Educational Technology:
Media for 
Inquiry, Communication, Construction, and Expression

Bertram C. Bruce
James A. Levin

College of Education
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Champaign, IL 61820

Published in the Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1997, Vol. 17(1), pp. 79-102.

Abstract

We describe a new way of classifying uses of educational technologies, based on a four-part division suggested years ago by John Dewey: inquiry, communication, construction, and expression. This taxonomy is compared to previous taxonomies of educational technologies, and is found to cover a wider range of uses, including many of the cutting-edge uses of educational technologies. We have tested the utility of this taxonomy by using it to classify a set of "advanced applications" of educational technologies supported by the National Science Foundation, and we use the taxonomy to point to new potential uses of technologies to support learning.

Introduction

Discussions in the field of educational technology concern a host of issues, including pedagogical theory, choice of hardware or software, methods of use, and evaluation of effectiveness. But in many cases these debates leave unexamined some fundamental assumptions about what counts as educational technology, or how we might think about innovative applications. Experts often disagree about what constitutes the objects of their study but avoid addressing their disagreements directly. It is no surprise that discourse in the field appears disjointed and inconclusive.

Becoming more explicit about fundamental assumptions will not ensure that the discourse achieves a higher plane, much less that a new consensus will emerge. It could even do the opposite. But we believe that laying out these assumptions could clarify what the debates are about and is conducive to progress in the field. To illustrate how different assumptions lead to fundamentally different conceptions of educational technology and consequently of research in the area, this paper proposes a new taxonomy of educational technology applications.

The taxonomy is organized in terms of the ways applications support integrated, inquiry-based learning. The taxonomy is far from a finished conception and should be read more as a work-in-progress.[1] What we 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 fit in more than one slot.

There are other valid frameworks one might adopt. Some choose to emphasize hardware differences; others software. Some might focus on the content or grade level of application. Many choose to focus on function. Our point is not to preempt all other views, but rather to suggest that there are many legitimate ways to conceive of educational technology. This observation, which some might say is obvious, often goes unrecognized. As a result, many authors argue points that presuppose one perspective, without an apparent realization of how much their case relies upon that presuppostion.

Taxonomies of Educational Technology

When Carolus Linnaeus[2] 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.

A taxonomy can be a productive step in the process of understanding and explaining what we see by organizing perceptions into categories if we are able to see the familiar in new ways or if we are able to cope with a confusing array of phenomena. 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.

Schiebinger (1996) shows how Linnaeus "classified plants according to their reporoductive parts, endowing them as well with sex lives reflecting 18th-century values and controversies." She argues that when Linnaeus wrote there was a shift underway from arranged marriages to marriages based on love and affection. This was reflected in his classification scheme when he distinguished between public and clandestine marriages of plants. Thus, his categorization of plants grew out of a particular view of the world.

Many articles on the application of educational technology likewise lay out a system of types. An obvious reason for this is that there are so many different kinds of software and hardware, and so many different uses to which these have been applied, that it is simply overwhelming without some way of talking about kinds or groups. But the system presented is often treated as universally valid, rather than as a statement about a particular set of values and beliefs about technology, teaching, and learning. But any categorization of forms of technology expresses a view of the world that has significant ontological, epistemological, and pedagogical implications.

From World Models to Taxonomies

The relationship between a view of the world (or model) and a taxonomy can be seen in a book by Alessi & Trollip (1991), authors who view the educational use of computers as a set of instructional methodologies: 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. Thus their categories correspond 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). They report a study of teachers who 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 their 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.

It is easy to see that each of these taxonomies reflects more than just prevailing natural categories of technology types. Alessi and Trollip categorize software in terms of the support it affords for explicit instruction. Web browsers were not around when they wrote their book, but if they had been, it is safe to say that browsers would not have been considered instructional. There is no control over presentation of material; interactions are not guided; there is no provision for practice to "enhance fluency and retention," and there is no explicit assessment. Thus, the web per se could not be considered part of computer-based instruction. In contrast, other educators might argue for either a broader conception of "instruction," or for more attention to forms of learning that do not fit within the instructional model. Similar points could be made about the taxonomies proposed by Taylor and Olds, et al.

More recently, Means (1994) described four different categories of educational technologies based on their use: "used as a tutor", "used to explore", "used as a tool", and "used to communicate". This categorization reflects a growing awareness that features of hardware and software alone do not determine educational practices or potentials. Thus, "use" assumes a more central role than a priori technology characteristics.

The notion that conceptions of education override any sense of natural categories of technology is developed in an interesting historical analysis of software for literacy instruction carried out by Hawisher (1994). She shows how Taylor's taxonomy reflects then-current views about the potential for technology in education, drawing obviously from the early work with Logo. Then, Helen Schwartz's (1982) taxonomy reveals insights from then-current research in science education, just as Thomas Barker and Fred Kemp's (1990) shows the influence of thinking about the social construction of knowledge and social aspects of learning. In each case, pedagogical philosophy becomes the guiding focus, rather than technology features abstracted from actual use.

Media for Inquiry, Communication, Construction, and Expression

A quite reasonable question to ask is why we need another taxonomy if several already exist. For us, the motivation arose in the midst of a debate concerning future directions for educational technology within our university. The authors were struck by the fact that forms of technology use that we considered to have excellent pedagogical potential did not fit within prevailing categories that other participants in the debate were using. Some of participants appeared to adopt a technocentric model of technology use, one that seems natural, but can in fact be quite limiting. Moreover, we sensed an implicit, but powerful behaviorist bias, even among some of those eager to embrace innovative uses of technology. This bias seemed to limit the student's role in learning with the new technologies. We also felt that in foregrounding the technology, the debate obscured the students' activities and learning, which ought to have been the central issue.

The "Interests of the Child"

In response to this debate, we 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] We assumed that 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.

Dewey's four categories, developed long before the electronic age, matched surprisingly well to the ways the first author was beginning to organize his 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.

Technology as Media

In addition, we wanted to emphasize the mediative aspect of technologies. That is, we view the effects of technologies as operating to a large extent through the ways that they alter the environments for thinking, communicating, and acting in the world. Thus, they provide new media for learning, in the sense that one might say land provided new media for creatures to evolve. This view of media encompasees, but extends, the familiar idea of media as a place to put information. Today, interactive, multimedia technology provides us with a new way to draw upon children's natural impulses. These new media 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 media are interactive, and conducive to active, engaged learning. Students can choose what to see and do, and they have media to record and extend what they learn. Learning is thus driven by the individual needs and interests of the learner.

We chose the term "media," rather than "tool," "program," or "application," for several reasons. We wanted to shift the focus from the features of hardware or software per se to the user or learner. "Media" suggests the mediational function of technologies, which link the student to other learners, teachers, other technologies, ideas, and the physical world. Moreover, as technologies become embedded in social practices, they tend to become invisible; we focus less on the fact that they may be consciously employed as a tool to do a task, and come to see the task itself as central, with the technology as substrate. Finally, it is only a small stretch to extend the familiar notion of media for expression, construction, and communication to media for inquiry.

There is an additional reason for considering technologies as media. Learning in almost any subject today means not only learning the concepts within that area, but also, how to use technologies 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 media for collecting and analyzing data, for modeling phenomena, and for communicating results. For these activities, science students need experience with the technological media scientists use; they need to learn how to think through new media. At the same time, there is a growing body of research evidence showing that these media uses are effective at supporting learning of concepts, attitudes, and processes. Thus, it is not mere coincidence that the categories of media for learning listed within the taxonomy below reflect the uses of computers by professionals in various fields.

The Taxonomy

Combining this focus on the interests of the child with the view of technology as media, we devised the following taxonomy. For each subcategory, we list several examples of existing applications that fit best in that position.

A. Media for Inquiry

1. Theory building--technology as media for thinking.

2. Data access--connecting to the world of texts, video, data

3. Data collection--using technology to extend the senses

4. Data analysis

B. Media for Communication

1. Document preparation

2. Communication--with other students, teachers, experts in various fields, and people around the world

3. Collaborative Media

4. Teaching Media

C. Media for Construction

D. Media for Expression

A Systematic Test of the Taxonomy

In order to test this taxonomy, the authors looked for a set of current efforts to conduct research and development of educational technologies which to classify according to this taxonomy. The second author had a research project funded by the National Science Foundation's program in Applications of Advanced Technologies (AAT) in its Directorate for Education and Human Resources. At a meeting of the Principal Investigators of all those projects in June 1996, he received a short description of each of the funded projects, along with a longer presentation by most of the PIs. The short descriptions are also now on the World-Wide web <http://red.www.nsf.gov/EHR/RED/AAT/AATABS96.htm>, as well as in Appendix A of this paper. The two authors independently classified each project according to the taxonomy presented here and met to reconcile minor differences in their classification of the projects. We then sent the URL for a web-based draft of this paper to each of the Principal Investigators of the NSF-funded projects in Appendix A and invited their comments both on our classification of their individual projects and on the taxonomy as a whole. Many of them made helpful comments and several suggested minor modifications in the assignment of their project to categories. Usually, such comments were of the form, ?itås also in ...? or a shift within one of the four major categories. Here is the taxonomy filled in with the names of the Principal Investigators of the projects that exemplify the different categories.[4]

Taxonomy with Exemplars

A. Media for Inquiry

1. Theory building

2. Data access

3. Data collection

4. Data analysis

B. Media for Communication

1. Document preparation

2. Communication

3. Collaborative Media

4. Teaching Media

C. Media for Construction

D. Media for Expression

Discussion

Many projects appear in more than one place in the taxonomy. Often this is due to the complexity of the projects, each consisting of different elements, which fit into different parts of the taxonomy. Some projects even have as a goal the integration of different aspects of learning represented by different parts of this taxonomy. In some cases, the authors had to add new subcategories of the four major categories, since these projects are developing innovative uses of technologies for learning that did not exist when the taxonomy was first developed.

It is interesting to look both at where these projects cluster in this taxonomy, and also at the areas that are left vacant. Below is a table providing a count of the number of AAT projects in each of the four major categories.

Table 1
Number of Entries in Each Taxonomy Category
Category AAT projects
Inquiry 43
Communication 27
Construction 3
Expression 0

Note: Several projects appear in more than one category and subcategory.

The first two categories (inquiry and communication) are heavily represented by the AAT projects, while the latter two are much less so. This pattern may be entirely appropriate, given the emphasis on mathematics and science learning. It would be interesting to compare a comparable set of projects in other curricular areas.

None of the AAT projects were classified as being examples of the "educational media for expression" category, even though multimedia figures prominently in many of the projects. But personal expression in the sense Dewey meant is not emphasized in these projects. This may be a new area for research and development with educational technology. 

Summary

We have outlined a new way of classifying uses of educational technologies, based on a four-part division suggested by Dewey: inquiry, communication, construction, and expression. This taxonomy covers more of the current uses of educational media than previous taxonomies, including many of the cutting-edge uses of educational technologies. We have tested the utility of this taxonomy by using it to classify the set of "advanced applications of technologies" supported by the National Science Foundation. And we have used the taxonomy to point to new possible uses of technologies to support learning. We hope that this taxonomy can serve as a starting point for further explorations of innovative powerful uses of technologies to support learning and teaching. 

References

Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (1991). Computer-based instruction: Methods and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Barker, T. T., & Kemp, F. O. (1990). Network theory: A postmodern pedagogy for the writing classroom. In C. Handa (Ed.), Computers and community (pp. 1-27). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Dewey, J. (1943). The child and the curriculum /The school and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hawisher, G. E. (1994). Blinding insights: Classification schemes and software for literacy instruction. In C. Selfe & S. Hilligoss (Eds.), Literacy and computers: The complications of teaching and learning with technology (pp. 37-55). New York: Modern Language Association.

Means, B. (1994). Introduction: Using technology to advance educational goals. In B. Means (Eds.), Technology and education reform: The reality behind the promise (pp. 1-21). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Olds, H. F., Schwartz, J. L., & Willie, N. A. (September 1980). People and computers: Who teaches whom? Newton, MA: Education Development Center.

Schiebinger, L. (1996, February). The loves of the plants. Scientific American.

Schwartz, H. (1982). Monsters and mentors: Computer applications for humanistic education. College English, 44, 141-52.

Taylor, R. P. (1980). The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee. New York: Teachers College Press.

Appendix A

Descriptions of the AAT projects
We classified those that were funded as of June 23, 1996.

Footnotes

[1]This is a good time to suggest additions, better examples, criticisms, questions, and more!

[2]Also known as Karl Linné.

[3]As this taxonomy grew, Michael Waugh, Kathleen Devaney, and many others contributed to its development and helped to refine and shape it.

[4]We sent the URL for this paper to each of the Principal Investigators of the NSF-funded projects classified here and invited their comments on our classification of their projects. 

Last updated: 14 September 2000

The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author.
The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.