Educational Media and Technology Yearbook

485 Pages·2010·3.87 MB·English

by  Liz May

Michael Orey
Stephanie A. Jones
Robert Maribe Branch
Editors
Educational Media
and Technology
Yearbook
Volume 35, 2010
123
Educational Media and Technology Yearbook
Forfurthervolumes:
http://www.springer.com/series/8617
· ·
Michael Orey Stephanie A. Jones
Robert Maribe Branch
Editors
Educational Media and
Technology Yearbook
Volume 35, 2010
In cooperation with the AECT
123
Editors
MichaelOrey StephanieA.Jones
DepartmentofEducationalPsychology Leadership,Technology,andHuman
andInstructionalTechnology DevelopmentDepartment
GeorgiaSouthernUniversity
UniversityofGeorgia
P.O.Box8131
604AderholdHall
StatesboroGA30460
AthensGA30602
USA
USA [email protected]
[email protected]
RobertMaribeBranch
DepartmentofEducationalPsychology
andInstructionalTechnology
UniversityofGeorgia
604AderholdHall
AthensGA30602
USA
[email protected]
ISSN8755-2094
ISBN978-1-4419-1502-3 e-ISBN978-1-4419-1516-0
DOI10.1007/978-1-4419-1516-0
SpringerNewYorkDordrechtHeidelbergLondon
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:PCNappliedfor
©SpringerScience+BusinessMedia,LLC2010
Allrightsreserved.Thisworkmaynotbetranslatedorcopiedinwholeorinpartwithoutthewritten
permission of the publisher (Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 233 Spring Street, New York,
NY10013,USA),exceptforbriefexcerptsinconnectionwithreviewsorscholarlyanalysis.Usein
connectionwithanyformofinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,
orbysimilarordissimilarmethodologynowknownorhereafterdevelopedisforbidden.
Theuseinthispublicationoftradenames,trademarks,servicemarks,andsimilarterms,eveniftheyare
notidentifiedassuch,isnottobetakenasanexpressionofopinionastowhetherornottheyaresubject
toproprietaryrights.
Printedonacid-freepaper
SpringerispartofSpringerScience+BusinessMedia(www.springer.com)
Preface
The audience for the Yearbook consists of media and technology professionals in
schools, higher education, and business contexts. Topics of interest to profession-
alspracticingintheseareasarebroad,astheTableofContentsdemonstrates.The
themeunifyingeachofthechaptersinthebookistheuseoftechnologytoenable
or enhance education. Forms of technology represented in this volume vary from
traditional tools such as the book to the latest advancements in digital technology,
while areas of education encompass widely ranging situations involving learning
andteaching,whichareideatechnologies.
Asinpriorvolumes,theassumptionsunderlyingthechapterspresentedhereare
asfollows:
1. Technologyrepresentstoolsthatactasextensionsoftheeducator.
2. Mediaserveasdeliverysystemsforeducationalcommunications.
3. Technologyisnotrestrictedtomachinesandhardware,butincludestechniques
and procedures derived from scientific research about ways to promote change
inhumanperformance.
4. The fundamental tenet is that educational media and technology should be
usedto
a. achieveauthenticlearningobjectives,
b. situatelearningtasks,
c. negotiatethecomplexitiesofguidedlearning,
d. facilitatetheconstructionofknowledge,
e. aidintheassessment/documentingoflearning,
f. supportskillacquisition,and
g. managediversity.
The Educational Media and Technology Yearbook has become a standard ref-
erence in many libraries and professional collections. Examined in relation to its
companion volumes of the past, it provides a valuable historical record of cur-
rent ideas and developments in the field. Part I, “Trends and Issues in Learning,
Design, and Technology,” presents an array of chapters that develop some of the
current themes listed above, in addition to others. Part II, “Trends and Issues in
v
vi Preface
Library and Information Science,” concentrates on chapters of special relevance
to K-12 education, library science education, school learning resources, and var-
ious types of library and media centers – school, public, and academic among
others. In Part III, “Leadership Profiles,” authors provide biographical sketches
of the careers of instructional technology leaders. Part IV, “Organizations and
Associations,” and Part V, “Graduate Programs,” are, respectively, directories of
instructional technology-related organizations and institutions of higher learning
offeringdegreesinrelatedfields.Finally,PartVI,“Mediagraphy:PrintandNonprint
Resources,”presentsanannotatedlistingofselectedcurrentpublicationsrelatedto
thefield.
The editors of the Yearbook invite media and technology professionals to
submitmanuscriptsforconsiderationforpublication.ContactMichaelOrey(mike-
[email protected])forsubmissionguidelines.
For a number of years, we have worked together as editors,and this is the sev-
enth year with Dr. Michael Orey as the senior editor. Within each volume of the
EducationalMediaandTechnologyYearbook(EMTY),wetrytolistallthegradu-
ateprograms,journals,andorganizationsthatarerelatedtobothLearning,Design,
andTechnology(LDT)andInformationandLibraryScience(ILS).Wealsoinclude
asectionontrendsinLDTandtrendsinILS,andwehaveasectionprofilingsome
of the leaders in the field. Beginning with the 2007 volume, we have attempted to
generate a list of leading programs in the combined areas of LDT and ILS. Last
year,wewereabletocomposeanalphabeticallistof30programsthatpeopletold
us were among the best. However, this year we decided to be more systematic.
Instead of following the US News and World Report model and have one top pro-
gramlist,wedecidedtousesomeofthesamenumbersthattheyuseandgenerate
acollectionoftop-20lists,ratherthanattempttogenerateastatisticallysignificant
rankingslist.Onethoughtwastorankprogramsaccordingtothenumberofpublica-
tionsthatwereproduced;however,decidingwhichjournalstoincludewasanissue.
Wedecidedtouse2007and2008astheyearstocount(sinceatthetimeofwriting,
itisstill2009andsowedonothaveacompleteyear).Furthermore,wedecidedto
onlycountactualresearchreportsthatappearedinoneoftwojournals,Educational
Technology Research and Development and the Journal of the Learning Sciences.
Thesetwojournalswereprimarilyselectedbasedonthegeneralsensethattheyare
theleadingjournalsintheareaofLDT.Noticeablyabsentistheareaofinformation
and library science. So, while these numbers are pretty absolute, choosing to only
countthesejournalsissomewhatarbitrary.
The other top-20 listsare based on self-reportdata collected as partof thepro-
graminformationintheEducationalMediaandTechnologyYearbook.Everyyear,
we collect general information about programs in LDT and ILS and publish this
informationintheYearbook.Thisyearweoptedtocollectsomeadditionaldata.We
asked the representatives of each of the institutions to enter the US dollar amount
ofgrantsandcontracts,thenumberofPhDgraduates,thenumberofmaster’sgrad-
uates,andthenumberofothergraduatesfromtheirprograms.Wealsoaskedthem
forthenumberoffull-timeandpart-timefaculty.Wethengeneratedatop-20listfor
someofthesecategories.Thelimitationinthiscaseisthatitisself-reportdataand
Preface vii
thereisnorealwayofverifyingthatthedataisaccurate.So,whilethelistofthe30
topprogramslastyearlackedharddata,andtheliststhisyeararebasedonnumbers,
thosenumbersmaybejustasunreliable.Intheend,wehaveacollectionofliststhat
wehopewillbeofusetoourreaders.Manyoftheuniversitiesthatappearedinthe
top-30 list last year are here again, in addition to many others. More information
aboutmanyoftheseuniversitiescanbefoundinPartVofthisedition.
Therearesixtop-20listsinthispreface.Thefirstofthesetop-20listsisbasedon
acountofpublications.Weusedeveryissuefromthe2007and2008volumeyears
oftheEducationalTechnologyResearchandDevelopmentjournalandtheJournal
of the Learning Sciences. We eliminated all book reviews and letters to the editor
andsuchothers.Weonlyusedtheprimaryacademicarticlesofthesejournals.Each
publicationcounted1point.Ifthearticlehadtwoauthors,theneachauthor’sinsti-
tutionreceived0.5points.Iftherewerethreeauthors,then0.33wasspreadacross
theinstitutions.Also,asanadditionalexample,iftherewerethreeauthorsandtwo
of them were from the same institution, then that institution received 0.66 points
andtheinstitutionoftheremainingauthorreceived0.33.Finally,theunitreceiving
thepointswastheuniversity.So,inthecaseofIndianaUniversitywheretheyhave
bothaLearningSciencesandanInstructionalTechnologyprogram,allofthepoints
forITandLSwereaggregatedintoonevariablecalledIndianaUniversity.Table1
showsourresults.NanyangTechnologicalUniversitycameoutasthetopLDTpro-
gramintheworld.Theywerealsoinmylistlastyear.Interestingly,theUniversity
of Wisconsin and the University of Colorado, numbers 3 and 4, were not even on
lastyear’slist.Thelistthisyearismuchmoreinternationalwithuniversitiesfrom
all over the world. An interesting result is that since there is not enough variance,
wehavea5-waytieforsixthanda28-waytiefortwentieth.Wewouldlovetohear
your feedback on this approach for the future. Are there other journals that ought
to be included? Is it unfair that there are more publications in ETRD than IJLS?
What about recent graduates publishing with their new institution when the work
wasdoneattheirpreviousinstitution?Iamcertaintherearemanyotherissues,and
wewelcomeconstructivefeedback.
Thetwoprimarymeasuresofresearchachievementarepublicationsandgrants.
WhilechoosingETRDandIJLSwassomewhatarbitrary,thenumbersareverifiable.
InTable2,wepresentthetop-20programsaccordingtothedollaramountofgrants
and contracts for that program over the academic year 2008–2009. While Table 1
wasconstrainedtoLDT,Table2hasbothLDTandILSprograms,whichresultedin
UNCbeingnumber2inthegrantsandcontractslist,butnotappearingatallinthe
publicationlist.Nextyear,wewillcountpublicationsintheILSarea.Universityof
Calgarycomesoutasthetopprogramintermsofgrantandcontracts.Theynearly
doubledtheamountofthenumber2institution.TexasTech,whodidnotshowup
onmylistlastyear,comesinastrongthirdintheareaofgrantsandcontracts.
Tables1and2aremeasuresofresearchproductivity.Theremainingfourtables
aremorerelatedtoteachingthanresearch.Thefirst,Table3,showsthetop-20pro-
grams in terms of the number of full-time faculty. You will notice that the list is
correctundertheFTcategory,butnumber4,UniversitédePoitiers,hasmoretotal
facultythannumber3,theUniversityofNorthCarolina.Wedecidedthatfull-time
viii Preface
Table 1 Top-20 graduate programs in the area of Learning, Design, and Technology as mea-
suredbythenumberofpublicationsinEducationalTechnologyResearchandDevelopmentand
theJournaloftheLearningSciences
Rank University Pubs Rank University Pubs
1 NanyangTechnological 4.33 20 EdithCowanUniversity 1
University
2 ArizonaStateUniversity 3.66 20 MandelLeadershipInst 1
3 UniversityofWisconsin 3.3 20 MiamiUniversity 1
4 UniversityofColorado 2.83 20 MIT 1
5 IndianaUniversity 2.66 20 NationalChengKung 1
University
6 SultanQaboosUniversity 2 20 NorthernIllinoisUniversity, 1
DeKalb
6 SUNY-Buffalo 2 20 OklahomaStateUniversity 1
6 UniversityofGeorgia 2 20 OpenUniversityofthe 1
Netherlands
6 UniversityofHongKong 2 20 QueenslandUniversityof 1
Technology
6 UniversityofNewMexico 2 20 Rutgers 1
11 UCLA 1.83 20 SUNY-Albany 1
12 Stanford 1.5 20 Tel-AvivUniversity 1
12 UniversityofIllinois 1.5 20 UniversityCentralFlorida 1
14 PurdueUniversity 1.46 20 UniversityofBritish 1
Columbia
15 BrighamYoungUniversity 1.33 20 UniversityofCambridge 1
15 FloridaStateUniversity 1.33 20 UniversityofGothenburg 1
15 LehighUniversity 1.33 20 UniversityofKwaZulu-Natal 1
18 UniversityofMemphis 1.2 20 Universityof 1
Mass-Dartmouth
19 UtrechtUniversity 1.14 20 UniversityofMichigan 1
20 UniversityofMissouri 1
20 UniversityofNevada 1
20 UniversityofPittsburgh 1
20 UniversityofRochester 1
20 UniversityofSydney 1
20 UniversityofWashington 1
20 UC-SantaCruz 1
20 UniversidaddeLaSabana 1
20 WayneStateUniversity 1
facultywasmoreimportantthanparttimeasameasureandsoonlygeneratedone
list for number of faculty. We just thought it would be interesting to see the total
numberoffacultyaswell.Forexample,itisveryinterestingthatthenumber1uni-
versity for full-time faculty, Drexel University, has a whopping total of 111 total
faculty.
The next top-20 list is the number of PhD graduates. This list might be a good
measure of research productivity as well as teaching productivity. It is interesting
that Indiana University came out on top, yet I am unsure if this is the number
of Instructional Technology or Learning Sciences or both? George Mason comes
Preface ix
Table2 Top-20LDTandILSprogramsbytheamountofgrantandcontractmonies
Rank University Department/Program TotalinUS$
1 UniversityofCalgary GraduateDivisionof $20,000,000
EducationalResearch
2 UniversityofNorthCarolina, SchoolofInformationand $11,502,614
ChapelHill LibraryScience
3 TexasTechUniversity InstructionalTechnology $6,000,000
4 HarvardUniversity GraduateSchoolof $3,000,000
Education
5 GeorgeMasonUniversity InstructionalTechnology $2,500,000
Programs
6 UniversityofHouston CurriculumandInstruction $2,000,000
6 UtrechtUniversity EducationalSciences $2,000,000
LearninginInteraction
6 ArizonaStateUniversity; DivisionofPsychologyin $2,000,000
EducationalTechnology Education
program
6 EwhaWomansUniversity EducationalTechnology $2,000,000
Department
6 UniversityofBridgeport InstructionalTechnology $2,000,000
6 DrexelUniversity TheiSchoolatDrexel, $2,000,000
CollegeofInformation
ScienceandTechnology
12 IndianaUniversity SchoolofEducation $1,450,000
13 TheOhioStateUniversity CulturalFoundations, $1,200,000
Technology,and
QualitativeInquiry
14 UniversityofHawaii-Manoa DepartmentofEducational $1,097,246
Technology
15 Universityof CurriculumandInstruction, $1,000,000
Wisconsin-Madison SchoolofEducation
15 CaliforniaStateUniversity InterdisciplinaryMasterin $1,000,000
MontereyBay(CSUMB) InstructionalScienceand
Technology(MIST)
15 UniversityofFlorida SchoolofTeachingand $1,000,000
Learning
15 UniversityofMassachusetts, Learning,Mediaand $1,000,000
Amherst TechnologyMasters
Program/MathScience
andLearningTechnology
DoctoralProgram
15 UniversitédePoitiers Ingénieriedesmédiaspour $1,000,000
léducation
20 Universityof SchoolofInformation $800,000
Missouri-Columbia ScienceandLearning
Technologies
in second and Wayne state as number 3; some people I talked to last year men-
tionedthesetwoschoolsasmorepractitionerorientedthanotherprograms.These
numbers, as research numbers, would suggest that this is not correct. Another
measure that might be interesting to count is the number of graduates who have
takenacademicpositionsasopposedtopractitioner-orientedpositions.
x Preface
Table3 Top-20LDTandILSprogramsbythenumberoffull-timefaculty(alsoshownisthetotal
faculty,whichincludesbothfull-andpart-timefaculty)
Rank University Department/Program FT Total
1 DrexelUniversity TheiSchoolatDrexel, 38 111
CollegeofInformation
ScienceandTechnology
2 Universityof CurriculumandInstructional 30 45
Missouri-KansasCity Leadership
3 UniversityofNorthCarolina SchoolofInformationand 26 32
LibraryScience
4 UniversitédePoitiers Ingénieriedesmédiaspour 25 50
léducation
5 MiddleEastTechnical ComputerEducationand 20 60
University InstructionalTechnology
5 ValdostaStateUniversity Curriculum,Leadership,and 20 30
Technology
7 TowsonUniversity CollegeofEducation 17 22
8 RegisUniversity SchoolofEducationand 15 165
Counseling
9 TheUniversityofHong FacultyofEducation 12 102
Kong
9 ValleyCityStateUniversity SchoolofEducationand 12 20
GraduateStudies
9 UtrechtUniversity EducationalSciences 12 19
LearninginInteraction
9 FordhamUniversity MAPrograminPublic 12 16
Communicationsinthe
Departmentof
Communicationand
MediaStudies
9 UniversityofGeorgia DepartmentofEducational 12 14
Psychologyand
InstructionalTechnology,
CollegeofEducation
14 AthabascaUniversity CentreforDistance 11 26
Education
14 UniversityofBridgeport InstructionalTechnology 11 25
14 IndianaUniversity SchoolofEducation 11 15
14 LouisianaStateUniversity SchoolofLibraryand 11 11
InformationScience
14 TheUniversityofOklahoma InstructionalPsychologyand 11 11
Technology,Department
ofEducationalPsychology
19 PennStateGreatValley Education 10 25
SchoolofGraduate Division/Instructional
ProfessionalStudies SystemsProgram
19 CaliforniaStateUniversity InterdisciplinaryMasterin 10 22
MontereyBay(CSUMB) InstructionalScienceand
Technology(MIST)
19 UniversityofWestGeorgia DepartmentofMediaand 10 14
InstructionalTechnology