No abstract

A current assessment of the "philosophy" of instructional technology is made using a 1970 BJET article as the basis of comparison. Each hypothesis of the original article is revisited and updated according to contemporary trends: (1) instructional technology is not yet a discipline; (2) the behavioural science concept of instructional technology is more valid than the physical science concept; (3) technology offers the best organizing concept for the development of the field and its evolution into a discipline; and (4) any statement of philosophy regarding instructional technology is tentative. The influence of distance education, public acceptance of media and technology, and training by artificial intelligence procedures in business and industry are nominated as important factors in bringing about major changes in the field. Each professional should develop a unique philosophy based on personal experiences in the field. A personal noteThis article has been written at the request of the Editor as an update of "Toward a Philosophy of Instructional Technology" published in Volume 1, Number 2, May 1970. The follow-up, like the former article, is a personal synthesis regarding the emergence of instructional technology as a field related to teaching and learning. The first article was largely oriented toward North American developments and drew on major trends at the time. The update includes European trends as well as those from other parts of the world.Since then there have been many new developments. The microchip was invented and connections have gone beyond telephone and post. The Open University that was just a gleam in Harold Wilson's eye is now a model for open learning internationally and BJET has established itself as a major journal in a rapidly changing field.

... Definitions, however, are arbitrary conveniences--neither true or false--it is the privilege of any theorist to establish his own definitions hopeful that his readers will find them not discordant with their own thinking and of equal convenience.-- Berrien, 1976 [] Definitions are required to give a consistent meaning to a word or term. This consistency provides a common referent that permits a universe of discourse among users and would-be users. A well-defined term facilitates communication. It is shorthand for individuals who share a common meaning.When a field is defined, practitioners gain the benefits of a precise statement about their dayto-day operations. Such definitions help to indicate who is "in" and who is "out." The purpose of such a distinction in a broad field such as education is an aid to relating one area to another. Definitions do not create a field but, rather, help to explain its purposes, functions and roles to those within and those outside the field. This article reviews the major definitions of the field of educational technology from the early 1900s to 1994. It begins with a brief exploration of the field's earliest audiovisual roots and extends to prospects for future definitions. The basic theme is how, over time, the definitions of the field have reflected changes in the field itself.The term, educational technology, is used as a generic descriptor and is intended to include other terms such as instructional technology, educational media, learning technology and other such variants. It is not the purpose of this article to argue for one term over another, as important as such a term might be to establish identity. However, we believe that of the terms

This paper, written from a 20th-century perspective, traces the development of, and influences on, the field of instructional technology and attempts to describe a framework within which we can better understand the field.Despite several attempts since 1963 to define the field of educational technology (

No abstract