The Failure Of Unamid In Darfur Politics Essay

The Failure Of Unamid In Darfur Politics Essay Darfur has been called the worst humanitarian crisis of the 21st century. Since the Rwandan genocide in 1994, the world has not seen such a campaign of killing, refugees, rape and destruction. The crisis caused the death of 300  000 people and over 2.5 million displaced Sudanese since February 2003. This crisis attracted the attention of many humanitarian and human rights organizations, various states policy makers, and a number of regional and international organizations such as the African Union, the United Nations and the International Criminal Court. In 2004, the African Union established the Darfur Integrated Taskforce (DITF). In 2007, the continuing hazardous situation required the creation of a joined AU-UN operation to intervene in Darfur, which was called United Nations African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID). After three years of functioning of the UNAMID, the situation in Darfur still depicts a lot of human suffering and deprivation  [3]  . This suggests that the UNAMID was not effective in dealing with the crisis. To understand this, the paper will investigate the reasons behind the missions failure in achieving its objectives and goals. Hence, the study will try to answer the following question: why did UNAMID fail in Darfur? In other words, what are the reasons behind UNAMIDs ineffectiveness in Darfur? In fact, there are various reasons that can be investigated ranging from domestic to international, organizational to financial ones. However, given the limited time and knowledge, we will focus on two major reasons that we think created obstacles to the missions success. Thus, the hypothesis that we are willing to test is that UNAMID was not effective in Darfur because the Khartoum government didnt cooperate and the mission lacked resources. Before answering the question and testing the hypothesis, it is important to understand the conflict and its roots. For this purpose, we are going to divide the paper into three major parts. The first one will deal with defining the concepts, literature review and the theoretical framework. The second part will focus of the conflict. That is to say, it will give a background of the Darfurian situation before and after the 2003 conflict, explaining the origins of this latter and its key actors. The last part will deal with the UNAMID intervention. It will give an overview of the creation of the mission, an assessment of its work, and then a brief analysis of the causes of its ineffectiveness. Theoretical Framework Concepts Before analyzing UN peacekeeping operation (PKO) Darfur, we should first define the concept of peacekeeping and understand its role in order to be able to reflect on the UNAMID mission and its success or failure. Peacekeeping, as defined by the Cambridge dictionary, is the activity of preventing war and violence, especially the use of armed forces not involved in a disagreement to prevent fighting in an area. This definition is broad, and it does not specify the conditions under which the intervention can occur, nor the procedures that should be taken before that. For this purpose, we will take the definition of the UN and which defines peacekeeping as the deployment of international military and civilian personnel to a conflict area with the consent of the parties to the conflict in order to: stop or contain hostilities or supervise the carrying out of a peace agreement  [4]  . This definition adds two important points: the first one is that the interveners are international act ors, both military and civilians; and the second point stresses the agreement of the parties involved. It also exposes the role of these operations. This latter was further clarified by the International Peace Academy. It stated that the roles of the PKO are: the prevention, containment, moderation and termination of hostilities between and within states, through the medium of a peaceful third party intervention, using a multinational force of soldiers, police and civilians to restore and maintain peace. Hence, the developments in the practices and operations of peacekeeping resulted to the emergence of a set of concepts and terms that describe the different natures of the operations and tasks they undertake.  That is to say, peacekeeping has become a general concept which requires details of the selected sub-show style of operation that is intended in each particular case. These sub-divisions are defined in Boutous Ghalis Agenda for Peace. In this latter, he mentioned three conce pts: peacemaking, peace-keeping, and preventive diplomacy. The first one is defined as an action to prevent disputes from arising between parties, to prevent existing disputes from escalating into conflicts and to limit the spread of the latter when they occur, the second one as an action to bring hostile parties to agreement, essentially through such peaceful means as those foreseen in Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations, and the third as a technique that expands the possibilities for both the prevention of conflict and the making of peace. It is noted that some operations may combine the properties of more than one type of peacekeeping operation. That is to say, the mission may begin according to one of the patterns but the developments on the ground may drive it to shift to another type of operation.  It is further noted that the different sub-divisions of the peacekeeping operations run in parallel, meaning that they did not cancel each other since the world is still witnessing all of these processes in different parts of it, depending on the situation and the circumstances that require one operation over the others. Literature review During the Cold War, the United Nations Charter put an integrated system for collective security. Theoretically, the system has the necessary components to ensure its effectiveness, which are general principles and rules agreed on and shared, namely: a device responsible for making sure the states respect these principles, and giving it the resources and capabilities so that it can do  the task of deterrence or punishment for states that cross the limits agreed upon.  However, the implementation of this system was conditioned by the acceptance of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, which was impossible to achieve in most cases under the conditions of the cold war  [5]  . This created an obstacle for the implementation of the collective security system. In this case of polarization, the UN tried to find alternative mechanisms to deal with events of international violence and conflicts that arise in different areas throughout the world.  One of these mechanisms is the creation of peacekeeping operations. The creation of this latter was justified by the need to adopt methods designed to stop or contain conflicts that have turned into armed conflicts  [6]  . Besides, the PKOs would serve to deepen the gap that emerged between the arrangements set out in the Charter concerning reaching a peaceful settlement of disputes and contained in articles 28-33 (which gave the Security Council the main role in assisting States to resolve problems among themselves)  [7]  as well as the arrangements set out in articles 39   51 (under which the UN Security Council has the right to use force to impose peace)  [8]  on the one hand, and the possibilities for the actual implementation of these arrangements on the other hand. Thus, the UN interventions rose from only 14 between 1947 and 1987, to 32 between 1988 and 1997  [9]  . Particularly, UN intervention in Africa in extensive regarding the number of peacekeeping operations which are 27 in Africa compared to 39 in the rest of the world  [10]  . This can be explained by the various wars that occurred and occur in Africa, both inter and intra-states conflicts that differ in this severity, and that range from the dispute over land like the case of Benin, to the ethnic cleansing and genocide such as Rwanda. In 2003, the Office of the Special Adviser on Africa (OSAA) was created. Its goals are as follows: enhance international support for Africas development and security through its advocacy and analytical work,  assist the Secretary General in improving coherence and coordination of the UN system support to Africa, andfacilitate inter-governmental deliberations on Africa at the global level, in particular relating to the New Partnership for Africas Development (NEPAD)  [11]  . Moreover, the outcomes of the UN intervention in Africa are different, depending on the situation and the circumstances. Some of them manage to achieve the missions goals and hence are successful, others fail to implement the goals or part of them. Rhazaoui illustrates this idea by giving examples. He said: while Somalia and Rwanda illustrated the limitations of indecisive action by the Security Council, UN intervention in Mozambique succeeded in consolidating peace and mobilising adequate resources for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of that war-torn country  [12]  . Thus, UN is heavily interested in stabilizing and developing the African countries through various missions which have different goals depending on the situations. Nevertheless, these operations are not always successful due to a range of reasons related either to the state cooperation, or to the UNs organization and resources, and sometimes both. Conflict Theory The crisis in Darfur is a multidimensional conflict that can be explained in various ways be it ethnic, religious, ecologicalà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ In order to understand the crisis, we will use conflict theory as a theoretical framework. This theory analyses conflicts economically. That is to say, the causes of conflicts, according to this theory, are the desire to redistribute scare sources, to in act incompatible roles, or to pursue incompatible value  [13]  . Society is composed of groups that are unequal in terms of wealth, distribution of resources and power, and hence, the disadvantaged struggle to ensure a kind of equality and defend their interests. So, using conflict theory as a theoretical framework, we will analyze the economic causes of conflict in Darfur both within the region (between the Darfurian tribes) and between the region and the government. Understanding the Crisis of Darfur Sudan, in northeast Africa, is the largest country in the continent measuring about one fourth the size of the USA. It neighbors nine countries (see map1 in appendix). Sudan is an authoritarian Republic because all power is in the hands of President Umar El-Bashir who has controlled government since military led coup in 1989. Sudan is a very fragmented nation with 400 languages and dialects and 600 cultural and ethnic groups  [14]  . Pre-conflict Situation The Darfur region is located in the western part of Sudan (see map2 in appendix). It is roughly the size of Texas  [15]  and has a pre-conflict population of approximately 6 million. It borders Libya, Chad and the Central African Republic. Darfur is known throughout history, as an independent state. It was colonized 18years after Sudan  [16]  . It has an ethnic, economic and political situation different from that of the north or the south in Sudan. The Arabic word Dar roughly means homeland and the population of Darfur is divided into several Dars, not only the Fur as its name suggests, but also in several other communities (see map3 in Appendix) determined by livelihood as much as ethnicity. However, this latter is not itself clear-cut, given the long history of racial mixing between indigenous non-Arab peoples and Arabs, who are now distinguished by cultural-linguistic attachment rather than race  [17]  . The Fur are peasant people and they occupy the central part of the region which is the richest and most stable area  [18]  in terms of land fertility and water resources. Also in its central zone are the non-Arab Masalit, Berti and Bergid peoples who are all sedentary farmers. The northern zone is Dar Zaghawa which is inherited by camel nomads, principally the Zaghawa who are non-Arab in origin, and the Arab Beni Hussein, Mahamid, Mahariya and Irayqat  [19]  . It is the most ecologically fragile of the three main zones and affected by drought. The eastern and southern zone of Darfur is occupied by the Arab nomads. They comprise Rezeigat, Habbaniya, Beni Halba and Taaisha. The area is severely affected by drought than the northern zone. economics Throughout history, the population of Darfur suffered from marginalization and neglect. This idea is stressed by Saleh who said that what can be deduced from 18th and 19th century Darfur is that government and elite alike have never treated the people of Darfur kindly  [20]  . He added that they were suffering from all kinds of injustice including slavery and high taxation  [21]  . Since Darfur was annexed by the British to Sudan, the former was excluded and abandoned by the successive governments  [22]  . Moreover, most Darfurians voted for the NIF, but once in power, they showed bias to the Arabs and neglected Darfur  [23]  . So, politically speaking, Darfur was not fully integrated in the dynamics of Sudan. Political system Key Actors In order to fully understand the conflict of Darfur and its dynamics, we need to know the actors involved, their background and their goals. Hence, we are going to discuss the Janjaweed as a government sponsored militias, the government as a double role actor in the conflict, and the two Darfurian rebel groups: the Sudanese Liberation Movement and the Justice and Equality Movement. In fact, we should mention that there are various other groups that are included in the conflict such as National Movement for Reform and Development (NMRD), Sudan Federal Democratic Alliance (SFDA)  [24]  , but they are not as important as SLM and JEM and hence we will focus on the two latter for their importance in Darfur Politics. The Janjaweed are Arab militias that are responsible for most of the damages in Darfur, in terms both of blood and treasure. To know who they are and how they emerged, we should go back in history. From the time of the Sultans, the camel-herding Abbala Reizeigat, to which belong the Janjaweed, had been a headache to the rule In the1980s, s of Darfur  [25]  . In the 1980s, the Popular Defence Forces (PDF) law was created with an objective of training men and women in civil and military tasks, to raise their level of security consciousness, and instill military discipline so that they can cooperate with the regular armed forces and security services  [26]  . Janjaweed became part of the PDF, the state paramilitary force  [27]  . The government, on the other hand, is government The Darfur Liberation Movement (DLM) was created during the late 1980, as a response to the activities of the Sudan government sponsored militias in Darfur, but became Sudanese Liberation Movement/ Army (SLM/A) in 2003 and an alliance of the tribal groups that oppose the government and their para-military militia groups  [28]  . The creation of SLA marked a formidable ideological shift from Darfur Liberation Front which was a secessionist movement premised on establishing a separate Darfur state, to a movement that aspires to create a democratic and more equitable Sudan. The SLA/SLM position on the unity of the Sudan is stated in its Political Declaration as follows: The Sudan Liberation Movement/Army is of the view that Sudans unity is of paramount importance, but it should not be maintained and cannot be viable unless it is based on justice and equality for all the Sudanese peoples. Sudans unity must be anchored on a new basis that is predicated on full acknowledgement of Sudans ethnic, cultural, social and political diversity. Viable unity must therefore ultimately be based on the right of self-determination and the free will of the various peoples of Sudan. The fundamental imperatives of a viable unity are an economy and political system that address the uneven development and marginalization that have plagued the country since independence, so that the interests of the marginalized majority are adequately catered for and they are brought to the same level of development of the ruling minority. The SLM/A shall work with all political forces that ascribe to this view.  [29]   The Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) JEM The 2003 Crisis The conflict of Darfur turned out to be a humanitarian crisis, described by some as genocide and by others as the worst humanitarian crisis. As any conflict, it has various reasons varying from political, economic, ecological, and ethnic. However, we will deal with the economic ones as conflict theory considers the struggle over resources is the main cause of conflicts. Causes West Darfur has a population of approximately 1,7 million, most of them are African farmers from the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa tribes. The rest of the population of Darfur consists of Arab nomadic groups. Although both the black African and Arab tribes are all Muslim, they have a long history of clashes over land, crops and resources  [30]  . The fighting in Darfur is usually described as racially motivated, pitting mounted Arabs against black rebels and civilians; but the conflict has its causes in another dimension, between settled farmers and nomadic over failing lands. Until the rains began to fail, the nomads lived amicably with the settled farmers. The nomads were welcome passers. The farmers would share their wells, and the herders would feed their stock on the leavings from the harvest. However, with the drought, farmers who had once hosted the tribes and their camels were now blocking their migration because the land could no longer support both herder and farmer. Few tri bes drifted elsewhere or took up farming, but the Arab herders stuck to their lifestyle as part of their Arab identity  [31]  . Fertile land continued to decrease as desertification became more of a problem. Tensions between nomadic Arab tribes and African farming communities began a struggle over controlling an environment that can no longer support all the people who must live on it  [32]  . Another economic dimension to the conflict is between the Darfurians and the government. Darfur is the poorest state in Sudan. It has been neglected, abused, and underdeveloped and all tribes, Arab and African alike, suffered greatly from this. Even if Sudan became an oil exporter country with700 million barrel oil reserves, Darfur people suffer from hunger and frustration. more Consequences In 2000, pastoralists moved towards the south and disputed over the fertile region, so clashes were renewed, which resulted in violence that led to the deaths of more than three thousand people, displaced a million people and burned thousands of villages in two years. In 2003, the conflict entered a dangerous turn when rebels from the two groups (SLM and JEM) attacked government targets in Darfur, destroying aircraft on the runway and the occupying El Fasher for hours and then withdrawing to their positions, accusing the government of marginalization of the region, which lacks development. Thus, the government intervened military to stop the rebels. consequences UN intervention in Darfur The Creation of the UNAMID Did it fail? Reasons behind its failure Lack of Government Cooperation Lack of UN Resources

Computer Engineer :: essays research papers

Introduction and History Computer engineering is a very time consuming, challenging job. To be a good computer engineer you need years of experience and collage education. Computer engineers provide information and data processing for certain computer firms and organizations. They conduct research, design computers, and discover and use new principles and ideas of applying computers. I am going to tell you specific facts about the careers of computer engineers like payment, education needed, skills, responsibilities of the job, job outlook, and benefits of the job. Computer engineering started about 5,000 years ago in China when they invented the abacus. The abacus is a manual calculator in which you move beads back and forth on rods to add or subtract. Other inventors of simple computers include Blaise Pascal who came up with the arithmetic machine for his father’s work. Also Charles Babbage produced the Analytical Engine, which combined math calculations from one problem and applied it to solve other complex problems. The Analytical Engine is similar to today’s computers. Occupation’s Duties A computer engineer has certain duties and responsibilities depending on the location and size of the firm he or she works for. Also the duties vary between job levels. If you work at a small firm, you will be set up on the firing line immediately and will be expected to make your boss money or you’ll be fired. Also in a smaller firm you’ll probably spend hours of pain-staking time trying to solve a problem that other engineers probably went over before. In larger firms, you’ll be hired probably as a junior computer engineer and work your way up to senor and maybe manager of engineers. If you enjoy challenging work and problem solving, your best place to be is in a small firm. If you enjoy problem solving but not to the severe degree as in a small firm, then your place is in a larger firm. Overall, the responsibilities and duties are basically the same. These duties include preparing cost benefit analysis on programs, determining copter soft and hardware needs, and debugging computers to eliminate errors. Benefits The benefits of being a computer engineer are unique to those people who like having challenges put in-front of them to solve. This job puts you in challenging positions that you have to problem solve to get out of. Also computer engineers have the ability to fix or even their own computers. Computer engineers get paid vacations, holidays, and sick days.

The Many Faces of Culture Essay -- Culture

Defining culture has been a debate among sociologists and anthropologists since the 19th century. Culture is vital for the perseverance of a society and has its own identity that distinguishes it from others. Culture is not rooted into a person from birth, but it is learned from wherever he or she is from. It acts in a subconscious manner in that when a culture differs, one society may find another society to be odd. Every society has a different culture where the people share a specific language, gesture, belief, behavior, norms, sanctions and more. Language greatly influences how we see the world. Languages shape the way we understand some aspects in life such as time, direction, space and even causality. For example, while English speakers tend to say â€Å"Lisa broke the vase,† Spanish and Japanese speakers would tend to say â€Å"the vase broke itself.† These opposing interpretations may cause different understandings of how events are perceived. Language is a part of culture and a part of behavior. According to the hypothesis of linguistic determinism (Sapir, 1956), â€Å"No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached.† Language and culture are so strongly connected that the precise understanding of the relationship between the two is fundamental in cross-cultural communication. Every country has a different way of greeting with one another and various kinds of gestures they share with each other. Gestures are the motions of the body to communicate with others and to express messages without using words. Gestures all vary around the globe and the meaning of ... ...e Coca-Cola Company is an example of cultural leveling because not only is Coca-Cola sold in America, but it is all across the globe such as South Korea, India and 200 other countries. The positive factor about cultural leveling is that it unifies cultures but the negative is that the cultural originality is lost. Works Cited Billikopf, Gregorio. "Cultural Differences." College of Natural Resources - UC Berkeley. 1 June 2009. Web. 08 Mar. 2011. . Jervis, Nancy. "What Is a Culture?" P-12 : NYSED. The University of the State of New York, 2006. Web. 08 Mar. 2011. . Wescott, Roger Williams. "Diffusion." NEARA Home Page. New England Antiquities Research Association, 2002. Web. 08 Mar. 2011. . The Many Faces of Culture Essay -- Culture Defining culture has been a debate among sociologists and anthropologists since the 19th century. Culture is vital for the perseverance of a society and has its own identity that distinguishes it from others. Culture is not rooted into a person from birth, but it is learned from wherever he or she is from. It acts in a subconscious manner in that when a culture differs, one society may find another society to be odd. Every society has a different culture where the people share a specific language, gesture, belief, behavior, norms, sanctions and more. Language greatly influences how we see the world. Languages shape the way we understand some aspects in life such as time, direction, space and even causality. For example, while English speakers tend to say â€Å"Lisa broke the vase,† Spanish and Japanese speakers would tend to say â€Å"the vase broke itself.† These opposing interpretations may cause different understandings of how events are perceived. Language is a part of culture and a part of behavior. According to the hypothesis of linguistic determinism (Sapir, 1956), â€Å"No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached.† Language and culture are so strongly connected that the precise understanding of the relationship between the two is fundamental in cross-cultural communication. Every country has a different way of greeting with one another and various kinds of gestures they share with each other. Gestures are the motions of the body to communicate with others and to express messages without using words. Gestures all vary around the globe and the meaning of ... ...e Coca-Cola Company is an example of cultural leveling because not only is Coca-Cola sold in America, but it is all across the globe such as South Korea, India and 200 other countries. The positive factor about cultural leveling is that it unifies cultures but the negative is that the cultural originality is lost. Works Cited Billikopf, Gregorio. "Cultural Differences." College of Natural Resources - UC Berkeley. 1 June 2009. Web. 08 Mar. 2011. . Jervis, Nancy. "What Is a Culture?" P-12 : NYSED. The University of the State of New York, 2006. Web. 08 Mar. 2011. . Wescott, Roger Williams. "Diffusion." NEARA Home Page. New England Antiquities Research Association, 2002. Web. 08 Mar. 2011. .

Developmental Psychology Paper Essay

Piaget, Erikson, and Kohlberg. I decided to conduct personal interviews and relate my findings to these three theories. Piaget’s theory explained the four stages of cognitive development. Erikson divided psychosocial development into eight stages, describing how the people and the environment affects how we gain our personality. Kohlberg’s theory of moral development was to understand the reasoning to why we make the decisions we do. Below are how my finding relate to these various developmental psychological theories. Piaget’s four stages of cognitive development start with the sensorimotor stage. This stage is from birth to around two years of age when the infant creates their first understanding of the world around them by taste and touch. At two years of age to six or seven years, the child transitions into the pre-operational stage. In this stage the child’s thinking is still egocentric. Even though this age group has stable concepts and mental reasoning, they lack the logic for mental operations and can only think in their point-of-view. Then the concrete operational stage begins at about seven years old and lasts until the child is, approximate, eleven years old. During this stage, the child can understand and form simple mathematical operations. Egocentrism will be eliminated and they will no longer be able to see life from one perspective (their own point of view). Not only in mathematical operations, the child can perceive multiple aspects when solving a problem. At this stage, they begin to form a sense of responsibility for their pets and/or personal belongings. Formal operational, Piaget’s final stage, begins around age twelve and continues through adulthood. Formal operational phase is when the chid develops into an adult and is capable of abstract thought and moral reasoning influences decision making. The trial-and-error method begins here, along with the start of considering future outcomes and consequences from decisions. Erikson’s eight stages of psychosocial development begin with birth to the first year of life. During this time an infant is completely helpless and relies off their caretaker for everything. For this first year it is crucial for the caretaker of the infant to form a relationship for socialization development. The second stage extends from the first year of the child to age three, when there is a conflict between doubt or shame and autonomy. The genital, or third stage lasts from age four to age five. The conflict here is between imitative and a feeling of guilt. The fourth stage, the latency stage, lasts from six to eleven years old. This is when a child learns to reason, create, and earn. The conflict is be tween industry and inferiority. These first four stages are more dependent on others and the individual is easily influenced by their environment. The last four stages of Erikson’s developmental theory occurs when the individual begins to search for their mature self and a sense of direction. The fifth stage begins with adolescence, that lasts from age twelve to age eighteen. Here, the conflict is between identity and role confusion. The adolescent transitions into the young adulthood stage, lasting from age eighteen to twenty-five. This is a time when developing a sense of identity and career success. This is when the individual is on the path to maturity and independence. Adulthood lasts approximately from thirty-five, to fifty five years old. During this phase the adult starts to pass on their knowledge to another. The conflict is between generality or self absorption. The final stage of development is maturity. This stage lasts until death, when the individual struggles to look back on life with a sense of satisfaction and evaluate our life. Kohlberg’s theory of moral development provides us with a clearer understanding of why we make choices. This theory was divided into three stages of moral reasoning. The most basic stage, is pre-convention. During this stage the idea that we make our decisions due to fear of punishment or desire for reward occurs. A child is most likely to made decisions with this stage, due to a fear or obedience to authority. Next, conventional morality is less of a fear to an authority figure, more the individual wanting to do the right thing. This is society conforming us to play nice to maintain social order. Post-conventional may be the opposite of conventional. Post-conventional does not mean we do something wrong to beat conformity, but an individual will follow what they believe to be good even if it conflicts with the laws or mores of society. According to Piaget’s second stage, the pre-operational stage, the child’s thoughts and actions are egocentric and lack logic for mental operations. The child I interviewed had a self-centered outlook on life, lacking realistic goals and a chievements. At this time in the child’s life, they are also at Erikson’s latency stage, when they learn to reason, create, and earn, thus explaining why one of this child’s biggest accomplishments was mixing two sodas to create one. In conclusion, Piaget’s and Erikson’s theories can accurately predict a child’s thoughts and behaviors. Teenagers are more complicated, for they have moved past the latency stage into the adolescence stage. Identity development and role confusion are the larger conflicts. Also at this point, they transition into the formal operational stage, when they can think abstractly and make their own decisions. When asked if she had gained or lost self-confidence over the years, the girl I interviewed, Ashley, responded: â€Å"So I lost it throughout middle school, but gradually started gaining it through high school.† This is due to Ashley struggling and beginning to find her identity. She had already goals that she wanted to achieve and was able to predict what she wanted to do in five years. As a teenager, Ashley can make decisions for other reasons than fear of punishment or desire. A step away from adulthood, at adolescence Ashely is almost able to act and think like an adult. Adulthood is similar to adolescence in a way. Due to the fact that both adolescences and adults are able to make decisions using any of the previously mentioned moral reasoning strategies and both are in the formal operational stage. Whereas, adulthood continues to branch away from adolescence is only evident using Erikson’s developmental stages. The young adult I interviewed, Dustin, is on the fence of two stages: young adulthood and adulthood. By now, Dustin should have a sense of self and independence. â€Å"Back then I had no ambition, I just wanted to lay video games. I mean I still want to play video games, but I also want money and to be successful,† said Dustin when I asked him how different he was from when he started high school. Over the years his desires and goals changed as he matured with his career. Yet, at forty-seven with four kids and a career, the woman I interviewed had no problems understanding her identity ulike a teenager or young adult might have. Her conflicts are generality, feeling worthless or without purpose in life. According to Erikson, at this stage middle-aged adults have the desire to pass on their knowledge and skills to the next generation. When asked what she wanted to achieve in the next five years, she responded: â€Å"I want to get all four my kids financially independent and start saving money for retirement.† She also shared her hopes about her children getting married and having kids: â€Å"I’ll be able to play with them but not have to worry about all the responsibilities.† Towards the end of our lives when we reach elderly adulthood, various experiences can be fulfilling or disappointing. The final stage of Erikson’s theory, maturation, when the individual struggles to look back on what they have done with a sense of satisfaction. When I asked my grandma what she wanted to achieve in the next five years, there was a pause in her voice and I could tell the answer she blurted out was not genuine. Perhaps my grandma had been through so much, she no longer wanted to challenger herself with more life hurdles. â€Å"I think kids had more fun and didn’t worry about material things,† she said after I asked how things were different now compared to when she was a teenager. My grandma looked back on her past fondly, and offered me advice how I should act in the future. She had more advice and knowledge to pass on than plans ahead of her. Over the course of the implementing these theories into my personal interviews, I have learned that the development of the brain works in stages, and the three scientific studies could accurately predict the behaviors of the various age groups I questioned. In conclusion, the studies were very effective in explaining how our behaviors and development increase over time, and in which order they do.

Quality of Education

10 A HISTORY OF THE AECT’S DEFINITIONS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY Alan Januszewski h e State University of New York at Potsdam Kay A. Persichitte University of Wyoming Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to provide a historical context for the current dei nition of educational technology. We will do this in several stages. First, we will review the primary purposes and considerations for dei ning educational technology. h en, we will review each of the four previous dei nitions, paying particular attention to the primary concepts included in each dei nition.We will examine the context and rationales for decisions made regarding each of these primary concepts. We will also present some of the historical criticisms of the dei nitions which provided the impetus for changing the dei nitions. h e criteria and purposes for producing a dei nition were discussed at the time of the writing of the i rst dei nition in 1963. A satisfactory dei nition of instructional technology wil l let us i nd common ground, will propose tomorrow’s horizons, and will allow for a variety of patterns that specii c individuals may follow in specii c institutions . . Research must be designed in terms of clear understanding of instructional technology. Superintendents of schools are requesting criteria for new personnel ER5861X_C010. indd 259 ER5861X_C010. indd 259 8/16/07 6:24:22 PM 8/16/07 6:24:22 PM260 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE needed in various phases of instructional improvement. Teacher-education institutions need assistance in planning courses for pre-service and in-service instruction that will provide the skills and understanding which will be required in tomorrow’s classrooms . . Let us consider the criteria for useful dei nitions. h ey should (a) clarify the description of the i eld in ordinary language; (b) summarize existing knowledge; (c) mediate applications of knowledge to new situations; and (d) lead to fruitful lines of experimental inquiry. . . . h is report aims to provide a working dei nition for the i eld of instructional technology which will serve as a framework for future developments and lead to an improvement in instruction. (Ely, 1963, pp. –8) h ose involved in the writing of the 1963 dei nition obviously believed that there were a lot of things to consider when dei ning educational technology. Or put dif erently, the existence of such a dei nition would have far reaching consequences, sometimes with implications that the authors might not intend. Acknowledging this opened the door to criticisms of the dei – nitions and the purposes cited for redei ning educational technology. h e authors of subsequent dei nitions all seemed to adhere, at least in part, to the purposes and criteria identii ed in the 1963 dei nition.The 1963 Definition h e leadership of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) recognized the 1963 dei nition of audiovisual communications as the i rst formal dei nition of educational technology (AECT, 1977). h is dei nition, the i rst in a series of four oi cially sanctioned dei nitions, was developed by the Commission on Dei nition and Terminology of the Department of Audiovisual Instruction (DAVI) of the National Education Association (NEA) and supported by the Technological Development Project (TDP).In 1963 audiovisual communications was the label that was used to describe the i eld as it was evolving from the audiovisual education movement to educational technology: Audiovisual communications is that branch of educational theory and practice primarily concerned with the design and use of messages which control the learning process. It undertakes: (a) the study of the unique and relative strengths and weaknesses of both pictorial and nonrepresentational messages which may be employed in the learning process for any purpose; and (b) the structuring and systematizing of messages by men and instruments in an educational environment. es e undertakings ER5861X_C010. indd 260 ER5861X_C010. indd 260 8/16/07 6:24:23 PM 8/16/07 6:24:23 PM10. A HISTORY OF THE AECT’S DEFINITIONS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 261 include the planning, production, selection, management, and utilization of both components and entire instructional systems. Its practical goal is the ei cient utilization of every method and medium of communication which can contribute to the development of the learner’s full potential. (Ely, 1963, pp. 18–19) A footnote that was included as part of this dei nition read â€Å"the audiovisual communications label is used at this time as an expedient.Another designation may evolve, and if it does, it should then be substituted† (p. 18). Conceptual Shit s Signaled in Dei nitions h ere are three major conceptual shit s that contributed to the formulation of the dei nitions of educational technology as a theory: (1) the use of a â€Å"process† concept rather than a â€Å"product† concept; (2) the use of the terms messages and media instrumentation rather than materials and machines; and (3) the introduction of certain elements of learning theory and communication theory (Ely, 1963, p. 19).Understanding these three ideas and their impact on each other is essential to understanding the idea of educational technology in 1963. A technological conception of the audiovisual i eld called for an emphasis on process, making the traditional product concept of the i eld of educational technology untenable. h e Commission believed, â€Å"h e traditional product concept in the audiovisual i eld views the ‘things’ of the i eld by identifying machines, use of particular senses, and characteristics of materials by degrees of abstractness and/or concreteness† (Ely, 1963, p. 19).Members of the Commission preferred a process concept of the i eld which included â€Å"the planning, production, selection, management, and utilization of both components and ent ire instructional systems† (p. 19). h is process conception also emphasized â€Å"the relationship between events as dynamic and continuous† (p. 19). h e Commission argued that â€Å"materials† and â€Å"machines† were â€Å"things† or products and opted not to use those terms in the dei nition. Instead, the Commission used the terms messages and instruments. h e Commission further argued that materials and machines were interdependent elements. A motion picture and projector are inseparable as are all other materials requiring machines for their use† (Ely, 1963, p. 19). One was of little practical use without the other. h e Commission used the concept of media instrumentation to explain instruments. h e Commission said, â€Å"Media-instrumentation indicates the ER5861X_C010. indd 261 ER5861X_C010. indd 261 8/16/07 6:24:23 PM 8/16/07 6:24:23 PM262 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE transmission systems, the materials and devices available to carry s elected messages† (Ely, 1963, p. 20). e concept of media instrumentation also included the people who utilized the instruments in the educational environment as well as the transmission systems. h e idea that both people and instruments comprised media instrumentation was based in the broader concept of the man-machine system (Finn, 1957). In discussions of the relationship and integration of learning theory and communications theory to instructional technology, the Commission stated, â€Å"Certain elements of learning theory and communications theory of er potential contributions [to the i eld of educational technology]; e. . , source, message, channel, receiver, ef ects, stimulus, organism, response† (Ely, 1963, p. 20). h e Commission integrated learning theory and communications theory by identifying and combining the two systems basic to the process view of the i eld: the learning-communicant system and the educational-communicant system. h ese two systems use conce pts from both learning and communications theories that delineated and specii ed the roles of the individuals involved in the use of these systems. e learnercommunicant system â€Å"refers to the student population† and the educationalcommunicant system â€Å"refers to the professional persons in the school† (p. 23). h ese two systems could be of any size, ranging from a single classroom to large school systems (Ely, 1963). Merging the two communicant systems into a single model of the educational process provided the i eld of audiovisual communications with a theoretical framework (Ely, 1963) and a model that allowed educational technology to be viewed as a theoretical construct (AECT, 1977). e fundamental doctrine advanced by the writers of the i rst dei nition was that it was a â€Å"branch of educational theory and practice. † h e word theory was particularly important in this dei nition because it had a special place in the history of the audiovisual i eld, because of the status that it conferred on the i eld, and because of the expectation for further research to inl uence the evolution of that theory. Finn’s Characteristics of a Profession e 1963 dei nition was heavily inl uenced by James Finn’s (1953) six characteristics of a profession: (a) An intellectual technique, (b) an application of that technique to the practical af airs of man, (c) a period of long training necessary before entering into the profession, (d) an association of the members of the profession into a closely knit group with a high quality of communication ER5861X_C010. indd 262 ER5861X_C010. indd 262 8/16/07 6:24:24 PM 8/16/07 6:24:24 PM10.A HISTORY OF THE AECT’S DEFINITIONS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 263 between members, (e) a series of standards and a statement of ethics which is enforced, and (f) an organized body of intellectual theory constantly expanded by research. (p. 7) Of these six characteristics of a profession, Finn (1953) argued that â€Å"the most fundamental and most important characteristic of a profession is that the skills involved are founded upon a body of intellectual theory and research† (p. 8). Having established the importance of theory and research for a profession, Finn further explained his position by saying that â€Å". . this systematic theory is constantly being expanded by research and thinking within the profession† (p. 8). Finn was arguing that a profession conducts its own research and theory development to complement the research and theory development that it adapts/adopts from other academic areas. If educational technology was to be a true profession, it would have to conduct its own research and develop and its own theory rather than borrowing from more established disciplines like psychology.Finn (1953) evaluated the audiovisual i eld against each of the six characteristics and determined that the audiovisual i eld did not meet the most fundamental characteristic: an organized body of intellectual theory and research. â€Å"When the audiovisual i eld is measured against this characteristic . . . the conclusion must be reached that professional status has not been attained† (Finn, 1953, p. 13). h is argument was largely accepted by, and had a profound ef ect on, the leadership of the audiovisual i eld in the late 1950s and early 1960s.Finn (1953) laid a foundation that the audiovisual i eld was troubled by a â€Å"lack of theoretical direction† (p. 14). He attributed this to a â€Å"lack of content† and the absence of â€Å"intellectual meat† (p. 14) in the contemporary meetings and professional journals of the i eld. In his argument promoting the development of a theoretical base for the audiovisual i eld, Finn warned, Without a theory which produces hypotheses for research, there can be no expanding knowledge and technique.And without a constant attempt to assess practice so that the theoretical implications may b e teased out, there can be no assurance that we will ever have a theory or that our practice will make sense. (p. 14) Finn dedicated his career to rectifying this dei ciency in the i eld, and the resulting impact of his work on the 1963 dei nition is evident. Advancing an argument that audiovisual communications was a theory was an attempt to address the â€Å"lack of content† cited by Finn (1953). e Commission identii ed â€Å"the planning, production, selection, management, and utilization of both components and entire instructional systems† (Ely, ER5861X_C010. indd 263 ER5861X_C010. indd 263 8/16/07 6:24:24 PM 8/16/07 6:24:24 PM264 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE 1963, p. 19) as tasks performed by practitioners in the i eld directly related to Finn’s (1953) discussion of the â€Å"intellectual technique† of the audiovisual i eld—Finn’s i rst criterion for a profession. e i rst oi cial dei nition of educational technology can be viewed as an a ttempt to bring together remnants of theory, technique, other academic research bases, and history contained in the audiovisual literature, into a logical statement closing the gap on the â€Å"poverty of thought† (Finn, 1953, p. 13) that characterized the audiovisual education movement. h e evolution of audiovisual communications (and later, educational technology) as a theory began to add â€Å"intellectual meat† to audiovisual practice.By merging the audiovisual communications concept with the process orientation of the i eld into a new intellectual technique grounded in theory, the Commission strengthened the professional practice and of ered a direction for further growth as a profession. Emergence of a Process View Included among the many factors contributing to the development of the process view of educational technology were the two beliefs held by the most inl uential and prominent individuals involved with the audiovisual i eld: (1) that technology was prima rily a process (Finn, 1960b) and (2) that communication was a process (Berlo, 1960; Gerbner, 1956). e conceptual view of educational technology as a way of thinking and a process was established by the 1963 dei nition. h e intention of the Commission that produced the i rst oi cial dei nition of the i eld was â€Å"to dei ne the broader i eld of instructional technology which incorporates certain aspects of the established audiovisual i eld† (Ely, 1963, p. 3). Not unexpectedly, the 1963 dei nition drew some critique as it was applied to the emerging i eld of the 1960s and 1970s.Prominent individuals involved with audiovisual education, such as James Finn (1957; 1960a) and Charles Hoban (1962), had previously used the term technology when referring to the activities of the audiovisual i eld. Donald Ely (1973; 1982) observed that the use of the word control in the 1963 dei nition was problematic for many individuals involved with educational technology. Ely (1982) explained, â €Å"h e strong behavioral emphasis at the time seemed to call for the word ‘control’† (p. 3).He noted that the word facilitate was substituted by many professionals â€Å"to make the dei nition more palatable† (Ely, 1973, p. 52). Perhaps equally important was the desire by members of the i eld to move away from a behaviorally based psychology to a more humanistic psychology (Finn, 1967). ER5861X_C010. indd 264 ER5861X_C010. indd 264 8/16/07 6:24:24 PM 8/16/07 6:24:24 PM10. A HISTORY OF THE AECT’S DEFINITIONS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 265 Criticisms of the 1963 Dei nition As noted in the introduction, no one dei nition can be the dei nition, and there were criticisms of the 1963 dei nition.James Knowlton (1964), a faculty member at Indiana University, was a consultant for the 1963 Commission on Dei nition and Terminology. In an essay that reviewed the 1963 dei nition, Knowlton stated that the dei nition itself was â€Å"couched in semiotical termsâ €  (p. 4) but that the conceptual structure used in the rationale for the 1963 dei nition â€Å"was couched in learning theory terms [and] this disjunction produced some surprising anomalies† (p. 4). Knowlton’s argument was based on a need for conceptual and semantic consistency in the dei nition.Knowlton argued that failing to pair the language of the dei nition with the language of the conceptual structure in the rationale resulted in a general lack of clarity about this new concept. h is lack of clarity in turn caused confusion in the direction of research and practice in the i eld. Less than a decade later, Robert Heinich (1970) saw a need to redei ne the i eld of educational technology for two reasons. First, he was critical of the â€Å"communications† based language used in the 1963 dei nition. Heinich argued that this language was too complicated for school personnel to interpret and apply.Second, Heinich argued that the power to make many of the deci sions regarding the use of technology in schools should be transferred from the teacher to the curriculum planners. Heinich’s argument for changing the dei nition was based on both linguistic concerns and evolutionary changes in the functions of practitioners in the i eld. Heinich promoted an approach to schooling where specialists would decide when and where schools would use technology. h is position was dif erent from that which was discussed in the rationale for the 1963 dei – nition.In the rationale for the 1963 dei nition, teachers were viewed as partners of educational technologists rather than as their subordinates (Januszewski, 2001). Forces Impelling a New Dei nition Other contemporary issues emerged which began to inl uence the i eld. h e report of the Presidential Commission on Instructional Technology (1970) stated that instructional technology could be dei ned in two ways: In its more familiar sense it means the media born of the communications revolution which can be used for instructional purposes alongside the teacher, textbook and blackboard.In general, the Commission’s report follows this usage . . . the commission has had to look at the pieces that ER5861X_C010. indd 265 ER5861X_C010. indd 265 8/16/07 6:24:25 PM 8/16/07 6:24:25 PM266 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE make up instructional technology: television, i lms, overhead projectors, computers and the other items of â€Å"hardware and sot ware. † (p. 19) h e second and less familiar dei nition . . . (Instructional technology) . . . s a systematic way of designing, carrying out, and evaluating the total process of learning and teaching in terms of specii c objectives, based on research in human learning and communication and employing a combination of human and nonhuman resources to bring about more ef ective instruction. (Commission on Instructional Technology, 1970, p. 19) Educational technology professionals responded to this report in a special section of Audi ovisual Communications Review (1970). h e professional reviews of the government report were mixed at best. Ely (Ely et al. 1970) of Syracuse University thought that the Commission’s overall ef ort was commendable given its lot y charge. Earl Funderburk (Ely et al. , 1970) of the NEA called the recommendations a balanced program. But David Engler (Ely et al. , 1970) of the McGraw-Hill Book Company disapproved of the Commission’s ef ort to relegate the process-based dei nition of instructional technology to some â€Å"future† role. Leslie Briggs (Ely et al. , 1970) of Florida State University accused the Presidential Commission of providing a â€Å"two-headed image† of instructional technology by stressing both a hardware and a process orientation of the concept. e contributors to this special section of Audiovisual Communications Review (1970) were generally dissatisi ed with the â€Å"two-headed† orientation primarily because of the confusion it m ight cause among the potential client groups of educational technology. h ey viewed the hardware orientation favored by the Presidential Commission as a setback for the profession. It meant the unacceptable return to the â€Å"audiovisual aids† and â€Å"technology as machine† conceptions of educational technology. h is orientation also implied the de-emphasizing of research and theory.Given these professional discussions and developments, professionals in the i eld believed that a new dei nition of educational technology was necessary. The 1972 Definition By 1972, through evolution and mutual agreement, the DAVI had become the AECT. Along with the organizational change came a change to the dei nition. ER5861X_C010. indd 266 ER5861X_C010. indd 266 8/16/07 6:24:25 PM 8/16/07 6:24:25 PM10. A HISTORY OF THE AECT’S DEFINITIONS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 267 h e newly formed AECT dei ned the term educational technology rather than the term audiovisual communications a sEducational technology is a i eld involved in the facilitation of human learning through the systematic identii cation, development, organization and utilization of a full range of learning resources and through the management of these processes. (Ely, 1972, p. 36) As a member of the group that wrote several of the early drat s of the 1972 dei nition, Kenneth Silber (1972) was successful in including changes in many of the roles and functions of the practitioners of the i eld as part of that dei nition.Silber introduced the term learning system which combined ideas of the open classroom movement with some of the concepts of educational technology. Like Heinich’s (1970) perspective, Silber’s (1972) â€Å"learning system† (p. 19) suggested changes in the roles of the teacher and the educational technologist. Unlike Heinich, Silber supported the idea that learners should make many decisions regarding the use of educational technology themselves. Educational techno logists would produce a variety of programs and designs that learners would use or adapt to meet their own â€Å"long-range learning destination† (p. 1). Silber’s position was that the teacher should be more a â€Å"facilitator of learning† and less a â€Å"teller of information. † A Dei nition Based on h ree Concepts h ere are three concepts central to the 1972 dei nition characterizing educational technology as a i eld: a broad range of learning resources, individualized and personalized learning, and the use of the systems approach. â€Å"It is these three concepts, when synthesized into a total approach to facilitate learning, that create the uniqueness of, and thus the rationale for, the i eld† (Ely, 1972, p. 7). Examining these three concepts along with the idea of educational technology as a â€Å"i eld† is crucial to understanding the AECT’s (1972) dei nition of educational technology. It is particularly important to recognize that dif erent interpretations of these three concepts would result in dif ering conceptions of the i eld through the next three decades. h e dif erent interpretations and relative emphases of these concepts were due in large part to dif erences in educational philosophy and educational goals.Dif ering interpretations of these concepts would also have the more visible ef ect of substantially dif erent products and processes developed in the i eld. h e writers of the 1972 dei nition seemed to be aware that the major concepts could be interpreted dif erently, and they seemed to be interested ER5861X_C010. indd 267 ER5861X_C010. indd 267 8/16/07 6:24:26 PM 8/16/07 6:24:26 PM268 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE in including individuals with dif erent philosophical and academic backgrounds in the i eld. e writers of the 1963 dei nition and its supporting rationale seemed less concerned with accommodating divergent educational philosophies. Perhaps this was due to the fact that the 1963 dei n ition was the i rst formal attempt to dei ne educational technology. Such an under taking was formidable enough. Perhaps it was because the writers of the 1972 dei – nition paid more attention to the discussions of educational philosophy in the literature from the rest of the i eld of education.Perhaps it was because the 1963 dei nition viewed educational technology as an educational theory and, potentially, as an educational philosophy itself. Regardless, there is no doubt that by 1972, the authors of the dei nition of educational technology chose to consider educational technology a i eld of study and not as a specii c theory (Januszewski, 1995, 2001). Educational Technology as a Field h e decision to refer to educational technology as a i eld of study rather than a theory or a branch of theory had at least four results: (1) we acknowledged that there was more than one theory of educational technology, ore than one way to think about the role(s) of educational technology; ( 2) the dei nition prompted signii cant philosophical discussions by members of the profession; (3) the use of the word i eld encompassed both the â€Å"hardware† and â€Å"process† orientations of instructional technology described by the Presidential Commission (1970); and (4) this dei nition was based on the â€Å"tangible elements† (Ely, 1972) that people could observe. e 1972 dei nition essentially dei ned educational technology by role and function rather than as an abstract concept, as was the case for the 1963 dei nition, where educational technology was viewed as a theory. h e concept of â€Å"i eld† has been a thorny one for educational technologists. Like many areas of study within education, it is very dii cult to discuss educational technology without using the word i eld as a descriptor. Certainly audiovisual professionals used the term to describe the â€Å"audiovisual i eld† before the terms instructional technology or educational te chnology were ever used. e 1963 dei nition statement frequently used i eld (Ely, 1963) to move the discussion along, even though it was argued that educational technology was a theory or branch of theory. On the surface, the use of i eld seems a rather inescapable semantic problem when speaking of educational technology. But it is signii cant that the writers of the 1972 dei nition chose to use i eld rather than theory in the dei nition because the use of the word i eld established a territory. It also provided certain legitimacy to ef orts to advance ER5861X_C010. ndd 268 ER5861X_C010. indd 268 8/16/07 6:24:26 PM 8/16/07 6:24:26 PM10. A HISTORY OF THE AECT’S DEFINITIONS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 269 both products and processes. h e consequences of this decision were anticipated by Finn (1965), who proclaimed Properly constructed, the concept of instructional or educational technology is totally integrative. It provides a common ground for all professionals, no matter in what aspect of the i eld they are working: it permits the rational development and integration of new devices, materials, and methods as they come along. e concept is so completely viable that it will not only provide new status for our group, but will, for the i rst time, threaten the status of others [italics added]. (p. 193) Criticism of the 1972 Dei nition h e 1972 dei nition was not the object of numerous criticisms as was the 1963 dei nition, probably because it was considered only an interim dei nition (Ely, 1994). Only one such article appeared in the literature of the i eld of educational technology—a critique was written by Dennis Myers, then a graduate student at Syracuse University, and Lida Cochran, a faculty member at the University of Iowa (Myers & Cochran, 1973). e brief analysis by Myers and Cochran (1973) articulated at least i ve dif erent criticisms. First, they proposed including a statement in the rationale for the dei nition stating that students have a rig ht of access to technological delivery systems as part of their regular instruction. Including such a statement follows from Hoban’s (1968) discussion on the appropriateness of technology for instruction in a technological society. Second, Myers and Cochran argued that the 1972 dei nition statement was weakened by neglecting to include a theoretical rationale for the dei nition. is criticism, which correctly pointed out that the dei nition is lacking a unii ed theoretical direction, supported Heinich’s (1970) assertions in his philosophical view of the i eld. In a third point, Myers and Cochran (1973) criticized the limited role that the educational technologist was provided in the description of the systems approach provided in the dei nition. In a fourth point, they discussed the shortcomings of the terminology used to discuss the domains and roles in educational technology.Perhaps the most interesting point made in this analysis concerned the relationship of educati onal technology to the rest of the i eld of education. In noting the problem of dei ning the i eld by the functions performed, Myers and Cochran (1973) pointed to the importance of considering the purpose of education. ER5861X_C010. indd 269 ER5861X_C010. indd 269 8/16/07 6:24:26 PM 8/16/07 6:24:26 PM270 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE What is important is that certain functions get done in education. h at generalization is important because it conveys an attitude that transcends narrow professional nterests and strikes a note of community and cooperativeness, qualities which are essential to the solution of problems facing education and society. (p. 13) Here, Myers and Cochran (1973) seemed to be chastising the writers of the 1972 dei nition for being overly concerned with intellectual territory and the roles performed in the i eld of educational technology. h is particular criticism lost only a little of its sharpness when it was viewed in light of earlier comments made about the inap propriateness of the limited role assigned to educational technologists in the dei nition (Januszewski, 2001).In summary, by 1972, the name of the concept had changed from audiovisual communications to educational technology. h e organizational home for professionals in the i eld had changed name: from DAVI to AECT. h ere had been substantial changes in our schools, hardware, and other technological innovations during the nine years since the writing of the i rst dei nition. Educational technology was now identii ed as a i eld of study, open to interpretation by those who practiced within it. e 1972 dei nition rel ected these interpretations but was intended to be only a temporary measure. Almost as soon as it was published, work began on the next dei nition. The 1977 Definition In 1977, the AECT revised its dei nition of educational technology with its third version: Educational technology is a complex, integrated process, involving people, procedures, ideas, devices and organizati on, for analyzing problems and devising, implementing, evaluating and managing solutions to those problems, involved in all aspects of human learning.In educational technology, the solution to problems takes the form of all the Learning Resources that are designed and/or selected and/or utilized to bring about learning; these resources are identii ed as Messages, People, Materials, Devices, Techniques, and Settings. h e processes for analyzing problems, and devising, implementing and evaluating solutions are identii ed by the Educational Development Functions of Research h eory, Design, Production, Evaluation Selection, Logistics, Utilization, and Utilization Dissemination. h e processes of directing or coordinating one or more of hese functions are identii ed by the Educational Management Functions of Organizational Management and Personnel Management. (AECT, 1977, p. 1) ER5861X_C010. indd 270 ER5861X_C010. indd 270 8/16/07 6:24:27 PM 8/16/07 6:24:27 PM10. A HISTORY OF THE AECTâ₠¬â„¢S DEFINITIONS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 271 h e Dei nition of Educational Technology (AECT, 1977) was a 169-page book intended to accomplish two things: (a) systematically analyze the complex ideas and concepts that were used in the i eld of educational technology, and (b) show how these concepts and ideas related to one another (Wallington, 1977). is publication included the dei nition of educational technology (which comprises 16 pages of the text), a history of the i eld, a rationale for the dei nition, a theoretical framework for the dei nition, a discussion of the practical application of the intellectual technique of the i eld, the code of ethics of the professional organization, and a glossary of terms related to the dei nition. Educational Versus Instructional Technology h e conceptual dif erence between the terms educational technology and instructional technology constituted a large portion of the analysis of this book.Understanding how the authors of the 1977 dei niti on viewed the relationship of instructional technology to educational technology is essential to understanding the 1977 dei nition and its theoretical framework. h e basic premise of this distinction was that instructional technology was to educational technology as instruction was to education. h e reasoning was that since instruction was considered a subset of education then instructional technology was a subset of educational technology (AECT, 1977). For example, the concept of educational technology was involved in the solution of problems in â€Å"all aspects of human learning† (p. ). h e concept of instructional technology was involved in the solution of problems where â€Å"learning is purposive and controlled† (p. 3). Educational Technology as a Process Two other complex conceptual developments were also undertaken by the authors of the 1977 dei nition, which were interrelated. First, the 1977 dei – nition of educational technology was called a â€Å"pr ocess† (AECT, 1977, p. 1). h e authors intended the term process to connote the idea that educational technology could be viewed as a theory, a i eld, or a profession.Second, the systems concept was infused throughout the entire dei nition statement and in all the major supporting concepts for the dei nition in both its descriptive and prescriptive senses. h e authors of the 1977 dei nition connected these two conceptual developments by saying that the use of the systems concept was a process (AECT, 1977). As one of the three major supporting concepts for the 1972 dei nition of educational technology, the systems approach had become the basis for the ER5861X_C010. ndd 271 ER5861X_C010. indd 271 8/16/07 6:24:27 PM 8/16/07 6:24:27 PM272 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE dei nition itself by 1977. h rough their ef orts to reinforce the process conception of educational technology, the leadership of the i eld now assumed that all of the major supporting concepts of the dei nition were t ied to, or should be viewed in light of, the systems approach. h e three major supporting concepts of the 1977 dei nition were learning resources, management, and development.Learning resources were any resources utilized in educational systems; a descriptive use of the systems concept the writers of the 1977 dei nition called â€Å"resources by utilization. † Authors called the resources specii cally designed for instructional purposes, a prescriptive use of the systems approach, â€Å"resources by design† or â€Å"instructional system components† (AECT, 1977). Like the concept of learning resources, management could be used in a descriptive fashion to describe administrative systems or in a prescriptive way to prescribe action. e concept of management was ot en used as a metaphor for the systems approach in education (Heinich, 1970). h e term instructional development was frequently used to mean the â€Å"systems approach to instructional development† o r â€Å"instructional systems development† (Twelker et al. , 1972). h e fact that the management view of the systems approach to instruction ot en included an instructional development process and the fact that instructional development models frequently included management as a task to be completed in the systems pproach to instructional development further intertwined the systems concept with the process view of educational technology. h ese descriptive and prescriptive interpretations of the 1977 dei nition would inl uence future dei nitions. As previously noted, the predilection that educational technology was a process was not new when the 1977 dei nition was written. Process was one of the three major supporting concepts incorporated into the rationale of the 1963 dei nition (Ely, 1963).Believing that educational technology was a process provided one of the major reasons that the leadership of the profession tended to reject the report of the Presidential Commission on Instructional Technology (1970), which focused heavily on the hardware of the i eld in its i rst dei nition of instructional technology. h e authors of the 1977 dei nition, who purposefully used the term process to develop a systematic and congruent scheme for the concept of educational technology, said, h e dei nition presented here dei nes the theory, the i eld, and profession as congruent. is occurs because the dei nition of the i eld of educational technology is directly derived from, and includes, the theory of educational technology, and the profession of educational technology is directly ER5861X_C010. indd 272 ER5861X_C010. indd 272 8/16/07 6:24:28 PM 8/16/07 6:24:28 PM10. A HISTORY OF THE AECT’S DEFINITIONS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 273 derived from, and includes, the i eld of educational technology. (AECT, 1977, p. 135) In the end, the ef ort to demonstrate the congruence of the major concepts involved with educational technology created as many issues for the i eld as it resolved.Five immediate advantages for describing educational technology as a process were (1) the use of the term process reinforced the primacy of the process view of educational technology over the product view of educational technology. h e process view had been outlined in the 1963 dei nition statement, but the report of the Presidential Commission on Instructional Technology (1970) appeared to reverse this emphasis. (2) h e term process would ground the dei nition of educational technology in the activities of its practitioners, activities that could be directly observed and verii ed. 3) h e term process could be used to describe educational technology as a theory, a i eld, or a profession. (4) h e term process allowed the further evolution of thought and research around the concept of systems. Finally, (5) an organized process implies the use of research and theory, which would reinforce the idea that educational technology was a profession. Educational Technology as F ield, h eory, or Profession h e authors of the 1977 dei nition argued that educational technology could be thought of â€Å"in three dif erent ways—as a theoretical construct, as a i eld, and as a profession† (AECT, 1977, p. 7). h ey continued, â€Å"None of the foregoing perspectives is more correct or better than the others. Each is a different way of thinking about the same thing† (p. 18). h e writers of the 1977 dei nition argued that the theoretical construct, the i eld, and the profession were all process based. h e term process described and connected all three of these perspectives of educational technology with a single word. Educational technology had been called a theory in the 1963 dei nition (Ely, 1963), and it had been called a i eld in the 1972 dei nition (Ely, 1972).New to the 1977 dei nition was the argument that educational technology was also a profession. Prior to the publication of the 1977 dei nition, the term profession was used in passing as it related to educational technology. Since Finn (1953) had argued that the i eld had not yet reached professional status, members of the i eld (e. g. , Silber, 1970) had made few attempts to analyze educational technology systematically as a profession. Using Finn’s criteria, the writers of the 1977 dei nition argued that educational technology was now a profession.Depending upon the interpretation and application of the systems concept, educational technology could be explained as a theory, a i eld, or a profession ER5861X_C010. indd 273 ER5861X_C010. indd 273 8/16/07 6:24:28 PM 8/16/07 6:24:28 PM274 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE in the 1977 dei nition. h e impact of using the term process to describe educational technology as a theory, a i eld, or a profession hinged on these dif ering interpretations of the systems approach, once again prompting discussions and philosophical debates among prominent educational technologists. e period of the 1980s was not so focused on c riticism of the 1977 dei nition as much as characterized by broad academic wrangling over the interpretation and application of the dei nition (Januszewski, 1995, 2001). h e three major supporting concepts of the 1977 dei nition—learning resources, management, and development—could also be interpreted dif erently based on divergent conceptions of the systems approach. h e dif erent interpretations of learning resources, management, and development also provided the writers of the 1977 dei nition with a rationale to distinguish between educational technology and instructional technology.The 1994 Definition By 1994, the dei nition of educational technology had nearly come full circle. h e dei nition that was produced in 1994 read, â€Å"Instructional technology is the theory and practice of design, development, utilization, management, and evaluation of processes and resources for learning† (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 1). h ere are no new concepts included in the 19 94 dei nition. What was new was the identii cation of multiple theoretical and conceptual issues in the explanation of the dei nition. e 1994 dei nition was intended to be much less complex than the 1977 dei nition. h e extent to which the writers were successful can be judged in part by reviewing the criticisms of the 1977 dei nition. h e attempt by the writers of the 1977 dei nition to show the congruence of educational technology and instructional technology revealed a conceptual problem for the i eld. h e dei nition of educational technology, which was concerned with â€Å"all aspects of human learning† (AECT, 1977, p. ), had become so broad that some individuals in the i eld of education pointed out that there was no dif erence between educational technology and curriculum, school administration, or teaching methods (Ely, 1982). Saettler (1990) wryly pointed out that the dei nition had become everything to everybody, and he dubbed the 1977 dei nition the â€Å"omnibus d ei nition. † Logical Problems h ere were also serious l aws in the reasoning and the conceptual interpretations used in the theoretical framework and rationale for the 1977 dei nition of educational technology.Establishing the dif erence between ER5861X_C010. indd 274 ER5861X_C010. indd 274 8/16/07 6:24:28 PM 8/16/07 6:24:28 PM10. A HISTORY OF THE AECT’S DEFINITIONS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 275 education and instruction, the authors argued, â€Å"Education, then, includes two classes of processes not included in instruction: those processes related to the administration of instruction . . . and those processes related to situations in which learning occurs when it is not deliberately managed† (AECT, 1977, p. 56).An example of learning not deliberately managed given in the discussion was â€Å"incidental learning† (p. 56). It was reasonable for the authors to argue that nondeliberately managed learning and/or incidental learning was part of the concept of education (Januszewski, 1997). However, the dei nitions of â€Å"technology† by Galbraith (1967), Hoban (1962), and Finn (1960a, 1965), which were used by the authors of the 1977 dei nition to discuss the term technology as it related to the concept of educational technology, all included the ideas of organization, management, and control (AECT, 1977). e writers of the 1977 dei nition considered organization, management, and control critical characteristics of technology; but these ideas were contrary to the idea of â€Å"incidental learning† and â€Å"learning that was not deliberately managed. † Education, at least as it was distinguished from instruction included in the rationale of the 1977 dei nition, did not seem compatible with technology. It is dii cult to conceive of a technology of the incidental, unmanaged, and unintended. e gains made in the organization of the framework of the concept of educational technology by distinguishing between education and instruction were lost when education was paired with technology (Januszewski, Butler, & Yeaman, 1996). h eory or theoretical construct. h e relationship of educational technology to â€Å"theory† presented another problem in the discussion of educational technology presented in the 1977 dei nition and rationale. ere are three ways in which the concept of theory is related to educational technology in the 1977 dei nition statement: (1) the thought that educational technology was a â€Å"theoretical construct† (AECT, 1977, pp. 18, 20, 24); (2) the notion that educational technology itself was â€Å"a theory† (AECT, 1977, pp. 2, 135, 138); and (3) that the â€Å"dei nition of educational technology was a theory† (AECT, 1977, pp. 4, 20, 134). To some degree, all three of these discussions of theory and educational technology are accurate, but they cannot be used interchangeably as they are in the 1977 dei nition.A theoretical construct is not the same as a t heory; nor is it the case, that because a dei nition of a concept is a theory, the concept itself a theory. h e word theory has been used in at least four ways in the literature of the i eld of education: (1) the â€Å"law like† theory of the hard sciences; (2) theories that are supported by statistical evidence; (3) theories that identify variables that inl uence the i eld of study; and (4) theory as a systematic analysis of a set of related concepts (Kliebard, 1977). ER5861X_C010. indd 275 ER5861X_C010. ndd 275 8/16/07 6:24:29 PM 8/16/07 6:24:29 PM276 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE h e fourth sense of theory is of interest to this analysis of the 1977 dei nition of educational technology. Systematic analyses of any abstract concept can be said to be theories of that concept. Referring to educational technology as a theoretical construct, or a theory, or calling the dei nition of educational technology a theory may be accurate if the construct or theory includes a systematic an alysis of the concept of educational technology. e writers of the 1977 dei nition provided criteria for â€Å"theory† that was not theory as a systematic analysis of related concepts. h e 1977 view of theory was an attempt to establish general principles and predict outcomes (AECT, 1977). h is approach was substantially dif erent from the usage of the word theory in the 1963 dei nition statement. Further confusion arises because of the writers’ claim that educational technology did indeed meet the criteria for being a predictive theory (Januszewski, 1995, 2001).Certainly â€Å"educational technology† is a theoretical construct. â€Å"Educational technology† may also be considered a theory depending on what exactly is intended by the word theory. The 1977 definition of educational technology is a theory about the abstract concept of â€Å"educational technology. † But because the definition of the concept of educational technology may be a theory of educational technology, it does not necessarily follow that the concept of educational technology is itself a theory.This is similar to saying that a definition of the concept of democracy may be a theory of democracy but that the concept of democracy itself is not a theory. Few involved in the field of educational technology adopted this systematic treatment of the concepts provided in the 1977 definition. Many in the field adopted only portions of the definition (e. g. , Gustafson, 1981). Certain parts of the definition and the supporting statements were cited by scholars in order to make erudite points about the field of educational technology (e. . , Romiszowski, 1981), but a reading of the literature of the field during this era reveals that the whole of the conceptual framework provided in the 1977 definition, specifically the part intended to distinguish educational technology from instructional technology, was not widely accepted by the professionals in the field of educati onal technology (Seels & Richey, 1994). This lack of acceptance led to the label changes in the 1994 definition. Distinguishing between educational and instructional. e ef ort to revise the 1977 dei nition addressed some of the conceptual incongruencies of previous dei nitions. h e i rst of these was the dif erence between educational and instructional technology. Unlike the writers of the 1977 dei nition, who sought to distinguish between educational technology and instructional technology, ER5861X_C010. indd 276 ER5861X_C010. indd 276 8/16/07 6:24:29 PM 8/16/07 6:24:29 PM10. A HISTORY OF THE AECT’S DEFINITIONS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 277 the authors of the 1994 dei nition acknowledged that this problem had no easy answer. ey admitted, â€Å"At present the terms ‘Educational Technology’ and ‘Instructional Technology’ are used interchangeably by most professionals in the i eld† (p. 5). But they argued, Because the term ‘Instructional T echnology’ (a) is more commonly used today in the United States, (b) encompasses many practice settings, (c) describes more precisely the function of technology in education, and (d) allows for an emphasis on both instruction and learning in the same dei nitional sentence, the term ‘Instructional Technology’ is used in the 1994 dei nition, but the two terms are considered synonymous. Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 5) With that, the oi cial label of the i eld was changed from â€Å"educational technology† to â€Å"instructional technology,† although it was quite acceptable to continue to use the term educational technology. Underlying Assumptions Seels and Richey (1994) did dif erentiate the 1994 dei nition from previous dei nitions by identifying and analyzing some of the assumptions that underlie this dei nition. Identii ed assumptions included Instructional technology has evolved from a movement to a i eld and profession.Since a profession is concerned with a knowledge base, the 1994 dei nition must identify and emphasize instructional technology as a i eld of study as well as practice (p. 2). A revised dei nition of the i eld should encompass those areas of concern to practitioners and scholars. h ese areas are the domains of the i eld (p. 2). Both process and product are of vital importance to the i eld and need to be rel ected in the dei nition (p. 2). Subtleties not clearly understood or recognized by the typical Instructional Technology professional should be removed from the dei nition and its more extended explanation (p. ). It is assumed that both research and practice in the i eld are carried out in conformity with ethical norms of the profession (p. 3). Instructional technology is characterized by ef ectiveness and ei – ciency (p. 3). h e concept of systematic is implicit in the 1994 dei nition because the domains are equivalent to the systematic process for developing instruction (p. 8). †¢ †¢ †¢ à ¢â‚¬ ¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ ER5861X_C010. indd 277 ER5861X_C010. indd 277 8/16/07 6:24:29 PM 8/16/07 6:24:29 PM278 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE h e inclusion of these ssumptions in the analysis and explanation accompanying the 1994 dei nition allowed for the publication of a dei nition that was much more â€Å"economical† than were previous dei nition ef orts. h eory and Practice h e authors of the 1994 dei nition stated that the dei nition was composed of four components: (a) theory and practice; (b) design, development, utilization, management and evaluation; (c) processes and resources; and (d) learning. h ese components were not necessarily new; but in this dei nition, they were reorganized, simplii ed, and connected, in a way making the 1994 dei nition unique. e 1994 dei nition used the phrasing included in the 1963 dei nition when it called instructional technology â€Å"the theory and practice of. † And the authors argued, â€Å"A profession must have a knowl edge base that supports practice† (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 9). h e authors used a simple but rather clear notion that â€Å"theory consists of the concepts, constructs, principles, and propositions that contribute to the body of knowledge† and that â€Å"practice is the application of the knowledge† (p. 11).In so doing, the authors cleared up the problem of the meaning of theory that they had inherited from the writers of the 1977 dei nition, a dei nition of theory that had been too precise. Domains h e concepts (or â€Å"domains† of the 1994 dei nition) of design, development, utilization, management, and evaluation comprise the accepted knowledge base of the i eld today as evidenced by the Standards for the Accreditation of School Media Specialist and Educational Technology Specialist Programs (AECT, 2000).When these concepts are taken together and conducted in sequential order, they are the same as the stages of â€Å"development† described in t he 1977 dei nition. h ese concepts are directly traceable to the idea of educational engineering developed by W. W. Charters (1945). It is important to realize that the authors of the 1994 dei nition did not intend that practitioners of educational technology perform all of these tasks in the sequential order. Specializing in or focusing on one of these tasks would include broad practitioners in the i eld (Seels & Richey, 1994).Seels and Richey (1994) provided dei nitions of processes and resources: â€Å"A process is a series of operations or activities directed towards a particular end† (p. 12). â€Å"Resources are sources of support for learning, including support systems and instructional materials and environments† (p. 12). h ese descriptions allowed the authors to (a) use process to reinforce notions of ER5861X_C010. indd 278 ER5861X_C010. indd 278 8/16/07 6:24:30 PM 8/16/07 6:24:30 PM10.A HISTORY OF THE AECT’S DEFINITIONS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 279 eng ineering and science in instruction; (b) maintain the distinction between resources as things and processes; and (c) be consistent with terminology used in all three previous dei nitions. h e concept of learning was not new to the 1994 dei nition; however, the dei nition of learning intended by the authors was new. In previous dei nitions, the term learning was intended to connote a change in behavior such as advocated by Tyler (1950). But the authors of the 1994 dei nition wanted to move away from a strong behaviorist orientation. ey argued, â€Å"In this dei nition learning refers to the ‘relatively permanent change in a person’s knowledge or behavior due to experience’† (Mayer, 1982, as cited in Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 12). Including the phrase â€Å"due to experience† also aided in moving away from causal connections and allowed for incidental learning. h is interpretation signaled the acceptance of a dif erent kind of science in education: one less grounded on prediction and control and more interested in applying other theoretical and research principles to the instructional process.Criticism of the 1994 Dei nition h e primary criticism of the 1994 dei nition is that instructional technology appeared to look too much like the systems approach to instructional development while changes in the practice of the i eld (e. g. , constructivistbased initiatives and the general acceptance of computer innovations in classroom methodologies) made the 1994 dei nition too restrictive for mainstream teachers and school administrators as well as researchers and scholars. h ese criticisms and further evolution of the research and practice in the i eld led to a need for reconsideration and evision of this dei nition at er more than a decade of use. The Current Definition h e task force empanelled by AECT to review the 1994 dei nition wrestled with the historical issues presented here and with other issues of perception, changing employm ent and training expectations, semantics, and a strong desire to develop a dei nition that both served to include the broad variety of practitioners in this i eld and one which would prompt renewed attention to the theory and research so critical to our continued contributions to learning.In a sense, we are not so far removed in this century from the professional goal stated in the 1963 dei nition: ER5861X_C010. indd 279 ER5861X_C010. indd 279 8/16/07 6:24:30 PM 8/16/07 6:24:30 PM280 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE It is the responsibility of educational leaders to respond intelligently to technological change . . . If the DAVI membership is to support the leadership in such bold steps, dei nition and terminology as a basis for direction of professional growth is a prime prerequisite . . Now that the i eld of audiovisual communications, the largest single segment of the growing technology of instruction, has reached the point of decision making, we i nd ourselves in the same quandary ot her i elds have discovered when they have attempted to dei ne their i elds: i. e. , dei nition exists at various levels of understanding but no one dei nition can be the dei nition. (Ely, 1963, pp. 16–18)And so, the latest in the line of dei nitions of educational technology: â€Å"Educational technology is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources. † References Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (1972). h e i eld of educational technology: A statement of dei nition. Audiovisual Instruction, 17, 36–43. Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (1977). h e dei nition of educational technology. Washington, DC: Author.Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (2000). Standards for the accreditation of school media specialist and educational technology specialist programs. Bloomington, IN : Author. Berlo, D. (1960). h e process of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Charters, W. W. (1945). Is there a i eld of educational engineering? Educational Research Bulletin, 24(2), 29–37, 53. Commission on Instructional Technology. (1970). To improve learning: A report to the President and the Congress of the United States. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Oi ce. Ely, D. P. (1963). e changing role of the audiovisual process: A dei nition and glossary of related terms. Audiovisual Communication Review, 11(1), Supplement 6. Ely, D. P. (1972). h e i eld of educational technology: A statement of dei nition. Audiovisual Instruction, 17, 36–43. Ely, D. P. (1973). Dei ning the i eld of educational technology. Audiovisual Instruction, 18(3), 52–53. ER5861X_C010. indd 280 ER5861X_C010. indd 280 8/16/07 6:24:31 PM 8/16/07 6:24:31 PM10. A HISTORY OF THE AECT’S DEFINITIONS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 281 Ely, D. P. (1982). h e dei nition of educational technology: An emerging stability.Educational Considerations, 10(2), 24. Ely, D. P. (1994). Personal conversations. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University. Ely, D. P. , Funderburk, E. , Briggs, L. , Engler, D. , Dietrich, J. , Davis, R. , et al. (1970). Comments on the report of the Commission on Instructional Technology. Audiovisual Communications Review, 18(3), 306–326. Finn, J. D. (1953). Professionalizing the audiovisual i eld. Audiovisual Communications Review, 1(1), 617. Finn, J. D. (1957). Automation and education: General aspects. Audiovisual Communications Review, 5(1), 343–360. Finn, J. D. (1960a).Automation and education: A new theory for instructional technology. Audiovisual Communications Review, 8(1), 526. Finn, J. D. (1960b). Teaching machines: Auto instructional devices for the teacher. NEA Journal, 49(8), 41–44. Finn, J. D. (1965). Instructional technology. Audiovisual Instruction, 10(3), 192–194. Finn, J. D. (1967, August). Dia log in search of relevance. Paper presented at the Audiovisual Communication Leadership Conference, Lake Okoboji, Iowa. Galbraith, J. K. (1967). h e new industrial state. Boston: Houghton Mil in. Gerbner, G. (1956). Toward a general model of communication.Audiovisual Communications Review, 4, 171–199. Gustafson, K. (1981). Survey of instructional development models. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 211 097) Heinich, R. (1970). Technology and the management of instruction. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Hoban, C. F. (1962, March). Implications of theory for research and implementation in the new media. Paper presented at the Conference on h eory for the New Media in Education, Michigan State University, Lansing, Michigan. Hoban, C. F. (1968).Man, ritual, the establishment and instructional technology. Educational Technology, 10(5), 11. Januszewski, A. (1995). h e de i nition of educational technology: An intellectual and historical account. Ann Arbor, MI: Microi lms International. Januszewski, A. (1997, February). Considerations for intellectual history in instructional design and technology. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Albuquerque, New Mexico. ER5861X_C010. indd 281 ER5861X_C010. indd 281 8/16/07 6:24:31 PM 8/16/07 6:24:31 PM282 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE Januszewski, A. 2001). Educational technology: h e development of a concept. Libraries Unlimited: Englewood, CO. Januszewski, A. , Butler, R. , & Yeaman, A. (1996, October). Writing histories of visual literacy and educational technology. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Visual Literacy Association, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Kliebard, H. M. (1977). Curriculum theory: Give me a â€Å"for instance. † Curriculum Inquiry, 6(4), 257–269. Knowlton, J. Q. (1964). A conceptual scheme for the audiovisual i eld. Bulletin of the School of Education, Indiana University, 40(3). Myers, D. C. & Cochran, L. M. (1973). Statement of dei nition: A response. Audiovisual Instruction, 18(5), 11–13. Romiszowski, A. J. (1981). Designing instructional systems. London: Kogan Page. Saettler, P. (1990). h e evolution of American educational technology. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc. Seels, B. , & Richey, R. (1994). Instructional technology: h e dei nition and domains of the i eld. Washington, DC: AECT Press. Silber, K. (1970). What i eld are we in, anyhow? Audiovisual Instruction, 15(5), 21–24. Silber, K. (1972). h e learning system. Audiovisual Instruction, 17(7), 10–27.Twelker, P. A. , Urbach, F. D. , & Buck, J. E. (1972). h e systematic development of instruction: An overview and basic guide to t