The Impact of Media and

Technology in Schools
A Research Report prepared for
The Bertelsmann Foundation

Thomas C. Reeves, Ph.D.

The University of Georgia

February 12, 1998

Executive Summary

Introduction
.....................................................
There are two major approaches to using media and technology in schools. First,
students can learn “from” media and technology, and second, they can learn
“with” media and technology. Learning “from” media and technology is often
referred to in terms such as instructional television, computer-based instruction,
or integrated learning systems. Learning “with” technology is referred to in terms
such as cognitive tools and constructivist learning environments.
Regardless of the approach, media and technology have been introduced into
schools because it is believed that they can have positive effects on teaching and
learning. The purpose of this report is to summarize the evidence for the
effectiveness and impact of media and technology in K-12 schools around the
world. A limitation of this report is that the vast majority of the published
research on the effectiveness of media and technology in schools was conducted
in English-speaking countries such as Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom,
and the United States of America.
For the purposes of this report, media is defined as “all means of communication,
whatever its format.” In this sense, media include symbol systems as diverse as
print, graphics, animation, audio, and motion pictures. Technology is defined as
“any object or process of human origin that can be used to convey media.” In this
sense, technology includes phenomena as diverse as books, films, television, and
the Internet. With respect to education, media are the symbol systems that
teachers and students use to represent knowledge; technologies are the tools that
allow them to share their knowledge representations with others. Unfortunately, it
is common to confound the meanings of media and technology in education, and
they are often used synonymously.
One of the major reasons for the widespread attention focused on media and
technology in education today is the enormous financial investment being made in
media and technology in education around the world. For example, a recent
Presidential report in the USA recommends that “at least five percent of all public
K-12 educational spending in the United States (or approximately $13 billion
annually in constant 1996 dollars) should be earmarked for technology-related
expenditures.”

Learning “From” Media and Technology

.....................................................
The foundation for the use of media and technology as “tutors” in schools is
"educational communications," i.e., the deliberate and intentional act of
communicating content to students with the assumption that they will learn

1
something "from" these communications. The instructional processes inherent in
the “from” approach to using media and technology in schools can be reduced to
a series of simple steps:
1) exposing students to messages encoded in media and delivered by
technology,
2) assuming that students perceive and encode these messages,
3) requiring a response to indicate that messages have been received, and
4) providing feedback as to the adequacy of the response.
Television and the computer are the two primary technologies used in the “from”
approach. The findings concerning the impact of television in education can be
summed up as:
• There is no conclusive evidence that television stultifies the mind.
• There is no consistent evidence that television increases either hyperactivity
or passivity in children.
• There is insufficient evidence that television viewing displaces academic
activities such as reading or homework and thereby has a negative impact on
school achievement. The relationship between the amount of time spent
viewing television and achievement test scores is curvilinear with
achievement rising with 1-2 hours of television per day, but falling with
longer viewing periods.
• The preponderance of the research evidence indicates that viewing violence
on television is moderately correlated with aggression in children and
adolescents.
• Forty years of research show positive effects on learning from television
programs that are explicitly produced and used for instructional purposes.
• Most studies show that there are no significant differences in effectiveness
between live teacher presentations and videos of teacher presentations.
• Television is not widely in classrooms because teachers experience difficulty
in previewing videos, obtaining equipment, incorporating programs into the
curriculum, and linking television programming to assessment activities.
The findings concerning the impact of computer-based instruction (CBI) in
education can be summed up as:
• Computers as tutors have positive effects on learning as measured by
standardized achievement tests, are more motivating for students, are accepted
by more teachers than other technologies, and are widely supported by
administrators, parents, politicians, and the public in general.
• Students are able to complete a given set of educational objectives in less time
with CBI than needed in more traditional approaches.
• Limited research and evaluation studies indicate that integrated learning
systems (ILS) are effective forms of CBI which are quite likely to play an
even larger role in classrooms in the foreseeable future.

2
 • Intelligent tutoring system have not had significant impact on mainstream
education because of technical difficulties inherent in building student models
and facilitating human-like communications.
Overall, the differences that have been found between media and technology as
tutors and human teachers have been modest and inconsistent. It appears that the
larger value of media and technology as tutors rests in their capacity to motivate
students, increase equity of access, and reduce the time needed to accomplish a
given set of objectives.

Learning “With” Media and Technology

.....................................................
Computer-based cognitive tools have been intentionally adapted or developed to
function as intellectual partners to enable and facilitate critical thinking and
higher order learning. Examples of cognitive tools include: databases,
spreadsheets, semantic networks, expert systems, communications software such
as teleconferencing programs, on-line collaborative knowledge construction
environments, multimedia/hypermedia construction software, and computer
programming languages.
In the cognitive tools approach, media and technology are given directly to
learners to use for representing and expressing what they know. Learners
themselves function as designers using media and technology as tools for
analyzing the world, accessing and interpreting information, organizing their
personal knowledge, and representing what they know to others
The foundations for using software as cognitive tools in education are:
• Cognitive tools will have their greatest effectiveness when they are applied
within constructivist learning environments.
• Cognitive tools empower learners to design their own representations of
knowledge rather than absorbing representations preconceived by others.
• Cognitive tools can be used to support the deep reflective thinking that is
necessary for meaningful learning.
• Cognitive tools have two kinds of important cognitive effects, those which are
with the technology in terms of intellectual partnerships and those that are of
the technology in terms of the cognitive residue that remains after the tools are
used.
• Cognitive tools enable mindful, challenging learning rather than the effortless
learning promised but rarely realized by other instructional innovations.
• The source of the tasks or problems to which cognitive tools are applied
should be learners, guided by teachers and other resources in the learning
environment.

3
 • Ideally, tasks or problems for the application of cognitive tools will be
situated in realistic contexts with results that are personally meaningful for
learners.
• Using multimedia construction programs as cognitive tools engages many
skills in learners such as: project management skills, research skills,
organization and representation skills, presentation skills, and reflection skills.
• Research concerning the effectiveness of constructivist learning environments
such as microworlds, classroom-based learning environments, and virtual,
collaborative environments show positive results across a wide range of
indicators.

Conclusions and Recommendations

.....................................................
Overall, fifty years of educational research indicates that media and technology
are effective in schools as phenomena to learn both from and with. Historically,
the learning from or tutorial approaches have received the most attention and
funding, but the with or cognitive tool approaches are the focus of more interest
and investment than ever before. Media and technology have many other
advantages in terms of repeatability, transportability, and increased equity of
access. In addition, although the research evidence is sparse, the cost-
effectiveness, cost-benefit, and return-on-investment of media and technology
may be of great benefit under certain conditions, especially in developing
countries.
Longitudinal studies such as the ten year investigation of the Apple Classrooms of
Tomorrow (ACOT) Project show that pedagogical innovations and positive
learning results do eventually emerge from the infusion of media and technology
into schools, but the process takes longer than most people imagine.
Large investments in time and support for teachers are especially critical if the
adoption of constructivist pedagogies accompany the infusion of media and
technology. This is critical given that it is pedagogy that is most influential on
learning, not media or technology. Media and technology, however, are integral
to the implementation of innovative pedagogies.
The need for long-term, intensive research focused on the mission of improving
teaching and learning through media and technology has never been greater. This
research should be developmental in nature, i.e., focused on the invention and
improvement of creative approaches to enhancing human communication,
learning, and performance through the use of media and technology. The purpose
of such research is to improve, not to prove. In the final analysis, the esoteric and
complex nature of human learning may mean that there may be no generalizable
best approach to using media and technology in schools. The most we may be
able to hope for with respect to media and technology in education is creative
application and informed practice.

4
Section 1: Introduction

“Learning From” and “Learning With” Media and Technology

.....................................................
There are two major approaches to using media and technology in schools:
students can learn “from” media and technology, and they can learn “with” media
and technology (Jonassen & Reeves, 1996). Learning “from” media and
technology is often referred to in terms such as instructional television, computer-
based instruction, or integrated learning systems (Hannafin, Hannafin, Hooper,
Rieber, & Kini, 1996; Seels, Berry, Fullerton, & Horn, 1996). Learning “with”
technology, less widespread than the “from” approach, is referred to in terms such
as cognitive tools (Jonassen & Reeves, 1996) and constructivist learning
environments (Wilson, 1996).
Regardless of the approach, media and technology have been introduced into
schools because it is believed that they can have positive effects on teaching and
learning. The purpose of this report is to summarize the evidence for the
effectiveness and impact of media and technology in schools around the world. (A
limitation of this report is that the vast majority of the published research on the
effectiveness of media and technology in schools was conducted in English-
speaking countries such as Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the
United States of America.) Research studies concerning the impact of these
different approaches will be presented in the next two sections of this report. But
first, it is necessary to clarify what is meant by the terms “media” and
“technology” within the context of education.

The Challenge of Defining Media and Technology

.....................................................
Media has many definitions ranging from “a particular form of communication”
as in “print versus video” to “the industry that provides news and entertainment”
as in “the media.” For the purposes of this report, media is defined as “all means
of communication, whatever its format” (Reid, 1994, p. 51). In this sense, media
include symbol systems as diverse as print, graphics, animation, audio, and
motion pictures.
Similarly, technology has many definitions ranging from “the application of the
scientific method to solve problems as in ‘the technology of space exploration’”
to “the things or processes which embody knowledge or craft within a culture as
in ‘the technology of writing’.” Within this report, technology is defined as “any
object or process of human origin that can be used to convey media.” In this
sense, technology includes phenomena as diverse as books, films, television, and
the Internet.

1
With respect to education, media are the symbol systems that teachers and
students use to represent knowledge; technologies are the tools that allow them to
share their knowledge representations with others. Unfortunately, it is common
for practitioners and experts alike to confound the meanings of media and
technology in education, and they are often used synonymously. The following
quote from the Fifth Edition of the Encyclopedia of Educational Research
(Mitzel, 1982) illustrates the problem:
First, although most educators are comfortable enough to use the
term “media” and expect others to understand its meaning, it
lacks a commonly accepted definition. Instead, there is a general,
somewhat vague understanding that it refers to various audio
and/or visual communication technologies which have come to be
used by educators. Books and other print materials are, of course,
media too, yet it is usually understood from the context –
including the present context – that they are not part of the topic
under discussion. (Seibert & Ullmer, 1982, pp. 1190-1191)
The confounding of media (a symbol system) with technology (a delivery system
for media) is unlikely to go away in popular discourse about education any time
soon, but the distinction between media and technology must be clarified as
unambiguously as possible if their impact is to be understood. The following
quote from the Sixth Edition of the Encyclopedia of Educational Research (Alkin,
1992) clarifies this distinction:
Computer-based technologies cannot be regarded as “media,”
because the variety of programs, tools, and devices that can be
used with them is neither limited to a particular symbol system,
nor to a particular class of activities...... In this light, “the
computer” is in fact a “multifaceted invention” of many uses, a
symbolic tool for making, exploring, and thinking in various
domains. It is used to represent and manipulate symbol systems –
language, mathematics, music – and to create symbolic products –
poems, mathematical proofs, compositions. (Salomon, 1992, p.
892)
Salomon’s (1992) important distinctions between media as symbol systems and
technologies as tools or vehicles for sharing media will be used throughout this
report. However, many, if not most, of the research and evaluation studies that are
cited in this report are not informed by this distinction, an inconsistency that is
frustrating, but inevitable. Even people who prepare dictionaries are
uncomfortable with the term “media.” For example, the American Heritage
College Dictionary contains this note:
The etymologically plural form media is often used as a singular
to refer to a particular means of communication, as in This is the
most exciting new media since television. This usage is widely

2
 regarded as incorrect; medium is preferred. (Berube, 1993, p.
846)

The Importance of Media and Technology in Education

.....................................................
Why is so much attention paid to media and technology in education? First, with
respect to media, there are many issues of concern to students, parents, educators,
governments, and society at large. For example, important questions are asked
about the effects of different media on the cognitive and moral development of
children. With respect to technology, people want to know whether various new
technologies are more effective for teaching and learning than more traditional
classroom approaches, whether some technologies are more motivating than
others, or at the very least, whether technologies can be used to increase access or
reduce costs within education. Questions about the impact of media and
technology in terms of increasing access to education and reducing the costs of
education are especially high on the agendas of politicians and government
agencies around the world. In the USA, the Panel of Educational Technology of
the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (1997)
included as one of its six major strategic recommendations that technology be
used to “Ensure equitable, universal access” (p. 5). Another part of the same
report called for realistic budgeting for technology-related expenditures within
schools, noting that the much-touted return-on-investment for educational
technology was a long-term prospect.
Another reason for the attention being paid to media and technology in education
reflects commercial or corporate interests. Although printed material continues to
be “the dominant medium format” in schools (Molenda, Russell, & Smaldino,
1998, p. 3), a recent Presidential report in the USA recommends that “at least five
percent of all public K-12 educational spending in the United States (or
approximately $13 billion annually in constant 1996 dollars) should be earmarked
for technology-related expenditures....” (President's Committee of Advisors on
Science and Technology, 1997, p. 5). Similar investments are underway
throughout the world, in both developed and developing countries. It is no wonder
that global corporations such as AT&T and Sony are investing in large-scale
educational technology initiatives.
Still another reason for the focus on media and education stems from sharp
disagreements about the value of media and technology in education. Enthusiastic
endorsements of new media and technologies in education are easy to find in
news reports, political speeches, and other sources. Many of these proclamations
seem overly-optimistic if not hyperbolic. Consider this quote from Lewis
Perelman’s 1993 book titled School’s Out:
Because of the pervasive and potent impact of HL (hyperlearning)
technology, we now are experiencing the turbulent advent of an
economic and social transformation more profound than the

3
 industrial revolution. The same technology that is transforming
work offers new learning systems to solve the problems it creates.
In the wake of the HL revolution, the technology called “school”
and the social institution commonly thought of as “education”
will be as obsolete and ultimately extinct as the dinosaurs. (p. 50)
However, despite such rhetoric and other, more conservative, optimism expressed
in the popular press and government documents, there are also many skeptics and
a few outspoken critics of media and technology in education. A recent cover
story of The Atlantic Monthly entitled “The Computer Delusion” illustrates a
critical view of technology in education, beginning with this opening sentence:
There is no good evidence that most uses of computers
significantly improve teaching and learning, yet school districts
are cutting programs – music, art, physical education – that
enrich children’s lives to make room for this dubious nostrum,
and the Clinton Administration has embraced the goal of
“computers in every classroom” with credulous and costly
enthusiasm. (Oppenheimer, 1997, p. 45).
The controversy in the popular press is echoed in the educational research
literature. Research examining the effectiveness of media and technology in
schools can be traced back almost eighty years (Cuban, 1986), and yet many
questions about the value and impact of these approaches remain unanswered.
Indeed, the seemingly contradictory findings often reported in the educational
research literature fan the flames of the ongoing controversy about media and
technology in education. Consider the following two quotes:
Bringing the electronic media into the schools could capitalize on
the strong motivation qualities that these media have for children.
Many children who are turned off by school are not turned off by
one or another of the electronic media; quite the opposite. An
educational system that capitalized on this motivation would have
a chance of much greater success...... Each medium has its own
profile of cognitive advantages and disadvantages, and each
medium can be used to enhance the impact of others. (Greenfield,
1984, p. 178)
All in all, media’s symbolic forms and computers’ afforded
activities often have skill-cultivating effects. However, to claim
that these effects are specific to any one medium or media
attribute is difficult...... There is growing consensus that past
media comparison, media attribute, and motivation studies
indicate that media do not influence whether someone learns from
instruction. Learning seems to result from factors such as task
differences, instructional methods, and learner traits (including
attitudes) but not the choice of media for instruction. (Clark,
1992, p. 812)

4
 The two quotes above were written by highly respected scholars from two of the
most esteemed research universities in the USA. Professor Patricia Marks
Greenfield is in the Psychology Department at the University of California Los
Angeles (UCLA), and Professor Richard E. Clark teaches Instructional
Technology at the University of Southern California (USC). How can two such
noted researchers, physically just a few miles distance from each other, be worlds
apart in terms of their estimation of the importance of media in education? This
report is an attempt to sort out the differences in these perspectives and present a
synthesis of research findings that may help to resolve this and other
controversies about media and technology in education.

Organization of the Report

.....................................................
This report is organized into four sections. Section One is an Introduction to the
major issues underlying the growing interest in media and technology in schools
around the world. Section Two addresses the impact of media and technology in
schools when they are used in didactic or tutorial modes (the learning “from”
approach). Section Three presents the evidence for the impact of media and
technology in schools when they are used as cognitive tools or constructivist
learning environments (the learning “with” approach). Section Four presents a
critical analysis of what we know about the impact of media and technology in
schools as well as a set of recommendations for an improved research agenda
regarding these issues.

Summary
.....................................................
This first section has presented important distinctions between media and
technology with the former defined as a means or symbol system for human
communication and the latter as a vehicle or tool for the transmission or
manipulation of media. This section has also described several major reasons for
the widespread attention focused on media and technology in education today.
These reasons include: 1) the importance of unresolved issues about educational
media and technology to virtually all members of society, 2) the enormous
financial investments being made in media and technology in education around
the world, and 3) the often vehement disagreements that exist about the value and
impact of media and technology in education that exist in both the popular press
and the educational research literature.

5
Section 2: The Impact of Learning “From” Media
and Technology in Schools

The Meaning of Media and Technology as Tutors

.....................................................
The foundation for the use of media and technology as “tutors” in schools is
"educational communications," i.e., the deliberate and intentional act of
communicating content to students with the assumption that they will learn
something "from" these communications (Krendl, Ware, Reid, & Warren, 1996).
In educational communications, information or knowledge is encoded visually or
verbally in the symbol systems (media) that are enabled by various technologies.
For example, animation is a form of media that can be delivered to students via a
variety of technologies such as the World Wide Web. Within a web-based science
tutorial, an animation of the movement of the moon around the earth might be
shown to students so that they can visualize and learn about the lunar phases.
The instructional processes inherent in the “from” approach to using media and
technology in schools usually can be reduced to a series of simple steps:
1) exposing students to messages encoded in media and delivered by
technology,
2) assuming that students perceive and encode these messages,
3) requiring a response to indicate that messages have been received, and
4) providing feedback as to the adequacy of the response.
Interaction in the “from” approach, if present, is normally operationalized in
terms of student input via the technology such as clicking a mouse button to
indicate a response to a multiple-choice question, some form of answer judging,
and feedback in the form of another message previously encoded in the media.
Instructional technologies (e.g., films and teaching machines) were first
introduced early in this century in the belief that they could “teach” in a similar
sense that teachers or tutors are said to teach (Cuban, 1986). This section of this
report focuses on the two most widely used forms of media and technology as
tutors today, specifically television and computers.

Learning “from” Television

.....................................................

Popular Beliefs about TV

Since the first educational television broadcasts began in Iowa in 1933, there have
been decades of research focused on the educational effects of television, and yet
controversies about the impact of television in schools and society as a whole
persist. For example, some well-known social critics (e.g., Postman, 1995, 1994,
1985; Winn, 1985) maintain that television viewing is cognitively debilitating. A

6
review of the television research literature, however, indicates that such claims
are largely based upon subjective observations rather than theory-guided
investigations, and there is no conclusive evidence that television stultifies the
mind (Seels, Berry, Fullerton, & Horn, 1996). There is also no consistent
evidence that television increases either hyperactivity or passivity in children
(Dorr, 1992).
Another popular belief is that television viewing is detrimental to the academic
achievement of school-age children and teens. While some studies have reported
a negative correlation between the amount of television viewing and scholastic
performance, such statistics are susceptible to misinterpretations because of
intervening variables such as intelligence and socioeconomic status (Seels et al.,
1996). In a book titled Literacy in the Television Age: The Myth of the TV Effect,
Susan Neuman (1995) provides an in-depth review of research examining the
relationship between television and achievement. She concludes that there is
insufficient support for the hypothesis that television viewing displaces academic
activities such as reading or homework and thereby has a negative impact on
school achievement. A competing analysis of the literature by Comstock and Paik
(1991) concluded that the relationship between the amount of time spent viewing
television and achievement test scores (primarily reading tests) is curvilinear with
achievement actually rising with 1-2 hours of television per day, but gradually
falling with longer daily viewing periods.
Undoubtedly, the most widespread belief about television is that it fosters
violence and aggressive behaviors among children and adolescents (Winn, 1985).
A survey of the literature indicates that there have been nearly 20 books published
on this topic in the last decade alone, most of them condemning television as
causing aggression. In addition, scores of research studies related to this topic are
published around the world each year. There is little disagreement that in many, if
not most, countries television provides a steady flow of violence ranging to as
many as 25 violent acts per hour in children’s programming (Donnerstein,
Fairchild, Feshbach, Katz, & Huston, 1993). The preponderance of the
quantitative research evidence indicates that viewing violence on television is
moderately correlated with aggression in children and adolescents (National
Institutes of Mental Health, 1982; Seels et al., 1996), but as with all such
correlational research, the evidence for direct causality is weaker. Alternative
explanations for the reported correlations are possible, e.g., those children with a
tendency toward aggression may be more likely to watch violent television
programs. Despite the weak evidence for causality, both the public in general and
many politicians have come to accept the conclusion that television violence has
negative effects on youth (Signorielli, 1991). As a result, legislation has recently
been passed in the USA to compel television networks to provide violence ratings
for their programs and to require manufacturers to install electronic blocking
devices (such as the “V-chip”) in new TV sets. Similar laws are already in place
in other countries.

7
Less publicized than hypotheses about the negative effects of television on
cognitive development, scholastic achievement, and social behavior are research
investigations into the positive effects of television viewing on factors such as
interest, creativity, and imagination (Leonard, 1997). Howard Gardner (1982,
1991, 1993), a well-known developmental psychologist at Harvard University, is
a proponent of the idea that certain kinds of television stimulate creativity and
imagination in young children. However, the research results supporting these
types of positive hypotheses are modest at best (Seels et al., 1996).

Exemplary Programs
Two television shows that have been subjected to more educational research than
any others in the USA are Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood (Collins & Kimmel,
1996) and Sesame Street (Lovelace, 1990; Mielke, 1990), both shown on public
television stations. Sesame Street, distributed in more than 90 countries, has also
been studied internationally (Gettas, 1990).
The goals of Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood are primary affective, and research
has demonstrated positive effects on the self-esteem of children and their
tendencies to value others (Seels et al., 1996). With emphasis on both
socialization and cognitive development, Sesame Street has been shown to have
positive outcomes in terms of school readiness as well as math, reading, and
social skills (Seels et al., 1996). Interestingly, some researchers have focused on
whether the slower-paced Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood and the faster-paced
Sesame Street have differential effects on children’s attention spans, but such
studies are inconclusive (Anderson & Collins, 1988; Seels et al., 1996).

Research Results
The most positive research news about learning “from” television can be found in
the classroom where 40 years of research show positive effects on learning from
television programs that are explicitly produced and used for instructional
purposes (Dorr, 1992; Seels et al., 1996). In addition, most studies show that there
are no significant differences in effectiveness between live teacher presentations
and videos of teacher presentations (Seels et al., 1996).
More importantly, there is strong evidence that television is used most effectively
when it is intentionally designed for education and when teachers are involved in
its selection, utilization, and integration into the curriculum (Johnson, 1987). In
the past, the biggest barrier to the integration of television programs into the
classroom was the fixed-time limitation of instructional broadcasts, but the wide-
spread availability of video cassette recorders (VCRs) has provided teachers with
the ease-of-use and flexibility they require (Mielke, 1990).
Increasingly, television is coming into schools via cable and or satellite
transmissions. The Star Schools Consortium in the USA is one of the largest such
enterprises, providing scores of telecourses in thousands of schools across the
nation (Moore & Kearsley, 1996). Most often, programs received via satellite dish
or cable are recorded by media specialists or technology coordinators and

8
subsequently made available for teachers when and how they choose. Flexibility
of scheduling and ease of access to equipment and programs are the biggest
factors promoting classroom use of television (Dorr, 1992; Seels et al., 1996)
A few programs are still intended for use at specific times. Perhaps the most
controversial of these in the USA is Channel One, ten minutes of news and
advertisements produced by Whittle Communications (www.channelone.com).
This program is seen by an estimated eight million adolescents in 12,000 schools
in the USA each day (De Vaney, 1994). CNN, NBC, and other networks
broadcast news into American classrooms, but Channel One is best known for the
contracts it arranges with school districts whereby Whittle donates TV monitors
and satellite receivers to schools in return for guaranteed viewing time each
school day. Whittle recovers its costs from the fees it charges corporations for
product advertisements aimed at the captive teen viewers. Interestingly, what little
research has been done indicates that students ignore the advertisements and that
teachers are not integrating the news portions of the program into the curriculum
(De Vaney, 1994).
Historically, studies of the large-scale implementations of instructional television
have shown mixed results. Three major forms of utilization have been
investigated: 1) instances where the total instructional program is delivered via
televised teachers, 2) instances where there is an integration of teacher-directed
instruction with television programming, and 3) instances where television is used
to supplement teacher-centered instruction, either for enrichment or remedial
purposes. Cuban (1986) reports that total instructional television programs in
countries such as American Samoa and El Salvador have met with initial
enthusiasm, but declined in popularity after the novelty wore off and both
students and teachers demanded less television and a return to regular classroom
activities. Some studies indicate that students in rural schools, where quality
teachers were less likely to be available, benefited the most from televised
instruction (Seels et al., 1996).
However, television has been rarely used to totally replace teachers in any
country, and television is usually used in coordination with or to supplement the
regular curriculum (Cuban, 1986). Here the results are much more positive. A
large-scale survey of teachers in the USA conducted in 1991 by the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting indicated that “instructional television is a firmly
established teaching tool that is positively regarded by classroom teachers and
increasingly well-supported with equipment and programming” (Seels et al.,
1996, p. 356). Writing in the Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Dorr (1992)
concluded: “There is no doubt that television is an effective means of achieving
traditional instructional goals” (p. 1398).

Future Needs
Unfortunately, there is a paucity of developmental research focused on how
teachers might best use television in the classroom to enhance academic
achievement. We know that motivation is an important factor in gaining the most

9
 from any educational experience, but we don't know how teachers can effectively
motivate students to attend to educational television. We know that feedback
concerning the message received (or not received) from television is important,
but we lack clear directions as to when and how teachers should provide that
feedback. And even when recommendations for using television in the classroom
do exist (Stone, 1997), there is little evidence that these guidelines are integral
parts of the curriculum in most teacher preparation programs (Waxman & Bright,
1993).
Dorr (1992) indicates that most children in the USA view less than 30 minutes of
television a week in school whereas their home televisions are on nearly seven
hours per day! Why isn’t television used more widely in education? The teacher
plays the major role in deciding what happens in the classroom, and as long as
teachers experience difficulty in previewing videos, obtaining equipment,
incorporating programs into the curriculum, and linking television programming
to assessment activities, television viewing will continue to be relatively rare in
classrooms. It also seems likely that the widespread public belief that television
has detrimental effects on development, learning, and behavior will continue to
limit television integration within most classrooms beyond that of a relatively
modest supplementary role.

Learning “from” Computers

.....................................................

Behavioral and Cognitive Foundations

The personal computer is the most common interactive technology used as a
“tutor” today. Interactive instruction via personal computer is known by many
names and acronyms such as computer-based instruction (CBI) (Alessi & Trollip,
1991), integrated learning systems (ILS) (Bailey, 1993), and intelligent tutoring
systems (ITS) (Polson & Richardson, 1988). The personal computer as a tutor or
surrogate instructor has been the subject for much research and evaluation since
its development in the late 1970s (Coley, Cradler, & Engel, 1997; Hannafin,
Hannafin, Hooper, Rieber, & Kini, 1996). Critics of computers as tutors have
been around since their inception (Oettinger, 1969), and there are vocal opponents
of computers in classrooms today (Baines, 1997; Oppenheimer, 1997).
One irony underlying research on learning from computers is that while everyone
recognizes the amazing improvements in the features and capabilities of personal
computers that have occurred in the past 20 years, few people outside the research
community acknowledge that the nature of computer-based learning has also
undergone enormous change (Baker-Albaugh, 1993; Coley et al., 1997). The
earliest forms of computer-based instruction were heavily influenced by the
behavioral psychology of B.F. Skinner (1968). These programs were essentially
automated forms of programmed instruction. They presented information to the
student in small segments, required the student to make overt responses to the
information as stimulus, and provided feedback to the student along with

10
differential branching to other segments of instruction or to drill-and-practice
routines. Although this basic behavioral model continues to dominate mainstream
educational applications of computers such as integrated learning systems
(Bailey, 1992), interactivity in some of today’s most innovative applications, such
as constructivist learning environments (Wilson, 1996), is based upon advances in
cognitive psychology and constructivist pedagogy (Coley et al., 1997) (see
Section Three of this report).

Research Results
The good news is that even with a primarily behavioral pedagogy, computers as
tutors have positive effects on learning as measured by standardized achievement
tests, are more motivating for students, are accepted by more teachers than other
technologies, and are widely supported by administrators, parents, politicians, and
the public in general (Coley et al., 1997; President's Committee of Advisors on
Science and Technology, 1997). These conclusions about the effectiveness of
computers in classrooms in the USA are in agreement with the conclusions of
similar reports in Australia (Directorate of School Education, 1994), Canada
(Bracewell & Laferriére, 1996), and the United Kingdom (Department for
Education and Employment, 1996, 1997). Regrettably, the impacts of CBI in
countries such as Brazil (Chaves, 1993), Chile (Oteiza, 1993), China (Makrakis &
Yuan-tu, 1993), and Malaysia (Shahdan, 1993) are less clear.
Meta-analyses of research examining the effectiveness of computers in schools
have illuminated their advantages and limitations (Kulik & Kulik, 1987, 1991).
Meta-analysis is a statistical procedure that allows researchers to synthesize the
results of numerous research studies comparing different treatments (e.g., CBI
versus teacher-centered instruction) by reducing the results to a common “effect
size” (Hunt, 1997). Although some proponents of computer-based instruction
have promised a 2.0 effect size (representing an improvement of two standard
deviations between CBI and traditional instruction), a more reasonable
expectation is in the range of 0.5 to 1.0. The results of meta-analyses for
computer-based instruction show an interesting pattern, as illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1. Effect sizes for CBI computed from meta-analysis studies.

Academic Level Effect Size Source

Elementary School 0.47 (Kulik, Kulik, & Bangert-Drowns, 1985)

Secondary School 0.36 (Bangert-Drowns, Kulik, & Kulik, 1985)

College and University 0.26 (Kulik & Kulik, 1986)

Adult Basic Education 0.42 (Kulik, Kulik, & Schwab, 1986)

As indicated in Table 1, the effectiveness of CBI over traditional teacher-centered

instructional methods appears to decline as the level of education increases with

11
the exception of adult basic education, where CBI has an effect size between that
of secondary and elementary school contexts. A variety of explanations have been
offered for these differential effects ranging from the belief that teachers in lower
grades are better at integrating CBI into the curriculum to the suggestion that
there is less well-designed software available in the higher grades. Clark (1994a,
b) maintains that media and technology are mere vehicles for instructional
methods. He provides an alternative interpretation of the differential effect sizes
by arguing that when the differences in pedagogy are factored out of the
comparisons between CBI and teacher-centered instruction, the effect sizes
virtually disappear.
A more robust finding for computer-based instruction is that students are able to
complete a given set of educational objectives in less time with CBI than needed
in more traditional approaches (Kulik & Kulik, 1991). The time savings factor
was first identified in military training contexts where a consistent 25% to 50%
reduction in time to train has been demonstrated when interactive technologies
are employed (Fletcher, Hawley, & Piele, 1990). The pressure to save
instructional time has not been as great in school contexts, a situation that may
change if proponents of national assessments are successful, and teachers
perceive the need to cover more content within the school year.
Given the overall positive results for the computer as tutor approach, some
questions can be asked about the relative effectiveness of different approaches to
instructional computing in classrooms. The next two subsections of this report
provide research findings for two major tutorial approaches: integrated learning
systems (ILS) and intelligent tutoring systems (ITS).

Integrated Learning Systems

Integrated learning systems (ILS) utilize computer networks to combine
comprehensive educational “courseware” with centralized management tools. ILS
are marketed by large commercial vendors such as Computer Curriculum
Corporation (CCC) [www.cccnet.com] and Jostens Learning Corporation
[www.jlc.com]. CCC’s programs are reported to be in use by millions of students
in 16,000 classrooms in the USA, Canada, UK, Japan, Australia, and New
Zealand. Jostens claims that its courseware is used by 9 million students in 13,000
schools around the world. There were approximately a dozen major ILS vendors
in the early 1990s, although recent mergers indicate that a market shake-out is
underway. In a special issue of Education Technology magazine devoted to ILS,
Bailey (1992) asked two primary questions: “Why do they (ILS) continue to
dominate the school technology market? Are they as effective as the vendors
claim?” (p. 3).
Why are ILS so popular among educators, at least those with the power to make
purchasing decisions? Bailey (1993) and Becker (1992b) describe some of the
perceived advantages of integrated learning systems that help to explain why ILS
dominate the school technology market:
• Networking allows centralized management by teachers and administrators.

12
• Diagnostic and prescriptive analysis techniques built into ILS provide the
basis for more and better individualization of lesson materials for students.
• The logistical problems associated with software distribution and maintenance
are eliminated by networking from centralized servers.
• Strong tutorials and extensive drill-and-practice opportunities are provided for
students within a wide range of abilities.
• There is an obvious articulation between the content of ILS lessons and
standardized assessment approaches used in most schools.
• Students and teachers can experience a common user interface across subjects
and grades.
What about the question of their heavily advertised effectiveness? ILS are
complex systems that involve the use of specific hardware and software to
address large portions of the standard school curriculum, especially in areas such
as mathematics, reading, and language arts. Funding for the development of early
versions of these systems came from government resources targeted for “at risk”
students, and they are sometimes criticized as having too much “drill and kill”
materials in them (Bailey, 1992). Becker (1992c) provides evidence that ILS are
most effective for those students with either low or high aptitude for regular
classroom instruction, but that the 40% of students in the middle range experience
no improvement from ILS over regular classroom instruction. Becker (1992b)
uses meta-analysis techniques to examine the effectiveness of some of the ILS
from major vendors. As illustrated in Table 2, most of the results are positive, but
much more modest than promised by the vendors themselves.

Table 2. Effect sizes for ILS derived from Becker (1992b).

ILS Source Effect Size Number of Studies Included

Vendor #1 0.17 13

Vendor #2 0.40 4

Vendor #3 0.33 3

Despite the lack of evidence that ILS are as effective as the commercial interests
behind them claim, they are quite likely to play an even larger role in classrooms
in the foreseeable future (Bracey, 1992). For example, a January 1998 press
release indicates that Jostens Learning has initiated a seven-year partnership with
Addison-Wesley Longman, one of the world’s largest education publishers, to
promote ILS in the United Kingdom where a new government initiative aims at
increasing the use of technology in schools [www.jlc.com]. The collaboration
predicts at least a 34 million dollar contract within the UK alone. In November
1997, Computer Curriculum Corporation inked a reported 50 million dollar
agreement with Research Machines, the leading supplier of educational software

13
in the UK [www.cccnet. com]. Investors in these companies are confident in a
bright future for ILS.
To their credit, most of the ILS on the market have been redesigned in recent
years to take advantage of multimedia capabilities and advances in instructional
design. Unfortunately, the new versions of ILS have not been subjected to
rigorous research and evaluation studies. The WWW sites associated with ILS
vendors contain both testimonials and anecdotal evidence, but there is a complete
lack of large-scale, externally conducted, rigorous research studies reported in the
sites or obtainable through public information resources such as ERIC
(Educational Resources Information Clearinghouse) [http://www.askeric.org]. In
addition, there is evidence that vendors underestimate the training required for
teachers to make effective use of ILS or other forms of software (Robinson, 1992;
Wiburg, 1995).

Intelligent Tutoring Systems

The basic components of intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) were conceptualized
25 years ago (Hartley & Sleeman, 1973) as 1) knowledge of the domain, 2)
knowledge of the learner, and 3) knowledge of teaching strategies. In ITS
language, these are often referred to as the expert model, the student model, and
the tutor (Larkin, 1991). Others trace the history of ITS all the way back to 1926
when Sidney L. Pressey built an “instructional machine” that presented a student
with multiple-choice questions (Shute & Psotka, 1996), a device which could
even dispense candy for correct answers. Advocates of ITS promote these
systems as “the most promising approach to delivering individualized instruction”
(Shute & Psotka, 1996, p. 571) because the “artificial intelligence” aspects of the
program can allegedly diagnose and remedy student misconceptions with the
precision of a human tutor.
Although much of the development of ITS has been done in the context of
military and industrial training, there have been significant efforts to develop ITS
for education, especially in challenging subjects such as algebra, calculus, and
programming. For example, John Anderson (1993) is well known for his work
building a geometry ITS. An evaluation of Anderson’s geometry tutor in an urban
school setting indicated that the system had both positive learning outcomes and
encouraged more cooperative problem-solving among students (Shute & Psotka,
1996). Unfortunately, despite a few positive evaluations in loosely controlled
studies, few ITS have demonstrated the significant results promised by their
developers.
ITS attracted much more attention, funding, and research a few years ago than
they do today. One telling sign is that the Journal of Artificial Intelligence in
Education recently changed its name to the Journal of Interactive Learning
Research. Even those who have been most involved in research and development
targeted at producing "intelligent tutors" have begun to acknowledge the lack of
impact they have had on mainstream education (Lajoie & Derry, 1993). A major
factor contributing to the lack of success of ITS is that the technical difficulties

14
inherent in building student models and facilitating human-like communications
have been greatly underestimated by proponents of this approach.
In the face of the disappointing results of ITS, some experts suggest that "...the
appropriate role for a computer is not that of a teacher/expert, but rather, that of a
mind-extension 'cognitive tool'" (Derry & Lajoie, 1993, p. 5). Cognitive tools, as
described in the next section of this report, are unintelligent tools, relying on the
learner to provide the intelligence, not the computer. This means that planning,
decision-making, and self-regulation are the responsibility of the learner, not the
technology. Cognitive tools can serve as powerful catalysts for facilitating these
higher order skills if they are used in ways that promote reflection, discussion,
and collaborative problem-solving (see Section Three of this report).

Future Needs
Research and evaluation of the effectiveness of CBI and other applications of
computers as tutors have been plagued by flaws that render much of the existing
literature little more than pseudoscience (Reeves, 1993). One reason for this
deplorable state of affairs is that there has long been great disagreement about the
purpose and value of educational research. For example, Nate Gage, a past
president of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), has been a
staunch defender of the notion that the goal of basic research in education is
simply "more valid and more positive conclusions" (Farley, 1982, p. 12) whereas
another past president of AERA, Robert Ebel, proclaimed:
....the value of basic research in education is severely limited, and
here is the reason. The process of education is not a natural
phenomenon of the kind that has sometimes rewarded scientific
investigation. It is not one of the givens in our universe. It is
man-made, designed to serve our needs. It is not governed by any
natural laws. It is not in need of research to find out how it
works. It is in need of creative invention to make it work better.
(Farley, 1982, p. 18, Ebel's italics).
Should educational research seek to establish immutable laws akin to those found
in the harder sciences? Or should educational researchers be focused on finding
out how to improve education with different types of students in specific places at
particular times of their development? These questions reflect an on-going
struggle between those who favor basic research and those who call for applied
research. Despite the increased acceptance of qualitative alternatives to the
experimental methods that dominated educational research in the past, there are
signs that some powerful policy-makers are pushing for more classically
empirical approaches. For example, the Panel of Educational Technology of the
President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (1997) listed as
one of its six major strategic recommendations that the government “initiate a
major program of experimental research....to ensure both the efficacy and cost-
effectiveness of technology use within our nation’s schools” (p. 5). A wiser
course would be to support both development research (aimed at making CBI

15
 work better) and empirical (aimed at determining how CBI works) using both
quantitative and qualitative methods.

Summary
.....................................................
This second section has presented evidence for the effectiveness of the learning
“from” media and technology approach. Focusing on television and computer-
based instruction, evidence was provided that media and technology can be
effective tutors in K-12 schools, although the question of whether media and
technology enable learning more than traditional classroom methods remains
unresolved. Differences that have been found between technology as tutors and
teachers have been modest and inconsistent. It appears that the larger value of
media and technology as tutors rests in their capacity to motivate students,
increase equity of access, and reduce the time needed to accomplish a given set of
objectives.
With its firm foundation in behavioral psychology, the learning “from” or tutorial
approach to using media and technology in schools is well-established in the
minds of many educators and the public at large. In fact, if the commercial
success of integrated learning systems and many other tutorial programs is good
evidence, many regard this approach as a sufficient way of introducing media and
technology into the school curriculum. However, cognitive psychologists and
constructivist educators have created quite different models. In the next section,
we turn our attention to the learning “with” or cognitive tools approach.

16
Section 3: The Impact of Learning “With” Media and
Technology in Schools

The Meaning of Media and Technology as Cognitive Tools

.....................................................
Cognitive tools have been around for thousands of years, ever since primitive
humans used piles of stones, marks on trees, and knots in vines to calculate sums
or record events. In the broadest sense, cognitive tools refer to technologies,
tangible or intangible, that enhance the cognitive powers of human beings during
thinking, problem-solving, and learning. Something as complex as a mathematical
formula or as simple as a grocery list can be regarded as a cognitive tool in the
sense that each allows humans to “off-load” memorization or other mental tasks
onto an external resource.
Today, computer software programs are examples of exceptionally powerful
cognitive tools (Jonassen, 1996a; Lajoie & Derry, 1993). Also referred to as
"cognitive technologies" (Pea, 1985), "technologies of the mind" (Salomon,
Perkins, & Globerson, 1991), and “mindtools” (Jonassen, 1996a), they will be
referred to as “cognitive tools” in this report (Kommers, Jonassen, & Mayes,
1992). As computers have become more and more common in education,
researchers have begun to explore the impact of software as cognitive tools in
schools (Jonassen & Reeves, 1996).
Computers as cognitive tools represent quite a different approach from media and
technology as vehicles for educational communications (see Section Two of this
report). Computer-based cognitive tools have been intentionally adapted or
developed to function as intellectual partners to enable and facilitate critical
thinking and higher order learning. Examples of cognitive tools include:
• databases,
• spreadsheets,
• semantic networks,
• expert systems,
• communications software such as teleconferencing programs,
• on-line collaborative knowledge construction environments,
• multimedia/hypermedia construction software, and
• computer programming languages.
In the cognitive tools approach, information is not encoded in predefined
educational communications which are then used to transmit knowledge to
students. Indeed, with cognitive tools, the need for formal instructional systems
design processes are reduced. Instead of specialists such as instructional designers

17
shaping students' learning via prescribed communications and interactions, media
and technology are given directly to learners to use for representing and
expressing what they know. Learners themselves function as designers using
media and technology as tools for analyzing the world, accessing and interpreting
information, organizing their personal knowledge, and representing what they
know to others.

Productivity Tools and Cognitive Tools

It is necessary to highlight differences between this new conception and earlier
perspectives of using computers and other technologies to support learning that
have not been as successful as promised. In 1980, Taylor described the three
major roles of computers in education as “tutor, tool, and tutee.” The tutor role
(see Section Two of this report) has enjoyed some success, and promises to be
even more successful as cognitive learning theories increasingly guide the design
of integrated learning environments and other forms of CBI.
The computer as productivity tool in the sense defined by Taylor (1980) has
enjoyed some success, especially when used to support writing (Becker, 1992a;
Bruce & Rubin, 1993). However, other software tools such as spreadsheet,
database, and computer-aided design (CAD) programs have failed to improve
teaching and learning as much as promised by proponents of the technology as
tool approach because they have been largely used in the context of traditional
"instructivist" pedagogy. Goodlad (1984) described the teacher-directed, text-
dominated, curriculum that characterizes most instructional practice in American
schools. Ironically, software tools have often been regarded as objects for study in
themselves and subjected to the same instructivist pedagogy that limits
intellectual growth by students in areas such as science, mathematics, and social
studies.
For example, although computer-aided design (CAD) software has revolutionized
professional practices and dramatically increased productivity in engineering,
architecture, and other design fields, it has had little impact in education.
Industrial arts teachers (now called "technology educators" in the USA) have
enthusiastically adopted CAD software into their classrooms and labs, but instead
of engaging students in authentic tasks, they often "teach" students the command
sets for the software outside of meaningful contexts. Students end up failing to
perceive the relevance and value of CAD programs within the design professions
or how to apply the software within their own design projects. As pointed out by
Salomon, Perkins, and Globerson (1991), "No important impact can be expected
when the same old activity is carried out with a technology that makes it a bit
faster or easier; the activity itself has to change" (p. 8).
Embraced with almost religious fervor in some circles (cf. Papert, 1980), the tutee
role for computers in education has also delivered less than promised. According
to the “tutee” approach, students develop higher order thinking skills and
creativity by teaching computers to perform tasks, e.g., draw a picture, using
"friendly" programming languages such as Logo (Papert, 1980) and microworlds

18
such as Karel the Robot (Popyack, 1989). Unfortunately, studies aimed at
investigating the effects of Logo have failed to demonstrate the cognitive
advantages promised by Logo enthusiasts (Pea & Kurland, 1987). Defenders of
the "tutee" approach would maintain that the Logo implementations investigated
in most studies were too brief and unfocused. Indeed, many applications of Logo
described in the literature lack the "mindful engagement" that Salomon and
Globerson (1987) argue is necessary for learning. More intensive Logo
implementations where students are engaged in meaningful tasks over longer
periods of time have demonstrated more impressive cognitive effects (cf. Harel,
1991; Papert, 1993).

Constructivist Learning Theory

In recent years, learning theory has gone through what can be called a “paradigm
shift.” Constructivist learning theory is gradually gaining the same respect and
attention long accorded to behavioral learning theory (Duffy & Jonassen, 1992).
Constructivism concerns the process of how students create meaning and
knowledge in the world as well as the results of the constructive process. How
students construct knowledge depends upon what they already know, their
previous experiences, how they have organized those experiences into knowledge
structures such as schema and mental models, and the beliefs they use to interpret
the objects and events they encounter in the world. Cognitive tools help learners
organize, restructure, and represent what they know.
For constructivists, the ultimate nature of reality does not matter as much as its
local nature, i.e., learners’ unique and shared constructions of reality (von
Glaserfeld, 1989). According to constructivism, a teacher cannot map his/her own
interpretations of the world onto learners because they do not share a set of
common experiences and interpretations. “Reality” resides in the mind of each
knower who interprets the external world according to his/her own experiences,
beliefs, and knowledge. Learners are able to comprehend a variety of
interpretations and to use them in arriving at their own unique interpretations of
the world. The mind filters input from the world in making its interpretations, and
therefore each learner conceives of the external world somewhat differently.
Whereas instructivists emphasize the transmission of standardized interpretations
of the world by teachers and the educational media and technology they use as
well as standardized assessments to test the degree to which students'
understandings match accepted interpretations, constructivists seek to create
learning environments wherein learners use cognitive tools to help themselves
construct their own knowledge representations. Cognitive tools and the goals,
tasks, pedagogies, resources, and human collaboration integral to their use enable
learners to engage in active, mindful, and purposeful interpretation and reflection.

Learners as Designers
Following the maxim that the surest way to learn something is to teach it to
others, the process of designing instructional materials enables instructional
designers to understand content much more deeply than the students whose

19
thinking will be constrained and controlled by the very materials they are
developing (Jonassen, Wilson, Wang, & Grabinger, 1993). It follows that
empowering learners to design and produce their own knowledge representations
and educational communications can be a powerful learning experience.
Langer (1989) reminded us of the importance of mindfulness in learning. Students
learn and retain the most from thinking in meaningful (mindful) ways.
Representing knowledge is a mindful task that can be enabled by cognitive tools
such as multimedia construction software or electronic spreadsheets. Cognitive
tools require students to think in meaningful ways about how to use an
application's capabilities and features to represent what they know. Students not
only learn deeply and mindfully with cognitive tools, their opportunities for
reflection are also enhanced (Norman, 1983). There is considerable evidence that
reflective thinking is under-utilized in education by both teachers and their
students (Good & McCaslin, 1992), a problem that cognitive tools may help to
ameliorate.

The Effects of Learning with and of Technology

Salomon, Perkins, and Globerson (1991) make an important distinction between
the effects of learning with and of technology:
First, we distinguish between two kinds of cognitive effects:
Effects with technology obtained during intellectual partnership
with it, and the effects of it in terms of the transferable cognitive
residue that this partnership leaves behind in the form of better
mastery of skills and strategies. (p. 2)
Cognitive tools are important in both respects. Salomon et al. (1991) maintain that
"the cognitive effects with computer tools greatly depend on the mindful
engagement of learners in the tasks afforded by these tools" (p. 2), and that
educators should empower learners with cognitive tools and assess their abilities
in conjunction with the use of these tools. Such a development will entail a new
conception of ability as an intellectual partnership between learners and the tools
they use. Although some worry that this partnership makes learners too dependent
upon the technology, many performances (e.g., instrumental music) are
meaningless without the technologies which enable them. Allowing students to
demonstrate learning in collaboration with cognitive tools may be attacked by
parties invested in existing assessment systems. However, who would assess the
ability of an artist without allowing the use of brushes, paint, and other media?
Contemporary intellectual abilities should not be assessed without cognitive tools,
including books and computers (Salomon et al., 1991). The very conception of
knowledge is changing with a move from a conception of knowledge as
possession of facts and figures to one of knowledge as the ability to retrieve
information from databases and use it to solve problems (Simon, 1987).
Of course, there are many important intellectual abilities that should be performed
and assessed without the aid of cognitive tools. This is where Salomon et al.'s
(1991) delineation of the learning effects of technology become so important:

20
 Until intelligent technologies become as ubiquitous as pencil and
paper – and we are not there yet by a long shot – how a person
functions away from intelligent technologies must be considered.
Moreover, even if computer technology became as ubiquitous as
the pencil, students will still face an infinite number of problems
to solve, new kinds of knowledge to mentally construct, and
decisions to make, for which no intelligent technology would be
available or accessible. (p. 5)

Easy Learning?
Many instructional innovations falsely promise to make learning fun and teaching
easy (Cuban, 1986). Cognitive tools make no such promises, either for learners or
teachers. Instead, cognitive tools activate complex cognitive learning strategies
and critical thinking. These tools not only extend the mind, they have the
potential to reorganize mental functioning (Pea, 1985) and engage learners in high
level generative information processing (Wittrock, 1974). In generative
processing, deeper information processing results from activating appropriate
mental models, using them to interpret new information, assimilating new
information back into those models, reorganizing the models in light of the newly
interpreted information, and using the enhanced mental models to explain,
interpret, or infer new knowledge (Norman, 1983). Knowledge acquisition and
integration is a constructive process involving "mindful" cognitive effort (Langer,
1989; Salomon & Globerson, 1987). When using cognitive tools, learners engage
in knowledge construction rather than knowledge reproduction.
Cognitive tools are learner-controlled, not teacher-controlled or technology-
driven. For example, when students build databases, they are also constructing
their own conceptualization of the organization of a domain of knowledge.
Cognitive tools are not designed to reduce information processing, that is, make a
task easier, as has long been the goal of instructional systems design as a field.
Learners can’t use cognitive tools effortlessly because they require learners to
think harder about the subject matter being studied or the task being undertaken
with the goal of generating original thoughts that would be impossible without
these tools (Perkins, 1993).
The nature and source of the task or problem is paramount in applications of
cognitive tools. Past failures of "tool" approaches to using computers in education
can be attributed largely to the relegation of the tools to traditional academic tasks
set by teachers or the curriculum. Cognitive tools are intended to be used by
students to represent knowledge and solve problems while pursuing investigations
that are relevant to their own lives. These investigations are ideally situated
within a constructivist learning environment (Duffy, Lowyck, & Jonassen, 1993).
Cognitive tools won’t be effective when used to support teacher-controlled tasks
alone.

The Foundations for Using Cognitive Tools

The following principles sum up the foundations for using cognitive tools:

21
• Cognitive tools will have their greatest effectiveness when they are applied
within constructivist learning environments.
• Cognitive tools empower learners to design their own representations of
knowledge rather than absorbing representations preconceived by others.
• Cognitive tools can be used to support the deep reflective thinking that is
necessary for meaningful learning.
• Cognitive tools have two kinds of important cognitive effects, those which are
with the technology in terms of intellectual partnerships and those that are of
the technology in terms of the cognitive residue that remains after the tools are
used.
• Cognitive tools enable mindful, challenging learning rather than the effortless
learning promised but rarely realized by other instructional innovations.
• The source of the tasks or problems to which cognitive tools are applied
should be learners, guided by teachers and other resources in the learning
environment.
• Ideally, tasks or problems for the application of cognitive tools will be
situated in realistic contexts with results that are personally meaningful for
learners.

Multimedia as a Cognitive Tool

Space does not allow full revelation of the effectiveness of a wide range of
cognitive tools, and therefore this report focuses on multimedia construction
programs as intellectual partners to enable and facilitate critical thinking and
higher order learning. Although there are many different types of computer-based
cognitive tools, including databases, spreadsheets, semantic networks, expert
systems, multimedia/hypermedia construction software, computer-based
conferencing, collaborative knowledge construction environments, computer
programming languages, microworlds, and interactive learning environments
(Jonassen, 1996a), multimedia construction software programs such as
HyperStudio (Milton & Spradley, 1996) are tools increasingly available in K-12
schools, and therefore deserve special attention.
Multimedia is the integration of more than one medium into some form of
communication or experience delivered via a computer. Most often, multimedia
refers to the integration of media such as text, sound, graphics, animation, video,
imaging, and spatial modeling into a computer system (von Wodtke, 1993).
Employing relatively inexpensive desktop computers, users are now able to
capture sounds and video, manipulate audio and images to achieve special effects,
synthesize audio and video, create sophisticated graphics including animation,
and integrate them all into a single multimedia presentation. Individuals with very
little experience are becoming their own multimedia artists, producers, and
publishers. Multimedia presentations are engaging because they are multimodal.
In other words, multimedia can stimulate more than one sense at a time, and in
doing so, may be more attention-getting and attention-holding.

22
In the cognitive tools approach, multimedia is not a form of instruction to learn
from, but rather a tool for constructing and learning with. Learners may create
their own multimedia knowledge representations that reflect their own
perspectives on or understanding of ideas. Or learners may collaborate with other
learners to develop a classroom or school multimedia knowledge base.

Research Results
Ideally, tasks or problems for the application of multimedia construction software
as a cognitive tool should be situated in realistic contexts with results that are
personally meaningful for learners. Beichner (1994) reports on a project where
these conditions were met in a unique way. The subjects in this study were
seventh and eight grade students enrolled in a middle school located on the
grounds of a large, metropolitan zoo. The school is a magnet school emphasizing
the study of science to which students are admitted based upon a lottery. A
primarily qualitative, observational investigation was conducted over a two-year
period while the students worked cooperatively to create interactive displays for a
touch-sensitive multimedia kiosk for the zoo.
Several categories emerged out of the qualitative analysis of the data which
included extensive videotapes, interviews, observations, and student-created
materials. The students' strong appreciation that they were preparing multimedia
materials for a real audience emerged as the core category in the analysis. Related
findings were:
1) students demonstrated great concern for accuracy in their displays,
2) students quickly assumed the major responsibility for content and editing
decisions despite the fact that the original task of designing the displays had
been structured for them by the teacher,
3) students accessed wide ranges of science materials and sources to find the
content they desired, and
4) their commitment to and enthusiasm for the project remained very high.
On the negative side, the project failed to integrate its activities into the larger
curriculum in the school or to attract the participation of teachers other than the
computer coordinator. The bottom line was that by establishing an environment
where creative thinking about content is combined with real-world assignments,
students learned the content, enjoyed the learning process, and recognized that
they had created something worthwhile.
Lehrer (1993) describes the development, use, and results of a hypermedia/
multimedia construction tool called HyperAuthor that was used by eighth graders
to design their own lessons about the American Civil War. This study exemplifies
the principle that: "Cognitive tools empower learners to design their own
representations of knowledge rather than absorbing knowledge representations
preconceived by others." As Perkins (1986) maintains, knowledge is a process of
design and not something to be transmitted from teacher to student. Thus,
students should be engaged in “HyperComposition” by designing their own
hypermedia. The process requires learners to transform information into

23
dimensional representations, determine what is important and what is not,
segment information into nodes, link the information segments by semantic
relationships, and decide how to represent ideas. This is a highly motivating
process because authorship results in ownership of the ideas in the multimedia
presentation.
Students in the Lehrer study were high and low ability eighth graders who worked
at the multimedia construction tasks for one class period of 45 minutes each day
over a period of several months. The students worked in the school media center
where they had access to a color Macintosh computer, scanner, sound digitizer,
HyperAuthor software, and numerous print and non-print resources about the
American Civil War. An instructor was also available to coach students in the
conceptualization, design, and production of the hypermedia programs. Students
created programs reflecting their unique interests and individual differences. For
example, they created programs about the role of women in the American Civil
War, the perspectives of slaves toward the war, and "not-so-famous people" from
that period.
According to Lehrer (1993), "The most striking finding was the degree of student
involvement and engagement" (p. 209). Both high and low ability students
became very task-oriented, increasingly so as they gained more autonomy and
confidence with the cognitive tools. At the end of the study, students in the
hypermedia group and a control group of students who had studied the Civil War
via traditional classroom methods during the same period of time were given an
identical teacher-constructed test of knowledge. No significant test differences
were found. Lehrer conjectured that "these measures were not valid indicators of
the extent of learning in the hypermedia design groups, perhaps because much of
what students developed in the design context was not anticipated by the
classroom teacher" (p. 218).
However, a year later, when students in the design and control groups were
interviewed by an independent interviewer unconnected with the previous year's
work, important differences were found. Students in the control group could recall
almost nothing about the historical content, whereas students in the design group
displayed elaborate concepts and ideas that they had extended to other areas of
history. Most importantly, although students in the control group defined history
as “the record of the facts of the past,” students in the design class defined history
as “a process of interpreting the past from different perspectives.” In short, the
"design approach lead to knowledge that was richer, better connected, and more
applicable to subsequent learning and events" (p. 221).
Lehrer, Erickson, and Connell (1994) conducted another study with ninth grade
students who were using HyperAuthor to develop hypermedia about topics such
as World War I, lifestyles between 1870 and 1920, immigration, and imperialism.
They found similar results to the aforementioned Civil War project:
1) students' on-task behavior increased over time,
2) students perceived the benefits of planning and transforming stages of
development, and

24
 3) they developed generalizable skills such as taking notes, finding
information, coordinating their work with other team members, writing
interpretations, and designing presentations.
The Highly Interactive Computing Environments (HI-CE) Group at the
University of Michigan has developed a multimedia composition tool called
MediaText (Hays, Weingard, Guzdial, Jackson, Boyle, & Soloway, 1994). They
believe that rather than using media to deliver instruction to learners, learners
should use the media to generate their own instruction, and in so doing, learn
more about the content. The HI-CE group has studied high school students
creating MediaText stories, biographies, or instructional aids, as well as
multimedia essays. Students have learned to use techniques such as mentioning,
directives, titling, and juxtaposition in their documents. They have found that as
students' experiences with MediaText increase, their documents become more
integrated rather than merely annotated text. Students have been very enthusiastic
about being "constructionists" (Papert, 1993), believing that they are learning
more because they understand the ideas better.
The ACCESS (American Culture in Context: Enrichment for Secondary Schools)
Project (Spoehr, 1994; Spoehr & Shapiro, 1991) focuses on the subjects
commonly taught in high school, such as United States History, American
Literature, and American Studies. The project began with teachers assembling a
collection of textual, pictorial, audio, and video materials to supplement their
courses. Initially, students simply used the materials for information retrieval.
Students who made more extensive use of the conceptual organization built into
the system benefited more than the students who used the system like a linear
electronic book. Eventually, the project orientation shifted from teacher-created
hypermedia materials to student-generated hypermedia documents. To make it
easier for students to create interactive projects, the ACCESS user interface was
improved. Students produce several small hypermedia documents of increasing
size and complexity early in the school year to become familiar with the authoring
process. Later, they generally take on one or more major research projects.
According to Spoehr (1994), the structures that students impose on their
hypermedia knowledge vary. A few students (5 - 10%) typically underutilize the
power of the programs and use a linear format (i.e., one overview card followed
by a linear series of screens). Most students produce more interesting
organizational types, including the "star" in which the entry point is an overview
containing buttons to two or more sub-topics, each of which appears as a linear
sequence, and the "tree" in which one or more main branches off the initial
overview in the program are subdivided into further sub-topics which are then
organized as linear sequences or divided into sub-sub-topics. Students utilizing
the "tree" organization (about 25% of the students) generally show more
sophisticated understanding of the topic than students using the "star" structure.
There are many ways that the ACCESS Project students appear to benefit from
their experiences as interactive authors, most of which fall into the category of
superior knowledge representation and higher-order thinking skills. Spoehr

25
(1993) reports that students who build and use hypermedia apparently develop a
proficiency in organizing knowledge about a subject in a more expert-like
fashion. They are able to represent multiple linkages between ideas and organize
concepts into meaningful clusters. In turn, these superior knowledge
representations support more complex arguments in written essays. These studies
indicate that the conceptual organization skills acquired through building
hypermedia/multimedia are sufficiently robust to allow students to generalize
these skills to content that they acquire from other sources.
The studies reviewed above support the conclusion that designing multimedia is a
complex process that engages many skills in learners. Carver, Lehrer, Connell,
and Ericksen (1992) list some of the major thinking skills that learners learn and
use as multimedia designers:
Project Management Skills
• Creating a timeline for the completion of the project.
• Allocating resources and time to different parts of the project.
• Assigning roles to team members.
Research Skills
• Determining the nature of the problem and how research should be organized.
• Posing thoughtful questions about structure, models, cases, values, and roles.
• Searching for information using text, electronic, and pictorial information
sources.
• Developing new information with interviews, questionnaires and other survey
methods.
• Analyzing and interpreting all the information collected to identify and
interpret patterns.
Organization and Representation Skills
• Deciding how to segment and sequence information to make it
understandable.
• Deciding how information will be represented (text, pictures, movies, audio,
etc.).
• Deciding how the information will be organized (hierarchy, sequence) and
how it will be linked.
Presentation Skills
• Mapping the design onto the presentation and implementing the ideas in
multimedia.
• Attracting and maintaining the interests of the intended audiences.
Reflection Skills
• Evaluating the program and the process used to create it.

26
• Revising the design of the program using feedback.

The Need for More and Better Research

A search of the ERIC database indicates that there were at least 250 publications
related to the use of multimedia in schools in 1997. But perusal of these articles
indicates that the vast majority are based upon the perception that multimedia is
something that students learn “from” rather than “with.” There are very few
schools where multimedia construction software is consistently used as cognitive
tools, and even fewer research and evaluation studies of the type described above.
Research focused on multimedia seems to be stuck in the traditional comparative
paradigm. To give but one example, White and Kuhn (1997) compared
elementary school students’ ability to recall stories about historical figures
presented to them via text, oral reading, and multimedia presentations. No
significant differences were found, a finding typical of the last 50 years of media
comparison research. A more fruitful investigation might have examined the
effects of having students create their own multimedia representations of stories.
Ironically, while using multimedia as a cognitive tool remains on the fringe of
mainstream K-12 education, most school systems are rushing to hook themselves
up to the Internet to provide teachers and students with access to multimedia
information on the World Wide Web. What are they going to do with access to all
that multimedia? One hopeful development is taking place in the form of
“constructivist learning environments” described in the next subsection of this
report.

Constructivist Learning Environments

Wilson (1996) offers a definition of a constructivist learning environment:
[a constructivist learning environment is] a place where learners
may work together and support each other as they use a variety of
tools and information resources in their guided pursuit of
learning goals and problem-solving activities. (p. 5)
Table 3 presents Grabinger’s (1996) list the major changes in assumptions about
learning that guide the development of constructivist learning environments:

Table 3. Old versus new assumptions about learning (Grabinger, 1996, p. 667)

Old Assumptions New Assumptions

1. People transfer learning with ease by learning 1. People transfer learning with difficulty, needing
abstract and decontextualized concepts. both content and context learning.

2. Learners are receivers of knowledge. 2. Learners are active constructors of knowledge.

3. Learning is behavioristic and involves the 3. Learning is cognitive and in a constant state of
strengthening of stimulus and response. growth.

27
4. Learners are blank slates ready to be filled with 4. Learners bring their own needs and experiences
knowledge. to learning situations.

5. Skills and knowledge are best acquired 5. Skills and knowledge are best acquired within
independent of context. realistic contexts.

6. Assessment must take more realistic and holistic

forms.

Constructivist learning environments encompass many different applications of

media and technology in education, including:
1) computer microworlds such as LEGO/Logo (Resnick & Ocko, 1994;
Rieber, 1992),
2) classroom-based learning environments such as the Jasper Woodbury
problem-solving programs (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt,
1992), and
3) open, virtual environments such as the CoVis project (Edelson, Pea, &
Gomez, 1996).
For the cognitive scientists, learning theorists, instructional designers, and
teachers involved in creating constructivist learning environments, learning refers
to the development of mental states and abilities of all types including conceptual
knowledge, technical skills, automatic rules, mental models, and problem-solving.
Forms of higher-order outcomes such as motivation, intellectual curiosity, and the
habits of lifelong learning are especially relevant because these are the most
challenging types of learning to teach and learn. According to Honebein (1996),
to meet these ambitious learning outcomes, developers of constructivist learning
environments adhere to seven goals:
1. Provide students with experience with the knowledge construction process.
2. Provide experience in and appreciation for multiple perspectives.
3. Embed learning in realistic and relevant contexts.
4. Encourage ownership and voice in the learning process.
5. Embed learning in social experience.
6. Encourage the use of multiple modes of representation.
7. Encourage self-awareness of the knowledge construction process.
The next three subsections of this report present the research findings associated
with different types of constructivist learning environments, specifically, a
microworld called LEGO/Logo, a classroom-based learning environment called
Jasper Woodbury, and an open, virtual environment called CoVis.

LEGO/Logo
Logo was created by Seymour Papert (1980, 1993). Early investigations of Logo
as a programming language that would enable students to develop generalizable
problem-solving skills were not as successful as Papert and others predicted (Pea
& Kurland, 1987). More recently, new versions of Logo have been developed that
involve real objects that children can program with Logo instructions. The best
known of these is LEGO/Logo, which integrates a popular building block toy set

28
with computer-controlled devices such as motors (Resnick & Ocko, 1990). With
two to four students per group, children in grades 3-5 tackle design problems such
as creating a LEGO walking machine. In addition to physical tasks (building
robots) and mental tasks (programming actions), the students keep “Inventors
Notebooks.”
Early qualitative studies of children engaging in the LEGO/Logo projects yielded
positive results (Lai, 1993). Resnick and Ocko (1990) summarize the results:
Our work has shown that Constructionist design activities offer
rich learning opportunities. Far from obscuring mathematical and
scientific concepts, design projects can actually give
mathematical and scientific concepts a new relevance in the
minds of children. Moreover, such projects can provide students
with a new appreciation of how real mathematicians and
scientists (not to mention architects and engineers and writers) go
about their work. (pp. 127-128)
An extension of the LEGO/Logo work has led to the development of a
“programmable brick” and other objects that students can use in constructionist
design projects (Resnick, 1997). Research continues at the M.I.T. Media Lab and
local schools in the Boston area to test these and other microworlds (Kafai &
Resnick, 1996).

Jasper Woodbury
The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt University is well known for
the development of a rich set of classroom-based learning environments that
address a wide range of curriculum goals including mathematics and problem-
solving (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1992). The most heavily
researched versions of these programs are known as the Jasper Woodbury
Problem-Solving Series. Available in both linear video and interactive videodisc
formats, these programs are based around interesting vignettes that present middle
school-age students with challenging problems to solve. For example, in one
episode, a hiker finds a wounded eagle in a remote mountain site that can only be
reached by personal aircraft. The students must figure out the best route to fly
while dealing with variables such as wind conditions and fuel capacity. Students
work in small teams to solve these problems. There are multiple possible
solutions, and conditions such as wind speed can be changed to create analog and
extension problems.
A year-long research project was conducted with Jasper in 16 schools in 9 states
(Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1991). Comparing students in
Jasper classes with those in traditional math classes, the researchers investigated
effects in terms of mathematical problem-solving and reasoning skills, specific
mathematical knowledge and skills, standardized achievement test scores, and
attitudes toward mathematics. The study used both quantitative and qualitative
methods.

29
The results were generally favorable for the Jasper students. With respect to
problem-solving, the Jasper students were more skilled in identifying problems
and breaking them down into smaller components that would lead to solutions.
Regarding specific knowledge and skills, the Jasper students outperformed the
control students in areas such as decimals, fractions, and calculations of area,
perimeter, and volume. The Jasper students also were better in solving three
different types of word problems. Results were less positive in the attitude and
achievement areas. Although the Jasper students had more positive attitudes
toward mathematics at the end of the school year, they expressed no greater desire
to study math than the control students. On standardized achievement tests, Jasper
students tended to perform better than the others, but the results were not
statistically significant. A more recent study (Young, Nastasi, & Braunhardt,
1996) investigated the effects of immersing fifth grade students in Jasper
Adventures for three months. The results were equally positive, with the Jasper
students outperforming the control students in mathematical and scientific
knowledge, higher level problem-solving skills, learning skills, and even
creativity.

The CoVis Project

With funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF) in the USA,
researchers at Northwestern University (Edelson, Pea, & Gomez, 1996) have been
developing the “CoVis Collaboratory,” a learning environment that combines the
objects and tools of constructivism with communication and visualization tools
that enable communication and collaboration among learners in a sociocultural
context. Working in 40 high school science classrooms, CoVis has three key
components:
1. project-based science learning pedagogy,
2. scientific visualization tools for open-ended inquiry, and
3. networked environments for synchronous and asynchronous communication
and collaboration.
Projects can be designed in a variety of scientific disciplines (Edelson, 1997).
Some of the most interesting involve atmospheric sciences examining issues such
as “global warming.” CoVis is currently undergoing extensive research and
evaluation, and early results indicate that students spend their time productively,
prefer CoVis activities over traditional science labs, and learn both content and
scientific inquiry skills (Gomez & Gordin, 1996). Additional research is focusing
on teachers’ roles in the Collaboratory.

Future Needs
Up until now, most research focused on forms of computer-based learning
systems has investigated how to use the limited capabilities of the computer to
present information and judge learner input (neither of which computers do
especially well) while asking learners to memorize information and later recall it
on tests (which computers do with far greater speed and accuracy than humans).
The cognitive tools and constructivist learning environment approaches described

30
 above assign cognitive responsibility to each part of the learning system that does
it best. The learner is responsible for recognizing and judging patterns of
information, organizing it, and representing knowledge, while the computer
performs calculations, stores information, and retrieves it upon the learner's
command. Nonetheless, helping people to change their mental models of
computers as something that students learn “from” to something they learn “with”
remains a great challenge. This probably has a great deal to do with the
constructivist pedagogy that ideally guides the adaptation of cognitive tools in
schools. Many teachers are uncomfortable with moving from a teacher-centered
to student-centered classroom environment, and such a transformation takes
considerable time and support (Fisher, Dwyer, & Yocam, 1996)

Summary
.....................................................
This third section has presented research concerning the effectiveness of one type
of cognitive tools, i.e., multimedia construction software. In addition, research
concerning the effectiveness of constructivist learning environments such as
microworlds, classroom-based learning environments, and virtual, collaborative
environments was reviewed. Emphasizing “learning by design,” these approaches
to learning “with” media and technology show positive results across a wide
range of indicators. However, longer-term research using both quantitative and
qualitative methods is needed to advance the development of these approaches as
well as to provide evidence of their impact.

31
Section 4: The Future of Media and Technology in
Schools

What We Know
.....................................................
Overall, fifty years of educational research indicates that media and technology
are effective in schools as phenomena to learn both from and with. Historically,
the learning from or tutorial approaches have received the most attention and
funding, but the with or cognitive tool approaches are the focus of more interest
and investment than ever before. Preliminary findings suggest that in the long run,
constructivist approaches to applying media and technology may have more
potential to enhance teaching and learning than instructivist models. In other
words, the real power of media and technology to improve education may only be
realized when students actively use them as cognitive tools rather than simply
perceive and interact with them as tutors or repositories of information.
At the same time, there is a paucity of empirical evidence that media and
technology are any more effective than other instructional approaches. This is
because most research studies confound media and methods. Fifteen years ago,
Richard E. Clark, a professor of instructional technology at the University of
Southern California, ignited a debate about the impact of media on learning with
the provocative statement that “media do not influence learning under any
conditions” (Clark, 1983, p. 445). He clarified this challenge by explaining that
media and technology are merely vehicles that deliver instructional methods. It is
instructional methods, the teaching tasks and student activities, that account for
learning. Clark maintained that as vehicles, media and technology do not
influence student achievement any more than the truck that deliver groceries
changes our nutrition. He concluded that media and technology could be used to
make learning more efficient (enable students to learn faster), more economical
(save costs), and/or more equitable (increase access for those with special needs).
Robert Kozma, Principal Scientist at the Center for Technology in Learning, SRI
International, has challenged Clark in the debate about the impact of media and
technology on learning. He argued that Clark’s separation of media and methods
creates “an unnecessary and undesirable schism between the two” (Kozma, 1994,
p. 16). He recommended that we move away from the questions about whether
media and technology impact learning to questions concerning the ways can we
use the capabilities of media and technology to influence learning for particular
students with specific tasks in distinct contexts. This recommendation supports
the call for more applied research described earlier in this report.
Both Clark and Kozma present important ideas. It is evident that the instructional
methods students experience and the tasks they perform matter most in learning.
The search for unique learning effects from particular media and technologies is

32
ultimately futile because fifty years of media and technology comparison studies
indicate no significant differences in most instances. Whatever differences are
found can usually be explained by differences in instructional design, novelty
effects, or other factors (Clark, 1992).
However, even though media and technology may lack unique instructional
effects, some educational objectives are more easily achieved with media and
technology than in other ways (Kozma, 1991). For example, certain symbol
systems can only be experienced with specific technologies, e.g., slow motion is a
medium afforded by film and video. A teacher could try to describe the flight of a
bumble bee for hours without enabling students to perceive its mystery, whereas a
slow motion video reveals the wonder of the bee’s flight in seconds. A teacher
could try to motivate children to appreciate the bumble bee’s flying feats with
words and pictures, but playing an orchestral recording of Rimsky-Korsakov’s
“Flight of the Bumblebee” could be far more powerful.
Media and technology have many other advantages in terms of repeatability,
transportability, and increased equity of access. In addition, although the research
evidence is sparse, the cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, and return-on-investment
of media and technology may be of great benefit under certain conditions,
especially in developing countries (Reeves, Harmon, & Jones, 1993).

The Importance of Design and Implementation

Media and technology can be more or less well-designed depending on the
talents, resources, and timelines available for the development effort. There are
numerous scientific principles to guide design (Moore, Burton, & Myers, 1996;
Ragan & Smith, 1996), but every instructional development effort involves large
amounts of creativity and hard work. There are no comprehensive or infallible
instructional design formulas (Gustafson & Branch, 1997). In fact, the design of
media and technology for education retains as many aspects of a craft as it does a
science. Evaluation has an especially important role in the instructional design
process, but it is often underutilized (Reeves, 1997).
Implementation at the local level is as important as instructional design. In most
instances, the conditions under which students actually experience and use media
and technology in schools are decided within the confines of single classrooms by
individual teachers. While some educational technologists have recommended
that media and technology innovations should be “teacher-proof” to ensure
fidelity in implementation (Winn, 1989), teacher empowerment is more likely to
have positive effects than attempts to limit the prerogatives of teachers to
implement media and technology as they wish (Glickman, 1997).
The Apple Classroom of Tomorrow (ACOT) Project (Fisher, Dwyer, & Yocam,
1996) illustrates the enormous importance of implementation in efforts to infuse
media and technology into classrooms. In 1985, Apple Computer, Inc. began a
long-term collaboration with several widely-separated school districts around the
USA. Students and teachers were provided with computers and software for both
school and home use, and research has been conducted in the participating

33
schools for over a decade. The ambitious research program focused on six major
questions:
1. What kinds of collaborative environments and tools are most helpful in
inquiry-based classrooms?
2. What happens when teachers and students have access to rich on-line
resources and remote experts?
3. How can the computer’s power to represent knowledge in multiple media
support learning?
4. How can the computer be used to support students in problem-solving?
5. What happens to motivation and learning when students have the same
access to the sophisticated tools that experts use?
6. How can the learning and competencies accomplished in a technology-rich
environment be assessed?
Coley et al. (1997) summarize the results of the first decade of ACOT research:
ACOT students:
– Explored and represented information dynamically and in many
forms
– Became socially aware and more confident
– Communicated effectively about complex processes
– Used technology routinely and appropriately
– Became independent learners and self-starters
– knew their areas of expertise and shared that expertise
spontaneously
– Worked well collaboratively
– Developed a positive orientation to the future (p. 37)
Some of the most interesting findings from the ACOT research concern teachers
and implementation. ACOT researchers found that teachers had strong beliefs
about their roles and efficacy as teachers which changed very slowly as their
classrooms moved toward child-centered rather than textbook-driven education
(Sandholtz & Ringstaff, 1996). Teachers had to make significant changes in their
classroom management styles, giving up more control to technology and students.
This also changed slowly. Initially, media and technology were primarily used
within the context of traditional pedagogical methods, and most teachers required
years of experience before they adopted more innovative strategies such as
project-based learning. Finally, teachers struggled with fundamental incongruities
between traditional assessment measures and the kinds of learning occurring in
their classrooms. In fact, assessment problems proved to be the most resistant to
solutions and many remained unresolved (David, 1996).
The bottom line of the ACOT Project is that pedagogical innovations and positive
learning results do eventually emerge from the infusion of media and technology

34
 into schools, but the process takes longer than most people imagine. Educational
administrators who imagine that a summer workshop or after-school seminars by
consultants will enable teachers to implement media and technology in their
classrooms are mistaken. Huge investments in time and support for teachers will
be especially critical if the adoption of constructivist pedagogies accompany the
infusion of media and technology (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996).

The Need for Mission-Focused, Development Research

.....................................................
The fact that educational research is not highly valued by educational
practitioners is widely recognized. A large part of the problem can be attributed to
the fact that the interests of academics who conduct research and those of
administrators, teachers, students, parents, and others involved in the educational
enterprise are often quite different. Tanner (1998) reminds us that educational
research should be focused on the mission of enhancing educational opportunities
and outcomes:
Unfortunately, much that is taken for social research serves no
social purpose other than to embellish reputations in the citadels
of academe and sometimes to even undermine the democratic
public interest.... Early in this century, John Dewey warned that
educational practices must be the source of the ultimate problems
to be investigated if we are to build a science of education. We
may draw from the behavioral sciences, but the behavioral
sciences do not define the educational problems. The faculties of
the professional schools draw on the basic sciences, but their
mandate is mission-oriented, not disciplined centered. (p. 348-
349)
This report reveals that students learn both from and with media and technology.
Instructional television, computer-based instruction, and integrated learning
systems have all been demonstrated to be effective and efficient tutors. There is
considerable evidence that learners develop critical thinking skills as authors,
designers, and constructors of multimedia or as active participants in
constructivist learning environments. Further research on whether media and
technology are as effective as teachers and other methods is no longer needed.
At the same time, the need for long-term, intensive research focused on the
mission of improving teaching and learning through media and technology has
never been greater. This research should be developmental in nature, i.e., focused
on the invention and improvement of creative approaches to enhancing human
communication, learning, and performance through the use of media and
technology. The purpose of such research is to improve, not to prove. Further,
developmental research is not limited to any one methodology. Any approach,
quantitative or qualitative, is legitimate as long as the goal is to enhance
education.

35
 The recommendation to engage and invest in developmental research overlaps
with advice emanating from policy-makers in the USA where the Panel of
Educational Technology of the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and
Technology (1997) established three priorities for future research:
1. Basic research in various learning-related disciplines and
fundamental work on various educationally relevant technologies.
2. Early-stage research aimed at developing new forms of
educational software, content, and technology-enabled pedagogy.
3. Empirical studies designed to determine which approaches to
the use of technology are in fact most effective. (p. 38)
The second of these priorities reflects the call for development research issued
above. At the same time, the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and
Technology (1997) may be guilty of placing too much faith in the ability of large-
scale empirical studies to identify the most effective approaches to using media
and technology in schools. In the final analysis, the esoteric and complex nature
of human learning may mean that there may be no generalizable best approach to
using media and technology in schools. The best we may be able to hope for is
creative application and informed practice.

Summary
.....................................................
This fourth and final section has summarized what we know about the impact of
media and technology in schools. It works. It also points out the difficulty of
answering questions about whether media and technology work better than other
approaches or which applications of media and technology will have the most
impact. The importance of instructional design and implementation were
highlighted. This section concluded with a call for development research focused
on the mission of enhancing teaching and learning through media and technology.

36
References
.....................................................
Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (1991). Computer-based instruction: Methods and development.
(2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Alkin, M. C. (Ed.). (1992). Encyclopedia of educational research (6th Ed.). New York:
Macmillan.
Anderson, D. R., & Collins, P. A. (1988). The impact on children’s education: Television's
influence on cognitive development (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 295
271). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bailey, G. D. (Ed.). (1993). Computer-based integrated learning systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Educational Technology.
Bailey, G. D. (1992). Wanted: A road map for understanding integrated learning systems.
Educational Technology, 32(9), 3-5.
Baines, L. (1997). Future schlock: Using fabricated data and politically correct platitudes in the
name of educational reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(7), 492-498.
Baker-Albaugh, P. (1993). Definitions of interactive learning: What we see is not what we get.
Journal of Instructional Delivery Systems, 7(3), 36-39.
Bangert-Drowns, R., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.-L. (1985). Effectiveness of computer-based
education in secondary schools. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 12(3), 59-68.
Becker, H. J. (1992a). Computer education. In M. C. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational
research (pp. 232-235). New York: Macmillan.
Becker, H. J. (1992b). Computer-based integrated learning systems in the elementary and middle
grades: A critical review and synthesis of evaluation reports. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 8(1), 1-41.
Becker, H. J. (1992c). A model for improving the performance of integrated learning systems.
Educational Technology, 32(9), 6-15.
Beichner, R. J. (1994). Multimedia editing to promote science learning. Journal of Educational
Multimedia and Hypermedia, 3(1), 55-70.
Berube, M. S. et al. (1993). The American Heritage college dictionary. (3rd ed.). Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
Bracewell, R., & Laferriére, T. (1996). The contribution of new technologies to learning and
teaching in elementary and secondary schools (www.tact.fse.ulaval.ca/fr/html/impactnt.html).
Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Laval University and McGill University.
Bracey, G. W. (1992). The bright future of integrated learning systems. Educational Technology,
32(9), 60-62.
Bruce, B., & Rubin, A. (1993). Electronic quills: A situated evaluation of using computers for
writing in classrooms. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Carver, S. M., Lehrer, R., Connell, T., & Ericksen, J. (1992). Learning by hypermedia design:
Issues of assessment and implementation. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 385-404.
Chaves, E. O. C. (1993). The impact of computing on education in Brazil. Educational
Technology, 33(9), 16-20.
Clark, R. E. (1994a). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 42(2), 21-29.

37
Clark, R. E. (1994b). Media and method. Educational Technology Research and Development,
42(3), 7-10.
Clark, R. E. (1992). Media use in education. In M. C. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational
Research (pp. 805-814). New York: Macmillan.
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning with media. Review of Educational
Research, 53(4), 445-459.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of
issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 40(1), 65-80.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1991). Assessing the outcomes of an innovative
instructional program: The 1990-91 implementation of the "Adventures of Jasper Woodbury"
(Tech. Report No. 91-1). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University, Learning Technology Center.
Coley, R. J., Cradler, J., & Engel, P. K. (1997). Computers and classrooms: The status of
technology in U.S. schools (Policy Information Report ). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing
Service.
Collins, M., & Kimmel, M. M. (Eds.). (1996). Mister Rogers Neighborhood: Children, television,
and Fred Rogers. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Comstock, G., & Paik, H. (1991). Television and the American child. San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New
York: Teachers College Press.
David, J. L. (1996). Developing and spreading accomplished teaching: Policy lessons from a
unique partnership. In C. Fisher, D. C. Dwyer, & K. Yocam (Eds.), Education and
technology: Reflections on computing in the classroom (pp. 237-250). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Department for Education and Employment. (1997). Excellence in schools . London, UK:
Department for Education and Employment.
Department for Education and Employment. (1996). The national curriculum for information
technology . London, UK: Department for Education and Employment.
Derry, S. J., & Lajoie, S. P. (1993). A middle camp for (un)intelligent instructional computing: An
introduction. In S. P. Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 1-11).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
De Vaney, A. (Ed.). (1994). Watching Channel One" The convergence of students, technology,
and private business. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Directorate of School Education, Victoria. (1994). Technologies for enhanced learning: Current
and future uses of technologies in school education . Melbourne, Victoria, Australia:
Directorate of School Education.
Donnerstein, E., Fairchild, H., Feshbach, N., Katz, P., & Huston, A. C. (1993). Big world, small
screen: The role of television in American society. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska
Press.
Dorr, A. (1992). Television. In M. C. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (6th Ed.)
(pp. 1397-1400). New York: Macmillan.
Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and
delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational
communications and technology (pp. 170-198). New York: Macmillan.
Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (Eds.). (1992). Constructivism and the technology of instruction:
A conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

38
Duffy, T. M., Lowyck, J., & Jonassen, D. H. (Eds.). (1993). Designing environments for
constructive learning. Berlin, German: Springer.
Edelson, D. C. (1997). Realizing authentic scientific learning through the adaptation of scientific
practice. In K. Tobin & B. Fraser (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education .
Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.
Edelson, D. C., Pea, R. D., & Gomez, L. (1996). Contructivism in the collaboratory. In B. Wilson
(Ed.), Constructivist learning environments (pp. 151-164). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Educational Technology.
Farley, F. H. (1982). The future of educational research. Educational Researcher, 11(8), 11-19.
Fisher, C., Dwyer, D. C., & Yocam, K. (Eds.). (1996). Education and technology: Reflections on
computing in the classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fletcher, J. D., Hawley, D. E., Piele, P. K. (1990). Costs, effects and utility of microcomputer
assisted instruction in the classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 783-
806.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach:
New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1982). Art, mind and brain: A cognitive approach to creativity. New York: Basic
Books.
Gettas, G. J. (1990). The globalization of Sesame Street: A producer's perspective. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 38(4), 55-63.
Glickman, C. (Ed.). (1997). Revolutionizing America's schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gomez, L. M., & Gordin, D. N. (1996). Establishing project-enhanced classrooms through
design. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education,
Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
Good, T. L., & McCaslin, M. M. (1992). Teaching effectiveness. In M. C. Alkin (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of educational research (6th Ed.) (pp. 1373-1388). New York: Macmillan.
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Grabinger, R. S. (1996). Rich environments for active learning. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.),
Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 665-692). New
York: Macmillan.
Greenfield, P. M. (1984). Mind and media: The effects of television, video games, and computers.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (1997). Survey of instructional development models. (2nd ed.).
Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology.
Hannafin, M. J., Hannafin, K. M., Hooper, S. R., Rieber, L. P., & Kini, A. S. (1996). Research on
and research with emerging technologies. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for
educational communications and technology (pp. 378-402). New York: Macmillan.
Harel, I. (Ed.). (1991). Children designers: Interdisciplinary constructions for learning and
knowing mathematics in a computer-rich school. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Hartley, J. R., & Sleeman, D. H. (1973). Towards more intelligent teaching systems. International
Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 2, 215-236.
Hays, K. E., Weingard, P., Guzdial, M., Jackson, S., Boyle, R. A., & Soloway, E. (1994).
Students as multimedia composers. Computers and Education, 23(4), 301-317.

39
Honebein, P. C. (1996). Seven goals for the design of constructivist learning environments. In B.
Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments (pp. 11-24). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Educational Technology.
Hunt, M. M. (1997). How science takes stock: The story of meta-analysis. New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
Johnson, J. (1987). Electronic learning: From audiotape to videodisc. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Jonassen, D. H. (1996a). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.). (1996b). Handbook of research for educational communications and
technology. New York: Macmillan.
Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive
tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and
technology (pp. 693-719). New York: Macmillan.
Jonassen, D. H., Wilson, B. G., Wang, S., & Grabinger, R. S. (1993). Constructivistic uses of
expert systems to support learning. Journal of Computer Based Instruction, 20(3), 86-94.
Kafai, Y., & Resnick, M. (Eds.). (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and
learning in a digital world. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kommers, P., Jonassen, D. H., & Mayes, T. (Eds.). (1992). Cognitive tools for learning. Berlin:
Springer Verlag.
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19.
Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179-212.
Krendl, K. A., Ware, W. H., Reid, K. A., & Warren, R. (1996). Learning by any other name:
Communication research traditions in learning and media. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook
of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 93-111). New York:
Macmillan.
Kulik, C.-L., & Kulik, J. A. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated
analysis. Computers and Human Behavior, 7(1/2), 75-94.
Kulik, C.-L., & Kulik, J. A. (1986). Effectiveness of computer-based education in colleges. AEDS
Journal, 19(2/3), 81-108.
Kulik, C.-L., Kulik, J. A., & Schwab, B. J. (1986). Effectiveness of computer-based adult
education: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(2), 235-252.
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C-L. (1987). Review of recent research literature on computer-based
instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12, 222-230.
Kulik, J. A., Kulik, C.-L., & Bangert-Drowns, R. (1985). Effectiveness of computer-based
education on elementary pupils. Computers in Human Behavior, 1(1), 59-74.
Lai, K.-W. (1993). LEGO-Logo as a learning environment. Journal of Computing in Childhood
Education, 4(3/4), 229-245.
Lajoie, S. P., & Derry, S. J. (Eds.). (1993). Computers as cognitive tools. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Larkin, J. (Ed.). (1991). Computer assisted instruction and intelligent tutoring systems: Shared
goals and complementary approaches. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lehrer, R. (1993). Authors of knowledge: Patterns of hypermedia design. In S. P. Lajoie & S. J.
Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 197-227). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

40
Lehrer, R., Erickson, J., & Connell, T. (1994). Learning by designing hypermedia documents.
Computers in Schools, 10(1-2), 227-254.
Leonard, J. (1997). Smoke and mirrors: Violence, television, and other American cultures. New
York: New Press.
Lovelace, V. (1990). Sesame Street as a continuing experiment. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 38(4), 17-24.
Makrakis, V., & Yuan-tu, L. (1993). Informatics, development, and education: The case of China.
Educational Technology, 33(9), 31-37.
Mielke, K. W. (1990). Research and development at the Children's Television Workshop.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(4), 7-16.
Milton, K., & Spradley, P. (1996). A renaissance of the renaissance: Using HyperStudio for
research projects. Learning and Leading with Technology, 23(6), 20-22.
Mitzel, H. E. (Ed.). (1982). Encyclopedia of educational research (5th Ed.). New York:
Macmillan.
Molenda, M., Russell, J. D., & Smaldino, S. (1998). Trends in media and technology in education
and training. In R. M. Branch & M. A. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Educational media and technology
yearbook (Vol. 23, pp. 2-10). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Moore, D. M., Burton, J. K., & Myers, R. J. (1996). Multiple-channel communication: The
theoretical and research foundations of multimedia. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of
research for educational communications and technology (pp. 851-875). New York:
Macmillan.
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH). (1982). Television and behavior: Ten years of
scientific progress and implications for the eighties (DHHS Publication No. 82-1195).
Rockville, MD: National Institutes of Mental Health.
Neuman, S. B. (1995). Literacy in the television age: The myth of the TV effect. (2nd ed.).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Norman, D. A. (1983). Some observations on mental models. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens
(Eds.), Mental models . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Oettinger, A. G. (1969). Run, computer, run: The mythology of educational innovation. New
York: Collier Books.
Oppenheimer, T. (1997, July). The computer delusion. The Atlantic Monthly, pp. 45-62.
Oteiza, F. L. (1993). The impact of computer technology on schools in Chile. Educational
Technology, 33(9), 25-31.
Papert, S. (1993). The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New
York: Basic Books.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
Pea, R. D. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using the computer to reorganize mental functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 167-182.
Pea, R. D., & Kurland, D. M. (1987). On the cognitive effects of learning computer programming.
In R. D. Pea & K. Sheingold (Eds.), Mirrors of minds: Patterns of experience in educational
computing (pp. 147-177). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Perelman, L. J. (1992). School's out: Hyperlearning, the new technology, and the end of
education. New York: William Morrow.

41
Perkins, D. N. (1993). Person-plus: A distributed view of thinking and learning. In G. Salomon
(Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 88-110).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Polson, M. C., & Richardson, J. J. (Eds.). (1988). Foundations of intelligent tutoring systems.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Popyack, J. L. (1989). Karel (Computer software). Santa Barbara, CA: Intellimation.
Postman, N. (1995). The end of education: Redefining the value of school. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf.
Postman, N. (1994). The disappearance of childhood. New York: Vintage Books.
Postman, N. (1985). Amusing ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of show business.
New York: Penguin Books.
President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology. (1997, March). Report on the use
of technology to strengthen K-12 education in the United States (http://www.whitehouse.gov/
WH/EOP/OSTP/NSTC/PCAST/k-12ed.html). Washington, DC: The White House.
Ragan, T. J., & Smith, P. L. (1996). Conditions-based models for designing instruction. In D. H.
Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp.
541-569). New York: Macmillan.
Reeves, T. C. (1997). Established and emerging evaluation paradigms for instructional design. In
C. Dills & A. Romiszowski, (Eds.), Instructional development paradigms (pp. 163-178).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
Reeves, T. C. (1993). Pseudoscience in computer-based instruction: The case of learner control
research. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 20(2), 39-46.
Reeves, T. C., Harmon, S. W., & Jones, M. G. (1993). Computer-based instruction in developing
countries: A feasibility assessment model. Educational Technology, 33(9), 58-64.
Reid, R. L. (1994). Reading, using, and creating media: The development of a definition of media
education and guidelines for media use. In Bertelsmann Foundation (Ed.), Media as a
challenge - Education as a task (pp. 49-55). Gütersloh, Germany: Bertelsmann Foundation.
Resnick, M. (1997). Turtles, termites, and traffic jams: Explorations in massively parallel
microworlds. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
Resnick, M., & Ocko, S. (1994). LEGO/Logo: Learning through and about design. In S. Papert
(Ed.), Constructionism (pp. 141-150). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Resnick, M., & Ocko, S. (1990). LEGO/Logo: Learning through and about design. In I. Harel
(Ed.), Constructionist learning (pp. 121-128). Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Rieber, L. P. (1992). Computer-based microworlds: A bridge between constructivism and direct
instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 93-106.
Robinson, S. (1992). Integrated learning systems: Staff development is the key to implementation.
Educational Technology, 32(9), 40-43.
Salomon, G. (1992). New information technologies in education. In M. C. Alkin (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of educational research (6th Ed.) (pp. 892-903). New York: Macmillan.
Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1987). Skill may not be enough: The role of mindfulness in
learning and transfer. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 623-638.
Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human
intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2-9.
Sandholtz, J. H., & Ringstaff, C. (1996). Teacher change in technology-rich classrooms. In C.
Fisher, D. C. Dwyer, & K. Yocam (Eds.), Education and technology: Reflections on
computing in the classroom (pp. 281-299). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

42
Seels, B., Berry, L. H., Fullerton, K., & Horn, L. J. (1996). Research on learning from television.
In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and
technology (pp. 299-377). New York: Macmillan.
Seibert, W. F., & Ullmer, E. J. (1982). Media use in education. In H. E. Mitzel (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of educational research (5th Ed.) (pp. 1190-1202). New York: Macmillan.
Shahdan, T. S. T. (1993). Computers in Malaysian schools: Current developments and future
plans. Educational Technology, 33(9), 48-57.
Shute, V. J., & Psotka, J. (1996). Intelligent tutoring systems: Past, present, and future. In D. H.
Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp.
570-600). New York: Macmillan.
Signorielli, N. (1991). A sourcebook on children and television. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Simon, H. A. (1987). Computers and society. In S. B. Kiesler & L. S. Sproul (Eds.), Computing
and change on campus (pp. 4-15). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Skinner, B. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. New York: Appelton-Century-Crofts.
Spoehr, K. T. (1994). Enhancing the acquisition of conceptual structures through hypermedia. In
K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice .
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Spoehr, K. T. (1993, April, ). Profiles of hypermedia authors: How students learn by doing. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, Atlanta,
GA.
Spoehr, K. T., & Shapiro, A. (1991). Learning from hypermedia: Making sense of a multiply-
linked database (ERIC Document ED333864).
Stone, R. (1997). New ways to teach using cable television: A step-by-step guide. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Tanner, D. (1998). The social consequences of bad research. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(5), 345-349.
Taylor, R. (Ed.). (1980). The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee. New York: Teachers
College Press.
von Glaserfeld, E. (1989). An exposition of constructivism: Why some like it radical. In R. B.
Davis, C. A. Maher, & N. Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views on the teaching and learning
of mathematics . Athens, GA: JRME Monographs.
von Wodtke, M. (1993). Mind over media: Creative thinking skills for electronic media. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Waxman, H. C., & Bright, G. W. (Eds.). (1993). Approaches to research on teacher education
and technology. Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in
Education.
White, S. H., & Kuhn, T. (1997). A comparison of elementary students' information recall on text
documents, oral reading, and multimedia presentations. Journal of Computing in Childhood
Education, 8(1), 15-21.
Wiburg, K. (1995). Integrated learning systems: What does the research say? The Computing
Teacher, 22(5), 7-10.
Wilson, B. G. (Ed.). (1996). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional
design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
Winn, M. (1985). The plug-in drug/ Television, children, and the family. New York: Viking Press.
Winn, W. (1989). Toward a rationale and theoretical basis for educational technology.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(1), 35-46.
Wittrock, M. C. (1974). Learning as a generative activity. Educational Psychologist, 11, 87-95.

43
Young, M. F., Nastasi, B. K., & Braunhardt, L. (1996). Implementing Jasper immersion: A case
of conceptual change. In B. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments (pp. 121-
133). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

44