100 word reply with reference I chose scenario 3 as my discussion for this week.Scenario 3: John Burns is interested

100 word reply with reference

I chose scenario 3 as my discussion for this week.Scenario 3: John Burns is interested in starting to teach his Introduction to College Writing course online. He has heard that there are a number of things he will need to consider as he begins to think about this idea. Why is it necessary for John to determine resources available at distant sites when preparing to teach at a distance?

According to Simonson et al, (2015) Mr. Burns is one of the many “educators that is developing his own versions of distance instruction to meet the learning needs of a highly diverse population” (p. 166). It is very important for Mr. Burns to have his resources available at the distant sites, because without them there is no structure. This could show that Mr. Burns is not prepared and organized. Holder (2019) states that an online instructor should have “clear goals and objectives, clear expectations, focus on effectiveness not efficiency, and instructor’s contact information” (slide 8).

Quillen’s (2015) study found the following:

Clear syllabus: In an online setting, those documents take considerably more importance as a course road map. The syllabus is what really sets the terms and the conditions for that relationship between professor and student.

No set timetable for emails: Failing to do this can create a sense of disconnect or uncertainty with students. Not knowing when professors will respond to student emails or online postings can cause students to feel unsure about how to interact with professors. (Quillen, 2015)

Mr. Burns is new to this whole online teaching, so therefore he should seek a mentor to help him get things set up the right way. Another thing that Quillen (2015) stated was, “Rather than working yourself into a lather to cover up or conceal that you are new to online teaching , I think being transparent, being honest about what is new about this experience is actually really beneficial to students and yourself”

References

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2015). Teaching and

learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education. (6th ed.) Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.

Holder, D. (2019). EDUC 631: Foundations and theory of distance education

[powerpointslides]. Retrieved from

https://learn.liberty.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-28430817

Quillen, I. (2015). 6 Signs of a Bad Online Instructor. Retrieved from

https://www.usnews.com/education/online-education/…


J. Michael Spector · M. David Merrill
Jan Elen · M.J. Bishop Editors
Handbook of Research
on Educational
Communications
and Technology
Fourth Edition
Handbook of Research on Educational
Communications and Technology
J. Michael Spector • M. David Merrill
Jan Elen • M.J. Bishop
Editors
Handbook of Research on
Educational Communications
and Technology
Fourth Edition
Editors
J. Michael Spector
Department of Learning Technologies, C
University of North Texas
Denton, TX, USA
Jan Elen
University of Leuven
Leuven, Belgium
M. David Merrill
Utah State University
Logan, UT, USA
M.J. Bishop
Lehigh University
Bethlehem, PA, USA
ISBN 978-1-4614-3184-8
ISBN 978-1-4614-3185-5 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5
Springer New York Heidelberg Dordrecht London
Library of Congress Control Number: 2013940063
First edition © published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates in 1996
Second edition © published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates in 2004
Third edition © published by Routledge in 2008; published in Chinese by East China Normal University Press in 2011
Fourth Edition © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is
concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction
on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation,
computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this
legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically
for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.
Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the
Publisher’s location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Permissions
for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center. Violations are liable to prosecution
under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not
imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and
regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication, neither
the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may
be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)
A well-known issue of Educational Technology Research & Development in
1994 addressed the question of whether and to what extent media influence
learning. Two opposing perspectives were presented in that issue by
Richard Clark and Robert Kozma, both of whom have also contributed to this
Handbook. One way to think about this Handbook, along with the three
previous editions, is to recall that media debate and think about how research
and practice have since evolved. We dedicate this Handbook to all the
scholars who have contributed so much to explorations and investigations of
how technology has and continues to influence the practice of learning and
instruction. Many of those who have contributed so much to our
understanding of educational technology have since passed away, including
such luminaries as Robert Gagné, Robert Glaser, and William Winn among a
list much too long to include here. We are deeply indebted to the contributions
that so many have made to what we know and have yet to learn about how
best to support and facilitate learning.
Foreword
Information and Communication Technologies in Education
In Learning with Personal Computers Alfred Bork (1987) promised a revolution in schooling
due to the increasing availability of microcomputers. Twenty-five years later, on average,
almost every person in economically developed countries is now blessed with one or more
computers. However, the revolution that Bork imagined does not yet show definite signs of
materializing soon. Upon reflection, we can say that most of us were, in the 1980s, perhaps a
bit too optimistic about what information and communications technologies (ICT) could do to
promote and improve education. Many are now trying to discern what added value ICT can
contribute to the education enterprise, in addition to increasing the convenience of instruction
and to motivating students to engage with activities that all too often are trivial. Skeptics have
expressed doubts about the utility of technology in the classroom; some argue in favor of maintaining the traditional model of instruction that is exclusively reliant on teachers, print-based
textbooks, and blackboards (perhaps a dry-erase whiteboard for the more progressive
Luddites).
Increasing numbers of educators and scholars recognize that no technology can automatically benefit education in any significant way. Many realize that it is not about the technology
after all—it is about what is done with technology to promote students’ learning. When a new
technology emerges, what really counts is the educational potential or learning opportunities
provided to students, which are often obscured by the novelty of an innovative device. Scholars
and teachers have the responsibility to discover and then to reveal those learning opportunities
along with the associated potential to transform educational practice.
There is a growing and significant body of research that explores in detail and in depth the
impact of new technologies on students’ learning. Much of this new research is covered in this
Handbook, which reviews research about the ways in which technology can significantly
impact learning and create profound interactions between and among learners, teachers, and
resources. This work is only a small part of a larger picture of ICT in the twenty-first century.
The work reviewed in this Handbook provides one small glimpse of the revolution that is
unfolding (albeit much later than Bork imagined).
There are many kinds of technologies used in present-day schools, some of which were
developed specifically for the school context. Examples of commonly used educational technologies include classroom response systems, search engines, word processors, projectors, and
interactive whiteboards. All of these and other technologies serve a wide variety of other nonschool-based purposes. Most of these technologies were not invented for learning or teaching;
however, their application to non-school settings, for which many of them were developed, is
different from their use in school settings. For example, consider the word processor. Word
processing facilitates the productive work of business by creating the correspondence necessary to conduct affairs. Specific features of the word processor were designed to make such
business use both easy and effective. However, when one places a word processor in a classroom context, the use and purpose are not the same at all. Preparing teachers to help primary
and secondary school students to make effective use of a word processor is quite different from
vii
viii
training an administrator to help clerks and office assistants make effective use of the word
processor in a particular office setting.
How shall we treat different uses of the same technology? How can we realize the educational potential of technologies taken for granted in the workplace? A definition of educational
technology might emphasize the significant pedagogical or learning uses that technology
serves; such a definition acknowledges the principle that uses and training for use should fit the
specific purpose. This Handbook focuses on these educational uses and purposes.
Of the millions of teachers, educators, and scholars around the world, only a small number
are engaged in research concerning the use of ICT in education. One result of this trend is a
contrast between developers and educators who may ultimately use the new technologies.
Developers create and laud the features of emerging devices and innovative technologies,
while educators who want to teach with those technologies may become confused and frustrated with new technologies. It is rare that the two groups exchange views and experiences,
and learn from each other. For many teachers, new educational technologies and facilities can
cause some discomfort or even feel threatening due to their lack of adequate preparation in
effective pedagogical use and integration into teaching and learning. There has been much
research on the application of technology in education, as is evident in this Handbook. The
chapter on TPACK (technological pedagogical and content knowledge) is a case in point.
There is almost always initial resistance to a new technology, and the cost effectiveness of new
technologies remains controversial (see Chapter 9 in this Handbook). Suggestions by technologists for educational application can be general and too distant from actual classroom use;
thus these recommendations all too often fall short of the actual needs of teachers. As a result,
too many teachers fail to embrace and use the new technologies in constructive ways with their
own students.
An encouraging indication of change is this fourth edition of the Handbook, which includes
a new section that is subject-specific and explores technologies in different disciplines. The
first and last sections of the Handbook also offer a range of perspectives on technology integration that are aimed at practical use and widespread application.
Educational Communication Technology (ICT for Education)
Educational communication technology is a very dynamic area of research and application;
new products can become out of date within a matter of months. The popular press often disseminates stories that dwell on the novelty rather than on the practicality of a new technology.
Decision makers and those responsible for procurement are presented with a dilemma regarding acquisition of newer, forward-looking but riskier technologies as opposed to the reliable,
older but more mature technologies. As is shown by the many chapters pertaining to emerging
technologies, innovations ranging from cloud-based technologies to tablet applications are
undoubtedly worthy of our attention due to their educational potential. However, the maturity
of a technology and its connection and compatibility with existing technologies and expertise
present significant challenges. When venturing to deploy a new technology, there are usually
many unknown factors and some risk (Spector, 2012). When a new technology is profoundly
different from previous technologies, or when the application of the technology dramatically
changes practices, there are bound to be a multitude of unexpected problems.
In addition to the constant change of educational technologies, there is another challenge—
namely differences between theory and practice, along with differences between the natural
sciences and the humanities. A new educational technology that works well in support of
learning physics may not work as well in support of learning philosophy, and vice versa.
Moreover, the relevant learning theories and paradigms might be quite different in different
areas of application. Effective technology integration requires sensitivity to the potential of
various technologies as well as a profound understanding of specific disciplines and associated
pedagogical practices. In too many cases, educators adopt without hesitation a new technology
Foreword
Foreword
ix
only to see it fail in practical use. As a community of professional practitioners, we are slowly
coming to the realization that new tools need to be tested in the real and somewhat uncontrolled and chaotic circumstances in which everyday learning and instruction occur. Educational
technology researchers and developers should carefully observe, assess, and identify the adaptability and success of the new technologies in light of actual teaching and learning; furthermore, all must keep in mind the opportunities, the benefits, the constraints, and the risks.
Compulsive and hasty adoption of a new technology will very likely result in another cycle of
sweet expectation followed by bitter disappointment.
Another important issue is the boundary between the two academic disciplines of educational technology and computer science. They are distinct from each other; however, a typical
program of educational technology often offers many courses that are also found in a computer
science curriculum. A closer scrutiny, however, reveals that educational technology courses
are quite different from apparently similar courses in a computer science department. A recent
IEEE-sponsored report recommends a very specific, cross-disciplinary curriculum for advanced
learning technologists that could, if adopted, reduce the tensions between computer science
and educational technology as separate and competing disciplines (Hartley, Kinshuk, Koper,
Okamoto, & Spector, 2010). As things now stand, educational technology graduates find themselves at a disadvantage in the job market in comparison with a computer science graduate who
appears equally well qualified. This state of affairs affects the growth of the discipline adversely.
To avoid this waste of resources and dashed expectations, the discipline of educational technology needs to enhance its own reputation as a separate and credible area of expertise, which
is what Hartley and colleagues (2010) encourage. That is to say, advanced learning technology
graduates need to command abilities and skills that neither computer scientists nor education
degree holders possess. However, they should be able to communicate and collaborate with
both computer scientists and professional educators. In short, there is a need for a careful scrutiny of the field and a re-delineation of its academic scope and theoretical systems, along the
lines of the Hartley et al. (2010) report, which identified the following domains of competence
for educational technologists:
1. Knowledge competence—includes those competences concerned with demonstrating
knowledge and understanding of learning theories, of different types of advanced learning
technologies, technology-based pedagogies, and associated research and development.
2. Process competence—focuses on skills in making effective use of tools and technologies to
promote learning in the twenty-first century; a variety of tools ranging from those which
support virtual learning environments to those which pertain to simulation and gaming are
mentioned.
3. Application process—concerns the application of advanced learning technologies in practice and actual educational settings, including the full range of life-cycle issues from analysis and planning to implementation and evaluation.
4. Personal and social competence—emphasizes the need to support and develop social and
collaboration skills while developing autonomous and independent learning skills vital to
lifelong learning in the information age.
5. Innovative and creative competence—recognizes that technologies will continue to change
and that there is a need to be flexible and creative in making effective use of new technologies; becoming effective change agents within the education system is an important competence domain for instructional technologists and information scientists.
Growth of the Discipline
Since its establishment, the discipline of educational technology has been through several
paradigm shifts and grown remarkably. Informed by theories and concepts from many other
disciplines, including education, computer science, psychology, cognitive science, and communications, educational technology has acquired academic respectability. However, some
x
have expressed doubts about the field, raising the issue of educational technology borrowing
from other disciplines without creating a coherent and unique discipline of its own. In rebuttal,
educational technologists argue that adoption and integration are not merely effortless borrowing tasks; rather, technology integration is a dynamic, innovative, and productive process—a
transdisciplinary process, as Hideaki Koizumi (2004) put it. According to that Japanese
scholar, educational neuroscience is a product of such a transdisciplinary process. The growth
of the discipline of educational technology has been a product of a similar transdisciplinary
process (see Richey, Klein, & Tracey, 2010). It is through this transdisciplinary process that the
discipline of educational technology has made many unique contributions to both theory and
practice. The work on cognitive load theory is a recent example of the transdisciplinary nature
of educational technology (see, for example, van Merriënboer & Ayres, 2005).
There is a need to reconstruct the theoretical framework for educational technology, and
there is an associated need to reconceptualize its academic scope and purpose. Supporting
learners and the learning process with appropriate technologies is the fundamental belief of
educational technology. Therefore, the design, development and application of technologies
capable of such a role should be within the sphere of this discipline, where learning and technology intersect, and numerous other disciplines mingle in creative ways. In this theater of
interaction and hybridization, there is both chemistry and synergy, and participants from
diverse academic backgrounds and researchers of various segments of educational technology
cooperate productively. However, due to their differences in training, skills, and values, these
experts view technologies with different lens and may study problems from different perspectives and interest themselves in different dimensions of the same problem. How can they work
together optimally?
No doubt, their cooperation needs to be based on the common ground designated by the
shared ultimate goal of assisting learning. More is needed; however, mechanisms should be
created and deployed to merge horizons and promote synergy among experts from different
disciplines, thus removing academic biases, increasing their appreciation of each other’s paradigms and interests, and locating the possible points for connection and cooperation. The
fourth edition of this AECT (Association for Educational Communications and Technology)
Handbook represents a creative realization of such an effort.
Global Differences
In addition to overcoming the aforementioned problems, we, as professional practitioners,
need to do more if we want the desired educational technology revolution to unfold on a large,
global scale. We have yet to scale the formidable barriers created by global differences, which
are seen in both economic development as well as in social-cultural interests and habits.
First, economic inequalities have caused disparities in educational investment between
countries and regions. Even within one country, especially some large and diverse ones, there
can also be seen the full spectrum of differences in educational investment and accrued educational benefits. Underdeveloped countries and regions may acquire educational equipment and
facilities by virtue of inter-governmental assistance, NGO (non-governmental organizations)
donations and aid, and so on, addressing part of the significant physical digital divide.
Nevertheless, these facilities are not usually updated and upgraded in a regular and timely
manner as they would be in developed economies. More disconcerting is the gap in human
resources and expertise—the non-physical digital divide. Technical expertise that is pedagogically informed is in short supply, making the Hartley et al. (2010) report even more pertinent.
Second, schools and their administration are often constrained as much as enabled by their
particular social and cultural settings, which can differ radically because of racial, ethnic, or
religious distinctions. Differences in local traditions, community characteristics, and special
academic/educational interest can also be determining factors in enabling or inhibiting effective use of educational technology. Consequently there exists a wide range of teaching beliefs;
Foreword
Foreword
xi
major disagreements about pedagogy and educational technology may even be found among
teachers employed by the same school. Such discrepancies in culture and values can result in
conflicting attitudes towards technology. In extreme cases, an educational technology may
become an object of distrust or even ridicule. Compared with the hardware gap and infrastructure challenges, social and cultural inequalities are more subtle and difficult to manage.
In spite of those global differences, multinational organizations, especially network technology businesses and other information technology leaders are promoting their new educational technologies and relevant products. One result of this trend is that new technologies are
confronted with a huge array of economic, social, cultural, and educational settings. As a
result, the performance of the same educational technology can vary from one context to
another; we have such failures to replicate findings in the research literature. This phenomenon
is not unlike the legendary orange in an old Chinese saying: Grown south of the Huai River, it
is sweet; grown north of the river, it tastes bitter and sour. If educational technology researchers and practitioners do not take into account local situations and customize technologies and
educational practices accordingly, the promised revolution in schooling due to emerging educational technologies will never take place.
To sum up, there are significant challenges to the effective pedagogical use of technologies
and development of new educational technologies based on the following four conclusions:
1. Technological advancement is an endless enterprise, but technological improvement does
not necessarily translate into proportionate improvements in educational effect and impact
on students’ learning.
2. In different economic, social, and cultural environments, the same technology may perform
differently.
3. The accelerated development in technology makes more acute the shortage of instructor
knowledge about the effective use of technologies; good teachers who are well prepared are
always in short supply.
4. Extensive and intensive involvement of teachers and pedagogically knowledgeable instructional designers is essential for progress in educational technology. There is little that educational technology can contribute to improve formal or informal student learning without
this critical involvement.
We look forward to the day when a large number of elementary and secondary school teachers become readers and/or authors of the future editions of this Handbook; that will be a positive sign that educational technology is penetrating deep into classrooms and adding the
synergy to launch the long-awaited revolution. Therefore, let us focus our efforts and work
collaboratively across multiple disciplines so that this day may come sooner rather than later.
Together we can make a difference.
Shanghai, China
Youqun Ren
References
* Bork, A. (1987). Learning with personal computers. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Koizumi, H. (2004). The concept of ‘developing the brain’: A new natural science for learning and education.
Brain Development, 26(7), 434–441.
Hartley, R., Kinshuk, Koper, R., Okamoto, T., & Spector, J. M. (2010). The education and training of learning
technologists: A competences approach. Educational Technology & Society, 13(2), 206–216.
Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., & Tracey, M. W. (2010). The instructional design knowledge base: Theory, research,
and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
* Spector, J. M. (2012). Foundations of educational technology: Integrative approaches and interdisciplinary
perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.
van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Ayres, P. (2005). Research on cognitive load theory and its design implications for
e-learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 5–13.
Preface
As has been the case with the three previous editions of the Handbook of Research on
Educational Communications and Technology, this volume has taken about 3 years to develop.
The content is new and does not duplicate anything in the previous editions of the Handbook,
all of which is available online at no cost to members of the Association for Educational
Communications and Technology (AECT; see http://www.aect.org). We have a new publisher,
Springer, who has agreed to do the same for this fourth edition. Springer has been most helpful
in the development of this volume by making a customized version of Editorial Manager available to support submissions, reviews, and editing.
As we did with the third edition, we asked for guidance from AECT members and other
professionals with regard to how best to develop the content and structure of the Handbook. We
learned that Handbook users are typically doctoral students and other researchers new to a particular topic or area of research. They value a short and cogent summary of research in a focused
area and especially appreciate the extensive reference sections and the indication of core references (marked with a preceding asterisk and located at the end of each chapter). Those whom
we contacted in the first year of this effort also indicated a desire to see more research emphasized in additional areas. In general, there was a desire for short, focused research reviews, long
and extensive references, and a discussion about research that could or should be conducted in
the future. We provided all of our authors with this guidance, and we believe that they have done
an excellent job in providing Handbook users with what they want.
Together with a large number of respondents to queries about the Handbook, including one
specifically targeting AECT members, we initially developed more than 120 potential chapters. We asked the professional and academic communities to provide an extended abstract and
core references for chapters that they would agree to author. The coeditors then examined the
various proposals and settled on just over a 100 potential chapters. As the process evolved and
potential authors were asked to deliver draft chapters, the list was narrowed to about 87. For a
variety of reasons, several authors withdrew or were dropped and we ended up with 75 chapters, divided into nine sections, compared with 56 chapters in six sections in the third edition.
We retained the Foundations section but of course included completely new content with
more emphasis on research as had been requested by those we asked for input. In addition to
two new chapters on research, there are chapters on neuroimaging and motivation as these are
both regarded as foundation areas that can and should inform instructional design and educational technology research. Ethics, human performance technology, and TPACK (technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge) are also treated in the Foundations section.
Section 2 treats qualitative and quantitative tools and methods separately and includes chapters on design-based research, action research, and program evaluation not previously addressed
in the Handbook. There is an extensive section on assessment and evaluation with many new
topics addressed, including stealth assessment, cost-benefit analysis, and model-based
assessments.
Section 4 includes a chapter specifically addressing cultural issues per the advice we
received in the initial response to our queries of what to include. Many of the same emerging
xiii
xiv
trends one finds in the New Media Consortium’s Horizon Report (http://www.nmc.org/publications) and A Roadmap for Educational Technology jointly published by the Computing
Research Association and the Computing Community Consortium, and the National Science
Foundation (available online at http://www.cra.org/ccc/docs/groe/GROE%20Roadmap%20
for%20Education%20Technology%20Final%20Report.pdf) are evident in this section—see,
for example, Chaps. 35, 36, and 38.
Section 5 represents an entirely new section developed in response to the feedback we
received about previous Handbooks. While we were not successful in recruiting as many chapters in this section as we had planned, readers will find very informative chapters on technology in science education, medical training, mathematics, engineering, visual arts, social studies
and visual arts.
While Section 7 has been included in previous editions, all the chapters in this section are
new for this edition. In addition to new treatments of instructional design models and technology-based instruction, there are topics not previously addressed such as change agency, governmental policies, and curricula for training instructional designers.
The second part of the Handbook contains three sections that address respectively emerging
technologies, technology integration, and the future of educational technology research.
Section 7 is the most extensive section of the Handbook, and was designed specifically in
response to the feedback we received early in the process. Again we used technologies cited in
the NMC Horizon Report and in A Roadmap for Educational Technology to guide input for
this section. Readers will find e-books, pedagogical agents, adaptive technologies, augmented
realities, and research on many other new and emerging technologies treated in this section.
Because so many scholars have commented on the ability to make effective use of new and
emerging technologies, we decided to specifically address the issue of Technology Integration
in a separate section in this edition of the Handbook. We included chapters on measuring technology readiness skills and generational differences as well as issues specific to different contexts (formal learning in schools, medical education, multicultural settings, etc.).
The final section of the Handbook is entitled A Look Forward and is intended as a precursor
for further research. This is another new section of the Handbook and is meant as a kind of
book-end section to go with the Foundations section. Issues involving the philosophy of science, teacher education, and prospects in developing countries are addressed, among others.
As with the third edition, we made every effort to include research from around the world
as this Handbook has become an internationally acclaimed standard in the field of educational
technology research. The third edition has now been translated into Chinese by a team of university scholars in China led by Ren Youqun. Since he is one of a very few individuals who
have read every chapter in the previous edition of the Handbook, and because he leads an
impressive group of researchers at East China Normal University, we invited him to contribute
the Foreword to the fourth edition. We then invited Joost Lowyck who wrote the Foreword to
the third edition and who was also familiar with all of that content to write the first chapter in
this edition. His chapter provides an historical overview of educational technology aimed at
bridging educational theory and practice. Lowyck provides five principles relevant to that
enterprise: (1) evolutions in society and education have influenced the selection and use of
learning theories and technologies; (2) learning theories and technologies are situated in a
somewhat vague conceptual field; (3) learning theories and technologies are connected and
intertwined with information processing and knowledge acquisition; (4) educational technologies have shifted learner support from program or instructor control toward more shared and
learner control, and (5) learning theories and findings represent a fuzzy mixture of principles
and applications. The reader will find an insightful discussion to accompany these five
Preface
Preface
xv
principles. In addition, the editors have taken up these principles in the epilogue and concluding chapter of the Handbook.
We hope that the efforts of the authors, reviewers, editors, and so many others in bringing
this Handbook to the educational technology research community will prove useful and result
in ongoing productive research. Our final word—enjoy.
2012
Denton, TX, USA
Logan, UT, USA
Leuven, Belgium
Bethlehem, PA, USA
J. Michael