A Trip to the Past and Future of Educational Computing: Understanding Its Evolution

Öz

Although machine use in education was introduced in the 1920s with instructional radio and 1950s with instructional television, these technologies lacked one of the most important components of learning - interaction. Computers have filled this void. The functions they have served, the ways they have been used, and the terms they have been given have changed since their introduction to our schools, but their rooted presence in our educational lives has continually increased over time. Our in-depth review of the literature illustrated that there are three distinct periods of educational computing based on the predominant computer technologies and computer functions of the time. We named these three periods the "Mainframe Period", "Microcomputer Period", and "Internet Period". Taking the past and current trends into account and considering such shifts in society as moving from standardization to customization and personalization, from proprietary resources to open resources and from using different tools for different functions to convergence of functionalities in one tool. We propose the next period, which we call the "Personalized Computing Period", in which the predominant computer technology will be "Personalized Integrated Educational Systems" that serve four major functions to support the information-age paradigm of education: Record-keeping, planning, instruction, and assessment, as well as such secondary functions as communication, general student data, school personnel information and system administration.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• History of educational computing, Information-age paradigm, Personalized Integrated Educational System, Social networking

Kaynakça

1. Alessi, S. M. & Trollip, S. R. (1991). Computer-based instruction: Methods and development.
2. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
3. American Heart Association. (2009). Aortic Aneurysm.Retrieved 1 January 2010 from http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4455
4. Amichai-Hamburger, Y. & Hayat, Z. (2011). The impact of the Internet on the social lives of users: A representative sample from 13 countries. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 585–589.
5. Archbald, D. A. & Porter, C. P. (1994). Curriculum control and teachers’ perceptions of autonomy and satisfaction. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(1), 21-39.
6. Banathy, B. H. (1991). Systems design of education: A journey to create the future. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
7. Bichelmeyer, B. & Molenda, M. (2006). Issues and trends in instructional technology: Gradual growth atop tectonic shifts. In M. Orey, V. J. McClendon & R. M. Branch(Eds.),Educational media and technology yearbook: Volume 31, 2006 (pp. 3–32). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
8. Brown, A. & Green, T. D. (2007). Video podcasting in perspective: The history, technology, aesthetics, and instructional uses of a new medium. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 36(1), 3-17.

9. Brown, A. & Green, T. D. (2008). Issues and trends in instructional technology: Making the most of the mobility and ubiquity. In M. Orey, V. J. McClendon & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media andtechnology yearbook: Volume 33, 2008 (pp. 4-16). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
10. Charnitski, C. W. & Harvey, F. A. (2007). Weblogs (blogs): Powerful new tools for more effective and efficient research on learning and teaching.In M. Orey, V. J. McClendon & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media andtechnology yearbook: Volume 32, 2007 (pp. 48-55). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
11. Christensen, C. M., Johnston, C., & Horn, M. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
12. Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
13. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14. Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Achieving our goals: Superficial or structural reforms. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(4), 286-295.
15. Duffy, F. M., Rogerson, L. G., &Blick, C. (2000). Redesigning America's schools: A systems approach to improvement. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.
16. Duffy, T. M. & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170-198). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
17. Earle, R. S. (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public education: Promises and challenges. ET Magazine, 42(1), 5-13.
18. Ebersbach, A., Glaser, M., & Heigl, R. (2005).Wiki: Web collaboration. (A. Adelung, Trans.) Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
19. Frick, T. W. (1991).Restructuring education through technology. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
20. Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depth of educational reform. London ; New York: Falmer.
21. Fullan, M. (2003). Change forces with a vengeance. New York: Routledge.
22. Garrison, D. & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133-148.
23. Godwin-Jones, R. (2003). Blogs and wikis: Environments for on-line collaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 12-16.
24. Golden, F. (1985). Here come the microkids’. In T. Forester (Ed.), The information technology revolution (pp. 218-228). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
25. Huffaker, D. (2005). The educated blogger: Using weblogs to promote literacy in the classroom. AACE Journal, 13(2), 91-98.
26. Jenlink, P., Reigeluth, C. M., Carr, A. A., & Nelson, L. M. (1998). Guidelines for facilitating systemic change in school districts. Systems Research and Behavioural Science, 15(3), 217-233.
27. Jonassen, D. H. (1996).Computers in the classrooms: Mindtools for critical thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
28. Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
29. LOGO Foundation. (2000). What is LOGO?. Retrieved from http://el.media.mit.edu/Logo- foundation/logo/index.html
30. Merrill, M. D., Schneider, E. W, & Fletcher, K. A. (1980). TICCIT. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
31. Merrill, P. F., Hammons, K., Vincent, B. R., Reynolds, P. L., Christensen, L., &Tolman, M. N. (1996). Computers in education. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
32. Molnar, A. R. (1997). Computers in education: A brief history. Technology Horizons in Education Journal, 24(11), 63-68.
33. Morrison, G. R., Lowther, D. L., & DeMeulle, L. (1999). Integrating computer technology into the classroom. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
34. Mott, J. & Wiley, D. (2009). Open for learning: The CMS and the open learning network. In Education – Technology and Social Media, 15(2). Retrieved from http://www.ineducation. ca/article/open-learning-cms-and-open-learning-network
35. Papert, S. (1999).Logo philosophy and implementation. Montreal, Canada: Logo Computer Systems.
36. Pea, R. (2000).The Jossey-Bass reader on technology and learning.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
37. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants.On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
38. Rahmlow, H., Fratini R. C., & Ghesquiere, J. R. (1980). PLATO. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
39. Reigeluth, C. M. (1994). The imperative for systemic change. In C. M. Reigeluth & R. J. Garfinkle (Eds.), Systemic change in education (pp. 3-11). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. Roschelle, J. (2003) Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile devices. Journal Computer AssistedLearning, 19(3) 260-272.
43. Ross, S. M., Morrison, G. R., &Lowther, D. L. (2010). Educational technology research past and present: Balancing rigor and relevance to impact school learning. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(1), 17-35.
44. Saettler, P. (1990). The evolution of American educational technology. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
45. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Lamon, M. (1994). The CSILE project: Trying to bring the classroom into world 3. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory &classroom practice (pp. 201-228). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46. Schmidt, M., Weinstein, T., Niemic, R., & Walberg, H. (1986).Computer-assisted instruction with exceptional children. Journal of Special Education, 19(4), 493-501.
47. Schofield, J. (1995). Computers and classroom culture. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
48. Sharma, P., Xie, Y., Hsieh, P., Hsieh, W., &Yoo, S. (2008). Student learning outcomes in technology- enhanced constructivist learning environments: What does research show?.In M. Orey, V. J. McClendon & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media andtechnology yearbook: Volume 33, 2008 (pp. 77-90). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
49. Silberman, H. F. (1962). Application of research on programmed instruction to school systems. Ft. Belvoir, VA: Defense Technical Information Center.
50. Simonson, M. (2007). Course management systems.Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1),7-9.
51. Singh, K. & Dika, S. (2003). The educational effects of rural adolescents' social networks. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 18, 114–128.
52. Skinner, B. F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 24(2), 86-97.
53. Stolurow, L. M. (1966). Socrates, a computer-based instructional system in theory and research. Ft. Belvoir, VA: Defense Technical Information Center.
54. Taylor, R. & Chonacky, N. (1982). Computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee. American Journal of Physics,50, 91.
55. Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. New York, NY: Bantam Books.
56. Tyack, D. & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward Utopia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
57. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1988). Power on New tools for teaching and learning (OTA-SET-379). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
58. Venezky, R. & Osin, L. (1991). The intelligent design of computer-assisted instruction. New York, NY: Longman.
59. Wells, J. & Lewis, L. (2006). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994–2005. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
60. Wikipedia. (2009). Web 2.0. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0
61. Woodward, J. & Reith, H. (1997). A historical review of technology research in special education.Review of Educational Research, 67, 503-536.
62. Correspondence: Charles M. Reigeluth, Professor, Instructional Systems Technology, School of
63. Education, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, United States.