• five important areas: learning, assessment, teaching, infrastructure, and productivity.
• three key tech trends: information mobility and accessibility; the rise of digital content; and the use of online social interaction and collaboration for learning.
• Manor New Tech High School in Manor, TX
• Manor's leaders credit their success to project-based learning and to full and integrated use of technology, Duncan says.

2 more annotations...

• Designs for Learning Environments of the Future

     

   

   

  International Perspectives from the Learning Sciences

       

         

     

  Jacobson, Michael J.; Reimann, Peter (Eds.)

   

     

       

  1st Edition., 2010, XI, 268 p. 100 illus., 50 in color., Hardcover

   

  ISBN: 978-0-387-88278-9

• The plan includes recommendations, a research agenda and goals examining the following five areas:
  

  • Empowering all learners in and outside of school to be active, creative, and knowledgeable participants in our global society.
  • Assessment focuses on shifting from too narrow measurement of skills in the past to measuring what truly matters today. Additionally, how to use new technologies to measure everyone responsibly.
  • Teaching builds on connecting teachers to informal learning happening inside but also outside of the school. By broadening the education system, this can lead to making teachers feel less alone.
  • Infrastructure examines how to use emerging infrastructure like cell phones and laptops in the classroom and schools.
  • Productivity leverages technology expenses in a time when there are tremendous cuts happening in education. This goal explores how to spend money in different ways where schools can decrease some expenditures while increasing others.

• Rigorous and Socially Responsible Interactive Learning Research

    

  Thomas C. Reeves, Editor

    

    College of Education, The University of Georgia 

    

    Athens, GA 30602-7144, USA 

    

  treeves@coe.uga.edu

    

  The Journal of Interactive Learning Research debuts when the need for rigorous and socially responsible research into the design, implementation, effectiveness, and impact of interactive learning is paramount. In a recent cover story in The Atlantic Monthly, Oppenheimer (1997) begins “There is no evidence that most uses of computers significantly improve teaching and learning....” (p. 45), and claims that computers threaten to diminish the reading, writing, and self-expression skills of students while at the same time crushing their imaginations and stunting their socialization. Although this particular attack on interactive learning is limited to the United States of America, similar critiques have appeared in other countries where large investments have been made in interactive learning systems for education and training.

    

  Despite the polemical nature of such critiques, the interactive learning research community must face the reality that our efforts have failed to provide adequate guidance for developers and practitioners. Others already recognize this inadequacy. In March 1997, the U.S. President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology called for “a large-scale program of rigorous, systematic research on education in general and educational technology in particular...to ensure both the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of technology use within our nation’s schools” (p. 6). To provide guidance for real-world practice, research must be both rigorous and socially responsible. Rigor involves adherence to the basic principles of science that all researchers must follow, regardless of specific methodological preferences. These include the application of logical procedures that other researchers can apply and an openness to peer review. Scientific paradigms differ with respect to assumptions about the nature of reality and the values placed on different methods of inquiry, but few serious researchers question the fundamental pillars of logical processes, verifiability, and peer review.

    

  Social responsibility, on the other hand, is an issue open to debate. Some researchers maintain that socially responsible research must directly address problems that detract from the quality of life for individuals and groups in society, whereas others suggest that all interactive learning research is socially responsible simply because it deals with questions of how ty is misplaced, arguing that the goal of research is knowledge in and of itself, and that whether research is socially responsible is a question that lies outside the bounds of science.

    

  This debate has raged for decades among educational researchers. For example, as reported by Farley (1982), Gage, a past president of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), asserted that the goal of basic research in education is simply “more valid and more positive conclusions” (p. 12), whereas another past president of AERA, Ebel, proclaimed that “the value of basic research in education is severely limited” (p. 18). More recently, Gage argued for more basic research that would yield “models at a level of validity and detail that will come closer to the standards set by theories in the natural sciences” (p. 19), whereas Scriven, yet another AERA past president, stated that the educational research community “has almost entirely failed to discharge its principal duty to the society that supports it. That duty...is to identify educational best practice and improve it” (pp. 19-20) (Cooley, Gage, & Scriven, 1997).

    

  There is insufficient room in this brief introduction to examine adequately all the issues concerning the rigor and social relevance of interactive learning research. However, the following editorial policy can be stated. As guided by the distinguished members of our Editorial Review Board, the Editors of this journal shall strive to ensure that the research published herein meets the highest standards for both scientific rigor and social responsibility. As described in Reeves (1997), this journal will also publish other types of scholarly works, including “viewpoint” papers, some of which may present different perspectives regarding issues of rigor and social value. This debate is an important one that must be continued in these pages as well as in other research forums.

• Gagne, R. M. (Ed.). (1987). "Instructional technology: Foundations."   Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Saettler, P. E. (1990). "The evolution of American educational technology."   Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
• Thompson, A., Simonson, M., & Hargrave, C. (1996). "Educational   technology: A review of the research (2nd ed.)." Washington, DC: Association for   Educational Communications and Technology.
• Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.). (1996). Handbook of research for educational   communications and technology. New York: Macmillan Library Reference.
• Richey, R. & Fields, D. (Eds.). (In Press). Instructional design   competencies: Essential and advanced professional standards. Syracuse, NY: ERIC   Clearinghouse on Information & Technology
• M. Tessmer and J. Wedman,  "The practice of instructional design: A survey of what designers do, don't do,   an why they don't do it"

• The most frequently read journals include:  

  * "British Journal of Educational Technology," published by Blackwell   Publishers Limited, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1FH, United Kingdom  

  * "Learning and Leading with Technology," published by ISTE. "Innovations in   Education and Training International," published by AETT, Kogan Page Ltd., 120   Pentonville Rd., London N1 9JN, United Kingdom  

  * "Educational Technology," published by Educational Technology Publications,   700 Palisade Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632  

  * "Educational Technology Research and Development," published by AECT. 1800   North Stonelake Drive, Bloomington, IN 47404  

  * "Journal of Research on Computing in Education," published by ISTE. 1787   Agate Street, Eugene, OR 97403-1923  

  * "TechTrends," published by AECT. 1800 North Stonelake Drive, Bloomington,   IN 47404  
• * Plomp, T. & Ely, D. P. (Eds.). (1996). "The international encyclopedia   of educational technology (2nd ed.)." New York: Elsevier Science.
• * Branch, R. M., & Fitzgerald, M. A. (Eds.). (2000). "Educational media   and technology yearbook." Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
• * Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J., & Smaldino, S. (1999).  "Instructional media and technologies for learning (6th ed.)." New York:   Macmillan.
• * Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1996). "The systematic design of instruction   (4th ed.)." Harper Collins College. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Co.

9 more annotations...