From HOW to WHAT to WHY: The search for educational utility |
| |
| Authors: | Roger Kaufman |
| |
| Institution: | (1) Center for Educational Technology, Florida State University, 32306 Tallahassee, FL |
| |
| Abstract: | Summary Educational technologists have moved from a unique concern with the how-to-do-its of behavior change (such as television,
computers, and instructional delivery systems) to the inclusion ofwhat to teach. This expanded scope was encouraged and made possible by the pioneering work on measurable objectives.
As soon as consideration of not onlyhow andwhat were part of the technologist’s repertoire, the consideration ofwhy was upon us. Tools and techniques, including needs assessment, needs analysis, system analysis, and systems analysis, were
all moving us not only toward doing a more efficient and effective job of changing (or maintaining) behavior, but also toward
determining why something should be taught and why behavior should be changed (or maintained) in the first place.
The formal consideration ofwhy is a growing and thriving area of educational technology and is seen as possibly having several layers, including considerations
of results both within and external to an organizational context.
A suggested relationship is presented between several possible layers or organizations, with the ultimate referent for planning,
doing, and evaluating being the individuals’ abilities to survive and contribute in society when they legally leave our educational
agencies or training establishments. It is suggested that in the future, in order to relate the various factors of production
of behavior change and/or maintenance, we reserve the terms “input,” “process,” and “output” for activities and results within
an organization, and the term “outcome” for the results external to the organization.
The technologist’s world has indeed expanded from the sole consideration ofhow to teach better to the inclusion ofwhat to teach better, andwhy we should teach what we are teaching in the first place. As we grow more inclusive and responsive in our planning and doing,
as we grow more holistic and humanistic, our risks grow—but so do our responsiveness, responsibility, and satisfactions.
An erratum to this article is available at . |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录！ |
|
