When Carolus Linnaeus[1] published his Systema naturae in 1735, he established the modern scientific classification system for plants and animals. Although the specifics of his classifications have been revised many times, the idea of an orderly, international naming system was a key ingredient in the birth of modern biology. A taxonomy could guide biologists in making comparisons, looking for new creatures, and asking about the origins and transformations of life.
If by organizing perceptions into categories we are able to see the familiar in new ways, or we are able to cope with a confusing array of phenomena, then a taxonomy can be a productive step in the process of understanding and explaining what we see. Of course, a taxonomy always reduces the complexity and richness of whatever is being categorized. Its usefulness needs to be judged in relation to some purpose.
This paper presents a taxonomy of educational technology applications organized in terms of the ways they support integrated, inquiry-based learning. The taxonomy is far from a finished document and should be read more as some rough notes.[2] What I have tried to do is to lay out a framework for thinking about the broad array of applications of educational technology. The framework suggests ways that computers and other new information technologies can be used to support the full range of learning. Like all such taxonomies, the boundaries between the categories are fuzzy and some applications might fit in more than one slot.
According to the model we have just described, the process of instruction includes the instructor presenting the information to students, guiding the students' first interaction with the material, the student practicing the material to enhance fluency and retention, and finally, assessment of students to determine if they have learned the material and what they should do next. (Alessi & Trollip, 1991, p. 9)
Building upon this model, Alessi and Trollip organize various forms of "computer-based instruction" into five categories: tutorials, drills, simulations, games, and tests. They place tutorials first in their taxonomy, and have no explicit place for general software tools, such as spreadsheets, mail readers, or drawing programs. The categories they do have correspond neatly to their general instructional model, and can be used as a lens with which to see how various applications support instructors in carrying out aspects of the model.
A striking alternative to this approach is that of Olds, Schwartz, and Willie (1974). In a study they report, teachers examined a wide range of educational software, including drill-and-practice software focused on specific skills and software designed to encourage and support students in asking their own questions. The teachers found that different approaches to software design implied radically different models of learning and teaching. In the process of examining software critically they became more aware of their own values. As the report says, "teachers saw the enormous pedagogical difference between solving problems and formulating them, between answering someone else's question and generating your own" (p. 40). Thus, the distinction between computer control and student control assumed primary importance.
Taylor (1980) has a related, but still distinct, position. He suggests that there are three main categories. In the tutor role, the computer functions as a substitute or supplemental teacher. As a tool, the computer can be used to carry out tasks assigned by the student. This tutor/tool distinction is similar to that of Olds, et al. Taylor then adds a third role, the tutee, in which the student learns by teaching the computer. This is the situation with Logo, when students think of the computer as their pupil, who/which needs to be taught every step in a procedure.
In response to this debate, I began to search for a way to organize the tools, techniques, and applications to accommodate better to a constructivist and integrated view of learning.[3] In my view of the world, the ideal learning environment would, as Peter Marin once said, satisfy children's curiosity by presenting them with new things to be curious about. It would engage children in exploring, thinking, reading, writing, researching, inventing, problem-solving, and experiencing the world. Thus, the basis for learning would be what John Dewey (1943) identified nearly a century ago as the greatest educational resource--the natural impulses to inquire, or to find out things; to use language, and thereby to enter into the social world; to build, or make things; and to express one's feelings and ideas. Dewey saw these impulses, rather than the traditional disciplines, as the foundation for the curriculum. The educational challenge is to nurture these impulses for lifelong learning.
I discovered that Dewey's four categories, developed long
before the electronic age, matched surprisingly well to the
ways I was beginning to organize my list of educational
technology applications. It appeared that a taxonomy could
be built, not on a formal instructional model, nor on
hardware and software features, but rather, on the
"impulses" to learn and grow.
Tools for Inquiry, Communication, Construction, and Expression
Today, interactive, multimedia technology provides us with a
new way to draw upon children's natural impulses. These new
tools hold an abundance of materials including text, voice,
music, graphics, photos, animation, and video. But they
provide more than abundance. Bringing all these media
together means that we can vastly expand the range of
learning experiences, opening up the social and natural
worlds. Students can explore the relations among ideas and
thus experience a more connected form of learning. Perhaps
most importantly, these new tools are interactive, and
conducive to active, engaged learning. Students can choose
what to see and do, and they have tools to record and extend
what they learn. Learning is thus driven by the individual
needs and interests of the learner.
Learning in almost any subject today means not only learning the concepts within that area, but also, how to use computers in that endeavor. Thus, the traditional lines between learning about technology and learning through technology are beginning to blur. For example, learning science entails learning how to use computers as tools for collecting and analyzing data, for modeling phenomena, and for communicating results. For these activities, science students need experience with the technological tools scientists use. At the same time, there is a growing body of research evidence showing that these tool uses are effective at supporting concept learning. Thus, it is not mere coincidence that the categories of tool for learning listed within the taxonomy below reflect the uses of computers by professionals in various fields.
Dewey, J. (1943). The child and the curriculum /The school and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Olds, H. F., Schwartz, J. L., & Willie, N. A. (September 1980). People and computers: Who teaches whom? Newton, MA: Education Development Center.
Taylor, R. P. (1980). The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee. New York: Teachers College Press.
[2]This is a good time to suggest additions, better examples, criticisms, questions, and more!
[3]As this taxonomy grew, Jim Levin, Michael Waugh, Kathleen Devaney, and many others contributed to its development and helped to refine and shape it.