Reflection on Seatler's paper and 1994 definition

On Seatler's paper:

One question I have for this paper is: what is the role of machines or tools in the concept of Educational Technology? It seems to me that its role is kind of up and down, on and off as times go by.

Another interesting thing is to notice the change of the concept with the trends in the world development. The concept adjusts itself when wars take place, when technology revolutions came, etc.


Reflection on the “1994 Definitoin of the Field”

It talks about the definitions: rather than technically based on special knowledge in a context of research, the general definitions explain how a term is to be understood in the context where it is used.

To define, parameters/assumptions should be clarified. Consider scope, purpose, viewpoint, audience and essential characteristics. 1994 definition treated Instructional Technology more as a field of study as well as practice compared to that in 1977.

It made some assumptions: 1.research and practice in the field are carried out in conformity with the ethical norms of the profession. 2. Understanding yield more effective results. 3. Use the most cost-beneficial way and make best use of human and material resources to achieve effectiveness.

Discussion on Educational/Instructional Technology.

One most comprehensive system-oriented definition was given by Robert Gagne: IT is concerned with studying and establishing conditions for effective learning.

Whether to assume that establishing conditions for learning includes establishing learning environment?

Instructional Technology:
1. Theory and practice: knowledge base to support practice. Practices benefits KB through information gained from experience.
2. of design, development, utilization, management and evalution;
3. of processes and resources.
4. for learning: instruction is a means to learning. Its purpose is to affect and effect learning.

1963 Definition is more of a working definition.