. Team members then worked together to learn communication tools, such as TAPPEDIN and threaded discussion, that would allow them to virtually stay in touch with their partner, and design tools, such as FrontPage 2000 and Inspiration, that would allow them to collaboratively develop their team Web site. Team members also used a critical feedback protocol and rubric to critique each other’s ideas and plans for the team Web sites. In addition, the project nurtured informal relationships between team members. Because the training took place over an extended period of time, participants shared a hotel room and ate meals together. Photographs of team members working together were also posted to the project Web site to reinforce and celebrate the collaborative nature of the project. Several data sources were used to gather information about the participants’ collaborative experience—a collaboration checklist, the Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory (Mattessich, Murray-Close, Monsey 2001), a collaboration mind map, and interviews. The Collaboration Checklist Prior to the training, participants were asked to indicate on a checklist their previous experience working with the local public or school library. Most of the participants’ ex-
< previous page
page_266
next page >
< previous page
page_267
next page >
Page 267 Figure 4. Knowledge and Use of Electronic Resources After Training
periences were informal and cooperative. The most popular were exchanging book lists, sharing student assignments, and scheduling class visits. Seven of the librarians had attended the School/Public Library Collaboration Conference sponsored by the Office of Commonwealth Libraries. None of them had created joint Web pages or even linked their organizations’ Web pages. Figure 5. Technology Mind Map
< previous page
page_267
next page >
< previous page
page_268
next page >
Page 268 Figure 6. Web Design Mind Map
The Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory Near the end of the training, the Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory was administered. Developed by researchers at the Amherst H. Wilder Foundation, the inventory measures 20 factors that influence the success of collaboration and is designed to encourage conversation about the collaborative experience. The 20 success factors are grouped into six categories: environment, membership, process and structure, communication, purpose, and resources. Participants scored factors related to membership characteristics and communication the highest. Specifically, they felt that all members of their collaborative group shared an understanding and respect for each other and their respective organizations, were flexible and open to varied ways of accomplishing goals, and had established informal relationships and communication links that enabled them to produce a better, common product. Low-scoring factors related to process, structure, and resources. Participants indicated a need for management to take a more active role in promoting and supporting collaborative efforts between public and school librarians. They believed successful collaboration requires partner organizations to devote substantial staff hours, materials, and financial support to developing and maintaining collaborative relationships—something they felt was missing from their respective organizations. The collaboration mind map created on the last day of training as part of the “Know-It-All Wall” reiterated the group’s positive view of collaboration and underscored the belief that management must commit considerable time, energy, and resources to sustain collaborative efforts (see fig. 7). Interviews In February 2002, the members of 3 of the 12 teams were interviewed to provide insight into the collaborative experience. As preparation, five basic questions were sent in advance of the 45- to 60-minute telephone interviews:
< previous page
page_268
next page >
< previous page
page_269
next page >
Page 269 Table 2. Team Web Sites Community Topic Bucks County 50th anniversary of Levittown Bucks County Pittsburgh (2) Franklin County Dauphin County (Hershey) Philadelphia Pittsburgh York County Philadelphia Clarion
Web Site Title & Url Levittown, PA: An Oral History http://imls-train.cis.drexel.edu/bucks1/ Doylestown architecture Doylestown Architecture http://imls-train.cis.drexel.edu/bucks2/ Young adult literacy Write Here, Write Now http://imls-train.cis.drexel.edu/pitt2/ Student ambassador program Student Ambassadors http://imls-train.cis.drexel.edu/Franklin1/ The research process Coco Hershey’s Travel Guide http://imls-train.cis.drexel.edu/dauphin1/ Career counseling needs of high school School to Work students http://imls-train.cis.drexel.edu/phila2/ Pittsburgh history Legends of Pittsburgh http://imls-train.cis.drexel.edu/pitt1/ Young adult reading Middy Michael Memorial Summer Book Talk Series http://imls-train.cis.drexel.edu/york1/ Emergent reading Who Reads? http://imls-train.cis.drexel.edu/phila1/ Young adult reading Accelerate to Achieve http://imls-train.cis.drexel.edu/clarion2/ think collaboration is all about in terms of your experience in this project? know now about how to use technology to work with a partner that you did not know before the
1. What do you 2. What do you project? 3. What are you doing differently in building collaborative relationships with teachers, students, or other librarians? 4. Are you continuing to collaborate with your partner? If so, how? If not, what is preventing collaboration? 5. What do you need to be able to sustain the collaborative relationship you established with your partner during the training? The participants we interviewed described collaboration as “working together and learning together.” They indicated that for collaboration to be successful, there must be mutual respect, equal commitment, follow-through, and compromise. They also agreed that finding the “right” partner is important. As one participant noted, collaboration can often feel like a “test of wills,” especially if the team members have different personalities and different working styles. Her partner, for example, liked to go directly to the computer and start creating, whereas she preferred to spend time planning. Although she and her
< previous page
page_269
next page >
< previous page
page_270
next page >
Page 270 Figure 7. Collaboration Mind Map
partner successfully completed their Web site, she admitted that in ‘‘real life,” they probably would not have worked together because of the differences in their personalities. Although they seemed to still prefer face-to-face collaboration, the participants did see how technology could be used to support the process. All of them used e-mail, for example, to share ideas and resources, such as Web sites they wanted to add to their Web page, or to schedule meetings. One of the teams relied on TAPPEDIN to work together virtually. “TAPPEDIN came in handy when we weren’t able to get together. We could search and share at the same time. It allowed us to focus on what was really important.” Three of the participants also believed TAPPEDIN could facilitate collaboration between the librarians or teachers in their system. One public librarian, for example, thought the librarians in her city could use TAPPEDIN to supplement their monthly meetings, especially because their e-mail system was problematic. “We could be working in smaller groups, sharing information, problem solving, and still be working at the circulation desk.” The project seemed to impact the collaborative behaviors of each of the six participants we interviewed. Participants described “trying to be more conscious of others’ needs and their ways of working,” being more open to collaboration, and having a better attitude about the benefits of collaboration. One participant related that the experience helped her realize that “one and one makes three.” Each of them described a collaborative relationship they had developed since the project: one with a reading teacher in the city, another with two school librarians in her county that she had not worked with before, one with the school district’s technology coordinator, one with her own staff members, and the other two with teachers in their schools. Two of the three teams interviewed were continuing to collaborate on their project. One team had linked with a local community organization and was planning a program at the public library. The other team was continuing to add student work to its team Web site. This team had also met with several groups in the school district to promote their
< previous page
page_270
next page >
< previous page
page_271
next page >
Page 271 Web site and to share the technology tools they had learned about—TAPPEDIN, Inspiration, Backflip, and FrontPage 2000. The school librarian reported that she was “getting lots of calls and e-mails about how to do it.” The third team had not continued to work on its Web site due to time constraints—the public librarian was in the middle of opening a new facility, and the school librarian was responsible for running three school libraries in her district. When asked what they needed to sustain the collaborative relationship they had established during the project, the overwhelming response was time: “Time is the biggest thing that interferes”; “We had a good relationship, but if we needed anything it would be time”; ‘‘Time is the big factor—Hershey provided the time we needed to collaborate.” Other important ingredients for collaboration included buy-in from top administration and cooperation from the school district. Identifying Strengths and Weaknesses of the Model One of the primary purposes of the evaluation was to assess the efficacy and replicability of the professional development model. Several data sources were used to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the model— participant logs, observations by Drexel University and Office of Commonwealth Library staff, a final project evaluation survey, and participant interviews. The following factors were identified as strengths of the model: Instructors. The lead trainer and the facilitators were effective leaders. They demonstrated the necessary organizational, technical, and interpersonal skills needed to successfully carry out their roles. They were skilled at maintaining a balance between process and task activities, and they enabled each participant to experience a progression of successes throughout the training. Having three instructors was also important. Participants appreciated that someone was “on hand” when they needed help. That the lead trainers and facilitators were available not only during the days of the on-site training but also in the evenings and via electronic communication (e-mail, threaded discussion, and TAPPEDIN) during the online training period was also beneficial. Participants indicated that it helped knowing that if they posted a question to the threaded discussion, they would get a response. The variety of instructional components. The instruction was constructivist. That is, the focus was on enabling the participants to construct their own understanding of collaboration and Web site design through direct hands-on experiences and reflection on those experiences. It used a unique combination of traditional staff development components, such as on-site workshops and print guides, and innovative cutting-edge strategies involving authentic online collegial learning experiences. The instructors also accommodated the participants’ learning styles by using a variety of instructional techniques, such as minilessons, mind mapping, critical feedback protocols, small group discussion, rubrics, and instructional groupings (large group, small group, and one-on-one). The requirement for participants to attend the training as a team. This was perhaps the strongest component of the model. As one participant put it: “Collaborative partnerships are the important thing. Technology is secondary to that.” Another one agreed: “Nothing beats sitting right next to your partner.” The extended training period. When they were first recruited for the project, several of the participants said they “wondered why the training was so spread out.” Once the project began, however, they realized that the extended time frame was necessary because it allowed them to digest what they had learned, collaborate with their partner, and complete their team Web site. According to one public librarian, “The days dedicated to the project were wonderful. There isn’t time during the regular workday to collaborate. And I’m tired when I get home at night.”
< previous page
page_271
next page >
< previous page
page_272
next page >
Page 272 Laptops. Participants believed having the laptop was critical to their learning and the successful completion of their team Web sites. As one of the participants noted, Building Collaboration Through Technology was “an ambitious project.” Perhaps this was the chief weakness of the model—we tried to do too much. We included too much content and too much new technology. One participant put it best when she said, “I would have preferred to learn fewer things better.” The learning curve for technology such as TAPPEDIN was too steep for many of the participants. The vast majority did not believe they adequately learned to use TAPPEDIN or that it added value to the development of their team Web site. We also included too much content. KidsConnect and FamiliesConnect, for example, were interesting to the participants but again, did not add value to the development of the team Web sites. As one participant concluded, “KidsConnect and FamiliesConnect are projects in and of themselves.” Another weakness of the model was our failure to clearly explain the project expectations to the participants. We relied on informal channels for recruitment, rather than using a more formal application process. Only after they had agreed to participate in the project did the participants receive a formal letter of agreement spelling out specific project expectations. Because of this, the level of commitment varied among the team members. Several of the participants also believed the project would have been more successful if they had been allowed to choose their partners. One participant explained it this way: My grant partner, while highly skilled in the technology component and very knowledgeable and creative, did not appear to be comfortable in a collaborative role. His approach was task oriented, and since he was very competent with technology, he preferred to work independently. He thought collaboration meant assigning me menial tasks and didn’t attempt to share his expertise or ideas with me…. Our project has gone nowhere since August. [My partner] hasn’t responded to my attempts to contact him. THE REVISED MODEL Creating a professional development model such as Building Collaboration Through Technology is by necessity an organic and dynamic process. Although we began the project with an overall plan, we made adjustments to the model throughout the training to take into account participant capabilities, technological glitches, and the results of the formative evaluation. The final model, which can be viewed at http://imls-train.cis.drexel.edu, has been revised to reflect what we learned. Changes include the following: • Clarifying the responsibilities of all the stakeholders, including the participants, partnering libraries, and sponsoring organizations. • Consolidating the on-site training into three three-day sessions. • Giving participants more time to work on their team Web sites during the on-site training sessions. • Removing the technology and content that participants did not believe added value to the experience (TAPPEDIN, KidsConnect, FamiliesConnect). • Providing participants with concrete strategies to build and manage collaborative relationships. • Including additional opportunities for participants to interact with individuals other than their partner. • Expanding the participant’s manual to include more detailed assignments.
< previous page
page_272
next page >
< previous page
page_273
next page >
Page 273 Because our goal was to produce a model that other state library agencies, departments of education, local school districts and public library systems, and professional associations could adapt, we also developed an implementation Web site, an instructor’s manual in electronic format, and a booklet to guide adaptation efforts. CONCLUSION As Shirley Fitzgibbons (2000) points out, collaboration between school and public libraries may be the only solution to providing adequately for the library needs of children and young adults, especially in today’s technologically sophisticated world. This project demonstrates how technology can be used to both foster and support collaborative relationships. Communication technologies such as threaded discussion and e-mail provide the information channels critical to prolonged and interdependent collaborative efforts. Software such as FrontPage 2000 and Inspiration gives school and public librarians the tools they need to plan programs that address the needs of their shared community. Electronic resources, such as those provided by POWER Library, expand the world of children, their parents or caregivers, and their teachers. “Kids do need libraries,’’ and by using technology to work collaboratively, school and public librarians can improve their services and consequently, improve student learning (Fitzgibbons 2000). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors acknowledge the Institute of Museum and Library Services for funds through its National Leadership Grants for Libraries Program. NOTES 1. The project Building Collaboration Through Technology was supported by a grant from the Institute for Museum and Library Services (IMLS) under the National Leadership Grants for Libraries Education and Training. The contents of this article do not carry the endorsement of IMLS. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the project team. 2. Mind mapping, developed by Tony Buzan, is a powerful graphic technique that allows individuals or groups to conceptualize ideas and plan work using the whole brain. For more information, see Buzan (1994). REFERENCES Berger, P. (1998). Internet for active learners: Curriculum-based strategies for K–12. Chicago: American Library Association. Buzan, T. (1994). The mind map book: How to use radiant thinking to maximize your brain’s untapped potential. New York: Dutton. Elmore, R. (1997). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and instructional improvement in community school district #2, New York City. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future and the Consortium of Policy Research in Education. Fitzgibbons, S. (2000). School and public library relationships: Essential ingredients in implementing educational reforms and improving student learning. School Library Media Research 3. [Online]. Available: http://www.ala.org/aasl/SLMR/vol3/relationships/relationships.html. (Accessed February 25, 2002). Mattessich, P. W., Murray-Close, M., and Monsey, B. R. (2001). Collaboration: What makes it work (2nd ed.). Saint Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.
< previous page
page_273
next page >
< previous page
page_274
next page >
Page 274 Cataloging Update 101 How to Get the Most out of Your Online Catalog Elizabeth Haynes School of Library and Information Science University of Southern Mississippi Small libraries with few staff members may find cataloging and database upkeep an onerous task that gets relegated to the bottom of priorities. This article provides some basics about machine-readable cataloging (MARC) records, tips for cleaning up databases efficiently, and guidance for downloading MARC records from the Library of Congress. As more and more libraries have automated catalogs, patrons become more familiar with the process required to use them and with the benefits of such features as keyword searching, chronological ranking, and so on. An automated catalog, however, is only as good as the records in the database that supports it. For patrons to get the most benefit from an automated catalog, quality records are a must. Most catalogs have a mixture of top-quality records and those that have the bare minimum of information or that are deficient in some other way. Sometimes, no record was available for downloading and there has been no time to fully catalog the item. Rather than have the item sitting uselessly on a shelf, it is entered with a skeletal record. In other cases, the records obtained commercially (or otherwise) contain errors or omissions. The one- or two-person library is particularly vulnerable to having a mishmash of catalog records. Such libraries usually do not belong to one of the cataloging consortia such OCLC, and the small staff has a myriad of duties to attend to, of which cataloging and database cleanup are usually not top priority. Furthermore, cleaning up a database can seem like an overwhelming task. However, there are some techniques and tricks that will make a maximum amount of difference for a relatively small expenditure of time. Those skeletal records will still be there, but some other problems will be solved. The following information is addressed to librarians who find themselves in the situation of having very little staff, no time, and sometimes only dimly remembered cataloging knowledge. Many of us had cataloging courses before the days when MARC tagging was routinely taught. Or if we did learn it, we have not used it much until the day we are confronted with an automated catalog and a burgeoning database of MARC records. Therefore, I will start with an extremely brief review of what cataloging is and how cataloging and MARC relate to one another. WHAT IS CATALOGING? Cataloging is the activity of describing an item, classifying it for shelf location and subject access, and deciding upon access points. Describing an item and determining access points are governed by a set of predetermined rules set forth in the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR 1998). Classifying is normally done either by assigning a Dewey Decimal classification number or a Library of Congress classification number. Subject headings are assigned using a controlled list of terms such as Sears List of Subject Headings (Miller 2000) or Library of Congress Subject Headings (Library of Congress 2001).
< previous page
page_274
next page >
< previous page
page_275
next page >
Page 275 WHAT IS MARC? MARC stands for machine-readable cataloging. It is a coding template for transforming cataloging records into a format that can be read by computer programs. MARC records may be created in the act of cataloging—that is, the information is placed directly in the MARC template as it is determined by the cataloger. Or MARC records may be created after the fact—that is, the information is taken from the catalog record and placed into MARC format. However, producing a MARC record is not in and of itself cataloging. A MARC record is only as good as the cataloging process that produced the record in the first place. Careful and complete cataloging should be the basis of good MARC records. MARC records consist of four basic parts: fixed fields and headers, fields, subfields, and indicators. Each field is numbered, and a specific numbered field contains a particular piece of information from the catalog record. For example, the 245 field (or tag) contains the title, the general material designator, and statement of responsibility information. Some fields are mandatory and must be present in a MARC record. The 245 field is an example of a mandatory field. Subfields in the field are used to format the information. For example, in the 245 field, subfield a contains the title proper, subfield b contains the subtitle or remainder of the title information, and so forth. Indicators are codes associated with certain fields that give instructions to the automation system or information to the cataloger or user. Example 245 14 #a The grapes of wrath / #c by John Steinbeck. 245 = MARC tag or field number 1 = first indicator 4 = second indicator (filing indicator) #a = a subfield—main title #c = c subfield—statement of responsibility INDICATORS Some indicators are very important. The filing indicator is associated with the title field and some other title-like fields (such as series). The filing indicator is found in the second position in the title field (see previous example) and tells the automation program the number of spaces that should be skipped before the first character to be considered in the filing sequence. The filing indicator for titles starting with the word “the” is 4, 3 for titles starting with the word “an” and 2 for titles starting with ‘‘a.” An incorrect filing indicator may cause a title to be “lost” and not be pulled up in a title search (although it may be pulled up in a keyword search). A prime reason for incorrect filing indicators is switching the first and second indicators in the 245 field. The first indicator is normally 1 or 0. Other important indicators include the second indicator found in the subject heading fields (600, 610, 650, 651, 655). This indicator tells the source of the subject heading. A 0 is a Library of Congress subject heading, a 1 indicates a Library of Congress Annotated Card Program (children’s) heading, and a 7 or 8 points out a Sears subject heading. Fixed fields and headers are frequently supplied by the cataloging template program used to produce homemade MARC records. Information may be fed into those fields from the answers to questions asked in straightforward English. Knowledge of the fixed fields and headers, particularly the 008 field, may help the librarian adapt records from one format to another. An excellent explanation of the 008 field can be found in Understanding MARC
< previous page
page_275
next page >
< previous page
page_276
next page >
Page 276 Bibliographic: Machine-Readable Cataloging (Furrie 2000). This publication is cosponsored by the Library of Congress and Follett Software Company. It can be accessed at http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/umb/. RECENT RULE AND MARC RECORD CHANGES There have been several changes in Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR 1998) and in MARC record formats in the last three or four years. These changes have not all been universally adopted by the major cataloging entities such as Library of Congress or OCLC. You will see records with the new forms and the old forms, depending on where you look and how old the record is. Some of these changes are discussed below. The subfield designation for form subdivisions in subject heading fields has been changed from x to v. The subfield designation for topical subject heading subdivisions remains x. This means that global changes in your automated catalog may be difficult if not impossible to do. I imagine x form subdivisions will likely be around for many years to come. The 655 field is used for genre subject headings. The need for this field is illustrated by the example of the subject heading “Closed Captioned for the Hearing Impaired.” Using this subject heading in the 650 field implies that the work is about closed captioning. Putting it in the 655 field tells us that the work is closed captioned, rather than being about closed captioning. Subject headings for romance, mystery, and other types of genre fiction can be used in the 655 field to collocate holdings in these areas for the users. Chapter 9 in the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR 1998) deals with computer software and has been extensively revised in the 2001 amendments that were recently published (Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR 2001). The general material designator (GMD) for software has been changed from “computer file” to “electronic resource.” The revised rules also deal with the situation of cataloging virtual resources such as Web sites. EVALUATING VENDOR MARC RECORDS MARC records purchased from vendors vary greatly in quality. This is more true for audiovisual materials than for books. Most books have a Library of Congress (LC) record that vendors can use, but many vendors provide their own or contracted cataloging records for audiovisual materials. There are some telltale areas to look at when evaluating vendor records: • The GMD should be an accepted term and should be in all small letters. Some vendor records will have the GMD in all capital letters. A list of acceptable GMD terms can be found in the 1998 edition of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules . U.S. libraries commonly use List 2. • The filing indicator should be checked. • The record should have a 520 summary field. • There may be more than one set of subject headings. Are the subject headings from the source that you use in your library? • The subfields in the 300 field (physical description) should be correctly filled in. MARC records for books frequently have placeholder information in the 300 field because the vendor took the MARC record from the preliminary catalog record produced by LC for the Cataloging-in-Publication (CIP) program. These records do not give the number of pages, illustration details, or size measurements. • Applicable MARC fields should all be present.
< previous page
page_276
next page >
< previous page
page_277
next page >
Page 277 FREQUENTLY USED MARC FIELDS The following fields will be found in a good MARC record if they are applicable to the item being cataloged. 010—Library of Congress Card Number (LCCN) 020—ISBN (can be repeated for multiple ISBNs) 1xx—Main entry (unless title is main entry) 245—Title 250—Edition 260—Publisher information 300—Physical description 440/490—Series (traced or untraced) 500—General notes 504—Bibliography note 520—Summary 6xx—Subject headings 7xx—Added entries for responsible parties Additional notes may be required, particularly for audiovisual materials. These include but are not limited to sound recordings, videorecordings, and electronic resources. SoundRecordings 538—Use the 538 field for notes about Dolby encoding, recording format, and compact disc format. A 538 note stating “Compact disc’’ is required for that format. 505—Formatted contents note 511—Cast, performers 520—Summary Videorecordings 538—System (e.g., VHS, Laser optical CLV, etc.), sound recording format (e.g., Dolby surround sound) 500—Use the 500 field for notes about original movie release dates, and so on. 506—Usage restrictions 508—Production credits; use for information about persons not “important” enough to go in the c subfield of the 245 field (e.g., composer, choreographer, lyricist, etc.). 511—Cast, performers 520—Summary 521—Target audience, rating information 546—Closed captioned
< previous page
page_277
next page >
< previous page
page_278
next page >
Page 278 Electronic Resources 538—System requirements 500—Use for explanatory notes needed to further describe the computer program. 520—Summary CORRECTING MARC RECORDS For book records, one should always start by looking at the 300 field. In many cases, this field will need to be correctly filled in, as per the following example. Example 300 #a p. ; #c cm. (Taken from CIP, which usually omits pagination and other publishing details.) should be 300 #a 256 p. : #b ill. ; #c 24 cm Examples of audiovisual 300 fields follow. Sound Recordings #a 1 sound disc (25 min) : #b analog, 33 1/3 rpm; #c 12 in. (Example for record.) #a 1 sound disc (75 min.) : #b digital, stereo ; #c 4 3/4 in. (Example for CD—also requires 538 note field.) #a 1 sound cassette (45 min.) : #b analog, stereo. (Example for cassette—no c subfield required.) Videorecordings #a 1 videocassette (40 min.) : #b sd., col. ; #c 1/2 in. (Example for videorecording) #a 1 videodisc (145 min.) : #b sd., b&w ; #c 12 in. (Example for videodisc and DVD—DVD requires 538 note field. The #c subfield for DVD is 4 3/4 in.—materials may be in col. or b&w.) Electronic Resources (Electronic Resources require a 538 systems requirements note) #a 1 computer disk : #b col. ; #c 3 1/2 in. #c 1 user’s guide (Example for program with 3 1/2 in. disks.) #a 1 computer optical disc : #b sd., col. ; #c 4 3/4 in. #e 1 user’s guide (Example for CD-ROM.) (Note the difference in spelling between computer disks and computer optical discs.) The subject headings should be examined. Many records will come with duplicate subject headings. These may include a set for LC subject headings, a set for LC Annotated Card Program headings, and a set for Sears. Those subject headings that are not from the source that you use should be eliminated. For example, if you use Sears, eliminate the LC
< previous page
page_278
next page >
< previous page
page_279
next page >
Page 279 subject headings. The second indicator will tell you the source of the subject headings, as discussed previously in the section on indicators. Example of Record with Multiple Sets of Subject Headings (Note: Sears headings may have a second indicator of 7 or 8, depending on the source and how old the record is; some fields omitted from this record as an example.) 100 1 #a Austin, Margot. 245 1 0 #a Churchkitten stories and more kitten tales : #b featuring The three silly kittens ; and, Gabriel Church kitten and the moths / #c [Margot Austin] 650 0 #a Dogs #x Juvenile fiction (This is an LC subject heading—second indicator of 0.) 650 1 #a Cats #x Fiction (Form subdivisions may be subfields x or v, depending on source and date of record—this is an Annotated Card Program subject heading—second indicator of 1.) 650 1 #a Dogs #x Fiction 650 7 #a Cats #x Fiction (This is a Sears subject heading—second indicator of 7 or 8.) 650 7 #a Dogs #x Fiction Some subject headings must be deleted from this record, or your system may show multiples of the same subject heading for the same book. Check to make sure the LCCN and the ISBN match the item in hand. If not, correct those numbers. An ISBN in a record may be for a different binding than the one that you have. The ISBN for your copy may be added as the 020 field can be repeated. Do not delete the other ISBN—it may be useful for merging records for different bindings of the same title at a future time. Check for misfiled “the”, “a”, and “and.” Type only the word ‘‘the” (or “a” or “and”) in as a title search. Any titles that come up as starting with “the” are misfiled. Correct the filing indicator to fix the problem. Check for other misfilings. See the following example. Example of Incorrect Filing Indicator (title search on letter “F”) Screen display: 1. F-111 / 2. F-16 Fighting Falcon / 3. F. D. R., architect of an era 4. F-freezing ABC / 5. Of human bondage The title field (245) of the record for “Of Human Bondage” appears like this: 245 01 #a Of human bondage (The second indicator should be a 0 and the first indicator should be a 1.)
< previous page
page_279
next page >
< previous page
page_280
next page >
Page 280 OTHER TIPS FOR CLEANING UP A DATABASE • Make notes when you see something on the screen that is wrong. • Train a volunteer to fix MARC records. Volunteers should be able to do such things as fix filing indicators, delete duplicate subject headings, and fill in 300 fields correctly. • Merge multiple headings for the same author. • Check frequently misspelled words. Lists of those can be found at the following Web sites: • http://faculty.quinnipiac.edu/libraries/tballard/typoscomplete.html • http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/units/cts/bdm/spellerr.html • http://www.neflin.org/bradford/moretypos/moretypos.htm SOURCES OF MARC RECORDS MARC records can be obtained by buying individual records from vendors, from vendor-compiled databases (such as Alliance Plus from Follett), from searching online catalogs, and by downloading records from the Library of Congress. To download records from the Library of Congress, do the following steps: • Go to http://www.loc.gov. • Choose “Search the Catalog.” • Choose “Search the Online Catalog” at the next screen. • Select a method of searching (probably by author, title, or subject). • Perform your search. • Select desired entry from results list; click. • Click on the “MARC Tags’’ tab. • Scroll down to bottom of record and click on “MARC—Save Only.” • A screen will appear with a single line of letters and numbers. Choose “Save As” from the File Menu of your browser. Select where the records will be saved from the dialog box. • Import the record into your system. A more extensive explanation of this process can be found at http://www.mitinet.com/Support/s_lcdownload.htm. ONLINE CATALOGING AIDS A number of tools can be found online that will aid you in the cataloging process. In addition to those already mentioned, they include the following sources. (All sites were accessed on March 1, 2002.) • Follet’s MARC Tag of the Month. Each month, a different MARC field tag is highlighted and explained. Past archives can be viewed. http://www.fsc.follett.com/products/marctags/
< previous page
page_280
next page >
< previous page
page_281
next page >
Page 281 • MARC 21 Concise Format for Bibliographic Data. Gives information on each MARC field tag, with indicators, subfields, and examples. http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/ecbdhome.html • The Cataloger’s Reference Shelf. Contains links to a number of different manuals, including Library of Congress rule interpretations. http://www.tlcdelivers.com/tlc/crs/crs0000.htm—Other_Reference_Manuals REFERENCES Furrie, B. (2000). Understanding MARC Bibliographic: Machine-Readable Cataloging. Washington, DC: Library of Congress. Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR. (1998). Anglo-American cataloguing rules. Chicago: American Library Association. ———. (2001) Anglo-American cataloging rules: Amendments. Chicago: American Library Association. Library of Congress. (2001). Library of Congress subject headings. Washington, DC: Library of Congress. Miller, J. (2000). Sears list of subject headings. New York: H. W. Wilson.
< previous page
page_281
next page >
< previous page
page_282
next page >
page_282
next page >
Page 282 This page intentionally left blank.
< previous page
< previous page
page_283
next page >
Page 283 Part Three Leadership Profiles Introduction The purpose of this section is to profile individuals who have made significant contributions to the field of instructional technology. There is no formal survey or popularity contest to determine the persons for whom the profiles are written, but those selected are usually emeritus faculty who may or may not still be active in the field. Leaders profiled in the Yearbook have either held prominent offices, written important works, or made significant contributions that have in some way influenced the contemporary vision of the field. They have often been directly responsible for mentoring individuals who have themselves become recognized for their contributions. The following are those previously profiled in earlier volumes of the Yearbook: James D. Finn James W. Brown Wilbur Schramm Robert E. De Kieffer Jean E. Lowrie Robert Morris William Travers Robert Mills Gagneé Robert Heinich Charles Francis Schuller Harry Alleyn Johnson Robert M. Morgan Paul Saettler Donald P. Ely James Okey Constance Dorothea Weinman Castelle (Cass) G. Gentry Thomas F. Gilbert Wesley Joseph McJulien Stanley A. Huffman John C. Belland Robert M. Diamond Paul Robert Wendt Don Carl Smellie Bob Casey Kent Gustafson Tjeerd Plomp Walter Dick There are special reasons to feature people of national and international renown, and the editors of this volume of the Educational Media and Technology Yearbook believe we have selected two outstanding leaders in our field for this issue. I have had the privilege of meeting each of these gentlemen, and each has contributed tremendously to the field of instructional technology worldwide. The people we have chosen to profile this year are: Frank Dwyer John Hedberg You are welcome to nominate individuals to be featured in this section. Your nomination of someone to be profiled in this section must also be accompanied by the name of the person who would agree to compose the leadership profile. Please direct any comments, questions, and suggestions about the selection process to the senior editor. Michael Orey
< previous page
page_283
next page >
< previous page
page_284
next page >
Page 284 Francis M. Dwyer Visual Researcher Extraordinaire David M. (Mike) Moore Virginia Tech
Francis M. (Frank) Dwyer is one of the most prolific and well published researchers in the field of instructional technology. He has influenced literally hundreds of graduate students directly and many thousand other students indirectly by his research focus and guidance. Dr. Dwyer is currently a professor of education at Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) and has served as senior research associate and coordinator of instructional research and evaluation at that institution. Beginning in 1965, Dr. Dwyer pioneered an innovative research program called Program of Systematic Evaluation (PSE), designed to identify the types of visual materials that would be most effective in facilitating student achievement of specific educational objectives when the content is presented via different instructional formats. At that time, several different types of instructional variables were investigated in four media presentation formats: television, slide or audiotaped instruction, visualized programmed instruction, and textbook instruction. Current studies involve computer and Web-based formats. The PSE approach has been used in examining the instructional effects of visualization and how instructional and training environments using visualization may be modified to improve students’ information acquisition and retrieval capabilities. Periodically, a number of seminal documents and materials have been produced to acquaint individuals interested in the design, development, and delivery of effective visualized materials with the activities of the program and to make these materials available for use in their work areas or for their students in instructional environments. These documents include the following books: A Guide for Improving Visualized Instruction (Dwyer 1972), Strategies for Improving Visual Learning (Dwyer 1978), and Enhancing Visualized Instruction: Recommendations for Practitioners (Dwyer 1987).
< previous page
page_284
next page >
< previous page
page_285
next page >
Page 285 The result of this research has significant implications for individualizing instruction and for course development activities. To date, more than 100,000 students have been involved in this program, which represents the most comprehensive and systematic attempt to identify those variables associated with visualized instruction that are most effective in facilitating student achievement of specified learning objectives. Hundreds of experimental studies reporting the results of this research program have been published by Dr. Dwyer in dozens of different journals in the United States, Argentina, Germany, and England. Dr. Dwyer has authored or coauthored more than 300 research articles (yes, that’s correct!) related to instructional systems design and development published in professional journals, which include Harvard Educational Review, Journal of Psychology, Journal of Educational Research, Journal of Experimental Education, Dedakta Medica, Audio Visual Communications Review, Educational Technology Communications Journal, Perceptual and Motor Skills, International Journal of Instructional Media, Journal of Instructional Psychology, and many others. Dr. Dwyer has presented more than 250 papers on the effective design and use of media and technology at the state, regional, national, and international levels (e.g., Association for Educational Communications and Technology, American Educational Research Association, National Association for Educational Broadcasters, International Visual Literacy Association, and Northeast Educational Research Association). Two of his books, A Guide for Improving Visualized Instruction (1972) and Strategies for Improving Visual Learning (1978) were selected by the Alvina Truet Burrows (ATB) Institute, Inc., of New York for inclusion in the William S. Grays Research Collection in Reading. Since 1884, 200 books have been selected for inclusion in the collection, which is considered by many experts to be the finest collection of reading research documents of its kind. The ATB Institute has microfiched the Gray Research Collection in Reading and distributed it to reading resource centers throughout the country and to various U.S. and foreign academic and research libraries. The availability of this unique collection of reading literature and research has provided professionals, graduate students, researchers, and government agencies with reading materials designed to facilitate student learning. A Guide for Improving Visualized Instruction summarizes 10 years of research by Dr. Dwyer, investigating the instructional effectiveness of different types of visualization in terms of increasing student achievement. Strategies for Improving Visual Learning emphasizes the interrelatedness of variables associated with the effective use of visual materials. It attempts to draw trends from prior research relative to the effective design and use of visual media. In this respect, it presents the concept of visualized instruction not as an isolated phenomenon, but as an interrelated constituent process operating at varying levels of complexity—the elements of which acquire significance only in the context in which they are used. Dr. Dwyer’s latest book, Visual Literacy: A Spectrum of Visual Learning (Moore and Dwyer 1995) also deals with the instructional use of visuals. It received the prestigious Association for Educational Communications and Technology/ECT (AECT/ECT) Foundation’s James W. Brown Outstanding Publication Award for 1995. Dr. Dwyer’s extensive and influential research in the field of visual learning has earned him several major recognitions, including the Japan Society for Promotion of Science’s first Visiting Professorship in Instructional Technology (1975), the Pennsylvania Learning Resources Association’s Eero Davidson Memorial Award for Significant Research Contribution to the Profession (1979), Penn State’s Presidential Commendation for Media Research and Leadership (1976 and 1977), and the International Visual Literacy Association’s (IVLA) Outstanding Research Award (1991). The IVLA award was given for 25 years of sustained research in the area of visual learning. IVLA has presented this award only twice in 37 years. Dr. Dwyer’s research expertise has been recognized by the invitation to serve on the editorial and publication boards of many professional journals, including the Review of Educational Research (American Educational Research Association), Educational Tech-
< previous page
page_285
next page >
< previous page
page_286
next page >
Page 286 nology Research and Development, Audiovisual Instruction, International Journal of Instructional Media, and the Journal of Visual Literacy. He is also an associate editor of the Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (Jonassen 1996). Dr. Dwyer has served as dissertation advisor and chair for more than 200 doctoral dissertations in the area of instructional design and technology. He also has served as an external evaluator for dissertations from Canada, Africa, and Malaysia, to name a few. For his outstanding work with graduate students, he was awarded the AECT Crystal Mentorship Award, in recognition of exceptional and ongoing mentorship in the field of instructional technology. In addition to his scholarship, Dr. Dwyer has contributed immense service to organizations and to the field of instructional technology. For example, he has served as president of IVLA (1978–1979), as president of the research and theory division of AECT (1979–1980), and as president of AECT (1984–1985). He has served on various national professional organizations’ planning committees, board of directors (including AECT and IVLA), leadership conferences (Okoboji), executive committees, task forces, and editorial committees. In 1993, he received the IVLA Outstanding Service Award. This was the first time that this award was presented to a member of that organization. He has served as consultant to U.S. government agencies (e.g., Department of Defense, Department of Interior), foreign governments (e.g., Japan, Saudi Arabia, Italy), corporations (e.g., General Motors, PriceWaterhouse), and organizations and foundations (e.g., National Science Foundation, National Academy of Podiatry), as well as numerous universities, colleges, and public and private schools. By any academic measure—research, scholarship, teaching, mentoring, or service—Frank Dwyer would qualify as a true leader and an ultimate professional. He is, in addition to everything else, a fine man with a dry wit. He continues to conduct research and mentor his students at Penn State. In whatever spare time is left, he can be found pursuing his interests in the forests and along the streams of central Pennsylvania and wishing more wins for Penn State’s football and basketball teams. The author is a friend and colleague of Dr. Dwyer. REFERENCES Dwyer, F. M. (1972). A guide for improving visualized instruction. State College, PA: Learning Services. ———. (1978). Strategies for improving visual learning. State College, PA: Learning Services. ———. (1987). Enhancing visualized instruction: Recommendations for practitioners. State College, PA: Learning Services. Jonassen, D. H. (ed.). (1996). Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Moore, D. M., and Dwyer, F. M. (eds.). (1994). Visual literacy: A spectrum of visual learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
< previous page
page_286
next page >
< previous page
page_287
next page >
Page 287 Tribute to John G. Hedberg Professor of Education, University of Wollongong Thomas C. Reeves The University of Georgia
Australians have a long history of making valuable contributions to the field of educational media and technology, although they have rarely received the credit they deserve outside Australia. One purpose of this article is to partially rectify this lack of recognition for Australian scholarship in our field. There is no better candidate with whom to start this process than Professor John G. Hedberg, from the University of Wollongong in New South Wales, Australia. Educational media and technology scholars from around the world agree that John can be counted among the top designers, evaluators, and researchers anywhere on the globe. John was born in Bowral, a country town in New South Wales, on 26 January 1947. This auspicious date is also Australia Day, the annual holiday celebrating the 1788 event when Captain Arthur Phillip and the First Fleet raised the British flag on Australia’s first European settlement at Sydney Cove. After attending elementary school in Bowral, John was sent to the city to attend the prestigious Sydney Grammar School. He completed his “leaving certificate” (high school diploma) at age 16 and entered the University of Sydney, where he studied pure mathematics and mathematical statistics. John graduated in 1968, but after deciding that he really did not relish the idea of becoming an actuary, he undertook a one-year teacher preparation program, completing an education diploma in 1969. John would have entered the teacher ranks at that time, but he was invited to become a junior lecturer at Sydney Teachers’ College. It seems that they needed someone to teach the use of technology in teaching; and although John knew virtually nothing about it, he took up
< previous page
page_287
next page >
< previous page
page_288
next page >
Page 288 the challenge. Initially, he mainly taught the use of instructional television broadcasts, but within a few years, the focus shifted to the use of videotape for instruction. In 1971, John joined the staff at the University of New South Wales, one of Australia’s premier academic institutions, as a television producer. Over the next two years, he created several educational television and radio series related to topics such as teacher training, mathematics, and the early days of computer programming. At the same time, he worked concurrently on two graduate degrees, completing a graduate diploma in human communication in 1973 at the University of New South Wales and a master’s degree in educational psychology in 1974 at the University of Sydney. Encouraged by his mentors to seek even further higher education, John left Australia for the United States, where he earned a doctorate in instructional technology in record time (1974–1976) at Syracuse University. The title of his dissertation was The Effect of Visual Realism and Cognitive Style on the Performance of Simple and Complex Perceptual Tasks. (John has always had an amazing capacity for learning, and in 1982, he furthered his education yet again by earning a graduate diploma in librarianship at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.) Returning to Australia from Syracuse University in 1976, John started the first educational radio station (3 RRR-FM) in the state of Victoria. He subsequently spent another year abroad working as an internal assessment and evaluation consultant at the B. F. Goodrich Company in Akron, Ohio. Returning once again to “Oz” in 1978, John joined the University of Melbourne to start the first educational development unit for media there. He and his staff were soon winning awards for their innovative media programs. Three years later, John moved to Perth, on the other side of the country, to work at the Western Australian Institute of Technology (now Curtin University), where he helped develop Australia’s first master’s program in educational technology. Four years later, after a number of international consultancies in Malaysia, Singapore, and elsewhere, John returned to the University of New South Wales (UNSW) to help revitalize the continuing education unit there and to begin marketing the university to international students. During his last year at UNSW (1989–90), John reported directly to the pro-vice-chancellor as a consultant in management information systems. Currently, John is professor of education and codirector of the Education Media Laboratory (emLab; http://www.emlab.uow.edu.au/) at the University of Wollongong (UOW), Australia’s University of the Year in 1999– 2000 and 2000–2001. UOW is located in a lovely seaside city about an hour’s car ride south of Sydney, where John resides. Since 1990, John has held a number of positions at UOW, including • associate professor, information technology in education, • codirector of the Interactive Multimedia Learning Laboratory, • associate dean for the Faculty of Education, • head of the Graduate School of Education, and • director of the Research Center for Interactive Learning Environments. With respect to research, it is difficult to summarize John’s many contributions. Some of the evidence for his notable scholarly achievements includes the following: • He developed problem-based interactive learning environments (e.g., StageStruck, Exploring the Nardoo, and Investigating Lake Iluka) that have won prestigious international awards for innovative design such as the Milia D’Or Award in Cannes, France, the Gold Medal Award at the New York International Interactive Multimedia Competition, the British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) award for best interactive treatment, and the European Multi-Media
< previous page
page_288
next page >
< previous page
page_289
next page >
Page 289 Association (EMMA) Gold Award for Best Interactive Multimedia Product. In addition to their sheer originality, all of John’s interactive programs exemplify a constructivist philosophy and illustrate rich theoretical perspectives about learning and performance support. • He received a large Australian Research Council grant to study the development of multimedia cognitive tools in 2000–2002. • He has examined the policy issues of implementing educational technologies in a number of countries, including Malaysia, Singapore, and Brunei, as well as in several Australian states. • He has developed innovative models, procedures, and instrumentation for evaluation and assessment. With respect to teaching, John has a reputation as a tough-minded, but fair, teacher. He has been a pioneer in the application of distance education technologies such as teleconferencing systems and Web-based instruction. In addition, he has guided the doctoral and master’s studies of some of Australia’s most promising young academics in educational media and technology. He is a popular workshop presenter at international conferences on topics such as instructional design, visual interface design, evaluation, and flexible learning. With respect to service, John’s contributions have been most notable as a journal editor. His work from 1985 to 1997 as managing editor of the Australian Journal of Educational Technology and since 1999, as editor-in-chief of Educational Media International has served thousands of readers by providing access to timely, relevant, and stateof-the-art research. John has also taken leadership roles in several professional associations, including serving as president of the International Division of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), and the Pacific-Rim coordinator for the International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI). In addition, John is frequently invited to be a keynote speaker at educational media and technology conferences around the world. John would be the first to acknowledge that his many contributions could not have been made without the collaboration of other Australian scholars such as Shirley Alexander, Barry Harper, Ron Oliver, and others. He has also collaborated with international scholars too numerous to mention. John is an articulate spokesperson for the field of educational media and technology, and in the words of Professor Dick Cornell from the University of Central Florida, he is “a star in Australia’s firmament and globally as well.” Personally, I have benefited from John’s friendship and collegiality since 1974, when he and I both entered graduate school at Syracuse University. I recognized then, as I do now, that John brings to our field an innate curiosity as to what is possible, an unparalleled capacity to envision creative solutions to complex problems, and an exceptional initiative to act on these visions by developing innovative products of startling originality and notable effectiveness. Indeed, all of his creative design work is informed by rigorous research and evaluation. The good news is that John has authored numerous books, book chapters, journal articles, technical reports, and other documents resulting in a scholarly legacy that will continue to inform research and development in Australia and around the world for many years to come. The even better news is that John is not retiring any time soon, and so it is possible to conclude that with such a unique scholar, “the best is yet to come.”
< previous page
page_289
next page >
< previous page
page_290
next page >
page_290
next page >
Page 290 This page intentionally left blank.
< previous page
< previous page
page_291
next page >
Page 291 Part Four Organizations and Associations in North America Introduction Part 4 includes annotated entries for associations and organizations, most of which are headquartered in North America, whose interests are in some manner significant to the fields of instructional technology and educational media. For the most part, these organizations are associations of professionals in the field or agencies that offer services to the educational media community. Entries are separated into sections for the United States and Canada/International. The U.S. section begins with a classified list designed to facilitate location of organizations by their specialized interests or services. (The Canada/International section is small enough not to need such a list.) In addition, one organization based in Frankfurt, Germany, is named. Information for this section was obtained through e-mail directing each organization to an individual Web form through which the updated information could be submitted electronically into a database created by Brook Price (2001 section editor) and Dr. Michael Orey. Although the section editor made every effort to contact and follow up with organization representatives, responding to the annual request for an update was left up to the organization representatives. The editing team would like to thank those respondents who helped ensure the currency and accuracy of this section by responding to the request for an update. So that readers can judge the accuracy of information provided by each entry, a ‘‘last updated” date has been provided. Readers are encouraged to contact the editors with names of unlisted media-related organizations for investigation and possible inclusion in the 2004 edition. Figures quoted as dues refer to annual amounts unless stated otherwise. Where dues, membership, and meeting information are not applicable, such information is omitted. Anna E. Burdett
< previous page
page_291
next page >
< previous page
page_292
next page >
Page 292 United States CLASSIFIED LIST Adult and Continuing Education (ALA Round Table) Continuing Library Education Network and Exchange (CLENERT) Association for Continuing Higher Education (ACHE) Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education (CE) National Education Telecommunications Organization and Education Satellite Company (NETO/EDSAT) National University Continuing Education Association (NUCEA) Network for Continuing Medical Education (NCME) PBS Adult Learning Service (ALS) University Continuing Education Association (UCEA) Children- and Youth-Related Organizations Adjunct ERIC Clearinghouse for Child Care (ADJ/CC) American Montessori Society Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI) Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC) (CEC) Technology and Media Division (TAM) Children’s Television International, Inc. Close Up Foundation Computer Learning Foundation Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education (EC) ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education (PS) National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) National PTA Young Adult Library Services Association (YALSA) Communication Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology (IR) ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics (FL) ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication Skills (CS) Health Science Communications Association (HeSCA) International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications of the National Library of Medicine National Communication Association (NCA) National Council of the Churches of Christ Computers Association for Computers and the Humanities (ACH) Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE) Computer Learning Foundation Computer-Using Educators, Inc. (CUE) International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) Society for Computer Simulation (SCS) Copyright Association of American Publishers (AAP) Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) Hollywood Film Archive International Copyright Information Center (INCINC) Library of Congress Multimedia Education Group, University of Cape Town. (MEG) Distance Education Community College Satellite Network (CCSN) Instructional Telecommunications Council (ITC) International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) International Telecommunications Satellite Organization (INTELSAT) National Education Telecommunications Organization and Education Satellite Company Institute (NETO/EDSAT)
< previous page
page_292
next page >
< previous page
page_293
next page >
Page 293 Education—General American Society of Educators (ASE) Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI) Association for Experiential Education (AEE) Council for Basic Education Education Development Center, Inc. ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education (SE) ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education (ERIC/ChESS) ERIC Clearinghouse on Counseling and Student Services (CG) ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education (EC) ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management (EA) ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education (PS) ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools (RC) ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education (SP) ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education (UD) Institute for Development of Educational Activities, Inc. (|I|D|E|A|) Minorities in Media (MIM) National Association of State Textbook Administrators (NASTA) National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) National School Boards Association (NSBA) Institute for the Transfer of Technology to Education (ITTE) The Learning Team (TLT) Education—Higher American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) American Association of State Colleges and Universities Association for Continuing Higher Education (ACHE) Association for Library and Information Science Education (ALISE) Community College Association for Instruction and Technology (CCAIT) Consortium of College and University Media Centers (CCUMC) ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges (JC) ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education (HE) Multimedia Education Group (MEG) Northwest College and University Council for the Management of Educational Technology PBS Adult Learning Service University Continuing Education Association (UCEA) Equipment Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI) Educational Products Information Exchange (EPIE Institute) ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation (TM) Library and Information Technology Association (LITA) National School Supply and Equipment Association (NSSEA) Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers (SCTE) ERIC ACCESS ERIC Adjunct ERIC Clearinghouse for Art Education (ADJ/AR) Adjunct ERIC Clearinghouse for Child Care (ADJ/CC) Adjunct ERIC Clearinghouse for ESLLiteracy Education (ADJ/LE) Adjunct ERIC Clearinghouse for United States– Japan Studies (ADJ/JS) Adjunct ERIC Clearinghouse on Clinical Schools (ADJ/CL) Adjunct ERIC Clearinghouse on Consumer Education (ADJ/CN) ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center) ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges (JC) ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education (SE) ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education (SO) ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education (CE) ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation (TM) ERIC Clearinghouse on Counseling and Student Services (CG) ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education (EC) ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management (EA) ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education (PS) ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education (HE) ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology (IR) ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics (FL) ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication Skills (CS) ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools (RC) ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education (SP)
< previous page
page_293
next page >
< previous page
page_294
next page >
Page 294 ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education (UD) ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS) ERIC Processing and Reference Facility Film and Video Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) Agency for Instructional Technology (AIT) American Society of Cinematographers Anthropology Film Center (AFC) Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) Association of Independent Video and Film-makers/Foundation for Independent Video and Film (AIVF/FIVF) Cable in the Classroom Central Educational Network (CEN) Children’s Television International, Inc. Close Up Foundation Community College Satellite Network Council on International Non-theatrical Events (CINE) Film Advisory Board Film Arts Foundation (FAF) Film/Video Arts, Inc. Great Plains National ITV Library (GPN) Hollywood Film Archive International Teleconferencing Association (ITCA) Media Communications Association-International (MCA-I) National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) National Alliance for Media Arts and Culture (NAMAC) National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) National Education Telecommunications Organization and Education Satellite Company (NETO/EDSAT) National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) National Film Board of Canada (NFBC) National Film Information Service (offered by AMPAS) National Information Center for Educational Media (NICEM) National ITFS Association (NIA/ITFS) National Telemedia Council, Inc. (NTC) The New York Festivals Pacific Film Archive (PFA) PBS Adult Learning Service (ALS) PBS VIDEO Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers (SCTE) Games, Toys, Play, Simulation, Puppetry Puppeteers of America, Inc. (POA) Society for Computer Simulation (SCS) USA Toy Library Association (USA-TLA) Health-Related Organizations Health Science Communications Association (HeSCA) Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications Medical Library Association (MLA) National Association for Visually Handicapped (NAVH) Network for Continuing Medical Education (NCME) Information Science Association for Library and Information Science Education (ALISE) ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology (IR) Freedom of Information Center International Information Management Congress (IMC) Library and Information Technology Association (LITA) Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) Innovation Institute for Development of Educational Activities, Inc. (|I|D|E|A|) Institute for the Future (IFTF) World Future Society (WFS) Instructional Technology, Design, and Development Agency for Instructional Technology (AIT) Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) Community College Association for Instruction and Technology (CCAIT) ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology (IR) International Society for Performance and Instruction (ISPI) Professors of Instructional Design and Technology (PIDT) Society for Applied Learning Technology (SALT) The Learning Team (TLT) Multimedia Education Group, University of Cape Town (MEG) International Education Adjunct ERIC Clearinghouse for United States– Japan Studies (ADJ/JS) East-West Center International Association for Learning Laboratories, Inc. (IALL)
< previous page
page_295
Page 295 International Visual Literacy Association, Inc. (IVLA) National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education (NCBE) Language ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics (FL) ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication (CS) International Association for Learning Laboratories, Inc. (IALL) National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education (NCBE) Libraries—Academic, Research American Library Association (ALA) Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology (IR) Libraries—Public American Library Association (ALA) Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC) ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology (IR) Library Administration and Management Association (LAMA) Library and Information Technology Association (LITA) Public Library Association (PLA) Young Adult Library Services Association (YALSA) Libraries and Media Centers—School (AECT) School Media and Technology (ALA Round Table) Continuing Library Education Network and Exchange (CLENERT) American Association of School Librarians (AASL) American Library Association (ALA) American Library Trustee Association (ALTA) Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) Association for Library Collections and Technical Services (ALCTS) Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC) Catholic Library Association (CLA) Consortium of College and University Media Centers ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology (IR) International Association of School Librarianship (IASL) Library of Congress National Alliance for Media Arts and Culture (NAMAC) National Association of Regional Media Centers (NARMC) National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), Commission on Media On-Line Audiovisual Catalogers (OLAC) Southeastern Regional Media Leadership Council (SRMLC) Libraries—Special American Library Association (ALA) Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC) Association of Specialized and Cooperative Library Agencies (ASCLA) ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology (IR) Medical Library Association (MLA) Special Libraries Association Theater Library Association USA Toy Library Association (USA-TLA) Media Production American Society of Cinematographers (ASC) Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) Association of Independent Video and Film-makers/Foundation for Independent Video and Film (AIVF/FIVF) Film Arts Foundation (FAF) International Graphics Arts Education Association (IGAEA) Museums and Archives (AECT) Archives Association of Systematics Collections George Eastman House Hollywood Film Archive Library of Congress Museum Computer Network (MCN) Museum of Modern Art National Gallery of Art (NGA) National Public Broadcasting Archives (NPBA) Pacific Film Archive (PFA) Smithsonian Institution Photography Electronic Camera Repair, C&C Associates George Eastman House International Center of Photography (ICP) National Press Photographers Association, Inc. (NPPA) Photographic Society of America (PSA) Society for Photographic Education (SPE) Society of Photo Technologists (SPT)
next page >
< previous page
page_296
next page >
Page 296 Publishing Graphic Arts Technical Foundation (GATF) International Graphics Arts Education Association (IGAEA) Magazine Publishers of America (MPA) National Association of State Textbook Administrators (NASTA) Radio American Women in Radio and Television (AWRT) Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) National Federation of Community Broadcasters (NFCB) National Public Broadcasting Archives (NPBA) National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) Western Public Radio (WPR) Religious Education Catholic Library Association (CLA) National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) Research (AECT) Research and Theory Division (RTD) American Educational Research Association (AERA) Appalachia Educational Laboratory, Inc. (AEL) ECT Foundation Education Development Center, Inc. ERIC Clearinghouses HOPE Reports Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory (McREL) Multimedia Education Group, University of Cape Town (MEG) National Center for Improving Science Education National Education Knowledge Industry Association (NEKIA) National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) National Science Foundation (NSF) The NETWORK North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL) Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (NWREL) Pacific Regional Educational Laboratory (PREL) Research for Better Schools, Inc. (RBS) SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education (SERVE) Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL) WestEd Special Education Adaptech Research Project American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) Association for Experiential Education (AEE) Association of Specialized and Cooperative Library Agencies (ASCLA) Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education (CE) ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education (EC) National Association for Visually Handicapped (NAVH) National Center to Improve Practice (NCIP) Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic (RFB&D) Telecommunications Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE) Association of Independent Video and Film-makers/Foundation for Independent Video and Film (AIVF/FIVF) Community College Satellite Network (CCSN) ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology (IR) Instructional Telecommunications Council (ITC) International Telecommunications Satellite Organization (INTELSAT) International Teleconferencing Association (ITCA) Library and Information Technology Association (LITA) National Education Telecommunications Organization and Education Satellite Company (NETO/EDSAT) Research for Better Schools, Inc. (RBS) Teachers and Writers Collaborative (T&W) Television American Women in Radio and Television (AWRT) Central Educational Network (CEN) Children’s Television International, Inc. (CTI) Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) Media Communications Association-International (MCA-I) National Cable Television Institute (NCTI) National Federation of Community Broadcasters (NFCB) Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers (SCTE) Training (AECT) Industrial Training and Education Division (ITED) American Management Association (AMA)
< previous page
page_296
next page >
< previous page
page_297
next page >
Page 297 American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education (CE) Federal Educational Technology Association (FETA) International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI)
< previous page
page_297
next page >
< previous page
page_298
next page >
Page 298 ALPHABETICAL LIST Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS). 8949 Wilshire Blvd, Beverly Hills, CA 90211-1972. (310)247-3000. Fax (310)859-9351. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.oscars.org. Bruce Davis, Exec. Dir. An honorary organization composed of outstanding individuals in all phases of motion pictures. Seeks to advance the arts and sciences of motion picture technology and artistry. Presents annual film awards; offers artist-inresidence programs; operates reference library and National Film Information Service. Membership: 6,000. Publications: Annual Index to Motion Picture Credits; Academy Players Directory. Last Updated: 1999. AEL, Inc. (AEL). P.O. Box 1348, Charleston, WV 25325-1348. (304)347-0400, (800)624-9120. Fax (304)347-0487. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ael.org. Allen D. Arnold, Pres. and CEO. The Appalachia Educational Laboratory is a catalyst for schools and communities to build lifelong learning systems that harness resources, research, and practical wisdom. To contribute knowledge that assists low-performing schools to move toward continuous improvement, AELconducts research, development, evaluation, and dissemination activities that inform policy, affect educational practice, and contribute to the theoretical and procedural knowledge bases on effective teaching, learning, and schooling. Strategies build on research and reflect a commitment to empowering individuals and building local capacity. AELserves Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. Last Updated: 5/8/01. Agency for Instructional Technology (AIT). Box A, Bloomington, IN 47402-0120. (812)339-2203. Fax (812)333-4218. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ait.net. Michael F. Sullivan, Exec. Dir. AIT is a nonprofit educational organization established in 1962 to develop, acquire, and distribute quality technology-based resources, providing leadership to the educational technology policy community. AIT fulfills this mission by being the largest single provider of instructional television programs and is a major player in the development of curriculum products. AIT has established a national model for contextual learning materials. AIT’s strength lies in sound instructional design, early and continual involvement of classroom practitioners, formative evaluation, and creative production of video, Web services, videodisc, software, and print resources. AIT products have won many national and international awards, including the only Emmy and Peabody awards given to classroom television programs. Since 1970, 37 major curriculum packages have been developed by AIT through a process it pioneered. U.S. state and Canadian provincial agencies have cooperatively funded and widely used these learning resources. Funding for other product development comes from state, provincial, and local departments of education, federal and private institutions, corporations and private sponsors, and AIT’s own resources. Currently, AIT offers 130 learning resource products, containing nearly 2,500 separate titles. Programming addresses prekindergarten through adult learners covering traditional curricular areas plus career development, early childhood, guidance, mental health, staff development, and vocational education. AIT programs account for 40 percent of the National Instructional Satellite Service (NISS) schedule, which is broadcast to K–12 classrooms across the country. AIT learning resources are used on six continents and reach nearly 34 million students in North America each year via electronic distribution and audio visual use. Membership: None. Dues: None. Meetings: No regular public meetings. Publications: TECHNOS: Quarterly for Education & Technology, a forum for the discussion of ideas about the use of technology in education with a focus on reform ($28/ yr., 4 issues). AIT is also the home of TECHNOS Press, publisher of Final Exam by Gerald W. Bracey. Last Updated: 4/15/02. American Association of Community Colleges (AACC). One Dupont Cir. NW, Suite 410, Washington DC 200361176. (202)728-0200. Fax (202)833-9390. E-mail
< previous page
page_298
next page >
< previous page
page_299
next page >
Page 299
[email protected]. Web site http://www.aacc.nche.edu. George R. Boggs, Pres. and CEO. AACC is a national organization representing the nation’s more than 1,100 community, junior, and technical colleges. Headquartered in Washington, DC, AACC serves as a national voice for the colleges and provides key services in the areas of advocacy, research, information, and professional development. The nation’s community colleges serve more than 10 million students annually, almost half (44 percent) of all U.S. undergraduates. Membership: 1,151 institutions, 31 corporations, 15 international associates, 79 educational associates, 4 foundations. Dues: vary by category. Meetings: Annual convention, April of each year; 2003: April 5–8, Dallas, Texas. Publications: Community College Journal (bimonthly); Community College Times (biweekly newspaper); College Times; Community College Press (books, research and program briefs, and monographs). Last Updated: 5/10/02. American Association of School Librarians (AASL). 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL 60611-2795. (312)280-4386. (800)545-2433, ext. 4386. Fax (312)664-7459. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ala.org/aasl. Julie A. Walker, Exec. Dir. A division of the American Library Association, AASL is interested in the general improvement and extension of school library media services for children and youth. Activities and projects of the association are divided among 30 committees and three sections. Membership: 8,800. Dues: Personal membership in ALA (1st yr., $50; 2nd yr., $75; 3rd and subsequent yrs., $100) plus $40 for personal membership in AASL. Inactive, student, retired, unemployed, and reduced-salary memberships are available. Meetings: National conference every two years; next national conference to be held in 2003. Publications: School Library Media Research (electronic research journal, http://www.ala.org/aasl/SLMR/); Knowledge Quest (print journal; online companion at http://www.ala.org/aasl/kqweb/); Nonserial publications (http://www.ala.org/aasl/pubs_menu.html). Last Updated: 4/10/02. American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU). One Dupont Cir. NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20036-1192. (202)293-7070. Fax (202)296-5819. E-mail currisc.aascu.org. James B. Appleberry, Pres. Membership is open to regionally accredited institutions of higher education (and those in the process of securing accreditation) that offer programs leading to the degree of bachelor, master, or doctor, and that are wholly or partially state supported and state controlled. Organized and operated exclusively for educational, scientific, and literary purposes, its particular purposes are to improve higher education within its member institutions through cooperative planning, studies, and research on common educational problems and the development of a more unified program of action among its members and to provide other needed and worthwhile educational services to the colleges and universities it may represent. Membership: 393 institutions (university), 28 systems, and 10 associates. Dues: based on current student enrollment at institution. Publications: MEMO: To the President; The Center Associate; Office of Federal Program Reports; Office of Federal Program Deadlines. (Catalogs of books and other publications available upon request.) Last Updated: 1999. American Educational Research Association (AERA). 1230 17th St. NW, Washington, DC 20036-3078. (202)223-9485. Fax (202)775-1824. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.aera.net. Felice J. Levine, Exec. Dir.; Robert L. Linn of the University of Colorado, Boulder, Pres., 2002–2003. AERA is an international professional organization with the primary goal of advancing educational research and its practical application. Its members include educators and administrators; directors of research, testing, or evaluation in federal, state, and local agencies; counselors; evaluators; graduate students; and behavioral scientists. The broad range of disciplines represented includes education, psychology, statistics, sociology, history, economics, philosophy, anthropology, and political science. AERA has more than 145 Special Interest Groups, including Advanced Technologies for
< previous page
page_299
next page >
< previous page
page_300
next page >
Page 300 Learning, Computer Applications in Education, Electronic Networking, Instructional Systems and Intelligent Tutors, Instructional Technology, and Text, Technology and Learning Strategies. Membership: 23,000. Dues: vary by category, ranging from $20 for students to $45 for voting members, for one year. See AERA Web site for complete details: www.aera.net. Meetings: 2003 Annual Meeting, April 21–25, Chicago; 2004 Annual Meeting, San Diego, April 12–16. Publications: Educational Researcher; American Educational Research Journal; Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics; Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis; Review of Research in Education; Review of Educational Research. Books: Handbook of Research on Teaching, 2001 (revised, 4th edition); Ethical Standards of AERA, Cases and Commentary, 2002; Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (revised and expanded, 1999). Copublished by AERA, American Psychological Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education. Last Updated: 5/8/02. American Foundation for the Blind (AFB). 11 Penn Plaza, Suite 300, New York, NY 10001. (212)502-7600, (800)AFB-LINE (232-5463). Fax (212)502-7777. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.afb.org. Carl R. Augusto, Pres.; Liz Greco, Vice Pres. of Communications. AFB is a leading national resource for people who are blind or visually impaired, the organizations that serve them, and the general public. A nonprofit organization founded in 1921 and recognized as Helen Keller’s cause in the United States, AFB’s mission is to enable people who are blind or visually impaired to achieve equality of access and opportunity that will ensure freedom of choice in their lives. AFB is headquartered in New York City with offices in Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, and San Francisco. A governmental relations office in AFB is headquartered in New York City with offices in Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, San Francisco, and Washington, DC. Publications: AFB News (free); Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness; AFB Press Catalog of Publications (free). Last Updated: 1999. American Library Association (ALA). 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL60611. (800)545-2433. Fax (312)440-9374. Email
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ala.org. Keith Michael Fiels, Exec. Dir., effective July 1. The ALA is the oldest and largest national library association. Its 63,300 members represent all types of libraries: state, public, school, and academic, as well as special libraries serving persons in government, commerce, the armed services, hospitals, prisons, and other institutions. The ALA is the chief advocate of achievement and maintenance of high-quality library information services through protection of the right to read, educating librarians, improving services, and making information widely accessible. See separate entries for the following affiliated and subordinate organizations: American Association of School Librarians, American Library Trustee Association, Association for Library Collections and Technical Services, Association for Library Service to Children, Association of College and Research Libraries, Association of Specialized and Cooperative Library Agencies, Library Administration and Management Association, Library and Information Technology Association, Public Library Association, Reference and User Services Association, Young Adult Library Services Association, and Continuing Library Education Network and Exchange Round Table. Membership: 63,300 members at present; everyone who cares about libraries is allowed to join the ALA. Dues: Professional rate: $50, first year; $75, second year; third year and renewing, $100; Student members: $25; Retirees: $35; International librarians: $50, first year; $60, second year; Trustees: $45; Associate members (those not in the library field): $45. Meetings: 2003: Midwinter Meeting, January 24–29, Philadelphia; Annual Conference, June 19–25, Toronto. Publications: American Libraries; Booklist; Choice; Book Links. Last Updated: 5/7/02. American Library Trustee Association (ALTA). 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL60611. (312)280-2161. Fax (312)280-3257. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ala.org/alta.
< previous page
page_300
next page >
< previous page
page_301
next page >
Page 301 Susan Roman, Exec. Dir. A division of the American Library Association, ALTA is interested in the development of effective library service for people in all types of communities and libraries. Members, as policy makers, are concerned with organizational patterns of service, the development of competent personnel, the provision of adequate financing, the passage of suitable legislation, and the encouragement of citizen support for libraries. Membership: 1,710. Dues: $50 plus membership in ALA. Meetings: Held in conjunction with ALA. Publications: Trustee Voice (q. newsletter); professional monographs and pamphlets. Last Updated: 1999. American Management Association (AMA). 1601 Broadway, New York, NY 10019-7420. (212)586-8100. Fax (212)903-8168. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.amanet.org. Barbara M. Barrett, Pres. and CEO. Founded in 1923, AMA provides educational forums worldwide where members and their colleagues learn superior, practical business skills and explore best practices of world-class organizations through interaction with each other and expert faculty practitioners. AMA’s publishing program provides tools individuals use to extend learning beyond the classroom in a process of lifelong professional growth and development through education. AMA operates management centers and offices in Atlanta, Boston (Watertown), Chicago, Hamilton (NY), Kansas City (Leawood), New York, San Francisco, Saranac Lake (NY), and Washington, DC, and through AMA/International, in Brussels, Tokyo, Shanghai, Islamabad, and Buenos Aires. In addition, it has affiliated centers in Toronto, Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Taipei, Istanbul, Singapore, Jakarta, and Dubai. AMA offers conferences, seminars, and membership briefings where there is an interchange of information, ideas, and experience in a wide variety of management topics. Membership: over 75,000. Dues: corporate, $595–$1,645; growing company, $525–$1,845; individual, $165 plus $40 per additional newsletter. Publications: Management Review (membership); Compensation & Benefits Review; Organizational Dynamics; HR Focus; President; Getting Results…; and The Take-Charge Assistant. Also 70 businessrelated books per year, as well as numerous surveys and management briefings. Other services offered by AMA include FYI Video; Extension Institute (self-study programs in both print and audio formats); AMA Interactive Series (self-paced learning on CD-ROM); Operation Enterprise (young adult program); AMA On-Site (videoconferences); the Information Resource Center (for AMA members only), a management information and library service; and six bookstores. Last Updated: 1999. American Montessori Society (AMS). 281 Park Ave. S., New York, NY 10010. (212)358-1250. Fax (212)3581256. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.amshq.org. Michael N. Eanes, Natl. Dir. Dedicated to promoting better education for all children through teaching strategies consistent with the Montessori system. Membership is composed of schools in the private and public sectors employing this method, as well as individuals. It serves as a resource center and clearinghouse for information and data on Montessori affiliates, trains teachers in different parts of the country, and conducts a consultation service and accreditation program for school members. The mission of the AMS is to promote high-quality Montessori education for all children by providing service to parents, teachers, and schools. Membership: Membership includes schools, teachers, parents, school heads, and friends of Montessori. This total is approximately 11,000. Dues: vary based on membership. Membership is available for certified Montessori teachers, Montessori Schools, and general members (includes those who are not certified Montessori teachers, parents, friends of AMS). Meetings: Three regional and four professional development symposia under the auspices of the AMS Teachers’ Section. Publications: AMS Montessori LIFE (q.); Schoolheads (newsletter); Montessori in Contemporary American Culture, Margaret Loeffler, Editor; Authentic American Montessori School; AMS The Montessori School Management Guide; AMS position papers; and the following AMS Publications: Montessori Teaching: A Growth Profession; The Elementary School Years 6–12;
< previous page
page_301
next page >
< previous page
page_302
next page >
Page 302 Your Child Is in an Accredited School; Some Considerations in Starting a Montessori School; Montessori Education Q&A; The Early Childhood Years, 3–6; Attracting and Preparing Montessori Teacher for the 21st Century; Adolescent Programs; The Kinder-garten Experience; Some Comparisons of Montessori Education with Traditional Education; Helping Children Become All They Can Become; The Montessori Family: A Parent Brochure; Tuition and Salary Surveys. Last Updated: 5/4/01. American Society for Training and Development (ASTD). 1640 King St., Box 1443, Alexandria, VA 22313. (703)683-8100. Fax (703)683-1523. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.astd.org. Tina Sung, Pres. and CEO. Founded in 1944, ASTD is the world’s premier professional association in the field of workplace learning and performance. ASTD’s membership includes more than 70,000 people in organizations from every level of the field of workplace performance in more than 100 countries. Its leadership and members work in more than 15,000 multinational corporations, small- and medium-size businesses, government agencies, colleges, and universities. ASTD is the leading resource on workplace learning and performance issues, providing information, research, analysis, and practical information derived from its own research, the knowledge and experience of its members, its conferences and publications, and the coalitions and partnerships it has built through research and policy work. Membership: 70,000 national and chapter members. Dues: The Classic Membership ($150) is the foundation of ASTD member benefits. Publications, newsletters, research reports, discounts and services, and much more are all designed to help members do their jobs better. Members receive the following benefits: • Training and Development —Monthly publication of the industry. Stay informed on trends, successful practices, public policy, ASTD news, case studies, and more. • Performance in Practice—Quarterly newsletter offers articles written by members for members. • Hot Topics—ASTD’s online reading list gets members up to speed on leading-edge issues in the training and performance industry. • Database and archive access—Free online access to Trainlit, ASTD’s searchable database featuring products reviews, book and article summaries, and archived articles. • Learning Circuits —Monthly Webzine features articles, departments, and columns that examine new technologies and how they are being applied to workplace learning. • Human Resource Development Quarterly—In-depth studies and reports on human resource theory and practice give members a scholarly look at the training profession. Is available only online with archives dating back to 1998. • ASTD news briefs—Weekly news briefs relating to the training and performance industry. • Special reports and research—Trends report, state of the industry, learning outcomes, and international comparison report. • Training Data Book —An annual publication, now online, that draws on ASTD research and highlights the nature and magnitude of corporate investment in employer-provided training. • Research assistance—ASTD has an information center that can provide members with research over the phone. Members can also send research requests through the Web site.
< previous page
page_302
next page >
< previous page
page_303
next page >
Page 303 • Membership directory—Online directory searchable by a variety of criteria. Access to the membership directory is for members only and is being enhanced for future networking capabilities. • Buyers Guide & Consultants Directory—A one-stop resource for information on more than 600 suppliers of training and performance products and services. There are also several segments that members can add on to their Classic Membership: • Membership Plus: A choice of 12 info lines or four prechosen ASTD books. $79. • Training Professionals: Includes an annual subscription to Info-lines, Pfeiffers Best of Training and the ASTD Training and Performance Yearbook. $130. • Organizational Development/Leadership Professionals: Includes Pfeiffers Consulting Annual, Leader to Leader, and Leadership in Action. $200. • Consulting: Includes annual subscription to C2M (q. journal) and Pfeiffers Consulting Annual. $75. • E-Learning: Includes Training Media Review Online (database and newsletter that evaluates audio, video, software, and online products) and ASTD Distance Learning Yearbook. $175. Meetings: International Conference 2003, San Diego, CA, May 17– 22. Publications: Training & Development Magazine; Info-Line; The American Mosaic: An In-Depth Report of Diversity on the Future of Diversity at Work; ASTD Directory of Academic Programs in T&D/HRD; Training and Development Handbook; Quarterly publications: Performance in Practice; National Report on Human Resources; Washington Policy Report. ASTD also has recognized professional forums, most of which produce newsletters. Last Updated: 4/10/02. American Society of Cinematographers (ASC). 1782 N. Orange Dr., Hollywood, CA 90028. (213)969-4333. Fax (213)876-4973, (213)882-6391. E-mail
[email protected]. Victor Kemper, Pres. ASC is an educational, cultural, and professional organization. Membership: 336. Membership is by invitation to those who are actively engaged as directors of photography and have demonstrated outstanding ability. Classifications are Active, Active Retired, Associates, and Honorary. Meetings: Book Bazaar (Open House); Awards Open House; Annual ASC Awards. Publications: American Cinematographer Video Manual; Light on Her Face; and American Cinematographers Magazine. Last Updated: 1999. American Society of Educators (ASE). 1429 Walnut St., Philadelphia, PA 19102. (215)563-6005. Fax (215)5879706. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.media-methods.com. Michele Sokolof, Publisher and Editorial Dir.. ASE publishes Media & Methods Magazine, the recognized authoritative publication dedicated to exemplary teaching practices and resource materials for K–12 educators. Full of pragmatic articles on how to use today’s instructional technologies and teaching tools, Media & Methods is the flagship magazine of practical educational applications specifically for school district technology coordinators, media specialists, school librarians, administrators and teachers. A long-respected and treasured magazine focusing on how to integrate today’s tools for teaching as well as for administrative and library management in K–12 schools. Membership: Individuals subscribe to Media & Methods Magazine. Dues: None. Meetings: Meetings occur at national education conferences. Publications: Media & Methods Magazine is published seven times a year. Cost: $33.50 per year. Last Updated: 4/24/02.
< previous page
page_303
next page >
< previous page
page_304
next page >
Page 304 American Telecommunications Group (ATG). 1400 E. Touhy, Suite 260, Des Plaines, IL60018-3305. (847)3908700. Fax (847)390-9435. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.atgonline.org. James A. Fellows, Pres. ATG serves as an umbrella framework for six entities that are organized to provide and support educational and programming services, professional development and policy development for public broadcasting, educational telecommunications and related public service media: American Center for Children and Media—a professional development and resource center for people who create, commission, distribute and study children’s TV and digital media; Center for Education Initiatives—supports distance learning, adult training, and evaluation of new technology initiatives in education; Central Educational Network (CEN)—a nonprofit executive-level association of public broadcasting licensees that undertakes joint activities and services, administers program funds and awards, and conducts leadership exchanges; Continental Program Marketing—distributes quality programming to U.S. public television stations; The Hartford Gunn Institute—assists in developing fundamental plans for building the second generation of public telecommunications; and The Higher Education Telecommunications Consortium—assists colleges and universities in managing telecommunications operations and advances the expansion and development of higher education-based telecommunication services. Membership: Membership in the CEN component of ATG is available to public television and telecommunications organizations and agencies. Membership in The Higher Education Telecommunications Consortia is available to public television stations that are licensed to colleges and universities. Publications: ‘‘Close Up Online” is a periodic briefing that keeps readers informed about the various services and activities of the organizations that are a part of the ATG. Close Up Online also reports on noteworthy people and activities throughout our nationwide constituency. Last Updated: 5/21/02. American Women in Radio and Television (AWRT). 1650 Tyson Blvd., Suite 200, McLean, VA 22102-3915. (703)506-3290. Fax (703)506-3266. E-mail
[email protected]. Jacci Duncan, Exec. Dir. Organization of professionals in the electronic media, including owners, managers, administrators, and those in creative positions in broadcasting, satellite, cable, advertising, and public relations. AWRT’s objectives are to work worldwide to improve the quality of radio and television; to promote the entry, development, and advancement of women in the electronic media and allied fields; to serve as a medium of communication and idea exchange; and to become involved in community concerns. Organized in 1951. Membership: 40 chapters. Student memberships available. Dues: $125. Publications: News and Views; Resource Directory; Careers in the Electronic Media; Sexual Harassment; Mentoring Brochure (pamphlet). Last Updated: 1999. Anthropology Film Center (AFC). #5 Paseo Sin Nombre, Valencia, NM 87535-9635. (505)757-2219. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.anthrofilm.org. Carroll Williams, Dir. Offers the Ethnographic/Documentary Film Program, a 16-week full-time course for 16mm film, CD, and DVD production and theory. Workshops are offered as well. AFC also provides consultation, research facilities, and a specialized library. Workshops in Visual Anthropology are offered. January and May starts. Mailing address is HC70 Box 3209, Glorieta, NM 87535-9635. Meetings: None scheduled further until 2003. Publications: A Filmography for American Indian Education. Last Updated: 4/9/02 Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI). 17904 Georgia Ave., Suite 215, Olney, MD 20832. (301)570-2111. Fax (301)570-2212. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.udel.edu/bateman/acei. Anne W. Bauer, Ed. and Dir. ACEI publications reflect careful research, broad-based views, and consideration of a wide range of issues affecting children from infancy through early adolescence. Many are media related in nature. The journal ( Childhood Education ) is essential for teachers, teachers-in-training,
< previous page
page_304
next page >
< previous page
page_305
next page >
Page 305 teacher educators, day-care workers, administrators, and parents. Articles focus on child development and emphasize practical application. Regular departments include book reviews (child and adult); film reviews, pamphlets, software, research, and classroom idea sparkers. Six issues are published yearly, including a theme issue devoted to critical concerns. Membership: 12,000. Dues: $45, professional; $26, student; $23, retired; $80, institutional. Publications: Childhood Education (official journal), with ACEI Exchange (insert newsletter); Journal of Research in Childhood Education; professional division newsletters (Focus on Infants and Toddlers, Focus on Pre-K and K, Focus on Elementary, and Focus on Middle School); Celebrating Family Literacy Through Intergenerational Programming; Selecting Educational Equipment for School and Home; Developmental Continuity Across Preschool and Primary Grades; Implications for Teachers; Developmentally Appropriate Middle Level Schools; Common Bonds: Antibias Teaching in a Diverse Society; Childhood 1892–1992; Infants and Toddlers with Special Needs and Their Families (position paper); and pamphlets. Last Updated: 1999. Association for Continuing Higher Education (ACHE). Continuing Education, Trident Technical College, P.O. Box 118067, CE-P, Charleston, SC 29423-8067. (803)574-6658. Fax (803)574-6470. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.charleston.net/organization/ACHE/. Wayne Whelan, Exec. Vice Pres. ACHE is an institution-based organization of colleges, universities, and individuals dedicated to the promotion of lifelong learning and excellence in continuing higher education. ACHE encourages professional networks, research, and exchange of information for its members and advocates continuing higher education as a means of enhancing and improving society. Membership: 1,622 individuals in 674 institutions. Dues: $60, professional; $240, institutional. Publications: Journal of Continuing Higher Education (3/yr.); Five Minutes with ACHE (newsletter, 10/yr.); Proceedings (annual). Last Updated: 1999. Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT). 1800 N. Stonelake Dr., Suite 2, Bloomington, IN 47404. (812)335-7675. Fax (812)335-7678. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.aect.org. Phillip Harris, Exec. Dir.; Charlie White, Pres. AECT is an international professional association concerned with the improvement of learning and instruction through media and technology. It serves as a central clearinghouse and communications center for its members, who include instructional technologists, library media specialists, religious educators, government media personnel, school administrators and specialists, and training media producers. AECT members also work in the armed forces, public libraries, museums, and other information agencies of many different kinds, including those related to the emerging fields of computer technology. Affiliated organizations include the Association for Media and Technology in Education in Canada (AMTEC), Community College Association for Instructional and Technology (CCAIT), Consortium of College and University Media Centers (CCUMC), International Association for Learning Laboratories (IALL), International Visual Literacy Association (IVLA), Minorities in Media (MIM), National Association of Regional Media Centers (NARMC), New England Educational Media Association (NEEMA), and the Southeastern Regional Media Leadership Council (SRMLC). Each of these affiliated organizations has its own listing in the Yearbook. The ECT Foundation is also related to AECT and has an independent listing. Membership: 3,000 members in good standing from K–12, college and university and private sector/government training. Anyone interested can join. There are different memberships available for students, retirees, corporations and international parties. Dues: $85.00 standard membership; discounts are available for students and retirees. Additional fees apply to corporate memberships or international memberships. Meetings: Summer Leadership Institute held each July. Annual Conference each year in conjunction with the NSBA Technology Conference in early November. Publications: TechTrends (6/yr., free with membership; $55 nonmembers); Educational Technology Research and
< previous page
page_305
next page >
< previous page
page_306
next page >
Page 306 Development (q., $35 members; $75 nonmembers); Quarterly Review of Distance Education (q., $40 members); many books; videotapes. Last Updated: 5/4/01. (AECT) Research and Theory Division (RTD). 1800 N. Stonelake Dr., Suite 2, Bloomington, IN 47408. (812)335-7675. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site www.aect.org. Phil Harris, AECT Exec. Dir. Seeks to improve the design, execution, utilization, and evaluation of educational technology research; to improve the qualifications and effectiveness of personnel engaged in educational technology research; to advise the educational practitioner as to the use of the research results; to improve research design, techniques, evaluation, and dissemination; to promote both applied and theoretical research on the systematic use of educational technology in the improvement of instruction; and to encourage the use of multiple research paradigms in examining issues related to technology in education. Membership: 452. Dues: One division membership included in the basic AECT membership; additional division memberships $10. Meetings: Held in conjunction with annual AECT Convention. Publications: Newsletter. Last Updated: 4/21/02. School Media and Technology Division, Association for Educational Communications and Technology (SMT). 1800 N. Stonelake Dr., Suite 2, Bloomington, IN 47408. (877)677-AECT. Fax (912)267-4234. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site www.aect.org. Maria Savoldi, Pres. SMT strives to improve instruction and promotes excellence in student learning in the K–12 setting by developing, implementing, and evaluating media programs and by planning and integrating technology in the classroom. Membership: 902. Members of this division are primarily school library media specialists or instructional technology coordinators in K–12 school districts. Dues: One division membership included in the basic AECT membership; additional division memberships $10. Meetings: Held in conjunction with the annual AECT Convention. Publications: Newsletter. Last Updated: 5/9/02. AECT Archives. University of Maryland, Hornbake Library, College Park, MD 20742. (301)405-9255. Fax (301)3142634. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.library.umd.edu/UMCP/NPBA/npba.html. Thomas Connors, Archivist, National Public Broadcasting Archives. A collection of media, manuscripts, and related materials representing important developments in visual and audiovisual education and in instructional technology. The collection is housed as part of the National Public Broadcasting Archives. Maintained by the University of Maryland in cooperation with AECT. Open to researchers and scholars. Last Updated: 1999. Association for Experiential Education (AEE). 2305 Canyon Blvd., Suite 100, Boulder, CO 80302-5651. (303)440-8844, ext. 10. Fax (303)440-9581. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.aee.org. John E. Koenig, Ph.D., CEO. AEE is a nonprofit, international, professional organization with roots in adventure education, committed to the development, practice, and evaluation of experiential learning in all settings. AEE’s vision is to be a leading international organization for the development and application of experiential education principles and methodologies with the intent to create a just and compassionate world by transforming education and promoting positive social change. Membership: more than 2,500 members in over 30 countries including individuals and organizations with affiliations in education, recreation, outdoor adventure programming, mental health, youth service, physical education, management development training, corrections, programming for people with disabilities, and environmental education. Dues: $55–$95, individual (depending on annual income); $110–$125, family; $200– $500, organizations and corporations. Meetings: Annual AEE International Conference, fall. Re-
< previous page
page_306
next page >
< previous page
page_307
next page >
Page 307 gional conferences held in the Northwest, Heartland, Southeast, Mid-South, Mid-Atlantic, Northeast, West, and Rocky Mountains. Publications: Jobs Clearinghouse (monthly); The Journal of Experiential Education (3/yr.); Experience and the Curriculum; Adventure Education; Adventure Therapy; Therapeutic Applications of Adventure Programming; Manual of Accreditation Standards for Adventure Programs; The Theory of Experiential Education, Third Edition; Experiential Learning in Schools and Higher Education; Ethical Issues in Experiential Education, Second Edition; The K.E.Y. (Keep Exploring Yourself) Group: An Experiential Personal Growth Group Manual; Book of Metaphors, Volume II; Women ’ s Voices in Experiential Education; bibliographies, directories of programs, and membership directory. New publications since last year: Exploring the Boundaries of Adventure Therapy; A Guide to Women ’ s Studies in the Outdoors; Administrative Practices of Accredited Adventure Programs; Fundamentals of Experience-Based Training; Wild Adventures: A Guidebook of Activities for Building Connections with Others and the Earth; Truth Zone: An Experimental Approach to Organizational Development. Last Updated: 5/7/02. The Association for Information and Image Management (AIIM). 1100 Wayne Ave., Suite 1100, Silver Spring, MD 20910. (301)587-8202. Fax (301)587-2711. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.aiim.org/. John Mancini, Pres. AIIM International is the industry’s leading global organization. It believes that at the center of an effective business infrastructure in the digital age is the ability to capture, create, customize, deliver, and manage enterprise content to support business processes. The requisite technologies to establish this infrastructure are an extension of AIIM’s core document and content technologies. These Enterprise Content Management (ECM) technologies are key enablers of e-Business and include Content/Document Management, Business Process Management, Enterprise Portals, Knowledge Management, Image Management, Data Warehousing, and Data Mining. AIIM strives to be a neutral and unbiased source of information that produces educational, solution-oriented events and conferences and provides up-to-the-minute industry information through publications and its online Knowledge Center. It is an ANSI/ISO-accredited standards developer. Membership: Full Trade Membership; Associate Trade Membership; Corporate Membership; Institutional Membership; Individual Membership; Student Membership. Dues: Varies by membership level. Meetings: Future exhibitions planned for Dubai, UAE, and Singapore. Publications: e-doc Magazine; DOC.1 Weekly Newsletter. Last Updated: 5/7/01. Association for Library and Information Science Education (ALISE). P.O. Box 7640, Arlington, VA 22207. (703)522-1899. Fax (703)243-4551. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.alise.org. Sharon J. Rogers, Exec. Dir. Seeks to advance education for library and information science and produces annual Library and Information Science Education Statistical Report. Open to professional schools offering graduate programs in library and information science; personal memberships open to educators employed in such institutions; other memberships available to interested individuals. Membership: 500 individuals, 73 institutions. Dues: institutional, sliding scale, $325–$600; associate, $200; international, $125; personal: $90 full-time; $50 part-time, $40 student, $50 retired. Publications: Journal of Education for Library and Information Science; ALISE Directory and Handbook; Library and Information Science Education Statistical Report. Last Updated: 1999. Association for Library Collections and Technical Services (ALCTS). 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL60611. (312)280-5038. Fax (312)280-5033. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site www.ala.org/alcts. Charles Wilt, Exec. Dir.; Olivia Madison, Pres. (2002–2003). A division of the American Library Association, ALCTS is dedicated to acquisition, identification, cataloging, classification, and preservation of library materials; the development and coordination of the country’s library resources; and aspects of selection and evaluation in-
< previous page
page_307
next page >
< previous page
page_308
next page >
Page 308 volved in acquiring and developing library materials and resources. Sections include Acquisitions, Cataloging and Classification, Collection Management and Development, Preservation and Reformatting, and Serials. Membership: 5,091. Membership is open to anyone who has an interest in areas covered by ALCTS. Dues: $45 plus membership in ALA. Meetings: ALA Annual Conference—Toronto, June 19–25, 2003; Orlando, June 24–30, 2004: ALA Midwinter Meeting; Philadelphia, January 24– 29, 2003; San Diego, January 9–14, 2004. Publications: Library Resources & Technical Services (q.); ALCTS Newsletter (6/yr.); ALCTS Network News (AN2), electronic newsletter issued irregularly. Last Updated: 4/10/02. Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC). 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL 60611. (312)280-2163. Fax (312)944-7671. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ala.org/alsc. Stephanie Anton, Interim Exec. Dir. ALSC develops and supports the profession of children’s librarianship by enabling and encouraging its practitioners to provide the best library service to our nation’s children. ALSC is interested in the improvement and extension of library services to children in all types of libraries. It is responsible for the evaluation and selection of book and nonbook library materials and for the improvement of techniques of library service to children from preschool through the eighth grade or junior high school age, when such materials and techniques are intended for use in more than one type of library. Committee membership is open to ALSC members. Membership: 3,600. Dues: $45 plus membership in ALA. Meetings: Annual Conference and Midwinter Meeting with ALA National Institutes. Publications: Journal of Youth Services in Libraries (q.); ALSC Newsletter (q.). Last Updated: 5/14/01. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). P.O. Box 2966, Charlottesville, VA 22902. (804)973-3987. Fax (804)978-7449. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.aace.org. Gary Marks, Exec. Dir.; April Ballard, contact person. AACE is an international, educational, and professional organization dedicated to the advancement of learning and teaching at all levels with information technology. AACE publishes major journals, books, and CD-ROMs on the subject and organizes major conferences. AACE’s membership includes researchers, developers, and practitioners in schools, colleges, and universities; administrators, policy decision makers, trainers, adult educators, and other specialists in education, industry, and the government with an interest in advancing knowledge and learning with information technology in education. Membership: 6,500. Dues: Basic membership of $75 includes one journal subscription and Educational Technology Review subscription. Meetings: Publications: Educational Technology Review (ED-TECH Review) (two to three times yearly); Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching; Journal of Computing in Childhood Education; Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia; Journal of Interactive Learning Research (formerly Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education); Journal of Technology and Teacher Education; International Journal of Educational Telecommunications. A catalog of books and CD-ROMs is available upon request or by visiting http://www.aace.organize/conf/pubs. Last Updated: 1999. Association of American Publishers (AAP). 50 F St. NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20001. (202)347-3375. Fax (202)347-3690. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.publishers.org. Patricia S. Schroeder, Pres. and CEO (DC); Judith Platt, Dir. of Communications/Public Affairs. AAP is the national trade association of the U.S. book publishing industry. AAP was created in 1970 through the merger of the American Book Publishers Council, a trade publishing group, and the American Textbook Publishers Institute, a group of educational publishers. AAP’s approximately 300 members include most of the major commercial book publishers in the United States, as well as smaller and nonprofit publishers, university presses, and scholarly societies. AAP members publish
< previous page
page_308
next page >
< previous page
page_309
next page >
Page 309 hardcover and paperback books in every field and a range of educational materials for the elementary, secondary, postsecondary, and professional markets. Members of the association also produce computer software and electronic products and services, such as online databases and CD-ROMs. AAP’s primary concerns are the protection of intellectual property rights in all media, the defense of free expression and freedom to publish at home and abroad, the management of new technologies, development of education markets and funding for instructional materials, and the development of national and global markets for its members products. Membership: Regular membership in AAP is open to all U.S. companies actively engaged in the publication of books, journals, looseleaf services, computer software, audiovisual materials, databases and other electronic products such as CD-ROM and CD-I, and similar products for educational, business, and personal use. This includes producers, packagers, and copublishers who coordinate or manage most of the publishing process involved in creating copyrightable educational materials for distribution by another organization. “Actively engaged” means that the candidate must give evidence of conducting an ongoing publishing business with a significant investment in the business. Each Regular Member firm has one vote, which is cast by an official representative or alternate designated by the member company. Associate membership (nonvoting) is available to U.S. not-for-profit organizations that otherwise meet the qualifications for regular membership. A special category of associate membership is open to nonprofit university presses. Affiliate membership is a nonvoting membership open to paper manufacturers, suppliers, consultants, and other nonpublishers directly involved in the industry. Dues: Dues are assessed on the basis of annual sales revenue from the print and electronic products listed above (under Regular Membership), but not from services or equipment. To maintain confidentiality, data is reported to an independent agent. Meetings: Annual Meeting (February), Small and Independent Publishers Meeting (February), School Division Annual Meeting (January), PSP Annual Meeting (February). Publications: AAP Monthly Report. Last Updated: 5/13/02. Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL 60611-2795. (312)2802523. Fax (312)280-2520. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ala.org/acrl.html. Mary Ellen K. Davis, Exec. Dir. An affiliate of the American Library Association, ACRLprovides leadership for development, promotion, and improvement of academic and research library resources and services to facilitate learning, research, and the scholarly communications process. It provides access to library standards for colleges, universities, and two-year institutions and publishes statistics on academic libraries. Committees include Academic/Research Librarian of the Year Award, Appointments, Hugh C. Atkinson Memorial Award, Budget and Finance, Colleagues, Committee on the Status of Academic Librarians, Bylaws, Copyright, Council of Liaisons, Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship, Government Relations, Intellectual Freedom, International Relations, Samuel Lazerow Fellowship, Media Resources, Membership, Nominations, New Leader Orientation, Professional Development, Publications, Racial and Ethnic Diversity, Research, K. G. Saur Award for the Best C&RLArticle, Scholarly Communication, Standards and Accreditation, Statistics. The association administers 15 different awards in three categories: Achievement and Distinguished Service Awards, Research Awards/Grants, and Publications. Membership: over 11,000. Dues: $35 (in addition to ALA membership). Meetings: 2003 ACRLNational Conference, Apr 10– 13, Charlotte. Publications: College & Research Libraries (6/yr.); College & Research Libraries News (11/yr.); RBM: A Journal of Rare Books, Manuscripts, and Cultural Heritage (2/yr); CHOICE Magazine: Current Review for Academic Libraries (11/yr.). CLIP Notes (current issues are nos. 16, 17, 20– 26). Recent titles include: Making the Grade; Literature in English; The Collaborative Imperative; Assessing Information Literacy Programs (CLIP Note 32); Library Web Site Policies (CLIP Note 29); Academic Library Trends and Statistics; and Proceedings of the 10th ACRL National Conference. A free list of materials is available. ACRLalso sponsors an open discussion listserv,
[email protected]. Last Updated: 5/9/02.
< previous page
page_309
next page >
< previous page
page_310
next page >
Page 310 Association of Independent Video and Filmmakers/Foundation for Independent Video and Film (AIVF/FIVF). 304 Hudson St., 6th Floor, New York, NY 10013. (212)807-1400. Fax (212)463-8519. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.aivf.org. Elizabeth Peters, Exec. Dir. Michelle Coe, Program & Information Services Dir. AIVF is the national trade association for independent video and filmmakers, representing their needs and goals to industry, government, and the public. Programs include screenings and seminars, insurance for members and groups, and information and referral services. Recent activities include seminars in filmmaking technology, meets with distributors, and regular programs on related topics. AIVF also advocates public funding of the arts, public access to new telecommunications systems, and monitoring censorship issues. Membership: Membership includes annual subscription to the Independent magazine; AIVF trade discounts; online and phone information service; Web members-only area; and discounted admission to events. Dues: $55, individual; $75, library; $100, nonprofit organization; $150, business/industry; $35, student. Meetings: Annual membership meeting. Publications: The Independent Film and Video Monthly; The AIVF Guide to International Film and Video Festivals; The AIVF Guide to Film and Video Distributors; The Next Step: Distributing Independent Films and Videos; The AIVF Self Distribution Toolkit & the AIVF Film & Video Exhibitors Guide. Last Updated: 5/7/02. Association of Specialized and Cooperative Library Agencies (ASCLA). 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL60611. (800)545-2433, ext. 4398. Fax (312)944-8085. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ala.org/ascla. Cathleen Bourdon, Exec. Dir. An affiliate of the American Library Association, ASCLA represents state library agencies, multitype library cooperatives, independent libraries and libraries serving special clienteles to promote the development of coordinated library services with equal access to information and material for all persons. The activities and programs of the association are carried out by 21 committees, four sections, and various discussion groups. Membership: 1,300. Dues: (In addition to ALA membership) $40, personal; $50, organization; $500, state library agency. Meetings: ASCLA meets in conjunction with the American Library Association. Publications: Interface (q.); see Web site http://www.ala.org/ascla for list of other publications. Last Updated: 4/10/02. Association of Systematics Collections (ASC). 1725 K St. NW, Suite 601, Washington, DC 20006. (202)8359050. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ascoll.org. Fosters the care, management, and improvement of biological collections and promotes their use. Institutional members include freestanding museums, botanical gardens, college and university museums, and public institutions, including state biological surveys and agricultural research centers. ASC also represents affiliate societies, keeps members informed about funding and legislative issues, and provides technical consulting about collection care and taxonomy. Membership: 79 institutions, 25 societies, 1,200 newsletter subscribers. Dues: Depending on the size of collections. Publications: ASC Newsletter (for members and nonmember subscribers, bimonthly); Guidelines for Institutional Policies and Planning in Natural History Collections; Access to Genetic Resources; Collections of Frozen Tissues; Guidelines for Institutional Database Policies. Last Updated: 1999. Cable in the Classroom (CIC). 1800 N. Beauregard St., Suite 100, Alexandria, VA 22311. (703)845-1400. Fax (703)845-1409. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ciconline.org. Peggy OBrien, Ph.D., Exec. Dir. Cable in the Classroom represents the cable telecommunications industry’s effort to use cable content and new technologies to improve teaching and learning for children in schools, at home, and in their communities. By focusing on five essential elements of a good education in the twenty-first century—visionary and sensible use of technologies, engagement with rich content, community with other learners, excellent teaching, and the support of parents and other adults—the cable
< previous page
page_310
next page >
< previous page
page_311
next page >
Page 311 industry works for positive change in education locally and nationally. Membership: Cable in the Classroom is a consortium of more than 8,500 local cable companies and 40 national cable programming networks. Local cable companies provide free basic cable service to all accredited K–12 schools passed by cable. Cable networks offer free educational programming with no commercials or viewing requirements and with extended copyright clearances so teachers can tape for classroom use. In addition, cable companies and networks create print and online resources to help teachers use the resources effectively in the classroom. Publications: Cable in the Classroom Magazine (monthly) . Last Updated: 5/21/02. Catholic Library Association (CLA). 100 North Street, Suite 224, Pittsfield, MA 01201-5109. (413)443-2CLA. Fax (413)442-2CLA. E-mail
[email protected]. Jean R. Bostley, Exec. Dir. Provides educational programs, services, and publications for Catholic libraries and librarians. Membership: Approximately 1,000. Dues: $45, individual; special rates for students and retirees. Meetings: Meetings are held in conjunction with the National Catholic Educational Association: 2003, Apr 22– 25, St. Louis. Publications: Catholic Library World (q.); Catholic Periodical and Literature Index (q. with annual cumulations). Last Updated: 1999. C&C Associates. 11112 S. Spotted Rd., Cheney, WA 99004. (888)662-7678, (509)624-9621. Fax (509)323-4811, (509)624-5320. E-mail
[email protected]. C&C Associates has the only Electronic Camera Repair Home Study course in the world. It has more than two centuries’ experience with educating camera repair technicians. The only college certified camera repair instructor in the world teaches the 18-lesson course. C&C also publishes repair guides for cameras and writes technical repair guides for several manufacturers. Last Updated: 1999. Children’s Television International (CTI)/GLAD Productions, Inc. (CTI/GLAD). Planting Field Dr., South Riding, VA 20152. (800)CTI-GLAD (284-4523). Fax (703)327-6470. Ray Gladfelter, Pres. and Dir. of Customer Services. An educational organization that develops, produces, and distributes a wide variety of color television and video programming and related publications as a resource to aid the social, cultural, and intellectual development of children and young adults. Programs cover language arts, science, social studies, history, and art for home, school, and college viewing. Publications: Teacher guides for instructional series; The History Game: A Teacher’s Guide; complimentary catalog for educational videos. Last Updated: 1999. Close Up Foundation. 44 Canal Center Plaza, Alexandria, VA 22314. (703)706-3300. Fax (703)706-0000. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.closeup.org. Stephen A. Janger, CEO. A nonprofit, nonpartisan civic education organization promoting informed citizen participation in public policy and community service. Programs reach more than a million participants each year. Close Up brings 25,000 secondary and middle school students and teachers and older Americans each year to Washington for weeklong government studies programs and produces television programs on the C-SPAN cable network for secondary school and home audiences. Membership: 25,000 participants. Meetings: Meetings are scheduled most weeks during the academic year in Washington DC, all with a government, history, or current issues focus. Publications: Current Issues; The Bill of Rights: A User’s Guide; Perspectives; International Relations; The American Economy; documentary videotapes on domestic and foreign policy issues. Last Updated: 1999. Community College Association for Instruction and Technology (CCAIT). New Mexico Military Institute, 101 W. College Blvd., Roswell, NM 88201-5173. (505)624-8382.
< previous page
page_311
next page >
< previous page
page_312
next page >
Page 312 Fax (505)624-8390. E-mail
[email protected]. Jerry Klopfer, Pres. A national association of community and junior college educators interested in the discovery and dissemination of information relevant to instruction and media technology in the community environment. Facilitates member exchange of data, reports, proceedings, and other information pertinent to instructional technology and the teaching-learning process; sponsors AECT convention sessions, an annual video competition, and social activities. Membership: 250. Dues: $20. Publications: Regular newsletter; irregular topical papers. Last Updated: 1999. (AACC) Community College Satellite Network (CCSN). One Dupont Cir. NW, Suite 410, Washington, DC 20036. (202)728-0200. Fax (202)833-2467. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.aacc.nche.edu. Monica W. Pilkey, Dir. An office of the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC), CCSN provides leadership and facilitates distance education, teleconferencing, and satellite training to the nation’s community colleges. CCSN offers satellite training, discounted teleconferences, free program resources, and general informational assistance in telecommunications to the nation’s community colleges. CCSN meets with its members at various industry trade shows and is very active in the AACC annual convention held each spring. CCSN produces a directory of community college satellite downlink and videoconference facilities. Membership: 150. Dues: $400 for AACC members; $800 for non-AACC members. Publications: Schedule of Programming (2/yr.; contains listings of live and taped teleconferences for training and staff development); CCSN Fall & Spring Program Schedule (listing of live and taped teleconferences for training, community and staff development, business and industry training, and more); Teleconferencing at U.S. Community Colleges (directory of contacts for community college satellite downlink facilities and videoconference capabilities). A free catalog is available. Last Updated: 1999. Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO). 214 Centennial Hall, Southwest Texas State University, 601 University Dr., San Marcos, TX 78666. (512)245-1417. Fax (512)245-9089. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://calico.org. Robert Fischer, Exec. Dir. CALICO is devoted to the dissemination of information on the application of technology to language teaching and language learning. Membership: 1,000 members from United States and 20 foreign countries. Anyone interested in the development and use of technology in the teaching/learning of foreign languages is invited to join. Dues: $50 annual/individual. Meetings: 2003, University of Ottawa, Canada. Publications: CALICO Journal (three times a year), CALICO Monograph Series. Last Updated: 4/26/ 02. Computer Learning Foundation (CLF). P.O. Box 60007, Palo Alto, CA 94306-0007. (408)720-8898. Fax (408)730-1191. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.computerlearning.org. Sally Bowman Alden, Exec. Dir. The Computer Learning Foundation is in international nonprofit educational foundation dedicated to the improvement of education and preparation of youth for the workplace through the use of technology. Foundation programs provide parents and educators with the information, resources, and assistance they need to use technology effectively with children. The Computer Learning Foundation is the official host each October of Computer Learning Month, a monthlong focus on the important role technology plays in our lives and a major national grassroots educational effort. During Computer Learning Month, the Computer Learning Foundation announces new materials and projects and hosts North American annual competitions for children, adults, community groups, and schools. Thousands of dollars in technology products are awarded to winners and their schools. The Computer Learning Foundation is endorsed by and collaborates with 56 U.S. state departments and Canadian ministries of education and 26 national nonprofit organizations; however, the foundation is funded by
< previous page
page_312
next page >
< previous page
page_313
next page >
Page 313 corporate and individual donations. Publications: Computer Learning (annual publication). Last Updated: 4/23/02. Computer-Using Educators, Inc. (CUE). 1210 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 100, Alameda, CA 94501. (510)8146630. Fax (510)814-0195. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.cue.org. Bob Walczak, Exec. Dir. CUE, a California nonprofit corporation, was founded in 1976 by a group of teachers interested in exploring the use of technology to improve learning in their classrooms. The organization has never lost sight of this mission. Today, CUE has an active membership of 11,000 professionals worldwide in schools, community colleges, and universities. CUE’s 23 affiliates in California provide members with local year-round support through meetings, grants, events, and miniconferences. Special interest groups (SIGs) support members interested in a variety of special topics. CUE’s annual conferences, newsletter, advocacy, Web site, and other programs help the technology-using educator connect with other professionals. Membership: 11,000 individual, corporate, and institutional members. Dues: $30. Publications: CUE NewsLetter. Last Updated: 1999. Consortium of College and University Media Centers (CCUMC). 1200 Communications Bldg.-ITC, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-3243. (515)294-1811. Fax (515)294-8089. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site www.ccumc.org. Donald A. Rieck, Exec. Dir. CCUMC is a professional group of higher education media personnel whose purpose is to improve education and training through the effective use of educational media. Assists educational and training users in making films, video, and educational media more accessible. Fosters cooperative planning among university media centers. Gathers and disseminates information on improved procedures and new developments in instructional technology and media center management. Membership: 675. Institutional memberships: individuals within an institution of higher education who are associated with the support of instruction and presentation technologies in a media center and/or technology support service; corporate memberships: individuals within a corporation, firm, foundation, or other commercial or philanthropic whose business or activity is in support of the purposes and objectives of CCUMC; associate memberships: individuals from a public library, religious, governmental, or other organization not otherwise eligible for other categories of membership; student memberships: any student in an institution of higher education who is not eligible for an institutional membership. Dues: $220 institutional; $220, corporate; $25, student; $175, associate. Meetings: 2003, Charleston, SC, October 30– November 3. Publications: College & University Media Review (journal). Leader (newsletter). Last Updated: 4/10/02. Continuing Library Education Network and Exchange Round Table (CLENERT). 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL60611. (800)545-2433. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ala.org. Wendy Ramsey. An affiliate of the American Library Association, CLENERT seeks to provide access to quality continuing education opportunities for librarians and information scientists and to create an awareness of the need for such education in helping individuals in the field to respond to societal and technological changes. Membership: 350. Dues: Open to all ALA members; $15, individual; $50, organization. Publications: CLENExchange (q.), available to nonmembers by subscription at $20. Last Updated: 1999. Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC). 222 Rosewood Dr., Danvers, MA 01923. (978)750-8400. Fax (978)7504470. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.copyright.com. Joseph S. Alen, Pres. CCC is the world’s largest licenser of text reproduction rights and provider of many licensing services for the reproduction of copyrighted materials in print and electronic formats. Formed in 1978 to facilitate compliance
< previous page
page_313
next page >
< previous page
page_314
next page >
Page 314 with U.S. copyright law, CCC manages the rights relating to more than 1.75 million textbooks, newspapers, magazines, and other copyrighted works. CCC-licensed customers in the United States number more than 10,000 corporations and subsidiaries (including most of the Fortune 100 companies), as well as thousands of government agencies, law firms, document suppliers, libraries, academic institutions, copy shops, and bookstores. CCC’s licensing services include: Annual Authorizations Service (AAS), a blanket annual photocopy license for companies with more than 750 employees, as well as law firms of any size. Their employees can photocopy content for distribution inhouse. Photocopy Authorizations License (PAL), the same as the AAS license, but for companies with fewer than 750 employees. Digital Repertory Amendment, a blanket annual license that provides companies with the rights to copy copyrighted content for distribution in-house via e-mail, intranet sites, and other digital formats. Multinational Repertory License, a blanket annual photocopy license that covers U.S. companies, employees working in other countries. Multinational Digital Repertory Amendment, a similar license to the Digital Repertory Amendment, but for U.S. companies with employees working outside of the United States. Transactional Reporting Service (TRS), an online; pay as you go service that enables customers to acquire photocopy permissions on an as-needed basis for library reserves, interlibrary loans, and general photocopy needs. Customers also use TRS to report their photocopying activity. Republication Licensing Service (RLS), an online service that provides customers with permissions to reproduce copyrighted materials for the purpose of republishing that content into a variety of formats, such as Web sites, brochures, books, ads, and so on. Academic Permissions Service (APS), an online permissions service that colleges and universities can use to get the rights to photocopy copyrighted content for use in course packs. Electronic Course Content Service (ECCS), an online service that colleges and universities can use to acquire permissions to reproduce copyrighted content for use in electronic course packs and reserves, as well as for distance learning. Digital Permissions Service (DPS), a transactional service that customers can use to order permissions to reproduce and distribute copyrighted content electronically either in-house or outside of their organizations. Rightslink, a digital rights management service that licenses, packages, and delivers digital content from publishers, Web sites. Foreign Authorizations Service (FAS), authorizes photocopying of U.S. copyrighted materials in foreign countries and distributes royalties collected by foreign reproduction rights organizations to U.S. publishers, authors, and other rights holders. Federal Government Photocopy Licensing Service, a blanket annual license that provides rights for federal government employees to photocopy content for in-house use . Last Updated: 4/26/02. Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). 901 E St. NW, Washington, DC 20004-2037. (202)879-9600. Fax (202)783-1039. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.cpb.org. Robert T. Coonrod, Pres. and CEO. A private, nonprofit corporation created by Congress in 1967 to develop noncommercial television, radio, and online services for the American people. CPB created the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) in 1969 and National Public Radio (NPR) in 1970. CPB distributes grants to more than 1,000 local public television and radio stations that reach virtually every household in the country. The corporation is the industry’s largest single source of funds for national public television and radio program development and production. In addition to quality educational and informational programming, CPB and local public stations make important contributions in the areas of education, training, community service, and application of emerging technologies. Publications: Annual Report; CPB Public Broadcasting Directory ($15). Last Updated: 1999. Council for Basic Education (CBE). 1319 F St. NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20004-1152. (202)347-4171. Fax (202)347-5047. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.c-b-e.org. Christopher T. Cross, Pres.; Maxine P. Frost, Chair of Board of Directors. CBE’s
< previous page
page_314
next page >
< previous page
page_315
next page >
Page 315 mission is to strengthen teaching and learning of the core subjects (mathematics, English, language arts, history, government, geography, the sciences, foreign languages, and the arts) to develop the capacity for lifelong learning and foster responsible citizenship. As an independent, critical voice for education reform, CBE champions the philosophy that all children can learn and that the job of schools is to achieve this goal. CBE advocates this goal by publishing analytical periodicals and administering practical programs as examples to strengthen content in curriculum and teaching. CBE is completing a kit of Standards for Excellence in Education, which includes a CD-ROM; guides for teachers, parents, and principals, and a book of standards in the core subjects. Publications: BE. Last Updated: 5/7/01. Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). 1110 N. Glebe Rd. #300, Arlington, VA 22201. (703)620-3660. TTY (703)264-9446. Fax (703)264-9494. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.cec.sped.org. Nancy Safer, Exec. Dir. CEC is the largest international organization dedicated to improving the educational success of students with disabilities and/ or gifts and talents. CEC advocates for governmental policies supporting special education, sets professional standards, provides professional development, and helps professionals obtain conditions and resources necessary for high-quality educational services for their students. Membership: Teachers, administrators, professors, related services providers (occupational therapists, school psychologists), and parents. CEC has approximately 50,000 members. Dues: $89 a year. Meetings: Annual Convention & Expo attracting approximately 6,000 special educators. Publications: Journals, newsletters, books, and videos with information on new research findings, classroom practices that work, and special education publications. (See also the ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education.) Last Updated: 5/21/02. (CEC) Technology and Media Division (TAM). 1920 Association Dr., Reston, VA 20191-1589. (703)620-3660. TTY (703)264-9446. Fax 703)264-9494. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.cec.sped.org. The Technology and Media Division (TAM) of CEC encourages the development of new applications, technologies, and media for use as daily living tools by special populations. This information is disseminated through professional meetings, training programs, and publications. TAM members receive four issues annually of the Journal of Special Education Technology containing articles on specific technology programs and applications, and five issues of the TAM newsletter, providing news of current research, developments, products, conferences, and special programs information. Membership: l,700. Dues: $10 in addition to CEC membership. Last Updated: 1999. Council on International Non-Theatrical Events (CINE). 1112 16th St. NW, Suite 510, Washington, DC 20036. (202)785-1136. Fax (202)785-4114. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.cine.org. David L. Weiss, Exec. Dir. CINE’s mission is to discover, reward, educate, and support professional and new emerging talent in the film and video fields. It accomplishes its mission through major film and video competitions that recognize and celebrate excellence, and through various educational programs. CINE is best known for its prestigious CINE Golden Eagle competitions, culminating annually in a gala awards ceremony in Washington DC. Awards are given in 20 major categories, encompassing all genres of professional and preprofessional film and video production. CINE also facilitates entry into worldwide film festivals for its own competition winners; at the same time, it has reciprocal arrangements whereby distinguished works from outside the United States achieve CINE recognition and viewership in the United States. Membership: CINE is not at this time a membership organization. Dues: None. Meetings: CINE Showcase and Awards held annually in Washington DC. Publications: CINE Annual Yearbook of Film and Video Awards; Worldwide Directory of Film and Video Festivals and Events. Last Updated: 4/11/02.
< previous page
page_315
next page >
< previous page
page_316
next page >
Page 316 East-West Center. 1601 East-West Rd., Honolulu, HI 96848-1601. (808)944-7111. Fax (808)944-7376. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ewc.hawaii.edu. Dr. Charles E. Morrison, Pres. The U.S. Congress established the East-West Center in 1960 with a mandate to foster mutual understanding and cooperation among the governments and peoples of Asia, the Pacific, and the United States. Officially known as the Center for Cultural and Technical Interchange Between East and West, it is a public, nonprofit institution with an international board of governors. Funding for the center comes from the U.S. government, with additional support provided by private agencies, individuals, and corporations, and several Asian and Pacific governments, private agencies, individuals, and corporations. The center, through research, education, dialog, and outreach, provides a neutral meeting ground where people with a wide range of perspectives exchange views on topics of regional concern. Scholars, government and business leaders, educators, journalists, and other professionals from throughout the region annually work with center staff to address issues of contemporary significance in such areas as international economics and politics, the environment, population, energy, the media, and Pacific islands development. Last Updated: 1999. ECT Foundation (ECT). c/o AECT, 1800 N. Stone Lake Dr., Bloomington, IN 47404. (812)335-7675. Fax (812)3357678. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site www.aect.org. Hans-Erik Wennberg, Pres. The ECT Foundation is a nonprofit organization whose purposes are charitable and educational in nature. Its operation is based on the conviction that improvement of instruction can be accomplished in part by the continued investigation and application of new systems for learning and by periodic assessment of current techniques for the communication of information. In addition to awarding scholarships, internships, and fellowships, the foundation develops and conducts leadership training programs for emerging professional leaders. Its operations are closely allied to AECT program goals, and the two organizations operate in close conjunction with each other. Last Updated: 5/4/01. Education Development Center, Inc. 55 Chapel St., Newton, MA 02158-1060. (617)969-7100. Fax (617)9695979. E-mail www.edc.org. Web site http://www.edc.org. Janet Whitla, Pres. Seeks to improve education at all levels, in the United States and abroad, through curriculum development, institutional development, and services to the school and the community. Produces videocassettes, primarily in connection with curriculum development and teacher training. Publications: Annual Report. Last Updated: 1999. Educational Communications. P.O. Box 351419, Los Angeles, CA 90035. (310)559-9160. Fax (310)559-9160. Email
[email protected]. Web site http://home.earthlink.net/~dragonflight/ecoprojects.htm. Nancy Pearlman, CEO. Educational Communications is dedicated to enhancing the quality of life on this planet and provides radio and television programs about the environment. Serves as a clearinghouse on ecological issues. Programming is available on 100 stations in 25 states. Publications: Compendium Newsletter (bimonthly); Directory of Environmental Organizations. Last Updated: 1999. Educational Products Information Exchange (EPIE Institute). 103 W. Montauk Hwy., Hampton Bays, NY 11946. (516)728-9100. Fax (516)728-9228. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.epie.org. P. Kenneth Komoski, Exec. Dir. Assesses educational materials and provides consumer information, product descriptions, and citations for virtually all educational software and curriculum-related Web sites. All of EPIE’s services are available to schools and state agencies as well as parents and individuals. Online access is restricted to states with membership in the States Consortium for Improving Software Selection (SCISS). Publications: The Educational Software Selector Database (TESS), available to anyone. All publication material now available on CDROM. Last Updated: 1999.
< previous page
page_316
next page >
< previous page
page_317
next page >
Page 317 Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC). National Library of Education (NLE), Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), 555 New Jersey Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20208-5720. (202)219-2289. Fax 202)219-1817. E-mail
[email protected]. Keith Stubbs, Dir. ERIC is a federally funded, nationwide information network that provides access to the English-language education literature. The ERIC system consists of clearinghouses, adjunct clearinghouses, and system support components, including ACCESS ERIC, the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS), and the ERIC Processing and Reference Facility. ERIC actively solicits papers, conference proceedings, literature reviews, and curriculum materials from researchers, practitioners, educational associations and institutions, and federal, state, and local agencies. These materials, along with articles from nearly 800 different journals, are indexed and abstracted for entry into the ERIC database. The ERIC database (the largest education database in the world) now contains more than 850,000 records of documents and journal articles. Users can access the ERIC database online, on CD-ROM, or through print and microfiche indexes. ERIC microfiche collections, which contain the full text of most ERIC documents, are available for public use at more than 1,000 locations worldwide. Reprints of ERIC documents, on microfiche or in paper copy, can also be ordered from EDRS. Copies of journal articles can be found in library periodical collections, through interlibrary loan, or from article reprint services. A list of the ERIC clearinghouses, together with addresses, telephone numbers, and brief domain descriptions, follows here. Publications: Resources in Education (U.S. Government Printing Office); Current Index to Journals in Education (Oryx Press). Last Updated: 1999. ACCESS ERIC. Aspen Systems Corp., 2277 Research Blvd., Mailstop 4M, Rockville, MD 20850. (800)LET-ERIC (5383742). Fax (301)519-6760. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.eric.ed.gov/. ACCESS ERIC coordinates ERIC’s outreach and systemwide dissemination activities, develops new ERIC publications, and provides general reference and referral services. Publications: A Pocket Guide to ERIC; All About ERIC; The ERIC Review; ERIC Annual Report; ERICNews (online monthly newsletter). Databases: ERIC Digests Online (EDO); Education Resource Organizations Directory (EROD); ERIC Resource Collections; ERIC Calendar of Education-Related Conferences. (The databases are available through the Internet: http://www.eric.ed.gov/). Last Updated: 5/2/02. ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges (JC). University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), 3051 Moore Hall, P.O. Box 951521, Los Angeles, CA 90025-1521. (310)825-3931, (800)832-8256. Fax (310)206-8095. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/ERIC/eric.html. Arthur M. Cohen, Dir. Selects, synthesizes, and distributes reports and other documents about two-year public and private community and junior colleges, technical institutes, and two-year branch university programs, and outcomes of these institutions; linkages between two-year colleges and business, industrial, and community organizations; and articulation between two-year colleges and secondary and four-year postsecondary institutions. Last Updated: 1999. ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education (SO). Indiana University, Social Studies Development Center, 2805 East 10th St., Suite 120, Bloomington, IN 47408-2698. (812)855-3838, (800)266-3815. Fax (812)855-0455. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://ericso.indiana.edu/. John Patrick, Dir. All levels of social studies, social science, art, and music education; the contributions of history, geography, and other social science disciplines; applications of theory and research to social science education; education as a social science; comparative education (K–12); content and curriculum materials on social topics such as law-related education, ethnic studies, bias and discrimination, aging, and women’s equity.
< previous page
page_317
next page >
< previous page
page_318
next page >
Page 318 Includes input from the adjunct clearinghouses for U.S.-Japan Studies, for Service Learning, and for International Civics. Publications: Listed in ERIC/ChESS catalog; contact to obtain a free copy. Last Updated: 5/7/01. Adjunct ERIC Clearinghouse for Art Education. Indiana University, Social Studies Development Center, 2805 East 10th St., Suite 120, Bloomington, IN 47408-2698. (812)855-3838, (800)266-3815. Fax (812)855-0455. E-mail
[email protected];
[email protected]. Enid Zimmerman, Dir. Adjunct to the ERIC Clearinghouse on Social Studies/Social Science Education. Last Updated: 1999. Adjunct ERIC Clearinghouse for Law-Related Education (ADJ/LR). Indiana University, Social Studies Development Center, 2805 East 10th St., Suite 120, Bloomington, IN 47408-2698. (812)855-3838, (800)266-3815. Fax (812)855-0455. E-mail
[email protected],
[email protected]. Web site http://www.indiana.edu/~ssdc/iplre.html. John Patrick and Robert Leming, Codirs. Adjunct to the ERIC Clearinghouse on Social Studies/Social Sciences Education. Last Updated: 1999. National Clearinghouse for United States–Japan Studies (NCUSJS). 2805 E. 10th St., Suite 120, Bloomington, IN 47408-2698. (812)855-3838, (800)266-3815. Fax (812)855-0455. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.indiana.edu/~japan. Nicole Restrick, Assoc. Dir. Provides educational information on topics concerning Japan and U.S.-Japan relations. Adjunct to the ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education. Membership: Anybody interested in teaching or learning about Japan may contact the clearinghouse for information. Publications: Guide to Teaching Materials on Japan; Teaching About Japan: Lessons and Resources; The Constitution and Individual Rights in Japan: Lessons for Middle and High School Students; Internationalizing the U.S. Classroom: Japan as a Model; Tora no Maki II: Lessons for Teaching About Contemporary Japan; The Japan Digest Series (complementary, concise discussions of various Japan-related topics): Fiction About Japan in the Elementary Curriculum; Daily Life in Japanese High Schools; Rice: It’s More Than Food in Japan; Ideas for Integrating Japan into the Curriculum; Japanese Popular Culture in the Classroom; An Introduction to Kabuki; Building a Japanese Language Program from the Bottom Up; Teaching Primary Children about Japan Through Art; The History and Artistry of Haiku; Learning from the Japanese Economy; Teaching About Japanese-American Internment; Shinbun (project newsletter). Last Updated: 5/7/01. ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education (ERIC/ ACVE). The Ohio State University, Center on Education and Training for Employment, 1900 Kenny Rd., Columbus, OH 43210-1090. (614)292-7069, (800)848-4815, ext. 2-7069. Fax (614)292-1260. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://ericacve.org. Susan Imel, Dir., Judy Wagner, Assoc. Dir. All levels and settings of adult and continuing, career, and vocational and technical education. Adult education, from basic literacy training through professional skill upgrading. Career awareness, career decision making, career development, career change, and experience-based education. Vocational and technical education, including new sub-professional fields, industrial arts, corrections education, employment and training programs, youth employment, work experience programs, education and business partnerships, entrepreneurship, adult retraining, and vocational rehabilitation for individuals with disabilities. Includes input from the Adjunct ERIC Clearinghouse on Consumer Education. Membership: There is no ‘‘membership.” Anyone can use the products and services of the clearinghouse. Publications: ERIC Digests; Trends and
< previous page
page_318
next page >
< previous page
page_319
next page >
Page 319 Issues Alerts; Practice Application Briefs; Myths and Realities; ERIC File (newsletter); Practitioner File; major publications. Last Updated: 5/14/02. Adjunct ERIC Clearinghouse for Consumer Education (ADJ/CN). National Institute for Consumer Education, 207 Rackham Bldg., Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI 48197-2237. (313)487-2292. Fax (313)487-7153. Email
[email protected];
[email protected]. Web site http://www.emich.edu/public/coe/nice. Rosella Bannister, Dir. Adjunct to the ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education. Last Updated: 1999. ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation (ERIC/AE). The University of Maryland, 1129 Shriver Lab, College Park, MD 20742-5701. (301)405-7449, (800)464-3742. Fax (301)405-8134. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://ericae.net. Lawrence M. Rudner, Dir. Tests and other measurement devices; methodology of measurement and evaluation; application of tests, measurement, or evaluation in educational projects and programs; research design and methodology in the area of assessment and evaluation; and learning theory. Includes input from the Adjunct Test Collection Clearinghouse. Last Updated: 4/23/02. ERIC Clearinghouse on Counseling and Student Services (ERIC/CASS). University of North Carolina at Greensboro, School of Education, 201 Ferguson Building, P.O. Box 26170, Greensboro, NC 27402-6170. (336)3344114, (800)414-9769. Fax (336)334-4116. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://ericcass.uncg.edu/. Garry R. Walz, Codir.; Jeanne C. Bleuer, Codir. Preparation, practice, and supervision of counselors and therapists at all educational levels and in all settings; theoretical development of counseling and student services; assessment and diagnosis procedures such as testing and interviewing and the analysis and dissemination of the resultant information; outcomes analysis of counseling interventions; groups and case work; nature of pupil, student, and adult characteristics; identification and implementation of strategies that foster student learning and achievement; personnel workers and their relation to career planning, family consultations, and student services activities; identification of effective strategies for enhancing parental effectiveness; and continuing preparation of counselors and therapists in the use of new technologies for professional renewal and the implications of such technologies for service provision. Meetings: Annual Assessment Conference. Publications: Building Stronger School Counseling Programs: Bringing Futuristic Approaches into the Present; Helping People Cope with Tragedy and Grief: Information, Resources, and Linkages; Addressing School Violence: Practical Strategies and Interventions; Substance Abuse and Counseling; Implementing Comprehensive School Guidance Programs: Critical Leadership Issues and Successful Responses; Counseling for High Skills: Responding to the Career Needs of All Students; Proven Strategies for Learning and Achievement; Assessment: Issues and Challenges for the Millennium; Career Transitions in Turbulent Times; Saving the Native Son; Cultural and Diversity Issues in Counseling; Safe Schools, Safe Students; and many others. Call for catalog. Last Updated: 5/8/02. ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education (EC). 1110 N. Glebe Rd., Arlington, VA 22201-5704. (703)264-9474, (800)328-0272. Fax (703) 620-2521. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://ericec.org. Information specialist. ERIC EC is part of the U.S. Department of Education’s information network. ERIC EC collects the professional literature on disabilities and gifted education for inclusion in the ERIC database. ERIC EC also responds to requests for information on disabilities and gifted education; serves as a resource and referral center for the
< previous page
page_319
next page >
< previous page
page_320
next page >
Page 320 general public; conducts general information searches; and publishes and disseminates free or low-cost materials on disability and gifted education research, programs, and practices. Publications: Visit the Web site for a complete list of publications. Last Updated: 4/10/02. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management (EA). University of Oregon (Dept. 5207), 1787 Agate St., Eugene, OR 97403-5207. (541)346-5043, (800)438-8841. Fax (541)346-2334. E-mail
[email protected]. Philip K. Piele, Dir. The governance, leadership, management, and structure of K–12 public and private education organizations; local, state, and federal education law and policy making; practice and theory of administration; preservice and in-service preparation of administrators; tasks and processes of administration; methods and varieties of organization and organizational change; and the social context of education organizations. Last Updated: 1999. ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education (ERIC/ EECE). University of Illinois, Children’s Research Center, 51 Gerty Dr., Champaign, IL61820-7469 US. (217)333-1386, (800)583-4135. Fax (217)333-3767. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://ericeece.org. Lilian G. Katz and Dianne Rothenberg, Codirs. The ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood provides information and resources in the areas of child development, the education and care of children from birth through early adolescence, the teaching of young children, and parenting and family life. These resources relate to the physical, cognitive, social, educational, and cultural development of children from birth through early adolescence; prenatal factors; parents, parenting, and family relationships that impinge on education; learning theory research and practice related to the development of young children, including the preparation of teachers for this educational level; interdisciplinary curriculum and mixed-age teaching and learning; educational, social, and cultural programs and services for children; the child in the context of the family and the family in the context of society; theoretical and philosophical issues pertaining to children’s development and education. Publications: ERIC/ EECE publishes ERIC Digests; books and monographs; newsletters; Early Childhood Research & Practice, a scholarly peer-reviewed Internet journal; Parent News, an online parenting magazine. For details, see http://ericeece.org/eecepub.html. Last Updated: 4/17/02. Adjunct ERIC Clearinghouse for Child Care (ADJ/CC). National Child Care Information Center, 301 Maple Ave., Suite 602, Vienna, VA 22180. (703)938-6555, (800)516-2242. Fax (800)716-2242. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://ericps.crc.uiuc.edu/nccic/nccichome.html. Anne Goldstein, Proj. Dir. Adjunct to the ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. Works with Bureau, Administration for Children and Families (ACF) of the Department of Health and Human Services, to complement, enhance, and promote child care linkages and to serve as a mechanism for supporting quality, comprehensive services for children and families. NCCIS’s activities include dissemination of child care information in response to requests from States, Territories, and Tribe, other policy makers, child care organizations, providers, business communities, parents, and the general public; outreach to ACF child care grantees and the boarder child care community; publication of the child care bulletin and development and dissemination of other publications on key child care issues; and coordination of National Leadership Forums, which provide an opportunity for experts from across the country to participate in one-day conferences on critical issues affecting children and families. Working closely with ACF regional offices, the NCCIC also provides technical as-
< previous page
page_320
next page >
< previous page
page_321
next page >
Page 321 sistance to states through a network of state technical assistance specialists. Many materials produced and distributed by NCCIC are available in Spanish. NCCIC is the Adjunct ERIC Clearinghouse for Child Care. Last Updated: 1999. ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education (ERIC-HE). George Washington University, One Dupont Circle NW, Suite 630, Washington, DC 20036-1183. (202)296-2597, (800)773-3742. Fax (202)452-1844. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.eriche.org. Elaine El-Khawas, Dir. Topics relating to college and university conditions, problems, programs, and students. Curricular and instructional programs, and institutional research at the college or university level. Federal programs, professional education (medicine, law, etc.), professional continuing education, collegiate computer-assisted learning and management, graduate education, university extension programs, teaching and learning, legal issues and legislation, planning, governance, finance, evaluation, interinstitutional arrangements, management of institutions of higher education, and business or industry educational programs leading to a degree. Membership: Free Government Funded Service. No membership required. Dues: None. Meetings: Annual Advisory Board Meeting, spring. Publications: Higher Education Leadership: Analyzing the Gender Gap; The Virtual Campus: Technology and Reform in Higher Education; Early Intervention Programs: Opening the Door to Higher Education; Enriching College with Constructive Controversy; A Culture for Academic Excellence: Implementing the Quality Principles in Higher Education; From Discipline to Development: Rethinking Student Conduct in Higher Education; Proclaiming and Sustaining Excellence: Assessment as a Faculty Role; The Application of Customer Satisfaction Principles to Universities; Saving the Other Two-Thirds: Practices and Strategies for Improving the Retention and Graduation of African American Students in Predominately White Institutions; Enrollment Management: Change for the 21st Century; Faculty Work-load: States; Perspectives. New ASHE-ERIC reports include the following: A. J. Kezar, Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in the 21st Century: Recent Research and Conceptualizations. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Volume 28, No. 4 (2001, Jossey-Bass); J. C. Weidman, D. J. Twale, and E. L. Stein, Socialization of Graduate and Professional Students in Higher Education: A Perilous Passage? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Volume 28, No. 3 (2001, Jossey-Bass); T. Sutton and P. Bergerson, Faculty Compensation Systems: Impact on the Quality of Higher Education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Volume 28, No. 2 (2001, Jossey-Bass). Last Updated: 4/10/02. ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology (IR). Syracuse University, 621 Skytop Rd., Suite 160, Syracuse, NY 13244-5290. (315)443-3640, (800)464-9107. Fax (315)443-5448. E-mail
[email protected],
[email protected]. Web site www.ericit.org. R. David Lankes, Dir. Educational technology and library and information science at all levels. Instructional design, development, and evaluation within educational technology, along with the media of educational communication: computers and microcomputers, telecommunications, audio and video recordings, film, and other audiovisual materials as they pertain to teaching and learning. The focus is on the operation and management of information services for education-related organizations. Includes all aspects of information technology related to education. Last Updated: 4/12/02. ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics (ERIC/CLL). Center for Applied Linguistics, 4646 40th St. NW, Washington, DC 20016-1859. (202)362-0700. Fax(202) 362-3740. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.cal.org/ericcll/. Joy Peyton, Dir., Dr. Craig Packard, User Services Coordinator, contact person.
< previous page
page_321
next page >
< previous page
page_322
next page >
Page 322 Languages and language sciences. Aspects of second language instruction and learning in commonly and uncommonly taught languages, including English as a second language. Bilingualism and bilingual education. Cultural education in the context of second-language learning, including intercultural communication, study abroad, and international education exchange. Areas of applied linguistics within an educational context. Includes input from the National Clearinghouse for ESLLiteracy Education (NCLE). Last Updated: 4/15/02. Adjunct ERIC Clearinghouse for ESL Literacy Education (ADJ/LE). National Clearinghouse for ESL Literacy Education, Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL), 4646-403 St. NW, Washington, DC 20016-1859. (202)362-0700, ext. 200. Fax (202)362-3740. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.cal.org/ncle/. Joy Kreeft Peyton, Dir. Adjunct to the ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. NCLE is the national clearinghouse focusing on the education of adults learning English as a second or additional language. NCLE collects, analyzes, synthesizes, and disseminates information on literacy education for adults and out-of-school youth. NCLE publishes books (available from Delta Systems in McHenry, IL), free ERIC Digests and annotated bibliographies on a wide range of topics, and NCLE Notes, a newsletter. Publications: Literacy and Language Diversity in the United States, by Terrence Wiley (1996, Delta Systems). Last Updated: 1999. ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication (CS). Indiana University, Smith Research Center, Suite 140, 2805 E. 10th St., Bloomington, IN 47408-2698. (812)855-5847, (800)759-4723. Fax (812)8565512. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://eric.indiana.edu/. Dr. Carl B. Smith, Dir.; Stephen Stroup, Codir. Reading, English, and communication (verbal and nonverbal), preschool through college; research and instructional development in reading, writing, speaking, and listening; identification, diagnosis, and remediation of reading problems; speech communication (including forensics); mass communication; interpersonal and small group interaction; interpretation; rhetorical and communication theory; speech sciences; and theater. Preparation of instructional staff and related personnel. All aspects of reading behavior with emphasis on physiology, psychology, sociology, and teaching; instructional materials, curricula, tests and measurement, and methodology at all levels of reading; the role of libraries and other agencies in fostering and guiding reading; diagnostics and remedial reading services in schools and clinical settings. Preparation of reading teachers and specialists. The Web site makes available a wealth of information pertaining to the full gamut of language arts topics enumerated above. Publications: Parent Talk. Last Updated: 5/7/02. ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools (RC). AEL, Inc., 1031 Quarrier St., Ste. 700, P.O. Box 1348, Charleston, WV 25325-1348. (304)347-0428, (800) 624-9120. Fax (304)347-0428. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ael.org/eric/. Patricia Cahape Hammer, Dir. Economic, cultural, social, or other factors related to educational programs and practices for rural residents; Native Indians and Native Alaskans, Mexican Americans, and migrants; educational practices and programs in all small schools; and outdoor education. Check Web site to subscribe to print newsletter, or call toll-free. Membership: Anyone interested in the education field, especially in its scope areas. Publications: Directories pertaining to its scope areas; 10 digests per year; newsletter published three times per year. Last Updated: 4/15/02. ERIC Clearinghouse on Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education (SE). The Ohio State University, 1929 Kenny Rd., Columbus, OH 43210-1080.
< previous page
page_322
next page >
< previous page
page_323
next page >
Page 323 (614)292-6717, (800)276-0462. Fax (614)292-0263. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ericse.org. David L. Haury, Dir.; Linda A. Milbourne, Assoc. Dir.. The clearinghouse acquires, produces, and distributes information about science, mathematics, and environmental education at all levels. Within these three broad subject areas, the following topics are covered: development of curriculum and instructional materials; teachers and teacher education; learning theory and outcomes, including the influences of interest level, attitudes, values, classroom experiences, and concept development upon learning in these fields. The clearinghouse is particularly interested in educational programs; research and evaluative studies; media applications; computer applications, and Internet applications relating to teaching and learning in science, mathematics, technology, and environmental education. Membership: Anyone is eligible—there is no membership. Dues: None. Meetings: Attend various meetings throughout the year: NCTM, NSTA, and so on. Publications: In addition to producing at least 10 ERIC Digests each year, the clearinghouse regularly produces books such as the following: Proceedings of Annual Meetings for the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education; Developing Teacher Leaders: Professional Development in Science and Mathematics; Elementary Teachers Do Science: Guidelines for Teacher Preparation Programs; Rethinking Portfolio Assessment: Documenting the Intellectual Work of Learners in Science and Mathematics; Creative Childhood Experiences in Mathematics and Science; Trends in Science Education Research. Last Updated: 4/29/02. ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education (ERIC-SP). American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE), 1307 New York Ave. NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005. (202)293-2450, (800)8229229. Fax (202)457-8095. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ericsp.org. Mary E. Dilworth, Dir. An information clearinghouse funded by the Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Information. The clearinghouse serves school personnel at all levels. The scope area covers teacher recruitment, selection, licensing, certification, training, preservice and in-service preparation, evaluation, retention, and retirement. The theory, philosophy, and practice of teaching. Curricula and general education not specifically covered by other clearinghouses. Organization, administration, finance, and legal issues relating to teacher education programs and institutions. All aspects of health, physical, recreation, and dance education. Publications: Monographs, digests, information cards. Last Updated: 5/8/01. Adjunct ERIC Clearinghouse on Clinical Schools (ADJ/CL). American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, One Dupont Cir. NW, Suite 610, Washington, DC 20036-1186. (202)293-2450, (800)822-9229. Fax (202)457-8095. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.aacte.org/menu2.html. Ismat Abdal-Haqq, Coord. Adjunct to the ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education. Last Updated: 1999. ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education (ERIC/CUE). Teachers College, Columbia University, Institute for Urban and Minority Education, Main Hall, Rm. 303, Box 40, 525 W. 120th St, New York, NY 10027-6696. (212)6783433, (800)601-4868. Fax (212)678-4012. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://eric-web.tc.columbia.edu. Erwin Flaxman, Dir. Programs and practices in public, parochial, and private schools in urban areas and the education of particular ethnic minority children and youth in various settings; the theory and practice of educational equity; urban and minority experiences; and urban and minority social institutions and services. Publications: See the Web site: http://eric-web.tc.columbia.edu. Last Updated: 4/15/02.
< previous page
page_323
next page >
< previous page
page_324
next page >
Page 324 ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). 7420 Fullerton Rd., Suite 110, Springfield, VA 22153-2852. (703)440-1400, (800)443-ERIC (3742). Fax (703)440-1408. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.edrs.com. Peter M. Dagutis, Dir. Provides subscription services for ERIC document collections in electronic format (from 1993 forward) and on microfiche (from 1966 forward). Links to the full text at EDRS are incorporated into a number of ERIC search products. On-demand delivery of ERIC documents is also available in formats including paper, electronic PDF image, fax, and microfiche. Delivery methods include shipment of hardcopy documents and microfiche, document fax-back, and online delivery. Back collections of ERIC documents, annual subscriptions, and other ERIC-related materials are also available. ERIC documents can be ordered by telephone, fax, mail, or online through the EDRS Web site. Document ordering also available from DIALOG and OCLC. Last Updated: 4/17/02. ERIC Processing and Reference Facility (ERIC). 4483-A Forbes Blvd., Lanham, MD 20706. (301)552-4200, (800)799-ERIC(3742). Fax (301)552-4700. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ericfacility.org. Donald Frank, Dir. A central editorial and quality control office that coordinates document processing and database building activities for ERIC, the U.S. Department of Educa-tion’s database on education research; performs acquisition, lexicographic, and reference functions; and maintains systemwide quality control standards. Membership: None; the office is a contract held by the Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) with the U.S. Department of Education. Publications: The ERIC Facility also prepares Resources in Education (RIE); Current Index to Journals in Education (CIJE); The Thesaurus of ERIC Descriptors; The ERIC Identifier Authority List (IAL); ERIC Ready References; the ERIC Processing Manual; and other products . Last Updated: 5/16/02. Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Mathematics and Science Education (ENC). 1929 Kenny Rd., Columbus, OH 43210-1079. (800)621-5785, (614)292-7784. Fax (614)292-2066. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.enc.org. Dr. Len Simutis, Dir. ENC is located at The Ohio State University and funded by the U.S. Department of Edu-cation’s Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI). ENC provides K–12 teachers and other educators with a central source of information on mathematics and science curriculum materials, particularly those that support education reform. Among ENC’s products and services are ENC Online; 12 demonstration sites located throughout the nation; and a variety of publications, including the Guidebook of Federal Resources for K–12 Mathematics and Science, a listing of federal resources in mathematics and science education, ENC Focus magazine, a free magazine on topics of interest to math and science educators, and professional development CD-ROMs. Users include K–12 teachers, other educators, policymakers, and parents. Membership: Magazine subscriptions are free, and there are no fees for any ENC services. ENC has more than 125,000 subscribers, mostly K–12 math and science teachers. Publications: ENC Focus (a magazine on selected topics); Guidebook of Federal Resources for K–12 Mathematics and Science (federal programs in mathematics and science education); CD-ROMs on professional development topics. ENC Online is available at http://www.enc.org. Last Updated: 4/29/02. Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 445 12th St. SW, Washington, DC 20554. (202)418-0190. Fax (202)418-1232. E-mail
[email protected];
[email protected]. Web site http://www.fcc.gov. Michael Powell, Chairman. The FCC regulates the telecommunications industry in the United States. Last Updated: 4/23/02. Federal Educational Technology Association (FETA). FETA Membership, Sara Shick, P.O. Box 3412, McLean, VA 22103-3412. (703)406-3040. Fax (703)406-4318. E-mail
< previous page
page_324
next page >
< previous page
page_325
next page >
Page 325
[email protected]. Web site http://www.feta.org. Beth Borko, Board Chair. An affiliate of AECT, FETA is dedicated to the improvement of education and training through research, communication, and practice. It encourages and welcomes members from all government agencies, federal, state, and local; from business and industry; and from all educational institutions and organizations. FETA encourages interaction among members to improve the quality of education and training in any arena, but with specific emphasis on government-related applications. Membership: 150. Dues: $20. Meetings: Meets in conjunction with AECT InCITE, concurrently with SALT’s Washington meeting in August, and periodically throughout the year in Washington DC. Publications: Newsletter (occasional). Last Updated: 1999. Film Arts Foundation (Film Arts). 346 9th St., 2nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103. (415)552-8760. Fax (415)552-0882. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.filmarts.org. Gail Silva, Dir. Service organization that supports and promotes independent film and video production. Services include low-cost 16mm, Super-8, and dV equipment rental; on- and off-line editing including AVID, Final Cut, 16mm flatbeds, VHS, and S-VHS, as well as a Pro Tools sound room and Optical Printer; resource library; group legal and production insurance plans; monthly magazine; seminars; grants program; annual film and video festival; nonprofit sponsorship; exhibition program; and advocacy and significant discounts on film- and video-related products and services. Membership: 3,500 plus. Dues: $45 for “supporter” level benefits including monthly magazine, discounts on goods and services including equipment rental and film processing, access to libraries and online databases; $65 for full “filmmaker” benefits including above plus access to equipment and postproduction facilities, discounts on seminars, nonprofit fiscal sponsorship, group legal and production insurance plans. Meetings: Annual Festival, biannual membership meetings, various other events. Publications: Release Print (magazine) . Last Updated: 4/9/02. Film/Video Arts (F/VA). 817 Broadway, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10003. (212)673-9361. Fax (212)475-3467. Email
[email protected]. Web site www.fva.com. Frank Millspaugh, Exec. Dir. F/VA is the largest nonprofit media arts center in the New York region. Dedicated to the advancement of emerging and established media artists of diverse backgrounds, F/VA is unique in providing a fertile environment where aspiring producers can obtain training, rent equipment, and edit their projects all under one roof. Every year more than 2,500 individuals participate in F/VA’s programs. More than 50 courses are offered each semester, covering topics such as rudimentary technical training in 16mm filmmaking and video production, advanced editing courses in online systems, history, cultural analysis, installation art, fund-raising, grant writing, and distribution. F/VA is supported by the New York State Council on the Arts, the National Endowment for the Arts, and numerous foundations and corporations and is therefore able to offer courses and production services at the lowest possible rates. Artists who got their start at F/VA include Jim Jarmusch, Mira Nair, Leslie Harris, Kevin Smith, and Cheryl Dunye. F/VA takes pride in meeting the needs of a broad range of filmmakers, working on features, documentaries, shorts, experimental pieces, industrials, cable shows, music videos, and more by offering affordable services essential to the creation of their work and development of their careers. Dues: $40, individual; $70, organization. Last Updated: 1999. Freedom of Information Center (FOI Center). 127 Neff Annex, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 652110012. (573)882-4856. Fax (573)882-9002. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.missouri.edu/~foiwww. Dr. Charles N. Davis, Dir.; Kathleen Edwards, Manager; Robert W. Anderson, Web Manager. Located in the Missouri School of Journalism, the Freedom of Information Center is an academic research facility specializing in educational advocacy. The collection focuses on the centrality of open
< previous page
page_325
next page >
< previous page
page_326
next page >
Page 326 government to its role in fostering democracy. The center staff assists the public with requests or questions about freedom of information with the help of an extensive archive of materials dating from the FOI movement’s inception. The center’s operating hours are Monday through Friday, 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., excluding university holidays. Membership: The FOI Center does not offer memberships. The center serves approximately 23,000 researchers annually through its Web page and through individual contacts. Dues: No dues charged. Minimal fees may be charged for research. Meetings: The FOI Center meets annually with the National Freedom of Information Coalition. Publications: Access to Public Information: A Resource Guide to Government in Columbia and Boone County, Missouri, a directory of public records, and the FOI Advocate, a periodic electronic newsletter. Both publications are linked to the center’s Web page. Some older publications are available for sale by contacting the center. Last Updated: 5/31/01. George Eastman House. 900 East Ave., Rochester, NY 14607. (716)271-3361. Fax (716)271-3970. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.eastman.org. Anthony Bannon, Dir. World-renowned museum of photography and cinematography established to preserve, collect, and exhibit photographic art and technology, film materials, and related literature, and to serve as a memorial to George Eastman. Services include archives, traveling exhibitions, research library, school of film preservation, center for the conservation of photographic materials, and photographic print service. Educational programs, exhibitions, films, symposia, music events, tours, and internship stipends offered. Eastman’s turn-of-the-century mansion and gardens have been restored to their original grandeur. Membership: 4,000. Dues: $40, library; $50, family; $40, individual; $36, student; $30, senior citizen; $75, Contributor; $125, Sustainer; $250, Patron; $500, Benefactor; $1,000, George Eastman Society. Publications: IMAGE; Microfiche Index to Collections; Newsletter; Annual Report: The George Eastman House and Gardens; Masterpieces of Photography from the George Eastman House Collections; and exhibition catalogs. Last Updated: 1999. The George Lucas Educational Foundation (GLEF). P.O. Box 3494, San Rafael, CA 94912. (415)507-0399. Fax (415)507-0499. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://glef.org. Dr. Milton Chen, Exec. Dir. The George Lucas Educational Foundation (GLEF) is a nonprofit operating foundation that documents and disseminates models of the most innovative practices in the United States’ K–12 schools. It serves this mission through the creation of media— from films, books, and newsletters to CD-ROMS. GLEF works to provide its products as tools for discussion and action in conferences, workshops, and professional development settings. Its audience includes teachers, administrators, school board members, parents, researchers, and business and community leaders. GLEF’s ‘‘Edutopian” vision is to engage students and energize skillful educators through the use of technology and to engage parents and community members as partners in educating our youth. Meetings: Annual Advisory meeting. Publications: Edutopia Online: The Foundation’ s Web site, Edutopia Online. All of GLEF’s multimedia content dating back to 1997 is available on its Web site. A special feature, the Video Gallery, is an archive of short documentaries and expert interviews. Detailed articles, research summaries, and links to hundreds of relevant Web sites, books, organizations, and publications are also available to help schools and communities build on successes in education. Edutopia: Success Stories for Learning in the Digital Age, a book and CD-ROM (Jossey-Bass). Teaching in the Digital Age videocassettes, a video series exploring elements of successful teaching in the digital age. The series includes School Leadership, Emotional Intelligence, Teacher Preparation, and Project-Based Learning and Assessment. Learn & Live, a documentary film and companion resource book that showcase innovative schools across the country. The Learn & Live CD-ROM includes digital versions of the film and book. Edutopia Newsletter (free, semiannual newsletter). Last Updated: 5/21/02.
< previous page
page_326
next page >
< previous page
page_327
next page >
Page 327 Graphic Arts Technical Foundation (GATF). 200 Deer Run Rd., Sewickley, PA 15143-2600. (412)741-6860. Fax (412)741-2311. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.gatf.org. George Ryan, Pres. GATF is a membersupported, nonprofit, scientific, technical, and educational organization dedicated to the advancement of graphic communications industries worldwide. For 77 years GATF has developed leading-edge technologies and practices for printing, and each year the foundation develops new products, services, and training programs to meet the evolving needs of the industry. GATF consolidated its operations with the Printing Industries of America (PIA) in 1999. Membership: 13,000 corporate members, 520 teachers, 100 students. Dues: $45, teachers; $30, students; corporations pay dues to regional printing organizations affiliated with GATF/ PIA. Meetings: Annual GATF/PIA Joint Fall Conference. Publications: GATF publishes books relating to graphic communications. GATF’s 2001 Publications Catalogs promotes 320 books, 100 of which are published by GATF. Recent publications include Customer Service in the Printing Industry; What the Printer Should Know About Ink; Total Production Maintenance; Managing Mavericks: The Official Printing Industry Guide to Effective Sales Management; Print Production Scheduling Primer; Paper Buying Primer; and Print Production Management Primer. Last Updated: 5/10/02. Great Plains National ITV Library (GPN). P.O. Box 80669, Lincoln, NE 68501-0669. (402)472-2007, (800)2284630. Fax (800)306-2330. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://gpn.unl.edu. Stephen C. Lenzen, Exec. Dir. Produces and distributes educational media, video, CD-ROMs and DVDs, prints, and Internet courses. Available for purchase for audiovisual or lease for broadcast use. Membership: Membership not required. Dues: None. Meetings: None. Attends subject-specific conventions to promote its products. Publications: GPN Educational Video Catalogs by curriculum areas; periodic brochures. Complete listing of GPN’s product line is available via the Internet along with online purchasing. Free previews available. Last Updated: 4/16/02. Health Sciences Communications Association (HeSCA). One Wedgewood Dr., Suite 27, Jewett City, CT 06351-2428. (203)376-5915. Fax (203)376-6621. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.hesca.hesca.org. Ronald Sokolowski, Exec. Dir. An affiliate of AECT, HeSCA is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the sharing of ideas, skills, resources, and techniques to enhance communications and educational technology in the health sciences. It seeks to nurture the professional growth of its members; serve as a professional focal point for those engaged in health sciences communications; and convey the concerns, issues, and concepts of health sciences communications to other organizations which influence and are affected by the profession. International in scope and diverse in membership, HeSCA is supported by medical and veterinary schools, hospitals, medical associations, and businesses that use media to create and disseminate health information. Membership: 150. Dues: $150, individual; $195, institutional ($150 additional institutional dues); $60, retiree; $75, student; $1,000, sustaining. All include subscriptions to the journal and newsletter. Meetings: Annual meetings, May, June. Publications: Journal of Biocommunications; Feedback (newsletter). Last Updated: 5/4/01. Hollywood Film Archive. 8391 Beverly Blvd., #321, Hollywood, CA 90048. (213)933-3345. E-mail
[email protected]. D. Richard Baer, Dir. Archival organization for information about feature films produced worldwide, from the early silents to the present. Publications: Comprehensive movie reference works for sale, including Variety Film Reviews (1907–1996) and the American Film Institute Catalogs (1893–1910, 1911–1920, 1921–1930, 1931–1940, 1941–1950, 1961–1970), as well as the Film Superlist (1894–1939, 1940–1949, 1950–1959) volumes, which provide information both on copyrights and on motion pictures in the public domain; Harrison’s Reports and Film Reviews (1919–1962). Last Updated: 1999.
< previous page
page_327
next page >
< previous page
page_328
next page >
Page 328 HOPE Reports, Inc. 58 Carverdale Dr., Rochester, NY 14618-4004. (585)442-1310. Fax (585)442-1725. E-mail
[email protected]. Thomas W. Hope, Owner; Mabeth S. Hope, Administrator. Supplies statistics, marketing information, trends, forecasts, and salary and media studies to the visual communications industries through printed reports, custom studies, consulting, and by telephone. Clients and users in the United States and abroad include manufacturers, dealers, producers, and media users in business, government, health sciences, religion, education, and community agencies. Membership: non. Dues: none. Meetings: none. Publications: Media Market Trends; Overhead Projection System; Presentation Slides; Producer & Video Post Wages & Salaries; Corporate Media Salaries; Digital Photography: Pictures of Tomorrow; Hope Reports Top 100 Contract Producers; Contract Production II; Executive Compensation; Media Production; Outsource or Insource, Large Screen Presentation Systems. Last Updated: 5/7/02. The Institute for the Advancement of Emerging Technologies in Education (IAETE). P.O. Box 1348, Charleston, WV 25325-1348. (304)347-1848. Fax (304)347-1847. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site www.iaete.org. Dr. Tammy M. McGraw, CEO. The mission of IAETE is to support the purposeful use of new and emerging technologies to improve teaching, learning, and school management. IAETE is committed to providing unbiased, research-based information to the education community as well as to product developers. Membership: None. Dues: None. Meetings: Annual National Conference. Publications: INSIGHT is IAETE’s annual publication. Its companion Web site (www.iaete.org/insight) provides a forum for the discussion of topics presented in print. Information about other print and multimedia publications and products is available on IAETE’s Web site. Last Updated: 4/12/02. Institute for Development of Educational Activities, Inc. (|I|D|E|A|). 259 Regency Ridge, Dayton, OH 45459. (937)434-6969. Fax (937)434-5203. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.idea.org. Dr. Steven R. Thompson, Pres. I|D|E|A| is an action-oriented research and development organization originating from the Charles F. Kettering Foundation. It was established in 1965 to assist the educational community in bridging the gap that separates research and innovation from actual practice in the schools. Its goal is to design and test new responses to improve education and to create arrangements that support local application. Activities include developing new and improved processes, systems, and materials; training local facilitators to use the change processes; and providing information and services about improved methods and materials. |I|D|E|A| sponsors an annual fellowship program for administrators and conducts seminars for school administrators and teachers. Last Updated: 1999. Institute for the Future (IFTF). 2744 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park, CA 94025-7020. (650)854-6322. Fax (650)8547850. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.iftf.org. Robert Johansen, Pres. The cross-disciplinary professionals at IFTF have been providing global and domestic businesses and organizations with research-based forecasts and action-oriented tools for strategic decision making since 1968. IFTF is a nonprofit, applied research and consulting firm dedicated to understanding technological, economic, and societal changes and their long-range domestic and global consequences. Its work falls into four main areas: Strategic Planning, Emerging Technologies, Health Care Horizons, and Public Sector Initiatives. IFTF works with clients to think systematically about the future, identify socioeconomic trends and evaluate their long-term implications, identify potential leading-edge markets around the world, understand the global marketplace, track the implications of emerging technologies for business and society, leverage expert judgment and data resources, offer an independent view of the big picture, and facilitate strategic planning processes. Last Updated: 1999.
< previous page
page_328
next page >
< previous page
page_329
next page >
Page 329 Instructional Technology Council (ITC). One Dupont Cir. NW, Suite 410, Washington, DC 20036-1176. (202)293-3110. Fax (202)833-2467. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.itcnetwork.org. Christine Dalziel, Exec. Dir. An affiliated council of the American Association of Community Colleges established in 1977, ITC provides leadership, information, and resources to expand access to, and enhance learning through, the effective use of technology. lTC represents higher education institutions in the United States and Canada that use distance learning technologies. ITC members receive a subscription to the ITC News and ITC listserv with information on what is happening in distance education, participation in ITC’s professional development audioconference series, distance learning grants information, updates on distance learning legislation, discounts to attend the annual Telelearning Conference, which features more than 80 workshops and seminars, discounts to downlink PBS/ALS videoconferences, and a free copy of ITC publications and research. Membership: Members include single institutions and multicampus districts; regional and statewide systems of community, technical and two-year colleges; for-profit organizations; four-year institutions; and nonprofit organizations that are interested or involved in instructional telecommunications. Members use a vast array of ever-changing technologies for distance learning. The technologies they use and methods of teaching include: audio and video conferences, cable television, compressed and fullmotion video, computer networks, fiber optics, interactive videodisc, ITFS, microwave, multimedia, public television, satellites, teleclasses, and telecourses. Dues: $450, Institutional; $750, Corporate. Meetings: Annual Telelearning Conference. Publications: Quality Enhancing Practices in Distance Education: Vol. 2, Student Services; Quality Enhancing Practices in Distance Education: Vol. 1, Teaching and Learning; New Connections: A Guide to Distance Education (2nd ed.); New Connections: A College President’ s Guide to Distance Education; Digital Video: A Handbook for Educators; Faculty Compensation and Support Issues in Distance Education; ITC News (monthly newsletter); ITC Listserv. Last Updated: 4/10/02. International Association for Language Learning Technology (IALLT). 618 Van Hise Hall, 1220 Linden Dr., Madison, WI 53706. (608)262-4066. Fax (608)265-3892. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://iallt.org. David Pankratz, Pres.; Lauren Rosen, Business Manager. IALLT is a professional organization whose members provide leadership in the development, integration, evaluation, and management of instructional technology for the teaching and learning of language, literature, and culture. Membership: 500 members. Membership, subscription categories— Educational Member: for people working in an academic setting such as a school, college or university. These members have voting rights. Full-time Student Member: for full-time students interested in membership. Requires a signature of a voting member to verify student status. These members have voting rights. Commercial Member: for those working for corporations interested in language learning and technology. This category includes language laboratory vendors and software and textbook companies. Library Subscriber: members receive IALLT journals for placement in libraries. Dues: 1 year: $40, voting member; $15, student; $50, library subscription; $75, commercial. 2 year: $75, voting member; $30, student; $140 commercial. Meetings: Biennial IALLT conferences treat the entire range of topics related to technology in language learning as well as management and planning. IALLT also sponsors sessions at conferences of organizations with related interests, including CALICO and ACTFL. Publications: IALLT Journal of Language Learning Technologies (semiannual); materials for language lab management and design, language teaching and technology. Visit IALLT’s Web site for details. Last Updated: 4/10/02. International Association of Business Communicators (IABC). One Hallidie Plaza, Suite 600, San Francisco, CA 94102. (415)544-4700. Fax (415)544-4747. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.iabc.com. Elizabeth Allan, Pres. and CEO.
< previous page
page_329
next page >
< previous page
page_330
next page >
Page 330 IABC is the worldwide association for the communication and public relations profession. It is founded on the principle that the better an organization communicates with all its audiences, the more successful and effective it will be in meeting its objectives. IABC is dedicated to fostering communication excellence, contributing more effectively to organizations’ goals worldwide, and being a model of communication effectiveness. Membership: 13,500 plus. Dues: $175 in addition to local and regional dues. Publications: Communication World. Last Updated: 1999. International Association of School Librarianship (IASL). Box 34069, Dept. 962, Seattle, WA 98124-1069. (604)925-0266. Fax (604)925-0566. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site www.iasl-slo.org/. Dr. Penny Moore, Exec. Dir. Seeks to encourage development of school libraries and library programs throughout the world; promote professional preparation and continuing education of school librarians; achieve collaboration among school libraries of the world; foster relationships between school librarians and other professionals connected with children and youth and to coordinate activities, conferences, and other projects in the field of school librarianship. Membership: 900 plus. Dues: $50, Zone A (includes United States, Canada, Western Europe, Japan); $35, Zone B (includes Hungary, Argentina, Cuba, Iraq); $20, Zone C (includes Angola, India, Bulgaria, China). Based on GNP. Meetings: Annual Conference. Durban, South Africa, 2003. Publications: IASL Newsletter (3/yr.); School Libraries Worldwide (semiannual); Conference Professionals and Research Papers (annual); Connections: School Library Associations and Contact People Worldwide; Sustaining the Vision: A Collection of Articles and Papers on Research in School Librarianship; School Librarianship: International Issues and Perspectives; Information Rich but Knowledge Poor? Issues for Schools and Libraries Worldwide: Selected Papers from the 26th Annual Conferences of the IASL. Last Updated: 4/10/02. International Graphics Arts Education Association (IGAEA). 200 Deer Run Rd., Sewickley, PA 15143-2328. (412)741-6860. Fax (412)741-2311. E-mail rgrim@cofo.
[email protected]. Web site http://www.igaea.org. Richard Grim, Ed.D., Pres.; Jerry Waite, Ed.D., Pres.-elect. IGAEA is an association of educators in partnership with industry, dedicated to sharing theories, principles, techniques, and processes relating to graphic communications and imaging technology. Teachers network to share and improve teaching and learning opportunities in fields related to graphic arts, imaging technology, graphic design, graphic communications, journalism, photography, and other areas related to the large and rapidly changing fields in the printing, publishing, packaging, and allied industries. Membership: Approximately 600 members. Open to educators, middle school through college and university, who teach graphic arts, graphic communications, printing and publishing, desktop publishing, multimedia, and photography. Dues: $20, regular; $12, associate (retired); $5, student; $10, library; $50$200, sustaining membership based on number of employees. Publications: The Communicator; Visual Communications Journal (annual). Last Updated: 4/10/02. International Recording Media Association (IRMA). 182 Nassau St., Princeton, NJ 08542-7005. (609)2791700. Fax (609)279-1999. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.recordingmedia.org. Charles Van Horn, Pres.; Phil Russo, Exec. Dir. IRMA is the advocate for the growth and development of all recording media and is the industry forum for the exchange of information regarding global trends and innovations. Members include recording media manufacturers, rights holders to video programs, recording and playback equipment manufacturers, and audio and video replicators. For more than 30 years, the association has provided vital information and educational services throughout the magnetic and optical recording media industries. By promoting a greater awareness of marketing, merchandising, and technical developments, the association serves all areas of the entertainment, information, and delivery systems industries. Membership: 450 cor-
< previous page
page_330
next page >
< previous page
page_331
next page >
Page 331 porations. Corporate membership includes benefits to all employees. Dues: Corporate membership dues based on sales volume. Meetings: IRMA Executive Forum; IRMA Marketing Summit; DVD Entertainment. Publications: Membership Quarterly Magazine; Seminar Proceedings; International Source Directory, Marketing Statistics. Last Updated: 4/10/02. International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI). 1300 LSt. NW, Suite 1250, Washington, DC 20005. (202)408-7969. Fax (202)408-7972. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ispi.org. Richard D. Battaglia, Exec. Dir. ISPI is an international association dedicated to increasing productivity in the workplace through the application of performance and instructional technologies. Founded in 1962, its members are located throughout the United States, Canada, and 45 other countries. The society offers an awards program recognizing excellence in the field. Membership: 5,500. Dues: $125, active members; $40, students and retirees. Meetings: Annual Conference and Expo, spring; Human Performance Technology Institute (HPTI), late spring and fall. Publications: Performance Improvement Journal (10/yr.); Performance Improvement Quarterly; News & Notes (newsletter, 10/yr.); Annual Membership Directory; ISPI Book Program and Catalog. Last Updated: 1999. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). 480 Charnelton Street, Eugene, OR 97401. (800)336-5191 (U.S. & Canada), (541)302-3777 (Intl.). Fax (541)302-3780. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.iste.org. Don Knezek, CEO; Cheryl Williams, Co-Pres.; Cathie Norris, Co-Pres. As the leading organization for educational technology professionals, ISTE is a professional organization that supports a community of members through research, publications, workshops, symposia, and inclusion in national policy making through ISTE-DC. Home of the National Center for Preparing Tomorrows Teachers to Use Technology (NCPT3), ISTE works in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Education and various private entities to create and distribute solutions for technology integration. ISTE’s National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) for students and teachers have been adopted by hundreds of districts nationwide. ISTE is also the home of the National Educational Computer Conference (NECC), the premier U.S. educational technology conference, a forum for advancing educational philosophies, practices, policies, and research that focus on the appropriate use of current and emerging technologies to improve teaching and learning in K–12 and teacher education. Membership: ISTE members are leaders who contribute to the field of educational technology as classroom teachers, lab teachers, technology coordinators, school administrators, teacher educators, and consultants. ISTE provides leadership and professional development opportunities for its members. In addition to other benefits, ISTE members can participate in ISTEsponsored invitational events at the NECC, join one of ISTE’s many special interest groups (SIGs), and test and evaluate the latest in educational technology products and services through the ISTE Advocate Network. ISTE members also enjoy subscriptions to ISTE Update and Learning & Leading with Technology or the Journal for Research on Technology in Education. In the member’s areas of the ISTE Web site, ISTE members can join discussion lists and other online forums for participation, review a database of educational technology resources, network with a cadre of education professionals, and review online editions of ISTE publications. Dues: Annual dues for individual ISTE members are $58. Membership to SIG communities are $20 for ISTE members. Annual dues for ISTE 100 members are $5,0000. Contact
[email protected] for more information. Group discounts are available; contact
[email protected]. Meetings: National Educational Computing Conference (NECC). Publications: ISTE’s publications include ISTE Update (online member newsletter); Learning & Leading with Technology; Journal of Research on Technology in Education ( q.; formerly Journal of Research on Computing in Education ); and books about incorporating technology in the K–16 classroom. Last Updated: 4/21/02.
< previous page
page_331
next page >
< previous page
page_332
next page >
Page 332 International Teleconferencing Association (ITCA). 100 Four Falls Corporate Center, Suite 105, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. (610)941-2015. Fax (610)941-2015. E-mail
[email protected] and
[email protected]. Web site http://www.itca.org. Henry S. Grove III, Pres.; Eileen Hering, Manager, Member Services; Rosalie DiStasio, Asst. Manager, Member Services. ITCA, an international nonprofit association, is dedicated to the growth and development of teleconferencing as a profession and an industry. ITCA provides programs and services that foster the professional development of its members, champions teleconferencing and related technology as communications tools, recognizes and promotes broader applications and the development of teleconferencing and related technologies, and serves as the authoritative resource for information and research on teleconferencing and related technologies. Membership: ITCA represents more than 1,000 teleconferencing professionals throughout the world. ITCA members use teleconferencing services to advise customers and vendors, conduct research, teach courses via teleconference, and teach about teleconferencing. They represent such diverse industry segments as health care, aerospace, government, pharmaceutical, education, insurance, finance and banking, telecommunications, and manufacturing. Dues: $6,250, Platinum Sustaining; $2,500, Gold Sustaining; $1,250, Sustaining; $625, Organizational; $325, small business; $125, individual; and $35, student. Meetings: spring and fall MultimediaCom Shows. Publications: Forum newsletter; Member Directories; White Paper; Teleconferencing Success Stories. Last Updated: 1999. International Visual Literacy Association, Inc. (IVLA). Darrell Beauchamp, IVLA Treasurer, Navarro College, 3200 W. 7th Ave., Corsicana, TX 75110. (903)875-7441. Fax (903)874-4636. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site www.ivla.org. Harry Davis, Pres.; Darrell Beauchamp, Treas. IVLA provides a multidisciplinary forum for the exploration, presentation, and discussion of all aspects of visual learning, thinking, communication, and expression. It also serves as a communication link bonding professionals from many disciplines who are creating and sustaining the study of the nature of visual experiences and literacy. It promotes and evaluates research, programs, and projects intended to increase effective use of visual communication in education, business, the arts, and commerce. IVLA was founded in 1968 to promote the concept of visual literacy and is an affiliate of AECT. Membership: 500, mostly from academia, from many disciplines, including architecture, engineering, dance, the arts, computers, video, design, graphics, photography, visual languages, mathematics, acoustics, physics, chemistry, optometry, sciences, literature, library, training, and education. Dues: $40, regular; $20, student and retired; $45, outside United States; corporate memberships available; $500, lifetime membership. Meetings: Annual conference, usually October or November, in selected locations; conferences abroad once every third year. Publications: The Journal of Visual Literacy (biannual; juried research papers); Selected Readings from the Annual Conference; and The Visual Literacy ReView (newsletter, q.). Last Updated: 4/25/02. The Learning Team (TLT). Suite 204 84 Business Park Dr., Armonk, NY 10504. (914)273-2226. Fax (914)2730936. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.learningteam.org. Tom Laster, Exec. Dir. The Learning Team is a not-for-profit company that is focused on publishing inquiry-based, supplementary technology resources for science education. The multimedia resources include science, mathematics and utilities software and videos. Science subjects include physics, physical sciences, biology, earth sciences (geosciences), environmental sciences, general science, chemistry, energy use, and culture and technology. Software includes inquiry-based student resources, teacher resources and professional development. Resources available include High School Geography Product (HSGP), Intermediate Science Curriculum Study (ISCS), Man: A Course of Study (MACOS), and Human Sciences Project (HSP). Most of the resources come from National Science Foundation (NSF) funding and have been done in conjunction with institutions such as the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT), the American
< previous page
page_332
next page >
< previous page
page_333
next page >
Page 333 Institute of Physics (AIP), and the American Geological Institute (AGI). Membership: Although the term membership does not apply specifically to TLT, it loosely applies to the range of licensors, collaborators, and colleagues that cooperate with the organization and are active in the area of science education. Meetings: As appropriate. Publications: Physics InfoMall; CPU: Constructing Physics Understanding; Exploring the Nardoo; Investigating Lake Iluka; The Dynamic Rainforests; Insects: Little Creatures in a Big World; Culture & Technology; Enhanced Science Helper; Enhanced Science Helper Videos; The Green Home; The Sun’ s Joules; Whelmers; EarthView Explorer; GETIT: Geosciences Education Through Interactive Technology; Crossword Wizard; Cloze word Wizard; Maths Worksheet Wizard. Last Updated: 5/6/02 . Library Administration and Management Association (LAMA). 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL60611. (312)2805038. Fax (312)280-5033. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ala.org/lama. Karen Muller, Exec. Dir.; Thomas L. Wilding, Pres.; Carol L. Anderson, Pres. Elect. A division of the American Library Association, LAMA provides an organizational framework for encouraging the study of administrative theory, improving the practice of administration in libraries, and identifying and fostering administrative skills. Toward these ends, the association is responsible for all elements of general administration that are common to more than one type of library. Sections include Buildings and Equipment Section (BES); Fundraising & Financial Development Section (FRFDS); Library Organization & Management Section (LOMS); Personnel Administration Section (PAS); Public Relation Section (PRS); Systems & Services Section (SASS); and Statistics Section (SS). Membership: 4,996. Dues: $45 (in addition to ALA membership); $15, library school students. Meetings: Concurrent with ALA. Publications: Library Administration & Management (q) ; LEADS from LAMA (electronic newsletter, irregular). Last Updated: 1999. Library and Information Technology Association (LITA). 50 E. Huron St, Chicago, IL 60611. (312)280-4270, (800)545-2433, ext. 4270. Fax (312)280-3257. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.lita.org. Jacqueline Mundell, Exec. Dir. An affiliate of the American Library Association, LITA is concerned with library automation; the information sciences; and the design, development, and implementation of automated systems in those fields, including systems development, electronic data processing, mechanized information retrieval, operations research, standards development, telecommunications, video communications, networks and collaborative efforts, management techniques, information technology, optical technology, artificial intelligence and expert systems, and other related aspects of audiovisual activities and hardware applications. Membership: 5,400. Dues: $45 (in addition to ALA membership); $25, library school students; $35, first year. Meetings: National Forum, fall. Publications: Information Technology and Libraries; LITA Newsletter (electronic only; see Web site). Last Updated: 1999. Library of Congress (LOC). James Madison Bldg., 101 Independence Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20540. (202)7075000. Fax (202)707-1389. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.loc.gov. Dr. James Billington, Librarian of Congress. The Library of Congress is the major source of research and information for Congress. In its role as the national library, it catalogs and classifies library materials in some 460 languages, distributes the data in both printed and electronic form, and makes its vast collections available through interlibrary loan, on-site to anyone over high school age, and through its award-winning Web site at www.loc.gov. It is the largest library in the world, with more than 124 million items on 532 miles of bookshelves. The collections include more than 18 million cataloged books, 2.5 million recordings, 12 million photographs, 4.5 million maps, and 55 million manuscripts. It contains the world’s largest television and film archive, acquiring materials through gift, purchase, and copyright deposit. In 2001, the materials produced by the
< previous page
page_333
next page >
< previous page
page_334
next page >
Page 334 Library of Congress in Braille and recorded formats for persons who are blind or physically challenged were circulated to a readership of nearly 700,000. The collections of the Motion Picture, Broadcasting and Recorded Sound Division include more than 875,000 moving images. The LOC’s public catalog, as well as other files containing copyright and legislative information, are available on the its Web site. In 2000, the LOC launched the America’s Library Web site for children and families. This easy-to-use, interactive site (www.americaslibrary.gov) allows children to “have fun with history.” Publications: See list on Library’s Web site. Last Updated: 6/5/02. Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications (LHNCBC). National Library of Medicine, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20894. (301)496-4441. Fax (301)402-0118. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.nlm.nih.gov. Alexa McCray, Ph.D., Dir. The center conducts research and development programs in three major categories: Computer and Information Science; Biomedical Image and Communications Engineering; and Educational Technology Development. Major efforts of the center include its involvement with the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) project; research and development in the use of expert systems to embody the factual and procedural knowledge of human experts; research in the use of electronic technologies to distribute biomedical information not represented in text and in the storage and transmission of X-ray images over the Internet; and the development and demonstration of new educational technologies, including the use of microcomputer technology with videodisc-based images, for training health care professionals. A Learning Center for Interactive Technology serves as a focus for displaying new and effective applications of educational technologies to faculties and staff of health sciences, educational institutions, and other visitors, and health professions educators are assisted in the use of such technologies through training, demonstrations, and consultations. Publications: Fact sheet at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/lister_hill.html. Last Updated: 4/23/02. Magazine Publishers of America (MPA). 919 Third Ave., 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022. (212)872-3700. Fax (212)888-4217. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.magazine.org. Nina Link, Pres. MPA is the trade association of the consumer magazine industry. MPA promotes the greater and more effective use of magazine advertising, with ad campaigns in the trade press and in member magazines, presentations to advertisers and their ad agencies, and magazine days in cities around the United States. MPA runs educational seminars, conducts surveys of its members on a variety of topics, represents the magazine industry in Washington DC, and maintains an extensive library on magazine publishing. Membership: 230 publishers representing more than 1,200 magazines. Meetings: 2003, The Westin Mission Hills Resort & Spa Rancho Mirage (Palm Springs), CA, October 19–22. Publications: Newsletter of Consumer Marketing; Sales Edge; Newsletter of International Publishing; Magazine; Washington Newsletter. Last Updated: 5/8/02. Media Communications Association-International (MCA-I). 9202 North Meridian St., Suite 200, Indianapolis, IN 46260. (317)816-6269. Fax (317)571-5603. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.mca-i.org. Glenna Alibegovic, Dir. of Operations. Formerly the International Television Association. Founded in 1968, MCA-I’s mission is to advance the video profession, serve the needs and interests of its members, and promote the growth and quality of video and related media. Association members are video, multimedia, and film professionals working in or serving the corporate, governmental, institutional, or educational markets. MCA-I provides professional development opportunities through local and national workshops, video festivals, networking, and publications. MCA-I welcomes anyone who is interested in professional video and who is seeking to widen horizons either through career development or networking. MCA-I offers its members discounts on major
< previous page
page_334
next page >
< previous page
page_335
next page >
Page 335 medical, production, and liability insurance; hotel, car rental, and long distance telephone discounts; and a MasterCard program. Membership: 6,000; 50 commercial member companies. Dues: $160, individual; $455, organizational; $950, Commercial Level Bronze; $1,900, Commercial Level Silver; $4,750, Commercial Level Gold; $6,500, Commercial Level Platinum. Meetings: Annual International Conference. Publications: MCA-I Member2Member E-News (6/yr.); Membership Directory (annual). Last Updated: 5/17/01. Medical Library Association (MLA). 65 E. Wacker Pl., Ste. 1900, Chicago, IL60601-7298. (312)419-9094. Fax (312)419-8950. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.mlanet.org. Carla J. Funk, MLS, MBA, CAE, Exec. Dir. MLA is an educational organization of more than 1,100 institutions and 3,800 individual members in the health sciences information field. MLA members serve society by developing new health information delivery systems, fostering educational and research programs for health sciences information professionals, and encouraging an enhanced public awareness of health care issues. Membership: MLA fosters excellence in the professional achievement and leadership of health sciences library and information professionals to enhance the quality of health care, education, and research. Membership categories: Regular Membership; Institutional Membership; International Membership; Affiliate Membership; Student Membership. Dues: $135, regular; $210–$495, institutional, based on number of paid periodical subscriptions; $90, international; $80, affiliate; $30, student. Meetings: National annual meeting held every May; chapter meetings are held in the fall. Publications: MLA News (newsletter, 10/yr.); Journal of the Medical Library Association (quarterly scholarly publication.); MLA DocKit series, (collections of representative, unedited library documents from a variety of institutions that illustrate the range of approaches to health sciences library management topics); MLA BibKits (selective, annotated bibliographies of discrete subject areas in the health sciences literature; standards, surveys, and copublished monographs) . Last Updated: 5/1/02. Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL). 2550 S. Parker Rd., Suite 500, Aurora, CO 80014 US. (303)337-0990. Fax (303)337-3005. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.mcrel.org. J. Timothy Waters, Exec. Dir. McRELis a private, nonprofit organization whose purpose is to improve education through applied research and development. McRELprovides products and services, primarily for K–12 educators, to promote the best instructional practices in the classroom. McRELhouses one of 10 Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) regional educational laboratories designed to help educators and policy makers work toward excellence in education for all students. It also houses one of 10 Eisenhower Regional Consortia for Mathematics and Science Education. McRELhas particular expertise in standards-based education systems, leadership for school improvement, teacher quality, mathematics and science education improvement, early literacy development, and education outreach programs. Meetings: annual conference. Publications: Changing Schools (q. newsletter); Noteworthy (annual monograph on topics of current interest in education reform). Numerous technical reports and other publications. Check Web site for current listings. Last Updated: 4/11/02. Minorities in Media (MIM). Wayne State University, College of Education, Instructional Technology, Detroit, MI 48202. (313)577-5139. Fax (313)577-1693. E-mail
[email protected]. Dr. Gary C. Powell, Pres. MIM is a special interest group of AECT that responds to the challenge of preparing students of color for an ever-changing international marketplace and recognizes the unique educational needs of today’s diverse learners. It promotes the effective use of educational communications and technology in the learning process. MIM seeks to facilitate changes in instructional design and development, traditional pedagogy, and instructional delivery systems by responding to and meeting the
< previous page
page_335
next page >
< previous page
page_336
next page >
Page 336 significant challenge of educating diverse individuals to take their place in an ever-changing international marketplace. MIM encourages all of AECT’s body of members to creatively develop curricula, instructional treatments, instructional strategies, and instructional materials that promote an acceptance and appreciation of racial and cultural diversity. Doing so will make learning for all more effective, relevant, meaningful, motivating, and enjoyable. MIM actively supports the Wes McJulien Minority Scholarship, and selects the winner. Membership: Contact MIM president. Dues: $20, student; $30, nonstudent. Publications: Newsletter is forthcoming online. The MIM listserv is a membership benefit. Last Updated: 1999. Museum Computer Network (MCN). 1550 S. Coast Hwy, Suite 201, Laguna Beach, CA 92651. (877)626-3800. Fax (949)376-3456. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.mcn.edu. Leonard Steinbach, Pres. 2001– 2002; Fred Droz, Admin. MCN is a nonprofit organization of professionals dedicated to fostering the cultural aims of museums through the use of computer technologies. It serves individuals and institutions wishing to improve their means of developing, managing, and conveying museum information through the use of automation. It supports cooperative efforts that enable museums to be more efficient at creating and disseminating cultural and scientific knowledge as represented by their collections and related documentation. MCN members are interested in building databases complete with images and multimedia components for their collections, in using automated systems to track membership, manage events and design exhibits, in discovering how multimedia systems can increase the effectiveness of educational programs, and in developing professional standards to ensure the investment that information represents. Membership: MCN’s membership includes a wide range of museum professionals representing more than 600 major cultural institutions throughout the world. The primary job duties of its membership include 33 percent Registrar, Collection Managers; 33 percent IT professionals; and the remaining third comprised of administrator, curators, and education professionals. Members come from all sorts of cultural heritage organizations, including art, historical, and natural history museums and academia. Each member receives a complimentary issue of Spectra (published three times a year), a discount on conference fees, can subscribe to MCNL, the online discussion list, and can join, at no additional cost, any of its special interest groups, which focus on such topics as intellectual property, controlled vocabulary, digital imaging, IT managers, and data standards. Dues: $300, corporate; $200, institution; $60, individual. Meetings: Annual Conference, held in the fall; educational workshops. Publications: Spectra (newsletter), published three times a year. Subscription to Spectra is available to libraries only for $75 plus $10 surcharge for delivery. eSpectra is a monthly electronic magazine featuring online links to information of interest to the museum computing community, job openings, and a calendar of museum-related events, such as workshops, conferences, or seminars. Last Updated: 5/17/01. Museum of Modern Art, Circulating Film and Video Library (MoMA). 11 W. 53rd St., New York, NY 10019. (212)708-9530. Fax (212)708-9531. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.moma.org. William Sloan, Libr. Provides film and video rentals and sales of more than 1,300 titles covering the history of film from the 1890s to the present. It also includes an important collection of works by leading video artists. The Circulating Film and Video Library continues to add to its holdings of early silents, contemporary documentaries, animation, avant-garde, independents, and video and to make these available to viewers who otherwise would not have the opportunity to see them. The Circulating Film and Video Library has 16mm prints available for rental, sale, and lease. A few of the 16mm titles are available on videocassette. The classic film collection is not. The video collection is available in all formats for rental and sale. The library also has available a limited number of titles on 35mm, including rare early titles preserved by the Library of Congress. Publications: Information on titles may be found in the free Price
< previous page
page_336
next page >
< previous page
page_337
next page >
Page 337 List, the Documentaries on the Arts brochure and the Films of Andy Warhol brochure, all available from the library. Circulating Film and Video Catalog Vols. 1 and 2, a major source book on film and history, is available from the museum’s Mail Order Department (an order form is included in the Price List.). Last Updated: 5/7/01. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). NASA Headquarters, Code FE, Washington, DC 20546. (202)358-1110. Fax (202)358-3048. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.nasa.gov. Dr. Malcom V. Phelps, Asst. Dir.; Frank C. Owens, Dir., Education Division. From elementary through postgraduate school, NASA’s educational programs are designed to capture students’ interest in science, mathematics, and technology at an early age; to channel more students into science, engineering, and technology career paths; and to enhance the knowledge, skills, and experiences of teachers and university faculty. NASA’s educational programs include NASA Spacelink (an electronic information system); videoconferences (60-minute interactive staff development videoconferences to be delivered to schools via satellite); and NASA Television (informational and educational television programming). Additional information is available from the Education Division at NASA Headquarters and counterpart offices at the nine NASA field centers. More than 200,000 educators make copies of Teacher Resource Center Network materials each year, and thousands of teachers participate in interactive video teleconferencing, use Spacelink, and watch NASA Television. Additional information may be obtained from the NASA Education Homepage, www.education.nasa.gov, or Spacelink, http://spacelink.nasa.gov. Publications: see http://spacelink.nasa.gov. Last Updated: 4/11/02. National Alliance for Media Arts and Culture (NAMAC). 346 9th St., San Francisco, CA 94103. (415)431-1391. Fax (415)431-1392. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.namac.org. Helen DeMichel, National Dir. NAMAC is a nonprofit organization dedicated to increasing public understanding of and support for the field of media arts in the United States. Members include media centers, cable access centers, universities, and media artists, as well as other individuals and organizations providing services for production, education, exhibition, distribution, and preservation of video, film, audio, and intermedia. NAMAC’s information services are available to the general public, arts and non-arts organizations, businesses, corporations, foundations, government agencies, schools, and universities. Membership: 200 organizations, 150 individuals. Dues: $75–$450, institutional (depending on annual budget); $75, individual. Meetings: Biennial conference. Publications: Media Arts Information Network; The National Media Education Directory, annual anthology of case studies; “A Closer Look,” periodic White Paper reports; Digital Directions: Convergence Planning for the Media Arts. Last Updated: 5/8/02. National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). 1509 16th St., Washington, DC 200361426. (202)232-8777. Fax (202)328-1846. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.naeyc.org. Mark R. Ginsberg, Ph.D., Exec. Dir.; Alan Simpson, Communications. Dedicated to improving the quality of care and education provided to young children (birth–8 years). Membership: NAEYC has more than 100,000 members, including teachers and directors in child care, preschool, and Head Start programs and in classrooms from kindergarten through third grade. Other members include researchers, professional development experts, and parents. Anyone who is interested in improving early childhood education is welcome to join NAEYC. Dues: Most members join NAEYC as well as state and local Affiliates in their area, and the dues vary according to which Affiliates you join. Generally, dues range between $45 and $75 annually, with lower rates for full-time students. Meetings: 2003 Annual Conference, Chicago, IL. Publications: Young Children (journal); more than 100 books, posters, videos, and brochures. 4/10/02.
< previous page
page_337
next page >
< previous page
page_338
next page >
Page 338 National Association for Visually Handicapped (NAVH). 22 W. 21st St., 6th Floor, New York, NY 10010. (212)889-3142. Fax (212)727-2931. Web site http://www.navn.org. Lorraine H. Marchi, Founder/CEO; Eva Cohen, Asst. to CEO. Serves the partially sighted (not totally blind). Offers informational literature for the layperson and the professional, most in large print. Maintains a loan library of large-print books. A resource for visual aids counseling, use, and distribution. Provides emotional support and guidance, advocacy, and referrals for the visually impaired and their families, as well as the professionals and paraprofessionals who work with them. Membership: 15,000. Dues: $50 individual; sliding scale or no fee for those unable to afford membership. Meetings: Seniors support group two times a month; Yearly Medical Advisory Board meetings at the American Academy of Ophthalmologists Annual Meetings. Publications: Newsletter updated quarterly, distributed free throughout the English-speaking world; navhUPDATE (q.); Visual Aids and Informational Material Catalog; Large Print Loan Library catalog; informational pamphlets on topics ranging from Diseases of the Macula to knitting and crochet instructions. Last Updated: 5/16/02. National Association of Media and Technology Centers (NAMTC). NAMTC, 7105 First Ave. SW, Cedar Rapids, IA 52405. (319)654-0608. Fax (319)654-0609. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site www.NAMTC.org. Betty Gorsegner Ehlinger, Exec. Sec. NAMTC is committed to promoting leadership among its membership through networking, advocacy, and support activities that will enhance the equitable access to media, technology, and information services to educational communities. The purpose of NAMTC is to foster the exchange of ideas and information among educational communications specialists whose responsibilities relate to the administration of regional media centers and large district media centers. Membership: 161 institutional and individual members; 47 corporate members. Membership is open to regional, K–12 and higher education media centers that serve K–12 students as well as commercial media and technology companies. Dues: $75, institutions and individuals; $20, retired members; $300, corporations. Meetings: Regional meetings are held throughout the United States annually. A national Leadership Summit is held in the spring or fall. Publications: Membership newsletter is ETIN. NAMTC Press was established in 1996 to provide members with publications related to the field of media and technology. These publications are available for purchase through this publication outlet. Publications are solicited and submitted from the NAMTC membership. Last Updated: 4/23/02. National Association of State Textbook Administrators (NASTA). 120 S. Federal Place, Room 206, Santa Fe, NM 87501. (505)827-1801. Fax (505)827-1826. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.nasta.org. David P. Martinez, Pres. NASTA’s purposes are to 1) foster a spirit of mutual helpfulness in adoption, purchase, and distribution of instructional materials; 2) arrange for study and review of textbook specifications; 3) authorize special surveys, tests, and studies; and 4) initiate action leading to better-quality instructional materials. Services provided include a working knowledge of text construction, monitoring lowest prices, sharing adoption information, identifying trouble spots, and discussions in the industry. The members of NASTA meet to discuss the textbook adoption process and to improve the quality of the instructional materials used in the elementary, middle, and high schools. NASTA is not affiliated with any parent organization and has no permanent address. Membership: Textbook administrators from each of the 21 states that adopt instructional material at the state level on an annual basis. Dues: $25 annually per individual. Meetings: NASTA meets annually during the month of July. Publications: Manufacturing Standards and Specifications for Textbooks (MSST). Last Updated: 4/26/02. The National Center for Improving Science Education. 1726 M St. NW, #704, Washington, DC 20036. (202)467-0652. Fax (202)467-0659. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site
< previous page
page_338
next page >
< previous page
page_339
next page >
Page 339 www.wested.org. Senta A. Raizen, Dir. A division of WestEd (see separate listing) that works to promote changes in state and local policies and practices in science curriculum, teaching, and assessment through research and development, evaluation, technical assistance, and dissemination. Publications: Science and Technology Education for the Elementary Years: Frameworks for Curriculum and Instruction; Developing and Supporting Teachers for Elementary School Science Education; Assessment in Elementary School Science Education; Getting Started in Science: A Blueprint for Elementary School Science Education; Elementary School Science for the 90s; Building Scientific Literacy: Blueprint for the Middle Years; Science and Technology Education for the Middle Years: Frameworks for Curriculum and Instruction; Assessment in Science Education: The Middle Years; Developing and Supporting Teachers for Science Education in the Middle Years; The High Stakes of High School Science; Future of Science in Elementary Schools: Educating Prospective Teachers; Technology Education in the Classroom: Understanding the Designed World; What College-Bound Students Abroad Are Expected to Know About Biology (with AFT); Examining the Examinations: A Comparison of Science and Mathematics Examinations for College-Bound Students in Seven Countries. Bold Ventures series: Vol. 1: Pat-terns of U.S. Innovations in Science and Mathematics Education; Vol. 2: Case Studies of U.S. Innovations in Science Education; Vol. 3: Case Studies of U.S. Innovations in Mathematics. A publications catalog and project summaries are available on request. Last Updated: 1999. National Center to Improve Practice (NCIP). Education Development Center, Inc., 55 Chapel St., Newton, MA 02458-1060. (617)969-7100, ext. 2387, TTY (617)969-4529. Fax (617)969-3440. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.edc.org/FSC/NCIP. Judith Zorfass, Project Dir. NCIP, a project funded by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Special Education Programs (OSEP), promotes the effective use of technology to enhance educational outcomes for students (preschool to grade 12) with sensory, cognitive, physical, social, and emotional disabilities. NCIP’s award-winning Web site offers users online discussions (topical discussions and special events) about technology and students with disabilities, an expansive library of resources (text, pictures, and video clips), online workshops, guided tours of exemplary classrooms, spotlights on new technology, and links to more than 100 sites dealing with technology and/or students with disabilities. NCIP also produces a series of videos illustrating how students with disabilities use a range of assistive and instructional technologies to improve their learning. Meetings: NCIP presented sessions at various educational conferences around the country. Publications: Video Profile Series: Multimedia and More: Help for Students with Learning Disabilities; Jeff with Expression: Writing in the Word Prediction Software; Write1; Tools for Angie: Technology for Students Who Are Visually Impaired; Telling Tales in ASL and English: Reading, Writing and Videotapes; Welcome to My Preschool: Communicating with Technology. Excellent for use in training, workshops, and courses, videos may be purchased individually or as a set of five by calling (800)793-5076. A new video to be released this year focuses on standards, curriculum, and assessment in science. National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education (NCBE). The George Washington University, 2011 St. NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20006. (202)467-0867. Fax (800)531-9347, (202)467-4283. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu. Dr. Minerva Gorena, Interim Dir. NCBE is funded by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs (OBEMLA) to collect, analyze, synthesize, and disseminate information relating to the education of linguistically and culturally diverse students in the United States. NCBE is operated by The George Washington University Graduate School of Education and Human Development, Center for the Study of Language and Education in Washington DC. Online services include the NCBE Web site containing an online library of hundreds of cover-to-cover documents,
< previous page
page_339
next page >
< previous page
page_340
next page >
Page 340 resources for teachers and administrators, and library of links to related Internet sites; an e-mail–based, biweekly news bulletin, Newsline; an electronic discussion group, NCBE Roundtable; and an e-mail–based question answering service, AskNCBE. Publications: short monographs, syntheses, and reports. Request a publications catalog for prices. The catalog and some publications are available at no cost from the NCBE and other Web sites. Last Updated: 5/23/02. National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs (National Clearinghouse). The George Washington University, 2121 K Street NW, Suite 260, Washington, DC 20037. (800)321-6223, (202)467-0867. Fax (800)531-9347, (202)467-4283. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu. Dr. Minerva Gorena, Dir. The National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs is funded by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students (OELA) to collect, analyze, synthesize, and disseminate information relating to the education of linguistically and culturally diverse students in the United States. Online services include a Web site containing an online library of hundreds of cover-to-cover publications, resources for teachers and administrators; links to related Web sites; a weekly e-mail news bulletin, Newsline; a monthly e-mail magazine, Outlook; and an email question answering service. The National Clearinghouse is operated by The George Washington University Graduate School of Education and Human Development, Center for the Study of Language and Education in Washington, DC. Membership: The National Clearinghouse is funded by the U.S. Department of Education. There is no membership, and services are provided no cost. Publications: Short monographs, syntheses, and reports. Request a publications catalog for prices. The catalog and most publications are available at no cost from the National Clearinghouse Web site. Last Updated: 4/11/02. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS). 1110 Vermont Ave. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005-3552. (202)606-9200. Fax (202)606-9203. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.nclis.gov. Robert S. Willard, Exec. Dir. A permanent independent agency of the U.S. government charged with advising the executive and legislative branches on national library and information policies and plans. The Commission reports directly to the president and Congress on the implementation of national policy; conducts studies, surveys, and analyses of the nation’s library and information needs; appraises the inadequacies of current resources and services; promotes research and development activities; conducts hearings and issues publications as appropriate; and develops overall plans for meeting national library and information needs and for the coordination of activities at the federal, state, and local levels. The commission provides general policy advice to the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) director relating to library services included in the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA). Membership: 16 commissioners (14 appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, the Librarian of Congress, and the director of the IMLS). Dues: none. Meetings: Average three meetings a year with a combined meeting of NCLIS/IMLS. Publications: Annual Report. Last Updated: 5/8/02. National Communication Association (NCA). 5105 Backlick Rd., Bldg. E, Annandale, VA 22003. (703)750-0533. Fax (703)914-9471. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.natcom.org. James L. Gaudino, Exec. Dir. A voluntary society organized to promote study, criticism, research, teaching, and application of principles of communication, particularly of speech communication. Membership: 7,000. Meetings: Annual Meetings. Publications: Spectra Newsletter (monthly); Quarterly Journal of Speech; Communication Monographs; Communication Education; Critical Studies in Mass Com-
< previous page
page_340
next page >
< previous page
page_341
next page >
Page 341 munication; Journal of Applied Communication Research; Text and Performance Quarterly; Communication Teacher; Index to Journals in Communication Studies through 1995; National Communication Directory of NCA and the Regional Speech Communication Organizations (CSSA, ECA, SSCA, WSCA). For additional publications, request brochure. Last Updated: 1999. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). 2010 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20036. (202)466-7496. Fax (202)296-6620. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ncate.org. Arthur E. Wise, Pres. NCATE is a consortium of professional organizations that establishes standards of quality for and accredits professional education units in schools, colleges, and departments of education, and is interested in the self-regulation and improvement of standards in the field of teacher education. Membership: More than 600 colleges and universities and 30 educational organizations. Dues: See http://www.ncate.org/accred/fees.htm. Meetings: See http://www.ncate.org/partners/meetings.htm. Publications: Standards, Procedures, and Policies for the Accreditation of Professional Education Units; Quality Teaching (newsletter, twice yearly; online resources for institutions and the public). Last Updated: 4/11/02. National Council of Teachers of English: Commission on Media, Committee on Instructional Technology, Assembly on Media Arts (NCTE). 1111 W. Kenyon Rd., Urbana, IL61801-1096. (217)328-3870. Fax (217)328-0977. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ncte.org. Mary T. Christel, Commission Dir.; Trevor Owen, Committee Chair; Alan Teasley, Assembly Chair. The NCTE Commission on Media is a deliberative and advisory body which each year identifies and reports to the NCTE Executive Committee on key issues in the teaching of media; reviews what the council has done concerning media during the year; and recommends new projects and persons who might undertake them. The commission monitors current and projected NCTE publications (other than journals), suggests topics for future NCTE publications on media, and performs a similar role of review and recommendation for the NCTE Annual Convention program. Occasionally, the commission undertakes further tasks and projects as approved by the Executive Committee. The NCTE Committee on Instructional Technology studies emerging technologies and their integration into English and language arts curricula and teacher education programs; identifies the effects of such technologies on teachers, students, and educational settings, with attention to people of color, handicapped, and other students not well served in current programs; explores means of disseminating information about such technologies to the NCTE membership; serves as liaison between NCTE and other groups interested in computer-based education in English and language arts; and maintains liaison with the NCTE Commission on Media and other Council groups concerned with instructional technology. The NCTE Assembly on Media Arts promotes communication and cooperation among all individuals who have a special interest in media in the English language arts; presents programs and special projects on this subject; encourages the development of research, experimentation, and investigation in the judicious uses of media in the teaching of English; promotes the extensive writing of articles and publications devoted to this subject; and integrates the efforts of those with an interest in this subject. Membership: The NCTE, with 75,000 individual and institutional members worldwide, is dedicated to improving the teaching and learning of English and the language arts at all levels of education. Members include elementary, middle, and high school teachers; supervisors of English programs; college and university faculty; teacher educators; local and state agency English specialists; and professionals in related fields. The members of the NCTE Commission on Media and Committee on Instructional Technology are NCTE members appointed by the director and chair of the groups. Membership in the Assembly on Media Arts is open to members and nonmembers of NCTE. Dues: Membership in NCTE is $40 a year; subscriptions to its various journals for additional fees. Membership
< previous page
page_341
next page >
< previous page
page_342
next page >
Page 342 in the Assembly on Media Arts is $10 a year. Meetings: 93rd NCTE Annual Convention, November 20–25, 2003, San Francisco; 94th NCTE Annual Convention, November 18–23, 2004, Indianapolis, IN. Publications: NCTE publishes about 20 books a year. NCTE’s journals include Language Arts; English Journal; College English; College Composition and Communication; English Education; Research in the Teaching of English; Teaching English in the Two-Year College; Voices from the Middle; Primary Voices, K–6; Talking Points; Classroom Notes Plus; English Leadership Quarterly; The Council Chronicle (included in NCTE membership). The Commission on Media and Committee on Instructional Technology do not have their own publications. The Assembly on Media Arts publishes Media Matters, a newsletter highlighting issues, viewpoints, materials, and events related to the study of media. Assembly members receive this publication. Last Updated: 5/9/02. National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA (NCC). Communication Commission, 475 Riverside Dr., New York, NY 10115. (212)870-2574. Fax (212)870-2030. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ncccusa.org. Wesley M. “Pat” Pattillo, Dir. of Communication. Ecumenical arena for cooperative work of Protestant and Orthodox denominations and agencies in broadcasting, film, cable, and print media. Offers advocacy to government and industry structures on media services. Services provided include liaison to network television and radio programming; film sales and rentals; information about telecommunications; and news and information regarding work of the National Council of Churches, related denominations, and agencies. Works closely with other faith groups in the Interfaith Broadcasting Commission. Online communication Web site: www.ncccusa.org. Membership: 36 denominations. Dues: None. Meetings: Twice a year. Publications: EcuLink. Last Updated: 4/12/02. National Education Knowledge Industry Association (NEKIA). 1718 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20009-1162. 202-518-0847. Fax (202)785-3849. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.nekia.org. James W. Kohlmoos, Pres. Founded in 1997, NEKIA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit trade association representing the emerging knowledge industry. In the same way that research and development are crucial to the sciences, manufacturing, and agriculture, research and development is vital to the field of education. In recent years, a new field—the education knowledge industry—has emerged to provide structure, quality, and coherence to education practices, policies, and products. The members of this industry include researchers, educational developers, service providers, and a rapidly increasing number of entrepreneurs. Together, they work across the education spectrum from research to development to dissemination to practice. NEKIA brings educational innovation and expertise to all communities while providing its members with leadership, policy development, advocacy, professional development, and the promotion of quality products and services. NEKIA’s mission is to advance the development and use of research based knowledge for the improvement of the academic performance of all children. The association’s members are committed to finding new and better ways to support and expand high-quality education research, development, dissemination, technical assistance, and evaluation at the federal, regional, state, tribal, and local levels. Membership: 28. Meetings: Annual Legislative and Policy Conference; Annual Meeting. Publications: Checking Up on Early Childhood Care and Education; What We Know About Reading Teaching and Learning; Plugging In: Choosing and Using Educational Technology; Probe: Designing School Facilities for Learning; Education Productivity; Technology Infrastructure in Schools. Last Updated: 5/8/02. National Education Telecommunications Organization & EDSAT Institute (NETO/ EDSAT). 1899 “L” St. NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036. (202)293-4211. Fax (202)293-4210. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.netoedsat.org. Shelly Weinstein, Pres. and CEO. NETO/EDSAT is a nonprofit organization bringing to-
< previous page
page_342
next page >
< previous page
page_343
next page >
Page 343 gether U.S. and non-U.S. users and providers of telecommunications to deliver education, instruction, health care, and training in classrooms, colleges, workplaces, health centers, and other distance education centers. NETO/EDSAT facilitates and collaborates with key stakeholders in the education and telecommunications fields. Programs and services include research and education, outreach, seminars and conferences, and newsletters. The NETO/EDSAT mission is to help create an integrated multitechnology infrastructure, a dedicated satellite that links space and existing secondary access roads (telephone and cable) over which teaching and education resources are delivered and shared in a user-friendly format with students, teachers, workers, and individuals. NETO/EDSAT seeks to create a modern-day “learning place” for rural, urban, migrant, suburban, disadvantaged, and at-risk students that provides equal and affordable access to and use of educational resources. Membership: Members include more than 60 U.S. and non-U.S. school districts, colleges, universities, state agencies, public and private educational consortia, libraries, and other distance education providers. Publications: NETO/EDSAT “UPDATE” (newsletter, q.); Analysis of a Proposal for an Education Satellite, EDSAT Institute, 1991; Global Summit on Distance Education Final Report, Oct 1996; International Report of the NETO/ EDSAT Working Group on the Education and Health Care Requirements for Global/Regional Dedicated Networks, June 1998. Last Updated: 5/8/02. National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). Division of Public Programs, Media Program, 1100 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Room 426, Washington, DC 20506. (202)606-8269. Fax (202)606-8557. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.neh.gov. Nancy Rogers, Dir., Division of Public Programs. The NEH is an independent federal grant-making agency that supports research, educational, and public programs grounded in the disciplines of the humanities. The Media Program supports film and radio programs in the humanities for public audiences, including children and adults. Membership: Non-profit institutions and organizations including public television and radio stations. Publications: Visit the Web site (http://www.neh.gov) for application forms and guidelines as well as the Media Log, a cumulative listing of projects funded through the Media Program. Last Updated: 1999. National Federation of Community Broadcasters (NFCB). Ft. Mason Center, Bldg. D, Ste. 210, San Francisco, CA 94123. (415)771-1160. Fax 415 771-4343. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.nfcb.org. Carol Pierson, Pres. and CEO. NFCB represents noncommercial, community-based radio stations in public policy development at the national level and provides a wide range of practical services, including technical assistance. Membership: 200. Noncommercial community radio stations, related organizations, and individuals. Dues: Range from $200 to $3,000 for participant and associate members. Meetings: 2003, San Francisco. Publications: Public Radio Legal Handbook; AudioCraft; Community Radio News; Let a Thousand Voices Speak: A Guide to Youth in Radio Projects. Last Updated: 5/8/02. National Film Board of Canada (NFBC). 350 Fifth Ave., Suite 4820, New York, NY 10118. (212)629-8890. Fax (212)629-8502. E-mail
[email protected]. John Sirabella, U.S. Marketing Mgr./Nontheatrical Rep. Established in 1939, the NFBC’s main objective is to produce and distribute high-quality audiovisual materials for educational, cultural, and social purposes. Last Updated: 1999. National Film Information Service. Center for Motion Picture Study, 333 So. La Cienega Blvd., Beverly Hills, CA 90211. (310)247-3000. Last Updated: 1999. National Gallery of Art Department of Education Resources (NGA). 6th and Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20565. (202)842-6273. Fax (202)842-6935. E-mail
< previous page
page_343
next page >
< previous page
page_344
next page >
Page 344
[email protected]. Web site http://www.hga.gov. Leo J. Kasun, Education Resources Supervisory Specialist. This department of NGA is responsible for the production and distribution of educational audiovisual programs, including interactive technologies. Materials available (all loaned free to individuals, schools, colleges and universities, community organizations, and noncommercial television stations) range from videocassettes and color slide programs to videodiscs, CD-ROMs, and DVDs. A free catalog of programs is available upon request. Two videodiscs using digitized images on the gallery’s collection are available for long-term loan. Membership: No members per se. Its programs are available to anyone who requests them. Publications: Extension Programs Catalogue. Last Updated: 4/10/02. National Information Center for Educational Media (NICEM). P.O. Box 8640, Albuquerque, NM 87198-8640. (505)265-3591, (800)926-8328. Fax (505)256-1080. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.nicem.com. Roy Morgan, Exec. Dir.; Marjorie M. K. Hlava, Pres., Access Innovations, Inc. The National Information Center for Educational Media maintains an international database of information about educational nonprint materials for all age levels and subject areas in all media types. NICEM editors collect, catalog, and index information about media that is provided by producers and distributors. This information is entered into an electronic masterfile. Anyone who is looking for information about educational media materials can search the database by a wide variety of criteria to locate existing and archival materials. Producer and distributor information in each record then leads the searcher to the source of the educational media materials needed. NICEM makes the information from the database available in several forms and through several vendors. CD-ROM editions are available from NICEM, SilverPlatter, and BiblioFile. Online access to the database is available through NICEM, EBSCO, SilverPlatter, and The Library Corporation. NICEM also conducts custom searches and prepares custom catalogs. NICEM is used by college and university media centers, public school libraries and media centers, public libraries, corporate training centers, students, media producers and distributors, and researchers. Membership: NICEM is a nonmembership organization. There is no charge for submitting information to be entered into the database. Corporate member of AECT, AIME, NAMTC, CCUMC. Publications: A-VOnline on SilverPlatter; NICEM A-VMARC by BiblioFile; NICEM Reference CD-ROM; NICEM MARC CD-ROM; NICEM Producer & CD-ROM. Last Updated: 1999. National ITFS Association (NIA). 77 W. Canfield, Detroit, MI 48201. (313) 577-2085. Fax (313) 577-5577. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.itfs.org. Patrick Gossman, Chair, Bd. of Dirs.; Don MacCullough, Exec. Dir. Established in 1978, NIA is a nonprofit, professional organization of Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) licensees, applicants, and others interested in ITFS broadcasting. The goals of the association are to gather and exchange information about ITFS, gather data on utilization of ITFS, act as a conduit for those seeking ITFS information, and assist migration from video broadcast to wireless, broadband Internet services using ITFS channels. The NIA represents ITFS interests to the FCC, technical consultants, and equipment manufacturers. The association uses its Web site and listserv list to provide information to its members in areas such as technology, programming content, FCC regulations, excess capacity leasing and license and application data. Membership: ITFS licensees and other educational institutions. Dues: Two main types of memberships: voting memberships for ITFS licensees only, and nonvoting memberships for other educational institutions and sponsors. See the Web site http://www.itfs.org for details. Meetings: Annual Member Conference, January/February. Publications: http://www.itfs.org. Last Updated: 5/4/01. National Press Photographers Association, Inc. (NPPA). 3200 Croasdaile Dr., Suite 306, Durham, NC 27705. (919)383-7246. Fax (919)383-7261. E-mail
[email protected].
< previous page
page_344
next page >
< previous page
page_345
next page >
Page 345 Web site http://www.nppa.org. Bradley Wilson, Dir. An organization of professional news photographers who participate in and promote photojournalism in publications and through television and film. Sponsors workshops, seminars, and contests; maintains an audiovisual library of subjects of media interest. Membership: 9,000. Dues: $75, domestic; $105, international; $40, student. Meetings: Annual convention and education days. An extensive array of other conferences, seminars, and workshops are held throughout the year. Publications: News Photographer (magazine, mo.); The Best of Photojournalism (annual book). Last Updated: 1999. National PTA (PTA or PTSA). 330 N. Wabash, Suite 2100, Chicago, IL60611. (312)670-6782. Fax (312)670-6783. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.pta.org. Shirley Igo, Pres. (July 2001–June 2003); Linda Hodge, Pres.elect (2003–2005); Pam Grotz, Exec. Dir. Advocates the education, health, safety, and well-being of children and teens. Provides parenting education and leadership training to PTA volunteers. National PTA partners with the National Cable & Telecommunications Association on the “Taking Charge of Your TV” project by training PTA and cable representatives to present media literacy workshops. The workshops teach parents and educators how to evaluate programming so they can make informed decisions about what to allow their children to see. The National PTA in 1997 convinced the television industry to add content information to the television rating system. Membership: 6.5 million. Membership open to all interested in the health, welfare, and education of children and support the PTA mission. See http://www.pta.org/aboutpta/mission_en.asp. Dues: Vary by local unit; national dues portion is $1.75 per member annually. Meetings: National convention, held annually in June in different regions of the country, is open to PTA members; convention information available on the Web site. Publications: Our Children (magazine), plus electronic newsletters and other Web-based information for members and general public. Last Updated: 4/10/02. National Public Broadcasting Archives (NPBA). Hornbake Library, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742. (301)405-9255. Fax (301)314-2634. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.library.umd.edu/UMCP/NPBA/npba.html. Thomas Connors, Archivist. NPBA brings together the archival record of the major entities of noncommercial broadcasting in the United States. NPBA’s collections include the archives of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), and National Public Radio (NPR). Other organizations represented include the Midwest Program for Airborne Television Instruction (MPATI), the Public Service Satellite Consortium (PSSC), America’s Public Television Stations (APTS), Children’s Television Workshop (CTW), and the Joint Council for Educational Telecommunications (JCET). NPBA also makes available the personal papers of many individuals who have made significant contributions to public broadcasting, and its reference library contains basic studies of the broadcasting industry, rare pamphlets, and journals on relevant topics. NPBA also collects and maintains a selected audio and video program record of public broadcasting’s national production and support centers and of local stations. Oral history tapes and transcripts from the NPR Oral History Project and the Televisionaries Nal History Project are also available at the archives. The archives are open to the public from 9 A.M. to 5 P.M., Monday through Friday. Research in NPBA collections should be arranged by prior appointment. For further information, call (301)405-9988. Last Updated: 1999. National Religious Broadcasters (NRB). 9510 Technology Dr., Manassas, VA 20110 US. (703)330-7000. Fax (703)330-7100. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.nrb.org. Glenn Plummer, Chairman, CEO, Michael Glenn, Exec. Vice Pres. National Religious Broadcasters is a Christian international association of radio and television stations, Webcasters, program producers, consultants, attorneys, agencies, and churches. NRB maintains rapport with the FCC, the broadcasting industry, and government bodies. NRB
< previous page
page_345
next page >
< previous page
page_346
next page >
Page 346 encourages growth of Christian communications through education, professional training, publications and networking opportunities. The association maintains relationships with other media associations to promote cuttingedge technology and practice. NRB fosters high professional standards through its Code of Ethics and Statement of Faith. Membership: 1,500 members who are organizations and individuals representing Christian television, radio and Internet stations and broadcasters, program producers, churches, agencies, consultants, attorneys and companies who are directly or indirectly related to Christian broadcasting. Intercollegiate Religious Broadcasters (IRB) is a chapter of NRB for colleges and universities who have a student run broadcast. Membership is open for both faculty and students. Dues: Based on broadcast-related expenses—associate members have fixed rates. Meetings: 60th Annual NRB Convention and Exhibition, February 8–11, 2003, Nashville, TN, 5 regional conventions held during summer and fall. Publications: NRB magazine 10 issues a year; Directory of Religious Media and CD Rom; Inside NRB for members only, an e-mail broadcast, Convention News, a daily newspaper at national convention. Last Updated: 4/24/02. National School Boards Association/Institute for the Transfer of Technology to Education (NSBA/ITTE). 1680 Duke St, Alexandria, VA 22314. (703)838-6722. Fax (703)683-7590. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.nsba.org/itte. Ann Lee Flynn, Dir., Education Technology. ITTE was created to help advance the wise uses of technology in public education. ITTE renders several services to state school boards associations, sponsors conferences, publishes, and engages in special projects. The Technology Leadership Network, the membership component of ITTE, is designed to engage school districts nationwide in a dialogue about technology in education. This dialogue is carried out via newsletters, meetings, special reports, projects, and online communications. The experience of the network is shared more broadly through the state association’s communications with all school districts. Membership: Approximately 500 school districts in 47 states and Canada. Dues: Based on the school district’s student enrollment. Meetings: Technology Learning Conference, November 13– 15, 2002. Publications: Legal Issues and Education Technology: A School Leader’s Guide, 2nd edition; Technology Professional Development for P–12 Educators; Education Leadership Toolkit: A Desktop Companion; Plans and Policies for Technology in Education: A Compendium, 2nd edition; Models of Success: Case Study of Technology in Schools; Investing in School Technology: Strategies to Meet the Funding Challenge/School Leader’s Version; Technology for Students with Disabilities: A Decision Maker’s Resource Guide; Leadership and Technology: What School Board Members Need to Know; Technology Leadership Newsletter; Technology & School Design: Creating Spaces for Learning. Last Updated: 4/17/02. National School Supply and Equipment Association (NSSEA). 8300 Colesville Rd., Suite 250, Silver Spring, MD 20910. (301)495-0240. Fax (301)495-3330. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.nssea.org. Tim Holt, Pres. A service organization of more than 1,600 manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and independent manufacturers’ representatives of school supplies, equipment, and instructional materials. Seeks to maintain open communications between manufacturers and dealers in the school market and to encourage the development of new ideas and products for educational progress. Publications: Tidings; Annual Membership Directory. Last Updated: 1999. National Science Foundation (NSF). 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. (703)292-5111. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.nsf.gov/start.htm. Mary Hanson, Chief, Media Relations and Public Affairs. Linda Boutchyard, Contact Person. NSF, an independent federal agency, funds research and education in all fields of science, mathematics, and engineering. With an annual budget of about $5 billion, NSF funds reach all 50 states through grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 col-
< previous page
page_346
next page >
< previous page
page_347
next page >
Page 347 leges, universities, and other institutions nationwide. NSF receives more than 50,000 requests for funding annually, including at least 30,000 new proposals. Applicants should refer to the NSF Guide to Programs. Scientific material and media reviews are available to help the public learn about NSF-supported programs. NSF news releases and tip sheets are available electronically via NSFnews. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to
[email protected]; in the body of the message, type “subscribe nsfnews” and then type your name. Also see NSF news products at http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/start.htm, http://www.eurekalert.org/ and http://www.ari.net/newswise. In addition, NSF has developed a Web site that offers information about NSF directorates, offices, programs, and publications at http://nsf.gov. Last Updated: 5/8/02. National Telemedia Council Inc. (NTC). 1922 University Ave., Madison, WI 53705. (608)218-1182. Fax (608)218-1183. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.nationaltelemediacouncil.org. Dr. Martin Rayala, Pres.; Marieli Rowe, Exec. Dir. The NTC is a national, nonprofit professional organization dedicated to promoting media literacy, or critical media viewing skills. This is done primarily through work with teachers, parents, and caregivers. NTC activities include publishing Telemedium: The Journal of Media Literacy, the Teacher Idea Exchange (T.I.E.), the Jessie McCanse Award for individual contribution to media literacy, assistance to media literacy educators and professionals. Membership: Membership is open to all those interested in media literacy. Dues: $30, basic; $50, contributing; $100, patron. Meetings: No meetings scheduled for members. Publications: Telemedium: The Journal of Media Literacy (q. newsletter). Last Updated: 4/15/02. Native American Public Telecommunications (NAPT). 1800 North 33rd St., P.O. Box 83111, Lincoln, NE 68501-3111. (402)472-3522. Fax (402)472-8675. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://nativetelecom.org. Frank Blythe, Exec. Dir. The mission of NAPT is to inform, educate, and encourage the awareness of tribal histories, cultures, languages, opportunities, and aspirations through the fullest participation of America Indians and Alaska Natives in creating and employing all forms of educational and public telecommunications programs and services, thereby supporting tribal sovereignty. Membership: 23 PTV Memberships. Dues: $700.00/year. Publications: The Vision Maker (newsletter). Last Updated: 4/18/02. NCTI (NCTI). 801 W. Mineral Ave., Littleton, CO 80120 US. (303)797-9393. Fax (303)797-9394. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ncti.com. Tom Brooksher, Pres.; Alan Babcock, VP Learning & Development. NCTI is the largest independent provider of broadband technology training in the world. More than 250,000 students have graduated from these courses since 1968. NCTI partners with companies by providing self-paced study, classroom and Web-based courses to be complemented by company hands-on experiences. NCTI administers lessons and final examinations and issues the Certificate of Graduation, which is recognized throughout the industry as a symbol of competence and technical achievement. Most NCTI courses earn college credit. Last Updated: 4/16/02. Network for Continuing Medical Education (NCME). One Harmon Plaza, 6th Floor, Secaucus, NJ 07094. (201)867-3550. Produces and distributes videocassettes, CD-ROMs, and Web-based programs to hospitals for physicians’ continuing education. Programs are developed for physicians in the practice of General Medicine, Anesthesiology, Emergency Medicine, Gastroenterology, and Surgery. Physicians who view all the programs can earn up to 25 hours of Category 1 (AMA) credit and up to 10 hours of Prescribed (AAFP) credit each year. Membership: More than 1,000 hospitals provide NCME programs to their physicians. Dues: Subscription fees: VHS-$2,160/yr. Sixty-minute videocassettes and CD-ROMs are distributed to hospital subscribers every 18 days. Last Updated: 1999.
< previous page
page_347
next page >
< previous page
page_348
next page >
Page 348 The NETWORK, Inc. 136 Fenno Dr., Rowley, MA 01969. (978)948-7764. Fax (978)948-7836. E-mail
[email protected]. David Crandall, contact person. A nonprofit research and service organization providing training, research and evaluation, technical assistance, and materials for a fee to schools, educational organizations, and private sector firms with educational interests. The NETWORK has been helping professionals manage and learn about change since 1969. A Facilitator’s Institute is held at least annually for trainers and staff developers who use the simulations. Publications: An Action Guide for School Improvement; Making Change for School Improvement: A Simulation Game; Systems Thinking/Systems Changing: A Simulation Game; People, Policies, and Practices: Examining the Chain of School Improvement; Systemic Thinking: Solving Complex Problems; Benchmarking: A Guide for Educators. Last Updated: 1999. New England Educational Media Association (NEEMA). c/o Jean Keilly, 58 S. Mammoth Rd., Manchester, NH 03109. (603)622-9626. Fax (603)424-6229. E-mail
[email protected]. An affiliate of AECT, NEEMA is a regional professional association dedicated to the improvement of instruction through the effective use of school library media services, media, and technology applications. For more than 75 years, it has represented school library media professionals through activities and networking efforts to develop and polish the leadership skills, professional representation, and informational awareness of the membership. The Board of Directors consists of departments of education as well as professional leaders of the region. An annual conference program and a Leadership Program are offered in conjunction with the various regional state association conferences. Last Updated: 5/8/02. The New York Festivals. 780 King St., Chappaqua, NY 10514. (914)238-4481. Fax (914)236-5040. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.nyfests.com. Bilha Goldberg, Vice Pres. The New York Festivals sponsors the International Non-Broadcast Awards, which are annual competitive festivals for industrial and educational film and video productions, filmstrips and slide programs, multi-image business theater and interactive multimedia presentations, and television programs. Entry fees begin at $125. First entry deadline is August 3 for U.S. entrants and September 15 for overseas entrants. The Non-Broadcast competition honors a wide variety of categories, including Education Media. As one of the largest competitions in the world, achieving finalist status is a notable credit to any company’s awards roster. Winners are announced each year at a gala awards show in New York City and published on the World Wide Web. Last Updated: 1999. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL). 1120 E. Diehl Road Suite 200, Naperville, IL605631486 US. (630)649-6500, (800)356-2735. Fax (630)649-6700. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ncrel.org. Gina Burkhardt, Exec. Dir. NCREL’s work is guided by a focus on comprehensive and systemic school restructuring that is research based and learner centered. One of 10 Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) regional educational laboratories, NCRELdisseminates information about effective programs, develops educational products, holds conferences, provides technical assistance, and conducts research and evaluation. A special focus is on technology and learning. In addition to conventional print publications, NCRELuses computer networks, videoconferencing via satellite, and video and audio formats to reach its diverse audiences. NCREL’s Web site includes the acclaimed Pathways to School Improvement. NCRELoperates the Midwest Consortium for Mathematics and Science Education, which works to advance systemic change in mathematics and science education. Persons living in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin are encouraged to call the NCRELResource Center with any education-related questions. NCRELalso hosts the North Central Regional Technology in Education Consortium which helps states and local educational agencies successfully integrate advanced technologies into K–12 class-
< previous page
page_348
next page >
< previous page
page_349
next page >
Page 349 rooms, library media centers, and other educational settings. Membership: Staff of 100; region covers Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, and Iowa. Meetings: Annual conference in the fall. Publications: Learning Point (three times a year). Last Updated: 5/15/02. Northwest College and University Council for the Management of Educational Technology (NW/MET). c/o WITS, Willamette University, 900 State St., Salem, OR 97301. (503)370-6650. Fax (503)375-5456. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.nw-met.org. Kees Hof, Dir.; Marti Morandi, Membership Chair. NW/MET was the first regional group representing institutions of higher education in Alberta, Alaska, British Columbia, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Saskatchewan, and Washington to receive affiliate status in AECT. Membership: Restricted to information technology managers with campuswide responsibilities for information technology services in the membership region. Corresponding membership is available to those who work outside the membership region. Current issues under consideration include managing emerging technologies, distance education, adaptive technologies, staff evaluation, course management, faculty development, copyright, and other management/administration issues. Organizational goals include identifying the unique status problems of media managers in higher education. Membership: approximately 75. Dues: $35. Meetings: Annual conference and business meeting are held each year, rotating through the region. Publications: An annual newsletter and NW/MET Journal. Last Updated: 4/10/02. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (NWREL). 101 SW. Main St., Suite 500, Portland, OR 97204. (503)275-9500. Fax (503)275-0448. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.nwrel.org. Dr. Carol Thomas, Exec. Dir. One of 10 Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) regional educational laboratories, NWRELworks with schools and communities to improve educational outcomes for children, youth, and adults. NWRELprovides leadership, expertise, and services based on the results of research and development. The specialty area of NWRELis school change processes. It serves Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, and Washington. Membership: 856 organizations. Meetings: Education Now and in The Future Conference. Publications: Northwest Report (newsletter), Northwest Education (q. journal). Last Updated: 4/10/02. Online Audiovisual Catalogers, Inc. (OLAC). E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.olacinc.org. n/a. In 1980, OLAC was founded to establish and maintain a group that could speak for catalogers of audiovisual materials. OLAC provides a means for exchange of information, continuing education, and communication among catalogers of audiovisual materials and with the Library of Congress. While maintaining a voice with the bibliographic utilities that speak for catalogers of audiovisual materials, OLAC works toward common understanding of AV cataloging practices and standards. Membership: 700. Dues: United States and Canada: Personal memberships, one year $12.00; two years $22.00; three years $30.00; Institutional memberships, one year $18.00; two years $34.00; three years $48.00. Other countries: All memberships, one year $20.00; two years $38.00; three years $54.00. Meetings: biannual. Publications: OLAC Newsletter. Last Updated: 5/8/02. Online Computer Library Center, Inc. (OCLC). 6565 Frantz Rd., Dublin, OH 43017-3395. (614)764-6000. Fax (614)764-6096. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.oclc.org. Jay Jordan, Pres. and CEO. Nita Dean, Mgr., Public Relations. A nonprofit membership organization that engages in computer library service and research and makes available computer-based processes, products, and services for libraries, other educational organizations, and library users. From its facility in Dublin, Ohio, OCLC operates an international computer network that libraries use to catalog books, order custom-printed
< previous page
page_349
next page >
< previous page
page_350
next page >
Page 350 catalog cards and machine-readable records for local catalogs, arrange interlibrary loans, and maintain location information on library materials. OCLC also provides online reference products and services for the electronic delivery of information. More than 34,000 libraries contribute to or use information in WorldCat (the OCLC Online Union Catalog). OCLC FOREST PRESS, a division of OCLC since 1988, publishes the Dewey Decimal Classification. Reservation Resources, a division of OCLC since 1994, provides preservation reformatting services worldwide. Publications: OCLC Newsletter (6/yr.); OCLC Reference News (q.); Annual Report. Last Updated: 5/8/02. Pacific Film Archive (PFA). University of California, Berkeley, Art Museum, 2625 Durant Ave., Berkeley, CA 947202250. (510)642-1437 (library); (510)642-1412 (general). Fax (510)642-4889. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.bampfa.berkeley.edu. Edith Kramer, Dir. and Curator of Film; Nancy Goldman, Head, PFA Library and Film Study Center. Sponsors the exhibition, study, and preservation of classic, international, documentary, animated, and avant-garde films. Provides on-site research screenings of films in its collection of more than 7,000 titles. Provides access to its collections of books, periodicals, stills, and posters (all materials are noncirculating). Offers BAM/ PFA members and University of California, Berkeley, affiliates reference and research services to locate film and video distributors, credits, stock footage, etc. Library hours are 1 P.M.to5P.M. Monday– Thursday. Membership: Through parent organization, the Berkeley Art Museum. Dues: $40 individual and nonprofit departments of institutions. Publications: BAM/PFA Calendar (6/yr.). Last Updated: 1999. Pacific Resources for Education and Learning (PREL). 828 Fort Street Mall, Suite 500, Honolulu, HI 968134321. (808)533-6000. Fax (808)533-7599. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://prel.hawaii.edu. John W. Kofel, Exec. Dir. One of 10 Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) regional educational laboratories designed to help educators and policy makers solve educational problems in their schools. Using the best available information and the expertise of professionals, PRELfurnishes research results, provides training to teachers and administrators, and helps to implement new approaches in education. The PRELStar program, funded by a U.S. Department of Education Star Schools Grant, uses telecommunications technology to provide distance learning opportunities to the Pacific region. PRELserves American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, Hawaii, Republic of the Marshall Islands, and Republic of Palau. Last Updated: 1999. Penn State Media Sales (PSMS). 118 Wagner Building, University Park, PA 16802. (800)770-2111, (814)8633102. Fax (814)865-3172. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.MediaSales.psu.edu. Laura L Miller, Media Asset Manager. Distributor of educational video with a primary audience of post secondary education. One of the United States’ largest collections of historic psychology, psychosurgery, and early mental illness treatments. Other categories are anthropology, including the Mead/Bateson studies, primatology, sciences, and training. Closed circuit television, broadcast, and CD-ROM footage use available on many titles. Call for more information. Publications: Product catalog. Last Updated: 4/10/02. Photographic Society of America (PSA). 3000 United Founders Blvd., Suite 103, Oklahoma City, OK 73112. (405)843-1437. Fax (405)843-1438. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.psa-photo.org. Linda Lowery, Operations Manager. A nonprofit organization for the development of the arts and sciences of photography and for the furtherance of public appreciation of photographic skills. Its members, largely advanced amateurs, consist of individuals, camera clubs, and other photographic organizations. Divisions include electronic imaging, color slide, video motion picture, nature, photojour-
< previous page
page_350
next page >
< previous page
page_351
next page >
Page 351 nalism, travel, pictorial print, stereo, and techniques. Sponsors national, regional, and local meetings, clinics, and contests. Membership: 5,500. Dues: $42, North America; $48, elsewhere. Meetings: 2002 International Conference of Photography, Pittsburgh, PA, September 2–7, 2002. Publications: PSA Journal. Last Updated: 4/24/02. Professors of Instructional Design and Technology (PIDT). Instructional Technology Dept., 220 War Memorial Hall, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0341. (540)231-5587. Fax (540)231-9075. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site https://www.conted.vt.edu/ssl/pidt-reg.htm. Dr. Mike Moore or Dr. Ed Caffarella, contact persons. An informal organization designed to encourage and facilitate the exchange of information among members of the instructional design and technology academic and corporate communities. Also serves to promote excellence in academic programs in instructional design and technology and to encourage research and inquiry that will benefit the field while providing leadership in the public and private sectors in its application and practice. Membership: Faculty employed in higher education institutions whose primary responsibilities are teaching and research in instructional technology, their corporate counterparts, and other persons interested in the goals and activities of the PIDT. No formal membership. Dues: No dues, officers, bylaws, or formal organization. Contact Dr. Mike Moore (
[email protected]), or Dr. Ed Caffarella Dr. Mike Moore, or Dr. Ed Caffarella (
[email protected]) for information. Meetings: Contact either Dr. Mike Moore (
[email protected]), or Dr. Ed Caffarella (
[email protected]) to be added to listserv for announcements of meeting times, location, and conference registration. Cohosts alternate between Virginia Tech and University of Northern Colorado, and meetings alternate annually between Virginia and Colorado. Meeting usually is around the middle of May and usually runs from Friday to Monday. 2003 Colorado. Last Updated: 5/8/02. Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). 1320 Braddock Pl., Alexandria, VA 22314. Web site http://www.pbs.org. Ervin S. Duggan, CEO and Pres. National distributor of public television programming, obtaining all programs from member stations, independent producers, and sources around the world. PBS services include program acquisition, distribution, and scheduling; development and fundraising support; engineering and technical development; and educational resources and services. Through the PBS National Program Service, PBS uses the power of noncommercial television, the Internet, and other media to enrich the lives of all Americans through quality programs and education services that inform and inspire. Subsidiaries of PBS include PBS Adult Learning Service and PBS Video, which are described below. PBS is owned and operated by local public television organizations through annual membership fees and governed by a board of directors elected by PBS members for three-year terms. Last Updated: 1999. PBS Adult Learning Service (ALS). 1320 Braddock Place, Alexandria, VA 22314-1698. (800)257-2578. Fax (703)739-8471. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.pbs.org/als/. Clinton OBrien, Senior Dir. The PBS Adult Learning Service is a provider of course content to colleges and universities nationwide. Offerings include Web-based online courses and video-based telecourses. Content is developed by prominent educators and producers and designed for college-credit use. Public television stations nationwide cooperate with colleges that offer PBS courses to reach local populations of adult learners. A pioneer in the widespread use of video in college-credit learning, PBS first began distributing telecourses in 1981. Since that time, more than 3 million students have earned college credit through telecourses from PBS. Membership: Nearly 500 institutions are PBS Associate Colleges. These members save on licensing and acquisition fees for PBS courses and are entitled to discounts on related services such as Webbased scheduling, master broadcast tape duplication, and educational videotape purchase. Nonmembers still have access to
< previous page
page_351
next page >
< previous page
page_352
next page >
Page 352 the same content and services; they simply pay higher fees. Dues: $1,500. Multi-college and consortium rates are available. Publications: PBS Adult Learning Service Course Catalog. PBS Course Bulletin (monthly e-mail update for course faculty and administrators). Last Updated: 5/29/02. PBS VIDEO (PBS VIDEO). 1320 Braddock Pl., Alexandria, VA 22314. (703)739-5380; (800)344-3337. Fax (703)739-5269. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://shop2.org/pbsvideo/. Jon Cecil, Dir. PBS VIDEO Marketing. Markets and distributes PBS television programs for sale on videocassette and DVD to colleges, public libraries, schools, governments, and other organizations and institutions. Publications: PBS VIDEO Catalogs of New and Popular Video (4/yr.). Web site: PBS VIDEO Online Catalog at http://shopPBS.com/teachers. Last Updated: 5/14/02. Public Library Association (PLA). 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL60611. (312)280-5PLA. Fax (312)280-5029. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site www.pla.org. Greta Southard, Exec. Dir. A division of the American Library Association, PLA is concerned with the development, effectiveness, and financial support of public libraries. It speaks for the profession and seeks to enrich the professional competence and opportunities of public librarians. Membership: PLA has 9,940 members as of 2/2002. Any member of the American Library Association is eligible to join PLA. Dues: $50, open to all ALA members. Meetings: Spring Symposium March 3–6, 2003, Chicago; 10th National Conference, February 24– 28, 2004, Seattle, WA. Publications: Public Libraries bimonthly); electronic newsletter sent to members. Last Updated: 4/10/02. Audiovisual Committee (of the Public Library Association). 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL60611. (312)2805752. James E. Massey, Chair. Promotes use of audiovisual materials in public libraries. Last Updated: 1999. Technology in Public Libraries Committee. 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL60611. (312)280-5752. William Ptacek, Chair. Collects and disseminates information on technology applications in public libraries. Last Updated: 1999. Puppeteers of America, Inc. (POA). P.O. Box 29417, Parma, OH 44129-0417. (888)568-6235. Fax (440)8437867. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.puppeteers.org. Joyce and Chuck Berty, Membership Officers. Formed in 1937, POA holds festivals for puppetry across the country, supports local guilds, presents awards, sponsors innovative puppetry works, provides consulting, and provides research materials through the Audio-Visual Library. A National Festival is held in the odd number years and Regional Festivals are held in the even number years at various locations around the United States. The group supports a National Day of Puppetry the last Saturday in April. Local celebrations of the Art of Puppetry are held throughout the United States. The Puppetry Store is an invaluable source of books and miscellaneous printed materials for puppeteers or anyone interested in puppetry. The Puppetry Journal is the magazine published quarterly for the members of the organization and Playboard is the bimonthly newsletter. Membership: Current membership is over 2,200 members from people around the world interested in the art of puppetry. Consists of performing professionals, librarians, storytellers, and people just interested in the art of puppetry. POA offers subscription memberships to libraries and discounted memberships to seniors and youths. Dues: $40, single adult; $50, couple; $20, youth (6–17); $25, full-time student; $25, senior (65 and over); $60, family; $70, company or business; $35, journal subscription available to libraries. Meetings: Great Lakes Regional Festival July 26–28, 2002; Great Plains June 27–30, 2002; NE-MidAtl July 11–14, 2002; Pac.NW &SW July 23–26 2002. Publications: The Puppetry Journal (q), a quarterly magazine published only for POA membership, the only publication in the United States
< previous page
page_352
next page >
< previous page
page_353
next page >
Page 353 dedicated to puppetry in America; Playboard, bimonthly newsletter published to update the voting membership on the business of the organization. Last Updated: 4/10/02. Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic (RFB&D). 20 Roszel Rd., Princeton, NJ 08540. (609)452-0606; Customer Service (800)221-4792. Fax (609)987-8116. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.rfbd.org. Richard Scribner, Pres. RFB&D, a national nonprofit volunteer organization founded in 1948, is the nation’s educational library serving people who cannot read standard print effectively because of a learning disability, visual impairment, or other physical disability. RFB&D operates 32 recording studios and offices across the country. Its more than 90,000 volume library contains a broad selection of titles, from literature and history to math and the sciences, at all academic levels, from kindergarten through postgraduate and professional. RFB&D offers individual and institutional Learning Through Listening memberships, scholarship programs, a reference service and a custom recording service. RFB&D also offers for nonprofit sale a variety of playback devices and accessories. Membership: RFB&D’s materials are for people who cannot read standard print because of visual impairment, learning disability or physical disability. Potential individual members must complete an application form, which contains disability verification. There are 102,000 individual members and 4,200 institution members. Dues: $25, individual membership, plus a one time $50 registration fee for qualified individuals. Dues for institutional membership vary based on level of membership chosen (contact customer service). Publications: RFB&D Learning Through Listening Impact Newsletter. Last Updated: 5/14/02. Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. (RIAA). 1330 Connecticut Ave. NW #300, Washington, DC 20036 US. (202)775-0101. Fax (202)775-7253. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.riaa.com/. Hilary Rosen, Chair and CEO. Founded in 1952, RIAA’s mission is to promote the mutual interests of recording companies, as well as the betterment of the industry overall through successful government relations (both federal and state), intellectual property protection, and international activities; evaluating all aspects of emerging technologies and technology-related issues; and promoting an innovative and secure online marketplace. RIAA represents the recording industry, whose members create or distribute approximately 90 percent of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States. RIAA is the official certification agency for gold, platinum, and multiplatinum record awards. Membership: Over 250 recording companies. Publications: Consumer Profile. Last Updated: 5/24/02. Reference and User Services Association (RUSA). 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL60611. (800)545-2433, ext. 4398. Fax (312)944-8085. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ala.org/rusa. Cathleen Bourdon, Exec. Dir. A division of the American Library Association, RUSA is responsible for stimulating and supporting in every type of library the delivery of reference information services to all groups and of general library services and materials to adults. Membership: 5,500. Dues: $45 plus membership in ALA. Meetings: Meetings are held in conjunction with the American Library Association. Publications: RUSQ (q.). Last Updated: 5/10/02. Research for Better Schools, Inc. (RBS). 444 North Third St., Philadelphia, PA 19123-4107. (215)574-9300. Fax (215)574-0133. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.rbs.org/. Keith M. Kershner and Louis Maguire, Co-Exec. Dirs. RBS is a nonprofit educational R&D firm that has been serving educators since 1966. Our mission is to help students achieve by supporting improvement efforts in schools and other education programs. RBS currently operates the Mid-Atlantic Eisenhower Consortium for Mathematics and Science Education, has programs in Technology Development and Applications, Pro-
< previous page
page_353
next page >
< previous page
page_354
next page >
Page 354 gram Evaluation, Improvement Program Planning and Implementation, and Curriculum and Instruction in Mathematics and Science. RBS also operates an educational publications division. Membership: There is no membership in Research for Better Schools. The Mid-Atlantic Eisenhower Consortium, however, does encourage regional educators to become members. Information available online at http://www.rbs.org/eisenhower/membership. shtml. The Mid-Atlantic Eisenhower Consortium currently has over 18,000 members, who include teachers, school administrators, representatives from higher education, state department of education staff, professional association representatives, business persons, and other community members interested in mathematics and science education. Meetings: The Mid-Atlantic Eisenhower Consortium sponsors an annual regional conference and state team meetings throughout the year. Publications: RBS publishes the Currents newsletter, available in print, online, and delivered via e-mail (http://www.rbs.org/currents/index.shtml). The consortium also publishes the electronic newsletter, Riptides (http://www.rbs.org/archives/riptides.html). The catalog for RBS Publications is online (http://www.rbs.org). Last Updated: 4/10/02. Smithsonian Institution. 1000 Jefferson Dr. SW, Washington, DC 20560. (202)357-2700. Fax (202)786-2515. Email
[email protected]. Web site http://www.si.edu. I. Michael Heyman, Sec. An independent trust instrumentality of the United States that conducts scientific, cultural, and scholarly research; administers the national collections; and performs other educational public service functions, all supported by Congress, trusts, gifts, and grants. Includes 16 museums, including the National Museum of Natural History, the National Museum of American History, the National Air and Space Museum, and the National Zoological Park. Museums are free and open daily except December 25. The Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service (SITES) organizes exhibitions on art, history, and science and circulates them across the country and abroad. Membership: Smithsonian Associates. Dues: $24–$45. Publications: Smithsonian; Air & Space/Smithsonian; The Torch (staff newsletter, mo.); Research Reports (semitechnical, q.); Smithsonian Institution Press Publications, 470 L’Enfant Plaza, Suite 7100, Washington DC 20560. Last Updated: 1999. Society for Applied Learning Technology (SALT). 50 Culpeper St., Warrenton, VA 20186. (540)347-0055. Fax (540)349-3169. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.salt.org. Raymond G. Fox, Pres. The society is a nonprofit, professional membership organization that was founded in 1972. Membership in the society is oriented to professionals whose work requires knowledge and communication in the field of instructional technology. The society provides members with a means to enhance their knowledge and job performance by participation in societysponsored meetings, subscription to society-sponsored publications, association with other professionals at conferences sponsored by the society, and membership in special interest groups and special society-sponsored initiatives. In addition, the society offers member discounts on society-sponsored journals, conferences, and publications. Membership: 500. Dues: $55. Meetings: Education Technology 2002, July 24–26, Arlington, VA. Publications: Journal of Educational Technology Systems; Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems; Journal of Interactive Instruction Development. Send for list of books. Last Updated: 4/10/02. Society for Computer Simulation (SCS). P.O. Box 17900, San Diego, CA 92177-7900. (619)277-3888. Fax (619)277-3930. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.scs.org. Bill Gallagher, Exec. Dir. Founded in 1952, SCS is a professional-level technical society devoted to the art and science of modeling and simulation. Its purpose is to advance the understanding, appreciation, and use of all types of computer models for studying the behavior of actual or hypothesized systems of all kinds and to sponsor standards. Additional office in Ghent, Belgium. Membership: 1,900. Dues: $75 (includes journal subscrip-
< previous page
page_354
next page >
< previous page
page_355
next page >
Page 355 tion). Meetings: Local, regional, and national technical meetings and conferences. Publications: Simulation (mo.); Simulation series (q.); Transactions of SCS (q.). Last Updated: 1999. Society for Photographic Education (SPE). 110 Art Building, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056. (513)5298328. Fax (513)529-1532. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.spenational.org. Jennifer P. Yamashiro, Exec. Dir. An association of college and university teachers of photography, museum photographic curators, writers, publishers, and students. Promotes discourse in photography education, culture, and art. Membership: 1,700. Dues: $60, Regular Membership; $35, Student Membership. Meetings: March 20–23, 2003, Austin, TX. Publications: Exposure (Photographic Journal), Quarterly Newsletter. Last Updated: 4/11/02. Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers (SCTE). 140 Philips Rd., Exton, PA 19341-1319. (610)3636888. Fax (610)363-5898. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.scte.org. John Clark, Pres. and CEO. SCTE is dedicated to the technical training and further education of members. A nonprofit membership organization for persons engaged in engineering, construction, installation, technical direction, management, or administration of cable television and broadband communications technologies. Also eligible for membership are students in communications, educators, government and regulatory agency employees, and affiliated trade associations. SCTE provides technical training and certification, and is an American National Standards Institute (ANSI)-approved Standards Development Organization for the cable telecommunications industry. Membership: 17,500 U.S. and International. Dues: $48, North America; $72, International. Meetings: Conference on Emerging Technologies, San Jose, CA, January 8-10, 2002; Cable-Tec Expo, San Antonio, TX, June 5-8, 2002. Publications: Interval; technical documents, standards, training materials, and videotapes (some available in Spanish). Last Updated: 5/21/01. Society of Photo Technologists (SPT). 11112 S. Spotted Rd., Cheney, WA 99004. (888)662-7678, (509)6249621. Fax (509)624-5320. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.spt.info/. Chuck Bertone, Exec. Dir. An organization of photographic equipment repair technicians, which improves and maintains communications between manufacturers and repair shops and technicians. The society publishes repair journals, newsletters, Parts & Service Directory, and industry newsletters. It also sponsors SPTNET (a technical e-mail group), Remanufactured parts and residence workshops. Membership: 1,000. Dues: $97.50–$370. Membership depends on the size and volume of the business. Most one-man shops are Class A, $170 dues. Meetings: Training and Manufacturer’s Tours. Publications: SPT Journal; SPT Parts and Services Directory; SPT Newsletter; SPT Manuals journals and newsletters. Last Updated: 4/28/02. Southeastern Regional Media Leadership Council (SRMLC). Virginia State University, P.O. Box 9198, Petersburg, VA 23806. (804)524-5937. Fax (804)524-5757. Dr. Vykuntapathi Thota, Dir. An affiliate of AECT, the purpose of the SRMLC is to strengthen the role of the individual state AECT affiliates within the Southeastern region; to seek positive change in the nature and status of instructional technology as it exists within the Southeast; to provide opportunities for the training and development of leadership for both the region and the individual affiliates; and to provide opportunities for the exchange of information and experience among those who attend the annual conference. Last Updated: 1999. SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education (SERVE). SERVE Tallahassee Office, 1203 Governor’s Square Blvd., Suite 400, Tallahassee, FL32301. (800)352-6001, (904)671-6000. Fax (904)671-6020. E-mail
[email protected]. Mr. Don Holznagel, Exec. Dir. Betty Fry, Contact Person. SERVE is a regional educational research and development
< previous page
page_355
next page >
< previous page
page_356
next page >
Page 356 laboratory funded by the U.S. Department of Education to help educators, policy makers, and communities improve schools so that all students achieve their full potential. The laboratory offers the following services: field-based models and strategies for comprehensive school improvement; publications on hot topics in education, successful implementation efforts, applied research projects, and policy issues; database searches and information search training; a regional bulletin board service that provides educators electronic communication and Internet access; information and assistance for state and local policy development; and services to support the coordination and improvement of assistance for young children and their families. The Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Consortium at SERVE promotes improvement of education in these targeted areas by coordinating regional resources, disseminating exemplary instructional materials, and offering technical assistance for implementation of effective teaching methods and assessment tools. Meetings: For dates and topics of conferences and workshops, contact Betty Fry, (800)352-6001. Publications: Reengineering High Schools for Student Success; Schools for the 21st Century: New Roles for Teachers and Principals (rev. ed.); Designing Teacher Evaluation Systems That Promote Professional Growth; Learning by Serving: 2,000 Ideas for Service-Learning Projects; Sharing Success: Promising Service-Learning Programs; Future Plans (videotape, discussion guide, and pamphlet); Future Plans Planning Guides. Last Updated: 1999. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL). 211 E. Seventh St., Austin, TX 78701. (512)4766861. Fax (512)476-2286. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.sedl.org/. Dr. Wesley A. Hoover, Pres. and CEO. SEDLis a private, not-for-profit education research and development corporation based in Austin, Texas. SEDLhas worked in schools to investigate the conditions under which teachers can provide student-centered instruction supported by technology, particularly computers alone with other software. From that field-based research with teachers, SEDLhas developed a professional development model and modules, which resulted in the production of Active Learning with Technology. Active Learning is a multimedia training program for teachers. Using the modules, videotapes, and CDs, teachers can learn how to apply student-centered, problem-based learning theory to their instructional strategies that are supported by technologies. Copies of Active Learning can be ordered from SEDL’s Office of Institutional Communications. SEDLalso operates the SouthCentral Regional Technology in Education Consortium (SouthCentral RTEC), which seeks to support educational systems in Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas in the use of technology to foster student success in achieving state content standards. A particular focus is on schools serving high populations of disadvantaged students. The RTEC delivers research-based professional development and information resources to teachers, college faculty, district and state level staff developers, and local and state decision makers. Publications: SEDLETTER for free general distribution; Active Learning with Technology, modules for sale; topic-specific publications related to educational change, education policy, mathematics, language arts, science, and disability research. Last Updated: 4/22/02. Special Libraries Association. 1700 Eighteenth St. NW, Washington, DC 20009-2514. (202)234-4700. Fax (202)265-9317. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.sla.org. Dr. David R. Bender, Exec. Dir. The Special Libraries Association is an international association representing the interests of nearly 15,000 information professionals in 60 countries. Special librarians are information and resource experts who collect, analyze, evaluate, package, and disseminate information to facilitate accurate decision making in corporate, academic, and government settings. The association offers myriad programs and services designed to help its members serve their customers more effectively and succeed in an increasingly challenging environment of information management and technology. These services include career and employment services, and professional development opportu-
< previous page
page_356
next page >
< previous page
page_357
next page >
Page 357 nities. Membership: 14,500. Dues: $105, individual; $25, student. Publications: Information Outlook (monthly glossy magazine that accepts advertising). Special Libraries Association also has an active book publishing program. Last Updated: 1999. Teachers and Writers Collaborative (T&W). 5 Union Square W., New York, NY 10003-3306. (212)691-6590, toll-free (888)266-5789. Fax (212)675-0171. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.twc.org and http://www.writenet.org. Nancy Larson Shapiro, Dir. T&W provides a link between New York City’s rich literary community and the public schools, where the needs for effective ways to teach writing and for programs that support innovative teaching are greater than ever. T&W not only places professional writers and artists into schools and other community settings but also publishes books on teaching writing—books that provide sound theory and practical curriculum ideas for the classroom. In its welcoming Center for Imaginative Writing on Union Square, writers and educators come together for workshops, readings, and seminars, and through our Youth Speaks program it holds free after-school writing workshops for students. The National Endowment for the Arts has called T&W the nation’s group that is “most familiar with creative writing/ literature in primary and secondary schools.” Membership: More than 1,000 members across the country. Basic membership is $35; patron membership is $75; benefactor membership is $150 or more. Members receive a free book or T-shirt; discounts on publications; and a free one-year subscription to Teachers & Writers magazine (see http://www.twc.org/member.htm). Dues: T&W is seeking general operating support for all of our programs and program support for specific projects, including: 1) T&W writing residencies in New York City area schools; 2) T&W publications, books and a bimonthly magazine, distributed across the country; 3) Youth Speaks, T&W’s free after-school writing and performance workshops for teens; and 4) WriteNet, T&W’s Internet programs for teachers, writers, and students. Grants to T&W’s Endowment support the stability of the organization and help to guarantee the continuation of specific programs. Meetings: T&W offers yearround public events in our Center for Imaginative Writing in New York City. For a list of events, see http://www.twc.org/events.htm. Publications: T&W has published over 60 books on the teaching of imaginative writing, including The T&W Handbook of Poetic Forms; The Dictionary of Wordplay; The Story in History; Personal Fiction Writing; Luna, Luna: Creative Writing from Spanish and Latino Literature; The Nearness of You: Students and Teachers Writing On-Line. To request a free publications catalog, send e-mail to
[email protected] or call (888)BOOKSTW. (See http://www.twc.org/tpubs.htm.) Last Updated: 4/10/02. Theatre Library Association (TLA). 149 W. 45th St., New York, NY 10036. (212)944-3895. Fax (212)944-4139. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.brown.edu/Facilities/University_Library/beyond/TLA/TLA.html. Maryann Chach, Exec. Sec. Seeks to further the interests of collecting, preserving, and using theater, cinema, and performing arts materials in libraries, museums, and private collections. Membership: 500. Dues: $30, individual; $30, institutional; $20, students and retirees. Publications: Performing Arts Resources (membership annual, Vol. 20, Denishawn Collections). Last Updated: 1999. University Continuing Education Association (UCEA). One Dupont Cir. NW, Suite 615, Washington, DC 20036. (202)659-3130. Fax (202)785-0374. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.nucea.edu. Kay J. Kohl, Exec. Dir.; Susan Goewey, Dir. of Pubs; Philip Robinson, Dir. of Govt. Relations & Public Affairs, Joelle Brink, Dir. of Information Services. UCEA is an association of public and private higher education institutions concerned with making continuing education available to all population segments and to promoting excellence in continuing higher education. Many institutional members offer university and college courses via electronic instruction. Membership: 425 institutions, 2,000 professionals. Dues: Vary according to membership category. Meetings:
< previous page
page_357
next page >
< previous page
page_358
next page >
Page 358 UCEA has an annual national conference and several professional development seminars throughout the year. Publications: monthly newsletter; quarterly; occasional papers; scholarly journal, Continuing Higher Education Review; Independent Study Catalog. With Peterson ’ s, The Guide to Distance Learning; Guide to Certificate Programs at American Colleges and Universities; UCEA-ACE/Oryx Continuing Higher Education book series; Lifelong Learning Trends (a statistical fact book on continuing higher education); organizational issues series; membership directory. Last Updated: 1999. USA Toy Library Association (USA-TLA). 1326 Wilmette Ave., Ste. 201, Wilmette, IL 60091. (847)920-9030. Fax (847)920-9032. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://usatla.deltacollege.org. Judith Q. Iacuzzi, Exec. Dir. The mission of the USA-TLA is to provide a networking system answering to all those interested in play and play materials to provide a national resource to toy libraries, family centers, resource and referrals, public libraries, schools, institutions serving families of special need, and other groups and individuals involved with children; to support and expand the number of toy libraries; and to advocate for children and the importance of their play in healthy development. Individuals can find closest toy libraries by sending an e-mail or written inquiry in a selfaddressed stamped envelope. Membership: 80 institutions, 150 individuals. Members receive a subscription to the quarterly newsletter Child’s Play, reduced fees on conferences, workshops, books, videos and other publications and products sold by the USA Toy Library Association. Comprehensive members receive a bonus gift each year. Dues: $165, comprehensive; $55, basic; $15, student. Meetings: Regional workshops in the spring and fall. Publications: Chills Play (q. newsletter); How to Start and Operate a Toy Library; Play Is a Child’s Work (videotape); other books on quality toys and play. Last Updated: 4/22/02. WestEd (WestEd). 730 Harrison St., San Francisco, CA 94107-1242. (415)565-3000. Fax (415)565-3012. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.WestEd.org. Glen Harvey, CEO. WestEd is a nonprofit research, development, and service agency dedicated to improving education and other opportunities for children, youth, and adults. Drawing on the best from research and practice, WestEd works with practitioners and policy makers to address critical issues in education and other related areas, including early childhood intervention; curriculum, instruction and assessment; the use of technology; career and technical preparation; teacher and administrator professional development; science and mathematics education; and safe schools and communities. WestEd was created in 1995 to unite and enhance the capacity of Far West Laboratory and Southwest Regional Laboratory, two of the nation’s original education laboratories. In addition to its work across the nation, WestEd serves as the regional education laboratory for Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah. A publications catalog is available. Meetings: Various, relating to WestEd’s work, plus quarterly board meetings. Publications: See Resources at www.wested.org. Last Updated: 4/10/02. Western Public Radio (WPR). Ft. Mason Center, Bldg. D, San Francisco, CA 94123. (415)771-1160. Fax (415)771-4343. E-mail
[email protected]. Karolyn van Putten, Ph.D., Pres. and CEO; Lynn Chadwick, Vice Pres. and COO. WPR provides analog and digital audio production training, public radio program proposal consultation, and studio facilities for rent. WPR also sponsors a continuing education resource for audio producers, www.radiocollege.org. Last Updated: 1999. World Future Society (WFS). 7910 Woodmont Ave., Suite 450, Bethesda, MD 20814. (301)656-8274. Fax (301)951-0394. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.wfs.org. Edward Cornish, Pres. Organization of individuals interested in the study of future trends and possibilities. Its purpose is to provide information on trends and scenarios so that individuals and organizations can better plan their future. Membership:
< previous page
page_358
next page >
< previous page
page_359
next page >
Page 359 30,000. Dues: $39, general; $95, professional; call the society for details on all membership levels and benefits. Meetings: Annual Conferences. Publications: The Futurist: A Journal of Forecasts, Trends and Ideas About the Future; Futures Research Quarterly; Future Survey. The society’s bookstore offers audio- and videotapes, books, and other items. Last Updated: 1999. Young Adult Library Services Association (YALSA). 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL 60611. (312)280-4390. Fax (312)664-7459. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ala.organization/yalsa. Julie A. Walker, Exec. Dir.; Cindy C. Welch, Deputy Exec. Dir.; Bonnie Kunzel, Pres. An affiliate of the American Library Association, YALSA seeks to advocate, promote, and strengthen service to young adults as part of the continuum of total library services, and assumes responsibility within the ALA to evaluate and select books and nonbook media and to interpret and make recommendations regarding their use with young adults. Committees include Best Books for Young Adults, Popular Paperbacks, Quick Picks for Reluctant Young Adults, Intellectual Freedom, Outreach to Young Adults with Special Needs, Outstanding Books for the College Bound, Youth Participation, Media Selection and Usage, Publishers Liaison, and Selected Films for Young Adults. Membership: 3,575. YALSA members may be young adult librarians, library directors, children’s librarians, publishers, or anyone for whom library service to young adults is important. Dues: $40 (in addition to ALA membership); $15, students. Meetings: two conferences yearly, Midwinter (usually January) and Annual (usually June or July). Publications: Young Adult Library Services: A Journal (q.). Last Updated: 5/8/02
< previous page
page_359
next page >
< previous page
page_360
next page >
Page 360 Canada/International This section includes information on 13 organizations whose principal interests lie in the general fields of educational media, instructional technology, and library and information science. ACCESS NETWORK. 3720-76 Ave., Edmonton, AB T6B 2N9 Canada. (403)440-7777. Fax (403)440-8899. E-mail
[email protected]. Dr. Ronald Keast, Pres.; John Verburgt, Creative Services Manager. The ACCESS Network (Alberta Educational Communications Corporation) was purchased by Learning and Skills Television of Alberta in 1995. The newly privatized network works with Alberta’s educators to provide all Albertans with a progressive and diverse television-based educational and training resource to support their learning and skills development needs using cost-effective methods and innovative techniques, and to introduce a new private sector model for financing and efficient operation of educational television in the province. Last Updated: 1999. Adaptech Research Project. Dawson College, 3040 Sherbrooke St. West, Montreal, QC H3Z 1A4 Canada. (514) 931-8731 #1546. Fax (514) 931-3567 Attn: Catherine Fichten. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.adaptech.org. Jennison V. Asuncion, M.A., Codir.; Maria Barile, M.S.W., Codir.; Catherine S. Fichten, Ph.D., Codir. Based at Dawson College (Montreal), the Adaptech Research Project is a Canada-wide, grant-funded team, conducting bilingual empirical research into the use of computer, learning, and adaptive technologies by postsecondary students with disabilities. One of its primary interests lies in issues around ensuring that newly emerging instructional technologies are accessible to learners with disabilities. Membership: The research team is composed of academics, practitioners, consumers and others interested in the issues of access to technology by students with disabilities in higher education. Publications: 2001, Fichten, C. S., Asuncion, J. V., and Barile, M., with the collaboration of Robillard, C., Fossey, M. E., Judd, D., Guimont, J. P., Tam, R., and Lamb, D., and partner representatives Geéneéreux, C., Juhel, J. C., Seneécal, J., and Wolforth, J., Computer and Information Technologies: Resources for the Postsecondary Education of Students with Disabilities. Final Report to the Office of Learning Technologies. Hull, Queébec: Office of Learning Technologies. Resources in Education and ERIC Document Reproduction Service (ED 458 733 and EC 308 679). Available in PDF format at http://omega.dawsoncollege.qc.ca/adaptech/pubs/olt01pdf.exe and html format at http://omega.dawsoncollege.qc.ca/adaptech/pubs/olt01. See the Publications section of our Web site for a complete publications listing (http://www.adaptech.or). Last Updated: 5/9/02. Association for Computers and the Humanities (ACH). c/o Ray Siemens, Exec. Secretary, Dept. of English, Malaspina University College, Nanaimo, BC V9R 5S5 Canada. (250)753-2345 ext. 2046. Fax (250)740-6459. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ach.org. Ray Siemens, Exec. Secretary. The Association for Computers and the Humanities is a forum for humanists who incorporate computing into their teaching and research. Membership: 300. Dues: $75. Meetings: Annual meetings held with the Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing. Publications: Journal for Computers and the Humanities. Last Updated: 4/22/02. Association for Media and Technology in Education in Canada (AMTEC). 3-1750 The Queensway, Suite 1318, Etobicoke, ON M9C 5H5 Canada. (403)220-3721. Fax
< previous page
page_360
next page >
< previous page
page_361
next page >
Page 361 (403)282-4497. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.amtec.ca. Ray Whitley, Pres.; Bob Brandes, Pres.-Elect; Wendy Stephens, Sec./Treas. AMTEC is Canada’s national association for educational media and technology professionals. The organization provides national leadership through annual conferences, publications, workshops, media festivals, and awards. It responds to media and technology issues at the international, national, provincial, and local levels and maintains linkages with other organizations with similar interests. Membership: AMTEC members represent all sectors of the educational media and technology fields. Dues: $101.65, Canadian regular; $53.50, student and retiree. Meetings: Annual Conferences take place in late May or early June. Publications: Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology (a scholarly journal published three times a year) Media News (3/yr.); Membership Directory (with membership). Last Updated: 5/8/02. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation/Socieéteé Radio-Canada (CBC/SRC). P.O. Box 500, Station A, Toronto, ON Canada. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.cbc.ca. The CBC is a publicly owned corporation established in 1936 by an Act of the Canadian Parliament to provide a national broadcasting service in Canada in the two official languages. CBC services include English and French television networks; English and French AM mono and FM stereo radio networks virtually free of commercial advertising; CBC North, which serves Canada’s north by providing radio and television programs in English, French, and eight native languages; Newsworld and its French counterpart, Le Reéseau de l’information (RDI), 24-hour national satellites to cable English-language and Frenchlanguage news and information service, respectively, both funded entirely by cable subscription and commercial advertising revenues; and Radio Canada International, a short-wave radio service that broadcasts in seven languages and is managed by CBC and financed by External Affairs. The CBC is financed mainly by public funds voted annually by Parliament. Last Updated: 1999. Canadian Education Association/Association canadienne d’eéducation (CEA). 317 Adelaide St. West, Suite 300, Toronto, ON M5V 1P9 Canada. (416)591-6300. Fax (416)591-5345. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.acea.ca. Penny Milton, Exec. Dir., Valeérie Pierre-Pierre, Research Officer. CEA is a national, bilingual, charitable organization that advances public commitment to education by engaging diverse perspectives in finding common ground on issues that affect the learning of all children and youth in our society. Current issues include ICT and learning; social equity; school improvement. Membership: Sustaining Members—provincial, territorial departments of education, and federal government. Organization Members—Nonprofit: educational institutions, research organizations, stakeholder associations. For profit: firms with interests in the education sector. Individuals— educators, researchers. Dues: $120, individual; $360, not-for-profit organizations; $500, for-profit organizations; school boards, based on enrollment. Meetings: Technology Summit, National Education Forum, Superintendents Forum. Publications: CEA Handbook; Education Canada (q.); CEA Newsletter (8/yr.); Connections Series. Last Updated: 4/11/02. Canadian Library Association (CLA). 328 Frank St., Ottawa, ON K2P 0X8 Canada. (613)232-9625. Fax (613)5639895. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.cla.ca. Linda Sawden Harris, Manager of Financial Services. The mission of the Canadian Library Association is to provide leadership in the promotion, development, and support of library and information services in Canada for the benefit of association members, the profession, and Canadian society. In the spirit of this mission, CLA aims to engage the active, creative participation of library staff, trustees, and governing bodies in the development and management of high-quality Canadian library service; to assert and support the right of all Canadians to the freedom to read and to free universal access to a wide variety of library materials and services; to promote librarianship and to enlighten all levels of government
< previous page
page_361
next page >
< previous page
page_362
next page >
Page 362 as to the significant role that libraries play in educating and socializing the Canadian people; and to link libraries, librarians, trustees, and others across the country for the purpose of providing a unified nationwide voice in matters of critical concern. Membership: 2,300 individuals, 700 institutions, 100 Associates and Trustees. Dues: $50–$300. Meetings: 2002 Annual Conference, 2003, Toronto, June 19–25 (with ALA). Publications: Feliciter (membership magazine, 6/yr.). Last Updated: 5/6/02. Canadian Museums Association/Association des museées canadiens (CMA/AMC). 280 Metcalfe St., Suite 400, Ottawa, ON K2P 1R7 Canada. (613)567-0099. Fax (613)233-5438. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.museums.ca. John G. McAvity, Exec. Dir. The Canadian Museums Association is a nonprofit corporation and registered charity dedicated to advancing public museums and museum works in Canada, promoting the welfare and better administration of museums, and fostering a continuing improvement in the qualifications and practices of museum professionals. Membership: 2,000. Meetings: CMA Annual Conference, spring. Publications: Museogramme (bimonthly newsletter); Muse (q. journal; Canada’s only national, bilingual, scholarly magazine devoted to museums, it contains museum-based photography, feature articles, commentary, and practical information); The Official Directory of Canadian Museums and Related Institutions (1997–1999 edition) lists all museums in Canada plus information on government departments, agencies, and provincial and regional museum associations. Last Updated: 1999. Canadian Publishers Council (CPC). 250 Merton St., Suite 203, Toronto, ON M4S 1B1 Canada. (416)322-7011. Fax (416)322-6999. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.pubcouncil.ca. Jacqueline Hushion, Exec. Dir. CPC members publish and distribute an extensive list of Canadian and imported learning materials in a complete range of formats from traditional textbook and ancillary materials to CDs and interactive video. The primary markets for CPC members are schools, universities, and colleges, bookstores, and libraries. CPC also provides exhibits throughout the year and works through a number of subcommittees and groups within the organization to promote effective book publishing. CPC was founded in 1910. Membership: 27 companies, educational institutions, or government agencies that publish books as an important facet of their work. Dues: To be assessed when a membership application form is submitted for consideration. Meetings: TBA. Publications: Please visit the CPC Web site at www.pubcouncil.ca for various publications. Last Updated: 4/16/02. International Center of Photography (ICP). 1114 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036. (212)8570001. Fax (212)857-0091. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.icp.org. Willis Hartshorn, Dir.; Phyllis Levine, Dir. of Public Information. A comprehensive photographic institution whose exhibitions, publications, collections, and educational programs embrace all aspects of photography from aesthetics to technique; from the nineteenth century to the present; from master photographers to newly emerging talents; from photojournalism to the avant-garde. Changing exhibitions, lectures, seminars, workshops, museum shops, and screening rooms make ICP a complete photographic resource. ICP offers two options of Graduate Study in conjunction with New York University: 1) a Master of Fine Arts in Studio Art with a concentration in Media Studies (1 yr., 60-point program) and 2) a Master in Studio Art with a concentration in Photography (36-point program), as well as one-year certificate programs in Documentary Photography and Photojournalism and General Studies in Photography. Membership: 6,000. Dues: $60, individual; $75, double; $150, Supporting Patron; $300, Photography Circle; $600, Silver Card Patron; $l,200, Gold Card Patron; $3,000, Benefactor; corporate memberships available. Meetings: The 18th Annual ICP Infinity Awards. Publications: Telling Tales, Kiki Smith, Reflections in a Glass Eye; Images from the Machine Age: Selections from the Daniel Cowin Collection; Library of Photography; A Singular Elegance: The Photographs of
< previous page
page_362
next page >
< previous page
page_363
next page >
Page 363 Baron Adolph de Meyer; Talking Pictures: People Speak about the Photographs That Speak to Them; Encyclopedia of Photography: Master Photographs from PFA Collection; Man Ray in Fashion; Quarterly Program Guide; Quarterly Exhibition Schedule. Last Updated: 5/2/02. International Council for Educational Media (ICEM). Hanns-Fay Strasse 1, Frankenthal, N/A D67227 Germany. 49 6233 46051. Fax 49 6233 46355. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.icem-cime.com. Richard Cornell, Pres. and U.S. member, Margo Van Sluizer, Secretary General. The objectives of ICEM are to provide a channel for the international exchange of information and experience in the field of educational technology, with particular reference to preschool, primary, and secondary education, technical and vocational training, and teacher and continuing education; encourage organizations with a professional responsibility for the design, production, promotion, distribution, and use of educational media in member countries; promote an understanding of the concept of educational technology on the part of both educators and those involved in their training; contribute to the pool of countries by the sponsorship of practical projects involving international cooperation and coproduction; advise manufacturers of hardware and software on the needs of an information service on developments in educational technology; provide consultancy for the benefit of member countries; and cooperate with other international organizations in promoting the concept of educational technology. ICEM has established official relations with UNESCO. Membership: There are national memberships as well as those for individuals, students, academic institutions and corporate entities. Membership is open to those who work in the area of educational and instructional media, Grades 12–Adult. There are presently more than 35 member nations in ICEM and 245 individual members. Dues: Dues for National Members are 2,500 Swiss francs (SF) per year and may be paid in either Swiss francs or US Dollars. Individual dues are $85 or 125 SF. Students and retired individual dues are $40 or 58 SF. Primary and Secondary School dues are $135 or 200 SF. Public and nonprofit organization dues are $205 or 300 SF (includes government departments, foundations, associations, universities, etc.). Commercial organization dues are $275 or 400 SF (producers, distributors, manufacturers, etc.). Meetings: 2002 Congress and Media Week was held in Granada, Spain, October 16–21. Publications: Educational Media International, a quarterly refereed journal. The Editor-in-Chief is Dr. John Hedberg, Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522 Australia,
[email protected]. Last Updated: 4/13/02. National Film Board of Canada (NFBC). 350 Fifth Ave., Suite 4820, New York, NY 10118. (212)629-8890. Fax (212)629-8502. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site www.nfb.ca. John Sirabella, U.S. Marketing Mgr./Nontheatrical Rep. Established in 1939, the NFBC’s main objective is to produce and distribute high-quality audiovisual materials for educational, cultural, and social purposes. Last Updated: 5/8/02. Ontario Film Association, Inc. (also known as the Association for the Advancement of Visual Media/L’association pour l’avancement des meédias visuels). 100 Lombard St. 303, Toronto, ON M5C 1M3 Canada. (416)363-3388. Fax (800)387-1181. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site www.accessola.org. Lawrence A. Moore, Exec. Dir. A membership organization of buyers and users of media whose objectives are to promote the sharing of ideas and information about visual media through education, publications, and advocacy. Membership: 112. Dues: $120, personal membership; $215, associate membership. Meetings: OFA Media Showcase, spring. Last Updated: 1999.
< previous page
page_363
next page >
< previous page
page_364
next page >
page_364
next page >
Page 364 This page intentionally left blank.
< previous page
< previous page
page_365
next page >
Page 365 Part Five Graduate Programs Introduction This directory describes graduate programs in Instructional Technology, Educational Media and Communications, School Library Media, and closely allied programs in the United States. One institution indicated that its program had been discontinued, and that program was deleted from the listings. Master’s, specialist, and doctoral degrees are combined into one unified list. Entries provide as much of the following information as furnished by respondents: 1) name and address of the institution; 2) chairperson or other individual in charge of the program; 3) types of degrees offered and specialization, emphases, or tracks, including information on careers for which candidates are prepared; 4) special features of the degree program; 5) admission requirements; 6) degree requirements; 7) number of full-time and part-time faculty; 8) number of full-time and part-time students; 9) types of financial assistance available; and 10) the number of degrees awarded by type in 2001. All grade-point averages (GPAs), test scores, and degree requirements are minimums unless stated otherwise. The Graduate Record Examination (GRE), Miller Analogies Test (MAT), National Teacher’s Examination (NTE), and other standardized tests are referred to by their acronyms. The Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) appears in many of the Admission Requirements, and in most cases this test is required only for international students. Although some entries explicitly state application fees, most do not. Prospective students should assume that most institutions require a completed application, transcripts of all previous collegiate work, and a nonrefundable application fee. Directors of advanced professional programs for instructional technology or media specialists should find this degree program information useful as a means of comparing their own offerings and requirements with those of institutions offering comparable programs. This listing, along with the Classified List, should also assist individuals in locating institutions that best suit their interests and requirements. In addition, a comparison of degree programs across several years may help scholars with historical interests trace trends and issues in the field over time. Information in this section can be considered current as of late 2002 for most programs. Information for this section was obtained by e-mail directing each organization to an individual Web form through which the updated information could be submitted electronically. Although the section editor made every effort to contact and follow up with program representatives, it is up to the program representatives to respond to the annual request for an update. The editing team would like to thank those respondents who helped ensure the currency and accuracy of this section by responding to the request for an update. All programs are labeled with a Last Updated field so that readers may judge the accuracy of the information. Additional information on the programs listed, including admission procedure instructions, may be obtained by contacting individual program coordinators. General or graduate catalogs and specific program information usually are furnished for a minimal charge. In addition, most graduate programs now have e-mail contact addresses and Web sites that provide a wealth of descriptive information.
< previous page
page_365
next page >
< previous page
page_366
next page >
Page 366 Again, we are greatly indebted to those individuals who responded to our requests for information. Although the editors expended considerable effort to ensure currency and completeness of the listings, there may be institutions within the United States that now have programs of which we are unaware. Readers are encouraged to furnish new information to the publisher, who, in turn, will contact the program for inclusion in the next edition of the Yearbook. Anna E. Burdett
< previous page
page_366
next page >
< previous page
page_367
next page >
Page 367 Graduate Programs in Instructional Technology [IT] CLASSIFIED LIST Computer Applications California State University-San Bernardino [M.A.] State University of New York at Stony Brook [Master’s: Technological Systems Management/Educational Computing] Temple University. Instructional and Learning Technology (ILT)/ Educational Psychology Program [Ed.M., Ph.D.] University of Iowa [M.A.] Valdosta State University [M.Ed. in IT/Technology Applications] Computer Education Appalachian State University [M.A.: Educational Media and Technology/Computers] Arizona State University. Dept. of Educational Media and Computers [M.A., Ph.D.: Educational Media and Computers] Arkansas Tech University [Master’s] Buffalo State College [M.S.: Education/Educational Computing] California State University-Dominguez Hills [M.A., Certificate: Computer-Based Education] California State University-Los Angeles [M.A. in Education/Computer Education] California State University-San Bernardino [Advanced Certificate Program: Educational Computing] Central Connecticut State University [M.S.: Educational Technology/Computer Technologies] Concordia University [M.A.: Computer Science Education] East Carolina University [M.A.: Education/IT Computers] Eastern Washington University [M.Ed.: Computer Education] Emporia State University. School of Library and Information Management [M.L.S.: School Library Certification; Ph.D.: Library and Information Management] Fairfield University [M.A.: Media/Educational Technology with Computers in Education] Florida Institute of Technology [Master’s, Ph.D.: Computer Education] Fontbonne College [M.S.] George Mason University [M.Ed.: Special Education Technology, Computer Science Educator] Iowa State University [M.S., M.Ed., Ph.D.: Curriculum and IT/Instructional Computing] Jacksonville University [Master’s: Computer Education] Kansas State University [M.S. in Secondary Education/Educational Computing; Ed.D., Ph.D.: Curriculum and Instruction/Educational Computing] Kent State University [M.A., M.Ed.: Instructional Computing] Minot State University [M.Ed., M.S.: Math and Computer Science] New York Institute of Technology [Specialist Certificate: Computers in Education] North Carolina State University [M.S., M.Ed.: IT-Computers] Northern Illinois University [M.S.Ed., Ed.D.: IT/Educational Computing] Northwest Missouri State University [M.S.: School Computer Studies; M.S.Ed.: Educational Uses of Computers] Nova Southeastern University [M.S., Ed.S.: Computer Science Education] Ohio University [M.Ed.: Computer Education and Technology] Pace University [M.S.E.: Curriculum and Instruction/Computers] San Diego State University [Master’s in Educational Technology/Computers in Education] San Francisco State University [Master’s: Instructional Computing] San Jose State University [Master’s: Computers and Interactive Technologies] State University College of Arts and Sciences at Potsdam [M.S.Ed.: IT and Media Management/Educational Computing] State University of New York at Stony Brook [Master’s: Technological Systems Management/Educational Computing] Syracuse University [M.S., Ed.D., Ph.D., Advanced Certificate: Media Production]
< previous page
page_367
next page >
< previous page
page_368
next page >
Page 368 Texas A&M University-Commerce [Master’s: Learning Technology and Information Systems/Educational Micro Computing] Texas Tech University [M.Ed.: IT/Educational Computing] University of Georgia [M.Ed., Ed.S.: Computer-Based Education] University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign [M.A., M.S., Ed.M.: Educational Computing; Ph.D.: Education Psychology/ Educational Computing] University of Memphis. Instruction and Curriculum Leadership/Instructional Design & Technology [M. S., Ed.D.] University of North Texas [M.S.: Computer Education and Instructional Systems] The University of Oklahoma [Master’s: Computer Applications] University of Toledo [Master’s, Ed.S., D.Ed.: Instructional Computing] University of Washington [Master’s, Ed.D., Ph.D.] Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University [M.A., Ed.D., Ph.D.: IT] Wright State University [M.Ed.: Computer Education; M.A.: Computer Education] Distance Education Emporia State University. School of Library and Information Management [Ph.D.: Library and Information Management] Fairfield University [M.A.: Media/Educational Technology with Satellite Communications] Iowa State University [M.S., M.Ed., Ph.D.: Curriculum and IT] New York Institute of Technology [Specialist certificate] Nova Southeastern University [M.S., Ed.D.: IT] San Jose State University [Master’s: Telecommunications and online courses via Internet] Texas A&M University [Ph.D.: EDCI] Texas Tech University [M.Ed.: IT] University of Missouri-Columbia. College of Education [Masters: Technology in Schools, Networked Learning Systems, or Training and Development] University of Northern Colorado [Ph.D.: Educational Technology] Western Illinois University [Master’s] Educational Leadership Auburn University [Ed.D.] Barry University [Ph.D.: Educational Technology Leadership] George Washington University [M.A.: Education and Human Development/Educational Technology Leadership] United States International University [Master’s, Ed.D.: Technology Leadership for Learning] University of Colorado at Denver [Ph.D.: Educational Leadership and Innovation/Curriculum, Learning, and Technology] Valdosta State University [M.Ed., Ed.S.: IT/ Technology Leadership] Human Performance Boise State University [M.S.: IT and Performance Technology] Governors State University [M.A.: Communication with Human Performance and Technology] Temple University. Instructional and Learning Technology (ILT)/ Educational Psychology Program [Ed.M., Ph.D.] University of Southern California [Ed.D.: Human Performance Technology] University of Toledo [Master’s, Ed.S., Ed.D.: Human Resources Development] Information Studies Drexel University [M.S., M.S.I.S.] Emporia State University [Ph.D.: Library and Information Management] Rutgers [M.L.S.: Information Retrieval; Ph.D.: Communication (Information Systems)] Simmons College [M.S.: Information Science/ Systems] Southern Connecticut State University [Sixth Year Professional Diploma: Library-Information Studies/IT] St. Cloud State University [Master’s, Ed.S.: Information Technologies] Texas A&M-Commerce [Master’s: Learning Technology and Information Systems/ Library and Information Science] University of Alabama [Ph.D.] University of Arizona [M.A.: Information Resources and Library Science] University of Central Arkansas [M.S.: Information Science/Media Information Studies] University of Florida. School of Teaching and Learning. [M.S., Ed.S., Ed.D., Ph.D.] University of Maryland [Doctorate: Library and Information Services] University of Missouri-Columbia [Ph.D.: Information and Learning Technologies] The University of Oklahoma [Dual Master’s: Educational Technology and Library and Information Systems] The University of Rhode Island [M.L.I.S.] University of Washington [Master’s, Ed.D., Ph.D.] Western Oregon State College [MS: Information Technology]
< previous page
page_368
next page >
< previous page
page_369
next page >
Page 369 Innovation Pennsylvania State University [M.Ed., M.S., Ed.D., Ph.D.: Instructional Systems/ Emerging Technologies] University of Colorado at Denver [Ph.D.: Educational Leadership and Innovation] Walden University [M.S., Ph.D.: Educational Change and Technology Innovation] Instructional Design and Development Auburn University [M.Ed., M.S.] Bloomsburg University [M.S.: IT] Brigham Young University [M.S., Ph.D.] Clarion University of Pennsylvania [M.S.: Communication/Training and Development] Fairfield University [Certificate of Advanced Studies: Media/Educational Technology: Instructional Development] George Mason University [M.Ed.: IT/Instructional Design and Development] Governors State University [M.A.: Communication with Human Performance and Training/Instructional Design] Indiana University [Ph.D., Ed.D.: Instructional Analysis, Design, and Development] Iowa State University [M.S., M.Ed., Ph.D.: Curriculum and IT/Instruction Design] Ithaca College [M.S.: Corporate Communications] Lehigh University [Master’s] Michigan State University [M.A.: Educational Technology and Instructional Design] North Carolina Central University [M.S.: Instructional Development/Design] Northern Illinois University [M.S.Ed., Ed.D.: IT/Instructional Design] Pennsylvania State University [M.Ed., M.S., D.Ed., Ph.D.: Instructional Systems/Systems Design] Purdue University [Master’s, Specialist, Ph.D.: Instructional Development] San Francisco State University [Master’s/Training and Designing Development] San Jose State University [M.S.: Instructional Design and Development] Southern Illinois University at Carbondale [M.S.: Education/Instructional Design] State University of New York at Albany [M.Ed., Ph.D.: Curriculum and Instruction/Instructional Design and Technology] State University of New York at Stony Brook [Master’s: Technological Systems Management/Educational Computing] Syracuse University [M.S., Ed.D., Ph.D., Advanced Certificate: Instructional Design; Educational Evaluation; Instructional Development] Temple University. Instructional and Learning Technology (ILT)/ Educational Psychology Program [Ed.M., Ph.D.] Towson State University [M.S.: Instructional Development] University of Cincinnati [M.A., Ed.D.: Curriculum and Instruction/Instructional Design and Technology] University of Colorado at Denver [Master’s, Ph.D.: Instructional Design] University of Florida. School of Teaching and Learning. [M.S., Ed.S., Ed.D., Ph.D.] University of Houston at Clear Lake [Instructional Design] University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign [M.A., M.S., Ed.M.; Ph.D. in Educational Psychology/Instructional Design] University of Iowa [M.A., Ph.D.: Training and Human Resources Development] University of Massachusetts-Boston [M.Ed.] University of Memphis. Instruction and Curriculum Leadership/Instructional Design & Technology [M.S., Ed.D.] University of Missouri-Columbia [Master’s, Ed.S., Ph.D.] University of Northern Colorado [Ph.D. in Educational Technology/Instructional Development and Design] The University of Oklahoma [Master’s] University of Toledo [Master’s, Specialist, doctorate: Instructional Development] University of Washington [Master’s, Ed.D., Ph.D.] Utah State University [M.S., Ed.S.: Instructional Development] Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University [Master’s, Ed.D., Ph.D.: IT] Instructional Technology [IT] Appalachian State University [M.A.: Educational Media and Technology] Arizona State University, Learning and IT Dept. [M.Ed., Ph.D.] Azusa Pacific University [M.Ed.] Barry University [M.S., Ed.S.: Educational Technology] Bloomsburg University [M.S.: IT] Boise State University [M.S.] Boston University [Ed.M., Certificate of Advanced Graduate Study: Educational Media & Technology; Ed.D.: Curriculum and Teaching/Educational Media and Technology] California State University-Los Angeles [M.A.: Education/IT] California State University-San Bernardino [Advanced Certificate in Educational Technology] Central Connecticut State University [M.S.: Educational Technology]
< previous page
page_369
next page >
< previous page
page_370
next page >
Page 370 Clarke College [M.A.: Technology and Education] East Carolina University [M.A.: Education/IT Computers] East Tennessee State [M.Ed.] Eastern Michigan University [M.A.: Educational Psychology/Educational Technology] Edgewood College [M.A.: Education/IT] Fairfield University [M.A., Certificate of Advanced Study: Media/Educational Technology] Fitchburg State College [M.S.: Communications Media/IT] Florida Institute of Technology [Master’s, Ph.D.] George Mason University [M.Ed., Ph.D.] George Washington University [M.A.: Education and Human Development/Educational Technology Leadership] Georgia Southern University [M.Ed., Ed.S.: IT; Ed.D.: Curriculum Studies/IT] Georgia State University [M.S., Ph.D.] Harvard University [M.Ed.: Technology in Education] Indiana State University [Master’s, Ed.S.] Indiana University [M.S., Ed.S., Ed.D., Ph.D.] Iowa State University [M.S., M.Ed., Ph.D.: Curriculum and IT] Jacksonville University [Master’s: Educational Technology and Integrated Learning] Johns Hopkins University [M.S. in Educational Technology for Educators] Kent State University [M.Ed., M.A., Ph.D.: Educational Psychology/IT] Lehigh University [Master’s; Ed.D.: Educational Technology] Lesley College [M.Ed., Certificate of Advanced Graduate Study: Technology Education; Ph.D.: Education/Technology Education] Mankato State University [M.S.: Educational Technology] Michigan State University [M.A.: Educational Technology] Montclair State College [certification] New York Institute of Technology [Master’s] New York University [M.A., Certificate of Advanced Study in Education, Ed.D., Ph.D.] North Carolina Central University [M.A.: Educational Technology] North Carolina State University [M.Ed., M.S.: IT—Computers; Ph.D.: Curriculum and Instruction/IT] Northern Illinois University [M.S.Ed., Ed.D.] Nova Southeastern University [Ed.S., M.S.: Educational Technology; M.S., Ed.D.: IT] Ohio University [M.Ed.: Computer Education and Technology] Purdue University [Master’s, Specialist, Ph.D.: Educational Technology] Radford University [M.S.: Education/Educational Media/Technology] Rosemont College [M.Ed.: Technology in Education; Certificate in Professional Study in Technology in Education] San Diego State University [Master’s: Educational Technology] Southern Connecticut State University [M.S.] Southern Illinois University at Carbondale [M.S.: Education; Ph.D.: Education/IT] State University College of Arts and Sciences at Potsdam [M.S.: Education/IT] State University of New York at Albany [M.Ed., Ph.D.: Curriculum and Instruction/Instructional Theory, Design, and Technology] State University of West Georgia [M.Ed., Ed.S.] Temple University. Instructional and Learning Technology (ILT)/ Educational Psychology Program [Ed.M., Ph.D.] Texas A&M University [M.Ed.: Educational Technology; Ph.D.: EDCI/Educational Technology; Ph.D.: Educational Psychology Foundations/Learning and Technology] Texas A&M University-Commerce [Master’s: Learning Technology and Information Systems/Educational Media and Technology] Texas Tech University [M.Ed.; Ed.D.] United States International University [Ed.D.: Technology and Learning] Universiti Sains Malaysia. Centre for Instructional Technology and Multimedia Centre for Instructional Tech and Multimedia [M.Ed. Instructional Technology, Ph.D. Instructional Technology] University of Central Florida [M.A.: IT/Instructional Systems, IT/Educational Media; doctorate: Curriculum and Instruction/ IT] University of Cincinnati [M.A., Ed.D.: Curriculum and Instruction/Instructional Design and Technology] University of Colorado at Denver [Master’s, Ph.D.: Learning Technologies] University of Connecticut [Master’s, Ph.D.: Educational Technology] University of Florida. School of Teaching and Learning. [M.S., Ed.S., Ed.D., Ph.D.] University of Georgia [M.Ed., Ed.S., Ph.D.] University of Hawaii-Manoa [M.Ed.: Educational Technology] University of Houston. Department of Curriculum and Instruction. [M.Ed.] University of Louisville [M.Ed.: Occupational Education/IT]
< previous page
page_370
next page >
< previous page
page_371
next page >
Page 371 University of Maryland [Ph.D.: Library Science and Educational Technology/Instructional Communication] University of Massachusetts-Lowell [M.Ed., Ed.D., Certificate of Advanced Graduate Study: Educational Technology] University of Michigan [Master’s, Ph.D.: IT] University of Missouri-Columbia [Master’s, Ed.S., Ph.D.] University of Nebraska at Kearney [M.S.] University of Nevada [M.S., Ph.D.] University of Northern Colorado [M.A., Ph.D.: Educational Technology] University of Northern Iowa [M.A.: Educational Technology] The University of Oklahoma [Master’s: Educational Technology Generalist; Educational Technology; Teaching with Technology; dual Master’s: Educational Technology and Library and Information Systems; doctorate: Instructional Psychology and Technology] University of South Alabama [M.S., Ph.D.] University of South Carolina [Master’s] University of Southern California [M.A., Ed.D., Ph.D.] University of Tennessee-Knoxville [M.S.: Education, Ed.S., Ed.D., Ph.D.] The University of Texas [Master’s, Ph.D.] University of Toledo [Master’s, Specialist, doctorate] University of Virginia [M.Ed., Ed.S., Ed.D., Ph.D.] University of Washington [Master’s, Ed.D., Ph.D.] University of Wisconsin-Madison [M.S., Ph.D.] Utah State University [M.S., Ed.S., Ph.D.] Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University [M.A., Ed.D., Ph.D.: IT] Virginia State University [M.S., M.Ed.: Educational Technology] Wayne State University [Master’s, Ed.D., Ph.D., Ed.S.] Webster University [Master’s] Western Illinois University [Master’s] Western Washington University [M.Ed.: IT in Adult Education; Elementary Education; IT in Secondary Education] Wright State University [Specialist: Curriculum and Instruction/Educational Technology; Higher Education/Educational Technology] Integration Bloomsburg University [M.S.: IT] George Mason University [M.Ed.: IT/Integration of Technology in Schools] Jacksonville University [Master’s: Educational Technology and Integrated Learning] University of Northern Colorado [Ph.D.: Educational Technology/Technology Integration] Management Bloomsburg University [M.S.: IT] Central Connecticut State University [M.S.: Educational Technology/Media Management] Drexel University [M.S., M.S.I.S.] Emporia State University [Ph.D.: Library and Information Management] Fairfield University [Certificate of Advanced Studies: Media/Educational Technology with Media Management] Fitchburg State College [M.S.: Communications Media/Management] Indiana University [Ed.D., Ph.D.: Implementation and Management] Minot State University [M.S.: Management] Northern Illinois University [M.S.Ed., Ed.D.: IT/Media Administration] Rutgers [M.L.S.: Management and Policy Issues] Simmons College [M.L.S.: History (Archives Management); Doctor of Arts: Administration; Media Management] State University College of Arts and Science [M.S.: Education/IT and Media Management] State University of New York at Stony Brook [Master’s: Technological Systems Management] Syracuse University [M.S., Ed.D., Ph.D., Advanced Certificate] Temple University. Instructional and Learning Technology (ILT)/Educational Psychology Program [Ed.M., Ph.D.] University of Tennessee-Knoxville [Certification: Instructional Media Supervisor] Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University [M.A., Ed.D., Ph.D.: IT] Wright State University [M.Ed.: Media Supervisor; Computer Coord.] Media Appalachian State University [M.A.: Educational Media and Technology/Media Management] Arizona State University, Dept. of Educational Media and Computers [M.A., Ph.D.: Educational Media and Computers] Boston University [Ed.M., Certificate of Advanced Graduate Study: Educational Media and Technology; Ed.D.: Curriculum and Teaching/Educational Media and Technology] Central Connecticut State University [M.S.: Educational Technology/Materials Production]
< previous page
page_371
next page >
< previous page
page_372
next page >
Page 372 Fitchburg State College [M.S.: Communications Media] Indiana State University [Ph.D.: Curriculum and Instruction/Media Technology] Indiana University [Ed.D., Ph.D.: Instructional Development and Production] Jacksonville State University [M.S.: Education/ Instructional Media] Montclair State College [certification] Radford University [M.S.: Education/Educational Media/Technology] San Jose State University [Master’s.: Media Design and Development/Media Services Management] Simmons College [Master’s: Media Management] St. Cloud State University [Master’s, Ed.S.: Educational Media] State University College of Arts and Science at Potsdam [M.S.: Education/IT and Media Management] Syracuse University [M.S., Ed.D., Ph.D., Advanced Certificate: Media Production] Texas A&M University-Commerce [Master’s: Learning Technology and Information Systems/Educational Media and Technology] University of Central Florida [M.Ed.: IT/Educational Media] University of Florida. School of Teaching and Learning. [M.S., Ed.S., Ed.D., Ph.D.] University of Iowa [M.A.: Media Design and Production] University of Memphis. Instruction and Curriculum Leadership/Instructional Design & Technology [M. S. and Ed.D.] University of Nebraska at Kearney [M.S., Ed.S.: Educational Media] University of Nebraska-Omaha [M.S.: Education/Educational Media; M.A.: Education/Educational Media] University of South Alabama [M.A., Ed.S.] University of Tennessee-Knoxville [Ph.D.: Instructional Media and Technology; Ed.D.: Curriculum and Instruction/Instructional Media and Technology] University of Virginia [M.Ed., Ed.S., Ed.D., Ph.D.: Media Production] Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University [M.A., Ed.D., Ph.D.: IT] Wright State University [M.Ed.: Educational Media; Media Supervision; M.A.: Educational Media] Multimedia Bloomsburg University [M.S.: IT] Brigham Young University [M.S.: Multimedia Production] Fairfield University [M.A.: Media/Educational Technology with Multimedia] Ithaca College [M.S.: Corporate Communications] Jacksonville University [Master’s: Educational Technology and Integration Learning] Johns Hopkins University [Graduate Certificate] Lehigh University [Master’s] New York Institute of Technology [Specialist Certificate] San Francisco State University [Master’s: Instructional Multimedia Design] State University of New York at Stony Brook [Master’s: Technological Systems Management/Educational Computing] Syracuse University [M.S., Ed.D., Ph.D., Advanced Certificate: Media Production] Temple University. Instructional and Learning Technology (ILT)/ Educational Psychology Program [Ed.M., Ph.D.] Texas A&M University [M.Ed.: Educational Technology] University of Memphis. Instruction and Curriculum Leadership/Instructional Design & Technology [M. S. and Ed. D] University of Northern Colorado [Ph.D.: Educational Technology/Interactive Technology] University of Virginia [M.Ed., Ed.S., Ed.D., Ph.D.: Interactive Multimedia] University of Washington [Master’s, Ed.D., Ph.D.] Utah State University [M.S., Ed.S.] Wayne State University [Master’s: Interactive Technologies] Western Illinois University [Master’s: Interactive Technologies] Research Brigham Young University [M.S., Ph.D.: Research and Evaluation] Drexel University [M.S., M.S.I.S.] Iowa State University [Ph.D.: Educational/Technology Research] Syracuse University [M.S., Ed.D., Ph.D., Advanced Certificate: Educational Research and Theory] University of Washington [Master’s, Ed.D., Ph.D.] School Library Media Alabama State University [Master’s, Ed.S., Ph.D.] Arkansas Tech University [Master’s] Auburn University [M.ED., Ed.S.] Bloomsburg University [M.S.] Boston University [Massachusetts certification] Bridgewater State College [M.Ed.] Central Connecticut State University [M.S.: Educational Technology/Librarianship]
< previous page
page_372
next page >
< previous page
page_373
next page >
Page 373 Chicago State University [Master’s] East Carolina University [M.L.S., Certificate of Advanced Study] East Tennessee State [M.Ed.: Instructional Media] Emporia State University [Ph.D.: Library and Information Management; M.L.S.; School Library certification] Kent State University Louisiana State University [M.L.I.S., C.L.I.S. (post-Master’s certificate), Louisiana School Library certification] Mankato State University [M.S.] Northern Illinois University [M.S.Ed. Instructional Technology with Illinois state certification] Nova Southeastern University [Ed.S., M.S.: Educational Media] Radford University [M.S.: Education/Educational Media; licensure] Rutgers [M.L.S., Ed.S.] Simmons College [M.L.S.: Education] Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville [M.S. in Education: Library/Media] St. Cloud State University [Master’s, Ed.S.] St. John’s University [M.L.S.] State University of West Georgia [M.Ed., Ed.S.: Media] Towson State University [M.S.] University of Alabama [Master’s, Ed.S.] University of Central Arkansas [M.S.] University of Florida. School of Teaching and Learning [M.S., Ed.S., Ed.D., Ph.D.] University of Georgia [M.Ed., Ed.S.] University of Maryland [M.L.S.] University of Montana [Master’s, Ed.S.] University of North Carolina [M.S.] University of Northern Colorado [M.A.: Educational Media] University of South Florida [Master’s] University of Toledo University of Wisconsin-La Crosse [M.S.: Professional Development/Initial Instructional Library Specialist; Instructional Library Media Specialist] Utah State University [M.S., Ed.S.] Valdosta State University [M.Ed., Ed.S.: Instructional Technology/Library/Media] Webster University Western Maryland College [M.S.] William Paterson College [M.Ed., Ed.S., Associate] Special Education George Mason University [M.Ed.: IT/Assistive/ Special Education Technology; M.Ed.: Special Education Technology; Ph.D.: Special Education Technology] Johns Hopkins University [M.S. in Special Education/Technology in Special Education] Minot State University [M.S.: Early Childhood Special Education; Severe Multiple Handicaps; Communication Disorders] Western Washington University [M.Ed.: IT in Special Education] Systems Bloomsburg University [M.S.: IT] Drexel University [M.S., M.S.I.S.] Florida State University [M.S., Ed.S., Ph.D.: Instructional Systems] Pennsylvania State University [M.Ed., M.S., D.Ed., Ph.D.: Instructional Systems] Simmons College [Master’s: Information Science/Systems] Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville [M.S.: Education/Instructional Systems Design] State University of New York at Stony Brook [Master’s: Technological Systems Management] Texas A&M University-Commerce [Master’s: Learning Technology and Information Systems] University of Central Florida [M.A.: IT/Instructional Systems] University of Maryland, Baltimore County [Master’s: School Instructional Systems] University of North Texas [M.S.: Computer Education and Instructional Systems] The University of Oklahoma [Dual Master’s: Educational Technology and Library and Information Systems] Technology Design Governors State University [M.A.: Design Logistics] Kansas State University [Ed.D., Ph.D.: Curriculum and Instruction/Educational Computing, Design, and Telecommunications] United States International University [Master’s, Ed.D.: Designing Technology for Learning] University of Colorado at Denver [Master’s, Ph.D.: Design of Learning Technologies] Telecommunications Appalachian State University [M.A.: Educational Media and Technology/Telecommunications] Johns Hopkins University [Graduate Certificate] Kansas State University [Ed.D., Ph.D.: Curriculum and Instruction/Educational Computing, Design, and Telecommunications]
< previous page
page_373
next page >
< previous page
page_374
next page >
Page 374 San Jose State University [Telecommunications and Distance Learning] Western Illinois University [Masters: Telecommunications] Training Clarion University of Pennsylvania [M.S.: Communication/Training and Development] Pennsylvania State University [M.Ed., M.S., D.Ed., Ph.D.: Instructional Systems/Corporate Training] St. Cloud State University [Master’s, Ed.S.: Human Resources Development/Training] Syracuse University [M.S., Ed.D., Ph.D., Advanced Certificate] University of Maryland, Baltimore County [Master’s: Training in Business and Industry] University of Northern Iowa [M.A.: Communications and Training Technology] Wayne State University [Master’s: Business and Human Services Training] Video Production California State University-San Bernardino [M.A.] Fairfield University [Certificate of Advanced Study: Media/Educational Technology with TV Production]
< previous page
page_374
next page >
< previous page
page_375
next page >
Page 375 ALPHABETICAL LIST Institutions in this section are listed alphabetically by state. ALABAMA Alabama State University. Department of Instructional Support Programs. P.O. Box 271, Montgomery, AL351010271. (334)229-5138. Fax (334)229-4961. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.alasu.edu. Dr. Agnes Bellel, Coord., Instructional Technology and Media. Specializations: School media specialist preparation (K–12) only; master’s and specialist degrees. Admission Requirements: Master’s: undergraduate degree with teacher certification, two years classroom experience. Specialist: Master’s degree in library/media education. Degree Requirements: Master’s: 33 semester hours with 300 clock-hour internship. Specialist: 36 semester hours in 600level courses. Faculty: 3 fulltime. Students: Master’s, 50 part-time; Specialist, 8 part-time. Financial Assistance: student loans and scholarships. Degrees awarded 2001: 15 M.Ed., 1 Ed.S. Last Updated: 5/15/01. Auburn University. Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Technology. 3402 Haley Center, Auburn, AL358495216. (334)844-4291. Fax (334)844-4292. E-mail
[email protected]. Susan H. Bannon, Coord., Educational Media and Technology. Specializations: M.Ed. (non-thesis) and Ed.S. for Library Media certification; M.Ed. (nonthesis) for instructional design specialists who want to work in business, industry, and the military. Ed.D. in Educational Leadership with emphasis on curriculum and new instructional technologies. Features: All programs emphasize interactive technologies and computers. Admission Requirements: all programs: recent GRE test scores, three letters of recommendation, bachelor’s degree from accredited institution, teacher certification (for library media program only). Degree Requirements: Library Media Master’s: 52 qtr. hours. Instructional Design: 48 qtr. hours. Specialist: 48 qtr. hours. Ed.D.: 120 qtr. hours beyond B.S. degree. Faculty: 3 full-time. Students: 2 full-time, 15 part-time. Financial Assistance: graduate assistantships. Last Updated: 1999. Jacksonville State University. Instructional Media Division. Jacksonville, AL36265. (256)782-5011. E-mail
[email protected]. Martha Merrill, Coord., Dept. of Educational Resources. Specializations: M.S. in Education with emphasis on Library Media. Admission Requirements: Bachelor’s degree in Education. Degree Requirements: 36–39 semester hours including 24 in library media. Faculty: 2 full-time. Students: 20 full- and part-time. Last Updated: 1999. University of Alabama. School of Library and Information Studies. Box 870252, Tuscaloosa, AL35487-0252. (205)348-4610. Fax (205)348-3746. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.slism.slis.ua.edu. J. Gordon Coleman, Jr., Chair. Marion Paris, Ph.D., contact person. Specializations: M.L.I.S., Ed.S., and Ph.D. degrees in a varied program including school, public, academic, and special libraries. Ph.D. specializations in Historical Studies, Information Studies, Management, and Youth Studies; considerable flexibility in creating individual programs of study. Admission Requirements: M.L.I.S., Ed.S.: 3.0 GPA; 50 MAT or 1500 GRE. Doctoral: 3.0 GPA; 60 MAT or 1650 GRE. Degree Requirements: Master’s: 36 semester hours. Specialist: 33 semester hours. Doctoral: 48 semester hours plus 24 hours dissertation research. Faculty: 10 full-time. Students: Master’s, 55 full-time, 20 part-time; Specialist, 2 full-time; doctoral, 6 full-time, 6 part-time. Financial Assistance: assistantships, grants, student loans, scholarships, work assistance, campus work. Last Updated: 1999.
< previous page
page_375
next page >
< previous page
page_376
next page >
Page 376 University of South Alabama. Department of Behavioral Studies and Educational Technology, College of Education. University Commons 3700, Mobile, AL36688. (251)380-2861. Fax (251)380-2713. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.southalabama.edu/coe/bset/idd/. Daniel W. Surry, IDD Program Coor.; Mary Ann Robinson, Ed Media Program Coor. Specializations: M.S. in Instructional Design and Development (IDD), Ph.D. in IDD, M.Ed. in Educational Media (Ed Media). An online master’s degree in either Ed Media or IDD is available for qualified students. For information about online master’s degree programs, http://usaonline.southalabama.edu. Features: The IDD master’s and doctoral programs emphasize an extensive education and training in the instructional design process, human performance technology and multimedia- and online-based training. The IDD doctoral program has an additional emphasis in research design and statistical analyses. The Ed Media master’s program prepares students in planning, designing, and administering library/media centers at most levels of education, including higher education. Admission Requirements: For the Ed Media and IDD Master’s: undergraduate degree in appropriate academic field from an accredited university or college; admission to Graduate School; satisfactory score on the MAT or GRE. The IDD master’s program also requires applicants take GRE writing exam. For IDD Ph.D.: Master’s degree, all undergraduate and graduate transcripts, three letters of recommendations, written statement of the applicants purpose(s) for pursuing Ph.D. in IDD, satisfactory score on GRE. Degree Requirements: Ed Media master’s: satisfactorily complete program requirements (minimum 33 semester hours), 3.0 or better GPA, satisfactory score on comprehensive exam. IDD Master’s: satisfactorily complete program requirements (minimum 39 semester hours), 3.0 or better GPA; satisfactory comprehensive exam. Ph.D.: satisfactory complete program requirements (minimum 82 semester hours of approved graduate courses), one-year residency, satisfactory score on examinations (research and statistical, ed. media and computing portfolio, and comprehensive), approved dissertation completed. Any additional requirements will be determined by student’s doctoral advisory committee. Faculty: 17 full-time in department; 8 part-time faculty. Students: IDD Master’s, 60; Ph.D., 89 Ed Media Master’s 42. Financial Assistance: 10 graduate assistantships. Degrees awarded 2001: Ed Media Master’s = 9; IDD master’s = 9; IDD doctoral = 5. Last Updated: 4/10/02. ARIZONA Arizona State University; Educational Technology program. Division of Psychology in Education. Box 870611, Tempe, AZ 85287-0611. (480)965-3384. Fax (480)965-0300. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~gail/programs/lnt.htm. James D. Klein, Professor; Nancy Archer, Admissions Secretary. Specializations: The Educational Technology program at Arizona State University offers an M.Ed. degree and a Ph.D. degree, which focus on the design, development, and evaluation of instructional systems and educational technology applications to support learning. Features: The program offers courses in a variety of areas such as instructional design technology, media development, technology integration, and distance education. The doctoral program emphasizes research using educational technology in applied settings. Admission Requirements: Requirements for admission to the M.Ed. program include a four-year undergraduate GPA of 3.0 or above and a score of either 500 or above on verbal section of the GRE or 50 or above on the MAT. A score of 550 or above on the TOEFLis also required for students who do not speak English as their first language. Requirements for admission to the Ph.D. program include a four-year undergraduate GPA of 3.20 or above and a combined score of 1800 or above on the verbal, quantitative, and analytic sections of the GRE. A score of 600 or above on the TOEFLis also required for students who do not speak English as their first language. Degree Requirements: The M.Ed. degree requires completion of a minimum of 30 credit hours including 18 credit hours of required course work and a minimum of 12
< previous page
page_376
next page >
< previous page
page_377
next page >
Page 377 credit hours of electives. M.Ed. students also must complete an internship and a comprehensive examination. The Ph.D. degree requires a minimum of 84 semester hours beyond the bachelor’s degree. At least 54 of these hours must be taken at ASU after admission to the program. Ph.D. students must fulfill a residence requirement and are required to be continuously enrolled in the program. Students also take a comprehensive examination and must satisfy a publication requirement prior to beginning work on their dissertation. Faculty: The Educational Technology program at ASU has 7 full-time faculty. Students: 60 M.Ed. and 30 Ph.D. students are enrolled in the program. Financial Assistance: Financial assistance such as scholarships, fellowships, graduate assistantships, loans, and professional work opportunities are available to qualified applicants. Degrees awarded 2001: 15 M.Ed. degrees and 3 Ph.D. degrees were awarded in 2000. Last Updated: 5/21/01. Arizona State University. Dept. of Educational Media and Computers. Box 870111, Tempe, AZ 85287-0111. (602)965-7192. Fax (602)965-7193. E-mail
[email protected]. Dr. Gary G. Bitter, Coord. Specializations: M.A. and Ph.D. in Educational Media and Computers. Features: A three semester-hour course in Instructional Media Design is offered via CD-ROM or World Wide Web. Admission Requirements: M.A.: Bachelor’s degree, 550 TOEFL, 500 GRE, 45 MAT. Degree Requirements: M.A.: 36 semester hours (24 hours in educational media and computers, 9 hours education, 3 hours outside education); internship; comprehensive exam; practicum; thesis not required. Ph.D.: 93 semester hours (24 hours in educational media and computers, 57 hours in education, 12 hours outside education); thesis; internship; practicum. Faculty: 6 full-time. Financial Assistance: assistantships, grants, student loans, and scholarships. Last Updated: 1999. University of Arizona. School of Information Resources and Library Science. 1515 E. First St., Tucson, AZ 85719. (520)621-3565. Fax (520)621-3279. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.sir.arizona.edu. Specializations: The School of Information Resources and Library Science offers courses focusing on the study of information and its impact as a social phenomenon. Features: The School offers a virtual education program via the Internet. Between two and three courses are offered per semester. Admission Requirements: Very competitive for both degrees. Minimum criteria include: undergraduate GPA of 3.0 or better; competitive GRE scores; two letters of recommendation reflecting the writer’s opinion of the applicant’s potential as a graduate student; a resume of work and educational experience; written statement of intent. The School receives a large number of applications and accepts the best-qualified students. Admission to the doctoral program may require a personal interview, and a faculty member must indicate willingness to work with the student. Degree Requirements: M.A.: a minimum of 36 units of graduate credit. Students may elect the thesis option replacing 6 units of course work. Ph.D.: at least 48 hours of course work in the major, a substantial number of hours in a minor subject supporting the major, dissertation. The University has a 12-unit residency requirement, which may be completed in the summer or in a regular semester. More detailed descriptions of the program are available at the School’s Web site. Faculty: 5 fulltime. Students: 220 total; M.A.: 51 full-time; Ph.D.: 12 full-time. Last Updated: 1999. ARKANSAS Arkansas Tech University. Curriculum and Instruction. 308 Crabaugh, Russellville, AR 72801-2222. (501)9680434. Fax (501)964-0811. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://education.atu.edu/people/czimmer. Connie Zimmer, Asst. Professor of Secondary Education, Coord. Specializations: Master of Education in Instructional Technology with specializations in library media education, instructional design, computer education, general program of study, and training education. NCATE accredited institution. Features: A standards-based program meeting the requirements of the Arkansas State
< previous page
page_377
next page >
< previous page
page_378
next page >
Page 378 Department of Education’s licensure requirements for school library media specialist. Classrooms have the latest technology available. Admission Requirements: GRE or MAT, 2.5 undergraduate GPA, bachelor’s degree. Teaching Licensure required for the school library media specialization. Degree Requirements: 36 semester hours, B average in major hours, action research project. Faculty: 2 full-time, 1 part-time. Students: 16 full-time, 71 part-time. Financial Assistance: graduate assistantships, grants, student loans. Degrees awarded 2001: 32. Last Updated: 4/5/02. University of Central Arkansas. Educational Media/Library Science. Campus Box 4918, Conway, AR 72035. (501)450-5463. Fax (501)450-5680. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.coe.uca.edu/aboutaat.htm. Selvin W. Royal, Prof., Chair, Academic Technologies and Educational Leadership. Specializations: M.S. in Educational Media/ Library Science and Information Science. Tracks: School Library Media, Public Information Agencies, Media Information Studies. Features: Specialization in school library media. Admission Requirements: transcripts, GRE scores, two letters of recommendation, personal interview, written rationale for entering the profession. Degree Requirements: 36 semester hours, optional thesis, practicum (for School Library Media), professional research paper. Faculty: 5 full-time, 2 part-time. Students: 6 full-time, 51 part-time. Financial Assistance: 3 to 4 graduate assistantships each year. Degrees awarded 2001: 35. Last Updated: 5/17/01. CALIFORNIA Azusa Pacific University. 901 E. Alosta, Azusa, CA 91702. (626)815-5355. Fax (626)815-5416. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.apu.edu. Kathleen Bacer. Specializations: Educational Technology. Features: Master of Arts in Educational Technology. Program offered at five different locations (Azusa, Inland, Menifee, Orange, Ventura) Master of Arts in Educational Technology Online program. Admission Requirements: undergraduate degree from accredited institution with at least 12 units in education, 3.0 GPA, ownership of a designated laptop computer and software. Degree Requirements: 36 unit program. Faculty: 2 full-time, 16 part-time. Students: 180 part-time. Financial Assistance: student loans. Degrees awarded 2001: 89. Last Updated: 4/23/02. California State University-Dominguez Hills. 1000 E. Victoria St., Carson, CA 90747. (310)243-3524. Fax (310)243-3518. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.csudh.soe.edu. Peter Desberg, Prof., Coord., Technology-Based Education Program. Specializations: M.A. and Certificate in Technology-Based Education. Features: M.A. and Certificate in Technology-Based Education. Admission Requirements: 2.75 GPA. Degree Requirements: M.A.: 30 semester hours including project. Certificate: 15 hours. Faculty: 2 full-time, 2 part-time. Students: 50 full-time, 40 part-time. Financial Assistance: Available. Degrees awarded 2001: 30. Last Updated: 4/8/02. California State University-Los Angeles. Division of Educational Foundations and Interdivisional Studies. 5151 State University Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90032. (323)343-4330. Fax (323)343-5336. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://web.calstatela.edu/academic/found/efis/index.html. Dr. Fernando A. Hernandez, Division Chairperson. Specializations: M.A. degree in Education, option in New Media Design and Production; Computer Education and Leadership. Degree Requirements: 2.75 GPA in last 90 qtr. units, 45 qtr. units, comprehensive written exam or thesis or project. Must also pass Writing Proficiency Examination (WPE), a California State University-Los Angeles requirement. Faculty: 7 full-time. Last Updated: 1999. California State University-San Bernardino. 5500 University Parkway, San Bernardino, CA 92407. (909)8805290, (909)880-5692. Fax (909)880-7040. E-mail
[email protected].
< previous page
page_378
next page >
< previous page
page_379
next page >
Page 379 Web site http://soe.csusb.edu/etec. Amy S. C. Leh, Program Coord. Specializations: Technology integration, online instruction, instructional design. Features: Preparing educators in K–12, corporate, and higher education. Admission Requirements: Bachelor’s degree, appropriate work experience, 3.0 GPA, completion of introductory computer course and expository writing course. Degree Requirements: 48 units including a master’s project (33 units completed in residence); 3.0 GPA; grades of ‘‘C” or better in all courses. Faculty: 5 full-time, 5 part-time. Students: 106. Financial Assistance: Contact Office of Graduate Studies. Degrees awarded 2001: M.A. Last Updated: 4/21/02. San Diego State University. Educational Technology. 5500 Campanile Dr., San Diego, CA 92182-1182. (619)5946718. Fax (619)594-6376. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://edweb.sdsu.edu. Dr. Donn Ritchie, Prof., Chair. Specializations: Master’s degree in Educational Technology with specializations in Computers in Education, Workforce Education, and Lifelong Learning. The Educational Technology Department participates in a College of Education joint doctoral program with The Claremont Graduate School and a joint doctoral program with University of San Diego. Features: Combining theory and practice in relevant, real-world experiences. Admission Requirements: Please refer to SDSU Graduate bulletin at http://libweb.sdsu.edu/bulletin/. Requirements include 950 GRE (verbal quantitative), and GRE Writing Assessment Exam with score of 4.5 or better. Degree Requirements: 36 semester hours for the master’s (including 6 prerequisite hours); 15–18 semester hours for the certificates. Faculty: 10 fulltime, 7 part-time. Students: 120. Financial Assistance: graduate assistantships. Degrees awarded 2001: 50. Last Updated: 4/9/02. San Francisco State University. College of Education, Department of Instructional Technology. 1600 Holloway Ave., San Francisco, CA 94132. (415)338-1509. Fax (415)338-0510. E-mail
[email protected]. Dr. Eugene Michaels, Chair; Mimi Kasner, Office Coord. Specializations: Master’s degree with emphasis on Instructional Multimedia Design, Training and Designing Development, and Instructional Computing. The school also offers an 18-unit Graduate Certificate in Training Systems Development, which can be incorporated into the master’s degree. Features: This program emphasizes the instructional systems approach, cognitivist principles of learning design, practical design experience, and project-based courses. Admission Requirements: Bachelor’s degree, appropriate work experience, 2.5 GPA, interview with the department chair. Degree Requirements: 30 semester hours, field study project, or thesis. Faculty: 1 full-time, 16 part-time. Students: 250–300. Financial Assistance: Contact Office of Financial Aid. Last Updated: 1999. San Jose State University. Instructional Technology. One Washington Square, San Jose, California 95192-0076. (408) 924-3620. Fax (408) 924-3713. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.sjsu.edu.depts/it. Dr. Roberta Barba, Program Chair. Specializations: Master’s degree. Features: MA in Education with an emphasis on Instructional Technology. Admission Requirements: Baccalaureate degree from approved university, appropriate work experience, minimum GPA of 2.5, and minimum score of 550 on TOEFL. 36 semester hours (which includes 6 prerequisite hours). Degree Requirements: 30 units of approved graduate studies. Faculty: 4 full-time, 12 part-time. Students: 10 fulltime master’s students, 260 part-time. Financial Assistance: Assistantships, grants, student loans, and scholarships. Degrees awarded 2001: 42. Last Updated: 5/7/02. United States International University. School of Education. 10455 Pomerado Rd., San Diego, CA 92131-1799. (619)635-4715. Fax (619)635-4714. E-mail
[email protected]. Richard Feifer, contact person. Specializations: Master’s in Designing Technology for Learning, Planning Technology for Learning, and Technology Leadership for Learning. Ed.D. in Technology and Learning offers three specializations: Designing Tech-
< previous page
page_379
next page >
< previous page
page_380
next page >
Page 380 nology for Learning, Planning Technology for Learning, and Technology Leadership for Learning. Features: interactive multimedia, cognitive approach to integrating technology and learning. Admission Requirements: Master’s: English proficiency, interview, 3.0 GPA with 1900 GRE or 2.0 GPA with satisfactory MAT score. Degree Requirements: Ed.D.: 88 graduate qtr. units, dissertation. Faculty: 2 full-time, 4 part-time. Students: Master’s, 32 full-time, 12 part-time; doctoral, 6 full-time, 1 part-time. Financial Assistance: internships, graduate assistantships, grants, student loans, scholarships. Last Updated: 1999. University of Southern California. Instructional Technology, Division of Learning and Instruction. 602LW.P.H., Rossier School of Education, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0031. (213)740-3288. Fax (213)740-3889. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/index2.html. Dr. Richard Clark, Prof., Doctoral programs; Dr. Edward J. Kazlauskas, Prof., Program Chair, Master’s programs in Instructional Technology. Specializations: M.A., Ed.D., Ph.D., to prepare individuals to teach instructional technology; manage educational media and training programs in business, industry, research and development organizations, schools, and higher educational institutions; perform research in instructional technology and media; and deal with computer-driven technology. Features: Special emphasis upon instructional design, human performance at work, systems analysis, and computer-based training. Admission Requirements: Bachelor’s degree, 1000 GRE. Degree Requirements: M.A.: 28 semester hours, thesis optional. Doctoral: 67 units, 20 of which can be transferred from a previous master’s degree. Requirements for degree completion vary according to type of degree and individual interest. Ph.D. requires an outside field in addition to course work in instructional technology and education, more methodology and statistics work, and coursework in an outside field. Faculty: 3 full-time, 2 part-time. Students: M.A., 5 full-time, 15 part-time; doctoral, 5 full-time, 20 part-time. Financial Assistance: part-time, instructional technology-related work available in the Los Angeles area and on campus, some scholarship monies available. Degrees awarded 2001: 28. Last Updated: 4/23/02. COLORADO University of Colorado at Denver. School of Education. Campus Box 106, P.O. Box 173364, Denver, CO 802173364. (303)556-6022. Fax (303)556-4479. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.cudenver.edu/public/education/ilt/ILThome.html. Brent Wilson, Program Chair, Information and Learning Technologies, Division of Technology and Special Services. Specializations: M.A.; Ph.D. in Educational Leadership and Innovation with emphasis in Curriculum, Learning, and Technology. Features: design and use of learning technologies; instructional design. Ph.D. students complete 10 semester hours of doctoral labs (small groups collaborating with faculty on difficult problems of practice). Throughout the program, students complete a product portfolio of research, design, teaching, and applied projects. The program is cross-disciplinary, drawing on expertise in technology, adult learning, systemic change, research methods, reflective practice, and cultural studies. Admission Requirements: M.A. and Ph.D.: satisfactory GPA, GRE, writing sample, letters of recommendation, transcripts. Degree Requirements: M.A.: 36 semester hours including 23–27 hours of core coursework and portfolio; practicum and additional requirements for state certification in library media; internship required for careers in corporate settings. Ph.D.: 40 semester hours of coursework and labs, plus 30 dissertation hours; portfolio; dissertation. Faculty: 5 full-time, 3 part-time. Students: M.A., 25 full-time, 120 part-time; Ph.D., 4 full-time, 15 part-time. Financial Assistance: assistantships, internships. Degrees awarded 2001: 68. Last Updated: 4/22/02. University of Northern Colorado. Educational Technology. College of Education, Greeley, CO 80639. (970)3512816. Fax (970)351-1622. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site
< previous page
page_380
next page >
< previous page
page_381
next page >
Page 381 http://www.coe.unco.edu/edtech/. Kay Persichitte, Assoc. Prof., Chair, Educational Technology. Specializations: M.A. in Educational Technology; M.A. in Educational Media; Non-degree endorsement for school library media specialists; Ph.D. in Educational Technology with emphases in Distance Education, Instructional Development/Design, Interactive Technology, and Technology Integration. Features: Graduates are prepared for careers as instructional technologists, course designers, trainers, instructional developers, media specialists, and human resource managers. Graduates typically follow employment paths into K–12 education, higher education, business, industry, and, occasionally the military. Admission Requirements: M.A.: Bachelor’s degree, 3.0 undergraduate GPA, 1500 combined GRE, 3 letters of recommendation, statement of career goals. Endorsement: Same as M.A. but no GRE. Ph.D.: 3.2 GPA in last 60 hours of coursework, three letters of recommendation, congruency between applicants statement of career goals and program goals, 1650 combined GRE, interview with faculty. Degree Requirements: M.A.-Ed. Tech.: 30 semester hours (min.); M.A.-Ed. Media: 36–39 semester hours (min.); Endorsement: 30–33 semester hours (min.); Ph.D.: 67 semester hours (min). Faculty: 7 full-time. Students: M.A., 15 full-time, 125 part-time; Ph.D., 20 full-time, 25 parttime. Financial Assistance: Assistantships, grant development, student loans, fellowships, scholarships through the Graduate School. Degrees awarded 2001: over 40 M.A.; 8 Ph.D. Last Updated: 4/13/02. CONNECTICUT Central Connecticut State University. 1615 Stanley St., New Britain, CT 06050. (860)832-2139. Fax (860)8322109. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ccsu.edu. Farough Abed, Director., Educational Technology Program. Specializations: M.S. in Educational Technology. Curriculum emphases include instructional technology, instructional design, message design, and computer technologies. Degree applies to: Public school; Business-Training and Development; College teaching position. Features: The program supports the Center for Innovation in Teaching and Technology to link students with client-based projects. Hands-on experience with emphasis on design, production, and evaluation. Students work as teams in their second year. Admission Requirements: Bachelor’s degree, 2.7 undergraduate GPA, two letters of reference, and goal statement. Degree Requirements: 36 semester hours, optional thesis or master’s final project (3 credits). Faculty: 2 full-time, 4 parttime. Students: full-time 3, part- time 45. Financial Assistance: graduate assistant position. Degrees awarded 2001: 28. Last Updated: 5/7/02. Fairfield University. Educational Technology. N. Benson Rd., Fairfield, CT 06824. (203)254-4000. Fax (203)2544047. E-mail
[email protected],
[email protected]. Web site http://www.fairfield.edu. Dr. Ibrahim M. Hefzallah, Prof., Dir., Educational Technology Department; Dr. Justin Ahn, Assistant Professor of Educational Technology. Specializations: M.A. and a certificate of Advanced Studies in Educational Technology in one of four areas of concentrations: Computers-in-Education, Instructional Development, School Media Specialist, and Television Production; customized course of study also available. Features: emphasis on theory, practice, and new instructional developments in computers in education, multimedia, and satellite communications. Admission Requirements: Bachelor’s degree from accredited institution with 2.67 GPA. Degree Requirements: 33 credits. Faculty: 2 full-time, 8 part-time. Students: 4 full-time, 110 part-time. Financial Assistance: assistantships, student loans. Degrees awarded 2001: 10. Last Updated: 5/7/02. Southern Connecticut State University. Department of Library Science and Instructional Technology. 501 Crescent St., New Haven, CT 06515. (203)392-5781. Fax (203)392-5780. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://scsu.ctstateu.edu. Nancy Disbrow,
< previous page
page_381
next page >
< previous page
page_382
next page >
Page 382 Chair. Specializations: M.S. in Instructional Technology; Sixth-Year Professional Diploma Library-Information Studies (student may select area of specialization in Instructional Technology). Degree Requirements: for Instructional Technology only, 36 semester hours. For sixth-year degree: 30 credit hours with 6 credit hours of core requirements, 9–15 credit hours in specialization. Faculty: 1 full-time. Students: 3 full-time and 38 part-time in M.S./ IT program. Financial Assistance: graduate assistantship (salary $1,800 per semester; assistants pay tuition and a general university fee sufficient to defray cost of student accident insurance). Last Updated: 1999. University of Connecticut. U-64, Storrs, CT 06269-2064. (860)486-0182. Fax (860)486-0180. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ucc.uconn.edu/~wwwepsy/. Scott W. Brown, Chair; Michael Young, contact person. Specializations: M.A. in Educational Technology (portfolio or thesis options) and Ph.D. in Cognition and Instruction with an emphasis in Learning Technology. Features: The Ph.D. emphasis in Learning Technology is a unique program at UConn. It is cosponsored by the Department of Educational Psychology in the School of Education and the Psychology Department in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. The Program seeks to provide students with knowledge of theory and applications regarding the use of advanced technology to enhance learning and thinking. Campus facilities include $2 billion 21st Century UConn enhancement to campus infrastructure. Faculty research interests include interactive video for anchored instruction and situated learning, telecommunications for cognitive apprenticeship, technology-mediated interactivity for learning by design activities, and in cooperation with the National Research Center for Gifted and Talented, research on the use of technology to enhance cooperative learning and the development of gifted performance in all students. Admission Requirements: admission to the graduate school at UConn, GRE scores (or other evidence of success at the graduate level). Previous experience in a related area of technology, education, or training is a plus. Degree Requirements: completion of plan of study coursework, comprehensive exam (portfolio-based with multiple requirements), and completion of an approved dissertation. Faculty: The program in Cognition and Instruction has 7 full-time faculty; 3 full-time faculty administer the emphasis in Educational Technology. Students: M.A. 8, Ph.D., 18. Financial Assistance: graduate assistantships, research fellowships, teaching assistantships, and federal and minority scholarships are available competitively. Degrees awarded 2001: 4 M.A., 4 Ph.D. Last Updated: 4/9/02. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA George Washington University. School of Education and Human Development. Washington, DC 20052. (202)994-1701. Fax (202)994-2145. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.gwu.edu/~etl. Dr. William Lynch, Educational Technology Leadership Program. Program is offered through Jones Education Company (JEC). Contact student advisors at (800)777-MIND. Specializations: M.A. in Education and Human Development with a major in Educational Technology Leadership. Admission Requirements: application fee, transcripts, GRE or MAT scores (50th percentile), two letters of recommendation from academic professionals, computer access, undergraduate degree with 2.75 GPA. Degree Requirements: 36 credit hours (including 24 required hours). Required courses include computer application management, media and technology application, software implementation and design, public education policy, and quantitative research methods. Faculty: Courses are taught by GWU faculty. Financial Assistance: For information, contact the Office of Student Financial Assistance, GWU. Some cable systems that carry JEC offer local scholarships. Last Updated: 1999. FLORIDA Barry University. Department of Educational Computing and Technology, School of Education. 11300 N.E. Second Ave., Miami Shores, FL33161. (305)899-3608. Fax (305)899-
< previous page
page_382
next page >
< previous page
page_383
next page >
Page 383 3718. E-mail
[email protected]. Joel S. Levine, Dir. Specializations: M.S. and Ed.S. in Educational Technology, Ph.D. degree in Educational Technology Leadership. Features: Majority of the courses (30/36) in M.S. and Ed.S. programs are in the field of Educational Technology. Admission Requirements: GRE scores, letters of recommendation, GPA, interview, achievements. Degree Requirements: M.S. or Ed. S.: 36 semester credit hours. Ph.D.: 54 credits beyond the master’s including dissertation credits. Faculty: 7 full-time, 10 part-time. Students: M.S., 8 full-time, 181 part-time; Ed.S., 5 full-time, 44 part-time; Ph.D., 3 full-time, 15 part-time. Financial Assistance: assistantships, student loans. Last Updated: 1999. Florida Institute of Technology. Science Education Department. 150 University Blvd., Melbourne, FL32901-6988. (321)674-8126. Fax (321)674-7598. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.fit.edu/catalog/sci-lib/compedu.html#master-info. Dr. Robert Fronk, Dept. Head. Specializations: Master’s degree options in Computer Education and Instructional Technology; Ph.D. degree options in Computer Education and Instructional Technology. Features: Flexible program depending on student experience. Admission Requirements: 3.0 GPA for regular admission; 2.75 for provisional admission. Degree Requirements: Master’s: 33 semester hours (15 in computer or and technology education, 9 in education, 9 electives); practicum; no thesis or internship required. Ph.D.: 48 semester hours (12 in computer and technology education, 12 in education, 24 dissertation and research). Faculty: 5 full-time. Students: 11 full-time, 10 part-time. Financial Assistance: graduate student assistantships (full tuition plus stipend) available. Degrees awarded 2001: 6. Last Updated: 5/2/02. Florida State University. Instructional Systems Program, Department of Educational Research. 305 Stone Bldg., Tallahassee, FL32306. (904)644-4592. Fax (904)644-8776. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.fsu.edu/~edres/. Specializations: M.S., Ed.S., Ph.D. in Instructional Systems with specializations for persons planning to work in academia, business, industry, government, or military. Features: Core courses include systems and materials development, development of multimedia, project management, psychological foundations, current trends in instructional design, and research and statistics. Internships are recommended. Admission Requirements: M.S.: 3.2 GPA in last two years of undergraduate program, 1000 GRE (verbal plus quantitative), 550 TOEFL(for international applicants). Ph.D.: 1100 GRE (V Q), 3.5 GPA in last two years; international students, 550 TOEFL. Degree Requirements: M.S.: 36 semester hours, 2–4 hour internship, written comprehensive exam. Faculty: 5 full-time, 5 part-time. Students: M.S., 55; Ph.D., 50. Financial Assistance: some graduate research assistantships on faculty grants and contracts, university fellowships. Last Updated: 1999. Jacksonville University. Division of Education. 2800 University Boulevard North, Jacksonville, FL32211. (904)7457132. Fax (904)745-7159. E-mail
[email protected]. Dr. Margaret Janz, Interim Dir., School of Education, or Dr. June Main, Coordinator of M.A.T. in Integrated Learning with Educational Technology. Specializations: The Master’s in Educational Technology and Integrated Learning is an innovative program designed to guide certified teachers in the use and application of educational technologies in the classroom. It is based on emerging views of how we learn, of our growing understanding of multiple intelligences, and of the many ways to incorporate technology in teaching and learning. Activity-based classes emphasize instructional design for a multimedia environment to reach all students. M.A.T. degrees in Computer Education and in Integrated Learning with Educational Technology. Features: The M.A.T. in Computer Education is for teachers who are already certified in an area of education, for those who wish to be certified in Computer Education, kindergarten through community college level. Degree Requirements: M.A.T. in Computer Education and in Integrated Learning with Educational Technology: 36 se-
< previous page
page_383
next page >
< previous page
page_384
next page >
Page 384 mester hours, including 9–12 hours in core education graduate courses and the rest in computer education with comprehensive exam in last semester of program. Master’s in Educational Technology and Integrated Learning: 36 semester hours, including 9 in core graduate education courses, 6 in integrated learning, and the rest in educational technology. Comprehensive exam is to develop a practical group of multimedia applications. Financial Assistance: student loans and discounts to graduate education students. Students: Computer Education, 8; Integrated Learning with Educational Technology, 20. Last Updated: 1999. Nova Southeastern University. Fischler Center for the Advancement of Education. 1750 NE 167th St., Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314. (954)262-8572. (800)986-3223, ext. 8572. Fax (954)262-3905. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site itde.nova.edu. Marsha Burmeister, Program Professor, Instructional Technology and Distance Education. Specializations: M.S. and Ed.D. in Instructional Technology and distance Education. M.S. Technology for Teaching and Learning. Features: Majority of instruction is online, with 3–6 weekend or summer week face-to-face sessions during the three-year doctoral program. Admission Requirements: M.S.: three letters of recommendation, completed application and transcripts. Ed.D.: three letters of recommendation, completed application, transcripts and completed master’s degree in Instructional Technology or distance Education, or related area. Degree Requirements: 21 months and 30 semester credits. Ed.D. 3 years and 65 semester credits. Faculty: 6 full-time and 20 adjuncts. Students: 300 full-time. Financial Assistance: 2 internships. Degrees awarded 2001: 100. Last Updated: 4/9/02. University of Central Florida. College of Education. 4000 Central Florida Blvd., Orlando, FL32816-1250. (407)8234835. Fax (407)823-4880. E-mail
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected]. Web site http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~edmedia and http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~edtech. Richard Cornell, Instructional Systems; Judy Lee, Educational Media; Glenda Gunter, Educational Technology. Specializations: M.A. in Instructional Technology/Instructional Systems, http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~instsys/; M.Ed. in Instructional Technology/Educational Media—entirely Web-based; M.A. in Instructional Technology/Educational Technology. Ph.D. and Ed.D. with specialization in Instructional Technology. http://www.graduate.ucf.edu There are approximately 18 Ed.D. students and 22 Ph.D. students in the doctoral programs. Features: All programs rely heavily on understanding of fundamental competencies as reflected by ASTD, AECT, AASL, and ISTE. There is an emphasis on the practical application of theory through intensive hands-on experiences. UCF is located in the heart of Central Florida and is home to the world’s number-one tourist destination. Additionally, Orlando and the surrounding area is home to a plethora of high-tech companies and military training and simulation organizations. UCF, established in 1963, now has in excess of 36,000 students, representative of more than 90 countries. It has been ranked as one of the leading “most-wired” universities in North America. Admission Requirements: Interviews (either in person or via e-mail); GRE score of 840 if last 60 hours of undergraduate degree is 3.0 or above, 1000 if less; TOEFLof 550 if English is not first language; three letters of recommendation; resume, statement of goals; residency statement, and health record. Financial statement if coming from overseas. Degree Requirements: M.A. in Instructional Technology/Instructional Systems, 39–42 semester hours; M.Ed. in Instructional Technology/Educational Media, 39– 45 semester hours; M.A. in Instructional Technology/Educational Technology, 36–45 semester hours. Practicum required in all three programs; thesis, research project, or substitute additional course work. Ph.D. and Ed.D. require between 58–69 hours beyond the master’s for completion. Faculty: 4 full-time, 12 part-time. Students: Inst. Sys., 70; Ed. Media, 35; Ed. Technology, 50; fulltime, 120; part-time, 35. Financial Assistance: Competitive graduate assistantships in department and college, numerous paid internships, limited number of doctoral fellowships. Degrees awarded 2001: 65. Last Updated: 4/13/02.
< previous page
page_384
next page >
< previous page
page_385
next page >
Page 385 University of Florida. School of Teaching and Learning. 2403 Norman Hall, Gainesville, FL32611-7048. (352)3929191 X264. Fax (352)392-9193. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.coe.ufl.edu/Courses/EdTech/ET.html. Colleen Swain. Specializations: Educational technology students may earn M.S., Ed.S., Ed.D., or Ph.D. degrees and have an opportunity to specialize in one of four tracks: 1) Teaching and teacher education, 2) Production, 3) Instructional design, or 4) Information/media specialist. Teacher education students and students in other degree programs may also elect to specialize in Educational Technology. Features: Students take core courses listed on the school’s Educational Technology Web site and then select an area of specialization. Admission Requirements: See the Educational Technology Web site for the most up-to-date information. Current admission requirements are as follows: Obtain a GRE score of 1000 or more on the verbal and quantitative components of the GRE. Applicants must have a score of 450 or higher for each component (verbal and quantitative). Submit a written document outlining 1) your career goals and 2) the track you wish to specialize in the Educational Technology program. Degree Requirements: See the Educational Technology Web site for the most upto-date information. Program and college requirements must be met, but there is considerable flexibility for doctoral students to plan an appropriate program with their advisors. Faculty: 5 full-time faculty members; number of adjunct instructors is dependent on the semester. Students: approximately 80 students are enrolled in our Educational Technology. Financial Assistance: A limited number of graduate assistantships are available. Interested students should submit an assistantship application with their admissions application. Students should also check the Web site for information about available assistantships. Last Updated: 4/9/02. University of South Florida. Instructional Technology Program, Secondary Education Department, College of Education. EDU 162, 4202 Fowler Ave. East, Tampa, FL33620. (813)974-3533. Fax (813)974-3837. E-mail
[email protected]/it. Web site http://www.coedu.usf.edu/it. Dr. William Kealy, Graduate Certificates; Dr. Frank Breit, Master’s program; Dr. Ann Barron, Education Specialist program; Dr. James White, Doctoral program. Specializations: Graduate Certificates in Web Design, Instructional Design, Multimedia Design, School Networks, and Distance Education M.Ed., Ed.S., and Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction with emphasis in Instructional Technology. Features: Many students gain practical experience in the Florida Center for Instructional Technology (FCIT), which provides services to the Department of Education and other grants and contracts; the Virtual Instructional Team for the Advancement of Learning (VITAL), which provides USF faculty with course development services; and Educational Outreach. The College of Education is one of the largest in the United States in terms of enrollment and facilities. As of fall 1997, a new, technically state-of-the-art building was put into service. The University of South Florida has been classified by the Carnegie Foundation as a Doctoral/Research University–Extensive. Admission Requirements: See http://www.coedu.usf.edu/it. Degree Requirements: See http://www.coedu.usf.edu/it. Faculty: 4 fulltime, 6 part-time. Students: 120 full-time, 255 part-time. Financial Assistance: some assistantships, grants, loans, scholarships, and fellowships. Degrees awarded 2001: 60 . Last Updated: 5/7/02. GEORGIA Georgia Southern University. College of Education, Box 8131, Statesboro, GA 30460-8131. (912)681-5307. Fax (912)486-7104. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www2.gasou.edu/eltr/tech/inst_tech/index.htm. Randal D. Carlson, Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Leadership, Technology, and Human Development. Specializations: M.Ed. and GA certification for School Library Media Specialist. The school also offers a six-year specialist degree program (Ed.S.), and an Instructional Technology strand is available in the Ed.D. program in Curriculum Studies. Features: GA Special Technology Certification course
< previous page
page_385
next page >
< previous page
page_386
next page >
Page 386 available with strong emphasis on technology. Admission Requirements: B.S. (teacher certification NOT required) MAT score of 44 or GRE score of 450 verbal and 450 either on quantitative or analytical for Regular admission. Provisional admission requires lower scores but also requires letters of intent/reference. Degree Requirements: 36 semester hours, including a varying number of hours of media for individual students. Faculty: 4 full-time. Students: 100 part-time. Financial Assistance: See graduate catalog for general financial aid information. Degrees awarded 2001: 20. Last Updated: 4/8/02. Georgia State University. Middle-Secondary Education and Instructional Technology. University Plaza, Atlanta, GA 30303. (404)651-2510. Fax (404)651-2546. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.gsu.edu/~wwwmst/. Dr. Stephen W. Harmon, contact person. Specializations: M.S., Ed.S., and Ph.D. in Instructional Technology or Library Media. Features: focus on research and practical application of instructional technology in educational and corporate settings. Admission Requirements: M.S.: Bachelor’s degree, 2.5 undergraduate GPA, 44 MAT or 800 GRE, 550 TOEFL. Ed.S.: Master’s degree, teaching certificate, 3.25 graduate GPA, 48 MAT or 900 GRE. Ph.D.: Master’s degree, 3.30 graduate GPA, 53 MAT or 500 verbal plus 500 quantitative GRE or 500 analytical GRE. Degree Requirements: M.S.: 36 sem. hours, internship, portfolio, comprehensive examination. Ed.S.: 30 sem. hours, internship, and scholarly project. Ph.D.: 66 sem. hours, internship, comprehensive examination, dissertation. Faculty: 8 full-time, 3 part-time. Students: 200 M.S., 40 Ph.D. Financial Assistance: assistantships, grants, student loans. Degrees awarded 2001: 32 M.S., 2 Ed.S., 10 Ph.D. Last Updated: 5/7/02. State University of West Georgia. Department of Media and Instructional Technology. 137 Education Annex, Carrollton, GA 30118. (770)836-6558. Fax (770)838-3088. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://coe.westga.edu/mit/index.html. Dr. Michael Waugh, Prof., Chair. Specializations: M.Ed. with specializations in Media and Instructional Technology and add-on certification for students with master’s degrees in other disciplines. The Department also offers an Ed.S. program in Media with two options, Media Specialist or Instructional Technology. The program strongly emphasizes technology in the schools. Features: Master’s degree students and initial certification students are required to complete a practicum. Admission Requirements: M.Ed.: 800 GRE, 44 MAT, 550 NTE Core, 2.5 undergraduate GPA. Ed.S.: 900 GRE, 48 MAT, or 575 NTE and 3.25 graduate GPA. Degree Requirements: 36 semester hours for M.Ed.; 27 semester hours for Ed.S. Faculty: 7 fulltime in Media/Technology; 1 full-time instructor in Instructional Technology; 2 part-time in Media/Instructional Technology. Students: Approximately 300, part-time. Financial Assistance: three graduate research assistantships for the department. Degrees awarded 2001: Approximately 50 across both levels. Last Updated: 5/25/01. University of Georgia. Department of Instructional Technology, College of Education. 604 Aderhold Hall, Athens, GA 30602-7144. (706)542-3810. Fax (706)542-4032. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://it.coe.uga.edu. Dr. Janette Hill, Graduate Coordinator. Specializations: M.Ed. and Ed.S. in Instructional Technology; Ph.D. for leadership positions as specialists in instructional design and development and college faculty. The program offers advanced study for individuals with previous preparation in instructional media and technology, as well as a preparation for personnel in other professional fields requiring a specialty in instructional systems or instructional technology. Representative career fields for graduates include designing new courses, tutorial programs, and instructional materials in the military, industry, medical professional schools, allied health agencies, teacher education, staff development, state and local school systems, higher education, research, and in instructional products development. Features: Minor areas of study available in a variety of other departments. Personalized programs are planned around a common core of courses and include practica, internships, or clinical experiences. Research activities include special
< previous page
page_386
next page >
< previous page
page_387
next page >
Page 387 assignments, applied projects, and task forces, as well as thesis and dissertation studies. Admission Requirements: All degrees: application to graduate school, satisfactory GRE score, other criteria as outlined in Graduate School Bulletin. Degree Requirements: M.Ed.: 36 semester hours with 3.0 GPA, portfolio with oral exam. Ed.S.: 30 semester hours with 3.0 GPA and portfolio exam. Ph.D.: three full years of study beyond the master’s degree, two consecutive semesters full-time residency, comprehensive exam with oral defense, internship, dissertation with oral defense. Faculty: 18 full-time, 1 part-time. Students: M.Ed. and Ed.S., 65 full-time, 73 part-time; Ph.D., 24 full-time, 10 parttime. Financial Assistance: graduate assistantships available. Degrees awarded 2001: 21. Last Updated: 4/14/02. Valdosta State University. College of Education. 1500 N. Patterson St., Valdosta, GA 31698. (229)333-5927. Fax (229)333-7167. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://education.valdosta.edu/info/cait/. Catherine B. Price, Prof., Head, Dept. of Instructional Technology. Specializations: M.Ed. in Instructional Technology with two tracks: Library/ Media, Technology Leadership, or Technology Applications; Ed.S. in Instructional Technology; Ed.D. in Curriculum and Instruction. Features: The program has a strong emphasis on technology in M.Ed., Ed.S., and Ed.D.; strong emphasis on change leadership, reflective practice, applied research in Ed.S. and Ed.D. Admission Requirements: M.Ed.: 2.5 GPA, 800 GRE. Ed.S.: Master’s degree, 3.0 GPA, 850 GRE. Ed.D.: Masters degree, 3 years of experience, 3.50 GPA, 1000 GRE. Degree Requirements: M.Ed.: 33 semester hours. Ed.S.: 27 semester hours. Ed.D.: 54 semester hours. Faculty: 8 full-time, 3 part-time. Students: 115 Masters, 54 Specialist, 17 doctoral students. Financial Assistance: graduate assistantships, student loans, scholarships. Degrees awarded 2001: M.Ed., Ed.S., Ed.D. Last Updated: 5/7/02. HAWAII University of Hawaii-Manoa. Department of Educational Technology. 1776 University Ave., Honolulu, HI 968222463. (808)956-7671. Fax (808)956-3905. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.hawaii.edu/edtech. Geoffrey Z. Kucera, Prof., Chair. Specializations: M.Ed. in Educational Technology. Features: min. 39 semester hours, including 3 in practicum, 3 in internship; thesis and non-thesis available. Admission Requirements: Bachelor’s degree in any field, B average (3.0 GPA). Degree Requirements: 39 sem. hours (plus 6 sem. hrs. of prerequisites if needed). Faculty: 6 full-time, 1 part-time. Students: 14 full-time, 30 part-time students. Financial Assistance: Consideration given to meritorious second-year students for tuition waivers and scholarship applications. Degrees awarded 2002: 16. Last Updated: 6/10/02. IDAHO Boise State University. IPT. 1910 University Drive, ET-338, Boise, ID 83725. (208)426-4457; (800)824-7017 ext. 4457. Fax (208)426-1970. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://coen.boisestate.edu/dep/ipt.htm. Dr. David Cox, IPT Program Dir.; Jo Ann Fenner, IPT Program Developer and distance program contact person. Specializations: M.S. in Instructional & Performance Technology available in a traditional campus setting or via asynchronous computer conferencing to students located anywhere there is access to the Internet. The program is fully accredited by the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges (NASC) and is the recipient of an NUCEA award for Outstanding Credit Program offered by distance education methods. Features: Leading experts in learning styles, evaluation, and leadership principles serve as adjunct faculty in the program via computer and modem from their various remote locations. For details, visit our faculty web page at http://coen.boisestate.edu/dep/ipt/faculty.htm. Admission Requirements: undergraduate de-
< previous page
page_387
next page >
< previous page
page_388
next page >
Page 388 gree with 3.0 GPA, one- to two-page essay describing why you want to pursue this program and how it will contribute to your personal and professional development, and a resume of personal qualifications and work experience. For more information, visit http://coen.boisestate.edu/dep/ipt/application_admission.htm. Degree Requirements: 36 semester hours in instructional and performance technology and related course work; project or thesis available for on-campus program and an oral comprehensive exam required for distance program (included in 36 credit hours). Faculty: 4 full-time, 9 part-time. Students: 160 part-time. Financial Assistance: DANTES funding for some military personnel, low-interest loans to eligible students, graduate assistantships for on-campus enrollees. Degrees awarded 2001: 31. Last Updated: 4/22/02. ILLINOIS Chicago State University. Department of Library Science and Communications Media, Chicago, IL60628. (312)995-2278, (312)995-2503. Fax (312)995-2473. E-mail
[email protected]. Janice Bolt, Prof., Chair, Dept. of Library Science and Communications Media. Specializations: Master’s degree in School Media. Program has been approved by NCATE: AECT/AASLthrough accreditation of University College of Education; State of Illinois Entitlement Program. Admission Requirements: teacher’s certification or bachelor’s in Education; any B.A. or B.S. Degree Requirements: 36 semester hours; thesis optional. Faculty: 2 full-time, 5 part-time. Students: 88 part-time. Financial Assistance: assistantships, grants, student loans. Last Updated: 1999. Concordia University. 7400 Augusta St., River Forest, IL60305-1499. (708)209-3088. Fax (708)209-3176. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.curf.edu. Dr. Manfred Boos, Chair, Mathematics/Computer Science Education Dept. Specializations: M.A. in Computer Science Education. Admission Requirements: 2.85 GPA (2.25 to 2.85 for provisional status); bachelor’s degree from regionally accredited institution; two letters of recommendation. Degree Requirements: 33 semester hours of course work. Faculty: 7 fulltime, 5 part-time. Students: 3 full-time, 18 part-time. Financial Assistance: a number of graduate assistantships, Stafford student loans, Supplement Loan for Students. Last Updated: 1999. Governors State University. College of Arts and Sciences. University Drive, University Park, IL60466. (708)5344082. Fax (708)534-7895. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site
[email protected]. Michael Stelnicki, Prof., Human Performance and Training. Specializations: M.A. in Communication and Training with HP&T major. Program concentrates on building instructional design skills. Features: Emphasizes three professional areas: Instructional Design, Performance Analysis, and Design Logistics. Admission Requirements: Undergraduate degree in any field. Degree Requirements: 36 credit hours (trimester), all in instructional and performance technology; internship or advanced field project required. Metropolitan Chicago-area based. Faculty: 2 full-time. Students: 40 part-time. Financial Assistance: Contact Student Assistance. Degrees awarded 2001: 10. Last Updated: 5/8/02. Northern Illinois University. Leadership and Educational Policy Studies Department. College of Education, DeKalb, IL60115-2896. (815)753-0464. Fax (815)753-9371. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://coe.cedu.niu.edu. Dr. Peggy Bailey, Chair, Instructional Technology. Specializations: M.S.Ed. in Instructional Technology with concentrations in Instructional Design, Distance Education, Educational Computing, and Media Administration; Ed.D. in Instructional Technology, emphasizing instructional design and development, computer education, media administration, and preparation for careers in business, industry, and higher education. In addition, Illinois state certification in
< previous page
page_388
next page >
< previous page
page_389
next page >
Page 389 school library media is offered in conjunction with either degree or alone. Features: Considerable flexibility in course selection, including advanced seminars, numerous practicum and internship opportunities, individual study, and research. Program is highly individualized. More than 60 courses offered by several departments or faculties, including communications, radio/television/film, art, journalism, educational psychology, computer science, and research and evaluation. Facilities include well-equipped computer labs. Students are encouraged to create individualized Web pages. Master’s program started in 1968, doctorate in 1970. Admission Requirements: M.S.: 2.75 undergraduate GPA, GRE verbal and quantitative scores, two references. Ed.D.: 3.5 M.S. GPA, GRE verbal and quantitative scores (waiver possible), writing sample, three references. Degree Requirements: M.S.: 39 hours, including 30 in instructional technology; no thesis. Ed.D.: 63 hours beyond master’s, including 15 hours for dissertation. Faculty: 8 full-time, 12 part-time. Students: M.S., 135 part-time; Ed.D., 115 part-time. Financial Assistance: assistantships available at times in various departments, scholarships, minority assistance. Last Updated: 1999. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. Department of Curriculum and Instruction. Carbondale, IL629014610. (618)536-2441. Fax (618)453-4244. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.siu.edu/~currinst/index.html. Sharon Shrock, Coord., Instructional Technology/Development. Specializations: M.S. in Education with specializations in Instructional Development and Instructional Technology; Ph.D. in Education including specialization in Instructional Technology. Features: All specializations are oriented to multiple education settings. The ID program emphasizes nonschool (primarily corporate) learning environments. Admission Requirements: M.S.: Bachelor’s degree, 2.7 undergraduate GPA, transcripts. Ph.D.: Master’s degree, 3.25 GPA, MAT or GRE scores, letters of recommendation, transcripts, writing sample. Degree Requirements: M.S., 32 credit hours with thesis; 36 credit hours without thesis; Ph.D. , 40 credit hours beyond the master’s degree in courses, 24 credit hours for the dissertation. Faculty: 5 full-time, 2 part-time. Students: M.S., 35 full-time, 45 parttime; Ph.D., 8 full-time, 19 part-time. Financial Assistance: some graduate assistantships and scholarships available to qualified students. Last Updated: 1999. Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville. Instructional Technology Program. School of Education, Edwardsville, IL62026-1125. (618)692-3277. Fax (618)692-3359. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.siue.edu. Dr. Charles E. Nelson, Dir., Dept. of Educational Leadership. Specializations: M.S. in Education with concentrations in 1) Instructional Design and 2) Teaching, Learning, and Technology. Features: evening classes only. Degree Requirements: 36 semester hours; thesis optional. Faculty: 6 part-time. Students: 125. Last Updated: 1999. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Department of Educational Psychology. 210 Education Bldg., 1310 S. 6th St., Champaign, IL61820. (217)333-2245. Fax (217)244-7620. E-mail
[email protected]. Charles K. West, Prof., Div. of Learning and Instruction, Dept. of Educational Psychology. Specializations: M.A., M.S., and Ed.M. with emphasis in Instructional Design and Educational Computing. Ph.D. in Educational Psychology with emphasis in Instructional Design and Educational Computing. Features: Ph.D. program is individually tailored and strongly research-oriented with emphasis on applications of cognitive science to instruction. Admission Requirements: excellent academic record, high GRE scores, and strong letters of recommendation. Degree Requirements: 8 units for Ed.M., 6 units and thesis for M.A. or M.S. Ph.D.: 8 units coursework, approx. 4 units of research methods courses, minimum 8 hours of written qualifying exams, 8 units Thesis credits. Faculty: 8 full-time, 5 part-time. Students: 31 full-time, 7 part-time. Financial Assistance: scholarships, research assistantships, and teaching assistantships available; fellowships for highly academically talented; some tuition waivers. Last Updated: 1999.
< previous page
page_389
next page >
< previous page
page_390
next page >
Page 390 Western Illinois University. Instructional Technology and Telecommunications. 37 Harrabin Hall, Macomb, IL61455. (309)298-1952. Fax (309)298-2978. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.wiu.edu/users/miitt/. M. H. Hassan, Chair. Specialization: Master’s degree. Features: Program approved by Illinois Board of Higher Education in January 1996 with emphases in Instructional Technology, Telecommunications, Interactive Technologies, and Distance Education. Selected courses delivered via satellite television and compressed video. Admission Requirements: Bachelor’s degree 3.0/4.0 GRE score. Degree Requirements: 32 semester hours, thesis or applied project, or 35 semester hours with portfolio. Certificate Program in Instructional Technology Specialization. Graphic applications, training development, video production. Each track option is made of 5 courses or a total of 15 semester hours. Faculty: 8 full-time. Students: 35 full-time, 150 parttime. Financial Assistance: graduate and research assistantships, internships, residence hall assistants, veterans’ benefits, loans, and part-time employment. Last Updated: 1999. INDIANA Indiana State University. Department of Curriculum, Instruction, and Media Technology. Terre Haute, IN 47809. (812)237-2937. Fax (812)237-4348. E-mail
[email protected]. Dr. James E. Thompson, Program Coord. Specializations: Master’s degree in Instructional Technology with education focus or with non-education focus; Specialist Degree program in Instructional Technology; Ph.D. in Curriculum, Instruction with specialization in Media Technology. Degree Requirements: Master’s: 32 semester hours, including 18 in media; thesis optional; Ed.S.: 60 semester hours beyond bachelor’s degree; Ph.D., approximately 100 hours beyond bachelor’s degree. Faculty: 5 fulltime. Students: 17 full-time, 13 part-time. Financial Assistance: 7 assistantships. Last Updated: 1999. Indiana University. School of Education. W. W. Wright Education Bldg., Rm. 2276, 201 N. Rose Ave., Bloomington, IN 47405-1006. (812)856-8451. Fax (812)856-8239. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://education.indiana.edu/~ist/. Elizabeth Boling, Chair, Dept. of Instructional Systems Technology. Specializations: M.S. and Ed.S. degrees designed for individuals seeking to be practitioners in the field of Instructional Technology. M.S. degree also offered in Web-based format with orientation and portfolio requirements. Offers Ph.D. degree with four program focus areas: Foundations; Instructional Analysis, Design, and Development; Instructional Development and Production; and Implementation and Management. Features: Requires computer skills as a prerequisite and makes technology utilization an integral part of the curriculum; eliminates separation of various media formats; and establishes a series of courses of increasing complexity integrating production and development. The latest in technical capabilities have been incorporated, including teaching, photographic, computer, and laptopready laboratories, a multimedia laboratory, and video and audio production studios. Admission Requirements: M.S.: Bachelor’s degree from an accredited institution, 1350 GRE (3 tests required), 2.65 undergraduate GPA. Ed.S. and Ph.D.: 1550 GRE (3 tests required), 3.5 graduate GPA. Degree Requirements: M.S.: 36 credit hours (including 15 credits in required courses); colloquia; an instructional product; and 9 credits in outside electives, and portfolio. Ed.S.: 65 hours in addition to previous master’s degree, capstone project with written report and a portfolio. Ph.D.: 90 hours, portfolio, and thesis. Faculty: 11 full-time, 3 part-time. Students: 231 (includes full-time, part-time and ABDs). Financial Assistance: assistantships, fellowships. Degrees awarded 2001: 28 M.S.; 14 Ph.D. Last Updated: 5/17/02. Purdue University. School of Education, Department of Curriculum and Instruction. 1442 LAEB, W. Lafayette, IN 47907-1442. (765)494-5669. Fax (765)496-1622. E-mail
< previous page
page_390
next page >
< previous page
page_391
next page >
Page 391
[email protected]. Web site http://www.edci.purdue.edu/et/. Dr. James D. Lehman, Prof. of Educational Technology. Specializations: Master’s degree, Educational Specialist, and Ph.D. in Educational Technology. Master’s program started in 1982, Specialist and Ph.D. in 1985. Features: Vision Statement: The Educational Technology Program at Purdue University nurtures graduates who are effective designers of learning experiences and environments that incorporate technology to engage learners and improve learning. Admission Requirements: Master’s, Ed.S., and Ph.D.: 3.0 GPA, three letters of recommendation, statement of personal goals. A score of 550 (paper-based) or 213 (computer-based) or above on the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) for individuals whose first language is not English. Ph.D. Additional Requirement: 1000 GRE (V Q); Verbal score of at least 500 preferred. Degree Requirements: Master’s: 33 semester hours (15 in educational technology, 9 in education, 12 unspecified); thesis optional. Specialist: 60–65 semester hours (15–18 in educational technology, 30– 35 in education); thesis, internship, practicum (currently revising degree requirements to be competency-based). Ph.D.: 60 semester hours beyond the Master’s degree (15–18 in educational technology, 27–30 in education and supporting areas; 15 dissertation research hours). Faculty: 5 full-time; 2 part-time. Students: M.S., 48; Ed.S., 1; Ph.D., 40. Financial Assistance: assistantships and fellowships. Degrees awarded 2001:17. Last Updated: 6/12/01. IOWA Clarke College. Graduate Studies. 1550 Clarke Drive, Dubuque, IA 52001. (319)588-6331. Fax (319)588-6789. Email
[email protected]. Web site http://www.clarke.edu. Margaret Lynn Lester. Specializations: M.A. in Technology and Education. Features: This program offers hybrid courses in educational technology. Courses are offered through WebCT and face-to-face. Admission Requirements: 2.5 GPA, GRE (verbal quantitative) or MAT, $25 application fee, two letters of recommendation. Degree Requirements: 25 semester hours in computer courses, 12 hours in education. Faculty: 1 full-time, 1–2 part-time. Students: 10 part-time. Financial Assistance: scholarships, student loans. Degrees awarded 2001:3. Last Updated: 4/27/02. Iowa State University. College of Education. Ames, IA 50011. (515)294-6840. Fax (515)294-9284. E-mail
[email protected]. Gary Downs, Professor and Department Head. Specializations: M.S., M.Ed., and Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instructional Technology with specializations in Instructional Computing, Ph.D. in Education with emphasis in Instructional Computing, Technology Research. Features: practicum experiences related to professional objectives, supervised study and research projects tied to long-term studies within the program, development and implementation of new techniques, teaching strategies, and operational procedures in instructional resources centers and computer labs, program emphasis on technologies for teachers. Admission Requirements: M.S. and M.Ed.: three letters, top half of undergraduate class, autobiography. Ph.D.: three letters, top half of undergraduate class, autobiography, GRE scores. Degree Requirements: Master’s: 30 semester hours, thesis, no internship or practicum. Ph.D.: 78 semester hours, thesis, no internship or practicum. Faculty: 4 full-time, 6 part-time. Students: Master’s, 40 full-time, 40 part-time; Ph.D., 30 full-time, 20 part-time. Financial Assistance: 10 assistantships. Last Updated: 1999. University of Iowa. Division of Psychological and Quantitative Foundations. College of Education, Iowa City, IA 52242. (319)335-5519. Fax (319)335-5386. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.uiowa.edu/~coe2/facstaff/salessi.htm. Stephen Alessi, 361 Lindquist Center. Specializations: M.A. and Ph.D. with specializations in Training and Human Resources Development, Computer Applications, and Media Design and Production (M.A. only). Features: flexibility in planning to fit individual needs, back-
< previous page
page_391
next page >
< previous page
page_392
next page >
Page 392 grounds, and career goals. The program is interdisciplinary, involving courses within divisions of the College of Education, as well as in the schools of Business, Library Science, Radio and Television, Linguistics, and Psychology. Admission Requirements: M.A.: 2.8 undergraduate GPA, 500 GRE (V Q), personal letter of interest. Ph.D.: Master’s degree, 1000 GRE (V Q), 3.2 GPA on all previous graduate work for regular admission. Conditional admission may be granted. Teaching or relevant experience may be helpful. Degree Requirements: M.A.: 35 semester hours, 3.0 GPA, final project or thesis, comprehensive exam. Ph.D.: 90 semester hours, comprehensive exams, dissertation. Faculty: 4 full-time, 3 part-time. Financial Assistance: assistantships, grants, student loans, and scholarships. Last Updated: 1999. University of Northern Iowa. Educational Technology Program. 618 Schinder Education Center, Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0606. (319)273-3250. Fax (319)273-5886. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site ci.coe.uni.edu/edtech/index.html. Sharon E. Smaldino. Specializations: M.A. in Curriculum & Instruction: Educational Technology, M.A. in Performance and Training Technology. Features: The master’s degrees are designed to meet the AECT/ECIT standards and are focused on addressing specific career choices. The Educational Technology master’s is designed to prepare educators for a variety of professional positions in educational settings, including: school building level, school district level, vocational-technical school, community college, and university. The Performance and Training Technology master’s is designed for persons planning to work in non-school settings. Majors in this area will complete a basic core of course work applicable to all preparing for work as media specialists, trainers in industry and business, or communications designers. Specific areas of interest will determine the supporting electives. Licensure as a teacher is not required for admission to either master’s degree. The bachelor’s degree may be in any field. Admission Requirements: Bachelor’s degree, 3.0 undergraduate GPA, 500 TOEFL. Degree Requirements: 38 semester credits, optional thesis worth 6 credits or alternative research paper of project, comprehensive exam. Faculty: 4 full-time, 6 part-time. Students: 120. Financial Assistance: assistantships, grants, student loans, scholarships, student employment. Degrees awarded 2001: 33. Last Updated: 4/8/02. KANSAS Emporia State University. School of Library and Information Management. 1200 Commercial, P.O. Box 4025, Emporia, KS 66801. 800/552-4770. Fax 620/341-5233. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://slim.emporia.edu. Daniel Roland, Director of Communications. Specializations: Master’s of Library Science (ALA accredited program); School Library Certification program, which includes 30 hours of the M.L.S. program; Ph.D. in Library and Information Management; B.S. in Information Resource Studies; Information Management Certificate— 18 hours of M.L.S. curriculum; Library Services Certificates—5 separate 12-hour programs of undergraduate work available for credit or non-credit. Features: The M.L.S. program is also available in Colorado, Oregon, and Utah. Audio/Video delivery via ISDN to Idaho begins Fall 2001. Admission Requirements: Undergrad GPA of 3.0 or better GRE score of 1,000 points combined in Verbal and Analytical sections. GRE can be waived for students already holding a graduate degree in which they earned a 3.75 GPA or better. Admission interview. Degree Requirements: M.L.S.: 42 semester hours, comprehensive exam. Ph.D.: total of 83–97 semester hours depending on the number of hours received for an M.L.S. Faculty: 10 full-time, 35 part-time. Students: M.L.S.: 64 full-time, 305 part-time; Ph.D.: 23 part-time. Financial Assistance: assistantships, grants, student loans, scholarships. Degrees awarded 2001: 120 M.L.S., 2 Ph.D. Last Updated: 5/18/01.
< previous page
page_392
next page >
< previous page
page_393
next page >
Page 393 Emporia State University. Instructional Design and Technology. 1200 Commercial St. (620)341-5627. Fax (620)341-5785. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://idt.emporia.edu. Dr. Armand Seguin, Chair. Specializations: distance education; Web-based education; corporate education. Features: All required courses available via the Internet. All forms and application materials available at the Web site, http://idt.emporia.edu. Admission Requirements: 2.75 undergrad. GPA; resume; two recommendations; writing competency. Degree Requirements: 36 semester hours: 19 cr. core, 6 cr. research, 11 cr. electives. Faculty: 5.5 FTE. Students: 6 fulltime; 50 part-time. Financial Assistance: 4 GTA positions per year. Degrees awarded 2001: 8. Last Updated: 4/10/02. Kansas State University. Educational Computing, Design, and Telecommunications. 363 Bluemont Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506. (913)532-7686. Fax 913)532-7304. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www2.educ.ksu.edu/Programs/ECDT/. Dr. Diane McGrath. Specializations: M.S. in Curriculum & Instruction with a specialization in Educational Computing, Design, and Online Learning; Ph.D. and Ed.D. in Curriculum & Instruction with a specialization in Educational Computing, Design, and Online Learning. Master’s program started in 1982; doctoral in 1987. Features: Coursework focuses on research, theory, practice, ethics, and design of learning environments. Students work in a project-based learning environment much of the time, but also read, discuss, and write and present papers. The program does not focus on how to do particular applications but rather on how and why one might use technology to improve the learning environment. Some courses focus on the K–12 learning environment (generally M.S. coursework) and others on lifelong learning. Admission Requirements: M.S.: B average in undergraduate work, one programming language, 590 TOEFL. Ed.D. and Ph.D.: B average in undergraduate and graduate work, one programming language, GRE or MAT, three letters of recommendation, experience or course in educational computing. Degree Requirements: M.S.: 33 semester hours (minimum of 15 in Educational Computing); thesis, internship, or practicum not required, but all three are possible. Capstone project or research is required. Ed.D.: 94 semester hours (minimum of 18 hours in Educational Computing or related area approved by committee, 16 hours dissertation research, 12 hours internship); thesis. Ph.D.: 90 semester hours (minimum of 21 hours in Educational Computing, Design, and Online Learning or related area approved by committee, 30 hours for dissertation research); thesis; internship or practicum not required but available. Faculty: 2 full-time, 1 part-time. Students: M.S., 0 full-time, 4 part-time; doctoral, 10 full-time, 18 part-time. Financial Assistance: 3 assistantships directly associated with the program; other assistantships sometimes available in other departments. Degrees awarded 2001: 5 MS students and 8 Ph.D.s. Last Updated: 4/22/02. KENTUCKY University of Louisville. College of Education and Human Development. Belknap Campus, Louisville, KY 40292. (502)852-6667. Fax (502)852-4563. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.louisville.edu/edu. Carolyn Rude-Parkins, Chair of Leadership, Foundations, Human Resource Education. Specializations: Master’s in Instructional Technology (appropriate for K–12 teacher and for trainers/adult educators), Post Master’s/Rank 1 in Instructional Technology (K–12 teachers). Technology Leadership Institute Cohort for Jefferson County Schools offered onsite. Features: Appropriate for business or school audiences. Program is based on ISTE and ASTD standards, as well as Kentucky Experienced Teacher Standards. Admission Requirements: 2.75 GPA, 800 GRE, two letters of recommendation, application fee. Degree Requirements: 30 semester hours, internship. Faculty: 2 full-time, 6 parttime. Students: 75 part-time students. Financial Assistance: graduate assistantships. Degrees awarded 2001: 20 M.Ed. Last Updated: 5/2/02.
< previous page
page_393
next page >
< previous page
page_394
next page >
Page 394 LOUISIANA Louisiana State University. School of Library and Information Science. 267 Coates Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803. (225)578-3158. Fax (225)578-4581. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://slis.lsu.edu. Beth Paskoff, Dean, Assoc. Prof., School of Library and Information Science. Specializations: M.L.I.S., C.L.I.S. (post-master’s certificate), Louisiana School Library Certification. An advanced certificate program is available. Admission Requirements: Bachelor’s degree, with 3.00 average. Degree Requirements: M.L.I.S.: 40 hours, comprehensive exam, one semester full-time residence, completion of degree program in five years. Faculty: 10 full-time. Students: 84 full-time, 86 parttime. Financial Assistance: A large number of graduate assistantships are available to qualified students. Degrees awarded 2001: 90. Last Updated: 4/22/02. MARYLAND The Johns Hopkins University. Graduate Division of Education, Technology for Educators Program. Columbia Gateway Park, 6740 Alexander Bell Drive, Columbia, MD 21046. (410)309-9537. Fax (410)290-0467. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.jhu.edu. Dr. Jacqueline A. Nunn, Department Chair; Dr. Linda Tsantis, Program Coordinator. Specializations: The Department of Technology for Education offers programs leading to the M.S. degree in Education, the M.S. in Special Education, and three specialized advanced Graduate Certificates: Technology for Multimedia and Internet-Based Instruction; Teaching with Technology for School to Career Transition; and Assistive Technology for Communication and Social Interaction. Features: Focuses on training educators to become decision makers and leaders in the use of technology, with competencies in the design, development, and application of emerging technologies for teaching and learning. Incorporates basic elements that take into account the needs of adult learners, the constantly changing nature of technology, and the need for schools and universities to work together for schoolwide change. The Center for Technology in Education is a partnership project linking research and teaching of the University with the leadership and policy direction of the Maryland State Department of Education. The Center is directed by Dr. Nunn (2500 E. Northern Parkway, Baltimore, MD 21214-1113, (410)254-8466,
[email protected]). Admission Requirements: Bachelor’s degree with strong background in teaching, curriculum and instruction, special education, or a related service field. Faculty: 2 full-time, 30 part-time. Students: 201 part-time. Financial Assistance: grants, student loans, scholarships. Last Updated: 1999. Towson University. College of Education. Hawkins Hall, Towson, MD 21252. (410)704-6268. Fax (410)704-2733. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.towson.edu/coe/departments/istcprgram/istc.html. Dr. David R. Wizer, Associate Professor. Dept.: Reading, Special Education, & Instructional Technology. Specializations: M.S. degrees in Instructional Development, Educational Technology and School Library Media. Ed. D. degrees in Instructional Technology. Features: Excellent labs. Strong practical hands-on classes. Students produce useful multimedia projects for use in their teaching and training. Many group activities within courses. Admission Requirements: Bachelor’s degree from accredited institution with 3.0 GPA. (Conditional admission granted for many applicants with a GPA over 2.75). Degree Requirements: M.S. degree is 36 graduate semester hours without thesis. Ed.D. is 63 hours beyond the M.S. degree. Faculty: Faculty: 10 full-time, 5 adjunct. Students: 12 full-time, 140 parttime (approximately). Financial Assistance: graduate assistantships, work study, scholarships, loans. Degrees awarded 2001: approximately 25 in master’s degree program. Last Updated: 5/7/02. University of Maryland. College of Library and Information Services. 4105 Hornbake Library Bldg., South Wing, College Park, MD 20742-4345. (301)405-2038. Fax (301)314-
< previous page
page_394
next page >
< previous page
page_395
next page >
Page 395 9145. E-mail
[email protected]. Ann Prentice, Dean and Program Chair. Specializations: Master’s of Library Science, including specialization in School Library Media; doctorate in Library and Information Services including specialization in Educational Technology/Instructional Communication. Features: Program is broadly conceived and interdisciplinary in nature, using the resources of the entire campus. The student and the advisor design a program of study and research to fit the student’s background, interests, and professional objectives. Students prepare for careers in teaching and research in information science and librarianship and elect concentrations including Educational Technology and Instructional Communication. Admission Requirements: Doctoral: Bachelor’s degree (the majority of doctoral students enter with master’s degrees in Library Science, Educational Technology, or other relevant disciplines), GRE general tests, three letters of recommendation, statement of purpose. Interviews required when feasible for doctoral applicants. Degree Requirements: M.L.S.: 36 semester hours; thesis optional. Faculty: 15 full-time, 8 part-time. Students: Master’s, 106 full-time, 149 part-time; doctoral, 5 fulltime, 11 part-time. Financial Assistance: assistantships, grants, student loans, scholarships, fellowships. Last Updated: 1999. University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC). Department of Education. 1000 Hilltop Circle, Baltimore, MD 21250. (410)455-2310. Fax (410)455-3986. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.research.umbc.edu/~eholly/ceduc/isd/. Dr. Susan M. Blunck, Dir., Graduate Programs in Education. Specializations: M.A. degrees in School Instructional Systems, Post-Baccalaureate Teacher Certification, Training in Business and Industry, Experienced Teacher–Advanced Degree, ESOL/Bilingual. Features: Programs are configured with evening courses to accommodate students who are changing careers. Maryland teacher certification is earned two thirds of the way through the postbaccalaureate program. Admission Requirements: 3.0 undergraduate GPA, GRE scores. Degree Requirements: 36 semester hours (including 18 in systems development for each program); internship. Faculty: 18 full-time, 25 part-time. Students: 59 full-time, 254 part-time. Financial Assistance: assistantships, scholarships. Degrees awarded 2001: 75. Last Updated: 4/8/02. Western Maryland College. Department of Education. Main St., Westminster, MD 21157. (410)857-2507. Fax (410)857-2515. E-mail
[email protected]. Dr. Ramona N. Kerby, Coord., School Library Media Program, Dept. of Education. Specializations: M.S. in School Library Media. Degree Requirements: 33 credit hours (including 19 in media and 6 in education), comprehensive exam. Faculty: 1 full-time, 7 part-time. Students: 140, most part-time. Last Updated: 1999. MASSACHUSETTS Boston University. School of Education. 605 Commonwealth Ave., Boston, MA 02215-1605. (617)353-3181. Fax (617)353-3924. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://web.bu.edu/EDUCATION. David B. Whittier, Asst. Professor and Coord., Program in Educational Media and Technology. Specializations: Ed.M., C.A.G.S. (Certificate of Advanced Graduate Study) in Educational Media and Technology; Ed.D. in Curriculum and Teaching, Specializing in Educational Media and Technology; preparation for Massachusetts public school certificates as Instructional Technology Specialist. Features: The Master’s Program prepares graduates for professional careers as educators, instructional designers, developers of educational materials, and managers of the human and technology-based resources necessary to support education and training with technology. Graduates are employed in K–12 schools, higher education, industry, medicine, government, and publishing. Students come to the program from many different backgrounds and with a wide range of professional goals. The doctoral program sets the study of Educational Media
< previous page
page_395
next page >
< previous page
page_396
next page >
Page 396 and Technology within the context of education and educational research in general, and curriculum and teaching in particular. In addition to advanced work in the field of Educational Media and Technology, students examine and conduct research and study the history of educational thought and practice relating to teaching and learning. Graduates make careers in education as professors and researchers, technology directors and managers, and as developers of technology-based materials and systems. Graduates also make careers in medicine, government, business, and industry as instructional designers, program developers, project managers, and training directors. Graduates who work in both educational and non-educational organizations are often responsible for managing the human and technological resources required to create learning experiences that include the development and delivery of technology-based materials and distance education. Admission Requirements: Ed.M.: recommendations, minimum 2.7 undergraduate GPA, graduate test scores are required, and either the GRE or MAT must be completed within past five years. C.A.G.S.: Ed.M., recommendations, 2.7 undergraduate GPA, graduate test scores are required and either the GRE or MAT must be completed within past five years. Ed.D.: three letters of recommendation, MAT or GRE scores, transcripts, writing samples, statement of goals and qualifications, analytical essay, minimum 2.7 GPA. Degree Requirements: Ed.M.: 36 credit hours (including 24 hours from required core curriculum, 12 from electives). C.A.G.S.: 32 credits beyond Ed.M., one of which must be a curriculum and teaching course and a minicomprehensive exam. Ed.D.: 60 credit hours of courses in Educational Media and Technology, curriculum and teaching, and educational thought and practice with comprehensive exams; course work and apprenticeship in research; dissertation. Faculty: 1 full-time, 1 half-time, 10 part-time. Students: 25 full-time, 25 part-time. Financial Assistance: U.S. government sponsored work study, assistantships, grants, student loans, scholarships. Degrees awarded 2001: Ed.M. 18; C.A.G.S. 1. Last Updated: 5/17/01. Bridgewater State College. Library Media Program. Hart Hall, Rm. 219, Bridgewater, MA 02325. (508)697-1320. Fax (508)697-1771. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.bridgew.edu. Mary Frances Zilonis, Coord., Library Media Program. Specialization: M.Ed. in Library Media Studies. Features: This program heavily emphasizes teaching and technology. Degree Requirements: 39 semester hours; comprehensive exam. Faculty: 2 full-time, 6 part-time. Students: 58 in degree program, 30 non-degree. Financial Assistance: Graduate assistantships, graduate internships. Last Updated: 1999. Fitchburg State College. Division of Graduate and Continuing Education. 160 Pearl St., Fitchburg, MA 01420. (978) 665-3544. Fax (978) 665-3055. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.fsc.edu. Dr. Randy Howe, Chair. Specializations: M.S. in Communications Media with specializations in Management, Technical and Professional Writing, Instructional Technology, and Library Media. Features: Collaborating with professionals working in the field both for organizations and as independent producers, Fitchburg offers a unique M.S. program. The objective of the Master of Science in Communications/Media Degree Programs is to develop in candidates the knowledge and skills for the effective implementation of communication within business, industry, government, not-for-profit agencies, health services, and education. Admission Requirements: MAT or GRE scores, official transcript(s) of a baccalaureate degree, two or more years of experience in communications or media, department interview and portfolio presentation, three letters of recommendation. Degree Requirements: 36 semester credit hours. Faculty: 1 full-time, 7 part-time. Students: 48 part-time. Financial Assistance: assistantships, student loans, scholarships. Degrees awarded 2001: 7 MS in Communications/Media. Last Updated: 4/11/02. Harvard University. Appian Way, Cambridge, MA 02138. (617)495-3541. Fax (617) 495-3626. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://GSEWeb.harvard.edu/TIEHome.html.
< previous page
page_396
next page >
< previous page
page_397
next page >
Page 397 David Perkins, Interim Dir. of Technology in Education Program. Specializations: M.Ed. in Technology in Education; an advanced certificate program is available. Admission Requirements: Bachelor’s degree, MAT or GRE scores, 600 TOEFL, three recommendations. Students interested in print information about the TIE Program should e-mail a request to the address above. Degree Requirements: 32 semester credits. Faculty: 1 full-time, 9 part-time. Students: approximately 50:39 full-time, 11 part-time. Financial Assistance: within the school’s policy. Last Updated: 1999. Lesley University. 29 Everett St., Cambridge, MA 02138-2790. (617)349-8419. Fax (617)349-8169. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.lesley.edu/soe/tech-in-ed/techined.html. Dr. Isa Kaftal Zimmerman, Division Director. Specializations: M.Ed. in English and Social Studies C.A.G.S. Ed.D. in Curriculum and Instruction. Features: M.Ed. program is offered off-campus at 65 sites in 17 states; contact National Education Center (NEC), (800)843-4808, for information. The degree is also offered completely online. Contact Maureen Yoder,
[email protected], or (617)348-8421 for information. Or check the university’s Web site. Admission Requirements: Completed bachelor’s degree. Degree Requirements: M.Ed.: 33 semester hours in technology, integrative final project in lieu of thesis, no internship or practicum. C.A.G.S.: 36 semester hours. Ph.D. requirements available on request. Faculty: 11 full-time, approximately 150 part-time on the master’s and doctorate levels. Students: 1,500 part-time. Financial Assistance: Information available from Admissions Office. Degrees awarded 2001: Approximately 375. Last Updated: 4/8/02. Simmons College. Graduate School of Library and Information Science. 300 The Fenway, Boston, MA 02115-5898. (617)521-2800. Fax (617)521-3192. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.simmons.edu/gslis/. Dr. James C. Baughman, Prof. Specializations: M.S. Dual degrees: M.L.S./M.A. in Education (for School Library Media Specialists); M.L.S./M.A. in History (Archives Management Program). A Doctor of Arts in Administration is also offered. Features: The program prepares individuals for a variety of careers, media technology emphasis being only one. There are special programs for School Library Media Specialist and Archives Management with strengths in Information Science/Systems, Media Management. Admission Requirements: B.A. or B.S. degree with 3.0 GPA, statement, three letters of reference. Degree Requirements: 36 semester hours. Faculty: 14 full-time. Students: 75 full-time, 415 part-time. Financial Assistance: assistantships, grants, student loans, scholarships. Last Updated: 1999. University of Massachusetts-Boston. Graduate College of Education. 100 Morrissey Blvd., Boston, MA 02125. (617)287-5980. Fax (617)287-7664. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.umb.edu. Donald D. Babcock, Graduate Program Dir. Specializations: M.Ed. in Instructional Design. Admission Requirements: MAT or previous master’s degree, goal statement, three letters of recommendation, resume, interview. Degree Requirements: 36 semester hours, thesis or project. Faculty: 1 full-time, 9 part-time. Students: 8 full-time, 102 parttime. Financial Assistance: graduate assistantships providing tuition plus stipend. Last Updated: 1999. University of Massachusetts Lowell. Graduate School of Education. 255 Princeton St., North Chelmsford, MA 01863. (508)934-4601. Fax (508)934-3005. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://gse.uml.edu/. Donald E. Pierson, Dean and Professor of Education. Specializations: M.Ed., C.A.G.S., and Ed.D. concentrations in Educational Technology may be pursued in the context of any degree program area (Leadership, Administration and Policy; Curriculum and Instruction; Math and Science Education; Reading, Language Arts and Literacy. The M.Ed. program in Curriculum and Instruction has a specialization strand in educational technology. The Certificate of Advanced Graduate
< previous page
page_397
next page >
< previous page
page_398
next page >
Page 398 Study (C.A.G.S.), equivalent to 30 credits beyond a M.Ed., is also offered. Features: As part of the UMass Lowell ‘‘CyberEd” online learning initiative, a new Web-based M.Ed./ state certification program in educational administration was launched in 2001 and is now in full swing. The School also manages an extensive video network that links the University with other campuses in the state higher education system, and with area public schools. Technology is heavily infused into the teacher preparation and school support programs, where new initiatives have been supported by grants from several federal and non-federal sources. Admission Requirements: For admission at the master’s level, a bachelor’s degree from an accredited institution in an academic discipline is required, along with a completed application form, recent GRE scores, a narrative statement of purpose, and three written recommendations. Additional admission requirements and conditions are described in the UMass Lowell Graduate Catalog. Degree Requirements: M.Ed. 30 credits beyond bachelor’s; Ed.D. 60 credits beyond master’s plus dissertation based on original research and demonstration of comprehensive mastery in relevant fields of inquiry. Faculty: Various full-time and part-time faculty members teach educational technology courses in the School. Students: FTE approximately 500. Financial Assistance: Assistantships; work-study; student loans; occasional scholarships. Degrees awarded 2001: Approximately 75. Last Updated: 4/7/02. MICHIGAN Eastern Michigan University. Teacher Education. 313 John W. Porter Building, Ypsilanti, MI 48197. (734)4873260. Fax (734)487-2101. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.emich.edu. Toni Stokes Jones, Ph.D., Assistant Professor/Graduate Coordinator. Specializations: M.A. in Educational Psychology with concentration in Educational Technology. The mission of this program is to prepare professionals who are capable of facilitating student learning in a variety of settings. The program is designed to provide students with both the knowledge base and the application skills that are required to use technology effectively in education. Focusing on the design, development, utilization, management, and evaluation of instructional systems moves us toward achieving this mission. Students who complete the educational technology concentration will be able to: a) provide a rationale for using technology in the educational process; b) identify contributions of major leaders in the field of educational media technology and instructional theory, and the impact that each leader has had on the field; c) assess current trends in the area of educational media technology and relate the trends to past events and future implications; d) integrate technology into instructional programs; e) teach the operation and various uses of educational technology in instruction; f) act as consultants/facilitators in educational media technology; g) design and develop instructional products to meet specified needs; and h) evaluate the effectiveness of instructional materials and systems. Features: Courses include technology and the reflective teacher, technology and student-centered learning, technology enhanced learning environments, issues and emerging technologies, instructional design, internet for educators, advanced technologies, psychology of the adult learning, principles of classroom learning, curriculum foundations, research seminar and seminar in educational technology. Admission Requirements: Individuals seeking admission to this program must: Comply with the Graduate School admission requirements. Have a combined score of 500 on the quantitative and verbal sections of the Graduate Records Examination; the GRE must have been taken within the past five years. Score 550 or better on the TOEFLand 5 or better on TWE, if a non-native speaker of English. Have a 2.75 undergraduate grade point average, or a 3.30 grade point average in 12 hours or more of work in a master’s program. Solicit three letters of reference. Submit a statement of professional goals. Degree Requirements: In order to graduate, each student is expected to: Complete all work on an approved program of study. (32 semester hours). Maintain a “B” (3.0 GPA) average or better on course work taken within the program. Get a recom-
< previous page
page_398
next page >
< previous page
page_399
next page >
Page 399 mendation from the faculty adviser. Fill out an application for graduation and obtain the advisers recommendation. Meet all other requirements for a master’s degree adopted by the Graduate School of Eastern Michigan University. Complete a culminating experience (thesis, internship or project) as determined by the student and faculty adviser. Faculty: 5 full-time; 3 part-time. Students: 35. Financial Assistance: graduate assistantship. Degrees awarded 2001: 5. Last Updated: 04/08/02 Michigan State University. College of Education. 431 Erickson, East Lansing, MI 48824. (517)355-6684. Fax (517)353-6393. E-mail
[email protected]. Dr. Stephen Yelon. Specializations: M.A. in Educational Technology and Instructional Design. Admission Requirements: Bachelor’s degree, 800 TOEFL, recommendations, goal statement. Degree Requirements: 30 semester hours, certification exam, field experience. Faculty: 5 full-time. Students: approximately 45. Financial Assistance: some assistantships for highly qualified students. Last Updated: 1999. University of Michigan. Department of Educational Studies. 610 East University, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1259. (734) 763-7500. Fax (734) 615-1290. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.soe.umich.edu/. Barry J. Fishman. Specializations: M.A., M.S., Ph.D. in Learning Technologies. Features: The Learning Technologies Program at the University of Michigan integrates the study of technology with a focus in a substantive content area. A unique aspect of the program is that your learning and research will engage you in real-world educational contexts. You will find that understanding issues related to a specific content area provides an essential context for meaningful research in learning. Your understanding of technology, school contexts, and a content area will place you among the leaders who design and conduct research on advanced technological systems that change education and schooling. The doctoral specialization in Learning Technologies must be taken in conjunction with a substantive concentration designed in consultation with your advisor. Current active concentrations include: Science, Literacy, Culture and Gender, Teacher Education, Design and Human-Computer Interaction, Policy, and Social Studies. Other areas are possible. The Master’s Degree in Learning Technologies at the University of Michigan prepares professionals for leadership roles in the design, development, implementation, and research of powerful technologies to enhance learning. Our approach to design links current knowledge and research about how people learn with technological tools that enable new means of organizing and evaluating learning environments. Course and project work reflects the latest knowledge and practice in learning, teaching, and technology. Core courses prepare students to use current understandings about learning theory, design principles, research methodologies, and evaluation strategies in educational settings ranging from classrooms to Web-based and distributed learning environments. Faculty work with students to shape programs that meet individual interests. Practical experience is offered through internships with area educational institutions. Admission Requirements: GRE, B.A. for M.A., M.S., or Ph.D. Degree Requirements: M.A. and M.S.: 30 hours beyond B.A. Ph.D.: 60 hours beyond B.A. or 30 hours beyond master’s plus research paper/qualifying examination, and dissertation. Faculty: 3 full-time, 6 part-time. Students: 35 full-time, 1 part-time. Financial Assistance: assistantships, grants, student loans, scholarships, internships. Degrees awarded 2001: 14. Last Updated: 5/7/02. Wayne State University. 381 Education, Detroit, MI 48202. (313)577-1728. Fax (313)577-1693. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.coe.wayne.edu/InstructionalTechnology. Rita C. Richey, Prof., Program Coord., Instructional Technology Programs, Div. of Administrative and Organizational Studies, College of Education. Specializations: M.Ed. degrees in Performance Improvement and Training, K–12 Educational Technology, and Interactive Technologies. Ed.D. and Ph.D. programs to prepare individuals for leadership in business, industry, health care, and the K–12 school setting as instruc-
< previous page
page_399
next page >
< previous page
page_400
next page >
Page 400 tional design and development specialists; media or learning resources managers or consultants; specialists in instructional video; and computer-assisted instruction and multimedia specialists. The school also offers a six-year specialist degree program in Instructional Technology. Features: Guided experiences in instructional design and development activities in business and industry are available. Admission Requirements: Ph.D.: Master’s degree, 3.5 GPA, GRE, MAT, strong professional recommendations, interview. Degree Requirements: M.Ed.: 36 semester hours, including required project; internship recommended. Faculty: 6 full-time, 5 part-time. Students: M.Ed., 525; doctoral, 95, most part-time. Financial Assistance: student loans, scholarships, and paid internships. Last Updated: 1999. MINNESOTA Minnesota State University. MSU 313 Armstrong Hall, Mankto, MN 56001. (507)389-1965. Fax (507)389-5751. Email
[email protected]. Web site http://lme.mankato.msus.edu. Frank R. Birmingham Ph.D., Library Media Education. Specializations: M.S. in Educational Technology with three tracks: M.S. in Library Media Specialist; SP in Library Media Education. Features: Educational Technology certificates. Licensure program in Library Media. Admission Requirements: Bachelor’s degree, 2.75/ 4.0 for last two years of undergraduate work. Degree Requirements: 32 semester hour credits, comprehensive exam. Faculty: 4 full-time. Students: About 75. Financial Assistance: Contact Financial Aid Office. Last Updated: 5/7/02. St. Cloud State University. College of Education. St. Cloud, MN 56301-4498. (612)255-2022. Fax (612)255-4778. E-mail
[email protected]. John G. Berling, Prof., Dir., Center for Information Media. Specializations: Master’s degrees in Information Technologies, Educational Media, and Human Resources Development/Training. A Specialist degree is also offered. Admission Requirements: acceptance to Graduate School, written preliminary examination, interview. Degree Requirements: Master’s: 51 qtr. hours with thesis; 54 qtr. hours, Plan B; 57 qtr. hours, portfolio; 200-hour practicum is required for media generalist licensure. Course work applies to Educational Media Master’s program. Faculty: 7 full-time. Students: 15 full-time, 150 part-time. Financial Assistance: assistantships, scholarships. Last Updated: 1999. Walden University. 155 5th Ave. South, Minneapolis, MN 55401. (800)444-6795. E-mail
[email protected] or
[email protected]. Web site http://www.waldenu.edu; http://www.waldenu.edu/ecti/ecti.html. Dr. Gwen Hillesheim, Chair. Specializations: M.S. in Educational Change and Technology Innovation. Ph.D. in Education in Learning and Teaching with specialization in Educational Technology. In 1998 a specialization in Distance Learning will be added. In addition, there is a generalist Ph.D. in Education in which students may choose and design their own areas of specialization. Features: delivered primarily online. Admission Requirements: accredited bachelor’s. Ph.D.: accredited master’s, goal statement, letters of recommendation. Degree Requirements: Master’s: 45 credit curriculum, 2 brief residencies, master’s project. Faculty: 18 part-time. Students: 50 fulltime, 53 part-time in master’s program. Financial Assistance: student loans, 3 fellowships with annual review. Last Updated: 1999. MISSOURI Fontbonne College. 6800 Wydown Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63105. (314)889-1497. Fax (314)889-1451. E-mail
[email protected]. Dr. Mary K. Abkemeier, Chair. Specializations: M.S. in Computer Education. Features: small classes and course work immediately applicable to the classroom. Admission Requirements: 2.5 undergraduate GPA,
< previous page
page_400
next page >
< previous page
page_401
next page >
Page 401 three letters of recommendation. Degree Requirements: 33 semester hours, 3.0 GPA. Faculty: 2 full-time, 12 parttime. Students: 4 full-time, 90 part-time. Financial Assistance: grants. Last Updated: 1999. Northwest Missouri State University. Department of Computer Science/Information Systems. 800 University Ave., Maryville, MO 64468. (660)562-1600. Fax 660-562-1963. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.nwmissouri.edu/~csis. Dr. Phillip Heeler, Chairperson. Specializations: M.S. in School Computer Studies; M.S.Ed. in Instructional Technology. Features: These degrees are designed for computer educators at the elementary, middle school, high school, and junior college level. Admission Requirements: 3.0 undergraduate GPA, 700 GRE (V Q). Degree Requirements: 32 semester hours of graduate courses in computer science education and instructional technology courses. Faculty: 12 full-time, 4 part-time. Students: 5 full-time, 20 part-time. Financial Assistance: assistantships, grants, student loans, and scholarships. Degrees awarded 2001: 10. Last Updated: 5/7/02. Southwest Missouri State University. School of Teacher Education. 901 S. National, Springfield, MO 65804. (417) 836-5280. Fax (417) 836-6252. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.smsu.edu/. Dr. Roger Tipling. Specializations: M.S. in Education. Emphasis areas: Technology Coordinator strand; Building Level Technology Specialist strand; School Library Media Specialist strand; Business/Industrial/ Medical strand. Features: Production; Administration; Instructional Design; Selection and Utilization; Networking; Web-Based Education; Hardware and Software Troubleshooting; Library Certification Courses; Building Level Technology Specialist Certificate; Research; Practicum. Admission Requirements: Graduate College Admission Standards, three letters of reference, autobiography. Degree Requirements: Minimum of 33 hrs. in Instructional Design and Technology, Major research paper or project, Comprehensive Exam, Practicum (dependent upon emphasis). Faculty: 2 full-time faculty, 5 part-time faculty. Students: 5 full-time students, more than 50 part-time students. Financial Assistance: Graduate Assistantships. Degrees awarded 2001: 6. Last Updated: 8/2/01. University of Missouri-Columbia. College of Education. 303 Townsend Hall, Columbia, MO 65211. (573)8824546. Fax (573)884-2917. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site www.coe.missouri.edu/~sislt. John Wedman. Specializations: The Educational Technology emphasis area prepares educators and technologists for excellence and leadership in the design, development, and implementation of technology in education, training, and performance support. The program offers three tracks: Technology In Schools; Networked Learning Systems; Training and Development. Each track has its own set of competencies, coursework, and processes. Features: The Technology in Schools track is completely available online. Students from around the world participate in this track. Recent graduates include individuals located across the country (e.g., New York, Texas, California) and around the world (e.g., Japan, Taiwan). The Networked Learning Systems track offers a truly challenging and innovative set of technical learning experiences. Students have opportunities to work on large-scale software development projects, acquiring valuable experience and broadening their skill-set. The Training and Development track links to the business, military, and government contexts. This rapidly expanding track offers coursework on the MU campus, at selected remote sites, and increasingly online. The curriculum is offered by faculty with extensive experience in business and industry. Ed.S. and Ph.D. programs are also available. Admission Requirements: Bachelor’s degree with 3.0 in last 60 credit hours of course work. 1500 combined on GRE. TOEFLof 540 (207 computer-based test) (if native language is not English). Letters of reference. Degree Requirements: Master’s: 32–34 credit hours; 15 hours at 400 level. Specific course requirements vary by track. Faculty: 8 full-time; 20 part-time. Students: 30 full-time; 210 parttime. Financial
< previous page
page_401
next page >
< previous page
page_402
next page >
Page 402 Assistance: Numerous graduate assistantships are available. Assistantships include stipend and tuition waiver. Degrees awarded 2001: 60. Last Updated: 4/9/02. Webster University. International Technology. St. Louis, MO 64119. (314)968-7490. Fax (314)968-7118. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.websteruniv.edu. Paul Steinmann, Assoc. Dean and Dir., Graduate Studies and Instructional Technology. Specializations: Master’s degree (M.A.T.); State Certification in Media Technology is a program option. Admission Requirements: Bachelor’s degree with 2.5 GPA. Degree Requirements: 33 semester hours (including 24 in media); internship required. Faculty: 5. Students: 7 full-time, 28 part-time. Financial Assistance: partial scholarships, minority scholarships, government loans, and limited state aid. Last Updated: 1999. MONTANA University of Montana. School of Education. 32 Campus Dr., Missoula, MT 59812. (406)243-5785. Fax (406)2434908. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.umt.edu. Dr. Carolyn Lott, Assoc. Prof. of Library/Media. Specializations: M.Ed. and Specialist degrees; K–12 School Library Media specialization with School Library Media Certification endorsement. Features: 19 hours of 25 hour program online. Literature classes not online in this program. Admission Requirements: (both degrees) GRE, letters of recommendation, 2.5 GPA. Degree Requirements: M.Ed.: 37 semester credit hours (18 overlap with library media endorsement). Specialist: 28 semester hours (18 overlap). Faculty: 2 full-time. Students: 5 full-time, 20 part-time. Financial Assistance: assistantships; contact the University of Montana Financial Aid Office. Degrees awarded 2001: 1. Last Updated: 4/13/02. NEBRASKA University of Nebraska at Kearney. 905 West 25th St., Kearney, NE 68849-1260. (308)865-8833. Fax (308)8658097. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.unk.edu/departments/pte. Dr. Scott Fredrickson, Professor and Chair of the Instructional Technology Graduate Program. Specializations: M.S. in Instructional Technology, M.S. in Educational Media. Features: Three emphasis areas—Instructional Technology; Multimedia Development; Educational Media. Admission Requirements: M.S. GRE (or electronic portfolio meeting dept. requirements), acceptance into graduate school, approval of Instructional Technology Committee. Degree Requirements: M.S.: 36 credit hours, Instructional technology project or field study. Faculty: 5 full-time, 10 part-time. Students: 85 full-time. Financial Assistance: assistantships, grants, student loans. Degrees awarded 2001: 15. Last Updated: 4/24/02. University of Nebraska-Omaha. Department of Teacher Education. College of Education, Kayser Hall 208D, Omaha, NE 68182. (402)554-2119. Fax (402)554-2125. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site www.unomaha.edu/~edmedia. Dr. R. J. Pasco. Specializations: Library Media Endorsement M.S. in Education, M.A. in Education, both with Educational Media concentration; M.L.S. Program (Cooperative program with University of Missouri at Columbia). Features: Library Media Endorsement M.S. in Education, M.A. in Education, both with Educational Media concentration M.L.S. Program (Cooperative program with University of Missouri at Columbia). Admission Requirements: Undergraduate degree; after completion of four graduate level courses, all students go through a Selective Retention procedure which consists of a written evaluation by teaching faculty. Degree Requirements: Library media endorsement 33 hours; M.S. or M.A. 36 semester hours (including 24 in media), practicum; thesis optional. Faculty: 1 full-time, 3 part-time. Students: 10 full-time, 62 part-time. Financial Assistance: Contact Financial Aid Office. Degrees awarded 2001: 9. Last Updated: 4/9/02.
< previous page
page_402
next page >
< previous page
page_403
next page >
Page 403 NEVADA University of Nevada. Counseling and Education Psychology Dept. College of Education, Feno, NV 89557. (702)784-6327. Fax (702)784-1990. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.unr.edu/unr/colleges/educ/cep/cepindex.html. Dr. LaMont Johnson, Program Coord., Information Technology in Education. Marlowe Smaby, Dept. Chair. Specializations: M.S. and Ph.D. Admission Requirements: Bachelor’s degree, 2.75 undergraduate GPA, 750 GRE (V Q). Degree Requirements: 36 semester credits, optional thesis worth 6 credits, comprehensive exam. Faculty: 2 full-time, 1 part-time. Students: M.S., 15; Ph.D., 10. Last Updated: 1999. NEW JERSEY Montclair State University. Department of Reading and Educational Media. Upper Montclair, NJ 07043. (973)6557040. Fax (973)655-5310. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.monclair.edu. Robert R. Ruezinsky, Dir. of Academic Technology. Specializations: No degree program exists. Two certification programs, A.M.S. and E.M.S., exist on the graduate level. Degree Requirements: Certification Requirements: 18–21 semester hours of media and technology are required for the A.M.S. program and 30–33 hours for the E.M.S. program. Faculty: 7 part-time. Last Updated: 1999. Rutgers—The State University of New Jersey. Ph.D. Program in Communication, Information, and Library Studies. The Graduate School, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1071. (732)932-7447. Fax (732)932-6916. E-mail
[email protected]. Dr. Lea P. Stewart, Director. Master’s Program, Dept. of Library and Information Studies, School of Communication, Information and Library Studies. (732)932-9717. Fax (732)932-2644. Dr. Carol Kuhlthan, Chair. Specializations: M.L.S. degree with specializations in Information Retrieval, Technical and Automated Services, Reference, School Media Services, Youth Services, Management and Policy Issues, and Generalist Studies. Ph.D. programs in Communication; Media Studies; Information Systems, Structures, and Users; Information and Communication Policy and Technology; and Library and Information Services. The school also offers a six-year specialist certificate program. Features: Ph.D. program provides doctoral-level course work for students seeking theoretical and research skills for scholarly and professional leadership in the information and communication fields. A course on multimedia structure, organization, access, and production is offered. Admission Requirements: Ph.D.: Master’s degree in Information Studies, Communication, Library Science, or related field; 3.0 undergraduate GPA; GRE scores; TOEFL(for applicants whose native language is not English). Degree Requirements: M.L.S.: 36 semester hours, in which the hours for media vary for individual students; practicum of 150 hours. Faculty: M.L.S., 15 fulltime, 12 adjunct; Ph.D., 43. Students: M.L.S., 97 full-time, 199 part-time; Ph.D., 104. Financial Assistance: M.L.S.: scholarships, fellowships, and graduate assistantships. Ph.D.: assistantships. Last Updated: 1999. William Paterson University. College of Education. 300 Pompton Rd., Wayne, NJ 07470. (973)720-2140. Fax (973)720-2585. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://pwcweb.wilpaterson.edu/wpcpages/library/default.htp. Dr. Amy G. Job, Librarian, Assoc. Prof., Coord., Program in Library/Media, Curriculum and Instruction Dept. Specializations: M.Ed. for Educational Media Specialist, Associate Media Specialist, Ed.S. Features: Provides training for New Jersey–certified Educational Media Specialists and Associated Media Specialists. Admission Requirements: teaching certificate, 2.75 GPA, MAT or GRE scores, 1 year teaching experience. Ed.S.: certificate, 2.75 GPA. Degree Requirements: M.Ed.: 33 semester hours, including research projects and practicum. Ed.S.: 18 sem. hours. Faculty: 6 full-time, 2 part-time. Students: 30 part-time. Financial Assistance: limited. Degrees awarded 2001: 6. Last Updated: 4/30/02.
< previous page
page_403
next page >
< previous page
page_404
next page >
Page 404 NEW YORK Buffalo State College. 1300 Elmwood Ave., Buffalo, NY 14222-1095. (716)878-4923. Fax (716)878-6677. E-mail
[email protected]. Dr. Anthony J. Nowakowski, Program Coord. Specializations: M.S. in Education in Educational Computing. Admission Requirements: Bachelor’s degree from accredited institution, 3.0 GPA in last 60 hours, three letters of recommendation. Degree Requirements: 33 semester hours (15 hours in computers, 12–15 hours in education, 3–6 electives); thesis or project (see: www.buffalostate.edu/edc). Faculty: 5 part-time. Students: 3 full-time, 98 part-time. Last Updated: 1999. Fordham University. Rose Hill Campus, 441 E. Fordham Rd., Bronx, NY 10458. (718)817-4860. Fax (718)8174868. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.fordham.edu. Robin Andersen, Department Chair, James Capo, Director of Graduate Studies. Specializations: M.A. in Public Communications. Features: Internship or thesis option; full-time students can complete program in 12 months. Admission Requirements: 3.0 undergraduate GPA. Degree Requirements: 10 courses plus internship or thesis. Faculty: 8 full-time, 2 part-time. Students: 8 fulltime, 22 part-time. Financial Assistance: assistantships, student loans, scholarships. Last Updated: 1999. Ithaca College. School of Communications. Park Hall, Ithaca, NY 14850. (607)274-1025. Fax (607)274-7076. Email
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ithaca.edu/ocld. Sandra L. Herndon, Professor, Chair, Graduate Program in Communications; Roy H. Park, School of Communications. Specializations: M.S. in Communications. Students in this program find employment in such areas as instructional design, multimedia, public relations and marketing, and employee communication. The program can be tailored to individual career goals. Features: Program is interdisciplinary, incorporating organizational communication, instructional design, management, and technology. Admission Requirements: 3.0 GPA, recommendations, statement of purpose, resume, application forms and transcripts, TOEFL550, or 213 computer-scored (where applicable). Degree Requirements: 36 semester hours including capstone seminar. Faculty: 8 full-time. Students: approximately 25 full-time, 10 part-time. Financial Assistance: graduate assistantships. Degrees awarded 2001: 15. Last Updated: 4/10/02. New York Institute of Technology. Dept. of Instructional Technology. Tower House, Old Westbury, NY 11568. (516)686-7777. Fax (516)686-7655. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.nyit.edu. Davenport Plumer, Chair, Depts. of Instructional Technology and Elementary Education—preservice and in-service. Specializations: M.S. in Instructional Technology; M.S. in Elementary Education; Specialist Certificates in Computers in Education, Distance Learning, and Multimedia (not degrees, but are earned after the first 18 credits of the master’s degree). Features: computer integration in virtually all courses; online courses; evening, weekend, and summer courses. Admission Requirements: Bachelor’s degree from accredited college with 3.0 cumulative average. Degree Requirements: 36 credits with 3.0 GPA for M.S., 18 credits with 3.0 GPA for certificates. Faculty: 11 full-time, 42 part-time. Students: 112 full-time, 720 part-time. Financial Assistance: graduate assistantships, institutional and alumni scholarships, student loans. Last Updated: 1999. New York University. Educational Communication and Technology Program, School of Education. 239 Greene St., Suite 300, New York, NY 10003. (212)998-5520. Fax (212)995-4041. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.nyu.edu/education/alt/ectprogram. Francine Shuchat-Shaw, Assoc. Prof. (M.A. Advisor), Dir.; Michael Reed, Assoc. Prof., (Doctoral Advisor). Specializations: M.A., Ed.D., and Ph.D. in Education—for the preparation of individuals as instructional media designers, developers, media pro-
< previous page
page_404
next page >
< previous page
page_405
next page >
Page 405 ducers, and researchers in education, business and industry, health and medicine, community services, government, museums and other cultural institutions; and to teach or become involved in administration in educational communications and instructional technology programs in higher education, including instructional television, microcomputers, multi-media, Internet and telecommunications. The program also offers a post-M.A. 30-point Certificate of Advanced Study in Education. Features: Emphasizes theoretical foundations, especially a cognitive science perspective of learning and instruction, and their implications for designing media-based learning environments and materials. All efforts focus on video, multimedia, instructional television, Web-based technology and telecommunications; participation in special research and production projects and field internships. Admission Requirements: M.A.: 3.0 undergraduate GPA, responses to essay questions, interview related to academic and professional goals. Ph.D.: 3.0 GPA, 1000 GRE, responses to essay questions, interview related to academic or professional preparation and career goals. For international students, 600 TOEFLand TWE. Degree Requirements: M.A.: 36 semester hours including specialization, elective courses, thesis, English Essay Examination. Ph.D.: 57 semester hours including specialization, foundations, research, content seminar, and elective course work; candidacy papers; dissertation; English Essay Examination. Faculty: 2 full-time, 10 part-time. Students: M.A.: 40 full-time, 35 part-time. Ph.D.: 14 full-time, 20 part-time. Financial Assistance: graduate and research assistantships, student loans, scholarships, and work assistance programs. Degrees awarded 2001: M.A., Ph.D., and Ed.D. Last Updated: 5/31/01. Pace University. Westchester Dept., School of Education. Bedford Road, Pleasantville, NY 10570. (914)773-3571, (914)773-3979. Fax (914)773-3521. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.pace.edu. Dr. Sandra Flank, CoChair, or Linda Hamell, advisor. Specializations: M.Ed. in Educational Technology (leads to New York State Certification as an Educational Technology Specialist); Advanced Certificate in Educational Technology leads to New York State Certification as an Educational Technology Specialist); Pace certificate in Computing for Teachers. Features: Results in New York State Educational Technology Specialist Certification (2/2004). Program is individualized to meet the needs of two distinct populations: those with an education background or those with a technology background. Some courses are delivered through a distance learning platform. Admission Requirements: GPA 3.0, transcript review, interview. Degree Requirements: 36–39 semester hours. Faculty: 8 full-time, 50 parttime. Students: 60–70 part-time. Financial Assistance: assistantships, internships, scholarships. Degrees awarded 2001: Program is new and was implemented as of 9/01. Last Updated: 4/10/02. St. Johns University. Division of Library and Information Science. 8000 Utopia Parkway, Jamaica, NY 11439. (718)990-6200. Fax (718)990-2071. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.stjohns.edu/gsas/dlis/. Elizabeth B. Pollicino, Associate Director. Specializations: M.L.S. with specialization in School Media. The school also offers a 24-credit Advanced Certificate program in which students may also take School Media and Technology courses. Features: small class size, personal advisement, student lounge and computer lab, high-tech classrooms. Admission Requirements: 3.0 GPA, two letters of reference, statement of professional goals. GRE (General) required for assistantships. Degree Requirements: 36 semester hours, comprehensive exam, practicum. Faculty: 6 fulltime, 10 part-time. Students: 14 full-time, 74 part-time. Financial Assistance: 4 assistantships in DLIS; others available in University Library. Degrees awarded 2001: 23. Last Updated: 5/17/02. State University College of Arts and Science at Potsdam. School of Education. 116 Satterlee Hall, Potsdam, NY 13676. (315)267-2535. Fax (315)267-4895. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.potsdam.edu/educ/it/index.html. Dr. Charles
< previous page
page_405
next page >
< previous page
page_406
next page >
Page 406 Mlynarczyk, Chair, Information and Communications Technology. Specializations: M.S. in Education in Instructional Technology with concentrations in General K–12, Educational Communications Specialist, and Training and Development. Features: A progressive, forward looking program. Admission Requirements: Submission of an official transcript of an earned baccalaureate degree from an accredited institution. A minimum GPA of 2.75 (4.0 scale) in the most recent 60 credit hours of coursework. Submission of the Application for Graduate Study (with $50 nonrefundable fee). For students seeking the Education Communications Specialist Certification, a valid NYS Teaching Certificate is required. Degree Requirements: 33 semester hours, including internship or practicum; culminating project required. Faculty: 3 full-time, 2 part-time. Students: 26 full-time, 85 part-time. Financial Assistance: student loans, student assistantships. Degrees awarded 2001: 32. Last Updated: 5/17/01. State University of New York at Albany. School of Education. 1400 Washington Ave., Albany, NY 12222. (518)442-5032. Fax (518)442-5008. E-mail
[email protected]. Karen Swan (ED114A), contact person. Specializations: M.Ed. and Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction with specializations in Instructional Theory, Design, and Technology. M.Ed. offered entirely online over the World Wide Web. Admission Requirements: Bachelor’s degree, GPA close to 3.0; transcript, three letters of recommendation. Students desiring New York State permanent teaching certification should possess preliminary certification. Degree Requirements: M.Ed.: 30 semester hours with 15–18 credits in specialization. Ph.D.: 78 semester hours, internship, portfolio certification, thesis. Faculty: 13 fulltime, 7 part-time. Students: 100 full-time, 350 part-time. Financial Assistance: fellowships, assistantships, grant, student loans, minority fellowships. Last Updated: 1999. State University of New York at Stony Brook. Technology & Society. College of Engineering & Applied Sciences, SUNY at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 11794-3760. (631)632-8765, (631)632-8770. Fax (631)632-7809. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://naples.cc.sunysb.edu/CEAS/techsoc.nsf. Carole Rose. Specializations: Master’s degree in Technological Systems Management with concentration in Educational Computing. Features: emphasis on courseware design, multimedia and modeling, applications, and problem solving. Admission Requirements: Bachelor’s degree in engineering, natural sciences, social sciences, mathematics, or closely related area; 3.0 undergraduate GPA, have taken the GRE, experience with computer applications or use of computers in teaching. Degree Requirements: 30 semester credits, including 2 general technology core courses, 5 required educational computing courses, and 3 eligible electives. Faculty: 5 fulltime, 8 part-time. Students: 15 full-time, 30 part-time. Financial Assistance: assistantships, grants, student loans. Degrees awarded 2001: 14. Last Updated: 5/8/02. Syracuse University. Instructional Design, Development, and Evaluation Program, School of Education. 330 Huntington Hall, Syracuse, NY 13244-1240. (315)443-3703. Fax (315)443-1218. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.idde.syr.edu. J. Michael Spector, Professor & Chair. Specializations: Certificates in Educational Technology and Adult Lifelong Learning and M.S., C.A.S., Ed.D., and Ph.D. degree programs for Instructional Design, Educational Evaluation, Human Issues in Instructional Development, Technology Integration, and Educational Research and Theory (learning theory, application of theory, and educational media research). Graduates are prepared to serve as curriculum developers, instructional designers, program and product evaluators, researchers, resource center administrators, technology coordinators, trainers and training managers, and higher education instructors. Features: The courses are typically project-centered. Collaborative project experience, field work, and internships are emphasized throughout. There are spe-
< previous page
page_406
next page >
< previous page
page_407
next page >
Page 407 cial issues seminars, as well as student- and faculty-initiated minicourses, seminars and guest lecturers, facultystudent formulation of department policies, and multiple international perspectives. International collaborations are an ongoing feature of the program in IDD&E. The graduate student population is highly diverse. Admission Requirements: M.S.: undergraduate transcripts, recommendations, personal statement, interview recommended; TOEFLfor international applicants; GRE recommended. Doctoral: Relevant master’s degree from accredited institution or equivalent, GRE scores, recommendations, personal statement, TOEFLfor international applicants; interview strongly encouraged. Degree Requirements: M.S.: 36 semester hours, comprehensive exam and portfolio required. Ph.D.: 90 semester hours, research apprenticeship, portfolio, qualifying exams and dissertation required. Faculty: 5 full-time, 4 part-time. Students: Master’s: 21 full-time, 25 part-time; doctoral: 19 full-time, 24 part-time. Financial Assistance: fellowships, scholarships, and graduate assistantships entailing either research or administrative duties in instructional technology. Degrees awarded 2001: 12 master’s; 2 doctoral. Last Updated: 4/10/02. NORTH CAROLINA Appalachian State University. Department of Leadership and Educational Studies. Boone, NC 28608. (704)2622243. Fax (704)262-2128. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ced.appstate.edu/ltl.html. John H. Tashner, Prof., Coord. Specializations: M.A. in Educational Media and Technology with three areas of concentration: Computers, Telecommunications, and Media Production. Features: IMPACT NC (business, university, and public school) partnership offers unusual opportunities. Degree Requirements: 36 semester hours (including 15 in Computer Education), internship; thesis optional. Faculty: 2 full-time, 1 part-time. Students: 10 full-time, 60 part-time. Financial Assistance: assistantships, grants, student loans. Last Updated: 1999. East Carolina University. Department of Librarianship, Educational Technology and Distance Instruction. 102 Joyner East, Greenville, NC 2785804353. (252)328-6621. Fax (252)328-4368. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site ltdi.soe.ecu.edu. Dr. Diane D. Kester, Assoc. Prof., Chair. Specializations: Master of Library Science; Certificate of Advanced Study (Library Science); Master of Arts in Education (North Carolina Instructional Technology—Specialist licensure); Master of Science in Instructional Technology; Certificate of Tele-learning; Certificate of Virtual Reality in Education and Training. Features: M.L.S. graduates are eligible for North Carolina School Media Coord. certification; C.A.S. graduates are eligible for North Carolina School Media Supervisor certification; M.A.Ed. graduates are eligible for North Carolina Instructional Technology-Computers certification. Admission Requirements: M.S. and M.L.S.: Bachelor’s degree; M.A.Ed.: current teaching license; C.A.S.: M.L.S. or equivalent degree. Degree Requirements: M.L.S.: 39 semester hours; M.A.Ed.: 39 semester hours; M.S.: 39 semester hours; C.A.S.: 30 semester hours. Faculty: 10 full-time. Students: 7 full-time, 150 part-time. Financial Assistance: graduate assistantships. Degrees awarded 2001: M.L.S.: 20; M.A.E.D.: 19. Last Updated: 4/14/02. North Carolina Central University. School of Education. 1801 Fayetteville St., Durham, NC 27707. (919)5606692. Fax (919)560-5279. E-mail
[email protected]. Dr. James N. Colt, Assoc. Prof., Coordinator., Graduate Program in Educational Technology. Specializations: M.A. with special emphasis on Instructional Development/Design. Features: Graduates are prepared to implement and utilize a variety of technologies applicable to many professional ventures, including institutions of higher education (college resource centers), business, industry, and professional schools such as medicine, law, dentistry, and nursing. Admission Requirements: undergraduate degree, GRE. Degree Requirements: 33 semester hours (including thesis). Faculty: 2 full-time, 2 part-time. Students: 19 full-time, 18 parttime. Financial Assistance: assistantships, grants, student loans. Last Updated: 1999.
< previous page
page_407
next page >
< previous page
page_408
next page >
Page 408 North Carolina State University. Department of Curriculum and Instruction. P.O. Box 7801, Raleigh, NC 276957801. (919)515-1779. Fax (919)515-6978. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ncsu.edu/ced/ci/. Dr. Ellen Vasu, Professor. Specializations: M.Ed. and M.S. in Instructional Technology-Computers (program track within one master’s in Curriculum and Instruction). Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction with focus on Instructional Technology as well as other areas. Admission Requirements: Master’s: undergraduate degree from an accredited institution, 3.0 GPA in major or in latest graduate degree program; transcripts; GRE or MAT scores; three references; goal statement. Ph.D.: undergraduate degree from accredited institution, 3.0 GPA in major or latest graduate program; transcripts; recent GRE scores, writing sample, interview, three references, vita, goal statement (see http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/grad/prospect.htm). Degree Requirements: Master’s: 36 semester hours, practicum, thesis optional; Ph.D.: 72 hours beyond bachelor’s (minimum 33 in Curriculum and Instruction core, 27 in Research); other information available upon request. Faculty: 3 full-time. Students: Master’s, 38 part-time; Ph.D., 8 part-time 1 fulltime. Financial Assistance: some assistantships available on a limited basis. Degrees awarded 2001: 13 master’s degrees. Last Updated: 5/6/02. University of North Carolina. School of Information and Library Science. CB#3360, Chapel Hill, NC 37599-3360. (919)962-8062, 962-8366. Fax (919)962-8071. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ils.unc.edu/. Evelyn H. Daniel, Prof., Coord., School Media Program. Specializations: Master of Science Degree in Library Science (M.S.L.S.) with specialization in school library media work. Features: Rigorous academic program plus teaching practicum requirement; excellent placement record. Admission Requirements: Competitive admission based on all three GRE components (quantitative, qualitative, analytical), undergraduate GPA (plus graduate work if any), letters of recommendation, and student statement of career interest and school choice. Degree Requirements: 48 semester hours, practicum, comprehensive exam, master’s paper. Faculty: 18 full-time, 10 part-time. Students: 200 full-time, 50 part-time (about 20 students specialize in SLMC). Financial Assistance: Grants, assistantships, student loans. Degrees awarded 2001: 120 degrees awarded—15 for school library media certification. Last Updated: 4/9/02. NORTH DAKOTA Minot State University. Graduate School. 500 University Ave. W., Minot, ND 58707. (701)858-3250. Fax (701)8396933. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site www.minotstateu.edu. Dr. Jack L. Rasmussen, Dean of the Graduate School. Specializations: M.S. in Elementary Education (including work in educational computing); M.S. in Special Education with Specialization in Severe Multiple-Handicaps, Early Childhood Special Education, Education of the Deaf, and Learning Disabilities; M.S. in Communication Disorders, Specializations in Audiology and Speech Language Pathology. Features: All programs include involvement in computer applications appropriate to the area of study, including assistive technologies for persons with disabilities. Computer laboratories are available for student use in the library and various departments. Some courses are offered through the Interactive Video Network, which connects all universities in North Dakota. All programs have a rural focus and are designed to offer a multitude of practical experiences. Admission Requirements: $35 fee, three letters of recommendation, 300-word autobiography, transcripts, GRE in Communication Disorders or GMAT for M.S. in Management. Degree Requirements: 30 semester hours (hours in computers, education, and outside education vary according to program); written comprehensive exams; oral exams; thesis or project. Faculty: 10 full-time. Students: 61 full-time, 63 part-time. Financial Assistance: loans, assistantships, scholarships. Degrees awarded 2001: 60. Last Updated: 4/9/02.
< previous page
page_408
next page >
< previous page
page_409
next page >
Page 409 OHIO Kent State University. Instructional Technology. 405 White Hall, Kent, OH 44242. (330)672-2294. Fax (330)6722512. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://itec.educ.kent.edu. Dr. David Dalton, Coord., Instructional Technology Program. Specializations: M.Ed. or M.A. in Instructional Technology, Instructional Computing, and Library/Media Specialist; Ph.D. in Educational Psychology with emphasis in Instructional Technology. Features: Programs are planned individually to prepare students for careers in elementary, secondary, or higher education, business, industry, government agencies, or health facilities. Students may take advantage of independent research, individual study, practica, and internships. Admission Requirements: Master’s: Bachelor’s degree with 2.75 undergraduate GPA. Degree Requirements: Master’s: 37 semester hours. Faculty: 4 fulltime, 7 part-time. Students: 75. Financial Assistance: 6 graduate assistantships, John Mitchell and Marie McMahan Awards, 5 teaching fellowships. Degrees awarded 2001: 25. Last Updated: 4/12/02. Ohio University. School of Curriculum and Instruction. 248 McCracken Hall, Athens, OH 45701-2294. (740)5939826. Fax (740)593-0177. E-mail
[email protected]. Sandra Turner, Chair. Specializations: M.Ed. in Computer Education and Technology. Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction with emphasis in Technology also available; call for details. Admission Requirements: Bachelor’s degree, 2.5 undergraduate GPA, 35 MAT, 420 GRE (verbal), 400 GRE (quantitative), 550 TOEFL, three letters of recommendation. Degree Requirements: 54 qtr. credits, optional thesis worth 2–10 credits or alternative seminar and paper. Students may earn two graduate degrees simultaneously in education and in any other field. Faculty: 2 full-time, 1 part-time. Students: M.Ed.: 60. Financial Assistance: assistantships. Last Updated: 1999. University of Cincinnati. College of Education. 401 Teachers College, ML002, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0002. (513)556-3579. Fax (513)556-1001. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://uc.edu/. Janet L. Bohren, Division of Teacher Education. Specializations: M.Ed. or Ed.D. in Curriculum and Instruction with an emphasis on Instructional Design and Technology; Educational Technology degree programs for current professional, technical, critical, and personal knowledge. Features: Contact division for features. Admission Requirements: Bachelor’s degree from accredited institution, 2.8 undergraduate GPA; GRE 1500 or better. Degree Requirements: 54 qtr. hours, written exam, thesis or research project. (12–15 credit hours college core; 12–15 C&I; 18–27 credit hours specialization; 3-6 credit hours thesis or project). Faculty: 3 full-time. Students: In C&I there are 75 doctoral students and 10 master students. Financial Assistance: scholarships, assistantships, grants. Degrees awarded 2001: C&I Degrees 32 M.Ed. and 8 Ed.D. Last Updated: 5/17/01. University of Toledo. Area of Education. 2801 West Bancroft, Toledo, OH 43606. (419)530-6176. Fax (419)5307719. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://carver.carver.utoledo. Dr. Lester J. Elsie, Dir. Specializations: Master’s (M.Ed. and M.S.Ed.), Ed.S., doctorate (Ed.D., Ph.D.) degrees in Instructional Development, Library/Media Education, Instructional Computing, and Human Resources Development. Admission Requirements: Master’s: 3.0 undergraduate GPA, GRE, recommendations; Ed.S.: Master’s Degree, GRE, recommendations; doctorate: Master’s degree, GRE, TOEFL, recommendations, entrance writing sample, and interview. Degree Requirements: Master’s: 36 semester hours, master’s project; Ed.S.: 32 semester hours, internship; doctorate: 84 semester hours, dissertation. Faculty: 5 full-time, 1 part-time. Students: Master’s, 10 full-time, 72 part-time; Ed.S., 2 full-time, 21 part-time; doctoral, 9 full-time, 56 part-time. Financial Assistance: assistantships, student loans, scholarships, work assistance program. Last Updated: 1999.
< previous page
page_409
next page >
< previous page
page_410
next page >
Page 410 Wright State University. College of Education and Human Services, Dept. of Educational Leadership. 421 Allyn Hall, 3640 Colonel Glenn Highway, Dayton, Ohio 45435. (937)775-2509 or (937)775-2821. Fax (937)775-4485. Email
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ed.wright.edu. Dr. Bonnie K. Mathies, Associate Dean; Dr. Roger Carlsen, Program Coordinator. Specializations: M.Ed. in Computer/Technology, Library Media, or Administrative Specialist—Technology Leader; M.A. in Educational Media or Computer Education; Specialist degree in Curriculum and Instruction with a focus on Educational Technology; Specialist degree in Higher Education with a focus on Educational Technology. Features: Ohio licensure available in Multiage library media (ages 3–21); Computer/ technology endorsement; Administrative Specialist—Curriculum, Instruction, Professional Development—Technology. Above licensure only available on a graduate basis and with teaching credentials. Admission Requirements: completed application with nonrefundable application fee, bachelor’s degree from accredited institution, official transcripts, 2.7 overall GPA for regular status (conditional acceptance possible), statement of purpose, satisfactory scores on MAT or GRE. Degree Requirements: M.Ed. requires a comprehensive portfolio; M.A. requires a 6-hour thesis. Faculty: 2 full-time, 12 part-time, including other university full-time faculty and staff. Students: approximately 3 full-time, approximately 200 part-time. Financial Assistance: 2 graduate assistantships in the College’s Educational Resource Center; plus graduate fellowships for full-time students available; limited number of small graduate scholarships. Degrees awarded 2001: 15; we also work with numerous students who are seeking Ohio licensure. Last Updated: 5/7/02. OKLAHOMA The University of Oklahoma. Instructional Psychology and Technology, Department of Educational Psychology. 321 Collings Hall, Norman, OK 73019. (405)325-2882. Fax (405)325-6655. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.uoknor.edu/education/iptwww/. Dr. Patricia L. Smith, Chair. Specializations: Master’s degree with emphases in Educational Technology Generalist, Educational Technology, Computer Application, Instructional Design, Teaching with Technology; Dual Master’s Educational Technology and Library and Information Systems. Doctoral degree in Instructional Psychology and Technology. Features: Strong interweaving of principles of instructional psychology with design and development of Instructional Technology. Application of IP&T in K–12, vocational education, higher education, business and industry, and governmental agencies. Admission Requirements: Master’s: acceptance by IPT program and Graduate College based on minimum 3.00 GPA for last 60 hours of undergraduate work or last 12 hours of graduate work; written statement that indicates goals and interests compatible with program goals. Doctoral: 3.0 in last 60 hours undergraduate, 3.25 GPA, GRE scores, written statement of background and goals. Degree Requirements: Master’s: approximately 39 hours course work (specific number of hours dependent upon Emphasis) with 3.0 GPA; successful completion of thesis or comprehensive exam. Doctorate: see program description from institution or http://www.ou.education.iptwww. Faculty: 10 full-time. Students: Master’s, 10 full-time, 200 part-time; doctoral, 10 full-time, 50 part-time. Financial Assistance: assistantships, grants, student loans, scholarships. Last Updated: 1999. OREGON Western Oregon State College. 345 N. Monmouth Ave., Monmouth, OR 97361. (503)838-8471. Fax (503)8388228. E-mail
[email protected]. Dr. Randall Engle, Chair. Specializations: M.S. in Information Technology. Features: Offers advanced courses in library management, instructional development, multimedia, and computer technology. Additional course offerings in distance delivery of instruction and computer-interactive video instruction. Admission Requirements: 3.0 GPA, GRE or MAT. Degree
< previous page
page_410
next page >
< previous page
page_411
next page >
Page 411 Requirements: 45 qtr. hours; thesis optional. Faculty: 3 full-time, 6 part-time. Students: 6 full-time, 131 part-time. Financial Assistance: assistantships, grants, student loans, scholarship, work assistance. Last Updated: 1999. PENNSYLVANIA Bloomsburg University. Institute for Interactive Technologies. 1210 McCormick Bldg., Bloomsburg, PA 17815. (717)389-4506. Fax (717)389-4943. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://iit.bloomu.edu. Dr. Timothy L. Phillips, contact person. Specializations: M.S. in Instructional Technology with emphasis on preparing for careers as interactive media specialists. The program is closely associated with the Institute for Interactive Technologies. Features: instructional design, authoring languages and systems, media integration, managing multimedia projects. Admission Requirements: Bachelor’s degree. Degree Requirements: 33 semester credits (27 credits 6 credit thesis, or 30 credits three credit internship). Faculty: 4 full-time. Students: 53 full-time, 50 part-time. Financial Assistance: assistantships, grants, student loans. Last Updated: 1999. Clarion University of Pennsylvania. Becker Hall, Clarion, PA 16214. (814)226-2245. Fax (814)226-2186. E-mail
[email protected]. Carmen S. Felicetti, Chair, Dept. of Communications. Specializations: M.S. in Communication with specialization in Training and Development. The curriculum is process and application oriented with basic courses in television and computer applications, Internet, Web, and HTMLauthoring. Major projects are team and client oriented with an emphasis on multimedia presentations. Admission Requirements: Bachelor’s degree; 2.75 undergraduate GPA, MAT score. Degree Requirements: 36 semester credits (including 27 specific to Training and Development) with 3.0 GPA, optional thesis worth 6 credits. Faculty: 9 full-time. Financial Assistance: 10 1/4 time or 5 20-hour graduate assistantships. Last Updated: 1999. Drexel University. College of Information Science and Technology. 3142 Chestnut St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. (215) 895-2474. Fax (215) 895-2494. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.cis.drexel.edu. David E. Fenske, Prof. and Dean. Specializations: M.S. in Library and Information Science; M.S.I.S. in Information Systems; M.S.S.E. in Software Engineering. Features: On campus and online degree programs. Admission Requirements: GRE scores; applicants with a minimum 3.2 GPA in last half of undergraduate credits may be eligible for admission without GRE scores. Degree Requirements: 60 credits. Faculty: 25 full-time, 11 part-time/adjunct. Students: M.S., 16 full-time, 134 part-time; M.S.I.S., 40 full-time, 252 part-time. Financial Assistance: Some financial assistance is available. Degrees awarded 2001: 280 Graduate degrees. Last Updated: 5/22/02. Lehigh University. College of Education. 111 Research Dr., Bethlehem, PA 18015. (610)758-4794. Fax (610)7583243. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.lehigh.edu. Ward Cates, Coord., Educational Technology Program. Specializations: M.S. in Instructional Design and Development: Emphasizes how to create technology products for teaching and learning in diverse settings. M.S. in Educational Technology: Degree aimed at our international program, emphasizing implementation of technology in International Schools abroad. Ed.D. in Educational Technology: Emphasizes design, development, implementation, and evaluation of technology-based teaching and learning products in a variety of settings. Features: Heavy emphasis on instructional design and interface design. Coursework in Web and resource development. Practical, professional-level design and development work. All work cross-platform and cross-browser. Both master’s and doctoral students collaborate with faculty on projects and studies (including national presentation and publication). We are working on a new informal education technology focus to train people to help museums and public places create strong educational
< previous page
page_411
next page >
< previous page
page_412
next page >
Page 412 presences on the Web and make the most of the ability to share holdings with a broader audience of ‘‘visitors.” The Educational Technology program has a high level of collaboration with Technology-based Teacher Education. Admission Requirements: M.S. (competitive): 3.0 undergraduate GPA or 3.0 graduate GPA, GREs recommended, transcripts, at least two letters of recommendation, statement of personal and professional goals, application fee. Application deadlines: July 15 for fall admission, December 1 for spring admission, April 30 for summer admission. Ed.D. (highly competitive): 3.5 graduate GPA, GREs required. Copy of two extended pieces of writing (or publications); statement of future professional goals; statement of why Ed Tech at Lehigh best place to meet those goals; identification of which presentations, publications, or research by Lehigh faculty attracted applicant to Lehigh. Application deadline: April 1 (admission only once per year from competitive pool). Degree Requirements: M.S.: 30 semester hours; thesis option. Ed.D.: 48 hours past the master’s plus dissertation. Faculty: 4 full-time, 1 part-time. Students: M.S.: 8 full-time, 32 part-time; Ed.D.: 4 full-time, 12 part-time. Financial Assistance: university graduate and research assistantships, graduate student support as participants in R&D projects, employment opportunities in local businesses and schools doing design and development. Degrees awarded 2001: 15. Last Updated: 5/24/02. Pennsylvania State University. Instructional Systems. 314 Keller Bldg., University Park, PA 16802. (814)8650473. Fax (814)865-0128. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ed.psu.edu/insys/. A. Carr-Chellman, Prof. in Charge. Specializations: M.Ed., M.S., D.Ed., and Ph.D. in Instructional Systems. Current teaching emphases are on Corporate Training, Interactive Learning Technologies, and Educational Systems Design. Research interests include multimedia, visual learning, educational reform, emerging technologies, constructivist learning, open-ended learning environments, scaffolding, technology integration in classrooms, technology in higher education, change and diffusion of innovations. Features: A common thread throughout all programs is that candidates have basic competencies in the understanding of human learning; instructional design, development, and evaluation; and research procedures. Practical experience is available in mediated independent learning, research, instructional development, computer-based education, and dissemination projects. Exceptional opportunities for collaboration with faculty (more than 30 percent of publications and presentations are collaborative between faculty and students). Admission Requirements: D.Ed., Ph.D.: GRE (including written GRE), TOEFL, transcript, three letters of recommendation, writing sample, vita or resume, and letter of application detailing rationale for interest in the degree, match with interests of faculty. Degree Requirements: M.Ed.: 33 semester hours; M.S.: 36 hours, including either a thesis or project paper; doctoral: candidacy exam, courses, residency, comprehensives, dissertation. Faculty: 9 full-time, 1 joint appointment in Information Sciences, 4 affiliate and 1 adjunct. Students: Master’s, approximately 46; doctoral, 103. Financial Assistance: assistantships, graduate fellowships, student aid loans, internships; assistantships on grants, contracts, and projects. Degrees awarded 2001: Ph.D., D.Ed., M.S., M.Ed. Last Updated: 4/9/02. Rosemont College. Graduate Studies in Education. 1400 Montgomery Ave., Rosemont, PA 19010-1699. (610)5262982; (800)531-9431. Fax (610)526-2964. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://techined.rosemont.edu/CSTE/info.html. Dr. Richard Donagher, Dir. Specializations: M.Ed. in Technology in Education, Certificate in Professional Study in Technology in Education. Admission Requirements: GRE or MAT scores. Degree Requirements: Completion of 12 units (36 credits) and comprehensive exam. Faculty: 7 full-time, 10 parttime. Students: 110 full- and part-time. Financial Assistance: graduate student grants, assistantships, Federal Stafford Loan Program. Last Updated: 1999. Temple University. Instructional and Learning Technology (ILT). 1301 Cecil B. Moore Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19122. (215)204-4497. Fax (215)204-6013. E-mail
[email protected].
< previous page
page_412
next page >
< previous page
page_413
next page >
Page 413 Web site www.temple.edu/education/pse/ILT. Susan Miller, Ph.D. Specializations: Instructional and Learning Technology (ILT) is a new master’s program within the Educational Psychology Program in the Department of Psychological Studies in Education. As such, ILT is designed to address conceptual as well as technical issues in using technology for teaching and learning. Program areas include a) instructional theory and design issues, b) application of technology, and c) management issues. Features: Instructional Theory and Design topics includes psychology of the learner, cognitive processes, instructional theories, human development, and individual differences as well as psychological and educational characteristics of technology resources, and identification of strengths and weaknesses of instructional technology resources. The Application of Technology area focuses on clarification of instructional objectives, identification of resources to facilitate learning, operation and application of current and emergent technologies, facility using graphic design, multimedia, video, distributed learning resources, World Wide Web, and print publishing. Management and Consultation is structured around defining instructional needs, monitoring progress, and evaluating outcomes, designing technology delivery systems, preparing policy statements, budgets, and facility design criteria, managing skill assessment and training, understanding legal and ethical issues, and managing and maintaining facilities. Admission Requirements: Bachelor’s degree from an accredited institution, GRE (MAT) scores, three letters of recommendation, transcripts from each institution of higher learning attended (undergraduate and graduate), goal statement. Degree Requirements: Coursework (33 hours: 5 core courses, 3 technology electives, 3 cognate area courses); Practicum in student’s area of interest; Comprehensive Exam; Portfolio of Certification Competencies (for students interested in PA Dept. of Ed Certification as Instructional Technology Specialist). Faculty: 2 full-time, 1 part-time (plus educational psychology faculty). Students: 1 full-time, 1 part-time, others enrolled in ILT as cognate area. Financial Assistance: Presidential, Russell Conwell, and University Fellowships, Graduate School Tuition and Fellowship Funds, Graduate Teaching Assistantships and Assistantships in Administrative Offices, CASHE (College Aid Sources for Higher Education). Degrees awarded 2001: 0. Last Updated: 5/10/02. RHODE ISLAND The University of Rhode Island. Graduate School of Library and Information Studies. Rodman Hall, Kingston, RI 02881-0815. (401)874-2947. Fax (401)874-4964. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.uri.edu/artsci/lsc. W. Michael Novener, Assoc. Prof. and Dir. Specializations: M.L.I.S. degree with specialties in Archives, Law, Health Sciences, Rare Books, and Youth Services Librarianship. Degree Requirements: 42 semester-credit program offered in Rhode Island and regionally in Boston and Amherst, MA, and Durham, NH. Faculty: 7 full-time, 24 part-time. Students: 48 full-time, 196 part-time. Financial Assistance: graduate assistantships, some scholarship aid, student loans. Last Updated: 1999. SOUTH CAROLINA University of South Carolina-Aiken and University of South Carolina Columbia. Aiken: School of Education, Columbia: Educational Psychology Department. 471 University Parkway, Aiken, SC 29801. (803)641.3489. Fax (803)641.3720. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.usca.edu/education/medtech/. Dr. Thomas Smyth, Professor, Program Director. Specializations: Master of Education in Educational Technology (A Joint Program of The University of South Carolina Aiken and Columbia). Features: The Master’s Degree in Educational Technology is designed to provide advanced professional studies in graduate level coursework to develop capabilities essential to the effective design, evaluation, and delivery of technology-based instruction and training (e.g., software develop-
< previous page
page_413
next page >
< previous page
page_414
next page >
Page 414 ment, multimedia development, assistive technology modifications, Web-based development, and distance learning). The program is intended 1) to prepare educators to assume leadership roles in the integration of educational technology into the school curriculum and 2) to provide graduate-level instructional opportunities for several populations (e.g., classroom teachers, corporate trainers, educational software developers) that need to acquire both technological competencies and understanding of sound instructional design principles and techniques. Several course offerings will be delivered from only one campus, although students on both campuses will enroll in the courses. These will include Web-based courses, two-way video courses, and courses that include a combination of Web-based, two-way video, and face-to-face meetings. Admission Requirements: Application to the Educational Technology Program can be made after completion of at least the bachelor’s degree from a college or university accredited by a regional accrediting agency. The standard for admission will be based on a total profile for the applicant. The successful applicant should have an undergraduate grade point average of at least 3.0, a score of 45 on the MAT or scores of 450 on both the verbal and quantitative portions of the GRE, a well-written letter of intent that matches the objectives of the program and includes a description of previous technology experience, and positive letters of recommendation from individuals who know the professional characteristics of the applicant. Any exceptions for students failing to meet these standards shall be referred to the Admissions Committee for review and final decision. Degree Requirements: 36 semester hours, including instructional theory, computer design, and integrated media. Faculty: 4 full-time, 11 part-time. Financial Assistance: Graduate Assistantships are available. Last Updated: 5/8/02. TENNESSEE East Tennessee State University. College of Education, Dept. of Curriculum and Instruction. Box 70684, Johnson City, TN 37614-0684. (423)439-7843. Fax (423)439-8362. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://coe.etsu.edu/department/cuai/meda.htm. Harold Lee Daniels. Specializations: M Ed. in Instructional Media (Library), M.Ed. in Instructional Technology. Features: Two (Macintosh and PC) dedicated computer labs (45 computers); online and evening course offerings for part-time, commuter, and employed students; student pricing/campus licensing on popular software (MS, Adobe, Macromedia, etc.); off-site cohort programs for classroom teachers; extensive software library (500 titles) with review/checkout privileges. Admission Requirements: Bachelor’s degree from accredited institution, transcripts, personal essay; in some cases, GRE and/or interview. Degree Requirements: 39 semester hours, including 18 hours in instructional technology. Faculty: 2 full-time, 4 part-time. Students: 12 full-time, 40 part-time. Financial Assistance: Scholarships, assistantships, aid for disabled. Degrees awarded 2001: 4. Last Updated: 4/10/02. University of Memphis. Instruction and Curriculum Leadership/Instructional Design & Technology. 406 Ball Hall, Memphis, TN 38152. (901)678-2365. Fax (901)678-3881. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.people.memphis.edu/~coe_icl/idt/index.html. Dr. Richard Van Eck. Specializations: Instructional Design, Web-based instruction, Computer-based instruction, Digital Video, K–12 NTeQ technology integration model. Features: K–12 and Corporate training areas of emphasis, Advanced Instructional Media (AIM) lab for developing technology-assisted instruction (Dreamweaver, Flash, Authorware, WebCT, DV cameras, DV editing, DVD authoring, etc.), residency in the FedEx Emerging Technology Center, and excellent internship and job placement opportunities locally. Admission Requirements: Minimum standards that identify a pool of master’s level applicants from which each department selects students to be admitted: An
< previous page
page_414
next page >
< previous page
page_415
next page >
Page 415 official transcript showing a bachelor’s degree awarded by an accredited college or university with a minimum GPA of 2.0 on a 4.0 scale, competitive MAT or GRE scores, GRE writing test, two letters of recommendation, graduate school and departmental application. Doctoral students must also be interviewed by at least two members of the program. Degree Requirements: M.S.: 36 hours, internship, master’s project or thesis, 3.0 GPA. Ed.D.: 54 hours, 45 in major, 9 in research; residency project; comprehensive exams; dissertation. Faculty: 3 full-time, 7 part-time. Students: 15 full-time, 70 part-time. Financial Assistance: Teaching Assistantships (Two classes, full tuition waiver plus stipend). Graduate Assistantships (20 hours per week, full tuition plus stipend). Degrees awarded 2001: 20. Last Updated: 4/16/02. University of Tennessee-Knoxville. College of Education, Education in the Sciences, Mathematics, Research, and Technology. 319 Claxton Addition, Knoxville, TN 37996-3400. (423)974-4222 or (423)974-3103. E-mail
[email protected]. Dr. Al Grant, Coord., Instructional Media and Technology Program. Specializations: M.S. in Ed., Ed.S., and Ed.D. under Education in Sciences, Mathematics, Research, and Technology; Ed.D. in Curriculum and Instruction, concentration in Instructional Media and Technology; Ph.D. under the College of Education, concentration in Instructional Media and Technology. Features: course work in media management, advanced software production, utilization, research, theory, psychology, instructional computing, television, and instructional development. Course work will also meet the requirements for state certification as Instructional Materials Supervisor in the public schools of Tennessee. Admission Requirements: Send for Graduate Catalog, The University of Tennessee. Degree Requirements: M.S.: 33 semester hours; thesis optional. Faculty: 1 full-time, with additional assistance from Ed SMRT Unit, College of Ed. and university faculty. Students: M.S., 2 part-time; Ed.S., 2 part-time. Last Updated: 1999. TEXAS Texas A&M University. Educational Technology Program, Dept. of Educational psychology. College of Education, College Station, TX 77843-4225. (979)845-7276. Fax (979)862-1256. E-mail
[email protected]/
[email protected]. Web site http://educ.coe.tamu.edu/~edtc/edtc/prog/edtcintro.html. Ronald D. Zellner, Assoc. Prof., Coord. Program information/ Carol Wagner for admissions materials. Specializations: M.Ed. in Educational Technology; EDCI Ph.D. program with specializations in Educational Technology and in Distance Education; Ph.D. in Educational Psychology Foundations: Learning & Technology. The purpose of the Educational Technology Program is to prepare educators with the competencies required to improve the quality and effectiveness of instructional programs at all levels. A major emphasis is placed on multimedia instructional materials development and techniques for effective distance education and communication. Teacher preparation with a focus on field-based instruction and school-to-university collaboration is also a major component. The program goal is to prepare graduates with a wide range of skills to work as professionals and leaders in a variety of settings, including education, business, industry, and the military. Features: Program facilities include laboratories for teaching, resource development, and production. Computer, video, and multimedia development are supported in a number of facilities. The college and university also maintain facilities for distance education materials development and fully equipped classrooms for course delivery to nearby collaborative school districts and sites throughout the state. Admission Requirements: M.Ed.: Bachelor’s degree, 400 GRE Verbal, 550 (213 computer version) TOEFL; Ph.D.: 3.0 GPA, 450 GRE Verbal. Composite score from GRE Verbal & Quantitative and GPA, letters of recommendation, general background, and student goal statement. Degree Requirements: M.Ed.: 39 semester credits, oral exam; Ph.D.: course work varies with student goals—degree is a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology Foundations
< previous page
page_415
next page >
< previous page
page_416
next page >
Page 416 with specialization in educational technology. Faculty: 4 full-time, 1 lecturer; several associated faculty from related programs in EPSY. Students: M.Ed., 25 full-time, 15 part-time; Ph.D., 9 full-time, 10 part-time. Financial Assistance: several graduate assistantships and teaching assistantships. Degrees awarded 2001: M.Ed. 15, Ph.D. 2. Last Updated: 5/7/02. Texas A&M University-Commerce. Department of Secondary and Higher Education. P.O. Box 3011, Commerce, TX 75429-3011. (903)886-5607. Fax (903)886-5603. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.tamu-commerce.edu/. Dr. Sue Espinoza, Associate Professor, Program Coordinator. Specializations: M.S. or M.Ed. degree in Learning Technology and Information Systems with emphases in Educational Computing, Educational Media and Technology, and Library and Information Science. Certifications offered—School Librarian and Technology Applications, both approved by the Texas State Board for Educator Certification. Features: Courses are offered in a variety of formats, including traditional classroom/lab based, and distance ed, via video teleconferencing and/or online. Most courses are taught in only one of these, but some include multiple delivery methods. Admission Requirements: 700 GRE (combined). Degree Requirements: 36 hours for each master’s degree; Educational Computing includes 30 hours of required courses, and 6 hours of electives; Media & Technology includes 21 hours of required courses, and 15 hours of electives, selected in consultation with advisor; Library includes courses in Library, Educational Technology, and Education. Faculty: 3 full-time, 5 part-time. Students: 30 full-time, 150 part-time. Financial Assistance: graduate assistantships in teaching and research, scholarships, federal aid program. Degrees awarded 2001: 15. Last Updated: 5/29/01. Texas Tech University. College of Education. Box 41071, TTU, Lubbock, TX 79409. (806)742-1997, ext. 299. Fax (806)742-2179. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.educ.ttu.edu. Dr. Robert Price, Dir., Instructional Technology. Specializations: M.Ed. in Instructional Technology (Educational Computing and Distance Education emphasis); Ed.D. in Instructional Technology. Features: Program is NCATE accredited and follows ISTE and AECT guidelines. Admission Requirements: holistic evaluation based on GRE scores, GPA, student goals and writing samples. Degree Requirements: M.Ed.: 39 hours (24 hours in educational technology, 15 hours in education or outside education); practicum. Ed.D.: 87 hours (45 hours in educational technology, 18 hours in education, 15 hours in resource area or minor); practicum. Faculty: 5 full-time. Students: M.Ed., 10 fulltime, 20 part-time; Ed.D., 15 fulltime, 15 part-time. Financial Assistance: teaching and research assistantships available ($8,500 for 9 months); small scholarships. Last Updated: 1999. University of Houston. Department of Curriculum and Instruction. 256 Farish, Houston, TX 77204. (713)743-4950. Fax (713)743-4990. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.it.coe.uh.edu/. Bernard Robin, Program Area Director. Specializations: urban community partnerships enhanced by technology integration of technology in teaching visual representation of information collaborative design teams innovative uses of technology in instruction. Features: The IT Program at the University of Houston can be distinguished from other IT programs at other institutions through our unique philosophy based on a strong commitment to the broad representations of community, the individual, and the collaboration that strengthens the two. We broadly perceive community to include our college, the university, and the local Houston environment. The community is a rich context and resource from which we can solicit authentic learning tasks and clients, and to which we can contribute new perspectives and meaningful products. Our students graduate with real-world experience that can only be gained by experience with extended and coordinated community-based projects, not by contrived course requirements. Our program actively
< previous page
page_416
next page >
< previous page
page_417
next page >
Page 417 seeks outside funding to promote and continue such authentic projects because we so strongly believe it is the best context in which our students can develop expertise in the field. We recognize that each student brings to our program a range of formal training, career experience, and future goals. Thus, no longer can we be satisfied with presenting a single, static curriculum and still effectively prepare students for a competitive marketplace. Our beliefs have led us to develop a program that recognizes and celebrates student individuality and diversity. Students work with advisors to develop a degree plan that begins from their existing knowledge and strives toward intended career goals. We aim to teach not specific software or hardware operations, but instead focus on transferable technical skills couched in solid problem-solving experiences, theoretical discussions, and a team-oriented atmosphere. Students work throughout the program to critically evaluate their own work for the purpose of compiling a performance portfolio that will accurately and comprehensively portray their individual abilities to themselves, faculty, and future employers. Completing our philosophical foundation is a continuous goal of collaboration. Our faculty operates from a broad collaborative understanding that recognizes how everyone involved in any process brings unique and valuable experiences and perspectives. Within the IT program, faculty, staff, and students rely on each other to contribute relevant expertise. Faculty members regularly seek collaboration with other faculty in the College of Education, especially those involved with teacher education, as well as with faculty in other schools across campus. Collaboration is a focus that has been infused through the design of our courses and our relationships with students. Admission Requirements: Admission information for graduate programs: http://www.it.coe.uh.edu/. Master’s program: 3.0 grade point average (GPA) for unconditional admission or a 2.6 GPA or above for conditional admission over the last 60 hours of course work attempted; GRE or MAT scores: The 30 percentile on each section (Verbal, Quantitative, and Analytic) of the GRE serves as the minimum guideline for admission to all master’s programs in the College of Education. A score of 35 on the MAT serves as the minimum guideline for admissions to all master’s programs in the College of Education. The GRE or the MAT must have been taken within five years of the date of application for admission to any Graduate program in the College of Education. Doctoral program: Each applicant must normally have earned a master’s degree or have completed 36 semester hours of appropriate graduate work with a minimum GPA of 3.0 (A 4.0). The 35th percentile on each section (Verbal, Quantitative, and Analytic) of the GRE serves as the minimum guideline for admission to all doctoral programs in the College of Education. The GRE or the MAT must have been taken within five years of the date of application for admission to any Graduate program in the College of Education. Degree Requirements: Master’s: Students with backgrounds in educational technology can complete the master’s program with 36 hours of coursework. For the typical student, the M.Ed. in Instructional Technology consists of 9 semester hours of core courses required by the College of Education, and an additional 18 hour core in Instructional Technology as well as 9 hours that are determined by the students career goals (K–12, higher education, business and industry). Students take a written comprehensive examination over the program, coursework, and experiences. Doctoral: The minimum hours required in the doctoral program is 66. More details about the courses and requirements can be found on the IT Web site: http://www.it.coe.uh.edu/. Faculty: 5 fulltime, 5 part-time. Students: 20 full-time, 120 part-time. Financial Assistance: Graduate Assistantships (20 hours week), University and College Scholarships. Degrees awarded 2001: approximately 30. Last Updated: 4/12/02. University of North Texas. College of Education. Box 311337, Denton, TX 76203-1337. (940)565-2057. Fax (940)565-2185. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.cecs.unt.edu. Dr. Mark Mortensen and Mrs. Donna Walton, Computer Education and Cognitive Systems. Dr. Jon Young, Chair, Dept. of Technology and Cognition. Specializations: M.S. in Computer Education and Cognitive Systems—two emphasis areas: In-
< previous page
page_417
next page >
< previous page
page_418
next page >
Page 418 structional Systems Technology and Teaching & Learning with Technology. Features: Unique applications of theory through research and practice. Admission Requirements: Toulouse Graduate School Requirements, 18 hours in education, acceptable GRE: 405 V, 489 A, 528 Q. Degree Requirements: 36 semester hours (15 hour core, completion of one program area). Faculty: 7 full-time, 1 part-time. Students: 300 actively enrolled students. Financial Assistance: See http://essc.unt.edu/finaid/index.htm. Degrees awarded 2001: 10–30. Last Updated: 4/18/02. The University of Texas at Austin. Curriculum & Instruction. 406 Sanchez Building, Austin, TX 78712-1294. (512)471-5211. Fax (512)471-8460. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.edb.utexas.edu/coe/depts/ci/it/it.html. Paul Resta, Ph.D., Professor and Director, Learning Technology Center. Specializations: Master’s degrees (M.A. and M.Ed.) in Instructional Technology at U.T.-Austin focus upon the processes of systematic planning, design and development of instruction. Since IT requires more than skill in the production of instructional materials and use of machines, the instructional technologist emerging from our program uses knowledge of learning theory, curriculum development, instructional systems, communications theory, and evaluation to support appropriate uses of instructional resources. The doctoral programs in Instructional Technology at U.T.-Austin are comprehensive and research-oriented, providing knowledge and skills in areas such as instructional systems design, learning and instructional theories, instructional materials development, and design of learning environments using various technology-based systems and tools. Graduates assume academic, administrative, and other leadership positions such as instructional designers and evaluators, managers of instructional systems, and professors and researchers of instructional design and performance technology. Features: The program is interdisciplinary in nature, although certain competencies are required of all students. Programs of study and dissertation research are based on individual needs and career goals. Learning resources include a model Learning Technology Center, computer labs and classrooms, a television studio, and interactive multimedia lab. Many courses are offered cooperatively by other departments, including Radio-TV Film, Computer Science, and Educational Psychology. Admission Requirements: Though there are no minimum requirements for admission to the program, approximately 95 percent of the current students and recent graduates admission materials included the following: Master’s: 3.5 GPA; 450 GRE Verbal, 1150 GRE Verbal Quantitative; strong letters of recommendation; statement of study goals that can be satisfied with existing program offerings and resources. Doctoral: 3.5 GPA; 500 GRE Verbal, 1250 GRE Verbal Quantitative; strong letters of recommendation; statement of study goals that can be satisfied with existing program offerings and resources. Degree Requirements: Master’s: 36 semester hours minimum; Ph.D.: 54 semester hours a minimum of 6 dissertation hours in two consecutive semesters, including 9-hour area of special expertise related to dissertation research; first-year and Midprogram reviews; 9 hours of directed research completed before dissertation proposal; written comprehensive and specialization exam with oral defense, dissertation with proposal defense and oral defense. Faculty: 4 full-time, 1 part-time. Students: 12 master’s (3 full-time; 9 part-time), 32 doctoral (19 fulltime; 13 part-time). Financial Assistance: Assistantships are often available to develop instructional materials, assist in undergraduate teaching methods courses, supervise student teachers in local schools, and assist with research/service projects. There are also several paid internships. Degrees awarded 2001: (in 2001–2002:) 5 master’s; 3 doctoral. Last Updated: 5/7/02. UTAH Brigham Young University. Department of Instructional Psychology and Technology. 201 MCKB, BYU, Provo, UT 84602. (801)378-5097. Fax (801)378-8672. E-mail
< previous page
page_418
next page >
< previous page
page_419
next page >
Page 419
[email protected]. Web site http://www.byu.edu/acd1/ed/InSci/InSci.html. Paul F. Merrill, Prof., Chair. Specializations: M.S. degrees in Instructional Design, Research and Evaluation, and Multimedia Production. Ph.D. degrees in Instructional Design, and Research and Evaluation. Features: Course offerings include principles of learning, instructional design, assessing learning outcomes, evaluation in education, empirical inquiry in education, project management, quantitative reasoning, microcomputer materials production, multimedia production, naturalistic inquiry, and more. Students participate in internships and projects related to development, evaluation, measurement, and research. Admission Requirements: both degrees: transcript, three letters of recommendation, letter of intent, GRE scores. Apply by February 1. Students agree to live by the BYU Honor Code as a condition for admission. Degree Requirements: Master’s: 38 semester hours, including prerequisite (3 hours), core courses (14 hours), specialization (12 hours), internship (3 hours), thesis or project (6 hours) with oral defense. Ph.D.: 94 semester hours beyond the bachelor’s degree, including: prerequisite and skill requirements (21 hours), core course (16 hours), specialization (18 hours), internship (12 hours), projects (9 hours), and dissertation (18 hours). The dissertation must be orally defended. Also, at least two consecutive 6-hour semesters must be completed in residence. Faculty: 9 full-time, 2 half-time. Students: Master’s, 25 full-time, 2 part-time; Ph.D., 47 full-time, 3 parttime. Financial Assistance: internships, tuition scholarships, loans, and travel to present papers. Last Updated: 1999. Utah State University. Department of Instructional Technology, College of Education. 2830 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322-2830. (435)797-2694. Fax (435)797-2693. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.coe.usu:edu/it/. Dr. Byron R. Burnham, Prof., Chair. Specializations: M.S. and Ed.S. with concentrations in the areas of Instructional Development, Multimedia, Educational Technology, and Information Technology/ School Library Media Administration. Ph.D. in Instructional Technology is offered for individuals seeking to become professionally involved in instructional development in corporate education, public schools, community colleges, and universities. Teaching and research in higher education is another career avenue for graduates of the program. Features: M.S. and Ed.S. programs in Information Technology/School Library Media Administration and Educational Technology are also delivered via an electronic distance education system. The doctoral program is built on a strong master’s and specialists program in Instructional Technology. All doctoral students complete a core with the remainder of the course selection individualized, based upon career goals. Admission Requirements: M.S. and Ed.S.: 3.0 GPA, a verbal and quantitative score at the 40th percentile on the GRE or 43 MAT, three written recommendations. Ph.D.: Master’s degree in Instructional Technology, 3.0 GPA, verbal and quantitative score at the 40th percentile on the GRE, three written recommendations. Degree Requirements: M.S.: 39 sem. hours; thesis or project option. Ed.S.: 30 sem. hours if M.S. is in the field, 40 hours if not. Ph.D.: 62 total hours, dissertation, 3-sem. residency, and comprehensive examination. Faculty: 9 full-time, 7 part-time. Students: M.S., 70 full-time, 85 parttime; Ed.S., 6 full-time, 9 part-time; Ph.D., 15 fulltime, 14 part-time. Financial Assistance: approximately 18 to 26 assistantships (apply by April 1). Degrees awarded 2001: 32 M.S.; 7 Med.; 4 Ed.S.; 3 Ph.D. Last Updated: 4/9/02. VIRGINIA George Mason University. Instructional Technology Program. Mail Stop 5D6, 4400 University Dr., Fairfax, VA 22030-4444. (703)993-3798. Fax (703)993-2722. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://it.gse.gmu.edu/. Dr. Eamonn Kelly, Coord. of Instructional Technology Academic Programs. Specializations: M.Ed. in Curriculum and Instruction with tracks in Instructional Design and Development, Integration of Technology in
< previous page
page_419
next page >
< previous page
page_420
next page >
Page 420 Schools, and Assistive/Special Education Technology; M.Ed. in Special Education; Ph.D. with specialization in Instructional Technology or Special Education Technology. Certificate Programs (12–15 cr) in: Integration of Technology in Schools; Multimedia Development; Assistive Technology. Features: Master’s program started in 1983 and doctoral in 1984. Integration of Technology in Schools has a cohort program option. ID&D has a fulltime, immersion option with a tuition stipend. Admission Requirements: Teaching or training experience, undergrad GPA of 3.0. Degree Requirements: M.Ed. in Curriculum and Instruction: 39 hours; practicum, internship, or project. M.Ed. in Special Education: 36–42 hours. Ph.D.: 56–62 hours beyond master’s degree for either specialization. Certificate programs: 12–15 hours. Faculty: 6 full-time, 5 part-time. Students: M.Ed. full-time 150, M.Ed. part-time 175, certificate programs 300. Financial Assistance: Assistantships and tuition waivers available for full-time graduate students. Degrees awarded 2001: 130. Last Updated: 4/12/02. Radford University. Educational Studies Department, College of Education and Human Development. P.O. Box 6959, Radford, VA 24142. (540)831-5302. Fax (540)831-5059. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.radford.edu. Dr. Linda J. Wilson. Specializations: M.S. in Education with Educational Media/Technology emphasis. Features: School Library Media Specialist licensure. Admission Requirements: Bachelor’s degree, 2.7 undergraduate GPA. Degree Requirements: 33 semester hours, practicum; thesis optional. Faculty: 2 full-time, 3 part-time. Students: 2 full-time, 23 part-time. Financial Assistance: assistantships, grants, student loans, scholarships. Last Updated: 1999. University of Virginia. Department of Leadership, Foundations, and Policy, Curry School of Education. Ruffner Hall, Charlottesville, VA 22903. (434)924-7471. Fax (434)924-0747. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://curry.edschool.virginia.edu/curry/dept/edlf/instrtech/. John B. Bunch, Assoc. Prof., Coord., Instructional Technology Program, Dept. of Leadership, Foundations and Policy Studies. Specializations: M.Ed., Ed.S., Ed.D., and Ph.D. degrees with focal areas in Media Production, Interactive Multimedia, and K–12 Educational Technologies. Admission Requirements: undergraduate degree from accredited institution in any field, undergraduate GPA 3.0,1000 GRE (V Q), 600 TOEFL. Admission application deadline is March 1 of each year for the fall semester for both master’s and doctoral degrees. Degree Requirements: M.Ed.: 36 semester hours, comprehensive examination. Ed.S.: 60 semester hours beyond undergraduate degree. Ed.D.: 54 semester hours, dissertation, at least one conference presentation or juried publication, comprehensive examination, residency; Ph.D.: same as Ed.S. with the addition of 18 semester hours. For specific degree requirements, see Web site, write to the address above, or refer to UVA. Faculty: 3 full-time, 2 part-time. Students: M.Ed. 24; Ed.D., 3; Ph.D., 15. Financial Assistance: Some graduate assistantships and scholarships are available on a competitive basis. Degrees awarded 2001: 7 M.Ed., 4 Ph.D., 1 Ed.D. Last Updated: 5/8/02. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. College of Human Resources and Education. 220 War Memorial Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0341. (540)231-5587. Fax (540)231-9075. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.chre.vt.edu/Admin/IT/. David M. (Mike) Moore, Program Area Leader, Instructional Technology, Dept. of Teaching and Learning. Specializations: M.A., Ed.S. Ed.D., and Ph.D. in Instructional Technology. Preparation for education, higher education, faculty development, business, and industry. Features: Areas of emphasis are Instructional Design, Educational Computing, Evaluation, and Media Management and Development. Facilities include two computer labs (70 IBM and Macintosh computers), plus interactive video, speech synthesis, telecommunication labs, distance education classroom, and computer graphics production areas. Admission Requirements: Ed.D. and Ph.D.: 3.3 GPA from master’s degree, GRE scores, interview,
< previous page
page_420
next page >
< previous page
page_421
next page >
Page 421 writing samples, three letters of recommendation, transcripts. M.A.: 3.0 GPA Undergraduate. Degree Requirements: Ph.D.: 96 hrs above B.S., 2 year residency, 12 hrs. research classes, 30 hrs. dissertation; Ed.D.: 90 hrs. above B.S., 1 year residency, 12 hrs. research classes; M.A.: 30 hrs. above B.S. Faculty: 7 full-time, 5 part-time. Students: 35 full-time and 10 part-time at the doctoral level; 10 full-time and 100 part-time online. Financial Assistance: 10 assistantships, limited tuition scholarships. Degrees awarded 2001: 5 Ph.D. and 50 M.S. Last Updated: 4/9/02. Virginia State University. School of Liberal Arts & Education. 1 Hayden Dr., Box 9402, Petersburg, VA 23806. (804)524-5377. Fax (804)524-5104. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site www.vsu.edu. Vykuntapathi Thota, Chair, Dept. of Education. Specializations: M.S., M.Ed. in Educational Technology. Features: Video Conferencing Center and PLATO Laboratory, internship in ABC and NBC channels. Admission Requirements: not available. Degree Requirements: 30 semester hours plus thesis for M.S.; 33 semester hours plus project for M.Ed.; comprehensive exam. Faculty: 1 full-time, 2 part-time. Students: 8 fulltime, 50 part-time. Financial Assistance: scholarships through the School of Graduate Studies. Last Updated: 7/13/01. WASHINGTON Eastern Washington University. Department of Computer Science. Cheney, WA 99004-2431. (509)359-7093. Fax (509)359-2215. E-mail
[email protected]. Dr. Linda M. Kieffer, Assoc. Prof. of Computer Science. Specializations: M.Ed. in Computer and Technology Supported Education; M.S. in Computer Education (Interdisciplinary). Master’s program started in 1983. Features: Many projects involve the use of high-level authoring systems to develop educational products, technology-driven curriculum, and Web projects. Admission Requirements: 3.0 GPA for last 90 qtr. credits. Degree Requirements: M.S.: 52 qtr. hours (30 hours in computers, 15 hours outside education; the hours do not total to 52 because of freedom to choose where Methods of Research is taken, where 12 credits of supporting courses are taken, and where additional electives are taken); research project with formal report. M.Ed.: 52 qtr. hours (28 hours in computer education, 16 hours in education, 8 hours outside education). Faculty: 3 fulltime. Students: approximately 35. Financial Assistance: some research and teaching fellowships. Last Updated: 1999. University of Washington. College of Education. 115 Miller Hall, Box 353600, Seattle, WA 98195-3600. (206)5431847. Fax (206)543-8439. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.educ.washington.edu/COE/c-andi/c_and_i_med_ed_tech.htm. Stephen T. Kerr, Prof. of Education. Specializations: M.Ed., Ed.D., and Ph.D. for individuals in business, industry, higher education, public schools, and organizations concerned with education or communication (broadly defined). Features: emphasis on design of materials and programs to encourage learning and development in school and non-school settings; research and related activity in such areas as interactive instruction, Web-based learning, virtual environments, use of video as a tool for design and development. Admission Requirements: M.Ed.: goal statement (2–3 pp.), writing sample, 1000 GRE (verbal plus quantitative), undergraduate GPA indicating potential to successfully accomplish graduate work. Doctoral: GRE scores, letters of reference, transcripts, personal statement, master’s degree or equivalent in field appropriate to the specialization with 3.5 GPA, two years of successful professional experience and/or experience related to program goals. Degree Requirements: M.Ed.: 45 qtr. hours (including 24 in technology); thesis or project recommended, exam optional. Ed.D.: see http://www.educ.washington.edu/COEWebSite/programs/ci/EdD.html. Ph.D.: http://www.educ.washington.edu/COEWebSite/students/prospective/phdDescrip.html. Faculty: 4 full-time, 3 parttime. Students: 12 full-time, 32 part-time; 26 M.Ed., 18 doctoral. Financial Assistance: assistantships awarded competi-
< previous page
page_421
next page >
< previous page
page_422
next page >
Page 422 tively and on basis of program needs; other assistantships available depending on grant activity in any given year. Degrees awarded 2001: 5. Last Updated: 4/9/02. Western Washington University. Woodring College of Education, Instructional Technology. MS 9087, Bellingham, WA 98225-9187. (360)650-3387. Fax (360)650-6526. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.wce.wwu.edu/depts/IT. Dr. Les Blackwell, Prof., Department Chair. Specializations: M.Ed. with emphasis in Instructional Technology in Adult Education, Special Education, Elementary Education, and Secondary Education. Admission Requirements: 3.0 GPA in last 45 qtr. credit hours, GRE or MAT scores, three letters of recommendation, and, in some cases, three years of teaching experience. Degree Requirements: 48–52 qtr. hours (24–28 hours in instructional technology; 24 hours in education-related courses, thesis required; internship and practicum possible). Faculty: 6 full-time, 8 part-time. Students: 5 full-time, 10 part-time. Financial Assistance: assistantships, student loans, scholarships. Last Updated: 1999. WISCONSIN Edgewood College. Department of Education. 1000 Edgewood College Dr., Madison, WI 53711-1997. (608)6632293. Fax (608)663-6727. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.edgewood.edu. Dr. Joseph E. Schmiedicke, Chair, Dept. of Education. Specializations: M.A. in Education with emphasis on Instructional Technology. Master’s program started in 1987. Features: classes conducted in laboratory setting with emphasis on applications and software. Admission Requirements: 2.75 GPA. Degree Requirements: 36 semester hours. Faculty: 2 full-time, 3 part-time. Students: 5 full-time, 150 part-time. Financial Assistance: grants, student loans. Degrees awarded 2001: 5. Last Updated: 4/9/02. University of Wisconsin-La Crosse. Educational Media Program. Rm. 235C, Morris Hall, La Crosse, WI 54601. (608)785-8121. Fax (608)785-8128. E-mail
[email protected]. Dr. Russell Phillips, Dir. Specializations: M.S. in Professional Development with specializations in Initial Instructional Library Specialist, License 901; Instructional Library Media Specialist, License 902 (39 credits). Degree Requirements: 30 semester hours, including 15 in media; no thesis. Faculty: 2 full-time, 4 part-time. Students: 21. Financial Assistance: guaranteed student loans, graduate assistantships. Last Updated: 1999. University of Wisconsin-Madison. 225 N. Mills St. (608)263-4670. Fax (608)263-9992. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.education.wisc.edu/ci/. Michael J. Streibel. Specializations: M.S. degree and State Instructional Technology License; Ph.D. programs to prepare college and university faculty. Features: Traditional instructional technology courses are processed through a social, cultural, and historical frame of reference. Current curriculum emphasizes communication theories, critical cultural and visual culture theories, and constructivist theories of instructional design and development. Many courses offered in the evening. Admission Requirements: Master’s and Ph.D.: previous experience in Instructional Technology preferred, previous teaching experience, 3.0 GPA on last 60 undergraduate credits, acceptable scores on GRE, 3.0 GPA on all graduate work. Degree Requirements: M.S.: 24 credits plus thesis and exam (an additional 12 credits of Educational Foundations if no previous educational background); Ph.D.: 3 years of residency beyond the bachelor’s (master’s degree counts for one year; one year must be full-time), major, minor, and research requirements, preliminary exam, dissertation, and oral exam. Faculty: 3 full-time. Students: M.S., 15; Ph.D., 19. Financial Assistance: TA and PA positions are available. Degrees awarded 2001: 5 Ph.D. Last Updated: 4/26/02.
< previous page
page_422
next page >
< previous page
page_423
next page >
Page 423 International Programs Universiti Sains Malaysia. Centre for Instructional Tech and Multimedia, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Minden, Pg 11800. 604-8603222. Fax 604-6576749. E-mail
[email protected]. Web site http://www.ptpm.usm.my. Zarina Samsudin, Director. Specializations: Instructional Design; Web/Internet Instruction and learning; Educational Training/Resource Management; Instructional Training Technology/Evaluation; Instructional System Development; Design and Development of Multimedia/Video/Training materials; Instructional and Training Technology; Constructivism in Instructional Technology. Features: Teaching Programs—Post Graduate programs and research; Consultancy— services on the application of educational technology in teaching learning; Training and Diffusion—Diploma in Multimedia, Certificate in Training Technology & Continuing Education; Academic Support Services—services to support research, teaching and learning activities and centers within the University. Admission Requirements: Bachelor's and master's degree from accredited institution. Degree Requirements: Part-time, Full-time. Faculty: 12. Students: 30 full-time—40 part-time. Degrees awarded 2001: Ph.D. in Instructional Technology and M.Ed. in Instructional Technology. Last Updated: 4/10/02.
< previous page
page_423
next page >
< previous page
page_424
next page >
page_424
next page >
Page 424 This page intentionally left blank.
< previous page
< previous page
page_425
next page >
Page 425 Part Six Mediagraphy Print and Nonprint Resources Introduction CONTENTS This resource lists media-related journals, books, Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) documents, journal articles, and nonprint media resources of interest to practitioners, researchers, students, and others concerned with educational technology and educational media. The primary goal of this section is to list current publications in the field. The majority of materials cited here were published in 2001 or early 2002. Media-related journals include those listed in past issues of EMTY and new entries in the field. A thorough list of journals in the educational technology field, established by Brooke Price, section editor for the 2001 edition, has been modified and updated for the 2003 edition using Ulrich’s Periodical Index. This chapter is not intended to serve as a specific resource location tool, although it may be used for that purpose in the absence of database access. Rather, readers are encouraged to peruse the categories of interest in this chapter to gain an idea of recent developments within the field. For archival purposes, this chapter serves as a snapshot of the field in 2003. Readers must bear in mind that technological developments occur well in advance of publication and should take that fact into consideration when judging the timeliness of resources listed in this chapter. SELECTION Items were selected for the Mediagraphy in several ways. The ERIC Database was the source for most ERIC document and journal article citations. Others were reviewed directly by the editors. Items were chosen for this list when they met one or more of the following criteria: reputable publisher, broad circulation, coverage by indexing services, peer review, and coverage of a gap in the literature. The editors chose items on subjects that seem to reflect the instructional technology field as it is today. Because of the increasing tendency for media producers to package their products in more that one format and for single titles to contain mixed media, titles are no longer separated by media type. The editors make no claims as to the comprehensiveness of this list. It is, instead, intended to be representative. OBTAINING RESOURCES Media-Related Periodicals and Books. Publisher, price, and ordering/subscription address are listed wherever available. ERIC Documents. ERIC documents can be read and often copied from their microfiche form at any library holding an ERIC microfiche collection. The identification number 425
< previous page
page_425
next page >
< previous page
page_426
next page >
Page 426 beginning with ED (for example, ED 332 677) locates the document in the collection. Copies of most ERIC documents can also be ordered from the ERIC Document Reproduction Service. Prices charged depend upon format chosen (microfiche or paper copy), length of the document, and method of shipping. Online orders, fax orders, and expedited delivery are available. To find the closest library with an ERIC microfiche collection, contact: ACCESS ERIC 1600 Research Blvd. Rockville, MD 20850–3172 (800)LET-ERIC (538–3742) E-mail:
[email protected] To order ERIC documents, contact: ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS) 7420 Fullerton Rd., Suite 110 Springfield, VA 22153–2852 voice: (800)443-ERIC (443-3742), (703)440-1400 Fax (703)440-1408 E-mail:
[email protected]. Journal Articles. Photocopies of journal articles can be obtained in one of the following ways: 1) from a library subscribing to the title; 2) through interlibrary loan; 3) through the purchase of a back issue from the journal publisher; or 4) from an article reprint service such as UMI. UMI Information Store 500 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94111 (800)248-0360 (toll-free in U.S. and Canada) (415)433-5500 (outside U.S. and Canada) E-mail:
[email protected] Journal articles can also be obtained through the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). ISI Document Solution P.O. Box 7649 Philadelphia, PA 19104-3389 (215)386-4399 Fax (215)222-0840 or (215)386-4343 E-mail:
[email protected] ARRANGEMENT Mediagraphy entries are classified according to major subject emphasis under the following headings: • Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, and Electronic Performance Support Systems • Computer-Assisted Instruction • Distance Education • Educational Research • Educational Technology • Information Science and Technology • Instructional Design and Development
< previous page
page_426
next page >
< previous page
page_427
next page >
page_427
next page >
Page 427 • Interactive Multimedia • Libraries and Media Centers • Media Technologies • Professional Development • Simulation, Gaming, and Virtual Reality • Special Education and Disabilities • Telecommunications and Networking Anna E. Burdett
< previous page
< previous page
page_428
next page >
Page 428 Mediagraphy ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, ROBOTICS, AND ELECTRONIC PERFORMANCE SUPPORT SYSTEMS Artificial Intelligence Review. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 101 Philip Drive, Norwell, MA 02061,
[email protected], www.wkap.nl/journalhome.htm/0269-2821. [6 issues/yr., $187 indiv., $483 inst.]. Publishes commentary on issues and development in artificial intelligence foundations and current research. Garfield, E. (2001). A retrospective and prospective view of information retrieval and artificial intelligence in the 21st century. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(1), 18–21. Traces the development of information retrieval/services and examines possibilities for increasing electronic access and the role of artificial intelligence. Holder, L., & Cook, D. (2001). A client-server computational tool for integrated artificial intelligence curriculum. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 12(2), 52–69. Describes the development of a Web-based multimedia delivery method of increasing students’ interest in artificial intelligence (AI). International Journal of Robotics Research. Sage Science, (805)499-0721. [Mo., $910 American inst., $958 outside of U.S.]. Interdisciplinary approach to the study of robotics for researchers, scientists, and students. Journal of Interactive Learning Research. Association for Advancement of Computing in Education, Box 2966, Charlottesville, VA 22902-2966,
[email protected], www.aace.org. [Q.; $40 indiv., $50 foreign]. International journal publishes articles on how intelligent computer technologies can be used in education to enhance learning and teaching. Reports on research and developments, integration, and applications of artificial intelligence in education. Journal of Robotic and Intelligent Systems. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, P.O. Box 358, Accord Station, Hingham, MA 02018-0358,
[email protected], www.wkap.nl/journalhome.htm/0921-0296. [Mo., $981 inst. for print or online format; $1170.20 inst. for both formats]. The main objective is to provide a forum for the fruitful interaction of ideas and techniques that combine systems and control science with artificial intelligence—and other related computer science—concepts. Knowledge-Based Systems. Elsevier Science Inc., P.O. Box 945, New York, NY 10159-0945, www.elsevier.com/locate/knosys. [8 issues/yr., $830 inst.]. Interdisciplinary applications-oriented journal on fifthgeneration computing, expert systems, and knowledge-based methods in system design. Lopez, A., & Donlon, J. (2001). Knowledge engineering and education. Educational Technology, 41(2), 45–50. Discusses knowledge engineering, computer software, and possible applications in the field of education. Minds and Machines. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 101 Philip Drive, Norwell, MA 02061. [Q., $195 indiv., $425 inst.]. Discusses issues concerning machines and mentality, artificial intelligence, epistemology, simulation, and modeling.
< previous page
page_428
next page >
< previous page
page_429
next page >
Page 429 COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION Australian Educational Computing. Australian Council for Computers in Education. P.O. Box 1255, Belonnen, ACT 2616, Australia. Available online at http://www.acce.edu.au/journal/journal.html, Ed. Hjeremy Pagram [irregular publishing, online]. Educational computer issues forum. Bulla Gymnasia Virtualis. CyberCorp., Inc.,
[email protected], http://www.cybercorp.net/gymv/bulla/, Ed. Robert N. Higgins. [Q., free of charge]. Online journal devoted to online training and education. Cairncross, S., & Mannion, M. (2001). Interactive multimedia and learning: Realizing the benefits. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 38(2), 156–164. Considers the potential of interactive multimedia and argues that in order to design effective interactive learning environments, a user-centered approach must be taken that is based on human-computer interaction and educational theory. CALICO Journal. Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium, Southwest Texas State University, 116 Centennial Hall, San Marcos, TX 78666,
[email protected], www.calico.org. [Q., $35 indiv., $130 inst., $70 corporations]. Provides information on the applications of technology in teaching and learning languages. Children’s Software & New Media Revue. Active Learning Associates, Inc., 44 Main St., Flemington, NJ 08822, www.childrenssoftware.com. [6/yr., $24]. Provides reviews and other information about software to help parents and educators more effectively use computers with children. Computer Assisted Composition Journal. Human Technology Interface, Inc. Press 163 Wood Wedge Way, Sandford, NC 27330. (919)499-9216. Ed. Lynn Veach Sadler. [3/yr., $15]. Publishes essays pertaining to computer applications in writing. Computer Education. K. K. Roy, Ltd., 55 Gariahat Rd., P.O. Box 10210, Calcutta, West Bengal 700 019, India, Ed. K. K. Roy, 91-33-475-4872. [Bi, $35 U.S.]. Discusses how schools and universities are using educational software. Profiles and reviews new educational software in the market in content areas such as science, social science, and the humanities. Computer Education. Staffordshire University, Computer Education Group, c/o CEG Treasurer, Beaconside, Staffs, ST18 0AD, United Kingdom, Ed. I Selwood. [3/yr., 24 GBP to U.S.]. Covers Educational Computer application for students 11–18 years of age. Computer Learning. Computer Learning Foundation, P.O. Box 60007, Palo Alto, CA 94306-0007,
[email protected], http://www.computerlearning.org. Focuses people’s attention on the importance of technology in children’s learning. Includes tips for parents and teachers. Computer Studies: Computers in Education. Dushkin-McGraw-Hill, Sluice Dock, Guilford, CT 06437-9989, Ed. John Hirschbuhl. [Annual, $12.25]. Features articles on computer-based education applications, specifically logistics surrounding the use of computers in education. Computers and Composition. Elsevier Science, Inc., P.O. Box 945, New York, NY 10159-0945. [4/yr., $62 indiv., $245 inst.]. International journal for teachers of writing focuses on the use of computers in writing instruction and related research and dialogue. Computers & Education. Pergamon Publishing, P.O. Box 945, New York, NY 10159-0945. [8/yr., $1,078]. Presents technical papers covering a broad range of subjects for users of analog, digital, and hybrid computers in all aspects of higher education.
< previous page
page_429
next page >
< previous page
page_430
next page >
Page 430 Computers and the Humanities. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 101 Philip Drive, Norwell, MA 02061. [Q., $411 U.S. inst. print or online format; $493.20 for both formats]. Contains papers on computer-aided studies, applications, automation, and computer-assisted instruction. Computers in Education Journal. American Society for Engineering Education, Computers in Education Decision, P.O. Box 68, Port Royal Sq., Port Royal, VA 22535, Ed. W.W. Everett, Jr. [Q., $45 U.S., $65 foreign]. Covers transactions, scholarly research papers, application notes, and teaching methods. Computers in Human Behavior. Elsevier Science, Inc., P.O. Box 945, New York, NY 10159-0945. [6/yr., $218 indiv., $961 inst.]. Scholarly journal dedicated to examining the use of computers from a psychological perspective. Computers in the Schools. Haworth Press, 10 Alice St., Binghamton, NY 13904-1580, (800)HAWORTH, fax (800)895-0582,
[email protected], www.haworthpress.com. [Q., $60 indiv., $90 inst., $300 libraries]. Features articles that combine theory and practical applications of small computers in schools for educators and school administrators. Connections. Online-Offline, 4(5), 2–25. Provides an annotated list of resources dealing with the theme of various types of connections. Includes Web sites, CD-ROMs/software, videos, books, and additional resources with appropriate grade levels and subject disciplines indicated in most cases. Sidebars include toys that connect, connecting with nature, it’s a small world-satellites, connecting with the past-through our senses. Offers suggestions for classroom activities. Converge. Imagine Media, Inc., 150 North Hill Dr., Brisbane, CA 94005,
[email protected], http://www.convergemag.com, Ed. Olga Amador. Explores the role of technology in all areas and at all grade levels of children’s education. Curriculum-Technology Quarterly. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Education & Technology Resource Center, 1703 N Beauregard St., Alexandria, VA 22314, (800)933-2723,
[email protected], http://www.ascd.org, Ed. Larry Mann. [Q.]. Explores strategies for using technology for enhancing classroom instruction. Includes pull-out sections on curriculum content areas. For K–12 teachers and curriculum developers. Dr. Dobb’s Journal. Miller Freeman, Inc., 600 Harrison St., San Francisco, CA 94107, (800)456-1215, www.djj.com/djj. [Mo., $34.95 U.S., $45 Mexico and Canada, $70 elsewhere]. Articles on the latest in operating systems, programming languages, algorithms, hardware design and architecture, data structures, and telecommunications; in-depth hardware and software reviews. Education Technology News. Business Publishers, Inc. 8737 Colesville Rd., 11th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 209103928, (800)274-6737,
[email protected], http://www.bpinews.com, Ed. Rasheda Childress. [Bi-w., $337 domestic, $356 out of North America]. For teachers and other persons interested in the educational uses of computers in the classroom. Includes feature articles on application, educational software, and pertinent programs. Educational Software Review. Growth Systems, Inc., 855 Normandy Rd., Encinitas, CA 92024, Ed. Stewart Walton. [M., $33.75]. Educational Technology and Society. International Forum of Educational Technology and Society. IEEE Computer Society, Learning Technology Task Force ,
[email protected], http://ifets.gmd.de/periodical, Ed. Dr. Kinshuk. [Q., no cost]. Explores issues concerning educational software developers and educators.
< previous page
page_430
next page >
< previous page
page_431
next page >
Page 431 Educational Technology Review. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, P.O. Box 2966, Charlottesville, VA 22902-2966,
[email protected], http://www.aace.org. Ed. Gary H Marks. [Q., free, online]. Publishes articles dealing with the issues in instructional technology application. Electronic Education Report. SIMBA Information, 11 Riverbend Dr. S, Box 4234, Stamford, CT 06907-0234, (800)307-2529,
[email protected], http://www.simbanet.com. Ed. Kathleen Martucci. [Bi-w., $479 North America, $529 elsewhere]. Newsletter discussing software and multimedia educational technologies. Electronic School. National School Boards Association, 1680 Duke Street, Alexandria VA 22314,
[email protected], http://www.electronic-school.com/. [Q.]. Trade publication that discusses trends and strategies for integrating technology into primary and secondary education. e-WEEK. Ziff-Davis Publishing, P.O. Box 3402, Northbrook IL60065-3402. [W., $195, Canada and Mexico $250, free to qualified personnel]. Provides current information on the IBM PC, including hardware, software, industry news, business strategies, and reviews of hardware and software. Extended Studies E-zine. California State University at San Marcos, (800)500-9377,
[email protected], http://ww2.csusm.edu. Online newsletter dedicated to the topic of distance learning. Grabe, M., & Grabe, C. (2001). Integrating technology for meaningful learning (3rd ed.). [Book, 464 p.]. Houghton Mifflin. college.hmco.com. This media package contains updated information on the Internet, voice recognition technology, and digital camera applications as well as several example student projects. The CD-ROM contains demos of instructional software and provides the user with Internet links corresponding to each chapter in the book. Information Technology in Childhood Education. Association for the Advancement for Computing in Education, P.O. Box 3728, Norfolk, VA 22902-2966.
[email protected], http://www.aace.org, [Q., $85 domestic, $85 domestic to institutions]. Scholarly trade publication reporting on research and investigations into the applications of instructional technology. InfoWorld. InfoWorld Publishing, 155 Bovet Rd., Suite 800, San Mateo, CA 94402, (650)572-7341. [W., $195]. News and reviews of PC hardware, software, peripherals, and networking. Instructor. Scholastic Inc., 555 Broadway, New York, NY 10012, (212)505-4900. [8/yr., $24]. Features articles on applications and advances of technology in education for K–12 and college educators and administrators. INTERACTIVE. Question Publishing, Ltd., 27 Frederick St., Hockley, Birmingham, Warks, B1 3HH, United Kingdom, Tel 44-121-212-0919, fax 44-121-212-1959. [9/yr., GBP 18 outside Europe, GBP 22 in Europe]. Designed to help all primary and secondary teachers get the most from information technology in the classroom. Interactive Learning Environments. Swets and Zeitlinger, P.O. Box 582, Downingtown, PA 19335-998,
[email protected], http://www.swets.nl/sps/journals/ile1.html. [3/yr., $79 indiv., $227 inst. with online]. Explores the implications of the Internet and multimedia presentation software in education and training environments. Internet & Personal Computing Abstracts (IPCA). Information Today, 143 Old Marlton Pike, Medford, NJ 08055, (800)300-9868. [4/yr., $235 U.S.]. Abstracts literature on the use of microcomputers in business, education, and the home, covering over 175 publications.
< previous page
page_431
next page >
< previous page
page_432
next page >
Page 432 Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. Blackwell Scientific Ltd., Journal Subscriptions,
[email protected], www.blackwell-science.com. [Q., $106 indiv., $506 inst.]. Articles and research on the use of computer-assisted learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research. Baywood Publishing, 26 Austin Ave., P.O. Box 337, Amityville, NY 11701. [8/yr. $120 indiv., $313 inst.]. Presents original research papers, critical analyses, reports on research in progress, design and development studies, article reviews, and grant award listings. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, Box 2966, Charlottesville, VA 22902-2966,
[email protected], www.aace.org. [Q., $40 indiv., $50 foreign]. A multidisciplinary information source presenting research about and applications for multimedia and hypermedia tools. Journal of Hypermedia and Multimedia Studies. ISTE, University of Oregon, 1787 Agate St., Eugene, OR 97403-1923, (800)336-5191,
[email protected], www.iste.org. [Q., $29; $39 intl., $42 intl. air]. Features articles on projects, lesson plans, and theoretical issues, as well as reviews of products, software, and books. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. ISTE, University of Oregon, 1787 Agate St., Eugene, OR 97403-1923, (800)336-5191,
[email protected], www.iste.org. [Q., $38—1 year, $73—2 years, $108—3 years]. Contains articles reporting on the latest research findings related to classroom and administrative uses of technology, including system and project evaluations. Learning and Leading with Technology: Serving Teachers in the Classroom. ISTE, University of Oregon, 1787 Agate St., Eugene, OR 97403-1923, (800)336-5191,
[email protected], www.iste.org. [8/yr., $38— 1 year, $73—2 years, $108—3 years]. Focuses on the use of technology, coordination, and leadership; written by educators for educators. Appropriate for classroom teachers, lab teachers, technology coordinators, and teacher educators. Logo Exchange. ISTE, University of Oregon, 1787 Agate St., Eugene, OR 97403-1923, (800)336-5191,
[email protected], www.iste.org. [Q., $29, $44 intl., $34 intl. air]. Brings ideas from Logo educators throughout the world, with current information on Logo research, resources, and methods. MacWorld. MacWorld Communications, Box 54529, Boulder, CO 80322-4529, www.macworld.com. [Mo., $19.97]. Describes hardware, software, tutorials, and applications for users of the Macintosh microcomputer. Newhouse, C. P. (2001). A follow-up study of students using portable computers at a secondary school. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(2), 209–219. Reports on a 1999 study that investigated student and teacher perceptions regarding the use of portable computers in a Western Australia secondary school. Compares results with a 1995 study and discusses the need for professional development. OnCUE. Computer Using Educators, Inc. 1210 Marina Village Parkway, Ste 100, Alameda, CA 94501-0195,
[email protected], http://www.cue.org, Ed. Maria McDonough. [Bim., $40 domestic, $55 foreign]. Contains articles, news items, and trade advertisements addressing computer-based education. The One-Computer Classroom. Films for the Humanities & Sciences, www.films.com. [Video, 36 min., $129]. Explores how a single computer in the classroom can be used as a workstation, a presentation device, and a tool for interactive learning. Pappas, M. L. (2001). Interactive learning on the Web. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 17(7), 19–22, 28. Discusses opportunities for interactive learning on the World
< previous page
page_432
next page >
< previous page
page_433
next page >
Page 433 Wide Web for elementary and secondary school students. Highlights include active learning Web sites; telecollaborative learning; simulations; tools and resources; and technology issues. PC Magazine: The Independent Guide to IBM-Standard Personal Computing. Ziff-Davis Publishing, Box 54093, Boulder, CO 80322. [25 issues., $25 U.S., $66 foreign]. Comparative reviews of computer hardware and general business software programs. ReCALL. European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning. (EURO-CALL), Cambridge University Press, Edinburgh Building, Sharftesbury Rd., Cambridge CB2 2RU, United Kingdom, http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk, Ed. June Thompson. [Semi-annual, $104 U.S., $65 Great Britain]. Contains articles on research and development in the area of computer-assisted language learning. Social Science Computer Review. Sage Publications Inc., 2455 Teller Rd., Thousand Oaks, CA 91320,
[email protected], www.sagepub.com. [Q., $68 indiv., $350 inst.]. Features include software reviews, new product announcements, and tutorials for beginners. Software Magazine. Sentry Publishing, Inc., 1 Research Dr., Suite 400B, Westborough, MA 01581-3907. [6 issues/yr., $42 U.S., $58 Canada, $140 elsewhere, free to qualified personnel]. Provides information on software and industry developments for business and professional users, and announces new software packages. Technology and Learning. Miller Freeman, Inc. 600 Harrison Street, San Francisco, CA 94107, (415)905-2200, http://www.techlearning.com. [8/yr., $29.95 U.S., $39.95 Canada and Mexico, $69.95 elsewhere]. Discusses and features new innovations in educational hardware and software. Thornburg, D. (2001). Campfires in cyberspace. Canter, www.canter.net. [Book, 163 p., $24.95]. Techniques to help K–12 teachers integrate the Internet into the class as an effective learning tool. Thornburg, D. (2001). Managing change with new technologies. Canter, www.canter.net. [Video, 1 hour, 20 min., $179]. This video is a part of a five-module series that shows teachers how to use technology to bring relevant knowledge and skills to the classroom. Wysocki, A. (2001). Impossibly distinct: On form/content and word/image in two pieces of computer-based interactive multimedia. Computers and Composition, 18(2), 137–162. Presents a comparative analysis of two pieces of computer-based interactive multimedia whose words are similar but visual structures different. Educators need to modify the conceptual categories used in teaching about the visual aspects of texts. DISTANCE EDUCATION Allan, J., O’Dwyer, M., Ryan, E., & Lawless, N. (2001). Face-to-face or distance training? Two different approaches to motivate SMEs to learn—An update. Industry & Higher Education, 15(2), 135–141. Two projects attempted to assess and meet small- and medium-sized enterprises’ training needs. American Journal of Distance Education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 110 Rackley Building, University Park, PA 16802-3202, www.cde.psu.edu/ACSDE/. [4/yr.; $55 indiv.; $85 inst.]. Created to disseminate information and act as a forum for criticism and debate about research in and practice of politics, and administration of distance education. Amey, M. (2001). Center for the study of advanced learning systems: Engaging differently with postsecondary education. Community & Junior College Libraries, 10(1), 27–33.
< previous page
page_433
next page >
< previous page
page_434
next page >
Page 434 States that the Center for the Study of Advanced Learning Systems (ALS) at Michigan State University was developed to serve as a hub for research and development activity. ALS examines issues regarding technological change in postsecondary education. Andrusyszyn, M., Cragg, C., & Humbert, J. (2001). Nurse practitioner preferences for distance education methods related to learning style, course content, and achievement. Journal of Nursing Education, 40(4), 163–170. Nurse practitioner students using distance education indicated a preference for self-direction, concrete examples, and small-group discussion. Convenience, self-direction, and timing were more important than delivery method or learning style. Anglin, G. (2001). Notes on the special issue: Distance education and e-learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2(1), 3–4. Provides an introduction to this special issue on distance education and e-learning. Several questions related to these topics are presented, and the articles contained in the issue are summarized. Antonucci, R. (2001). Seven myths about online colleges: A view from inside. Connection: New England’s Journal of Higher Education and Economic Development, 15(3), 34–35. Presents myths about online learning that discourage its expansion. These myths revolve around the purported inadequacies of online learning and the damage that virtual colleges will do to their traditional counterparts. Barron, T. (2001). E-learning weathers a bear market. Training & Development, 55(3), 46–52. Electronic learning can demonstrate its value to an organization in terms of raw numbers. Assessment and skill-gap analysis tools provide useful performance improvement evidence. Bauck, T. (2001). Distance education in South Dakota: A historical perspective. TechTrends, 45(3), 15–17. Reviews the history of distance education in South Dakota. Highlights include interactive videoconferencing and higher education opportunities via the Internet, satellites, videocassettes, public television, and correspondence. Benjamin, J. (2001). To recruit and retain distance learning faculty, learn the three R’s. Distance Education Report, 5(5), 1–2. Here are three keys for recruiting and retaining expert faculty in distance learning programs: reassurance, respect, and reward. Each is discussed in detail. Berge, Z., Ed. (2001). Sustaining distance training: Integrating learning technologies into the fabric of the enterprise. Jossey-Bass Business & Management Series. [Book, 413 p.] This book shows organizations how to move beyond the initial phases of setting up a distance training program to making it a part of the strategic planning process, including infrastructure, budget, staffing, and policy planning. Bichelmeyer, B., Misanchuk, M., & Malopinsky, L. (2001). Adapting a master’s degree course to the Web: A case analysis. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2(1), 49–58. Describes the adaptation of ‘‘Instructional Design and Development” from a residential course to a Web-based course offered in the distance masters’ degree program in Instructional Systems Technology at Indiana University. Boettcher, J. (2001). New classics and personal favorites: An annotated bibliography for online teaching and learning. Syllabus, 14(7), 36–38. Provides an annotated bibliography of print and Web resources concerning online learning. Bork, A. (2001). Tutorial learning for the new century. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(1), 57–71. Visualizes the future of learning and considers current and new paradigms concerning technology and learning. Recommends high interactive tutorial learning for very large numbers of students in distance learning situations.
< previous page
page_434
next page >
< previous page
page_435
next page >
Page 435 Bowman, J. (2001). The third wave: Swimming against the tide. Business Communication Quarterly, 64(2), 87– 91. Argues that distance learning is inevitable. Examines whether distance education is pedagogically sound. Discusses issues of time and compensation, intellectual property rights issues, and faculty backlash regarding distance learning classes. Branon, R., & Essex, C. (2001). Synchronous and asynchronous communication tools in distance education. TechTrends, 45(1), 36, 42. Describes a study that examined current practices of distance educators regarding their use of synchronous (chat) and asynchronous (bulletin board) text-based communication in online courses. Brigham, D. (2001). Converting student support services to online delivery. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(2). Available electronically at: http://www.irrodl.org/content/v1.2/regents.html. Uses a systems framework to analyze the creation of student support services for distance education at Regents College. Addresses the issues involved in converting distance education programs from print-based and telephone delivery to online delivery. Brooks, C., & Fernandez, E. (2001). Japanese distance learning: A Kansas summer program for children. Learning Languages, 6(3), 22–25. Describes a successful program that introduced Japanese language and culture to children in Kansas. End-of-program survey results revealed that students, parents, and facilitators were overwhelmingly positive about the program. Burley, H., Yearwood, B., Elwood-Salinas, S., Martin, L., & Allen, D. (2001). Partners in cyberspace: Reflections on developing an ePDS. Educational Forum, 65(2), 166–175. In a partnership with a technology magnet junior high, preservice teachers mentored public school students through an electronic learning community, an e-Professional Development School. Campbell, C. (2001). Distance learning in the health professions: On the verge of collapse or poised to soar? Journal of Allied Health, 30(1), 30–34. To ensure excellence in distance learning, re-thinking of teaching and reordering of academic priorities are essential. Canas, A., Ford, K., Novak, J., Hayes, P., Reichherzer, T., & Suri, N. (2001). Online concept maps: Enhancing collaborative learning by using technology with concept maps. Science Teacher, 68(4), 49–51. Describes a collaborative software system that allows students from distant schools to share claims derived from their concept maps. Carnevale, D. (2001). Assessment takes center stage in online learning. Chronicle of Higher Education, 47(31), A43–A45. Discusses how online programs are using new strategies of testing both to teach students and to prove that distance education works; however, some educators question their efficacy. Carnevale, D. (2001). A distance-education student puts his lessons to work on a farm. Chronicle of Higher Education, 47(38), A27–A28. Describes how a graduate student at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln uses his distance education courses to improve production on his family’s farm. Carnwell, R., Helm, R., & Moreland, N. (2001). Co-opting learners: Addressing their learning support needs through a learning support needs questionnaire. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 6(1), 51–66. Distance and campus-based nursing students completed the Learning Support Needs Questionnaire. The distance group had lower expectations of support, and the campus-based group was significantly less satisfied with support. Chang, C. (2001). Refining collaborative learning strategies for reducing the technical requirements of Web-based classroom management. Innovations in Education and
< previous page
page_435
next page >
< previous page
page_436
next page >
Page 436 Teaching International, 38(2), 133–143. Provides guidelines for a Web site manager to coordinate with a distance learning instructor for refining collaborative learning strategies. Christensen, R. (2001). Wiring the schools: South Dakota does it right. TechTrends, 45(3), 18–20. Describes a statewide project in South Dakota to wire its elementary and secondary school classrooms for distance education courses. Cook, C. (2001). Regional accrediting commissions: The watchdogs of quality assurance in distance education. Syllabus, 14(7), 20, 56–57. Discusses the regional accrediting commissions that provide quality assurance for the majority of degree-granting institutions in the U.S. Considers the balance between accountability and innovation regarding new forms of educational delivery. Dahlman, A., & Rilling, S. (2001). Integrating technologies and tasks in an EFLdistance learning course in Finland. TESOL Journal, 10(1), 4–8. Discusses a distance learning course in Finland where technology was integrated into instruction to develop students’ English through a variety of real-world language tasks. Dallas, P., Dessommes, N., & Hendrix, E. (2001). The distance learning composition classroom: Pedagogical and administrative concerns. ADE Bulletin, 127, 55–59. Considers that ever since distance learning technology has enabled colleges and universities to offer courses to students who might otherwise not be able to earn college credit, resistance has emerged on pedagogical or fiscal grounds. Daniel, J. (2001). Open learning at a point of turning. Indian Journal of Open Learning, 10(1), 19–31. Focuses on open learning for higher education. Discusses ways higher education is changing; why open universities are important in the 21st century; whom open universities should serve; and what, how, and where open universities should teach. Darnell, D., & Rosenthal, D. (2001). Evolution of a virtual campus. Community College Journal, 71(3), 21–23. This document describes lessons learned and accomplishments associated with Cerro Coso Community College’s development of virtual campus, online courses, and online associate degree programs. D’Atri, A., & Pauselli, E. (2001). Distance learning for SME managers. Industry & Higher Education, 15(2), 117– 123. Reviews management training strategies used by small- and medium-sized enterprises in Italy. Discusses solutions offered by distance learning, especially training delivered via satellite. Davis, A. (2001). Athabasca University: Conversion from traditional distance education to online courses, programs, and services. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(2). Available electronically at: http://www.irrodl.org/content/v1.2/au.html. Athabasca University has moved from mixed media course production and telephone/mail tutoring to a variety of electronic information and communication technologies for distance education. DeCamp, S., Richert, B., Singleton, W., Vines, N., & Slipher, G. (2001). Evaluating pork producers acceptance of distance education media. Journal of Extension, 39(3). Available electronically at: http://joe.org/joe/2001june/rb4.html. Pork producers were introduced to distance educational media; 86 percent preferred face-to-face to distance education, although 87 percent believed distance education is the future for information access. DEOS News. (Distance Education Online Symposium). Penn State University, College of Education, American Center for the Study of Distance Education, 110 Rackley Building, University Park, PA 16802-3202.
[email protected], http://www.ed.psu.edu/acsde/deosnews.htm/. [Online]. Posts information on distance education research and practice. Dereshiwsky, M. (2001). “A” is for assessment: Identifying online assessment practices and perceptions. Ed Education at a Distance, 15 (10). Available electronically at:
< previous page
page_436
next page >
< previous page
page_437
next page >
Page 437 http://www.usdla.org/ED_magazine/illuminactive/JAN01_Issue/article02.html. Discussion of student assessment in online learning focuses on a study conducted at the Center for Excellence in Education at Northern Arizona University that examined assessment of students’ performance in Web-based and Web-enhanced course work. Distance Education Report. Magna Publications, Inc., 2718 Dryden Dr., Madison, WI 53704. [24/yr., $399]. Digests periodical, Internet, and conference information into monthly reports. Drier, H. (2001). Conceptualization and design of “Probability Explorer”: A research-based journey toward innovative educational software. TechTrends, 45(2), 22–24. The design of “Probability Explorer” was inspired by lack of research-based elementary probability software, constructivist principles for designing computer microworlds, and research on children’s probabilistic reasoning. Emil, B. (2001). Distance learning, access, and opportunity: Equality and e-quality. Metropolitan Universities: An International Forum, 12(1), 19–27. Discusses various types of distance learning (synchronous and asynchronous) and issues involving nontraditional students. Fann, N., & Lewis, S. (2001). Is online education the solution? Business Education Forum, 55(4), 46–48. Looks at online delivery of soft skills such as problem solving, communication, interpersonal competence, and leadership. Suggests that it may be more difficult to ensure that appropriate interaction takes place. Foshay, W. (2001). Can instructional design deliver on the promise of the Web? Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2(1), 19–34. Examines major trends for changes related to e-learning in several sectors and describes how these trends are affecting the development and dissemination of instructional design theory and methodology. Foster, C., & Cranch, E. (2001). Of pines and pixels: Distance learning and forestry in New England. Connection: New England’s Journal of Higher Education and Economic Development, 15(3), 31–33. Describes ENFOR (environmental forestry), an initiative that is exploring whether distance learning through home computers can be used to improve the management of New England’s 700,000 privately owned nonindustrial forestlands. Galagan, P. (2001). Mission e-possible: The Cisco e-learning story. Training & Development, 55(2), 46–56. Describes the electronic learning program prescribed by Cisco director John Chambers. To respond to his challenge that the program would have to be exemplary and serve thousands, stakeholders integrated the company’s elearning initiatives. Gilham, C., & Moody, B. (2001). Face to face: Video conferencing creates opportunities for incarcerated youth. Journal of Correctional Education, 52(1), 29–31. Videoconferencing is an effective means of communication to bridge the distance between incarcerated youth and the outside world. A program in Oregon allows these youths to connect with community partners and develop resources, support, and skills. Goldwasser, D. (2001). Beyond ROI. Training, 38(1), 82–84, 86, 88, 90. Discusses methods for evaluating the return on investment of training. Compares the effectiveness of electronic learning and traditional methods and suggests that measuring hard numbers may not be a true indicator. Goodson, C. (2001). Providing library services for distance education students: A how to do it manual. Neal-Schuman. [Book, 200 p., $59.95]. This manual gives comprehensive instructions on how to plan and implement a distance learning program.
< previous page
page_437
next page >
< previous page
page_438
next page >
Page 438 Goodyear, P., Salmon, G., Spector, J., Steeples, C., & Tickner, S. (2001). Competences for online teaching: A special report. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 65–72. This article is a workshop report and exploration of interim outcomes related to the role and significance of online teachers and exposes a range of ways of understanding online teaching, including from competency, humanistic, and cognitive perspectives. Harvey, D., & Lee, J. (2001). The impact of inherent instructional design in online courseware. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2(1), 35–48. Examines how the use of server-based courseware development solutions affects the instructional design process when creating online distance education. Heinecke, W., & Blasi, L. (2001). Distance education for collaborative teaching and learning in teacher education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2(2), 141–156. Examines the development and implementation of distance education courses as a mechanism to promote collaborative teaching and learning. Hezel, R., & Dominguez, P. (2001). Strategic planning in e-learning collaborations: A recipe for optimizing success. Ed at a Distance Journal, 15(4). Available electronically at: http://usdla.org/ED_magazine/illuminactive/APR01_Issue/article01.html. Discusses how to create quality electronic learning initiatives in higher education involving multiple partners. Hitch, L., & Hirsch, D. (2001). Model training. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27(1), 15–19. Outlines the process for developing an online training course for faculty who will teach entirely online. Highlights include an emphasis on pedagogy over technology; collaboration and discussion; and keeping instructors current after training. Hong, H., Kinshuk, He, X., Patel, A., & Jesshope, C. (2001). Trends in Web-based learning environments. Distance Education Report, 5(3), 6–7. Discusses trends in Web-based learning environments. Highlights include common features of Web-based learning environments; challenges; the large amount of available online educational material; real-time interaction; and monitoring online testing. Hurd, S., Beaven, T., & Ortega, A. (2001). Developing autonomy in a distance language learning context: Issues and dilemmas for course writers. System, 29(3), 341–355. Investigates the notion of autonomy in relation to distance language learning, and examines the skills and strategies needed by those learning at a distance in order to achieve successful outcomes. James, M., & Voigt, M. (2001). Tips from the trenches: Delivering online courses effectively. Business Education Forum, 55(3), 56–57, 60. Focuses on the implications of online teaching for secondary business education teachers, the opportunities it gives teachers to reach new markets, and strategies that make online courses work. Johnson, S. (2001). Teaching introductory international relations in an entirely Web-based environment: Comparing student performance across and within groups. Education at a Distance, 15(10), Available electronically at: http://www.usdla.org/ED_magazine/illuminactive/JAN01_Issue/article01.html. Discussion of distance education in colleges and universities focuses on a case study that compared completion rate and exam performance of a Webbased section of an international relations course with a traditional section of the course. Jones, H., & Wolf, P. (2001). Teaching a graduate content area reading course via the Internet: Confessions of an experienced neophyte. Reading Improvement, 38(1), 2–9. Describes a course that was designed to provide instruction in the methods and procedures that can be used to enhance student comprehension of textbooks and other printed materials that are encountered in a content area.
< previous page
page_438
next page >
< previous page
page_439
next page >
Page 439 Journal of Distance Education. Canadian Association for Distance Education, Secretariat, One Stewart St., Suite 205, Ottawa, ON K1N 6H7, Canada. (Text in English and French.) [2/yr., $60 indiv., $30 student, $220 organization]. Aims to promote and encourage scholarly work of empirical and theoretical nature relating to distance education in Canada and throughout the world. Journal of Library and Information Services for Distance Learning. Haworth Information Press, 2710 University Drive, Richland, WA, 99352-1671, (509)372-7204, www.HaworthPress.com. [Q., $48 indiv., $150 inst., $150 libraries]. Contains peer-reviewed articles, essays, narratives, current events, and letters from distance learning and information science experts. Journal of Online Learning. International Society for Technology in Education. SIG, 1787 Agate St. Eugene, OR, 97403-1923. (541)346-4414, fax (541)346-5890, Ed. Terresa Gibry. [Q., $29 domestic to nonmembers, $39 foreign to nonmembers, $20 domestic to members, $30 foreign to members, $12 domestic to students, $22 foreign to students]. Presents communications technology, projects, research findings, publication references, and international contact information in instructional technology. Jung, I., & Rha, I. (2001). A virtual university trial project: Its impact on higher education in South Korea. Innovations in Education and Training International, 38(1), 31–41. Examines recent government policies in higher education in South Korea and analyzes changes. Introduces the Virtual University Trial Project. Discusses its impacts on higher education and offers recommendations for improvement and future research. Kaas, M., Block, D., Avery, M., Lindeke, L., Kubik, M., Duckett, L., & Vellenga, B. (2001). Technology-enhanced distance education: From experimentation to concerted action. Journal of Professional Nursing, 17(3), 135–140. A nursing school implemented a strategic schoolwide plan for technology-enhanced learning at a distance. Key features included adequate computer infrastructure and technical support, staff development, and user-friendly student support. Kelly, R. (2001). An integrated approach to student services. Distance Education Report, 5(6), 5. Describes the comprehensive, coordinated approach to student support services at the University of Wisconsin Learning Innovations, an electronic learning consultation utility that develops online programs for distance learning. King, B. (2001). Managing the changing nature of distance and open education at institutional level. Open Learning, 16(1), 47–60. Discusses changes that distance and open learning are facing, partly because the context of higher education generally is being transformed. King, K. (2001). Playing out the realities of Web-based bulletin boards: Enhancing face to face learning. New Horizons in Adult Education, 15(1). Available electronically at: http://www.nova.edu/~aed/horizons/volume15n1.htm. Using Web-based bulletin boards in classes elicited enthusiastic responses from 109 graduate education students. They felt it enhanced learning, created a greater sense of community, and encouraged participation through its use. Koszalka, T., & Bianco, M. (2001). Reflecting on the instructional design of distance education for learners: Learnings from the instructors. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2(1), 59–70. Provides one perspective on the design elements incorporated into the Pennsylvania State University World Campus Educational Technology Integration Certification courses and a brief overview of the authors’ experiences. Lee, J. (2001). Instructional support for distance education and faculty motivation, commitment, satisfaction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(2), 153–160. Discusses results of a survey of members of the Western Cooperative for Educational
< previous page
page_439
next page >
< previous page
page_440
next page >
Page 440 Telecommunications that examined faculty perceptions of instructional support in relation to motivation, commitment, and satisfaction associated with distance teaching. Lefor, P., Benke, M., & Ting, E. (2001). Empire State College: The development of online learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(2). Available electronically at: http://www.irrodl.org/content/v1.2/esc.html. Outlines the development of online programs at Empire State College since 1994. Emphasizes the issues and challenges faced by the institution in seeking to provide high-quality, costeffective distance education. Levin, J. (2001). Is the management of distance education transforming instruction in colleges? Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2(2), 105–117. Examines distance education in postsecondary institutions as an educational domain where information technologies have a central place and identifies critical issues in distance education. Levin, S., Waddoups, G., Levin, J., & Buell, J. (2001). Highly interactive and effective online learning environments for teacher professional development. International Journal of Educational Technology, 2(2). Available electronically at: www.outreach.uiuc.edu/ijet/v2n2/index.html. Reports on a two-year study of an online program for teacher professional development. Survey data and in-depth case studies revealed five dimensions that contribute to effective online learning. Lorenzo, G. (2001). Professional development to go? Training, 38(1), 68–70, 72, 74, 76. Looks at professional development ideas and opportunities for trainers. Stresses the need to keep up with the latest technologies. Discusses traditional and distance methods of getting the necessary training. MacDonald, L., & Caverly, D. (2001). Techtalk: Delivering study skills face-to-face at a distance. Journal of Developmental Education, 24(3), 44–45. Discusses the integration of classes in a generational model for distance education, specifically the G3 model, which focuses on the implementation of a study skills course. Mariani, M. (2001). Distance learning in postsecondary education: Learning whenever, wherever. Occupational Outlook Quarterly, 45(2), 2–10. Describes what distance learning is, why someone might choose it, and how students can evaluate course providers. A concluding section suggests sources of more information for those who prefer off-line resources or who do not have Internet access. Maushak, N., Chen, H., Martin, L., Shaw, B., & Unfred, D. (2001). Distance education: Looking beyond ‘‘no significant difference.” Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2(2), 119–140. This paper examines research related to learner interaction and control, two different approaches to multiple learning styles, and using intelligent agents to facilitate interaction and collaboration. McEwen, B. (2001). Web-assisted and online learning. Business Communication Quarterly, 64(2), 98–103. Argues that distance learning technologies are tools. Offers the author’s experiences of teaching Web-assisted as well as online courses as examples of different approaches to distance learning, each with totally different dynamics. Metros, S. (2001). Engaging online learners. Lifelong Learning in Europe, 6(2), 85–95. Learner engagement ranges from passive interest to dynamic interaction to flow state. Engaged teaching and learning online also progresses through three levels. Miller, G. (2001). Campus revolution: How IT is changing the teaching/learning environment. Distance Education Report, 5(4), 1,3. Discusses how information technology is creating a new kind of learning environment. Highlights include the changing demand for education, distance education, and a new engagement with industry.
< previous page
page_440
next page >
< previous page
page_441
next page >
Page 441 Milshtein, A. (2001). The cost of online learning. College Planning & Management, 4(4), 30, 32. Examines development considerations and tips for controlling costs when a university decides to develop an online distance learning service. Use of the interactive Web Site for Determining Costs tool for unveiling hidden costs is highlighted. Mishra, R., Ahmad, N., & Rai, N. (2001). Print materials in distance learning: Learners’ view. Indian Journal of Open Learning, 10(1), 52–59. A study was conducted at one of the study centers of Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) to find out to what extent material is self-instructional, and other factors related to print material and its effectiveness in distance education. Mishra, S. & Gaba, A. (2001). How do distance learners use activities in self-instructional materials? Indian Journal of Open Learning, 10(1), 40–51. Presents results of a study on the use of learning activities in self-instructional materials by distance learners of the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU). Moore, J. (2001). Connecting the schools: Another phase of South Dakota’s plan. TechTrends, 45(3), 22–25. Explains South Dakota’s Connecting the Schools project that distributed hardware and software for K–12 schools, as well as provided training. Moore, R., Jensen, M., & Hatch J. (2001). Bad teaching: It’s not just for the classroom anymore. American Biology Teacher, 63(6), 389–391. Discusses the factors influencing teacher effectiveness and focuses on online instruction. Points out the importance of hands-on experiences and inquiry as well as human interaction in education. Explains the limitations of online teaching. Muirhead, B. (2001). Enhancing social interaction in computer-mediated distance education. Ed at a Distance Journal, 15(4). Available electronically at: http://usdla.org/ED_magazine/illuminactive/APR01_Issue/article02.html. Considers the role of interaction in computer-mediated distance education and questions whether there are adequate opportunities for social interaction. New Review of Virtual Universities. Taylor Graham Publishing, 500 Chesham House, Chesham House, 150 Regent St., London W1R 5FA, United Kingdom, http://www.taylorgraham.com, Eds. Mark Chamers, Peter Roberts. [Annual, GBP 70, $130]. Oblinger, D. (2001). Will e-business shape the future of open and distance learning? Open Learning, 16(1), 9–25. Explores the impact that electronic business is likely to have on the growth of open and distance learning. O’Brien, T. (2001). Meeting the challenges of delivering accelerated alternative licensure and graduate programs via distance education. Business Education Forum, 55(4), 30–33. Discusses critical issues related to implementing accelerated programs for initial licensure in business and marketing education and delivering master’s degree programs that incorporate preparation for national board certification. Okamoto, T., Cristea, A., & Kayama, M. (2001). Future integrated learning environments with multimedia. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(1), 4–12. Presents three trends in education separately: distance learning, ITS systems, and media-oriented learning. Benefits of their integration are considered along with the possible pitfalls and a short systematic approach on how to avoid them. O’Neil, D. (2001). A course evolves—physical anthropology. Distance Education Report, 5(2), 6. Describes issues related to development of Palomar College’s online physical anthropology course, including the ability to easily update materials on the Web; creating Web pages that are readable by most browsers; and clarifying ownership of courses. Open Learning. Taylor & Frances Group, Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynew, MK7 6AA United Kingdom. [3/yr., $62 indiv., $190 inst.]. Academic, scholarly publication
< previous page
page_441
next page >
< previous page
page_442
next page >
Page 442 on aspects of open and distance learning anywhere in the world. Includes issues for debate and research notes. Open Praxis. International Centre for Distance Education, National Extension College, 18 Brooklands Ave., Cambridge CB2 2HN, England. [2/yr., $70 indiv., $55 libraries]. Reports on activities and programs of the ICDE. Paskert, S., & Young, T. (2001). The governor’s conclave: Starting the process of change. TechTrends, 45(3), 35– 37. Describes the role of South Dakota’s governor in initiating technology plans for schools that would promote distance education. Patterson, C. (2001). Virtual academy. Techniques: Connecting Education and Careers, 76(4), 34–35. The Virtual Academy at the Great Oaks Institute of Technology and Career Development is a tool for remediation and acceleration. Plotnik, E. (2001). Research abstracts. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2(2), 171–173. Present research abstracts on topics such as effectiveness of distance versus traditional on-campus education, qualitative analysis of situated Web-based learning, and a distance education experience in Appalachia. Potempa, K., Stanley, J., Davis, B., Miller, K., Hassett, M., & Pepicello, S. (2001). Survey of distance technology use in AACN member schools. Journal of Professional Nursing, 17(1), 7–13. Survey responses from 365 of 478 nursing schools revealed the acceleration of distance course offerings. Budget, time, and staff training were the chief barriers to distance technology use. Prestera, G., & Moller, L. (2001). Exploiting opportunities for knowledge-building in asynchronous distance learning environments. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2(2), 93–104. Suggests that asynchronous distance learning environments are best accomplished by establishing virtual learning communities, which break down instructor-as-transmitter, learner-as-receiver roles and instead promote a more learner-driven environment. Primo, L., & Lesage, T. (2001). Survey of intellectual property issues for distance learning and online educators. Ed at a Distance Journal, 15(2). Available electronically at: http://usdla.org/ED_magazine/illuminactive/FEB01_Issue/article03.html. Discusses copyright issues relating to digital distance learning. Topics include course design ownership; multimedia; the role of online instructors; videotaped classes; liability for copyright infringement; rights of copyright owners; and fair use. Rosenkrans, G. (2001). Design considerations for an effective online environment. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 56(1), 43–61. Describes the development of an online segment for a course at Pepperdine University. Presents a snapshot of a pilot test instrument, the process used to test the online segment of the course, and a summary of results from the online segment. Ruman, C., & Gillette, J. (2001). Distance learning software usefulness and usability: User-centered issues in practical deployment. Ed at a Distance Journal, 15(3). Available electronically at: http://www.usdla.org/ED_magazine/illuminactive/MAR01_Issue/index.html. Describes Blackboard CourseInfo, a software package for distance learning; defines elements that are used in an on-campus graduate class; and gives results of a survey on how useful and usable the software was. Rumble, G. (2001). Re-inventing distance education, 1971–2001. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 20(1–2), 31–43. Describes five key changes that have taken place in distance education, including the shift from multimedia-based to online education. Sandberg, J., Christoph, N., & Emans, B. (2001). Tutor training: A systematic investigation of tutor requirements and an evaluation of a training. British Journal of Educational
< previous page
page_442
next page >
< previous page
page_443
next page >
Page 443 Technology, 32(1), 69–90. Describes a systematic training for flight instructors in Europe who were becoming tutors in a distance learning course on the Internet. Establishes requirements that flight instructors need to become distance tutors. Saury, R. (2001). A day in the life of Thomas Baggett: Technology and the making of an international intellectual community in the year 2020. Change, 33(1), 18–23. A faculty member imagines what a typical day could be like for an average student in only 20 years. Notes that educators in all disciplines must rethink their curricula to take advantage of technology’s asynchronous and boundary-crossing capabilities. Schroeder, R. (2001). Institutional support infrastructure for online classes. Metropolitan Universities: An International Forum, 12(1), 35–40. Asserting that providing infrastructure to support online classes is analogous to building a new physical campus next to the pre-existing one, describes the support requirements of faculty, information technology networks, students, and administrators. Schwier, R. (2001). Catalysts, emphases, and elements of virtual learning communities: Implications for research and practice. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2(1), 5–18. Examines theoretical and conceptual issues around promoting the growth of virtual learning communities and considers issues around using communication technologies in formal and informal learning environments. Shinn, G., Ed. (2001). Theme: Communication technology for learning. Agricultural Education Magazine, 73(4), 4–27. Theme articles discuss new tools and proven strategies for teaching agricultural education using the Web, the Internet, computers, and other distance education methods as tools. SIGTC Connections. International Society for Technology in Education, Special Interest Group for Technology Coordinators, 1787 Agate St., Eugene, OR 97403-1923. (541)346-4414, fax (541)346-5890, Ed. Gordon Dahl. [Q., $29 domestic to nonmembers, $39 foreign to nonmembers, $20 domestic to members, $30 to members]. Provides a forum for sharing information on issues affecting technology coordinator professionals. Simonson, M. (2001). Examining barriers to distance education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2(1), 1–2. Provides an overview of barriers to distance education, based on a recent literature review and survey of several thousand people involved in distance education, instructional technology, and training. Simonson, M. (2001). Signal fires? Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2(2), 91. What will be the nature of teaching in the 21st century? Some say meeting of students with teachers will soon be a relic of the past, while others advocate the need for face-to-face instruction. Some say education should use a combination. Sole, M., & Lindquist, M. (2001). Enhancing traditional, televised, and videotaped courses with Web-based technologies: A comparison of student satisfaction. Nursing Outlook, 49(3), 132–137. Nursing students took a course via videotape, remote live broadcast, or in the classroom. Classroom students rated interaction, instructor communication, and facilitation of higher learning. Overall satisfaction of both groups was high. Spitzer, D. (2001). Don’t forget the high-touch with the high-tech in distance learning. Educational Technology, 41(2), 51–55. Discusses Web-based distance learning and emphasizes the importance of human interaction and facilitation to ensure successful programs. Stallings, D. (2001). The virtual university: Organizing to survive in the 21st century. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27(1), 3–14. Discusses the growth of electronic education and the need to educate in a new environment.
< previous page
page_443
next page >
< previous page
page_444
next page >
Page 444 Swail, W., & Kampits, E. (2001). Distance education and accreditation. New Directions for Higher Education, 113, 35–48. Describes a probable path for the development of accreditation resources and processes necessary to respond to change in educational delivery systems, especially the rapid growth of distance education, with an appropriate system of quality assurance. Swistock, B., Sharpe, W., & Dickison, J. (2001). Educating rural private water system owners in Pennsylvania using satellite versus traditional Programs. Journal of Extension, 39(3). Available electronically at: http://joe.org/joe/2001june/a7.html. A safe drinking water program was delivered by satellite as well as the live speaker program. The satellite program met objectives, was cheaper, and required less specialist time, although it attracted a smaller audience and allowed limited interaction. Tenenbaum, G., Naidu, S., Jegede, O., & Austin, J. (2001). Constructivist pedagogy in conventional on-campus and distance learning practice: An exploratory investigation. Learning and Instruction, 11(2), 87–111. Studied the characteristics of constructivism and their presence in face-to-face and open and distance learning through electronic discussions involving 12 experts and the evaluation of 17 telephone-mediated tutorials. Trentin, G. (2001). From formal training to communities of practice via network-based learning. Educational Technology, 41(2), 5–14. Discussion of the need for training and lifelong learning in light of new information and communication technologies focuses on small businesses with few employees who need rapid and continuous training. Tricker, T., Rangecroft, M., Long, P., & Gilroy, P. (2001). Evaluating distance education courses: The student perception. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(2), 165–177. Describes the Template Project, which drew on the evaluation needs and techniques of service industries to create an evaluation instrument for distance education courses. Venn, M., Moore, R., & Gunter, P. (2001). Using audio/video conferencing to observe field-based practices of rural teachers. Rural Educator, 22(2), 24–27. Valdosta State University (Georgia) uses audio- and videoconferencing in its teacher education program, a low-cost alternative to travel that enables student teachers to access the expertise of their supervisors more frequently. Volery, T. (2001). Online education: An exploratory study into success factors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(1), 77–92. Presents an exploratory study of a Web-based distance education course at an Australian university. Identifies factors associated with teaching effectiveness in online delivery. Wagner, E. (2001). Customized Internet assessments: Evaluating another dimension of Web technology. Journal of College Science Teaching, 30(7), 454–459, 476. Discusses educators’ difficulty with interactive online assessment. Describes a program that enables instructors to create their own online assessment with complete control over the content and structure of questions. Wang, Y., & Sun, C. (2001). Internet-based real time language education: Towards a fourth generation distance education. CALICO Journal, 18 (3), 539–561. Through examination of the development of distance education for foreign languages, puts forth a theory on the emergence of a fourth generation of distance language education, challenging the generally accepted three-generation theory. Wardrope, W. (2001). A communication-based response to distance learning in business communication. Business Communication Quarterly, 64(2), 92–97. Discusses whether distance education can serve as an effective medium for teaching business communication content, much of which is interactive, and whether distance education can motivate students to be good business communicators.
< previous page
page_444
next page >
< previous page
page_445
next page >
Page 445 Warner, A. (2001). An urban university’s approach to anywhere, anytime learning. Metropolitan Universities: An International Forum, 12(1), 28–34. Describes the hybrid model of distance learning at Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI). Asserts that the hybrid model offers advantages over a single mode because it can be adapted to fit situational variables. Watkins, R., Kaufman, R., & Guerra, I. (2001). The future of distance learning: Defining and sustaining useful results. Educational Technology, 41(3), 19–26. Considers benefits of distance learning for various organizations including educational institutions, corporations, and government agencies. Wessels, J. (2001). Criteria for assessing learning material for distance education. South African Journal of Higher Education, 15(1), 217–224. Proposes eight criteria for assessing learning material for distance education institutions based on an analysis of trends in the field of learning and elements of a typical learner profile. Wheeler, S. (2001). Around the globe. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2(2), 169–170. Provides an overview of current activities in Web-based learning and development in Romania. Witherspoon, J., & Johnstone, S. (2001). Quality in online education: Results from a revolution. Ed at a Distance Journal, 15(3). Available electronically at: http://www.usdla.org/ED_magazine/illuminactive/MAR01_Issue/index.html. Summarizes current developments in online higher education and how they are revolutionizing the way people learn. Highlights include the global economy and the Internet and the changing relationship between businesses and universities. Zielinski, D. (2001). True confessions. Training, 38(3), 108, 110, 112, 114, 116. Describes the challenges and successes of providing web-based training. Advises on planning, timing instruction, distinguishing between skills training and information sharing, troubleshooting technology difficulties, and adapting to increased workload. EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH American Educational Research Journal. American Educational Research Association, 1230 17th St. NW, Washington DC 20036-3078. [Q., $41 indiv., $56 inst.]. Reports original research, both empirical and theoretical, and brief synopses of research. Current Index to Journals in Education (CIJE). Oryx Press, 4041 N. Central at Indian School Rd., Phoenix, AZ 85012-3397. [Mo., $245 ($280 outside North America); semi-ann. cumulations $250 ($285 foreign); combination $475]. A guide to articles published in some 830 education and education-related journals. Includes complete bibliographic information, annotations, and indexes. Semiannual cumulations available. Contents are produced by the ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center) system, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, and the U.S. Department of Education. Education Index. H. W. Wilson, 950 University Ave., Bronx, NY 10452. [Mo., except July and August; $1,295 for CD-ROM, including accumulations]. Author-subject index to educational publications in the English language. Cumulated quarterly and annually. Educational Research. Routledge, 11 Fetter Ln., London EC4P 4EE, England. [3/yr., $78 indiv., $231 inst.]. Reports on current educational research, evaluation, and applications. Educational Researcher. American Educational Research Association, 1230 17th St. NW, Washington DC 200363078. [9/yr., $44 indiv., $61 inst.]. Contains news and features of general significance in educational research.
< previous page
page_445
next page >
< previous page
page_446
next page >
Page 446 Journal of Interactive Learning Research. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, P.O. Box 2966, Charlottesville, VA 22902-2966,
[email protected], http://www.aace.org, Ed. Tom Reeves. [Q., $85 domestic indiv., $120 domestic inst.]. Publishes articles pertaining to theory, implementation, and overall impact of interactive learning environments in education. Learning Technology. IEEE Computer Society, Learning Technology Task Force, Private Bag 11-222, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand, http://lttf.ieee.org/learn_tech. [Q., online]. Reports developments, projects, conferences, and findings of the Learning Technology Task Force. Logo Exchange. International Society for Technology in Education, Special Interest Group for Logo-Using Educators, 1787 Agate St., Eugene, OR 97403-1923, Ed. Gary Stager. [Q., $34 domestic to nonmembers, $44 foreign to members, $24 domestic to members, $34 foreign to members, $14.40 domestic to students, $24.40 foreign to students]. Provides current information on research, lesson plans, and methods related to LOGO. LTRREPORT. Node Learning Technologies Network, 26 Burdy Drive, St. Catharines, ON L2S 3E4 Canada, http://thenode.org/ltreport/, Ed. Erin Bale. [semi-annual, online, $90]. Provides practical information for the use of technology in education and training. MERIDIAN (RALEIGH). C/O Edwin Gerler, College of Education and Psychology, North Carolina State University, Box 7801, Raleigh, NC 27695-7801,
[email protected], http://www.ncsu.edu/meridian, Ed. Cheryl Mason. [semi-annual, online]. Online journal dedicated to research in middle school educational technology use. Research in Science & Technological Education. Taylor & Francis Group, 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE, www.tandf.co.uk. [2/yr., $133 indiv., $670 inst.]. Publication of original research in the science and technological fields. Includes articles on psychological, sociological, economic, and organizational aspects of technological education. Resources in Education (RIE). Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954, www.access.gpo.gov. [Mo., $78 U.S., $97.50 elsewhere]. Announcement of research reports and other documents in education, including abstracts and indexes by subject, author, and institution. Contents produced by the ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center) system, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, and the U.S. Department of Education. Schuch, D. (2001). “The Research Assistant.” TechTrends, 45(2), 17–18. “The Research Assistant,” was developed to help graduate students and faculty manage the quantity of available information and to be able to read it, synthesize it, and create new insights and knowledge. Software and Networks for Learning, Shrewsbury Publishing, P.O. Box 3894, Santa Barbara, CA, 93130, Ed. Urban Streitz. [9/yr., $65, online full text]. Newsletter. TESS (The Educational Software Selector). Educational Products Information Exchange (EPIE) Institute, 103 3 W. Montauk Hwy. 3, Hampton, NY 11946-4006, (516)728-9100, fax (516)728-9228. [Annual, $82.50 base volume (1996), $ 32.50 for update]. A guide listing annotated references to educational software for preschool through postgraduate education. Willis, J., Mukta, J., & Nilakanta, R. (2001). Qualitative research methods for education and instructional technology. Informational Age Publishing, Inc.,
[email protected]. [Book, $29.95]. Discusses trends in positivism, interpretivism, and critical theory. Outlines data collection and analysis approaches.
< previous page
page_446
next page >
< previous page
page_447
next page >
Page 447 EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY Appropriate Technology. Intermediate Technology Publications, Ltd., 103–105 Southampton Row, London, WC1B 4HH, England, www.itdg.org,
[email protected]. [Q., $28 indiv., $37 inst.]. Articles on less technologically advanced, but more environmentally sustainable, solutions to problems in developing countries. Benenson, G. (2001). Teachers researching, children designing. Journal of Technology Education, 12(2), 56–68. Presents arguments for teacher-researcher collaboration in K–12 technology education. Identifies barriers that must be overcome in order to create a common culture of design and research. British Journal of Educational Technology. National Council for Educational Technology, Millburn Hill Rd., Science Park, Coventry CV4 7JJ, England. [Q., $99 indiv., $338 inst.]. Published by the National Council for Educational Technology, this journal includes articles on education and training, especially theory, applications, and development of educational technology and communications. Buchanan, R., Borgmann, A., Mitcham, C., Waks, L., Huyke, H., Kellner, D., & Feenberg, A. (2001). Special issue: Philosophy of design, design education and educational design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11(1), 1–91. Presents a series of articles about educational technology issues. Burniske, R. (2001). Avaricious and envious: Confessions of a computer-literate educator. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(7), 524–527. The computer encourages endless acquisitions. How much computer literacy is sufficient? What other literacies must educators sacrifice to obtain it? CAELL Journal. ISTE, University of Oregon, 1787 Agate St., Eugene, OR 97403-1923, (800)336-5191,
[email protected], www.iste.org. [Q., $29; $39 intl., $42 intl. air]. Focuses on current issues facing computer-using language teachers; covers trends, products, applications, research, and program evaluation. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology Communication. Association for Media and Technology in Education in Canada, 3-1750 The Queensway, Suite 1318, Etobicoke, ON M9C 5H5, Canada. [3/yr., $75]. Concerned with all aspects of educational systems and technology. Cutshall, S. (2001). Just click here: New technology and testing. Techniques: Connecting Education and Careers, 76(5), 35–37. With increasing emphasis on accurate assessment and accountability, computer-based testing and simulation may signify the future for teachers wishing to keep current on technology in the classroom. Dziuban, C., & Moskal, P. (2001). Evaluating distributed learning in metropolitan universities. Metropolitan Universities: An International Forum, 12(1), 41–49. Describes findings gathered from evaluation of the University of Central Florida’s distributed learning system with respect to student demographics, perceptions, success strategies, learning styles, and success/withdrawal rates. Educational Technology. Educational Technology Publications, Inc., 700 Palisade Ave., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632-0564, (800)952-BOOK. [Bi-mo., $119 U.S., $139 elsewhere]. Covers telecommunications, computer-aided instruction, information retrieval, educational television, and electronic media in the classroom. Educational Technology Abstracts. Taylor & Francis Group, 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE, England, www.tandf.co.uk. [6/yr., $347 indiv., $940 inst.]. An international publication of abstracts of recently published material in the field of educational and training technology.
< previous page
page_447
next page >
< previous page
page_448
next page >
Page 448 Educational Technology Research and Development. AECT, ETR&D Subscription Dept., 1800 N. Stonelake Dr., Suite 2, Bloomington, IN 47404, www.aect.org. [Q., $55 U.S., $63 foreign]. Focuses on research, instructional development, and applied theory in the field of educational technology; peer-reviewed. Franklin, K., Chesser, J., Edleston, R., Edwards-Schafer, P., Marvin, S., & Satkowski-Harper, T. (2001). Faculty attitudes about instructional technology in a metropolitan university classroom. Metropolitan Universities: An International Forum, 12(1), 50–61. Electronic focus groups with professors who explored their attitudes toward instructional technology provided data for a theoretical framework. Findings indicated that they have concerns about the ability of such technology to enhance student learning. Hecht, J. (2001). Future shock: Education in the information age. Presidential address. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 14(1), 3–12. Predictions about the future of education are made against a backdrop of the history of the university and the historical effects of technology on higher education and education in general. The role of the university professor will shift. International Journal of Educational Technology. University of Western Australia, Department of Education, Nedlands, W.A. 6907 Australia,
[email protected], http://www.outreach.uiuc.edu/ijet/, Ed. Roger Hacker. [Semi-annual, online full text]. Posts information about computer-based educational technologies. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 101 Philip Drive, Norwell, MA 02061, (617)871-6600, fax (617)871-6528,
[email protected]. [3/yr., $118 individual, $198 institution]. Publishes research reports and scholarly writing about aspects of technology and design education. Januszewski, A. (2001). Educational technology: The development of a concept. Libraries Unlimited, www.lu.com. [Book, 180p., $48.00]. Outlines the evolution of educational technology from its beginnings in the fields of audiovisual education, science, and engineering from the 1960s to the present. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. Norris Publishers, Journal of Computing in Higher Education, Box 2593, Amherst, MA 01004-2593,
[email protected], www.jchesite.org, Ed. Carol B MacKnight. [Semiannual, $35 U.S. indiv., $65 foreign indiv., $75 domestic to inst., $80 in Canada to inst., $90 foreign to inst.]. Publishes scholarly essays, case studies, and research that discuss instructional technologies. Journal of Educational Technology Systems. Society for Applied Learning Technology, Baywood Publishing, Inc., 26 Austin Ave., Box 337, Amityville, NY 11701,
[email protected], http://baywood.com. [Q., $218 U.S.]. Discusses educational hardware and software. Journal of Interactive Media in Education. Open University, Knowledge Media Institute, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA United Kingdom, Eds. Simon Buckingham Shum, Tamara Sumner. [Online, full text]. A multidisciplinary forum for debate and idea sharing concerning the practical aspects of interactive media and instructional technology. Journal of Science Education and Technology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013-1578, (781)871-6600,
[email protected], www.plenum.com. [Q., $86 individual, $426 institution]. Publishes studies aimed at improving science education at all levels in the United States. Levinson, E., & Grohe, B. (2001). The future is just around the corner. Converge, 4(1), 58, 60. Discusses technology-based change in education and presents a framework to measure changes in the process and structure of education. Considers advances in computers; curriculum development; corporate issues; connectivity; and competence.
< previous page
page_448
next page >
< previous page
page_449
next page >
Page 449 Ley, K., & Young, D. (2001). Instructional principles for self-regulation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 93–103. Suggests principles for embedding support in instruction to facilitate self-regulation (SR) in less expert learners. The principles are based on analysis of research on the distinctive SR differences between higher- and lower-achieving learners. Means, B. (2001). Technology use in tomorrow’s schools. Educational Leadership, 58(4), 57–61. Despite countless networking and interactive possibilities, the most commonly assigned use of classroom technology during 1997–98 was word processing, followed by Internet research and information gathering. Mitchell, M. (2001). Using technology in elementary physical education. Strategies, 14(6), 28–31. Provides several possibilities for incorporating different forms of technology into elementary physical education programs in order to satisfy technology requirements and enhance instruction. Multimedia Schools. Information Today, Inc., 213 Danbury Rd., Wilton, CT 06897-4006,
[email protected], http://www.infotoday.com/MMSchools/Ed. Ferdi Serim. [online, full-text, 6/yr., $39.95 U.S., $54 Canada and Mexico, $63 other]. Reviews and evaluates hardware and software. Presents information pertaining to basic troubleshooting skills. North Central Regional Technology in Education Consortium (2001). Guiding questions for technology planning. ERS Spectrum, 30(1), 16–22. Presents guiding questions developed by the U.S. Department of Education’s Technology Planning Task Force. Questions revolve around creating a vision of learning, using technology to support the mission, and implementing the plan. Reiser, R. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part I: A history of instructional media. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 53–64. Discusses the history of the field of instructional design and technology in the United States. Includes a definition, major features, and rational for using instructional design and technology as the label for the field. Reiser, R. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part II: A history of instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 57–67. Describes factors affecting the field of instructional design over the last two decades, including increasing interest in cognitive psychology, microcomputers, performance technology, and constructivism. Riel, M., & Fulton, K. (2001). The role of technology in supporting learning communities. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(7), 518–523. Past technologies have enabled idea sharing, but are one-way communication modes. Broader learning communities have been made possible through electronic field trips, online mentoring, science investigations, and humanities activities. Science Communication (formerly Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization). Sage Publications Inc., 2455 Teller Rd., Thousand Oaks, CA 91320,
[email protected], www.sagepub.com. [Q., $94 indiv., $455 inst.]. An international, interdisciplinary journal examining the nature of expertise and the translation of knowledge into practice and policy. SIGTC Connections. ISTE, University of Oregon, 1787 Agate St., Eugene, OR 97403-1923, (800)336-5191,
[email protected], www.iste.org. [Q., $29, $39 intl., $42 intl. air]. Provides forum to identify problems and solutions, and to share information on issues facing technology coordinators. Smith, S. (2001). Teacher education: Technology 101—Integration beyond a technology foundations course. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(1), 43–45. Describes
< previous page
page_449
next page >
< previous page
page_450
next page >
Page 450 a college course designed to introduce teachers to current technologies, help them attain a reasonable skill level using technologies, develop effective integration strategies, and become critical thinkers and evaluators of digital information. Social Science Computer Review. North Carolina State University, Social Science Research and Instructional Computing Lab, Sage Publications, Inc., 2455 Teller Rd., Thousand Oaks, CA, 91320
[email protected], http:/hcl.chass.ncsu.edu/sscore/sscore.htm, Ed. David Garson. [Q., GBP 58, $84 indiv., GBP 252, $366 inst.]. Presents research and practical applications of instructional technology in social science. Tearle, P., & Dillon, P. (2001). The development and evaluation of a multimedia resource to support ICT training: Design issues, training processes, and user experiences. Innovations in Education and Training International 38(1), 8–18. Addresses issues surrounding the process of information and communications technology training (ICT), and the application of training outcomes in the workplace. Discusses design issues, training processes, and user expectations. TECHNOS. Agency for Instructional Technology, Box A, 1800 N. Stonelake Dr., Bloomington, IN 47402-0120. [Q., $28 indiv., $24 libr., $32 foreign]. A forum for discussion of ideas about the use of technology in education, with a focus on reform. TechTrends. AECT, 1800 N Stonelake Dr. Suite 2, Bloomington, IN 47404, www.aect.org. [6/yr., $40 U.S., $44 elsewhere, $6 single copy]. Targeted at leaders in education and training; features authoritative, practical articles about technology and its integration into the learning environment. T.H.E. Journal (Technological Horizons in Education). T.H.E., 150 El Camino Real, Suite 112, Tustin, CA 926803670. [11/yr., $29 U.S., $95 elsewhere]. For educators of all levels. Focuses on a specific topic for each issue, as well as technological innovations as they apply to education. Trepanier-Street, M., Hong, S., & Bauer, J. (2001). Using technology in Reggio-inspired long-term projects. Early Childhood Education Journal, 28(3), 181–188. Describes examples of use of technology in the implementation and documentation of long-term projects conducted as a part of the Reggio Emilia preschool curriculum. Vogel, D., & Klassen, J. (2001). Technology-supported learning: Status, issues, and trends. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(1), 104–114. Examines the status, issues, and trends of multimedia instructional support. Presents examples associated with the development of CD-ROMs and interactive Web sites to illustrate important considerations for such development. Willden, J. (2001). Bohr’s atomic model. TechTrends, 45(2), 11. ‘‘Bohr’s Atomic Model” is a small interactive multimedia program that introduces the viewer to a simplified model of the atom. This interactive simulation lets students build an atom using an atomic construction set. INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Benson, C. (2001). Neal-Schuman complete internet companion for librarians (2nd ed.). Neal-Schuman,
[email protected]. [Book, 600p., $79.95]. Comprehensive reference for librarians. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science/Revue canadienne des sciences de l’information et de bibliothe`conomie. CAIS, University of Toronto Press, Journals Dept., 5201 Dufferin St., Downsview, ON M3H 5T8, Canada. [Q., $65 indiv., $95 inst., orders outside Canada $15]. Published by the Canadian Association for Information Science to contribute to the advancement of library and information science in Canada.
< previous page
page_450
next page >
< previous page
page_451
next page >
Page 451 CD-ROM Databases. Worldwide Videotex, Box 3273, Boynton Beach, FL33424-3273. [Mo., $150 U.S., $190 elsewhere]. Descriptive listing of all databases being marketed on CD-ROM with vendor and system information. EContent (formerly Database). Online, Inc. 462 Danbury Rd., Wilton, CT 06897. [Bimo., $55 U.S., $65 Canada, $90 intl. airmail]. Features articles on topics of interest to online database users; includes database search aids. Gale Directory of Databases (in 2 vols.: Vol. 1, Online Databases; Vol. 2, CD-ROM, Diskette, Magnetic Tape Batch Access, and Handheld Database Products). The Gale Group, P.O. Box 9187, Farmington Hills, MI 48333-9187. [Annual plus semi-annual update $280; Vol. 1, $199; Vol. 2, $119]. Contains information on database selection and database descriptions, including producers and their addresses. Information Management. IDEA Group, www.idea-group.com, 1331 E. Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, PA, 170331117, (800)345-4332. [Semi-annual., $40 indiv., $65 inst.]. This semi-annual newsletter includes essays on current topics in information science, expert reviews of information management products, and updates on professional conferences and events. Information Processing and Management. Pergamon Press, 660 White Plains Rd., Tarrytown, NY 10591-5153. [Bi-mo., $270 indiv. whose inst. subscribes, $1,045 inst.]. International journal covering data processing, database building, and retrieval. Information Retrieval and Library Automation. Lomond Publications, Inc., Box 88, Mt. Airy, MD 21771. [Mo., $66 U.S., foreign $79.50]. News, articles, and announcements on new techniques, equipment, and software in information services. Information Services & Use. I.O.S. Press, Box 10558, Burke, VA 22009-0558. [4/yr., $267]. An international journal for those in the information management field. Includes online and offline systems, library automation, micrographics, videotex, and telecommunications. The Information Society. Taylor & Francis Group, 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE, England, www.tandf.co.uk, Taylor and Francis, 47 Runway Road, Suite G, Levittown, PA 19057,
[email protected]. [5/yr., $97 indiv.; $264 inst.]. Provides a forum for discussion of the world of information, including transborder data flow, regulatory issues, and the impact of the information industry. Information Technology and Libraries. American Library Association, ALA Editions, 50 East Huron St., Chicago, IL60611-2795, (800)545-2433, fax (312)836-9958. [Q., $50 U.S., $55 Canada, Mexico; $60 elsewhere]. Articles on library automation, communication technology, cable systems, computerized information processing, and video technologies. Information Today. Information Today, 143 Old Marlton Pike, Medford, NJ 08055, (800)300-9868. [11/yr., $69.95; Canada and Mexico, $87; outside North America, $96]. Newspaper for users and producers of electronic information services. Articles and news about the industry, calendar of events, and product information. Information Technology Newsletter. IDEA Group, www.idea-group.com, 1331 E. Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, PA, 17033-1117, (800)345-4332. [B., $20 indiv., $35 inst.]. Designed for library information specialists, this biannual newsletter presents current issues and trends in information science presented by and for specialists in the field. Internet Reference Service Quarterly. 223 Capen Hall, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, 14260, (716) 6452756, Haworth Information Press, www.HaworthPress.com. [Q., $45 indiv., $75 inst., $75 libraries.] Discusses multidisciplinary aspects of incorporating the Internet as a tool for reference service.
< previous page
page_451
next page >
< previous page
page_452
next page >
Page 452 Journal of Access Services. SUNY Albany, Science Library, Room 142, 1400 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12222, (518)437-3951, Haworth Information Press, www.HaworthPress.com. [Q., $48 indiv., $120 inst., $120 libraries]. Peer-reviewed journal containing feature columns, essays, articles, reviews, and conference reports on a large scope of information resource issues. Journal of Bibliographic Instruction for Electronic Resources. 207 Hillman Library, Pittsburgh, PA, 15260, (412)648-7732, Haworth Information Press, www.HaworthPress.com. [Q., $36 indiv., $48 inst., $48 libraries]. Peerreviewed journal covering emerging trends in electronic resources. Journal of Database Management. Idea Group Publishing, 4811 Jonestown Rd., Suite 230, Harrisburg, PA 171091751. [Q., $85 indiv., $245 inst.]. Provides state-of-the-art research to those who design, develop, and administer DBMS-based information systems. Journal of Documentation. Aslib, The Association for Information Management, Staple Hall, Stone House Court, London EC3A 7PB, England, 44 (0) 20 7903 0000,
[email protected]. [6/yr.; £176 ($275) members, £220 ($345) nonmembers]. Describes how technical, scientific, and other specialized knowledge is recorded, organized, and disseminated. Journal of Electronic Resources. 128 Owsley Avenue, Lexington, KY, 40502-1526, (606)257-0500, ext. 2120, Haworth Information Press, www.HaworthPress.com. [Q., $48 indiv., $150 inst., $150 libraries]. Devoted to issues related to selecting, budgeting, and assessing effectiveness of electronic resources for the academic, special, and public library setting. Journal of Internet Cataloging. Haworth Information Press, 10 Alice Street, Binghamton, NY 13904-1580, 800342-9678, www.HaworthPress.com. [Q., $40 indiv., $85 inst., $85 libraries]. Gives library cataloging experts a system for managing Internet reference resources in the library catalog. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology. American Society for Information Science, 8720 Georgia Avenue, Suite 501, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910-3602, (301)495-0900, www.asis.org. [14/yr., inst. rate: $1,259 U.S., $1,399 Canada and Mexico, $1,518 outside North America]. Provides an overall forum for new research in information transfer and communication processes, with particular attention paid to the context of recorded knowledge. Resource Sharing & Information Networks. Haworth Press, 10 Alice St., Binghamton, NY 13904-1580, (800)HAWORTH, fax (800) 895-0582,
[email protected], www.haworthpress.com. [2/yr., $50 indiv., $225 inst. and libraries]. A forum for ideas on the basic theoretical and practical problems faced by planners, practitioners, and users of network services. Shuman, B. (2001). Issues for libraries and information science in the internet age. [Book, 170p., $45]. Libraries Unlimited, www.lu.com. Addresses censorship, information overload, archiving, and other challenges posed by Internet integration in public libraries. Web Feet. Rock Hill Communications, 14 Rock Hill Road, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, (888)762-5445, fax (610)6672291, www.webfeetguides.com. [9/yr., $90]. Indexes Web sites for general interest, classroom use, and research; reviews Web sites for quality, curricular relevance, timeliness, and interest. INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT Chen, Q. (2001). Human computer interaction: Issues and challenges. IDEA Group, www.idea-group.com. [Book, 300p., $74.95]. Guides researchers, designers, analysts, and managers through the most up-to-date issues regarding human computer interaction.
< previous page
page_452
next page >
< previous page
page_453
next page >
Page 453 Human-Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 365 Broadway, Hillsdale, NJ 07642. [Q., $50 indiv. U.S. and Canada, $80 elsewhere; $320 inst., $350 elsewhere]. A journal of theoretical, empirical, and methodological issues of user science and of system design. Instructional Science. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 101 Philip Drive, Norwell, MA 02061, (617)871-6600, fax (617)871-6528,
[email protected]. [Bi-mo., $181 indiv., $432 inst.]. Promotes a deeper understanding of the nature, theory, and practice of the instructional process and the learning resulting from this process. Journal of Educational Technology Systems. Baywood Publishing, 26 Austin Ave., Box 337, Amityville, NY 11701. [Q., $175]. In-depth articles on completed and ongoing research in all phases of educational technology and its application and future within the teaching profession; enhancing instruction and facilitation of learning in the typical classroom; design and implementation of telecommunication networks and Web sites; contributions of librarians to Web-based teaching. Journal of Interactive Instruction Development. Learning Technology Institute, Society for Applied Learning Technology, 50 Culpeper St., Warrenton, VA 22186. [Q., $40 members, $60 nonmembers; add $18 postage outside North America]. A showcase of successful programs that will heighten awareness of innovative, creative, and effective approaches to courseware development for interactive technology. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication. Baywood Publishing, 26 Austin Ave., Box 337, Amityville, NY 11701. [Q., $48 indiv., $170 inst.]. Essays on oral and written communication, for purposes ranging from pure research to needs of business and industry. Journal of Visual Literacy. International Visual Literacy Association, c/o John C. Belland, 122 Ramseyer Hall, 29 West Woodruff Ave., Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210. [Bi-ann., $40]. Interdisciplinary forum on all aspects of visual/verbal languaging. Performance Improvement. International Society for Performance Improvement, 1300 L St. NW, Suite 1250, Washington, DC 20005. [10/yr., $69]. Journal of ISPI; promotes performance science and technology. Contains articles, research, and case studies relating to improving human performance. Performance Improvement Quarterly. International Society for Performance Improvement, 1300 LSt. NW, Suite 1250, Washington, DC 20005. [Q., $50]. Presents the cutting edge in research and theory in performance technology. Training. Lakewood Publications, Inc., 50 S. Ninth, Minneapolis, MN 55402. [Mo., $78 U.S., $88 Canada, $99 elsewhere]. Covers all aspects of training, management, and organizational development, motivation, and performance improvement. LIBRARIES AND MEDIA CENTERS Alfino, M., & Pierce, L. (2001). The social nature of information. Library Trends, 49(3), 471–485. Shows how a philosophical analysis of the moral value of information can help librarians rethink some aspects of their professional values, especially their commitment to neutrality. Anderson, C. (2001). Write grants, get money. Linworth, www.linworth.com. [Book, 160p., $44.95]. Step-by-step guide to writing grants, getting recognition, and getting money for your school library media center. Atkinson, R. (2001). Contingency and contradiction: The place(s) of the library at the dawn of the new millennium. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(1), 3–11. This article aims to suggest answers to two questions: What
< previous page
page_453
next page >
< previous page
page_454
next page >
Page 454 should be the primary purpose of information services in general and libraries in particular? Assuming such a purpose, what services should the library be prepared to provide? Barron, D. D. (2001). E-everything and the school library media specialist: Grist for the mill (Part 1). School Library Media Activities Monthly, 17(5), 49–51. Considers the effects of an electronic environment on students and the role of the school library media specialist in student achievement. Includes how students learn differently as a result of computer access and whether technological changes are good. Barron, D. D. (2001). E-everything and the school library media specialist: Grist for the mill (Part 2). School Library Media Activities Monthly, 17(6), 49–51. Discusses electronic books and the need for school library media specialists to merge information literacy and library skills with technology skills. Highlights include advancing technology for electronic books; helpful Web sites. Barry, J. (2001). Automated system marketplace 2001: Closing in on content. Library Journal 126(6), 46–58. Discusses innovations in public library automated systems, and compares automation systems by vendor share of the marketplace. Also discusses vendor mergers and acquisitions and includes vendor profiles. Bauer, K. (2001). Indexes as tools for measuring usage of print and electronic resources. College & Research Libraries, 62(1), 36–42. Describes two indexes that can be used easily by librarians to clearly demonstrate usage trends in their libraries. The indexes show that in 1998–99, patron usage of electronic resources more than doubled, whereas print use declined. Baule, S. (2001). Technology planning for effective teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Linworth, www.linworth.com. [Book, 160p., $39.95]. Presents guidelines for creating an effective information technology integration plan, taking into account the various administrative policies and specifications. Book Report. Linworth Publishing, 480 E. Wilson Bridge Rd., Suite L., Worthington, OH 43085-2372, (800)7865017, fax (614)436-9490,
[email protected], linworth.com. [5/ school yr., $44 U.S., $9 single copy]. Journal for junior and senior high school librarians provides articles, tips, and ideas for day-to-day school library management, as well as reviews of audiovisuals and software, all written by school librarians. Braun, L. W. (2001). Letting teens take the lead. Library Journal supplement, 26, 28–29. Considers the benefits of having teens train public library patrons in technology use. Discusses what teens want from libraries, including access to technology, technology training, and homework help; what teens need to learn; and training methods. Bruce, C. (2001). Spy works: A collaborative creative writing model. Knowledge Quest, 29(4), 23–26. Students in a creative writing class at McLean High School (Virginia) were asked to write a piece of spy fiction. A four-way collaboration model used the expertise of a teacher, library media specialist, business partner from the CIA, and vendor. Callison, D. (2001). Integrated instruction. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 17(5), 33–39. Discusses course integrated library instruction and the teaching role of the school library media specialist. Highlights include collaborative planning with other teachers, and full immersion through the use of information technology. Collection Building. M.C.B. University Press Ltd., 60–62 Toller Ln., Bradford, W. Yorks BD8 9BY, England, www.mcb.co.uk. [Q., $599]. Focuses on all aspects of collection building, ranging from microcomputers to business collections to popular topics and censorship. Computers in Libraries. Information Today, 143 Old Marlton Pike, Medford, NJ 08055, (800)300-9868. [10/yr., $89.95 U.S.; $99.95 Canada, Mexico; $59.95 outside North America]. Covers practical applications of microcomputers to library situations and recent news items.
< previous page
page_454
next page >
< previous page
page_455
next page >
Page 455 Cox, R. E. (2001). Tantalizing tidbits for teens: Quick booktalks for the busy high school library media specialist. [Book, 160p., $36.95]. Linworth, www.linworth.com. Booktalks to encourage high school students to read award winning books for pleasure. Also includes connections to curriculum. De Stefano, P. (2001). Selection for digital conversion in academic libraries. College & Research Libraries, 62(1), 58–69. Examines previous methods of selection and collection building, and applies those supporting principles to today’s collection-building efforts for digital collections. Doan, S. (2001). netLibrary: eBooks for the academic community. Community & Junior College Libraries, 10(1), 41–46. Describes netLibrary, Inc., one of the major suppliers of eBooks. States that netLibrary’s goal is to work with librarians, rather than in competition with them; thus, they see themselves as no threat to the existence of the printed book. Donham, J., Kuhlthau, C. C., Oberg, D, & Bishope, K. (2001). Inquiry-based learning: Lessons from Library Power. Linworth Publishing, www.linworth.com. [Book, 88p., $39.95]. Describes theories and practices to integrate inquiry learning into your school library media center. The Electronic Library. Information Today, 143 Old Marlton Pike, Medford, NJ 08055, (800)300-9868. [Bi-mo., $127 U.S.; $137 Canada, Mexico]. International journal for mini-computer, microcomputer, and software applications in libraries; independently assesses current and forthcoming information technologies. Evans, R. (2001). Faculty and reference librarians: A virtual dynamic duo—An internal educational partnership for learning. T.H.E. Journal, 28(6), 46, 48–51. Discusses how faculty and reference librarians at Santa Fe Community College (Florida) formed an internal educational partnership to incorporate the use of technology for enhancing teaching and learning. Gordon, M., Gordon, A, and Moore, E. (2001). New computers bring new patrons. Library Journal 126(3), 134– 138. A University of Washington research team funded in part by the Gates Foundation found that increased public access to high-end computers with Internet access has increased the number of library users from disadvantaged backgrounds. Gorniak-Kocikowska, K. (2001). Revolution and the library. Library Trends, 49(3), 454–470. Considers the impact that the computer revolution has had on college and university libraries. Discusses the historical background of changes that resulted from the invention of the printing press; content control of libraries; and changes in students. Government Information Quarterly. Elsevier Science/Regional Sales Office, Customer Support Department, JAI Books, P.O. Box 945, New York, NY 10159-0945. [Q., $113 indiv., $269 inst.]. International journal of resources, services, policies, and practices. Hartzell, G. N. (2001). The implications of selected school reform approaches for school library media services. School Library Media Research, 4. Available electronically at: http://www.ala.org/aasl/SLMR. Explores the implications of selected school reforms for library media services. Hauptman, R. (2001). Technological implementations and ethical failures. Library Trends, 49(3), 433–440. Discusses problems that libraries are encountering with technological advancements in information technology, resulting in changes in the ways people interact with data and information. Hayes, K. (2001). School librarians as staff developers. Book Report, 19(4), 6–8. Discussion of staff development in schools focuses on the role of school librarians. Topics include job-embedded staff development that emphasizes collaboration; models of staff development; and effective approaches to staff development.
< previous page
page_455
next page >
< previous page
page_456
next page >
Page 456 Heyman, M. K. (2001). Building successful relationships with IT professionals. Information Outlook, 5(4), 34–35, 37–38, 40–42. Offers a practitioner’s views and experiences on how librarians can collaborate successfully with information technology (IT) professionals without losing their identities as librarians in a corporate environment. Information literacy: Competency standards for higher education. (2001). Teacher Librarian, 28(3), 16–22. Presents five standards and 22 performance indicators for information literacy in higher education that were developed by the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). Highlights include determining information needs and accessing information. Information Outlook (formerly Special Libraries). Special Libraries Association, 1700 18th St. NW, Washington DC 20009-2508, www.sla.com. [Mo., $80 U.S.; $95 elsewhere]. Discusses administration, organization, and operations. Includes reports on research, technology, and professional standards. Information Services and Use. Elsevier Science Publishers, Box 10558, Burke, VA 22009-0558. [4/yr., $254]. Contains data on international developments in information management and its applications. Articles cover online systems, library automation, word processing, micrographics, videotex, and telecommunications. Journal of Academic Librarianship. Elsevier Science/Regional Sales Office, Customer Support Department, JAI Books, P.O. Box 945, New York, NY 10159-0945. [6/yr., $81 indiv., $195 inst.]. Results of significant research, issues, and problems facing academic libraries, book reviews, and innovations in academic libraries. Journal of Government Information (formerly Government Publications Review). Elsevier Science Ltd., Journals Division, 660 White Plains Rd., Tarrytown, NY 10591-5153. [6/yr., $534]. An international journal covering production, distribution, bibliographic control, accessibility, and use of government information in all formats and at all levels. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. Worldwide Subscription Service Ltd., Unit 4, Gibbs Reed Farm, Ticehurst, E. Sussex TN5 7HE, England. [Q., $155]. Deals with all aspects of library and information work in the United Kingdom and reviews literature from international sources. Journal of Library Administration. Haworth Press, 10 Alice St., Binghamton, NY 13904-1580, (800)HAWORTH, fax (800)895-0582,
[email protected], www.haworthpress.com. [8/yr., $45 indiv., $125 inst.] Provides information on all aspects of effective library management, with emphasis on practical applications. Kerby, M. (2001). Science and technology books in Maryland elementary school libraries. Knowledge Quest, 29(4), 11–16. This study examined science and technology books in elementary school libraries in Maryland. Determined books’ ages; identified percentage of the books matching a selection source; determined books-students ratio; and estimated upgrading costs. Laguardia, C., & Vasi, J. (2001) Designing, building and teaching in the electronic library classroom. NealSchuman. [Book, 175p., $55]. Gives media specialists strategies for managing the electronic library classroom. Lance, K. C., & Loertscher, D. V. (2001). Powering achievement: School library media programs make a difference: The evidence. Linworth, www.linworth.com. [Book, 75p., $26.95]. Compilation of short ready-to-use presentations for use in school library media centers. Library and Information Science Research. Ablex Publishing, 100 Prospect Street, P.O. Box 811, Stamford, CT 06904-0811, (203)323-9606, fax (203)357-8446. www.jaipress.com. [Q., $95 indiv., $245 inst.]. Research articles, dissertation reviews, and book reviews on issues concerning information resources management.
< previous page
page_456
next page >
< previous page
page_457
next page >
Page 457 Library Computing (formerly Library Software Review). Sage Publications Inc., 2455 Teller Rd., Thousand Oaks, CA 91320,
[email protected], www.sagepub.com. [Q., $59 indiv., $252 US inst.]. Emphasizes practical aspects of library computing for libraries of all types, including reviews of automated systems ranging from largescale mainframe-based systems to microcomputer-based systems, and both library-specific and general-purpose software used in libraries. Library Hi Tech. Pierian Press, Box 1808, Ann Arbor, MI 48106, (800)678-2435, www.pierianpress.com. [Q., $169.]. Concentrates on reporting on the selection, installation, maintenance, and integration of systems and hardware. Library Hi Tech News. Pierian Press, Box 1808, Ann Arbor, MI 48106, (800)678-2435, www.pierianpress.com. [10/yr., $199.]. Supplements Library Hi Tech and updates many of the issues addressed in-depth in the journal and keeps you fully informed of the latest developments in library automation, new products, network news, new software and hardware, and people in technology. Library Journal. 245 West 17th Street, New York, NY 10011, (212)463-6819. [20/yr., $109 U.S., $138.50 Canada, $188.50 elsewhere]. A professional periodical for librarians, with current issues and news, professional reading, a lengthy book review section, and classified advertisements. Library Quarterly. University of Chicago Press, 5720 S. Woodlawn Ave., Chicago, IL 60637. [Q., $35 indiv., $73 inst.]. Scholarly articles of interest to librarians. Library Resources and Technical Services. Association for Library Collections and Technical Services, 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL60611-2795. [Q., $55 nonmembers]. Scholarly papers on bibliographic access and control, preservation, conservation, and reproduction of library materials. Library Trends. University of Illinois Press, Journals Dept., 1325 S. Oak St., Champaign, IL61820. [Q., $60 indiv.; $85 inst.; add $7 elsewhere]. Each issue is concerned with one aspect of library and information science, analyzing current thought and practice and examining ideas that hold the greatest potential for the field. LISA: Library and Information Science Abstracts. Bowker-Saur Ltd., Maypole House, Maypole Rd., E. Grinsted, W. Sussex, RBMSH19 1HH, England, www.bowker-saur.com. [Mo., $960 U.S., £545 elsewhere]. More than 500 abstracts per issue from more than 500 periodicals, reports, books, and conference proceedings. Logan, D. K., & Beuselinck, C. L. (2001). K–12 Educator’s Web Page Planning & Publishing Kit. Linworth, www.linworth.com. [Book, 192p., $44.95]. Presents a guide for creating and maintaining a quality school or district’s Web site. Milam, P. (2001). Infoquest: A new twist on information literacy. Linworth, www.linworth.com. [Book, 160p., $39.95]. Describes a game with research questions that will ensure the continued practice of information literacy skills. Minkel, W. (2001). Add Web sites to your materials selection policy.. School Library Journal, 47(3), 39. Explains why every school library that has cataloged Web sites should include justification for including those sites in the collection. Minkel, W. (2001). E-book anxieties: The coming of electronic books has left librarians dazed and confused. School Library Journal, 47(2), 29. Explains how the unique nature of electronic books poses challenges for acquisitions and circulation of this new book format. Minkel, W. (2001). Great Expectations: Will yourhomework.com make librarians’ dreams come true? School Library Journal, 47(4), 39. Discusses how a start-up dot-com company may help improve communication between parents, teachers, students, and public librarians.
< previous page
page_457
next page >
< previous page
page_458
next page >
Page 458 Neal, J. G. (2001). The entrepreneurial imperative advancing from incremental to radical change in the academic library. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 1(1), 1–13. Discusses changes taking place in academic libraries and outlines the nature of entrepreneurship and innovation and their relevance to library development. Oder, N. (2001). The shape of e-reference. Library Journal, 126(2), 46–50. Discusses the e-reference trend. Describes the Library of Congress Q&A style dot-com reference service as a model for other library systems. Pentz, E. (2001). CrossRef: A collaborative linking network. Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship, 28. CrossRef was created to make broad-based linking efficient and scalable across a wide range of primary publishers, secondary publishers, abstracting and indexing services, and libraries. The Public-Access Computer Systems Review. An electronic journal published on an irregular basis by the University Libraries, University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204-2091,
[email protected]. Free to libraries. Contains articles about all types of computer systems that libraries make available to their patrons and technologies to implement these systems. Public Libraries. Public Library Association, American Library Association, ALA Editions, 50 East Huron St., Chicago, IL60611-2795; (800)545-2433; fax (312)836-9958. [Bi-mo., $50 U.S. nonmembers, $60 elsewhere, $10 single copy]. News and articles of interest to public librarians. Public Library Quarterly. Haworth Press, 10 Alice St., Binghamton, NY 13904-1580, (800)HAWORTH, fax (800)895-0582,
[email protected], www.haworthpress.com. [Q., $50 indiv., $165 inst.]. Addresses the major administrative challenges and opportunities that face the nation’s public libraries. Ramos, T. (2001). From the outside in: Library renovations from the perspectives of a project manager, an architect/designer, and a technology consultant. Journal of Youth Services in Libraries, 14(2), 9–13. Discusses partnerships that were developed with the Free Library of Philadelphia during renovations, including perspectives from a project manager, an architect-designer, and a technology consultant. The Reference Librarian. Haworth Press, 10 Alice St., Binghamton, NY 13904-1580, (800)HAWORTH, fax (800)895-0582,
[email protected], www.haworthpress.com. [2/ yr.; $60 indiv., $225 inst.]. Each issue focuses on a topic of current concern, interest, or practical value to reference librarians. Reference Services Review. Pierian Press, Box 1808, Ann Arbor, MI 48106, (800)678-2435, www.pierianpress.com. [Q., $169]. Dedicated to the enrichment of reference knowledge and the advancement of reference services. It prepares its readers to understand and embrace current and emerging technologies affecting reference functions and information needs of library users. Rhodes, N. J., & Davis, J. M. (2001). Using service learning to get positive reactions in the library. Computers in Libraries, 21(1), 32–35. Describes a project developed at the Hampton University (VA) library to have students write user guides for the library’s technology. Discusses the collaboration between a librarian and an English faculty member and proposes service learning projects. RQ. Reference and Adult Services Association, American Library Association, ALA Editions, 50 East Huron St., Chicago, IL60611-2795; (800)545-2433; fax (312)836-9958. [Q., $50 nonmembers, $55 nonmembers Canada, Mexico, $60 elsewhere, $15 single copy]. Disseminates information of interest to reference librarians, bibliographers, adult services librarians, those in collection development and selection, and others interested in public services; double-blind refereed.
< previous page
page_458
next page >
< previous page
page_459
next page >
Page 459 Russell, C. (2001). Stolen words. School Library Journal, 47(2), 40–43. Discusses the librarian’s role as copyright adviser. Offers guidelines, including ensuring access to information; digital technology and the importance of staying informed; user rights; promoting fair use; and considering sources of copyright information. Santa Clara County Office of Education Library Services. (2001). Where do I start? A school library handbook. Linworth, www.linworth.com. [Book, 160 p., $39.95]. Provides a concrete overview of how to deal with issues common to school library media center. Schomberg, J. (2001). Beyond SHHHH! critical issues facing school librarians today. New Advocate, 14(1), 53–56. Looks at some of the crucial issues facing school librarians today. Considers where school libraries have been and where they are going. Identifies 10 crucial issues. School Library Journal. Box 57559, Boulder, CO 80322-7559, (800)456-9409, fax (800)824-4746. [Mo., $97.50 U.S., $139 Canada, $149 elsewhere]. For school and youth service librarians. Reviews about 4,000 children’s books and 1,000 educational media titles annually. School Library Media Activities Monthly. LMS Associates LLC, 17 E. Henrietta St., Baltimore, MD 21230-3190. [10/yr., $49 U.S., $54 elsewhere]. A vehicle for distributing ideas for teaching library media skills and for the development and implementation of library media skills programs. School Library Media Research. American Association of School Librarians, American Library Association. [Available online, www.ala.org/aasl/SLMR/index.html]. For library media specialists, district supervisors, and others concerned with the selection and purchase of print and nonprint media and with the development of programs and services for preschool through high school libraries. Seamon, M. P., & Levitt, E. J. (2001). Web-based learning. Linworth, www.linworth.com. [Book, 212p., $44.95]. Step-by-step guide to teaching using the Web in a manner that it will meet your curriculum standards. Simpson, C. (2001). Copyright for schools: A practical guide (3rd ed.). Linworth, www.linworth.com. [Book, 176p., $44.95]. Presents copyright in an easy-to-understand manner. Includes discussion of copyright issues for multimedia and Web-based resources. Teacher Librarian. Box 34069, Dept. 284, Seattle, WA 98124-1069,
[email protected]. [Bi-mo. except July–August, $49]. “The journal for school library professionals”; previously known as Emergency Librarian. Articles, review columns, and critical analyses of management and programming issues for children’s and young adult librarians. Tennant, R. (2001). XML: The digital library hammer. Library Journal 126(5), 30–32. Explains how XML(extensible Markup Language) works and how it can be used to facilitate digital publishing and organize search digital information more effectively. The Unabashed Librarian. Box 2631, New York, NY 10116. [Q., $40 U.S., $48 elsewhere]. Down-to-earth library items: procedures, forms, programs, cataloging, booklists, software reviews. Walter, V. (2001). The once and future library: Ten ways to create libraries that will meet the needs of tomorrows children. School Library Journal 47(1), 49–53. This article gives a thorough overall library administration plan that includes a look at how technology plays a part in successful library management. Weathers, B. (2001). Life Among the Laptops: A Texas school experiences the joy of going wireless. School Library Journal, 47(3), 56–60. Chronicles the benefits, successes, and obstacles faced in integrating laptop technology into a Houston-area middle school curriculum.
< previous page
page_459
next page >
< previous page
page_460
next page >
Page 460 Weissman, A. (2001). Transforming storytimes into reading and writing lessons. Linworth, www.linworth.com. [Book, 160p., $36.95]. Ideas for story time, includes ideas about many genres and ways to involve your audience. Wengert, R. G. (2001). Some ethical aspects of being an information professional. Library Trends, 49(3), 486–509. Questions whether a focus on ethics and rights leads to a narrow idea of the library profession and its clients, using issues of censorship as examples. Highlights include a proposed definition of information, ethical debates, and consequences for libraries. MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES Broadcasting and Cable. Box 6399, Torrence, CA 90504, www.broadcastingcable.com. [W., $149 U.S., $219 Canada, $350 elsewhere]. All-inclusive newsweekly for radio, television, cable, and allied business. Cablevision. Cahners Business Information, 245 West 17th Street, New York, NY 10011-5300, (212)645-0067, www.cvmag.com. [Semi-monthly; $75 U.S., $165 elsewhere]. A newsmagazine for the cable television industry. Covers programming, marketing, advertising, business, and other topics. Communication Abstracts. Sage Publications Inc., 2455 Teller Rd., Thousand Oaks, CA 91320,
[email protected], www.sagepub.com. [Bi-mo., $175 indiv., $700 inst.]. Abstracts communication-related articles, reports, and books. Cumulated annually. Communications News. Nelson Publishing, 2504 N. Tamiami Trail, Nokomis, FL34275, www.comnews.com. [Mo.]. Up-to-date information from around the world regarding voice, video, and data communications. Educational Media International. Routledge, 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC49.4EE, United Kingdom. [Q., $64 indiv., $248 inst.]. The official journal of the International Council for Educational Media. Federal Communications Commission Reports. Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. [Irreg., price varies]. Decisions, public notices, and other documents pertaining to FCC activities. Historical Journal of Film, Radio, and Television. Carfax Publishing Limited in association with the International Association for Media and History, 875–81 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139. [Q., $185 indiv., $532 inst.]. Articles by international experts in the field, news and notices, and book reviews concerning the impact of mass communications on political and social history of the twentieth century. HYPERNEXUS, Journal of Hypermedia and Multimedia Studies. International Society for Technology in Education. HyperSIG, 1787 Agate Street, Eugene Oregon, 97403-1923. (541)346-4414, fax (541)346-5890. Eds., Brian S Frielander, Richard Weisenhoff. R7P Jennifer Roland. [Q., $29 to domestic nonmembers, $39 to foreign nonmembers, $20 to U.S. members, $30 to foreign members]. Presents essays on technology issues pertaining to hypermedia and multimedia as well as studies and examples of hypermedia projects and lesson plans. International Journal of Instructional Media. Westwood Press, Inc., 116E 16th Street, New York 10003. [Q., $135 per vol., $30 single issue]. Focuses on quality research; ongoing programs in instructional media for education, distance learning, computer technology, instructional media and technology, telecommunications, interactive video, management, media research and evaluation, and utilization.
< previous page
page_460
next page >
< previous page
page_461
next page >
Page 461 Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media. Broadcast Education Association, 1771 N St. NW, Washington DC 20036-2891. [Q., $40 U.S., $25 student, $50 elsewhere]. Includes articles, book reviews, research reports, and analyses. Provides a forum for research relating to telecommunications and related fields. Journal of Educational Media (formerly Journal of Educational Television). Carfax Publishing, 875–81 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139. [3/yr., $146 indiv., $544 inst.]. This journal of the Educational Television Association serves as an international forum for discussions and reports on developments in the field of television and related media in teaching, learning, and training. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia. Association for the Advancement of Computing In Education, P.O. Box 2966, Charlottesville, VA 22902-2966,
[email protected], http://www.aace.org Ed. Gary H. Marks, R&P Sarah D. Williams. [Q., $75 domestic to indiv., $85 foreign to indiv., $95 domestic to inst., $105 foreign to inst.]. Presents research and applications on multimedia and hypermedia tools that allow one to integrate images and sound into educational software. Journal of Popular Film and Television. Heldref Publications, 1319 Eighteenth St. NW, Washington DC 200361802. (800)365-9753. [Q., $36 indiv., $70 inst.]. Articles on film and television, book reviews, and theory. Dedicated to popular film and television in the broadest sense. Concentrates on commercial cinema and television, film and television theory or criticism, filmographies, and bibliographies. Edited at the College of Arts and Sciences of Northern Michigan University and the Department of Popular Culture, Bowling Green State University. Lee, S. (2001). Digital imaging: a practical handbook. Neal-Schuman. [Book, 192p., $55]. Gives the reader information about the digitization process and technologies. Library Talk (formerly Technology Connection). Linworth Publishing, 480 E. Wilson Bridge Rd., Suite L., Worthington, OH 43085-2372, (800)786-5017, fax (614)436-9490,
[email protected], linworth.com. [6/yr., $43 U.S., $7 single copy]. The only magazine published for the elementary school library media and technology specialist. A forum for K–12 educators who use technology as an educational resource, this journal includes information on what works and what does not, new product reviews, tips and pointers, and emerging technology. McDermott, I. E. (2001). Curb cuts on the information superhighway: Making the Web accessible. Searcher, 9(3), 65–69. Discusses making the World Wide Web accessible to people with physical disabilities. Includes Web site design; text alternatives for graphic elements; and the Americans with Disabilities Act and standards for electronic and information technology. Media & Methods. American Society of Educators, 1429 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102, http://www.mediamethods.com, Ed. Christine Weiser. [5/yr., $33.50 U.S.]. This educational magazine offers practical information regarding instructional technologies. Media International. Reed Business Information, Publisher. Oakfield House, Perrymount Rd., W. Sussex RBMSH16 3DH, United Kingdom. [Mo., £42 Europe, £76 elsewhere]. Contains features on the major media developments and regional news reports from the international media scene and global intelligence on media and advertising. Multimedia Monitor (formerly Multimedia and Videodisc Monitor). Phillips Business Information, Inc., 1201 Seven Locks Rd., Potomac, MD 20854, (301)424-3338, fax (301)309-3847,
[email protected]. [Mo., $395 indiv., $425 foreign]. Describes current events in the worldwide interactive multimedia marketplace and in training and development, including regulatory and legal issues.
< previous page
page_461
next page >
< previous page
page_462
next page >
Page 462 Multimedia Schools. Information Today, 143 Old Marlton Pike, Medford, NJ 08055, (800)300-9868. [6/yr., $39.95 U.S.; $54 Canada, Mexico, $63 elsewhere]. Reviews new titles, evaluates hardware and software, offers technical advice and troubleshooting tips, and profiles high-tech installations. Multimedia Systems. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., Secaucus, NJ 07096-2485, (800)777-4643,
[email protected]. [6/yr., $481 U.S.]. Publishes original research articles and serves as a forum for stimulating and disseminating innovative research ideas, emerging technologies, state-of-the-art methods and tools in all aspects of multimedia computing, communication, storage, and applications among researchers, engineers, and practitioners. NICEM (National Information Center for Educational Media) EZ. NICEM, P.O. Box 8640, Albuquerque, NM 87198-8640, (505)265-3591, (800)926-8328, fax (505)256-1080,
[email protected]. A custom search service to help those without access to the existing NICEM products. Taps the resources of this specialized database. Fees are $50 per hour search time plus $.20 for each unit identified. NICEM (National Information Center for Educational Media) NlightN. Contact NlightN, The Library Corp, 1807 Michael Faraday Ct., Reston, VA 20190, (800)654-4486, fax (703)904-8238,
[email protected], www.nlightn.com. [Subscription service]. NlightN, an Internet online service, widens the accessibility of information in the NICEM database to users of the Internet. The NICEM database of 425,000 records, updated quarterly, provides information on nonprint media for all levels of education and instruction in all academic areas. Oder, N. (2001). The shape of e-reference. Library Journal, 126(2), 46–50. Libraries are innovating with new forms of electronic reference (e-reference). Discussion includes reference service developments; ‘‘reclaiming” users; growth of library interest in e-reference; needed skills; and opportunities of real-time software. Reade, T. (2001). Unpacking the trunk: Customization and MyLibrary@NCState. Computers in Libraries, 21(2), 30–34. MyLibrary@NCState (North Carolina State University) is a customizable Web interface to the electronic resources licensed by the library and to the pages that compose the Web sites of the library and the university. Schaffner, B. L. (2001). Electronic resources: A wolf in sheep’s clothing? College & Research Libraries, 62(3), 239–249. Examines the impact of electronic technology on libraries and scholarship. Explores how electronic resources have changed the way students and scholars conduct research. Telematics and Informatics. Elsevier Science Regional Sales Office, Customer Support Department, P.O. Box 945, New York, NY 10159-0945, (888)4ES-INFO,
[email protected]. [3/yr., $49 indiv., $668 inst.]. Publishes research and review articles in applied telecommunications and information sciences in business, industry, government, and educational establishments. Focuses on important current technologies including microelectronics, computer graphics, speech synthesis and voice recognition, database management, data encryption, satellite television, artificial intelligence, and the ongoing computer revolution. Contributors and readers include professionals in business and industry, as well as in government and academia, who need to keep abreast of current technologies and their diverse applications. Video Systems. Intertec Publishing, 9800 Metcalf, Overland Park, KS 66212-2215. [Mo., $45, free to qualified professionals]. For video professionals. Contains state-of-the-art audio and video technology reports. Official publication of the International Television Association.
< previous page
page_462
next page >
< previous page
page_463
next page >
Page 463 Videography. Miller Freeman, PSN Publications, 2 Park Ave., 18th floor, New York, NY 10016. [Mo., $30]. For the video professional; covers techniques, applications, equipment, technology, and video art. Weathers, B. (2001). Life among the laptops: A Texas school experiences the joy of going wireless. School Library Journal, 47(3), 56–60. Describes experiences of a school whose students use laptop computers to access school library resources, online databases, and local university online catalogs for research projects. Presents issues librarians should consider. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Continuing Professional Development. Virtual University Press, Brookes University, School of Hotel and Restaurant Management, Gipsy Ln., Headington, Oxford, Oxon OX3 0BP, United Kingdom, 44-1642-751168, http://www.openhouse.org.uk/virtual-university-press/cpd/welcome.htm, Ed. Nigel Hammington. [Q., Great Britain $30, U.S. $50, U.S. $185 with online access]. Contains book reviews concerning online opportunities for continuing education. Cook, J., & Smith, V. (2001). Duncanville U: Teaching teachers to use technology. ERS Spectrum, 19(1), 9–15. Describes the place of teacher training in the Duncanville (Texas) Independent School District’s technology planning. Concludes that professional development for teachers is an essential ingredient for effectively integrating technology in instruction. Dugger, W. (2001). Phase III technology for All Americans Project: Creating assessment, professional development, and program standards for technological literacy. Technology Teacher, 60(4), 27–31. The goals of Phase III of the Technology for All Americans Project are to develop student assessment standards, professional development standards, program standards, and effective leaders. The project is based on the Standards for Technology Literacy. Fitzgerald, S. (2001). Taking the “total cost of ownership” concept to the classroom. MultiMedia Schools, 8(2), 52–56. Suggests school leaders must understand the total cost of ownership (TOC)—all of the costs involved with installing, operating, and maintaining computers—if they are going to use them to full advantage and cost effectively. Fulton, K. (2001). From promise to practice: Enhancing student Internet learning. MultiMedia Schools, 8(2), 16– 18, 20, 22, 24. Discusses findings of the U.S. Congress’s Web-Based Education Commission that examined how the Internet is being used to enhance learning opportunities for students. Addresses seven areas in which there is a strong need for action. Gosmire, D., & Vondruska, J. (2001). Distance teaching and learning academy. TechTrends, 45(3), 31–34. Describes the DTL(Distance Teaching and Learning) Academy that was developed to help South Dakota’s teachers use technology more effectively, including two-way videoconferencing equipment. Gustafson, B., Rowell, P., & Rose, D. (2001). Children’s ideas about strengthening structures. Research in Science and Technological Education, 19(1), 111–123. Focuses on children’s responses to an Awareness of Technology Survey question intended to explore their conceptual knowledge of structural strength. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education. ISTE, University of Oregon, 1787 Agate St., Eugene, OR 974031923, (800)336-5191,
[email protected], www.iste.org. [Q., $29, $39 intl., $42 intl. air]. Contains refereed articles on preservice and inservice training, research in computer education and certification issues, and reviews of training materials and texts.
< previous page
page_463
next page >
< previous page
page_464
next page >
Page 464 Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), P.O. Box 2966, Charlottesville, VA 22902,
[email protected], www.aace.org. [Q., $40 U.S., $50 intl.]. Serves as an international forum to report research and applications of technology in preservice, in-service, and graduate teacher education. MacKenzie, N., & Staley, A. (2001). Online professional development for academic staff: Putting the curriculum first. Innovations in Education and Training International, 38(1), 42–53. The Learning Methods Unit (LMU) at University of Central England (UCE) has adopted a curriculum-based approach to incorporating learning technology into professional development courses for university staff. McKenzie, J. (2001). Head of the class: How teachers learn technology best. American School Board Journal, 188(1), 20–23. Educational technology is not about spread sheeting, word processing, or slick “PowerPointless” student performances. Professional development should focus on curriculum-based teaching and learning strategies that enhance daily practice. McKenzie, J. (2001). Planning good change with technology and literacy. Linworth Publishing. [Book, 180p., $20]. Examines ways to incorporate electronic resources and hardware into schools, making the most of networked information technologies. Pianfetti, E. (2001). Teachers and technology: Digital literacy through professional development. Language Arts, 78(3), 255–262. Explores the need for digital literacy among teachers and its challenges. Discusses how professional development activities in technology may strengthen digital literacy among K–12 teachers. Seamon, M. (2001). Changing instructional practices through technology training. Part 1 of 2. Book Report, 19(4), 44–48. Addresses the need to provide teachers with the skills and instructional techniques to engage and challenge students by providing relevant technology instruction directly with a clearly delineated scope and sequence that scaffolds adult learning. Society for Applied Learning Technology. Society for Applied Learning Technology, 50 Culpeper St., Warrenton, VA 20186,
[email protected], http://www.salt.org, Ed. Raymond D. Fox. [Q.]. Provides news, publication reviews, and conference updates for instructional technology professionals. SIMULATION, GAMING, AND VIRTUAL REALITY Akay, M. (2001). Information technologies in medicine: Medical simulation and education. John Wiley and Sons. [Book, 250p., $110.00]. Explores the use of simulations and virtual reality in medical education. Barab, S., Hay, K., Barnett, M., & Squire, K. (2001). Constructing virtual worlds: Tracing the historical development of learner practices. Cognition and Instruction, 19(1), 47–94. Explored learning and instruction within a technology-rich, collaborative, participatory learning environment by tracking the emergence of shared understanding and products through student and teacher practices. Carr-Chellman, A., Choi, I., & Hernandez-Serrano, J. (2001). An early tool to simulate the impact of Web-based learning on the university. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2(2), 157–167. Shares results of the authors’ attempts to build a simulation model of the potential impacts of Web-based learning on various university subsystems such as libraries, facilities, and budgets. Chidambaram, L., & Zigurs, I. (2001). Our virtual world: The transformation of work, play, and life via technology. IDEA Group, www.idea-group.com, [Book, 300p., $74.95].
< previous page
page_464
next page >
< previous page
page_465
next page >
Page 465 Discusses socialization in virtual groups, the benefits of a virtual environment, online education, and virtual games. Evans, J. G. Visual Basic Science Simulations. Physics Education, 35(1), 54–57. Explores the use of computer simulation/modeling programs for teaching a variety of science concepts. Hannum, W. (2001). The physics of the roller coaster: Learning physics through simulation. Educational Technology, 41(1), 25–35. This instructional design blends a structured learning environment (the physics lesson) with an engaging, playful, simulated environment (roller coaster construction), putting into operation ideas from both cognitive and constructivist theories. Lajoie, S., Lavigne, N., Guerrera, C., & Munsie, S. (2001). Constructing knowledge in the context of BioWorld. Instructional Science, 29(2), 155–186. BioWorld is a computer-based environment for the high school biology curriculum that provides a hospital simulation where students can apply what they have learned to solve problems about diseases. LaSpina, J. A. (2001). The locus of language in digital space. Language Arts, 78(3), 245–254. Considers how textual and digital worlds come together to create new ways of thinking about text and the nature of representation. Argues that each of these mediums supports a distinctive yet vital way of thinking and that neither can be dispensed with. Merrill, M. D. (2001). A knowledge object and mental model approach to a physics lesson. Educational Technology, 41(1), 36–47. This instructional design looks at momentum in physics through railroading, to assist students in developing appropriate mental models that will enable them to solve problems relevant to the process or principle being taught. Orrill, C. H. (2001). Building technology-based, learner-centered classrooms: The evolution of a professional development framework. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49, 15–34. This study examined issues in supporting middle school teachers to become more learner centered when implementing computer-based, workplace simulations in their classrooms. Rieber, L. P., & Matzko, M. J. (2001). Serious design for serious play in physics. Educational Technology, 41(1), 14–24. These designers approach their physics lesson design task from the viewpoint of play. The designs, all having strong gaming influences, aim to be flexible enough to take advantage of the experience and ideas of a teacher working with a curriculum. Simulation and Gaming. Sage Publications Inc., 2455 Teller Rd., Thousand Oaks, CA 91320,
[email protected], www.sagepub.com. [Q., $94 indiv., $416 inst., $19 single issue]. An international journal of theory, design, and research focusing on issues in simulation, gaming, modeling, role play, and experiential learning. Starkey, B. (2001). Interactive learning for global education: Project ICONS Educational Technology, 41(3), 56– 60. Describes the International Communication and Negotiation Simulations (ICONS) Project that teachers college students about cross-cultural communication, including the role of foreign language in diplomacy and the complexities of the international system. SPECIAL EDUCATION AND DISABILITIES Ashton, T. M. (2001). Assistive technology: The application of ABA to technology: The discrete trial trainer. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(1), 41–42. Describes the DT Trainer, a software tool and behavioral teaching method that breaks down the learning of a task into small steps, giving the student a high chance of success.
< previous page
page_465
next page >
< previous page
page_466
next page >
Page 466 Brown, M. R., Higgins, K., & Hartley, K. (2001). Teachers and technology equity. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 33(4), 32–39. This article discusses three important issues that educators must address as they integrate technology into their classrooms: increasing access to technology, appropriate instruction in and use of technology, and barriers to institutional technology. Bussell, L. (2001). Haptic interfaces: Getting in touch with Web-based learning. Educational Technology, 41(3), 27–32. Explains haptic computer interfaces for Web sites that relay touch-sensory feedback to the user. Discusses the importance of touch to cognition and learning; haptic interfaces for accessibility for blind and physically impaired users. Castellani, J., & Jeffs, T. (2001). Emerging reading and writing strategies using technology. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 33(5), 60–67. This article discusses teaching strategies for reading and writing using computer software and Internet-based electronic materials for students with disabilities. Different types of educational software are described. Cutshall, S., Crockett, L. L., & Armstrong, R. (2001). Filling the void: The benefits of career and technical education for students with special needs. Techniques: Connecting Education and Careers, 76(3), 17–29. Includes “Welding Done Well” (Cutshall); “Opening Doors’’ (Cutshall); “Earning and Learning” (Cutshall); “New York’s ELITE Schools” (Crockett); “Alexander High School’s RVI [Related Vocational Instruction] Program: Focusing on Abilities” (Crockett). Dattilo, J., Guerin, N., Cory, L., & Williams, R. (2001). Effects of computerized leisure education on self-determination of youth with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(1), 5–17. A multiple problem singlesubject design replicated across four youth (ages 10–14) with disabilities was employed to assess participants’ achievement of objectives associated with Og, a computerized leisure education program. Foster, A. L. (2001). Making Web sites work for people with disabilities. Chronicle of Higher Education, 47(21), A30–A32. Demands from students with disabilities and regulations from the federal government are prompting colleges to seek new designs in software and hardware. Many colleges are designing Web sites that meet the needs of students with disabilities. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2001). Computer applications to curriculum-based measurement. Special Services in the Schools, 17(1–2), 1–14. Asserts that students learn more when teachers individually tailor student programs using curriculum-based measurement (CBM). Describes computer applications to CBM and provides examples of how the technology has been used. Journal of Special Education Technology. Peabody College of Vanderbilt University, Box 328, Nashville, TN 37203, (615)322-8150. [Q., $30]. The Journal of Special Education Technology provides “information, research, and reports of innovative practices regarding the application of educational technology toward the education of exceptional children.” Judge, S. L. (2001). Computer applications in programs for young children with disabilities: Current status and future directions. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(1), 29–40. Early childhood special education teachers place a high priority on characteristics of developmentally appropriate software to develop and reinforce academic skills and want that software to reflect the developmental needs of young children with disabilities. MacArthur, C. A., Ferretti, R. P., Okolo, C. M., & Cavalier, A. R. (2001). Technology applications for students with literacy problems: A critical review. Elementary School Journal, 101(3), 273–301. Reviews the use of technology to teach or support literacy among students with mild disabilities. Addresses research on computer-assisted instruction and synthesized speech feedback to improve phonemic awareness and decoding skills.
< previous page
page_466
next page >
< previous page
page_467
next page >
Page 467 Morse, T. E. (2001). Addressing special-education students’ assistive technology needs. School Business Affairs, 67(2), 18–20. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, schools have certain responsibilities when addressing special-education students’ assistive technology needs. Sementelli, C. (2001). The Bridge School: A profile. Paths of Learning: Options for Families & Communities, 9, 10–18. At the Bridge School (California), children with severe speech and physical disabilities are trained in the use of augmentative and alternative communication technologies, transitioned back to their home school districts, and given continuing support. Woodward, J. (2001). Constructivism and the role of skills in mathematics instruction for academically at-risk secondary students. Special Services in the Schools, 17(1–2), 15–31. Discusses the evolution of instructional uses of technology in special education over the last two decades and the changes in thinking and teaching that have moved away from didactic instructional methods to constructivist approaches. Wyer, K. (2001). The great equalizer: Assistive technology launches a new era in inclusion. Teaching Tolerance, 19, 25–29. Describes how assistive technology can be used to facilitate the mainstreaming of students with disabilities, focusing on different types of technology that are useful, the importance of mainstreaming, and how to learn what assistive choices are available. TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKING Angulo, M., & Feldman, S. (2001). Leveraging learning for generation I [and] the haves and have nots of the digital divide. School Administrator, 58(3), 28–31. The Internet’s effects are spreading. Schools are purchasing computer programs, assisted by state, federal, and corporate grants. The digital divide is narrowing; “Generation I” children have greater computer access at home and at school. Boardwatch. Penton Media, P.O. Box 901979, Cleveland, OH 44190-1979. [M., $72 U.S.]. The Internet access industry’s handbook. Each issue features the leading online editorial covering the Internet, the World Wide Web, and the communications industry. Bos, N. (2001). Giving back to the Web: Social filtering of World Wide Web resources in high school science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(1), 3–15. Explores a new Web-based curriculum idea of having students write and publish critical “reviews” of scientific resources. Analyzes two aspects of student-written critical evaluation: organization evaluation and graphics evaluation. Brophy, P. (2001). Networked learning. Journal of Documentation, 57(1), 130–156. Discussion of the use of information and communications technologies in education focuses on networked learning. Highlights include virtual universities; lifelong learning; learning models; learning styles; and motivation for learning. Building blueprints: Looking toward the future. (2001). College Planning & Management, 4(4), 34–35. Highlights Kent State University’s (Ohio) conversion of its physical education building to a technology building that features fiber optics and advanced cabling systems. Photos and a floor plan are included. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication. Association for Media and Technology in Education in Canada, 3-1750 The Queensway, Suite 1318, Etobicoke, ON M9C 5H5, Canada. [3/yr., $75]. Concerned with all aspects of educational systems and technology. Classroom Connect. Classroom Connect, 1241 East Hillsdale Blvd., Suite 100, Foster City, CA 94404, (800)6381639, fax (888)801-8299,
[email protected]. [9/yr., $45].
< previous page
page_467
next page >
< previous page
page_468
next page >
Page 468 Provides pointers to sources of lesson plans for K–12 educators as well as descriptions of new Web sites, addresses for online “keypals,” Internet basics for new users, classroom management tips for using the Internet, and online global projects. Each issue offers Internet adventures for every grade and subject. Clift, R. T., Mullen, L., Levin, J., & Larson, A. (2001). Technologies in contexts: Implications for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1), 33–50. Discusses the interaction among school and university contexts, instruction, and individual practice that occurs as telecommunications technology is integrated into teacher education programs. Collis, B., Peters, O., & Pals, N. (2001). A model for predicting the educational use of information and communication technologies. Instructional Science, 29(2), 95–125. This study of 550 participants was designed to test an integrated theoretical model (the 4-E Model) for predicting the likelihood of the use of telecommunications-related technological innovations in learning-related settings. Computer Communications. Elsevier Science, Inc., P.O. Box 882, Madison Square Station, New York, NY 101590882. [18/yr., $1,342 inst.]. Focuses on networking and distributed computing techniques, communications hardware and software, and standardization. EDUCAUSE Review. EDUCAUSE, 1112 Sixteenth St. NW, Suite 600, Washington DC 20036-4823, (800)254-4770,
[email protected]. [Bi-mo., $24 U.S., Canada, Mexico, $48 elsewhere]. Features articles on current issues and applications of computing and communications technology in higher education. Reports of EDUCAUSE consortium activities. Eisler, D. L. (2001). Selecting and implementing campus portals. Syllabus, 14(8), 22–25. Offers points to consider when deciding whether to begin a full-scale campus portal project. Discusses approaches for creating campus portals, barriers to implementation, and the ability of portals to extend the academic experience beyond the classroom. EMMS (Electronic Mail & Messaging Systems). Telecommunications Reports, 1333 H Street NW, 11th Floor-W., Washington DC 20005, brp.com. [23/yr., $809 in North America, $979 outside of North America]. Covers technology, user, product, and legislative trends in graphic, record, and microcomputer applications. International Journal of E-Learning Telecommunications. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, P.O. Box 2966, Charlottesville, VA 22901, (804)973-3987, fax (804)978-7449,
[email protected], www.aace.org. [Q., $85 indiv., $120 inst.]. Reports on current theory, research, development, and practice of telecommunications in education at all levels. The Internet and Higher Education. Elsevier Science/Regional Sales Office, Customer Support Department, JAI Books, P.O. Box 945, New York, NY 10159-0945. [Q., $79 indiv., $239 inst.]. Designed to reach faculty, staff, and administrators responsible for enhancing instructional practices and productivity via the use of information technology and the Internet in their institutions. Internet Reference Services Quarterly. Haworth Press, 10 Alice St., Binghamton, NY 13904-1580, (800)HAWORTH, fax (800)895-0582,
[email protected], www.haworthpress.com. [Q., $45 indiv., $75 institutions, $75 libraries]. Describes innovative information practice, technologies, and practice. For librarians of all kinds. Internet Research (previously Electronic Networking: Research, Applications, and Policy). MCB University Press Ltd., 60–62 Toller Ln., Bradford, W. Yorks. BD8 9BY, England. [5/yr., $1,539 U.S. paper and electronic, $369 electronic only]. A cross-
< previous page
page_468
next page >
< previous page
page_469
next page >
Page 469 disciplinary journal presenting research findings related to electronic networks, analyses of policy issues related to networking, and descriptions of current and potential applications of electronic networking for communication, computation, and provision of information services. Internet World. Penton Media. Internet World, P.O. Box 901979, Cleveland, OH 44190-1979, www.iw.com. [M., $160 U.S., $200 Canada, $295 elsewhere]. Analyzes developments of the Internet, electronic networking, publishing, and scholarly communication, as well as other network issues of interest to a wide range of network users. Joyce, P. J. (2001). The slothfulness quotient. School Administrator, 58(3), 24–26. E-learning eliminates time and distance barriers, creating universal learning-on-demand opportunities. Cisco Systems has invested over $50 million in the world’s largest e-learning laboratory. Link-Up. Information Today, 143 Old Marlton Pike, Medford, NJ 08055, (800)300-9868. [Bi-mo., $34.95 U.S., $42 Canada, Mexico; $64 elsewhere]. News magazine for individuals interested in small computer communications; covers hardware, software, communications services, and search methods. Martin, D. C., & Blanc, R. (2001). Video-based supplemental instruction (VSI). Journal of Developmental Education, 24(3), 12–19, 45. Describes Video-Based Supplemental Instruction (VSI), developed at the University of Missouri (Kansas City), as an interactive processing and delivery system that helps high-risk students master rigorous course content. Milshtein, A. (2001). Dial “G” for gee whiz. College Planning & Management, 4(3), 49–51. Explains the use of speech-enabled call routing systems for efficiently finding and communicating with students, faculty, or staff. Also discussed is how technology is helping college recruiting efforts for graduating high school students. Network Magazine. CMP Media INC, 600 Harrison St., San Francisco, CA 94107, www.networkmagazine.com. [Mo., $125]. Provides users with news and analysis of changing technology for the networking of computers. Olsen, F. (2001). Bringing a university, a state, and a region into the networking era. Chronicle of Higher Education, 47(17), A43–44. Describes technological advances at North Dakota State University. Campus networks were in their infancy when Bonnie M. Neas began her programs, but now the university is part of a consortium building a high-speed research network. Olsen, F. (2001). Dial in on your own dime. Chronicle of Higher Education, 47(25), A37–A38. Describes how universities are weighing changes to or termination of their modem pools, which allow off-campus faculty, staff, and students to have access to the campus network or the Internet. Online. Online, Inc., 213 Danbury Rd., Wilton, CT 06897, www.onlineinc.com/online-mag/. [6/yr., $110 U.S., $120 Canada and Mexico, $145 foreign]. For online information system users. Articles cover a variety of online applications for general and business use. Online-Offline. Rock Hill Press, 14 Rock Hill Road, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, (888)ROCK HIL, fax (610)667-2291, www.rockhillpress.com. [9/yr., $66.50]. Examines classroom resources, linking curricular themes with Web sites and other media. Sengupta, S. (2001). Exchanging ideas with peers in network-based classrooms: An aid or a pain? Language Learning & Technology, 5(1), 103–134. Examines the nature of peer exchanges in two partial network-based classes and the conflicts learners face in this situation where all information is text based and archived. Provides a picture of how learners used the available technology.
< previous page
page_469
next page >
< previous page
page_470
next page >
Page 470 Telecommunications (North American Edition). Horizon House Publications, Inc., 685 Canton St., Norwood, MA 02062. [Mo., $130 U.S., $210 elsewhere, free to qualified individuals]. Feature articles and news for the field of telecommunications. Van Horn, R. (2001). Home and school technology: Wired versus wireless. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(8), 571, 641– 642. Presents results of informal research on smart homes and appliances, structured home wiring, whole-house audio and video distribution, hybrid cable, and wireless networks. Wireless phones help installers avoid prewiring problems in homes and schools. Van Horn, R. (2001). Intellectual capital. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(9), 721–722. According to Thomas Stewart’s book, intellectual capital comprises three broad categories: human, structural, and customer. Developing a ‘‘best practices” database using Lotus Notes software would preserve and access schools’ structural capital. Weathers, B. (2001). Life among the laptops: A Texas school experiences the joys of going wireless. School Library Journal 47(3), 56–60. Describes the successes and challenges and adaptations made by a school that has provided each student with a wireless laptop since 1998. Wellington, J. (2001). Exploring the secret garden: The growing importance of ICT in the home. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(2), 233–244. Discusses the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in homes and its impact on teachers in schools. Topics include home learning environments; the National Curriculum for England and Wales; and initial teacher training curriculum for ICT.
< previous page
page_470
next page >
< previous page
page_471
next page >
Page 471 Index (AACC) Community College Satellite Network (CCSN), 312 Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS), 298 ACCESS Network, 360 Adaptech Research Project, 360 ADE Bulletin, 436 AEL, Inc. (AEL), 298 Agency for Instructional Technology (AIT), 298 Agricultural Education Magazine, 443 AIMS Media, 12 Alabama State University, 375 American Association of Community Colleges (AACC), 298 American Association of School Librarians (AASL), 299 American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), 299 American Biology Teacher , 441 American Educational Research Association (AERA), 299 American Federation of Teachers, 11 American Foundation for the Blind (AFB), 300 American Journal of Distance Education , 433 American Library Association (ALA), 300 American Library Trustee Association (ALTA), 300 American Management Association (AMA), 301 American Montessori Society (AMS), 301 American Society for Training and Development (ASTD), 302; survey on computer mediated delivery systems, 4, 5 American Society of Cinematographers (ASC), 303 American Society of Educators (ASE), 303 American Telecommunications Group (ATG), 304 American Women in Radio and Television (AWRT), 304 Anthropology Film Center (AFC), 304 AOL, 3 Appalachian State University, 407 Arizona State University, 376–77 Arkansas Tech University, 377–78 Artificial Intelligence Review , 428 ASSET, 12 Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI), 304 Association for Computers and the Humanities (ACH), 360 Association for Continuing Higher Education (ACHE), 305 Association for Educational Communication and Technology (AECT), 305 Association for Experiential Education (AEE), 306 Association for Information and Image Management (AIIM), The, 307 Association for Library and Information Science Education (ALISE), 307 Association for Library Collections and Technical Services (ALCTS), 307 Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC), 308 Association for Media and Technology Education in Canada (AMTEC), 360–61 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 308 Association for the Advancement of Visual Media/L’association pour l’avancement des medias visuels, 363 Association of American Publishers (AAP), 308 Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), 309 Association of Independent Video and Filmmakers/Foundation for Independent Video and Film (AIVF/FIVF), 310 Association of Specialized and Cooperative Library Agencies (ASCLA), 310 Association of Systematics Collections (ASC), 310 Asynchronous distance education, 138; and communication, 148–49; community role, 139; literature review, 138–39 Asynchronous distance education/performance factors research, 148–49; descriptive data, 141–42, 142f; methodology, 140–41; qualitative results, 145–48; quantitative data, 142–45, 143f Auburn University, 375 Australian Educational Computing, 429 Azusa Pacific University, 378
< previous page
page_471
next page >
< previous page
page_472
next page >
Page 472 Bandwidth, 9 Barry University, 382–83 Barthes, Roland, 100, 104 Berger, Pam, 260 Blackboard, 11 Blended learning, 5–6. See also Hybrid courses Bloomsburg University, 411 Boise State University, 387–88 Boston University, 395–96 Bridgewater State College, 396 Brigham Young University, 418–19 Brigham Young University PT3 project: background, 197–98; core management team activities, 200; faculty design teams, 200–202; project design/overview, 198–99, 202; stakeholder needs analysis requirement , 199; teacher preparation program, 198 British Journal of Educational Technology , 432, 439–40, 442–43 Buffalo State College, 404 Bulla Gymnasia Virtualis , 429 Bush administration “No child left behind” campaign, 223; privatization movement of K–12 schools, 11 Business Communication Quarterly , 435, 440 Business Education Forum , 437, 438, 441 C&C Associates, 311 Cable in the Classroom (CIC), 310 CALICO Journal , 429 California State University-Dominguez Hills, 378 California State University-Los Angeles, 378 California State University-San Bernardino, 378–79 California, higher education funding cutbacks, 9 Campfires in cyberspace, 433 Campus Computing Project, 6, 8, 9 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation/Societe Radio-Canada (CBC/SRC), 361 Canadian Education Association/Association canadienne d’education (CEA), 361 Canadian Library Association (CLA), 361–62 Canadian Museums Association/Association des musees canadiens (CMA/AMC), 362 Canadian Publishers Council (CPC), 362 CASCADE-SEA program: CD-ROM (final element), 34–35; computer use efficacy, 38–39; impacts, 38; practicality, 37–38; prototypes, 34; research design, 33–34; theoretical framework, 32–33; Web site (final element), 34 Cataloging, 272; online aids, 278–79. See also MARC Catholic Library Association (CLA), 311 CBI (computer-based instruction), 49, 60–61; choice and performance, 56, 58; choice and satisfaction, 58–59; choice and time-in-lesson, 59–60; research design/methods, 52; research hypotheses on instructional control, 51–52, 55–56; research results, 52–55 Celerity, 12 Central Connecticut State University, 381 CERAS (Center for Education and Research in Information Assurance and Security), 96 CERT (Cincinnati Comprehensive Education Restructuring Technology Infusion Initiative), 169–70, 173f, 179–80; and faculty involvement, 174–76; goals, 171; impact, 178–79; implementation review/evaluation, 177–78; professional development vs. barriers, 171; significance, 173–74; theory based approach, 170; urban environment challenges, 171–72 Change , 443 Chicago State University, 388 Children’s Television International (CTI)/ GLAD Productions, Inc. (CTI/GLAD), 311 Children’s Software & New Media Revue , 429
Chronicle of Higher Education , 435 Clarion University of Pennsylvania, 411 Clarke College, 391 Close Up Foundation, 311 College Planning & Management , 441 Communication, and community in distance learning, 145–46, 148–49 Community & Junior College Libraries , 433–34 Community College Association for Instruction and Technology (CCAIT), 311 Community College Journal , 436 Community Technology Centers Program, 13 Computer anxiety, 99; and techno phobic teachers, 104–5. See also Technophobia Computer Assisted Composition Journal , 429 Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO), 312 Computer Education , 429 Computer Learning Foundation (CLF), 312 Computer Learning , 429 Computer Studies: Computers in Education , 429 Computer-based media usage in corporate training/development, 4–5. See also CASCADE-SEA program Computers & Education , 429 Computers and Composition , 429, 433 Computers and the Humanities , 430
< previous page
page_472
next page >
< previous page
page_473
Page 473 Computers in Education Journal , 430 Computers in Human Behavior , 430 Computers in the Schools , 430 Computer-Using Educators, Inc. (CUE), 313 Concordia University, 388 Connection: New England’s Journal of Higher Education and Economic Development , 434, 437 Consortium of College and University Media Centers (CCUMC), 313 Content analysis method (women’s contributions), 21, 23–25; author identification, 23; categories, 24; findings, 25; journal selection, 23; research questions, 23 Continuing Library Education Network and Exchange Round Table (CLENERT), 313 Converge , 430 COPPA (Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act), 93–94 Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 313 Corporate training/development and instructional technology usage, 3; blended learning, 5–6; classroom instruction/traditional media, 4; computer-based media, 4–5; constraints, 5; telecommunications media, 4 Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), 314 Council for Basic Education (CBE), 314 Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), 315 Council on International Non-Theatrical Events (CINE), 315 Course management system (CMS), 11 Critical theory, 104 Curriculum development and computers, 38–39. See also CASCADE-SEA program Curriculum-Technology Quarterly , 430
DEOS News , 436 Digital video, commitments to, 12 Distance education and learning differences study, 114, 119–20; context, 115–16; methodology, 114–15; participants, 115; results per student, 116–17, 118; results/learning experience, 117–18, 119 Distance education and scalability determination, 121, 137; administrative issues, 123–27; analysis process, 122–23; context/ITMA (Instructional Technology Master of Arts) program, 121–22; grading/feedback, 131–37; instructional content, 127–31 Distance Education Report , 434, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441 Distance education, 2; business model, 7–8; faculty acceptance of, 8; “land rush,” 7; virtual schools, 15. See also Asynchronous distance education Dr. Dobb’s Journal, 430 Drexel University collaborative program: background, 258; evaluation, 260–64; goals, 258–59; implementation, 260; model design, 259; model strengths, 269–70; model weaknesses, 270; partners’ roles, 259–60; revised model, 270–71 Drexel University, 411 Dukane, 12 DVD usage, 12 East Carolina University, 407 East Tennessee State University, 414 Eastern Michigan University, 398–99 Eastern Washington University, 421 East-West Center, 316 eCollege, 11 ECT Foundation (ECT), 316
next page >
Edgewood College, 422 Edison Schools, Inc., 11 Education at a Distance , 436–37, 438, 441, 442 Education Development Center, Inc., 316 Education Technology News , 430 Educational Communications, 316 Educational Forum , 435 Educational Products Information Exchange (EPIE Institute), 316 Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), 317 Educational Software Review , 430 Educational Technology and Society , 430 Educational Technology Research and Development , 438 Educational Technology Review , 431 Educational Technology , 428, 443 Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Mathematics and Sciences Education (ENC), 324 e-learning: androgogical vs. pedagogical approach, 5; limitations for corporate users, 5; underreporting, 5 Electronic Education Report , 431 Electronic performance support systems (EPSSs), 32 Electronic School , 431 Emporia State University, 392–93 Epic Learning, Inc. study. See Distance education and learning differences study E-Rate program, 12
< previous page
page_473
next page >
< previous page
page_474
Page 474 Ethical behavior development: adult issues, 78–84; cyberspace and adults/children, 78; existing code for technology use, 80–81; and planning requirements, 77–78, 88; research directions, 96; school responsibility, 79, 87–88; school rules/guidelines/policies, 85–87; student issues, 85; technology ethics focus, 79–80 Ethics/privacy issues, 1, 75; AECT code, 66; classification schemes, 66; continuum for assessment, 67–69; human rights influence, 70–71; influence of religion, 69–70; responses to inappropriate actions, 71–73; social relativity/inappropriate actions, 74–75. See also Privacy; Technology/computer ethics e-WEEK, 431 Extended Studies E-zine, 431 Fairfield University, 381 Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 324 Federal Educational Technology Association (FETA), 324 FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act), 92–93 Film Arts Foundation (Film Arts), 325 Film/Video Arts (F/VA), 325 Fitchburg State College, 396 Florida Institute of Technology, 383 Florida State University, 383 Florida Virtual School, 15 Fontbonne College, 400–01 Fordham University, 404 Freedom of Information Center (FOI Center), 325 Gender issues and instructional/educational technology, 30; categories/themes, 26, 27; computer focus, 25; practitioner focus, 26–27, 30; rationale for study, 21; trends comparisons, 28–29. See also Content analysis method George Eastman House, 326 George Lucas Educational Foundation (GLEF), The, 326 George Mason University, 419–20 George Washington University, 382 Georgia Southern University, 385–86 Georgia State University, 386 Ghandi, Mahatma, 75 Governors State University, 388 Graphic Arts Technical Foundation (GATF), 327 Harcourt Higher Education, 10 Harvard University, 396–97 Haskell, Kay, 260 Hawaii Networked Learning Communities (HNLC), 44–45 Health Sciences Communications Association (HeSCA), 327 Higher education and instructional technology usage, 6; classroom media, 6–7; ‘‘content” as asset, 10; course management system (CMS), 11; distance education, 7–8; and faculty performance review, 8; and faculty support, 9; infrastructure funding/support, 8–9; and “link rot,” 10; paradigm changes, 10–11 Hollywood Film Archive, 327 HOPE Reports, Inc., 328 Hybrid courses, 8. See also Blended learning Hyperlink extinction. See Link rot IBM, 3 Illinois Virtual Campus, 8
next page >
Indian Journal of Open Learning, 436, 441 Indiana State University, 390 Indiana University, 390 Industry & Higher Education , 433, 436 Information Power, 223; and 10 CONCEPTS, 246; follow-up study, 228–29; model, 226; prior research, 226–27 Information Technology in Childhood Education , 431 Information technology issues: costs barriers, 16–17; staffing, 9 Information vs. education, 10 InfoWorld , 431 Innovations in Education and Teaching International , 429, 435–36 Innovations in Education and Training International , 439 Institute for the Advancement of Emerging Technologies in Education (IAETE), 328 Institute for Development of Educational Activities, Inc. (IDEA), 328 Institute for the Future (IFTF), 328 Instructional technology: cottage industry, 15; and internal dynamics of user environments, 3; limits to growth, 16; trends, 1, 22–23, 28–29. See also Gender issues and instructional/educational technology Instructor, 431 Integrating technology for meaningful learning, 431 Intellectual property issues, 82 Interactive Learning Environments, 431 INTERACTIVE , 431 International Association for Language Learning Technology (IALLT), 329
< previous page
page_474
next page >
< previous page
page_475
Page 475 International Association of Business Communicators (IABC), 329 International Association of School Librarianship (IASL), 330 International Center of Photography (ICP), 362–63 International Council for Educational Media (ICEM), 363 International Graphics Arts Education Association (IGAEA), 330 International Journal of Educational Technology , 440 International Journal of Lifelong Education , 442 International Journal of Robotics Research , 428 International Recording Media Association (IRMA), 330 International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning , 435, 436, 440 International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI), 331 International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), 331 International Teleconferencing Association (ITCA), 332 International Visual Literacy Association, Inc. (IVLA), 332 Internet & Personal Computing Abstracts (IPCA), 431 Internet: courses using, 6; stock bubble burst, 3 InTime (Integrating New Technologies into the Methods of Education), 182, 185–86; future directions, 194–95; mission, 182; objectives, 182–83; project effectiveness, 189–90, 194; video to web process, 187–88; videos as case study, 186–87. See also TFQE model Iowa State University, 391 Ithaca College, 404 Jacksonville State University, 375 Jacksonville University, 383–84 Jones International University, 8 Journal of Academic Librarianship , 438, 443 Journal of Allied Health , 435 Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 432, 441 Journal of Computing in Higher Education , 428 Journal of Correctional Education , 437 Journal of Developmental Education , 440 Journal of Distance Education , 439 Journal of Educational Computing Research , 432 Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia , 432 Journal of Extension , 436, 444 Journal of Hypermedia and Multimedia Studies , 432 Journal of Library and Information Services for Distance Learning , 439 Journal of Mass Communication Educator , 442 Journal of Nursing Education , 434 Journal of Online Teaching , 439 Journal of Professional Nursing , 439, 442 Journal of Research on Technology in Education , 432 Journal of Robotic and Intelligent Systems , 428 Journal of Science Education and Technology , 434 Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , 428 K–12 education and instructional technology usage, 11; access equity, 13; computer-based media, 12; and gender, 22; limitations, 13–15; student computer use, 13; traditional audiovisual media, 11–12 Kansas State University, 393 Kent State University, 409 Kentucky Virtual University, 8 Kidz Privacy Web site, 95 Knowledge-Based Systems, 428 Learner-controlled instruction (LC), 49, 60–61 Learning and Leading with Technology, 25 Learning and Leading with Technology: Serving Teachers in the Classroom, 432 Learning Languages , 435 Learning Team (TLT), The, 332 Learning, Linking, and Critical Thinking, 245 Learning: and choice, 49–51; and community, 139–40, 224;
next page >
effective, 151; and motivation, 49, 51 Lehigh University, 411–12 Lesley University, 397 Library Administration of Management Association (LAMA), 333 Library and Information Technology Association (LITA), 333 Library of Congress (LOC), 333 Lifelong Learning in Europe , 440 Link rot, 10, 15 Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications (LHNCBC), 334 Logo Exchange , 432 Louisiana State University, 394 Lucent, 3
MacWorld , 432 Magazine Publishers of America (MPA), 334 Managing change with new technologies, 433
< previous page
page_475
next page >
< previous page
page_476
Page 476 MARC (machinereadable cataloging), 272, 273; database maintenance tips, 278; frequently used fields, 275–76; indicators, 273–74; records correction, 276–78; records sources, 278; rule/record changes, 274; vendor records evaluation, 274 Media Communications Association-International (MCA-I), 334 Medical Library Association (MLSA), 335 Metropolitan Universities: An International Forum, 437, 443 Michigan State University, 399 Microsoft, and product support removal, 16–17 Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL), 335 Minds and Machines , 428 Minnesota State University, 400 Minorities in Media (MIM), 335 Minot State University, 408 Montclair State University, 403 Motorola, 3 Museum Computer Network (MCN), 336 Museum of Modern Art, Circulating Film and Video Library (MoMA), 336 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 337 National Alliance for Media Arts and Culture (NAMAC), 337 National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), 337 National Association for Visually Handicapped (NAVH), 338 National Association of Media Technology Centers (NAMTC), 338 National Association of State Textbook Administrators (NASTA), 338 National Center for Improving Science Education, 338 National Center to Improve Practice (NCIP), 339 National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education (NCBE), 339 National Commission for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NATE): missions, 176 National Education Association, 11 National Film Board of Canada (NFBC), 363 National Technological University, 7 Network capacity. See Bandwidth New Directions for Higher Education , 444 New Horizons in Adult Education , 439 New Review of Virtual Universities , 441 New York Institute of Technology, 404 New York University, 404–5 New York University, distance education, 7 No Significant Difference Phenomenon, 14–15 North Carolina Central University, 407 North Carolina State University, 408 Northern Illinois University, 388–89 Northwest Missouri State University, 401 Nova Scotia Teachers Union, 11 Nova Southeastern University, 384 Nursing Outlook , 443
Occupational Outlook Quarterly , 440 Ohio University, 409 OnCUE , 432 Online-Offline , 430 Ontario Film Association, Inc., 363 Open Learning , 439, 441–42 Open Praxis , 442 Open University of the U.K., 11; U.S. branch, 7 Pace University, 405 PC Magazine: The Independent Guide to IBM-Standard Personal Computing , 433 Pennsylvania State University, 412 Phallen, JoAnn, 164 Privacy, 90–91, 95; impact of technology, 91–92; individual vulnerability assessment, 91; and K–12 educators, 92–96; policies for students, 95–96; techniques for teachers, 94–95. See also CERAS (Center for Education and Research in Information Assurance and Security); COPPA (Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act); FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act);
next page >
Kidz Privacy Web site Professors of Instructional Design and Technology (PIDT), 351 Program-controlled instruction, 49, 60–61 Providing library services for distance education students, 437 PT3 (Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology) grants, 2, 160, 166. See also Brigham Young University PT3 program; InTime; Purdue University P3T3 project study; University of Northern Colorado PTEP; University of Southern Mississippi technology integration modeling Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), 351 Public Library Association (PLA), 352 Puppeteers of America, Inc. (POA), 352 Purdue University, 390–91 Purdue University P3T3 project study, 160–61; dynamic electronic portfolio system component, 165–66; faculty development component, 161–63; technology enabled field experience component, 163–65
< previous page
page_476
next page >
< previous page
page_477
Page 477
Quarterly Review of Distance Education , 434, 437, 438, 439, 440, 442, 443 Radford University, 420 Reading Improvement , 438 ReCALL , 433 Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic (RFB&D), 353 Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. (RIAA), 353 Reference and User Services Association (RUSA), 353 Reflexive narrative form, 98; reflective practice usage/case example, 190–93 Research for Better Schools, Inc. (RBS), 353 Research in Post-Compulsory Education , 435 Rosemont College, 412 Rutgers—The State University of New Jersey, 403 San Diego State University, 379 San Francisco State University, 379 San Jose State University, 379 School Library Media Activities Monthly , 432–33 School library media program evaluations, 236, 242; impact of digital environment, 241–42; methods, 236–38; school library media centers alternative evaluations, 239; school library media centers typical evaluations, 238–39; sources of evaluative data, 239–41 School library media standardization (10 CONCEPTS), 245, 246t; importance of, 245; subconcepts, 246, 247f School library media: case example of collaborative experience evaluation, 264–69; collaboration of specialists, 248; “Colorado study,” 223, 226–27; controls in study for school/community differences, 233–34; implications, 234–35; library media success predictors/commonalities, 232–33; library media success predictors/distinguishing results, 233; library media success predictors/individual studies, 229–32; and national events/trends, 223; and role of technology, 249; school and public collaborations, 271; standards, 223. See also Drexel University collaborative program; Syracuse University collaborative program Science Teacher , 435 Self determination theory, 49 September 11 terrorist attack impacts, 3, 11, 223; telecommuting increase, 4 SIGTC Connections , 443 Simmons College, 397 Smithsonian Institution, 354 Social Science Computer Review , 433 Society for Applied Learning Technology (SALT), 354 Society for Computer Simulation (SCS), 354 Society for Photographic Education (SPE), 355 Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers (SCTE), 355 Society of Photo Technologists (SPT), 355 Software Magazine, 433 Southeastern Regional Media Leadership Council (SRMLC), 355 SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education (SERVE), 355 Southern Connecticut State University, 381–82 Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, 389 Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville, 389 Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL), 356 Southwest Missouri State University, 401 Special education, and technology, 13 Special Libraries Association, 356 St. Cloud State University, 400 St. Johns University, 405 State University College of Arts and Science at Potsdam, 405–6 State University of New York at Albany, 406 State University of New York at Stony Brook, 406 State University of West Georgia, 386 SUNY Buffalo, online MBA program, 7 SUNY Learning Network, 8 Sustaining distance training : Integrating learning technologies into the fabric of the enterprise , 434
next page >
SV (streaming video), 152; delivery methods, 152–53; educational prospects, 153, 157; types, 152; usage goals, 153–54, 154f. See also InTime Sylvan Learning Systems, 7 Syllabus, 434, 436 Syracuse University, 406–7 Syracuse University collaborative program, 249–50; course evaluation, 255–56; course goals, 250; future directions, 256; learning objectives, 250–51; methods, 251–55 System , 438 Teacher preparation programs, 151–52; elements of professional development, 170; largest, 198; model SV based lesson, 154, 155–57; and streaming video usage, 152. See also PT3 grants; SV (streaming video)
< previous page
page_477
next page >
< previous page
page_478
Page 478 Teacher training in technology: in-service, 13–14; preservice, 14; regional resource centers (Africa), 32; and teacher acceptance of, 14; and technology standards, 172; theoretical base, 168–69. See also CERT Teachers and Writers Collaborative (T&W), 357 Teaching, Learning, and Technology Center (TLTC), 9 Teaching learning paradigm, 10–11; distance divide, 151; and effectiveness of technology claims, 14–15; in information rich environment, 45–46; interactive approach, 42–43 Techniques : Connecting Education and Careers , 442 Technology and Learning , 433 Technology application benefits research, 40; critical thinking, 41; individualized instruction, 41; interactive teaching/learning approach, 42; language arts, 40–41; motivation/self confidence, 41; and obstacles, 41–42; student collaboration, 41 Technology evolution, 40; and methods changes, 1; personal computer as concept, 15–16 Technology Opportunities Program, 13 Technology/computer ethics, 78–79; 3 P’s model (Johnson), 81; audience, 84; privacy, 81–82, 91–92; property issues, 82–83; purpose, 84 Technophobia: as cultural phenomena, 98; and Foucault, 104; managing, 102–3; research, 106, 107f TechnoTherapist, 105 TechTrends , 434, 435, 436, 437, 441, 442 Telecommunications media, usage in corporate training/development, 4 Telecommuting, 4 Temple University, 412–13 Temple University, distance education, 7 Tennessee, higher education funding cutbacks, 9 TESOL Journal , 436 Texas A&M University, 415–16 Texas A&M University-Commerce, 416 Texas Tech University, 416 TFQE (Technology as Facilitator of Quality Education) model, 183–85 The Johns Hopkins University, 394 The One-Computer Classroom, 432 The University of Oklahoma, 410 The University of Rhode Island, 413 The University of Texas at Austin, 418 Theatre Library Association (TLA), 357 Total cost of ownership (TO), 17 Towson University, 394 Training & Development , 434, 437 Training , 437, 440 Trexler, Sally, 260 United Learning, 12 United States International University, 379–80 University Continuing Education Association (UCEA), 357 University of Alabama, 375 University of Arizona, 377 University of Central Arkansas, 378 University of Central Florida, 384 University of Cincinnati, 409 University of Colorado at Denver, 380 University of Connecticut, 382 University of Florida, 385 University of Georgia, 386–87
next page >
University of Hawaii-Manoa, 387 University of Houston, 416–17 University of Illinois, 11 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 389 University of Iowa, 391–92 University of Louiville, 393 University of Maryland, 394–95; distance education, 7 University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC), 395 University of Massachusetts Lowell, 397–98 University of Massachusetts-Boston, 397 University of Memphis, 414–15 University of Michigan, 399 University of Missouri-Columbia, 401–2 University of Montana, 402 University of Nebraska at Kearney, 402 University of Nebraska-Omaha, 402 University of Nevada, 403 University of North Carolina, 408 University of North Texas, 417–18 University of Northern Colorado PTEP (Professional Teacher Education Programs), 204, 210; educational technology applications, 206–8; faculty accountability in technology usage, 208–9; faculty student teams, 209; redesign goals, 204–5; technology in education focus, 205–6 University of Northern Colorado, 380 University of Northern Iowa. See TFQE model University of Northern Iowa, 392 University of Phoenix, 8 University of South Alabama, 376 University of South Carolina Columbia, 413–14 University of South Carolina-Aiken, 413–14 University of South Florida, 385 University of Southern California, 380
< previous page
page_478
next page >
< previous page
page_479
next page >
Page 479 University of Southern Mississippi technology integration modeling, 212, 221–22; background, 212–13; centralized course Web site, 220–21; education software library, 218–19; Internet focus, 213–14; multimedia modules, 214–15, 216f, 217; professional development, 219–20; standardization, 219 University of Tennessee-Knoxville, 415 University of Toledo, 409 University of Twente (Netherlands), 32. See also CASCADE-SEA program University of Virginia, 420 University of Washington, 421–22 University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, 422 University of Wisconsin-Madison, 422 University Sains Malaysia, 423 USA Toy Library Association (USA–TLA), 358 Utah State University, 419 Valdosta State University, 387 VHS video, 12 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 420–21 Virginia State University, 421 Virginia Tech, 11. See also Distance education and scalability determination Virtual schools, 15 Walden University, 400 Walt Disney, 3 Wayne State University, 399–400 WebCT, 11 Webster University, 402 WestEd, 358 Western Illinois University, 390 Western Maryland College, 395 Western Oregon State College, 410–11 Western Public Radio (WPR), 358 William Paterson University, 403 Wireless computing, 9 Wisconsin, higher education funding cutbacks, 9 World Future Society (WFS), 358 Wright State University, 410 Xerox, 3 Young Adult Library Services Association (YALSA), 359
< previous page
page_479
next page >
< previous page
page_480
Page 480 About the Editors MARY ANN FITZGERALD, an Assistant Professor at the Department of Instructional Technology at the University of Georgia, has worked in Georgia public schools as a teacher and media specialist for more than a decade. MICHAEL OREY is Associate Professor at the Department of Instructional Technology, University of Georgia. ROBERT MARIBE BRANCH is Associate Professor, Instructional Technology Division of the Department of Education, University of Georgia, Athens.
< previous page
page_480
