Quality of Education

10 A archives OF THE AECTS DEFINITIONS OF teaching methodal applied science Alan Januszewski h e assert University of in the altogether York at Potsdam Kay A. Persichitte University of Wyoming friendshipableness The purpose of this chapter is to provide a diachronic context for the current dei nition of informational engine room. We ordain do this in s incessantlyal stages. First, we ordain re shot the primary purposes and rentations for dei ning cultivational engineering science. h en, we bequeath re situation separately of the tetrad previous dei nitions, paying dissolveicular vigilance to the primary plans acknowledge in each dei nition.We giveing examine the context and rules for finiss do regarding each of theast s step to the foreheast primary models. We de rive to a fault preast s turn up(p)heastnt some of the historical criticisms of the dei nitions which provided the driftment for changing the dei nitions. h e criteria and purposes for pro ducing a dei nition were discussed at the time of the tillerup of the i rst dei nition in 1963. A satis positionory dei nition of appearanceal engineering will let us i nd special K ground, will propose tomorrows horizons, and will every last(predicate)ow for a categorization of patterns that specii c individuals whitethorn follow in specii c institutions . . Reast southeastarch must be designed in damage of clear apprehensiveness of dictational engineering. Super pointents of educates atomic number 18 requesting criteria for freshly forcefulness ER5861X_C010. indd 259 ER5861X_C010. indd 259 8/16/07 62422 PM 8/16/07 62422 PM260 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE undeniable in various phases of instructional improvement. Teacher- pedagogy institutions enquire assistance in planning courses for pre-service and in-service instruction that will provide the skills and understanding which will be required in tomorrows classrooms . . Let us consider the criteria for occasionful dei nitions. h ey should (a) clarify the translation of the i days in normal language (b) summarize existing companionship (c) mediate applications of fellowship to new situations and (d) create to fruitful lines of experimental inquiry. . . . h is draw aims to provide a working dei nition for the i years of instructional engineering which will serve as a framework for future ontogenys and lead to an improvement in instruction. (Ely, 1963, pp. 8) h ose elusive in the writing of the 1963 dei nition obviously believed that in that respect were a multitude of matters to consider when dei ning schoolingal engineering. Or roll dif erently, the existence of a great deal(prenominal)(prenominal) a dei nition would shoot far reaching consequences, sometimes with implications that the authors world power not intend. Acknowledging this sluttished the door to criticisms of the dei nitions and the purposes cited for redei ning educational engineering. h e authors of subs equent dei nitions only seemed to adhere, at least in part, to the purposes and criteria identii ed in the 1963 dei nition.The 1963 description h e leadershiphip of the fellowship for educational intercourse possibility and engine room (AECT) recognized the 1963 dei nition of audio opthalmic aid aid aid confabulation scheme as the i rst orb dei nition of educational engine room (AECT, 1977). h is dei nition, the i rst in a series of iv oi ci all in ally pottyonical dei nitions, was actual by the citizens committee on Dei nition and Terminology of the Department of audiovisual aid civiliseing (DAVI) of the National Education tie beam (NEA) and support by the Technological Development cipher (TDP).In 1963 audiovisual confabulation possible action was the scar that was utilize to discover the i geezerhood as it was evolving from the audiovisual education app arnt motion to educational engine room audiovisual communication conjecture is that pegleg of educational possibility and do in customary touch with the design and utilize of messages which suppress the attainment dish up. It undertakes (a) the nurture of the unique and carnal fellowship strengths and weaknesses of both pictorial and nonrepreast southeastntational messages which may be employed in the breeding motion for any(prenominal) purpose and (b) the structuring and strategyatizing of messages by men and instruments in an educational environment. east southeast undertakings ER5861X_C010. indd 260 ER5861X_C010. indd 260 8/16/07 62423 PM 8/16/07 62423 PM10. A memoir OF THE AECTS DEFINITIONS OF educational engineering 261 take the planning, carrefourionion, selection, perplexity, and recitation of both comp angiotensin-converting enzyments and integral instructional clays. Its hard-nosed culture is the ei cient utilization of every method and medium of communication which can contri ande to the ripening of the disciples skilful the likes ofly. (Ely, 1963, pp. 1819) A footnote that was include as part of this dei nition read the audiovisual communications label is apply at this time as an expedient.An new(prenominal)wise designation may evolve, and if it does, it should consequently be substituted (p. 18). Conceptual Shit s Signaled in Dei nitions h ere argon trine contain synopsis shit s that contri preciselyed to the aspect of the dei nitions of educational applied science as a possible action (1) the use of a serve rise model preferably than a intersection point pattern (2) the use of the statuss messages and media instrumentality instead than materials and machines and (3) the introduction of genuine elements of education system and communication system (Ely, 1963, p. 19).Understanding theast southeast terzetto inclinations and their dissemble on each former(a) is intrinsic to understanding the idea of educational engineering science in 1963. A proficient origination of the audiovis ual i historic percentage lead called for an emphasis on execute, making the traditionalistic product image of the i years of educational engineering untenable. h e relegating believed, h e traditional product impression in the audiovisual i age views the things of the i age by locateing machines, use of peculiar(prenominal) conceits, and characteristics of materials by degrees of abstractness and/or concreteness (Ely, 1963, p. 19).Members of the citizens committee preferred a work on construct of the i age which include the planning, production, selection, circumspection, and utilization of both comp mavennts and wide-cut instructional systems (p. 19). h is plow idealion excessively emphasized the human relationship amidst even offts as dynamic and continuous (p. 19). h e tutelage argued that materials and machines were things or products and opted not to use those full marges in the dei nition. Instead, the billing utilise the impairment messages and instruments. h e Commission advertize argued that materials and machines were interdependent elements. A motion picture and projector argon inwrought as atomic number 18 all some former(a)(a)(prenominal) materials requiring machines for their use (Ely, 1963, p. 19). One was of little practical use without the other. h e Commission used the concept of media instrumentation to exempt instruments. h e Commission said, Media-instrumentation indicates the ER5861X_C010. indd 261 ER5861X_C010. indd 261 8/16/07 62423 PM 8/16/07 62423 PM262 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE transmission systems, the materials and devices forthcoming to carry selected messages (Ely, 1963, p. 20). e concept of media instrumentation withal include the multitude who utilised the instruments in the educational environment as puff up as the transmission systems. h e idea that both people and instruments comprised media instrumentation was found in the all-embracinger concept of the man-machine system ( Finn, 1957). In handlings of the relationship and integration of nurture system and communications conjecture to instructional engineering science, the Commission verbalize, plastered elements of reading possible action and communications hypothesis of er potential contri simplyions to the i age of educational applied science e. . , source, message, channel, receiver, ef ects, stimulus, organism, response (Ely, 1963, p. 20). h e Commission integrated erudition supposition and communications conjecture by identifying and combining the deuce systems basic to the adjoin view of the i days the acquire-communi vernacular system and the educational-communicant system. h ese deuce systems use concepts from both instruction and communications theories that delineated and specii ed the roles of the individuals convolute in the use of these systems. e learnercommunicant system refers to the student population and the educationalcommunicant system refers to the master k ey mortals in the school (p. 23). h ese two systems could be of any size, ranging from a ace classroom to titanic school systems (Ely, 1963). Merging the two communicant systems into a single baby-sit of the educational process provided the i days of audiovisual communications with a hypothetical framework (Ely, 1963) and a model that allowed educational engineering science to be viewed as a suppositious take (AECT, 1977). e fundamental doctrine ascendingd by the writers of the i rst dei nition was that it was a branch of educational theory and hold. h e vocalize theory was specially important in this dei nition because it had a fussy place in the news report of the audiovisual i geezerhood, because of the condition that it conferred on the i age, and because of the expectation for advertise investigate to inl uence the phylogenesis of that theory. Finns Characteristics of a Profession e 1963 dei nition was heavy inl uenced by James Finns (1953) half-dozen ch aracteristics of a affair (a) An rational proficiency, (b) an application of that technique to the practical af airs of man, (c) a period of long training necessary in the lead entering into the avocation, (d) an association of the pieces of the concern into a closely knit classify with a high quality of communication ER5861X_C010. indd 262 ER5861X_C010. indd 262 8/16/07 62424 PM 8/16/07 62424 PM10.A HISTORY OF THE AECTS DEFINITIONS OF EDUCATIONAL engine room 263 amid members, (e) a series of standards and a rumor of morals which is enforced, and (f) an organized proboscis of dexterous theory constantly expanded by look for. (p. 7) Of these six characteristics of a purpose, Finn (1953) argued that the nigh fundamental and nearly important characteristic of a profession is that the skills involved argon founded upon a system of intellectual theory and query (p. 8). Having establish the magnificence of theory and look for for a profession, Finn bring forwar d explained his condition by truism that . . this overbearing theory is constantly existence expanded by explore and intellection deep down the profession (p. 8). Finn was arguing that a profession conducts its own research and theory outgrowth to complement the research and theory schooling that it adapts/adopts from other academic atomic number 18as. If educational engineering science was to be a unfeigned profession, it would have to conduct its own research and develop and its own theory rather than borrowing from to a greater completion established disciplines wish psychological science.Finn (1953) evaluated the audiovisual i age against each of the six characteristics and de conditioninalined that the audiovisual i historic period did not amass the about fundamental characteristic an organized body of intellectual theory and research. When the audiovisual i days is measured against this characteristic . . . the finding must be reached that master key condition has not been attained (Finn, 1953, p. 13). h is blood was king-sizedly reliable by, and had a underlying ef ect on, the leadership of the audiovisual i eld in the late mid-fifties and early 1960s.Finn (1953) laid a cornerstone that the audiovisual i eld was touch off by a wish of speculative direction (p. 14). He attri provideded this to a lack of surfeit and the absence of intellectual nerve center (p. 14) in the modern-day meetings and professed(prenominal) journals of the i eld. In his cause promoting the reading of a suppositional unspiritual for the audiovisual i eld, Finn warned, Without a theory which produces hypotheses for research, on that point can be no expanding knowledge and technique.And without a constant blast to assess design so that the theoretical implications may be teased out, there can be no assurance that we will ever have a theory or that our practice will sack sense. (p. 14) Finn apply his career to rectifying this dei ciency in the i eld, and the takeing impact of his work on the 1963 dei nition is evident. Advancing an argument that audiovisual communications was a theory was an attempt to address the lack of content cited by Finn (1953). e Commission identii ed the planning, production, selection, management, and utilization of both components and entire instructional systems (Ely, ER5861X_C010. indd 263 ER5861X_C010. indd 263 8/16/07 62424 PM 8/16/07 62424 PM264 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE 1963, p. 19) as childbeds performed by practitioners in the i eld directly related to to Finns (1953) pass denomination of the intellectual technique of the audiovisual i eldFinns i rst amount for a profession. e i rst oi cial dei nition of educational engine room can be viewed as an attempt to bring together remnants of theory, technique, other academic research bases, and history contained in the audiovisual literary works, into a logical asseveration closing the gap on the meagreness of thought (Finn, 1953, p. 13) that characterized the audiovisual education movement. h e organic evolution of audiovisual communications (and later, educational engineering) as a theory began to add intellectual meat to audiovisual practice.By merging the audiovisual communications concept with the process orientation of the i eld into a new intellectual technique grounded in theory, the Commission streng soed the original practice and of ered a direction for further growth as a profession. subject of a Process View include among the many a(prenominal) factors contributing to the development of the process view of educational engine room were the two beliefs held by the most inl uential and prominent individuals involved with the audiovisual i eld (1) that applied science was principally a process (Finn, 1960b) and (2) that communication was a process (Berlo, 1960 Gerbner, 1956). e abstract view of educational engineering as a course of thinking and a process was established by the 1963 de i nition. h e intention of the Commission that produced the i rst oi cial dei nition of the i eld was to dei ne the broader i eld of instructional engineering science which incorporates certain aspects of the established audiovisual i eld (Ely, 1963, p. 3). Not unexpectedly, the 1963 dei nition drew some evaluate as it was applied to the emerging i eld of the 1960s and 1970s.Prominent individuals involved with audiovisual education, such as James Finn (1957 1960a) and Charles Hoban (1962), had antecedently used the precondition engine room when referring to the activities of the audiovisual i eld. Donald Ely (1973 1982) observed that the use of the vocalise affirm in the 1963 dei nition was paradoxatic for many individuals involved with educational technology. Ely (1982) explained, h e strong demeanoural emphasis at the time seemed to call for the condition overtop (p. 3).He noted that the joint despatch was substituted by many nonrecreationals to make the dei nition much juicy (Ely, 1973, p. 52). by chance equally important was the appetency by members of the i eld to move away from a behaviorally establish psychology to a more(prenominal) humanistic psychology (Finn, 1967). ER5861X_C010. indd 264 ER5861X_C010. indd 264 8/16/07 62424 PM 8/16/07 62424 PM10. A HISTORY OF THE AECTS DEFINITIONS OF EDUCATIONAL technology 265 lit crits of the 1963 Dei nition As noted in the introduction, no one dei nition can be the dei nition, and there were criticisms of the 1963 dei nition.James Knowlton (1964), a faculty member at inch University, was a consultant for the 1963 Commission on Dei nition and Terminology. In an essay that reviewed the 1963 dei nition, Knowlton tell that the dei nition itself was couched in semiotical names (p. 4) but that the conceptual social organisation used in the rationale for the 1963 dei nition was couched in culture theory conditions and this disjunction produced some strike anomalies (p. 4). Knowltons argument w as based on a need for conceptual and semantic consistency in the dei nition.Knowlton argued that failing to parallel the language of the dei nition with the language of the conceptual structure in the rationale resulted in a general lack of clarity most this new concept. h is lack of clarity in turn caused disarray in the direction of research and practice in the i eld. Less than a decade later, Robert Heinich (1970) saw a need to redei ne the i eld of educational technology for two reasons. First, he was critical of the communications based language used in the 1963 dei nition. Heinich argued that this language was excessively complicated for school personnel to interpret and apply.Second, Heinich argued that the power to make many of the decisions regarding the use of technology in schools should be transferred from the teacher to the curriculum planners. Heinichs argument for changing the dei nition was based on both linguistic worrys and evolutionary qualifys in the fun ctions of practitioners in the i eld. Heinich promoted an scrape up on to education where specialisers would decide when and where schools would use technology. h is position was dif erent from that which was discussed in the rationale for the 1963 dei nition.In the rationale for the 1963 dei nition, teachers were viewed as partners of educational technologists rather than as their subordinates (Januszewski, 2001). Forces make a New Dei nition Other con pro tem issues emerged which began to inl uence the i eld. h e penning of the presidential Commission on instructional Technology (1970) stated that instructional technology could be dei ned in two slipway In its more familiar sense it means the media born of the communications vicissitude which can be used for instructional purposes alongside the teacher, textbook and blackboard.In general, the Commissions say follows this usage . . . the commission has had to sense of smell at the pieces that ER5861X_C010. indd 265 ER5861 X_C010. indd 265 8/16/07 62425 PM 8/16/07 62425 PM266 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE make up instructional technology television, i lms, overhead projectors, estimators and the other items of ironware and sot ware. (p. 19) h e befriend and s unaccented familiar dei nition . . . (instructional technology) . . . s a self-opinionated way of designing, carrying out, and evaluating the total process of nurture and article of faith in landmarks of specii c objective lensives, based on research in human learning and communication and employing a combination of human and dehumanized resources to bring somewhat more ef ective instruction. (Commission on instructional Technology, 1970, p. 19) educational technology professionals responded to this hatch in a special discussion section of audiovisual communication theory r evaluation (1970). h e professional reviews of the government newspaper were mixed at best. Ely (Ely et al. 1970) of Syracuse University thought that the Comm issions overall ef ort was worthy given its lot y charge. Earl Funderburk (Ely et al. , 1970) of the NEA called the recommendations a balanced program. only when David Engler (Ely et al. , 1970) of the McGraw-Hill Book confederacy disapproved of the Commissions ef ort to relegate the process-based dei nition of instructional technology to some future role. Leslie Briggs (Ely et al. , 1970) of Florida submit University accused the Presidential Commission of providing a two-headed image of instructional technology by stressing both a computer hardware and a process orientation of the concept. e contributors to this special section of Audiovisual dialogues Review (1970) were generally dissatisi ed with the two-headed orientation primarily because of the confusion it might cause among the potential client groups of educational technology. h ey viewed the hardware orientation favored by the Presidential Commission as a volte-face for the profession. It meant the unacceptable return to the audiovisual back up and technology as machine conceptions of educational technology. h is orientation also implied the de-emphasizing of research and theory.Given these professional discussions and developments, professionals in the i eld believed that a new dei nition of educational technology was necessary. The 1972 Definition By 1972, through with(predicate) evolution and mutual agreement, the DAVI had be stimulate the AECT. Along with the organisational heighten came a change to the dei nition. ER5861X_C010. indd 266 ER5861X_C010. indd 266 8/16/07 62425 PM 8/16/07 62425 PM10. A HISTORY OF THE AECTS DEFINITIONS OF EDUCATIONAL technology 267 h e newly formed AECT dei ned the boundary educational technology rather than the term audiovisual communications aseducational technology is a i eld involved in the facilitation of human learning through the imperious identii cation, development, organization and utilization of a full range of learning resources and through the management of these processes. (Ely, 1972, p. 36) As a member of the group that wrote several of the early drat s of the 1972 dei nition, Kenneth Silber (1972) was winning in including changes in many of the roles and functions of the practitioners of the i eld as part of that dei nition.Silber introduced the term learning system which combined ideas of the open classroom movement with some of the concepts of educational technology. Like Heinichs (1970) perspective, Silbers (1972) learning system (p. 19) suggested changes in the roles of the teacher and the educational technologist. Unlike Heinich, Silber back up the idea that learners should make many decisions regarding the use of educational technology themselves. educational technologists would produce a variety of programs and designs that learners would use or adapt to meet their own long-range learning computer address (p. 1). Silbers position was that the teacher should be more a facilitator of learning and slight a tel ler of information. A Dei nition found on h ree Concepts h ere are third concepts central to the 1972 dei nition characterizing educational technology as a i eld a broad range of learning resources, individualized and personalized learning, and the use of the systems approach. It is these triplet concepts, when synthesized into a total approach to facilitate learning, that create the uniqueness of, and thus the rationale for, the i eld (Ely, 1972, p. 7). Examining these three concepts along with the idea of educational technology as a i eld is essential to understanding the AECTs (1972) dei nition of educational technology. It is particularly important to recognize that dif erent variations of these three concepts would result in dif ering conceptions of the i eld through the next three decades. h e dif erent interpretations and relative emphases of these concepts were due in large part to dif erences in educational doctrine and educational goals.Dif ering interpretations of th ese concepts would also have the more visible ef ect of substantially dif erent products and processes developed in the i eld. h e writers of the 1972 dei nition seemed to be aware that the study concepts could be interpreted dif erently, and they seemed to be inte dwelled ER5861X_C010. indd 267 ER5861X_C010. indd 267 8/16/07 62426 PM 8/16/07 62426 PM268 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE in including individuals with dif erent philosophic and academic backgrounds in the i eld. e writers of the 1963 dei nition and its encouraging rationale seemed less refer with accommodating divergent educational philosophies. possibly this was due to the fact that the 1963 dei nition was the i rst formal attempt to dei ne educational technology. such(prenominal) an under taking was formidable enough. Perhaps it was because the writers of the 1972 dei nition paid more attention to the discussions of educational philosophy in the literature from the equaliser of the i eld of education.Perhaps it wa s because the 1963 dei nition viewed educational technology as an educational theory and, potentially, as an educational philosophy itself. Regardless, there is no doubt that by 1972, the authors of the dei nition of educational technology chose to consider educational technology a i eld of study and not as a specii c theory (Januszewski, 1995, 2001). Educational Technology as a Field h e decision to refer to educational technology as a i eld of study rather than a theory or a branch of theory had at least four results (1) we acknowledged that there was more than one theory of educational technology, ore than one way to think about the role(s) of educational technology (2) the dei nition prompted signii cant philosophic discussions by members of the profession (3) the use of the word i eld encompassed both the hardware and process orientations of instructional technology expound by the Presidential Commission (1970) and (4) this dei nition was based on the tangible elements (Ely, 1972) that people could observe. e 1972 dei nition essentially dei ned educational technology by role and function rather than as an abstract concept, as was the case for the 1963 dei nition, where educational technology was viewed as a theory. h e concept of i eld has been a thorny one for educational technologists. Like many areas of study within education, it is very dii cult to discuss educational technology without using the word i eld as a descriptor. sure enough audiovisual professionals used the term to describe the audiovisual i eld ahead the terms instructional technology or educational technology were ever used. e 1963 dei nition mastery frequently used i eld (Ely, 1963) to move the discussion along, even though it was argued that educational technology was a theory or branch of theory. On the surface, the use of i eld seems a rather inescapable semantic fuss when speaking of educational technology. But it is signii cant that the writers of the 1972 dei nition chose to use i eld rather than theory in the dei nition because the use of the word i eld established a territory. It also provided certain legitimacy to ef orts to advance ER5861X_C010. ndd 268 ER5861X_C010. indd 268 8/16/07 62426 PM 8/16/07 62426 PM10. A HISTORY OF THE AECTS DEFINITIONS OF EDUCATIONAL engineering science 269 both products and processes. h e consequences of this decision were anticipated by Finn (1965), who proclaimed decent constructed, the concept of instructional or educational technology is totally integrative. It provides a common ground for all professionals, no yield in what aspect of the i eld they are working it permits the rational development and integration of new devices, materials, and methods as they come along. e concept is so altogether viable that it will not unless provide new status for our group, but will, for the i rst time, threaten the status of others italics added. (p. 193) Criticism of the 1972 Dei nition h e 1972 dei nition was not the ob ject of numerous criticisms as was the 1963 dei nition, probably because it was considered completely an interim dei nition (Ely, 1994). Only one such article appeared in the literature of the i eld of educational technologya critique was written by Dennis Myers, then a graduate student at Syracuse University, and Lida Cochran, a faculty member at the University of Iowa (Myers & Cochran, 1973). e outline abstract by Myers and Cochran (1973) articulated at least i ve dif erent criticisms. First, they proposed including a relation in the rationale for the dei nition stating that students have a right of access to scientific saving systems as part of their regular instruction. Including such a statement follows from Hobans (1968) discussion on the appropriateness of technology for instruction in a technological society. Second, Myers and Cochran argued that the 1972 dei nition statement was weakened by neglecting to include a theoretical rationale for the dei nition. is criti cism, which correctly pointed out that the dei nition is lacking a unii ed theoretical direction, supported Heinichs (1970) assertions in his philosophical view of the i eld. In a third point, Myers and Cochran (1973) criticized the limited role that the educational technologist was provided in the description of the systems approach provided in the dei nition. In a 4th point, they discussed the shortcomings of the terminology used to discuss the domains and roles in educational technology.Perhaps the most wagering point made in this synopsis implicated the relationship of educational technology to the rest of the i eld of education. In noting the problem of dei ning the i eld by the functions performed, Myers and Cochran (1973) pointed to the importance of considering the purpose of education. ER5861X_C010. indd 269 ER5861X_C010. indd 269 8/16/07 62426 PM 8/16/07 62426 PM270 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE What is important is that certain functions get make in education. h at in stallation is important because it conveys an attitude that transcends narrow professional nterests and strikes a note of community and cooperativeness, qualities which are essential to the resolution of problems facing education and society. (p. 13) Here, Myers and Cochran (1973) seemed to be chastising the writers of the 1972 dei nition for being overly interested with intellectual territory and the roles performed in the i eld of educational technology. h is particular criticism lost only a little of its sharpness when it was viewed in light of earlier comments made about the unworthiness of the limited role assigned to educational technologists in the dei nition (Januszewski, 2001).In summary, by 1972, the name of the concept had changed from audiovisual communications to educational technology. h e organizational home for professionals in the i eld had changed name from DAVI to AECT. h ere had been substantial changes in our schools, hardware, and other technological innovati ons during the nine years since the writing of the i rst dei nition. Educational technology was now identii ed as a i eld of study, open to interpretation by those who technical within it. e 1972 dei nition rel ected these interpretations but was mean to be only a temporary measure. Almost as soon as it was published, work began on the next dei nition. The 1977 Definition In 1977, the AECT revise its dei nition of educational technology with its third version Educational technology is a complex, integrated process, involving people, procedures, ideas, devices and organization, for analyzing problems and devising, implementing, evaluating and managing solutions to those problems, involved in all aspects of human learning.In educational technology, the solution to problems takes the form of all the Learning Resources that are designed and/or selected and/or utilize to bring about learning these resources are identii ed as Messages, People, Materials, Devices, Techniques, and Settin gs. h e processes for analyzing problems, and devising, implementing and evaluating solutions are identii ed by the Educational Development Functions of investigate h eory, Design, Production, military rating Selection, Logistics, Utilization, and Utilization Dissemination. h e processes of guiding or coordinating one or more of hese functions are identii ed by the Educational management Functions of Organizational Management and Personnel Management. (AECT, 1977, p. 1) ER5861X_C010. indd 270 ER5861X_C010. indd 270 8/16/07 62427 PM 8/16/07 62427 PM10. A HISTORY OF THE AECTS DEFINITIONS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 271 h e Dei nition of Educational Technology (AECT, 1977) was a 169-page book mean to accomplish two things (a) consistently disassemble the complex ideas and concepts that were used in the i eld of educational technology, and (b) show how these concepts and ideas related to one another (Wallington, 1977). is publication include the dei nition of educational technology (w hich comprises 16 pages of the text), a history of the i eld, a rationale for the dei nition, a theoretical framework for the dei nition, a discussion of the practical application of the intellectual technique of the i eld, the code of morals of the professional organization, and a glossary of terms related to the dei nition. Educational Versus instructional Technology h e conceptual dif erence amidst the terms educational technology and instructional technology constituted a large portion of the analysis of this book.Understanding how the authors of the 1977 dei nition viewed the relationship of instructional technology to educational technology is essential to understanding the 1977 dei nition and its theoretical framework. h e basic premise of this distinction was that instructional technology was to educational technology as instruction was to education. h e ratiocination was that since instruction was considered a subset of education then instructional technology was a subse t of educational technology (AECT, 1977). For example, the concept of educational technology was involved in the solution of problems in all aspects of human learning (p. ). h e concept of instructional technology was involved in the solution of problems where learning is purposive and stopled (p. 3). Educational Technology as a Process Two other complex conceptual developments were also undertaken by the authors of the 1977 dei nition, which were interrelated. First, the 1977 dei nition of educational technology was called a process (AECT, 1977, p. 1). h e authors intended the term process to connote the idea that educational technology could be viewed as a theory, a i eld, or a profession.Second, the systems concept was infused throughout the entire dei nition statement and in all the major funding concepts for the dei nition in both its descriptive and prescriptive senses. h e authors of the 1977 dei nition connected these two conceptual developments by saying that the use of the systems concept was a process (AECT, 1977). As one of the three major back up concepts for the 1972 dei nition of educational technology, the systems approach had give-up the ghost the ass for the ER5861X_C010. ndd 271 ER5861X_C010. indd 271 8/16/07 62427 PM 8/16/07 62427 PM272 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE dei nition itself by 1977. h rough their ef orts to repay the process conception of educational technology, the leadership of the i eld now false that all of the major supporting concepts of the dei nition were tied to, or should be viewed in light of, the systems approach. h e three major supporting concepts of the 1977 dei nition were learning resources, management, and development.Learning resources were any resources utilized in educational systems a descriptive use of the systems concept the writers of the 1977 dei nition called resources by utilization. Authors called the resources specii cally designed for instructional purposes, a prescriptive use of the systems a pproach, resources by design or instructional system components (AECT, 1977). Like the concept of learning resources, management could be used in a descriptive fashion to describe administrative systems or in a prescriptive way to prescribe action. e concept of management was ot en used as a metaphor for the systems approach in education (Heinich, 1970). h e term instructional development was frequently used to mean the systems approach to instructional development or instructional systems development (Twelker et al. , 1972). h e fact that the management view of the systems approach to instruction ot en include an instructional development process and the fact that instructional development models frequently include management as a task to be completed in the systems pproach to instructional development further intertwined the systems concept with the process view of educational technology. h ese descriptive and prescriptive interpretations of the 1977 dei nition would inl uence fut ure dei nitions. As previously noted, the predilection that educational technology was a process was not new when the 1977 dei nition was written. Process was one of the three major supporting concepts incorporated into the rationale of the 1963 dei nition (Ely, 1963).Believing that educational technology was a process provided one of the major reasons that the leadership of the profession tended to abjure the report of the Presidential Commission on instructional Technology (1970), which focused heavily on the hardware of the i eld in its i rst dei nition of instructional technology. h e authors of the 1977 dei nition, who purposefully used the term process to develop a systematic and congruent scheme for the concept of educational technology, said, h e dei nition presented here dei nes the theory, the i eld, and profession as congruent. is occurs because the dei nition of the i eld of educational technology is directly derived from, and includes, the theory of educational technol ogy, and the profession of educational technology is directly ER5861X_C010. indd 272 ER5861X_C010. indd 272 8/16/07 62428 PM 8/16/07 62428 PM10. A HISTORY OF THE AECTS DEFINITIONS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 273 derived from, and includes, the i eld of educational technology. (AECT, 1977, p. 135) In the end, the ef ort to demonstrate the congruence of the major concepts involved with educational technology created as many issues for the i eld as it resolved.Five immediate advantages for describing educational technology as a process were (1) the use of the term process reinforced the primacy of the process view of educational technology over the product view of educational technology. h e process view had been outlined in the 1963 dei nition statement, but the report of the Presidential Commission on Instructional Technology (1970) appeared to run off this emphasis. (2) h e term process would ground the dei nition of educational technology in the activities of its practitioners, act ivities that could be directly observed and verii ed. 3) h e term process could be used to describe educational technology as a theory, a i eld, or a profession. (4) h e term process allowed the further evolution of thought and research around the concept of systems. Finally, (5) an organized process implies the use of research and theory, which would reinforce the idea that educational technology was a profession. Educational Technology as Field, h eory, or Profession h e authors of the 1977 dei nition argued that educational technology could be thought of in three dif erent ship canalas a theoretical construct, as a i eld, and as a profession (AECT, 1977, p. 7). h ey continued, None of the former perspectives is more correct or conk out than the others. Each is a different way of thinking about the same thing (p. 18). h e writers of the 1977 dei nition argued that the theoretical construct, the i eld, and the profession were all process based. h e term process describe and conne cted all three of these perspectives of educational technology with a single word. Educational technology had been called a theory in the 1963 dei nition (Ely, 1963), and it had been called a i eld in the 1972 dei nition (Ely, 1972).New to the 1977 dei nition was the argument that educational technology was also a profession. Prior to the publication of the 1977 dei nition, the term profession was used in super as it related to educational technology. Since Finn (1953) had argued that the i eld had not yet reached professional status, members of the i eld (e. g. , Silber, 1970) had made few attempts to analyze educational technology systematically as a profession. Using Finns criteria, the writers of the 1977 dei nition argued that educational technology was now a profession.Depending upon the interpretation and application of the systems concept, educational technology could be explained as a theory, a i eld, or a profession ER5861X_C010. indd 273 ER5861X_C010. indd 273 8/16/07 62 428 PM 8/16/07 62428 PM274 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE in the 1977 dei nition. h e impact of using the term process to describe educational technology as a theory, a i eld, or a profession hinged on these dif ering interpretations of the systems approach, once again trace discussions and philosophical debates among prominent educational technologists. e period of the 1980s was not so focused on criticism of the 1977 dei nition as much as characterized by broad academic wrangling over the interpretation and application of the dei nition (Januszewski, 1995, 2001). h e three major supporting concepts of the 1977 dei nitionlearning resources, management, and developmentcould also be interpreted dif erently based on divergent conceptions of the systems approach. h e dif erent interpretations of learning resources, management, and development also provided the writers of the 1977 dei nition with a rationale to blot betwixt educational technology and instructional technology.The 1994 De finition By 1994, the dei nition of educational technology had nearly come full circle. h e dei nition that was produced in 1994 read, Instructional technology is the theory and practice of design, development, utilization, management, and evaluation of processes and resources for learning (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 1). h ere are no new concepts included in the 1994 dei nition. What was new was the identii cation of multiple theoretical and conceptual issues in the score of the dei nition. e 1994 dei nition was intended to be much less complex than the 1977 dei nition. h e extent to which the writers were successful can be judged in part by reviewing the criticisms of the 1977 dei nition. h e attempt by the writers of the 1977 dei nition to show the congruence of educational technology and instructional technology revealed a conceptual problem for the i eld. h e dei nition of educational technology, which was concerned with all aspects of human learning (AECT, 1977, p. ), had bec ome so broad that some individuals in the i eld of education pointed out that there was no dif erence between educational technology and curriculum, school governing body, or teaching methods (Ely, 1982). Saettler (1990) wryly pointed out that the dei nition had become everything to everybody, and he dubbed the 1977 dei nition the omnibus dei nition. Logical Problems h ere were also serious l aws in the argumentation and the conceptual interpretations used in the theoretical framework and rationale for the 1977 dei nition of educational technology.Establishing the dif erence between ER5861X_C010. indd 274 ER5861X_C010. indd 274 8/16/07 62428 PM 8/16/07 62428 PM10. A HISTORY OF THE AECTS DEFINITIONS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 275 education and instruction, the authors argued, Education, then, includes two classes of processes not included in instruction those processes related to the administration of instruction . . . and those processes related to situations in which learning occ urs when it is not deliberately managed (AECT, 1977, p. 56).An example of learning not deliberately managed given in the discussion was sequential learning (p. 56). It was comely for the authors to argue that nondeliberately managed learning and/or incidental learning was part of the concept of education (Januszewski, 1997). However, the dei nitions of technology by Galbraith (1967), Hoban (1962), and Finn (1960a, 1965), which were used by the authors of the 1977 dei nition to discuss the term technology as it related to the concept of educational technology, all included the ideas of organization, management, and control (AECT, 1977). e writers of the 1977 dei nition considered organization, management, and control critical characteristics of technology but these ideas were reverse gear to the idea of incidental learning and learning that was not deliberately managed. Education, at least as it was distinguished from instruction included in the rationale of the 1977 dei nition, did not seem compatible with technology. It is dii cult to conceive of a technology of the incidental, unmanaged, and unintended. e gains made in the organization of the framework of the concept of educational technology by distinguishing between education and instruction were lost when education was polar with technology (Januszewski, Butler, & Yeaman, 1996). h eory or theoretical construct. h e relationship of educational technology to theory presented another problem in the discussion of educational technology presented in the 1977 dei nition and rationale. ere are three ways in which the concept of theory is related to educational technology in the 1977 dei nition statement (1) the thought that educational technology was a theoretical construct (AECT, 1977, pp. 18, 20, 24) (2) the tactual sensation that educational technology itself was a theory (AECT, 1977, pp. 2, 135, 138) and (3) that the dei nition of educational technology was a theory (AECT, 1977, pp. 4, 20, 134). To some degree, all three of these discussions of theory and educational technology are accurate, but they cannot be used interchangeably as they are in the 1977 dei nition.A theoretical construct is not the same as a theory nor is it the case, that because a dei nition of a concept is a theory, the concept itself a theory. h e word theory has been used in at least four ways in the literature of the i eld of education (1) the law like theory of the hard sciences (2) theories that are supported by statistical evidence (3) theories that identify variables that inl uence the i eld of study and (4) theory as a systematic analysis of a set of related concepts (Kliebard, 1977). ER5861X_C010. indd 275 ER5861X_C010. ndd 275 8/16/07 62429 PM 8/16/07 62429 PM276 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE h e fourth sense of theory is of interest to this analysis of the 1977 dei nition of educational technology. Systematic analyses of any abstract concept can be said to be theories of that concept. Referring t o educational technology as a theoretical construct, or a theory, or calling the dei nition of educational technology a theory may be accurate if the construct or theory includes a systematic analysis of the concept of educational technology. e writers of the 1977 dei nition provided criteria for theory that was not theory as a systematic analysis of related concepts. h e 1977 view of theory was an attempt to establish general principles and predict outcomes (AECT, 1977). h is approach was substantially dif erent from the usage of the word theory in the 1963 dei nition statement. Further confusion arises because of the writers claim that educational technology did indeed meet the criteria for being a prophetic theory (Januszewski, 1995, 2001).Certainly educational technology is a theoretical construct. Educational technology may also be considered a theory depending on what exactly is intended by the word theory. The 1977 definition of educational technology is a theory about the abstract concept of educational technology. But because the definition of the concept of educational technology may be a theory of educational technology, it does not necessarily follow that the concept of educational technology is itself a theory.This is convertible to saying that a definition of the concept of democracy may be a theory of democracy but that the concept of democracy itself is not a theory. few involved in the welkin of educational technology adopted this systematic sermon of the concepts provided in the 1977 definition. Many in the field adopted only portions of the definition (e. g. , Gustafson, 1981). Certain parts of the definition and the supporting statements were cited by scholars in order to make scholarly points about the field of educational technology (e. . , Romiszowski, 1981), but a reading of the literature of the field during this era reveals that the whole of the conceptual framework provided in the 1977 definition, specifically the part intende d to distinguish educational technology from instructional technology, was not widely accepted by the professionals in the field of educational technology (Seels & Richey, 1994). This lack of espousal led to the label changes in the 1994 definition. Distinguishing between educational and instructional. e ef ort to revise the 1977 dei nition address some of the conceptual incongruencies of previous dei nitions. h e i rst of these was the dif erence between educational and instructional technology. Unlike the writers of the 1977 dei nition, who sought to distinguish between educational technology and instructional technology, ER5861X_C010. indd 276 ER5861X_C010. indd 276 8/16/07 62429 PM 8/16/07 62429 PM10. A HISTORY OF THE AECTS DEFINITIONS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 277 the authors of the 1994 dei nition acknowledged that this problem had no flabby answer. ey admitted, At present the terms Educational Technology and Instructional Technology are used interchangeably by most profe ssionals in the i eld (p. 5). But they argued, Because the term Instructional Technology (a) is more commonly used today in the United States, (b) encompasses many practice settings, (c) describes more precisely the function of technology in education, and (d) allows for an emphasis on both instruction and learning in the same dei nitional sentence, the term Instructional Technology is used in the 1994 dei nition, but the two terms are considered synonymous. Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 5) With that, the oi cial label of the i eld was changed from educational technology to instructional technology, although it was quite a acceptable to continue to use the term educational technology. Underlying Assumptions Seels and Richey (1994) did dif erentiate the 1994 dei nition from previous dei nitions by identifying and analyzing some of the assumptions that underlie this dei nition. Identii ed assumptions included Instructional technology has evolved from a movement to a i eld and professio n.Since a profession is concerned with a knowledge base, the 1994 dei nition must identify and emphasize instructional technology as a i eld of study as well as practice (p. 2). A revised dei nition of the i eld should encompass those areas of concern to practitioners and scholars. h ese areas are the domains of the i eld (p. 2). Both process and product are of vital importance to the i eld and need to be rel ected in the dei nition (p. 2). Subtleties not clearly understood or recognized by the typical Instructional Technology professional should be distant from the dei nition and its more extended explanation (p. ). It is assumed that both research and practice in the i eld are carried out in conformity with ethical norms of the profession (p. 3). Instructional technology is characterized by ef ectiveness and ei ciency (p. 3). h e concept of systematic is inherent in the 1994 dei nition because the domains are equivalent to the systematic process for developing instruction (p. 8 ). ER5861X_C010. indd 277 ER5861X_C010. indd 277 8/16/07 62429 PM 8/16/07 62429 PM278 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE h e inclusion of these ssumptions in the analysis and explanation accompanying the 1994 dei nition allowed for the publication of a dei nition that was much more economical than were previous dei nition ef orts. h eory and Practice h e authors of the 1994 dei nition stated that the dei nition was composed of four components (a) theory and practice (b) design, development, utilization, management and evaluation (c) processes and resources and (d) learning. h ese components were not necessarily new but in this dei nition, they were reorganized, simplii ed, and connected, in a way making the 1994 dei nition unique. e 1994 dei nition used the evince included in the 1963 dei nition when it called instructional technology the theory and practice of. And the authors argued, A profession must have a knowledge base that supports practice (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 9). h e authors used a unprejudiced but rather clear supposition that theory consists of the concepts, constructs, principles, and propositions that contribute to the body of knowledge and that practice is the application of the knowledge (p. 11).In so doing, the authors cleared up the problem of the meaning of theory that they had inherited from the writers of the 1977 dei nition, a dei nition of theory that had been too precise. Domains h e concepts (or domains of the 1994 dei nition) of design, development, utilization, management, and evaluation comprise the accepted knowledge base of the i eld today as evidenced by the Standards for the Accreditation of School Media specialiser and Educational Technology Specialist Programs (AECT, 2000).When these concepts are taken together and conducted in sequential order, they are the same as the stages of development described in the 1977 dei nition. h ese concepts are directly traceable to the idea of educational engineering developed by W . W. Charters (1945). It is important to realize that the authors of the 1994 dei nition did not intend that practitioners of educational technology perform all of these tasks in the sequential order. Specializing in or focusing on one of these tasks would include broad practitioners in the i eld (Seels & Richey, 1994).Seels and Richey (1994) provided dei nitions of processes and resources A process is a series of operations or activities tell towards a particular end (p. 12). Resources are sources of support for learning, including support systems and instructional materials and environments (p. 12). h ese descriptions allowed the authors to (a) use process to reinforce notions of ER5861X_C010. indd 278 ER5861X_C010. indd 278 8/16/07 62430 PM 8/16/07 62430 PM10.A HISTORY OF THE AECTS DEFINITIONS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 279 engineering and science in instruction (b) affirm the distinction between resources as things and processes and (c) be consistent with terminology used in all three previous dei nitions. h e concept of learning was not new to the 1994 dei nition however, the dei nition of learning intended by the authors was new. In previous dei nitions, the term learning was intended to connote a change in behavior such as advocated by Tyler (1950). But the authors of the 1994 dei nition wanted to move away from a strong behaviorist orientation. ey argued, In this dei nition learning refers to the relatively imperishable change in a persons knowledge or behavior due to regard (Mayer, 1982, as cited in Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 12). Including the phrase due to experience also aided in wretched away from causal connections and allowed for incidental learning. h is interpretation signaled the acceptance of a dif erent potpourri of science in education one less grounded on prediction and control and more interested in applying other theoretical and research principles to the instructional process.Criticism of the 1994 Dei nition h e primary criti cism of the 1994 dei nition is that instructional technology appeared to look too much like the systems approach to instructional development while changes in the practice of the i eld (e. g. , constructivistbased initiatives and the general acceptance of computer innovations in classroom methodologies) made the 1994 dei nition too restrictive for mainstream teachers and school administrators as well as researchers and scholars. h ese criticisms and further evolution of the research and practice in the i eld led to a need for reconsideration and evision of this dei nition at er more than a decade of use. The catamenia Definition h e task force empanelled by AECT to review the 1994 dei nition wrestled with the historical issues presented here and with other issues of perception, changing employment and training expectations, semantics, and a strong thirst to develop a dei nition that both served to include the broad variety of practitioners in this i eld and one which would prompt re-create attention to the theory and research so critical to our continued contributions to learning.In a sense, we are not so far withdraw in this century from the professional goal stated in the 1963 dei nition ER5861X_C010. indd 279 ER5861X_C010. indd 279 8/16/07 62430 PM 8/16/07 62430 PM280 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE It is the responsibility of educational leaders to respond intelligently to technological change . . . If the DAVI membership is to support the leadership in such bold steps, dei nition and terminology as a basis for direction of professional growth is a prime requirement . . Now that the i eld of audiovisual communications, the largest single segment of the growing technology of instruction, has reached the point of decision making, we i nd ourselves in the same quandary other i elds have discovered when they have attempted to dei ne their i elds i. e. , dei nition exists at various levels of understanding but no one dei nition can be the dei nition. (Ely, 196 3, pp. 1618)And so, the latest in the line of dei nitions of educational technology Educational technology is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and ameliorate performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources. References Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (1972). h e i eld of educational technology A statement of dei nition. Audiovisual Instruction, 17, 3643. Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (1977). h e dei nition of educational technology. Washington, DC Author.Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (2000). Standards for the accreditation of school media specialist and educational technology specialist programs. Bloomington, IN Author. Berlo, D. (1960). h e process of communication. New York Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Charters, W. W. (1945). Is there a i eld of educational engineering? Educational Research Bulletin, 24(2), 2937, 53. Commission on Instructional Technology. (1970). To improve learning A report to the President and the Congress of the United States. Washington, DC U. S. Government Printing Oi ce. Ely, D. P. (1963). e changing role of the audiovisual process A dei nition and glossary of related terms. Audiovisual Communication Review, 11(1), Supplement 6. Ely, D. P. (1972). h e i eld of educational technology A statement of dei nition. Audiovisual Instruction, 17, 3643. Ely, D. P. (1973). Dei ning the i eld of educational technology. Audiovisual Instruction, 18(3), 5253. ER5861X_C010. indd 280 ER5861X_C010. indd 280 8/16/07 62431 PM 8/16/07 62431 PM10. A HISTORY OF THE AECTS DEFINITIONS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 281 Ely, D. P. (1982). h e dei nition of educational technology An emerging stability.Educational Considerations, 10(2), 24. Ely, D. P. (1994). Personal conversations. Syracuse, NY Syracuse University. Ely, D. P. , Funderburk, E. , Briggs, L. , Engler, D. , Dietrich, J. , Davis, R. , et al. (1970). Co mments on the report of the Commission on Instructional Technology. Audiovisual Communications Review, 18(3), 306326. Finn, J. D. (1953). Professionalizing the audiovisual i eld. Audiovisual Communications Review, 1(1), 617. Finn, J. D. (1957). automation and education General aspects. Audiovisual Communications Review, 5(1), 343360. Finn, J. D. (1960a).Automation and education A new theory for instructional technology. Audiovisual Communications Review, 8(1), 526. Finn, J. D. (1960b). Teaching machines Auto instructional devices for the teacher. NEA Journal, 49(8), 4144. Finn, J. D. (1965). Instructional technology. Audiovisual Instruction, 10(3), 192194. Finn, J. D. (1967, August). Dialog in search of relevance. motif presented at the Audiovisual Communication leading Conference, Lake Okoboji, Iowa. Galbraith, J. K. (1967). h e new industrial state. Boston Houghton Mil in. Gerbner, G. (1956). Toward a general model of communication.Audiovisual Communications Review, 4, 171199. Gustafson, K. (1981). Survey of instructional development models. Syracuse, NY ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources. (ERIC entry Reproduction Service No. ED 211 097) Heinich, R. (1970). Technology and the management of instruction. Washington, DC Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Hoban, C. F. (1962, March). Implications of theory for research and implementation in the new media. radical presented at the Conference on h eory for the New Media in Education, Michigan State University, Lansing, Michigan. Hoban, C. F. (1968).Man, ritual, the establishment and instructional technology. Educational Technology, 10(5), 11. Januszewski, A. (1995). h e dei nition of educational technology An intellectual and historical account. Ann Arbor, MI Microi lms International. Januszewski, A. (1997, February). Considerations for intellectual history in instructional design and technology. melodic theme presented at the one-year Meeting of the Association for Education al Communications and Technology, Albuquerque, New Mexico. ER5861X_C010. indd 281 ER5861X_C010. indd 281 8/16/07 62431 PM 8/16/07 62431 PM282 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE Januszewski, A. 2001). Educational technology h e development of a concept. Libraries Unlimited Englewood, CO. Januszewski, A. , Butler, R. , & Yeaman, A. (1996, October). Writing histories of visual literacy and educational technology. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Visual Literacy Association, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Kliebard, H. M. (1977). political program theory Give me a for instance. programme Inquiry, 6(4), 257269. Knowlton, J. Q. (1964). A conceptual scheme for the audiovisual i eld. Bulletin of the School of Education, Indiana University, 40(3). Myers, D. C. & Cochran, L. M. (1973). Statement of dei nition A response. Audiovisual Instruction, 18(5), 1113. Romiszowski, A. J. (1981). Designing instructional systems. capital of the United Kingdom Kogan Page. Saettler, P. (1990) . h e evolution of American educational technology. Englewood, CO Libraries Unlimited, Inc. Seels, B. , & Richey, R. (1994). Instructional technology h e dei nition and domains of the i eld. Washington, DC AECT Press. Silber, K. (1970). What i eld are we in, anyhow? Audiovisual Instruction, 15(5), 2124. Silber, K. (1972). h e learning system. Audiovisual Instruction, 17(7), 1027.Twelker, P. A. , Urbach, F. D. , & Buck, J. E. (1972). h e systematic development of instruction An overview and basic fly the coop to t