This item was submitted to Loughborough's Research Repository by the author. Items in Figshare are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Impact of new technology on teaching and learning in technology educationImpact of new technology on teaching and learning in technology education

PLEASE CITE THE PUBLISHED VERSION

PUBLISHER

© DATA

LICENCE

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

REPOSITORY RECORD

Kumar, K.L.. 2019. “Impact of New Technology on Teaching and Learning in Technology Education”. figshare.https://hdl.handle.net/2134/3175.

This item was submitted to Loughborough’s Institutional Repository by the author and is made available under the following Creative Commons Licence

conditions.

For the full text of this licence, please go to: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/

119

AbstractThe paper commences by way of some general comments onthe potential of technology in education. It recalls thecharacteristics of the early technologies, i.e. paper andprinting press and post-war technologies, i.e. telephone,radio, photographic film, slides and audio recordings,overhead projector, film, video and mixed media andtransmission through satellite networks. It examines the evergrowing interest and ‘needs felt’ to employ the ‘newtechnology’, for education in general and for technologyeducation in particular. It briefly explains the transientconcepts of mass education, individualised learning andgroup learning, which occurred in quick succession.Research findings on the effectiveness of differenteducational technologies are briefly stated in terms of thereal benefits of technology in technology education.

The next part of the paper is devoted to examining thephenomena of learning, retention, recall and criticalthinking from the point of view of behaviourist andcognitive psychologies and to look at the concepts of higher-order learning. An attempt is made to show how humanlearning curves improve with the infusion of educationaltechnology and variety in learning. It is proposed to adopt agraphical observation form, which includes the effective useof educational technology for classroom activity analysis.Salient features of technology education in the context ofdesign and technology are highlighted. An attempt is madeto discuss the technology-propelled paradigm-shift and toidentify the extent of software and hardware of technologyrequired to create better learning through teaching-learningprocesses based upon new technology. Critical issues forevaluating the effectiveness of new technology areidentified. Facts and figures on technology integration in theteaching-learning process are quoted from different parts ofthe world.

Finally, the paper dwells on the last decade of the turn ofthe millennium and the scenario with the onset of videoconferencing, Internet conferencing, e-learning, etc. withregard to their outreach and relative effectiveness. Possibleimpact of the one-computer classroom is taken up to showhow the availability of minimum infrastructure can be usedin the developing world. Criteria for selection of appropriatetechnology is spelt out in some detail. A case is made forgreater investment in staff development in the integration ofnew technology. The paper concludes by enumerating theways in which the impact of new technology is made visibleand by envisioning the not-so-distant future.

Keywordseducation, technology, design, development,communications, learning, teaching

IntroductionYou might have noticed that the word ‘technology’occurs twice in the title of this paper – both as thecause and the effect. The first one refers toeducational technology and the second is technologyeducation. It follows that the word technology isgoing to be used repeatedly with techno-terms but Ishall try not to ignore the words ‘teaching’ and‘learning’; I propose to use them to limit mydiscussion to these areas of application.

A topic like ‘Impact of New Technology on Teachingand Learning in Technology Education’ occursnaturally to policy makers, who would like to see thepositive correlation between improvement ineducation and technology costs, as in Curve A, Figure1, before committing further investments. Theywould also like to see if smaller incremental costs intechnology could bring about greater improvement ineducation as shown in Curve B. Let me clarify at theoutset that educational improvements depend upon amultitude of factors including school setting,curriculum, staff development, management, studentsinterest and of course, state of technology. Even theeffectiveness of technology is a function of severalvariables that we shall discuss and there is no way aneducationist can produce such graphs!

Figure 1: Expectations of policy makers.

The best we can do is to step back and ask ourselvessome practical questions:

• can a new and emerging technology bereasonably evaluated in relation to improvingteaching and learning processes? If so, how?

• can we create technology-based infrastructuresfor technology education? If so, how?

• can a new technology meet the new challenges ofknowledge explosion and diverse learning

Impact of new technology on teaching and learningin technology educationK. L. Kumar University of Botswana, Gaborone, Southern Africa

Improvementin Education

Technology Costs

Curve A

Curve B

requirements to meet the ambitions of next-generation, knowledge-gobbling students andthus prove itself worthy of the expenditure?

As a matter of fact, policy decisions about futureinvestment in technology should not be made byextrapolating the graphs of past performance, but onthe basis of perceived potential of new technologiesbecause several incredibly different, relativelyinexpensive and connected technologies are fastemerging.

A look at publications during the last 30 years showsthat ‘technology’ has always been referred to byphrases such as ‘poised for a giant leap forward’,‘advancing exponentially’ and ‘with expandingfrontiers’. (Unwin, 1969; Sakamoto, 1975; Lewis,1988; Erant, 1980; Kozma, 2000) In that sense,technology has been the driver, manifesting itself insimple audiovisual resources, in video and televisionsand lately as computer networks and the Internet, asshown by the donkey-cart analogy, Figure 2.

Figure 2: Donkey-cart analogy of technology andeducation.

Educational technology developmentHardware and software technologies for educationhave been emerging ever since the beginning ofcivilization in the Stone Age. Discovery of paper datesback to 105 AD in China, and the printing press to1400 AD in Germany. The print medium has beenaround with us throughout the century and itcontinues to move on into the new millenniumeffortlessly (refer to Figure 3). Photographic film andslides owe their existence to the holidaymakers inEurope who subscribed to capture the beauty ofnature. Both of them had their glorious days ineducation, bringing ‘the outside into inside’.Telephone and radio, invented in 1920 and audio-recorders invented in the Forties, heralded the futureof audio-based distance education. Invention of theFresnel lens condenser in 1940 enabled the presenterto write on A-4 size acetate sheets for overheadprojection. The onset of video and television in thefifties marked another era of audiovisual-baseddistance education.

Global CommunicationsDesktop Computers

Programmed InstructionVideo Recordings

Closed Circuit TVTransparancies

Radio BroadcastSlides and Film

Print Matter

1900 20 40 60 80 2000 20

Figure 3: Development of educational technologiesover the years.

The popularity of the Video in the classroom wasenhanced by a large number of video programmes onall subjects made throughout the world. For example,promotional videos (Kumar, 2000) on Video ScriptWriting, Video Power and Video Teleteaching,resulted in a multiplier effect in the developing world.The desktop computer, which emerged in late Fifties,led the way to different uses including computer-assisted, computer-managed and computer-mediatedinstruction, videoconferencing, networking andfinally several Internet based technologies.Information technology can be viewed as ‘enablingtechnology’ to assist teachers to employ different sitesfor the tasks they may need to perform. For example,the Technology Magic and Worlds has created a site toexplore 20-plus ways of using the Internet in teachingand learning. It lists click-on sites for differentobjectives such as visiting a museum in anothercountry, finding up-to-date information on aninvention, viewing current interviews on someprojects and accessing data via online experiments.Likewise, Media Institute of Southern Africa(MISANET, 1991) has managed to do away with someisolation prevalent among African nations by enablingfree flow of news and information across thecontinent. MISA has succeeded in hooking up mediainstitutions throughout the Southern AfricanDevelopment Community (SADC) to the Internet. Asof today, 29 newspapers and news agencies contributeto the MISANET news service.

A study of the world’s best web sites (Deek et al, 2000)shows that the cognitive characteristics of the bestweb designers are such that they are highly creative,risk-taking, imaginative and insightful individuals.While it is desirable to develop a web site to be ratedhigh on content, design and special features, it maynot be necessary to do so for educational purposes.For example (Kumar, 2001), interactive designs aremade possible virtually without having a web site,merely by employing charitable URLs to launchspecific designs, seeking all interested to participate

120

online and offline and thus bring about designmodifications through constructive criticism. Theargument is similar to the fact that a mere chalkboardhas served the classroom extremely well; simpleInternet web sites can also be effective for learning.

In the US, satellite microwave transmission has beenthe most efficient and cost-effective method ofproviding continuous interactive learning in somesparsely populated areas of Alaska, Utah, Montana,the Dakotas and Arizona. In 1989, Northland PioneerCollege in Arizona scheduled 16 courses via 2-wayvideo systems and 19 courses via the network’s audiosystems. In spite of technology related transmissionproblems, it overcame the dilemma of acute shortageof trained teachers.Educational technologies developed in quicksuccession after the Second World War. Yet every newtechnology went through the phases of Research,Development and Use (Elton, 1977), Figure 4. Thefirst major technologies, radio broadcast and closedcircuit television, were considered capable of masscommunication and hence extended to massinstruction, without understanding that the two arenot the same thing. It was later realised that learningis individual to a learner. The focus changed toIndividualised Learning with the pioneeringcontributions by Skinner in the area of BehaviouralPsychology, based upon his stimulus and responsetheory and successive reinforcement. It led to thedevelopment of Programmed Learning with linearprogramming and branching programmed learning. Itreally gave birth to such ideas as ‘preparing structuredmaterial’, ‘reinforcement’, ‘continuous evaluation’, etc.which could not be exploited at that time due to lackof computing power.

Group Learning

Individualised Learning

Mass Instruction

1940 60 80 2000 10

Figure 4: Elton model of educational technologies.

Teaching machines looked bulky and scary, now given away to museums. Further realisation that teachingindividuals in isolation of others deprived them ofinteractive learning, teamwork, collaboration,cooperation and competition, resulted in the nextphase called group learning. Humanistic psychologyplayed an important role in ushering in groupdynamics with a variety of group interactiontechniques such as game-playing, role-playing,simulations, case studies, group discussions, buzzsessions, etc. Change from mass instruction to grouplearning has led to a shift from hardware to softwareand from teacher centring to learner centring. Themain features of educational technologies aretabulated below.

Games and stimulationThere has always been a scarcity of resources, more soin the developing world, and ‘effectiveness studies’were conducted as soon as a new technology appeared.During the Eighties, in the advanced countries andduring the Nineties in the developing world, therehave been many research reports on the relativemerits of different media. Far too many researchershave concluded that there is no significant differencebetween teaching/learning with different media. This isreferred to as ‘no significant difference phenomenon’.A web resource shows several studies beyond the 355similar research reports in the book (Russell, 1998).Such studies are not insignificant – as a matter of factthey are highly significant. They merely serve to showthat there is no significant difference in the parameterbeing measured in comparing two methodologies andwe can employ one or the other depending upon theirfavourable characteristics. For example, severalstudies, which show that different delivery systemsmake no significant difference in the learning gains,empower us to use the online methodology fordistance learners in remote places without loss oflearning potential.

Evaluation of online learning has been a subject ofnumerous researches by several authors includingmyself (Kumar, 1998 and 1999). Evidence from astudy of the Sloan Centre for Asynchronous LearningEnvironment (SCALE) Efficiency Projects during1997–98, shows that Asynchronous LearningNetworks (ALN) achieved much higher

121

Main Features of Educational Technologies

Mass Instruction Individualised Learning Group Learning

Model Economy of scale Behavioural Psychology Group dynamics

Technology Broadcast and CCTV Programmed learning Games and stimulation

RD

U

students/faculty ratios without impeding studentlearning. The study supports the view that ‘when asensible pedagogic approach is embraced that affordsthe students opportunity to communicate about theirlearning, ALN can produce real and tangibleefficiency gains without sacrificing the quality ofinstruction’.

The March Newsletter (Morrison, 2002) on theTechnology Source Management has an interestingcommentary on Web-based Course Management Toolto Support Face-to-Face Instruction. Tools such asWebCT, ‘Blackboard’, Virtual-U or ‘LearningSpace’can be used either in the adjunct mode for web-enhanced instruction or in distance mode for onlineinteraction. The advantage of the former, i.e. web-enhancement, include the following:

• allows instructor to capture class activities andarchive the same, fully to enable students toaccess the course beyond the classroom

• permits and encourages students to contributelater through asynchronous communication

• encourages active learning through the use ofjust-in-time online resources and threadeddiscussion

• enables peer review and collaboration on groupprojects

• promotes learning through multiple forms ofinteraction distributed across space, time anddifferent media.

An important feature of the above is the possibility ofdual delivery by face-to-face and in distance mode. Itovercomes the problem of redundancy of teachereffort by addressing both modes simultaneously.Systems like WebCT offer videoconferencing, onlinechat, student progress tracking, group projectorganisation, student self evaluation, grademaintenance, access control, navigation tools, auto-marked quizzes, course calendar, student homepages,student work areas, course content searches etc. Useof such features is seen to promote collaborativelearning, enhance critical thinking and provide equalopportunity to all students to express their views. Onereally wonders what more to expect from educationaltechnology to make teaching and learning intechnology more meaningful!

A study on the effectiveness of a short course via theInternet (Kumar, 1999) based on comparing post-testand pre-test scores of a sizable random sample ofparticipants showed that they gained by 61.7% with astandard deviation of 19.8%, which was significant at0.05 level. Ratings on ten questions to evaluate thecourse on a five-point scale by the respondentsrevealed that they considered it worthwhile,

instructive and appropriate to offer such courses todistant learners. Another study (Kumar, 1998) showedthat faculty development workshops conductedthrough video teleteaching at seven centres in Indiaresulted in significant ‘pre-test to post-test’ gains,recorded as 71.4% at 0.05 level of confidence. Theparticipants were ‘highly satisfied’ and theyrecommended the holding of further courses viateleteaching. It can easily be concluded thattechnology offers the following:

• greater and faster access to more information• varied ways of interaction and collaboration, face

to face and at a distance• ease of tracking students’ progress• ease of remediation for struggling students• more challenges to advanced students• ease of interaction anytime and from anywhere.

We are, therefore, not propagating the use oftechnology in education just because everybody else isusing it, e.g. in commerce, industry, public service,management, entertainment, networking, treatmentand general communication. Thinking holistically,even that would have been a good reason because weare training students to go and assume responsiblepositions in the world of work.

Educational researchThe story of educational research is as fascinating, ifnot more than that of technology development. Theconcept of knowledge has changed over the years from‘something’ that can be transmitted or poured into thebrains of the learners, Figure 5, to ‘something’ thatcan be taught and lately to ‘something’ that can belearnt, e.g. ability to think, design and create newideas and things.

Figure 5: Students as receptacles of knowledge.

It all started with Thorndike, Pavlov, Watson andHull in the early 20s trying to prove a connectionbetween Stimulus and Response and they have cometo be known as the S-R connectionists. Thorndike’slaw of effect states that satisfaction serves to reinforce theS-R bond. His law of ‘trial and error’ learning has

122

become classical. Pavlov’s hypothesis of conditionedresponse sought to convert an unconditioned stimulusinto a conditioned one. Gestalt psychologistsintroduced laws of organisation applying toperception and problem solving. Skinner made amark by introducing structural stimulus and operantconditioning. Not being satisfied with extrinsicconnections, Tolman, Locke and Piaget took up thestudy of cognitive processes, trying to conceive thebrain functions and hence they have come to beknown as cognitive theorists. Piaget developed acognitive growth model of the development ofintellectual ability of young learners. Gagne, primarilyan associationist, has the distinction of evolving acriteria for good learning and correspondingmethodology of good teaching. Bruner also workedtowards evolving a theory of instruction and specifiedfour features for such a theory, i.e. predisposition tolearn, structure of knowledge, sequence of instructionand means of reinforcement. Ausubel introduced theconcept of advance organisers, to increase the capacityof learners, likening the process of learning tobuilding a structure! Some educational researchersover the years are shown in Figure 6.

Cognitive ScientistsGagne

KellerAusubel, Bruner

BloomSkinner

PiagetConnectionists

Thorndike, Pavlov

1900 20 40 60 80 2000 20

Figure 6: A glimpse of educational researchers overthe years.

Emerging from the theories of learning are themodels of teaching such as the Inductive-ThinkingModel by Hilda Taba; Inquiry Model by Schwab;Concept Attainment Model by Bruner; CognitiveGrowth Model by Piaget; and ContingencyManagement Model by Skinner. Implementation ofthese models of teaching was facilitated by thecontemporary development in technology andeducational media.

The higher-order learning concept has beenresearched a great deal and higher order learningtaxonomy has been proposed (Mustafa, 1997) fortechnology education. This was done in the context ofauthoring computer assisted learning packages toinculcate higher order learning. The hierarchicalstages of higher order learning, proposed beyond theuniversally accepted levels of knowledge and

comprehension due to Bloom, are comparing,inferring, integrating, problem solving andoriginating, each leading to a greater degree of mentalprocessing and abstraction as shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Taxonomy of higher-order learning.

Comparing refers to distinguishing between twothings or processes. Inferring is the cognitive processof making personal judgement on the basis ofunderstanding facts and figures. Integration is theprocess of adding or assimilating in relation toexisting cognitive structures. At this level, anindividual is able to construct new meanings andholistic perceptions. Problem solving refers to theconceptualisation of discrepancy or incongruency ofthe desirable state from the given state and an attemptto finding alternative methods of overcoming it.Finally, originating is the highest level in higherorder taxonomy, which involves displaying convictioncharacterised by pure, abstract and individualisedreasoning. At this level, an individual should be ableto provide original solutions to real and hypotheticalproblems.

The concept of learning curves of individuals, plottedas ‘rate of learning’ versus ‘passage of time’, Figure 8,during a learning session has gained renewed interest,now that the learning curves can actually be plotted,monitored and intervened for individual learners. It isobserved that the attention span of learners isnormally short as shown in curve A. Effective use ofeducational technology and variety in the teaching-learning process may trigger new restarts on thelearning curve, as shown in curve B and thus increasethe overall learning span of learners considerably.

Figure 8: Typical learning curves: effect ofeducational technology.

123

ORIGINATING

PROBLEM SOLVING

INTEGRATING

INFERING

COMPARING

DL/dt

Rate of Learning

Passage of Time

A. Without Educational Technology

B. With Educational Technology

In an attempt to encourage teachers to use educationaltechnology in their classroom teaching, a TeachingObservation Form similar to Flanders format wasdeveloped (Kumar, 1998) and used. By listing theobservable points in three categories rather than twoas in the Flanders, it is possible to record studentactivities, teacher activities and educationaltechnologies employed with the passage of time. Theresulting graphical display tells us the story ofclassroom interaction and technology utilisation asshown in Figure 9.

There has been a major paradigm shift in Educationfrom the theories of ‘learning’ to theories of‘cognition’. Cognitive science approaches teaching andlearning by addressing how the human, asinformation processor, functions and uses informationthrough higher-order thinking and problem-solvingskills. Cognitive approach is important because itrecognises human information processing strengthsand weaknesses and limits of human perception andmemory in coping with information explosion. It

focuses instead on organising information to fithuman capacity and it has changed the emphasis ineducation ‘from learning to thinking’. Technology hasbeen making great impact on the nature of researchesin the area of education. With the advent of newertechnologies, most researches have been focused onthe potential of technologies on learning and on thenature of learning itself. All these have lead to amultiple paradigm shift as summarised in Table 1.

124

Table 1: Paradigm shift in education by technology.

Old Paradigm New ParadigmTeaching is necessary for learners Learning is possible by alternative methods

Ed. Technology: Self-learning Resources. e.g, Print matter, audio lessons,videos, media mix and multimedia

Students to enrol for available courses Courses available on demandEd. Technology: Flexible learning: modular structures, computers,

info kiosks and bulletin boards

Follow the academic calendar All-time availability of courses for self-pacingEd. Technology: Video recordings, streaming video and Internet

University is a physical ‘place’ University is a virtual conceptLearning occurs in a classroom Learning can occur ‘anywhere and any time’

Ed. Technology: Information technology, Internet Web sites, videoconferencing, teleconferencing and e-learning

Single-discipline courses Multi-discipline studiesEd. Technology: Pick-n-choose software for flexible learning

Student as problem and problem maker Students as valued customersEd. Technology: Students-centred learning resources

Teacher-centred methods of teaching Interaction and student-centre learningEd. Technology: Learning resource centres, Smart-classrooms with

multimedia and, projection facilities

Books are the primary resource Multitude of alternative resourcesEd. Technology: Alternative technologies, microfilm, microfiche,

CD ROM and the Internet

Students in 18-25 age group ‘Cradle-to-grave’ learningEd. Technology: Open learning technologies

Technology is an option Technology is necessary and desirableEd. Technology: Optimisation technologies and multimedia

Learning for the sake of examination Learning for critical thinking & creativity Ed. Technology: Question banks, Internet resources for discussion groups

Figure 9: Classroom activity and interactionobservation form.

PROGRESSION OF TIME

STUDENT

ACTIVITY

Action

Questioning

Responding

Responding

Monologue

Questioning

Boards

Objects

Projection

Internet

TEACHER

ED.

TECHNOLOGY

Nature of technology education in design andtechnologyEducation in the area of technology has many thingsin common with all other areas, e.g. science and arts,but technology is characterised by human ability tothink creatively and to apply practical and mechanicalsciences. It refers to hardware and software aspects ofmaterials, processing, measurement, manufacturing,information technology, computer aided tasks andtesting. Science and technology are neither the samething, nor close enough to be clubbed together forteaching the same way. Science refers to thegeneration of knowledge, i.e. laws, principles, etc.from the observation of natural phenomena. On thecontrary, design relates to conceptualising newartefacts, i.e. hardware and software, and technology isconcerned with the creation of the same for thebenefit of mankind. Knowledge of science stands ingood stead so that we do not attempt to violate thelaws of science but apply them meaningfully asdepicted in Figure 10. Technology for design(Norman, 2000) is defined as the ‘summation ofknowledge, skills and values’ to realise designs. Forthat matter, again, technology is seen to beindependent of science. Norman has stressed thepoint of ‘teaching by showing and learning by doing’for technology capability.

Figure 10: Activities of science, design andtechnology.

In the UK, the first Order for technology was issuedin March 1990 following the Report on Technology inthe National Curriculum, (DES, 1990) and the subject‘design and technology’ was launched into schools.The Revised Order (DES/WO, 1992) reaffirmed themerits of the subject. This is as far as the design andtechnology subject is concerned at the school level.Technology courses have been in existence at theuniversity level for a very long time.

Botswana is the only country in Africa, where designand technology has been taught in junior and seniorsecondary schools since 1989. New curricula havebeen published and implemented for BotswanaGeneral Certificate of Secondary Education witheffect from 2000. The subject entitled ‘technology’includes energy, structures, mechanisms, electronics

and pneumatics, whereas tools and processes covermeasuring and marking out, saws and sawing, planesand planing, files and filing, drills and drilling, chiselsand chiselling, shears and shearing, joining andfabrication, assembling tools and finishing processes.I may add that the University of Botswana startedpreparing teachers for design and technology witheffect from the year, 1990. The syllabus for theuniversity students was prepared to match with thethen school requirement. Consequently, the designand technology teachers, who were inadequatelytrained, have not been effective in teaching thesubject and making a mark at schools. The universitycurricula have since been revised to become science-based curricula with a full year of foundation coursesin science subjects, not provided before.Simultaneously, the university is considering aproposal to offer a parallel industrial designprogramme to train students in different aspects ofdesigning and technological processes for the world ofwork.

In South Africa, the subject of technology has beenintroduced by the Western Cape EducationDepartment in their schools. The curriculum coverstechnology capability, including process skills,graphical communication, structures, materialsprocessing, systems and controls, tools andequipments, biases and planning in technology. Inessence, the curriculum is very close to the subject ofdesign and technology in Botswana. The Netherlandscurriculum in ‘Technology, for 15+’ formulated in1993 (Cor de Beurs), attempts to integrate technologywith existing science subjects and by admitting designmethodology and skills in the same. Design moduleshave been made in physics, chemistry and biology. Inspite of the fact that design does not appear in thetitle of the course, it constitutes a major component.

Technology education refers to educating children toemploy the hardware and software of technology. Itincludes educating theory and practice of a range ofmaterial processes for metal, wood, plastics materialsand, more recently, textile, leather and food materials.All these areas have a component of learning theorybut the greater and more important component is thatof gaining practical experience. Finally, students arerequired to demonstrate their practical competence byway of composite projects in design and technology.They should, therefore, be able to plan, selectmaterials, processes, instruments, etc., and make andtest products. Interestingly, there have been somestudies on teachers’ attitudes to educationaltechnologies. The one from Texas (Knezek, 1998)conducted on 250 teachers from six schools showedthat responses of teachers varied significantly inrespect of email learning, semantic perception ofcomputers and of the world wide web. It was noticed

125

Identiying ProblemsDivergent Thinking

Using Knowledge and ToolsEmpoying Processes and Products

Using Hardware and SoftwareMaking and RealisingMaking Things Happen

Conceiving 3-D NaturePerceiving Order and PatternConceiving an ArrangementCommunicating Variously

(Fact Finding, Explaining Phenomena, Hypothisising, FormulatingLaws and Expanding the Frontiers of Knowledge, etc. …

Design Technology

SCIENCE

that the schools with high-speed access had betterperceptions and more positive attitudes to the use ofeducational technology. Teachers from all schoolsopined positively about the index of computerproductivity in the classroom.

Curricula in technology education have been revisedto keep pace with advances in technology. Forexample, computer aided design and manufactureCAD/CAM, three-dimensional sketch modelling andrapid prototyping are some of the recent additions –as is the introduction of food and textile technologies.Fortunately, computer aided design software, e.g.AutoCAD 2000 package, are self sufficient with built-in educational technologies.

Critical issues for evaluating effectivenessThe US Secretary’s Conference on EducationalTechnology (NCET, 1999) identified several criticalissues in evaluating the effectiveness of technology,summarised as follows:

• That the effectiveness of technology is embedded inthe effectiveness of other school improvement efforts.Examples of such efforts are classroomadministration, teachers’ pedagogical skills, andstudent preparedness.

• That the current practices for evaluating the impact oftechnology in education need broadening. This isintended by evaluating technologyimplementation efforts, curriculum integrationmethods, harnessing the new learningopportunities for students and employing newerinstruments of measurement of the attributes ofeffectiveness of technology.

• That standardised test scores offer limited formativeinformation with which to drive the development of aschool’s technology programme. Formative evaluationof technology is more important than thesummative evaluation because it is the formativeevaluation, which gives an insight into student’smotivation, attitudinal changes learning stylesstudents’ capability to handle more complexassignments and projects and progress profiles.

• That schools must document and report theirevaluation findings in ways that satisfy diversestakeholders’ need to know. This is because interestin the effectiveness of technology is at an alltime high for the government, for the taxpayer,parents, teachers, students and above all, thepolicy makers. For example, the policy-makersare interested in overall summative evaluation oftechnology-related grants while the educators aremore concerned with the formative assessmentof technology-added environment in theircurricula. It is also important to report theevaluation to different target groups differently,to the extent of their technology-literacy andcomputer literacy skills.

• That in order to provide stakeholders with answers totheir questions about the effectiveness of technology ineducation, everyone must agree on a commonlanguage and standards of practice for measuring howschools achieve that end. For example, we shoulddevelop additional tools to measure whetherstudents are learning better about basicteamwork skills, lifelong learning skills, etc.,which are often claimed to be true withoutadequately substantiating the findings. It is notjust the institutions; stakeholders must alsosuggest the types of tools that would satisfy themin their questions. There are things teachers andstudents can now do through the assistance oftechnology that they could not perform before.Such possibilities show the impact of technology.For example, it is now possible to map out astudent’s learning effort, quantify the time andquality of his/her interaction with others acrossthe Internet and closely monitor his/her progress,which were not possible without technology.

• That the role of the teacher is crucial in evaluatingthe effectiveness of technology in schools, but theburden of proof is not solely theirs. All said anddone about student centring and self-learning,teachers remain to be most intimately concernedwith the details of the means of bringing aboutlearning of students. The teacher’s work hasbecome more demanding in terms of searchingfor more information on the Internet, observingstudents accessing and using information.Teachers are the first to notice a behaviouralchange in students and to see them grow in self-esteem, confidence and enhanced learning incomparison to what they would have achievedwithout technology. Teachers are the first to feelthe impact of technology on their student’slearning. Teachers are, therefore, integral to theprocess of evaluating technology initiatives bybecoming partners with researchers andsuggesting ways and means of measuring thelearning outcomes of students and recording keyindicators of effectiveness of technology.

Technology integration: some facts and figures I would like to cite some facts and figures from theliterature, which support the claim of positive impactof educational technologies:

• Educators in Iowa State used Bloom’s taxonomyof cognitive learning as a guide to observingtechnology-integrated learning units.Significantly, they noticed that technology-integrated learning reached higher in Bloom’shierarchy than non-technology-integratedlearning.

• A study at West Virginia demonstrated byisolating the effect of educational technology

126

from other factors that ‘the more the access totechnology, the higher the students scored instandardised tests’.

• A four-year study focused on eight specific goalswas used to evaluate the impact of theinvestment in the state of Idaho. It showedsignificant academic gains as measured by theIowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) and the Test forAcademic Proficiency (TAP) for 8th and 11thgraders.

• Children encouraged to employ technology as atool in their learning became literate, co-operative, problem solving and self-motivatedlearners, faster than otherwise at MantuaElementary School in Virginia.

• A technology-rich environment resulted inmeasurable reforms in education forhigher–order thinking and collaboration skills atthe Union City School, New Jersey.

• Enrolment in Chemistry classes swelled bynearly 500% when technology was integratedinto the ninth-grade science curriculum at theEast Brunswick Public Schools in New Jersey.

• Teachers using the Internet put in more detailsand more illustrative resources into their lessonplans at the Montgomery, Alabama.

• A count in several districts in the US showedthat interdisciplinary instruction was moreprevalent in technology-supported institutions.

• It was noticed in Anderson County Schools inTennessee, that teachers were dependent uponcomputer connectivity more than anything else,in their teaching. They called off their classeswhen servers were down!

• Students who used technology in theircoursework scored 15% higher than those whodid not use technology at the Blackfoot SchoolDistrict, Idaho.

• Teachers’ capacity to evaluate students learningwith and without technology is being reliedupon at a number of institutions includingCalifornia, Montana and Washington States.

• Students of all six remote schools in Arizona,where Internet services were provided to accesslibraries, used them more than students in otherschools where libraries were located in the sametowns. It also turned these schools to openschools, now being used by other learners acrossthe state.

• Reviews of implementations and benefits of theschool-wide use of computer technology in fivepioneering technology-rich schools and fourreviews of experimental data on the use ofcomputer technology in order to implement afamiliar curriculum component; all nine of them(Melmed, 1995) showed a positive correlationbetween ‘extent of the use of technology’ anddegree of ‘students knowledge generated’.

Impact of one-computer classroomIt is generally lamented in the developing world thattechnology cannot make a meaningful impact becausecomputers are in short supply. This is in notnecessarily true. One computer per classroom canalso make an impact, if employed with care. Thereare a large number of studies on one-computerclassrooms. Research shows that just one computercan be used to advantage for classroom teaching andpost-class activities. The computer can be used inconjunction with smart chalkboard to projectgraphics to show skills to conduct virtual visits, toplay video clips, and to keep records and to monitorthe progress of each student in a class. Projectionmay be achieved with LCD display panels placedover overhead projectors or with data projectionsystems. The computer can be used as a flip chart towrite the points in a brainstorming session or toaccess the Internet anytime and even to publish thework on a web site! Students may use the computerin small groups as a cooperative learning tool afterthe class hours. It is, therefore, important to note thatinadequacy of computers in classrooms does notseriously hamper innovative instructional techniques.Shortage of computers, which is being viewed as ahandicap in developing countries, may actually be ablessing in disguise in the sense that it is forcing grouplearning and collaborative learning, which aresuperior to individual learning. A review of severalstudies and a sustained study in the Indian context(Kapur, 1997), shows that computer aided learningenvironment is more effective than in terms of theachievement scores of students, when compared tothe print material in the individual mode and moreso in the collaborative group learning mode. It wasalso pointed out that that there was no significantdifference in the achievement of members studyingin groups of two or three. However, studies on groupsof four or more students using the same computershow that the learning gains drop significantly incomparison with groups of three students. Goodpractices to integrate technology in education includethe following:

• effective use of software, i.e. to match thelearning goals of students

• extensive use of Internet to access web sites viasearch engines and gateways

• student grouping to achieve collaborative andcooperative learning

• student controls to enable learners to managetheir own learning

• use of content-specific technologies, e.g.simulation for more difficult, expensive andrisky real-life situations

• use of technology to assist learning by objectivesas a seamless part of the lesson

127

Selection of cost effective technologiesStudies on the effectiveness of educational technologymust take into account the following factors:

• the learning goals to which it is applied• the relationship between learning goals and the

curriculum• the capability of staff to meet the challenge of

applying technology• the support by the school management to meet

the goals• the capability of students to employ the

technology• the likely achievement of students in relation to

the goals.

In a growing multitude of alternative technologies, itis necessary to identify the most ‘cost effective’ meansof providing quality education and training tostudents. A dynamic criteria (Bates, 1995) with theacronym ACTIONS, recommended for decisionmakers, consists of analysing the answers to thefollowing questions by the organisation concerned:

Selection CriteriaQuestions for the Criteria

A Access? How accessible is the particular technology?

C Cost? How affordable is it per unit learner?

T Teaching Does it support the teaching/learning/Learning? required?

I Interactivity? Does it enable user-friendly interaction?

O Organisation? Would the organisation support it?

N Novelty? Is it a relatively new and emerging technology?

S Speed? How fast can it be adapted for courses?

The topmost criterion is accessibility at place of work,at home, at other places, at different time of the dayand with minimal effort and equipment. If atechnology is not easily accessible, it may as well beleft alone. The cost of technology is another strongdiscriminator between technologies. However, costper student study hour drops off drastically with thenumber of students enrolled.

Several other educationists have also identified thevariables for technology selection. For example, aTechnology Effectiveness Workshop, 1995, resulted inrecognising the following six variables, which aresimilar to Bates’ criteria.

1. Access: connectivity and interconnectivity.2. Operability: open architecture and transparency.3. Location and direction of resources.4. Capacity to engage students for challenging

tasks.5. Ease of use: user friendliness, training and

support.

6. Functionality: preparation of learners fordiverse functions, development of skills forprogramming and skills for project design andimplementation.

Staff development: a master key If there is one single parameter which influences theeffectiveness of technology in education, it is theteacher’s preparedness and enthusiasm to usetechnology. In a report to the US Government, theBusiness Week correspondent, Grossman pointed outthat ‘the Government is spending $2 billion a year toconnect every classroom to the Internet but we spendvirtually nothing on the content. So when theyconnect to the Internet, the uses of it for educationalpurposes are extremely limited. And certainly, thetraining of teachers is virtually non existent’. Whatthen, is required to prepare and to enthuse teachers?Preparation of teachers requires a well-planned andon-going staff development programme with highlymotivated resource persons both in the areas oftechnology and education. Teachers would then learnnot only how to use new technology but also how toprovide meaningful instructional activities usingtechnology in the classroom and beyond it. Teachersneed in-depth, sustained assistance in usingtechnology and in their effort to integrate technologyinto the curriculum. Skills training becomesperipheral to alternative forms of on-going supportthat addresses a range of issues, including changingteaching-learning practices for the paradigm shift,changing assessment practices and all such taskswhich create the impact of technology in education.

Besides pedagogical support to help students usetechnology to reach learning goals, teachers also needtime to become familiar with available products,software and online resources. They also need to discussthe uses of technology with other teachers andcollaborate with them in order to create a multipliereffect. Simultaneously, it is important to make structuralchanges in the school day by allowing teachers time tocollaborate and work with their students and bringabout engaged learning. The problem is no longer goingto be ‘not enough computers but not enough time’ toincorporate technology into their instruction. Teachersneed to be able to do the following:

• specify the purpose of using technology inrelation to educational goals, i.e. to supportinquiry, to enhance communication, to accessglobal resources, to analyse data, enable productdevelopment or monitor their progress andselect the appropriate technology

• coordinate technology implementation effortswith core learning objectives

• collaborate with colleagues for instructionaldesign and students’ learning experiences

128

• encourage students to broaden their horizonswith technology and to use different software

• ensure that students learn to collaborate and valuethe constructive comments and criticism of others

• use alternative assessment strategies, includingstandardised tests

• promote students to prepare electronic portfoliosof their work.

Once the staff members undergo some training byway of attending workshops, it is possible toupdate themselves by becoming a member of oneof several mailing groups in the area.

(Morrison, 2002 and Butcher, 2002)

ConclusionThe impact of educational technology in technologyeducation is manifold. The impact is indeed visible interms of following outcomes:

• greater effectiveness, in terms of time and costsavings, of the classroom teaching-learningprocesses

• greater motivation and satisfaction of students tolearn with a variety of technologies

• greater reach out to students who wouldotherwise not be able to study

• effective mid-career retraining of personnel to beable to change jobs

• global access, communication and multipleinteraction online and offline and self-management.

• new possibilities of monitoring students,individual progress, extent of interaction, studystyles, etc. which are not possible withouttechnology

• technology enhanced tasks for multidisciplinarystudies, removal of barriers between subject anddisciplines, which were otherwise adverselyaffecting education

• paradigm shift by way of evolving new roles ofteachers and students. Students to explore forthemselves as cognitive apprentices and teachersto be facilitators and change agents.

The future of educational technology may beenvisioned by the following perceptions:

• more and more students will have access toinformation technology, both inside and outsidethe classroom

• teachers will increasingly use instructionaltechnology including the Internet in theirteaching-learning activities in different modes ofteaching

• computer professionals will shape the nextgeneration of technology applications foreducation, guided by research and developmentefforts by the faculty.

It is, therefore in our interest to gear ourselves to theemerging scenario. If we don’t catch up, we shall bereplaced by buttons! It is time to wake up totechnology to its fullest utilisation throughout theglobe.

ReferencesArvan, L. et al (No date) ‘The SCALE Efficiency Projects’,Asynchronous Learning Network Journal, Vol. 2,www.aln.org.alnweb/journal/Vol2-issue2/arvan2.htmBates, T. (1995) Technology, Open Learning and DistanceEducation, London: Routledge Bolletin, W.R. (1998) Can IT Improve Education?Measuring Voices, Attitudes and Perceptions in EducomReview 33: 50–55Butcher, N. (2002) TAD Consortium, neilshel@icon.co.za,March: Update 2Cor de Beurs (2000) ‘Technology for 15+: Integration ofTechnology in the Science Curriculum of Upper LevelSecondary education in the Netherlands’, DATAInternational Millennium Conference, Proceedings: 12–16Computer in Education (2002) The Journal ofTechnological Horizons in Education,http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/A1681htmDeek, F.P. et al (2002) ‘Cognitive Characteristics of WebDevelopers’, in WebNet Journal, 2 (2): 36–50DES, Department of Education and Science (1989) ‘Designand Technology for Ages 5–16’, Final Report of theWorking Group on Design and Technology, London:HMSODES, Department of Education and Science (1990)Technology in the National Curriculum, London: HMSODESWO, Department of Education and the Welsh Office(1992) ‘Technology for Ages 5–16, Proposal to the Secretaryof State’, London: HMSOEducation World: Are you a Techno-Constructivist?:Technology in the Classroom, http://www.education-world.com/a-tech/tech005.shtmlEducational Technology Council Report (1997)http://web.mit.edu/committes/councils/edtech/ed-tech-chap3.HTUEmbong, A. and Ismail, I. (2001) Transformation of HigherEducation Through Information Technology, Proceedingsof the International Conference, in A Millennium inTraining and Continuing Education, April: 31–38Grove Consultants International (2002) ‘EducationTechnology Horizon’ May 2001: 10,http://www.grove.com/doed/introduction.htmlKapur, A. (1997) ‘Effectiveness of Computer AidedLearning Environment for Women Students’, Ph.D Thesis,CET, Delhi: Indian Institute of Technology Kumar, K.L. (1999) ‘Assessment of the Effectiveness of aShort Course via Internet’, Journal of EducationalTechnology Research, 22: 27–33Kumar, K.L. (2002) ‘Internet Based Interactive Design forStudents, Teachers and Practitioners, Proceedings of theInternational Conference’, ‘A Millennium Dawn inTraining and Continuing Education’, Bahrain: 379–380Kumar, K.L. and Madhumita (2002) ‘Faculty Developmentthrough Video Teleteaching’, Commonwealth of LearningConference, Singapore, ET-2000, Proceedings: 359–370Kumar, K.L, Ed. Technology Videos, EducationalTechnology Service Centre, Delhi: India Ind. of Tech.,

129

http://www.iitd.ernet.in/centres/etsc/designed-p1.htmlMayer, K.R. and Coleman, J. (2000) Students Attitudestowards Instructional Technology, www.apsanet.org:597–603McNabb, M. (1999) Critical Issues in Evaluating theEffectiveness of Technology Secretary’s Conference onEducational Technology, Washington DC: July,http://www.ed.gov/Technology/TechConf/1999/confsum.htmlMelmed, A. (1995) ‘The Cost and Effectiveness ofEducational Technology’, Proceedings of a WorkshopMokdad, M. (2002) ‘E-learning and Developing Centre:Realities, Problems and Prospects, Proceedings of theInternational Conference, A Millennium Dawn in Trainingand Continuing Education: 55–64Morrison, J.L. (2002)http://www.horizonlive.com/lecture/index.html,HorizonLive e-learning Platform: MarchMustafa, K. (1997) ‘Authoring Computer AssistedInstruction for Higher Order Learning’, Ph.D Thesis, CET,Delhi: Indian Institute of TechnologyNorman, E. (2000) ‘The Teaching and Learning ofTechnology for Design’, DATA International MillenniumConference 2000 Proceedings: 128–134Olgren, C.H. and Lorne, A.P. (1983) Tele-ConferencingTechnology and Applications, Dedham: Artech House IncRussel, T. (2002)http://teleeducation.nb.ca.nosignificantdifference, Web site:No Significance Difference Phenomenon, Update 2002Schneider, S.P. and Germann, C.G. (1999) ‘TechnicalCommunication on the Web’, A Profile of Learners andLearning Environments in Tech. Communication Quarterly8 (1): 37–48U.S. Department of Education (2001), The NationalEducational Technology Plan,http://www.ed.gov/technology/elearning

130