This article proposes a taxonomy to aid decision makers in selecting computer software that is consistent with the their values and preferences for instruction. It builds on two interrelated arguments: 1) the nature of instruction and the use of information technology derive from a conceptual framework that is embedded in an explicit or implicit belief about the nature of human development and learning, and 2) due to the value nature of instruction, the instructional beliefs embedded in software should be congruent with the decision maker's beliefs underlying instruction.
The taxonomy consists of three components: characteristics of patterns of instruction, properties of software, and the congruence between them. These components are interrelated in a mapping sentence [1] that maps characteristics of instruction onto properties of software. The taxonomy refers to two types of educational decision makers. Believers, whose decisions are predetermined by a belief commitment and orchestrators, whose decisions are heuristically taken. Decisions for believers are straight forward; decisions for orchestrators are more complicated and depend on contextual factors represented in the mapping sentence. Links between research findings and the taxonomy are presented and illustrate the taxonomy's use and its utility in predicting real world decisions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GuttmanL., Integration of Test Design and Analysis, in Proceedings of the 1969 Invitational Conference on Testing Problems, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, 1969.
2.
TaylorR., The Computer in the School: Tutor, Tool, Tutee, Teachers College Press, New York & London, 1980.
3.
SolomonC., Computer Environments for Children, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1986.
4.
KeelingR.WhitemanS., (eds.), Evidence to the Design and Technology Working Group, MICRO-SCOPE25, pp. 13–20, October, 1988.
5.
RushbyH., Styles of Computer Based Learning, in Using Microcomputers in Schools, ColinT. (ed.), Croom Helm, London & Canberra, 1984.
6.
PattersonJ. H.SmithM. S., The Role of Computers in Higher-Order Thinking, in Eighty-Fifth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, CulberstonJ. A.CunninghamL. L., (eds.), NSSE, Chicago, (Part I, pp. 81–108), 1986.
7.
Give'onY. S., Computer Applications in Education: Dimensions and Conclusions, Unpublished paper. Tel-Aviv, 1987 (Hebrew).
8.
SchuecklerL. M.ShuellT. J., A Comparison of Software Evaluation Forms and Reviews, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5:1, pp. 17–33, 1989.
9.
ShuellT. J.SchuecklerL. M., Evaluating Instructional Software According to Principle of Learning and Teaching, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Research Association, New Orleans, April 1988.
10.
SimonH., Administrative Behavior: A Study in Decision-making Processes in Administrative Organizations, (3rd Edition), Free Press, New York, 1976.
11.
AllisonG. T., Essence of Decision, Little, Brown, Boston, 1971.
12.
ShavelsonR. J.SternP., Research on Teachers' Pedagogical Thoughts, Judgements, Decisions, and Behavior, Review of Educational Research, 51:4, pp. 455–498, Winter 1981.
13.
BeckerH. J., The Impact of Computer Use on Children's Learning: What Research Has Shown and What It Has Not. (Report No. 18), The Johns Hopkins University. Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools, Baltimore, Maryland, 1987.
14.
OTA (Office of Technology Assessment, US Congress), Power On: New Tools for Teaching and Learning, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1988.
15.
RoblyerM. D.CastineW. H.KingF. J., Assessing the Impact of Computer-Based Instruction. A Review of Recent Research, Computers in the Schools, 5:3/4, 1988.
16.
PeaR. D., The Aims of Software Criticism: Reply to Professor Papert, Educational Researcher, 16:1, pp. 4–8, June-July 1987.
17.
PeaR. D.KurlandD. M., On the Cognitive Effects of Learning Computer Programming, New Ideas in Psychology, 2:2, pp. 137–168, 1984.
18.
PeaR. D.KurlandD. M., Logo Programming and Problem-solving, Technical Report #12, The Bank Street College of Education, The Center for C&T, New York, 1984.
19.
ResnickL. B., Education and Learning to Think, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1987.
20.
ShavelsonR. J., The 1988 Presidential Address. Contributions of Educational Research to Policy and Practice: Constructing, Challenging, Changing Cognition, Educational Researcher, 17:1, pp. 4–11, October 1988.
21.
WinklerJ. D.ShavelsonR. J.StaszC.RobynA. E.FeibelW., Pedagogically Sound Use of Microcomputers in Classroom Instruction, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13, pp. 285–293, 1985.
22.
ResnickL. B., Constructing Knowledge in School, in Development and Learning: Conflict or Congruence?, LibenL. S. (ed.), Earlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 19–50, 1987.
Give'onY. S., Taxonomy of Educational Software, Proceedings of The Fifth International Conference on Technology and Education, Edinburgh, pp. 480–483, 1988.
26.
SalomonG., Information Technologies: What You See Is Not (Always) What You Get, Educational Researcher, 20:4, pp. 207–216, 1985.
27.
ClementsD. H., Computers in Elementary Mathematics Education, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1989.
28.
EdigerM., Philosophy of Microcomputer Use in Mathematics Curriculum, Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, VIII:1, pp. 32–45, Fall, 1988.
29.
ShavelsonR. J.WinklerJ. D.StaszC.FeibelW.RobynA. E.ShahaS., Teaching Mathematics and Science: Patterns of Microcomputer Use, Rand, Santa Monica, 1984.
30.
FenstermacherG. D.BerlinerD. C., A Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of Staff Development, Rand, Santa Monica, California, 1983.
31.
LevyS., Mapping Sentence for Coordinating Theory and Research: A Cross-cultural Example, Quality and Quantity, 10, pp. 117–125, 1976.
32.
BrownJ., An Introduction to the Use of Facet Theory, in Facet Theory: Approaches to Social Research, CanterD., (ed.), Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 17–57, 1985.
33.
ShyeS. (ed.), Theory Construction and Data Analysis in the Behavioral Sciences, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, 1978.
34.
ShyeS., On the Search for Laws in the Behavioral Sciences, in Theory Construction and Data Analysis in the Behavioral Sciences, ShyeS., (ed.), Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, pp. 2–24.
35.
LevyS., Lawful Roles of Facets in Social Theory, in Facet Theory: Approaches to Social Research, CanterD., (ed.), Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 59–96, 1985.
36.
BloomB. S., (ed.), EngelhartM. D.FurstE. J.HillW. H.KrathwohlD. R., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, David McKay Company, Inc., New York.
37.
HensonK. T.BorthwickP., Matching Styles: A Historical Look, Theory and Practice, 23:1, pp. 3–9, 1984.
38.
TharpR. G.RolandG.GallimoreR., Rousing Minds to Life, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1988.
39.
WertschJ. V. (ed.), Culture Communication, and Cognition: Vygotskian Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985.
40.
BrunerJ. S., Toward a Theory of Instruction, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1966.
41.
CohenD. K., Educational Technology and School Organization, in Technology in Education: Looking Toward 2000, NickersonR. S.ZodhiatesP. R., (eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1988.
42.
PapertS., Introduction, in Constructionist Learning, HarelI. (ed.), The Media Laboratory, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 1–8, 1990.
43.
BennettN. with JordanJ.LongG.WadeB., Teaching Styles and Pupil Progress, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1976.
44.
BereiterC.ScardamaliaM., Intentional Learning as a Goal of Instruction, in Knowing, Learning and Instruction, Essays in honor of Robert Glaser, ResnickL. B. (ed.), Earlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 361–392, 1989.
45.
WittrockM. C., Learning as a Generative Process, Educational Psychologist, 11, pp. 87–95, 1989.
46.
TrumbullD. J., Case Study. Computer-Generated Challenge to School Culture: One Teacher's Story, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21:5, pp. 457–469, 1989.
47.
PeledZ.PeledE.AlexanderG., Ecology and Experimentation in the Evaluation of Information Technology Interventions in Natural Classroom Settings, Studies in Educational Evaluation, in press.
48.
PeledZ.PeledE.AlexanderG., An Ecological Approach for Information Technology Intervention, Evaluation and Software Adoption Policies, in book on Assessment of Information Technology in Education, BakerE. L. (ed.), (Title not yet final), in press.
49.
PeledZ.PeledE.AlexanderG., Computerization of an Israeli School System; Project Comptown 1985/86 – 1989/90, in Information Technology Enriched Schools, CollisB. A. (ed.), (Title not yet final), in press.
