the paradigm shifts in integrating technology at … · the paradigm shifts in integrating...

The Paradigm Shifts in Integrating Technology at Distance Education and the Structure of Teacher’s Competencies in the Field of Educational Technology Paper presented at the International Seminar on Integrating Technology into Education By Dr. Mohammad Imam Farisi, M.Pd. UPBJJ-UT Surabaya, Kampus C Unair Surabaya 60115 E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected] Mobile Telephone: 08121612785 Direct Line: 031-5961861; -5961862 UNIVERSITAS TERBUKA FACULTY OF EDUCATION REGIONAL CENTER OF SURABAYA 2010

OPEN UNIVERSITY

OF MALAYSIA

UNIVERSITAS NEGERI

JAKARTA

1

The Paradigm Shifts in Integrating Technology at Distance Education and the Structure of Teacher’s Competencies in the Field of Educational Technology

By

Dr. Mohammad Imam Farisi, M.Pd. UPBJJ-UT Surabaya, Kampus C Unair Surabaya 60115

E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]

Mobile Telephone: 08121612785 Direct Line: 031-5961861; -5961862

Abstract Technology—including educational technology—has been thoroughly integrated into existing educational practice. It becomes a catalyst to educational changes, and to promote active and participatory learning. Technology is one of the major contributions to the development of educational technology, and educational technology has developed in term of theory as well a practice in response to the growing demands in education. This paper discusses theories and models of integrating technology from various contexts and perspectives of research and educational practice. Then, it will be reviewed the paradigm shifts in integrating technology, especially concerned to distance education. In a relatively long period of time and tradition in integrating technology at distance education have been identified eight s in implementing the new forms of delivery technology. Finally, according to the new trends of integrating technology into education, the paper proposes three structures of teacher’s competencies for professional education in the field of educational technology consisting substantive, syntactic, and normative structures as equally critical to existence and advancement of teacher’s competencies. The structure is developed based on a broad perspective, including constructivism and postmodernism as recommended by most instructional designers and researchers. Keywords: paradigm shifts, integrating technology, competencies structure, constructivism,

postmodernism.

At the recent days, the ability to integrate technology into education is one of among the main

characteristics of a competent teacher. Education throughout the world recognizes the need, but still struggle,

to integrate technology into education. The development of teacher competencies who can flexibly adapt

technology into their teaching is crucial for technology to have a positive impact on student performance. In

order to develop teachers’ flexibility in selecting instructional technology alternatives, technology should be

integrated as a central aspect of teacher education programs.

This paper has hopefully suggested to the reader the value of thinking about what our field does within

the context of teacher professionalism. More specifically, our paper has proposed the conception of the

paradigm shifts in integrating technology into education, and how technology is very important to the teacher

in educational practice. Even though integrating technology into education has become the central themes to

current discussions or debates on teacher professional development effort with the goal of designing and

implementing a series of ongoing support programs that feature contemporary applications of technology. It

focuses on building teachers' content knowledge that supported by technology.

Integrating Technology in Education: Theories and Models

It is the true, that the technology—furthermore the term of technology is used including educational

technology—should not merely defined by machine or hardware, it is indeed tools or instruments to ease

human jobs or tasks. Basically, since the early period, technology (including educational technology) is

2

thoroughly integrated into existing education practice, it becomes a catalyst to educational changes, and to

promote active and participatory student learning. So, integrating technology into education is very crucial with

all barriers they have, such as time, expertise, access, resources, and support. Without fully balancing all

aspects of this process simultaneously, expensive technologies will sit unused or under-utilized. Education will

not fully realize the promise of technology, better learning and lower costs (Antonacci, 2002).

But, there are some obstacles or intellectual attacks, why to integrate the technology in the classroom

effectively is limited, or why the technology is not fully integrated into education (s.t. Carnegie Commission in

Higher Education, 1972; Thomas, Larson, Clift, & Levin, 1996; Rodriguez & Knuth, 2000; Wahab, 2003; and

Sprague, 2004). Therefore, to solve these obstacles or intellectual attacks, Milken (Coughlin, 1999) suggested

that technology should be involved a vision where each teacher has a degree of knowledge about the nature,

behavior, power, and consequences of technology used from a broad perspective. In this context, a

professional development for teachers becomes the key issue in integrating technology into education to

improve the quality of learning in the classroom (Jonassen, 1994; Nanjappa & Grant, 2003).

Of course, that the technology is one of the major contributions to the development of educational

technology, and educational technology has developed in term of theory as well a practice in response to the

growing demands in education which could not be met by the traditional means. Experts has been identified

eight great technological revolutions in education, from the written word as a tool of education (the 1st

generation) to the interactive multimedia based on the use of Web (the 8th generation) (Ashby, 1967, 1972;

Carnegie Commission in Higher Education, 1972; Norton, et al. 2001). Several authors were quoted by Riley

(2007) offer accounts of the co-evolution of human cognition and culture, including the familiar cultural forms

of the performing arts, the humanities, religion, mathematics, science and technology. That the phenomenal

development in the use of technology have set in motion a worldwide process of transformation of society. In

the field of education these challenges could not be overcome by educational technologist alone. It requires a

comprehensive and interdisciplinary approach (Miarso & Wargahadibrata, 1997; Erekson & Shumway, 2006).

Some researchers and reviewers have discussed models to integrate the technology into education

effectively on various context and perspectives. Coughlin (1999) proposes a “systemic approach” to

advancing the effective use of technology in classroom, schools and districts—which is called “the Seven

Dimensions for Gauging Progress”. Aviram and Eshet-Alkalai (2005) proposed the 5-skill holistic conceptual

model for digital literacy. Erbas, Cakiroglu, Aydin, and Beser (2006) constructed a professional development

thorough technology-integrated problem solving from InterMath to T-Math, as a useful strategy for students

while developing as expert mathematics teachers; and to anticipate challenges and subsequent strategies for

integration. Oliver and Price (Riley, 2007) based on the level of analysis were suggested three-level analysis

of pedagogic tactics, such as micro-level, mid-level, and macro-level. Shaffer and Kaput (Riley, 2007) from

cognitive-cultural perspective were proposed sketches a temporal model of technology on three idealized or

canonical types, such as functional substitution, functional delegation, and functional innovation.

In the theoretical perspective, there are some view points to integrate the technology into education.

The International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Education (Thomas, ed, 2000) have much more

explore the theoretical and empirical implications or significances of the use of integrated technologies in the

field of Mathematics curriculum, assessment, and learning and teaching. Maddux & Johnson’s (2006)

provided a clear view of the advantages—and challenges—involved in the use of technology to enhance and

actively involve students in the learning process. The Congressional Office of Technology (OTA) project

(Poley, 2009) thorough “The Seventh Generation Community Initiative Program” is generate an innovative

application of internet incorporating with active learning theory and the experiential learning cycle, to be

properly adapted for indigenous people, globally. Liu, Theodore, & Lavelle (2004) provided an empirical

perspective for educators about technology integration effectively to change the participants’ concerns about

technology integration in the schools. Cradler (n.d.) suggested an approach suggested emphasizes

3

instructional and student needs first and then through planning integrates technology in ways that enhance

and extend instructional and learning opportunities. Fryer (2003) provides the technology integration training

for K-16 educators nationwide, as well as training for school administrators. Callahan & Switzer (2004)

described an integrating technology model was called the technology as facilitator of quality education

(TFQE). Hsu & Sharma (2006) provided a systemic plan to ensure successful technology integration into the

elementary science education and the elementary pre-service teacher education. Taylor, Sharples, O’Malley,

Vavoula, and Waycott (n.d.) proposed a task model for mobile Learning as a coherent account of how the

activities are performed, the people involved, their contexts, the tools and technologies they employ, the

structure of the tasks and an account of their cognitive processes, management of knowledge, and social

interactions.

Ultimately, over the past decade, many institutions were started to experiment with integrating

technology into education. The ISTE National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS•T) is

the first guided the way and provided the framework for the integration model through their Foundation

Standards. In 2000, this integration model was aligned to meet the National Educational Technology

Standards for Teachers (ISTE, 2000, 2008). These standards represented the best and most innovative

thinking by educators at the Hope College Education Department (Cherup & Snyder, 2003). Alberta Initiative

For School Improvement (AISI) technology projects developed technology-focused projects concentrated on

integrating information and communication technology (ICT) outcomes throughout curricular areas (ICT

Curriculum) from Kindergarten to Grade 12 (K-12) schools (AISI, 2004). International Technology Education

Association (ITEA) developed a standards-based national model for Grade K-2 until K–12 that delivers

technological literacy for all that called Engineering byDesign™ (EbD™). The model is based on ITEA’s

Standards for Technological Literacy (STL); Advancing Excellence in Technological Literacy (AETL); NCTM’s

Principles and Standards for School Mathematics; and AAAS’s Benchmarks for Science Literacy, built on the

constructivist model (ITEA, 2004; 2007; 2009). North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL)

developed a framework for supporting to individual professional development plan that provides for acquisition

of technology skills and integration of technology into classroom projects. The framework is based on

documents such as Core Technology Competencies and Skills; Curriculum, Learning, and Assessment

Competencies and Skills; Classroom and Instructional Management Competencies and Skills; Recommended

Foundations in Technology for All Teachers; Internet Skills Rubrics; and the Professional Competency

Continuum Online Assessment Tool (NCREL, 1999).

The Eight Paradigm Shifts in Integrating Technology: Distance Education Case

Whatever, they all proposed or suggested on integrating technology into education are the true. In

relation with these paradigm shifts, we are especially concerned to distance education that has taken place in

a relatively long period of time and tradition in integrating technology. Technology is a critical element of

distance education, and in the history of distance education, the past twenty years have witnessed significant

paradigm shifts in distance learning that have corresponded with the implementation of new forms of delivery

technology.

On the other hand, it is not true, that the use of technology is available in distance education only. But,

Barbour & Reeves (2005) stated that the technology field has overlapped with distance education—especially

in technology-rich age—through developments such as web-based training, and online learning. Besides,

there have been hundreds of comparative studies, comparing for instance the effectiveness of a broadcast

lecture versus a face-to-face lecture, or an online course with a face-to-face course. From Schramm through

Clark to Russell, analysis of these studies have shown that when properly designed, there are no significant

differences in learning between different media or technologies (face-to-face can be considered a medium of

teaching). The reason for this is that the medium of teaching is only one of many different variables that

4

influence the effectiveness of learning. In particular, the way a particular medium is used—more accurately, its

quality—is very important. Thus a poorly prepared and delivered lecture will be less effective than a

professionally produced television programme, and vice versa, well designed teaching in any medium is likely

to be effective (see Figure 1).

The term 'paradigm shift' in education refers to the changes in teaching and learning as a consequence

of the tremendous impact of technological advances. That technological innovation and educational shift have

to develop side-by-side, connecting technology innovation, educational models, and theories for contextual

learning (Specht, 2009). A paradigm shift in education might mean that in education certain models or

patterns no longer exist, because new models and patterns which differ from the old ones in a marked way

have substituted them. This means that, very often, we are not dealing with a transitory process in the field of

education under investigation but with a sudden, if not with an abrupt change. These paradigm shifts in

context of distance education based on pedagogic approaches to distance education aimed immediately at

finding ways by which the spatial distance could be bridged, reduced or even eliminated (Peters, 2001). Its

have corresponded to advances in technology throughout the history of human communication. Each of these

paradigm shifts correlate with historical phases or generations which can be linked to the specific production

and distribution of the communication technologies (media) utilized to deliver these to enrolled students who

were separated by time, place and/or pace of learning (Berge & Collins, 1995). But, the term 'generation' has

been criticized since it implies the end of one phase and the beginning of another. However, an 'old'

generation does not fade out, but technological advancements build upon each other to open new channels of

learner support and two-way communication (Zawacki-Richter, Brown, & Delport, 2008; c.f. Willems, 2005).

Based on the definition of paradigm shifts and generations mentioned above, there was identified eight

generations in the integrated use of technology at face-to-face education or distance education. The

differences of both are that the use of technology in face-to-face education as a supplement to the teacher,

while in distance education in which technology is a substitute for the tutor. However, in the late 1990s, with

the arrival of the Web and the provision of some universities of web based courses in place of lectures, the

web has become an option on the campus as well as at a distance (Keegan, 2002).

The eight revolutions of the integrated use of technology both face-to-face education and distance

education which might be diagrammatically represented thus:

Figure 1: Paradigm shifts in Education

5

At the face-to-face education, the eight great technological revolutions are: (1) the written word as a

tool of education; (2) printing or printed technology. Books, after all, are technological aids to learning. Another

is the blackboard, charts, maps, models, specimens, and stereograph; (3) multimedia classroom such as:

short motion pictures, slides, live demonstration, musical segments, portions of taped interview in a lecture

presentation, lantern slide, microfilm, microfiche, brief presentation form; (4) self-instruction units, such as:

language laboratories, audio-listening centers, individual learning laboratories, and remote-access units; (5)

instructional radio, such as broadcast instruction or educational radio stations; (6) instructional television, such

as: broadcast television, closed-circuit television (wireless), instructional television fixed service, cable-TV,

videotape, videocassettes; (7) computer-assisted instruction, used for: data processing and computer science,

student problem solving and research, tutorial, simulations, demonstrations, and gaming, teacher’s aid, and

the computer as the control unit for sophisticated instructional systems; and (8) interactive multimedia based

on the use of Web (Ashby, 1967; 1972); Carnegie Commission in Higher Education, 1972; & Norton, et al.,

2001). Based on Shaffer and Kaput cognitive-cultural perspective (Riley, 2007) these eight great technological

revolutions can be categorized on the three idealized or canonical types, such as functional substitution,

functional delegation, and functional innovation.

While at the distance education, the first classification on educational technology revolutions is

proposed by Garrison (1985). He has classified three generations milestones of technological innovation: the

first generation (1st-gen) is print media (correspondence generation); the 2nd-gen is telecommunication

technologies (telecommunications generation); and the 3rd-gen is the personal computer (computer

generation). Garrison's generations are an established concept that has been further developed with the

emergence of new media, especially the Internet, since the 1980s by other authors such as Nipper (1989, cf.

Bates, 1995). Building on the work of Garrison and Nipper, Taylor (1998; 1999; 2001; cf. Bates, 1995;

Srivastava & Reddy, 2002) were further developed and proposed to the fifth generation (5th-gen). The 6th-gen

is proposed by Zawacki-Richter, Brown, & Delport (2005), and supported by Keegan (2002), and the 7th-gen is

proposed by Keegan (2002). Based on categories are proposed by Keegan (2002), those all generations of

the paradigm shifts can be characterized as a move from d-Learning (distance learning) to e-Learning

(electronic learning) to m-Learning (mobile learning). Finally, the 8th-gen is proposed by Willems (2005).

The First Generation (1st-gen) is correspondence model which characterized by the predominant use

of a single technology. It is a combined printed media with postal delivery. It makes heavy use of standard text

books, and the use of a contracted correspondence tutor, who is not the originator of the learning material.

This form of learning expanded rapidly towards the end of the nineteenth century with the establishment of rail

systems and new printing techniques, both of which allowed the production and distribution of large quantities

of teaching material to geographically isolated learners (Williams, 2005). So, Meyrowitz (1997) and Keegan

(2002) argued that communication and transport were historically synonymous, as communication channels

were also routes of transportation, such as rail links, roads, and waterways. The first generation is thus based

on the theoretical premise that teaching is the transmission of knowledge.

The Second Generation (2nd-gen) is the multi-media model which characterized by specially designed

correspondence texts, then integrated use of a deliberately integrated multiple-media approach, with the one-

way media such as printed standard text books which is specifically designed for study at a distance,

collections of readings from academic journals, and supported by television and/or radio broadcast programs

or recorded media such as video-cassettes, computer-based learning (e.g. CML, CAL, CAI, CBT), and

interactive video (disk and cassettes). Keegan (1986) are not considered to radio and television broadcasts,

audio or video cassettes as a significantly altered the delivery of distance education, because such media are

not capable of providing two-way communication, which is widely accepted as a constituent element of

distance education. This generation have been associated more with systems-based and behaviorist or

cognitive-science approaches to learning. These may be considered more teacher-focused and

6

‘industrialized’, in that all students get the same material. This generation have been associated more with

systems-based and behaviorist or cognitive approaches to learning.

The Third Generation (3rd-gen) is the tele-learning model which characterized by utilizing computer

technology and the Internet to deliver learning products. This model is based on replicating as far as possible

the classroom model through the use of synchronous interactive technologies, such as video-conferencing,

and relies heavily on lecturing and questions. This model is often used by multi-campus institutions, because

it saves travel time between campuses for instructors. However, it provides little flexibility for learners,

because they still have to attend a campus at a set time. Nevertheless synchronous teleconferencing is

popular because instructors do not have to change or adapt their classroom teaching methods to any extent.

The 3rd-gen however encourages or reinforces traditional approaches to teaching such as lecturing, rather

than developing the new skills needed in knowledge-based economies.

The Fourth Generation (4th-gen) is flexible learning which characterized by the flexible learning based

on asynchronous communication through the Internet and the World Wide Web (web-based online learning),

computer mediated communication via automated-response system, electronic mail (e-mail) correspondence,

computer conferencing, bulletin boards, and interactive multimedia. This model enables increased student-

teacher and student-student interaction at a distance, collaborative group work, flexibility for learners to study

anywhere at any time, and that courses for relatively small numbers can be developed. However, to exploit

the educational advantages, the design and delivery of asynchronous teaching must be different from both

traditional approaches to classroom teaching and the large-scale design of open university programs.

Kaufman (1989) characterizes this generation as a progressive increase in learner control, opportunities for

dialogue, and emphasis on thinking skills rather than mere comprehension. This stage is generally, but not

exclusively, influenced by constructivist approaches to teaching and learning.

The Fifth Generation (5th-gen) is the intelligent flexible learning model, which adds a high degree of

learning automation and student control to asynchronous online learning and interactive multimedia based on

the use of Web that allow learners to control access to learning, through social software, virtual worlds and

multimedia tools such as You Tube. This model is incorporated the inclusion of campus portal access, and

automated response systems to the technologies of the fourth generation. This generation has the potential to

benefit both institution and distance learner associated with providing access to institutional processes and

online tuition, and also providing time, place and pace flexibility for the learner.

The Sixth Generation (6th-gen) is electronic learning (e-learning), proposed by Keegan (2002). E-

learning are the most significant developments in teaching and learning, as it uses the very powerful

technology of the Internet to enhance the flexibility of study, the quality of communication between teacher

and learner. It shows great promise for promoting student choice, flexible access to education and the quality

of teaching (Stuparich, 2001). It can be proven by students' need toward internet, whether to find learning

source, communicate, or develop various learning model (Kamarga, 2008). But—as suggested by Stuparich—

in the end the Internet is just the latest mode for delivering teaching and learning to students. It is important

that the hype surrounding the technology used does not obscure the importance of the pedagogy behind the

teaching and the primary aim of the course of education, which is a better educated student.

E-Learning is the state of the art in distance learning at the time of writing. Its means the award of

nationally and internationally recognized university degrees, college diplomas and training certificates to

students who spend all or much of their study programme sitting in front of a computer (Keegan, 2002). E-

learning is naturally suited to distance learning and flexible learning, but can also be used in conjunction with

face-to-face teaching, in which case the term Blended learning is commonly used. E-Learning pioneer

Bernard Luskin argues that the "E" must be understood to have broad meaning if e-Learning is to be effective;

and the "e" should be interpreted to mean exciting, energetic, enthusiastic, emotional, extended, excellent,

and educational in addition to "electronic" that is a traditional national interpretation. This broader

7

interpretation allows for 21st century applications and brings learning and media psychology into the equation

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wikiE-learning).

Bates, Poole, and the OECD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wikiE-learning) suggested that different types or

forms of e-learning can be considered as a continuum: (1) e-learning without the use of computers and/or the

Internet for teaching and learning, through classroom aids, such as making classroom lecture Powerpoint

slides available to students through a course web site or learning management system, to laptop programs—

such as computer-based learning; computer-based training; computer-supported collaborative learning

(CSCL); or technology-enhanced Learning (TEL)—where students are required to bring laptops to class and

use them as part of a face-to-face class; (2) e-learning through to hybrid learning, where classroom time is

reduced but not eliminated, with more time devoted to online learning; and (3) e-learning through to fully

online learning, which is a form of distance education. This classification is somewhat similar to that of the

Sloan Commission Reports on the status of e-learning, which refer to web enhanced, web supplemented and

web dependent to reflect increasing intensity of technology use (Allen & Seaman, 2008; Seaman, 2009; cf.

Stuparich, 2001). In the Bates and Poole continuum, 'blended learning' can cover classroom aids, laptops and

hybrid learning, while 'distributed learning' can incorporate either hybrid or fully online learning. So, we can be

seen then that e-learning can describe a wide range of applications, and it is often by no means clear.

However, Bates and Poole argue that when instructors say they are using e-learning, this most often refers to

the use of technology as classroom aids, although over time, there has been a gradual increase in fully online

learning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wikiE-learning).

The seventh Generation (7th-gen) is mobile learning (m-learning). M-learning is referring to the use of

digital technologies—via such wireless devices as mobile phones device (also known as cell phone device,

handheld device, handheld computer, "Palmtop" or simply handheld), personal digital assistants (PDAs),

Pocket PC, or laptop computers, smart-phones, WAP, GPRS, and UMTS telephones—to support and deliver

some or all of the teaching and learning for a particular unit of study (O’Malley, et al. 2003). Nyiri (Keegan,

2002) argued that mobile devices are used mainly for purposes of person-to-person communication and

characteristically aim at specific kinds of knowledge, namely knowledge that is location-dependent and

situation-dependent. For some of a simple mobile learning is equivalent to ubiquitous learning (u-learning).

This generation is proposed by Zawacki-Richter, Brown, & Delport (2008) based on international

survey amongst distance educators from South Africa, Germany, Canada and Great Britain in relation with the

use of mobile learning. Based on the criteria of interaction, independence, access and flexibility, they

concluded that mobile learning has the potential to become a new generation of distance education in the

sense of Garrison (1985; cf. Kinshuk, Suhonen, Sutinen, & Goh, 2003). Mobile learning is may be a part of

mainstream education and training yet, but it has potential and there is a demand to move from pilot project

status to the mainstream. Organizational student and faculty support is the utmost importance in order to

foster the education innovation process. Mobile technologies seem to provide opportunities for optimizing and

enhancing collaborative, co-operative, interaction and communication between lecturers and learners, among

Figure 2: Wired virtual learning environment of today (Keegan, 2002. p.34).

8

learners and among members of communities of practice. It affords new channels of support, among others,

to 'enhancing' learning opportunities, rather than 'replacing' other forms of teaching and learning". It affords

new opportunities for teaching and learning which might convince innovative faculty, teachers and trainers to

consider adopting mobile learning.

Perhaps the hard work for acceptance done in the history of distance education and e-learning will also

have a positive impact on the development of mobile learning. It now has to prove the value it can add to the

teaching and learning process on a large scale. M-learning is a new field of pedagogical activity, and lead to a

new quality of teaching and learning in terms of interaction and independence, access, flexibility and costs so

that it might be appropriate to speak of a new generation of distance education or an 'educational paradigm

shift' in the sense of Peters (2004).

Kinshuk, Suhonen, Sutinen, & Goh (2003), and especially Keegan (2002) have given supports to this

new generation. Keegan in his book is provided an extended discussion on mobile learning at a distance

based on empirical analysis and theoretical background to the field of education and training provision.

According to Keegan, m-learning is a harbinger of the future of learning. Mobile learning sets in place the first

stage in the creation of a global provision of training on the wireless internet, and the first building block for the

next generation of learning: the move from distance learning (d-Learning) and electronic learning (e-Learning)

to mobile learning (m-Learning). It seeks to put in place a new virtual learning environment to create a more

user-friendly environment for learners for the future which might be diagrammatically represented thus:

M-learning is should therefore be widened to include: any sort of learning that happens when the

learner is not at a fixed, predetermined location, or learning that happens when the learner takes advantage of

the learning opportunities offered by mobile technologies (O’Malley, et al. (2003). It is an emergent in a state

of intense development fuelled by the confluence of three technological streams, ambient computing power,

ambient communication and development of intelligent user interfaces (Sharples et al. (2002). As suggested

by Wagner (2005), whether we like it or not, whether we are ready for it or not, mobile learning represents the

next step in a long tradition of technology mediated learning. It will feature new strategies, practices, tools,

applications, and resources to realize the promise of ubiquitous (u-learning), pervasive, personal, and

connected learning. It responds to the on-demand learning interests of connected citizens in an information-

centric world.

Mobile Learning is about the mobility of the learner and in that sense effective learning asks for

construction, conversation, and control (the 3 ‘C’-s). So, it can be an opportunity to bridge the gulf between

formal and experiential learning, opening new possibilities for personal fulfilment and lifelong learning

(Sharples, Taylor, & Vavoula, 2005). And in many ways a new phenomenon and its theoretical, pedagogical,

organizational and technical structure is currently still developing (Brown, 2004). It is also have the potential to

introduce novel innovations in the area of learning and education. The main advantages of these devices,

namely limitless mobility and small size, can bring new dimensions to the learning processes of the students.

But, despite these clear advantages mobile devices are not commonly used in the distance learning settings.

It is also need for large scale implementations generalized across a range of disciplines and subject areas

Figure 3: Wireless virtual learning environment of tomorrow (Keegan, 2002. p.p. 8, 16).

9

and across institutions; need a consolidated body of knowledge to guide teachers in implementing m-

Learning, particularly in the university sector, and a major challenge yet to be overcome is the cost of mobile

hardware, software, connection and usage charges (Mileva, Simpson, & Thompson, 2008).

To establish the field of distance education, so can assist with the conceptualization of mobile learning

as well as the development of applications for this new learning medium, Keegan (2002) presented his

analysis results of 30 mobile learning initiative projects in European countries such as in Sweden, German,

Belgium, Brazil, Italia, UK, Norway, and countries outside EU, including the USA, Canada, and Australia.

Projects are supported and funded by foundations through partnership with universities, telecommunication

office, and mobile phone and PC producers—as Ericsson, Insite, Telenor Mobil, IT Fornebu Knowation,

AvantGo, IBrite, Isopia, Experient, INSEAD/Nokia/ICUS. His study was concluded that m-learning, the

provision of education and training from wireless devices, is situated clearly in the future of learning. The

mixing of distance learning with mobile telephony to produce m-Learning will provide the future of learning.

Design educationally sound learning that is: interactive, authentic, collaborative, user-centered, and media

rich. But, the future of mobile learning, therefore, depends on solving the problems inherent in presenting

training scenarios on mobile telephones. The ways to achieve this are make optimal use of: portability

(learning anytime/anywhere, just in time), location (e.g. real-time video of workplace scenario), wearability

(expert in your pocket; easy and attractive to wear), networked communication (coached collaborative

learning), personalization (learner-centered design, photo, audio, SMS), and blended learning (+classroom, e-

learning).

To promote the strength and vitality of new innovative educational initiatives can best be gauged,

projects are followed by details of international conferences, such as the International Conference on mobility

in the Knowledge Economy—EMOBILITY—in Goteborg, 2001, supported by e-mobility 2001 EU Information

Society; the International Conference on m-Learning in Paris, France, 2001, and in Finland, 2002; European

Workshop on Mobile and Contextual Learning, 2002, supported by University of Birmingham (Keegan, 2002);

the IEEE international Workshop on Mobile and Wireless Technologies in Education—WMTE 2002—in

Sweden, 2002, supported by Växjö University. The IEEE International Conference on “Advanced Learning

Technologies”—ICALT 2003—in Athens, Greece, 2003; and on “Mobile Technologies in Education”—WMTE

2003—in Taiwan, 2003, supported by The IEEE Computer Society has proposed a concept of G4P for Mobile

Learning Technologies to fosters the cooperation between, industry, academic research, and application sites

to develop and put into practice promising solutions using mobile and wireless technologies in education and

creative teamwork as well as international cooperation in the above mentioned field of research and

development, including comparative studies of culture-dependent and inter-cultural needs (Kinshuk, 2003);

the 3rd Mobile Learning Conference MLEARN 2004, and the 1st International Workshop on Mobile Learning for

Emergency Management (MLEM) supported by the European Commission’s (EC) Information Society

Technologies’ (IST) programme – m-learning and MOBIlearn, has provided a dramatic setting for the very

lively proceedings including demonstrations of the latest technologies, systems and learning materials as well

as exciting new ideas about teaching and learning. The conferences are also improved and contributed to

knowledge of mobile learning and helping us to investigate how this type of technology-enhanced learning can

facilitate learning process in different learning situations for diverse groups of learners, based on experiences,

results, findings, tools and ideas from developers and researchers perspectives (c.f. Keegan, 2002).

The Eighth Generation (8th-gen) is proposed by Willems (2005), in the line with global revolution in

using teaching-learning and in interconnected technology. Willems called a multi-generational model. The

Willems’ model is characterized by providing alternatives educational technology, rather than moving to a one-

size-fits-all format, which may serve to limit market participation. It would contain a composite of options for

students, empowering them to make choices in their learning, encourage participation as well as successful

completion. The multi-generational model would include simultaneously accessed to print resources (1st-gen),

10

audio-visual materials (2nd-gen), telelearning (3rd-gen), including radio transmissions (Ramanujam, in Willems,

2005) and telephone learning (dubbed as t-learning by Simpson, 2005), could assist access for learners who

have difficulty regularly accessing the online capabilities of the flexible or intelligent-flexible learning

generations (4th-gen and 5th-gen), and m-learning (6th-gen).

This Williams’s model is based on the notion of “time-lag problem” in the pursuit of technology

acquisition is not simply a developing world phenomenon. For Williams, however, these -gen model changes

have simultaneously created participatory barriers for some learners through an inability to maintain pace with

the acquisition of technology. Willems is quotes from Brennan et al. (2000) suggestion, however that the

constant renegotiation of technological developments can seem more of an imposition than progress. More

than an imposition is the notion of time lag. Ramanujam (1999) highlights this point when he writes that one of

the main challenges facing distance learners in developing nations is that “by the time they acquire it, [the]

technology itself becomes outdated. The time gap never gets filled”.

Furthermore, Williams stated that each -gen has heralded its own specific benefits to education. Each

has important attributes which can be seen to be of value globally depending on their context of learning.

Around the globe, multi-generational communities exist to support each other. Each of -gen draws on the

strengths of the generation that exists before or after it, the wisdom of older generations, the exuberance and

fresh thinking of the new -gen. As such, it may be advantageous to consider the models of -gen as a family of

co-existing -gen, each still having valuable contributions to make to the study life of global learning. The co-

existence of the best of each style of learning to create a multi-generational model may well meet the needs of

a broader range of learners (such as the portability of materials, affordability, utilization of existing technology,

communication, timely feedback and time-saving options) in order to prevent a techno-elitist barrier to

accessing, and participating in education.

As suggested by Simpson (2005), that education (distance, or regular) is constructed with a mixture of

delivery methods, is a way of supporting the defining characteristics of learning: openness and flexibility for

the learners. So, the multi-generational model—at the least in Williams’s perspectives—would consider

providing alternatives such learners, rather than moving to a one-size-fits-all format, which may serve to limit

access or market participation. It would contain a composite of options for students, empowering them to

make choices in their learning, encourage participation as well as successful completion. In relation with

openness and flexibility education, we think Williams’s multi-generational model is most possible to give

shape to the Cape Town Open Education Declaration “Unlocking the promise of open educational resources”

(http://www.capetowndeclaration.org/) that promote to open education, open educational resources, open

educational technology, open sharing of teaching practices and other approaches, without constraint.

The Competencies structure for Teacher’s Professional Education

Technology is not, and never will be, transformative on its own, however. It requires the assistance of

educators who integrate technology into education practice, align it with student learning goals, and use it for

engaged learning activities. So, professional development for teachers becomes the key issue in using

technology to improve the quality of learning in the classroom. The role of the classroom teacher is the crucial

factor in the full development and use of technology in the schools (Rodriguez & Knuth, 2000). Instead,

ongoing professional development program that is tied to and designed with built-in competencies structure is

essential if teachers are to use technology appropriately to promote learning for all students in the classroom.

Teacher’s competencies structure is defined as: (1) the written statements of the knowledge, abilities,

or skills teachers as a professional in integrating technology into educational practice; (2) the standards in

other content areas that specify what teachers should know and able to do. It will provide a general framework

from which teacher’s professional education can develop curricula and programs best suited to be a

professional teacher. Framework can provide a guidance for teachers to improve their teaching and their

11

learning programs designed. This framework is also will provide the criteria for teacher enhancement and

teacher preparation, and improvement of the learning environment.

Teacher’s competencies structure were developed from constructivism and postmodernism, as

recommended by most instructional designers and researchers (e.g. Gagné & Merrill, 1990; Taylor & Swartz,

1991; Duffy, Lowyck, & Jonassen, 1992; Jonassen, 1990, 994; Merrill, 1992; Molenda, 1997; Spector, 1994,

1995; Hlynka; 1994, 2003; Nanjappa & Grant, 2003; or Miarso, 2007). While the competencies content were

developed from a broad perspective on the study of technology from ITEA (1996); technological literacy from

ITEA (2005); educational technology competency standards from AECT (Earle, 2000); teacher's level of

technology competency from ISTE (2008); and current research on educational technology. As suggested by

Sprague (2004), that the educational technology field needs to reach out, not only to those with other

perspectives within the field, but also to teacher educators. By collaborating with each other and our teacher

education colleagues, we can expand the influence of educational technology and heal any potential rifts

before they occur. It is time for us to stop talking to ourselves and to start talking to ourselves.

The teacher’s competency structure can be categorized as: (1) substantive structure; (2) syntactical

structure; and (3) normative structure as a context. The three structures are all equally critical to existence

and advance of teacher’s competencies structure. One cannot exist without the others, for they are mutually

dependent. With substantive structure, teachers engage in the processes, yet it is through the processes that

conceptual developed. All educational technology is for a reason, or dome within a normative context. The

substantive, syntactical, and normative (context) structures in educational technology are the universal in

every scientific discipline, profession, or in the field of study or practice, therefore, it must be a foundation in

built a competency structure for teacher’s professional education.

The substantive structure, conceptual structure, conceptual ecology, or in Piaget’s term called as

content, is the teacher’s competencies include knowledge and understanding about: (1) the nature and

evolution of educational technology; (2) linkages based on impacts, consequences, resources, and other

fields; and (3) educational technology concepts and principles. This includes much of the knowledge of how

Figure 2: Competencies structure for Teacher’s Professional Education

12

the syntactical structure of educational technology are developed, applied, and used. This substantive

structure will gives to teachers on theoretical and philosophical foundations that used in the field of

educational technology.

• The nature of educational technology is related to knowledge and understanding varieties of

educational technology characteristics. So, they able to analyze current situations and issues, and to

challenge and test their decisions about educational technology used; including many factors

influenced such as: needs of society and individual desires; information base; intellectual and social

climate; education of the citizens; social acceptance and compatibility; level of development of related

educational technology components; devices, and systems; level of talent and expertise available;

economic capability and desire of society to support educational technology development; and human

invention and innovation.

• The evolution of educational technology is related to knowledge and understanding of a historical

perspective of educational technology, is a significant educational technology accomplishment

throughout history. Moreover, what is considered significant may change according to the context in

which it is placed. However, substantive educational technology milestones usually result in a

combination of the following: (1) an alteration of the way people create new products, systems, and

environments; (2) an incorporation of new ways of doing work and recreation; (3) a widespread and

dramatic impact on individuals, social systems, or the environment; and (4) a significant impact on the

progress in other subject fields.

• Linkages based on impacts, consequences, and resources is concerned with knowledge and

understanding to use, develop, and to transfer of the educational technology in the linkages to society,

and educational the environment. The educational technology use, develop or transfer involve applying

a technology product, system, or environment to a setting or application that is different from the

situation for which it was developed. As educational technology systems are moved from culture to

culture, organization to organization, government laboratory to private enterprise, therefore,

considerations must be made for the interrelated and reciprocal behavior of technological and socio-

cultural systems.

• Linkages based on other fields of study is concerned with knowledge and understanding theoretical

and philosophical tools from every other field of study as a basic rules of truth, such as laws, formulae,

fundamental principles, axioms, or theorems. With other words, every teacher must be competent to

know and understand: (1) some of the underlying basic science, mathematics, engineering, and

architectural concepts and their relationship to educational technology; and (2) the interdisciplinary

connections between educational technology, social sciences, the humanities, and language arts.

• Educational technology concepts and principles are concerned to a number of philosophical,

theoretical, and practical concepts and principles in the field of educational technology. The following

concepts and principles are presented as examples, and are not intended to be a comprehensive list:

(1) educational technology results from human ingenuity; (2) educational technology competencies and

activities require resources; (3) educational technology created and developed to make education

(learning) more effective and efficient; (4) educational technology uses have both positive and negative

impacts on individuals, society, and the educational environment; (5) educational technology provides

opportunities and triggers requirements for careers; (5) the current state of educational technology

sophistication is the result of the contributions of diverse cultures; (6) the rate of educational technology

change is accelerating; (7) complex educational technology systems develop from simpler or traditional

educational technology systems.

13

The syntactical structure or according to Piaget is operations, is the teacher’s competencies that

related with processes or operations to create, invent, design, transform, produce, control, maintain, and use

educational technology products or system. The syntactical structure includes the activities of: (1) designing

and developing educational technology system; (2) determining and controlling the behavior of educational

technology system; (3) utilizing educational technology system; and (4) assessing the impacts and

consequences of educational technology system. This syntactical structure will gives to teachers on systemic

procedures, processes, or operations that used in the field of educational technology.

• Designing educational technology systems are involves the application of knowledge to new

educational situations or goals, resulting in development of new knowledge. It requires an

understanding of the use of resources and engages a variety of mental strategies, such as problem

solving, visual imagery, and reasoning. Designing educational technology systems use theories such

as: instructional systems design theory, message design theory, or instructional strategies.

• Developing educational technology systems are consists of physical and informational systems. Such

as: (1) physical systems involve many of the educational technology common manufacturing and

production processes, such as print technologies, audiovisual technologies, computer-based

technologies, integrated technologies. (2) informational systems include competencies to basic data

manipulation, management, and enhancing actions, such as encoding and decoding the messages.

Developing educational technology systems use theories such as instructional systems design theory,

message design theory, or instructional strategies.

• Managing educational technology use in classroom and instructional to establish and maintain of

learning environment. So do the opportunities for creating an exciting and purposeful environment for

learning. It requires skilled in organize, locate, access to technology resources and orchestration of

activity within that environment (complete list of core technology competencies and skills, s.t. Knuth,

Amenta-Shin, & Ciesemier, 1999). Determining and controlling the behavior of educational technology

system is competencies to operate, control, use, and judge of the behavior of the individual component

parts and devices that are used within educational technology system. The feedback systems model

(or shared theory) is one of model can be used and developed.

• Utilizing educational technology system is competencies to select appropriate educational technology

for the situation; and to use tools, materials, devices, and processes in a correct and safe manner

(complete lists of competencies, s.t. Knuth, Amenta-Shin, & Ciesemier, 1999). Diffusion and innovation

theory; concerns-based adoption model (CBAM); systems theory; activity theory; information ecologies;

Stages of Concerns Questionnaire (SoC); economic analysis; gap analysis; behavioral analysis or

behavioral technology; or cultural analysis; can offer some refreshing alternative viewpoints that can be

used that have both explanatory power and predictive power.

• Assessing the impacts and consequences of educational technology system is competencies to make

decisions and predictions should include an assessment of the impacts and consequences of an

implemented or proposed educational technology to student, humans, society, and the learning

environment. They need to understand the process of assessment so they can develop “best guess

estimates” based on a variety of techniques. Trend analysis, modeling, cross impact analysis, Delphi

surveys, scenario development, problem analysis, criterion-referenced measurement, front-end

analysis, performance problem analysis, performance technology, are some model can be used and

developed.

The normative structure or affective scheme is that the substantive and syntactical competencies

must be placed in the context for their development and use. The context of educational technology can be

categorized as student as a learner, professional, societal, and educational contexts. The normative structure

14

is closely related with the substantive structure. This normative structure will gives to teachers on norm or

value bases to judge and make decision when they use and develop of educational technology.

As such, educational technology competencies are for a reason, or done within a context. In paradigm

shifts in education, a normative structure as a context is very crucial to give an axiological or ethical

foundation to the educational technology. Educational technology as a scientific discipline, profession, or field

of study or practice is not value free, not neutral, but rather a culturally biased phenomenon. Technology is an

integral part of the postmodern dilemma. It is necessary to re-construct educational technology in light of the

philosophical implications to which postmodernism points as an important philosophical underpinning for

educational technology (Hlynka, 1994, 2003). A broad expression of this notion is the Context Principle (C)

or the Integration Principle (I) (Spector, 2000). Most instructional designers accept some versions of the

Context Principle or Integration Principle either explicitly or tacitly addressed by many instructional design

researchers (e.g. Gagné & Merrill, 1990; Taylor & Swartz, 1991; Duffy, Lowyck, & Jonassen, 1992; Jonassen,

1990, 1994; Merrill, 1992; Molenda, 1997; Spector, 1994, 1995; Hlynka; 1994, 2003; Miarso, 2007; and

Specht, 2009).

The normative structure is consists of:

• Student as learner context is competencies concerned with recognizing, sensitivity, valuing

technology use to learner characteristics individually such as: student’s prior knowledge or learning,

belief system, self-expectations, student’s experiences domain (cognitive and meta-cognitive, socio-

cultural, physical, etc.), psychological domain, and student’s socio-cultural identities, cognitive

dissonances, etc; and address the diverse needs of all learners by using learner-centered strategies

and providing equitable access to appropriate digital tools and resources.

• Professional context is competencies concerned with sensitivity, valuing, and responsibilities in an

evolving digital culture and exhibit legal and ethical behavior to their professional service ideals,

professional practices, culture and associations, and code of ethics (e.g. the teacher’s code of ethics

IPTPI or AECT code of professional ethics) (AECT, 2008); advocate, model, and teach safe, legal, and

ethical use of digital information and technology, including respect for copyright, intellectual property,

and the appropriate documentation of sources; and develop and model cultural understanding and

global awareness by engaging with colleagues and students of other cultures using digital-age

communication and collaboration tools

• Societal and cultural is competencies concerned with sensitivity and valuing technology use to socio-

cultural issues, histories, differences and diversities; socio-cultural ideals and expectations to education

and technology; and promote and model digital etiquette and responsible social interactions related to

the use of technology and information;

• Educational context is competencies concerned with sensitivity and valuing technology use to

educational goals, ideals, or philosophical standpoint (ISTE, 2008).

Conclusions

Integrating technology into education is one of among the main characteristics of a competent teacher.

It becomes a catalyst to educational changes, and to promote active and participatory student learning. There

are some theories and models to integrate the technology into education effectively on various context and

perspectives. Distance education shown a witnessed significant paradigm shifts that have corresponded with

the implementation of new forms of delivery technology.

So, professional development for teachers becomes the key issue in the use of integrated technology

to improve the quality of learning in the classroom. The role of teacher is the crucial factor in the full

development and use of technology in the schools. Instead, ongoing professional development program that

is tied to and designed with built-in competencies structure is essential if teachers are to use technology

15

appropriately to promote learning for all students in the classroom. The teachers’ competencies structure is

consisting of substantive structure, syntactical structure, and normative structure as a context. The structures

are all equally critical to existence and advance of teacher’s competencies structure. With substantive

structure, teachers engage in the processes, yet it is through the processes that conceptual developed. All

educational technology is for a reason, or dome within a normative context. The substantive, syntactical, and

normative (context) structures in educational technology are the universal in every scientific discipline,

profession, or in the field of study or practice, therefore, it must be a foundation in built a competency structure

for teacher’s professional education.

References AECT. (2008). The code of professional ethics: A guide to professional conduct in the field of educational

communications and technology. Bloomington: The Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

AISI. (2004). AISI technology projects research review: Summary of findings from cycle one 2000-2001 to 2002-2003. Retrieved March, 17, 2010 from http://www.learning.gov.ab.ca/k_12/special/aisi/pdfs/ techprojectsreview.pdf

Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States. USA: The Sloan Consortium.

Antonacci, D.M. (2002). Integrating technology into instruction in higher education. Retrieved March, 24, 2010 from associations.missouristate.edu/assets/ mohighedweb/...

Ashby, E. (1974). Adapting universities to a technological society. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Attewell, J., & Savill-Smith, C., Eds., (2004). Mobile learning anytime everywhere: A book of papers from

MLEARN 2004. UK: Learning and Skills Development Agency. Retrieved March, 24, 2010 from elearning.typepad.com/thelearnedman.../ reports/mLearn04_ papers.pdf

Aviram, A., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2005) Towards a theory of digital literacy: Three scenarios for the next steps. Retrieved March, 18, 2010 from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/ 2006/Aharon_Aviram.htm

Barbour, M.K. & Reeves, T.C. (2005). Michael Graham Moore a significant contributor to the field of educational technology. Retrieved March, 16, 2010 from www.michaelbarbour.com/ research/pubs/edtech.pdf

Bates, A.W. (2005). Technology, e-learning and distance education London. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Bates, T. (1995). Technology, open learning and distance education. Proceedings of the 19th ICDE World

Conference on Open Learning and Distance education, Vienna, Austria, June 20-24. Retrieved March 13, 2010, from www.tonybates.ca/ 2008/07/21/distance-education-the-fifth-generation

Bates, T. (1999). Charting the evolution of lifelong learning and distance higher education: The role of research. Proceedings of the 19th ICDE World Conference on Open Learning and Distance education, Vienna, Austria, June 20-24. Retrieved March 13, 2010, from www.col.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/PSeries_LLLDHE_ CH11.pdf

Berge, Z., & Collins, M. (1995). Computer-mediated communication and the online classroom in distance learning. Computer-Mediated Communication Magazine, 2(4). Retrieved March 13, 2010, from http://www.ibiblio.org/cmc/mag/1995/apr/ berge.html

Brown, T. H. (2006). M-learning in Africa: Doing the unthinkable and reaching the unreachable. Open and distance learning praxis in Africa. Pretoria: UNISA Press.

Callahan, W.P., & Switzer, T.J. (2004). Technology as facilitator of quality education: A model. Retrieved, March, 24, 2010 from http://www.intime.uni.edu/model/ modelarticle.html

Carnegie Commission in Higher Education (1972). The fourth revolution: Instructional technology in higher learning. New York: Mc-Graw-Hill Book Co. Retrieved March, 18, 2010 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/ content_storage_01/0000019b/80/39/04/2a.pdf

Cherup, S., & Snyder, L. (2003). A model for intergrating technology into teacher education: One college’s journey. Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education, 3(1), 43-52. Retrieved March, 18, 2010 from www.citejournal.org/ articles/v3i1general3.pdf

Coughlin, E.C. (1999). Professional competency continuum: Professional skills for the digital age classroom (Dimension 3). Part of the series: Technology in american schools: Seven dimensions for gouging

16

progress. Santa Monica: Milken Family Foundation. Retrieved March, 21, 2010 from http://www.mff.org/pubs/ME159.pdf

Cradler, J. (n.d). Implementing technology in education: Recent findings from Research and evaluation studies. Technology policy, research & planning, information & resources. Retrieved March, 21, 2010 from http://www.wested.org/

Duffy, T. M. & Jonassen, D.H. (1992). Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Duffy, T.M., Lowyck, J., & Jonassen, D.H. (Eds.) (1992). Designing environments for constructive learning. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Earle, R. (ed). (2000). Standards for the accreditation of school media specialist and educational technology specialist programs. (4th eds). AECT. Bloomington, Inc.

Erekson, Th., & Shumway, S., (2006). Integrating the study of technology into the curriculum: A consulting teacher model. Journal of Technology Education, Vol. 18 No. 1, Fall 2006. Retrieved March, 24, 2010 from scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/ JTE/v18n1/pdf/erekson.pdf

Fryer, W.A (2003). Tools for the text: Integrating technology in the classroom: Technology integration lessons from the TLA. Retrieved March, 21, 2010 from http://www.wtvi.com/teks/03_04_articles/ tla_lessons.html

Gagné, R. M. & Merrill, M. D. (1990). Integrative goals for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38 (1), 23-30.

Garrison, G. R. (1985). Three generations of technological innovation in distance education. Distance Education, 6(2), 235-241.

Hlynka, D. (2003). The cultural discourses of educational technology: A canadian perspective. Educational Technology, v43, n4, p41-45, Jul-Aug. Retrieved March, 16, 2010 from http://umanitoba.ca/centtres/ ukrainian_canadian/hlynka/papers/ Cultural_Discourses.pdf.

Hlynka, D. (May 1994). Postmodernism in educational technology: Update: 1996–Present. D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research in educational technology. New York: Macmillan. Retrieved March, 16, 2010 from www.umanitoba.ca/centres/ukrainian_canadian/hlynka/ papers/postmodernism.htl

Hlynka, D. (May 1994). Six postmodernisms in search of an author. G. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present and future. Englewood, Colorado: Libraries Unlimited. Retrieved March, 16, 2010 from www.umanitoba.ca/centres/ukrainian_canadian/hlynka/papers/ six_postmodernisms.html

Hsu, P.-S., & Sharma, P. (2006). A systemic plan of technology integration. Educational technology & society, 9 (4), 173-184. Retrieved March, 24, 2010 from www.ifets.info/journals/9_4/15.pdf

http://www.capetowndeclaration.org/ (2007). Cape Town open education declaration: Unlocking the promise of open educational resources. Retrieved March 13, 2010.

ISTE. (2008). The ISTE national educational technology standards (NETS•T) and performance indicators for teachers. Retrieved March 21, 2010 from http://cnets.iste.org/teachstand.html

ITEA. (1996). Technology for all Americans: A rationale and structure for the study of technology: Rationale and structure. USA: ITEA. Retrieved March, 9, 2010 from http://www.iteaconnect.or/TAA/ Publications/TAA_Publications.html

ITEA. (2005). Technological literacy for all: A rationale and structure for the study of technology. (2nd eds). USA: ITEA. Retrieved March, 9, 2010 from http://www.iteaconnect.or/TAA/Publications/ TAA_Publications.html

ITEA. (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology: Executive summary. Retrieved March, 17, 2010 from www.iteconnect.or/TAA_Publications.html

ITEA. (2009). 2009-2010 technological literacy product guide: Preparing the citizens of tomorrow. Retrieved March, 17, 2010 from www.iteconnect.or/TAA_Publications.html

Jonassen, D.H. (1990). Thinking technology, toward a constructivist view of instructional design. Educational Technology, September, 32-34.

Jonassen, D.H. (1994). Thinking technology, toward a constructivist design model. Educational Technology, April, 34-37.

Kamarga, H. (2008). The Forming of Attitude and Behavior Based On Information Technology Through Curriculum of Information System Within Education: A Case Study in the Subject of Curriculum Development at Master's Degree, Indonesia University of Education. Unpublished research report, Retrieved March, 24, 2010 from pk.sps.upi.edu/artikel_hanny.html

17

Kaufman, D. (1989). Third generation course design in distance education. Sweet, R. (ed.) Post-secondary distance education in Canada: Policies, practices and priorities Athabasca. Canada: Athabasca University/Canadian Society for Studies in Education.

Keegan, D. (1986). Foundations of distance education. Beckenham: Croon Helm. Keegan, D. (2002). ZIFF PAPIERE 119. The future of learning: From eLearning to mLearning. Hagen:

FernUniversitat. Retrieved March, 24, 2010 from www.fernuni-hagen.de/ZIFF/ZP_119.pdf Kinshuk, Suhonen, J., Sutinen, E., & Goh, T. (2003). Mobile technologies in support of distance learning.

Asian journal of distance education, vol 1, no 1, pp 60-68. Retrieved March, 24, 2010 from http://www.AsianJDE.org

Kinshuk. (Ed). (2003). Learning technology: Publication of IEEE computer society learning technology task force (LTTF). Learning technology newsletter, Vol. 5 Issue 2, April 2003. Retrieved March, 24, 2010 from lttf.ieee.org/issues/ april2003/index.html

Knuth, R., Amenta-Shin, G., & Ciesemier, K. (1999). NCREL framework for supporting effective technology staff development. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved March 16, 2010, from http://www.ncrel.org/ sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/

Liu, Theodore, & Lavelle (2004). Experimental effects of online instruction on teachers’ concerns about technology integration. International journal of instructional technology & distance learning. Retrieved March 17, 2010, from http://itdl.org/journal/

Maddux, C.D., & Johnson, D.L. (eds). (2006). Type II uses of technology in education: projects, case studies, and software applications. Routledge.

Merrill, M.D. (1992). Constructivism and instructional design. In T.M. Duffy & D.H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 99-114).

Meyrowitz, J. (1997). The separation of social space from physical space. In T. O.Sullivan & Y. Jewkes (Eds.). The media studies reader (pp. 42.52). London: Edward Arnold.

Miarso, Y. 2007. Kontribusi teknologi pendidikan dalam pembangunan pendidikan. Makalah disampaikan dalam Seminar Intenasional & Temu Ilmiah FIP/JIP se Indonesia, Manado, 2007.

Miarso, Y., & Wargahadibrata, H. (2007). Educational technology and systemic change in education. Paper presented at the third international symposium on open and distance learning, Bali, November 1997. Retrieved March 17, 2010, from http://yusufhadi.net/educational-technology-and-systemic-change-in-education

Mileva, N., Simpson, B., & Thompson, J. (2008). A framework for mobile learning pedagogy: A critique underpined by constructivism. Retrieved March, 24, 2010 from ttp://www.ericsson.com/ericsson/ corpinfo/programs/.../socrates_mlearning_ wp5.pdf

Molenda, M. (1997). Historical and philosophical foundations of instructional design: A North-American view. In Dijkstra, et al (eds.) Instructional design: International perspectives. Copyright, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Nanjappa, A., & Grant, M.M. (2003). Constructing on constructivism: The role of technology. Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education. 1(2), 1-18. Retrieved March, 16, 2010, from http://ejite.isu.edu/Volume2No1/ nanjappa.htm

Nasser, R., & Abouchedid, K. (2000). Attitudes and concerns towards distance education: The case of Lebanon. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Volume III, Number IV. Retrieved March, 12, 2010 from http://www.westga.edu/ %7Edistance/jmain11.html.

NCREL. (1999). (1999). To the point: Technology leadership team institute. Retrieved March, 17, 2010 from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/thepoint/techtoc.htm

Nipper, S. (1989). Third generation distance learning and computer conferencing. In R. Mason & A. Kaye (Eds.), Mindweaves: Communication, computers and distance education (pp. 63.73). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Retrieved March 13, 2010, from http://www-icdl.open.as.uk/mindweave/chap5.html

Norton, P., & Sprague, D. (2001). Technology for teaching. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Retrieved March 18, 2010, from http://www.abacon.com/norton

O’Malley, C., et al. 2003. Guidelines for learning/teaching/tutoring in a mobile environment. MOBIlearn. October ed. p. 6. Retrieved March 13, 2010, from http://www.mobilearn.org/download/results/ guidelines.pdf.

Peters, O. (2004). The educational paradigm shifts. In O. Peters (Ed.), Distance education in transition - new trends and challenges (4th ed., pp. 25-35). Oldenburg: BIS.

18

Philip, D.C. (1987). Philosophy, science and social inquiry: Contemporary methodological controversies in social science and related applied fields of research. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Poley, J. (2009). The seventh generation community (7GC) initiative: A concept paper for native American electronic sovereignty. Retrieved March, 12, 2010 from http://lone-eagles.com/7gc.htm

Ramanujam, P. R. (1999). Global trends in distance open learning: Challenges before the developing world. Paper delivered at UNESCO . IICBA, September 15, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Riley, D. (2007). Educational technology and practice: Types and timescales of change. Educational Technology & Society, 10(1), 85-93. Retrieved March, 16, 2010, from http://www.ifets.info/ journals/10_1/9.pdf

Rodrigues, G., & Knuth, R. (2000). Critical issue: Providing professional development for effective technology use. North Central Regional Technology in Education Consortium. Retrieved March, 17, 2010, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/ issues/methods/technlgy/te10.htm

Seaman, J. (2009). Online learning as a strategic asset volume II: The paradox of faculty voices: Views and experiences with online learning. Results of a national faculty survey, part of the online education benchmarking study conducted by the APLU-sloan national commission on online learning. New York: Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities. Retrieved March 13, 2010, from http://www.sloanconsortium.org/sites/default/files/APLU_online_ strategic_asset_vol2-1.pdf

Seels, B., & Richey, R. (1994). Instructional technology: The definition and domains of the field. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

Sharples, M., et al. (2002). Next-generation s and interfaces for technology supported learning in a mobile environment exploring the potential of ambient intelligence. MOBIlearn. Retrieved March 13, 2010, from http://www.mobilearn.org/download/results/next-generation.htm

Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2005). Towards a theory of mobile learning. Retrieved March, 24, 2010 from www.mlearn.org.za/CD/papers/Sharples-Theory of Mobile.pdf

Simpson, O. (2005). Web-based learning: Are we becoming obsessed? Distance Education, 26(1), 153.157. Specht, M. (2009). Learning in a technology enhanced world: Context in ubiquitous learning support.

Netherlands: OCE. Retrieved, March, 24, 2010 from www.ou.nl/Docs/Onderzoek/Oraties/ 2009/Oratie_marcus_specht.pdf

Spector, J. M. (1994). Integrating instructional science, learning theory and technology. In R. D. Tennyson (Ed.) Automating instructional design, development, and delivery, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 243-260.

Spector, J. M. (1995). Integrating and humanizing the process of automating instructional design. In R. D. Tennyson & A. Barron (Eds.) Automating instructional design: Computer-based development and delivery tools, Brussels, Belgium: Springer-Verlag, 523-546.

Spector, J.M. (2000). Towards a philosophy of instruction. Educational Technology & Society, 3(3). Retrieved March, 16, 2010 from www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/journals/ ets/ets3.html.

Sprague, D. (2004). Technology and teacher education: Are we talking to ourselves. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3(4), 353 -361. Retrieved March, 18, 2010 from http://www.citejournal.org/articles/ v3i4editorial1.pdf

Srivastava, M., & Reddy, V. V. (2002). Is information and communication technology reshaping the learner support? University News, 40(4), 43-54.

Stuparich, J. (2001). E-learning in Australia: universities and the new distance education. Paper presented (on behalf of Michael Gallagher) to 7th OECD/Japan Seminar on E- Learning in Post-Secondary Education: Trends, Issues and Policy Challenges Ahead, Tokyo, 5th and 6th June 2001.

Taylor, J.C. (1998). Flexible delivery: The globalization of lifelong learning. Indian Journal of Open Learning, 7(1), 67.78. Retrieved March 13, 2010, from http://www.usq.edu.au/users/taylorj/publications_ presentations /1997india.doc

Taylor, J.C. (1999). Distance education: The fifth generation. Proceeding of the 19th World Conference on Open Learning and Distance Education, Vienna, Austria, June 20-24.

Taylor, J.C. (2001). Fifth generation distance education. Keynote address, ICDE 20th world conference, April 1.5, Dusseldorf, Germany. Retrieved March 14, 2010 from http://www.usq.edu.au/electpub/ejist/docs/ old/vol4no1/2001docs/taylor.html

Taylor, J.C., Sharples, M., O’Malley, C., Vavoula, G., & Waycott, J. (n.d.) Towards a task model for mobile learning: A dialectical approach. Retrieved, March, 24, 2010 from www.eee.bham.ac.uk/sharplem/ Papers/Task Model.pdf

19

Taylor, W.D. & Swartz, J.D. (1991). Whose knowledge? In D. Hlynka & J.C. Belland (Eds.). s regained: The uses of illuminative, semiotic and post-modern criticism as modes of inquiry in educational technology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Thomas, L., Larson, A., Clift, R.T., & Levin, J. (1996). Integrating technology in teacher education programs: Lessons from the teaching teleapprenticeships project. Action in Teacher Education , Winter 1996, Volume 17, Number 4, 1-8. Retrieved, March, 24, 2010 from www.ed.uiuc.edu/tta/Papers/TLCL.html

Thomas, M.O.J. ed. (2000). Proceedings of TIME 2000: An international conference on technology in mathematics education, December 11th—4th, Auckland, NZ: The University of Auckland and Auckland Institute of Technology. Retrieved March, 18, 2010 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/ recordDetail?accno= ED474050.

Wagner, E. D. (2005). Enabling mobile learning. EDUCAUSE Review, 40(3), 40-53. Wahab, S.A. (2003). Factors correlating with teachers' use of computers in the classroom. Retrieved March

18, 2010, from http://www.bookpump.com/dps/pdf-b/9427044b.pdf Wikipedia. (13-03-2010). E-learning. Retrieved March 13, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wikiE-learning. Willems, J. (2005). Spanning the generations: Reflections on twenty years of maintaining momentum.

Proceeding of the Australasian society for computers in learning in tertiary education (ascilite) 2005 conference, Brisbane, Australia. Retrieved March 13, 2010, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ conferences/brisbane05/blogs/ proceedings/

Zawacki-Richter, O., Brown, T., & Delport, R. (2008). Mobile Learning: From single project status into the mainstream? Retrieved March, 17, 2010 from http://www.eurodl.org/ ?article=357

The Author: is Doctor and Lector in Social Studies, and Academic Staff at Faculty of Pedagogy and Educational Science at Regional Centre of Surabaya, Universitas Terbuka Indonesia. Contact detail: Surabaya Regional Centre (Unit Program Belajar Jarak Jauh Universitas Terbuka/UPBJJ-UT) Surabaya, Kampus C Unair Mulyorejo, Surabaya 60115. Office Telp. 031-5961861, -5961862; Fax. 031-5961860; Home Telp. 0324-334386. HP. 08121612785; E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]