The Kirby et al article was very interesting. I remember attending a session at the AECT Conference in Chicago in 2004 where the topic of a session was ISD as compared to learning sciences (cognitive science and educational technology). The session grew out of the discussion of the 2004 Educational Technology issue that the authors mention at the beginning of the article. The session at AECT was packed. Unfortunately, I cannot remember who was on the panel. George attended this session also, and I wonder if he remembers. i'll have to ask him. I remember that the conversation grew spirited at times, but I know that I left the session thinking that the distinctions between the two groups was fairly blurry. I have come to view ISD/Learning Technlogies/IST really as an "engineering" discipline, drawing from educational psychology and cognitive science for its "scientific" background and theory. Since I have a background in the natural sciences (chemistry to be precise), my view is that LT is applied LS in much the same way as chemical engineering is applied chemistry and civil engineering is applied physics. Of course, this is a very broad definitional brush.
The results of the citation analysis in the article were very interesting. I'm actually pretty suprised at the low amounts of cross citation. I was expecting it to be low but not under 1%. Looking at the 66 authors who cross-published, I recognize about a dozen of the names, all from AECT or an ISD publication. I went to the isls.org website at took a look throught their current issue. The articles that were published would have bearing on only specific areas of interest within the ISD research space, and thus I better understand some of the reason for the low cross citation. Prior issues the contained articles in experiment design methodology would have a greater interest to a borader audience. The current issue on complex systems and using those theories as a lens in education is an interesting educaitonal philoophy, but it is too undeveloped to be of much current practical use to the "learning engineers." Over time, this lens may prove useful, and the citations to these articles may start to appear in ISD focused journals.
I liked the Mind Genius program (I was using the business trial), but I it would be better if it were much, much cheaper!
The two articles that Darrel asked us to read were interesting. Technology for special educaiton is outside of my interest and research areas so I had not given a great deal of thought except when a classmate has brought it up as their focus. From these two articles and from what other students have said and demonstrated before in other classes, it seems like there is a fair amount of technology available to help students with autism. In fact, autism almost always seems to be what is discussed, so I'm wondering if autistic children are a significant issue in schools.Posted by danil003 at February 16, 2006 8:27 AM