Talk:Instructional technology

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles

Education

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles

Technology

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Untitled

Issue with definition/first citation: The citation points to a book that then attributes the definition to Seels and Richey, 1994. Not sure how this should be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.235.248.10 (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

moved from main:

[Mike]Computer technology is largely ignored in public schools. To the teacher, computer technology is just one more subject, they largely do not understand and does not seem to provide any teaching benefits. It takes time away from the "normal" curriculum which is designed to cover the subjects the student must know to pass examinations. The idea of using the technology such as found in graphic games and convert the learning experience into a fun challenge is never mentioned. "Computer" is just one more subject that takes time away from more important subjects. Not surprisingly, Charter Schools and home schooling are more heavily interested in instructional technology. Imagine this: A battle against dragon and wizards is interrupted with a question and if the student gives the right answer, points are earned and the adventure continues, a wrong answer means the hero drops down into a cavern...

It is all about earning points while fighting dragons.

If the student gives the wrong answer, the Expert system picks the proper text to display and asks another question to try to clarify understanding of the question and the right answer and so on and so forth. With suitable database use, one game could be used for many topics structured in the same format. By changing the database a higher or a lower level could be taught with no change in the graphis or the software. It could be done.

Further, the data could be in CDs and students could carry the material home to do homework and study. Sick students, and those that must be away, could keep up by taking all the required CDs. All the textbooks should be replaced with CDs and students need only print the few pages that require special attention.

This seems POV and speculative. Evercat 20:13 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[MikeS]It is speculative, so unrealistic that little progress has been made in the Mecca of high technology: California. As noted, Charter schools and Home schooling with smart parents, are leading the field. But, how long will it take for other nations to figure out that they do not need to come to prestigious universities in the US? It is already a fact that students rejected by prestigious Universities in India, are eagerly accepted there. In short: Instructional Technology will allow any nation catch up with the latest technologies while Advanced Nations merely try to save teaching jobs. Stay tuned, financing is the other obstacle. --[MikeS]

The definition of instructional technology given by this article is rather shallow and one-dimensional. You would do better to think of it as a process for solving learning and performance problems. For a more thorough and generally accepted definition seek out the Association for Educational Communications and Technology's work on the subject at http://www.aect-members.org/standards/knowledgebase.html

For a timeline of significant events in the history of field you should seek out http://www.ittheory.com/timelin2.htm. [swh, September, 2004]

Agree with last poster - there are better definitions of the field that are not analyzing the pros and cons like the current page.

I'll disagree that most teachers in this day and age are down on technology for the reasons you suggest - computers are quickly becoming ubiquitous within public schools. I also don't think there is evidence that homeschoolers use computers any more (or better). However, we can debate that in a sub topic; don't think it works within the definition itself.

Educational Technology vs. Instructional Technology

Current entry is: Razavi(2005) advocate that educational technology cover instructional technology. It include instructional technology and the field study in human teaching and learning. So educational technology is broader than instructional technology. Instructional technology itself is consisted from two major parts. One is teaching technology and another is learning technology.

I am going to disagree with this on two counts:

1) The Razavi reference is to a Wikipedia entry that no longer exists. If this was Razavi's distinction, it can't be validated since his entry no longer exists.

2) I contend that he had it backwards - Ed Tech is a subset of Instructional Tech. Instructional Technology goes beyond the context of educational arenas such as schools, to include corporate training. In fact, many probably would argue that Instructional Technology is itself a subset of Human Performance Technology - but that's a different discussion.

I suggest we strike the above entry in question - how do others feel?

IMO, any attempt to separate these terms is a semantic dichotomy that's not even wrong. In other words, your overall premise is 110% correct. Further, while I find your contention (2) makes deductive vocabulary sense (to me), and I'd maybe think of steering to that harbor if the ocean demanded respect, it's actually uncited WP:OR. So I wouldn't try to rescue this bullshit bingo upside down backwards straw dog. Edits underway. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prominent Figures in Instructional Technology

Could we please list why these people are prominent? What are their specific contributions? (Teryx 23:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Educational Technology vs Instructional Technology

I advocate expanding instructional technology to the field of education. By concentrating on the word instructional we do not effectively communicate to the uninformed that our field goes beyond just a few new tricks for teaching. We are about using all of the resources of educational theory and practice in developing and applying internet and computer technologies. By using this word we can enhance our status and gain more respect with educators.

Har4410 (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Technology in the classroom an Educators standpoint---- I agree with expanding instructional technology to the field of education as long as the educators are fully trained and willing to use the technology. Teachers with computer experience are already using the technology available within their reach. There are so many teachers in the education system, that are not comfortable with technology, that pushing it into the curriculum will be impossible. Proper instruction for the teachers should be the first step.[reply]

Teaching machine

Eh? Teaching machine redirects here, where there is no mention either of "machine" or of B. F. Skinner#Teaching machine? Jim.henderson (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salary Source

The salary numbers are significantly higher than what's on salary.com and other industry salary surveys. A reliable source is needed to include any statistics for salaries.WeisheitSuchen (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger WITHOUT 30 day merge tag

I did not 30 day merge tag this article b/c there was no meat left at all on the bones when I removed uncited content and content that was duplicative of other articles. This article even had a Refimprove tag from January 2008 i.e. over 6 years. I am following the other merge steps. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]