网络环境下高中英语作文训练探索
附录三 英文原文及翻译 英文原文
The Meanings of Educational Technology
Relationship to the concept of performance technology
In the years since the last major reconsideration of definitions the related concept of performance technology (PT) has grown in visibility. Rooted primarily in the world of corporate training and organization development, PT refers to a holistic approach to improving human performance in the workplace, not only through instruction but also through other interventions, such as job aids and incentive programs. Its kinship to instructional technology is reflected in this description: (PT)…uses the tools of technology and the objectivity of analysis, design and evaluation procedures. It then links training, environmental redesign, feedback systems or incentive systems to measure performance and build credibility for the interventions that are applied (Stolovitch and Keeps, 1992). Training, or instructional interventions, are seen as one possible part of a holistic approach to improving performance. The appropriate combination of interventions is determined through a systematic process akin to that used in systematic instructional design. Thus, PT is a larger concept that partially subsumes educational or instructional technology. It does not replace educational or instructional technology. It does, however, clarify that educational or instructional technology deal with just one dimension of organizational improvement—the reduction of ignorance.
Assumptions behind the Definition
Early in its deliberations the committee discussed the criteria to be met by this definition.
First, it is a general definition, one that should be understandable to non-specialists, as opposed to a scientific definition, one that attempts to describe some phenomenon in technically precise terms. Further, it is primarily a stipulative definition, stipulating or prescribing the elements of the concept and its boundaries in ideal terms rather than claiming to be based on observations of what a particular group of people actually do in practice.
Second, like any useful definition, this one intends to be clear, precise, and unambiguous, and to draw boundaries indicating what is included, what is excluded, what is central, and what is peripheral.
Third, one of the major departures from past AECT definitional efforts is to refer explicitly to core values implied in educational technology. While technology might be viewed by some as a value neutral force, its application to educational purposes entails concerns, both for the learner and for the educational system. That is, there is no point in approaching education “technologically” unless one is attempting to improve the quality of the learner’s experience and to do it in a way that also makes sense for the organization.
Fourth, this definition is meant to be connected with AECT’s most recent prior definition: “Instructional technology is the theory and practice of design, development, utilization, management and evaluation of processes and resources for learning” (Seels and Richey, 1994). It incorporates all the major elements of that definition, albeit with somewhat different vocabulary, different emphases, and some additional elements. The current definition is viewed as an improvement and updating of the 1994 definition, not a fundamental reconceptualization. It intends to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary in spirit.
Fifth, the new definition is sensitive to the standards for the accreditation of university programs preparing teachers and specialists in the educational technology field. The Educational Communications and
31
网络环境下高中英语作文训练探索
Instructional Technology (ECIT) standards approved in 2000 require that such programs be grounded in the knowledge base of the field. The knowledge base is considered to be categorized into the “domains” of design, development, utilization, management, and evaluation. These “domains” are taken from the 1994 AECT definition, so it is reasonable to expect that future standards may be affected by this new definition. Hence, maintaining some parallelism between the old definition and the new was deemed to be helpful to future standards writers.
Likewise, the committee specified that the underlying spirit and key elements of a new definition should also be aligned with the mission statement currently embraced by AECT: “to provide international leadership by promoting scholarship and best practices in the creation, use, and management of technologies for effective teaching and learning in a wide range of settings.”
Finally, the new definition should be as inclusive as possible of the ideas and work of members of AECT and others who work in the field of educational technology, while not being constrained by the nomenclature of existing academic departments or other organizational units. Purposes and audience
There are numerous possible purposes to be served by a definition project of this sort: to draw boundaries vis-à-vis other fields, to promote the public acceptance of the field, to recruit students and practitioners into the field, to provide parameters for accrediting standards, to provide a common terminology for discussion within the field, and to inform students and other newcomers of the key ideas and values we embrace. This definition is intended to serve all of these purposes.
These divers purposes speak to divers audiences—students entering the field, teaching faculty, colleagues, educational administrators with whom we deal, and practitioners in the corporate, military, and other organizational sectors. Again, this definition is intended to speak clearly to all of these audiences. For this reason, it should avoid technical terminology while expressing relationships that are understood within the field to be sometimes complex and subtle.
A definition statement of this sort also plays a public-relations role: to explain to outsiders why the
field professes itself as a separate field and why this field deserves public recognition and support. This means that the statement must proclaim the values it embraces, and it must express its claim of public benefit—how this concept and the people who practice it contribute to society. In this new definition statement we profess our commitment to “ethical practice,” “appropriate processes,” and “better” facilitation of learning. The field thereby claims to be able to help society accomplish one of its major goals—the reduction of ignorance—in ways that are more efficacious than those used by others.
Historical Antecedents
The intellectual history of educational technology—how the concept evolved over time— is
elaborated in Educational technology: the development of a concept (Januszewski, 2001). The concept emerged over a period of years with the converging of several streams of thought. AECT as an organization began in 1923 as the Department of Visual Instruction of the National Education Association. Its initial mission was to promote understanding of the role of visual media in education, but over the years the conversation came to include ideas drawn from other fields, including systems theory, behaviorist psychology, industrial technology, and communication theory, as well as audiovisual media. In the 1960s a new, hybrid concept was emerging. It was strongly influenced by the revolutionary educational ideas promulgated by B. F. Skinner and the behaviorists, symbolized by Skinner’s influential book Technology of teaching, published in the UK in 1965 and in the US in 1968.
Early in the 1960s the semantics of the conversation had become complex enough to motivate the
association (at that time, the Department of Audio-Visual Instruction) to appoint a committee to formulate an explicit definition of the concept and a set of related terms. The result (Ely, 1963) was, admittedly, a
32
网络环境下高中英语作文训练探索
compromise, settling on the term “audiovisual communications” as the central concept, a label that would serve until a consensus emerged around a different label.
By 1970 the tide had turned toward the label of educational technology, although strong allegiance continued to the communications concept, so a new compromise was reached in 1970 to rename the association as Association for Educational Communications and Technology. In1972 the association adopted a new definition (AECT, 1972), now adopting educational technology as the central concept: Educational technology is a field involved in the facilitation of human learning through the systematic identification, development, organization and utilization of a full range of learning resources and through the management of these processes (p. 36). The 1972 definition proclaims educational technology as a field as well as a concept, and the focus shifts from audiovisual media—learning resources—to the process of creating the using those resources. The process is specified as a systematic one, reflecting the legacy of systems theory as a source of theoretical constructs.
A later, comprehensive revision of the definition and terminology of the field (AECT, 1977)
continued to define educational technology as a process, a way of thinking about how to help people learn better. The most recent AECT definition (AECT, 1994) again continued the process focus, although now using “instructional technology” as the core concept: Instructional technology is the theory and practice of design, development, utilization, management and evaluation of processes and resources for learning. The new definition consciously builds on the traditions of these earlier definitions.
Of course, professional associations are not the only source of definitions of educational technology.
In 1970, quite early in the evolution of the educational technology concept, a US government-sponsored commission provided a quasi-official definition for “instructional technology”: A systematic way of designing, implementing and evaluating the total process of learning and teaching in terms of specific objectives, based on research in human learning and communication and employing a combination of human and non human resources to bring about more effective instruction (Commission on Instructional Technology)
This definition, given its mantle of authority and widespread diffusion, was influential in promoting
the “process” meaning of the term. Its references to “systematic,” “based on research,” and “more effective” instruction, highlighted the centrality of those values to the field. Specialized dictionaries and encyclopedias related to education also have offered definitions. A 1988 dictionary reflects both the “product” and “process” concepts in its two-part definition: Educational technology: 1. The media that are products of the application of science to educational problems. 2. A systematic approach to solving the problems of instruction that includes the development of instructional systems, identifications of resources, and the delivery of those resources to students(Shafritz, Koeppe, and Soper)
A more recent encyclopedia entry for “instructional technology” also embraces the product and
process concepts in describing the field as: The art and science of designing, producing, and using—with economy and elegance—solutions to instructional problems; these solutions may combine verbal or audiovisual media and may be experienced with or without human mediation and may take the form of lessons, courses, or whole systems that facilitate learning efficiently, effectively, and humanely (Kovalchick and Dawson, 2004).
This statement also reflects the necessity of including value terms in defining a field: “with
economy and elegance,” “efficiently, effectively, and humanely.” These precedents have helped inform the work of the committee; they provide part of the intellectual context for the new definition.
Conclusion
What is proposed here is a revised definition of the concept of educational technology, built upon
AECT’s most recent prior definition of instructional technology (Seels and Richey, 1994). It is a tentative
33
网络环境下高中英语作文训练探索
definition, subject to further reconsideration over time. Educational technology is viewed as a construct that is larger than instructional technology, as education is more general than instruction. Further, educational or instructional technology can be seen as discrete elements within performance technology, the holistic approach to improving performance in the workplace through many different means, including training.
The concept of educational technology must be distinguished from the field and the profession of
educational technology. The validity of each can be judged separately from the others and can be judged by different criteria.
This definition differs from previous ones in several regards.
First, the term “study” instead of “research” implies a broader view of the many forms of inquiry,
including reflective practice.
Second, it makes an explicit commitment to ethical practice.
Third, the object of educational technology is cast as “facilitating learning,” a claim more modest
than that of controlling or causing learning.
Fourth, it is intentional that learning is placed at the center of the definition, to highlight the
centrality of learning to educational technology. It is the goal of promoting learning that is distinctive about the field, compared to other fields with which it might be conflated, such as information technology or performance technology.
Fifth, “improving performance” implies a quality criterion, a goal of facilitating learning better than is
done with approaches other than Educational Technology, leading to usable skills, not just inert knowledge.
Sixth, it describes the major functions of the field (creation, use, and management) in broader, less
technical terms than previous definitions in order to reflect an eclectic view of the design process.
Seventh, it specifies that the tools and methods of the field be “appropriate,” meaning suited to the
people and conditions to which they are applied. Finally, it makes the attribute of “technological” explicit, with the rationale that tools and methods that are not technological fall outside the boundaries of the field.
The terms “improving” and “appropriate” are explicitly included in the definition in order to
recognize the centrality of such values to the core meaning of educational technology. If the work of the field is not done “better” by professionals than it is by amateurs, the field has no justification for public recognition or support. It must represent some specialized expertise that is applied with professional soundness.
中文翻译
教育技术的涵义
与绩效技术概念的关系
自上次对定义的主要思考起到现在这些年间，绩效技术（PT）相关的概念显而易见地发展起来了。由于主要是根植于企业培训和组织发展中，绩效技术（PT）是指在工作现场提升人类绩效的整体的方法，它不仅通过教学，同时还通过诸如职业辅导和激励项目来干预的方式。它与教学技术的密切关系在下面这个描述中得以反映：
绩效技术（PT）......采用技术工具和分析、设计与评价程序的客观性。那么它与培训、环境再设计、反馈系统或激励系统相联系，来测量绩效，建立所运用的干预的可信度（Stolovitch和Keeps，1992）。
培训，或教学干预，是被视为促进绩效的整体性方法的一个必要组成部分。通过一个与在系统化教学设计中所使用的相类似的系统化过程，来确定对干预的适当组合方式。因而，绩效技术（PT）是一个大概念，它部分地包含教育技术或教学技术。它不能取代教育技术或教学技术。然而，它的确可以解释清楚，教育技术或教学技术处理的只是组织改善的一个维度——减少无知。
定义背后的假设
34
网络环境下高中英语作文训练探索
早在慎重考虑定义之前，定义与术语专业委员会就讨论了这个定义必须达到的标准。首先，它是一个一般性定义，是一个能为非专业人士所理解的定义，它不同于试图用学术的专门的精确术语来描述一些现象科学定义。不仅如此，它主要是一个约定定义，是用想象中的术语，而不是根据对一特定组群的人在实践中的实际工作的观察，来约定或规定概念的要素及其边界。
其次，与任何有用的定义一样，这个定义试图是清晰的、准确的、和明确的，试图划出一个边界，说明包括什么，不包括什么，什么是中心，什么是周围。
第三，与过去AECT定义的努力一个主要不同就是，清楚地指出隐含在教育技术中的核心价值。当一些人把技术看作是一个价值中性的力量时，它被运用于教育目的才使它不仅对学习者有意义，而且对教育系统有意义。也就是说，除非人们试图提高学习者经验的质量，同时以一种也对机构有意义的方式运用它，不然接近技术性的教育就没有多大意义。
第四，这个定义必须与AECT晚近的那个定义相联系，那个定义是，\教学技术是指为了促进学习，对有关的过程和资源进行设计、开发、利用、管理和评价的理论与实践\（Seels and Richey,1994）。虽然使用了多少有些差异的词汇，不同的重点，以及一切另外的成分，但是这个新定义结合了那个定义的所有主要成分。当前的定义被视为是1994定义的一个改进和修正，而不是根本性地重新定义。这是演进性的而不是兴致勃勃地革命。
第五，这个新定义对为教育技术学领域培养教师和专家的大学计划的认证标准是敏感。在2000年获得批准的\教育传播和教学技术（ECIT）标准\要求此类计划必须扎根于这个领域的知识基础中。知识基础被分成了设计、开发、利用、管理和评价等范畴。这些范畴取自AECT1994定义，所以，理所当然地，我们期待这个定义能够影响未来的标准。因此，保持新、旧定义之间的某种平行就注定会对未来的标准作者有帮助。
同样地，定义与术语专业委员会指出，新定义的根本精神和核心要素也必须与AECT当前所信奉的使命结盟，其使命是\通过在各种情景中有效学习和教学的技术的创建、应用和管理方面提升学问和优秀的实践，从而确立领导地位\。
最后，新定义应该包容AECT的会员以及其他在教育技术学领域工作人士的观点和工作，同时又不能限制和约束现有的学术系科或其他组织机构的定义术语。
目的与受众
这种定义项目可能为多种可能的目的服务：为了划清与其他领域的边界，为了提升公众对该领域的接受程度，为了招收这个领域的学生和从业人员，为实践者提供认证标准的参考，为了提供一个在领域内讨论问题时使用的公共术语，以及为了向学生和其他新手告知我们所信奉的主要观念和价值观。这个定义打算为所有这些目的服务。
这些不同的目的应对不同的受众——进入这个领域的学生，教学人员，同事，我们面对的教育行政管理人员，以及在企业、军队、和其他组织部门工作的实践者。此外，这个定义打算向所有这些受众清晰地解释。正是由于这个原因，在表述那些在领域内有时是复杂的和琐碎的关系时，它必须避免使用专业的术语。
这种类型的定义陈述业扮演一个公共关系的角色：去向外人解释为什么这个领域声称是一个领域，以及为什么这个领域应受到公众的认可和支持。这就意味着，定义的陈述必须声明它所信奉的价值观，并且它必须表明它对公众利益的权利——这个概念和实践它的那些人们如何为社会做贡献。在这个新定义的陈述中，我们公开承认我们承担的义务对，即\符合道德规范的实践\、\适当的过程\，以及\更好\的促进学习。因此，这个领域坚持要能够以比所使用的其他方式更有效的方式，来帮助社会去实现自己的一个目标——即减少无知。
历史上的早期定义
教育技术学的理性的历史——概念如何随着时间的变化而变化——在《教育技术：一个概念的演进》（Januszewski,2001）一书中得以详尽分析。随着不同思想的汇聚交融，在经历了长期的时间变化后，
35