The Role of Personalized Integrated Educational Systems in the Information-Age Paradigm of Education

Abstract

Aslan and Reigeluth (2011) described a possible future period of educational computing as a “Personalized Computing Period” (p. 12). They described a potential educational technology system, PIES (Personalized Integrated Educational System), to support student learning in this period of educational computing, based on the major and secondary functions proposed by Reigeluth, Watson, Watson, Dutta, Chen, and Powell (2008) for the information-age paradigm of education. Major functions include record keeping for, planning for, instruction for, and assessment for/of student learning. Secondary functions include communication, general student data, school personnel information, and technology administration. In this qualitative research study, seven classroom teachers and one technology coordinator from three high schools were interviewed to reveal how they used their current technology systems with respect to the functions described by Reigeluth et al. (2008). The results revealed that there were discrepancies between the participants’ current use of the systems and the ideal use for the information-age paradigm of education. Based on the results, recommendations are offered to teachers, policy makers and technology system designers for better meeting students’ information-age educational needs.

Keywords

• Information-age learning paradigm, Personalized integrated educational system (PIES), Learning management system (LMS), Functions of technology

References

1. Aslan, S. & Reigeluth, C. M. (2011). A trip to the past and future of educational computing: Understanding its evolution. Contemporary Educational Technology. 2(1), 1-17.
2. Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment, 1(1), 1-12.
3. Collins, A. & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and the schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
4. Davis, D. & Sorrell, J. (1995). Mastery learning in public schools. Retrieved October 20, 2010, from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/files/mastlear.html
5. Duffy, F. M. (2009). The need for systemic transformational change in school districts (Part 1). Retrieved 3 November 2010 from http://cnx.org/content/m19579/latest/
6. Ertmer, P. A., Addison, P., Lane, M., Ross, E., & Woods, D. (1999). Examining teachers' beliefs about the role of technology in the elementary classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 54-72.
7. Gilhooly, K. (2001). Making e-learning effective. Computerworld, 35(29), 52-53.
8. Knight, P. T. (2001). A briefing on key concepts: Formative and summative, criterion and norm- referenced assessment. York, England: LTSN.

9. Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice, 13(6), 522-525.
10. Reigeluth, C. M. (1995). Educational systems development and its relationship to ISD. In G. J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (2nd ed., pp. 84–93). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
11. Reigeluth, C.M., Watson, W.R., Watson, S.L., Dutta, P., Chen, Z., & Powell, N.D.P. (2008). Roles for technology in the information-age paradigm of education: Learning management systems. Educational Technology, 48(6), 32-39.
12. Skyward. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved May 3, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyward
13. Smith, C. W. (1973). Criterion-referenced assessment. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Educational Testing. The Hague, The Netherlands.
14. Thomas, J.W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. San Rafael, CA: Autodesk Foundation.
15. Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. New York: Morrow.
16. Toffler, A. (1990), Powershift: Knowledge, wealth and violence at the edge of the 21st century, New York: Bantam Books.
17. Watson, W. R., Lee, S., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2007). Learning management systems: An overview and roadmap of the systemic application of computers to education. In F. M. M. Neto & F. V. Brasileiro (Eds.), Advances in computer-supported learning (pp. 66-96). London: Information Science Publishing.
18. Correspondence: Charles M. Reigeluth, Professor, Instructional Systems Technology, School of
19. Education, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, United States.